Kidman is Smokin'

[Timber Loftis]

Cerek, I think you make a good point: Tim Robbins and Sue Sarandon are more repsectable for that very reason. Of course, I think the Chix gave up the game of hemming and hawing and just started doing it their way, too. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not a chix fan.

And, I'm a bit disappointed you can't see a bit of the unsubtle wit of Marshall Mathers. Of course, I'm sure you can tell by my posts I see him as sort of a kindred spirit. I often post pretty wacked out things to get a reaction and then challenge myself to see if I can defend it and cool the heads I heated up.

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Mouse: Finally, it seems to me that this sort of attack is just another excuse to deny personal responsibility. I almost sound like a right-wing libertarian here (heaven help me ), but to constantly blame others for society’s evils only ends up with everyone pointing the finger of blame at everyone else. We were all born with a certain capacity to make reasoned and informed choices. To abdicate that responsibility diminishes us all.

That is true. But the people who are most likely to be influenced by what they see celebrities doing are teenagers - people who are legally not considered able to make their own decisions and rational choices for themselves. It's foolish to think that celebrities aren't seen as role models by most young people - what they wear, what they say, what they do is watched and copied religiously. Cocktails go in and out of fashion based on what they drink on Sex and the City. Weird fashions like head scarves are bought in their thousands because people see celebrities wearing them. That's why celebrities are used to promote products - they sell more if a recognisable face who people emulate is seen to be using them, because it's cool or trendy.

But I don't think that means celebrities' rights and freedoms need to be curtailed because people are watching. I think the media has to take responsibility, as well as parents monitoring what their children are watching, though there's only so much you can stop your child from seeing. I saw the clip in question - there was no need at all for them to show her smoking - it happened right at the end of the piece when there were no more questions and could easily have been edited out. A magazine aimed at women in their twenties and thirties I read recently pointed out that they always airbrush out cigarettes when they have pictures of celebrities who are smoking - it adds nothing to the point of the picture (eg examples of fashions) and there's no need to reinforce the idea that smoking is cool because celebrities are doing it.

[Stormymystic]

we are right back at square one, no one agrees with anyone, and everyone is right in their own minds, but it is still the adults choice to do with his/her life, being famous has no bearing on anything, if a child or teen is going to smoke, no matter who says it is bad for you, that just makes it easier for them to justifie doing it, cuz the adults said not to...it is rebelion, I have seen celeberties condemimg smoking, preaching about how it can kill you,and I see teenagers listen, let it in their ear, and right back out the other, it is still up to the PARENTS as well as TEENAGERS to put an end to smoking from underage people, a teenager still has enough sense to know something is wrong or right, face it that is a cop out for most teenagers, well we saw so and so doing it, and we are just 14 we do not know any better, yeah right, at 14 I was old enough to hold down a baby sitting job, there for that makes me old enough to have responibility right? and if I am old enough for responsibility, then I am old enough to make up my mind own the smoking issue, I might not have been of legal age, but that does not change the fact that I smoked at a young age, and not one person held a gun to my head, twisted my arm, or held the cig in my mouth, so it was MY choice, granted, if my parents had been more strict, and talked to me more about it, I might have listened, but talking is not going to solve problems,face it guys, this is a no win debate, it is everyones fault that society today promotes smoking, we as people and adults have allowed our children to see smoking as being cool [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

[LordKathen]

Originally posted by LordKathen: This is crazy. The notion that someone famous has to live a life up to someone elses standards or morals is rediculous. They are not responsable for others actions at all. If your child runs out and lights up a smoke becouse they saw Kidman smoking, means you have some parenting to work on. Maybe if the T.V. wasnt considered a babysitter, and parents spent more quality time teaching the values they want their children to have to them people would truly be free to be themselves. This is what I am afraid of most. The "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil" syndom is just not reality, and our children will grow up completly unprepared for the real world if they are sheltered from it.

Did anyone read this? I hate to quote myself, but I want to be heard. I cant believe some one the opinions here stating that there is a moral responsability by the artist. Unbelievable! This country will most certainly be under a dictatorship if ideas like this make it to the top. And whos "morals" are we talking about? Yours, mine, gods, the presidents, my nieghbers? We have laws to keep people in line. We have parents to keep influencial kids in line. Stop blaiming everyone else for your inability to govern your children. (general statement there) And why Kidman? We see lots of "immoral" things on T.V., why is this any different?

[Azred]

I couldn't care less what Nicole Kidman does on her own time.

Around here, if I decide to smoke then I am going to buy some cigarettes and enjoy myself; the only people to whom I would have to answer are myself and Belle. However, I can assure you that TJ will not be smoking until he is over 18, has a job, and is living in his own apartment/house.

See how simple it all really is? [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

So this is what happens when you mix the "rolemodel celebrity opinion" topic with the "smoking/nonsmoking rights" topic...

[img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

What is it about human nature that makes a person want to control or manipulate what another person says and does? If I could make all of you abandon your cars and get bikes just because it would be better for all of us, should I? It all a bunch of judgmentalism if you ask me.

If you smoke, you are filthy and disgusting. I love you too. Blah.
You want to stop people from smoking, your a health nut, a tyrant a dictator. Ah, how sweet. *smooches*

Lets take all pleasure away except the pleasure of raining on somebodies smoky or non-smoky parade. Bah!!!

Let individuality die? Is that what we'll end up with if the anti-smoking get total bans every where? The opposite, when smoking was unregulated, was obviously unfair to non-smokers. Why steer down the path of creating the same injustice.

Why not find a comprimise. Why not teach children that tobacco is an adult choice, instead of placing a thorny crown of judgment on the heads of people that do smoke and act like its for the benifits of the kids.

No one can learn and grow from the intense tobacco addiction unless they live it, expirience it. No one can derive the pleasure or stimulation that comes from tobacco use if we ban it.

No one can feel the confidence of choosing not to smoke or choosing too smoke.
Personal destiny is at hand in the issue.

Tobbaco has been used for religious reasons longer than any social or recreational use. How far do we go in our disrecpect for this plant and it's "filth and disgust"?


It disturbs me that the topic of "smoking in bars good or bad" got over like 400 posts on it, and the shallow IMO topic of "celebrity smoker" gets on in the pages, a topic about nuclear proliferation gets less than 10 replies. "Smoking bodies" is what we all could turn into if nuclear technology gets misused. wake up.

It also disturbs me how unwilling people are to compromise on the whole smoking issue.

All right thats my rant, sorry if it is incoherent,I havent slept in a while...*yawn*.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: quote: Originally posted by Mouse: Finally, it seems to me that this sort of attack is just another excuse to deny personal responsibility. I almost sound like a right-wing libertarian here (heaven help me ), but to constantly blame others for society’s evils only ends up with everyone pointing the finger of blame at everyone else. We were all born with a certain capacity to make reasoned and informed choices. To abdicate that responsibility diminishes us all.

That is true. But the people who are most likely to be influenced by what they see celebrities doing are teenagers - people who are legally not considered able to make their own decisions and rational choices for themselves. It's foolish to think that celebrities aren't seen as role models by most young people - what they wear, what they say, what they do is watched and copied religiously. Cocktails go in and out of fashion based on what they drink on Sex and the City. Weird fashions like head scarves are bought in their thousands because people see celebrities wearing them. That's why celebrities are used to promote products - they sell more if a recognisable face who people emulate is seen to be using them, because it's cool or trendy.

But I don't think that means celebrities' rights and freedoms need to be curtailed because people are watching. I think the media has to take responsibility, as well as parents monitoring what their children are watching, though there's only so much you can stop your child from seeing. I saw the clip in question - there was no need at all for them to show her smoking - it happened right at the end of the piece when there were no more questions and could easily have been edited out. A magazine aimed at women in their twenties and thirties I read recently pointed out that they always airbrush out cigarettes when they have pictures of celebrities who are smoking - it adds nothing to the point of the picture (eg examples of fashions) and there's no need to reinforce the idea that smoking is cool because celebrities are doing it. [/QUOTE]Great post.

[Yorick]

Timber, at this stage I should point out that I have zero respect for Eminem in any capacity. If there is a genius it is his producer Dr. Dre. Quoting Eminems words does nothing to change my mind whatsoever.

Celebrities who have come to terms with the influence they wield become empowered and agents of positive change.

Artists like Bono, Peter Garret (Midnight Oil) Bob Geldof, Sting, Bruce Cockburn, Hothouse Flowers, Peter Gabriel, Billy Bragg and countless others have used their art, their influence, their money and their social "voice" to effect positive, constructive changes in their society.

Eminem is a puppet. An obnoxious escapist living in sheltered denial. If he really hated the "role model" aspect of the arts, he would get out of the music business. Otherwise his rants against it all are hypocritical and contradictory.

He is actually attempting to use his influence to effect change... the intent being that people won't look up to artists as role models if they adhere to his message.

It's like the writer writing about why people shouldn't read. Or the public speaker decrying public speaking as a medium, but publicly speaking his message.

Stupidity.

In the meantime, Eminem has quite clearly "role modelled" off others. "Do as I say, not as I do, but in doing it you'll do what I say you shouldn't do.".

[ 05-24-2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: [QB] Timber, at this stage I should point out that I have zero respect for Eminem in any capacity.

Why am I unsurprised?

If there is a genius it is his producer Dr. Dre. Quoting Eminems words does nothing to change my mind whatsoever.

Marketing genius and lyrical genius are two different things. You could just read the words without looking at who wrote them, you know. They were quite applicable.

Celebrities who have come to terms with the influence they wield become empowered and agents of positive change.

Sure, but they DON'T HAVE TO. If they choose to, fine.

Artists like Bono, Peter Garret (Midnight Oil) Bob Geldof, Sting, Bruce Cockburn, Hothouse Flowers, Peter Gabriel, Billy Bragg and countless others have used their art, their influence, their money and their social "voice" to effect positive, constructive changes in their society.

Nice to see a snapshot of your CD collection, but people whose music is different also make some good points. I think encouraging people to get over the notion that famous folks are "gods" IS working for a positive change. And, if you do it by cussing, that's just a different approach.

Eminem is a puppet. An obnoxious escapist living in sheltered denial. If he really hated the "role model" aspect of the arts, he would get out of the music business. Otherwise his rants against it all are hypocritical and contradictory.

Riiiight. You know, I could go quote other lyrics where he agrees a lot with you. Maybe I'll put another name on them, so you'll open your mind and read them.

He is actually attempting to use his influence to effect change... the intent being that people won't look up to artists as role models if they adhere to his message.

Fairly stated -- the theme.

It's like the writer writing about why people shouldn't read. Or the public speaker decrying public speaking as a medium, but publicly speaking his message. Stupidity.

I agree it is stupidity to compare a singer singing about the ills of idolotry to a writer writing about the ills of reading. You have a bad analogy that is inapplicable, Yorick. Here's a fair analogy: a writer writing about the ills of image-worship, and about how manipulating image can remake someone to society's detriment and to their own detriment. Hmmm.... I've read that tale. The Great Gatsby (Fitzgerald), or was it House of Mirth (Edith Wharton). [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] In sum, you are acting as if the theme (which you correctly identify) he has adopted has not been made by "White Tower" "educate" pinheads -- it has. Just because some white trash wigger from Detroit can make the same point using the F-word doesn't invalidate it.

Again, read the words before trashing the writer. Quinton Tarentino may be a crappy little twerp of a stuck-up snob (if you've ever seen an interview), who made a lot of crap movies, but that fact doesn't take Pulp Fiction off of the all-time great movies list.

In the meantime, Eminem has quite clearly "role modelled" off others. "Do as I say, not as I do, but in doing it you'll do what I say you shouldn't do.".

Sure, but it's obvious he loves what he does, and he does it for the right reasons, down deep:

That's why we sing for these kids, who don't have a thing
Except for a dream, and a f---in' rap magazine
Who post pin-up pictures on their walls all day long
Idolize they favorite rappers and know all their songs
Or for anyone who's ever been through s--t in their lives
Till they sit and they cry at night wishin' they'd die
Till they throw on a rap record and they sit, and they vibe
We're nothin' to you but we're the f----n' s--t in they eyes
That's why we seize the moment try to freeze it and own it, squeeze it and
hold it
Cause we consider these minutes golden
And maybe they'll admit it when we're gone
Just let our spirits live on, through our lyrics that you hear in our
songs and we can...

Okay, so I couldn't resist. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Yorick: Artists like Bono, Peter Garret (Midnight Oil) Bob Geldof, Sting, Bruce Cockburn, Hothouse Flowers, Peter Gabriel, Billy Bragg and countless others have used their art, their influence, their money and their social "voice" to effect positive, constructive changes in their society.

Errr, you aren't refering to their "Save the Rainforest" efforts which ended up to be just a scam to bilk millions of fans out of money? Now admittedly it wasnt the singer or actors/tresses that scammed people, it was the folks who thougthe the whole scheme up and then sold the idea to unwitting faux intellectual artists.