By now, we all know what happened to Linda Ronstadt at the Aladdin in Las Vegas. After taking a break from her crowing to vocally masturbate Michael Moore-on, many fans started to boo and walk out, even demanding their money back (the gall!). While I am still curious to know what the hell people were doing at a Linda Ronstadt concert in the first place (don’t tell me people actually listen to her aging wailings anymore), it never ceases to amaze me how the New York Slimes can spin the event
to make it the fault of the hotel and manager, the fans, and whatever else (probably even Halliburton, why not?).
Something went awry at the Aladdin Hotel in Las Vegas last Saturday night. Linda Ronstadt did what she has done at several concerts across the country this summer. She dedicated the song "Desperado"- an encore - to Michael Moore and urged members of the audience to go see his new movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Now, being the fan of music that I am, I have paid a great sum of money up to this point in my life to go to many various concerts. I go because, frankly, I want to be entertained by live music. What a crazy concept, no? Is it out of the question for us to assume that at least a fair majority of the people at this concert were there for the same reason? I mean, how many people would be there to look at her *lovely* wrinkled cow face? Really?
Elsewhere, audiences have reacted to the mention of Mr. Moore by cheering, booing, walking out and sometimes glaring at one another in parking lots.
I can understand the booing. After all, though not overly pleasant all the time, I tend to dislike venomous hate-mongers. Imagine dedicating a song to that hero David Duke, especially at an NAACP event. There may be some booing there too; who knows?
At the Aladdin, a few audience members tore down posters, threw drinks and demanded their money back.
Wait for it… we’re about to be told these patrons’ freedom of speech is irrelevant here, because, well, they are against the LoonyLeft’s Darling Media Hog and anyone praising him.
According to one person who was present - William Timmins, the Aladdin's president - it was "a very ugly scene."
Well, I already said that anyone who went to this concert must have gone for the music, since her face is NOT easy on the eyes.
Mr. Timmins promptly made it even uglier. He had Ms. Ronstadt ejected from the premises.
He didn’t make it uglier at all; he had her syphilitic scrotum-sucking sack-face evacuated from the premises. On top of her not fulfilling the reasonable expectation of performing a musical concert for the attendees, she willingly made comments that SHE KNEW FROM PAST EXPERIENCE (and even indicated in this worthless editorial) would spark some controversy and perhaps upset a large part of the crowd.
Bear in mind that the Aladdin is a business, and businesses don’t really benefit from their patrons being upset and riled, for whatever reason. If an employee goes out of his or her way to anger patrons, it is not at all unreasonable for that employee to be terminated. That’s exactly what the Aladdin, which was paying Ronstadt for what would be classified as “services”, did. I have yet to see the problem here.
This behavior assumes that Ms. Ronstadt had no right to express a political opinion from the stage.
Wow! Someone at the NYSlimes got it! Well, almost got it. Rabid Ronstadt has a right to spout off whatever incorrect and informed garbage (under the guise of “a statement”) that she likes when on stage. Just be sure to grant that the Aladdin has the right to get rid of her for it. I hate to go back to this whole thing, but that is NOT censorship. It is a (good, in this case) business decision.
It implies - for some members of the audience at least - that there is a philosophical contract that says an artist must entertain an audience only in the ways that audience sees fit.
What is unfit about an audience expecting music and not a sermon? Makes sense to me, but then again, I’m a thinker.
It argues, in fact, that an artist like Ms. Ronstadt does not have the same rights as everyone else.
Whoops, you’re an idiot! At my job, I do not have the “right” to do many things. In fact, the only rights I have are to a clean and safe work environment, with a guarantee of a minimum amount of pay. That’s about it, a few other minor legal protections aside. I do not have the right to consume alcohol at work, the way I do at home. I do not have the right to say any disparaging comment about my boss the way I can at home or in a bar. I do not have the right to carry my rifle with me (pesky educational institutions anyway) like I can in other places. Many of my rights are abridged or denied at the workplace.
It is no different for these entertainers. Their workplace is the stage, and they have a certain set of expectations placed upon them. If a comedian is not funny, he is canned. If an actress cannot convey emotions, she is fired. And, if a musician starts spouting off things that the PAYING audience does NOT want to hear in lieu of actually performing music, then she is escorted off the premises by hotel security, never to return again. It is a simple firing in line with the business’s best interest. Yes, those eeeeeevil businesses will sometimes actually terminate people who do not perform up to standards.
Perhaps her praise for Mr. Moore, even at the very end of her show, did ruin the performance for some people.
What tipped you off, moron? The way people stormed out, threw drinks at her posters and then ripped them down, and then demanded their money back because the performance was ruined for them? Funny these things you notice when you open your eyes! Too bad you only opened them for only one sentence in this entire piece of trash story.
They have a right to voice their disapproval - to express their opinion as Ms. Ronstadt expressed hers and to ask for a refund.
Oops! You were on the right track, but then lost it! Yes, the paying audience has a right to express disgust with a disappointing service in exchange for their money. Rankled Ronstadt, who was being paid to sing, did NOT have a right to spout of stupid inflammatory drivel. See the difference yet? It is, you know, pretty obvious.
But if their intemperate behavior began to worry the management, then they were the ones who should have been thrown out and told never to return, not Ms. Ronstadt, who threatened, after all, only to sing.
It’s a shame that she didn’t want to make good on her threat without mentally modifying her contract to include dumping loads of steamy horseshit on the crowd first. And I agree, if people were damaging property (I get the impression that these posters were fairly easy to get down and wouldn’t exactly constitute property damage, but I could be wrong) then their behavior needed addressed as well. We weren’t told that it wasn’t. However, Ronstadt made the choice to say things she KNEW would start an ugly situations (“Elsewhere, audiences have reacted to the mention of Mr. Moore by cheering, booing, walking out and sometimes glaring at one another in parking lots”) which hotel management would certainly have never agreed to here. Were someone to walk into a hotel and attempt to start a riot, chances are the police would be summoned, despite whatever pathetic “free speech” arguments you can spit out. It is all the worse for Loony Linda as she was, at the time, being paid by the hotel.
If ever I must go to Vegas, you can be sure I will be staying at the Aladdin, where common sense seems to reign, at least a little.
That should do for now.
For the record, just like my esteemed compatriot, I will refrain from formal introductions until we have this thing a little better under control. Bear with us through this initial phase; wrinkles will hopefully be ironed out soon, and the tasty polemic masterpieces will simply flow forth.