Billboard: "Beach Boys" Considering Invitation to Perform at Trump Inauguration

[KDS]

Remember all that M&B advertising that used the C50 pictures and AGD always said the venue made a "mistake"

It was the venue and / or promoter in the cases I saw. 

[SMiLE Brian]

According to "someone who know" to AGD. Read from that what you will.

[guitarfool2002]

Remember all that M&B advertising that used the C50 pictures and AGD always said the venue made a "mistake"

It was the venue and / or promoter in the cases I saw. 

Cases, as in plural, numerous times over the past four years up to 2016.

[HeyJude]

Remember all that M&B advertising that used the C50 pictures and AGD always said the venue made a "mistake"

It was the venue and / or promoter in the cases I saw. 

I don't think anyone has really suggested Mike knowingly sent C50 pics to promoters for his own shows.

The ironic references to defending the use of C50 pics because it was the fault of venues and promoters probably has to do with how Mike Love supporters back in the day (and certainly lawyers going after Al Jardine) were not receptive to anyone making the same observation in cases where Al's band was billed incorrectly in 1999.

So the idea is that Mike Love came across as rather hypocritical. I somehow doubt after that pic kerfuffle happened in 2012 that he phoned Al up and said "Wow Al, I have to apologize. Now I know how what happened to you in 1999 can so easily happen!"

[HeyJude]

The use of C50 photos showing all surviving band members for a gig that features Mike's lineup is an issue that goes beyond irony considering Mike himself sued Brian and a handful of other entities over a "Mail On Sunday" giveaway CD which featured a BB's vintage photo showing Mike on a collage on the "cover". The case Mike filed was surrounding the issue of Mike's image and implied involvement due to the photos showing him in a 60's context attaching his involvement to this giveaway CD and the music on it as a "Beach Boy" among the fans who got the disc when he wasn't involved with the CD. That according to the suit was violating a whole host of "rules" regarding using the Beach Boys name and image, and how such usage was damaging to Mike and the brand he licenses. The photos in question for that lawsuit were roughly the size of a thumbnail on that CD, on the collage.

So now there's this, on top of the past 4 years of putting band members who have no involvement in Mike's shows or tours in the minds of readers who see a C50 photo representing "The Beach Boys" attached to Mike's shows. If it's for selling more tickets that's one level, if it's part of something like December 2016 that caused an uproar, it's a different level altogether. Irony or something else?

And it's worth noting that lawyers were quite dogged in their pursuit of that frivolous "Mail on Sunday" CD case. So much so, that they stepped into this mess:

Love responded to criticism by the district court that he had failed to introduce any evidence that Good Vibrations had ever entered the U.S. market by filing a declaration by Steven Surrey that Surrey had bought a copy of Good Vibrations on eBay because he thought it was an official Beach Boys product (“Surrey affidavit”). Because of uncontested evidence that Surrey was a close associate of Love's attorney and had fabricated his allegation that he was confused by the labeling of Good Vibrations, the district court never considered the Surrey affidavit to have any evidentiary value, and entered sanctions against Love's counsel. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1530601.html#sthash.9HzYcM99.twBNCk5f.dpuf

[KDS]

Remember all that M&B advertising that used the C50 pictures and AGD always said the venue made a "mistake"

It was the venue and / or promoter in the cases I saw. 

I don't think anyone has really suggested Mike knowingly sent C50 pics to promoters for his own shows.

The ironic references to defending the use of C50 pics because it was the fault of venues and promoters probably has to do with how Mike Love supporters back in the day (and certainly lawyers going after Al Jardine) were not receptive to anyone making the same observation in cases where Al's band was billed incorrectly in 1999.

So the idea is that Mike Love came across as rather hypocritical. I somehow doubt after that pic kerfuffle happened in 2012 that he phoned Al up and said "Wow Al, I have to apologize. Now I know how what happened to you in 1999 can so easily happen!"

It has been suggested in the past that Mike's folks knowingly used C50 pics to promote post C50 shows. 

One of the best examples I ever saw of this was a recent Blue Oyster Cult concert near my neck of the woods.  The publicity shot used to advertise the show featured Allen Lanier, who had retired from the group, and died. 

[guitarfool2002]

That is also the fault of Blue Oyster Cult's management and touring organization for not being on top of the way their band and image is being promoted. You get approval in the contract over how the show is advertised and billed, and make sure the info and the facts are 100% correct before the ads are published. You get the date when the ad will hit the public, and if a mistake slips through, nip it in the bud the same day the mistake gets published.

That's running a tight ship. Mistakes happen, but it's not only a case of how you correct them but also how you prevent them from happening again. If there are C50 photos or photos of Al and Mike sharing a stage being used to advertise Mike's concerts 2-3 years after the last time the to guys were on a stage together, the issue wasn't handled as it should have been.

There must be a lot of incompetent people working in newspapers, ticketing offices, and concert promotions for mistakes to keep repeating themselves over 3+ years.

[KDS]

There must be a lot of incompetent people working in newspapers, ticketing offices, and concert promotions for mistakes to keep repeating themselves over 3+ years.

Having dealt with some concert promoters at a previous job, I'd say that can be a fairly accurate assessment unfortunately. 

[guitarfool2002]

The use of C50 photos showing all surviving band members for a gig that features Mike's lineup is an issue that goes beyond irony considering Mike himself sued Brian and a handful of other entities over a "Mail On Sunday" giveaway CD which featured a BB's vintage photo showing Mike on a collage on the "cover". The case Mike filed was surrounding the issue of Mike's image and implied involvement due to the photos showing him in a 60's context attaching his involvement to this giveaway CD and the music on it as a "Beach Boy" among the fans who got the disc when he wasn't involved with the CD. That according to the suit was violating a whole host of "rules" regarding using the Beach Boys name and image, and how such usage was damaging to Mike and the brand he licenses. The photos in question for that lawsuit were roughly the size of a thumbnail on that CD, on the collage.

So now there's this, on top of the past 4 years of putting band members who have no involvement in Mike's shows or tours in the minds of readers who see a C50 photo representing "The Beach Boys" attached to Mike's shows. If it's for selling more tickets that's one level, if it's part of something like December 2016 that caused an uproar, it's a different level altogether. Irony or something else?

And it's worth noting that lawyers were quite dogged in their pursuit of that frivolous "Mail on Sunday" CD case. So much so, that they stepped into this mess:

Love responded to criticism by the district court that he had failed to introduce any evidence that Good Vibrations had ever entered the U.S. market by filing a declaration by Steven Surrey that Surrey had bought a copy of Good Vibrations on eBay because he thought it was an official Beach Boys product (“Surrey affidavit”). Because of uncontested evidence that Surrey was a close associate of Love's attorney and had fabricated his allegation that he was confused by the labeling of Good Vibrations, the district court never considered the Surrey affidavit to have any evidentiary value, and entered sanctions against Love's counsel. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1530601.html#sthash.9HzYcM99.twBNCk5f.dpuf

The freebie CD never entered the US marketplace so they had to drum up a bogus American witness who claimed the so-called buyer's confusion over this item and the vintage band photos on the cover...yep, that about sums it up. A mess indeed, a shameful one.

[rab2591]

The use of C50 photos showing all surviving band members for a gig that features Mike's lineup is an issue that goes beyond irony considering Mike himself sued Brian and a handful of other entities over a "Mail On Sunday" giveaway CD which featured a BB's vintage photo showing Mike on a collage on the "cover". The case Mike filed was surrounding the issue of Mike's image and implied involvement due to the photos showing him in a 60's context attaching his involvement to this giveaway CD and the music on it as a "Beach Boy" among the fans who got the disc when he wasn't involved with the CD. That according to the suit was violating a whole host of "rules" regarding using the Beach Boys name and image, and how such usage was damaging to Mike and the brand he licenses. The photos in question for that lawsuit were roughly the size of a thumbnail on that CD, on the collage.

So now there's this, on top of the past 4 years of putting band members who have no involvement in Mike's shows or tours in the minds of readers who see a C50 photo representing "The Beach Boys" attached to Mike's shows. If it's for selling more tickets that's one level, if it's part of something like December 2016 that caused an uproar, it's a different level altogether. Irony or something else?

And it's worth noting that lawyers were quite dogged in their pursuit of that frivolous "Mail on Sunday" CD case. So much so, that they stepped into this mess:

Love responded to criticism by the district court that he had failed to introduce any evidence that Good Vibrations had ever entered the U.S. market by filing a declaration by Steven Surrey that Surrey had bought a copy of Good Vibrations on eBay because he thought it was an official Beach Boys product (“Surrey affidavit”). Because of uncontested evidence that Surrey was a close associate of Love's attorney and had fabricated his allegation that he was confused by the labeling of Good Vibrations, the district court never considered the Surrey affidavit to have any evidentiary value, and entered sanctions against Love's counsel. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1530601.html#sthash.9HzYcM99.twBNCk5f.dpuf

The freebie CD never entered the US marketplace so they had to drum up a bogus American witness who claimed the so-called buyer's confusion over this item and the vintage band photos on the cover...yep, that about sums it up. A mess indeed, a shameful one.

Oh my god this reminds me of those absolutely mind-numbing debates with a certain banned member who insisted that Mike had nothing to do with this atrocity of a lawsuit. The lengths people go to defend this guy is laughable.

[SMiLE Brian]

"Right" rab

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

So the idea is that Mike Love came across as rather hypocritical. I somehow doubt after that pic kerfuffle happened in 2012 that he phoned Al up and said "Wow Al, I have to apologize. Now I know how what happened to you in 1999 can so easily happen!"

    Thanks. I needed that!

[guitarfool2002]

Based on some media reports in the past hour, the BB's are not listed as among the performers. Depending on which news site you check, CNN/UPI/etc. the dates and concerts are scattered around between the swearing-in events, the swearing-in concert at the Lincoln Memorial, and the various balls on the 20th. It's a bit confusing to wade through depending on the site.

But from what has been coming in so far, no mention of the BB's performing.

[HeyJude]

It has been suggested in the past that Mike's folks knowingly used C50 pics to promote post C50 shows.  

If you can point to accusations that Mike or his agents/team knowingly sent C50 pics for the purpose of misleadingly promoting Mike's shows, I'd be very interested to see such accusations.

Not being attentive enough to monitor such errors? Sure. Not minding if such an error is made by a venue or promoter? Maybe.

But I don't think there has been any groundswell of fans suggesting Mike nefariously sent C50 band photos hoping he could fool people into buying tickets to his shows.

I suppose it's not impossible that some flunkie working for Mike's company screwed up and *sent* the wrong pictures to venues or promoters. But even then, it wouldn't be a case of knowingly trying to mislead.

What seems to have happened to Mike in these cases is the same thing that happened to Al. Lazy (or I suppose possibly purposely conniving) venues or promoters put together their own promotional materials and grab the wrong photo or use the wrong name, etc.

It happens all the time. I didn't even know until very recently that at, I believe, the Grammys, someone at the event put up signage for the seats reserved for Jeff Lynne's ELO, but used a photo of the knock off band "The Orchestra" (formerly "ELO Part II").

Defending Mike in these mixups as if people think Mike was running around with a bag of C50 photos trying to fool people obfuscates the main point I think people were trying to make, which is the irony of Mike seemingly not affording Al that same benefit of the doubt when Al's shows were erroneously advertised in 1999. Indeed, Al has referenced just in the last year or two that he and Brian *continue* to be harangued and reminded to not too boldly use "Beach Boys" verbiage for their shows.

[CenturyDeprived]

I know that.  You know that.  Most on this board know that.  

But, most people just have vague knowledge of the fact that The Beach Boys associated with Manson.
 

When people find out that the person associated with Manson held such guilt for that association that it may have been a contributing factor leading to him drinking himself to an early grave, well that gives him brownie points too in the court of public opinion. It's friggin' tragic and something that gets him considerable empathy. There is no contest whatsoever why there is a widespread lack of empathy for Mike and Trump. If Mike had drank himself to death out of guilt for shunning Shawn, then maybe people might start to have a different idea about him.

But Mike and Trump have said "mean things."  ***Shudder***

It's because you mockingly use the term "mean things" that shows you likely aren't a person of color, LGBT, or from a disenfranchised race/ethnicity, etc who has been put down by a person who is about the inherit the highest office in the land. It's not a joke. Walk a mile in their shoes and then we'll see how much you will sarcastically mock those "mean things".

If you read that paragraph and roll your eyes, you might have an empathy problem. I say that not condescendingly, but seriously.

Perhaps even worse than those "mean things" are his refusal to own them/apologize for them, like pretending the CAUGHT ON VIDEO mocking of a disabled person didn't even friggin' happen. Failing to apologize is a very Mike thing, so again it's something that makes them like peas in a pod.

Mike and Trump's least favorite Brian Wilson song? Walking Down the Empath of Life

I don't have an empathy problem, but I also don't actively seek racism.  

Trump has said that he wants to actually help the inner cities, even having meetings with prominent figures in the African American community to discuss doing so.  

He's not a threat to the LGBT community whatsoever.  He's already stated he's not going to overturn the marriage law.  

The mocking thing was another thing that was blown way out of proportion.  I've seen Trump use those same gestures to mock non disabled people, including himself.  

You have your views, and I have mine.  But, it's completely ridiculous of you to make assumptions about my beliefs or level of empathy.  

Firstly, KDS, let me just say that I’m not intending my comment as a personal “attack”, but just as an honest observation, person-to-person. You seem a lot more reasoned than some other posters on this board, past or present.  I greatly appreciate that.  

That said, I take issue with your statement “He's not a threat to the LGBT community whatsoever”… and how making such a statement really shows a lack of empathy about that issue (not saying about you as a person in totality).

Imagine you are a gay man or woman, in particular someone who may live in a part of the country other than, say, liberal San Francisco – a place where they may have encountered much strife over their life, non-acceptance from their parents/peers, etc. And imagine that a person like this is just coming to terms with themselves, after many years, finally being able to feel comfortable in their own skin. How do you think you’d feel about an incoming President whose VP is an outspoken conversion therapy proponent?

Whether or not Pence will be able to (or will even try to) get any conversion therapy movement off the ground during his time in office is besides the point. The fact is that such a person being in such a high position of power/prestige/influence will legitimize such a view, and cause more and more people to feel that a despicable, outrageous, and archaic thing like conversion therapy is a legitimate thing that is somehow acceptable. How do you think that’s gonna wear on a gay person who already feels like being accepted was a difficult enough thing *already* even during the Obama years?

Or what about Trump picking Bannon, a person who in public on a radio show, not in a “locker room talk” type situation, calls lesbians “dikes” as an insult? And not only does so, but doesn’t offer any apology (like Michael Richards did for his “n” word tirade), nothing where he states how shamefully he spoke and how that doesn’t reflect his true views of the gay community?

Whether or not any actual laws that will allow for discrimination get passed (other than the actual, very real possibility that LGBT peoples’ rights just to use the bathroom of their choice WILL in fact be legally threatened)… the fact is that these types of appointments by Trump, and the kind of people he associates with WILL in fact be a threat to the LGBT community just having a sense of being able to live their lives without feeling like second class citizens, or feeling like discrimination/epithets/etc against them are being legitimized by top government officials.

I don't necessarily think Trump hates gay people, I just think he doesn't give much of a flying hoot of their rights if it means that he can gain the love/undying devotion of actual, unquestionable gay-hating swaths of the population (not all Trump fans, of course), who are salivating at the idea of anti-gay people surrounding Trump.

Seriously… do you really, truly, in your heart not understand how something like that would feel to an LBGT person? If you think, “well we need Trump so badly for other reasons, so if the anti-gay stuff is an inconvenient side effect of this administration, so be it”, well just say it. I’ll respect your honesty if you own up to that.

But if you literally cannot say you can remotely empathize with how an LBGT person would feel threatened in any way by this type of stuff, especially when it’s been clearly layed out to you in this post, well then I think it is very obvious that there’s some gap with you and empathy on some level.

Would love to know your response to this, KDS.

To bring this back to The BBs, I can only imagine what it must feel like to be a gay person who is a fan of The BBs right now, being that Mike is associating with a guy who appoints vile pieces of garbage who spew hate. Probably feels pretty icky, and it would probably feel pretty weird to even think of wearing a gay pride shirt to an M&B show at this point, now that I think about it.

[Lee Marshall]

I'm not thankin' the old bald-head for missing out on his golden chance to grab negative spotlight rays.  As bugs said over at Brian Wilson dot calm...he [that 'love' guy] should have killed this by saying "NO!!!" from the get-go.  That this version of the Beach Boys isn't a strong enough 'draw' for trump and his ilk is just as likely the case as to why it apparently isn't happening.

Given ALL of the crap that that 'love' guy has laid on the franchise and the good name of the band ALL these years...this was a likelihood ... a distinct possibility ... and for all intents a done deal that 'he' was willing to sign on for.

If it were otherwise... REPEAT  ... If it were otherwise ... he'd have said no from the get-go.  He didn't.  He's disrespectful and as bad for the Beach Boys ... as he's been for most of these past 50 years.  To always have to revert back to giving him his weeeeee bit of credit for what he did WAY back in the day is getting tedious and worn out.  The bad has, in so many ways, far outdistanced the good.  And it has for the better part of 40 years...but worsening.

Strip him of control of the corporate name.  It's only about "nourishment and revenge".  THAT doesn't sell merchandise...or long term cred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's make the Beach Boys great again...and retire that 'love' guy.

[CenturyDeprived]

He's disrespectful and as bad for the Beach Boys ... as he's been for most of these past 50 years.  To always have to revert back to giving him his weeeeee bit of credit for what he did WAY back in the day is getting tedious and worn out.  The bad has, in so many ways, far outdistanced the good.  And it has for the better part of 40 years...but worsening.
 

This fact, in particular, is a contributing factor to someone else's earlier, unrelated tangential question pondering why Denny is revered, while Mike is not. Mike's actions have become more and more and more toxic over the last few decades... a time period during which even his biggest cheerleaders would probably concede he's done very little of contributing noteworthy, heart-tugging artistic value.

Denny stopped contributing his (still excellent) material to the band in 1979, and was sadly only around a few more years. If he'd stayed around, and spent literally decades post 1983 contributing continual toxic behavior Mike-style - without substances being a contributing factor (and very little in the way of positive artistic contributions or redeeming behavior), suing his bandmates for frivolous things, kicking out original bandmembers for ego reasons, etc, the way Mike has done... public opinion might have turned out a little differently.

I fail to see why people cannot connect the dots and see why some people have a PR problem and some have less of one.

[KDS]

It has been suggested in the past that Mike's folks knowingly used C50 pics to promote post C50 shows.  

If you can point to accusations that Mike or his agents/team knowingly sent C50 pics for the purpose of misleadingly promoting Mike's shows, I'd be very interested to see such accusations.

Not being attentive enough to monitor such errors? Sure. Not minding if such an error is made by a venue or promoter? Maybe.

But I don't think there has been any groundswell of fans suggesting Mike nefariously sent C50 band photos hoping he could fool people into buying tickets to his shows.

I suppose it's not impossible that some flunkie working for Mike's company screwed up and *sent* the wrong pictures to venues or promoters. But even then, it wouldn't be a case of knowingly trying to mislead.

What seems to have happened to Mike in these cases is the same thing that happened to Al. Lazy (or I suppose possibly purposely conniving) venues or promoters put together their own promotional materials and grab the wrong photo or use the wrong name, etc.

It happens all the time. I didn't even know until very recently that at, I believe, the Grammys, someone at the event put up signage for the seats reserved for Jeff Lynne's ELO, but used a photo of the knock off band "The Orchestra" (formerly "ELO Part II").

Defending Mike in these mixups as if people think Mike was running around with a bag of C50 photos trying to fool people obfuscates the main point I think people were trying to make, which is the irony of Mike seemingly not affording Al that same benefit of the doubt when Al's shows were erroneously advertised in 1999. Indeed, Al has referenced just in the last year or two that he and Brian *continue* to be harangued and reminded to not too boldly use "Beach Boys" verbiage for their shows.

I'm not combing through almost four years of messages on a message board, but I've definitely read, and it might not have even been this board, where Mike's camp was accused of using C50 photos to promote concerts. 

Which makes absolutely zero sense since, if an audience member went to a show in summer 2013, expecting to see Brian, Al, and David, but Brian, Al, and David aren't there, there's little to no chance said customer buys a ticket in summer 2014.

[KDS]

I know that.  You know that.  Most on this board know that.  

But, most people just have vague knowledge of the fact that The Beach Boys associated with Manson.
 

When people find out that the person associated with Manson held such guilt for that association that it may have been a contributing factor leading to him drinking himself to an early grave, well that gives him brownie points too in the court of public opinion. It's friggin' tragic and something that gets him considerable empathy. There is no contest whatsoever why there is a widespread lack of empathy for Mike and Trump. If Mike had drank himself to death out of guilt for shunning Shawn, then maybe people might start to have a different idea about him.

But Mike and Trump have said "mean things."  ***Shudder***

It's because you mockingly use the term "mean things" that shows you likely aren't a person of color, LGBT, or from a disenfranchised race/ethnicity, etc who has been put down by a person who is about the inherit the highest office in the land. It's not a joke. Walk a mile in their shoes and then we'll see how much you will sarcastically mock those "mean things".

If you read that paragraph and roll your eyes, you might have an empathy problem. I say that not condescendingly, but seriously.

Perhaps even worse than those "mean things" are his refusal to own them/apologize for them, like pretending the CAUGHT ON VIDEO mocking of a disabled person didn't even friggin' happen. Failing to apologize is a very Mike thing, so again it's something that makes them like peas in a pod.

Mike and Trump's least favorite Brian Wilson song? Walking Down the Empath of Life

I don't have an empathy problem, but I also don't actively seek racism.  

Trump has said that he wants to actually help the inner cities, even having meetings with prominent figures in the African American community to discuss doing so.  

He's not a threat to the LGBT community whatsoever.  He's already stated he's not going to overturn the marriage law.  

The mocking thing was another thing that was blown way out of proportion.  I've seen Trump use those same gestures to mock non disabled people, including himself.  

You have your views, and I have mine.  But, it's completely ridiculous of you to make assumptions about my beliefs or level of empathy.  

Firstly, KDS, let me just say that I’m not intending my comment as a personal “attack”, but just as an honest observation, person-to-person. You seem a lot more reasoned than some other posters on this board, past or present.  I greatly appreciate that.  

That said, I take issue with your statement “He's not a threat to the LGBT community whatsoever”… and how making such a statement really shows a lack of empathy about that issue (not saying about you as a person in totality).

Imagine you are a gay man or woman, in particular someone who may live in a part of the country other than, say, liberal San Francisco – a place where they may have encountered much strife over their life, non-acceptance from their parents/peers, etc. And imagine that a person like this is just coming to terms with themselves, after many years, finally being able to feel comfortable in their own skin. How do you think you’d feel about an incoming President whose VP is an outspoken conversion therapy proponent?

Whether or not Pence will be able to (or will even try to) get any conversion therapy movement off the ground during his time in office is besides the point. The fact is that such a person being in such a high position of power/prestige/influence will legitimize such a view, and cause more and more people to feel that a despicable, outrageous, and archaic thing like conversion therapy is a legitimate thing that is somehow acceptable. How do you think that’s gonna wear on a gay person who already feels like being accepted was a difficult enough thing *already* even during the Obama years?

Or what about Trump picking Bannon, a person who in public on a radio show, not in a “locker room talk” type situation, calls lesbians “dikes” as an insult? And not only does so, but doesn’t offer any apology (like Michael Richards did for his “n” word tirade), nothing where he states how shamefully he spoke and how that doesn’t reflect his true views of the gay community?

Whether or not any actual laws that will allow for discrimination get passed (other than the actual, very real possibility that LGBT peoples’ rights just to use the bathroom of their choice WILL in fact be legally threatened)… the fact is that these types of appointments by Trump, and the kind of people he associates with WILL in fact be a threat to the LGBT community just having a sense of being able to live their lives without feeling like second class citizens, or feeling like discrimination/epithets/etc against them are being legitimized by top government officials.

I don't necessarily think Trump hates gay people, I just think he doesn't give much of a flying hoot of their rights if it means that he can gain the love/undying devotion of actual, unquestionable gay-hating swaths of the population (not all Trump fans, of course), who are salivating at the idea of anti-gay people surrounding Trump.

Seriously… do you really, truly, in your heart not understand how something like that would feel to an LBGT person? If you think, “well we need Trump so badly for other reasons, so if the anti-gay stuff is an inconvenient side effect of this administration, so be it”, well just say it. I’ll respect your honesty if you own up to that.

But if you literally cannot say you can remotely empathize with how an LBGT person would feel threatened in any way by this type of stuff, especially when it’s been clearly layed out to you in this post, well then I think it is very obvious that there’s some gap with you and empathy on some level.

Would love to know your response to this, KDS.

To bring this back to The BBs, I can only imagine what it must feel like to be a gay person who is a fan of The BBs right now, being that Mike is associating with a guy who appoints vile pieces of garbage who spew hate. Probably feels pretty icky, and it would probably feel pretty weird to even think of wearing a gay pride shirt to an M&B show at this point, now that I think about it.

I understand their plight, and I was glad to see them get the right to marry.  Quite frankly, I think it's one of the few things the current administration can really hang their hat on. 

I just don't see Pence rolling out conversion therapy or anything like that.  Or anything happening with gay rights. 

[CenturyDeprived]

I understand their plight, and I was glad to see them get the right to marry.  Quite frankly, I think it's one of the few things the current administration can really hang their hat on.  

I just don't see Pence rolling out conversion therapy or anything like that.  Or anything happening with gay rights.  

As I mentioned... it's not about Pence "rolling out conversion therapy"... it's about the fact that he is an outspoken advocate/supporter of it.

And how that fact - in and of itself - is toxic to the LGBT community, by having someone influential in the White House with such views. You don't see how gay folks could feel that this can unfortunately help lead to more bigotry, more anti-gay people feeling empowered/legitimized to do/say bigoted acts?

And how about the Bannon appointment? How on earth can a gay person not feel sickened/threatened by an administration that has no problem appointed people who say "dikes"? Because it's "just a word"?

Dude, if you don't think there will be more hate crimes against gay people as a result of these types of appointments, you are living in a dream world. Or at minimum, it's only natural that people would feel at far greater risk for lack of acceptance as a result of these cretins in high power. Do you really not get that?

[KDS]

I understand their plight, and I was glad to see them get the right to marry.  Quite frankly, I think it's one of the few things the current administration can really hang their hat on.  

I just don't see Pence rolling out conversion therapy or anything like that.  Or anything happening with gay rights.  

As I mentioned... it's not about Pence "rolling out conversion therapy"... it's about the fact that he is an outspoken advocate/supporter of it.

And how that fact - in and of itself - is toxic to the LGBT community, by having someone influential in the White House with such views. You don't see how gay folks could feel that this can unfortunately help lead to more bigotry, more anti-gay people feeling empowered/legitimized to do/say bigoted acts?

And how about the Bannon appointment? How on earth can a gay person not feel sickened/threatened by an administration that has no problem appointed people who say "dikes"? Because it's "just a word"?

Dude, if you don't think there will be more hate crimes against gay people as a result of these types of appointments, you are living in a dream world. Or at minimum, it's only natural that people would feel at far greater risk for lack of acceptance as a result of these cretins in high power. Do you really not get that?

No, I don't get that.  I fail to see how somehow Trump's being in power is going to lead to more hate crimes against gays. 

Right now, I'm more concerned about further hate crimes against Trump supporters, which is really actually occurring. 

[Lee Marshall]

Do we really HAVE to?  Trump is pure shyte.  Pence is even worse.  Trump picked Pence to 'run' with 'cause he  somehow managed to figure that no one in their right mind would shoot him in order to, instead, go with that Pence creep as 'el presidente'.  WtF is wrong with you people?  Dumb and Dumber as the ticket to vote for?  jesus fucking christ!!!!

[HeyJude]

I'm not combing through almost four years of messages on a message board, but I've definitely read, and it might not have even been this board, where Mike's camp was accused of using C50 photos to promote concerts. 

Which makes absolutely zero sense since, if an audience member went to a show in summer 2013, expecting to see Brian, Al, and David, but Brian, Al, and David aren't there, there's little to no chance said customer buys a ticket in summer 2014.

Yeah, I really don't remember anybody on this board actually contending Mike's camp knowingly tried to falsely advertise Mike's shows with C50 pics. It indeed would make no sense.

From the very first instance in 2012 and the infamous "Nutty Jerry's" incident, the discussion here revolved mostly around the irony involved in C50 photos being used for Mike's show, both in relation to Mike's decision to end C50 as well as the old Al Jardine lawsuits of the late 90s. I think there was also an air of "this is what happens when you cut off the reunion" disappointment aimed at Mike, and I think that very mild criticism was justified.

[CenturyDeprived]

I understand their plight, and I was glad to see them get the right to marry.  Quite frankly, I think it's one of the few things the current administration can really hang their hat on.  

I just don't see Pence rolling out conversion therapy or anything like that.  Or anything happening with gay rights.  

As I mentioned... it's not about Pence "rolling out conversion therapy"... it's about the fact that he is an outspoken advocate/supporter of it.

And how that fact - in and of itself - is toxic to the LGBT community, by having someone influential in the White House with such views. You don't see how gay folks could feel that this can unfortunately help lead to more bigotry, more anti-gay people feeling empowered/legitimized to do/say bigoted acts?

And how about the Bannon appointment? How on earth can a gay person not feel sickened/threatened by an administration that has no problem appointed people who say "dikes"? Because it's "just a word"?

Dude, if you don't think there will be more hate crimes against gay people as a result of these types of appointments, you are living in a dream world. Or at minimum, it's only natural that people would feel at far greater risk for lack of acceptance as a result of these cretins in high power. Do you really not get that?

No, I don't get that.  I fail to see how somehow Trump's being in power is going to lead to more hate crimes against gays.  

Right now, I'm more concerned about further hate crimes against Trump supporters, which is really actually occurring.  

So not only do you not think it's conceivable that there could be more hate crimes against gays, you also cannot understand why a gay or trans person would feel that there is a remote possibility for - at minimum - their acceptance being threatened in any way?

Don't you get that people in power are influential? That many people in this country have a mentality of "well if this person does it (doing a bigoted/saying a bigoted thing), then it's ok for me to also do it"? Especially if there are no apologies offered? How about if Trump's entire cabinet freely called blacks the "N" word. And won't apologize for it? How about then? And I haven't even begun to touch the countless ways in which he's been despicably sexist, which will surely legitimize misogyny - even if in subtle ways - among many.

Don't you get that there are many people who are bigoted, but have been in the closet about it for awhile, because they haven't felt it's been ok to let their bigot flags fly? You think it's preposterous to consider that unapologetic f*cks like Bannon won't make those people feel empowered?

I'm sure we could find instances of things you'd be able to recognize historically have influenced society by people in power doing/saying either good or bad things aimed towards groups of people, where that had an adverse (or positive, depending on the action) affect on relations between groups.

This is a thing called cognitive dissonance if you can't realize that.

I, on the other hand, can empathize with what you mentioned, being that I also don't want to see hate crimes against Trump supporters, which I think is something that is absolutely of concern. While I despise Trump, and I find it hard to empathize with his supporters,  I am STILL able to say that. I don't want to see any hate crimes or hateful speak happen. I don't want to see epithets, including words like "hillbilly" being leveled in a negative way at large swaths of people.

Seriously, man. If you haven't been gay yourself, haven't felt the affects of society around you for decades, particularly someone living in an area typically more hostile to gays, don't you get how this could cloud your ability to fully relate to what it must feel like to specifically be gay, and at risk for both non-acceptance and/or hate crimes?

Again, if you just don't really give a flying f*ck about that, or think it's super low priority to be concerned about, just say it. I'll appreciate the honesty.

To bring it back to The BBs, this is the same cognitive dissonance that I believe Mike has about Brian's mental illness, where he makes blanket statements implying ALL of Brian's issues are due to drugs. It's friggin' ridiculous. One literally has to be an ostrich with their heads in the sand, and completely avoid obvious truths to deny how this will lead to a more hostile environment for minority groups, due to bigots feeling empowered to let their thoughts be known. King Ostrich, Mike himself, probably doesn't give a f*ck to be able to recognize this stuff either.

[HeyJude]

Right now, I'm more concerned about further hate crimes against Trump supporters, which is really actually occurring.  

And fearing more for the safety of Trump *supporters* in the midst of all of this (including Trump advocating torture and other actions against people based on religion, race, and so on)  is probably one of the reasons one might come away feeling a lack of empathy, or at least in the eyes of many *grossly misplaced* empathy.

Hate crimes against anybody, and *any* crime against anybody whether motivated by hate or anything else, should obviously be 100% repudiated, and crimes against anti and pro advocates surrounding a presidential inauguration are a legit concern.

But I'm *pretty sure* hate crimes motivated by hate against given races, orientations, and so on, are statistically a *much larger* problem than hate crimes against Trump supporters.

I get it, it's impossible to argue against lamenting hate crimes against any groups. But we can also lament the idea of hate crimes against people who wear socks with sandals, or hate crimes perpetrated by Trump supporters against supporters of other candidates. It's an endless loop.

To bring it back to the Beach Boys (again!), I'm *very cautiously* optimistic about the idea that Mike will stay away from this event.

Those hoping, *in the event* that Mike doesn't do the gig, for some big statement condemning Trump will likely be disappointed. There are a number of other b-list and c-list entertainers who apparently have chosen (due to the obvious PR issues) not to do the gig, but are being just as careful about not vehemently speaking out against the gig, as if they probably *want* to do the gig but won't so that they don't catch a slew of criticism.

It's okay, it appears they finally found their top-of-the-bill band for the show: 3 Doors Down

No, I'm not kidding.