Coverage of the Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker Media lawsuit has tended to focus on the First Amendment debate that began when the website posted his infamous sex tape in October 2012. That is certainly a conversation that needs to happen, but a very important story that should not get lost in the mix is what it means when a man refuses to take personal responsibility for his own actions.
For those who have been living under a rock for the past few years and know nothing of Hogan’s downfall, here is the abridged version of events:
Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) apparently struck some weird sex deal with “Bubba The Love Sponge” Clem and the radio host’s then-wife Heather Cole.
Video of the sexual encounters was secretly recorded.
Footage was leaked to Gawker and posted online.
A jury in Saint Petersburg, Florida, awarded Bollea $115 million last week.
An extra $25 million in punitive damages was awarded to Bollea on Monday.
Most people are shedding no tears for Gawker given its reputation as a magnet for smarmy jerks, but I must admit I was saddened when I read Hogan’s text-message exchange with Clem.
“All I asked you for was an answer, why did u do this to me but I got nothing from u. Now I understand you [were] never my friend and there is nothing more you could ever do to hurt me! … Thanks for never being my friend and destroying my life. … You lie to me and . . . filmed everything that’s the only reason all of this is happening,” — Hulk Hogan, Oct. 12, 2012.
Note to Hulk Hogan: YOU — and only YOU — destroyed your life when you agreed to sleep with a married man’s wife.
For Mr. Bollea to say the “only” reason why his life was turned upside down was because Bubba “the love sponge” or possibly his then-wife sold the tape to Gawker is laughable. The wrester walks around with a gold cross around his neck, breaks one of the Ten Commandments, and then has the gall to blame someone else for his crumbling personal life.
Proverbs 6:32-34 states:
“But a man who commits adultery has no sense; whoever does so destroys himself. Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away. For jealousy arouses a husband’s fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge.“
I was often teased about my general avoidance of clubs and my unwillingness to sleep around when I lived in Germany years ago. I looked at the soldiers who got 18-year-old girls they hardly knew pregnant and thought, “Is any orgasm worth that?” The answer was clear: No.
Likewise, the same question can be applied to sleeping with another man’s wife. “Is any orgasm worth the potential downfall?” Answer: No.
Hulk Hogan may have won well over a $115 million in a legal settlement with Gawker, but I suspect that deep down he will continue to feel rather miserable. He knows that he has lost the respect of millions of fans, especially those who grew up in the 80s watching him in his prime.
Money can buy a lot of things, but it can not buy back lost respect. I hope that Hogan pieces his life back together, but I predict that will not happen until he learns to accept personal responsibility for his actions.
Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios announced this afternoon that actor Tom Holland would be the next actor to play Spider-Man on the big screen. Wired’s Angel Watercutter was ready within hours to bash the decision because…he’s white.
Ms. Watercutter said Tuesday for her piece‘Your New Spider-Man Is a…Fresh-Faced White Dude. Great’:
When Marvel and Sony announced Spider-Man’s inclusion in the Marvel Cinematic Universe earlier this year, fans got excited that we could seea fresh take on the character, rather than just another fresh-faced white dude. (No offense to fresh-faced white dudes.) In particular, the studio had a chance to shift gears and make the new cinematic Spider-Man not Peter Parker, but Miles Morales—the half-black, half-Latino teenager who wears the Spidey suit in the Ultimate Comics: Spider-Man. The prospect of that was virtually nil (though Morales is taking over as the web-slinger in the comics), but there was still a shot that Peter Parker could be re-imagined.
As for Watts, he’s the latest in a series of young and relatively unknown directors to take on a Marvel property. Sure, Joss Whedon and Kenneth Branagh are big deals, but folks like Thor: The Dark World’s Alan Taylor or Joe and Anthony Russo, who will likely direct Holland in his Parker introduction in Captain America: Civil War, were mostly TV directors before joining Marvel. Those directors have all done good work in the MCU, and there’s no reason to believe Watts won’t as well, but if you were expecting this new Spider-Man flick to be directed by a big-name director (or a woman, or a non-white person), that’s not going to happen this time around.
Just as Brian Michael Bendis believes that white superheroes cannot be for “everybody,” Ms. Watercutter seems to define “fresh take” as “anything but a white guy playing a character who has been white since his inception.” And by “fans” who were excited, she really means “fans who subscribe to Angela Watercutter’s race-obsessed worldview.”
Ms. Watercolor is so obsessed with race that she even laments that the next Spider-Man movie is being directed by a white man. How sad is it when a woman can’t look at anything unless she’s wearing a racial View-Master while simultaneously taking on the role of racial bean counter. “Are there too many white people in this story? Why are there so many white people? Is this justified? If I think it’s justified, then is it truly justified — or is that just my white privilege talking? Raceraceraceraceracerace!”
If you think this is an isolated mindset, then think again. It was only a few months ago that Dan Slott weirdly started referencing Jim Crow laws when fans said that Peter Parker should remain white for his cinematic appearances. It was just days ago that Gawker’s Sam Biddle said “Spider-Man is a fucking dork” because he is a straight white male who does not do drugs or have sex as a high school teenager.
The ideal Peter Parker for Wired and Gawker writers is apparently a popular gay black woman who does copious amounts of drugs while engaging in teen orgies. Classic.
Maybe instead of being bitten by a radioactive spider, Peter (or was it Pam?) could snort an arachnid up her nose like a line of cocaine. Maybe that would take away the “fucking dork” status. (If you write for Gawker, then you have to swear because that somehow makes your arguments more valid.)
The one bright spot in all of this is that Stan Lee is speaking up.
“I wouldn’t mind, if Peter Parker had originally been black, a Latino, an Indian or anything else, that he stay that way. But we originally made him white. I don’t see any reason to change that. …
I think the world has a place for gay superheroes, certainly. But again, I don’t see any reason to change the sexual proclivities of a character once they’ve already been established. I have no problem with creating new, homosexual superheroes. It has nothing to do with being anti-gay, or anti-black, or anti-Latino, or anything like that. Latino characters should stay Latino. The Black Panther should certainly not be Swiss. I just see no reason to change that which has already been established when it’s so easy to add new characters. I say create new characters the way you want to. Hell, I’ll do it myself.”
But hey, what does Stan Lee know? Until he’s a gay black heroin addict his authority on all things Peter Parker is pretty much zero.
If Jerry Seinfeld ever gets tired of ‘Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee,’ he could always start a new show titled ‘Comedians in Cars Slapping down Racial Bean Counters,’ because that’s exactly what happened when Buzzfeed Editor Peter Lauria decided to ask about the lack of racial diversity on Seinfeld’s latest show. One gets the feeling that Mr. Lauria spends his Sunday night looking at Department of Labor statistics and wondering if there are racial conspiracies afoot because black people don’t comprise 20% of all plumbers, zookeepers, race car drivers, and policemen that use motorcycles with sidecars.
Buzzfeed Editor Editor Peter Lauria: I have noticed that most of the guests are mostly white males. Of 22 episodes you’ve had —
Seinfeld: Yeah, let’s get into that. Take a look over here, Peter. What do you see? A lot of whiteys! What’s going on here?!
Oh, this really pisses me off. This really pisses me off, but go ahead. […] There were a lot of things about ‘Comedians and Cars’ from the very beginning — the first ten I did were all white males and people were writing all about that. People think it’s the census or something. It’s gotta represent the actual pie chart of America. Who cares? Funny is the world that I live in. You’re funny, I’m interested. You’re not funny, I’m not interested. I have no interest in gender or race or anything like that, but everyone else is kind of calculating ‘Is this the exact right mix?’ To me it’s anti-comedy. It’s anti-comedy. It’s more about PC nonsense than “Are you making us laugh or not?”
Jerry Seinfeld, the most successful comedian in the world and maker of comedy for and about white people, isn’t interested in trying to include non-white anything in his work. …
He seems to suggest that any comedian who is not a white male is also not funny, though he’s also likely fed up with the amount of bad comedy he’s been forced to sit through in his (waning) career.
Which is too bad, because Seinfeld is downplaying the work of everyone from Richard Pryor and Bill Cosby to Aziz Ansari, Mindy Kaling, and Eddie Huang, who are all in various stages of their own sitcoms that just might turn out to be the next Seinfeld. …
In conclusion: Yes, comedy should represent the entire pie chart of America, and the glorious, multicolored diversity pie should be thrown directly at Jerry Seinfeld’s face.
Any famous conservative who has been invited to speak on a college campus knows about the liberal predilection for throwing pies at intellectual opponents, and now Gawker readers know that when they occasionally wonder, “What kind of immature clown throws pies at someone he dislikes instead of hashing it out like an adult?” that the answer lies before them: Kyle Chayka.
Question: How strange is it that Gawker writers can pejoratively refer to Jerry Seinfeld’s “comedy for and about white people,” but if Mr. Seinfeld actually described his comedy that way — and used it to justify the guests on his show — they would explode with charges of racism? And how sad is it that Gawker writers slime guys like Jerry Seinfeld and hit the publish button before even doing a cursory amount or research?
Surely, Chayka researched this post before he went off on a tear. He must know that Seinfeld called Pryor “the Picasso of our profession,” or that he hosted an event honoring Cosby and called himself “not that funny” by comparison, or that Ansari regularly joins Seinfeld’s exclusive inner circle of comedians. Et cetera, et cetera.
In fact, there are few working comedians who do not have a story to tell about how Seinfeld and his encouraging cohorts aided in the development of their careers.
Surely, he knew all this and merely sought to intentionally mislead his audience. The alternative would be that Chayka just did not care so much about the subject as his preconceived opinion before publishing it in what he must have known was a public forum… Which just couldn’t be.
Liberalism encourages laziness. Disagree with a liberal and you must be a racistsexisthomophobe (one word). No research or critical thinking required — except when it is, which is quite often.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have something to do that doesn’t involve wondering whether black people comprise 20% of all U.S. watchmakers, basket weavers and car mechanics.
Every once-in-awhile liberals say what they really mean, and when they do it’s grand because the average American recoils at unbridled statism. Sometimes it comes in the form of the President of the United States saying things like “there are plenty of smart people” or “you didn’t build that.” Those instances are golden. Unfortunately, most politicians are too disciplined to do that sort of thing, and what we’re left with are sites like Gawker, where writers convince themselves they don’t sound like incredibly scary, elitist snobs when they say:
“Let’s have a maximum annual income of, oh, $5 million, pegged to inflation. All income above that would be taxed at 99 percent. Our precious national sports stars, celebrities, and corporate executives could still be fabulously wealthy. The daydreaming poor could still have a nice big number about which to hopelessly dream. Five million dollars a year. Five million! … It’s everything that any reasonable person could ask for, financially speaking. …
I defy the slickest PR firm in America to explain to a nation of struggling, underemployed working class people with a median household income of just over $50,000 why an already-wealthy person felt the need to leave the country [France, which is raising taxes on earnings over $1.2 million a year to 75 percent] — taking money out of the taxpayers’ pockets in a very literal sense — rather than donate, to the common good, earnings over one hundred times the nation’s median household income. …
This is not primarily about raising our total national tax revenue. That’s a far broader issue. This is about inequality. It’s about what type of nation we want to be—what level of inequality we are willing to tolerate in order to protect a vague and twisted notion of “freedom” that most people cannot even fully articulate, and that was created by the rich to serve themselves,” (emphasis added).
Where does one start with a smorgasbord of stupidity? A blog post on statistics alone (e.g., mean, median and mode) would do it, but that’s too dry. Let’s just consider that homework.
Who defines “reasonable” in the leftists’ ideal world? What a coincidence: They do. If you’re a writer for Gawker, it’s 5 million dollars. If you live in Maryland, it’s $100,000. Either way, self-righteous masterminds think they have to right to tell you when “you’ve made enough money.”
Conservatives have this crazy notion that when you make money through legal means that it’s your money. Liberals like Hamilton Nolan believe money you made through legal means is a.) “the taxpayer’s money” or b.) for “the common good.”
See where the disconnect is? If not, here’s an example:
Say there’s this guy named Bill Gates, and he starts making a lot of money with a product that he thinks could raise the quality of life for hundreds of millions, if not billions of people. He has big ideas — really big ideas — but he knows he’s going to need to raise a ton of cash to do it. In the conservative world, Bill Gates makes billions of dollars with Microsoft and then goes off to start the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and he’s cheered for all the wealth and joy and comfort his contributions have brought to society. No one begrudges his wealth, and parents tell their kids, “One day you can be the next Bill Gates, although I think you’ll be better than Bill Gates if you put your mind to it.” In the world of the liberal mastermind, Mr. Gates is “greedy” because he wanted to keep what was rightfully his to begin with. Bill never really helps the “common good” unless his money is first funneled through a government bureaucracy and then doled out to whatever groups or organizations the Sovereign deems worthy.
One lesson down and one to go: History. Gawker needs it.
Not too long ago I pointed out that Chris Rock was an ignorant boob, whose public statements suggest he doesn’t even realize that the founding fathers literally risked their lives — and often depleted their life savings — by becoming an enemy of the Crown in their quest for freedom. Regardless, it doesn’t stop men like Mr. Nolan from saying that the “rich” set up a system that only served “the rich.” They ignore the fact that we went from being a fledgling republic to the world’s lone super power in just over 200 years. They ignore the fact that President Barack Obama exists. Where is the Italian Barack Obama or the German Barack Obama or the French Barack Obama? They ignore Ford Motor Company, Sears, McDonalds, Apple, Bank of America, and many, many other success stories that highlight just how exceptional this nation is.
Why should liberals from Gawker magazine get to determine how much money our star athletes and musicians and businessmen make? Michael Jordan filled arenas with his talents and indirectly created countless jobs (e.g., Nike, vendors, clothing companies). The idea that the federal government should be able to tax any of his earning over $5 million dollars, at a 99 percent rate, is morally repugnant. Likewise, the same goes for the talented entrepreneur who stays up late for days and weeks and months figuring out how to get their business off the ground. The guy or girl who takes huge financial and personal risks to realize a dream is not greedy for wanting to keep the returns on their investment, and even if they were who cares because it’s their money.
We have one life. One. And in that life we have a very limited amount of time with which to pursue our passions and dreams. For the men and women who work hard, play by the rules and are financially rewarded for doing so, using the coercive force of the federal government to confiscate those returns and redistribute it to a third party based on the caprices or political favors of politicians is wrong.
Conservatives have a duty to stand up to leftist whiners who write for websites and suddenly feel as though they’re entitled to the monetary rewards of the businessman who turned a vision in his head into a small business and ultimately a cash cow of a corporation.