Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 11:55 AM CDT

Cool.

Waiting for Bingo, but whoever this fellow is......(Rance is that his name?)seems to have his ducks in a row. Where the hell is it written that actors (or celebrities...and I'm sick of that word) aren't Americans? Don't think? Aren't humans?

Waiting for loads of the AS's known shit. Bring it on.

And Rance you can release Bingo now and give him the keyboard. (But check his blood pressure, please before he starts. We don't want the monkey to explode over this.)


L

S

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 12:17 PM CDT

"Average" Americans elected the shrub. Think about that.
Any celeb (legit or basement variety) that speaks out is ok in my books.
Peeler's too.
There's a pro-Kerry sign on a neighbor's yard not far away and I thought about swiping it and putting it on our lawn... but then I thought: it's a good idea but there's still only ONE of these signs in the tidal wave of Bush on the street.
Then I laughed at that last expression and forgot about the whole mess.
-Wheeler

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 12:29 PM CDT

You know Rance, I remember reading that comment and thought that is was narrow-minded. Celebs or not, we are all Americans...and this is the sweet land of liberty. We have the right to stand for what we believe no matter how great or small the cause.

Who could tell you or any American for that matter that you should steer clear of politics...that is ignorant. Even though we all have our opinions and hold our own convictions of what we feel is right...we don't always agree...but we should respect one another and honor the fact that we live in a society of freedom.

Yes Rance, it can and has been done...

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 12:32 PM CDT

There are a lot of mentions of pee on this site. I am just pointing this out. Rance is full of piss and vinegar (and apparently, a lot of caffeine). Rubber Duckie is eating Cheerios and pee. I am just saying...

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 12:40 PM CDT

Rance, you should be ashamed of yourself for even reading that lunatics drivel. HELLO! A self-proclaimed psycho-lunatic types a bunch of hooey and you let it upset you. I started reading the comment when it was originally posted and once I realized what he was going on about, I skipped the rest.

See where not being sufficiently caffeinated will get you, for shame, for shame. By all means switch brands, being caffeinated is no joke and you can't be out there running around without it.

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 12:54 PM CDT

Hi Rance,

It's been a while since I last visited the blog. Although RDD writes kick ass stories, it still isn't the same anymore to me. I will read the blog in the free time I have, but my comments will be limited.
And than this whole election stuff, as a non american, I hope the ones who vote make the right choice. Spending my vacation at my friend in New Jersey cleared my view about this whole election. She explained me somewhat who her choice of vote is going to be and why.
As for my vacation I had a really good time, those 10 days were only waaaaaaaaaaay to short to do and see everything. What I can recommend when you visit Manhattan, is going to Jekkyl and Hyde. Good burgers and entertainment. Word is that Brad Pitt hangs out there now and then (heard it after we left the place). If I decide to go on vacation all by myself again, NJ will be on my top list.

Good luck on the elections everyone!!!

Lataz

P.S. Dunkin' Donuts coffee rocks!

P.P.S. So does the mexican food at Jose's

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 12:56 PM CDT

I swore I would never get political as a blogger but here is the exception to that rule.

If politics are your passion, then as an AMERICAN, you have every right to say "F*** you" but you can't just take a stand. You have to get involved. Leaders are empowered by the people backing and supporting them.

Whether it is running for office, advising a candidate, putting a sign in your yard, helping with mailings, attending a rally or more importantly - VOTING, it all adds up.

Are politics personal? You're damn right. So if you don't like the way things are, don't just bitch - act.

And I'm not talking about a day job. (No offense Rance.)

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 12:56 PM CDT

Somehow, I think you might survive without Lunatic's $4.95 video rental fee. I could be wrong about that, but I really don't think so. Anyhow, if people are complaining, that usually means you're doing something right. That's just the way it works, don't ask me why. They say the only regrets we have are of the things we did not do. If you are in it to help others, you do not lose your power. That's just the way it works. Try as you might, you can't take that away from someone, Lunatic. Obviously, the road of service is not paved with gratitude. Unfortunate, but true...

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 1:25 PM CDT

Dear Rance,

First, was Bingo a no show? I'd hate to have to call Animal Control...

Second, the term "retired" and Rance in the same sentence conjures up unpleasantries. Perhaps "Rance Emeritus"?

Thirdly, in regards to the psycho_lunatic my thoughts, of what little value they may be, are as follows:

To suggest that Celebrities, because they are wealthy, are prohibited from political activism is comparable to saying that anyone who is wealthy is prohibited from weighing in on public policy simply because they don't live poorly or even mediocrely. A question that immediately comes to mind is who, exactly, do you think contributes the larger amount in taxes? The taxes that afford us the opportunity to have a government in the first place? And let me remind you that the government not only includes those on Capitol Hill, but your roads, your bridges, your schools, public transportation, your police, your armed services, social security, government, healthcare, welfare, social services, and so on and so forth.

I don't know about you, but I think it's perfectly REASONABLE to expect someone with such a large FINANCIAL investment in an institution to speak out on how they think things should be run. In the end, they only have what you and I have...one vote.

Having said that, Celebrities are afforded a luxury that most American's do not have, the outlet of the media. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the media. But who here can honestly say that if given the chance tomorrow to use the airwaves to speak their political mind in the hopes of swaying someone to their point of view that they would not do so. In my opinion, if you squander such an opportunity you would be violating your own beliefs and your own conscience.

And if, as you say, the majority of the average Americans are not influenced by the celeb endorsements and the few who are are uninformed then what's the big deal? Water off a duck's back IMO.

And lastly, the majority of American citizens are not politicians, but we are ALL PEOPLE, and the last time I read the constitution I believe it began with "WE THE PEOPLE..." So I ask, psycho_lunatic, who are you to define PEOPLE as being exclusive of celebrities?

Whew. Now that that's been said, I must say it does irate me when ANYONE threatens to "revoke" their citizenship over election results. I feel lucky to be a citizen of the United States, especially when some are dying while attempting to obtain what was given to me at birth. Not something I take lightly.

Sincerestly,

RDD

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 1:47 PM CDT

There he is! Piss and Vinegar. I love it.

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 2:16 PM CDT

Hey Rancy pants,

did I piss you off when I told you to stay out of politics? I do remember bringing on a shit storm.. I also remember that was the first thing that I wrote that got posted.. Particularly unfortunate I thought, concidering my submission for Eleanor Roosevelt and Her lesbian Lover, played by Angelina Jolie.... It was a beauty.. My deal though, was not that you're not smart enough or in touch enough with the people as it were, but that I came here to get away from politics and I felt like my asylum, pun intended, was being contaminated...

Anyway.. that was a very condescending post from whathisname.. lunatic phycho dude.. actually sounded like a girl to me, but whatever..

T Rex

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 2:16 PM CDT

P.S. Today is my birthday.

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 2:29 PM CDT

Rance, (I dont think R.D can answear this)
On the subject of celebrities in politics, I was wondering if you would be willing to give an insider view. Since my english might just be broken beyound repair, bear with me as I try to elaborate.
I have absolutely no problem with actors having political opinions, or voicing them. (ok so some of them tick me off from time to time, but its mostly that they appear missinformed)
The thing that gets me, is that while most of the country is fairly evenly devided between conservative and liberal (whatever that means nowdays), celerities appear mostly liberal. I realize in part this is due to the sort of people who are drawn to your profession, but is there anything else to it? Would you, or one of your associates, have a harder time with your next movie if you were to voice a concervative opinion? Has a yound would be actor/ess ever got canned becouse he/she voices the wrong opinion at one of those very fashionably get togethers?

I think what people get upset about is not that celebrities voice their opinions, is that they get more attention then the rest of us. Well you have to agree that is not quiet fair. You might be a great actor (or you might be the pope), but that says nothing of your understanding of world events. That doesnt mean that you cant have an opinion (for I dont claim to understand all thats going on, but i do claim an opinion), However the name and the face serves as a megaphone of sorts, that the rest of us dont get.

Excuse the ramblings,
Vash

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 3:00 PM CDT

Well, I was pretty sure it had to be my post that ticked you off. I knew you would gain a false sense of right as your loyal blog community rallies to kiss your ass and tell you how right you are.....what else is new? Comfort in me being a self proclaimed psycho lunatic? Okay Rance.
I just wanted you to think about it, to know that there are more than a $4.95 video rental's worth of us who find it highly distasteful....not that celebrities have an opinion, but that they attempt to use their celebrity and the appeal of their onscreen personas it to promote their political agendas. I love the celebrities who are encouraging people to vote without pushing their candidate on us, I think that's great...you know just the celebrities I refer to in my initial post.
I would absolutely love to debate this issue with you, and maybe even a few of your posters, but when it's all about seeing how deep the posters can get up your hiney, what's the point in that? I made my point and you thought about it. That's all I wanted anyhow.

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 3:09 PM CDT

I am hoping psycho_lunatic will explain those comments. They came off to me as being an ill-aimed and ill-timed attempt at jocularity. Modern communication puts the burden of transmitting the message on the sender so it relieves the recipient of the responsibility to try to comprehend, but it does seem that psycho_lunatic is not aware of this latest warp. Are you up for it, p_l? It?s not your blog, but ask politely and see if you will be granted a comment spot from the blogger(s) you offended.

As for political celebrities and their political pitches: First person testimonials are (piss) poor evidence, but they work well and are therefore heavily used by the advertising industry. I have even noticed an odd twist to this tactic whereby the pitcher is not the celebrity but an unknown person whose physical features, voice, or manners evoke the subconscious association of one or more of the famous (and at a bargain price, too). If a political camp, car manufacturer, insurance company, laundry soap, etc. chooses to spend their advertising dollars for this, or gets the spokesperson for free, well then congratulations to them. It is still the responsibility of the voters to actively become educated on candidates, issues, local and global considerations, and how to correctly operate a voting machine. It?s a serious job that pays nothing, but for which you will pay dearly if you botch it.

I have worked in fields that brought me pleasure and fulfillment (and very little money) but were scorned by those whose measure of success lay in staying as far from that sort of labor as possible. It is quite arrogant to assume one can judge the quality of a person?s decision-making ability by the job title that person holds. If I can admit the possibility that at least some college football players are taking and passing academics without resorting to cheating, then anything is possible, right?

Apologies for the length.

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 3:22 PM CDT

Go t_rexintex it's your birthday! Go t_rexintex it's your birthday! Happy Birthday!!!!!

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 3:29 PM CDT

Pooh.
No, I'm not calling the present situation a sh*tfest. I'm just saying that in the politically charged environment in which we are currently swimming, just about the only person who hasn't spoken out on his or her political views is Winnie the Pooh. His big problems were pretty big. I mean, how would you like it if you had to stay stuck in a door until you lost enough weight to get unstuck? Shouldn't there be governemntal regulations some where on some level to help prevent such an embarrasing, potentially damaging and unhealthy situation? What about when his friend Piglet's house was destroyed by that hurricane? Federal Disaster Aid wouldn't touch him and so his friends had to save him again. He's amazingly lucky that his friends weren't all in the same boat!

If ANYONE has earned a right to speak out on his political views, it's poor Pooh Bear. And yet he remains stoically silent, one paw stuck in the honey jar, a silly little grin on his face, always pleasant.

I have NO idea where this is going but I thought it might be of some interest somewhere. I'm not saying that Rance shouldn't speak his mind on whatever he wants to speak his mind about either- isn't that what a blog is all about? Some people choose to speak, some don't. SOme choose to listen, some don't. It's all copacetic to me.

Now, The Tick, on the other hand.....

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 3:43 PM CDT

According to a friend of mine who has a friend who works in the animation business, Pooh, who would like there to still be forests, is backing Kerry. ALso in the Kerry camp are Spiderman, Wonderwoman and Felix the Cat. Elmer Fudd has donated heavily to the Bush campaign, as has Wiley Coyote. Zippy the Pinhead is backing Nader.

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 3:51 PM CDT

Politics and Hollywood have always gone hand in hand. It's the way it has been forever, and probably will continue to be. If an actor is campaigning for a specific candidate, more power to them! At least they have the time, engergy, and guts to stand up for someone they believe in. That, to me, is admirable. Doesn't sway my vote either way.

Ben Affleck for President! (hey, you never know.)

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 3:53 PM CDT

to the A.S.'er who knows shit about the govt:

can't wait to hear it! please feel free to share the shit, I'm all shovels.

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 3:57 PM CDT

As a Canadian, I watch American politics quite closely. My personal opinion is, Kudos to you for getting involved. It is those people that don't get involved that really pisses me off. In Australia, citizens get fined for not voting. Interesting concept, although I don't agree with it. Voter turnout in the U.S. 2000 election was 51%. That means that 49% of American citizens didn't care enough to vote. Perhaps the current administration wants it that way. Does the voter apathy mean that Americans don't know who to trust or does it mean that they don't know enough of politics to attempt to make a difference? American voter turnout is the worst of all industrialized democratic nations. It is also the oldest democracy.

You have an opinion and a medium in which you can express that opinion. Go for it. Those who choose to agree with you can and those who don't, can express their opinion as well. The last I heard, the U.S. is a free country and the right to free speech is explicitly written in the First Amendment. Sometimes I fear that right is lost in translation because apparently celebrities are not allowed to express their feelings. Why do some people feel that because you are a celebrity, that you don't have the right to express your true self. Celebrities pay taxes, consume goods, have eyes, have ears and feelings. Contrary to what is perceived to be popular belief, celebrities don't live in a vacuum and thankfully not all of them are narcissistic and that they actually care about their fellow citizens. I would rather have a celebrity express political concern rather than a CEO of multinational concerned about their corporate bank balance and equating that to votes spouting about trade that benefits them more than their employees. The poverty level in the U.S. raised to 11.7 percent from 11.3 percent in 2000. Soon the death toll in Iraq will be greater than the death toll on 9/11. Canadians have enjoyed accessible health care for decades and the British have that and dental care.

As for smear campaigns, where is integrity in politics? Why aren't American politicians more interested in bringing issues to the fore rather than being entertained by petty bullshit smear campaigns that have no place in the political arena?

Some people have said that the upcoming election is the most important in their lives and I have to agree with that. On the international stage, the American people are not very popular which is a shame because they have so much to offer the world in which we share. Maybe this november, we will see a rise in voter turnout. Will we see a president that really wants free health care for it's citizens? Will honesty and good citizenship return to corporate America? Will America act multilaterally not unilaterally on the world stage? Will America take a serious stand on averting a potential environmental disaster? I want to be optimistic about the future but right now it isn't looking bright. In my opinion, it will be a lot dimmer if GWB gets re-elected.

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 4:09 PM CDT

>>But who here can honestly say that if given the chance tomorrow to use the airwaves to speak their political mind in the hopes of swaying someone to their point of view that they would not do so.
This would be dandy if the celebrity in question were, in fact, espousing their own point of view. And do not celebrities, if they avail themselves of their easy access to media, have some kind of obligation to understand the issues and platforms; even more of an obligation than your neighbor who places a sign on his lawn. I believe there are many sincere celebrities who have taken the trouble to educate themselves regarding the current presidential candidates. Ben Affleck was quite impressive at the DNC. But there are others you see waiving the signs, and you know that this is only the latest Kabbalah/Yoga/whatever fad of the moment for them.

So, yes; you should use media if it is available to you to promote a political agenda.

But no; you do not automatically have that right, just because media is available to you.

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 4:18 PM CDT

Muchas Gracias, Love

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 4:56 PM CDT

From a fellow Texan, Happy Birthday, young fella!!!

fly

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 4:56 PM CDT

Wow, tough blog to be a Republican in... In any case, I am and perfectly happy with it. Let's take the policy issues and forget them, and look at the 2 people running. One is the biggest ass kissing flip-flopper in the world, the other couldn't go a whole speech without some kind of fuck up if his life depended on it. One can't eat a Philly Cheesesteak and his wife cannot eat Wendy's (I feel her there), and the other almost choked to death while watching TV in the White House. One has had 20 years to pass a law and has failed to do so, the other has had 4 years to grow the debt (although to ignore 9/11 in that statement would be a serious mistake). I personally like Bush. No one's perfect, and in politics the money talks, but at least he's not kissing ass at every turn and taking both sides on every issue to squeeze every last vote he can get, into his cup.

A great example is this assault weapons ban that just expired. Guess what, CONGRESS is the only group with the power to extend that ban. Not President Bush. Kerry blames Bush, when KERRY was in the better position to keep the ban going. BUT, he didn't want to piss off the NRA left leaners/moderates, so he didn't say shit about it until the law expired, now it's W's fault. Kerry knew he wouldn't lose any pro gun support, and he could pass the buck to Bush, and the leftist whackos would ignore Kerry's failure to even attempt to act and blame Bush. That's just American Politics. It's how the game is played.

I think it's better for the U.S. to decide when to defend the U.S., including taking a war to someone elses shore, and that it shouldn't be the U.N. making that choice. God knows we tried to get their help. Just look up Oil for Food and you'll see why they didn't (they being mostly France and Germany).

It's just how things are. As a First Responder, the Administration has done well to equip us for the next attack. I can speak to that. The rest, you gotta find people that can speak to it. Find FBI, CIA, or some other branch you're curious about. But First Responders, I can speak to that and I'm letting you all know the increased funds are here and we use them to train all the time. Anyone that says the funds never got to us, is full of shit. Bush is a far better choice then Kerry. I'd vote for Zell Miller if he was running. I'm not afraid to cross the party line to someone with a (D) next to his name as long as they are a better choice then anyone else.

Now, for anyone shitting on anyone using their power to sway other people, WHAT THE HELL ELSE IS RANCE SUPPOSED TO DO?! Sit on his/her hands and ignore the world, or use the power given to him/her by followers to move the country where they want it to go? Anyone that's upset at a person for using their power to get others to follow them is probably jealous that they don't have the same amount of pull, or are upset that some people follow like sheep without thinking for themselves. You're going to get thinkers, and sheep when you have pull with the public.

Be upset at the idiots that only believe because someone ELSE says "BELIEVE IT" (which describes a majority of Michael Moore followers in my opinion). Be upset at people that never bother checking facts for themselves. If Rance is a star, so? He/she is a person with pull using it to change things in a way he/she thinks is better then the current path. I may think that's total crap and the person being backed is a bad choice, but that's only my opinion too.

Can I talk about pee now, too? I feel left out. I left the house without going, and man did I hurt for the last 5 minutes of my drive to work...

That's all, end rant.

~Mikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 5:10 PM CDT

Oh, did you eat a Gray's Papaya hotdog or eat brunch at Tavern on the Green? If not, this is a must!

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 5:18 PM CDT

I think the lunatic is an idiot. Someone stuff a pair of dirty undies in his mouth (or superglue his fingers together so he can't type) so we can all move on. There, don't you feel better now? Anyway, sounds to me like psycho_lunatic is just jealous of our dear Rance and has to spew chunks to make himself feel more important.

Rance, darlin', if you want to talk politics, you go for it. I can't say I'll agree with you, but this country was built on all of us having the right to our own opinions and even more THE FRICKING RIGHT TO VOICE THEM!!!!

Now, I have to go, as I'm very newly pregnant and have to pee. Again.

tracey

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 5:22 PM CDT

Kissing Rance's ASS, has nothing to do with what a lot of us are saying... or at least not for me. It is pithy of you to shove our responses into that box to justify what you have to say. It is NOT all about seeing how deep the posters can get up anyone's hiney... but you should have someone check out yours. There is definately a point in that. I seriously doubt that you could stand up in a debate with the arguements you use to defend yourself. I have ALWAYS argued for people's rights to have opinions. It is a pet peeve of mine to hear someone say that someone else doesn't deserve a voice. As far as promoting their agenda, what the heck are they supposed to use their voices for? Arnold with his Terminator Girlie speeches... come on, it's a joke right? I don't buy his crap, but it definately opens my eyes to the hype.
I have said this before, if an issue is raised by a celebrity, Wonderful!! even if you don't agree with what they're saying, it brings an issue forward for you, the voter, to go out, get info., hopefully, and form your own opinion. yes there are people who blindly follow, there always will be, but maybe a little more exposure will help make them wonder about the whole process and bring them into the fold.

fly

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 5:44 PM CDT

hi rance! glad to hear from you again!

on to the subject at hand...i truly feel i would prefer to hear a celebrity's opinions versus say, someone like donald trump (who you are not). the dt has an agenda, wanting to have elected the bozo who will provide him with the best benefits, tax breaks, etc. while a celebrity just has an opinion, right or wrong, but something based on his/her personal thoughts, and maaaaybe a little insider info.

my 2 cents, don't spend it all in one place

kisshugs

feenxc

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 5:47 PM CDT

Yes, pithy is a good word here....I think we're all pithy now...

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 5:51 PM CDT

Well said Mikeeee....Ohhhh, I think I love you, so what am I so afraid of???

The point is, WHATEVER we believe, they're all our own personal opinions, EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE, and thus nothing is truly RIGHT or WRONG...unless it's illegal...

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 6:47 PM CDT

I searched high and low for Dunkin Donuts when I moved to California years ago. They only had one in California. Swear to you. It was in either Hermosa or Manhattan Beach, I think.

(I can't have caffeine any more. :(

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 7:09 PM CDT

Oooooooohhhhhhhhh, so let me get this right...as long as they appear EDUCATED on the issues then it's tolerable, otherwise, they should be silenced?

Does this apply to voting also? Should only those EDUCATED on the issues be allowed to vote? Just becase voting is available doesn't automatically give them the right, correct? Oops, there goes half the voting population....buh bye...

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 7:34 PM CDT

Yes, it's true.

You know something, Rance and I don't agree on everything. But, I'm the toilet paper wiping his ass. But, it wasn't an overnight thing, this was an everday thing, from the beginning of his blogs. He has put up with my shit, and I mean "put UP with me" and he will put up with yours, too. He takes more abuse, putting himself out there, than most can even handle. He handles that and more. He tries to make a difference. He could sit there and do nothing, but he gets up off his ass and puts himself out there for what he believes in. I think that says more than anyone I've seen, especially in your class. I think that qualifies him for a little more credibility than you give him credit for. There is a lot about Rance that we do not know. He also has the resources to do a better job. He's a lot better at handling negativity than I am. I'm a baby.

But, if he's upset at how narrowminded you may relay yourself to be on his abilities to achieve his potential dream of politics, well, then he can be. You are showing your ignorance and it hurts.

I, for one, believe that Reagan did a great job. I'm a little upset at Swartzneger, when it comes to dogs and pets, but, I don't see them doing such a bad job with the important topics, either. I still think Rance may just blow the socks off of both of them as far as the quality of politicians go, if he has half the faith in himself, that I do in him, just by studying him, profiling him, etc. He's has my faith. I'd offer to stand in front of a bullet for him in order to do such a great thing for our country.

So, when he's old and gray and can't lift himself up off the toilet, never mind wipe his ass, I'll still be there proudly holding the toilet paper for him and wiping his ass. He's worth it. We as U.S. citizens may become blessed enough to have him help turn this great country that needs help, around for the better.

RANCE, DON'T YOU DARE LISTEN! You go for it and expect this criticism, there's always going to be someone trying to knock down your goals. YOU GO FOR IT AND DON'T LOOK BACK.

I don't know who quoted this, but, it wasn't me, but, I think it's appropriate to share with you regarding this topic:

"THE WORLD WILL LET ANY MAN PASS, THAT KNOWS WHERE HE IS GOING".

-Mia Toretto

P.S. Psycho Lunatic, we all get squashed when we say someting that is shallow minded. Take the hit, like I've taken mine, for you still have time to learn....and don't let it get you too down when you get the same negative responses to your comments. Learn from it. Rance and most of the group do not agree with you, but, don't let that get you down. There are more topics they WILL agree with you on.

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 7:51 PM CDT

I believe it was in Hermosa, right next to a liquor store.

Aren't all donut shops next to liquor stores in LA?,

Bubba

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 8:57 PM CDT

Entertainers (for lack of a better word) are a commodity. Therefore, whoever utilizes them is at an advantage. If the media can promote an obsession with entertainers, they can boost the level at which John Q. Public consumes their products. Hence, increase their revenue. Example: Usher has a line of prepaid check cards. So literally, his image equals money.

Politicians would also like to capitalize on this marketing tool. The Republicans and Republocrats are hoping if you associate an entertainer?s image with their campaign, you will consume their ?brand?. (i.e.- vote for them). Politics and the world of entertainment (which I will define here as music and movies) are closely related. I once heard someone say, ?DC is Hollywood for ugly people?. So similarly, politics and entertainment employ some of the same methods. Politicians and entertainers both perform. They want their audiences to suspend disbelief and acquiesce to a given storyline. Increasingly, politics are less and less about what a candidate can and will actually do. It?s more about what a politician can CONVINCE you (s)he will do. Don?t underestimate the power of manipulation. This presidential election is a war for your mind. This being the case, entertainers make great shorthand. Rather than take the opportunity to forge a positive campaign identity, why not just shove a famous face (generally a benevolent association) in front of a camera.

All this being said, I don?t wholly agree with psycho_lunatic or with the way they expressed their views. However, I do a believe psycho has a point. Maybe I am a pseudo-renegade rooting for the underdog. Maybe I am just a hater trying to break up the lovefest here. Who knows. All I am saying is that I have no problem with people questioning whether or not the emperor is REALLY wearing clothes.

?Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first?.
~Ronald Reagan

Psycho should be skeptical about entertainers? political opinions. Is this what the person really believes? Are they just trying to be trendy? Or do they want to use a political venue as just another vehicle to promote their latest cd/movie? And unfortunately, many of our celebrated glitterati who do voting commercials, wear voting t-shirts and march up and down the campaign trail have less than stellar voting records themselves. Some entertainers you see out and about extolling the virtues of voting have downright abysmal voting records themselves. So the rhetoric does not live up to reality. AM New York (a very small NYC newspaper) did an engaging expose in February ?04 on this very duality. Civic involvement demands more of American citizens than just being a talking head. Both Joe Schmos and celebrities alike. It is this underlying theme of psycho?s post that I agree with.

Nevertheless, Rance (if Rance actually is an entertainer) and others should by NO MEANS censor themselves. They should be vocal as often and as loudly as they choose. Perhaps a minute percentage of entertainers who are actually informed and astute in regards to American politics can possibly contribute something provocative to the debate.

The burden is upon us, the public to be more informed consumers. Rather than blindly subscribe to the cult of celebrity, examine the validity of all agendas. The bottom line is, everyone wants to get you to buy into something. In this case, you just need to decide where your sympathies/votes are well spent. My two reais.

?The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary?.

~H. L. Mencken

Later people,
OSB

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 9:04 PM CDT

Dear Psycho "Jeff" Lunatic:

Yeah, I just thought I'd give you a plain dude's name like Jeff..sorry...it's probably Dave. Or Steve.

I was going to start this out with a list of all the people who's asses I would kiss, followed by a short list of people who's asses I would not kiss. But, that would be as stupid as telling someone who as just as much of a right to speak their mind as a homeless guy who yells about penial enlargements being government hearing defices.

I just wanted to say that if you're saying that it's highly distasteful of him to have a political monstermash then it's also pretty distasteful to use a blog as a means to get your fifteen minutes of fame-izzle. Let's look at this in a critical weird twisted way..kinda like the way film professors and children's literature professors find the most bizarre symbolisms they can pick out of a haystack. ("The love/hate written on Robert Mitchum's hands in "Night of The Hunter" stands for his dislike of all milk products- and that is why he terrorizes those little kids...")

Here's what I see: You're kinda an ego maniac, I mean who says, "I was kinda sure it was me that ticked you off?"..Cockiness only got the rooster onto the chopping block, it never got him laid.

I have never told Rance how great he is, that's what his mommy is for. I suspect that you're mom and dad got divorced when you were around....13, and it was around that time that you found out you weren't popular (not that you aren't now, cause look at all the attention you've gotten, way to go champ!!), and that only hot jock guys got the cute girls, that is why you hate people who get attention, and yet you crave it like Britney Spears craves cheetios.

You can't get mad at someone calling you a psycho lunatic if you are going to call yourself a self proclaimed psycho lunatic...that's just (in this slot fill in any un-politically correct word of your choosing, for example: retarded, blonde, stupidassface, Dan Quayle, etc.) I think maybe next time it would be better to go with Psycho Killer and tell people you got it from that Talking Heads song, and that you are not in fact related to John Wayne Gacy.

This is what else is new: I just ate a whole bunch of Whopper's..I love those little malt balls! Only problem is, they give me hangovers. Can you believe it, hangovers from candy!! So, I'm waiting for the misery to commence, and then I'll just eat more of them. Just thought you might want to know, since you asked what else was new.

I go to this great place called Family Video and they have rentals for like, 2 dollars, so thought you might like to know that you're being ripped off in the movie rental department. By the way, you didn't really prove that there's this giant crowd of pissed off people waving there movie rentals in the air saying "I'm dissatisfied with your political flag waving Martin Short!!" You just proved that you were..who's the "us" in your college grad tantrum?

I haven't seen any celebs using their on screen personas to promote their political agendas..except maybe Arnold. "You will all vote for Bush or I will kill you!! I am Conan and I've come to Mars to teach Kindergarten to all these girlie man Predators if they will not let a non-natural born citizen run for president I will terminate them!!"

What's the point in posting if you're just going to use it to promote your own political bias towards celebrities doing what any of us would do if people would listen to us. It's just like you're using this as your own platform, microphone, and audience. You posted because you wanted a response. You could have posted this info on any other blog, but you posted it on this blog for a specific reason, to get a celebrity to respond. You could have walked down the street to a coffee shop, and talked about it with crazy zitpopper@yahoo.com who yells all day about Gary Hart being screwed over, but
you didn't you chose us, you chose this blog,,..you chose Rance.. My friend, that is a bit of a paradox.

It's like someone saying that they're goth or punk rock, that they are anti-establishment, they are a slave to no one but the gods of rock, they don't even wash their hair, they put cigarettes out on their arms, and than they go to the mall, to buy clothes at Hot Topic.

This is the biggest advice any celebrity will get when they decide to jump into politics: Be careful what you say when the mike is in your face. I'm not trying to get up Rance's hiney, he's never responded to me directly, I've never written crazy stalker girl posts to him, I don't even know if he showers regularly..I just don't think you should use someone who you think is using you. It just makes everthing you say seem trite and unimportant, especially in a world were people hold little kids hostage in their school,and than blow them up.

I come here to laugh, and everyone knows that I get pissed when there's nothing funny to read. So this was my being pissed, if you say something funny, I'll send you a cookie. Hey, look Jeff at least I gave you some of that attention you so desperately seem to crave.

Since I'm not a celebrity, I guess it's okay to push my candidate- Willie Nelson for President, if not him than that guy who doesn't make up words in his speeches,
Bubba

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 9:41 PM CDT

There's one in San Marcos too. I used to drive by it twice a day. Bummer about the caffeine, that really sucks. I quit smoking, I can't quit caffeine.

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 10:37 PM CDT

And until we hear it directly from the silly old bear's muzzle, it's all conjecture isn't it? I dunno about you but I'm all for letting Pooh speak for himself and heavily against letting the hearsay take control. It's not a nice thing to surmise that just because Pooh and Piglet are not only forest dwellers but as married as any two cartoon characters ever were without actually being married that they will oppose any political entity that is in favor of removing forests and outlawing same-sex marriages. Let the bear and pig speak for themselves if they choose.

Then again, this may all be a moot point. He does, after all, work for Disney, doesn't he?

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 11:21 PM CDT

Congratulations Tracey! Happy birth day to you!

And now is the time to learn where all decent restroom facilities are in your usual daily routine.

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 11:48 PM CDT

I love you RD!

-Narphinugan

Wednesday, 15 September 2004 - 11:53 PM CDT

Very well put Mikeeeee! Both candidates have serious flaws and problems...all this bulls*#t about how great Kerry is or how wonderful Bush is! What a bunch of talk.

Whats interesting. Conservatives still end up watching Fox and reading books that bash Kerry and Liberals still end up watching CNN and reading how Bush is linked to Hitler.

Flip Flopper plus a guy who faced danger and possibly death with guys who are publically saying they want nothing to do with him, or Bush who is not the best communicator in the world and who is definitely willing to put American troops in harms way?...And a lot of other stuff from both sides.

-Narphinugan

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 12:46 AM CDT

Great rant, Rance! In my opinion, psycho_lunatic ought to be awarded 10 DVP's for pissing off Rance.

PS: RDD, I'm confirming my spot #7.

Best Regards,
Lora

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 6:22 AM CDT

Politicians in general have become a "product" that is "sold" to the public. Let's face it, campaigning involves selling oneself. So Psycho_lunatic, given that celebrities sell running shoes, perfume, cosmetics and thousands of other products for hefty fees, I don't see where anyone can object to a celebrity endorsing a politician out of conviction.

Btw, one could consider the incumbant President a celebrity, certainly very well known, does your distaste for celebrity endorsements extend to seeing the incumbant endorsing himself?

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 8:08 AM CDT

Dear Psycho-lunatic and other like-minded individuals,

Although they are contrary to my own beliefs, I congratulate you on expressing your views regarding individual participation in politics. I would like to remind you, however, that the fact that you were able to do so is the result of something known as the First Amendment. The First Amendment is the cornerstone of a free society and, yes, despite the efforts of certain politicians, the First Amendment is still alive and well in this country. I daresay that you will be displeased at the number of responses to your post which defend a celebrity?s ability to express his or her opinions publicly and to engage in politics in general. Fortunately, those comments, like yours, are protected by the First Amendment. If you don?t like it you are free to move to China. Perhaps you can find a nice flat just off Tiananmen Square.

I general, I think that we are on the same wavelength when it comes to desiring that voters be informed. I believe that it is essential to know and understand the laws of this country and to have at least some rudimentary knowledge of the founding principles of our society in order to formulate an informed political opinion, to freely express that opinion, to vote that opinion and, possibly, to engage in politics as a representative of the people based on those opinions and (hopefully) the equally informed opinions of constituents. That, however, is only my belief which is not codified anywhere in the Bill of Rights or the United States Constitution. In fact, the actual qualifications to vote and to run for office are few. Allow me to refresh your memory:

Amendment 15, 19, 24 and 26 to the U.S. Constitution all relate to an individual?s right to vote. If you don?t know them, get to a library and read them (Lora, that plug was for you ? long live libraries!)

With respect to the qualifications to run for President or membership in Congress, Articles I and II of the United States Constitution provide as follows:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 2:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 3:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

As you can see, none of the qualifications to vote or run for office contain an exclusion aimed at celebrities. Freedom of speech, the franchise and the ability to run for political office are fundamental principles of our democracy and they extend to celebrities and psycho_lunatics alike. Surprisingly, your views reflect of lack of respect for the intelligence of the average American with which you clearly sympathize. Moreover, if one assumes that some average Americans vote based solely on celebrity say-so (and I?m sure some do), which of the two, celebrity or voter, is the real problem? I do not care for the politics of many celebrities. Nevertheless, I respect their ability to freely express their political opinions. I would think that as an informed voter, you would also.

Respectfully Yours,
NG

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 8:08 AM CDT

God forbid you should have an opinion, Rance, and should share it with the world. don't you know any better, you irresponsible celebrity you? but seriously, nice eloquent retort to the lunatic. I would've just told him to fuck off....but then I'm a bit like Dick Cheney in that regard, and I know you are not. btw, speaking of actor/politicians, what about my personal favorite: Fred Thompson, now on L&O. despite the fact that I completely disagree with everything he stands for politically, I'd say he's done a good job of going back and forth from politics to acting to politics....plus, he totally kicks ass in "The Hunt for Red October."

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 9:03 AM CDT

But, feenxc, aren't we ALL "wanting to have elected the bozo who will provide [us] with the best benefits, tax breaks, etc."? I mean, isn't that how we form our opinions about the candidates.....who they are, combined with what they'll do for us?

I'm not necessarily arguing with you, but I think everyone, Trump included, has a right to voice their opinion; and that opinion will most likely be based on what that candidate is promising to do for them. For example, if my profession were, say, underwater basketweaving, and Candidate X were proposing to reduce taxes for underwater basketweavers nationwide, he would, naturally, have my vote.

I'm just saying......

Maybe only a cent-and-a-half here, not even 2 cents....remember when you could still buy a gumball with a penny? Can't even find a penny gumball machine anymore. But I digress.....

Blog on,
LadyBug

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 9:44 AM CDT

RD in action, I love it! You are an asskicker. You could do this for a living. Really.

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 11:48 AM CDT

Oh RDD baby, anytime anywhere =)

But we just, can't do anything to upset our supermarket loves...

We'll have to live and shop in different stores, like 2 passing ships in the night...

HAHA, SO MUCH CHEEEEEESE FOR A THURSDAY MORNING!

Hell, I have problems with some laws as someone that's seen what some illegal drugs can do for people that are dying, but that's a whole different post.

You're awesome A.R. RDD!

~Mikeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 12:50 PM CDT

Fred Thompson was the best thing about "Days of Thunder". There's just something about tall southern men with deep voices.

LOL

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 2:01 PM CDT

I hear you, and I didn't know he was in DOT. if I didn't have Tom Cruise issues, I'd totally rent/buy that movie in a heartbeat. but anyway, I need to find some books on tape by him just to hear Senator Thompson speak. Senator Thompson has one of those voices that I love to listen to, but not enough to watch C-SPAN (back when he was still in Congress) or L&O. however, I have been known to watch some other really cheesy movies just to see and hear the Senator.

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 2:01 PM CDT

No, I didn't say they had to "appear" educated, I said that if you were going to use your media "power" to advance a view, you should know something about what you're talking about. Otherwise, you would be an obvious idiot to those who *are* informed. If you are content being seen that way, as it seems many of the "famous" are, then go ahead with it. You may be surprised to find many people in the US have lives to live that go on whether Joe Schmuckatelli actor gets so-and-so movie deal, or Susie Starlet has fake tits. We roll our eyes at these shallow twits, listen to their vapid proclamations, we might even watch their TV shows or go to their movies if we're bored. I haven't checked the Rance site in ages and now I find he can't even be bothered with it. He has a butt-monkey answering the comments for him. Just to give you an example of how shallow the entertainment community is: Rance couldn't even keep it up long enough to be interested in his own weblog.

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 2:51 PM CDT

First of all, and most importantly, call me stupid, call me psycho, call me lunatic, say i should have underpants shoved in my mouth, but for the love of Rance, please do not refer to me as Jeff.
Secondly, I stand by my opinion that many celebrities are endorsing issues and candidates to promote themselves and doing so without regard to the harm it may or may not bring to their fellow citizens. I do not question the knowledge of some of them....Barbra Streisand, Martin Sheen, Garofalo, Susan Sarandon, etc they know their stuff....but I am very doubtful that they could understand what I need from a candidate and how issues truly affect me. If you drive the same car as P. Diddy, you have a car as cool as he has, buy his clothes, you look good, but if you vote and elect the same person P. Diddy wants, you will not neccesarily get the same results from it.
Reagan, Schwartzenegger, celebrities who run for office and are ELECTED by the people are a different story entirely. They have been chosen by the people. Obviously, enough of us think they have what we need. Who's gonna elect Streisand? Susan Sarandon? Whoopi Goldberg? Tim Robbins? It's not gonna happen. Their opportunities to promote their causes are not because so many people believe in their causes, it's because they are celebrities. No one would actually put them in charge of anything.
I mean this as a sincere question, how many liberal celebrities have been elected to public office? If they care so very much, how come they don't run?
I have the right to this opinion and I have the right to express that opinion by choosing not to aid in the advancement of the careers of those who offend me this way. Rance and his AS have the right not to post this or any of my comments. It's great to be an American!
And again, I don't call you guys assholes, so please don't call me Jeff.

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 2:57 PM CDT

Dear Rance,

I know I'll offend a ton of people, including you, and all your followers that think anything that comes out of your mouth is gold, but I totally agree with psycho lunatic. You need to keep in mind that (if you are a celeb)that your view point will probably make a lot of people change their minds just because they want to be like you. I've learned from my granddaddy there is two things that you don't talk about and that is religion and politics unless you can stand the heat and seeing it pissed you off YOU definetly can't stand the heat!!!

Later,
Wixom

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 2:59 PM CDT

I'm a duck lady, a duck...

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 3:56 PM CDT

Psycho lunatic

You have at least one person out here that totally agrees with what your saying. Hey like I told Rance in my email if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen

Wixom

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 4:10 PM CDT

It's not about telling him that he's right, it's about telling you that you're wrong. If you don't like what they have to say fine, turn the tv off get off your ass and do something else. Don't make silly threats about them losing your $4.95, blockbuster will lose out much more than any celeb will. You're worried about people using their, "onscreen personas [dropped the worried you mistakenly put in]to promote their political agendas." Have you seen Ben Affleck donning a Daredevil costume at the DNC or Barbara Streissand going as Yentl to fundraisers? No I didn't think so. The media seeks out these people, why can they not say anything when asked a question? If a voter is swayed by what they say over what the politicians say, who cares? If our candidates are that weak or the masses that ignorant, so be it. Why is it ok for me to tell friends and family that I think Bush is a moron who is driving this country down the drain and making half the world hate us in the process, but if my name had ever been on a marquee you'd turn the other way? You're not making a point, you're not even living up to your psycho lunatic moniker. You're just being a close minded sourpuss.

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 4:51 PM CDT

The notion that celebrities somehow know less about politics than others is absurd and I see no fault with anyone voicing their opinion (see the Constitution of the United States for reference). However, I do find that it's now difficult to watch the West Wing without visualizing Martin Sheen marching with duct tape over his mouth bearing a cross (or maybe it was a huge peace sign) in an anti-war demonstration. The fact is it's hard not to think about an actor's drug problem, or sex scandal, or political views when your watching them at work. Talking politics as a celeb is as much of a business decision as appearing drunk on a talk show. Your bound to alienate some of your audience with either. Not fair but it is reality.

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 4:57 PM CDT

i'm confused...didn't you just make a comment about "appearing educated" and being "informed"? but it's obvious, you never bothered to educate yourself about what's been happening on this blog, or bothered to gather information you might need.

oh, and please don't insult rdd, at least not until you know her better. of course, now that i know her better, not only would i never insult her, but i'd kick the shit out of anybody who did.

i certainly hope you're better educated and informed before you do something foolish, like vote.

no kisshugs here

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 5:38 PM CDT

One good thing about celebrities endorsing candidates is this: There are millions of people who don't pay attention to the campaigns, issues, etc. If they are a huge fan of Celebrity X who is publicly endorsing Candidate X, then the citizen may actually pay attention. Listen to the issues at hand, and how each prospective candidate feels. That doesn't mean they are going to vote for the specific candidate that their favorite hollywood face is supporting. The fact is, they voted in an election they might never have voted in the first place.

Does that make sense? Or did I just ramble on like some psycho lunatic?

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 5:53 PM CDT

My hero....

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 6:29 PM CDT

*doing his best Marv Albert while wearing male clothing*

FRED THOMPSON, YES!

Also in Hunt for Red October... He was the Flag Admiral aboard the aircraft carrier in the Atlantic... and and and...

I NOMINATE FRED THOMPSON FOR GOD.

Is there a 4 year term limit to that post?

Democrat or Republican, I've never heard someone bash him. I've seen him speak and he has command presence. I model my talks to the troops in his style. I'd vote for him for President anyday.

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 10:33 PM CDT

Who you calling a butt monkey lady? If anything I am an ass monkey.

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 11:35 PM CDT

Dear Jeff,
I am sorry I called you Jeff, how was I to know that you've had a bad Jeff experience. I thought you just disliked political liberal actors. I know which Jeff it was, it was Jeff Goldblum wasn't it? That bastard tried to seduce you to the dark side by saying that George Bush's tax cut is in and of it's self the basis of the chaos theory, and he dribbled water all over your pants, and you got mad cause a dinosaur..no wait, it was Jeff Fahey wasn't it? You're pissed off at the Lawnmower Man because he wasn't in the sequel.

So I've got three names, and they are not liberals. Vincent Gallo, Rose McGowan, and Stephen Baldwin. All willingly saying that they are Bush supporters. All republican. Why are they voting for Bush? The first two are because they are nuts, I mean look at them. Gallo is purely crazy, he's just a freak. He is the psycho lunatic you so truly want to be. He thinks that Bush is doing a great job. So great that Bush is pretending that he doesn't notice that the president of Russia is slowly become a dictator. So great that he's spent most of his time campaigning in Texas, so he can go fishing. Ms. McGowan is the same way, she's crazy, I mean she dated Manson for the love of hair extensions!! Stephen Baldwin, recently became a fundamentalist christian, a group from his church persuaded him to support, lights- camera -action, Bush because it was the right thing for a christian to do (that's what they told him, it's not me being anti-jesus, just putting that in because, well, it's for Nicole-she's nice, and I don't want to piss her off again).

I just wanted to make it clear, that liberal actors aren't the only ones doing this, but they do it so much better.

Why don't they run for office? That's easy, because it's the most evil job on the planet. Only assholes become President (except for Jimmy Carter, he's really a super guy..and the only ex-pres who's done anything for this country since leaving office). It's an act, in the long run everyone who steps into the oval office to go to work is an actor, they just don't get paid as well. Unless, they own a slice of Halliburton.


So you are pissed off and not going to aid in the advancement of those who offend you this way. Well I'm offended by Bush, I'm offended that he's lied to me, to my country, over and over again, that he uses fear to get what he wants, that his vice president can tell someone to go "fuck off" and nobody cares, that he got no harrassment for using narcotics in college (his inhaling was a whole lot stronger, if you no what I mean), that he can blame someone for leaving a stupid makes no sense war- but he himself never set foot within the hell of that war, that he then decided to create his own stupid makes no sense war. But I can't go write all this to him, or I'll be blacklisted under the illustrious Patriot Act. Big Brother is watching, fascism is knocking on our door, and you're pissed off at actors? I'm glad you have the opportunity to voice your opinion here without having an FBI file started over it, I don't have that option with what I'm pissed off about. You have that right here, no one can take that away from you, and no one will care in about two weeks- it will be forgotten, but I don't have that right when it comes to telling Bush off to his face.

Hilary Rodham Clinton 2008, or John Edwards 2008. Take your pick, they're both actors. They're all actors.

And who was wrong, and who was right, it didn't matter in the thick of the fight (B. Joel),

Bubba

Thursday, 16 September 2004 - 11:50 PM CDT

I too am completely insulted by certain comments.
I mean, I LOVE Amstel Light! Not a real beer? Yeah, Okay.
Seriously though, psycho needs to have a little faith in the American public. Are there people out there who will vote for Kerry simply because celebrities are backing him? Yeah of course, but not to worry, psycho, there are just as many people in Florida who will somehow forget the proper way to fill out a ballot.
Besides, I just focus on the fact that if anything ever happened to Bush, Dick Cheney would become President. If that's not enough to make you go out and put a Kerry/Edwards sign in your front yard, I don't know what is.

Friday, 17 September 2004 - 1:57 AM CDT

Hey, Rance... I wrote this for you, but I'm gonna steal a copy of it for my littling blogling. Hope you don't mind.

It is a shame that when I read I cannot be bothered to remember my sources. Because, later, when I want to participate in a discussion with my newly acquired knowledge, my recollection gets jumbled and I find it hard to prove a solid point. It is next to impossible to Google an entire argument in less than one evening.


With that, let me just say that there are many points in the "elitist theory" of governing society that may be of interest to you. Perhaps, you are familiar with it; if not, feel free to do your own objective research as opposed to being overwhelmed with my distorted opinion.

As I am but a lowly commoner myself, I feel I can safely say that the "every man" is not armed with enough information or education to properly form and execute a political opinion at election time.

For the people who do attempt to exercise their civic duties, it is but mere marketing, and not social concern that determines their choices. It bothers me further that many politicians actually depend on this calculated ignorance and use it to their advantage by creating idiotic catch phrases such as "Pick Cotton" "Bowling for Congress" and "You can't go wrong with a name like John."

Now, John Wayne Gacy; John Wesley Hardin; John George Haigh; and John Martin Crawford aside, I'm sure there are some perfectly fine Johns out there; but I cringe at the thought of the millions of people who will march into their polling booths in a few weeks armed with nothing but a jingle dancing defiantly in their heads.

If you could magically take back scores of suffrage, assuming someone would notice; the thing you would first fear would be the elitists attempting to influence government with nothing more than their own private agendas and special interests.

Social scientists depend on a myriad of reasoning to explain that this doesn't happen, so I'll take their word to assume that the reason it doesn't is because of commercialism.

Elitists rose to their power with generations of successful privatized interests; many depending highly upon commercialized entities. In other words, if you don't take care of the little guy, who is going to buy your product? Whether it is cars, ketchup, or cinematic flicks; you have to ensure the ability of the commoner to consume of your wares in order to maintain your own power. A pure form of the "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" mentality.

In this particular microcosm of American culture, commercialization has serious issues and in fact it hinders much of humanity. In the right hands, however, commercialization can be the key to unlocking the ills of society and I, for one, have no problem with the elitists allowing the ball of progress to commence its rolling on their behalf.

There is the air of contention among social scientists who are of varied opinions on how elitists rise to power and how they accept the new blood as it rises. I think this is where the entertainment industry comes into its political grip. Many common folks are too quick to devalue the role celebrities play in the political realm of influencing the general public. However, many in this industry rise to their elite status from the ashes of a humble beginning. With their unique view of both sides of the game, I feel many can act as a successful liaison between those who lead and those who are led.

Although these entertainers may come from single-parent households, they themselves may have been recipients of social benefits, and they may not be armed with degrees from elite universities; society still affords them the opportunity to assume the elitist role. They carry the mindset of power and influential capability; yet as their blood remains more humbled than others, they can be a true liaison between the interests of the common man and the government entities for which they attempt to influence.

I think Sean Combs (P. Diddy if you must) has been an incredible catalyst in the encouragement of civic education and participation in the African American community. Ben Affleck as head democratic honcho has certainly been an educational experience for 14-year-old girls everywhere. You may scoff at the reference, but I would be willing to bet a Benjamin that female voter registration will face double-digit increases for the elections of 2008 and 2012.

I think people that have been afforded the opportunity to do so, should encourage whatever sort of civic enlightenment they can muster. You may have a backlash of "I voted for Kerry because P. Diddy told me to," but hopefully somewhere that enlightenment can birth some legitimacy to the American process.

For instance, I don't champion the idea of raising minimum wage, but because it has been supported by some high profile names this past year, I have paid more attention to the cause. I am currently better educated about the issue than I was when I owned my own business and calculated the wages I paid as a certain percentage above the minimum.


Everybody out there has a fantastical hero; beit an actor, a sportsman, an artist, a doctor, a scientist, or a leader. Just think what a marked improvement society could see if each of those idols would serve as role models and encourage their fans to take part in a little civic enlightenment.

Is that such a bad idea?

Don't be so quick to judge.

Friday, 17 September 2004 - 2:22 AM CDT

Ah, make sure you have read The Tao of Pooh as well as The Te of Piglet...

Friday, 17 September 2004 - 3:07 AM CDT

*cheers* well said Bubba :)

The right to vote is something that not all people have access to, but something people are willing to fight for....so it's only right that people, celebrities or otherwise, get involved in the whole process--in stuffing envelopes, in answering phones, in donating money...what have you. If you (talking to psycho lunatic ie-Jeff here) think that people will be ....ummm stupid...enough to vote for Kerry because they see Ben Affleck stumping around with him, or for Bush because Brooks and Dunn perform at the Republican Convention, you're insane. Of course Affleck or Brooks & Dunn et al probably hope that their presence does some good...but what it's really doing is drawing awareness to the whole process...to encouraging people to GET OUT and use their voice to express their desire for either a change or to stick with the status quo.
To the discussion that went on about education/awareness...the media simply doesn't do a good enough job at informing people...everyone needs to take the responsibility for educating themselves when it comes to politicians/their stances, etc.

Friday, 17 September 2004 - 3:13 AM CDT

And Pooh bear is Canadian, so he likely wouldn't vote in the American election anyway ;) Superman however was sold for a measly..40$ bux or so...so he will be voting in the American election...again, that's hearsay...not sure if his american supercitizen status has gone through...last I heard from Maritess, the superfriends maid (you can google maritess), he's still an alien. :)

Friday, 17 September 2004 - 5:07 PM CDT

Hello, ?I?m confused?? If you push the shift key and the ?i? at the same time, you will get a capital ?I? with which to begin your sentence. It?s right there on the rectangular object in front of you commonly known as ?the keyboard?. You?ll notice there are some numbers and some other strange keys on the keyboard. If you are unfamiliar with them, we can have a remedial keyboard class later. I know an ?educated? and ?informed? person such as yourself would not wish to have a gaping hole in their knowledge base. I?m really too upset to be composing this anyway, upon learning of the surgery Rance will be undergoing. It seems he must have several noses removed from his asshole. Ouch! After reading the passionate responses psycho_lunatic generated from his innocent remarks, I now have sufficient ?information gathered?, as you so succinctly put it. It was kind of one person to pull out of the air the First Amendment and several other Amendments, with the obligatory admonishment that if you don?t like it here, go to China. That is such a true reflection of the American Spirit. Then the others were sallying forth to defend the rights of entertainment personalities to voice their opinions. How noble. That was not the issue. The issue, in fact, is that some voters can be swayed by the endorsement of an entertainment figure, as if some sort of automobile or beverage were being peddled. Is it too much to ask that ?The Actor? understand why he is supporting Mr. Candidate before he expects the public who admire him to emulate his taste in candidate? If someone has the power to sway the opinions of others, does it not behoove them to take care with what they convince them to do? For example: should ?The Actor? suddenly embrace the Nazi Party, and should that actor be perhaps extremely popular with impressionable young children, might he consider that his viewpoint could create a generation of fellow Nazi?s? Well, of course, in ?The Actor?s? mind, this is OK, because he is convinced that his opinion is valid. But the rest of society can look at this situation and say, ?Hey, we don?t want our children to be influenced in this fashion.? My point is this: the general voting public should make his or her own choice, free of any undue influence. One person; one vote. That is what democracy is all about. (Even though we are in substance a Republic.)

Friday, 17 September 2004 - 5:56 PM CDT

You appear to have a gift...for being incredibly rude and pious. Perhaps you should exchange it for some tact and humility.

Friday, 17 September 2004 - 7:16 PM CDT

So I'm not the only one in the world with Tom Cruise issues? (No offense to you Rance, in the off chance you happen to be Tom Cruise.) I've never really been able to concentrate at dude's movies because of his front teeth. He's got three front teeth. Or at least he did. I don't know if that got fixed when he got braces or not, I pretty much avoid his work.

Fred Thompson, however, is great.

Friday, 17 September 2004 - 7:20 PM CDT

Bubba, I think I love you. Can I bear your children?

Friday, 17 September 2004 - 10:28 PM CDT

what an ass.
wait.
WHAT AN ASS.

hey you're right. that works. much like the brains, intelligence and good heart of the anonymous blogger and his and/or her opinions we are speaking of. i have my own opinions and beliefs. it just so happens they correspond with said blogger. and i'll stick my nose up whoever's ass i so wish. better rance's than dick cheney's.

the guestion remains.

what the hell are you doing here?

and who said the rance man doesn't know what he's talking about? who are you to decide his viewpoints aren't worthy?

the kerry debate with stupid george is most anticipated.
how about a eulogia vs rance debate?

jeesus h christ! are there really people out there that still think like you?

well you have at least convinced me of one thing.
i plan not to captialize again. if only in protest of assholes who deem it unworthy.

christ in a hand bucket.

how do you live with yourself?

Sunday, 19 September 2004 - 4:17 AM CDT

**My point is this: the general voting public should make his or her own choice, free of any undue influence.**

I can't help but think that you are either supremely naive, or speaking knowingly in bad faith. For the general public to freely make their own choices would imply that they take the time to educate themselves, look past the disgraceful media manipulation that has been the hallmark of the current administration and make their decisions based purely on hard facts, something that has been sorely lacking for the past four years.

In case you hadn't noticed, celebrities are citizens too, one person one vote. Should they be excluded from the process because of their celebrity status? Should only unknowns be allowed to participate in campaigns? Shall they also be excluded from office for the "sin" of being a celebrity?

Monday, 20 September 2004 - 12:18 PM CDT

Now THAT would be an interesting feat....