I was just skimming through an article, and I found something so sick, so twisted and disgusting, so mind bogglingly stupid that I had to share it with the rest of you.
You know how I feel about 'celebrities' using their status to mount the soapbox and weigh in on issues that they really don't understand. Take movie starts for example. I hardly think that a demonstrated proficiency in long form lying (AKA acting) makes one suited for political punditry, although it probably does come in handy when running for office. Yet these folks feel no compunction when foisting their ill considered view on us, as if the thoughts of George Clooney on our military capabilities automatically have merit in the real world just because he played a soldier a couple of times. He played a doctor on TV for a while two; would you let him operate on you?
Yet because of their success on stage or screen, we automatically accord their opinions with some level of respect. This might be barely justifiable if there weren't so many examples bad career decisions by these same starts. I started thinking about this when I found this site
Yep. Somebody in Hollywood thought it would actually be a good idea to make a series out of Tremors. Now I'm sure Fred Ward needed the work, after all, he did do Tremors 2, but even he had enough pride to stay away from this stinker. Why on earth did anybody in show business think this was a good idea? And if they're capable of being so devastatingly wrong about something in which they are supposed to be expert, why should we listen to their blather about things which they obviously know nothing about. Let's look at the 'expert' moves of some of the more prominent anti war celebrities.
I'd have a hard time giving the guy who greenlighted Water World any credence whatsoever.
But that's just me.
So I guess you forgot about that "Great President" Ron Reagan, a recovering actor. And what qualifies you to use your soapbox to preach /your/ position?
Posted by: scooby on March 21, 2003 1:20 AMThat's an easy one. I don't have the crutch of celebrity to get people to hear my opinions, so if I want credibility, I have to make sure I know what I'm talking about. I have to be able to present my opinions with a little flair and a lot of substance, rather than the other way around, which is the Hollywood style. Don't get me wrong, I excel at my job, but I recognize that it has absolutely nothing to do with what I do here. I know that proficiency in one area does not automatically grant proficiency in another. It just so happens that I am gifted in many areas. As Tommy Smothers once said, "My mind has many faucets."
And I didn't forget Reagan. He made some classic blunders in his career as well; Bedtime for Bonzo and passing up the role of Rick in Casablanca, and he parlayed his celebrity into the governor's mansion and eventually the White House.
And that's what made him different. He didn't just complain about things he didn't like; he did something about it. He got involved 24/7 and entered politics, instead of marching for 20 or 30 minutes while the cameras roll or yammering away nonsensically whenever a microphone is near. He educated himself on the issues so he wouldn't say ridiculous things like "We can't beat anybody anymore."
Posted by: rich on March 21, 2003 2:05 AMNow, don't go ripping Evita. That was a fantastic movie, and Madonna was very good in it.
And although it's been a number of years since I've seen Ishtar - I was working in a movie theatre when it came out, so I saw parts of it several times as well as the whole thing - I thought it was fine. Nowhere near the level that everyone makes it out to be.
Posted by: Barry on March 21, 2003 2:34 PMSomehow Rich I can't picturing you not using celebrity status(if you had it) to voice your opinion.
While I think most of the celebrities are misguided in their opinions I think we should remember that the great thing about our country is that what yompu do for a living does not determine if you get to speak out your opinion.
As for being educated on the issues, what determines that? If you agree with them? All we know about any of these people is what little the media gives us. You can't possibly judge that they have done nothing but mouth off for a few minutes at a march. You are making a huge assumption about them without proof.
As for ronald reagan, it would be nice if we could forget him the way he has forgotten everything.
Posted by: mel on March 21, 2003 9:15 PMhttp://www.operationmilitarypride.org/index.html
Posted by: on March 21, 2003 9:31 PMHey mel,
If I ever achieve fame, it will be for my opinions, so that wouldn't be an issue.*grin*
Actually, I support everybody's right to speak their opinion. Even if their opinion is ill-informed, ill-considered, or ill-willed, they have the right to voice it. What bugs me is they are given a bully pulpit frm which to spout their idiocy, and they haven't earned it.
Posted by: rich on March 21, 2003 11:36 PMAnd exactly how did George Bush and Dick Cheney earn their right to make decisions about such matters as going to war? Neither served in any war from what I can tell: http://www.awolbush.com And Bush is a failed businessman /at best/, not some glorious statesman. I mean, the guy had never even been to Europe before being installed, er appointed, er selected back in 2000. I could go on and on about the guy, but I guess that's why I have my own blog... :)
And I second Mel's idea... I thank the Lord that Mount Rushmore was physically unable to withstand the addition of his (Reagan's, not mel's) face. Ewww....
And let's not forget that Papa Bush was likely the one making the decisions for 12 years there (80-92), not Ron for 8 then Bush for 12. He (Bush) was, after all, the former director of the CIA before becoming involved with politics. He is a scary, scary man....
And Rich, if you ever get famous, and you never know what will happen when word gets out about your uncanny abilities with Rubber Hoses and Shop Vacs... Don't forget us little people :)
Posted by: scooby on March 22, 2003 5:17 AM