Homocon

Ah, here's the kicker:

All of the Hollywood geniuses could waltz through most Ivy League colleges with English, Women's Studies, or Drama degrees (see Natalie Portman and Kirsten Dunst) because they would be friends with their leftist professors.

All of the eEEEEEEEvil conservatives had to get through their overwhelmingly leftist college experiences (many of the aforementioned Republicans went to college in the 1960s) without the help of sympathetic professors or being sympatico with the majority of the ideology.

If you think about it that way, it makes the eEEEEEEEvil Republicans amazingly resourceful.

You miss the point, Homocon. Sure, all the Righties you mention have degrees up the wazoo (except in states where that was illegal) and are accomplished people who've paid their academic and professional dues, but the Stars you list are Caring People, Caring People, so they must be right...or left. Well, you know what I mean, kinda.

And even though they appear, on the surface, to hate everything America stands for, and become obscenely wealthy precisely by selling (out) their talents in a competitive capitalist environment like Hollywood, deep down, they are True Patriots, who love America enought to hate her. Now isn't that real commitment?

I'm sorry, I have to stop. I'm getting all verklemft.

While most Hollywood lefties would sail through Haaavahd in Womyn's Studies, one doubts they would find the curricula of the MBA program nearly so "accessable;" nevermind that the president they love to hate holds just such a degree.

And Homocon, I thought that Roseanne and Michael Moore hung out because of the wardrobe-doubling...and here you tell me that it is because they share political views. Apparently, being a Hollywood no-thinker means never having to examine one's own statements for objective evidence to support them. Or like, anything....even.

I don't understand the difference between academic snobbery from the left and the academic snobbery in this posting. Is your point that these people say hateful things about this administration when they have no experience--academic or professional--in politics or government? Is there a difference between these people and conservatives who say hateful things about Hollywood but don't have any experience in trying to entertain an audience or create a piece of art? I thought resistance to elitism was part of the new conservative ethos. So perhaps what I see as your elitism, you see as a healthy pride in the accomplishments of people who share your worldview, and vice versa. It's all the same, isn't it? But please correct me if I'm wrong.
_________________
Homocon sez:

I'll be happy to correct you (though I'm sure you won't like it).

Roseanne made a big, public deal about what how stupid the President and his administration is when she was last on Jimmy Kimmel, with the implication that the president's intellectual incapacity informs his political decisions.

But the fact is that this administration has been and is staffed with intellectually rigorous individuals who were trained in intellectual debate at some of our finest institutions, who followed through to completion on their paths of study and who now continuously apply their training when faced with difficult real-world situations that call for difficult, real-world decisions.

Hollywood, on the other hand, is filled with people who don't know how to think because they didn't engage in anything more intellectually challenging than perhaps their freshmen year parked beside a kegger (if that), couldn't commit to the required demands of a decade or more of intense intellectual training, and whose main job now is simply to play "Let's Pretend" rather than deal with any kind of reality. This post was intended to shine a spotlight on this issue, revealing the hollow quality of celebrity policy expertise and intellectual posing.

Hillary Clinton can hop the talk show circuit, or hold a press conference, and challenge the Bush administration all she wants, and I can respect the fact that she has the ability to think her way through to what she believes a valid course of action, despite the fact that probably wouldn't agree with a great many of her conclusions. However, listening to Roseanne and her ilk chatter about the Kabbalah as they prance about in some fantasy version of the domestic and international policy stage is grating at best.

Hi. This message is reeeeally long. Beware.

Thanks for your comments. I apologize for reacting to the post in the manner of someone having received a personal insult. Try to understand that I'm an oversensitive arts dork, so I take these things to heart. Plus, I used to love her show. But I also found her personality abrasive and vulgar in interviews before she was consigned to has-beendom. So I might posit that her tirade is a tired publicity stunt, and not necessarily evidence of Hollywood's requisite hatred of America. All Hollywood players, when speaking about politics, tend to sound childish, petty, and hollow. We agree on that, so please don't mistake my questions as an attempt to defend their honor.

But I will say that--though it'll sound insane--that people in Hollywood did some work (some of it mentally taxing, some of it soul-decaying) to achieve the fame that allows them to infect our TV sets with sanctimonious claptrap. In fact, I think that work ethic is in much larger supply than talent these days. I mean, stars get themselves friggin' everywhere these days. You don't have to respect prostitution, but you can't deny that it takes a lot of work to be good whore.

Huh. Is it possible to get cynical and emotional at the same time?

Um, I vacillated a lot about writing this, so I should explain why I get so indignant. As stated earlier, I think I'm taking this too personally, and waaaaaay too seriously, and I'm aware of the irony after chiding you about your reaction in my first response. But I have a larger complaint about the tendency on the right to equate Hollywood actors with liberal values.
While it's fair to say that "Roseanne and her ilk" have a hopelessly inflated sense of their own influence, I find it condescending that conservatives tend to assume that their influence reaches to liberal political discourse in any real way. Except for Bono, maybe. More and more, I'm hearing stories of inattentive liberal voters seduced by Sean Penn and Michael Moore into voting to change the world to suit the outcast. And then they denigrate all things artistic by equating artists with everything morally questionable, with Hollywood the shrine at which we worship. This is the political climate that I, the oversensitive arts dork, find myself in, and I feel like I'm drowning. And now I feel I can't even escape into the movies anymore. So I guess this is my long-winded way of saying that while I'm liberal, and take a more temperate view of her, Roseanne does not represent me.

On a personal note, I'd like to offer my sincerest compliments on your blog. As a gay man, I've never understood why people need to lump us into a political category, even as American freedoms allow us to express ourselves in ways that don't smack of gayness. While I may not agree with everything you say, you are CLEARly smarter than me about politics, and I'm actually humbled that you replied to my two cents.

As if anyone gives a damn about what Roseanne says about George Bush, for that matter what you think of him either. As my grandpa used to tell me, "Opinions are like arse-holes..everyone's got one, and all of them stink."

Bono, Wayne Roberts and Ben Stein are but a few of the popular entertainers who have used their access to media to air political opinions outside the bailiwick of trying to entertain audiences or create art. They, however, display an in-depth knowledge of their subject. Most celebrities don't know what they are talking about when they wander beyond amusing us.
___________
Homocon sez:

Between the Jessica Lange's, the George Clooney's and the Roseanne Barr's, I almost forget about the Bono's and Ben Stein's. Bless Ben Stein . . .

This is another one of those subjective discussions. What is the value of a degree. What is the value of said degree at three different schools.

Does any of this prove intelligence and even if it does, what did they do with it.

Now we know why the left is at a loss for substantive rebuttals, campaign platforms, and - in fact - any kind of domestic or foreign policy that doesn't reek of warmed over socialism and appeasement...
That brain they're sharing has been too preoccupied with helping Ms. Spit-&-grab develop her rapier wit.