Shots Across The Bow

Why do we listen to these nuts?

You know, I've about had my fill of "celebrities" using their fame to mount a soap box and preach to me about their favorite causes. I didn't like hearing Sally Struthers pimping for cash to "Save the Children", I don't like listening to movie stars making political statements while presenting awards for mediocre performances in contrived movies (Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, this means you) and I don't like hearing Bob Barker command us all to spay or neuter our pets after the consumer orgy "The Price is Right!"

A happy pet is a neutered pet

You know, I talked to my dog the other day, and asked him if he would be happier with his nuts cut off. He just looked at me and growled, but I got the message.

The worst part is that most celebrity/activists know almost nothing about their causes. Take some of the celebrities quoted in this article as an example. Here's that font of all wisdom, Johnny Depp, best known for starring in 21 Jump Street and quirky films by Tim Burton and John Waters.

"America is a giant dollar machine, so if you really believe that they'll give the same rights to the baker or the plumber as to a guy who runs a huge multinational company, you must be really naïve," the Kentucky native said. "I believe that the American Dream is based on greed."

I'm sure that Johnny works on his pictures at union minimum scale, rather than participate in the "giant dollar machine."

Yeah, sure he does.

As for rights, it's interesting that he complains that money affects rights in America, since we are the first nation that encoded the notion that money should not affect rights into its laws. To be fair, that ideal is not often reached, but America has a far better track record than most European nations, some of which still have, are you ready for this, royalty! People set apart from the common man through birth, and yes, money.
Shocking, I know, but true. I wonder how Johnny feels about elitism outside of America? Sadly, he doesn't say, but isn't it telling that Europe is where he spends most of his time?
Apparently elitism is okay if you're one of the elite.

Next, we turn our gaze to that renowned intellect, Woody Harrelson, who shot to stardom playing a dim bartender, ironically named Woody, (Typecasting? You make the call!) and went on to fame and fortune in such cinematic classics as The Money Train and The Cowboy Way, not to mention playing porn kings and sociopathic mass murderers.

"Every media outlet is beating the war drum and even sensible people can hear nothing else. In the U.S., God forbid you should suggest the war is unjust. … In a country that lauds its freedom of speech, a word of dissent can cost you your job."

Is that why Woody went to England in order to speak his mind? Let me clue you in to something Woody; there is no right to a job. Nobody owes you a living. If you express sentiments which anger the majority of the people around you, like calling Amercan soldiers cowards, don't be surprised if they decide not to watch your TV show, or buy products from your advertisers. This is not a governmental stifling of dissent; this is freedom of choice. People can chose who they support and who they don't. If you take your fame as an opportunity to climb on your soapbox, you have to be prepared to take the consequences, which just might include people turning the channel whenever they see your face. Now, if President Bush went on national television, and ordered all television stations to stop showing reruns of Cheers, then you could claim repression of dissent. How is it that Woody can't tell the difference between government suppression of dissent, and the people's right of free association? Oh, typecasting...that's right. Now we come to Sean Penn. and his ad in the Washington Post:

Many of your actions to date and those proposed seem to violate every defining principle of this country over which you preside: intolerance of debate ("with us or against us"), marginalization of your critics, the promoting of fear through unsubstantiated rhetoric, manipulation of a quick comfort media, and the position of your administration's deconstruction of civil liberties all contradict the very core of the patriotism you claim. You lead, it seems, through a blood-lined sense of entitlement.

At some point Sean, it would be nice if you at least attempted to substantiate any of these claims. Take the stifling of debate you mentioned. Have you been subject to any government sanctions since you voiced your dissent? Have government thugs in jackboots beat down your door and hauled you off to prison? Here's a more apt question: Could you have published a similar ad in an Iraqi paper, criticizing Saddam Hussein, and still be breathing today? You see, Sean, there is a difference between providing leadership and acting like a totalitarian dictator. You may disagree with the course the President is charting, but you are free to express that disagreement, and even act on it. You can spend your money and buy an ad in the free press, expressing your disagreement. You can slander the President, list unsubstantiated accusations by the dozen, with no fears of governmental reprisals. These are benefits of a free society, benefits which you appear to take for granted. In a tyranny, you wouldn't have the money to pay for the ad, since entertainers generally don't flourish in tyrannies; even if you had the money, there would be no free press for you to place your ad; even if you found an underground pamphlet that would print your essay, you and the publisher would risk a long term in a nasty place for daring to speak against the tyrant.

It concerns me that what you are asking of us is to abandon all previous lessons of history in favor of following you blindly into the future.

Sean, this is completely wrong. The lessons of history are quite clear. If you fail to act against a man like Saddam Hussein, he only grows stronger, and causes more damage. I'll give you an example. In WWII, the world perceived Hitler as a dangerous man. He threatened his neighbors, failed to live up to poeace accords from a previous war, and in general, acted like the totalitarian dictator he was. The world tried to appease him, going to great lengths to avoid war. How many paid the price for that forebearance? How many children, how many Slavs and Romani, among others, died in labor camps? In the end, the world acted, and put Hitler down, but the cost in lives and material was tremendous.
Now look at a case where we didn't act, and allowed a tyrant to go his own way. Stalin made Hitler look like an amateur. Stop reading your philosophers for a minute and start reading historians, Sean. See how many Russians died of starvation after the Stalin took over. See how many died in gulags and labor camps. See how many were imprisoned for their politics, or their religion. The cost of war is blood; the cost of appeasement is even more blood.

OK, enough of this. I can't blame this all on them. After all, they are just voicing their opinions, silly though they may be. They have an absolute right to do so, and I will defend their right to do so, even as I laugh at them. But, why do they get taken seriously? Johhny Depp was a telemarketer selling ball point pens before he became an actor; why should we care what he thinks about the American economy? Are we so overawed by the cachet of glamour that we automatically believe that celebrities are somehow better than the rest of us? Do we honestly believe that because a person is talented, he or she is also intelligent? Surely the tabloid headlines have proven that to be false.
So what is it? Why do we listen?

Posted by Rich at October 23, 2002 3:32 PM