Stephen King writes a new essay . . .

. . . which is anti-gun and available on Kindle (I'm not posting the link). He donating all the $$ to the Brady Campaign.

Damn . . . not more King books for me I guess.

I'm going to sell the ones I have and put the proceeds towards some ammo--maybe I'll send it to the NRA in his name.

 

Not sure . . . but, the flags were flown at half-staff for a few days after SH. Not sure if it's more than that and I'm not going to find out.

I used to be big fan. Yeah, these guys can have their own opinions contrary to mine, but, I'm not going to fund them anymore. My loss I guess.....

 

I have enjoyed Stephen King's books for many years. I am listening to the Green Mile Now, too bad I will not be buying any more of his works. that is a shame.

 

My collection just went into the woodstove.

 

I never did like his trash, written to the lowest common denominator.

Way too many better authors out there to waste any time on his rubbish.

 

I am so sick of actors, musicians, and other celebs talking about anything politically charged. Just shut up and sing/act/ or whatever it is you do.

End rant.

 

a has been writer..

 

I'm sensing a certain amount of inconsistency here...I don't know that there is any real objection to ooh raahing celebrities, actors, authors and musicians for expressing political points of view....so long as they are the views that agree with one's own ideological world view...hence "celebrities" such Bill Cosby, Ted Nugent, Chuck Norris and Tom Clancy get a thumbs up...and those contradicting a conservative world view /agenda...are castigated.

Personally...I judge a person and their craft on their individual merits, and it has rarely stopped me from enjoying their art or craft or performance, regardless of their politics (Mel Gibson excepted). If I have a mind to indulge myself in some mindless, choreographed celluloid violence, then I have no issue with watching Chuck Norris for sh!ts and giggles; and I have no special yen to stop reading and start burning or shredding Tom Clancy Books, merely because I may not agree with their politics.

 

When their side is clearly not American in nature.. it's wrong. Sorry to say it so bluntly, but these fuckers need to get a damned clue about what it means to support the ENTIRE Constitution and not just parts of it.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."​

The ENTIRE thing... which means, STOP INTERPRETING IT! it says what it means and it means what it says.

As for boycotting people because of their belief's.. well, let's just say that if someone was in support of homosexual's getting married, I couldn't give a shit. I'd still watch their movies or read their books. But when they are clearly devoid of any system of integrity to the extent that they would abandon parts of the Constitution to suit their own means to an end, then I just don't support them with my FIAT. My measly $5.00 will not put a dent in their pocket, but if you multiply that by 10's of thousands of people, and that person is no longer a hot item and cannot financially push their shit on us...well, the point is then made.

 

Here's my response to his article..

 

I will not pay someone to work against my interests, that would be self-defeating.

 

Evidently your taxes don't contribute to the salaries of Congressional and Senate representatives that enact legislation that is contrary to your interests??

 

I do not VOLUNTARILY pay anyone to work against me. better?

 

fair enough.

 

Somehow, I suspect you already understood the underlying meaning of his post.

 

Of kellory's post, yes: and the freedom to disagree and counter argue against the content and premise of Stephen King's essay ...My first post had more to do with replying to Harbin's comment:

 

C'mon maaaaan.. freedom to disagreee, coutner.. blah blah.. freedom to "get it" and not beat upon an obvious context.

 

@chelloveck

I understand your argument, but, I think it is missing the point a bit. Perhaps you are just being you and pointing out the flip-side; but, perhaps being from a different place shields you from the "feeling" this illicits.

The key issue is that no one is saying the celebrity in question CAN'T rant about their favorite pet peeves--they can, by all means, preach to your heart's content (the 1st Amendment is blind to the argument). However, their opinion holds no more water than mine, but their pulpit is much greater and reaches many more people. Because sheeple are ignorant of the facts, they will take this opinion from a celebrity as theirs because celebrities must be smarter than the rest of us. If a celebrity uses their podium to preach their political views, they must also be willing to accept the consequences of losing fans and their money. It's as simple as people voting with their feet.

King's better way to get his anti-gun message across would be to write a story about his feelings rather than an essay (although I admit, I haven't read this--perhaps this is exactly what he's done).

To put another way, if George Orwell had written an essay basically saying "communism sucks; here are all the problems associated with being a commie," he would've just alienated all people sympathetic to communism/progressive ideals. However, writing an allegory about the subject, but never explicitly saying it, does a much better job of getting his anti-communist philosophy across without overtly doing so.

I too "I wish these guys would shut up" because every time an entertainer becomes a wannabe politician (e.g., Bono, Clooney, Penn, Damon) , I make sure I treat them as such by shunning them. Nugent . . . bad example as he has ceased to be a musical performer for his income and is now on the board of the NRA. "Gun rights spokesman" is now his master status.

Other conservative entertainers who are pro-2nd Amendment should also realize that by speaking out, they may loose their progressive/liberal fans. They too can vote with their feet.

 

Chelly, the problem with celebrities, is the same as with lobbyists. Undue influence. Frankly I would like to see a season and proper bag limit for lobbyists, Though I don't think there IS a way to clean them.

Let's just suppose, that Brad Pitt comes out and announces that one side of a debated issue is the only way to think, (gun control, soy burgers, abortion, whatever) He has a large following of hopeful maidens, who wish to carry his child or steal a kiss from his lips, and a bunch of young fools who think he is the coolest thing since the pet rock or sliced bread. Pitt's vote has the same weight as mine, but his influence is enormous. He spouts off about global warming, or foreign policy, he word has more weight( whether he has a clue what he is talking about, or not.) People has seen him in roles of power, and knowledge, and have some difficulty separating the man from the myth. This lends him more influence to sway opinions, (which is why endorsements of products have been used in sales since the beginning of advertising) Does this club REALLY make you a better golfer?" Tiger Woods uses it!, So it must work!" When any publicly well known figure lends their name to a product, (George Foreman Grill, or Suzzie Chap-stick) it is to influence sales. The same is true in politics large and small. celebrities pull votes for the stupidest of reasons, peer pressure. People want to be close to them, be like them, or even be known by them, and form fan clubs, and get out of jail bail money fund raisers, protest against what ever they are told to protest against,Gary bussey and his fight against the helmet law) because of that influence. And trading off that influence is wrong, IMHO. It's like pressuring a girl for sex because she has a crush on you, not because it's the right thing for the both of you, but just because you can.
I go to movies to be entertained, spellbound, thrilled, and taught (if there is something I went there to learn). I go for the same reasons i like magic tricks, the suspension of disbelief, and the fun of it, the wonder of the illusions. I do not go, to learn their political affiliations, their feeling on any subject, or their personal cause of the week.
I am paying them enormous sums, to entertain me, then leave me alone. While on my payroll, they don't have opinions i want to hear. Not even about the pop-corn.