Fox TV

Sally Fields, censorship and politically correct liberals who don't STFU

Sally Fields won an Emmy Award last night. Unfortunately, she also won another opportunity to make an ass of herself by making "the statement of the night" at another awards show broadcasted to millions of households across the globe.

I hate it when Sally Fields gets all manic and twitchy, ready for her emotionally retarded speeches. Sally Fields making "a statement" is like listening to a banshee all decked out in felt scratch his nails on a blackboard while chewing styrofoam. Dogs weep when she gets on a podium and starts soap-boxing.

Which is no wonder why people at Fox Networks decided to rather aggressively bleep her ass, blackout the TV screen and force her off the stage. Take a look at how they violently do away with her dignity :

Here's the thing : Sally should have bowed out at 1:28 in this film clip. Had she stopped at that first round of applause, she would have left with a succint speech about the importance of acknowledging the selfless work of all mothers, especially the mothers of those "left in harm's way by war". Had she taken the cue from her peers, she would have walked away with the most profound speech of not just the evening but any awards show in recent memory.

» read more | liza's blog | add new comment | email this blog | 831 reads

Visit our sponsors

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers
Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network
BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.

Words to live by

I of all people should know better. The civil rights movement in the U.S. told women to stop talking about gender issues because first the fight against racism had to be won. The feminist movement frowned at women of colour raising their issues, insisting that first the fight against the patriarchy had to be won. The nationalist movements in Africa insisted that feminism was a corrupt and decadent western import, and that first we had to capture our earthly kingdoms, and achieve our panAfricanist Nirvana, before we started looking at "side issues". And those of us who are interested in our contemporary political dynamics have fallen into the same pit of not tackling the prickly, the uncomfortable questions now: we are waiting to win the larger battle before we clean our house. There is always another battle or another issue, and the matters that matter to the foot soldiers are postponed for yet another day. Yet, these issues ARE the battle. We fight for freedom --and do not imagine we are doing anything less--because it is the freedom to live our lives the way we want, from the jobs we choose to the people we fall in love with. If we cannot tackle them, then we are not equipped to tackle anything. What are the lines of difference we draw? For what do we engage, argue, participate and in some heroes' cases, take awful risks? For what?

— Diary of a Mad Kenyan Woman: OUTING HETEROSEXUALITY