Freedom of speech means the government can't use laws (i.e. the police and/or army) to prevent you from saying something. Outside of that, peope are as free to say stupid offensive shit as they are to tell the companies that hire those people to fire them. Or to tell those people that they should apologize. No one is forcing anyone to do anything, unless there is a proverbial gun to their head. Its calculation. It is more economically feasible for Tracy to apologize than it is to stick to his guns. In some cases, someone will get fired because the money you will lose by getting rid of them is less than the sponsors that would leave if you didn't fire that person. As the supreme court put it ... money is speach. And if the audience, or the sponsors talk enough, it may be louder than one person. In terms of "no one will watch him" ... that is basically what 'trying to get someone fired' is. They just happen to mention to the persons boss, that they won't be watching him anymore.
And ultimately, freedom of speech doesn't mean that someone who has the megaphone, or the mike, has a right to it. Being put on national TV, or on stage, is not a right, it's a priviledge. No one can stop people (in free countries) from expressing themselves, but they can stop giving them a venue and platform to easily reach tons of people. Otherwise, it's just as 'wrong' to not give someone their own TV show for being a horrible racist homophobic garbage monster than it is to fire them from a TV show for the same reason.
My feelings on how he treats Karl are sort of wrapped up in the way I feel about Ricky himself (It's Complicated: TM Facebook). He's an asshole who does funny stuff, although sometimes he's just an asshole. At least Stephen is there some of the time to sort of back Karl up a bit, although it's mostly a game of good cop/bad cop to try and get Karl to say stupid things. Related to this post, it's a bit of a icky area to because, I think at some point it was established that Karl actually has a low IQ (not sure if that was them picking on him, a true fact, or both). The idea of basically getting someone who is mentally deficient, and prodding him with a stick so that he performs for comedy is a bit weird. I enjoy Idiot Abroad for the most part, but the Ricky parts are often cringe worthy. It's one thing when say, Larry David is horrible to someone on his show, as someone pointed out, but seeing Ricky be horrible to Karl ussually makes me just feel bad for Karl. Especially as, while someone like David Brent is a bit oblivious, Ricky is completely aware he's being an asshole and laughing his fucking tits off about it. I keep seeing these adds for the show with Warwick Davis, which seems like it should be funny, but the ads are just horrible, as it's mostly just Ricky being excited that he gets to toy with Warwick, by either using him to scare Karl, or make him do ridiculous things, etc. I would hope that there is at least some sort of self awareness on Ricky's part, that he 'lives his gimmick', so to speak, and that he's not nearly as much of an insufferable asshole, but plays it up as a persona ala Andy Kaufman.
Just to add to the Kanye thing. While a lot of the time, people will fall back on the "don't judge them for something said just because they didn't interupt the person saying it" argument, but when the thing you are likely most known for IS interupting someone ...
It seems to be in establishment mode, where everyone that isn't a main character is a stereotype/cariacature. However, anyone with extended interaction with either character does seem to get fleshed out over time. So, as the series progresses, it will probably be a "once you get past the surface" type situation. I'm thinking something like Daria, which started off with broad strokes, but as time went on, it became a bit more nuanced. Then again, maybe I'm just happy to see Jeremy Sisto and Alan Tudyk in a show, and the lead girl sort of reminds me of Emily Stone.
I especially like (loathe) how he casually concedes the point that sometimes religion can lead to immoral actions with his "like with the Jihad". Because, it's those 'other' religions that have Holy Wars. He's just fighting the good fight against this Crusading atheist. What is this, some sort of Spanish Inquisition!
Except, he used a poison that would not have plausibly killed Brock. Unless he gave him a LOT of berries, it would be bad, but not fatal. I'd say that, in Walt's own mind, he wasn't risking Brock's life, he 'knew' that he'd be ok, but that he'd put enough of a scare into Jesse to get what he wanted.
Walt is a mix of overconfidence and willful ignorance. He still sees the ends justifying the means, so it's ok to poison Brock because Brock will still be alive when it's all over, since it gets the job done. And since it's "all about Walt" the goons won't kill his neighbour lady. Walt is either under thinking, or overthnking (believing that the goons wouldn't kill someone that would compromise their mission).
To be fair, Walt giving the kid Ricin would be a death sentence for the kid and hard to believe. Giving him Lily-Of-The-Valley on the other hand wouldn't be fatal unless he fed the kid a TON of berries. So it wasn't as big of a step into villainy for Walt as it would be if he had given the kid the Ricin.
When going through the pictures, I clicked on one thumbnail thinking "Why is Rachel Maddow at the MTV Video Music Awards?" And then it was a picture of Justin Bieber. And so I completely agree with the attached blurb.
It's a weird combination. It's like get nominated, get picked, then someone has to pay for the star. Adam West just got his 'approved', so they are in the process of raising money for it.
In the same group where he was announced was Matt Groening (they didn't want to give it to him too soon, they weren't sure if that Simpsons thing would leave a lasting impact) and Jennifer Anniston for her FILM work, Vin Diesel, Barry White, Walter Koenig, J-Lo, Malcolm McDowell, etc ...
So, a very weird combination of "why didn't they already have one" and "really? they are getting one?"
The problem is less about the child part than the actor part. There are lots of actors that aren't people, at least in the sense of, artists with struggles and desires anyone should care about. There are good actors and bad actors, and even some good child actors and bad child actors. I don't think the fact that Gwynneth Paltrow or Jim Belushi are not children makes them any more worthy of stupid fluff articles than these kids are.
Of course, Gabe is just mad they aren't following the old acting method of having nothing but men act, with the youngest being clean shaven teenagers to play the womenfolk. Or at the very least, those black and white movies where everyone, from teenagers to old men, are played by 30 year olds in ill fitting suits.
Comments