Some “Dopers” keep track of Fred Phelps while others browse the latest selection of tracts from Jack Chick.
I visit Charlie Daniels’ website every once in a while just to see what he’s up to. I’ll admit I have pitted Mr Daniels several times before and will probably continue to do so.
Well he is striking down evolution again. (Yes, he’s done it before). Some of his arguments are:
Charlie is what might be called, in certain circles, “a total good ol’ boy redneck dumbass”. A seeming hatred of education seems to be a recurring theme in his work. He makes me wish that I didn’t like The Devil Went Down to Georgia so damned much (it’s just a good song), though I will say I’ll never buy a copy in such a way that it will enrich him by the $.07 royalty or whatever.
One of my favorite “conservative Charlie” comments came from one of my least favorite bloggers (who was also a banned Doper, but one with some wit in spite of his thoroughly obnoxious personality). When Charlie made one of his Yosemite Sam like diatribes on how “I’d love to see 'em try to have uh anti-war demonstration or a gay pride parade or what have ya in Waycross, Georgia or Kazz, Mississippi” (meaning it as a compliment to Waycross or Kazz or whichever small deep-south towns he used), the blogger responded “I will personally organize one of each, if you’ll promise in writing and post a bond that on the same day I do that you’ll give a public performance of “The South’s Gonna Do It Again” in either Harlem or downtown Detroit.” I think Charlie probably defines the term “chicken hawk” in that he’d no doubt go from “I’m a tough old redneck and I tells it like it is” to pissing a river on himself if his audience ever turned hostile.
Someday, if I’m really rich, I’m going to train a chimpanzee to play the violin and teach it “The Devil Went Down to Georgia.” Good ol’ Charlie can say whatever he wants about evolution after that.
Well, he’s a singer. That doesn’t give him special insight into anything, does it?
I often wonder if people apply this same standard to the other side of the aisle, when Sting or Bono make their political pronouncements.
A political opinion is a political opinion. Musical talent is musical talent. These things operate independently from each other, and a person’s competence on one area shouldn’t guide us when they hold forth in the other.
Would any of us listen if John Ashcroft or Teddy Kennedy sang?
Nawww, it’s mostly people on the other side of an issue that think their opponents are in awe of a non-politically-famous celebrity’s questionably-formed* opinions.
*i.e. It may or may not be a correct opinion, but one shouldn’t judge that based on the celebrity.
Can’t say as I follow the pronouncements of either of them too terribly closely, especially Sting (is Sting still pronouncing these days?). But, in those instances when I do hear about some pronouncement of Bono’s, it’s usually coupled with an appearance by a world-renowned expert on the topic at hand who says, basically, that the guy knows his shit. No, Bono’s musical talent does not give him any special insight into the problem of third world debt or what-have-you. His willingness to learn about the subject before speaking about it does.
I’ve just been informed that my wife, in the grips of morning sickness, was awoken by my playing of John Ashcroft’s performance. She’s made me promise never, ever to play it again, with a threat to my baby-making parts.
Precisely! Charlie Daniels is not a dumbass because he’s a singer: he’s a dumbass because he’s a dumbass, and we only hear about him because he’s a singer.
Bono is not well-informed because he’s a singer: he’s well-informed because he’s well-informed, and we hear about him because he’s devoted a great deal of his time to making sure we hear about him.
The whole idea that we shouldn’t pay attention to celebrity’s political opinions is a canard. We should offer their opinions the same deference we offer to those of others: if their opnions are dumb, then we should say so, and if they’re not, then we should recognize that, too.
In Bono’s case, furthermore, since he has actually been personally influential, it is no longer technically correct to call his political opinions into question because he is “just a celebrity”. When he crossed the line into making actual political differences he ceased to be a celebrity, in the sense people use when they discount non-political celebrities opinions.
Actually, that’s a good point. As for Sting and Bono… I don’t know much about Sting’s politics, and I don’t agree all that much with Bono, but at least he does some actual research and generally knows what he’s talking about. Charlie Daniels is just your average everday idiot who happens to get quoted because he’s a minor celebrity. What’s embarrassing is how he appears to revel in his ignorance.
