A fast note
Posted by:
corboy
()
Date: November 03, 2007 11:39PM
I consult a practitioner of Chinese Medicine who is well regarded as an authority
on HIV treatment.
X's name has an instant credibility. As a result, X has learned to ask, very carefully, who will be participating in any discussions where X is invited to sit
and participate in the dialogue.
Once, X was invited to participate in a public educational event on HIV and be one of the presenters. X carefully questioned to find out who the other
participants were.
One of them was a famous theoretician of AIDS denialism--that AIDS isnt caused by the HIV virus.
X refused to participate, knowing that X's own presence would 1) lend crediblity to the denialist agenda and 2) compromise X's own standing as a responsible medical professional.
They tried to shame X, saying it was a First Amendment matter, but X refused.
I might add that HIV denialists failed to respect the First Amendment by disrupting public education events in which HIV scientists and researchers gave updates on new treatments. At one such event the denialists threw used cat litter, exposing persons with HIV to toxoplasmosis.
Security guards had to be hired for such events, thus increasing the expense and finally a court injuction was sought to keep them away from the meetings. This was done only as a last resort.
But it illustrates that once people become famous, they cannot afford to be naive--their names lend a sort of halo, a tacit endorsement, and the more famous and publicly beloved you become, the greater your responsibility in managing your fame consciously, responsibly and (this is sad but necessary) doing background checks on anyone who tries to get you to associate with them or with their cause.
And..even if you do associate with someone who currently has a clean record, you need to stay up to date and make sure the person remains honest.
In France, the Guide Michelin issues star ratings to restaurants, often very expensive ones. People trust the Guide Michelin ratings.
The Guide inspectors regularly visit restaurants and if any restaurant shows a deterioration in the quality of its cuisine, the Guide will remove one or more of its stars when updating the rating on that restaurant.
Famous persons who associate with and lend the magic credibility of their names to a project, would do well to show that same conscientousness. They should not endorse fundraising projects unless they get a contract that X percent of the funds raised actually go directly the the stated beneficiaries.
In some cases, the illustrious person may need to contractually negotiate seating arrangements and room arrangements to make sure no off hustlers can sit next to them to generate photo ops that the hustlers can then use to claim that the celebrity is 'my good friend.'
If anyone has a pattern of associating with abusive persons or projects, a wise celebrity will stay away.
on HIV treatment.
X's name has an instant credibility. As a result, X has learned to ask, very carefully, who will be participating in any discussions where X is invited to sit
and participate in the dialogue.
Once, X was invited to participate in a public educational event on HIV and be one of the presenters. X carefully questioned to find out who the other
participants were.
One of them was a famous theoretician of AIDS denialism--that AIDS isnt caused by the HIV virus.
X refused to participate, knowing that X's own presence would 1) lend crediblity to the denialist agenda and 2) compromise X's own standing as a responsible medical professional.
They tried to shame X, saying it was a First Amendment matter, but X refused.
I might add that HIV denialists failed to respect the First Amendment by disrupting public education events in which HIV scientists and researchers gave updates on new treatments. At one such event the denialists threw used cat litter, exposing persons with HIV to toxoplasmosis.
Security guards had to be hired for such events, thus increasing the expense and finally a court injuction was sought to keep them away from the meetings. This was done only as a last resort.
But it illustrates that once people become famous, they cannot afford to be naive--their names lend a sort of halo, a tacit endorsement, and the more famous and publicly beloved you become, the greater your responsibility in managing your fame consciously, responsibly and (this is sad but necessary) doing background checks on anyone who tries to get you to associate with them or with their cause.
And..even if you do associate with someone who currently has a clean record, you need to stay up to date and make sure the person remains honest.
In France, the Guide Michelin issues star ratings to restaurants, often very expensive ones. People trust the Guide Michelin ratings.
The Guide inspectors regularly visit restaurants and if any restaurant shows a deterioration in the quality of its cuisine, the Guide will remove one or more of its stars when updating the rating on that restaurant.
Famous persons who associate with and lend the magic credibility of their names to a project, would do well to show that same conscientousness. They should not endorse fundraising projects unless they get a contract that X percent of the funds raised actually go directly the the stated beneficiaries.
In some cases, the illustrious person may need to contractually negotiate seating arrangements and room arrangements to make sure no off hustlers can sit next to them to generate photo ops that the hustlers can then use to claim that the celebrity is 'my good friend.'
If anyone has a pattern of associating with abusive persons or projects, a wise celebrity will stay away.
Re: A fast note
Posted by:
ON2 LF
()
Date: November 04, 2007 06:32AM
Quote
corboy
But it illustrates that once people become famous, they cannot afford to be naive--their names lend a sort of halo, a tacit endorsement, and the more famous and publicly beloved you become, the greater your responsibility in managing your fame consciously, responsibly and (this is sad but necessary) doing background checks on anyone who tries to get you to associate with them or with their cause.
And..even if you do associate with someone who currently has a clean record, you need to stay up to date and make sure the person remains honest.
The point you've made causes me to wonder if people who become so proficient at what they do, or so knowledgeable in a specific area ever knew or suspected that their gifts and talents were going to cost so much to develope and offer to the world.
Did they ever weigh the pros and cons of success as they worked their way up to the status they hold? Did they know the sacrifice in lost privacy they would have to make? Is fame something that one walks toward with a naive unassuming air, or is it first calculated out as a worthy and justifiable expense?
I feel for famous people but at the same time I believe that we've all got our own 'cross to bear' and most of us never planned, chose or even accept the particular cross we come to bear. In most instances we would always rather be relieved of the burden it represents.
On the flip side, I can't think of a term to describe how I'd feel if I were the person that a famous individual were cross checking for possible intentions or questionable affiliations. I'd feel like I'd just applied for a loan and had just agreed to have a an integrity check done, only the loan I'd be seeking is just an allotment of time or a contribution to my own interests and seeming menial cause.
Its a complicated cloud that surrounds fame and those who bear it. My knee-jerk reaction to the concept, I don't think I'd want it hanging over me.
I respect and admire those who have it hanging over them to a great extent however, simply for the fact that it is an indication of some unique or exceptional contribution to the public at large. Conversely, I keep this respect limited to people like the Chinese practitioner you've mentioned. I most definately withhold respect from characters who get famous on the blood and sweat of those they have successfully exploited.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.