People for the Ethical Treatment of Alec Baldwin

September 14, 2002 1:33 PM

People for the Ethical Treatment of Alec Baldwin I'm not sure this is absolutely necessary to have on the Internet, and it may have been posted here before (sorry!) but I thought it was worthwhile. Make sure you check out the Baldwin Doofus-Alert Warning System - today, it's red.
posted by djspicerack (19 comments total)

On terrorism and its relation to the presidential election - "I know it's a harsh thing to say, perhaps, but I believe that what happened in 2000 (elections) did as much damage to the pillars of democracy as terrorists did to the pillars of commerce in New York City."

Ah... I love Alec Baldwin.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:14 PM on September 14, 2002

Truly funny conservative humor is a very rare thing, but this comes close.

Course, I'm not sure that it's absolutely necessary to have anything on the Internet.
posted by yhbc at 2:47 PM on September 14, 2002

I don't understand. The world of entertainment is full of vacuous fools, why pick on Baldwin in particular?
posted by Fat Buddha at 2:55 PM on September 14, 2002

Why not Baldwin? I mean... the photo with the hands. Heavens.
posted by nthdegx at 3:08 PM on September 14, 2002

Oh, I get it. Alec Baldwin is a mediocre actor who makes mediocre films. But he also has opinions that lean to the left. Let's laugh at him. This site is brilliant.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:15 PM on September 14, 2002

Oh, I get it. Alec Baldwin is a mediocre actor who makes mediocre films. But he also has opinions that lean to the left. Let's laugh at him. This site is brilliant.

ah, but it works both ways. smile, laugh, and be happy.
posted by fishfucker at 3:18 PM on September 14, 2002

Happy Happy Joy Joy
posted by ZachsMind at 3:22 PM on September 14, 2002

I don't understand. The world of entertainment is full of vacuous fools, why pick on Baldwin in particular?

Very simple political agenda: Choose a select few people (instances) that exemplify the worst of the other side and throw it out as so-called evidence of their affiliations' characteristics. Unprecedented amount of these humorous insults (usually re:bush admin) appear here at good ole MeFi. Aaahhh....religion and politics; the mainstay of any nutritious MeFi breakfast.
posted by poopy at 3:44 PM on September 14, 2002

"I know it's a harsh thing to say, perhaps, but I believe that what happened in 2000 (elections) did as much damage to the pillars of democracy as terrorists did to the pillars of commerce in New York City."

This doesn't sound so far-fetched. At least the 9-11 attacks didn't hinge on corruption at the highest levels of state (FL) and federal (USSC) government.
posted by subgenius at 3:45 PM on September 14, 2002

C'mon, guys, Baldwin does say some pretty silly stuff. Remember when he supposedly said he'd leave the country if Bush were elected and then after Bush won (or "won"), recanted that he'd never unequivocally said that he'd leave? I'm almost as liberal as they come but I think he's a bit full of himself. I also think the website doesn't have much meat, though; the best part of it to me is the title.
posted by onlyconnect at 3:45 PM on September 14, 2002

C'mon, guys, Baldwin does say some pretty silly stuff.

Yeah, I agree, there is something peculiar about the Baldwins that make them such a target:


WILLIAM BALDWIN: [answering phone] Baldwin residence…no, this is Billy Baldwin. If you want Daniel Baldwin, call his extension…stupid! [to Alec Baldwin] Hey Alec, do you know what sucks about being a Baldwin?

ALEC BALDWIN: No, what?

WILLIAM: Nothing!

ANOTHER BALDWIN: Yeah!

ALL BALDWINS: [laughing]

WILLIAM: [after all other Baldwins have been bombed] Ha! Ha! You missed me! [then gets bombed himself]

Priceless.


posted by poopy at 3:53 PM on September 14, 2002

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov

Pretty ironic coming from a rightwingnut site.
posted by goethean at 4:39 PM on September 14, 2002

Pretty ironic coming from a rightwingnut site.

I love words like 'nut' and 'moron'. Just gets me all tingly inside.
posted by poopy at 5:01 PM on September 14, 2002

I don't think there's any possible way I could care less.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:10 PM on September 14, 2002

mr_crash - are you sure? It could have been Andie MacDowell.
posted by nthdegx at 1:54 AM on September 15, 2002

Maybe if I listened to about 200-300 hours of Rush Limbaugh my mind would be sufficiently numbed to a point where I would find this guy funny. Does that make me one of them darn "liberals?"
I'm with only connect. The best part is the title. Someone could get a lot of comedic miles out of "People for the Ethical Treatment of [Place name of someone in the Public Eye here.]"
posted by jaronson at 8:03 AM on September 15, 2002

I'm sure that the P*E*T*A*B name is a direct sop to the fact that Baldwin and his former wife Kim Basinger were (are?) very outspoken animal rights activists and PETA supporters. Interestingly, they don't have the quote from Baldwin which lambasted pro-life activists for failing to care about the lives of the millions of chickens slaughtered every year which is exponentially higher than the number of abortions performed.

Maybe if I listened to about 200-300 hours of Rush Limbaugh my mind would be sufficiently numbed to a point where I would find this guy funny.

It's not particularly funny, but it does, I think, point a little bit to the ridiculous trend in our society to give a free platform to celebrities to spout off their political beliefs just because they're celebrities. The fact that Alec Baldwin had a new movie out didn't justify allowing him ten minutes on Leno or Conan or whatever, to spout and suggest violence toward the house managers during the impeachment. The fact that Bruce Willis gives mad cash to the GOP and was therefore invited to be a celebrity face on a dais still doesn't explain why he was allowed to lecture for nearly an hour on C-Span about his ideals of government. This is not a first, either, Samuel L. Jackson and Barbra Streisand have been given similar free reign on what is supposed to be the network dedicated to governmental affairs.

And it's not even always "they're here, so they can spout if they want to." Media outlets often seek out celebrities when they're one of only dozens or hundreds or tens of thousands of people involved in an issue. When several dozen people were arrested protesting a waste incinerator in the small town of East Liverpool, OH, the people who live there, who were fighting for their own community, were all but ignored so that Martin Sheen (who flew in to add "celeb cred" to the fight, apparently) could be interviewed at length. Recently, NYC schools were facing a budget crunch which threatened some programs which have been deemed "non-essential." Parents have been fighting these cuts since they learned about them, going so far as to stage a protest which landed more than thirty of them in jail. Did the news seek out the parents who led the protest? Nah, they grabbed actress Cynthia Nixon (from Sex and the City) to get her soundbyte. She does have a child who may be affected, but she wasn't the one with the most information to offer by any stretch of the imagination.

This is all a fair example of the dizzy limit of our great love affair with celebrity which has simply run amuck. These people aren't pundits, they're not political experts, they're, typically not speaking from fact, just offering opinion. If they want to blather, let them start warblogs like all of the non-famous schmoes in the world who have an opinion. There's no reason for them to have a public stage for their nattering opinions.
posted by Dreama at 8:39 AM on September 15, 2002

Fair enough, but:

These people aren't pundits, they're not political experts, they're, typically not speaking from fact, just offering opinion

So how is that any different than losers like Dinesh D'Souza or Laura Ingraham or Anne Coulter appearing on ABCNNBCBS et al? Are these people anything more than "news" celebrities, uniquely unqualified for their talking head-dom? Is there some sort of vetting process I am not aware of, some sort of rigorous training and advanced degree necessary by law to appear on TeeVee and spout your opinion? Are either Bill O'Reilly or Phil Donahue some how qualified where Alec Baldwin is not? Is there any reason to believe that (and I think this was, ultimately, the point Politically Incorrect tried to make) there are occasionally celebrities or average folk- heck, look at some of the rare erudition shown at times on MeFi- who have a greater depth of knowledge, history, and understanding than do the self-promoting pundit class- that rabid group of whores whose only desire is face time on cable TV so they can then go out and charge $20k+ for a 2 hour speaking engagement, and buy the big Mercedes and a townhouse in DC and get invited to all the lavish parties?

I basically agree with you, but think you don't go far enough. Alec Baldwin has as much to say, and is inherently no less worth listening to, than Rush Limbaugh- who each despite their millions of dollars and fans are in the end neither scholars nor statesman. Neither have any real background or expertise to offer other than the fact that they are famous and talk a lot- qualifications that most people at MeFi can at least halfway attain. The cult of celebrity cuts both ways- you cannot legitimately trash Baldwin and other "entertainment" celebrities as being wholly unfit for opinionating, without then also laying waste to the teeming masses that populate 24-hour news media stupidland*.

* Not sure why, but my use of the word "news media stupidland" makes me think I was temporarily channeling owillis
posted by hincandenza at 1:25 PM on September 15, 2002

"...mr_crash - are you sure? It could have been Andie MacDowell."

Point well taken, although if the last three people on Earth were myself, any Baldwin, and Andie MacDowell, the Baldwin would definitely meet with an unfortunate "accident" before Ms. MacDowell did. At least theoretically.

It's also nearly as probable that I'd cut my wrists with the closest semi-sharp object, but I consider that a definite second-place.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:49 PM on September 15, 2002