A while back, a guy who writes for a magazine called Radar emailed to alert me of his "exclusive" discovery that Barbara Streisand is totally a hypocrite!!1!
I replied, in so many words: eh.
Apparently it struck a nerve, as he has now gone on to pen an opus that strains mightily to convince us that celebrity eco-hypocrisy is a Very Important Subject that we should all take Very Seriously.
Eh.
Look, if he wants to spend his time on this stuff, it's his business. I can see the appeal. It's a cheap way to generate traffic. The hoi polloi resent being lectured and love to see the rich and famous taken down a notch. It's a shot of schadenfreude to the lizard brain.
The trade-off, of course, is that you provide Drudge/Limbaugh/Hannity with the next day's headline.
Is that trade-off worth it? If you're just after links, sure. But the Wonkette wannabes who write about this stuff don't want to think of themselves merely as star-fuckers in a media culture filled with star-fuckers. No, they need a veneer of nobility. So we're told that while mindlessly tribal enviros rally around to defend their patron celebrities, only high-minded journalists like Radar guy can see beyond to the Real Issue. Which is, apparently, this:
Eco-hypocrites undercut the very message they're trying to peddle. How desperate could the planet's plight be if the people who present themselves as most concerned about it consider flying first-class commercial an unacceptable sacrifice? Why should anyone bother to carpool when Streisand requires her own convoy?
Why, just the other day I was about to hop on my bike to go to the store when I thought, "Wait a minute, what about Babs?! That bitch doesn't ride a bike! Why should I?!"
The idea, I guess, is that people won't accept the word of the vast majority of the world's scientists, politicians, businessfolk, and activists until it's clear that, um, the diva community is on board.
Believe me, I'm the last one to overestimate the cognitive faculties of the American public, but this is an awfully extreme degree of vapidity to ascribe to one's countrymen, especially given the complete absence of evidence. Who are these people who dismiss global warming because of Barbara Streisand's entourage? Do you know any? The Hannity crowd pretends to, yeah, but does anyone think they wouldn't find some other dumbass talking point if they needed to?
Whose opinion is actually determined by the behavior of celebrities? I'll venture a guess: no-damn-body.
Say, as a thought experiment, that all of us who care about global warming rise up with one voice and demand -- demand! -- that, I don't know, Leo swear off private jets. Cameron Diaz move into a cottage. Barbara Streisand reduce the size of her whatever. A War on Hypocrisy! Wait, no ... a War on Extremist Hypocrifascists!
Would that war change any celebrity behavior? Doubt it. Would it lend any additional credibility to the fight against global warming? Doubt it. Would it quiet the right-wing propaganda machine? Hell no. There's nothing the Fox hounds would love more than to see the debate conducted in these terms, focusing on messengers rather than message.
The net effect would be this: a few celebrities would be cowed into silence. Fewer people would talk about global warming. Enviros would alienate some allies and strengthen some enemies. That's it. All in a quixotic quest to stamp out a universal human trait.
Anyway, enough about this silliness. To be clear, I don't mean to defend Streisand's entourage. I mean to say I don't give a shit about Streisand's entourage. If you do, mistaken views about climate change are probably the least of your problems.
I care about global warming. I don't think celebrity behavior is going to affect the issue one way or the other, so I don't bother to write about it.
Radar guy made a different choice. That's fine. But let's call it what it is: trivial tabloid gossip.
Climate Citizen: Mary Stuart Masterson
Happy birthday, EMA Awards ... and you other groups, too
James Bond calls for more marine protected areas
Comments
View as Flat
JMG Posted 5:52 am
17 Aug 2007
But I think we need to be consistent then -- Grist trumpets celebrities all the time, with Top 10 Green bands listings, greenest actors/actresses features, etc.
If we don't want to worry about the hypocrisy of the stars, then let's not, agreed. But it does seem that ignoring celebrities is a good idea all the time, not just when they are doing environmentally destructive things.
The whole cult of celebrity is bad for the environment in the first place, because it undermines everyday folks who don't have the spotlight shined on them. The media fascination with celebrity is very functional for Madison Avenue because the very idea of celebrity (Boorstin defined it as "someone who is well known for being well known) carries with it the idea that what these people do is important to know about.
Humans being the social-imitative animals that we have evolved to be (like all the primates), whenever any knowledge about celebrities takes up space in your head, you are also getting a dose of "here's what you should do." Since celebrities are all-but-universally sexually attractive, young and/or powerful people, it's very difficult for us to not get an implied "imitate this" message from the celebrity cult. It's the way we're wired.
So, yes, by all means, let's not worry about celebrities. But that means that we should see a lot more about folks like Judy Bari and Darryl Cherney here and a lot less about Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:15 am
17 Aug 2007
grist.org
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:25 am
17 Aug 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
amc89 Posted 7:06 am
17 Aug 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:09 am
17 Aug 2007
3% of the world own 84% of everything in it.
If the other 97% do nothing, and the 3% cut their usage by 95%, the world will be instantly better off.
Instead, Grist posts color pictures of Julia Roberts using "green diapers" or something.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
pbearden47 Posted 7:12 am
17 Aug 2007
David is right. Dave is always right.
Aunt Phyllis
Permalink
JMG Posted 7:28 am
17 Aug 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:32 am
17 Aug 2007
By way of clarification, though, Streisand and other serious performers, who are not only great artists but also have done respectable work in educating themselves in major social, political or environmental issues, such as George Clooney, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Geena Davis, maybe Brad Pitt (to get in some major players from "Thelma and Louise," that feminist classic; I do not know if the fine character actor Harvey Keitel has involved himself in any of these matters), his stunning bride Angelina Jolie of course (whom I find chilly as an actor, though I am looking forward to seeing her movie about Daniel Pearl), Whoopi Goldberg (my favorite person now working, bar none, and probably considered sexually attractive by very few, pace JMG), Bono (I guess; he has been criticized recently on the question of foreign aid; I never much liked his music, FWIW), Leonardo di Caprio and even Cameron Diaz, do not deserve to be dismissed simply as "celebrities," as though they were on the same level with certain overly famous celebrity-bubbleheads such as Paris Hilton.
(Highly recommended as a lesson in US history of the 1930s: "The Cradle Will Rock," directed by Tim Robbins, with Susan Sarandon as an Italian Fascist, Hank Azaria -- of "The Simpsons"! -- as the heroic playwright Marc Blitzstein, John Cusack as Nelson Rockefeller and Ruben Blades as Diego Rivera.)
(I would rather not comment on where in the spectrum of celebrities Lindsey Lohan falls, for whom, it is well known, DR has been carrying a torch for a very long time.)
DR has raised a very interesting subject, one that deserves a more nuanced discussion. It is a fact of life that Streisand & Co. will find cameras and microphones readily available. Some people will like that, others will automatically turn them off. So how do we evaluate this? Do the good and bad effects of the celebrity's speaking up cancel each other out? Do they harden and deepen opposing views? If the more thoughtful and industrious celebrities receive any kind of audience, then they should be encouraged.
As for hypocrisy, that is a more delicate issue. I want to go along with DR, in ignoring the charge, but I am afraid I cannot. Surely, flying lots and lots in jets (as Leo di Caprio has most recently been accused of doing), and living in extravagantly big houses (as Al Gore was accused of, earlier this year, and it was discussed a lot in Gristmill), may indeed be justifiable (certainly that is so in Al Gore's case). But the accusations of hypocrisy should not be lightly waved away. Those should be "teaching moments," with wise words on such subjects as regret and flexibility.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:56 am
17 Aug 2007
And I doubt JMG was making any kind of serious metaphysical, anthropological or ethical assertion, when he facetiously dashed off "good for the soul."
As for celebrities who involve themselves in animal welfare, in response to AMC: I wonder how well that has worked. Paul and Linda McCartney, for example, may indeed have drawn some attention to the Canadian slaughter of harp seals, which is good, though hardly decisive. But their well-intentioned gesture, to accept an invitation to watch videos of the horrendous fur-related slaughter of caged, terrified dogs and cats in China, drowned in boiling water, seems to have gone nowhere. Amidst a few other issues that are embarrassing the Chinese in advance of the Beijing Olympics, this one seems entirely ignored.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:58 am
17 Aug 2007
Pretty easy to come up with the rationalization, actually. In the former instances, celebrities are advancing causes I care about -- care about more, even, than my carefully cultivated pose of disdainful superiority vis-a-vis pop culture. In the latter instances, they're not. See? Easy!
grist.org
Permalink
justlou Posted 8:17 am
17 Aug 2007
We are all searching for a better way to live a life that will not degrade the planet, to be leavers and not takers. We certainly don't have all the answers but we have a pretty good idea of what the goals need to be. The same with many of these celebrities. And, although I don't think much of the power of elites, if that power is applied wisely for the good of the planet, then we better count them as friends.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 10:25 am
17 Aug 2007
Republican celebs will always be less green than Democratic celebs.
If celebs cared that much for old growth redwood trees, they could sure as hell band together and BUY the lands. (Then they'd have a good supply of tight-grained, knot-free redwood boards for their homes and decks.)
I agree with JMG about being away from TV for so long. I never heard of so many "celebs".
I was in Hollywood several years ago on the day of the Oscars, and we saw a red Dodge Neon driving through the maze to the red carpet. Talk about making a statement <smirk>.
PS New pics on the photo blog. I posted some of my first serious "Photoshop-ped" pictures there. Enjoy! Headed back to Yosemite for next weekend.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:53 pm
17 Aug 2007
Oh, they're both selling off insurance, mines, McMansions, and all kinds of stuff to go legit. What a bunch of fakery and lies.
Who cares about Barbara S, Gore and Edwards were supposed to lead us through the Global Warming changes. Barbara didn't fail us any more than Mick Jaeger did.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
dragoon Posted 3:15 pm
17 Aug 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:07 pm
17 Aug 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:44 pm
17 Aug 2007
Evangelical Christians make a great deal of how our personal salvation depends on our recognizing this man/god, Jesus of Nazareth, as our personal "Saviour." Well, that is not altogether without merit, within general Christian discourse, though it is theologically pretty piss-poor.
One wonders what those Evangelical Christians do, come Christmas-card-writing time, December before the 25th, the time which Catholics call not Christmas but Advent, with all those Italian Renaissance images of that bare baby sucking away at that Jewish woman's exposed tit.
One wonders also if those Evangelical Christians have any understanding whatsoever, that way back in the Triassic Period of the Mesozoic Era, baby mammal-like synapsid reptiles were already sucking happily away at their warm-blooded mammy's tits.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
NonprofitWatch Posted 11:10 pm
17 Aug 2007
Don't know if this is a longstanding practice or something she decided to do inspired by involvement with Live Earth and the accompanying accusations of having an enormous global warming footprint and non-green stock holdings.
( Let's hope that news of her special nutrient consumption technique was false; perhaps not the best example to be setting for the world. )
bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org -
bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org
Permalink
tico89 Posted 2:24 am
18 Aug 2007
I don't give a shit about Streisand's entourage
Well, that's not what you'd say if you were mentioning her on your stupid Grist List. Yes, you should be consistent. Either every action of celebrities should be followed, or they should be ignored. But this hero-worshipping and foot-licking is disgusting.
I no longer find Grist refreshing, with the same tired old jokes, and I no longer find it particularly entertaining. It's not a place where rational people can discuss; and if what the Radar article quotes as your response to them is a literal quote, then you should be ashamed of yourself.
All that this article has done is make me agree with something said by jabailo. So that's what Grist has come to. I don't know if I'll be back.
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:39 am
18 Aug 2007
I don't know if you remember the old "Spy" magazine, a great satiric rag on insider intellectuals and celebrity poseurs...but the June 1988 issue had a great cover article on "Coasters" featuring Graham Chapman as the Ultimate Coaster. It described has beens and their likes and dislikes (dislike: "new technology in their field").
To me, it seems like Greeness is being uses as the breeze to keep former stars and 90's personalities aloft in the public mindset. You don't see the most current artists talking Green -- they're too busy writing real music or making movies. Nope, the types of "spout green" are the dissolute washed up acts like Lindsay Lohan and Bono...former greats who are now hucksters...and most of all...coasters.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
s5 Posted 3:36 pm
18 Aug 2007
shouts for the death penalty for drug dealers (yet are addicted to painkillers)
preaches about protecting the children (while trying to diddle a few they seduce on Myspace)
waxes poetic about family values (while cheating on their wives)
hates gays (while working their side jobs as male prostitutes)
screeches about Mexican immigrants (yet hires them as maids and nannies)
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 2:51 am
04 Sep 2007
I do not think it means what you think it means. Suck, meaning "be inferior", derives from animal-husbandry.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=suck
Suck hind tit "be inferior" is Amer.Eng. slang first recorded 1940.
Permalink