MCockerill08
07-09-2009, 09:18 PM
"It is no doubt unfair of Cohen to victimize a perfectly nice man like Ron Paul. Watching Paul politely trying to deal with this weirdo made me reflect that as a fringe candidate, he has probably been subjected to a lot of strange questions on strange TV shows and probably is prepared to sit through almost anything for TV exposure. However, he has made a lot of intolerant comments about homosexuals, so by shouting “*****!” as he stalks out along a hotel corridor, he lost his chance of making amends. Helpful rule: If you find you have been the subject of a TV ambush, the camera is probably still rolling"
I usually like Roger Ebert's reviews, but his backhanded bashing of Dr. Paul pissed me off when I read his "bruno" review. This time, Ebert has claimed in his recent review of "bruno" that Ron has made "a lot of intolerant comments towards homosexuals."
This is hogwash; the good doctor may have called Bruno a "*****" (a mild insult, if anything) under circumstances that would get an average joe in jail if he did it to a girl, but he doesn't go around making intolerant comments about ANY group of people. Ebert is saying this on the basis of NO EVIDENCE, apart from the overblown newsletters that Lew Rockwell (whom I positively adore and forgive and all that) almost certainly wrote and Ron Paul certainly didn't know about.
I sent Ebert an email (feedback@rogerebert.com) demanding a correction of this erroneous, defamatory comment. I suggest you do the same:
Dear Mr. Ebert,
I'm a big fan of yours and also have been a Ron Paul volunteer for about 2 years.
I noticed a factual inaccuracy in your film review of "Bruno." Since I have not yet seen the film, I take your account of what transpired in it at face value. But while Ron shouldn't have lost his temper and made an intolerant comment, even while being sexually assaulted in an illegal fashion, (that would have an average gay or straight dude in jail, though Cohen survives because of his fame) it is totally unfair to definitively say that Ron Paul has made anti-gay comments in the past.
Ron Paul both supports gay marriage (based on libertarian principle) (1) and is not a homophobe. (based on personal principle) (2) He's also certainly not as tolerant and aware of this issue as younger libertarians, as one might expect from a Texan in his mid seventies. I assume that you think Ron is a homophobe because he attached his name to a newsletter that, unfortunately, published some ugly screeds about gays and certain ethnic groups. (3) He has taken moral responsibility for this miscue and apologized for over a decade. You may not be surprised to know to that when one is a radical, he often inadvertently comes in contact with less benign fringes through his activism.
Ron Paul has told the press, for over a decade, that he was not aware of the publication's intent. He was paid by people who advocated intolerant positions to place his name on their newsletter; it was a real mistake but no hanging crime, and certainly has nothing to do with the message of libertarianism, which is distinguished from conservativism in its upholding of individual liberty, social tolerance, secular government bereft of attempts to "impose morality,", and peace.
While YOU are not obligated to believe him, and can state such in your column, I don't think it's fair for you to imply Ron Paul has made bigoted, anti-gay statemements or say he has "said" intolerant comments about gays without a clip or credible citation of him SAYING something homophobic, or a disclaimer that you believe he is lying about the newsletters.
I hope you are able to correct this aspect of your review in a satisfactory manner.
Matt
P.S. Thanks for reading my feedback! I know this sounded rant-like, but I am both a regular Ebert reader and HUGE Ron Paul fan, so it was a tough review to swallow. :[
(1) YouTube - John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul 2007.12.07 part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M)
(2) YouTube - Ron Paul on Homosexuality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE)
(3) YouTube - RON PAUL FORCEFULLY RESPONDS TO RACIST RUMORS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CoQWAXuUyI)
I usually like Roger Ebert's reviews, but his backhanded bashing of Dr. Paul pissed me off when I read his "bruno" review. This time, Ebert has claimed in his recent review of "bruno" that Ron has made "a lot of intolerant comments towards homosexuals."
This is hogwash; the good doctor may have called Bruno a "*****" (a mild insult, if anything) under circumstances that would get an average joe in jail if he did it to a girl, but he doesn't go around making intolerant comments about ANY group of people. Ebert is saying this on the basis of NO EVIDENCE, apart from the overblown newsletters that Lew Rockwell (whom I positively adore and forgive and all that) almost certainly wrote and Ron Paul certainly didn't know about.
I sent Ebert an email (feedback@rogerebert.com) demanding a correction of this erroneous, defamatory comment. I suggest you do the same:
Dear Mr. Ebert,
I'm a big fan of yours and also have been a Ron Paul volunteer for about 2 years.
I noticed a factual inaccuracy in your film review of "Bruno." Since I have not yet seen the film, I take your account of what transpired in it at face value. But while Ron shouldn't have lost his temper and made an intolerant comment, even while being sexually assaulted in an illegal fashion, (that would have an average gay or straight dude in jail, though Cohen survives because of his fame) it is totally unfair to definitively say that Ron Paul has made anti-gay comments in the past.
Ron Paul both supports gay marriage (based on libertarian principle) (1) and is not a homophobe. (based on personal principle) (2) He's also certainly not as tolerant and aware of this issue as younger libertarians, as one might expect from a Texan in his mid seventies. I assume that you think Ron is a homophobe because he attached his name to a newsletter that, unfortunately, published some ugly screeds about gays and certain ethnic groups. (3) He has taken moral responsibility for this miscue and apologized for over a decade. You may not be surprised to know to that when one is a radical, he often inadvertently comes in contact with less benign fringes through his activism.
Ron Paul has told the press, for over a decade, that he was not aware of the publication's intent. He was paid by people who advocated intolerant positions to place his name on their newsletter; it was a real mistake but no hanging crime, and certainly has nothing to do with the message of libertarianism, which is distinguished from conservativism in its upholding of individual liberty, social tolerance, secular government bereft of attempts to "impose morality,", and peace.
While YOU are not obligated to believe him, and can state such in your column, I don't think it's fair for you to imply Ron Paul has made bigoted, anti-gay statemements or say he has "said" intolerant comments about gays without a clip or credible citation of him SAYING something homophobic, or a disclaimer that you believe he is lying about the newsletters.
I hope you are able to correct this aspect of your review in a satisfactory manner.
Matt
P.S. Thanks for reading my feedback! I know this sounded rant-like, but I am both a regular Ebert reader and HUGE Ron Paul fan, so it was a tough review to swallow. :[
(1) YouTube - John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul 2007.12.07 part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M)
(2) YouTube - Ron Paul on Homosexuality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE)
(3) YouTube - RON PAUL FORCEFULLY RESPONDS TO RACIST RUMORS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CoQWAXuUyI)