Should We Pay Attention to the "Ultimate Arbiters"?

I am not a huge fan of John Wayne. Yes, I know, several conservatives just raised their eyebrows and began typing "RINO" into the comment box already. I don't dislike John Wayne's work. I'm just not a huge fan.

I prefer Clint Eastwood and James Stewart. I prefer James Earl Jones. All of them actually served in the military, didn't just pretend to on the silver screen. Eastwood was an NCO in the US Army. In fact, he used his GI  Bill to acquire his degree in drama. James Earl Jones was a Lieutenant (Infantry) in the US Army during the Korean War. Stewart served in the Air Force Reserve, eventually earning the promotion to Major General under appointment by Ronald Reagan. All three are conservatives, though Eastwood admits he leans libertarian on some issues.

However, I have far more respect for John Wayne than say, Matt Damon. The Duke at least tried to serve. When he was declared "4F", he turned and did what he could to support those in uniform. He studied strong warrior personalities and portrayed them as heroes. John Wayne also was a self-admitted socialist while in college. Those short-lived socialist leanings may have not even encroached had he been accepted into Annapolis, where he applied, instead of attending USC. However, maturity, experience, and a dose of the real world pushed him to the opposite side of the political spectrum. Until his death in 1979, he was a strong supporter of right-wing policies and his friend Ronald Reagan.

Too many of today's celebrities attempt to portray self-emasculated "heroes" who rebel against the oppressive alpha-types that are out there trying to get the job done. It's why I highly recommend movies such as "Act of Valor" and "Bravo Two Zero" over, say "Green Zone". "The Battle of Los Angeles" also attempts to paint strong warrior, patriotic, alpha-types in a positive light, though it is science fiction.

At a recent celebrity fund-raiser, Obama told the socialist-oligarchy supporting sycophants present "You're the tie-breaker. You're the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes". So why are these professional pretenders the "ultimate arbiters"? It's simple. Too many people are too stupid to recognize that most actors are experts in one topic:  acting. They pretend to be somebody they are not for a living. In other words, they lie for a living, as a form of entertainment. Sorry, a professional juggler is not a prime choice authority on energy production in the US.

Playing a doctor on TV does not a doctor make. Because George Clooney portrayed a doctor on "ER" does not make him an authority on the healthcare system. The socialist machine can use Clooney's liberal jaw-jacking to yank on heartstrings all they want. Their money should be considered wasted. Clooney knows as much about the healthcare industry, insurance, HSAs, the economy, paying payroll taxes, and running a doctor's office as I do about walking on the moon.

I don't discount celebrities' assessments and analysis of socio-political issues simply because most of them are liberals. I discount them because most of them are not authorities on the subjects they spew their word-vomit over. They do two or three weeks of familiarization on some subject in order to play a role, and they believe themselves experts on the subjects. That's something people need to understand. These SAG union members will fall into lock-step on their "issue of the day" thinking that their opinions matter more than the facts they never bothered to research on the subjects before opening their mouths.

One celebrity I do pay attention to is Mr. Adam S. Baldwin. It's not because his roles as John Casey and Jayne are so awesome. (They are!). It's not because he did such a breakthrough performance in "My Bodyguard". (He did, great movie!). It's because I have seen this guy debate political issues with a firm and deep knowledge of history and the Federalist Papers. Even then, I don't take his word for anything. I fact-check things he says. 99 times out of 100, he's spot on.

Roseanne Barr, not so much. I have had a few conversations with Rosie. She is not as dumb as her characters seem to be. She also isn't as dumb as some of her soundbites make her out to be. One thing that did seem obvious is that she is a little confused. She seems to follow lock-step with the lib-progs. However, when calmly chatting one-on-one about issues, it seems she needs to burn her Party card and visit a TEA Party meeting. Once in that meeting, she needs to latch on to the libertarian in the group. Her personal views are a lot more right-leaning than her public rhetoric makes her out to be. Given the views she expressed to me on the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and tax reform, I can see her reading Stephen Moore's last two books as well as Neal Boortz's two books on The Fair Tax. However, her views on those subjects would make her socialist peers weep, scream, and writhe in disbelief.

I raise these examples to illustrate a simple point. Celebrities are just people. Some do have experiences and education that make them authorities on certain subjects. However, for economics and finance, you may want to pay more attention to Peter Schiff and Stephen Moore (Wall Street Journal contributor, not the novelist). On the subject of Obamacare, I suggest paying attention to Dean Clancy over Sarah Jessica Parker.

I suggest fact-checking everything non-expert celebrities utter. Seek all of the facts and not just those that support the pejorative they (are usually paid to) spew. The only thing less responsible than being too lazy to research the facts and make up your own mind is to take the words of actors as though they are the words of experts.