|
Celebrity Politics
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NeoPhono |
CLICKY
My question is; is it a good thing for a celebrity with such a "colorful" history to endorse your political campaign? For that matter, do you think celebrities have any business using their fame as a pulpit to spew their political beliefs? I for one am tired of hearing so many celebrites feel that it is in their job description to tell us what they think. We pay them to entertain us, not to tell us who they are voting for in the next election or how they feel on issues. I truely hope there are not people weak enough to allow their political tendencies to be determined by someone merely because of their fame, but I fear that is the case for some. |
|
|
| imokruok |
I totally agree. This book may interest you.
 |
|
|
| Shakka |
| I'm pretty sick and tired of celebs trying to get out into the political realm. Considering what a large portion of them don't even have a high-school degree, it's hard to really take them seriously on the lionshare of issues. A lot of them try to use their celebrity/access to publicity as a chance to mouth off to a larger audience and push their personal beliefs. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I'm pretty sick and tired of celebs trying to get out into the political realm. |
ME TOO!!!!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/arnoldinter1.html
| quote: |
Schwarzenegger's Sex Talk
In 1977 interview, actor spoke of orgies, drugs, and homosexuality
AUGUST 27--Arnold Schwarzenegger once told a magazine interviewer about participating in an orgy with other bodybuilders, noting that "everybody jumped on" the woman involved and "took her upstairs where we all got together." The California Republican added that not every muscleman participated in the gang bang, "just the guys who can in front of other guys. Not everybody can do that. Some think that they don't have a big-enough cock, so they can't get a hard-on."
Schwarzenegger's lewd talk appeared in the August 1977 issue of Oui, an adult magazine published by Playboy Enterprises until 1981 and still available today on newsstands (we originally reported, incorrectly, that the provocative title was defunct). The five-page Schwarzenegger interview was conducted by author Peter Manso and flagged on the magazine's cover with the headline, "Arnold Schwarzenegger on the Sex Secrets of Bodybuilders."
At the time of the Oui story, Schwarzenegger, then 29, was appearing in "Pumping Iron," a documentary on the bodybuilding circuit. In the Q&A with Manso, today's gubernatorial wannabe spoke about his sex life, drug usage, and belief that men "shouldn't feel like fags just because they want to have nice-looking bodies."
Schwarzenegger even entertained a question about his penis size. When Manso asked, "Is your disproportionate to the rest of you?" Schwarzenegger replied, "Well, that depends on what you mean by disproportionate. The isn't a muscle, so it doesn't grow in relation to the shoulders, say, or the pectorals. You can't make it bigger through exercise, that's for sure." He added that "women have told me they're curious about its size--you know, outgoing chicks who're just trying to be outrageous or horny. I hear all kind of lines, including 'Oh, you're hurting me; you're so big.' But it means nothing. Bodybuilders' cocks are the same size as everyone else's."
Asked if he felt "exploited" by women who pursued him because of his physique, Schwarzenegger said, "No, I'd feel used only if I didn't get something out of it. If a girl comes on strong and says, 'I really dig your body and I want to the out of you,' I just decide whether or not I like her. If I do take her home, I try to make sure I get just as much out of it as she does. The word exploited therefore wouldn't apply." Schwarzenegger later noted that once outside the gym, he forgets about bodybuilding: "I can look at a chick who's a little out of shape and if she turns me on, I won't hesitate to date her. If she's a good , she can weigh 150 pounds, I don't care."
On the practice of abstaining from sex prior to a competition, Schwarzenegger rejected that approach: "I get laid on purpose. I can't sleep before a competition and I'm up all night, anyway, so instead of staring at the ceiling I figure I might as well find somebody and ." In fact, at the 1972 Mr. Olympia contest, "we had girls backstage giving head, then all of us went out and I won. It didn't bother me at all; in fact, I went out there feeling like King Kong," added Schwarzenegger.
When Manso asked whether he used "dope," Schwarzenegger replied, "Yes, grass and hash--no hard drugs. But the point is that I do what I feel like doing. I'm not on a health kick."
Asked whether he was "freaked out" by being in such close contact with guys at the gym, Schwarzenegger said, "Men shouldn't feel like fags just because they want to have nice-looking bodies...Gay people are fighting the same kind of stereotyping that bodybuilders are: People have certain misconceptions about them just as they do about us. Well, I have absolutely no hang-ups about the fag business..."
Other topics addressed by Schwarzenegger included:
* His dad Gustav, who was later revealed to have been a Nazi Party member: "My father was the local police chief and he led a very regular life."
* His early days training in Germany: "I was living in Munich at the time, hanging out with night people--entertainers, hookers, and bar owners--and I had a girlfriend who was a stripper. I was an innocent boy from a farm town, but I grew up fast in Munich."
* Southern California hijinks: "Bodybuilders party a lot, and once, in Gold's--the gym in Venice, California, where all the top guys train--there was a black girl who came out naked. Everybody jumped on her and took her upstairs, where we all got together." Asked by Manso if he was talking about a "gang bang," Schwarzenegger answered, "Yes, but not everybody, just the guys who can in front of other guys. Not everybody can do that. Some think that they don't have a big-enough cock, so they can't get a hard-on. Having chicks around is the kind of thing that breaks up the intense training. It gives you relief, and then afterward you go back to the serious stuff." |
The is a soft muscle.
I'm glad that everyone has the freedom to speak their minds though.;) |
|
|
| imokruok |
| Unlike the liberals, Reagan and Schwarzenegger were determined enough to do something rather than just bitch about it. Schwarzenegger, for example, started out by leading a California referendum on after-school programs. |
|
|
| Renegade |
I feel that celbrities have as much right to contribute to the political process as any other individuals. If they are able to use their fame as a soap-box upon which to spread their opinions, then that's their good fortune - their opinions are no more valid or invalid than the next man's, they just happen to have a greater reach. As for Madonna specifically, well, she has a lot of crackpot opinions (her and Guy Ritchie are members of a peculiar religious sect from memory) but if she wants to publically state that she supports Wesley Clark, then great. I doubt, in the scheme of things, that it's going to greatly help or hinder his campaign, but she has as much right to say who she supports as anyone else.
On a side note, while many conservative commentators have lambasted individuals such as Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover for merely using their fame as a stepboard towards providing their opinions on the political process, most have been suspiciously silent about Arnold Schwarzenegger using his fame as a stepboard towards actually becoming a part of the political process. Can you imagine what Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity would have been saying if any of the former three celbrities became the Governor of California? It would still be dominating the Fox News agenda even now.
By criticising celebrities for commenting on political matters, all the conservative media are trying to do is shout down the potentially influential dissenting messages coming from members of the liberal left - it's not about censoring celbrities (as there is no rational reason to unequivically support this perspective) or engaging in rational, political discourse, it's about shouting louder than the other side. And this is part of the problem with politics generally, but American politics especially: it's not about who has the better arguments or policies, it's about who can shout the loudest and obvert the agendas the quickest. The conservative right are dominant in the US for no other reason than because they (usually with Christian persecution complex in tow) are quick to loudly shout down any opposition, and they do so with a self-assured unity that will always shadow that of the largely fractured left (the left - to its own detriment - is often overly self-critical as a result of its inherent idealism: in no place is this better demonstrated than by the in-fighting amongst the Democratic candidates).
Similarly, they (the right) are quite adept at co-opting any agendas that could be used against them, and shroud themselves in its obverted reminents. The concepts of democracy, justice, liberty and freedom, just to name a few, have been hijacked with clandestine beauty by the conservative right (by George Bush and his script-writing team especially) and, merely by virtue of the fact that they shout the loudest, they have been able to use their obverted interpretations of such concepts to dominate the political agenda. The dissenting left can no longer use the Bush Administrations subversion of real democracy, justice, liberty or freedom against them, purely because the Bush administration - by their own volition, along with their expansive, obedient minions of rightist proselytizers - have changed what these concepts actually mean. Again, this has nothing to do with the fact that Karl Rove's definitional interpretations of such concepts are more "valid" than those held by opposing view-points (for agreeing upon the "validity" of such definitions would require the engagement of rational discourse - something the conservative right traditionally abhor and avoid) it merely has to do with the fact that the rightists have the loudest voice.
And it's evident on any conservative program: Bill O'Reilly just talks over the top of anyone who disagrees with him. Sean Hannity consistantly dominates his carboard cut-out liberal colleague, thingy Colmes (to such a degree, I don't even know what Colmes' first name is!) on any and every issue. And it's the same for any conservative you care to mention (on TV or in real life) - the second their views are challenged, they get annoyed, begin shouting and are able to subvert the agendas - by these methods - of their generally meak opponents. Michael Moore (I know many of you dislike him, but here goes) makes a similar point in DWMC: conservatives just cannot be told they're wrong, and will do all that they can to ensure that any views that may void their own are shouted down and not heard.
So, when the Dixie Chicks merely said they opposed the war on Iraq, we were greated with weeks of reactionary messages from the conservative right about how celebrities have absolutely no right to participate in the democratic process in this way, how they know nothing about politics and about how we should boycott their concerts as a result (Fox News had live coverage, for instance, of pro-war rallies held across the country in venues intended to take attendence away from Dixie Chicks concerts - they failed). When Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, declared his intention to use his substanial popularist clout as a means to oust a democratically elected governer of the world's fifth largest economy from power, there was scarcely a whimper from the same people who so derided the Dixie Chicks and other celebrities for merely providing their opinions. Would Arnold's knowledge of political affairs been brought more into question had he been running for the Democrats under a more liberal agenda? Would there have been a widespread call for the boycott of his movies?
The point of all this (finally) is that if it takes individuals like Michael Moore, the Dixie Chicks or - god help us - Madonna to balance out the "volume" in such political matters then so be it. If the conservatives want to shout loudly, the opposition will just have to shout more loudly until the point at which the political agenda is reclaimed from the far right. A lot of you may vehemently disagree with such a "popularist" manner of politicising (as I do on principle), but so long as the dominant political power engages in such tactics, the equivolent antithesis must be groomed within the opposition. For every Rush Limbaugh we need a Michael Moore, for every Bill O'Reilly we need a Madonna. Her music may suck, but so long as she supports Clark over Bush (or Leiberman), Madonna will get my vote every single time (unless she destroys any more classics like "American Pie". That was just sacreligious :whip: ). |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Unlike the liberals, Reagan and Schwarzenegger were determined enough to do something rather than just bitch about it. Schwarzenegger, for example, started out by leading a California referendum on after-school programs. |
Why is it that when conservative (right-leaning) celebrities go political they are louded as intelligent, straight-talking civilians that takes matters into their own hands when they see something unjust, but as soon as liberals (or left-leaning) celebrities speak their mind (and/or participate in fund raisings or charities that support their cause) they are accused of being uneducated hippies who are too dumb for having an opinion in the first place and should just have kept their mouth shut?
...Oh and now I see Renegade already touched this subject :p |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Don't worry--I don't have much faith in the mind of Schwarzenegger. I don't have much faith in the state of Cauleefaunia either. I think they only could've done worse if Gray Davis were kept in power or if they elected someone like Gary Coleman. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
Schwarzenegger = Gary Coleman
Schwarzenegger isn't even conservative on social issues. In fact his views in that regard seem more leftish than Davis'. |
|
|
|
|
