Well, the quote i provided in my earlier post was, in fact, taken from your “original post in this thread.”
But why don’t we look at that post in toto. You wrote:
This is, as far as i can tell, all your own opinion. And part of that opinion is that “it’s inappropriate and unexpected (and therefore unappreciated) to speak out on politics when people are interested in seeing or hearing you because of your talents as an entertainer.”
Yet, later on, you claimed that you didn’t say it was inappropriate, only that it was “perceived as inappropriate.” Well, fuckstick, in your original post, which i have quoted in its entirety above, the word “perceived” does not appear once. You state, straight out, that it’s inappropriate.
I don’t think that Mr. Heston or Gov. Schwartzeneger gave away all their earthly posessions when they assumed their political lives. Their fortunes were made, allowing them to dabble in politics.
Do you for one second think that Governor Schwartzeneger was elected for his vast political experience and universally recognized expertise of agricultural issues?
Do you honestly believe that when the NRA was shopping around for a spokeperson, they were in a dither because they couldn’t decide between Heston, John Astin, or a local gunsmith? These people are doing the very thing you’re railing against: trading on their celebrity and name-recognition while it’s still a valuable commodity.
As opposed to, say, Ken Ley, who forks over millions and millions of dollars, hoping to have an effect, but at least gets deregulation legislation for his troubles.
Cousin! Cousin! It’s a family reunion. Of course, my Dad (the ex-high school teacher and successful businessman) thinks I’ve grown dangerously liberal since I married “that ACLU Boston wife of yours.” Granted, he says it with a grin, and he loves arguing with her, but really…Dad, get a grip. Rush is retarded.
I think Limbaugh’s comment (at least about Springsteen) was in response to this editorial in the NY Times.
I see nothing wrong with anyone writing an editorial, entertainer or not.
And it takes some kind of chutzpa for someone who is publicly known to have a drug problem to refer to someone like Springsteen, who has always had an utterly squeaky clean rep in this regard, as being drug-addled.
Is this what it’s really all about? The pain it causes when celebrities give voice to their opinions outside of a specifically designated “it’s okay for you celebs to state your views over here” zone?
My husband and I took a couple of friends to see Tracy Chapman at the Hollywood Bowl a few weeks ago (fantastic performer, btw). At one point between songs, right in the middle of her concert, she addressed the audience…
Tracy Chapman: “Is everyone registered to vote?”
Audience: Loud Applause!!!
Tracy Chapman: “Because we’ve got an important election coming up in November.”
Audience: Even LOUDER Applause!!!
Tracy Chapman: “And I think it’s time to make some changes.”
Audience: THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE, LOUD WHISTLING & A STANDING OVATION!!!
Moral of the story: Not every audience resents performers making political statements when they went to hear them perform their songs, not give a political speech.
<shrug>
I think they can say whatever the hell they want when it’s their show and their stage. Don’t like it? Get up and leave and don’t patronize that artist anymore. Really, it is still a free country, afterall.
In the first place, when I used the word inappropriate, I was describing the feelings of those who disapprove of celebrity activism, myself included. I disavowed it only to the extent that it was being made to seem that I exclusively was putting forth this view, and I’m sure you know that.
My use of the word “perceived” was explanatory, not meant to be a direct quote, which I’m sure you also know.
So, to the extent that you are deliberately trying to misrepresent my words and intent, you sir, are the liar…and a devious, conniving and deliberate (but not very smart) one at that!
Sorry to single you out here, Starving, but you were the first in this thread to use this phrase, and it’s the phrase I take issue with.
I hear it often. When liberal artists talk about their political views, they are “telling people what to think”. I say no. They are not 'telling people what to think", they are telling people what THEY (the artists) think. Nowhere does it say that an artist can’t be an activist for any cause he/she believes in. Their views tend to get out there because people with film crews and microphones and notepads keeping asking them about their views. People keep inviting them to share these views.
Now it may well be that the people expressing these views are morons. Some of them obviously are.
But the “telling people what to think” phrase carries a different connotation. As if there is some sort of mind control attempt going on rather than a free flow of ideas. And it is surely an ad hominem attack to attempt to dicount what they say simply because their primary occupation is entertainment, as if that fact alone made them unworthy.
That is all. Return to your discussion…
Isn’t this exactly what’s been happening? Those who approve, cheer and support them; those who don’t, critisize and boycott them. It’s the American way.
But I thought this thread was supposed (here’s that word again) to be about why people think celebrities are poopy heads for speaking out politically when they don’t seem to feel the same way about Limbaugh, etc.?
What does that have to do with Chapman’s audience approval?
First of all, thank you for your wonderfully rational and polite post. Such is a rarity around here (yes, I know it is after all the Pit.)
But I disagree. Linda Ronstadt did not explain to her audience in Las Vegas that it was her opinion that Moore was a patriot and truth teller, she stated it as fact. She said by inference that her audience did not know the “truth” and advised them to see Moore’s movie so that they could learn the “truth.”
People like Rob Reiner, Barbara Streisand, Linda Ronstadt, et al. are not just walking down the street minding their own business and suddenly finding themselves with microphones thrust in their faces and being asked their opinions on current political events. They show up at these events specifically to make their voices heard. (And while we’re on this subject, if these celebrities are so guileless and their opinions are being solicited rather than foist upon us, how come so few microphones are thrust in the faces of conservative celebrities?)
And I’ve already explained how so many people perceive them as telling people what to think. They have no inside knowledge that makes them more qualified to speak to these issues, they have no particular insight that the common, everyday person has…so what makes them think their opinions carry weight and will sway voters? Their celebrity, that’s what. They think their popularity and star power will persuade people to their point of view! It can be nothing else because they have nothing else to bring to the table.
C’mon. It’s not like Reiner and Streisand are unwelcome at these events. And yes, they do show up to be heard. If you had a medium willing to transmit your views across the nation, wouldn’t you do it? Don’t you think *your * message is worth that? No, they are not guiless. they no the score.
Rondstat is a different story. I disagree with what she did. She was paid to do a job. As such, she was speaking on someone elses dime.
Show me where, in your original post, you even implied that the issue was one of other people’s perceptions, rather than your own statement of how things should be.
I begin to see why you are starving as an artist. It seems you haven’t got a very good grasp on what the purpose of art is. Art is supposed to reflect the times in which it is produced. Thats what artists do. Those that just shut up and sing are not artists they are merely performers. From Tchaikovsky’s 1812 overture to Moliere’s Tartuff artists have always been on the edge.
Sometimes it got them killed. In the cultural revolution in china artists were among the first targets. Pinochet targetet artists as well. Almost always when a dictator wants to take over, the first step is to silence the artists and the intellectuals. Artists in the Soviet Union walked a thin line and had to veil their comentary in parables in order to say what they needed to say, sometimes they didn’t quite cover themselves enough, so they went to the gulag. During the Macarthy era artists were among the first to be silenced.
Of course they make you uncomfortable. Sometimes that is the point. But, if you have nothing to say there is no point in being an artist of any kind. It is not about painting pretty pictures or making nice comedies or even singing a pretty tune. Art is about comunicating. The point of art is the message, the medium it is carried in is only that.
Apart from the fact that I refer to “people” knowing what to expect from Limbaugh, Hannity, el al.? Apart from the fact that I’ve said so in so many words? Apart from the fact that it doesn’t make any difference as I’ve clearly stated I agree with them?
So again, what difference does it make, other than to allow you to spread your wings and take flight as the soaring asshole you are?
As far as I’m concerned, an editorial is an editorial whether it’s spewed from Rush or Streisand. They both get payed to entertain their chosen audience.
Starving, an honest question. Do you consider Al Franken to be an entertainer or a commentator? He’s played both.
As for Rush, he is clearly a big fat idiot.
I read that somewhere, unlike this quote attributed to Rush. Got a cite yet Apos?
Tell him that you side with Bill Buckley jr about Iraq. (He just got around to saying that he wouldn’t support the war if he had it to do over again.
Tell him that you side with Brent Scowcroft and George Herbert Walker Bush that the invasion of Iraq was not a good idea.
Hell, even Kissinger thought that this venture was a bit bonkers.
Rush is an unappreciated genius.
His wordsmithing shames Rumsfeld’s.
If you are willing to really listen to him you’ll be able to see what I mean.
He pokes fun of those who take him too seriously (his callers especially).
He has created whole new genres of variations on the negative pregnant.
His sleeves are full of laughs.
Listen and remember that he’s poking fun of those who take him seriously, then you’ll see the light.
