Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Pre-order a copy of David Horowitz’s next book, America Betrayed, by clicking here. Orders will begin shipping on May 7th.]
When Laura Ingraham wrote her book “Shut Up and Sing” in 2003, the Left didn’t read the book as much as overreact to the title. The title implied something important. While celebrities gain a “platform” they feel compelled to use, do their opinions reflect any expertise? Or is fame more important than logic?
Celebrities often lead with emotion and expect to cause an emotional reaction. They don’t expect “independent fact-checkers” to examine their emotions.
Exhibit A is an April 15 interview of Hillary Clinton on “The Kelly Clarkson Show.” Pop singer Clarkson brought up an Arizona judge ruling that an abortion ban originally passed in 1864 could stand.
“Did you ever think in your lifetime we would see that happen?” Clarkson asked. “It’s just insane to me the thinking that went on in 1864. It’s a very different world. We know a lot more now. We are going backwards.” Hillary agreed: “It is horrifying in every way.” She said, “There’s a cruelty to it.”
No one gets to suggest that maybe there’s something cruel or horrifying about ripping apart the body of an unborn baby.
Clarkson said she was hospitalized both times she was pregnant. “I literally asked God, this is a real thing, to just take me and my son in the hospital for the second time, because I was like, ‘It’s the worst thing,'” she said, growing emotional. “It was my decision, and I’m so glad I did it. I love my babies, but to make someone … You don’t realize how hard it is. The fact that you would take that away from someone, that can literally kill them. The fact that if they’re raped by their family member and they have to — it’s just like insane to me.”
Emotion dominates. Realities don’t intrude. Pregnancy from rape (especially from a family member) is uncommon. The abortion lobbyists always play up the rare cases, but the dead baby is the “solution” in every deadly “choice.”
On the same day, MSNBC host Jen Psaki played a preview of an upcoming interview with singer John Legend, who thinks his opinions match his stage name. Psaki was touting the man’s robotic repetition of every MSNBC and CNN pundit spinning against former President Donald Trump.
“He is part of a two-tiered system of justice, but not in the way he thinks he is,” proclaimed Legend. “He is getting way more concessions than the average criminal defendant would get. He is getting delays, he’s got access to all kinds of lawyers that are filing this and filing that, delaying every trial, and most people don’t have access to that kind of lawyering, don’t have access to the kind of concessions the justice system will provide to you if you can afford it.”
Of course, Trump is a wealthy man who can afford a team of lawyers. So was O.J. Simpson. All of that resolutely ignores Trump is not “the average criminal defendant.” He’s a former president and the presumptive Republican nominee for president. I think we can guess in advance that Psaki, the Biden press secretary didn’t ask this crooner how many of these Trump prosecutions would be proceeding if Trump retired from politics in 2017, or why Trump was indicted for things when Biden wasn’t (like possessing classified documents).
Celebrities can echo progressive pundits like Joyce Vance or Van Jones, but somehow their proclamations are especially deep thoughts. We love how they sing, so their political views resonate with a crackle. They are not smarter than the average voter, but they can expect no one will disturb their emanations with any fraction of opposition. Call it celebrity privilege.
Why do you gloss over abortion from rape or incest? It’s not uncommon but even if it were, it happens. I’m sickened by your dismissal of it.
I refer you to one of the greatest rejoinders to braindead Leftist celebrities mouthing off: Paddy Chayefsky’s reply to Vanessa Redgrave at the 1978 Oscar Ceremony.
Alas, what should have been a lesson to the entertainers was merely a one-off.
Clarkson is appalled that a law crafted in 1864 is still in effect.Have to assume that she would like to see the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 repealed because it is even more stale.
C.S. Lewis had a term for this sort of thinking. He called it chronological snobbery – the assumption that people way back in history not only had less access to technology than we do, but also less cerebral wherewithal to facilitate the use of such technology as was available. I am doing a project on the meanings of first names, and have been looking at some Anglo-Saxon materials. I have concluded that King Alfred, who translated classical works from Latin to Anglo-Saxon so that his subjects could benefit from them, could most definitely have given me a run for my money intellectually, even if he didn’t have a fan-assisted oven for those burnt cakes.
Yawn. Nothing new here. I trace the celebrity soapbox back to the Beatles in 1967. They discovered what everybody now knows: If you’re a celebrity, all you have to do is open your mouth on any subject and you become an authority.
Clarkson. Clinton. …some of the others listed, are irrelevants. Swift. I do not care what their opinions are. Oprah and those goofy morning ladies are in that court too.
Yet so is Hannity. He talks to much. Far too many leading leading questions. Ingram. Are you listening?
I do not listen to/watch either of them.