I think when we discuss celebrities getting involved in politics

[dsc]

we should take care to differentiate between those who inform themselves about issues and then speak and those who don't. Whatever you think of Lady Gaga she did inform herself about DADT, filibusters, and what it will take to pass the bill. I think this is radically different than a celebrity joining the cause of the day with no clue at all about how the issue works. I think Lady Gaga's behavior should be encouraged, not discouraged. She is using the most imporant asset she has, her celebrity status with youth, who are notoriously hard to get involved in issues, to affect change. How is this different than Soros using his money, or unions using their members?

[LostinVA]

1. I don't care for GaGa's music, but she is a good egg

An informed celebrity can do alot of good (Jolie and Pitt, Ashley Judd with Youth AIDS, etal). Then there's Jenny McCarthy...

k & r

[xchrom]

5. Gasp!I'm sending a note to Gay Central Committee right now!11!!

I don't care for GaGa's music... Heresy!

[LostinVA]

6. lol

[vaberella]

2. I don't think anyone is discouraging her.

I just personally don't care about her. I personally am not into her and I think it hit home when I saw pics on DU, I believe of when she flanked herself with victims of DADT. I personally saw her actions as slightly exploitative. Other's found it admirable. I completely support the repeal of DADT, I never said otherwise and I appreciate she supports it. I just don't like certain actions which I find insulting and additionally I don't hold many stars on any pedestal nor care to offer them much love. I like the people who aren't surrounded by too much fanfare that try to get things done and don't get any thanks because no one knows their names.

[dsc]

3. I tend to think the servicemen are able to decide if they have or they haven't been exploited

Frankly, I doubt I would have gone along with her plan but it did work in that it got attention and the vote happened shortly thereafter. My guess is that Servicemen United was contacted about this and thought it to be a good idea. Again, as adults I tend to think they should decide about the exploitation issue. As to the rest, I think the fact she learned about the issue suggests this isn't just a passing fancy but is a true passion with her.

[vaberella]

15. Oh they're fully able to decide.

Much like the many Blacks in Blacxploitation films were able to decide, much like Gwen Stefani and her Japanese female hench "women" were able to decide. However, both actions were still seen as exploitative by many. My statement was based entirely on my outlook and I stated it--I'm not here looking for support. Many here, admired it, I don't care. I on the other did not and I call it how I saw it.

As for the vote...Are you telling me you're putting this talk of a vote to her antics at an award ceremony?! That is some serious reaching. You think she has that much clout that she was single handedly able to outline Congressional actions?! Hell to the no. Seriously. I've never heard anything so absurd in my life. I'm sure that some groups were contacted either after the fact or before the fact----however that had nothing to do with any push for a congressional vote. Why do I say that? Because when DADT was getting talked about in congress I believe it was Sanders or Frank, or one such Congressman clearly alluded to this being part of the defense bill. The defense bill talk including the repeal of DADT is not new. It was the plan all along and stated as such clearly for those to hear.

Frank stated this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/dadt-likely-to-be-part-of_0_n_354528.html <---Check out the dates.
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/11/11/DADT_Likely_To_Be_Part_of_Defense_Bill/

So for you to sit there and tell me that all of this worked to some elaborate plan of Lady Gaga I might have to :lol:.

I never stated it was a passing fancy for her. I don't really care that she learned about anything. I stated that it was a passing fancy for the way too fickle public. There have been people advocating for this long before Lady Gaga with little to no recognition in this fight and then she comes along---parades around the plight of servicemen and women at a music show to get the postulating response of adoration she gets....irks the daylights out of me. Maybe it's the fact she has the money and publicity to get it done...I don't care...it just irks me.

[treestar]

11. I agree; the people who really have to do with real work aren't well

known or known at all. It's too easy to get on a soapbox when you are already famous for something else.

Besides, voters are adults, why do they need celebrities to encourage anything?

[vaberella]

16. I have no clue.

And it's a sad state of affairs when we have the "youth", because that's who some posters claim are the ones motivated by her, pushed by a celebrity because obviously they don't care enough about the issue on their own. I have to worry about the state of social affairs when this is the defense provided.

[terrya]

4. True. I'd bring up Kathy Griffin

Look, I like Kathy Griffin. I'm a fan. But when she spoke at the Washington DC rally a few months back....the one where Dan Choi and others chained themselves to the White House gates....I don't really think Kathy Griffin truly understood how much anger there is over the inaction of DADT repeal. I think Ms. Griffin was there, thinking she was helping "her gays". That's wonderful and all, but I don't think we saw the same kind of committment to this issue as Lady Gaga.

I don't understand why Lady Gaga is being maligned here. How many times have I read here in the past of people telling us to stop bitching about things and to call our reps in Congress? And yet, when someone gets people to do just that..."how dare she thinks she knows better than Obama?"

If Obama and this White House has been working for repeal from the beginning, wonderful. That is great. But let's face it...this whole process has been...rocky? Robert Gibbs, when pressed, talking about "changing" DADT, not repeal. Gates talking about not acting on this for now, "kicking it down the road". The Commandant of the Marine Corps, talking about segregating gay soldiers if DADT is repealed. There has been much concern about this whole process, and people in the GLBT community, and especially soldiers like Dan Choi, have been frustrated about it.

[dsc]

7. Griffin was an embarassment which was largely the HRC's fault

for letting her take charge without informing her of the issue at hand.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Here on DU, people long for political figures who can cope

with the media, yet when they see an outstanding artist do exactly that, they take pot shots at her. They should be taking notes, not making snark.

[Clio the Leo]

9. I think it's awesome.....

.... ANYONE encouraging voters to lobby Congress to vote for progressive legislation ..... I dont care WHO they are ..... we need MUCH more of it.

(Full disclosure, I adore Gaga ... meat dress and all.)

[treestar]

10. I don't mind it; I oppose the over the top praise and calls for them

to be President and the worship (all from the same posters who claim we "worship" and "idolize" any politician we support) while they idolize a pundit or celebrity for the basic hot air and give them credit for doing anything. Ultimately it is the voters and Congress; I would like focus on that rather than giving trivial celebrities credit for doing anything more than getting their views aired louder because of their fame of the moment. And we make fun of any right wing ones, too.

[dsc]

12. I agree some people were over the top in that thread

but I totally disagree with your characterization of what she did. She didn't just put her views out, but she gave a short tutorial on the filibuster, told her followers exactly who to send messages to, in short she used her fame to educate her followers who may well not have known otherwise what to do. This isn't say, Chuck Norris, spouting crap. This is a woman who took the time to educate her self so she could educate others and then did so.

[bigwillq]

13. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[stevenleser]

14. Glad to agree with you here. n/t

[smalll]

17. Gaga 2012: Ready On Day One -- To Look Fabulous!

"Telephone?" She'll pick it up at 3am, if needs be!

[RandomThoughts]

18. Great question.

There is no difference, but most people would agree they should use those things for better causes, and many do.

And one of those better causes, in my view, is spreading out celebrity and wealth so a few people do not have to much control, since it is far easier for a few to be corrupted then many.

And GaGa did that exact thing by bringing those people with her to the concert, so she no only supported a cause, she also spread the wealth of her celebrity with people that were not heard from that much based on her world view of what is important.

There is also an argument that consolidation at exream levels, created by media tech in both money and celebrity, is an unbalancing factor for society. Basically it says that distribution of things like wealth and celebrity is an effect of a system, not all about the contributions of an individual. So from that there is an argument about recovering from unbalanced pay outs by taxation of many forms.


For celebrity something as simple as youtube and more accurate use of copyright laws allows that, for taxation taxing money made from money, progressive income tax, and estate tax does that also.


Having money, and what it takes to get money, and same for celebrity, does not equate to having the ability to best use either of those things, so from that, adjustments would make sense.

Some might argue that removal of free will is the answer to that, or taxing the activities by direct control of the individual, that is not my belief. Although I understand that concept, and it seems to come from worse motivations in many cases.

[frazzled]

19. It's good she's doing it ... but (big but)

You have to realize that not only is it an easy thing for her to do but it also is good advertising for her business.

Easy because she only has to espouse a cause (and, to quote John Kerry, who amongst us does not espouse ending DADT?). She doesn't have to work the deals with Congress: individual Congresspersons and Senators in a host of different scenarios in their home states/districts, who have to be given impetus to make the right vote in return for some other factor securing safety in their (conservative) districts. She doesn't have to work with the military on how to implement the change. You may scoff and think these things are not significant, that we can just do it with the wave of a wand. But actual enactment of laws and implementation of them is complex.

Good advertising because she gets to secure the loyalty of her fan base and raise it up a notch ... and increase her already enormous recording and ticket sales.

I get no recognition for espousing the repeal of DADT. Lady Gaga gets fame and money from it. It's fine, but she's no saint. It's just good business (and, of course, I'm sure she's sincere about it, too.)

[dsc]

20. it isn't totally risk free for her

She could lose some fans over being political at all and others who disagree with her. It probably is more of a win for her but not necessarily.