Roger (Bush hater) Ebert interview

The Progressive magazine ^ | August 2003 | Matthew Rothschild

[mansion]

I don't agree with Ebert politically, of course.

But I buy his movie yearbooks every year. I find his opinions on the movies generally insightful and thought-provoking (when he stays out of politics, that is.)

His book "I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie!" is hilarious, and his "Big Little Movie Glossary" is great.

I guess I realized a long time ago that I would not always agree with people I liked. Many of the musicians and actors I enjoy don't agree with me politically. But I won't stop watching them, unless they start inserting their stupid opinions in their art. It's the same with Ebert.

[Roscoe Karns]

Here is a good movie review search engine.

[okie01]

"Ebert's ignorance is astounding, but when he got to that giveaway line about taking from the poor to give to the rich which reveals the totally clueless, it's was all I could do to keep from vomiting. Ebert has permanently put himself among the ranks of the stupidest people in the world. But then again I didn't think he was too bright before this collection of idiocies."

"Naivete in children is charming. But, in an adult, when coupled with ignorance, it is indistinguishable from stupidity."

Montaigne

[lowbridge]

And we've had a concerted policy of taking money away from the poor and giving it to the rich wholesale,

Okay Roger. Just give us the name of the Republican that gave you your wealth, and/or the name of the poor people he stole it from. We'll arrest the Republican, give your money back to the poor people he took it from, and possibly arrest you as an accomplice if you don't cooperate.

and at the same time, we have the runaway corporations, and the greed.

Hey, if you don't like it, then quit your job. Because if you haven't noticed, you work for one of those.

You deal with people's perceptions in the movies and in your op-ed columns. Why do they have this odd perception?

Ebert: I think most people are more susceptible to prejudice than to reason. And the parrots of talk radio are just sending out the same stuff. When I look at my e-mails, I see the same Limbaugh rhetoric; apparently, people don't have any ideas of their own. And there's just this drumroll of anti-progressive thought.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Physician, heal thyself.

[weegee]

I agree with what he said. I don't think Bush was legitimately elected President.

[weegee]

But I was very offended as a reporter when Michael came directly back to the pressroom where I was, along with 300 or 400 other reporters, and lectured us, "Now do your job. Don't report it was a divided house. Only five loud people were booing."

I see. When he does this in a "documentary", it is worthy of being called one of the year's best movies. When he does this to a critic (someone who is not a reporter, but a reviewer) he felt insulted???

[weegee]

I would propose to you that if Michael Moore had taken a deep breath, and looked straight at the audience, and said, "I am a nonfiction filmmaker during a fictitious Presidency," and stopped, I think he basically would have gotten a positive response to that.

If laughter could have been seen as a positive response...

Not laughter at his statement about the presidency, but laughter at Mickey Moron. Laughter that he actually believes that his films are "nonfiction".

[weegee]

Q: What do you make of the criticism of Hollywood celebrities for speaking out against the war--the Sean Penns, the Susan Sarandons?

Ebert: It's just ignorant; it's just ignorant.

Q: Why do you say that?

Ebert: I begin to feel like I was in the last generation of Americans who took a civics class. I begin to feel like most Americans don't understand the First Amendment, don't understand the idea of freedom of speech, and don't understand that it's the responsibility of the citizen to speak out.

And we here in flyover country see that the entertainers are ignorant. They have a soapbox because a casting director somewhere put them in a movie because they could read someone elses' words without stammering and looked good for the camera. They do not have a soapbox because they proved their political accumen and thus know what they are talking about.

These are useful idiots aiding and abbetting ruthless dictatorships (whether it be Stalin's, Saddam's, Castro's, or others). They kept quiet about Bubba Clinton's military manuvers because to quote Jannine Garafolo (sp?) "It wasn't hip to protest Clinton".

Axis Sally, Lord Haw Haw, and "Tokio Rose" spoke out with antiAmerican sentiments from foreign lands too. All were prosecuted for treason, 2 did jail time, one was executed.

Acts of reason and sedition by traitors may be seldom prosecuted but we are entitled to call them what they are.

Mr. Ebert should go back to civics class and realize that we have a freedom of speech too (we are not saying anything false). Our boycott is no worse than Hollywood's blacklist (of conservatives and non-union workers) that persists to this day.

Mr. Ebert has been showing his own true colors since Gene Siskel died. He is a movie critic, not a political commentator.

[Green Knight]

Ebert: I begin to feel like I was in the last generation of Americans who took a civics class. I begin to feel like most Americans don't understand the First Amendment, don't understand the idea of freedom of speech, and don't understand that it's the responsibility of the citizen to speak out.

No, Roger. You're a member of the first generation of Americans to STOP taking Civics classes, because YOU certainly don't understand the First Amendment or the idea of Free Speech. You have a right to say what you like, and I have a right to say that you're a complete loon and a deeply stupid man.

If Hollywood stars speak out, so do all sorts of other people. Now Hollywood stars can get a better hearing. Oddly enough, the people who mostly seem to hear them are the right wing, so that Fox News can put on its ticker tape in Times Square a vile attack on Michael Moore, and Susan Sarandon is a punchline.

Read the First Amendment, Roger. It says "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of the Press". It DOESN'T say "Freedom from being Insulted". Nor does it say "Freedom of Liberal/Progressive Speech" and "Freedom of the Liberal/Progressive Press".

What IS a violation of Freedom of Speech? The government banning speeches like the one Michael Moore gave at the Oscars. Michael Moore getting arrested, tried, and jailed, for simply stating his mind. THAT is a violation of Freedom of Speech. Protesting him, boycotting him, is NOT a violation of Freedom of Speech. That's an example of people demonstrating THEIR Freedom of Speech.

Of course, you only like Freedom of Speech when it applies to people who agree with you. You like the free-flow of ideas when the only ideas being spread are yours. But the moment someone stands up and disagrees with you, you scream oppression. You're a hypocrite, Roger.

And yes, I have the Right to say that.

[weegee]

Ebert: I begin to feel like I was in the last generation of Americans who took a civics class. I begin to feel like most Americans don't understand the First Amendment, don't understand the idea of freedom of speech, and don't understand that it's the responsibility of the citizen to speak out. [ snip ] And anyone who's ever heard Susan Sarandon speak for a while knows that she's pretty smart.

I see. Mr. Ebert, you are aware that Susan Sarandon played a vocal and prominant part in the movement to prevent Dr. Laura from getting a tv show. Susan Sarandon thought that she should fight to keep Dr. Laura from being able to speak on tv. So much for championing "free speech". I guess that Mrs. Sarandon is so smart that she can speak for all of America. < /sarcasm > < /retch >

[crusher999]

MY "rule of thumb"...(pun intended)...since watching Siskel and Ebert, and now Siskel and Roeper, is that if both of them give a "thumbs down"....I'm the first in line, money in hand.

[weegee]

The right really dominates radio, and it's amazing how much energy the right spends telling us that the press is slanted to the left when it really isn't.

The press (newspapers, book editors/publishers, librarians) and television broadcasters (as well as the radio news divisions they own) are liberal and admit to voting overwhelmingly liberal. It is "talk radio" that "dominates" (but does not exclusively control) radio discussions.

Of course, Americans paid with tax dollars for Mr. Ebert's first broadcasts (on PBS).

I'll bet that Mr. Ebert has some tin foil fillings so no one sees his defenses against the VRWC.

[weegee]

Q: With the hostility about free speech that we were talking about a little while ago, do you think we're entering into a New McCarthyism period?

Ebert: I don't know. I don't know that anyone is going to stand up in the Senate with a list, although there is, of course, a website with all the traitors listed on it.

Mr. Ebert, is the list of offensive entertainers misrepresenting the words of any of these political neophytes? It is that "free speech" thing you've been going on about. We as consumers do not need to finance those who make us wince. Since the lamestream media loves celebrities, such statements (and any backlash) are usually glossed over. The internet serves as an "alternate" media.

[weegee]

Q: This is why Americans favor the repeal of the estate tax.

Ebert: Yeah, they all think they're going to leave a big estate, and they love Bush's theories because they all think they're going to get rich someday. But the fact is, most people are not going to be rich someday.

Mr. Ebert, they do not oppose the estate tax for that reason. They do not agree with the concept of an American government that can take money that has already had it's taxes collected (as income, interest, capital gains, etc) to redistribute it as it sees fit.

We are not a socialist nation (from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs). That estate does not belong to the government. Peddle your class envy someplace else, like Cuba.

[weegee]

I feel ordinary people really should be angry. Yet a lot of them seem to be voting conservative and thinking that the conservatives represent them. And they don't.

Mr. Ebert, some Americans (believe it or not) are social conservatives and not just fiscal conservatives.

This means that they question why the liberal agenda is being advanced in the public classrooms at grade schools, high schools, and universities. Why private companies are being made to bow down to political correctness on everything from homosexuality (a bedroom practice) to environmentalism.

[weegee]

When I look at my e-mails, I see the same Limbaugh rhetoric; apparently, people don't have any ideas of their own.

Mr. Ebert, come to Free Republic. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others get their talking points from US!

[jonalvy44]

another example of Hollywood beginning to believe their own press...the guy should stick to reviews. He needs some help in that dept.

[GSWarrior]

The New York Times reported that it was also organized by a radio conglomerate that had received a lot of favors from the Bush Administration in deregulation

I think Eberts needs to be fitted for a tin-foil muumuu.

[weegee]

Consider that Roger lives off of Hollywood. I would expect not much different from him. He couldn't survive if he was known as a conservative. In this interview, he's defined 'liberal elitism'.

Michael Medved is a conservative and a movie critic. He has had some backlash at times though. I know someone that thought Mr. Medved and his brother savaged Ed Wood's movie skills just because he was a (heterosexual) transvestite.

Michael Medved also has a radio show, but I don't know if it is syndicated. I only heard him on the air when he filled in for Rush or I listened to his Seattle broadcasts on the web.

[6323cd]

Separated at birth?