Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

okie wrote:

I suspect this every time I read an article where a reporter asks our little kids what they want to be when they grow up. Answers like ballet dancers, moviestars, famous singers, abound.

So you are pretty much admitting that performers are people who had the moxie to take a childhood dream and make it, despite the competition.

Let's face it, there would be a lot more singers, musicians and actors if the competition were not so incredibly fierce, and if there were any kind of security in the industry, which there is not. The people listed who never went to college probably didn't because they had started acting or singing in high school and had an opportunity to get a small foothold in the business. In a field as competitive as performing, a small foothold is important indeed.

Contrast this with an engineer. If a youngster wants to enter the field, he gets reasonably decent grades in high school, enters college and takes engineering courses, and if he does well and graduates, he can be pretty sure SOMEBODY will hire him. Oh sure, not every one has the job lined up at graduation, it might take a few months, but it will happen. Alternatively, many engineers start out by going into the service, wiuth much the same results.

In performing, there are no guarantees ever. An actor or singer can seem to just be getting attention when they hit a lull and no offers come in. When your professional life largely consists of going into a room full of dozens of people, most of whom are just as well trained for ONE job as you are, a lot of people simply stay away from the profession.

Instead of calling them weak minded, the fact that those performers made it in that incredibly competitive environment speaks well for their mental acuity and toughness.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Instead of calling them weak minded, the fact that those performers made it in that incredibly competitive environment speaks well for their mental acuity and toughness.

I believe it actually says very little about their "mental acuity and toughness," and much more about their acting/singing/dancing ability.

It should be obvious that there are actors who are quite intelligent, and there are actors who are quite stupid.

0 Replies

John Huston once said that actors are stupid, and that they need to be in order for the director to effectively direct their performance. I often suspected that Huston based his remarks on Ronnie Reagan . . . .

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I believe it actually says very little about their "mental acuity and toughness," and much more about their acting/singing/dancing ability.

I would disagree. I don't think that talent alone is enough to make it in show business. I would think that unless you were fortunate enough to have a relative in the business, it takes perserverance and dedication of the highest order.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

John Huston once said that actors are stupid, and that they need to be in order for the director to effectively direct their performance. I often suspected that Huston based his remarks on Ronnie Reagan . . . .

Not likely - I don't think he wever directed a film in wnich Reagan performed. Perhaps it was Jack Nicholson.

0 Replies

Yeah, i rather suspect John Huston had better taste than to direct anything in which Ronnie was cast. As for Nicholson, smart or stupid, he has had a far, far more successful career in acting than Reagan ever dreamed of. We should probably have him in the White House, taking the lead from conservative adulation of third-rate actors, we should really score big time with an actor who actually knows his trade and does it well.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
I believe it actually says very little about their "mental acuity and toughness," and much more about their acting/singing/dancing ability.

I would disagree. I don't think that talent alone is enough to make it in show business. I would think that unless you were fortunate enough to have a relative in the business, it takes perserverance and dedication of the highest order.

Sure ... luck, talent, luck, determination, perserverence, luck ... it takes all of that to succeed. The same might be said for a lottery winner.

But none of that relates whatsoever to the relative intelligence level of performers.

Let's face it, circus performers might have talent, but they have to work very hard at their craft to become any good. But as determined they are to succeed, they could also be thick as a brick.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Sure ... luck, talent, luck, determination, perserverence, luck ... it takes all of that to succeed. The same might be said for a lottery winner.

But none of that relates whatsoever to the relative intelligence level of performers.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/Edisonquote.jpg

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Sure ... luck, talent, luck, determination, perserverence, luck ... it takes all of that to succeed. The same might be said for a lottery winner.

But none of that relates whatsoever to the relative intelligence level of performers.

Sure, but Edison was no actor ....

0 Replies

With regard to past presidents--

Recently, C-SPAN conducted a poll of participating historians. They were given ten specific character traits and asked to rate each President by that trait alone. This kind of poll will not produce the same results since only certain traits are considered, and others are excluded. The ten scores were then compiled to give an overall score. These results were rather different. They are listed below, with the total point totals.

1. Abraham Lincoln 900

2. F.D. Roosevelt 876

3. George Washington 842

4. Theodore Roosevelt 810

5. Harry S. Truman 753

6. Woodrow Wilson 723

7. Thomas Jefferson 711

8. John F. Kennedy 704

9. Dwight D. Eisenhower 699

10. Lyndon B. Johnson 655

11. Ronald Reagan 634

12. James K. Polk 632

13. Andrew Johnson 632

14. James Monroe 602

15. William McKinley 601

16. John Adams 598

17. Grover Cleveland 576

18. James Madison 567

19. John Quincy Adams 564

20.George Bush 548

21. Bill Clinton 539

22.Jimmy Carter 518

23. Gerald Ford 495

24. William Howard Taft 491

25. Richard M. Nixon 477

26. Rutherford B. Hayes 477

27. Calvin Coolidge 451

28. Zachary Taylor 447

29. James A. Garfield 444

30. Martin Van Buren 429

31. Benjamin Harrison 426

32. Chester A. Arthur 423

33. Ulysses S. Grant 403

34. Herbert Hoover 400

35. Millard Fillmore 395

36. John Tyler 369

37. William Henry Harrison 329

38. Warren G. Harding 326

39. Franklin Pierce 286

40. Andrew Johnson 280

41. James Buchanan 259

The complete results of this poll, including ratings by each of the ten traits, are available at www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/overall.asp.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
John Huston once said that actors are stupid, and that they need to be in order for the director to effectively direct their performance. I often suspected that Huston based his remarks on Ronnie Reagan . . . .

Not likely - I don't think he wever directed a film in wnich Reagan performed. Perhaps it was Jack Nicholson.

John Huston did direct Ronald Reagan in teh short film "Jap Zero"

0 Replies

okie wrote

Quote:

As for my other opinions, just my opinion, blatham, don't you have opinions?

There's an opinion, common to John Birchers, that the world is controlled by the Jewish Bankers. There's another, held to be true by many, that Mossad engineered the attack on the WTC. Or there was the opinion, advanced to Reagan at Rekyavik by his advisor Richard Perle, that Gorbachev was not to be trusted and nuke reduction a bad idea.

Quote:

I haven't written a research paper on it,

Nor read one, a rather more useful criterion.

Quote:

but some things are intuitively obvious, blatham, just by reading the papers and following the news.

It is "intuitively obvious" that the world is flat, that objects have color, that there's no empty space in a rock, that the sun revolves around the earth, that Jewish Bankers run the world and that fewer people in possession of guns will result in fewer firearm murders.

Quote:

Perhaps you follow movies, pop stars, and the like, and think they are wonderful and filled with all wisdom. I don't happen to think so.

You'd have no reason to think it. Nor do I.

Quote:

I still remember some movie star testifying before Congress about allar on apples simply because they appeared in a movie. What a joke. I suppose now they purport to be experts on global warming and the energy crisis,

So? I once heard a Republican say that blacks were inferior. That tells me nothing about "republicans" and what you heard tells you equally zip about "actors".

Quote:

after all we wouldn't want to ask the experts like engineers and the like because they are biased. They are biased because they actually know something about the subject. Like finally, we have people in the Whitehouse that know something about oil and energy, and the liberals are mad.

"they know something about oil and energy" you say. So it would be a good thing if a Hollywood type or a pornographer was put in charge of the FCC as he'd know lots about movies? These guys aren't engineers. They are business people and thus the concern relates to conflicts of interest. The interests of corporation X and the interests of a nation's citizens may well be at direct odds. Would you have tobacco executives in charge of the Department of Health?

Quote:

am personally glad we have people that actually know something about it, but I suppose you, blatham, would rather have Barbara Streisand making the decisions?

Barb and Arnold don't impress me. Other actors might.

On "opinions"... go ahead and have lots. But when you have such meager grounds for asserting the truth of them, then have the balls to admit to yourself and anyone else that you are in pretty much the same position as a John Bircher on Jewish Bankers.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

On "opinions"... go ahead and have lots. But when you have such meager grounds for asserting the truth of them, then have the balls to admit to yourself and anyone else that you are in pretty much the same position as a John Bircher on Jewish Bankers.

I would appreciate it if you quit making insuations about my beliefs that have no basis in fact. Speaking of unsubstantiated opinions, wow!

0 Replies

okie wrote:

blatham wrote:

On "opinions"... go ahead and have lots. But when you have such meager grounds for asserting the truth of them, then have the balls to admit to yourself and anyone else that you are in pretty much the same position as a John Bircher on Jewish Bankers.

I would appreciate it if you quit making insuations about my beliefs that have no basis in fact. Speaking of unsubstantiated opinions, wow!

Re-read the passage. It doesn't say what you think it says.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

On "opinions"... go ahead and have lots. But when you have such meager grounds for asserting the truth of them, then have the balls to admit to yourself and anyone else that you are in pretty much the same position as a John Bircher on Jewish Bankers.

Practice what you preach, blatham.

So I should have the courage to admit I am in the same position as a John Bircher on Jewish Bankers? I don't know how to break the news to you, blatham, but you have no clue what you are talking about. You sound like a nut. I won't even go into your other prattle, including the insinuation that Republicans think blacks are inferior. Go peddle your poison somewhere else. I'm not interested.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So I should have the courage to admit I am in the same position as a John Bircher on Jewish Bankers? I don't know how to break the news to you, blatham, but you have no clue what you are talking about.

It is ridiculous to expect people to accept that something in dispute can be settled by calling it "intuitively obvious". To the John birchers, the idea that Jewish Bankers control everything is alos "intuitively obvious" as well. Your arguments are no better than the Birchers'. You are just making excuses not to have to prove your statements, and Bernie called you on it.

okie wrote:

I won't even go into your other prattle, including the insinuation that Republicans think blacks are inferior.

Following is the quote Blatham made.

blatham wrote:

So? I once heard a Republican say that blacks were inferior. That tells me nothing about "republicans" and what you heard tells you equally zip about "actors".

Clearly, any competent reader understands that the writer is saying the fact that one Republican believes blacks are inferior is no basis for thinking that necessarily any other Republicans think the same. You just came away with the exact opposite of what was written.

0 Replies

Brandon 1000- You will get no such answer!

The left wing extremists talk about the demise of the Republicans. We shall see. In the meantime, Rasmussen Reports shows that the President's Job Approval Rating is improving:

It is now at 42% approval!!

0 Replies

okie

Read kelticwizard's post. He gets it. He gets it because he is taking the time to read carefully and think carefully about what he just read.

I'd seriously suggest that you sign up for one or two correspondence courses in logic or political science from a local college or even just essay writing. You clearly have the intellectual capacity to manage either and they'd assist you in slowing down a bit and being more careful and precise in these matters. It isn't that a logic student is better than someone who hasn't studied it, rather it is that any person is improved with education, a notion your founders were quite clear regarding (they all were, obviously, well educated men and the US is very much the better for that).

0 Replies

Since it only takes an average IQ -- 95 - 105 -- to complete college, what is all the shouting about?

That said, I can't help but notice that BernardR presents one side of his education arguement. He ignores the cadres of well respected and talented actors who graduated from Yale Drama School and other academies, with master's degrees.

Besides, many people choose acting as a career for the same reason that others might choose fiction writing; journalism; the ministry; law. That reason is a facility with words. A great many 'failed' actors become ministers. The number of actors who later go on to write novels is remarkable.

As conservatives have trimmed school budgets, many budding actors and musicians will not be as well trained as many today are. A teacher at the high school where I work remarked, "If we didn't have such a strong music department, many kids would drop out."

At age 12 or 13, kids become inclined to join a group. It's better if it is a drama society or band or glee club than a street gang.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Looking at Bush's failures in the oil business, his horrific Energy Law, etc., I would prefer to have Barbara making the decisions. BTW, she is not just a great singer. She proved to be a fine actress, producer, and director. Not exactly dumb!

Don't forget, bush's venture into the entertainment industry as a baseball team owner. What are professional sports but entertainment? And there's an educated group for you!

0 Replies

Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know