These are my random musings. Hopefully they will be witty, insightful, and frequently updated.
Where did Sharon Stone get her PhD?
Published on October 20, 2005 By singrdave In Entertainment
I am sick to the teeth of these celebrities who think that their opinions on social issues matter. Natalie Portman, Sharon Stone, Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Ben Affleck, and Dave Grohl (among many many others) feel compelled to speak out on everything from foreign policy to global warming, when they are not even qualified to speak out about shoe styles or hair color treatments. The danger is when the idolized celeb decides to champion a cause celebre,like global warming or the fur trade. They feel they have more brains and insight on emissions standards than the big brains at the EPA, for example. I will attempt to spell out exactly how I think they get this way.

1. Celebs have low self-esteem.
The drama geek is usually one who reaches out to the dark expanse beyond the lip of the stage for validation. This translates into a palpable need of the spotlight. The celebrity is the apogee of the drama-geek orbit; they are drawing on the crowd of adoring fans, screaming paparazzi, and shelves of tabloids in order to get validation for their lifestyles. Photographers, fashion magazines, celeb rags, and teen mags are trying to make a buck off a picture of what Sharon Stone or Natalie Portman is wearing. It makes the typical celebrity feel important, boosting their already fragile self-esteem (else why would they be up on stage in the first place).

2. Celebs are surrounded by sycophantic yes-men.
Celebs are covered with servants, peeps, homeys, entourage, etc., who want nothing but their money. Parties flowing with Cristal champagne Link, riding in their stretch Hummers or Navigators, getting women (or men) flocking to them like flies to {expletive}. This is the life of a celebrity, and also the dream of every sycophantic entourage member who wants a piece of THAT action. So, of course, if J-Ho decides to put out a new perfume or record a song about Lindsay Lohan decides she's a singer, of course their sycophants will latch onto that idea, thinking that's the single greatest idea since people decided to start wearing shoes in their feet. Because they want to be part of the latest gravy train. As MC Hammer will attest, the entourage is the first thing to go once the money dries up. Link

3. Celebs are surrounded by fawning fans.
Even more damaging than the entourage who constantly whisper the celeb's greatness in their collective ears is the fan who obsesses over every aspect of the famous one's life. The fan wears the fragrance, clothes, hair, and eyeshadow of the object of their abject affection. They change their philosophies at the slightest hint of whim from their favorite celeb. And even more galling? When the celeb under scrutiny absolves him/herself of any responsibility by just claiming that "I am not a role model."

I realize that I am not talking about all celebrities. I also realize that some people in positions of fame or notoriety have their heads screwed on straight.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Oct 21, 2005
I agree with aspects of what you say, but it all sounds a little coy. I can't help thinking there's more to your blog than meets the eye ...

'Celebrities With Opinions'
So are celebrities not entitled to opinions? I would say of course they are. Surely the point is that their opinions should not be assumed to be inherently any more valuable than those offered by anybody else.

'Where did Sharon Stone get her PhD?'
Ah, so now it's people without doctorates who should not be entitled to opinions? Well, I guess that rules out George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard and many other world leaders. On the other hand, it also rules IN quite a few people whom I wouldn't trust to change a light bulb.

'Natalie Portman, Sharon Stone, Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Ben Affleck, and Dave Grohl (among many many others)'
What, no Arnold Schwarzenegger? No Charlton Heston? No Ted Nugent? No Dennis Hopper? No Bruce Willis? Methinks your political colours are showing ...

'I also realize that some people in positions of fame or notoriety have their heads screwed on straight.'
By which, I assume, you mean 'have their heads screwed on RIGHT'.

So, come clean - you don't mean 'opinions', you mean 'LIBERAL opinions'.
on Oct 21, 2005
So are celebrities not entitled to opinions? I would say of course they are. Surely the point is that their opinions should not be assumed to be inherently any more valuable than those offered by anybody else.

Celebrities *are* entitled to their opinions. But I distinctly remember an incident where Natalie Maines felt that since she had an audience, she should get up and voice her displeasure to the war in Iraq and with Bush being from her home state. Nobody in that audience wanted to hear about her political views; they came to hear the Dixie Chicks

Ah, so now it's people without doctorates who should not be entitled to opinions?

Who would you rather have performing your heart surgery? A doctor who has had years of medical training in cardiology, or someone who feels they live a healthy lifestyle and sits in moral judgement of the medical profession? Because that is what they are doing, baby. They sit to the sidelines and bitch about why this country is so messed up, yet they don't have the brains to back them up. Do they understand public planning, waste management, or fiscal policy? If they are so smart, where are their higher degrees of scholarship?

What, no Arnold Schwarzenegger? No Charlton Heston? No Ted Nugent? No Dennis Hopper? No Bruce Willis?

How many people do you think are enrolled in the Ted Nugent Fan Club? (I was about to insert Heston's name, but then someone could counter the NRA *IS* Heston's fan club.) I haven't seen Bruce Willis or Adam Baldwin on TRL lately.

Methinks your political colours are showing ...

Maybe so, Canary, maybe so. Those were the people that leapt quickly to mind. But as you pointed out, there are rabid anti-intellectual celebs on both sides of the aisle. It seems, though, that the liberal ones can't keep their mouths shut. At least Arnold put his money where his mouth was and ran for public office. Let the electorate decide if they like his opinions, rather than foisting them on an unsuspecting public.
Arnold ain't a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, not by any stretch of the imagination. Sure, he ran as a Republican, but that was politically expedient: Gray Davis was a Democrat, and his Lt., Cruz Bustamante, was running in the recall election for the Democrats. Arnold has taken a lot of flak from the conservatives for running a very loose ship in California, and praise from liberals for the same reasons. I quote from talkleft.com Link:

We didn't want the recall to succeed, but now that it has, we have no problem with Arnold as Governor. He's liberal on social justice issues and those are the ones that matter most to us. McClintock is far to the right and Bustamante just never moved us. We'll be as curious as everyone else to see how Arnold does in the job.

Warren Beatty and Ben Affleck have both toyed with the idea of running for office. I have no problem with either of them running for office. I encourage them to run for office! Then they would be put up for public humiliation by their utter lack of knowledge about how this country really works.

I don't have a problem when an elected official (who I also do not trust) voices his or her opinion, because they have a legitimate claim on representing the people. They defeasted other less-whatever-ed people for the responsibility of representing that constituency. I also do not have a problem when a celebrity forms a well thought out political opinion. What I think is downright dirty pool is when celebrities, with no political, social, or academic experience, decide they want to shape the world towards their self-absorbed goals of boosting their own career by voicing that (most times wildly inaccurate) opinion on the hordes of rabid fans, sycophantic yes-men, and the tabloid press in order to further their own ends.
on Oct 21, 2005
Michael Moore


moore is not an opinionated celebrity but the other way around...his celebrity is a consequence of expressing those opinions.
on Oct 21, 2005
politically expedient


arnold is nothing if not that.
on Oct 21, 2005
moore is not an opinionated celebrity but the other way around...his celebrity is a consequence of expressing those opinions.


Aye, there's the rub...
on Oct 21, 2005
'But as you pointed out, there are rabid anti-intellectual celebs on both sides of the aisle.'
Rabid anti-intellectual celebs? I never said anything of the sort!

'If they are so smart, where are their higher degrees of scholarship?'
I repeat - so where does that leave George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard et al? Do YOU perchance have a PhD, singrdave?
on Oct 21, 2005

I repeat - so where does that leave George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard et al? Do YOU perchance have a PhD, singrdave?

I think he addressed that issue with his statement pertaining to them being Elected representatives.

on Oct 21, 2005
Rabid anti-intellectual celebs? I never said anything of the sort!


Though you did not specifically use those words, you responded to my list of "left" celebs with a list of your own. I accused them of being RAC's, you accused the RAC's of being both on the left and the right...
on Oct 21, 2005
'I accused them of being RAC's, you accused the RAC's of being both on the left and the right...'
Nonsense. I said they were celebrities with OPINIONS. I never mentioned anti-intellectualism. (As I said before, a piece of paper from a university does not necessarily in itself satisfy me that somebody's opinion deserves to be taken seriously.) Please don't put words into my mouth.
on Oct 21, 2005
For me, I have nothing against celebs with opinions, I mean we all have them and they are entitled to theirs. What bugs me is how they figure that just because they are celebs, their opinion should somehow carry more weight than those of us among the "great unwashed".

I especially make fun and mock those who play parts of officials, then speak out as if they carried some insight into it that the rest of us will just never understand (Martin Sheen, Geena Davis are you listening?). ;~D
on Oct 21, 2005
What bugs me is how they figure that just because they are celebs, their opinion should somehow carry more weight than those of us among the "great unwashed".


That is entirely my point.

on Oct 21, 2005
Does Sharon Stone read my blog? Did she know that just yesterday I went off on a tear?!?!

She was on Ellen today. She annnounced with smug satisfaction that she raises money for AIDS research, then proceeded to make a complete idiot of herself auctioning off her earrings for AIDS research. Then proceeded to offer an autographed picture of herself (how generous!) to the winner, to sweeten the deal and solicit higher bids.

So what gets me is that she made a complete ass of herself in order to show just how enlightened and sympathetic she is. I don't question the need for AIDS research nor the money needed to do it; I question HER motives for soliciting those funds.

on Oct 22, 2005
You forgot the most pompous of the celebs, Bono!
on Oct 22, 2005
your best argument is ronald reagan.
on Oct 22, 2005
your best argument is ronald reagan


Please take the time to elaborate, kingbee!
2 Pages1 2