tinyBubbles said:

I’ve never understood why celebrities are derided for having political opinions but I’m supposed to take the word of waitresses and gas pump jockeys and talk-radio heads and NASCAR-types and born-again Jesusoids out here in the ‘Heartland’ as gospel.

No one here is deriding celebrities for having opinions. It’s using their celebrity to present those opinions as somehow being more relevant than, say, mine (or yours) that rankles. And lest anyone think that this is not what is happening here, ask yourself this: would those fry-cooks and NASCAR-types take out newspaper ads and use publicity generated by other avenues to stump for their political views? And if they would, they’d be no different (or better) in my book.

As for taking the word of “NASCAR-types” or “born-again Jesusoids” as gospel, I’m not sure who is telling you that you should be doing that, either.

As for “talk-radio heads”, at least in this case they are people who are getting paid to give their opinions on politics. Agree with them or not, it’s their job to do that. Of course, again, no one says you have to take their word as gospel either.

Again, for the record, I agree with the message of the ad in the LA Times. But that doesn’t elevate the opinions expressed above those of the waitresses and gas pump jockeys of the world.

tb: To further amplify, “celebrities” have even less to recommend them than actors, being either physically attractive, or having done something notorious, like Paris Hilton, and so are even less qualified to give any advice to anyone than are actors. They also have managers, handlers and agents to tell them what they should say and not say, and how to dress themselves, etc. The hardworking people you derided in your post at least know how to behave and dress themselves without a gaggle of sycophants hanging on their every move, and a pack of photographers at their disposal. They live real life, and so are qualified to give an opinion on how politicians should conduct themselves.

Yeah fine. I agree with them totally. However, who cares what a bunch of celebrities think anyway? It is a nice change of pace from the Alec Baldwin/Jane Fonda stuff.

But seriously, if this ad had called for “bringing home the troops”, wouldn’t everybody be saying something like “dumb celebrities need to use their time to take acting lessons — no one cares about their political views”?

Best take on this type a thing by a celebrity is still Alice Cooper (talking about a ‘get out the vote for Kerry’ thing back in 2004:

“If you’re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we’re morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal.

I’d say the same thing goes for actors.

And yes, I realize that Alice Cooper is a Bush supporter (or at least was during the election), but his point about publicly shilling that support is valid.

tiny bubbles(a Lawrence Welk reference, I assume): Acting, which is the mouthing of the words of others, would seem to me to lack a certain ability to think for oneself. That doesn’t mean that actors can’t think for themselves, but that their profession doesn’t encourage them to do so. It’s not just that they speak no original thoughts of their own; the director tells them how to stand, how to move, and what facial expressions to have, so that their entire “performance” is a reflection of the thoughts of others, with little or none of the actor’s own mental ability involved. This is why they are not considered mental giants, unless they have done something to prove their competence outside of acting.

“Our Crowd” doesn’t fancy Arab troublemakers. What a revelation! And now we needn’t wonder just where Sumner Redstone would come down on Res. 242.