by Eric Rauch (at Political Outcast)
Here’s one for the “Hollywood Moralizing” category. Matt Damon, the reigning king of speaking before thinking, recently lamented the state of the U.S. political landscape. It seems that Damon believes that financial inequality in America is a much bigger problem than the media is letting on. And he knows this because he went to a Bruce Springsteen concert in New York City. Good for you, Matt. What can’t be learned from the liberal media can always be learned from a liberal singer. It’s all so perfectly logical.
What is absolutely mind-blowing about Damon’s comments is how completely hypocritical they are (big surprise!). Damon is not your average Hollywood do-nothing. His work with Water.org is commendable for several reasons (more on this later). But when he tries to tell a reporter that he knows how Americans really feel about economic inequality because of what happened at a Springsteen concert, it is boggle-the-mind stupid.
To begin with, Springsteen tickets in Madison Square Garden begin at $75—as in for the nosebleed sections. And you can bet your ascot that Damon wasn’t sitting there. In fact, you can further bet that he didn’t even pay for his ticket. He was a “special guest” of Springsteen himself. How do I know this? Because of what Damon says: “I went backstage after and saw him [Springsteen] and it was the first thing he said to me. He’s singing to firemen and cops and real people. And the fury that’s there is very, very real.” Did everyone else at the concert get to go backstage and hobnob with Bruce too? Did the poor saps who paid $75 to watch the concert on the JumboTron get to meet “the Boss”? You already know the answer. Why is it that Bruce and Matt get to high-five each other backstage, yet the paying customers (you know, the 99 percenters) get to file out of the Garden and go straight home? Is there a bit of inequality here, Matt? What gives?
Further, what is truly astounding is Matt’s matter-of-fact reporting on what made the crowd furious and what so impressed him about the problem of “income inequality.” During a song titled Jack of All Trades, which speaks directly to the topic, Springsteen sings: “If I had me a gun, I’d find the bastards and shoot them on sight.” Fascinating. So it’s acceptable for Springsteen to advocate violence against the 1%? Damon’s response is even more fascinating: “Now when he says that, when he’s saying that, the place roared. I mean, roared. Like 30,000 people involuntarily screamed their approval. And it was so alarming.” What should be more alarming, Mr. Damon, is that you and Bruce are part of the 1% “bastards” that the frenzied crowd wanted shot dead. For you to include yourself with “them” is more than a bit presumptuous, don’t you think? Might this have something to do with why the 99 percenters in the crowd had to enter through metal detectors and were not invited to the party backstage? I wonder.
Read more: Shooting the One-Percenters On Sight : Political Outcast
Only the “other guy” is rich, and should have his property plundered and redistributed to the entitled and non-working poor. Funny how the crowd at a Bruce Springsteen concert are considered representative of the 99%. I’d say that about 98% wouldn’t have any interest in Bruce Springsteen, or Matt Damon, for that matter.
Posted by linus | July 26, 2012, 1:44 pm