More from the Hollyweird crowd

[MDM4AU 336]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/20...m-witch-burners

Streep, Clooney Compare Right Wing to

Nazis, Salem Witch Burners

The 40th anniversary issue of Rolling Stone interviewed several top actors on their political views. Meryl Streep and George Clooney each disparaged conservatives in different ways. Streep compared the Bush administration to the Nazis, and Clooney compared conservatives to the Salem witch burners. In line with Streep's current role in the flop Lions for Lambs, Rolling Stone film critic Peter Travers asked about playing the part of "the hated, compromised media," and she replied: "The dilemma of the journalist is everybody's dilemma. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protected the Fourth Estate so vehemently because we rely on these voices. And if we don't have them, then God bless Sean Penn for speaking up. God bless the people who put themselves on the line to be fodder for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's next raise. We all have to be citizens first, and then whatever our job is."

The Nazi comparison came when Travers asked: How to do things change for the better? Streep replied:

"Change is precipitated by outside events, big cataclysms like 9/11 and Katrina, that cause the public to wipe the gunk out of its eyes. One thing that really bothers me is when the media cedes its responsibility. When the government said, 'you can't photograph coffins coming home from Iraq,' that was a clear abrogation of the right to a free press. And the press rolled over. Look at how the German people have lived, for all these years, with a legacy of 'How could you let that happen?' We might be living with that kind of legacy in the next fifty years."

Streep also said feminine voices were superior: "The nurturance of what we have, as opposed to conquering the new territory and making them submit." When asked how we should get politically engaged, she hit that point again: "Nobody wants to hear me give a political speech. But I can align by sensibility and my heart, my voice, and all my stamina with [Marxist playwright] Bertolt Brecht and do Mother Courage onstage and feel that it's getting out there, that idea of 'wars go on, and who suffers over and over again?' It's the women and children. That's the whole story. It's a story worth telling."

Travers also interviewed Clooney, who unspooled the usual frustrating notion that liberalism is equal to open-mindedness:

"Personally, I want a campaign to stop making 'liberal' a bad word. Look it up in the dictionary and you're basically saying, 'I'm willing to hear everybody's point of view.' It makes us lousy debaters, but I can't apologize for being a liberal."

And conservatives? They've always been wrong: "Go through the history of time. During the Salem witch hunt, the liberals thought there was no such thing as witches, and the conservative view was 'They're witches and they all have to die.' I don't argue with conservatives over morality. I don't preach morality, certainly, but I won't be told that liberal is immoral."

Clooney said if he ran for President, it would be on the platform of "yeah, I did it," -- did women, did drugs, and "Now, let's talk about the issues." He added: "Anybody who's running who's gone through the Sixties and didn't smoke a joint, I don't want you for president. You haven't lived at all. What the f-k's wrong with you?"

Clooney was encouraged by the notion that Rudy Giuliani would draw support from the religious right, and then somehow draws a straight line from Jesus to Hamas: "That tells you the rest of the country is a little bit moved away from the idea of this 'Jesus is right about everything' kind of mood. I'm not knocking religion, but there was a reason we left England: Church and state have to be separate. I love that we fought to get all these democracies in place, and they vote in theocracies, including Palestine. It worked out really well, now that we've got religious leaders everywhere."

Clooney doesn't seem to realize that many the people who came over from England were religious people looking for freedom to worship God in their own way, not set up Haight-Ashbury.

[otterinbham 0]

Here's what I don't get. Just because somebody can ape emotions on camera, can sing reasonably well, or has a set of bodacious tatas, why do they feel compelled to give us their political opinions? Even more to the point, why does the media feel compelled to ask the political opinions of celebrities?

When people interview famous architects, software designers, sports figures, builders, or any other notables (With the exception of writers, who really are the thinkers that should rightfully drive the debate in this country), nobody asks their political opinions. So why celebrities? And, given how notoriously shallow and flighty these people are, why should their opinions matter anymore than the checkout girl at the Piggly Wiggly down the street from me? What's more, I'm an equal opportunity celebrity basher here. I'll just as easily dish out scorn on Tom Selleck as I will on Tim Robbins.

A couple of years ago, somebody asked Elvis Costello what he thought of some big political debate. He answered, "I don't know, man. I'm just an entertainer." Too bad more of these halfwits don't think that way.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Clooney said if he ran for President, it would be on the platform of "yeah, I did it," -- did women, did drugs, and "Now, let's talk about the issues." He added: "Anybody who's running who's gone through the Sixties and didn't smoke a joint, I don't want you for president. You haven't lived at all. What the f-k's wrong with you?"

Bless G. Clooney. By his reckoning, Kieth Richards or Steven Tyler should be in the White House, not Hillary or Giuliani. Taking political advice from an actor is no better than taking it from a rock star.

Rock should never be in bed with politics. - Alice Cooper

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Streep said this:

We all have to be citizens first, and then whatever our job is."

What gives Tim Graham the right to spout his views? His citizenship. I can't discern any reason beyond that would lead me to conclude his opinion should carry any special weight. I don't know why people get all upset when celebrities exercise the same rights as everyone else. Folks come to this political forum everyday and spout off. Some are informed, some not, some are rational, some not. Some checkout girls at the Piggly Wiggly are informed, some not. Folks here spout off and the whole world is free to come read it, if they wish.

In this case, the "media" is Rolling Stone-- a strange mix of relevant political issues and entertainment. You don't see the Economist hunting down Clooney and Streep for their political views. Many of Rolling Stone's readers must like this kind of thing, because they keep doing it.

Do their opinions "matter" more than other people's? Generally not. But I don't see why so many folks on the right begrudge them their rights of citizenship. Maybe Costello chooses to be uninformed. Maybe he's apathetic. Maybe he has strong views, but doesn't want to risk offending parts of his fan base. Or maybe he just didn't feel like talking to that reporter that day. Not sure any of those reasons make him the model for others.

I agree, that we are citizens first, and then whatever our job is. Folks can talk, and we can choose to listen or not. I don't begrudge the right of Rush, Hannity or any of the other morons who serve a constant source of inane drivel on a daily basis, to keep serving it up. These guys are no more "qualified" than most folks to say what they think. But someone apparently wants to hear it.

Some celebs acquit themselves better than others. Clooney usually does okay when I see him interviewed. Robbins usually makes a fool of himself. Sean Penn always seems angry, so much so you would think he was a Hannity conservative. Ben Affleck thinks he's smart, but he almost always looks foolish to me. I really don't give a damn what he thinks. But so what?

Here's what I don't get. Just because somebody can ape emotions on camera, can sing reasonably well, or has a set of bodacious tatas, why do they feel compelled to give us their political opinions? Even more to the point, why does the media feel compelled to ask the political opinions of celebrities?

When people interview famous architects, software designers, sports figures, builders, or any other notables (With the exception of writers, who really are the thinkers that should rightfully drive the debate in this country), nobody asks their political opinions. So why celebrities? And, given how notoriously shallow and flighty these people are, why should their opinions matter anymore than the checkout girl at the Piggly Wiggly down the street from me? What's more, I'm an equal opportunity celebrity basher here. I'll just as easily dish out scorn on Tom Selleck as I will on Tim Robbins.

A couple of years ago, somebody asked Elvis Costello what he thought of some big political debate. He answered, "I don't know, man. I'm just an entertainer." Too bad more of these halfwits don't think that way.

[Tiger Al 0]

Taking political advice from an actor is no better than taking it from a rock star.

Unless, of course, that actor becomes a politician.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Taking political advice from an actor is no better than taking it from a rock star.

Unless, of course, that actor becomes a Republican politician.

Fixed that for you.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

... A couple of years ago, somebody asked Elvis Costello what he thought of some big political debate. He answered, "I don't know, man. I'm just an entertainer." Too bad more of these halfwits don't think that way.

Here's one I've always liked:

“If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are.”

--- Alice Cooper

[AURaptor 1,126]

Taking political advice from an actor is no better than taking it from a rock star.

Unless, of course, that actor becomes a politician.

Because when the actor becomes a full time politician, they have decided to take the time to understand the issues, rather than simply spouting off shallow rhetoric, like Mr Clooney here. There's more to life th an smoking a joint, and simply loosening up via illegal drugs doesn't make one a better policy maker. Might not hurt, but to suggest one MUST do so, or they're not qualifed, or that it's the only way , is simply an asinine thing to say.

T.A, TT....what is it in the liberal gene that makes you think you have the right to 'edit' other people's thoughts ? See, that's the real scary thing here, is that you think the world needs fixing, and that you're the only ones ordained by God to do so. Where the hell do Libs get this feeling of entitlement ?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

T.A, TT....what is it in the liberal gene that makes you think you have the right to 'edit' other people's thoughts ? See, that's the real scary thing here, is that you think the world needs fixing, and that you're the only ones ordained by God to do so. Where the hell do Libs get this feeling of entitlement ?

What the hell are you refering to?

[otterinbham 0]

Here's the thing. I wouldn't cross the street to hear Hillary Clinton or George Bush express an opinion on the movies. Why would I care what Susan Sarandon or Charlton Heston (Pre-Alzheimers) have to say about politics?

And, TT, I think the point here is that everytime a celebrity expresses any sort of political opinion, it gets breathlessly reported by the media as if it's worth a damn.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Here's the thing. I wouldn't cross the street to hear Hillary Clinton or George Bush express an opinion on the movies. Why would I care what Susan Sarandon or Charlton Heston (Pre-Alzheimers) have to say about politics?

And, TT, I think the point here is that everytime a celebrity expresses any sort of political opinion, it gets breathlessly reported by the media as if it's worth a damn.

Who says you should care? "Everytime" is a pretty gross overstatement. Again, this was Rolling Stone. Followed up by Newsbusters. It hardly made the evening news or page one of the newspaper. Rolling Stone profiles celebrities. These celebrities have made politically themed movies of late. Thus, these are natural questions from an entertainment reporter.

Frankly, folks like Sean Penn probably get far more coverage in the "conservative" media when he hugs Hugo. Having Rush and Hannity talk about him makes a bigger story than it otherwise would be. Whenever Babs says something I only know it if the conservative media picks up on it and ironically says it shouldn't get so much attention.

[otterinbham 0]

Here's the thing. I wouldn't cross the street to hear Hillary Clinton or George Bush express an opinion on the movies. Why would I care what Susan Sarandon or Charlton Heston (Pre-Alzheimers) have to say about politics?

And, TT, I think the point here is that everytime a celebrity expresses any sort of political opinion, it gets breathlessly reported by the media as if it's worth a damn.

Who says you should care? "Everytime" is a pretty gross overstatement.

Oh, I think that's a pretty disingenuous argument. While I certainly don't keep a database of celebrity opinions (I'll leave that to some of the rabid Bushbots), it's a pretty consistent theme in Hollywood and elsewhere in the entertainment world. The Dixie Chicks decided to pander to a London audience by bashing Bush. Linda Rondstadt, Harry Bellafonte, and Danny Glover would have long ago dropped off the public radar, except for their penchant of blurting out their political opinions at every opportunity. Sean Penn seems to think he has special license to go over and hang out with people like Chavez, Assad, and whoever else--Or show up on the streets of New Orleans carrying a streetsweeper as part of his one-man patrol. Barbra Streisand, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and the rest can be relied upon for some screed on the cause du jour. To me, these are not expressions of one's right as a citizen. It's sheer self-aggrandizement.

However, I would agree with you that politically-based movies and music are an exception to this. To me, that's a legitimate form of political dialog (However, Robert Redford's incoherent opus seems to be dying an excruciating box office death). However, while I do express my opinions on this forum, I rarely express my political opinions in my professional life and my social life. Nor would I expect to be roundly quoted or even taken seriously if I did. That's the difference between real people and the plastic people of Hollywood, who are surrounded by armies of Yes-men, toadies, and celebrity journalists.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Here's the problem TT.

Celebs influence public opinion. Because they are engaging personalities, and because these Celebs (be it republican or democrat) have MUCH more access to a public mouthpiece (camera, magazine, etc), they get to have their slanted and highly uneducated perspective be cast among the masses...without any checks from the other side.

If Hollywood wasn't comprised of an overwelming left majority, it may be a non issue. But it's basically a situation where you have 100% leftist propoganda coming from the group with the most exposure and media attention.

Sadly, the most impressionable people in this country tend to care more about what Britney Spears is doing, than what is happening in North Korea. We are talking about a generation of people who think the Daily Show is news.

People who are ill informed and many not even high school educated are shaping public opinion from Hollywood. The media gives them the mouthpiece that your everyday joe doesn't have access to.

Just like in government, checks and balances exist for a reason. In Hollywood, everything goes unchecked. But it also gets presented almost instantly to the American public.

I want actors to act, singers to sing, and otherwise shut the f up. Madonna has a $250,000 per year wardrobe "budget". Why is she in any position to speak out on American government or economy? Why does she get to be the mouthpiece for people to whom she can't relate?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Here's the thing. I wouldn't cross the street to hear Hillary Clinton or George Bush express an opinion on the movies. Why would I care what Susan Sarandon or Charlton Heston (Pre-Alzheimers) have to say about politics?

And, TT, I think the point here is that everytime a celebrity expresses any sort of political opinion, it gets breathlessly reported by the media as if it's worth a damn.

Who says you should care? "Everytime" is a pretty gross overstatement.

Oh, I think that's a pretty disingenuous argument. While I certainly don't keep a database of celebrity opinions (I'll leave that to some of the rabid Bushbots), it's a pretty consistent theme in Hollywood and elsewhere in the entertainment world.

Nothing disingenuous about it. And it's also accurate. "Everytime" is usually a gross overstatement. If you want to say it's a "pretty consistent theme" that's less of an overstatement, but still an overstatement, given your examples.

The Dixie Chicks made a single off-hand comment before a single song at a single concert in London. They would have much preferred that it not have been picked up by the media. When it was, Maines said it was a joke and apologized for it. The "conservative" media insisted on it being a story, however, and wouldn't let them get back to "normal". Once they couldn't escape it, they had little choice but to embrace it. Their "shunning" became the major theme in their lives and, as artists tend to do, they wrote about their lives. They don't grant a ton of interviews, however, and tend to lead pretty private lives.

Linda Rondstadt offended a conservative audience at a concert with her view. Maybe she misread their sentiments. She then didn't milk the media with a series of interviews to harp on her views, or if she did, I certainly missed it.

I don't know a soul who cares what Harry Belafonte thinks. Still like the Boatman song, though.

Barbara Streisand may speak her piece on her blog or give a fundraising concert, as is her right, but she rarely performs in public and rarely grants media interviews. She could. I'm sure alot of shows would give her air time since she is a star who rarely goes public, but the simple fact is she doesn't take much advantage of that fact.

Most of Danny Glover's coverage that I've seen lately isn't very positive.

You say Penn "seems to think he has special license to go over and hang out with people like Chavez, Assad, and whoever else..." Yeah, he has that special license of being an American citizen who is free to travel most places except Cuba. Most media portrayals I have seen are less than flattering, however.

Again, outside of entertainment shows and some cable "news" channels desperate for audience, I don't see the network news giving this guys much play.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

So are you advocating for the fairness doctrine now?

The right wing laps up any celebrity that will embrace it-- Bruce Willis, Bo Derek, Wayne Newton, Chuck Norris, Charlton Heston, Patricia Heaton, Dennis Miller, Angie Harmon, Sony Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. Any celeb they could get to their 2004 convention, they did.

Toby Keith, Charlie Daniels, Ted Nugent, Travis Tritt are more political in their professional life than most Dem singers.

Curt Schilling is more political than any Dem athlete I can think of. In fact, several athletes endorsed Bush in 2004. I've never heard you complain about any of these guys?

But you're right that people are more interested in what Britney is wearing than what she thinks-- another Bush supporter, BTW.

Here's the problem TT.

Celebs influence public opinion. Because they are engaging personalities, and because these Celebs (be it republican or democrat) have MUCH more access to a public mouthpiece (camera, magazine, etc), they get to have their slanted and highly uneducated perspective be cast among the masses...without any checks from the other side.

If Hollywood wasn't comprised of an overwelming left majority, it may be a non issue. But it's basically a situation where you have 100% leftist propoganda coming from the group with the most exposure and media attention.

Sadly, the most impressionable people in this country tend to care more about what Britney Spears is doing, than what is happening in North Korea. We are talking about a generation of people who think the Daily Show is news.

People who are ill informed and many not even high school educated are shaping public opinion from Hollywood. The media gives them the mouthpiece that your everyday joe doesn't have access to.

Just like in government, checks and balances exist for a reason. In Hollywood, everything goes unchecked. But it also gets presented almost instantly to the American public.

I want actors to act, singers to sing, and otherwise shut the f up. Madonna has a $250,000 per year wardrobe "budget". Why is she in any position to speak out on American government or economy? Why does she get to be the mouthpiece for people to whom she can't relate?

[BamaGrad03 0]

So are you advocating for the fairness doctrine now?

The right wing laps up any celebrity that will embrace it-- Bruce Willis, Bo Derek, Wayne Newton, Chuck Norris, Charlton Heston, Patricia Heaton, Dennis Miller, Angie Harmon, Sony Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. Any celeb they could get to their 2004 convention, they did.

I don't care about what Bruce Willis or Bo Derek says, any more than Sean Penn or Clooney. Sorry, I mentioned it in my previous post but really in passing.

I really hate when a celebrity (right or left leaning) feels the need to spout their opinion on politics to the nearest mic/camera. I'm a republican, but I don't think Bruce Willis is in tune with the every day republican values...anymore than Sean Penn knows what it means to struggle as a middle class democrat.

Liberals don't have a monopoly on uneducated, yet eager to speak, celebrities.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

So are you advocating for the fairness doctrine now?

The right wing laps up any celebrity that will embrace it-- Bruce Willis, Bo Derek, Wayne Newton, Chuck Norris, Charlton Heston, Patricia Heaton, Dennis Miller, Angie Harmon, Sony Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. Any celeb they could get to their 2004 convention, they did.

I don't care about what Bruce Willis or Bo Derek says, any more than Sean Penn or Clooney. Sorry, I mentioned it in my previous post but really in passing.

I really hate when a celebrity (right or left leaning) feels the need to spout their opinion on politics to the nearest mic/camera. I'm a republican, but I don't think Bruce Willis is in tune with the every day republican values...anymore than Sean Penn knows what it means to struggle as a middle class democrat.

Liberals don't have a monopoly on uneducated, yet eager to speak, celebrities.

Fair enough.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Also, gotta love the hypocrisy of the Left.

Clooney said if he ran for President, it would be on the platform of "yeah, I did it," -- did women, did drugs, and "Now, let's talk about the issues." He added: "Anybody who's running who's gone through the Sixties and didn't smoke a joint, I don't want you for president. You haven't lived at all. What the f-k's wrong with you?"

Guess what ? Clooney just described George W Bush. And yet the Left is always making fun of Bush's boozing, his cocaine use, etc.... when those are the very things they use as a base qualifier - if you're a Democrat. But for Bush, they still mock and ridicule him about his admitted vices, and snicker at his alleged retirement from his partying days. He's put that stuff behind him, and as Clooney states, lived in his youth, and now is about the issues. Only Clooney doesn't like what Bush says, so he must be a closet alcoholic, drug abuser, etc......

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Nope. Bush has never admitted to doing cocaine. Clooney was making the point to admit to everything, get it all out there and dealt with, and then focus on the issues. But I haven't heard Clooney bash Bush for his "reckless youth"-- (including early 40s). He criticizes his ideas. Bush has been bashed for his hypocrisy-- insisting on tough penalties for drug users while never really admitting his own-- but the "left" doesn't like Bush for the same reason the middle no longer likes Bush-- his actions.

Also, gotta love the hypocrisy of the Left.

Clooney said if he ran for President, it would be on the platform of "yeah, I did it," -- did women, did drugs, and "Now, let's talk about the issues." He added: "Anybody who's running who's gone through the Sixties and didn't smoke a joint, I don't want you for president. You haven't lived at all. What the f-k's wrong with you?"

Guess what ? Clooney just described George W Bush. And yet the Left is always making fun of Bush's boozing, his cocaine use, etc.... when those are the very things they use as a base qualifier - if you're a Democrat. But for Bush, they still mock and ridicule him about his admitted vices, and snicker at his alleged retirement from his partying days. He's put that stuff behind him, and as Clooney states, lived in his youth, and now is about the issues. Only Clooney doesn't like what Bush says, so he must be a closet alcoholic, drug abuser, etc......

[DKW 86 7,441]

I dont have ther time to look it back up, but I bet there isnt one college degree in that hole bunch just quoted in that article. Clooney (from memory) has one semester at WKU and that is it.

Hell, 90% of this board is probably better educated than him. Why should we be taking the word of a far lesser educated man with specious research?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Nope. Bush has never admitted to doing cocaine. Clooney was making the point to admit to everything, get it all out there and dealt with, and then focus on the issues. But I haven't heard Clooney bash Bush for his "reckless youth"-- (including early 40s). He criticizes his ideas. Bush has been bashed for his hypocrisy-- insisting on tough penalties for drug users while never really admitting his own-- but the "left" doesn't like Bush for the same reason the middle no longer likes Bush-- his actions.

Maybe not cocaine specifically, but Bush has talked about drinking too much and 'partying'. He's also said he's given those up, long ago, and doesn't even drink anymore. Clooney might not have remarked specifically about Bush's past, but every other Liberal has. I'm sure most like Bush's tax cuts, his choices for the US Supreme Court, his war on Islamic Jihadist, and a few other things. As for the libs, screw them anyways.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I dont have ther time to look it back up, but I bet there isnt one college degree in that hole bunch just quoted in that article. Clooney (from memory) has one semester at WKU and that is it.

Hell, 90% of this board is probably better educated than him. Why should we be taking the word of a far lesser educated man with specious research?

Because it doesn't matter how educated or informed you are. It matters that you've shared an 8Ball with your buddies.

[CCTAU 3,350]

So are you advocating for the fairness doctrine now?

The right wing laps up any celebrity that will embrace it-- Bruce Willis, Bo Derek, Wayne Newton, Chuck Norris, Charlton Heston, Patricia Heaton, Dennis Miller, Angie Harmon, Sony Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. Any celeb they could get to their 2004 convention, they did.

Toby Keith, Charlie Daniels, Ted Nugent, Travis Tritt are more political in their professional life than most Dem singers.

Curt Schilling is more political than any Dem athlete I can think of. In fact, several athletes endorsed Bush in 2004. I've never heard you complain about any of these guys?

But you're right that people are more interested in what Britney is wearing than what she thinks-- another Bush supporter, BTW.

Here's the problem TT.

Celebs influence public opinion. Because they are engaging personalities, and because these Celebs (be it republican or democrat) have MUCH more access to a public mouthpiece (camera, magazine, etc), they get to have their slanted and highly uneducated perspective be cast among the masses...without any checks from the other side.

If Hollywood wasn't comprised of an overwelming left majority, it may be a non issue. But it's basically a situation where you have 100% leftist propoganda coming from the group with the most exposure and media attention.

Sadly, the most impressionable people in this country tend to care more about what Britney Spears is doing, than what is happening in North Korea. We are talking about a generation of people who think the Daily Show is news.

People who are ill informed and many not even high school educated are shaping public opinion from Hollywood. The media gives them the mouthpiece that your everyday joe doesn't have access to.

Just like in government, checks and balances exist for a reason. In Hollywood, everything goes unchecked. But it also gets presented almost instantly to the American public.

I want actors to act, singers to sing, and otherwise shut the f up. Madonna has a $250,000 per year wardrobe "budget". Why is she in any position to speak out on American government or economy? Why does she get to be the mouthpiece for people to whom she can't relate?

For the record, Toby Keith is a democrat. He supports the troops though. I guess that's what threw you off. Most dims just SAY they support the troops.......

[TexasTiger 13,029]

I dont have ther time to look it back up, but I bet there isnt one college degree in that hole bunch just quoted in that article. Clooney (from memory) has one semester at WKU and that is it.

Hell, 90% of this board is probably better educated than him. Why should we be taking the word of a far lesser educated man with specious research?

Clooney has a little more college than that -- Northern Kentucky-- but not much. He's not all talk, though. Clooney donated $1 million in September 2005 to the United Way Hurricane Katrina Response Fund to help out the victims of the hurricane.

Actually, Meryl Streep has a bachelors degree from Vassar and a terminal degree from Yale. Not sure that makes you respect her opinion much more, though.

[Tiger Al 0]

I dont have ther time to look it back up, but I bet there isnt one college degree in that hole bunch just quoted in that article. Clooney (from memory) has one semester at WKU and that is it.

Hell, 90% of this board is probably better educated than him. Why should we be taking the word of a far lesser educated man with specious research?

Are you sure that this is the way you want to criticize someone's education???