No, the shallowness lies in that he didn't (doesn't) understand the depths that the Saddamite regime ran---he was going to do what they wanted him to do, and nothing more. His reasons were (in practical terms) irrelevant.
I do feel an obligation to take responsibility with my government for actions that it takes.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sean Penn
I'm glad that I did come and part of my concern is being duped by a media perspective that saturates us every day.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sean Penn
War could be avoided, he said - but only with an "enormous commitment" from the Iraqi Government as well as the United States.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sean Penn
I think that the more information we push for, the more information we are given, the better off we are all going to be and the right thing will happen
You dumbasses think because he's an actor you have to hate him. He's just some guy and probably half of us would have gone under the same conditions.
"I'm glad that I did come and part of my concern is being duped by a media perspective that saturates us every day."
Christ, that sounds like us around here. Oh, what an asshole he is, he doesn't trust the media.
No, the shallowness lies in that he didn't (doesn't) understand the depths that the Saddamite regime ran---he was going to do what they wanted him to do, and nothing more. His reasons were (in practical terms) irrelevant.
So you don't have any idea of why he went. Why criticize him then?
I'm inclined to admonish you for starting out the thread with a semi-rantingswipe at "hollywood types" because it only invites more ranting from the conservative faithful here.
Not to worry, my good man: I shall refrain from any dreaded "ranting" (oooo!).
But I will say that any celebrity - right OR left - who complains about "not being heard", "being silenced" or whatever is nuts.
Mr. Robbins and Mr. Selleck (trying to span the divide here) both have more prominence, access, money to pay for ads, fame and influence than any of us here put together.
No one has ever denied anyone being heard or voicing an opinion. What Mr. Robbins seems to be upset about is that his opinions aren't necessarily the dominant, popular view. And for that, he's suddenly on the cross and overstating things a bit for effect.
I saw his little speech at the Press Club and he was in full-tilt "serious, intelligent 'man-of-the-people'" mode. It was quite hilarious, considering...
Just seeing the country for himself, meeting the people, being toured around, being a concerned American, etc. He did say that he saw no evidence of WMD, so I slept better that week than I had in ages.
I think he made enough of a show of it for it to be obvious.
That WOULD be enough anywhere else (you know, common sense, observation, listening to what the guy says/how he says it, etc.) to determine some of the reasoning for something.
However, here at AI I've recently learned that all those things don't necessarily work and you're expected to conduct rather extensive research and studies, otherwise the simple conclusions you come to (based on life experience, common sense, calling something what it is, etc.) automatically doesn't count.
Unless, of course, you're on the other side.
Just saying...
In any case, if you need help with funding or structuring your lab, contact giant. He's the fella who put me on the proper road to how to post here.
That WOULD be enough anywhere else (you know, common sense, observation, listening to what the guy says/how he says it, etc.) to determine some of the reasoning for something.
However, here at AI I've recently learned that all those things don't necessarily work and you're expected to conduct rather extensive research and studies, otherwise the simple conclusions you come to (based on life experience, common sense, calling something what it is, etc.) automatically doesn't count.
So I've noticed. That's why I usually talk back to my computer screen instead of actually posting. Since I'm sure my viewpoints will be shot down if not backed up by a link to a mutually agreed upon source which I am too lazy to find, I have some very interesting conversations with my NEC AccuSync 90.
Since I'm sure my viewpoints will be shot down if not backed up by a link to a mutually agreed upon source which I am too lazy to find, I have some very interesting conversations with my NEC AccuSync 90.
True. I don't mind celebs giving their opinions, I resent that their opinions count for more.
Well said, well said. They can say all they want (and they usually do), but they are in no better position or necessarily have no more insight or knowledge on it than us "common folk".
Plus, it's funny to keep an eye on the scene over the span of years and see how often trendy and "ooo, this is in..." some of these celebrities seem to switch on their issues. It's like "ahh, clean oceans was SO 1995. I'm interested in Tibet now...".
They make movies, they make music, they create and entertain. And, like all of us, they can certainly express their views and opinions (and, unlike all of us, they often have the means to do so more loudly, with more impact, etc.).
But being a card-carrying SAG member doesn't AUTOMATICALLY give you special insight or suddenly flood you with knowledge and make you the end-all/be-all "go to" person on any number of serious topics.
What's that thing in Spider-Man? You know, that popular phrases Peter Parker's uncle tells him?
I don't blame the celebrities so much (although there's room for that too, in certain cases) as I do pinheaded Americans who actually give a flying damn about what some celebrity thinks about issues.
If you're one of those people who bases their life (and determines who to vote for, what charities to donate to, which ribbon to wear, which cause to support, etc.) based on what a pampered, "detached-from-the-real-world" actor/singer living in a Malibu beach house does, then you've got bigger problems than you probably realize.
Hollywood's outpouring of anti-war sentiment has got a good number of God-fearing Americans all in a tizzy. Pursed-lipped pundits shake their heads sadly on national television while easily perturbed private citizens boycott movies and TV shows in vain protest, all of them asking the same indignant question: "What gives celebrities the right to throw their fame behind political causes?"
Although askers of this question claim to care primarily for the public good, for the gullible masses who may (bless their sorry little hearts) attach undue credibility to the words of their entertainment idols, their critiques of the actors in question suggest their motives may be a tad more selfish than that. Those who denounce celebrity cause-hocking usually suffer from influence-envy and lack confidence in their own arguments.
Uninformed celebrity activism is a wonderful way to root the idiots out of any movement. Let me put it another way: If there are people out there who will disagree with me because Joe Famous says they should - and not because Joe Famous makes a convincing case against my point of view - then I will send them off to join the ranks of the opposition with my blessing. I don't want those people on my side. If they're dim-witted and reckless enough to follow Joe just because he has nice teeth and his own weekly sit-com, then merely associating with them would discredit whatever cause I'm trying to legitimize. Good riddance.
But the previously mentioned naysayers just can't let the simple ones go. And instead of pointing out flaws in Joe's argument, they call him stupid: "He can't possibly know what he's talking about. He's an actor! He probably can't even read!"
Because most Americans - who by all accounts take themselves far too seriously - like their pop culture disposable and their activism in hindsight only - and because there is no room in high school history textbooks for anyone but ex-presidents and yellow journalists - actors, artists and musicians who espouse their political beliefs are often held us up as laughingstocks, buffoons who'd better serve the planet if they left the important historical decision making to the adults. To those seeking alternatives to presidential catchphrases and unquestioning obedience, pundits insist that there are none.
Everyone wants to believe his or her chosen career matters. Everyone wants to be important, no one more so than the government official and the television political commentator. Creative professionals - be they actors, musicians, writers of popular fiction or poetry or visual artists - are often dismissed as decorative members of society so wrapped up in their own egos that they don't pay any attention to anyone or anything else. While it is a lot tougher for an artist than a U.S. president to secure a place in the next generation's social studies class, the former may have volumes more to say about social injustice and/or human suffering than the latter.
Am I saying I think it's possible that Joe Famous might be a more reliable source of information and insight than the president? Yes. It's entirely possible. Here in the United States, where "even a C-student can be president," a man's ability to win an election or two is not necessarily indicative of his special knowledge of anything pertaining to said elected position.
That's not to say everyone should immediately purchase tickets to Miss Teen Pop Star's next rally for or against the cause; it is to say that singling out celebrities as the source of all ignorance in social and political debates is scapegoating at its most desperate. In the case of war with Iraq, it suggests that the pro-war camp and the media are either so consumed by jealousy for the actors and actresses they perceive to be stealing their thunder and their supporters that they must resort to playground insults to maintain a sense of dignity, or that they are trying to distract would-be peaceniks from serious flaws in the battle plans. It is a very bad idea to trust people solely because we recognize their faces, their names or their work, but it is equally unwise to dismiss them outright for the same reasons. If the revolution is to begin in Hollywood, so be it; I just hope the rest of us can make it through the previews without getting nauseous.
First off, I definitely use the term dumbass tongue in cheek and only because someone else (you? I can't remember...) used it first.
As for Sean Penn, I think ena was complaining about him even though he didn't realize Sean's trip wasn't as anti-war as he imagined. The argument was basically "Sean's an actor. Sean went to Iraq. Sean sux!!"
The truth is Sean, although I imagine not for the war, was not so outspoken against the war and didn't use his trip as a political platform. Instead he said things like "the war can be averted, but only if Iraq does a lot" or whatever it was. Very neutral.
That WOULD be enough anywhere else (you know, common sense, observation, listening to what the guy says/how he says it, etc.) to determine some of the reasoning for something.
Opinions are fine here, but when YOU (not you pscates, but YOU the person posting something) believe it to be true or fact, don't be surprised if someone disagrees. I mean, the who argument that Sean Penn is a terrible guy becaues he went to Iraq is insane. Of all the actors to criticise, this was probably the worst choice.
Aside from the fact that he went (which is enough for some conservatives to believe he's evil satan), he was about as neutral as they come. His comments practically mirror Bush's: 'war can be averted, but Iraq has to bend over backwards.'
And for that he's being crucified here? That's just silly. No, that's just ignorant.
...doesn't trust the media? the media failed us on this one.
You're proving his point. He believed the picture the media was portraying was wrong. CNN now agrees. So Sean was right to go and see for himself rather than trust CNN.
As far as I can tell you're crucifying him because he went, not because of any view he has. That's just silly.
Comments
[B]I'll ask again:
Do you even realize why he was there? Do you know any of his opinions?
Please feel free to enlighten us dumbasses
Originally posted by aquafire
Please feel free to enlighten us dumbasses
Hey now, no need to call any dumbasses a dumbass. That's against posting guidelines.
From the BBC.
Originally posted by Sean Penn
I do feel an obligation to take responsibility with my government for actions that it takes.
Originally posted by Sean Penn
I'm glad that I did come and part of my concern is being duped by a media perspective that saturates us every day.
Originally posted by Sean Penn
War could be avoided, he said - but only with an "enormous commitment" from the Iraqi Government as well as the United States.
Originally posted by Sean Penn
I think that the more information we push for, the more information we are given, the better off we are all going to be and the right thing will happen
You dumbasses think because he's an actor you have to hate him. He's just some guy and probably half of us would have gone under the same conditions.
"I'm glad that I did come and part of my concern is being duped by a media perspective that saturates us every day."
Christ, that sounds like us around here. Oh, what an asshole he is, he doesn't trust the media.
Originally posted by ena
No, the shallowness lies in that he didn't (doesn't) understand the depths that the Saddamite regime ran---he was going to do what they wanted him to do, and nothing more. His reasons were (in practical terms) irrelevant.
So you don't have any idea of why he went. Why criticize him then?
Originally posted by bunge
So you don't have any idea of why he went.
....you're assuming I don't know (a bad thing).
I think he made enough of a show of it for it to be obvious.
Originally posted by bunge
So you don't have any idea of why he went. Why criticize him then?
Bunge,
I'm officially confused,
Are you wid-us or aGin-us?
As to rules concerning language.
Dumbasses is self-pejorative as I called my self in the third person,
Besides which in my short life on the threads I've already been called
" fat-boy " ,been patronised, had the word " shit' bandied around, been threatened with a riffle.
.And no moderator has batted an eye-lid.....
Guess some of the older members are more equal than others.
But I ain't gonna complain if you ain't.
Thats just life.
Originally posted by bunge
You dumbasses think because he's an actor you have to hate him. He's just some guy and probably half of us would have gone under the same conditions.
"I'm glad that I did come and part of my concern is being duped by a media perspective that saturates us every day."
Christ, that sounds like us around here. Oh, what an asshole he is, he doesn't trust the media.
Here is the critical flaw in that:
If he knew that a CNN reporter was being beaten for two weeks---what would he say?
If he knew that people were run through plastic shredders while family members were made to watch---would he have gone?
If he knew that a man's two-year-old daughter had her arms and legs broken while her father was made to watch---what would he have done?
...doesn't trust the media? the media failed us on this one.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I'm inclined to admonish you for starting out the thread with a semi-ranting swipe at "hollywood types" because it only invites more ranting from the conservative faithful here.
Not to worry, my good man: I shall refrain from any dreaded "ranting" (oooo!).
But I will say that any celebrity - right OR left - who complains about "not being heard", "being silenced" or whatever is nuts.
Mr. Robbins and Mr. Selleck (trying to span the divide here) both have more prominence, access, money to pay for ads, fame and influence than any of us here put together.
No one has ever denied anyone being heard or voicing an opinion. What Mr. Robbins seems to be upset about is that his opinions aren't necessarily the dominant, popular view. And for that, he's suddenly on the cross and overstating things a bit for effect.
I saw his little speech at the Press Club and he was in full-tilt "serious, intelligent 'man-of-the-people'" mode. It was quite hilarious, considering...
Originally posted by bunge
Why was Sean Penn in Iraq?
Just seeing the country for himself, meeting the people, being toured around, being a concerned American, etc. He did say that he saw no evidence of WMD, so I slept better that week than I had in ages.
Originally posted by ena
....you're assuming I don't know (a bad thing).
I think he made enough of a show of it for it to be obvious.
That WOULD be enough anywhere else (you know, common sense, observation, listening to what the guy says/how he says it, etc.) to determine some of the reasoning for something.
However, here at AI I've recently learned that all those things don't necessarily work and you're expected to conduct rather extensive research and studies, otherwise the simple conclusions you come to (based on life experience, common sense, calling something what it is, etc.) automatically doesn't count.
Unless, of course, you're on the other side.
Just saying...
In any case, if you need help with funding or structuring your lab, contact giant. He's the fella who put me on the proper road to how to post here.
Originally posted by pscates
That WOULD be enough anywhere else (you know, common sense, observation, listening to what the guy says/how he says it, etc.) to determine some of the reasoning for something.
However, here at AI I've recently learned that all those things don't necessarily work and you're expected to conduct rather extensive research and studies, otherwise the simple conclusions you come to (based on life experience, common sense, calling something what it is, etc.) automatically doesn't count.
So I've noticed. That's why I usually talk back to my computer screen instead of actually posting. Since I'm sure my viewpoints will be shot down if not backed up by a link to a mutually agreed upon source which I am too lazy to find, I have some very interesting conversations with my NEC AccuSync 90.
Originally posted by Guartho
Since I'm sure my viewpoints will be shot down if not backed up by a link to a mutually agreed upon source which I am too lazy to find, I have some very interesting conversations with my NEC AccuSync 90.
Plus, it's funny to keep an eye on the scene over the span of years and see how often trendy and "ooo, this is in..." some of these celebrities seem to switch on their issues. It's like "ahh, clean oceans was SO 1995. I'm interested in Tibet now...".
They make movies, they make music, they create and entertain. And, like all of us, they can certainly express their views and opinions (and, unlike all of us, they often have the means to do so more loudly, with more impact, etc.).
But being a card-carrying SAG member doesn't AUTOMATICALLY give you special insight or suddenly flood you with knowledge and make you the end-all/be-all "go to" person on any number of serious topics.
What's that thing in Spider-Man? You know, that popular phrases Peter Parker's uncle tells him?
I don't blame the celebrities so much (although there's room for that too, in certain cases) as I do pinheaded Americans who actually give a flying damn about what some celebrity thinks about issues.
If you're one of those people who bases their life (and determines who to vote for, what charities to donate to, which ribbon to wear, which cause to support, etc.) based on what a pampered, "detached-from-the-real-world" actor/singer living in a Malibu beach house does, then you've got bigger problems than you probably realize.
When actors attack: a politician's PR nightmare
Aubrey Henretty: Neurotica
March 11, 2003
Hollywood's outpouring of anti-war sentiment has got a good number of God-fearing Americans all in a tizzy. Pursed-lipped pundits shake their heads sadly on national television while easily perturbed private citizens boycott movies and TV shows in vain protest, all of them asking the same indignant question: "What gives celebrities the right to throw their fame behind political causes?"
Although askers of this question claim to care primarily for the public good, for the gullible masses who may (bless their sorry little hearts) attach undue credibility to the words of their entertainment idols, their critiques of the actors in question suggest their motives may be a tad more selfish than that. Those who denounce celebrity cause-hocking usually suffer from influence-envy and lack confidence in their own arguments.
Uninformed celebrity activism is a wonderful way to root the idiots out of any movement. Let me put it another way: If there are people out there who will disagree with me because Joe Famous says they should - and not because Joe Famous makes a convincing case against my point of view - then I will send them off to join the ranks of the opposition with my blessing. I don't want those people on my side. If they're dim-witted and reckless enough to follow Joe just because he has nice teeth and his own weekly sit-com, then merely associating with them would discredit whatever cause I'm trying to legitimize. Good riddance.
But the previously mentioned naysayers just can't let the simple ones go. And instead of pointing out flaws in Joe's argument, they call him stupid: "He can't possibly know what he's talking about. He's an actor! He probably can't even read!"
Because most Americans - who by all accounts take themselves far too seriously - like their pop culture disposable and their activism in hindsight only - and because there is no room in high school history textbooks for anyone but ex-presidents and yellow journalists - actors, artists and musicians who espouse their political beliefs are often held us up as laughingstocks, buffoons who'd better serve the planet if they left the important historical decision making to the adults. To those seeking alternatives to presidential catchphrases and unquestioning obedience, pundits insist that there are none.
Everyone wants to believe his or her chosen career matters. Everyone wants to be important, no one more so than the government official and the television political commentator. Creative professionals - be they actors, musicians, writers of popular fiction or poetry or visual artists - are often dismissed as decorative members of society so wrapped up in their own egos that they don't pay any attention to anyone or anything else. While it is a lot tougher for an artist than a U.S. president to secure a place in the next generation's social studies class, the former may have volumes more to say about social injustice and/or human suffering than the latter.
Am I saying I think it's possible that Joe Famous might be a more reliable source of information and insight than the president? Yes. It's entirely possible. Here in the United States, where "even a C-student can be president," a man's ability to win an election or two is not necessarily indicative of his special knowledge of anything pertaining to said elected position.
That's not to say everyone should immediately purchase tickets to Miss Teen Pop Star's next rally for or against the cause; it is to say that singling out celebrities as the source of all ignorance in social and political debates is scapegoating at its most desperate. In the case of war with Iraq, it suggests that the pro-war camp and the media are either so consumed by jealousy for the actors and actresses they perceive to be stealing their thunder and their supporters that they must resort to playground insults to maintain a sense of dignity, or that they are trying to distract would-be peaceniks from serious flaws in the battle plans. It is a very bad idea to trust people solely because we recognize their faces, their names or their work, but it is equally unwise to dismiss them outright for the same reasons. If the revolution is to begin in Hollywood, so be it; I just hope the rest of us can make it through the previews without getting nauseous.
Henretty can be reached at [email protected] .
Pssh.
Originally posted by aquafire
Bunge,
I'm officially confused,
Are you wid-us or aGin-us?
First off, I definitely use the term dumbass tongue in cheek and only because someone else (you? I can't remember...) used it first.
As for Sean Penn, I think ena was complaining about him even though he didn't realize Sean's trip wasn't as anti-war as he imagined. The argument was basically "Sean's an actor. Sean went to Iraq. Sean sux!!"
The truth is Sean, although I imagine not for the war, was not so outspoken against the war and didn't use his trip as a political platform. Instead he said things like "the war can be averted, but only if Iraq does a lot" or whatever it was. Very neutral.
So the criticism was just ignorant I think.
Originally posted by pscates
That WOULD be enough anywhere else (you know, common sense, observation, listening to what the guy says/how he says it, etc.) to determine some of the reasoning for something.
Opinions are fine here, but when YOU (not you pscates, but YOU the person posting something) believe it to be true or fact, don't be surprised if someone disagrees. I mean, the who argument that Sean Penn is a terrible guy becaues he went to Iraq is insane. Of all the actors to criticise, this was probably the worst choice.
Aside from the fact that he went (which is enough for some conservatives to believe he's evil satan), he was about as neutral as they come. His comments practically mirror Bush's: 'war can be averted, but Iraq has to bend over backwards.'
And for that he's being crucified here? That's just silly. No, that's just ignorant.
Originally posted by ena
...doesn't trust the media? the media failed us on this one.
You're proving his point. He believed the picture the media was portraying was wrong. CNN now agrees. So Sean was right to go and see for himself rather than trust CNN.
As far as I can tell you're crucifying him because he went, not because of any view he has. That's just silly.