In all fairness, it was the politicians who courted the celebrities, not vice-versa. The government asked (pressured) Charlie Chaplin and Douglas Fairbanks into selling war bonds in WWI, when they’d prefer to concentrate on making movies that brought money only to themselves. Pretty soon smart politicians such as FDR realized that if he had Frank Sinatra stop in at the White House for a grip and grin, it would get FDR’s picture in the paper.
When HUAC invited (pressured) big names in the movies to testify against Communism, it was looking for eye-candy that would attract newsreel cameras. Did anyone really think Gary Cooper would rip the lid off some secret Hollywood cabal?
The turning point may well have been when Humphrey Bogart went to Washington on his own string to protest agianst HUAC. Next thing you know, Lauren Bacal is Harry Truman’s piano, then she’s on Adalia Stephenson’s campaign train. Finally, a stalled movie star embarks on his own political career and eventually becomes president, which every other performer saw as entitlement to hold forth with their own views as if descending from Mt. Sinai.
When you have a sore throat do you go to Joe Schmoe or to a Doctor? When I want an informed opinion on anything I’d rather hear an expert than what some guy off the street thinks, although I’d take either over Barbara Streisand.
You’re comparing the process and the end results of journalism school to the process and end results of medical school? Whatever.
Regardless, if you respect their thoughts, by all means listen to them. I think I said that. I suspect we disagree on what makes an ‘expert’, but I’m not wrought up enough to argue about it tonight.
And American citizens can’t express a viewpoint. Or at least American citizens who have access to TV cameras.
Get over it. Garafalo’s just as qualified (or maybe more so) as Ann Coulter to give an opinion on the state of the nation and/or Bush’s Just War on Iraq. Name one columnist or pundit–let’s say on the right, since you apparently don’t like lefties–who has a background in international Poli-Sci or Social Sciences. Let’s make a Bachelor’s degree the baseline; dropping out of college to be a radio announcer doesn’t count.
Indygrrl, I’m going to have to see photos of those hooters and compare them to Ann Coulter’s before I can allow that.
My point, I think, is this: Any number of people have had successful careers in other fields before entering politics. From acting (Reagan, Gandy, Eastwood) to sports (Tom Osbourne, Jim Bunning) to astronauts (Glenn). None of them sprang full blown from the brow of Zeus as political experts. Nevertheless, all of them throughout their lifes had to have been uttering political thoughts and opinions. And these thoughts were obviously valid as they all turned into electable politicians.
It is pointless and simplistic to bash a persons political opinions simply because of their profession. Now if you want to say that the opinion is bullshit because they’re liberal and you’re conservative, or vice versa, that is a kettle of different fish, and of course is perfectly valid. But saying you think they’re not worth listening to simply because of their profession is just dumb.
If this thread is still active tomorrow, I’ll be back. Gotta go.
Anyway, If you don’t like the doctor analogy, how about a mechanic, or an artist, or a pro basketball player? Is Joe Schmoe’s opinion on cars, art, or basketball as valid theirs is? There is a reason courts distinguish “expert witnesses” from just plain witnesses, because their opinion is more valid. The point is actors aren’t by trade political pundits and it pisses me off to see their opinions passing for authoritative testimony on such important issues as domestic and foreign policy.
I can’t see the difference between Janeane Garofalo, Barbara Streisand, Bill O’ Reilly, Sean Hannity, the Colmes guy, Phil Donohue, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Jerry Falwell…
How does one qualify to get their political views taken seriously? The only metric seems to be “# who want to listen”. Nothing else seems to matter.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I am a dem, and marketedly liberal dem at that, but the point I’m making is entirely bipartisan. Next,
People bash Shrub every day because he was born with a silver spoon in his ass and ran an oil company. I think it’s a valid grievance given his role. People still bash Reagan because he was a nudnik, former actor.
Yes innocent. The Iraqi people are innocent, regardless of the actions of Hussein, and even Hussein has done nothing to the US. We have no grounds whatever for an invasion. This is purely a self-serving political act by a drug damaged, usurping, idiot man-child. Whatever happened to right and wrong, for fuck’s sake. This country used to is supposed to be a force for good. This planned invasion is no more justified than Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait or Hitler’s invasion of Poland. It is an act of pure, cynical evil.
