Is Roseanne relevant? Does she have the right to condemn other celebrities when she thinks they are out of bounds or is her criticism out of bounds?
What exactly is it about celebrities that we expect them to be everything and nothing to us?
Roseanne has been in the news the last few days for villifying angelina jolie and brad pitt. Actually, she villifies a lot of people on her blog, but the press, all forms of it, have taken up arms because she has called the jolie-pitt (J-P) household on their moral inconsistencies. In the United States, all celebrities are equally important and everything they do is treated as equally interesting and equally valuable. This gives them great power. However, because of their celebrity status, they have little to no accountability.
I agree with Roseanne that the J-P household has been a poster child for the purchasing habits of the United States. They have used their wealth and power to buy children in 3rd world countries as if by buying one they absolve themselves of responsbility for those left behind. They live in a stratosphere of privilege and wealth beyond measure while giving a pittance of their time and treasure to build the impression that they really care about those who do without.
They make their wealth by pushing vile, mindless, "entertainment" and selling it to the citizens of the world who have the wherewithall and the inclination to spend their wealth on this mind-numbing violence. Especially, Ms. Jolie promotes female imitative behavior which glamorizes violence and murder without accountability.
So why is Roseanne in such hot water and such demand on the talking heads circuit?
Roseanne has long been known as an angry loud woman. Women particularly are expected to bite their tongues and nod their approval of people like the J-Ps who use their wealth to give the impression that they are good people. A loud, angry woman saying critical things about the J-Ps is targeted as a person of very bad taste. And it is considered even more uncalled for when Ms. Jolie has just given birth to her 2nd and 3rd natural chidren.
The real question here is not whether Roseanne is relevant...she is as relevant as angelina or brad since we believe fundamentally that all celebrities are equally intesting and therefore equally relevant.
The assumption that the J-Ps are "untouchable" is false and should be identified as such. Building a couple of houses in NO does not exempt Brad Pitt from criticism of other immoral behavior. Being a UN ambassador for children (allowing her to troll for children to buy), does not exempt Angelina Jolie from criticism of her immoral behavior.
Of course, if the J-Ps tomorrow stopped selling photos of their children for money, went on the hustings to promote population control and raise the alarm about global climate change, endorsed progressive candidates, or gave away all their wealth and joined the sojourners, they would still be criticized by someone. They are celebrities. They have no substance and no absolute right to be viewed as anything except objects of curiousity, villification, adoration, or disgust, as the public sees fit. And so does Roseanne.
In a world where every celebrity is equal, all of their actions are equal, and equally insignificant. Our obsession with what the celebrities do and say keeps us from knowing and focusing on issues that matter and whether they are making it onto the social agenda. In fact, if we waste our time with Roseanne, Angelina, and Brad, we probaboy don't know what we should know. Because celebrities are not issues, what they do will not change our lives. A single reader weeping over the J-Ps "beautiful babies" is someone who is not engaged. Our celebrity obsessed culture is just a polite descritpion for a nation of stalkers, open to manipulation and destined to be surprised when their world comes to an end.