My recent blog has generated a lot of heat for my position on Fox using his illness to promote certain democratic candidates.  Also in play however is the anti-stem cell response featuring among other Patricia Heaton.   The ad featured 5 people, but she, perhaps because of her own name recognition from the successful Everyone Loves Raymond TV show, has become the focal point.

That fact makes a comparison to the two, and a comparison of the ethics of using Hollywood stars to promote political agenda’s an interesting one.  In truth, I have begun to question my own beliefs regarding the use of celebrities in political ads, so I took some time to watch each ad, research the people and evaluate the differences  

To start, I will note that on the conservative/republican side of these issues, there are far fewer Hollywood heavy weights.  Hollywood has for decades become a very liberal environment, and for every Patricia Heaton there are probably 25 Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon or Rosie O’Donnell.

That said, the use of big names in promotions is obviously attractive, to both sides.  Star power means name recognition and that obviously attracts some loyalty.  Stars are role models and plenty of impressionable people use them as models of all manner of opinion.

Obviously this is not an absolute, or the country would be overwhelmingly democratic and liberal, but there is no doubt that the liberal set in Hollywood has had an influence.  The liberals in Hollywood paved the way for and elected Bill Clinton in 1992.  How?  By using careful name placement in sitcoms, using sympathetic appearances and using lots and lots of cash.

And be clear, the fact that Liberals get so much mileage out of these tactics has as much to do with the democrats being more savvy and willingly to leverage Hollywood, so this is not a one sided equation.  The democrats are simply more adept.

In my opinion, only the fact that Kerry and Gore were uncharismatic and somewhat unlikeable kept them from using their advantage in this arena.  But that is my opinion.

Free speech took on in the gut (kinda) at the UW yesterday.

Anti-abortion posters infuriate some students- Group brings forceful message to University of Washington campus

A small group of anti-abortion activists stood in the cold at the avowedly liberal University of Washington on Wednesday, bearing signs of dismembered, bloody fetuses. But despite the university’s commitment to free speech, Show The Truth Washington had a hard time making its point.

Several dozen students supporting abortion rights encircled the sign-bearers, shouting pro-choice slogans into a bullhorn. Some tried to bar a photographer from access to the gruesome pictures.

This person’s reaction to me epitomizes the contradiction between free speech and abuse:

"No thanks, I’m pro-choice," said Melissa Gipson, 18, waving off literature from one Show the Truth activist,

The correct response…. 

whom she called an "old bigot."

…and a not quote correct one.  Likewise this reaction is very telling about diversity and tolerance:

"I think it’s absurd that they’re here," said Grant Mandarino, 25, who is working on a graduate degree in comparative literature. "These people are not wanted. This is a pro-choice campus, and there isn’t a place for them here."

Ahh, I love the sound of tolerance…

Ok, to be clear here, I do no like the methods and tactics the group Show the Truth, and it’s director Ed Sauley use.  As I have noted before, I typically do not like demagoguing.  Proponants will defend it noting that it is not demagoguing to show the truth, but that is sophistry at best, since there is plenty of doubt about the validity of the images.  The fact is that if the weight of your arguments cannot win the day, and you must resort to emotionally charged images, then that says something for your position.

But they do have a right to speak.  Free speech at its core is only operative when you fully disagree with the person whom you respectfully allow to speak, perhaps speaking against it in turn.

The tactics often used against them, often go to far, such as:

The NJ Supreme Court made a ruling that is sure to have opponents of Gay Marriage in disarray, but at its heart was probably the best ruling that could be expected, when it is analyzed.

The ruling essentially said that gays were entitled to equal protection and the Legislature had to do one of two things:  Either open a path for gay marriage, or make some manner of equivalent civil unions available.

So why is this good?  First of all for what the court did not do.  It did not declare them legal on their face, an act that is commonly denounced as judicial activism.  Instead it deferred to the Legislature to deal with the issue, as it should be.   However the state legislature chooses to do so, it is better then a 7 person court making a ruling in its place.  This is another in a string of recent rulings in which the Court’s have clearly determined that the Legislature is the proper place for these decisions, and deferred.

The other reason I like the substance of the ruling is that it identifies the validity of what I have long believed, and that is that the real answer here is civil unions.

As I have detailed several times (here and here), the issue could easily be solved fairly and equally by making the states offer civil unions to all couples, regardless of gender.  Take the government out of the endorsement of marriage altogether.

Let the churches bestow marriages on any couple they choose, according to their dogma and doctrine.  Those marriages would have no force of law, they would only be recognition within the community.

This makes sense when you consider that the primary issue at stake in the debate is not social recognition, it is state and federal benefits that are bestowed upon married couples, and not (generally) on gays.

The bad news is that none of this offers any help at the Federal level where the most benefits available are still locked out to same sex marriages, and by all predictions will continue to be.

Beccy is an Australian country singer who was taking a beating from some fans for her support of the Australian forces in Afghanistan (the Diggers).  So this video was her response.  It is called Poster Girl (wrong side of the world)

Her refrain is simple.  If the fans here want to tear down their posters over her support, then she would rather be the poster girl for the troops over their.

Think of her as the Anti-Dixie Chicks.

It may load slow, so be patient.  Alternately, go to her website and you can hear the audio track on her Albums page.

And yes I know, we are not devoid of artists that support the troops here.

But no offense, Beccy is hotter then Toby Kieth.

Intro:
Every Wednesday I participate in what bloggers refer to as a blogburst.  The purpose is to focus a lot of attention on a single subject.  The subject of this particular blogburst is the ACLU.

The  ACLU is, to me, a very complicated and contradictory organization.  It purports to support and depend the bill of rights and other other constitutional protections, and indeed many of the causes it takes on are clear violations of the various constitutional principles.

The problem is that many more of them, and what to my reckoning appears to be the majority, involve the suppression of Christian and other "traditional" type of values.  The most notable and hypocritical seem to be cases involving the distancing of Christianity from schools or government.  The reason I highlight these as being hypocritical is that they often parallel cases the ACLU has taken the opposite position on when it concerns other faiths such as Islam. 

It just seems to me that an organization that declares itself to be the guardian and watchdog of constitutional protection do more to violate the constitutional rights of the people they should support.

I fully support some of their cases, but more often then not when I see their name in a news story, it causes me frustration.

On to the blogburst, written By Jay at StoptheACLU.com

Liberals always act shocked and astonished that conservatives believe that an organization claiming to be the guardian of religious liberty is actually is actually America’s number one religious censor. They will spout off token cases where the ACLU veered from its normal path of hostility toward Christian religious expression to defend free speech. They have a handful of cases they try to convince us with. However, the ACLU’s history can easily be looked at and the cases against religious expression far outweigh these token cases. If the ACLU were consistent in its positions on religious liberty despite the religion their defense on the issue would be much easier. However, many cases point out that it isn’t religion in general the ACLU fight, but the Christian religion in particular.