Celebrity Drivel

[run4it]

Why is it that Republicans have no problem when Charlie Daniels, Charleton Heston, or any other celeb with 'conservative' viewpoints starts talking about politics, there's nothing wrong with it at all. But when the Dixie Chicks or George Clooney start talkinga bout politics, they're just dumb entertainers who should just stick to singing or acting?

Seems a bit of a double standard. And no, I haven't ever heard a 'liberal' attack a conservative celebrity solely based on their celeb status. I HAVE heard it out of Repubs though.

[raoul duke]

its called being disingenuous. as john dean went into great detail about in his book, its also an authoritarian tendency to condemn the whole of something when you don't like the message but forget and/or deny their prior dismissal when someone says what they want to hear. its a symptom of both sides of the debate but the republicans, since at least 1994, have unabashedly embraced that thought process as it can be used to great effect on increasingly uninformed electorate.

[FisherRd]

I look at it two ways...(and yes there is some hypocricy on the "right" in this regard)

On the one hand you have the Dixie Chicks going abroad and disparaging our President. Had they done it at home that's one thing, but the way they did it came across as chicken crap euro-pandering.
On the other hand you have a bunch of "uber patriotic country singers" such as CDB and Toby Keith etc singing about Old Glory and the USA kickin ass and taking names type crap. That's commonplace for the country music industry.

As for Heston, he was the HMFIC at the NRA, so in my opinion he was not an actor speaking out, he was the main guy at the NRA speaking out that just happened to be an actor. Is there a mouthpiece from the left that is the head honcho at an organization comparable in size and influence to the NRA?


I don't really see how you can compare the outspoken O'Donnel, Clooney, Streisand, Garafalo, Franken, etc's to the lone Ron Silver.
Can you honestly tell me that when you think "Celebrity loudmouths speaking politics" you don't immediately think of far left libs and not the one or two republican/conservative hollywood voices (Ron Silver and barely Dennis Miller)?

Who else speaks up for the right besides the ones I've mentioned? I'm not going to say there aren't more, just none I can think of.

[run4it]

Well, we've seen stuff here from Charlie Daniels, (supposedly) George Carlin, and others. Yes, a liberal viewpoint is much more prevalent in Hollywood, but by no means universal.

My point was, when Heston was president of the NRA, he wasn't an idiot because he was 'just an actor.' He was an idiot because he was a 'doddering old fool', or 'he was just a figurehead/tool and didn't know any better'. Those things being true or not, I never heard him dismissed solely because of his main vocation. Nor Reagan, nor Miller, for that matter. I HAVE heard it said about Penn, Clooney, etc.

I'm not talking about pure numbers, I'm talking about aggregate partisan reaction. Just because someone has money, lives in a certain area code, and pursues a certain line of work doesn't mean he should immediately be dismissed because he is "hollywood elite." Yet, that single two word phrase is often used to write off viewpoints of relatively well educated and studied people.

[run4it]

And by the way Fisher, you get points for great use of the word 'uber'. Keep up the good work!

[WestSideJohn]

Had they done it at home that's one thing
I disagree that Republicans would have been ok with Natalie Maines' comments if only she'd made them in the United States instead of in Europe. I know plenty of people who spoke out against the war right here in the USA who were labeled as Saddam-loving America-hating traitors, and that's simply for opposing the invasion, not for bashing the President like Natalie did.

The people who supported the war created an atmosphere where dissent was considered an attack on the interests of our nation, whether it came from France or a stage in London or right here in the United States of America.

[FisherRd]

run,
Sheer number wise the left is the winner as you and I seem to agree. How about in "degree" too though? Rosie says some crazy things. Streisand tells everyone else to hang their laundry and to conserve yet she has multiple homes and jet sets (that's petty I know, but the hypocricy and outspokenness rub me the wrong way). Penn?...His trip to Iran, and his shotgun toting in New Orleans aside, he's got an inflated sense of self in regards to the weight his opinion should carry.

I've got no problems with Tim Robbins because he actually seems to believe what he says and he attempts to make a difference IMO (I do not for a second think he has a real grasp on everything he speaks about, but for one reason or another he doesn't bother me).

I'm obviously anti-leftwing, but I don't want that to get confused with being anti-Dem or even anti-Liberal, and I certainly couldn't be any further from the religious right. I just find the things coming from Hollywood to be counterproductive and way too conspiratorial.


WSJ,
Can't speak for everyone, but I get the feeling that the Dixie Chicks really touched a nerve by being abroad while making those comments. It looked like pandering to the anti-USA crowd in europe and it came across as bad timing. Had it been said here there would have still been a giant firestorm due to their "Country-Bumpkin" following, but I don't think anywhere near the degree it reached due to where they did it.

[FisherRd]

Wow, sorry for the novel.

[Linda_D]

I disagree that Republicans would have been ok with Natalie Maines' comments if only she'd made them in the United States instead of in Europe. I know plenty of people who spoke out against the war right here in the USA who were labeled as Saddam-loving America-hating traitors, and that's simply for opposing the invasion, not for bashing the President like Natalie did.

The people who supported the war created an atmosphere where dissent was considered an attack on the interests of our nation, whether it came from France or a stage in London or right here in the United States of America.

Exactly!

I had personal experience with this attitude when I started listing the US military casualty count in my signature on another board in May, 2004. I was regularly accused of being a "traitor", a "towel head lover", "not supporting the troops", etc.

BTW, Natalie Maines was right. In fact, as Americans, we should all be ashamed of Georgie Bush.

[FisherRd]

I wonder why somebody would have a problem with anybody using the number of dead american soldiers as a political statement?
If somebody else had the number of insurgents, Saddams military KIA, and dead al quaeda members as a signature I wonder whether or not people would find that ghoulish?

[WestSideJohn]

I'm probably generalizing but here's what I observe: many (not all, but many) on the right want to punish those who say something they disagree with.

I happen to like several celebrities who are staunch Republicans. I enjoy their work, and their personal beliefs aren't of any concern to me. I'm free to agree, or in my case, disagree, and that's the end of the story as far as I'm concerned. I would never dream of calling a radio station to demand their songs be removed from the playlist (Dixie Chicks). I would never dream of throwing a glass at the stage and storming out of a concert I paid good money for (Linda Ronstadt). I would never dream of sending harassing letters to a singer's veteran father (Natalie Maines) or making death threats to a celebrity who voiced an opinion I don't share.

I have nothing against boycotts. If what Natalie Maines said offends someone and they decide she doesn't deserve any more of their hard-earned money, hey, that's fine. I have a huge problem with people who decide "I don't like what Natalie Maines said, so nobody should be able to hear her music." I have a huge problem with people who destroy her personal property, harass her family, and make threats of violence. I have a huge problem with the idea of punishing someone for speaking their mind. I admit it's a fine line between voting with your wallet and punishing someone for expressing a view you don't share, but I see that line crossed more and more.

Celebrities are no better or worse than any of us. Just because Rosie O'Donnell has a tv show doesn't mean her opinion is any better than yours or mine. However, she's just as free to express her opinion - no matter how ludicrous or offensive - as you or I. Same with Ann Coulter. Ann's values disgust me, but I have no interest in trying to silence her or punish her. I simply do my best to ignore her.

Freedom of speech isn't always easy to live with and that's why it's precious. Sometimes people are going to say things that anger or disgust or offend you. That's what free speech is all about. I would rather have a television channel broadcasting Ann Coulter 24 hours a day than try to silence her or punish her for expressing views I don't share.

[run4it]

I would rather have a television channel broadcasting Ann Coulter 24 hours a day than try to silence her or punish her for expressing views I don't share.
Wow...then I get to be the one to say that I always have a headache at bedtime...:D

[FisherRd]

WSJ,
The consumer/listeners dictated the Dixie Chicks revolt. It's not like the government drove that (I know you didn't say they did).
As for Rondstant, who wants to spend money for singing and hear some singer talk politics. Do you tune into Keith Olberman to watch him sing or to crack jokes about the days happenings?

There is a time and a place for most things.

By the way, who are these staunch republicans that you watch?

[WestSideJohn]

WSJ, The consumer/listeners dictated the Dixie Chicks revolt. It's not like the government drove that (I know you didn't say they did).My distinction was between refusing to purchase a Dixie Chicks CD and calling the radio station to try and prevent me from listening to their music, either.

By the way, who are these staunch republicans that you watch?Ann-Margret is probably my favorite Republican. I have a few of her CDs and her box set, and I'd gladly purchase more, regardless of her politics or where her money goes. I like Patricia Heaton as well, and I've been known to listen to a Britney Spears song once in a while, though I've never bought any of her music. Ethel Merman was also a life-long Republican who campaigned and performed benefit concerts for the GOP. In her autobiography, she tells of performing at JFK's innauguration because she figured "it was only fair after I raised so much money trying defeat him." That's class, and if you think I'll part with my Ethel Merman CDs just because she was a Republican, you're crazy.

I agree there's a time and place for everything, but nearly all musical performers make small talk between songs, and often about current events like a war. And even if they didn't, to throw a cocktail glass at the stage isn't what I'd consider an appropriate response.

[FisherRd]

Yikes, Ethel Merman and Ann Margaret? I can honestly say I had no idea either were political let alone republicans.
I have never seen Patricia Heaton speak politics either (nor did I know she was a 'pub).

Smashing a glass was ridiculously stupid and I hope the crowd jeered the guy. There's no defending that but I can easily see getting pretty PO'd. I believe somebody told Streisand to "shut up and sing" and she dropped a few F bombs on him. I don't find that much different than smashing a glass and throwing a tantrum.

I just wish comedians would be the ones talking politics and being non-preachy. I find Bill Maher to be pretty funny most of the time (it has nothing to do with his political bent, just his comedy). I don't find Jon Stewart the least bit funny anymore because that schtick got old quick (ok, so I watched for a couple of years, but it did get old). I don't care if he's creaming the Dems right now (if he even is), it's the routine that was tiresome and the fact that some under 30's consider that actual "news".

[raoul duke]

I just wish comedians would be the ones talking politics and being non-preachy. I find Bill Maher to be pretty funny most of the time (it has nothing to do with his political bent, just his comedy). I don't find Jon Stewart the least bit funny anymore because that schtick got old quick (ok, so I watched for a couple of years, but it did get old). I don't care if he's creaming the Dems right now (if he even is), it's the routine that was tiresome and the fact that some under 30's consider that actual "news".

interesting... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show#As_a_news_source)

The National Annenberg Election Survey at the University of Pennsylvania ran a study of American television viewers around the same time and found that fans of The Daily Show had a more accurate idea of the facts behind the 2004 presidential election than most others.[6] The study primarily focused on comparing the audiences of TDS with that of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and The Late Show with David Letterman, but Daily Show viewers also beat out people who primarily got their news through the national evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC and those who mostly read newspapers, while roughly matching the knowledge level of viewers who watched a considerable amount of cable TV news. The study attempted to compensate for the fact that many viewers of TDS get information from many sources, including the Internet.

The National Annenberg Election Survey is, however, contradictory to a survey by Pew Research Center (which study does not focus on TDS specifically, but on 'comedy shows' in general). According to Pew Research Center on their 2004 campaign survey, those who cited comedy shows as a source for news were among the least informed on campaign events and key aspects of the candidates' backgrounds while those who cited the internet, National Public Radio, and news magazines were the most informed. People who cited newspapers, public news TV shows, and talk radio were also nearly as knowledgeable as people who used the internet as a source. Even when age and education were taken into account, the people who learned about the campaigns through the internet were still the most informed, while the those who learned from comedy shows were the least informed.[7]

In 2006, a study published by Indiana University tried to compare the substantive amount of information of the Daily Show against primetime network news broadcasts. Julia R. Fox, an assistant professor of telecommunications at the university, showed in her study, "No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign"[8] (to be published in the summer of 2007), that when it comes to substance, there is little difference between the Daily Show and other news outlets. By using coverage and footage of the 2004 Presidential Election, she analyzes and compares both communication media. What she found was that neither actually offers more, since both programs are more focused on the nature of "infotainment" and ratings, making them both "equal" in content.[9] The analysis indicates that the Daily Show offered more humor than substance in their coverage, but that same study also found that the typical network coverage preferred to offer more hype than any real political substance.[10] The study seems to indicate that either the Daily Show has become a legitimate 'news source' or the mainstream media has ceased to be one.[11] Julia Fox states that "In an absolute sense, we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, because neither one is particularly substantive. It's a bottom-line industry and ratings-driven. We live in an 'infotainment' society, and there certainly are a number of other sources available." According to Fox, the study was less of an endorsement for the Daily Show; rather instead was meant to indict the negligence of news networks for their failure to uphold high standards in their political coverage.[12]

i would check out the citations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show#References) for further reading...

[Cgoodsp466]

Exactly!

I had personal experience with this attitude when I started listing the US military casualty count in my signature on another board in May, 2004. I was regularly accused of being a "traitor", a "towel head lover", "not supporting the troops", etc.

BTW, Natalie Maines was right. In fact, as Americans, we should all be ashamed of Georgie Bush.

Linda you afraid of the burka wearing bastards.You think if your nice and PC they wont hurt you.News flash these bastards will cut your left wing throat as well as mine. I just keep buying more ammo. Allaha is a homo.

[WestSideJohn]

Linda you afraid of the burka wearing bastards.You think if your nice and PC they wont hurt you.News flash these bastards will cut your left wing throat as well as mine. I just keep buying more ammo. Allaha is a homo.Cgood, this thread is about celebrity drivel, not plain old bigot drivel.

[Cgoodsp466]

Cgood, this thread is about celebrity drivel, not plain old bigot drivel.

Hey Johnny thanks for the compliment. I wear it as a badge of honor.Happiness is a 50 cal. Hey Akmid Smile.

[WNYresident]

Hey Johnny thanks for the compliment. I wear it as a badge of honor.Happiness is a 50 cal. Hey Akmid Smile.

I think they are trying to stop personal ownership of 50 cals by the american public. I assume they are doing this because they know the crappy job the current groups of USA government are doing.

[Cgoodsp466]

I think they are trying to stop personal ownership of 50 cals by the american public. I assume they are doing this because they know the crappy job the current groups of USA government are doing.


I will own own by then. Its such a sweet weapon.You can take off a Melon
or a rag head at a mile. God love a duck

[speaker]

I will own own by then. Its such a sweet weapon.You can take off a Melon
or a rag head at a mile. God love a duck

OK. Let's make this an 'all sorts of drivel' thread.

As a liberal, I say we should allow Goodspeed into parts of the human race; he's be good for experiments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070617/hl_nm/stemcells_chimeras_dc_2;_ylt=AheRTPE.AU28l8FvQZGPN dYE1vAI


British body backs inter-species clones

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor Sat Jun 16, 8:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Making human-animal embryos for scientific experiments should be allowed because of the benefits to science and medicine, British experts said in a report released for Sunday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Such embryos should never, however, be implanted into either a woman or an animal, said the Academy of Medical Sciences.

The combinations would include animal eggs and the nucleus, containing the genetic material, of a human being, or human embryos that carry the genetic material of an animal, the independent advisory body said.

A cloning technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT for short, involves removing the nucleus from an egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus of a cell from the animal to be cloned -- perhaps a skin cell, for instance.

Scientists have tried this using, for example, an egg cell from a cow and a human nucleus.

There are no laws against it in either Britain or the United states and the independent Academy said it should remain legal.

"Provided good laboratory practice is rigorously followed, research involving cytoplasmic hybrids or other inter-species embryos offers no significant safety risks over and above regular cell culture research," said Martin Bobrow of Britain's Wellcome Trust, who chaired the panel making the recommendations.

CONTENTIOUS SOURCE

"UK legislation permits research on human embryos under license from the HFEA (Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority) up to 14 days in the laboratory," Bobrow added in a statement.

"Re-implanting human embryos into a woman or animal is not permitted. There are no substantive ethical or moral reasons not to proceed with research on human embryos containing animal material under the same framework of regulatory control," he said.

Researchers want to make clones for a variety of reasons, but one of the most contentious is as a source of embryonic stem cells.

These powerful stem cells can give rise to any cell or tissue type in the human body and the hope is some day they may be used to tailor medical treatments for injuries or diseases such as Parkinson's or diabetes.

In some countries, such as Britain, their use is not controversial and is actively funded and encouraged. In the United States, their use is legal but federal funding of the work is strictly limited by Congress and by
President George W. Bush, who has vetoed legislation that would broaden it.

Researchers also routinely make chimeras -- animals that contain the genetic material from more than one individual. These include animals that carry human genes, most commonly mice engineered with human genes that are used to study disease.

"We found no current scientific reasons to generate 'true' hybrid embryos by mixing human and animal gametes (eggs and sperm). However, given the speed of this field of research, the working group could not rule out the emergence of scientifically valid reasons in the future," Bobrow said.

A cloned rabbit sits in its cage at a laboratory outside Moscow, February 8, 2005. Making human-animal embryos for scientific experiments should be allowed because of the benefits to science and medicine, British experts said in a report released for Sunday. (Viktor Korotayev/Reuters)

[Cgoodsp466]

OK. Let's make this an 'all sorts of drivel' thread.

As a liberal, I say we should allow Goodspeed into parts of the human race; he's be good for experiments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070617/hl_nm/stemcells_chimeras_dc_2;_ylt=AheRTPE.AU28l8FvQZGPN dYE1vAI


British body backs inter-species clones

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor Sat Jun 16, 8:19 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Making human-animal embryos for scientific experiments should be allowed because of the benefits to science and medicine, British experts said in a report released for Sunday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Such embryos should never, however, be implanted into either a woman or an animal, said the Academy of Medical Sciences.

The combinations would include animal eggs and the nucleus, containing the genetic material, of a human being, or human embryos that carry the genetic material of an animal, the independent advisory body said.

A cloning technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT for short, involves removing the nucleus from an egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus of a cell from the animal to be cloned -- perhaps a skin cell, for instance.

Scientists have tried this using, for example, an egg cell from a cow and a human nucleus.

There are no laws against it in either Britain or the United states and the independent Academy said it should remain legal.

"Provided good laboratory practice is rigorously followed, research involving cytoplasmic hybrids or other inter-species embryos offers no significant safety risks over and above regular cell culture research," said Martin Bobrow of Britain's Wellcome Trust, who chaired the panel making the recommendations.

CONTENTIOUS SOURCE

"UK legislation permits research on human embryos under license from the HFEA (Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority) up to 14 days in the laboratory," Bobrow added in a statement.

"Re-implanting human embryos into a woman or animal is not permitted. There are no substantive ethical or moral reasons not to proceed with research on human embryos containing animal material under the same framework of regulatory control," he said.

Researchers want to make clones for a variety of reasons, but one of the most contentious is as a source of embryonic stem cells.

These powerful stem cells can give rise to any cell or tissue type in the human body and the hope is some day they may be used to tailor medical treatments for injuries or diseases such as Parkinson's or diabetes.

In some countries, such as Britain, their use is not controversial and is actively funded and encouraged. In the United States, their use is legal but federal funding of the work is strictly limited by Congress and by
President George W. Bush, who has vetoed legislation that would broaden it.

Researchers also routinely make chimeras -- animals that contain the genetic material from more than one individual. These include animals that carry human genes, most commonly mice engineered with human genes that are used to study disease.

"We found no current scientific reasons to generate 'true' hybrid embryos by mixing human and animal gametes (eggs and sperm). However, given the speed of this field of research, the working group could not rule out the emergence of scientifically valid reasons in the future," Bobrow said.

A cloned rabbit sits in its cage at a laboratory outside Moscow, February 8, 2005. Making human-animal embryos for scientific experiments should be allowed because of the benefits to science and medicine, British experts said in a report released for Sunday. (Viktor Korotayev/Reuters)

I understand Speaker that you are the worlds only living brain donor.Now thats a celebrity,You are my Idol.