Misplaced Notoriety

Jan Morgan

About the author: Jan is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment Advocate/Speaker/ NRA Certified Firearms Instructor/ Associated Press Award winning investigative journalist/ Owner/Editor JanMorganMedia.com, Sr. Editor/Patriot Update/ Independent Constitutional Conservative. She is closely aligned with the Republican/ ... [read 's FULL BIO]


I’m not certain what I will be doing tonight but this, I do know: I will NOT BE WATCHING THE OSCARS.
I have never understood the obsession with people who are actors or actresses.

Now… if there was a special television show honoring men and women who have served our country, or average Americans who took tremendous risks to save the lives of fellow Americans or a stranger who needed help… that.. I would watch.
Why don’t we have special awards made of gold and a huge media event each year showcasing real Americans who are truly heroes and worthy of celebrity status?

I would rather see a man like Chris Kyle walk across the stage and receive an award for his tremendous marksmanship (which he used to assist our country) than to see some guy who memorized lines and pretended to be some kind of action adventure hero in a movie, win an oscar.

I do not disrespect people who choose that line of work. It takes talent to read and memorize the words someone else has written and act like you are someone other than yourself. It is a form of entertainment that we all love. I enjoy a great movie as much as anyone, but I do not put the actors and actresses in those movies on a special level of hero worship and adoration.

When men and women come home after serving our country, then find themselves without work, low on money, without proper healthcare, and at the same time, millions upon millions of dollars is being spent celebrating actors and actresses, I just can’t get into the hoopla.
Once again, all of the money, all of the media attention that goes into the Oscars, in my view, is just one more example of America’s lack of focus on what and who is really important.

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • kelstarr

    I couldn’t agree with you more Jan… what a waste.

  • David

    I never watch the oscar or any hollywood awards show. 90% of those people are as useless as a dogt**d.

  • It often amazes me that so many people know so much trivia about people who basically memorized lines so they could pretend to be to be somebody else. Granted some of them are very, very good at their craft. But how many people know of Audie Murphy or Alvin York. Some might remember Audie because he was in a lot of Westerns in the 50s and 60s. What he did in WWII is why he was asked to do those movies. He was the most decorated US soldier of WWII. Among his 27 US decorations was the Medal of Honor, the US’s highest award for military conduct “above and beyond the call of duty,” plus 5 decorations awarded by France and Belgium. Alvin York was the highest decorated soldier of World War I. Among the medals he received were the United States Medal of Honor, the Legion of Honor (France), the Croix de Guerre (France), the Croce di Guerra al Merito (Italian) and the War Medal Montenegro. These men were true Heroes of not only of the US but also several other countries.

    • Alex M

      Don’t forget Jimmy Stewart, who enlisted in bomber squadrons, and who, when his status in the movie industry and publicity value could have had him in safer occupations making training films, took steps to ensure that as a bomber commander, he saw active service in Europe and earned the DFC for missions over Germany. He represented everything that is decent, not just in an actor, but in a human being.

      • DanBritt

        Clark Gable flew on a few B-17 missions and Eddie Albert (Green Acres) performed some heroics in the Pacific.

        • Alex M

          It’s good to be reminded of these. I knew a little about Gable’s off-screen career, but not Eddie Albert’s, so that’s added a little more roundness to a character I remember with much affection from my boyhood days ; though I probably would have to admit to being more focused at the time on Eva Gabor, my excuse being that that was around the time when the sap was rising and the hormones were starting to kick in.

  • Alex M

    The US film industry generates worldwide profits of at least $80 billion, projected to reach over $110 billion in the next few years. It is a major employer in the private sector, with around two and a half million people working in it, and associated with a network of up to a hundred thousand businesses around the country, at the leading edge of creativity and innovation.

    If there are veterans without proper healthcare and the like, it is not the fault of the movie industry. That is a political problem with a political solution, and it is pointless to single out the movie industry as a contrast as though it were in some way responsible for the plight of ex-servicemen.

    Most industries have their awards systems. There are many in the media industry who are happy to display their own awards and titles with pride.

    • Clint

      You missed Jan’s point entirely. Please re-read the article.

      • Alex M

        I didn’t miss the point. I understood it : I disagreed with it.

        • Clint

          Dream on.

          • Alex M

            I don’t need to depend on dreaming, when the tools of analytical logic and dialectic are at my disposal.

    • I would not begin to question the fact that you understand and disagree, especially after perusing your various comments on the site, but I would still argue that you miss addressing the point. There is a definite unraveling of moral fabric in our society when actors and actresses are esteemed greater than those who deserve recognition because of noble and courageous acts. I would guess your last two sentences are meant to be sarcasm towards the website owner’s own list of accomplishments, which are detailed in her “About the author” section, and please know that I only reach that conclusion because of the abundance of said sarcasm that you have spread liberally around the site. Although I do not know her, I would cite her reasons as being a matter of credibility, which may explain why you list yourself as a scientist and mathematician. I would say that is quite different from the Oscars and acceptable, both for you and for her, although her background gives a little more substance for credibility than yours. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you research, where you teach, or what articles you may have published as a researcher. I would consider it interesting to look up your articles to get a better perspective on your analytical logic and dialectic. After all, there is nothing more telling about logic and discourse than a published article in an academic journal! I would like to verbalize an observation, if for no other reason than for you to correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be either what is commonly called a troll or just a disagreeable person looking for a venue to pose as a recondite pedant. Perhaps I am just misunderstanding, so please feel free to explain. I’m not sure when I’ll be back, but I look forward to the reply. ~Benny

      • Alex M

        Thank you for your comments, which I read with interest.

        An abundance of sarcasm? Only occasionally, perhaps, where it’s warranted, by a particular view that invites it as a response, but in general, more irony.

        As to my background, I am not here as a mathematician. When I registered on Disqus, the system asked me to describe myself, and that’s what I am. That’s all. (My work as it happens was in the bio-sciences and in industry, in statistical modelling and computational methods, not pedagogy. I’d no more expect to demonstrate my career path here than I would, had I been a plumber, expect to have to show pipes I’d repaired or bathrooms I’d installed.)

        In a response that had mainly been characterised by restraint and a welcome cogency, you finally surprised me. A troll? My opinions are my own and I’m happy to own to them and have them challenged ; but this thinly-veiled suggestion of ad hominem, the oldest device in the lexicon of rhetoric, is disappointing ; as if anyone who does not applaud or approve the views expressed by contributors to this site must only be intent on mischief. As to pedantry, well, I know that old verb conjugation : I am precise, you are pedantic, he or she is a nitpicker. I will admit to the odd occasion of finding sarcasm more appropriate than irony, and pedantry an apposite consideration, when meeting the proposal that Americans who do not vote as their employers would have them should be deported. Some silly suggestions merit no more than a loud horse laugh. (For the avoidance of doubt, I am referring to topics other than the present one, of course. Uncle Oscar, at least, may rest easy.)

        As to moral unraveling, there hasn’t been a decade since the time of Socrates, and beyond, when public morality wasn’t going to the dogs. Every society, it seems, has just left its golden age behind, and only ever sees it vanishing into the distance. But associating this with an annual and unashamedly showbizzy piece of self-congratulation is to stretch an already thin argument too tautly over the frame. I didn’t watch the Oscar pageant either, not least because I have given up television entirely in order to recover precious time to be spent on more interesting and worthwhile pursuits. The film industry is one to be proud of, not some proxy agent of other societal woes. I can see why people would want to skip the glitzy pap ; less sure that it’s anything other than an aunt sally on which some would hang the weight of moral decay of the world at large.

        • Alex, let me say that I read your reply with equal interest. We will have to immediately disagree, since irony and sarcasm are fairly synonymous, while sarcasm contains a bit more “bite.”

          Based on your comments about media personalities and displaying their awards with pride, I would have thought that you would also immediately see the relevance of my comments. While it is unlikely that a plumber would promote his talent at soldering a pipe or installing a cut-off valve in this instance, you did comment on your analytical logic and dialectic as relevant to discussion. It would make perfect sense to question the basis for your assumption about your own abilities. I recently saw a study that cited the young people of today as seeing themselves as far more competent than what they really are, which seems to be a growing mark of the culture. When a person makes a claim, it is standard to ask for some basis for the credibility. Pedagogy was not my main thrust, as my request for a journal article would support, because the very strengths you claim are commonly seen in methodology and statistical analysis within published research. Once again, the request is makes perfect sense.

          I find it equally interesting that you would raise the point of ad hominem, which your self-reported irony would indicate in your own replies. I would certainly ask your forgiveness if my observations were meant as an attack, but they were certainly not. Take this article as an example. Jan Morgan did not blame the movie industry for the problems of the world; on the contrary, she mentioned that she loves a good movie, yet you went into an explication about the numbers associated with the movie industry, which was not a focus of her comments at all. She was contrasting the notoriety that people in general give to these actors and actresses that is not afforded to those people who deserve it the most. Quite understandably, I “liked” your comment about Jimmy Stewart, because it had merit based upon the same contrast expressed by this article. I loved what you said: “He represented everything that is decent, not just in an actor, but in a human being.” I couldn’t agree more, but it wasn’t his acting that made him so deserving; it was his actions in the service of his country. Granted, he was also a great actor, but it was his character that I admired.

          As for the perennial decline of society, I remember your making a remark at some point about true Christianity–“irony” perhaps, and throughout the Bible there is an urgency that God communicates about recognizing the signs of the times, while also fighting against godlessness and injustice. Micah 6:8 has always been one of my favorite passages, along with Philippians 1:21. If we claim the name of Christ, we are certainly called to stand against godlessness and injustice, while also showing love for others, and I have seldom seen sarcasm/irony as an effective tool.

          My curiosity concerning the troll/pedant comment revolves around trying to understand why an individual continues to visit a website when his or her views are contrary. While debate can be claimed, debates seldom change anyone’s mind. I do believe in honest, open discourse to hear and understand one another, which is sorely lacking in today’s political townhall meetings and other venues, but I must admit that I did not get the feeling that was why you were here. Again, forgive me if I err, but the sarcasm/irony did not seem to be promoting an air of mutual discourse. On the other hand, these sites are generally for like-minded people to network, which is why I would never personally visit a liberal site that stands contrary to what I believe. First, I know that I will not change anyone’s mind, and second, I do not care to be a thorn in someone’s side. Having said all that, I would sincerely be interested in hearing your motive for being on this site, if you’re willing to share. Since your comments are self-proclaimed irony, it would be understandable that I cannot know your intentions for being here unless you tell me. ~Benny

          • Alex M

            First, I’m sorry for the delay in replying — no discourtesy intended — but piano lessons have taken over for the last couple of days, and Henry Purcell’s acquaintance was too engaging to dismiss.

            Irony and sarcasm are not synonymous, and I think I’ll stay with my understanding of irony, being a figure of speech directed at ideas and meanings, where sarcasm is directed at people. Irony is not ‘ad hominem’, which is the fallacy of seeking to dismiss an argument by appealing to the character or motives of the arguer instead of the matter of the argument ; rather, in fact, as one would accuse someone of being a troll.

            It’s true, I’d agree, that most discussions and debates don’t change that many opinions, though I can think of a number of occasions when my opinion has been changed that way. But I recognise, for sure, that if one goes in to every discussion with the expectation of changing minds, one may be doomed to regular disappointment.

            An old friend, with whom I have little in political common, and with whom I have discussed and debated political and social matters for a couple of decades, in that hand-to-hand combative but friendly way as only long term friendship allows, sent me a link to an article and discussion on this site, in support of his opinion on a matter we’d been discussing, albeit tangentially. He’d anticipated I’d share his reaction on this particular matter (‘Army faces lawsuit over prayer’), and initially I thought what he was saying made sense, until I followed it through to see what the issue really was. As is often the case, perceptions can be highly polarized and caricature and distortion replace accuracy. That was what I found in this case.

            My sense of irony on ‘Christianity’ concerned some comments from some contributors who, whilst declaiming their adherence to Christian values and worship, were nevertheless not shy of wishing extreme violence, including sexual violence and shooting to death, on a woman at whom they’d taken umbrage. It is an irony that may have skimmed unnoticed over the heads of those wishing violence and torture on others. If irony does not work on such mentalities, perhaps an acquaintance with 1 Timothy 6:11, or maybe Matthew 5:44ff, might.

  • Brian Kelly

    That applies to the superbowl, Olympics, NASCAR, presidential confirmations and the world series. Some I follow, most, I don’t.

  • I completely agree. It’s the same thing I’ve been saying for years! ~Benny