Does anyone else wish that celebs would shut the hell up?

[Kilmer17]

I know they have the freedom of speech, but dont they have the responsibility to tell the truth?

Mike Farrell was on CBS SUnday and stated that Saddam didnt kick the weapons inspectors out in the 90s, but rather Clinton choose to pull them out.

This was after Susan Sarandon proclaimed that there was no Iraq/AlQueda link because they hate each other, then went on to say that Al Queda would respond if we disarm Saddam. When questioned by Bob Schieffer on the hypocrisy she went on a rant about oil.

And the granddaddy this weekend was Bill Mahrers new show. He told Ann Coulter that we should leave Iraq and focus on Korea because "They have the missiles to reach L.A." and not 2 minutes later she asked him why he didnt support a missilie shield and he said "none of our enemies have missiles" When she pointed out his hypcrisy, he started in on Bushes SAT scores and called him stupid.

They make me sick.

[JimboDaMan]

It might surprise you to know I agree with you. People like Babs, and Alec Baldwin, and Sarandon, and Rosie Odonnell are all fine people but there's no reason on God's green earth why their uninformed opinions should be of any interest to thinking people.

It probably won't surprise you that I have the same feeling about people like Heston, and Schwartznegger, and Ann Coulter.

Appropo of nothing, in college I knew Alec Baldwin (back when his name was Alex) and met Ann Coulter (thru her brother). Now they are both rich and famous and I...am not.

[Kilmer17]

The difference is that Coulter is a political analyst. That's her job. I can understand if you dont like her, but she's doing her job. The celebs dont belong in the middle of the debate.

[Romo]

Celebrities are annoying when it comes to any political issue. It seems that because someone has a camera, microphone or even a column in the newspaper the world seems to assume that this person is smart and that they should be listened to.

Just because someone has an opinion on an issue and has the means to get their message out to the public does not mean they should be listened to.

The average Joe on the street's opinion is just as valid as Susan Sarandon's.

[NavyDave]

The thing is they can be neutral and or silent like MJ and Tiger.

[fansince62]

don't get me started!!!! the hypocrisy of the hollywood types knows no bounds. coddled children who believe several years working in coffee shops or casting on the director's couch has some how earned martyr status. frauds who deserve to be shown the door..........our lives would be none the poorer if every one of them suddenly disappeared..........

[JimboDaMan]

Coulter is not an analyst; she’s a propagandist. She’s pretty much in the same league as Mike Moore. Their work is designed to push a particular point of view. Its not intended to be truthful.

Need an example? In her book “Slander” she describes doing a search of liberal papers like New York Times and Washington Post for the terms “far right wing” and “far left wing”. The predictable result – that “far right wing” appeared more often than “far left wing” – she uses to support her argument that the press is biased against conservatives. Sounds logical.

What she doesn’t say – or had no interest in finding out – is that an identical search of the Washington Times produces identical results. So it appears that everybody, liberal and conservative, uses the terms in pretty much the same way. Doesn’t necessarily mean her conclusions are invalid - but it unquestionably means that her highly-touted research is sloppy and designed to twist results to fit her agenda.

Its also been shown that to reproduce Coulter’s count of “far right wing” you have to include clips from the sports pages of basketballs being thrown from the “far right wing”. Again, work this sloppy or deliberately twisted is in a league with Moore. Propaganda, not analysis.

I’ll quote from her book. “Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers…they hate all religions except Islam”.

Wellnow. I’d call myself liberal. Yet amazingly I do not hate America, I love America. Nor do I hate ‘flag-wavers’ since I’d have to hate myself. I’m Catholic, which last time I checked is not a branch of Islam. That’s three outright lies in one sentence, Ms. Coulter has outdone even her own low standard of ‘analysis’ there. Although I will give her some high marks for truth in labeling since that piece of tripe is, indeed, Slander.

[Kilmer17]

Call her names if it makes you feel better, but that IS her job. The actors and celebs do not do this for a living.

Im interested to see those results from the Wash Times. Can you post that link?

Her book was poorly written IMO. It had some interesting stats but it was a pretty boring read. A better book is BIAS by Bernard Goldberg or At Any Cost by Bill Sammon.

[JimboDaMan]

I'm not calling her names, I'm simply characterizing her work. Calling someone names would be something like saying they are "pathetic little parakeet males", a bit of analysis found on page 2 of Ms. Coulter's book.

I'll see what I can find for that link you requested.

Got one here . This is mostly a liberal site (but not always, in searching for Coulter I came across this defense of Bush at the end of the article). But as far as I know they're the only ones who've actually checked out Coulter's work.

And fansince, I was wondering how long that would take :doh: . Better that than a pathetic parakeet I guess.

[fansince62]

I’d call myself liberal

We all have our burdens to bear!!!!

[The Evil Genius]

I guess I view this subject a little different.

The key difference between the average Joe and the celeb is that the celeb has the millions of $'s to back their personal causes and ideology up. That, and that they have been placed in the public eye by Joe Public in the 1st place.

So I guess I dont care either way if the Babs, the Arnolds, or the Susan Sarandons of the world speak their mind. If Joe Public is so weak minded to let his views be changed by Hollywood, then all the right wing radio nuts of the world have easy prey as well.

Joe Public pays these Hollywood types to be in the public spotlight. And yet, when these Hollywood tpyes have an opinion, its somehow wrong. Sounds like McCarthyism at its best to me.

[Kilmer17]

My own search of the Wash Times found an equal number of references to each.

Furthermore, the Wash Times is known to be a right leaning paper. It is bashed by the rest of the media for being so. The standard bearers for news are the NYT, Post, Herald, LA TImes. And those, despite claiming otherwise, clearly slant left.

TEG, The public pays these people to entertain. NOt to express their political propoganda and distortions.

[JackC]

Kilmer,

It's time for everyone to shut up and come together for the sake of this war. It's too late to turn back so it would be wise to focus on what we can each do to help.

After it's all over we can focus on what went right and wrong but now is not the time to do it in the public forum. (here is ok )

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

TEG, The public pays these people to entertain. NOt to express their political propoganda and distortions.

Lets look at this another way Kilmer. Does your job pay for you to be conservative and right wingish (assuming that you are)?

Most likely no, it pays you for your work, your product.

If you made millions of dollars for your job, do you think you would use that money for your personal causes? Honestly now, I think most of us would. Or at least we would entertain the thought of it. We would donate to out political party affiliation, we would probably pay the $1000 per seat dinners for Dubya or whoever. We might, if we had access to the media, put out full page ads in papers supporting issues.

So why is that different than the Hollywood "types". Is it only because most of them swing to the left on ideology?

[Art]

My problem with the left and their anti-war demonstrations is that it makes absolutely NO sense at all. I understood the Vietnam anti-war movement. There you had people against being involved with Vietnam at all. They didn't think we had any business there or that there was really any problem. They wanted us to leave and not be involved.

This anti-war movement is just odd. You have a group of people against war and yet they almost uniformly agree that something does need to be done in and about Iraq. They just don't know what should be done. They come up with killing him with kindness to containment to inspections but there's no real strength behind the message because it's so wildly different and generally the people who are anti-war have no other avenue they can coherently express.

The celebs that are chatting are oddly duplicitious in their statements as Kilmer points out. But, worse, they seem to think there already is a war by their comments. The fact is we can't go to war if Iraq gives up the weapons we are directing them to give up. So, as that could happen there may not be any war and it will be odd to listen to the left talk about what happened because I believe most already feel war is underway.

As for Ann Coulter, I actually don't like her much. I do find her to be too far to the right and unable to allow herself the intellectual honesty to be critical of the right. I am, as an example, critical of the right and the spending they've allowed the government to continue to amass. Coulter won't even let herself be an honest righty, as she's a party liner all the way. That said, I would absolutely love to bang her .

[@DCGoldPants]

My problem is that there are a lot of super ultra liberal people in this world that have no problem labeling problems but offer no solutions.

I know that doesn't sound like me but it kills me.

No war with Iraq? well, when they have a missle aimed at your face....then what?

[Kilmer17]

The difference is that I would not be seated by the media as a political analyst like Sarandon and Farrell have been. Furthermore, I wouldnt tell lies and be the hypocrite these folks are based solely on my hatred towards a politician.

Where were they while Clinton was bombing the hell out of Kosovo (without UN apporval)?

[@DCGoldPants]

they were ****ing against War in General but didn't focus it towards Clinton because they supported him before. It also wasn't close to being this big.

[Tarhog]

I have no real problem with celebs spouting off, as more often than not, they make idiots of themselves regardless of their position. That moron from Limp Biskit on the Grammies last night is a prime example. I do think there is a difference between someone like Alec Baldwin or Susan Sarandon spouting off, and say an Ann Coulter or Juan Williams giving an opinion. I as the consumer tune in to shows carrying Coulter or Williams with the intent of hearing political commentary as advertised. I may find their views illogical or wrong, but I expect to hear their views. And regardless of what you think of someone's writing, you know what you are buying when you plunk down you $$. As a sidenote, I think the Grammy producers had every right (if they did so) to tell their participants to shut the hell up and stick to the script. They were invited as musicians and to celebrate music. I the viewer don't want to hear their political views, and the network stands to lose money if I get fed up or offended and turn to 'Cops' instead.

I will say Sheryl Crow can wear her 'No War' stuff anyway she likes it, she is still hot.

[Kilmer17]

Not that there was much of chance to begin with, but I certainly wont be buying any Limp Biscuit CDs in the future.

[fansince62]

Joe Public pays these Hollywood types to be in the public spotlight. And yet, when these Hollywood tpyes have an opinion, its somehow wrong. Sounds like McCarthyism at its best to me.

TEG.......I thought we paid to watch their films or hear their music. They can make their statements there. We don't pay them to proseltyze beyond their product. You have the equation entirely wrong. As for McCarthyism.........well...everyone is entitled to some literary license now and then......

let them blather....they should be singled out for the buffoons they are....and for those of us who feel strongly enough....we should not drop a dime on their products.....sounds fair enough to me......

as for the hypocrisy....well...that would be an interesting study...here are a few ideas for starters.....

.....think their kids ever serve in the armed forces? fire department? police department?......one in every 1000 maybe?

.....think their kids have special avenues open to them in Hollywood should they decide to follow their parents as actors/actresses/musicians? .......no....not in the land of equal opportunity

.....think a famous actor ever used the power of a differentiated product (his/her image, personality) to extort millions in contrcat negotiations?......no...they only ask for what they need....

.....think these peaceful souls ever pounced on a photographer? ....no...never......they don't believe in violence

....think these ardent feminists ever had to pass the couch test to win a role?....no....not ever......we can lay that one to rest

....think these arch environmentalists ever considered the huge amounts of energy their industry consumes? or their private fleets of planes and automobiles? ......no...say it isn't so......

that's just for starters. I'm sure others can think of more....they don't practice what they preach. that is why so many find them so grating...that and the fact that they have very little to say that is intellectually interesting......they emote. they empathize. they feel. how wonderful. and all from their comfy, exclusive, neighborhoods.

they benefit hugely from the system....but contribute little

[JimboDaMan]

Kilmer, my search substantiates the claim that the Wash Times also uses "far right wing" much more than "far left wing".

I first tried the basic search function but the results returned any page with any of the words, not the particular phrase. Lots of hits in the Sports and Home sections. There's supposedly a more advanced search available but I got an access denied message when I tried.

So I searched the long-term archives. Searching from 1995 on, using an exact-phrase search, I get 10 'lefties' and 31 'righties'. FWIW, 3 to 1 is about what I expected.

I'd be intererested in your results and how you obtained them. But unless you have Nexis access (which I don't) its not possible to duplicate the original search. The real point here is that Coulter left out the part of the data that undermined her claim.

[The Evil Genius]

Maybe I am not being clear in my argument. I apologize if I am not.

If Joe Average gets paid a million dollars (or 10 grand) for his job, shouldnt he or she be allowed to spend that money on political issues that he thinks are important to him or her? Shouldn't they be allowed to use whatver friends they have to do so?

It doesnt matter if Joe Average is employed by Hollywood or by IBM. It is their salary that they are spending. Yeah Joe Hollywood's salary is being paid by the people. So is Joe Average if you want to get down to it.

So what's the big deal here?

Are you guys really afraid that Joe Hollywood's opinion is going to sway the ideals of Joe Average so much that you can't get your way anymore?

I think we all have a little more faith than that.

It doesnt matter who the person is, Hollwyood ulta liberal or right wing religious nut Jerry Falwell - they have their own rights to speak in the public forum, imho. I just choose not to listen to either most of the time, as do, I hope, a lot of other Joe Averages.

[Kilmer17]

Jimbo, my search was the simple one you tried. IM interested though, did you mean this-"I get 10 'lefties' and 31 'righties'. FWIW, 3 to 1 is about what I expected." Bec ause isnt that what Coulter was saying the NYT was doing?

[fansince62]

Jimbo....I like how you've gone about defending your assertion....nice job....my only comment would be that no one considers the WT on a par with the WP, NYT, LAT in terms of influence or circulation...............now a search on the WSJ may prove more evidence to support your case....