February 13, 2003
From the desk of Jane Galt:Idiotarian of the Day
So Sean Penn is suing some producer for not running him in a movie, saying that he's being blackballed for his views on Iraq. This reminds me of the woman we've all known -- the one who loses key documents, misses every deadline, and alienates the entire office with her ceaseless demands, and then, when she's fired, sues because the only reason anyone could possibly have canned her is that she's a woman. It has apparently not occurred to Penn that he might not have been hired because he's dull-witted, physically unattractive, speaks with the annoying whine of a mal-functioning belt sander, and can't act his way out of a cocktail party. Nor has he apparently considered the real reason, which is that he seems to have refused to waive script approval. Like many on the far left, he has also confused the private sector with the government, with the producer alleging that he threatened to turn this dispute into a "first amendment crusade". Memo to Sean: first of all, you don't have any first amendment rights against a private party, and second of all, this is America, and you can get canned just for looking funny, as long as "funny" doesn't mean old, female, or having a different skin color from your boss. And third of all, you're going to have to find a Republican in Hollywood more powerful than Tom Selleck before the rest of us are going to start believing you're the victim of a right-wing blacklist. One might suggest saving the money you're spending on the lawyer who didn't tell you all this and investing in a voice coach.
Posted by Jane Galt at February 13, 2003 08:22 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksI don't really care for the political Hollywood liberal like Sean Penn, but I disagree with you that he "can't act his way out of a cocktail party." His role as Picoli (sic) in FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH is classic. Please reconsider.
Posted by: Niraj Agarwalla on February 13, 2003 10:54 AMI'm sorry -- I speak as someone who has had the misfortune to attend a screening of I Am Sam. Bleeech.
Posted by: Jane Galt on February 13, 2003 10:56 AMfunny that he's suing bing.. who's a notorious republican fundraiser, helping to fund gingrich, forbes, bush, and helms....
oh crap, i'm sorry, he's actually a former gore funder who's been tossing scratch to edwards, actions which are being used as indications that bj is screwing al boy over...
but johnny e is a big hawk right? (he's not.. oh crap)
sean, just use the money for blow... call charlie sheen for reccos on hokers and dealers
Posted by: Libertarian Uber Alles on February 13, 2003 11:56 AMI've always said Sean Penn is bitter and twisted because every role he has had since "Fast Times..." (I thought it was Spicoli??) has been so much worse than that one great performance. Life is tough when you hit your peak young (not that it was much of a peak).
Posted by: Jimbo on February 13, 2003 12:03 PMSean's just mad because his little propaganda trip to Iraq didn't gain him as much notoriety as Jane Fonda's little expedition to Hanoi got her. Sean, baby, if you want to be the big dog among Hollywood's Looney Left, you need to go the extra mile. Have a picture taken of you at the controls of a Scud missile pointed at Tel Aviv, your finger over the button and a big old grin on your face. Go to the slave labor camps in North Korea and snitch on some poor soul trying to pass you a note--bonus points if you get a shot of him being dragged away screaming. Put in some effort, man--there's a whole bunch of Stalinists planning "peace" rallies here who are counting on you to inspire them.
It's ironic to me that liberals, who are often so big on boycotts, get all up in arms when they get boycotted themselves. That's what a blacklist is -- a boycott. They can dish it out, but when it happens to them, it's a "first amendment issue."
Posted by: MarkJ on February 13, 2003 01:28 PMUgh, spare me the broad-brush terminology, MarkJ. These things are easily criticized on the merits without tarring wide.
---
Penn has an ego, Penn will either sputter out or enrich a lawyer, my life goes on. Meh.
Posted by: anony-mouse on February 13, 2003 02:04 PMWhy shouldn't an employer be able to hire/fire based on any criteria whatsoever (including race, gender, age, etc)?
If the prospective employee would be an asset to the business then the business would be harming itself by not hiring them. So why use the force of law to prevent businesses from behaving like idiots?
If the whole legal enforcement of non-discrimination in hiring and firing were repealed, does anyone think that companies across the country would start firing all their minority and female employees? And if you do think so, what does that say about the contributions you think those groups make to those companies?
Just to clarify: I am not in FAVOR of discriminatory hiring/firing practices, I am just against laws forbidding them. Deciding not to hire a talented applicant because you don't like their gender or the color of their skin is a sure-fire way to bankruptcy in this competitive economy.
Posted by: Bombadil on February 13, 2003 05:56 PMYou know, Garafalo's line about producers having her talk shows on strictly to discredit the anti-war movement (har har, actors are silly!) looks more and more accurate.
Posted by: Jason McCullough on February 13, 2003 09:25 PM"You know, Garafalo's line about producers having her talk shows on strictly to discredit the anti-war movement (har har, actors are silly!) looks more and more accurate."
She'd be a silly choice for that mission. I disagree with most of her positions on the Iraq situation, but she's one of the more coherent and intelligent Hollywood voices on her side of the debate (admittedly, not a terribly high mountain to climb). There are platoons of dimwitted, pretty leftist actors who have come out against the war who could be invited on talk shows that would both bring in extra viewers who wanted to see the eye candy and make the antiwar movement look like a bunch of drooling, inarticulate morons. Of course, a lot of the "professional" protestor types do that just fine without Hollywood's help. Rather ironic, since every third phrase out of their mouths is a variation of "Bush is an idiot."
Posted by: M. Scott Eiland on February 13, 2003 09:58 PMSomeone decided to take the boycotting of celebrities a bit further:
http://www.petitiononline.com/antiamer/petition.html
Posted by: Thorley Winston on February 18, 2003 04:04 PMComments are Closed.