« some guys have all the luck | Main | DJ update: the power of the blog, the power of a nine year old »

it's all a matter of perspective

I always find it curious when people come here and rip into me for ripping into others. This happens most when I make fun of celebrities. Why the defense of these people? Are they held in higher regard than say, our president, who is made fun of daily on almost all the blogs of the people who say I shouldn't make fun of celebrities?

Oh, and sometimes they make fun of celebrities, too. Just not the ones who belong to the "not in our name" club.

Anytime someone leaves a comment here such as "who are you to piss in their cheerios," or "how dare you stomp on someone's right to express an opposing opinion to yours," just click on the link to that person's blog.

Rest assured, you will find plenty of posts calling Bush "Shrub," calling right wing warbloggers idiots or yahoos or assholes, and even on a non political level, making fun of various singers or entertainers or writers for their opinions on matters of their given industry.

So let me see if I get this straight. It's ok to make fun of celebrities and politicians as long as you are the one doing it. It's not ok for others to do it, especially if they are dissenting from an opinion that you yourself hold in high regard.

Am I close?

Comments

How dare you rail on people who rail on people for railing on celebrities railing about everything! Celebrities are entitled to their opinions. Opinions are subject to ridicule. It's when the attacks are merely personal, and not about the opinion, that the argument loses credibility.

"Who are you to judge?"

"Who do I have to be?"

Hmm. I see the point is missed. Ta.

No, Scott, as usual, you have no point. Ta, yourself.

On target! I get so tired of people who are always whining and crying about people violating their freedom of speech every time someone disagrees with them. Look kids, Freedom of Speech means that everyone gets to say what they think, and they can say it over and over again if they feel like it.

hold on a minute lynn,you mean freedom of speech doesn't mean i can say whatever i want and if you disagree with me you violate my freedom of speech?

wow i had it all wrong, must be from all the MTV i watch.

Some people just like being offended. They enjoy it, feed off it, get off on it. Their whole self esteem is feeling superior to you. You could say "The sky is blue" and they'd accuse you of being racist. You can't win with these raisin-brains. They're pathetic, and way too stupid to reason with. They will never stop to consider that THEY'RE the ones out of line. As Maddox says: No one forced you to come to my site and read it.

BTW, I'm stealing this, it's too good:

"Who are you to judge?"

"Who do I have to be?"

Some of your commenters suffer from a common ailment: Rights Confusion.

They confuse a right to not have speech suppressed by the government (still going strong, as far as I can tell) with a right to be heard and a right to be taken seriously. Fortunately for us, those last two don't exist.

I think by definition entertainers (rock stars, movie stars) have to be anti-government. It has been that way since the 60's. It's almost like a creed
of theirs that they must carry on the torch or whatever to. So name your
favorite rock star or movie star, and there is a good chance that he or she
dislikes the government or authority so much. Especially if said government is
dominated by the right, as it is now. Pay no attention to these people behind
the curtains, who occasionally come out from behind them to entertain us, and
then who think because they have done something productive in the entertainment
arena they should try to do something productive in other arenas as well, such
as political commentary. They generally have nothing politically valuable to
give to us --save for a few musicians who did a good job expressing a few
interesting ideas back in the 60's--the rest of the musicians just continue to
make money singing the same old tune when they do write about America or
politics or the government.

To me, I give them what they are good at. I enjoy some of Cheryl Crows musical talent, for instance, but I am not going to go looking to her to help me
raise my kids or help me to make up my mind on many issues I face. If we keep
these people in the right perspective things work better...when they step out
and try to say something deeply profound and meaningful about a serious issue it
should be best taken as advertised--in other words, we wouldn't listen to them
try to tell us what church we should go to or what job we should have, generally
speaking, so why should we give to much substance to what they have to say about
war or politics?

Still, we let them influence us a little too much. We like to dress like them, look like them, act like them, we crave their lifestyle and then they feel
that they need to shape our political ideas as well...and why not? As long as
someone is willing to give them an open mic they will probably continue to spew
their thoughts. After all, there are tons of people out there spewing their
thoughts on everything from war to laundry detergent on a daily basis whether it
be on blogs or television or wherever else so I guess the celebrities are
entitled to chime in.

So really it is our fault. We gave them the power by liking their talent and now we have to endure what we created. If Cheryl Crow was not a musical big shot
and who just ran an average blog like me we wouldn't even be talking about
her...but this is what, some might say, the left (or those opposed to war or
Bush) is actually left to: spouting their ideas through anyone they can possibly
find that people will listen to. So far they have collected quite a fine
assembly of spokespeople yes?

The troubling thing to me is that some of the points that they have are with merit. I don't think George W. Bush should just be allowed to fight his war, or
to declare perpetual wars, or to run the world as he seems so bent on doing
right now. I do agree with some of his ideas, but I don't necessarily agree with
all of them and some I strongly disagree with--particularly those that have to
do with our rights...However, compared with Cheryl Crow, Bush looks like a
freaking genius!

Maybe this is why the left feels that they need some big time talent on America's airwaves (like a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity right-wing puppet
types). Someone they can groom to sound all-powerful and knowledgeable that
won't be seen commenting on a potential war on Iraq in one moment while toking a
big bong hit back stage dressed in something slinky the next.

They certainly have to come up with something more credible than bad karma! That is just pathetic and she should be criticized and told to just shut up over
that.

No, Scott, come back! We miss your insight and wisdom! Don't run away!

Honestly, talk about can't-take-the-heat.

Who am I to judge? I am an American citizen, which means I have the absolute moral imperative to judge. It's known as "democracy".

George W is going to fight "his" war with the full approval of congress plus the UN security council. Who else would you have him ask?

My only response to the whiny-assed pussies being "offended" by speech they don't agree with is:

"Good!"

Oh piss and cheerios just cannot be good. Why do you have me thinking about piss and cheerios?

Now stop making fun of celebrities, ya big meanie! There's nothing ridiculous about Babs Steisand lecturing at Harvard school of government or Woody "the Genius" Harrelson telling us how to feel about international politics. These are our idols, don'tcha know.

It always amazes me how far party politics will take some people. A Republican makes a proposal, speaks out on an issue, takes a stand. A Democrat will automatically oppose it simply because it was proposed by a Republican. And vice versa.

I swear, as a nation, I fear we've lost the ability to think for ourselves more often than not. And when celebrities speak to the ignorant masses about politics: "Well, 'so and so' was really good in that movie 'whatchmacallit', so I'm sure (s)he's right." RME

Just because I happen to think that war is a necessary evil at times, does not mean I advocate it all the time. Yes, peace is preferable, but sadly, it's not always possible. We don't live in a fair, just and peaceful world. Power, greed and religious extremism don't let us.

So, anytime you want to rip into my "favorite public figure to laugh uproariously at and roll my eyes so hard I fall over backwards at his blatant stupidity, ignorance and racism" just let me know. I'll make some popcorn! Oh - who is this person? Al Sharpton, of course.

Piss and Cheerios? Gee, and here I thought I had cornered the market on A Really Good Thing with Coronas and Cheerios (although I guess the end result is pretty much the same).

Here is the key word for liberals:

PROJECTION

The "Who do I have to be?" rejoinder must be properly attributed at all times: it was uttered by Captain James T. Kirk, in "The Conscience of the King," replying to a question put to him by Kodos, the Executioner.