Rather than needing to be liked, many celebrities seem to have a greater desire to hate. An almost Pavlovian animus toward anything to the right of the Nation magazine would appear to be the primary impulse driving the most ardent celebrity leftists. When a stand-up comedienne at a Democratic fundraiser performs a racist routine bashing Condoleeza Rice as a bootlicking Aunt Jemima, it is safe to say than something far more sinister than the mere childlike desire for approval has seeped into the political calculus.

One must also not overlook the fact that certain actors have personal axes to grind, regardless of ego and success. Need we be reminded that Sean Penn’s father, Leo Penn, was a Communist who was blacklisted back in the McCarthy era? Would it unreasonable to assume that the younger Penn might resent how his father’s career was derailed (if not destroyed altogether) and therefore would still harbor grievances toward the U.S. government today?

Hollywood as high school makes sense to me. A fully developed, mature ego takes time and effort to develop. I can well believe that a vast majority of Roger?s actors are very insecure ? it comes with the territory of immaturity.

Well, for one thing, Athletes aren’t competing for public affection as a primary factor (well, unless you consider pro-wrestling athletics…)

That is, Barry Bonds can be one of the all-time greats, and despised by a large majority of contemporary fans.

And, many athletes are in fact polarizing figures (though it is usually either race or religion): Jackie Robinson, Mohammed Ali, Joe Johnson (turn of the Centry World Heavy Weight Champion who…err…caroused with white women), the sprinters in the Mexico Olympics with the Black Power Salute.

At the same time, traditionally, athletes are not viewed as intellectuals, and so whatever opinions they have are not considered influetntial.

Oddly unfair as athletes seem to have better success in politcs / judiciary than actors.

Alan Page, Hall of fame footbal player is a Minnesota Supreme Court Justice, or used to be…). Bill Bradley (US Senate), Tom McMillan (US House of Rep.), J.C. Watts (US House of Rep)have all moved from athetic excellence to potlitical success.

Heh, even some actors were former athletes: Arnold, Carl Weathers, Burt Reynolds, The Rock, etc.

Also, you have to realize that modern “stars” have absolutely no shelf-life. Once upon a time an actor like Glenn Ford would rise to stardom and then settle back into a long career of character and supporting roles as time caught up with him. The blonde bombshell of the decade past could end her days playing the matriarch of the ranch or brassy, seen-it-all barmaids, but she could still work. Very few actors can make that transition these days.

Rick Ballard ó Hollywood has traditionally missed every major innovation in its markets. When sound came in, it caused a massive upheaval in the industry. When television came in, it nearly destroyed the studios. It took nearly a decade for the studios to run the independents out of the video business, and currently they have no idea how to fit the new video-shot, distributed on DVD and download model into their bloated structures.

The “Free Mumia” types base much of their support on testimony from “eye witnesses” who have come forward since the trial. Much of what is in those witness statements simply is not credible and that which is credible tends to support the state’s case.

A reporter once asked Asner, as he blathered on about the suppression of eye witness testimony, if he actually had read the statements to which he referred. He said no, he hadn’t. That it wasn’t his job to read testimony. That other people did that. Exactly.

No cabals. The precepts of Gramsci and the Fabian Society are as open to study and individual interpretation as Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’. They are also just about as simple and easy to apply. Reduced to a minimum they involve using ‘likemindedness’ in a political context as a primary element in making hiring decisions. The process is quite slow and quite effective. There really isn’t an effective way to combat the method except through defunding an infected institution. That’s why it will linger on in the foundations and MSE long after it is minimized in the MSM and entertainment industry.

You had a whole year to watch the application of Alinsky’s rules to debate over the last election, why would you think that Gramscian methodology hasn’t been applied throughout the institution that he initially identifed as being important and susceptible?

I’m looking forward to the Radosh’s book because (from the reviews I’ve read) it provides a fairly clear explanation of how Gramscian precepts were applied (and are being applied) in Hollywood.

Oddly enough, I think the statist perspective offers great comfort to the elites and would-be elites more than to the people at large, for it offers the elites the possibility of actually running the show, for the good of the people.

The other day I was thinking of how artists and writers used to suck up to the nobility who payed them. This changed in the 19′th century, but if we note who they suck up to now perhaps we might ask if the reasons are not the same.

Academics are a bit different. I would guess that these days most are employed by state institutions, so it is a wonder that they can be so much more radical than the public at large. Perhaps tenure, which I am beginning to think unjustified in a state university, gives them a false sense of security. But in anycase, it is easy to see why they might have a statist outlook: state moneys pay their salaries.

I agree with your general point, though. A statist government must be one of the few opportunities a academic sees for true influence and power. A mirage, no doubt, for statist states almost always end up run by a rougher crowd than that found in academia. But the dream lives on.