I've mentioned before that I don't attend the movies, buy the music, read the books or otherwise support those who would use my money to promote causes that stand in opposition to my worldview. Reading a post by Michelle Malkin reminded me that my own personal boycott has it's limits.
Michelle shows a few pictures of some celebrities participating in the Dems Convention. Included in the pictures are Ben Affleck, Amber Tamblyn, Danny Glover and Natalie Portman. None of these people are currently on my personal boycott list and the reason is simple.
Here in America we can still disagree without someone getting thrown in prison simply for their beliefs. (or worse) I don't have a problem with celebrities having political opinions other than my own. In fact, I wish more people were involved in the political process in the way they appear to be.
I only boycott the screwballs that inappropriately try to impose their beliefs on me. It's only those who use their status as celebrities to denigrate my beliefs that make the boycott list. A perfect example is The Dixie Chicks. Not only did they use their fame as an opportunity to put down my President, but they also did it in front of a foreign audience. The Dixie Chicks are still entitled to their opinion but I'm not going to support that opinion by buying any of their music.
So let the celebs party at the convention. They're entitled and they won't have to worry about losing my paltry support. I hate to disappoint them, but they really should come on over to the best candidate and his convention. The other guy is a flip-flopper and, hopefully, a loser.
Yes! Where I draw the line is when it is not a differing opinion being expressed... but pure, simple, unexplained, illogical hatred of Bush.
Issues are issues. Blind, name-calling hatred is not about issues, it's about character defects.
Posted by: Deb at July 26, 2004 03:01 PMI agree with Deb on this one. although my personal beleif should be entertainers are paid to etertain and ploiticians are paid to politic. I rarely boycott someone unless they attack the person and not the issues. When the dixie Chick's did what they did it was wrong. They could have just as easily went on stage and said we disagree with the president's policies. Instead they made a direct and personal attack. Dirty pool in my opinion.
Posted by: Rick at July 26, 2004 03:46 PMWhy is Bush the best candidate? Do you mean between the Republican and Democratic nominees, or among all parties? Are there any third party candidates you could support, and what would it take for you to do that?
Posted by: Steve at July 26, 2004 10:23 PMSteve,
I'm not aware of any third-party candidates whom I would support, but I'm not closed to the idea. In my opinion, the libertarians tend to have an anti-intervionist (is that a word?) stance which makes them against the War in Iraq and they also have some troubling positions on things like legalizing marijuana.
The green party seems to be composed of people who are basically antideluvian (I love that word) in that they'd like to roll back the clock on industrialism. I believe there's also a "constitutionalist" party which sounds compelling but I'm not sure it's different enough for me to justify supporting them and then seeing my vote allow the Democrats to win.
Someday I believe a third party will emerge from the disaffected of both major political parties, but not anytime soon.
-jdm
To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting. Stanislaus Lescynski
Posted by: debt to equity ratio at September 25, 2004 04:22 PM