Monday, June 4, 2012

Celebrities With Too Much Money and No Sense Campaigning

Like most every other girl under 50, I am quite obsessed with Sex and the City. I own every season on DVD and watch it whenever I see a rerun on E!. My love for this show has absolutely nothing to do with Sarah Jessica Parker's character however. Her character was like nails on a chalk board for me. The wart she has on her face reminds me of a witch, she's needy (seriously the girl could not go 3 seconds without latching onto some middle-aged guy), self absorbed and dressed like a whack job. My hatred for her was exponentially increased after seeing the following video:

My Little Pony will be allowing 2 mere mortals a chance to rub shoulders with her and the Obamas at her lavish New York abode? Vomit.

As if that isn't bad enough, Anna Wintour threw her overpriced, haute couture hat into the ring with this video touting the same event and encouraging people to vote for the man who allegedly created 4 million more jobs. Righttttt

The ice queen of Vogue will also be hosting the fundraiser along with the insufferable "Carrie Bradshaw". Having worked for someone in the fashion industry and witnessing how the superiors treat people they perceive as beneath them was quite eye opening for me. This gem is supposed to be exceptionally brutal in an industry in which common decency and treating assistants, secretaries and anyone underneath you with even a modicum of kindness is not "in vogue". So going into this, I already pretty much hated her too. Watching this video gave me a headache. She appears to have the shakes or be on something. Very strange.

Ever since watching the documentary "Poliwood" (Don't watch it- so awful) in which the role celebrities play in politics is uncovered, the way I see their role has changed. Susan Sarandon made a very interesting point in the midst of all of her annoying liberal agenda pushing. She said she was offended that Americans resented celebrities for lending their names to political candidates and causes because they had the luxury to go with what they believed rather than how their vote would effect them in the economic sense. While I hate to admit it, I see what she means. Whereas I am a supporter of gay marriage, I cannot support a candidate that will allow the economy to tank right as I enter the job market. Were I a celebrity with virtually unlimited funds, I would possibly be more inclined to support someone for ideological reasons rather than economic ones. But at the same time I cannot get behind that reasoning. The Prada wearing devil and horse face can endorse a candidate that has despite his pledge to decrease the national deficit, increased it greatly and has NOT created 4 million jobs.  However, the average American who depends on job creation and on a prosperous economy to put food on their tables cannot stand behind a candidate that cannot provide this for them. They may make millions of dollars a year, but not everyone does. Hollywood's involvement in politics is a blatant example of elitism as they believe that because they are above economic quibbles, they are a more enlightened group better equipped to make ideological decisions and that because of their social stature that the common voter should follow their lead.

No comments:

Post a Comment