Politics and Celebrities...A Match Made in Never Never Land

I have touched on this subject before, but as the elections draw closer, I can't help but feel the need to speak on it again. Why, oh why, do actors and the like feel the need to tell us their political opinions as if we've actually asked for them? I don't know about you guys, but I like actors for their acting. I require nothing else from them. I don't think they are my friends, I don't expect them to ask me to dinner and I don't think that joining their fan club will make them like me more. I truly couldn't give a rat's behind whether or not any actor anywhere in any situation likes me. Why? Because they don't know me. Nor I them. The only relationship we have is whether or not they can convince me that they are who they are pretending to be in any given movie, tv show, commercial, etc. That's it. They are the performers. I am the viewer. Period. End of story. Extent of the relationship. And yet...I hear everyday how this actor or that actor has chosen to support this candidate or that candidate. Hey, that's great! It's wonderful to be involved. But I think that when someone who holds so much sway over people (hey, we can't all be independent minded free-thinkers, right?) comes out in support of a political candidate, they should be required to tell us why they support that candidate. Exactly what is it about that person that has convinced them he or she deserves their support? I'd like that piece of information because I'd like to know if this "celebrity" is seriously and thoughtfully advocating a particular candidate and not just jumping on the "flavor of the month" bandwagon. This may come as a shock to some people (can you hear the sarcasm???)...but I don't think all these celebrities are as smart as they'd like us to think. I think quite a few of them are perhaps good at some things, but are exceptionally great at one thing. That one thing being "self-promotion". Take George Clooney for example. I'll say it up front because it'll be abundantly plain before I'm done: I am not a fan of George. Not of his acting, his speeches, his political views and most certainly not of his almost single-handed slandering of the word "liberal". George wears his "liberalism" like a badge of honor. Problem is, his badge is self-made and contains more glitz than substance, at least in my opinion. And I'll tell you why I believe that. I'm sure you've all heard of George's recent efforts on behalf of ending the atrocities being committed in Darfur, right? I'm not disputing that what he says is going on there is because I think it's obvious that the situation there is horrific and in need of fixing. I'm firmly of the school of thought that those who have the ability to right a wrong also have a responsibility to do it. Remember that poem by Rev. Martin Niemoller:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I
wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t
speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for
me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

So yeah, just because it's happening halfway around the world and doesn't have any direct affect on our lives here in America, doesn't mean we shouldn't stand up when we see something wrong happening, like the situation in Darfur. George is bound and determined that the U.S. should become somewhat involved...hence all his time spent on capital hill discussing the issue. He even spoke, along with Senators Brownback and Obama, in Washington regarding it. Again, I don't disagree with George on this issue. What's happening in Darfur is evil and we, as a society, are honor bound to help. Period.
Lest you start to believe that I have changed my mind and become a follower of the Great Gray Pretender somewhere during this long, drawn out post, let me explain where I have an issue with George and his "I'll speak out for the weak and disenfranchised no matter what the cost to me, the benevolent and brave hearted liberal guy" attitude. George is all over this issue with Darfur. I mean he's speaking out to "generate lifesaving humanitarian assistance and protection for the vulnerable, marginalized, and displaced". This according to the "Not On Our Watch" organization George and some of his Hollywood buds have founded. Yay, George. Great work. Sounds very important and bold. But let me ask you something...why is the plight of these people so much more important than that of the Iraqi people when they were under the rule of Saddam Hussein? I mean here's a guy that was a known tyrant, a brutal butcher of men, women and children, a man many recognized as a genocidal rapist and a monster. Yet I don't remember hearing George getting all upset about that. I don't remember him lecturing politicians and citizens alike on our responsibility to help those who were suffering there. No, no, no. In fact, in an article posted in March 2006 on WorldNetDaily, George blasted Democrats who were reticent to criticize President Bush and question his reasons for invading Iraq in the early days of the operation saying:

"The fear of been criticized can be paralyzing. Just look at the way so many
Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying,
where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with
9-11? We knew it was bulls---. Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these
Democrats saying, 'We were misled.' It makes me want to shout, 'F--- you'; you
weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic."

He was (and is) against the War in Iraq because it wasn't connected to 9/11. Ahhhh. I see. A horrible, evil man was randomly torturing innocent people for whatever reason his warped brain came up with on any given day and George Clooney didn't think that merited intervention by the United States of America, the only remaining so-called "Superpower" on earth. Okay, so we could have used sanctions against Saddam. Oh wait a minute...we did. They didn't work. We could have had the United Nations intercede. Oh hey...yeah, wait a tick....the United Nations was far too busy working that whole "Oil for Food" scandal and lining their own pockets. So that left what, exactly, Mr. Clooney? What should have been done to help those people? Or have you ever even thought of them? Did they never enter your mind because you couldn't see past your rabid "Republicans are Bad and George W. Bush is the Grand Pooh Bah of all Evil" way of thinking? You know, I'll tell you...I wish to heck and back that President Bush hadn't used the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction argument in an effort to convince the American people to invade Iraq. Or, better yet, I wish he'd have named the biggest, most damaging weapon that there was in that country at the time and that was Saddam Hussein himself. Hussein caused countless deaths and maimings, was responsible for ecological disasters that affect that region to this day, and blatantly refused to listen to the world's requests to stop the genocide he had created within Iraq's borders. But we shouldn't have stopped him because he wasn't involved in 9/11. Right. In October of 2003, according to WorldNetDaily, George reiterated his opposition to the Iraq War to a German magazine saying:

"I stand by that. It was the dumbest thing that my country could have done. As
an actor in the public eye, I have a responsibility. I see myself as a spokesman
for all those who have the same opinion," the report quotes him as saying.

That's just fabulous. George feels like he has a right to say our government did something stupid (and I'll fight to the death for him to keep that right!) and moreover, he feels he has a responsibility to speak out for "all those who have the same opinion". So how does that fit in with his quote of "My father raised me to--with the idea that you have to look out for people who can't look out for themselves. That's your job. If you don't do that, you fail." (See complete transcript here.) So tell me, George. While you're making the world a better place for the disenfranchised and the downtrodden, how did those Saddam Hussein era Iraqis fit into your plan? Did they matter to you? They sure mattered to me. And my husband. And my son. And the tens of thousands of their fellow airmen, soldiers and sailors who have gone over there and given their time, efforts and sometimes even their lives, to save and protect those people. Explain to me your standards of what human rights atrocities merit involvement from the U.S., the U.N. and everyone else in this world. Explain to me how you decide who matters, George. Because frankly, I'm having trouble understanding how your endorsement of a presidential candidate should matter. I'm having trouble understanding how any celebrity's endorsement should matter. And yet, according to the media, it does. And I just don't get it.

P.S. For those of you who disagree with me, GREAT! Let's talk about it. Where do you think I'm wrong? What am I not seeing clearly? Is there a way for us to come together and understand our different views and opinions? I'd love to hear what you think. My mind is open to hear your views.