New Media

Alec Baldwin's Real Twitter Problem Isn't Homophobic Ranting—It's the End of the Red Carpet

|

Alec Baldwin saw red after reading a Daily Mail story accusing his wife of tweeting banal sentiments during the memorial service for James Gandolfini (both Baldwin and his wife Hilaria were attending the service).

The story about his wife's inappropriate tweets is wrong (and has been taken down by a paper never known for its dedication to fact). But Baldwin has created a Twitter controversy of his own by lashing out in homophobic and violent fashion at the journalist behind the Mail story. Among other insults, Baldwin called George Stark a "toxic little queen" and a "little bitch" (see right).

As he has done after past imbroglios, Baldwin has apologized, suspended his Twitter account, and declared that "No, good God no" he will never, ever rejoin the service.

Look past Baldwin's Irish temper and understandable anger in defending his wife, though, and there's a real lesson about the power of new media for all of us, whether you're Hosni Mubarrak or Amanda Bynes or Glenn Greenwald or someone posting random shit you find funny or important.

In an interview with Gothamist, the talented actor and annoying loudmouth inadvertently lays bare the real online dynamic behind his anger—and it has less to do with factually incorrect journalism than you might think.

courtesy Celebuzz

Baldwin's core issue with new media—he slags Tumblr, Vine, MySpace, Facebook, and more—is that they level kings and queens and even celebrities into a mosh pit of direct, unmediated exchange that is hard as hell to control. It turns out that there's really no red carpet or champagne room when it comes to the way that stars (read: world leaders, sitcom heroes, famous authors, former child actors, you name it) are treated.

In the Q&A, Baldwin says,

Twitter began for me as a way to bypass the mainstream media and talk directly to my audience and say, "hey here's a show I'm doing, here's something I'm doing."… But I realized it's something I'm not really… it certainly isn't worth the trouble. Rosie O'Donnell is on my podcast this week, and she said that she's getting off of Twitter, and I said "God, I was thinking the same thing." I said "you just end up absorbing so much hatred." You get these body blows of all this hatred from people who… their profiles are almost identical, like "tea party mom, I love my job, I love my kids, I love my country #millitary #guns" and there's a screaming eagle in the background of their profile, grasping some arrows and tanks rolling in the background and they all want to tell me how much they can't stand my politics. And I go, "OK." What kills me is these are people who want to put me out of business, so to speak, as fast as they possibly can, but they don't want to put BP out of business, who turned the Gulf of Mexico into a cesspool….

Baldwin sputters that the very tools he can use to bypass "the mainstream media and talk directly" to his audience also empowers all those dim people out there in the dark. What's more, his followers have minds of their own. They may enjoy his turns in Glenngarry Glenn Ross and 30 Rock and guest-hosting on Turner Classic Movies but not really find his views on fracking to be worth a damn. It's a real kick in the pants for a celebrity to be reduced to asking, "Do you think I'm really changing anybody's mind?"

Twitter and Tumblr and Vine and Instagram and Facebook and Myspace, all these things are social media tools that we were all told we had to have, and what we're realizing is that no you don't! No you don't. All this energy goes into these things, and for what? If I serve on Twitter as an aggregator, if I take a piece off the internet and say "read this piece from The New York Times about fracking, read this article on Slate about fracking, or Mother Jones" or wherever it might be, it doesn't matter what the venue is, The Washington Post, anything, if I aggregate that material a la Huffington Post and I shoot that out to the people, do you think I'm really changing anybody's mind?

Remember the good old days, not just when there were only three national TV networks and one or two national newspapers, but when Hollywood studios could virtually completely control the image surrounding their contract players like halos on a saint's shoulders? Those days are over, Baby Jane.

Today, the whole goddamned world is Grub Street and everybody, it seems, owns a printing press. So woe is Alec Baldwin:

We live in a world where there's no journalism anymore. I mean trained, I don't expect everybody writing for Gothamist or The New York Times…even The New York Times I don't expect those people to all be coming out of Columbia per se, but I expect them to make some attempt to get it right, which you can almost never count on anymore.

Read the whole interview here.

Of particular interest is his reaction to Andrew Sullivan's response, who, unlike establishment gay groups, is rightly bothered by Baldwin's immediate slide into fag-bashing rhetoric. As one of the best-known early adopters of new media and an outspoken advocate for gay rights, Sullivan offers an especially compelling point of view on the whole matter.

Reading Baldwin's comments, I'm struck by how his comments strongly vindicate what we've been stressing at Reason since the dawn of the Internet Age: that the audience has a mind of its own that it's always been dying to express. What's different now is that we can. Baldwin's complaint that "there's no journalism anymore" (except for the people he likes) and his attack on "tea party moms" who thrill to see the Gulf of Mexico foam with oil are best understood as howls of rage from the ancien regime as new-media sans-culottes storm the gates of privilege and power. Being in charge—of government, of media, of art, of business, of religion— just ain't what it used to be. Bummer.

Given his temperament and the massive amount of abuse he seems to have taken, Baldwin's probably right to vacate Twitter and other forums that allow direct, unmediated access to him. That's his right to exercise. But among the costs he and other powerful people—pols, pashas, pundits, etc.—will bear is lack of engagement with exactly where the world is literally and figuratively trending.

Alec Baldwin, it was nice knowing you.


NEXT: Baylen Linnekin on Why the Farm Bill's Future Suddenly Appears Bleak

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Twitter is for closers.

    1. *standing ovation*

      1. Caroline. I can see what your saying… Valerie`s blog is unbelievable, last week I got a gorgeous Lancia since I been bringin in $9525 this last 4 weeks and-in excess of, ten/k last munth. this is definitely the best job Ive ever had. I actually started 3 months ago and straight away brought home more than $87, p/h. I work through this link….. WEP6.COM

    2. Damn. Thread closed.

  2. The real problem here is that leftists get a pass for being assholes and no one else does. Paula Dean gets her book canceled, despite it having huge sales. Meanwhile GLAAD says nothing about Baldwin. Why? Because GLAAD is a bunch of leftist assholes who don’t really give a shit about gay rights but only pretend to do so to cover up that they are really just leftist assholes.

    If the standard is, anyone who rips on homosexuals is verboten, then fine. But the standard seems to be “if one of your political enemies says something bad about homosexuals we will use it to destroy them.”

    1. If the standard is, anyone who rips on homosexuals is verboten, then fine. But the standard seems to be “if one of your political enemies says something bad about homosexuals we will use it to destroy them.”

      Not to mention that some of the people who liberals attack for being homophobes have said far less offensive things than Alec Baldwin.

      1. Yes. How many people have been practically run out of public life for disagreeing with gay marriage? But if you are a lefty you are allowed to drop the gay equivalent of the N bomb and it is okay.

        1. He actually threatened violence against the reporter, which probably counts as threatening gay-bashing.

          GLAAD actually did say something: they accepted Baldwin’s apology immediately, because he’s a celebrity they like otherwise.

          1. Eh, it’s GLAAD, their entire job is to bootlick lefty media types. I’d argue they’ve gone Hollywood elite native and are more about raising their own profile than accomplishing anything useful as an advocacy group. The most useful thing GLAAD could do would be to declare mission accomplished and wind down their operations.

            1. The most useful thing GLAAD could do would be to declare mission accomplished and wind down their operations.

              That is entirely true for so many activist/reform groups, but the standard practice is to keep pushing in the original direction and go too far (e.g. MADD).

              1. That’s not how the outrage industry works. A donor rolodex, a cloak of righteousness, and a list of long-past “accomplishments” is a terrible thing to waste. Just ask the SPLC.

            2. The most useful thing GLAAD could do would be to declare mission accomplished and wind down their operations.

              So, gear up and double down?

            3. “The most useful thing GLAAD could do would be to declare mission accomplished and wind down their operations.”

              But, but, but, there’s money to be made. Don’t kid yourself, it’s a business like any other, regardless of their tax status.

      2. Not to mention that some of the people who liberals attack for being homophobes have said far less offensive things than Alec Baldwin.

        Look no further than shitballs like Sean Penn who somehow pass themselves off as these revolutionary, ultra-modern pro-gay messiahs while simultaneously fellating Communist and Islamist regimes with tendencies to toss gays in camps, or outright stone them to death.

    2. Paula Dean gets her book canceled, despite it having huge sales.

      Paula Dean is a soft lefty – not very political publicly but buys into the proglodyte narratives and supported Obama for president.

      1. And that did her no good. Her publisher canceled it because the book sales were obviously a protest against her treatment in the media. And they didn’t want the proles to have a vehicle to voice their discontent.

        Our elites are really nasty, sick and vicious people.

        1. The whole controversy is complete bullshit but I do like seeing the left eat their own.

          I do think that her ridiculously over the top apologies gave the scandal legs.

          She could have killed it by saying something like ‘I was an ignorant youth when I made those statements and thankfully I’ve grown so much since then…’

          1. What Dean failed to understand is that being a Leftist isn’t enough if you are white and anything but bicoastal elite. The Left would never forgive her for having the wrong fans. So as soon as she had a misstep, they went after her.

            Working class whites are the new Jews to the left. Anyone associated with them is liable to be purged no matter how good of a leftist they are.

        2. The problem for Deen wasn’t the initial disclosure, it’s that she kept digging herself deeper trying to explain her way out of it. First she was trying to explain why there’s two types of black people and it’s okay to use the N-word for the one kind as long as you don’t use it for the other kind. Then she tried to explain how she couldn’t be racist because she hired all those black waiters for her plantation themed wedding.

          1. That sounds to my ear a lot like Baldwin’s explanation/non-apology. So why does he get a pass from GLAAD and most lefty organizations but Deen gets hammered? The commenters here seem to be correct to me.

            1. Baldwin shouldn’t get a pass, but neither should Deen. The problem with Bladwin isn’t that he used a gay slur. It’s the fact the he went there that quickly when he got angry suggests there’s a bigger issue there and he’s normally better at hiding it. Likewise the problem with Deen isn’t that she once said the N-word, it’s that first several attempts at explanation left the impression that the was much bigger issue there.

              1. Baldwin shouldn’t get a pass, but neither should Deen.

                Oh, bullshit. They used language that some find offensive, big fucking deal. What a sorry ass society we have become where people need a “pass” on words.

                Sticks and stones will break my bones but words can never hurt me, should be tattooed on people’s fucking foreheads.

                1. Deen and Baldwin are free to say whatever they like. Everyone else is free to refuse to associate with them because they’re bad people.

                2. +1 And we have a winner!

                  We are one step away from criminalizing insults as hate speech. Don’t believe me, take a look at the laws in Canada and the UK.

                3. Exactly. Everyone should get a pass. These are just words, people. Grow the fuck up.

              2. The problem with Bladwin isn’t that he used a gay slur. It’s the fact the he went there that quickly when he got angry suggests there’s a bigger issue there and he’s normally better at hiding it.

                This is common among late boomers and early gen-xers. Look no further than Epi & friends’ interesting habit of accusing someone they seek to insult of performing common homosexual acts.

                No doubt they learned that tactic as children in the 70s-80s, when gay bashing was much more acceptable, and revert to childish form (which isn’t much of a reversion in Epi or Baldwin’s case) in the heat of the moment.

          2. I agree. Most of the problems in the lawsuit were about her brother, not her. Her level of fame made her a more interesting story than her brother, and her theatrics locked her in as the center of the story. It’s still a bullshit non-story, but it’s a self-inflicted wound at this point.

    3. If Alec Baldwin pays then everyone in Hollywood is put on notice: you could be the next Paula Deen.

      Can’t have that. The left needs to maintain control of, not just the standards, but the enforcement.

      Everything must flow in one direction, and one direction ONLY.

    4. I think the tactic has to become not fearing the reprisal. If their accusations are truly political then they will be exposed for that in the course of time and delegitimize their arguments.

      Its like the racist thing with Obama. Every criticism of Obama has been called racist. After a while that just stopped meaning anything. Conservatives just started to laugh at the accusation.

      The tough part, and where I agree with Baldwin, is we can not return the same sentiments in kind. I say agree because I have had many discussions with conservatives about some approach they had to an argument that was just awful. Just as bad as anything I saw on the left. It totally discredits us and keeps the animosity going.

      1. I think the tactic has to become not fearing the reprisal. If their accusations are truly political then they will be exposed for that in the course of time and delegitimize their arguments.

        You’re dreaming. If the reprisal is that corporate America won’t touch you with a ten foot pole and you’re unemployable, not fearing it doesn’t do you a damn bit of good.

    5. An axiom of Western civilization since the Ancient Greeks is that tyrants are masters of talking about democracy but practice tyranny in reality. Guys like Baldwin and GLADD are all, at their base root, intolerant tyrants in their own way.

      They “talk” about how good they are, but are just assholes in practice and things like Twitter only bring this fact out.

      If Baldwin was at a dinner and he talked liked this would anyone with a quarter-brain even listen to him? Of course not, he’d be what we call a blowhard.

      And this bothers guy like him. They’re so bloody conceited they can’t fathom some Plebian matching or surpassing wits with them.

      Notice how he only cites left-wing publications.

      What an ass.

  3. Reading Baldwin’s comments, I’m struck by how his comments strongly vindicate what we’ve been stressing at Reason since the dawn of the Internet Age: That the audience commentariat has a mind of its own that it’s always been dying to express.

    In related news, Firefox 23 beta is doing away with the blink element. Apocalypse!

    1. People actually still use the blink element?

      1. Yes. Regardless of how hideously bad something is, there’s some mouth breathing moron somewhere who thinks it’s the best thing since internet porn.

  4. I’m beginning to think there’s something wrong with me because I simply cannot bring myself to give a shit about these celebrities saying stupid things.

    I really don’t care if the guy from Glengarry Glen Ross flies into a homophobic tantrum when he’s angry or an old Southern lady whose job can best be described as ‘butter applier’ is a racist.

    1. Exactly. If I cared about what celebrities thought about politics, I probably wouldn’t own a single rock record. It is like people who get angry because Tiger Woods cheated on his wife. I don’t know Tiger Woods or his wife. All Tiger woods owes me is an honest effort on the golf course. If it came out he was cheating at that or throwing matches, I would care. But since I don’t know him or his wife, I don’t care that he cheated.

      Same thing here. If Alec Baldwin runs for Congress, his political views will effect my relationship towards him. But since he is not and my relationship to him is watching his movies, all that matters is how he acts. His politics or personal views on pretty much anything don’t matter.

      Sadly though we live in the totalitarian world where people are conditioned to judge every single thing in life by politics.

      1. Mostly agree, although Baldwin sometimes opens his mouth about other topics, and, as demonstrated here, he expects it to make a difference.

        So, for that bit, his political views affect our “relationship”. But, yeah, its not like Im not going to watch a 30 Rock rerun because he is a douche.

        1. I will think he is a douche just like I think someone like Billy Bragg is a douche. But that doesn’t mean I deny that Bragg has a few good songs. But with Bragg, since he is an avowed communist, I make it a point of only downloading pirated copies of his music. I figure since he doesn’t believe in private property, he wouldn’t want me giving money to some evil record company in order to listen to his music. I can be thoughtful like that sometimes.

          1. Ha. But if the NSA and the RIAA ever get together, you’re in trouble….

      2. Since you never know when some idiot celebrity will decide to go Al Franken, you really have to get out ahead of the most egregiously offensive ones, so that they have very long, dirty records as idiots and jerks when the “I’m so awesome I should be in charge of everyone” bug bites them.

      3. “Sadly though we live in the totalitarian world where people are conditioned to judge every single thing in life by politics.”

        I think there’s concessions to be made in instances like Baldwin, to whom anything and everything is politics.

    2. I’m beginning to think there’s something wrong with me because I simply cannot bring myself to give a shit about these celebrities saying stupid things.

      I reached that point a decade or so ago when everyone was talkin about Britney Spears.

      I don’t give a shit about any of them. Fuck em. Kill IP and execrable losers will slide back into well deserved obscurity.

    3. old Southern lady whose job can best be described as ‘butter applier’ is a racist.

      NAAFA is going to hunt you down in your sleep Irish.

      1. What is “NAAFA”?

        1. National Association for the Advancement of Fat Asses. Seriously.

        2. Blast, I meant to make that a link.

          National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance

          1. Ah. There’s a sarcasmic/John joke to be had in there, but, frankly, I’m way to exhausted from my latest bout of bronchitis to spend the mental energy to search for it.

            So, instead I shall post a Youtube video that would possess about the same intellectual substance.

            You’re welcome.

  5. http://www.breitbart.com/Breit…..um=twitter

    NFL decides that really would prefer that the Republican House not take an interest in concussions and therefore declines to promote Obamacare.

    1. Good for the NFL.

    2. What does “interest in concussions” and promoting Obamacare have to do with each other?

      1. It was leaked a couple of days ago that HHS was in negotiations with the NFL to have the NFL promote Obamacare. Shortly thereafter the Republicans in the House wrote a letter to the NFL telling them politely that it was a really bad idea to be taking sides in such a contentious political issue. And now, the NFL has decided promoting Obamacare is not such a good idea.

        Between the lines in the Republican letter was “if you don’t want to be treated as an adversary, don’t do the bidding of one side”. And concussions are probably the NFL’s biggest concern now and the easiest way for the House to cause them problems.

        1. “And concussions are probably the NFL’s biggest concern now and the easiest way for the House to cause them problems”

          Again I ask, what does the US House of Representatives have to do with concussions in the NFL?

          1. Nothing. But Congress can fuck with people. It is how they roll.

            1. “But Congress can fuck with people. It is how they roll.”

              Uh, how about:

              “Government can fuck with people. It is how they roll.”

              I find it ironic to the point of childishness that you think Obamacare (government-run healthcare) is benign, but “Congress” is evil.

              1. I find it ironic to the point of childishness that you think Obamacare (government-run healthcare) is benign, but “Congress” is evil.

                What? John definitely does not think Obamacare is benign.

              2. Obamacare is plenty evil.

                1. Then what was your point? Congress is evil because they didn’t want the NFL being pressured into pimping Obamacare?

                  1. My point was just what it was, that the Republicans explained to the NFL shilling for one political side is a bad idea. There wasn’t a larger point other than to laugh at the NFL deciding politics isn’t so fun.

                    1. Oh, so Congress and Obamacare are evil, but apparently?by virtue of not explicitly condemning them?you think slavery and rape and genocide are benign? Disgusting.

                    2. So maybe you can answer, because nobody else can, what exactly did the Republicans in the House do wrong?

                    3. So maybe you can answer, because nobody else can, what exactly did the Republicans in the House do wrong?

                      Somewhere along the line they made a decision that allowed for idiots like yourself?

                    4. Somewhere along the line they made a decision that allowed for idiots like yourself?

                      I have to say this little exchange between John and Tomblvd is one of the more retarded things I’ve read today. I wish I could have those few minutes back.

                    5. Thank you Ms. Jeantel. And if you want those precious minutes back, perhaps forego your next appointment for “court nails”.

          2. Dragging players and owners and medical experts before subcommittees to play concern troll over concussions is easier than stopping the federal government from bankrupting the nation.

          3. “Again I ask, what does the US House of Representatives have to do with concussions in the NFL?”

            About the same thing it has to do with steroids in baseball.

            What point do you think you’re making guy?

            1. Er, that the government has no business in healthcare OR sports.

              What point are you making?

              1. Er, that the government has no business in healthcare OR sports.

                Yes, they have no business in either. That doesn’t stop them from getting involved with things that they shouldn’t be involved in.

                Sport organizations have been called before Congress for steroids bullshit. Republicans in Congress would have no problem abusing their authority if the NFL were supporting Obamacare.

                It’s government. Abusing authority is what it does.

                1. So why call out the Republicans in the House? They did the opposite, shouldn’t they be praised (that’s something I’d never thought I’d be writing…)?

          4. They can start writing the Violent Sports Anti-concussion and Safety Act of 2013.

            Nice sports league you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it…

          5. I don’t know- maybe the special anti-trust exemptions that both the NFL and the MLB receive?

            I’m sorry, but I don’t have any sympathy when Congress tries to fuck over cronies that it has empowered, and the MLB and the NFL get to play by rules that no other businesses do, so fuck them.

            1. Well I don’t believe the NFL actually has anti-trust exemption.

              1. They’ve lost every time they’ve been sued on it. The USFL was even awarded damages. 🙂

                  1. They were actually awarded $3.76 due to the traditional tripling of awards in antitrust cases and an extra 76 cents of interest due to additional litigation.

  6. “Progressives” deriding technology because it allows those who don’t agree with them to voice a different opinion.

    How tolerant.

    1. You just don’t understand what “tolerance” is.

      Back in 1965, when American politics watched the emergence of the New Left movement?rebranded today as “progressives”?a famous movement philosopher said the political left should be “liberated” from tolerating the opinions of the opposition:”Liberating tolerance would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”

      That efficient strategy was the work of Herbert Marcuse, the political theorist whose ideas are generally credited with creating the basis for campus speech codes. Marcuse said, “Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed.” Marcuse created political correctness.

      http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/…..of-choice/

      Progs really are sick fucks.

      1. Yes they are.

        Freedom is a good thing, isn’t it? Not always, argues Slovenian philosopher Renata Salecl. The liberty to choose from an unlimited number of career options or coffee brands ultimately becomes a burden. Our modern capitalist society is ruled by a “tyranny of choice.”

        SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why are we so afraid to just go with the flow?

        Salecl: Because every time we decide for something, we lose something else. Buying a car is a great example. A lot of people not only read ratings before they buy their car but they continue afterwards — to make sure they really made the right choice.

        Christopher Hitchens once said that you should never trust someone who slips the word ‘we’ into sentences where ‘I’ would be more accurate. He described it as backdoor tribalism and an attempt to manipulate people by telling them that they hold views they don’t actually have.

        This pretty accurately describes Renata Salecl.

        1. I also think it’s funny that she’s Slovenian. If only she were lucky enough to live int he 1960’s when Slovenia was run by Yugoslavian communists, she wouldn’t have to worry about this tyranny of choice!

          She could at last be free in a communist utopia!

          1. I am sure she is angry she didn’t. I guarantee you she is one of those people who looks at the fall of the eastern block as a really bad thing. Oh for the days when the secret police kept order and everyone had security.

          2. 1960s?

            Unless she is under 25 years old, she lived it.

            1. Apparently she’s 51, which makes her nonsense even worse. This is the sort of stuff I expect from a 22 year old socialist, not a middle aged woman.

              She studied philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, graduating with a thesis on Foucault’s theory of power under the supervision of the Marxist philosopher Bo?idar Debenjak.

              I think I see the problem.

              1. Some people lived well under Communism. Think about it. Under Communism she had a job and was rewarded and all she had to do was be a good drone and say all of the right things. Then communism fell and now she has to worry about getting a job and what people other than the party think of her. Just being a Marxist doesn’t guarantee her anything anymore.

                Is it any surprise this woman hates choice?

                1. According to Wikipedia, she actually ran against the Communist party in the late 80’s as part of a Socialist Democratic party. Mocking her for being involved with Communism isn’t really fair.

                  Mocking her for supporting the worst aspects of a system that she fought against in the 80’s is completely fair, however.

                  1. “she actually ran against the Communist party in the late 80’s as part of a Socialist Democratic party. Mocking her for being involved with Communism isn’t really fair.”

                    Hardly. She’s still a statist/socialist, she just hdies it in the closet and redresses it with oxymoronic euphemisms like “Democratic”.

                2. Hoffer explained this in “The Ordeal of Change” in the chapter “The Intellectual and The Masses”. They long for the time when they, as scribes, controlled everything. Just another group wiching for an aristocracy – one in which they are the aristocracy.

              2. Meh, I have a number of extended family members that fled communism is eastern europe and russia that still have shockingly socialist attitudes in some areas.

                Things like the government shouldn’t let athletes make so much money.

                1. I don’t see how Michael Jordon pulling in a billion from his contracts and product support hurts me in any conceivable way, but the later case, the government limiting the higher end of his profits, the damage to me is quite real, immediate and I’m literally armed against it happening. Seriously, that is the thin line in which I join revolution.

                  1. Yeah, that’s why I said it’s shocking to here actual victims of communist regimes express those sentiments.

                    1. Same with Ayn Rand where she veers off course from Locke and modern libertarianism, her writing has the feel of not being able to shake the intellectual climate to which she was born.

                    2. Ayn Rand veered off course from libertarianism because she was never on that course.

              3. “graduating with a thesis on Foucault’s theory of power under the supervision of the Marxist philosopher Bo?idar Debenjak.”

                Ghost-written by Sokal?

          3. That’s nothing. Slavoj ?i?ek is full on balls to the walls Commie.

            1. She was married to the Slovenian Marxist-Lacanian philosopher Slavoj ?i?ek.

              – Wikipedia

              No wonder she sucks.

              1. Jesus. That’s like a married couple of the House of Borgia.

              2. Sheesh.

                Imagine the conversations at that dinner table.

                Commie hubby: Pass the rationed potatoes, honey!
                Commie wifey: Stop hogging! They have to last the week you consuming pig!

                Yeesh.

        2. Thanks for that. That may be the fucking dumbest thing I’ve ever read. I need to go bleach my eyes.

        3. The liberty to choose from an unlimited number of career options or coffee brands ultimately becomes a burden. Our modern capitalist society is ruled by a “tyranny of choice.”

          Oh, no! Who will save me from myself?

          1. I think there is a problem with indecision and decision making fatigue when so much choice is available, but that’s easily overcome by changing the way one thinks about making choices. For example: when I go to a restaurant I glance down pick out two things that sound delicious and choose the cheaper one. I’ve made my decision in a minute while my dining companions spend the next 20 minutes acting like this decision is going to make or break their entire future.

            1. There are studies demonstrating that people who make quick choices are happier with those choice than people who anguish over every possibility. Even when the people in the first group made ‘sub-optimal*’ decisions.

              *Suboptimal to whom is never adequately explored.

            2. I always pick the fish, mostly because I never got to eat fish growing up. (My dad has a fish/seafood allergy.)

  7. Hard to sympathize with Baldwin, but if, as I understand from this post, a major newspaper (not some “Tea Party mom,” etc., but an established “old media” vehicle) accuses his wife of something she didn’t do – not a minor peccadillo, either, but of disrespecting a prominent actor at his funeral – then I can see how even Buddha or St. Francis would have been pissed off (if they’d been married, that is – and I think Buddha was).

    1. Baldwin is also the guy who left the epic rant on his then 13 year old daughter’s voice mail. He seems to have a few anger control issues. I don’t think he has any problem with gays. He is just a loon who loses all control and rational thought when he gets pissed off.

      1. Was he the “Fighting ‘Round the World” guy from Southpark?

        1. Don’t know. But google Alec Baldwin voice mail to daughter. I am sure the message is out there somewhere. It is so vicious and over the top it is hysterical.

          1. Ah, thank you for identifying your fellow national.

            1. His kind stick together. How do you think they’ve managed to conquer the world’s political and banking systems?

    2. Nobody is saying he couldn’t go after the loser ‘reporter’, just that he did so in a manner that otherwise would have set off the thought police.

      That, had he not been one of the protected nomenklatura, he would have suffered severe consequences for his transgression.

      1. I think it’s his constant outbursts against so many people which makes it hard to tell which are legitimate and which are just celebrity entitlement.

        1. It’s the gay stuff here guy. Get with the fucking program.

          1. Can’t we just agree that Baldwin is a braying cunt and be done with it?

            1. JW, agreed.

    3. Frankly, who gives a shit if she was tweeting while at Gandolfino’s funeral.

      1. Someone who was close to Gandolfino. The rest of us, not so much.

        1. Gandolfini.

          Racist!

      2. But the reporter is estopped from saying this, since he thought the story was important enough to publish! And if it’s not true, he can’t shift to saying it never mattered.

      3. No one would have given a shit about the Daily Mail story if he hadn’t made it an issue.

        If he’d just said ‘The story isn’t true. It’s the Daily Mail. They make the National Enquirer look reputable’ no one really would have cared. The only reason the story became well known is because he lost his shit and gay bashed the writer.

        1. Yeah, it was unfair to blame other gay people for the reporter’s misbehavior.

        2. You seem awfully even-keeled about this story, Irish. You’re hiding that “Irish temper” Gillespie mentioned above really well.

          1. Yeah, not to be “that guy”, but the day Gillespie makes a similar stereotype about blacks I’ll bravely attempt to suck my own dick in the town square.

    4. You’re correct. The Buddha’s wife was Yasodhara. (They were ‘kissin’ cousins, by the way.)

      Even after his enlightenment and devotion to celibacy, they never divorced as they knew that a divorcee in 5th century BC India didn’t have much legal protection.

      They had one son together, Rahula, who was the impetus for the Buddha to seek enlightenment in the first place.

      1. Serenity now! Serenity now!

  8. That’s his right to exercise. But among the costs he and other powerful people – pols, pashas, pundits, etc. – will bear is lack of engagement with exactly where the world is literally and figuratively trending.

    Which is why Nick so often engages in the comments here and is such an awesome hat tipper.

    1. I wouldn’t want to deal with all the KOSMOTARIUN!!! retardation, either.

      1. Plus those cocktail ain’t going to drink themselves, you know.

    2. I wonder if the handle “The Jacket” is taken.

      1. Apparently not.

  9. Yahoo is shutting down AltaVista.

    1. Show of hands: how many people knew AltaVista was still a thing?

      1. I did.

        1. Whoa, webcrawler is too. Although it’s just a front end for yahoo and google searches now.

      2. Anyone who was on the Internet between 1995 and 1998, when AltaVista was the big gun search engine?

        Just because you’re a 19 year old snot who hasn’t head of something doesn’t mean the adults in the room haven’t.

        1. Show of hands: how many people knew AltaVista was still a thing?

          He said still. Not ‘how many people know what AltaVista is?’ He was wondering how many people knew it was still operational.

          Just because you’re a 19 year old snot who hasn’t head of something doesn’t mean the adults in the room haven’t.

          Wow. You sure get pissed off over really minor things.

          1. Wow. You sure get pissed off over really minor things.

            Clearly this is the first time an H&R commenter has made a deliberately inflammatory comment for comedic effect. I’m sorry for shocking the delicate sensibilities of my fellow commentariat.

            1. Did Sandi take a dump in your cereal bowl this morning?

        2. Did you miss the word “still” in there? Lots of poor reading comprehension today.

          1. And not much f5ing either.

          2. Sorry, my reading comprehension sucks Saturday Morning.

        3. What the fuck is your problem?

          I’m 35. I used AltaVista. It faded into obscurity quite a while ago.

  10. I have a great deal of sympathy for both Baldwin and Deen here.

    The simple fact of the matter is that it’s not an accurate “racism test” to look at exclamations people make when they’re angry.

    If you casually say, “Let’s go bash some fags!” or “Man, those colored are wild about menthol cigarettes!” the odds are that you are racist.

    But the whole point of an exclamation in anger is to say the worst thing you can think of. You’re pissed at the other person and are flipping through your mental rolodex to describe them in the worst possible way.

    Baldwin calling this guy a toxic little queen is like one of us calling somebody a socialist here. It’s a context-specific deliberate violent insult. You can’t really use it to make a judgment of the speaker, other than to say “This person will escalate to the ‘worst possible statement placeholder’ early in a confrontation.”

    Also, in Baldwin’s case I think he’s getting a pass (not a total pass, but a partial pass) because he didn’t use “fag”, he used “queen”. And if you’re an aging flamboyantly gay media observer who bitchily comments on what somebody else did at a funeral you didn’t attend, even homosexuals acknowledge that, yeah, you’re kind of a toxic little queen. “Queen” has personality attributes that go beyond homosexuality itself.

    1. Yes. And more than a few gays refer to themselves as “Queens”. Queen is its own little subculture within the culture of gay men.

      The bottom line is that nothing you say when you are in an angry rant is necessarily reflective of your character or actual views. The idea seems to be that when someone gets mad and says something stupid it is always the result of some deep dark prejudice they have been hiding their entire life, which is of course ridiculous.

      1. “The bottom line is that nothing you say when you are in an angry rant is necessarily reflective of your character or actual views”

        Doesn’t matter though, “I was mad” isn’t ever an acceptable excuse.

        So even if he isn’t really a fag hater, it doesn’t matter, he demonstrated that when angry, he is by all appearances a fag hater, and it’s not our responsibility to figure out if he means it or not.

        1. So everyone can have their entire life judged by a single instance? What do you want here? He apologized. At this point you either forget it or move on or decide that this instance is so horrible it can never be forgotten or forgiven. And that is completely idiotic.

          1. “So everyone can have their entire life judged by a single instance? ”

            Did I say that? No.

            “At this point you either forget it or move on or decide that this instance is so horrible it can never be forgotten or forgiven.”

            So, that’s what you did when you admitted you pirate people’s things whose politics you disagree with?

            “And that is completely idiotic.”

            Good thing it’s your thought process and not mine.

            1. So, that’s what you did when you admitted you pirate people’s things whose politics you disagree with?

              Bragg is a communist. Therefore he has no moral standing to object to me taking his stuff. I am not judging him. I am taking him at his word. And moreover even if I were, it is based on a lot more than just a single drunken rant. If I judged Bragg based on one tweet, then it would be analogous to this. But I don’t. I never said that no one can be judged, just that you can’t do it based on a single statement.

              And if you are not saying we can judge Baldwin to be a “fag hater”, then what are you saying? Either you think the statement is reflective of who he is or you do not. If you don’t, they we agree.

              1. “So everyone can have their entire life judged by a single instance? ”

                “Either you think the statement is reflective of who he is or you do not.”

                Use your tiny little fucking brain to figure out why you backed off from the first statement and made the second one instead, and you’ll have your answer.

              2. And by the way, your excuse for pirating people’s stuff is stupid, and an obvious attempt to avoid admitting you got caught in hypocrisy.

                I’m gonna do something more fun now than argue with a thief on the internet.

                Bye thief.

                1. Sorry you lost the argument so badly. You must be a lefty and used to talking to people are so stupid.

                2. Sorry you lost the argument so badly. You must be a lefty and used to talking to people are so stupid.

                3. Bye thief.

                  Copyright infringement is just that.

                  It is not stealing, it is not thievery, it is not piracy.

                  It is copyright infringement.

        2. So even if he isn’t really a fag hater, it doesn’t matter, he demonstrated that when angry, he is by all appearances a fag hater, and it’s not our responsibility to figure out if he means it or not.

          Ok retard, now I hate you because you’ve driven me to defend AB.

          He never said (that I’m aware of) that he hated all ‘fags’ (your word, not mine). He said he was pissed off at someone that had offended his non public persona wife by acing like a catty old bitch.

          Intemperate, Stupid? Sure,
          Offensive? Meh
          Fag Hating? – Not at all.

      2. Yes. And more than a few gays refer to themselves as “Queens”.

        And this is different from the N-word how? Is there a gangsta rapper who DOESN’T use the N-word in his lyrics?

        Baldwin clearly meant it as a slur.

    2. “Drunk talk shouldn’t be printed in the paper.” -Ray Charles

      Racism is a funny thing. A guy I know said something to the effect of “yeah well sometimes I wish we had a white President” which really really offended this other guy that was there. But Mr Racially Insensitive teaches school in a real shitty public high school that’s just full of black people, even though he could go get a job elsewhere. Meanwhile Mr Super Tolerant probably goes weeks without speaking to a black person, because he’s a corporate lawyer who lives in a rich suburb.

      Stated versus revealed preferences?

      1. People who actually live and work around those of another race unsurprisingly have more realistic and honest views of that race. Mr. Racially insensitive views black people as human beings and sees their faults. Mr. Sensitive doesn’t. To him blacks are just cardboard cutouts in his own little morality play.

      2. Reminds me of the French author Celine who was also a doctor. He would treat clients from the Jewish ghettos where most others would not. Yet, it is his mercurial diatribes that get remembered, and the context that he spread the hate around like a true misanthrope writing negatively about all aspects of cultural life that marked his attention, and not like a bigot singling one people out that gets lost.

    3. “Baldwin calling this guy a toxic little queen is like one of us calling somebody a socialist here.”

      Yeah, no, not really.

      “You can’t really use it to make a judgment of the speaker, other than to say “This person will escalate to the ‘worst possible statement placeholder’ early in a confrontation.””

      Again, no, I can judge him (and you) for thinking it’s ever ok to utter moronic crap like that and that’s it’s justified (or at least mitigated) if he’s pissed, in the same way children justify their outbursts.

      1. Sure you can. But the question is, judge for what?

        If I was in a verbal dispute with you, and I observed that you were fat, I would call you a fat bag of shit.

        If I observed that you were handicapped, I would call you a fucking crippled fuck.

        If I happened to know that you had recently lost a child to crib death, I would tell you to go smother another one of your kids.

        I would say these things because I would be seeking to say the worst possible thing available to me given the circumstances and my level of knowledge about you.

        If all I knew or suspected about you was that you were gay, I would probably say: fuck you, faggot.

        But the proper judgement to make about me here is that I am a mean, rotten, horrible person who deliberately seeks to brutalize the feelings of others under the slightest provocation. If you thought that about me, your judgment would be correct.

        But if your judgment was, “Fluffy is a homophobe!” you’d be totally wrong.

        Maybe the distinction I’m making here doesn’t matter to you, but I don’t care. Because you’re a cunt.

        1. Fluffy is right on this. New concern troll is wrong.

      2. What a creepy little thought policeman.

    4. “Man, those colored are wild about menthol cigarettes!” the odds are that you are racist.

      Stating a fact is racist?

      1. When I read it I was definitely thinking that that statement doesn’t seem on the same level as “Hey, let’s go bash some fags!” to me. But it doesn’t really affect the larger point being made in the post, so I figured what the hell, I won’t comment.

    5. But the whole point of an exclamation in anger is to say the worst thing you can think of. You’re pissed at the other person and are flipping through your mental rolodex to describe them in the worst possible way.

      And if the worst insult Baldwin can think of is to bring up the guy’s homosexuality, that says something about Baldwin’s true attitudes. People here shouldn’t call others socialists at the drop of a hat either, so I’m not sure that’s a good analogy. Maybe you and I have different standards of expressive conduct.

  11. I’ve never understood what is so great about Alec Baldwin. He always has that stupid smug look on his face, just like George Clooney. Unlike Clooney, who’s tour de force, Batman and Robin is a classic, I don’t think I’ve ever seen Balwin in anything I actually enjoyed watching.

    1. There was his five minute appearence in Glenn Gary Glenn Ross. But no, he is not a great actor. Clooney is charming. He can play roles that make you like him even if the movie is not that good. Oceans 11 is pretty forgettable but totally watchable because Clooney comes off as so charming and cool you want to hang out with him by watching the movie. Baldwin can’t do that at all.

      Yeah, he is a bigger star than he deserves to be.

      1. I liked Baldwin in The Hunt for Red October and Beetlejuice.

        1. I liked him in that too. He made a much better Jack Ryan than Harrison Ford ever did.

        2. Yes, and he was much more believable as Jack Ryan than Harrison Ford.

        3. He’s very funny in 30 Rock, which is one of those shows that I’ve enjoyed when I’ve come across it, but not enough to become a regular viewer.

          1. I enjoy 30 Rock, but mostly because there seems to be an unintentionally anti-left subtext to it. The basic plot structure seems to be:

            1. Cast member seems to have some sort of problem that Liz has to fix.
            2. Jack recommends so “evil businessman” solution to the problem.
            3. Liz is horrified by the suggestion and insists on pursuing the proper leftist solution to the problem, which only ends up making the problem into a full blown crisis.
            4. Liz runs to jack to clean up her mess
            5. Jack comes in with his “evil businessman” solution and solves the problem in 30 seconds.
            6. Liz sulks because Jack made everything better and she doesn’t like that he did it “the wrong way” but can’t really complain about it.

            1. Pretty much. Jack occasionally learned to have a heart, but ultimately he was right even when it “felt” wrong.

              I’ve know some conservatives who kvetched mightily about it having only seen selected clips, but when they watched it were entertained and felt like it was pretty fair in its skewering of both sides.

              I will say I was disappointed that they made Kenneth more two dimensional in later seasons. In the beginning there was a setup that even though he was a yokel he was the person that Jack feared rising through the ranks and taking his job. They dropped that theme quickly, which I think was a shame.

              1. I didn’t watch enough to catch that. It would have been hilarious to do a whole All About Eve/Being There thing with Kenneth.

              2. Ya but everyshow on TV has one guy who starts out a little stupid but has to get really really stupid by the end of the show. I don’t know why, but thats just the way it is.

                1. Pretty much all sitcom characters tend to become one dimensional caricatures as the show goes on:

                  http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw…..derization

    2. A punchable Irish man? I don’t see that part going away anytime soon, and who better to fill that character roll than a living embodiment? Of course, there are plenty who could theoretically take Baldwin’s place, but you would have to start over and train them their stage place standings from scratch.

      1. Look past Baldwin’s Irish temper…

        A punchable Irish man? I don’t see that part going away anytime soon, and who better to fill that character roll than a living embodiment?

        Reason seems very hostile to my people today.

        1. We’re pissed about your people hoarding all the hot redheads.

        2. Some of my best friends associate with people who are of Irish decent.

          1. I had a friend who hired an Irishman on his domestic staff.
            Notice I said had.
            He was murdered in his sleep.

            1. What? He was murdered with a sheep?

        3. We’re on to you, Big I.

  12. GLAAD’s unbelievable double-standard: http://www.glaad.org/blog/alec…..-community

  13. I was talking this morning with my wife about the Zimmerman trial. The trial really shows why TV cameras should not be allowed in trials.

    This defense witness, the 19 year old girlfriend, is a terrible witness. She looked horrible on the stand. And that is the way court goes sometimes. I don’t have any sympathy for what happened in the courtroom. But she does not deserve to be held up ridicule by the entire country. She is a witness. She is not a criminal. She didn’t ask to get involved in this. And no matter bad she was, she doesn’t deserve to become a national punchline. And she wouldn’t have been had her testimony not been shown live across the country. Sure the reporting would have told us she was a horrible witness. But reading about it in the newspaper is not the same as everyone watching it on TV during their lunch hour. Thanks to cameras in the courtroom, we take people who should be witnesses in a forgettable trial and make them into potential national laughingstocks without them having any choice in the matter. And that sucks.

    1. Eh, she’s been complicit in trying to frame an innocent man. I know the pressure the cops and prosecutors are putting on her, but the fact that she could not read the letter she supposedly wrote in cursive makes her a liar.

      1. No. She is a stupid person who told the government what they wanted to hear. I blame the government for this, not her.

      2. Eh, she’s been complicit in trying to frame an innocent man.

        See, why do we even bother having trials? Virginian’s superpowers allow him to determine guilt or innocence with absolute certainty from hundreds of miles away.

        1. Hey fuckhead, in this country, in fucking America, we are all innocent until proven guilty.

          Unless a jury of his peers hands down a guilty verdict, Zimmerman is an innocent man.

          1. He’s innocent in proven guilty IN COURT.

            I’m free to draw whatever conclusions about him I like. I’m free to think OJ is a murderer despite a jury acquitting him.

            1. Especially considering a civil court found him responsible for her and his death

              1. To be fair, the burden of proof in civil court is lower than criminal court. Still think OJ’s guilty, but I don’t think Zimmerman is guilty.

                1. I think he’s guilty of manslaughter, but not 2nd degree murder.

        2. For reasons that have been thoroughly explained around these parts in recent days, it’s clear that there’s no way Zimmerman should have been charged with murder two, and there’s even large amounts of reasonable doubt regarding manslaughter.

          Rachel does seem to be participating in a framing. Her lies have been numerous. (My favorite: saying that she heard, over her cell phone, the sound of Trayvon’s phone landing on wet grass. Yeah, right.)

          1. I agree Zimmerman should be found not guilty. That’s not the same thing as saying Zimmerman is innocent.

            We’ll never know what actually happened, but just because we can’t prove what did or didn’t happen doesn’t mean it necessarily happened the way Zimmerman claims.

          2. I liked the part where she claims she wrote a letter, then when asked to read it on the stand was unable to because she cannot read the cursive writing.

            I mean, I’m just a simple Southern cracker, but I think they call that perjury.

            1. Did she claim that she wrote it, or has it just been implied because it makes a more interesting story?

              1. I did read it in the news, so apply the appropriate levels of salt. The story I heard was that she wrote the letter to Martin’s family after he was killed.

                1. She’s a trainwreck of a witness. As somebody who hears a fair amount of witness testimony in my travels, I gotta say witnesses like her are not uncommon. And I would say that saying she is trying to frame Zimmerman is hardly an unfair criticism of her considering her bogus testimony.

              2. Apparently she dictated the letter to a friend. But still, not being able to read it is amazing.

    2. Honestly, she is what she is, if she wanted to appear more polished she’s had months to work on that.

      1. She is what she is. But the fact that she is that doesn’t mean it is right to broadcast it all over America. People like her testify like that all of the time. They never get turned into national laughing stocks, why should she? The only reason she is is because of our own voyeurism. Hell, rather than put it on TV, why didn’t they just have the trial at Dolphins’ stadium and sell tickets?

        What purpose is served by letting TV cameras in other than for the media exploit the shit out of it and pray on people’s worst instincts?

        1. I think the purpose served by tv cameras is allowing people to see our criminal justice system “at work” without it being filtered through reporters etc. but just the raw actual testimony etc.

          It’s part of open govt. – open trials.

          1. If you want to see how it works, get off your ass and go watch. Open doesn’t have to mean on TV. Plenty of trials are not and they are plenty open.

            1. *i* get to see plenty and get paid for it. That’s not the point. Those who are non-ambulatory and/or don’t live in florida deserve to have access to open govt. to include open trials. TV cameras are a huge part of open govt. and democratic practice.

    3. I think this goes the whole media culture in this country – it’s quite arbitrary who gets feted as a celebrity, and who gets singled out for a two-minute hate. Once the media has its claws out for you, then they’re coming after you, whether they can photograph you in the courtroom or not.

      1. But without the cameras, it would be a lot harder.

      2. But without the cameras, it would be a lot harder.

        1. If they couldn’t photograph people in the courtroom, they’d get old booking photos (eg, with Zimmerman) or mob the person outside the courthouse. Or they’d inveigle the person into an interview “so the public can hear your side.” Or they’d complain that the person wasn’t talking to the press (what have they got to hide?) The media had the capacity to turn trials into circuses before cameras were permitted in courtrooms.

    4. Nine Trayvon Martins are shot dead every weekend in Obama’s fake home town Chicago. The carnage doesn’t even make the news.

      Obama’s son gets shot in Florida by a “white Hispanic” (gee, NY Times, got an agenda there? Zimmerman’s one quarter black) and the nation holds its breath waiting for race riots to break out.

      Isn’t it great that Obama has rid us of racial politics?

    5. The witness looks bad to us, maybe not so much to her peers. I’m all for TV in court for high profile trials. Everyone can judge for themselves. I’m not seeing how TV makes her look any better or worse than a woodcut engraving and an edited transcript in an 18th century pamphlet or a 19th century Harper’s Weekly would.

      1. the point to me is that tv is offering a REAL look at her vs.a filtered by a reporter impression of same. She is her own worst enemy.

    6. I’m way more concerned with Zimmerman’s fate than a horrible and disingenuous witness being called out for same. A man’s life is literally on the line. I am keeping my eye on the ball, and that’s the ball. She’ll get over it. She was nobody before the trial and I doubt she’ll even reach Kato Kaelin levels of infamy.

  14. Excellent article, not only because I agree with it, but also because I can post this comment agreeing, disagreeing or expanding upon it — exactly the capability the ruling class elites have withheld from us plebes forever.

    Couple of Baldwin comments:

    1. How in the world did the opinions of actors and, worse, celebrities who are celebrities because they are celebrities, become important? People who pretend to be other people used to be called frauds or crazy. Now we hold them up as experts on fracking. “Oooooooh. Listen to me! I’m reading my lines from Holy Scripture, er, the New York Times. I are smart and informed.”

    2. While Baldwin is convinced — again based on how smart he am from a couple of agenda-driven articles or Saudi-funded propaganda movies starring Matt Damon! — that fracking is evil and BP is evil and “turned the Gulf of Mexico into a cesspool” (excessive much, Alec?) he still gets around the whole world by flying First Class at worst and more likely by personal jet, then by limo or some other powerful gasoline-powered transportation, then into air conditioned comfort in massively overbuilt mansions scattered about the world’s trendiest and exclusive watering holes.

    As Glenn Reynolds has suggested, I’ll believe there’s a crisis when my “betters” start acting on their beliefs and give up oil, coal and natural gas.

    Also, Glenngarry Glen Ross sucked.

    1. Re #1, partly it’s a very human tendency to think that a person we think of as important has special authority or knowledge. There were probably farmers in ancient Egypt who wanted to ask the Pharaoh for advice about the best time for planting.

      But it has gotten worse in recent generations, perhaps in part because the country is losing a lot of the anti-idolatrous, stiff-necked Protestantism we used to have.

    2. How in the world did the opinions of actors and, worse, celebrities who are celebrities because they are celebrities, become important?

      It’s probably rooted in the celebrity endorsement days of the early-mid-20th century. “Gee, if so-and-so thinks Almond Joys and Chesterfields are great, they really must be!” Celebrities extending this influence into larger political movements was inevitable.

  15. It seems to me that what Baldwin really has a problem with is anti-intellectualism. If he is elitist it is in that he thinks his thoughts are just better than anyone elses.

    So, in part, I tend to agree with that. Arguing with an ignorant person is a waste of time. I’ve done it both the right and left. The social media demagoguing that goes on his rampant on both sides. They both do the same thing. And its born out of an emotional response. Out of ignorance.

    1. It seems to me that what Baldwin really has a problem with is anti-intellectualism

      The thin gruel of those who get to claim they are intellectuals. Someone with no comprehension of the volumetric density in the Gulf of Mexico and has joined the anti-fracking chorus of laughably ignorant boobs is an intellectual? Where do I get in line for the easy lift chair service to Mount Intellectual?

      1. Hollywood.

    2. The irony, of course, is that Alec Baldwin is astoundingly ignorant in every discipline of human knowledge, with the possible exception of respiration and defecation.

      1. He may not even be so proficient in defecation, being as he is, demonstrably full of shit.

    3. It seems to me that what Baldwin really has a problem with is anti-intellectualism.

      So the thing that Baldwin has a problem with is Baldwin’s fame.

      Interesting take.

  16. You all wolthress Arec Bardwin!!!

    1. It took long enough for someone to remember that joke.

  17. Once upon a time, somebody like John Wayne, or Frank Sinatra, or Doris Day could sit in a cocktail lounge and say bad stuff about people they worked with, or newspaper reporters who wrote (or didn’t write) about them, and maybe one or two people would her it. Those people might even go to work and tell the story; “I had no idea Doris Day was such a DICK!”

    Now, it’s out there for all to see before you can even say, “Oops, that’s not what I meant.”

    1. I’m trying to recall the British actress that called John Wayne the nastiest man she ever met. She dated Sal Mineo on and off for decades (yes, he dated women too).

    2. Except that Twitter isn’t exactly analogous to a sparsely populated watering hole. You go on Twitter because you want your idiocy to be heard. This wasn’t an overheard whisper.

  18. As he has done after past imbroglios, Baldwin has apologized, suspended his Twitter account, and declared that “No, good God no” he will never, ever rejoin the service.

    Come on, you have to respect the man for that. The learnin’ comes slowly to some, but come it does. Mr. Baldwin has finally realized that yes, other people can read those.

  19. witter and Tumblr and Vine and Instagram and Facebook and Myspace, all these things are social media tools that we were all told we had to have,

    Huh? Oh, maybe your agent said you had to have them. Ok.

    1. Myspace?

      1. You should hear his acoustic rendition of “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida”. Also, his LiveJournal will make you cry.

  20. I’d have to do some Athens-related name-dropping to fully express why I’m not piling on Baldwin now, but I’m not here to defend him, either. It’s easy enough for a less famous, otherwise thoughtful person to spectacularly embarrass himself and become known better for that than anything good, although one would think Baldwin would have learned that by now.

    As for associating with Rosie O’Donnell: it’s his prerogative, of course, but I don’t condone it…

  21. Mel Gibson could not be reached for comment.

  22. Found this on Facebook from Shit Statists Say:

    People need to stop being ass hurt about Paula Deen. If you’re black and rob someone at gunpoint, you’re gonna get called a nigger. If you’re Mexican they’ll call you a spic. Freedom of speech, but only if we like what you have to say! Nobody was too upset about Alec Baldwin calling some guy a coon. Jamie Foxx can say on live tv how much he loved killing all the white people. No biggie! He’s owed, somehow, after being rich and privileged for almost 30 years. -Gorilla

    1. Pretty much aping (can I say “aping”) what Chris Rock said vis a vis the “n” word.

      1. Ummm, no. In the skit you’re referring to, Chris Rock said the only acceptable use of the N-Word by a White woman (like Ms. Deen) is in the phrase “Umm! Fuck me harder, Nigga!”

        Jus’ sayin’

        1. I would agree with Mr. Rock on that, but then why did this chick get in so much hot water?

          (I’m not sure if the incident was real or some Onion thing. In short: white chick says “fuck me with that nigger dick!” while filming interracial porno, offends everyone and loses career.)

          1. The link to video goes to the Onion’s video site, so it’s probably an Onion thing. Wendy Williams isn’t the brightest bulb in the socket.

            I can’t imagine anyone in the, er, customer base, caring about what a porn actress opinionates. Taylor Rain did actually go there somewhat by saying in an interview that she intentionally doesn’t do interracial scenes, but that statement doesn’t appear to have affected her career.

  23. Lol on the “Irish Temper”. Mebbe NYPD needs to direct more of their unconstitutional stop n’ frisk towards the Irish!

    Weapons or at least Shillelaghs (whatever the hell those are) would be discovered, most likely.

  24. The dude is clearly WAY too full of himself, thats for sure!

    http://www.GetAnonz.tk

  25. The irony of this article is that there is a button at the top to send it out into the Twitterverse….

    1. Nick isn’t complaining about Twitter. He sees the expansion of communications technology for common usage as a good.

  26. Even TMZ is calling them on their bullshit. GLAAD: Alec Baldwin Gets a Pass ‘Cause We’re Shameless Starf**kers:

    Alec Baldwin just got a “Get Out of Homophobia Jail Free” card from the people at GLAAD … because they don’t have the balls to go after a self-proclaimed Hollywood liberal.

    After Baldwin essentially called for the gay-bashing of a Daily Mail reporter … the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation — the same org. that’s CRUSHED people for making far less harmful and threatening statements — asked critics to back off Baldwin.

    1. If GLAAD’s reputation takes a hit from this it might be worth the tempest in a teakettle.

      ‘Cause We’re Shameless Starf**kers is spot on, although I would’ve tossed in ineffectual and self-aggrandizing could have been used accurately too.

      1. GLAAD will be fine, just like NOW was when they supported the boss who solicited, and got, a blowjob from his intern back in 1998.

        1. That’s impossible. I heard he was so articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.

  27. Alec Balwdin’s problem is that he’s Alec Baldwin.

    “Rosie O’Donnell is on my podcast this week, and she said that she’s getting off of Twitter, and I said “God, I was thinking the same thing.” I said “you just end up absorbing so much hatred.” You get these body blows of all this hatred from people who… their profiles are almost identical, like “tea party mom, I love my job, I love my kids, I love my country #millitary #guns” and there’s a screaming eagle in the background of their profile, grasping some arrows and tanks rolling in the background and they all want to tell me how much they can’t stand my politics.”

    So, Baldwin’s bitchy that the peasants are approaching him and smearing him with their grimy hands and opinions. K.

    1. You attract negativity Alec? Offending everyone tends to do that. In the article he is quoted as using the word god in a way that naturally offends lots of ordinary people. He seemingly does it unconsciously, like it was natural. Constitutionally speaking, that is known as religious bigotry. It is tolerated and encouraged in his line of work. But hey, we can pick and choose what kind of bigotry we accuse Alec.

  28. Who the hell is this Alec Baldwin?

  29. Can someone more internet savvy explain the deal with Twitter timestamps? I’m on the east coast and on my computer Hilaria’s twitter posts have the time the Daily Mail originally said they were. I don’t have an account and I pretty much never look at it. I can see why the bottom feeder reporter could be mistaken about the time.

  30. John Odrasik of Five for Fighting fame mentionned then if Alec Baldwin was right-wing. It would had never worked in Hollywood again. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-H…..ldwin-work

  31. Why is everyone so accepting that this is gay bashing or homophobic? If you are mindlessly ranting at someone in anger it’s pretty common to throw in barbs relating to their traits.

    A big ogre was falling all over me at the ball game because he was drunk. I said “hey, watch it Shrek.” Does this make me biased against folks of a large stature?

    1. In today’s PC world, angry barbs are not allowed toward certain Oppressed Groups, no matter what the circumstances.

  32. This is a great post. One of the things I like most about libertarianism is the way it fights against the (apparently) human tendency to idealize the rich, powerful, and/or famous.

  33. NY Post, July 2, 2012:

    Alec Baldwin may have kept his roiling temper at bay during his weekend wedding ? but he admits he fantasizes about violently offing his enemies.

    In the new issue of Vanity Fair magazine, which hits stands this week, the surly actor said he has wanted to murder the lawyer of ex-wife Kim Basinger “with a baseball bat.”

    Baldwin added he would have liked to “gut” TMZ producer Harvey Levin, who on his Web site posted the infamous voicemails of Baldwin calling his teenage daughter a “pig.”

    “I wanted to stick a knife in him and gut him and kill him, and I wanted him to die breathing his last breath looking into my eyes,” Baldwin told the magazine.

    And 23% of Obama supporters believe conservatives are the country’s most dangerous potential terrorists.

    1. “I wanted to stick a knife in him and gut him and kill him, and I wanted him to die breathing his last breath looking into my eyes”

      It’s amazing how a few dollars can change you from a raving psychopath that ends up wandering the streets and routinely getting booked by nosy cops for 24 hour involuntary mental health evaluation to a respected celebrity who gets invited to all the right premiers and cocktail parties.

      1. “A billion dollars”

        “What’s the difference between crazy and eccentric, Alex?”

  34. The only difference between Baldwin and Gibson is political ideology. And look at how differently they are treated.

  35. Very interesting piece, Nick. You took this in a different direction than I thought you would from the title — but also a quite salutary point.

    What I thought you would be arguing is that we have all become over-primed by social media into a false MacLuhanesque nightmare in which nobody can ever trip up rhetorically and not be decimated.

    This itself too has its Orwellian problems…

    Many conservatives are pointing out the double standard regards Paula Dean here. (Arguably, the n-word is in a category all its own.)

    I am disturbed that even otherwise good people who may be verbally inept at worst say things that do not necessarily reveal a hidden scaffolding of lifelong racism or homophobia or xenophobia — but rather who are using certain words as instruments of childish catharsis.

    This distinction is lost in our PC times, and my concern is it doesn’t really help the cause of fighting racism, homophobia, and the like to nationally decimate every uttered instance — I mean here, not with counter-speech, which is fine, but with immediate demands that person be fired, etc. etc.

    Sarah Silverman and Bill Maher, to name two prominent liberal white comedians, have both used the n-word with impunity in their sets, and to tell the truth, I’m a bit unclear why this double standard exists for liberal whites.

  36. I may enjoy his movies or tv shows but I don’t give a shit about his view or lack of insight about politics. Actors seem to think because they “play” someone important on tv it makes them important in real life. What a douch.

  37. They said that the free market made its decision on Deen, but I don’t think so. Executives made their decision. It would take a lot longer to indirectly see what consumers thought based on their purchases.

    If people truly believed that the free market should decide, then we would watch month-to-month revenues and then make a decision.

  38. L’option articles bien connue est de relier la plantation en outre domaine manufacturier voisin pour lib?rer les produits et services, sur les miles faciles s?rieusement bless? repr?senter le wouldn tour sp?cialis?e dans extr?mement prosp?re. Jolie je me joins ? vous d?placer le long de chaque plat en termes de club de golf Ore acqu?rir de toute routine de m?tal encore plus loin que le d?but de mes meilleures tentatives de fabrication. Mais je vais pour certain un montant inf?rieur ? un endroit id?al portes de choix pour l’emplacement beaucoup plus simple. Pour produire des locomotives des trains, en ce moment je vais faire usage de la soie dentaire de d?part ou 5 voitures de minerais m?talliques. Juste en ce qui concerne les arguments ?conomiques expliquent, pourrait tr?s bien apr?s apr?s plus utilis? pour accompagner un spectacle ? moteur diesel.New Era
    New Era France
    Casquette New Era

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.