The Call For Removing Trump’s Star Reflects A Broader Move Against Art By Association

Below is my column on the move to remove the star of Donald Trump from the Hollywood Walk of Fame. The controversy of the Trump star is trivial in comparison to the more important, and growing, question of whether art appreciation should be based to some degree on appreciating the artist.

Here is the column:

While Democrats continue debating what to do about President Trump, Hollywood has moved forward with its own unique form of impeachment. The West Hollywood City Council voted unanimously to seek the removal of the Donald Trump star from the Hollywood Walk of Fame. The removal would be based on Trump not sharing the “values” of West Hollywood.

Frankly, having a fight between Hollywood and Trump over values is like watching a battle between Arbys and Atkins over veganism. It hardly plays to their strengths. This controversy is a trivial example of a much more significant debate over whether our views of art should be shaped by our views of an artist. Efforts to punish artists have come in many ways, from retroactively pulling recognition to actively boycotting all their work.

Trump is certainly not the only star facing a literal stripping of his name. Actor Kevin Spacey had his prestigious International Emmy Founders Award for his lifetime of work revoked after he was charged with sexual abuse. Then there is the move to remove the name of John Wayne from the Orange County airport because of the disclosure of his controversial and racist statements. While I oppose the move to rename the airport, one can argue that an airport dedication is a way to honor not just the work but the life and image of a person. Industry awards, like the Oscars and the Emmys, are not recognition of good conduct but of great work.

The West Hollywood City Council cited the values of Trump and his treatment of women as proof that he no longer warrants the “privilege” of having a star. Other people clearly agree, since individuals have used everything from pick axes to paint cans to obliterate his star. Yet, if we are going to evaluate artists based on their lives and actions rather than on performances in their work, then a constellation of stars could be removed from the Hollywood Walk of Fame. There are 2,600 such stars constituting a gallery of misfits, menaces, and even alleged murderers.

For instance, silent film actor Roscoe Arbuckle stood trial for murder after a woman died during sex. Gig Young, famous for his roles in “They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?” and other films, is believed to have murdered his wife and then killed himself. Michael Jackson still has his star after his child molestation trial. Errol Flynn was notorious for his preference for underaged girls, whom he called his “San Quentin Quail.” Flynn faced charges but was found not guilty. Charlie Chaplin faced prosecution under the White Slave Traffic Act, a law also known as the Mann Act.

Even though the West Hollywood City Council cited the need to sanitize the sidewalk in light of the #TimesUp and #MeToo movements, actors with both stars and domestic abuse allegations include Charlie Sheen, Don Cornelius, and John Drew Barrymore, just to name a few. Ultimately, the future of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame matters little to most of us. I could also care less about “The Apprentice,” the reality show of Trump that I never watched because it falls short of my view of entertainment.

The more disturbing efforts focus on punishing artists by boycotting their past work and barring future work. This is a controversy that is coming to a head with the release of the new Woody Allen movie, “A Rainy Day In New York,” the Roman Polanski film, “An Officer and A Spy,” and the Mel Gibson movie, “Rothschild.” Writing about the sexual abuse allegations against Allen, movie critic Ann Hornaday asked, “How can we possibly tease apart individuals and their actions, and doesn’t doing so mean that we’re failing our own moral imperative to hold people to account?” She said it is a “delicate balance” in considering “crimes and misdemeanors.”

Some artists are now being held accountable by a movement to remove songs and movies, in the Hollywood version of the movement to remove confederate monuments. Various radio stations have stopped playing songs by Michael Jackson because of the allegations of sexual abuse of young boys. Disc jockey Michele Pesce joined the boycott in the wake of the “Leaving Neverland” documentary, explaining, “You cannot separate the art from the artist when it comes to using your public platform” now.

Likewise, the allegations of sexual abuse against Spacey led not only to his appropriate removal from the hit show “House of Cards” on Netflix but to his retroactive removal from his scenes in the movie “All The Money In the World.” All Quentin Tarantino films are boycotted by many police unions and their supporters because of his views on police brutality. Many people today still boycott any events or movies with Jane Fonda because of her controversial protests against the Vietnam War during the 1960s.

There is a fascinating disconnect in all of the efforts to boycott the work of artists in a city that rightfully vilifies the Joseph McCarthy era blacklisting of Hollywood producers, writers and actors because of their political views and associations, yet now considers it appropriate to boycott Mel Gibson for his alleged anti-Semitic views. Hollywood agent Ari Emanuelwrote on this several years ago, “People in the entertainment community, whether Jew or gentile, need to demonstrate that they understand how much is at stake in this by professionally shunning Gibson and refusing to work with him,” adding, “even if it means a sacrifice to their bottom line.”

The question is whether this is “sacrificing” the bottom line of profits, or something more profound, in the appreciation of art for its own sake. Is the performance of Gibson in “Braveheart” less of an art form because of his anti-Semitic raving at a traffic stop? Once these brilliant creations are made, they assume a cultural life of their own. They become as much of our social fabric as the personal story of the artist. Harvey Weinstein may be a pig but he helped to create classic films such as “Pulp Fiction,” “Good Will Hunting,” “Shakespeare In Love,” “Gangs of New York,” “The Lord of the Rings,” and more. Are these films now tainted by artistic bad blood?

If we must agree with the personal values of an artist to appreciate his or her art, our museums would be bare. Caravaggio was responsible for some of the greatest paintings in world history. He was also responsible for numerous scandals and for killing a man in a piazza. His paintings are not suddenly mundane because we know more about him. There is no original sin that leaves behind traces on art. There is just the art itself.

We need to come to some resolution on whether we can separate art from controversial artists. If Spacey preyed on young actors, there is every reason not only to keep him off future sets but to send him to prison. It would be a loss to theater of one of the great talents of this generation, but he would be just another case of wasted talent. However, his past work would no longer be truly his. It is art that stands on its own merits.

I was surprised Trump got a star for “The Apprentice.” Then again, Lassie and Rin Tin Tin also have stars. The problem is not our disagreement on the value of artistic work but whether art can be valued separately from the artist. I believe it can. As stated in “Julius Caesar,” the great play by Shakespeare, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

226 thoughts on “The Call For Removing Trump’s Star Reflects A Broader Move Against Art By Association”

      1. Kind of an ass wanting to honor your friend by cutting someone else.

        I guess he figures if Trump had been a decent person, he’d have spent 90% of his adult life unmarried, had only one kid, and ruined his health with street drugs.

  1. Jon: there is a strong, fundamental flaw in your reasoning in this piece, and that is that Trump is an artist. He isn’t because he has no artistic talent and no soul. Preening in front of cameras and yelling “you’re fired” requires no artistic talent. Knowing what we know now about him, the star was probably put there because he paid off someone.

    It’s like Karen Pence. She supposedly teaches “art” at some radical Christian school in Virginia that has no tolerance for LGBTQ staff or students. I guess for her art is beautiful provided no LGBTQ people are involved. She also has no soul, proven by the fact that she stands next to Trump, smiling, despite knowing that he constantly lies, cheats on his wife, consorts with porn stars and Playboy models, locks up infants and young children in cages, and is a proven racist, xenophobe and misogynist, all of which Evangelicals like her allegedly abhor. How can she recognize inspired soulfulness expressed on canvas or sculpture or an appreciation of beauty when her entire public persona is based on pure hypocrisy? Hitler also thought he was an artist. While he had basic, fundamental competence to paint a building, he had no soul, and it shows in his work which is why he was turned down by art schools in Vienna. His appreciation for art was banal and schmaltzy at best. Tyrants and hypocrites cannot be artists because it takes a soul to be an artist and they don’t qualify.

    1. I don’t think JT was involved in the decision to give Trump the star in the first place.
      If Natacha or others object to the decision to place Trump’s star there on the basis that he’s not an artist, they should take it up with the committee that makes these decisions.

      1. It’s a stupid complaint. The walk can include anyone associated with the industry. Lew Wasserman and Roy Disney have stars, even though all of their work was on the business side.

    2. There are people in this world who have accomplishments you do not. You loathe them. You might make an effort to keep your ugliness to yourself, if that ugliness didn’t go all the way down.

  2. This isn’t some grand conspiracy against art. It’s petty vindictiveness against a guy the rad Left hates. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar – even to Bill Clinton and his wife’s coven.

    1. Hollywood and West Hollywood appear to have bigger problems than these star/sidewalk debates, but I guess it keeps their mind off of the more challenging issues.

    2. Pretty vindictiveness for a petty guy who’s main occupation is trolling.

      Seems about right.

  3. N.B. Will Geer won an Emmy, Dalton Trumbo and Oscar, and Ring Lardner an Oscar. You won’t hear of protests and resolutions regarding this, because the sort of people who make complaints of this nature are enraged that Lillian Gish worked for an admirer of the Confederacy but don’t give a rip that someone else was a dues-paying votary of Joseph Stalin.

  4. looks like the fascist loving left is showing it’s true colors once again. So much for freedom of this and that now it’s draw your swastika the way we dictate or we’ll turn down the AC in the movie theaters or does AC refer to Alternates to Marxist Leninism aka National or Progressively Regressive Socialism.

  5. Let the man have his say. “Yawn” is a perfectly good response to this entire thread. Why write a tome when one word will do.

  6. Yawn, lazy!

    I welcome your comments Benson, if you have the energy to spell out a complete thought.

  7. If you have to agree with WeHo values, then only far Leftist actors will be honored from now on.

    Politics has nothing to do with your ability to act, do standup comedy, or put on a popular TV show.

    Awards for achievement should not be stripped from anyone. It would only be appropriate to do so for awards for character. Kevin Spacey may be a bad character, but he is a great actor. The two are separate.

    The star is supposed to be a permanent honor. If you’re going to strip a star from every actor who made crass comments about groupies, or didn’t hold 2019 values during the era of the Talkies, then the Walk of Fame is going to be pretty sparse. A lot of actresses, too, have made vulgar comments over their lifetimes.

    It is also wrong to judge yesterday’s people by today’s standards. John Wayne wouldn’t fit in today, but neither would just about anyone else. That’s because public opinion commonly held prejudices.

    I kept my great-grandmother’s cookbooks after she passed. I love the old timey recipes, but cringe when I read the introduction, which discusses the appropriate weight gain for “white children”. Ever read through ads from the 1940s and earlier? I also have a collection of ladies magazines that are a hoot. There’s an ad for a cutting edge, asbestos fire proofed house kit you can build yourself. That’s what everyone was raised with. The most cutting edge ideas of the time for equality would still not pass muster today.

    Very few jokes when I was a kid would pass today. I remember jokes about Pollacks, blondes, and people would say go sit on an egg and rotate. (I still don’t know what the heck that’s supposed to mean.) The entire Pepe le Pew show was about a skunk who wouldn’t take no for an answer.

    1. It is also curious that actors and actresses get paid millions of dollars to pretend to be super heroes, presidents, assassins, etc, while those who actually make the movies get paid relatively little, work tremendous hours, some of them don’t get paid during downtime between shows, and many live in fear their jobs will be shipped over to India where people get paid even less.

      FX is particularly affected by the long hours and loss of jobs, but crew have downtime between films and shows.

      So I’d say they need to get off their high horse.

          1. Yesterday, in the following exchange:


            This is absurd x 9 says: June 22, 2019 at 5:19 PM to Karen S

            My remarks are perfectly plain in their meaning, You use them as an excuse to run off at the keyboard yet again.

            And continue to the comment which follows:

            Anonymous says: June 23, 2019 at 1:56 PM to TIA x 9:

            It’s also known as “diarrhea of the keyboard” and Karen S has a bad case of it.

            1. Yes, anonymous. I read all of the postings, but what interested me was your reply to Karen. That is why I said, “Anonymous, you are supposed to type on a keyboard not sit on it.” Admittedly you didn’t have copious amounts but that is what your statement sounded like to me.

              1. There is no way to keep up with the diarrhea you are posting anonymous. Maybe you should stop abusing laxatives.

                1. Just following in your footsteps, Allan. Giving you a little taste of your own medicine.

                  1. Anonymous, how foolish of you. I don’t abuse laxatives so you can swallow all of them and continue having diarrhea of the keyboard.

                    1. It’s good that you know that diarrhea is a medical affliction for most and generally not something due to laxative abuse. Get some help.

    2. Why is Margaret Sanger still cherished today, when her eugenic work for abortion was in order to stop the proliferation of people she felt were undesirable – the poor, blacks, Latinos, the handicapped, etc.

      How interesting how they pick and choose…

        1. Anonymous:

          Your comments have lost both wit and reason. All that is left is the bike.

            1. Thank you Estovir. We now can put a face on that crazy and stupid anonymous who so frequently posts on this blog.

                1. Your post anonymous was a real dog. If only you had a brain you might be funny.

                  1. I note that you don’t have the ability to use the English language so you rely on other people’s workproduct. Typical attitude of the left.

        2. I think as long as you can benefit one segement of the population by screwing over another segment, there will always be low- life scum out there cheering that development. No need to look beyond this thread to see that those pigs are out there.

          1. I was referring to a recent comment by one of the pigs here hiding out as anonymous in a sea of anonymouses.

      1. Margaret Sanger still cherished today…

        I believe the Pro-Aborts avoid her like the clap. I also find it curious how some brandish photos of Che Guevara (like in one of the pics JT provided from his walk in BA) considering he was a cowardly guerrilla fighter

        Margaret Sanger was a monster. When I think of her I think of the eugenics the Commonwealth of Virginia practiced to remove the “deplorables” from society whilst getting a blessing from SCOTUS.

        For all of the animus the Left spews against Church & State, they are dogmatic to a fault, inventing “doctrines” out of thin air (or is it bile and vomitus), and have about as much integrity in living their articles of faith as Bill & Hillary Clinton did in respecting women

        Theocracy looks attractive if for nothing else to rid us of the plague that the Irreligious Left are

        1. you’re mistaken if you think Che Guevarra was cowardly. he was not. He was bold and resourceful. the Left does not deserve him. I recommend you read his writings if you think he was such a bad dude. I have. Most interesting!

          Guerilla or irregular warfare is often a question of whose ox is gored

          I can defend Nathan Bedford Forrest at the beginning of the day and Che at the end, no problem

      2. Margaret Sanger:

        “The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.
        Speech quoted in “Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do.” The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pages 172 and 174.”

        “Birth control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks— those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.
        “Apostle of Birth Control Sees Cause Gaining Here”, The New York Times, 1923-04-08, p. XII

        “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world that have disease from their parents, that have no chance to be a human being, practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit.
        The Mike Wallace Interview (ABC)[14], 1957-09-21
        Posed question: “Do you believe in sin — When I say “believe” I don’t mean believe in committing sin, do you believe there is such a thing as a sin”

        For context, eugenics enjoyed popularity among progressives at the time, and still does today, as it is encourage to abort handicapped children. Sanger’s quotes also reflect the pervading racism of the time.

        The point is that the Left has a double standard for whom it wants to expunge from history.

        It is wrong to judge the past by today’s standards, and remove works of art, literature, philosophy, statues, memorials, etc. No one from the past had 2019 values. And in 50 years, our own won’t hold up to the new social mores, either. Shall all our accomplishments and wisdom be discarded one day, too? It reminds me of The Time Machine and the futuristic, childlike people with no knowledge of the past, the elders haven all been eaten.

        1. Here is another gem from Margaret Sanger:

          It is said a fish as large as a man has a brain no larger than the kernel of an almond. In all fish and reptiles where there is no great brain development, there is also no conscious sexual control. The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets. According to one writer, the rapist has just enough brain development to raise him above the animal, but like the animal, when in heat knows no law except nature which impels him to procreate whatever the result. Every normal man and Woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells in thinking deeply, are never sensual.
          Chapter 4, “Sexual Impulses–Part II”, p. 47.


    The Hollywood Walk of Fame is in Los Angeles, ‘not’ West Hollywood. West Hollywood is a separate municipality about a mile west of the area in question. Therefore if the West Hollywood City Council voted to remove Trump’s star from the Walk Of Fame, it’s strictly a symbolic vote. West Hollywood has no formal authority over the Walk Of Fame.

    The Walk Of Fame is under the jurisdiction of The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, an association of businesses based in the historic Hollywood business district; all of which is in the City Of Los Angeles. Said district was largely developed in the 1920’s and most prominent during the so-called ‘Golden Age’ of Hollywood. During that period the area was home to NBC’s West Coast Radio Center which was only 2 blocks from Columbia Pictures.

    The Walk Of Fame concept, with stars mounted on ceramic sidewalk, was implemented in the 1950’s to keep the district a tourist draw during a period of change. The decline of big radio made Hollywood less relevant than it had been. What’s more, construction of the Hollywood Freeway disrupted the larger community. Columbia Pictures left the area in 1967.

    From the 70’s through 90’s, Hollywood became increasingly less desirable as a business district. After the L.A. Riots of ’92, the Walk Of Fame nearly flat-lined in terms of actual commerce. But the district made a dramatic comeback in the early 2000’s upon completion of the Metro subway system. The Walk of Fame is now mobbed with tourists during the summer season while adjoining neighborhoods have gentrified considerably.

    With regards to the sidewalk stars, they require regular maintenance to keep them clean and shiny. For that reason Trump’s star could be problematic. One sour apple with a can of Coca Cola could leave a star covered in sticky grime. I don’t know if that’s happening to Trump’s star. But if it is, that could be a genuine concern to the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. But again, ‘they’ are the rightful authority of the Walk Of Fame. The West Hollywood City Council has no formal say. And I wonder if Professor Turley was responding to a hoax of a ‘news release’.

    1. You’re right. The COC had said last year that they uphold the permanence of the Star, but don’t know if that’s changed. WeHo has been trying to get the COC to reverse this decision, so I thought that’s what this was about. I thought the Chamber also cleans and repairs the stars, but am not completely sure.

      Trump’s star has been repeatedly jackhammered and needed to be replaced, as well as other regular disfigurements.

      1. At least Hot Lips had a nice rack whereas the paid trolls, not so much …except for Peter Shill


        1. Didn’t find her attractive in her prime. As we speak, she’s past 80. I think her current crew of plastic surgeons has repaired the damage her previous crew did.

          The show had an ant-heap of recurring characters that they seemed to stockpile, placing them in a scene a couple of times a year, developing a few. They would also introduce experimental secondary characters, some of whom were retained and some of whom were dropped after a few episodes.

          . The oldest of the regulars (bar one) was played by McLean Stevenson, who was 45 years old when he landed the part. The show debuted 47 years ago. Kind of surprise that any of them are still ambulatory.

                1. ““Looks like anonymous is on the prowl again.”

                  “As is Allan.”

                  Nah, I’m happily married but thanks for admitting the truth. Happy prowling anonymous.

                  1. And happy prowling to you, too.

                    (As TIA says, “I don’t do biography.” Only idiots do.)

                    1. I see your second sentence is meant as a come on to DSS. My suspicion is he’ll throw you back in the reject pile.

                    2. “I see your second sentence is meant as a come on to DSS. ”

                      Only the barking hound dog Allan would go there. A come-on? Only in your dreams, Allaninny.

                    3. There is nothing wrong with trying to attract DSS’s attentions but you are a reject not even to be considered. For one thing, too dumb.

                    4. It’s good that you’re married, Allan. No one else would want you.

                    5. I don’t want anyone else to want me. You however, sound like a needy individual that no one wants.

            1. I’m a 10. (Think Bo Derek running on the beach with corn rows)…
              And yourself?

              1. ” (Think Bo Derek running on the beach with corn rows)”

                More likely a bunch of spoiled corn on the cob that Bo Derek is running away from. Are we going to have a beauty show to pick out the best of the rotten corn?

                  1. There is no such thing as good or bad anonymous. There is only anonymous and that can be The Brainless Wonder or Diane if they aren’t one and the same. The only way for you to distinguish yourself from those losers is with a slightly different name or icon. Then you can be known by what your write and only then can you protect your persona.

                    1. From this point on, Allan shall be known as “The Brainless Wonder” or “The Brainless One.” He’s projecting when he applies these labels to others. Let him own them.

                    2. “From this point on, Allan shall be known as “The Brainless Wonder” or “The Brainless One.” He’s projecting when he applies these labels to others. Let him own them.”

                      Anonymous the Brainless Wonder doesn’t have enough brains to have her own name and now she wants to steal an insult. Can’t get much stupider than the Brainless One, Anonymous.

              2. Oh I’m sorry. For a moment I thought I was on the gay and kinky section of Compuserve. But I see we are discussing law and politics here, and not trolling for babes. My bad. 😉

          1. I thought the show was at its peak when Steveson and Wayne Rogers were still there.
            Nothing wrong with Harry Morgan’s acting, or Mike Ferrell’s, but I didn’t think they could really fill the shoes of the two main stars who left early in that series long run.

            1. Disagree. Morgan and the writers built a colorful and engaging character who improved on Stevenson’s (who had in turn improved on Roger Bowen’s original). Agree with you in re Farrell v. Rogers. As an antagonist of Farrell and Alda, the Stiers / Winchester was more finely crafted and the conflicts between them less stacked in favor of the protagonists. Larry Linville’s departure from the cast also allowed the element of caricature to be removed from the Houlihan character.

              1. Absurd,
                There are issues where decent, reasonable people can disagree. ( But this isn’t one of them😄). Stevenson was a lot better as the C.O. of the MASH unit, a lot funnier as the laid back, somewhat befuddled man barely in charge. Morgan played the role as more of a blowhard didn’t add the humor that Stevenson did.
                I will give Morgan high marks for his guest appearance as the crazed Gen. Steele, before he joined the regular cast as Cool. Potter.

          1. Ah ha! this explains why you knew about the CompuServe gay and kinky section….

    2. Hey, isn’t Grauman’s in Hollywood? It’s been years since I was there, and it would have to be a good reason to fight all that traffic. But I remember it being in Hollywood, not LA. I can’t remember where the actual WeHo and NoHo boundaries are, but I think the Chinese is still in Hollywood and not the city proper. Where is the parade usually?

  9. Trumps biggest disconnect from Holywood is sobriety. They’re mostly a bunch of drunks and dopesmokers.

    However, he’s right on their level when it comes to ah how can we say, ? marital issues. LOL

  10. Bunch of over-grown children in running wild Hollywood – illogical, insecure and vindictive.

  11. How about Hollywood just stops with all the awards and honors that they bestow upon themselves?

    I do not pay attention to any of the loud mouth celebs who are poltically activists. When both small and large venue musicians like Bono and U2 or any others bring politics and their personal political views into their shows and concerts, and they start talking politics from the stage, I walk out and I no longer support their art or music.

    When I pay good money for a ticket to a concert or show or any other entertainment, I want it to be free from personal politics. IF these “entertainers” go there, I go elsewhere and nix every single one of them. People have had enough. Hollywood is a morally corrupt cess pool of mostly unintelligent and uneducated degenerates and they ALL need to shut the eff up about THEIR personal politics.

      1. Removing Trump’s star would be consolation prize for lefty Hollywood loons, left media, and angry left old men like Anon. Russian hoax failed so vindictive babies going after entertainment start in Hollywood. They are all so dumb so as not to realize this will only help Trump’s chances of getting re-elected. Most folks are turned off by this type of pettiness.

      2. The other ‘show biz’ celebrity ran for six years a trade union with a six digit membership after which he devoted eight years to running the California state government. Your idea of an admirable pol ran the Chicago Annenberg Challenge into the ground.

    1. Yep, when you tune in to entertainment/sports there is a reasonable expectation for audience member/viewer to not be harassed with political BS.

      1. To understand why what happens in Hollywood is irrelevant to the rest of humans:

        1) How many ACTORs do you have among your friends?

        2) How many ACTOR friends do your friends have?

        Actors rarely mix with real people.

        28 Jan 2018 Nassim Nicholas Taleb

        —-> to sum up: What Hollywood actors think is totally irrelevant to the rest of the world —–>

    2. ” Hollywood is a morally corrupt cess pool of mostly unintelligent and uneducated degenerates and they ALL need to shut the eff up about THEIR personal politics.”

      Somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

        1. ATA Yo Mama and Joe Mama (Also translated As) the second became the name of a bar in a back of the bottom of the world of Cave Junction, Oregon the gateway to Takelma/Takilma the center of the Oregon drug industry which replaced ‘high school seniors’ as Oregon’s greatest export after the state dismantled all other forms of commerce. Ahhh yes except taxes and being Caliofrnias bedroom community.

  12. The removal would be based on Trump not sharing the “values” of West Hollywood.

    What values would those be? What’s next, Trumps’ going to be banned from the Democrat party? He’s POTUS; he hardly needs a star to secure his legacy.

    1. he was a democrat when it came hand in glove with a NYC business license and paid up sticker on graft payments to city inspectors. Other than that the place has no claim to fame other than…. having no claim to fame though they did milk 911 until the cows left home.

      1. he was a democrat when it came hand in glove with…

        Nah. He was a businessman working within a corrupt system.

      2. What…. Waa what? “No claim to fame”

        We talking about where?

        By the way, Trump is always playing whatever group he figures is his meal ticket.

        Your turn in the barrel.

        1. By the way, [insert 2020 Democrat candidate name here]is always playing whatever group he figures is his meal ticket.

          1. Oily, I don’t think any of the 20+ democrats running for president spent the last several decades in the GOP, so I’m not getting your attempt at equivalency.

            1. Anin, no worries. I didn’t expect you would admit to getting it anyway. That would require intellectual honesty; not your go to character trait.

              1. Hey j..o… anytime you think I’m not being intellectually honest, call me on it. You may not agree with me, but I’m not a liar like several of your buddies here.

  13. This controversy is a trivial example of a much more significant debate over whether our views of art should be shaped by our views of an artist.

    No, it’s another example of gleichschaltung, where no venue of social life can be treated as anything but a department of political struggle. You cannot cannot acknowledge that because you’d have to take sides if you did. The left is 99% responsible for this problem.

    The latest bit of silliness is that the name of the actress Lillian Gish has been stripped from a college theatre in Bowling Green, Ohio. What did Lillian Gish do? As far as a normal person is concerned, nothing. Bowling Green State University isn’t run by normal people. It’s run by progtrash.

    She appeared in the film Birth of a Nation 104 years ago. She wasn’t the producer, writer, or director of the film; she was never a political figure; and her body of work as a film actress extended over a period of 75 years. (The maraschino on top is that she played the daughter of a Union family in that Civil War era epic). Implicit in the plot are political and social sentiments incongruent with the shallow apparatchiks who run Bowling Green State University, and the tangential association she had with that nullifies all of her other accomplishments. Idiocracy is now.

    1. I watched it. Good movie. I hear movie critics called it a good movie and still do.

      I have read that they rank the top three like this:

      a) citizen kane
      b) triumph of the will
      c) olympia

      Now THAT’s gleichschaltung,for ya. LOL

      and yeah if you have not seen Leni Reifenstahl’s complete movies then you should, if you like movies that is, and can give yourself a few hours break from the nonstop hate of Germans inculcated into us in order to relax and enjoy beautiful art. One can even through in the prelude movie, “Victory of Faith”

    2. Perhaps, to be safe, Leftist theaters should stop all plays made prior to 2018. Every 20 years or so, they should be wiped, because social mores will keep changing. Our own views won’t pass muster in 50 years.

      So no more Shakespeare, obviously. The Bard is not a sufficient feminist to have penned “The Taming of the Shrew”. No more Scottish Play.

      They’ll lobotomize all thought, art, inventions, and advancements in human history, because of politics.

      1. “They’ll lobotomize all thought, art, inventions, and advancements in human history, because of politics.”

        More broad-brush high-drama by Karen.

    3. Tabby, I agree that Ms. Gish shouldn’t be ostracized for “Birth Of A Nation”.

      “Birth Of A Nation” is a highly significant picture in terms of technical innovations. It was also the first movie blockbuster. But it was also blamed for reviving what had been a long-dormant Ku Klux Klan. And that of course has made the picture toxic for decades.

      I watched the entire movie myself. It is difficult to sit through. Most of the ‘Black’ characters are really Whites in black face. Sadly they were directed to portray Blacks in the worst possible light. So the movie’s toxic image is really well-deserved.

      1. given the time frame, when both freemasonry was doing well, and so was white american nativism, it was child’s play for a salesman to reinvent the KKK story into his own profit making club. and that’s basically what it was, a big racket fleecing racist joiners nationwide.

        the movie was not a promo for the association. the KKK of Nathan Bedford Forrest’s time had been disbanded, many say on his own explicit order. It was not dormant it was dead. in the 1920s like 50 some years later, William Joseph Simmons fabricated a social club on his own initiative and it had no formal organizational continuity with the Forrest’s anti-Reconstruction militia, just a name and a legend.

        General Nathan Bedford Forrest was a cavalryman, very brave and cunning, and was considered the most innovative battlefield tactician of the war by both sides. he’s considered a significant innovator to this day.

        Forrest’s grandson, Forrest III, was the first American general killed in WW II. And not many American generals were killed in WW II., in contrat to the Germans and the Russians, where they Generals actually exposed themselves to enemy fire. Forrest was flying a B17 crippled by German fire, and he had his crew bail out while he stayed at the controls and went down with the ship.

        The Forrests lead from the front, and every REMF fears the memory of their name. It’s a shame the REMF types of today have taken over each in every cultural custodianship and want to play at nonstop iconoclasm of those whom they do not understand and whose legacy they fear.

      2. Sadly they were directed to portray Blacks in the worst possible light. So the movie’s toxic image is really well-deserved.

        What’s the ‘worst possible light’?

        While we’re at it, I contrive a film which portrays soldiers, police officers, or clergymen in the ‘worst possible light’, should people be fussing about it a century later?

        1. Birth of a Nation is horribly racist and romanticized the KKK which was both horribly racist and murderous in the time the movie was made..

  14. “The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce has received inquiries asking whether we are planning to remove the stars of Walk of Famers because of alleged misconduct. The answer is no,” said Leron Gubler, Hollywood Chamber of Commerce president and CEO. “The Hollywood Walk of Fame is a registered historic landmark. Once a star has been added to the Walk, it is considered a part of the historic fabric of the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Because of this, we have never removed a star from the Walk.”

  15. As noted by JT, not a significant event, but an interesting one. The bar seems pretty low to get a star on that walkway and while Trump and “artist” don’t compute,the subject is fascinating. One of the most glaring contrasts between genius in art and bad intent is Leni Riefenstahl’s work for Hitler. The film Amadeus is about beauty being created by a jerk (Mozart – don’t know if the film was supposed to be accurate), and in the world of sport Ronaldo is a preening hot dog, now also accused of tax evasion and rape, who is movie star handsome and does things no other human does as beautifully with a soccer ball (though some prefer the more effective but less flamboyant Messi). Sometimes the devil is in the details and the art.

    1. For those who don’t know Amadeus was not done by Riefenstahl though my language may have given that impression. She is most famous for her documentary/propaganda films on the Nuremberg Nazi rallies in the mid 1930’s, including “Triumph of the Will”.

        1. Riefenstahl also produced a book of photos on the Nuba tribe of Africa which similarly glorified black subjects.

          “Susan Sontag wrote that the collection was the “final, necessary step in Riefenstahl’s rehabilitation. It is the final rewrite of the past; or, for her partisans, the definitive confirmation that she was always a beauty-freak rather than a horrid propagandist.”[

          1. What does that mean, “beauty freak” is that what some people call artists?

            Only “degenerate art” pleases some folks

      1. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Triumph of the Will (German: Triumph des Willens) is a 1935 Nazi propaganda film directed, produced, edited, and co-written by Leni Riefenstahl. It chronicles the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, which was attended by more than 700,000 Nazi supporters.
        Triumph of the Will – Wikipedia

        Sometimes called Triumph of Will in languages that don’t use articles

        But HOT DAMN Anon finally produced something factual … but then it’s about one of his socialist organizations…

      2. Amadeus (film) – Wikipedia

        Amadeus is a 1984 American period drama film directed by Miloš Forman, adapted by Peter …. Saul Zaentz produced both Amadeus and The English Patient.
        Produced by‎: ‎Saul Zaentz
        Release date‎: ‎September 6, 1984 (Los Angele…
        Based on‎: ‎Amadeus‎; by ‎Peter Shaffer
        Budget‎: ‎$18 million
        ‎Tom Hulce · ‎Antonio Salieri · ‎Elizabeth Berridge · ‎Peter Shaffer

  16. What did he get a star for in the first place, playing the con man that he is. I suppose Professor that if Mussiline had made a movie and had a star he should have remained also. The only place the fascist deserves a star is on his cell in GitMo.

    1. Forget Trump’s star. You want to puke? Watch the Democrats all line up to kiss the ring and suck up to a true con man, fraud, race baiting hustler, criminal and sleeze bag like Al Sharpton.

        1. When you confessed to be a Dem all the rest became skip over country.

          1. “confessed to be a Dem”

            Ah, so it’s a crime now to be a Democrat?

        2. I know Sharpton visited Obama’s WH many (some have said hundreds of) times. What I don’t know is which Democratic candidates for President haven’t yet metaphoically kissed his ring.

        3. Then it should disgust you what your Democrat politicians are doing. It should disgust everyone that Barack Obama laid out the welcome mat at the White House for this POS conman fraud “Rev” Sharpton. What a disgrace.

  17. I find that approbation in the form of any type of monument or naming that is considered permanent shouldn’t occur until long after the individual in question is buried. Those in power use it to promote their own names. I was visiting Weehawken N.j. to visit the site of the Hamilton Burr duel and saw a world war monument dedicated to the soldiers from that city that died. Their names were etched in tiny letters but the names of the mayor and counsil were large and all too noticeable. I couldn’t help remarking about how one would think the monument was for the politicians rather than the one’s that died serving their country.

    1. Head over to Molos Restaurant for fresh seafood with a Greek infusion, and an impressive view of NYC.
      Weehawken was a frequent business destination when I worked as a paid consultant for pharma in NJ, and we used to hang at Weehawken and Union City for Cuban food. Good times and less hassle than NYC. Enjoy

      1. Thanks, Estovir. Might try it when I cross into NJ another time. The view of NYC from Jersey is beautiful. Occasionally I have stopped at the Mexican restaurant that has a great view though the food doesn’t match. There are fantastic views of the city from within and without that I see from home and the apartments of friends. But you are right the hassle in NYC is a bit grating so I spend most of my time elsewhere popping back and forth when convenient.

        1. There is no such thing as real Mexican food north of the border. Least of all taco hell.

          1. there’s about 10,000 mexican restaurants up here run by Mexican immigrants who disagree with you michael. my most memorable eating in mexico was from a food truck, hot beans in tortillas at 3 am in puerto vallarta after the bars, eaten standing by the truck, watching a 3 legged dog looking for scraps in the gutter. the tortillas and beans tasted pretty much like you would get up here, from memory

        2. New Jersey famous for two things. No sidewalks and the worlds biggest collection of chuckholes used to be pot holes but Oregon got the patent on that.

    2. You can never quite tell whose responsible for such travesties. See the controversy over the Lucille Ball statue in Celoron, NY.

      (Considering how dismissive Ball was of Jamestown and points adjacent during her lifetime, it’s somewhat pathetic that she’s honored there).

    3. never been there but i saw this. let me get this straight, they have statute of Hamilton who lost but not Aaron Burr, the guy who won? Of course, of course

      1. Lousy video, but why would you object to Alexander Hamilton’s statue?

        1. no problem with hamilton but why exclude burr?
          he won after all. why exclude the winner?
          it was a lawful duel from what i recall.

          burr gets a lot of bad press, hamilton is lionized.
          always like to take a closer look at those whom current history denounces.

          1. “he won after all. why exclude the winner?” Substance. I think Hamilton had a much greater impact on this nation than Burr.

Comments are closed.