Yes, that is my complaint. Congress should be calling those that have experienced it, and give them a voice. Calling actresses to testify in their stead smacks more of a publicity stunt than actually trying to learn the real issues.
Again, they testified along with the actresses, and they weren’t summoned, they used their connections to get themselves and the women in front of the panel. It’s hypocritical to say that if I use my connections with the town to get somebody who’s struggling with an issue before the right people to be heard, and I also take the time to speak on their behalf, that there’s nothing wrong with that because I’m using my experience on the issue to inform my stance, but if an actress does it, she shouldn’t be there, she’s looking for publicity, and it’s not her place to speak.
Yes, they should have gotten those people the opportunity to speak before Congress, not testified themselves. And I'm guessing they still could have gotten FarmAid, even if they hadn't of testified (particularly if they were sponsoring actual farmers so they could testify).
Again, they did speak before the committee as well. And no, FarmAid would not have happened. It only came about because Bob Dylan heard about what Jane Fonda etc did and listened to what she said was an unaddressed problem. He then spoke about it to derision, which is a dumb thing to deride him for since we are talking about Bob Dylan, one of if not the most profound activist singers of a generation, which got the attention of others who threw FarmAid.
First, I didn't say that at all. You had the experience and you could easily testify to it. Second, I never said anyone should not speak to government officials or advocate on their behalf -- but Congress should not call those advocating, they should call those that have actual experience and/or expertise.
This is a hypocritical statement. If I have experience because I saw it through my job and this I could easily testify to it, then you should have no difference of opinion when actresses are exposed to it via their job and decide to speak out. It’s the same thing, only you have made an irrational designation that because they are famous, they have no place being there.
And they weren’t called by congress. They asked to speak at a House Agriculture Committee which was a caucus task force meeting called by Rep. Tony Coelho, a connection made by Jane Fonda, who was trying to revive interest in the issue as it was wavering. He said these women worked for over a year in these communities and had more experience than anybody else on the hill as to what was happening. The actresses, in turn, offered more than 100 women to testify with them, but only two dozen were able to show up as the rest said they were too urgently needed on their farms and couldn’t afford to step away, even with their trip being paid for by the actresses, a sign of how on the knife’s edge they were.
Anybody who looks at a group of women who have knowledge of an underserved crisis because they saw it while doing their jobs, who then use their connections to get these people in front of government representatives, pay their way, and then speak on behalf of those who aren’t there because even with a free trip they are so in danger they can’t leave to be heard, and then arrives at the conclusion that “they shouldn’t have been there because they are actresses and what do they know?” but says it’s not wrong at all if somebody like me did it after finding about the issue via my job, is only saying so due to bias. The actresses know more about the issue than you or those at the hearing did, and they had every right to speak about it as they saw directly the first hand fallout. And while saying the farmers wives should have been allowed to speak while and those four shouldn’t have ignores that, first of all, that a number of them did speak, but that the wives said they were grateful for the help and attention the four actresses brought to the scenario. So the fact that those who were impacted directly both chose and endorsed the actresses to speak on their behalf makes the whole argument moot.
Nope, again, not what I'm saying at all. There is a difference between someone who is in the trenches daily, providing aid to those who need their charity and someone who has never experienced that need or been aiding them on a daily basis.
I think what you’re ignoring is that, said actresses, went into the trenches daily and saw. But because they’re actresses, you think they’re less deserving of being able to speak on the issue, not because they’re not informed. There is no difference between me going to work in a for-profit business and uncovering an underserved demographic and then going to advocate for them, and an actress going to work and through their job uncovering an underserved demographic and going to advocate for them. Especially given that demographic endorsed the help they were offered by said actresses.
Not to mention that it is bizarre to say “here’s a problem, these people need help, we need to do something” and then when a group of actresses with first hand knowledge, financial means, and a platform offer to do so, responding with “no, not from you, you need to stick to acting.” I’ve done a lot of charity work and never had the organizers say “we need help… But not from you.”
That's nice, and it is great when those people do speak up. But lawmakers should be directly listening to testimony and questioning those who are actually dealing with the issue (both those who have experienced it and those who directly provide aid to those people), not famous advocates who have no direct knowledge of what is going on but merely have heard the stories.
Again, said actresses saw it first hand, did give the affected a platform to speak via their connections and financial backing, and were embraced as chosen advocates by the affected party. So saying above is both inaccurate, but it’s flat out ignoring what the afflicted people wanted and asked for help getting. It’s literally gatekeeping advocacy and charity work and telling those who choose their own advocates that they chose wrong so they don’t get heard.
You can think what you want. I'm not at all criticizing anyone for advocating. I'm just trying to hold lawmakers to a higher standard -- calling celebrities only reinforces the idea that the government is there to do what the rich people want, not the average US citizen (who they had no interest in hearing from).
You are criticizing the four actresses for their advocacy. And the government didn’t call them. The four actresses, through their roles, uncovered and witnessed a plight many were unaware of. They decided they wanted to bring a spotlight to the issue and so, with the blessings of those impacted, two of the actresses (one of whom is famous for her advocacy) used her connections to get them before a caucus task force. They invited anybody who wanted to go, paid their way, spoke at the caucus, allowed them to speak, and followed up after the caucus with the connection to follow progress. This led to the creation of the SNAP food assistance program, the Farm Bill of 1985, and The Food Security Act of 1985. Both pieces of legislation had been shelved since 1983, but were taken up again after the caucus where they and dozens of others spoke.
Their advocacy lead to another well known celebrity advocate to take up the cause, which got two others to notice it, which led to FarmAid, which still happens almost annually even today.
So it’s hard to look at all of that and arrive at “when four actresses took up the plight of middle America it was a low point in celebrity activism” and deride it as inappropriate and ineffective simply because they are actresses.
