No one said anything about the fans.

I have no problem with some fans leaving.

I have problems with the media villifying everyone that protests, especially when they put a false spin on things like this by making it seem like there was a mass exodus of fans "jamming" the exits, when only a few dozen left (during the encore nonetheless).

The media's job is to report things as they happen, end of story. Not to write things with a spin on it.

Unfortunately, that's not the way things are, and that's why I'm not using my Journalism degree and going to grad school for something entirely unrelated.

So Eddie starts rambling about politics/current events and some fans take advantage of the opportunity to go to the can, get a t-shirt, buy a beer. He exercised his Freedom of Speech and they exercised their right to Tune Him Out. Whatever. They paid their dough for the show and if they want to eject, so be it.

On a personal level, I really couldn't give a rip what 99.9% of "entertainers" think any more than they probably care what I think. It's more annoying than anything. Especially when these incidents receive so much overblown attention.

Nailed it! People have the right to leave. I have no problem with that either. It just feels like the media has been completely remade since just 10 years ago.

We're fast becoming a nation that doesn't "walk the walk" when we say we are a "freedom-loving" country. With the Patriot Act Part II, the villifying "dissenters" as anti-American, etc. I feel like playing David Bowie and Pat Matheny's tune from The Falcon and the Snowman now ("This is Not America")!... I wonder if that song is being banned by Clear Channel monopoly as well!

I'm having some difficulty trying to gauge the extent to which this post is in response to what I'd written. I guess I'll just use the back-and-forth quoting approach to make it seem like you're talking directly to me. I'm pretty self-centered like that.
Truthfully, when I said my part about the "paranoid ravings about 'free speech'" (or whatever), I had in mind not just what's been said in this thread. It seems the pattern nowadays is "Celeb criticizes Bush / the war," then "Internet geeks criticize the criticism," followed by "Rival geeks criticize *them* - and accuse them of being against 'free speech.'" I'm only requesting that everybody keep in mind that bolting from a concert is an act of "symbolic speech." But I completely understand why some might feel that making a mad dash for the exits is showing thin skin, or failing to anticipate what a historically political band will say in a time of war.
As was mentioned in the other thread on this in the War Forum, the "jamming" description was probably a (bad) pun based on the band's name.
Yeah. I'll admit the headline produced (for me) mental images of a mass exodus from the venue as soon as Mr. Vedder tried to "get all serious, and stuff."
I think it shows a pretty strong will to refuse to contribute to an industry you find objectionable, especially when getting a job in the field would presumably be the path of least resistance (based on having an undergrad degree in it). But just to reinforce my original point: Dissing the media (and Fox News in particular ) does not make you an "enemy of a free press" any more than dissing (for instance) Michael Moore's Oscar PMS fit makes you an "enemy of free speech."

And really, the only reason I entered this thread* was to caution against that alarmist "Free speech is disappearing!" attitude that seems pretty widespread nowadays. Accuse the fans who left of being petty, scold them for being offended at what they probably should have seen coming, but don't forget that they were using their First Amendment rights as well. Just like y'all are doing when you make fun of them.

*(besides taking cheap shots at Pearl Jam, who have always annoyed me)

I don't think that Pearl Jam is actually offended by anything. I really don't understand your use of my post.

It's hardly like they just started getting involved in these causes. They have a huge track record of getting involved in many causes, even putting on benefit concerts and participating in CDs to where much of the proceeds go to a specific cause they support. Many of these pricks who are so offended just complain and boycott. If these people are truly so angry about it and support the cause so much, why don't they join the army, or do something to help out rather than bitching about people that don't agree.

At least Pearl Jam has a history of actually helping further their cause than just complaining, unlike many of these offended parties

Again, I applaud the fans who booed and left, as well as those that stayed and cheered, and those that just tuned him out.

They're exercising they're freedom of speech and expression.

The media is the "enemy of free speech" in these cases. They put a spin on most anti-war/anti-bush stories (especially those involving celebrities rather than regular citizen protests) villifying everyone pledging anything but blind, undying support for the good ole U.S. of A.

You said something about how people like to "feel better about themselves" and prove they're "morally superior" by coming across as True Believers in........whatever cause they believe in. I think this applies to Pearl Jam quite well. Aren't they "offended" by Ticketmaster? Or "upset" that Bush is the President, and that's he's leading us into war?

Furthermore, I think they backed Nader because (besides the simple fact that a far-left lunatic is exactly who you'd expect a "hip, enlightened" outfit like PJ to support) they knew he'd lose. That way, even if Gore had won, Eddie & Company could continue to strike a F*** the System tone - getting "offended" that the (presumably) too conservative Al / Joe Dream Team is in charge.

Honestly, if you can't accept my claim that acting "offended" and broadcasting "moral superiority" in order to "feel better about themselves" is an integral part of Pearl Jam's MO, then we're so far from being on the same page that this discussion is pointless.
Well, as a self-identified "prick," let me defend myself by reminding you that I am *not* in a position to lend my (non-existent) musical skills to some kind of tribute CD. I don't get to play to sell-out crowds around the country, and indoctrinate my young, impressionable fans with anti-Gore lectures between songs. Pretty much all I can do is "complain and boycott."
Ah, the classic Put Up or Shut Up Challenge. Hey, I supported the ousting of the Taliban as well - but I didn't participate directly in that military adventure, either. Am I a retro-active hypocrite for ridiculing the (smaller, but still very real) anti-war movement that protested our operation in Afghanistan?

If this Iraq war drags on for months or years and The Pentagon starts drafting people, and some who had previously been hawkish suddenly have second thoughts and do all they can to avoid service, then you can start accusing people of hypocrisy.
Well, again, if I were a rock star, maybe I'd do what PJ does (but promote the exact opposite causes, naturally): I'd devote at least one song per album to trashing PETA; I would have endorsed Bush; I'd pen an anti-Gore equivalent of "Bushleaguer."

Alas, I'm just an anonymous nobody on the Internet. All I can do is jump on to DVDTalk and focus my anger at PJ (or Michael Moore or whomever). If I had millions of people buying my CDs or tens of thousands attending my concerts, maybe things would be different......

True they don't like ticketmaster, but they tried to take them to court over their excessive fees. They also tried to use alternate ticket providers, but since there are none in many areas due to the TM monopoly, they couldn't do this. Not liking something and being offended by something are 2 different issues. For instance, I don't think that he should have wore the Bush mask and destroyed it, but it wasn't offensive to me.

Actually, with them being big supporters of green party issues such as preservation of the environment (as evidenced by their involvement with the Music for our Mother Earth benefit CD) their ideology is probably more geared towards Nader's. I don't think they are big Gore fans, but I don't think they would have wrote a song about it. I don't think that they did it just because they knew he would lose. If they just wanted to gripe about the president to say F the system, they would have griped about Clinton throughout the 90s. Again, I don't think that you grasp the difference between being offended by something, and not liking something.

Like I said, actions speak louder than words, and I think that PJ's involvement in many of these issues shows more of a committment than merely wanting to appear moral and socially conscious by just complaining.

You can not agree with nor like the war protests all you want. That is your right. I think that ridiculing those involved in the anti-war is as hypocritical as them ridiculing those who are pro war. I just think that people like to feel aggrieved all the time for some reason. I support our war because I don't want to lose. Do I think we should be there? I'm not so sure, but I sure as hell am not going to ridicule someone for feeling either way about the issue.

And if there is a cause that you are so much for that you are offended by those who are not for it, I think you should do something about it. Enlist in the army, donate money and time to the re-election of Bush campaign, Donate your tax check to a pro-war organization. join or start a pro war organization where you can be more directly involved. People are entitled to their opinions, but I don't think they should be so damn quick to be offended all of the time.


The hypocrisy is that people want to be pro war, and be allowed to speak about it, but they do not want people who are anti war to speak about it or be heard.

Perhaps, but would you put your money where your mouth is and do these things? Maybe. If you did, I would have no problem with that. I may not like it, or want to listen to it, but I wouldn't be offended.

Really, I am just tired of people being offended about everything all the time. This goes much deeper than George Bush and Pearl Jam. I am annoyed by people who are so upset about putting a moment of silence in schools. I am annoyed by people who are offended by the use of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. I just think that people like to be part of a news story through being offended sometimes.

Exactly, and the same with the anti-war people that don't want to hear pro-war stuff.

Free speech protects all speech, not just speech we agree with.

I'm 100% against the war, but I'm not going to bitch and insult those that support it. They have every right to express their opinion.

I see what you're saying as far as the fine line that separates "disagreeing" from "being offended." I should try to keep that in mind in the future. For instance, "This war is not the appropriate strategy at this juncture" would go in my Disagree With / But Am Not "Offended" By book. On the other hand, "This is a racist, imperialist, terrorist war to commit genocide and steal oil" would probably rise to the level of something that "offends" me.

The "under God" thing is pretty ludicrous IMO as well. I'm not sure if God exists, but I'm not about to stop using paper money because He is mentioned on it! Nor do I care to seek "reparations" from all those years in public school when I was "forced" to utter those words.

Hopefully, this will be my last post in this thread. All I really sought to do was to warn against linking "walking out of a concert" with "wanting to repeal the First Amendment," and poke a little fun at Pearl Jam. I've done both, so now I'm satisfied.

1. Hate the Sin not the Sinner.

2. Hate the war not the Soldier.


Curious, I've heard people blow off the 1st saying as "BS". But for some reason, the 2nd one, which is pretty much the same thing, is the current mantra of the left.


You can't have it both ways.....

A sinner is resposible for the own actions in most people eyes, while a soldier is just following the government's orders. That's the difference IMO.

You really wasted your time because no one said anything about free speech and the people walking out.

People walking out are excercising their right to free speech/expression.

The only one who said anything about free speech was me, and I said that the media should champion free speech (both those against the war, and those for the war/walking out in protest of anti-war statements). However, they've taken a clear slant against anti-war speech, spinning stories that "villify" those speaking out, and making a bigger deal out of the few dozen (in this one case) who left in a "counter-protest." They should have just posted the facts (what vedder said, both against bush and in support of the troops, and then noted that a few dozen fans left in protest). Leading with the fans leaving blows it out of proportion and puts a negative spin on the story.

Rule No. 1 For Arguing on the Internet: Never promise you're done with a thread, because 95% of the time, somebody will provoke you into coming back in so you can break your word. *Sigh* How did I forget that?
Which didn't quite jive with my recollection of events, given that...
Which I interpret as, "Pearl Jam has the right to have views," which seems to imply, "People leaving the concert are forgetting they're living in America and are attempting to deny PJ the right to their views." Am I reading too deeply into that?
"This is America"; "This is a free country" (twice!); "If the guy [Vedder] wants to bash him [Bush] let him [Vedder (again)]." IMO, the subtext seems to be that "somebody" (the people who bolted? the media?) has forgotten the name of the country they live in - or at least forgot it's one of those "free" ones. This would appear to be precisely the kind of apocalyptic doomsday prediction I'm talking about.

Sorry, Josh, but I did pick up a hint of the "Free speech is under assault!" mindset from certain comments made in this thread. And as far as "really wasting my time," well, it's not as if I would have cured cancer in the time it took me to compose these little messages.

Hoping I'm done with this thread, for real this time...

Yes, free speech under assault by the media blowing things out of proportion, NOT by fans walking out. And that's all anyone said in this thread (including the posts you copied.

No one complained at all about the fans walking out. Everyone was saying that Vedder (and anyone) has a right to speak their mind. No one said fans don't have a right to walk out (or anything remotely implying that fans walking out was an attack on free speech).

The only attack on free speech is the media, who keeps putting a negative spin on anti-war comments. If that's what your getting at, then I understand if you disagree with it.

But from this quote..

"All I really sought to do was to warn against linking 'walking out of a concert' with 'wanting to repeal the First Amendment,'"

...it seems like you got the impression that someone here said that the fans were attacking free speech, which simply isn't the case. No one raised any objections towards the fans walking out, or equated that with an attack on free speech.

The only objections raised in the thread were with the media's slanted handling of the story.

This is no big deal. Who doesn't know that Eddie toured and helped promote Ralph Nader just last election. Obviously that tells you his ties. He had a song written about Bush prior to the war and everything else going on. Also, on past tours he would have masks of other presidents namely Nixon etc.

It's no big deal. I for one, dont' pay to hear him give his thoughts on politics, however I do appreciate the fact that he has a opinion, much unlike most "popular" artists.. I mean some dont' even know who David Bowie is