Reality-Based Entertainers

After reading this article, I’m on a Five for Fighting kick.

“The war trumps everything,” says Ondrasik. “We face a worldwide threat from Islamic terrorism. The obligation of the singer-songwriter is to say what he believes, and if we can’t have a conversation about the radical Islamic threat then we’re in trouble.”

Doesn’t this put him out of step with left-wingers in the music industry?

“I’m all for people espousing views,” says Ondrasik. “But they shouldn’t just rant. They need to back it up with some kind of argument. On Iraq, it’s so easy to turn on the president. If you want to withdraw, you still need to answer the question: then what? You need to talk about the consequences of Iraq’s turning into a terrorist staging ground, the possibility of needing to go back in with troops again in a few years, millions of Iraqis slaughtered. If you believe all of that is acceptable, then I can respect that. But you can’t just say we need to get out and President Bush is an idiot. I could say that attitude is childish, but it would be an insult to our children.”

Entertainer’s political views don’t mean any more to me than that of my next door neighbor, but it is refreshing to hear an entertainer who is not a reflexively knee-jerking hate-America leftist. I started to write “liberal” but that’s really not accurate. I’m a classical liberal, believe it or not; but these days that means conservative. The spectrum has moved so far to the left that the things I believed as a kid coming out of high school, when I had more in common with Democrats than Republicans, now are more in common with the ideals of conservatives. And by conservatives I do not mean the Republican Party where “true believer” conservatives are seldom found. We gravitate there because it’s the lesser of two evils.

Contrast Ondrasik’s view with that of Whoopi Goldberg, who recently had an interesting, and far too short, interview on Bill O’Reilly:

O’REILLY: But don’t you feel it’s his responsibility if he or Jane Fonda and the rest and you too are going to take strong policy stands, because people do listen to you…

GOLDBERG: Yes. Yes.

O’REILLY: … that you know what the heck you’re talking about?

GOLDBERG: Well, I think he’s very clear that he is not for the war in Iraq. It’s not a new stance that he’s had. He’s also for years been a peace activist. So this can’t come as a surprise to anybody.

No. 2, when I take a stance on something, all I can talk to you about it how I feel about it and why. And I don’t have to justify it, and you don’t have to listen to it. But it is important for everyone to know that they have an opinion and they have a — have a right to express it.

O’REILLY: But your opinion is a little bit more heard than somebody — than Sally in Charlotte, North Carolina.

GOLDBERG: No different than yours.

O’REILLY: No, but I back mine up all day long with facts and everything else.

GOLDBERG: But you know what? Your opinion is your opinion. And if you want to go…

O’REILLY: Based on facts.

GOLDBERG: And if you want to go and get lots of facts and not go from your heart. I go from my heart. I don’t — listen — I’m not — I wasn’t a fan of the war in Iran. I’m still not — I’m sorry in Iraq.

O’REILLY: Iraq. Right.

GOLDBERG: I’m still not a fan of the war in Iraq. I think we went in under misguided ideals and with no real way to get out. And now what we’re seeing is everybody saying how are we going to get out? How are we going to get out? Democrats, tell us how we’re going get out. Republicans, how are we going to get out? Nobody has an answer. Nobody knows how to get out of this, because it’s a mess.

O’REILLY: And that’s a legitimate point of view.

GOLDBERG: OK. That’s my opinion.

O’REILLY: And I respect that point of view. But if you’re going to go out and say to millions of people we got to get out of there now, then, I’m going come in and say, “Well, what happens if we do that? Do we put America in more danger?” And it doesn’t matter how you feel, you need to — you need to think about that.

GOLDBERG: If you are asking my opinion…

O’REILLY: Yes.

GOLDBERG: Then it does matter how I feel.

O’REILLY: No, you need to think about it.

GOLDBERG: No, Bill. You need to think about it. That’s how you do it. I don’t do it that way.

O’REILLY: So you don’t have a responsibility to back up how you feel?

GOLDBERG: No. I have a responsibility to answer your question.

I have an aunt who once said, in mediating a family disagreement, “Okay, we’re not going to talk about reality. We’re going to talk about our feelings.” That expression is now an idiom in my branch of the family for something completely ridiculous. Oh, I know what she meant by it, and she wasn’t completely wrong. People’s feelings sometimes have nothing to do with reality, but the emotions that drive them can be strong. Therefore they must be identified and dealt with. But the expression just sounds so ridiculous, and it also encapsulates so much of the thinking of the “truthy” left. When your feelings are not based in reality, you need to adjust your feelings, not demand that reality is something other than what it is.

Entertainers who want to use their bully pulpits to promote a view really ought to consider the full ramifications of what they promote, not just how righteous and good they feel promoting it.

Update: More on the reality based community from Ace - although the Duke University lacrosse players have been completely vindicated, the left refuses to accept that they were guilty of nothing more than being some punks in a frat house. They are now celebrating their right to ignore reality via the “National Day of Truthtelling.” Ace’s take:

The left’s pathetic, bathetic “Express Yourself!” culture champions this sort of clownishness, encouraging poets who are sh** for poetry and interpretive dancers who look like they’re staggering away from the lobotomy table. They must be “creative,” they must perform, despite their utter lack of creativity or craft.

Indeed.

Update again: How could I forget this?? Also from Ace:

Long story short: The media considers it crazy to believe that Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, had something to do with 9/11, and fights this insanity with every tool at its disposal, including outright deception.

On the other hand, the media does not apparently consider it particularly hard to believe that George Bush, President of the United States, had something to do with 9/11. If they did consider such a notion beyond the pale, one would imagine they’d publicize (and implicity mock) those crazed liberals believing that our own President aided and abetted Osama bin Ladin.

But of course they don’t. Because it’s simply not possible for a reasonble person to believe a sworn enemy of the US, known to have at least some ties with Al Qaeda, could have had a hand in the attacks, but a reasonable person could, according to the MSM, believe that a US President with no ties to Al Qaeda helped facillitate and perhaps even carry out the attacks.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, Big Dog’s Weblog, Adam’s Blog, DragonLady’s World, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, The Florida Masochist, Conservative Cat, Rightlinx, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, The Right Nation, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Wake Up America, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.