SF art community disses Maria Conchita Alonso
ROS sends us a link to an article at a San Francisco CBS station in regards to Maria Conchita Alonso being fired from a Spanish-language production of “The Vagina Monologues” because she made a commercial for a Tea Party Candidate for governor, Tim Donnelly. Here’s the commercial;
Maria Conchita Alonso and her family fled Castro’s Cuba in 1962, where she was born, and she grew up in Venezuela. Later, she publicly opposed Hugo Chavez’ destruction of the economy of that country. So she’s fairly conservative in her political leanings, mainly because of her experiences in life, you know, like most conservatives. It shouldn’t be that big of a surprise that she’d support conservative candidates, but apparently it was;
The actress was to perform next month at the Brava Theater Center in San Francisco’s Mission District in a Spanish-language version of “The Vagina Monologues,” scheduled for a run from February 14th through 17th. The show is being produced by none other than Eliana Lopez, wife of San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi.
“We really cannot have her in the show, unfortunately,” Lopez told KPIX 5. She said Alonso abruptly resigned from the cast on Friday, given the backlash on the immigration issue.
“Of course she has the right to say whatever she wants. But we’re in the middle of the Mission. Doing what she is doing is against what we believe,” Lopez said.
Apparently, she needs to get her ass back on the plantation if she wants to work. I also saw the link to this story on Nick Searcy’s Facebook page. Nick Searcy is another conservative in Hollywood who gets shit for not being a liberal (he plays the chief of a US Marshall’s Office in “Justified”).
Added: In this interview with El Gordo y La Flacca, a show on Spanish-language channel Univision, Maria says that the reason that she supports Donnelly is that he isn’t “anti-immigration”, he’s “anti-illegal immigration”, that he himself is married to a Philippine woman and his own kids are married to Mexicans. The distinction is that Maria and Donnelly oppose those who break the law to get into the country, however, the Latino community doesn’t make that distinction.
The video below the jump autostarts;
Category: None
You know if it was a conservative producer who ran a liberal out on a rail, they’d all be screaming about censorship. But apprently like everything else, it’s okay when THEY do it.
Didn’t you know, only white males are allowed to be conservative?
That’s cause we’re all RACIST. Thinking everyone should be judged on their merit and not the color of their skin or national origin is horribly racist. Didn’t you know that?
“Of course she has the right to say whatever she wants. But we’re in the middle of the Mission. Doing what she is doing is against what we believe.”
Hmm. Ironic. The same argument used to criticize soldiers who, in the middle of a war, express a change of conscience about its moral legitimacy.
Also ironic: In Alonso’s case, she was sacked for holding views contrary to those of “the mission,” while she presumably wants to stay on. But in the case of conscientious objectors, Uncle Sam insist that they remain on the job when their conscience dictates otherwise.
Never cared for her acting if that’s what you want to call it. But I applaud her pro conservative stance. Especially in a town and state like SF and CA in general.
She forgets, you have to make your bones in Hollywood, like Clint Eastwood, Charlton Heston and so forth before you can speak out without reprisals.
They’ll keep on yapping until people get tired of hearing the dogs barking in the night. See, they don’t like people whose opinions differ from theirs, so they are ‘bad people’, even though it’s still a free country.
Oh, wait, I spelled that wrong – it’s a freebie country. My mistake.
But I though the liberal community was suppose to be the bastion of tolerance in our country. That is what they espouse anyway. Tolerance for anything twisted and perverted but if you have a different political view, well the tolerance turns to out and out hatred and name calling very quickly.
Speaking of tolerance and all things conservative or liberal. Monday may be MLK day but today is Robert E. Lee’s Birthday. Sorry for the off topic post.
If you dissent and are liberal, you’re “insightful” and “objective’. But if you’re Conservative, you’re “racist, hateful, homophobic, islamophobic,…”.
The sheriff’s wife, eh? Well, the sheriff founded the Green Party of California and served on the Frisco Boarad of Supervisors for some six years where he introduced legislation to ban plastic bags. He also was the recipient of the 2006 Rufus King Award. Never heard of it? It’s an award given by the Nat’l Org for the Reform of Marijuana laws (NORML). He was charged with DV and other crimes in 2012 and ultimately pleaded GUILTY to false imprisonment. So, he lost his job—but only for a little while. Get this. The Board of County Supervisors voted to reinstate him! This is the sheriff of Sin Francisco whose wife has an issue with Maria Alonso. My questions is, what the heck is she doing around those creeps at all?
Well I have to say, that commercial DID manage to piss me off, and I’m a pretty chill dude that makes within close friends latino-based racial jokes (I hold the “I’m mexican” race card so is ok)
But is more of the hardcore stupid stereotype of a chicano and to me it was the “oh no oh no guns are not the good thing we will talk about this” shit ..
That is the thing, is a very very subconscious anti-gun commercial or at least makes latino ppl look like we are scared of guns and we speak other shit and tell you what it was everyone focused on the big balls, funny enough in Mexico to have big balls (huevon) makes you lazy as fuck, yes yes she just called him lazy 😛 I laughed because obviously she’s been waaaay too long in the states to understand modern slang but not enough to be obnoxious about it 😛
Okay, just to keep things straight, during the 1950’s, the “blacklisting” of Hollywood elite with communist leanings was a bad thing, but the 21st century blacklisting of Hollywood conservatives is good. Now, keep that straight and carry out the plan of the day.
Anyone who tells you conservatives are welcome in Hollywierd, look no further.
Under federal law–unless it’s changed–Sheriff Greenie can’t carry a firearm owing to his Domestic Violence conviction. On the other hand, he probably never carried one to begin with.
@14 well that actually brings to light why he hasn’t given one CCW in 17 years, guess if he can’t carry one nobody can huh?
Weird, weird.
“I think Jerry Brown’s ban on lead ammunition is a cowardly attack on the Second Amendment. It is the first step to banning hunting in our state.”
Because the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear sporting goods? The Second Amendment has about as much to do with hunting as the First has to do with playing Scrabble.
Pansy.
(Translation: California conservative candidate.)
16 – can’t have it both ways… y’all constantly harp on guns which have “no sporting value” – make up yer fuckin’ minds.
If anyone understands that comment in 17, help me out and restate it, please. As it appears, I have no clue what David is talking about.
Eagle Keeper: suggest you read up on the definition of “conscientious objector”, fella. It doesn’t include those who have objections to a given conflict. Nor is it a bar to all forms of military service.
Unless, of course, you already know that and are deliberately misusing the term to serve your own political agenda.
You might also want to specify who you’re quoting when the source isn’t obvious.
Hondo @ 19: “… suggest you read up on the definition of ‘conscientious objector’, fella. It doesn’t include those who have objections to a given conflict.” Thanks, fella. I have. I suspect that you refer to what the Supreme Court ruled in Gillette (1971): “[T]he exemption for those who oppose ‘participation in war in any form’ applies to those who oppose participating in all war and not to those who object to participation in a particular war only.” Talk about self-rerferential and circular reasoning! Of course the exemption for those who oppose participation in war in any form applies to those who oppose participating in all war. But they already had a name for that: Pacifism. But if words actually mean things, then “conscientious” objection should apply to any case in which a person’s conscience informs him that a particular war is unjust or immoral. Indeed, our own military teaches recruits a form of such selective or particular conscientious objection: In basic training, I was taught that I may/must disobey “unlawful orders.” Well, if Congress passes a law that says killing civilian non-combatants is legal and POTUS signs it … problem solved, right? What was “unlawful” yesterday is lawful today. I think Lt. Ehren Watada had it exactly right. When he learned his unit was going to be deployed to Iraq, he started studying up on the mission, but eventually became convinced that we were there unjustly, and if he went, he would become a party to war crimes. He informed his chain of command that he couldn’t in good conscience go to Iraq. But he was perfectly willing to go to Afghanistan (given its connection to the 9/11 attacks.) When he was court martialed, the government ended up stepping on its own dick trying to bar the question of the legality of the war from the courtroom. Despite the judge’s best efforts, they were unable to do so, because Watada’s objection to the war was founded upon his conscientious conviction that our presence in Iraq was illegal. So a Q. for you, Hondo: Everyone understands that an individual cannot… Read more »
Just to clarify my mention of the Watada case:
I realize that he “won” (avoided a guilty verdict) not because the court recognized and accepted his objection to the Iraq war. But the judge practically forced the prosecution — against their own inclinations, BTW — to move for a mistrial because of Watada’s argument from conscience. The fundamental question could not be avoided.
Mirkarimi certainly fits well within the mold of liberal SF. In fact, he isn’t afraid to admit he is a lefty, either.
http://kalw.org/post/day-life-sheriff-ross-mirkarimi
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/03/18/last-gasp-ends-sordid-mirkarimi-saga
Eagle Keeper: your reasoning is legally absurd, and the SCOTUS already settled that (as you indicated yourself). So there’s no need to address that aspect of your ridiculous argument above.
As to the moral aspect you stress: what part of “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” is hard to understand? A soldier swears to do exactly that when he/she takes the oath of enlistment/office. That oath does not have a “I get to choose which enemies” clause, nor does the law recognize the validity of such an option.
Ergo, by voluntarily enlisting or accepting a commission, the individual has voluntarily determined that (1) they have no problem with war in general, and (2) they have agreed to fight against any entity that the US government has determined to be an enemy of the US. Further, voluntary refusal to do the latter results in specific offenses under the UCMJ. It was those voluntary offenses – not his opposition to the Iraq war per se – for which Watada was charged.
As for the practical aspect: even you should be smart enough to see that letting individuals in a military unit decide individually which operations they will and won’t support is an immensely stupid idea. Under those conditions, you no longer have a military unit. Instead, you have an armed mob with a nominal leader whose subordinates may elect to “do their own thing”. Such a situation is not a “good thing”.
In short: soldiers don’t get to pick the wars in which they fight. If an individual doesn’t find that acceptable, then they have no business in uniform.
And contrary to your assertion, the government had it exactly right in the Watada case. IMO the judge erred royally, or had an agenda. Watada should still be doing serious time in Leavenworth.
Hondo @ 24: I want to interact with some of what you said, but don’t have the time at present. Two brief Qs:
1. Repeating my Q. from a few days ago: By what moral principle should a person, who is otherwise willing to fight to defend his country, be compelled against his conscience to fight in a non-defensive war?
2. I don’t wish to misunderstand/misrepresent your position, so please clarify for me: It seems you are saying that any person in uniform must simply obey any and all orders that he is given, regardless if whether a. he thinks they are illegal, or b. they conflict with his own moral sensibilities. You say, “letting individuals in a military unit decide individually which operations they will and won’t support is an immensely stupid idea,” and yet I received some manner of instruction in basic training that told me I was not to obey unlawful or unjust orders. So how do you square that with your assertion that individuals may not decide which actions they will support, which orders they will obey?