Showing posts with label Clint Eastwood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clint Eastwood. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Clint Eastwood doesn't give a fuck who gay marries, but disabled people? Fuck those guys.

OK, so he never said "fuck those guys" in reference to the disabled. At least, not that I know of.  But he doesn't give a crap about disabled rights until he is forced to.  You know, by the law and by lawyers who sue on behalf of victims of the law be broken.  So, when I saw someone on Tumblr and Twitter praising Eastwood for his "I don't give a fuck" stance on gay marriage, I had to say something.  Below is what I reblogged on Tumblr/Website666.com earlier today:


motherjones:
The Outlaw Josey Wales FTW.

Uhhh, sure, just don’t ask him how he feels about the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Back in 2000 he called lawyers who took on ADA lawsuits ”morally corrupt.”  Right, morally corrupt for suing on behalf of a disabled person who was accusing Eastwood of violating a law that protects the rights of the disabled?

Oh yeah, those ADA lawyers are real horrible people.

/sarcasm

Clint Eastwood may be a brilliant filmmaker but he’s a huge fucking douchebag.  I refuse to watch his films and I lose respect for actors who work with/for him because they don’t seem to mind working for a guy who still thinks the disabled should have no right to not pee their pants in his restaurant (which would you respect more human rights or “the heritage and antique value”?).

I was really surprised that Leonardo DiCaprio would appear in one of his films.  Leo is supposed to be a conscientious guy and he isn’t aware of Hillary Swank’s fate in “Million Dollar Baby”?

Full disclosure, the “morally corrupt” lawyer who sued him back in 2000 is my father-in-law.  But I’m preeeeetty sure that doesn’t make me unfairly biased toward the rights of the disabled. ;)

Is Eastwood's attitude about gay marriage wrong just because his attitude toward disabled rights is?  No, but it's a little frustrating when he is praised for a positive stance while a seriously negative stance is ignored.

See, you've got to understand that he doesn't seem to care about individual human rights.  He's probably a Libertarian.  He wants government to allow people to marry who they want AND discriminate against who they want.  His isn't the voice of freedom but the voice of freedom-from-responsibility.  The same kinds of laws that "protect the sanctity of marriage" are the same kind of laws that "protect the rights of the disabled" and it seems like he'd want those kinds of laws gone.  That's what scares me about Libertarians.  I'm worried that once one got into the White House all programs that help the common good would get scaled back or wiped out entirely.  Those programs are not in great shape as it is.  (Remember, in most countries you don't have to pay for all of your health care.)

In Libertarianism, and in much of America, really, there is this belief in the impossible that I think John Hodgman nailed in a segment last night on the Daily Show. He explained the belief that, if you work hard enough and long enough, everyone can be part of the 1%.

Not only is that mathematically impossible, it ignores the fact that shit happens.

Hard work and perseverance does not guarantee success.  Believe otherwise and you might as well believe in magic.

I mean, how many disabled 1%ers are there, anyway?  Maybe there's a reason for that?