Thread: On Hollywood and Class Warfare

Liberals seem to enjoy perpetuating class warfare by pointing to the "extravagant" wages paid to CEOs and other corporate leaders, and the "subsistence" wages paid to the "common Man". But we never hear them compare the wages made by entertainers to the wages made by those behind the cameras. While a CEO might earn $20 million a year (mostly in stock options that depend to a great extent upon his/her performance), an entertainer can earn $20M for one movie. Meanwhile, the key grip might be pulling down ten or twenty thousand for the same movie.

I would like to know why this doesn't bother liberals? In fact, we hear from a lot of these entertainers telling us how evil corporate leaders are. Yet I haven't heard of any entertainers telling us how wicked it is that the person who applies their makeup earns only a fraction of what they earn. How much did Michael Moore make on his last film? How much did the caterer make for the film. Oops! Scratch that! The caterer probably made a mint. How about the cameramen? How much did they make?

Originally Posted by Cato

Liberals seem to enjoy perpetuating class warfare by pointing to the "extravagant" wages paid to CEOs and other corporate leaders, and the "subsistence" wages paid to the "common Man". But we never hear them compare the wages made by entertainers to the wages made by those behind the cameras. While a CEO might earn $20 million a year (mostly in stock options that depend to a great extent upon his/her performance), an entertainer can earn $20M for one movie. Meanwhile, the key grip might be pulling down ten or twenty thousand for the same movie.

I would like to know why this doesn't bother liberals? In fact, we hear from a lot of these entertainers telling us how evil corporate leaders are. Yet I haven't heard of any entertainers telling us how wicked it is that the person who applies their makeup earns only a fraction of what they earn. How much did Michael Moore make on his last film? How much did the caterer make for the film. Oops! Scratch that! The caterer probably made a mint. How about the cameramen? How much did they make?

I guess that explains why some of the tv shows have been using foreigners for lead parts like House,Pushing Daisys,chuck,Bionic Woman and some other shows.

Originally Posted by Cato

Liberals seem to enjoy perpetuating class warfare by pointing to the "extravagant" wages paid to CEOs and other corporate leaders, and the "subsistence" wages paid to the "common Man". But we never hear them compare the wages made by entertainers to the wages made by those behind the cameras. While a CEO might earn $20 million a year (mostly in stock options that depend to a great extent upon his/her performance), an entertainer can earn $20M for one movie. Meanwhile, the key grip might be pulling down ten or twenty thousand for the same movie.

I would like to know why this doesn't bother liberals? In fact, we hear from a lot of these entertainers telling us how evil corporate leaders are. Yet I haven't heard of any entertainers telling us how wicked it is that the person who applies their makeup earns only a fraction of what they earn. How much did Michael Moore make on his last film? How much did the caterer make for the film. Oops! Scratch that! The caterer probably made a mint. How about the cameramen? How much did they make?

Celebrity liberalism is a function of a few things:

1) Guilt. Yes, those people making craploads of $ for relatively little effort realize that in the grand scheme of things, they are completely overcompensated.

2) Ridiculous Wealth. You could tax the piss out of them and they'd still have enough cabbage to do whatever they want. So why not have a welfare state with its associated heavy taxation? They somehow think this gives them additional credibility in this argument. Warren Buffet doesn't care about the Estate Tax - and he has a lot more to "lose" - so why should the dry cleaning chain [or any other "small business"] owner care?

3) Limited World View. Unless they are among the ones that stumbled into celebrity-hood after some extended period of living a "normal" American life (say, like R. Lee Ermy...not talking about somebody who spent a year or two as a waitress in L.A. until they got their big break), they are apt to have a very narrow view of what it means to be an average citizen of this country. Even if well-traveled, their status prevents them from having an unfiltered "normal" experience.

4) Competitive Philanthropy. It is not a question of having a genuine concern for a cause so much as it is improving your "standing" within their own circles. Cut a check here, cut a check there, be at the right photo ops. Of course, very few of them dedicate their most valuable asset - their time. Who more to respect...the actor doing a 30 second promotional spot for a charity while donating a chunk of extra money or Joe Sixpack who, on top of having to work 50+ hours a week, coaches a local youth sports team for three hours a day?

5) Undue Respect and Credibility. Sure, he may say, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV," but that didn't stop that aspirin company from using him as the face behind their advertisements. Why? People are stupid. Bob Villa hawking tools for Sears? Okay. I can grok that even if Norm did all the actual work. Babs Streisand being given a national platform from which to champion extreme liberal garbage ("Use clothes lines instead of electric dryers," she says...you first, I say...)? Come on, now. Why would a poll comparing people's perceptions of Condy Rice's foreign policy knowledge to that of Sean Penn probably be ridiculously close? Back to the "People are stupid" assertion...they're misguided by a liberal-friendly mainstream media. Warren Beatty for President [um, because I liked Shampoo?]! Whatever.

6) Isolation. They can champion the "poor" and "working class" until the cows come home, but don't try to access the public beach next to their third house! They chant "Free Mumia!" but wouldn't let that piece of shit past the guard in their gated communities. Such concerns are for the people without armed bodyguards, right Rosie O'Donnell (Gun Control is for the "common people")?

This all adds up to a bunch of people living apart from real society with little in the way of life experience utilizing unlimited funds and unfettered media access to make a continual effort to "out-liberal" the guy in the mansion next door.

This is why Jeff Daniels (of Dumb and Dumber fame) lives in Michigan and chose to raise his children there.

None of this bothers liberals because those people are huge activists who advocate their liberal beliefs. In these cases, the messenger does not matter.

No liberals can give me an answer on this?

Huh, well, I'm a liberal, and I don't approve of paying extravagant amounts of money to entertainers. Happy?

Charlton Heston made an absolute mountain of money in Hollywood, and you'd be hard-pressed to paint him as a liberal. Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwarzenneger, Robert Conrad, Bo Derek, Mel Gibson, Duane "The Rock" Johnson, Joe Pesci, Bruce Willis, and Dennis Miller are just a few examples of people who are conservatives and filthy fucking rich as a result of their work in Hollywood.

Calling those who live and/or work in Hollywood "liberals" is, at best, inaccurate. It doesn't take long at all to prove it wrong...

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Huh, well, I'm a liberal, and I don't approve of paying extravagant amounts of money to entertainers. Happy?

Thank you, Adrien. So you would be in favor of limiting the income of entertainers and celebrities?

Any idea why I never see posts on how evil celebrities and entertainers are because they make so much more money than "the common man"?

Originally Posted by Steve

Calling those who live and/or work in Hollywood "liberals" is, at best, inaccurate.

Who did that?

Originally Posted by Cato

Who did that?

That was the clear inference in Impugn's post...

Originally Posted by Steve

That was the clear inference in Impugn's post...

There are rules and exceptions to rules. I stated the rule, you brought up a few exceptions.

If I were to, say, match you 10 "flaming liberal" celebrities to every 1 "even barely non-liberal" Hollywood celebrity, would that be convincing enough that some sort of a "rule" was in effect?

There are intangibles and unprovable items to consider, as well. How many "celebrities" have suffered professionally for their "liberal" leanings vs. for their "conservative" leavings? I submit that, within their own circles, by-and-large, the conservatives suffer. Within the arena of the free market place, the liberals suffer. All of this is speculation, of course, because the only thing we can put a finger on is the latter. Not exactly going to find a press release stating Celebrity X didn't get the part because (s)he is/was a Bush-loving warmonger.

They have a culture. They built it. They seem to like it. I call it as I see it.

Oh, and you forgot Patricia Heaton. MILF, defined...and conservative as hell.



P.S. The inference was yours. The implication was mine. You well inferred what I was implying, though, of course.