Citizens Against Celebrity "Pundits"

[GrayPilgrim]

I saw this at www.foxnews.com and thought it was great. I am tired of celebrities thinking that because they are celebrities I give a Homer Simpson what they think (I got that from looking at my empty pez dispensor). Here is a petition that will be delivered to the actors saying, you are entitled to your opinion but don't think that you know everything! Are you privy to the security briefings everyday? Are you aware of all the facts? At least Germany admits Saddam is a threat and they would rather do nothing, as opposed to sprouting that he is not a threat!

http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/hollywoodceleb/

GP

[Socrates]

Good one! :thumb: It's about time that people stopped falling for the argumentum ad verecundiam involved when these lefty actors pontificate on things they know nothing about.

[kiwimac]

Even Celebrities are entitled to an opinion and in a democracy, I guess America is still a democracy? Their opinion is as good as anyone's.

Moreover, I suspect that if certain celebrities were supporting this war with Iraq that there would be no problem with them writing.

Kiwimac

[Socrates]

KatipoMac:Even Celebrities are entitled to an opinion
Sure, but not to imply "I'm such a great celebrity. therefore you should believe my opinions on geopolitics even though I haven't the slightest expertise in the field."and in a democracy, I guess America is still a democracy? Exactly right (I know what you mean, so let's please have no "America is a republic from others at this point, OK?]. Aren't they fortunate that they live in a place where they can protest freely against the government, unlike, lessee, um, Iraq?
Moreover, I suspect that if certain celebrities were supporting this war with Iraq that there would be no problem with them writing.YOU would have a problem!!:bonk:

[Epoetker]

Kiwi:

Are Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg enough support for you? :brow:

[kiwimac]

Epoetker,

I was unaware of their support. But my refusal to support this war does not come from Other's opinions but from my deeply held convictions that war and Christianity are mutually exclusive & that it is always wrong to kill.

Kiwimac

[Socrates]

KatipoMac
But my refusal to support this war does not come from Other's opinions but from my deeply held convictions that war and Christianity are mutually exclusive & that it is always wrong to kill.Since when does an obvious hater of the God of the Bible and Christian morals care about the alleged pacifism in Christianity? And who says it's always wrong to kill? Certainly not the bible, the only source of Christian morality (leaving aside the King Jimmy mistranslation of Ex. 20:13). What about killing killers to stop them killing more people?

[HerodionRomulus]

So you would disdain the opinion of entertainers, actors etc?

You would tune out the opinion of Ronald Reagan, Nancy Davis Reagan, Fred Thompson, to name a few?

[Epoetker]

Maybe those particular entertainers don't behave like this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg080701.shtml

Excerpt:

Mariah Carey has an assistant whose only job is to hand her towels. Also, wherever Mariah goes, her courtesans must first remove posters of rival "divas," lest they offend her delicate sensibilities: Thou shalt have no divas before me!

Incidentally, if you read your supermarket tabloids you'd know that Carey is now in some sort of psychiatric rehab clinic — the modern equivalent of a fainting couch or royal baths, I suppose.

It goes on: Kim Basinger is "allergic" to the sun and requires an assistant to carry an umbrella to protect her on the off chance she might be exposed to dangerous solar radiation. John Travolta has a staff of 12 assistants, including a personal chef. Sylvester Stallone once refused to continue with an interview until his hotel room was painted a more "likable" peach. Mike Myers (whom I like) almost quit the filming of Wayne's World because he didn't have any margarine for his bagel. Sean Penn made an assistant swim the dangerous and polluted currents of New York's East River just to bring him a cigarette.

And then there is the increasingly commonplace demand from numerous stars that no one be allowed to look them in the eye uninvited. For example, only members of Jennifer Lopez's "double-digit entourage" are permitted to gaze into the windows of her soul. Sylvester Stallone, Tom Cruise, and of course Barbra Streisand are just a handful of the folks who think they're on the same plateau as Japanese Emperors, Turkish Pashas, and Medieval Kings.

There's also all the stuff in my files about people like Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, and countless others who require full time aromatherapists, masseuses, acupuncturists, etc., etc. Or people like Alec Baldwin, who demands scripts be written out fö-net-tick-ally bee-kauz hee'z 2 stoopid 2 reed wurds that R speld fun-nee. Okay, I'm making that last one up, but it's a reasonable assumption.

Now, it goes without saying that the overwhelming majority of such people are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats. I would also venture to say that many of them are as ill-informed about economics (and politics and history and pretty much anything not on the room service menu) as Marie-Therese was. Oh, let's just say it: Some of them are too dumb to breathe without a cue card.

But, while stupidity rarely gets in the way of anyone being a prominent liberal, it's hardly a requirement. No, what makes these people committed lefties has nothing to do with their needing to be reminded it doesn't matter which end of the straw is "up." I think it goes directly to the fact that they live the lives they do.

Their cultural liberalism is derived largely from the fact that they can afford their bad habits. If they want to ditch their wives or husbands, they can afford to pay them off. When Catharine Zeta-Jones married Michael Douglas, her lawyers demanded and got a $5 million dollar "straying fee" in the highly probable circumstance that he, as a "recovering sex addict," might get the Jones for someone else's Zeta (for more on this see my article "Just like Ozzie and Harriet").
Or take Madonna. It's an understatement to say Madonna was a champion of cultural libertinism. Early in her career, she taught 12-year-old girls to embrace their "sexuality," and to throw off all those bourgeois hang-ups about sex, marriage, heterosexuality, whatever. Basically, she was a peripatetic evangelist of sluttiness. But when it came time to settle down and have a husband and kids, she could, quite simply, afford to. The question is what happened to the lower-middle-class girls from Jersey City who took her advice?

Sure, it's easy for Madonna to ridicule the Catholic Church and tutor girls about getting kinky-dirty with complete strangers. Currently on tour, Madonna has a 400-person entourage. She recently explained to the Sunday Mirror, "I don't have any problems with [diapers], because I have never changed one." Tell that to the thirty-year-old single mom who works as a hairdresser, and who had great fun one night as a teenager following Madonna's example.

I don't mean to get all judgy here, and besides, that's not a word. But if there's a single factor which best explains why Hollywood stars loved Clinton, endorse sexual licentiousness, and denounce religious conservatism, it is that they can afford, socially and economically, to live like moral reprobates. They have the money to pay for the inconveniences, and they have the glamour (and the peers) that makes it impossible for them to be shunned.

Anyway, let's get back to "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" for a moment — if any of you have stuck it out this far. Movie stars are the only self-made rich people who, as a group, can be relied upon to endorse socialist economics. "You can do both [capitalism and socialism] and I think Cuba might prove that," Chevy Chase declared a year or two ago.

There are a lot of factors to explain this. Unlike businessmen or inventors, actors value their emotions above all things. So if you "feel" that poor people should have more, it must be so. If you "feel" that conservatives are Nazis, it must be so. And, since most stars must know, at some fundamental level, that they don't deserve the money they earn, all the usual guilt complexes of liberalism must be especially acute.

But the most relevant factor, I think, is the arrogance of simple ignorance. Barbra Streisand said to Larry King in 1995, "[D]oes it make sense to you . . . the things that they're proposing, to give tax cuts to the rich, to give tax cuts to me? I don't need them." Perhaps — but Barbra Streisand can also auction her soiled bathroom linens for more than a thousand dollars (as she did at an auction a few years ago). The economic realities for a Hollywood star are so distorted as to be as unrecognizable as those of Monarchist France. Can you imagine a CEO halting a merger because there's no margarine for his bagel? The outraged stockholders would make the French mob look like a bunch of toddlers with Nerf bats. So it's no surprise that people like Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand think "fixing" the country's policies is simply a matter of demanding they be fixed. When Melanie Griffith was asked, by the thankfully defunct George Magazine, what she would do if she were president, she responded that the first thing she'd do is pass a law saying "no one should make more than $1 billion a year." See, it's just that easy.

Then there are the renowned bleeding hearts — like Streisand, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell — who care about poor and working people, so long as they aren't working for them. Famed for being nasty, demanding, and often vicious bosses, these liberals find an emotional connection with abstract people like "the poor" or "the blacks." They argue that life should be easy, better, and even sexually adventurous for these abstractions, precisely because they can imagine themselves walking in their shoes. But when it's real people — people with real problems, people with names, hell, people who swim the East River for their cigarettes, or look at their feet when the boss enters the room — they change their tune. Suddenly, it's not Barbra's problem. Sure, let them eat cake, but I'll be damned if I pay for it out of my own pocket.

[ItalianGold]

Oh nooooooooo - Socrates and I agree on something! ha ha :brow:

Down with celebrity political opinions!! Better yet, let's do a campaign educating our youth. Let's make it clear that actors, singers, sports stars and TV personalities are not qualified to mold their moral opinions. Let's teach them to read, read, read. Let's guide them towards a good education and teach them the skills of problem solving. Let's show by example that whichever moral philosophy we adhere to is one we're proud to demonstrate in word and deed.

And BTW kiwimac, I applaud your independent thinking and Christian understanding.

:cheers:

[Epoetker]

"Independent thinking" applies quite well to kiwimac, in the sense that he tends to form his thoughts independently of any conservative criticism. Either that or he only thinks about what he reads in The Independent.

"Christian" understanding? How many real criminals has he come into contact with? I had a (former) one for a youth pastor the past 6 years or so; while he was very big on engaging in Gahndian nonviolence toward those interested in mocking or physically attacking one's self, he made it very clear that he would not hesistate to use deadly force against anyone attacking his family.

[GrayPilgrim]

03-06-2003 @ 08:33 PM
HerodionRomulus:

So you would disdain the opinion of entertainers, actors etc?

You would tune out the opinion of Ronald Reagan, Nancy Davis Reagan, Fred Thompson, to name a few?

No what I disdain are celebrities getting called before congressional committees as celebrities and testifying. As long as they are citizens let, they are entitled to their opinions and to protest if they see fit. What annoys me is them using the expertise in one field, entertainment, and then assuming that they are experts in every field.

For instance Susan Sarandon made and appeal for sympathy saying "What has Iraq done to me?" commercial. Well I was just listening to a former state department official who said while he worked for the Clinton Administration that the Taliban gave him, Mansor, the recipees for anthrax, Sarin, VX...that Saddam had given to Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. So there is a direct link, but the facts are ignored so that war protestors can have their hurrah.

I have two different responses for those against the war. For those who are pacifists, it is their right to protest, and as long as they have a reasoned purpose for it, I have absolutely no problem with them, but I disagree with their position (BTW this is the category to which I subsume Kiwi). However, for those who say if there is evidence then we should remove him, the evidence is there if you will read it and so I say you are an ostrich who needs to get your head out of the sand.

GP