I take a great deal of pride in not knowing who most of these people are.

I take a difference stance on celebrities.  You see, most people actually DON'T care about their politics, for example.  I don't know a single person that ever said, "I believe this because this is what Barbara Streisand believes," for example...  I've never met anyone like that.  But in terms of being influenced by politics... you're forgetting that most politicians are also celebrities.  Just in different ways.  No one is asking Sarah Palin the questions they're asking her because they think she's smart... they're doing it because in terms of politics she's what's IN.  She's the "it" girl in politics.  If you can get her to speak at your event you'll get people.  My point is this: Sarah Palin is also a celebrity, but we think that because she's talking politics and giving speeches about shaping our country that it's okay because she's also a politician--it's her job to do this.  But she's still a celebrity who actually IS influencing what people think.  At least more so than Barbara Streisand (A LOT more than Barbara Streisand).  You'd be surprised how few people actually give a damn what Sean Penn or Tim Robbins thinks (this is true even of people agree with their politics... and it's a gold mine for comedians).  Also, in terms of being influenced there's really no difference between a celebrity and the typical person on the street.  We've discovered that celebrities actually AREN'T as influential as we think.  Where are most people influenced from?  Generally the people they know personally.  A kid, for example, is much more apt to be influenced politically, for example, by their parents a LOT more than an actual celebrity.  Because in our society we understand the concept of passing the torch.  Your beliefs you generally handed down to your children, who will hand those beliefs down to their children, etc.  Celebrities generally don't change that.



I'm not trying to defend celebrities, only saying that blaming them for these sorts of thing just seems hypocritical to some degree.  Because we think that they shouldn't have the right to do things like say... talk politics or something... and that WE should because we're "ordinary" citizens.  But they're also citizens who have the right to speak their politics if they so choose.  No one cares about Barbara Streisand's politics anymore than they're apt to care about mine. Or yours.  But you and I still do it here on Lunch.com all the time... because we like to express ourselves.  So does Streisand... the difference between her and us is that she has a more public forum to do it.  The three of us aren't in a position to actually change anything.  So I'm confused as to why people keep complaining about celebrities and their politics.  I don't particularly like it either (at least when it gets in the way of entertaining me)... but it seems odd that we're getting upset at Tim Robbins for speaking his mind politically and not punching our best friend in the face for doing the same thing (who is apt to say something worse because he knows no one is watching).  You can't exactly choose to change to channel on your best friend

I guess what I'm really getting at is that I can agree with your rating, but your reasoning just makes you come off as someone who has actually been paying some amount of attention to celebrity culture, or at least news that talks about it (and let's be honest, that can't be helped).  That provided you with the information that celebrities are big influences... and I only agree that they have some... but hardly the kind of life-changing influence you seem to be getting at in your write up.  Barbara Streisand, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins and every other "Hollywood" celebrity are people that, by and large, we gossip about, but they're not actually DOING anything to change things... except maybe donating money to charity, but they're not in a position to change the country or raise your child.