I watched the Golden Globe awards last night. I used to love watching the Oscars and other award shows as a child. Today i’m more likely to turn them off. That’s partially because I know fewer and fewer of the actors as time goes by. But a bigger reason I no longer watch is because of the unrelenting and ceaseless political comments. But then i’m a guy who thinks actors should stick to acting. it makes sense to me to say that if the country seems to be divided about politics, the wise position for a well-known actor is to be non-partisan, else you run the risk of alienating half of the people who like you. Why drive away half of your customers?
Last night, i watched one of my favorite actors, Meryl Streep, recognized for a lifetime achievement award. She deserves it. Streep is an incredible actor and I very much enjoy watching her work. I was very happy to see her talent recognized.
But last night, she chose to make comments about Donald Trump, whom she obviously does not like, and clearly does not support. I don’t know about you, but this causes me to roll my eyes and think about turning the TV off. Maybe it’s just me, but I want to hear actors of Streep’s preeminence talk about things related to their craft. About how they’re able to make me suspend my disbelief and enjoy a story. About how they are able to affect us and make us think. This is no different than me wanting Eric Clapton to talk about music, or wanting Joe Montana to talk about football. I want people who are better than me at something to talk about what it is that they do.
One of the items that Hollywood and the press have repeated over and over again, however, has been the accusation that Donald Trump mocked a disabled reporter. Among most of the media and the darlings of Hollywood, this story has taken on the semblance of fact and talked about as though it was truth.
It isn’t. He didn’t do it.
If you want to read the real story about what happened, it’s all right here. If you’re not interested in the details and simply want to believe he mocked a challenged person, then stop reading. But if you want the truth, read it here, then come back. I have some more things to say:
So does Trump do and say stupid looking things? Yes. But does he mock and belittle people because of their physically challenged conditions? No, he does not, and no, he didn’t.
Here’s the deal: if you want to criticize Trump for what we call personal or character failures, there’s a legitimate list a mile long. Here, I’ll help: He seems not to have filters. He has SAID things that are truly demeaning to women. He appears to be the sort of person who feels the necessity of “striking back” when attacked on minor issues instead of turning the other cheek. He’s often insulting and boorish. I could go on.
But I would also say to Trump haters that he hasn’t yet taken the oath of office. A better time to consider his presidency might be after he’s had a year or so in office. There are legitimate issues for you to stand upon. Mocking a disabled reporter is not one of them. Much as I love Meryll Streep, she ought to stick to acting instead of repeating myths and untruths. To listen to her accusations about Trump is like listening to Trump’s accusations about actors. Neither of them know what they’re talking about and they ought to stay in their lanes.
4 thoughts on “Meryl Streep, Stay In Your Lane”
Right on again, Dick. I don’t even bother to watch anymore. Call me jaded or old!
I was thinking this exact same think just earlier today. Happy birthday to me, we agree again!
Dick, I don’t usually respond to posts/comments that come across my feed, but I felt it necessary today. I always enjoy reading Common Sense. I appreciate your effective, easy to read writing style, my good friend, even though I sometimes disagree with your perspective. But today you use two separate links of “Catholics for Trump” to support your claim re: Trump’s comments to the handicapped reporter.
As a retired instructor of Rhetorical Analysis and Debate in a successful program, I began the unit of study every year with examples of good and bad evidential support. My debaters learned early that the quickest path to successful debate was by supporting their warrants with claims, supported by “rock solid” evidence.
Last night as I was checking my Facebook I ran across a persuasive story supporting the claim that Trump is tied to Russian investments and Russian lenders. The story went on to convincingly connect the $$ to Putin. I had a difficult time believing the words, but the story connected its warrants and claims to powerful evidence. I considered sharing the feed. As I scrolled back up to see source of the story I realized that none of the story was worth sharing. It had been produced by “The Christian Left”, a liberal answer to some of the many ultra conservative Christian information sources. Today I plan on checking it out on “Politifact”, the award winning watchdog of all political comments.
Dick, I know you have a strong , unchanging political perspective. We live on the opposite side of the “political tracks” that separate the voters of our country…and that’s
okay. But I respectfully suggest that you do a little digging on this story.
Looking forward to lunch tomorrow.
Mike, I’ll keep this as short as I can and still try to cover all you’ve said: I count 13 friends whom I regard as “liberal” calling me out on the source of my material. So far twelve of them have mentioned the links yet not LOOKED at them. When I asked if they looked, the responses ranged from “No” to “Hell no” to “Why would I?” to “No need to see them.” So I would ask the 13th the same question: Did you LOOK at the links? I understand that they are provided by a clearly biased source. But the evidence (if you will) consists of videos previously broadcast on network television. We’ll all be familiar with them. They are merely “sound bites” from various Trump speeches, all clearly dated and documented. There is also a video of the reporter in question, Serge Kovaleski. Unless someone wants to posit that the videos are “manipulated,” they allow the viewer to make his/her own judgements. This debate begins on 9-11-2001 when Kovaleski wrote an article stating that police were investigating the report that people had apparently celebrated the attack on the World Trade Center. Fast forward to last year, when Trump repeated that claim. The media did a “fact check” on Trump and concluded there was no evidence that anyone celebrated. Trump countered with Kovaleski’s 2001 article. Kovaleski then attempted to walk back his comments. Trump then did an imitation of Kovaleski with flailing arms and affected speech. The problem here is that there are other videos of Trump using the same flailing arms and affected speech to imitate other people, including Sen Ted Cruz. The imitations are virtually identical. Point being, Trump was affecting an imitation of people that was childish, boorish, insensitive–I would add just plain dumb to do–but he was NOT imitating Serge Kovaleski’s physical disabilities. A video of Kovaleski is on the site as well. He does have a disability, but he does not flail his arms about, nor is his speech affected. He is an intelligent and clearly calm individual. I do NOT dispute the idea that Trump should not have attempted to imitate Kovaleski nor Cruz nor anyone else who troubles him. I do not dispute the idea that he was mocking Kovaleski. I challenge the idea that he was mocking Kovaleski’s disability. Finally: I respectfully suggest that you do a little digging on this story. DB