Gotta wonder what the Boycott Hollywood folks would say to that!

Dennis Miller vs. Barbara Boxer. That would be interesting. That gal says some of the dumbest shite sometimes. I would love to hear Miller's response to her.

I have no problem with Hollywood types running for office. When they do this they give themselevs a little legitimacy when it comes to political commentary. It's the abuse of their celebrity, that bugs most people. There is a difference.

"...abuse of celebrity...?"

What the fuck is that? A new crime? Don't we have enough laws on the books already?

Oh for cryin gout loud, you know what I mean. It's not illegal. Just because something is not illegal does not mean it's not wrong. There's this thing called class and tact and humility and prudence. Maybe I'm just old fashioned. Maybe those things don't matter. In my world they do. They should in yours as well.

Abusing celebrity means using the attention that their celebrity garners to speak on things about which they have no knowledge and portraying themselves as some sort of experts on political matters. The reality is that they are no more expert than a plumber, a butcher or a carpenter. Unlike those professions, their celebrity gets them attention and a free use of the media unlike any other American. It tilts the balance unfairly and distracts from facts and reason because people become caught up in their celebrity. Illegal? No. Unfair and imprudent? yes. If they want to cease to be actors or musicians and instead run for office or become an activist then they would have more legitimacy. This is not the same for other professions, but their unique position requires it.

I'd love to see Gramer run as a GOPer...after all, it was he, as Sideshow Bob, who said "no child has ever crossed the Republican Party and lived to tell about it".....

Patrick,

It’s called D-U-M-B-A-S-S.

Kevinb

*************************************************

>>Abusing celebrity means using the attention that their celebrity garners to speak on things about which they have no knowledge and portraying themselves as some sort of experts on political matters. The reality is that they are no more expert than a plumber, a butcher or a carpenter. Unlike those professions, their celebrity gets them attention and a free use of the media unlike any other American. It tilts the balance unfairly and distracts from facts and reason because people become caught up in their celebrity. Illegal? No. Unfair and imprudent? yes. If they want to cease to be actors or musicians and instead run for office or become an activist then they would have more legitimacy. This is not the same for other professions, but their unique position requires it.

*********************

Other than the occasional asinine blurb from a Baldwin, I don't see the left/hollywood axis producing an intolerable amount of uniformed political blather. However I hear plenty of that from talk radio hosts who are equally bereft of any experience in matters on which they happily sound off to a large audience.
I'm glad to have highly placed voices in American culture voicing dissent from what often seems an oppresive hegemony of opinion, as I welcome the dissent of the Millers, Grammers et. al. from what is percieved as political hegemony within hollywood.

"Other than the occasional asinine blurb from a Baldwin, I don't see the left/hollywood axis producing an intolerable amount of uniformed political blather. However I hear plenty of that from talk radio hosts who are equally bereft of any experience in matters on which they happily sound off to a large audience.
I'm glad to have highly placed voices in American culture voicing dissent from what often seems an oppresive hegemony of opinion, as I welcome the dissent of the Millers, Grammers et. al. from what is percieved as political hegemony within hollywood."

Ok, if you choose to portray yourself as ignorant of the blabberings of the likes of Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon & Tim Robbins, Julia Roberts, George Clooney, Sean Penn, etc. outside the context of any political forum go ahead, but we know you know better.

As far as "radio talk show" hosts being equally bereft of experience, surely you have more brains than comparing those being paid to ACT in movies vs those being paid to CONDUCT A POLITCAL RADIO TALK SHOW to discuss political issues.

How do you think those folks who have political talk shows they are "happily sounding off onto a large audience" got those shows? For one thing, that "large audience" of people didn't just appear overnight. They also don't exist in a vacuum of not knowing who they are listening to, nor what the format of the show is about. But most importantly, no member of that large audience is ever forced to listen the host "sound off". That "large audience" grew into existence because that talk show host worked their way up and through the broadcast arena by providing a product that a growing audience wanted to buy, i.e, listen to, and which advertisers wanted to support. Not because the advertisers give a damn about the show, but because they give a damn about the PURCHASING power of that audience.

And what is that product that the talk show host offers? The delivery of a political and current issues talk show forum, consisting of both the host's (and guests) and the audience's viewpoints. If no one LISTENED to these hosts discuss issues that they supposedly have no experience in discussing but for some reason listeners enjoy hearing and participating in, then NO advertiser would support them, and no radio stations would carry them. Get it? It's called SUPPLY and DEMAND, a capitalistic and economic concept which you would do well to learn about. But how would you know about this concept? Not one liberal radio show or personality has succeeded in developing a large enough audience to attract a commercially viable forum for discussing political issues. Sure, liberal views permeate the media and Hollywood within the guise of news and entertainment, but when it comes to the failure of commercially viable liberal forums designed to discuss and debate liberal viewpoints with others of differing views, whose fault is that? The lack of a potential audience? Don't think so as both liberals and conservatives listen to radio talk shows. Lack of liberals with access to the media? Hardly, just turn on the TV and take your pick.
Or could it be that the time-worn liberalthink tactics of labeling, using emotional exaggerations, and name-calling doesn't hold up to the "experience bereft" conservative who uses logic, facts and common sense to back up his debate? Don't fret: you DO have NPR to rely on, the radio network that cannot succeed without the charity of the state and of private benefactors such as Mrs. Kroc.

People pay to see actors ACT when they go to the time and expense to see them in their movies and plays. They don't pay to hear them take advantage of their celebrity to force their political opinions - which no one EVER has denied their right to have or to express - upon others outside the forum of political discussion. When a person - celebrity or not - is ASKED by a political forum (such as a radio show or newspaper) to provide their opinions, then this forum IS an appropriate place for anyone to express their requested opinions. But again, any listener or reader understands the context within which that opinion is asked and given.

People PAY to hear radio talk show hosts talk about political issues. And how do they pay? By listening to those radio shows. No one is FORCING those people to listen into a show that is specifically DESIGNED to convey, discuss and debate political and current issues. The results of the existence of an audience is generated into advertising revenue for the radio station/program and hosts in the form of audience numbers. Again, if this "experience bereft" talk show host cannot generate this "large audience", then he doesn't exist as a talk show host.

Chuck, based on your theory, no editor or writer for magazines or newspapers should write op-ed pieces about political issues, because after all, what newspaper editor has direct experience serving in the political arena? Not many, but editors and columnists ARE paid to provide their political viewpoints within the confines of that publication, by the newspaper or magazine which is supported by an audience of readers.

Chuck: Are you saying that anyone who is paid to provide their political opinion to a willing audience, must provide specific political experience before expressing that opinion?