Is it just me, or does Anderson Cooper (the person) suck?

[idgiehkt]

edited OP because this thread has nothing to do with his show.

Heads up on the June Vanity Fair, Coop is on the cover. There's this really weird article in there on him, it's an excerpt from his 'memoirs'(I didn't even know you could have memoirs at his age, lol). Intermingled with his recounting of his time in NOLA during Katrina is his recounting of his brother's suicide and the memories he has of his brother leading up to it. It's possible these pieces have been spliced together but there is something really gratuitous about him interspersing his memories of this national tragedy in with one so singular and personal, something revealing in not a positive way. I mean, it wouldn't have been appropriate to put this in with a retelling of his time covering the tsunami, but he mixes the narrative here, or Vanity Fair did, and it just ends up being...weird.

Also, here's a passage:

"The only "mistakes" they admit to are actually veiled criticisms of others. The mayor should have declared a mandatory evacuation on Saturday instead of waiting until Sunday. Precious hours were lost. The governor could have done that as well, but didn't. They could have moved hundreds of city buses and local school buses to higher ground and used them to evacuate the nearly 100,00 residents who had no access to private transportation. They didn't. There were plenty of mistakes to go around. I just want someone to admit them." There is not one mention anywhere in this article that I can find, of President Bush, or even Mike Brown.

I would type more than this but my carpal tunnel is acting up. I picked this paragraph out of a passage six paragraphs long, each of which say the same thing focusing on the failure of the response, but only at the local level. Cooper makes sure to include a quote about people in the Superdome 'defecating all over the place' and 'having sex out on the floor', and has one paragraph excorciating Eddie Compass. Nagin did one interview with him and then refused to be interviewed by Cooper again. Smart man.

All I get out of this article is that Cooper has a self-indulgent world view and that hurricane Katrina didn't move him one inch out of his log cabin. I remember how jingoistic his coverage of Camp Casey was right before Katrina hit. I don't think there's any hope for this dude.

If I have come to the wrong conclusion, someone please enlighten me.

[Oceansaway]

1. he seems full of himself

like most the other MSM folk...jmo

[ificandream]

2. He's way better than Aaron Brown

At least Cooper has some life in him. Aaron Brown put viewers to sleep. Remember Cooper was host of "The Mole" reality show at one time. I think CNN is trying to boost the entertainment value of their showcase news show and counter Fox News. I'm not sure the idea works on its face, but in time, maybe Cooper will develop into something more and the show will become a must-see show. I think it has possibilities.

[idgiehkt]

4. the show isn't the issue.

it's his world-view that is apparently really lacking.

here he essentialy outs himself (as far as I'm concerned, anyway, lol) while chatting with Ryan Seacrest a couple of years back.

http://socialitelife.com/2006/05/25/ryan_seacrest_flirts_with_anderson_cooper.php

btw, I rather liked Aaron Brown. At least he was sincere. Cooper seems so damn...immature...or something.

[idgiehkt]

17. Equal time: One way in which Anderson Cooper does not suck.

I forgot about this.
*Warning*: Tender-hearted animal lovers read no further.

When the bodies of the murdered animals (pets belonging to evacuees) were discovered at Sebastian Roy Elementary, P.G.T. Beauregard Middle, and St. Bernard High Schools in St. Bernard Parish, one of the people at a website I was a member of was acquainted with A.C.'s producer and was able to get him to cover this story. All told I think he did three segments on it. This is one of the most horrifying cases of animal cruelty that I have every heard of, and the pictures that were posted online by Danish journalist Susan Von Warburg have probably scarred by psyche for life. I was grateful at the time that Cooper covered this and I remember his kindness to the animals that he was surrounded by during his time covering the tsunami as well. So it's possible that he has a soft spot for animals, if not for underprivileged humans.

link to info on St. Bernard Parish animal shootings:
http://www.pasadosafehaven.org/KATRINA/DOGSHOOTING/HISTORY.htm
http://www.pasadosafehaven.org/KATRINA/DOGSHOOTING/REWARD.htm
necropsies:
http://www.pasadosafehaven.org/KATRINA/DOGSHOOTING/Necropsies.htm
when you read the descriptions of where the bullets that were recovered were found it's obvious these animals were used for target practice.
It looks like the LA A.G. is trying to run the statute down on this case, despite a new witness having come forward.

[oldtime dfl_er]

7. I Liked Aaron Brown!!!

I miss him. He was ponderous, pedantic sometimes, but ultimately he was a helluva lot more intersting than anyone else on the tube right now.

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/1401215

[mpiamerica]

50. I liked Aaron Brown also

He was a fantastic news source. I loved his display of tomorrow's newspaper headlines at night. He said something without imposing his thoughts. Was probably one of the last of a breed of the quality of Walter Cronkite.

[acmavm]

3. I think he's creepy.

[Lin]

5. way overrated, a couple of days of straightshooting & america/cnn began a

mad crush, honeymoon should be over anytime -plus his show's almost 100% holloway...american idolitry...or rove's pick of the day...unwatchable imo.

[oldtime dfl_er]

6. I read the article

and it occurred to me that if he had taken all this "life knowledge" that he's so painfully acquired, and used it for some good, that might make a more compelling story. What if he became an unashamed liberal, went on tv and told the world what the truth about the Bush administration is? Sure, he'd get fired but how much satisfaction can one get from the kind of crap he's doing now? He had his chance. Instead he writes some self indulgent piece, exploitive, sadly, of his brother and Katrina.

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/1401215

[GrumpyGreg]

8. His Vanderbilt arrogance shines through ! The entitled class.

[saracat]

14. I am so tired of people hating people just because they are rich.

Anderson Cooper probably doesn't have to work for a living, (though he says Gloria and his Dad said they had to make their own way) . I wonder how many that criticize wealthy people for that fact alone ,would work for a living in Anderson's place? Being rich doesn't make him a bad person. Some of the nicest and most worthwhile people I have met have had money and some of the most selfish arrogant malcontents have been poor. It isn't about the money, it is about the person!

[CTyankee]

9. He gave the Class Day speech at Yale the other day

They have it the day before graduation and it takes the place of the Valedictorian speech. He was pretty well received.

Based on my observation, Yale grads (and those of the entire Ivy League for that matter) have this faint condescension to everybody else and CANNOT EVER be bested in an argument. Maybe that and being screwed up by mama, Gloria V., made him what he is.

[emcguffie]

10. Before I even opened this thread I was thinking about Coop --

-- and why the "owned media" have to let people like him do what they do, and what journalists like him are forced to do to be allowed to keep on doing what they do.

You know there is some give and take there. Even with KO. They have to make some deals with the devil, or they'd get tossed right off.

I think this kind of shit is Anderson's little deal with the devil, something to kind of smooth over the little bit of truth he dared spill back in New Orleans. Now, a little truth leaked out, he has to do something for them to make it look like he didn't really mean it.

Just like journalists that we actually like have to keep saying, about election fraud, "although there is no real evidence..." blah de blah blah blah blah. Of course there is, it just isn't acceptable for them to say so, so they don't say so.

At least, that's what I think. IMHO.

Anybody who got up there and told the straight truth and didn't go back and make nicey-nicey, they'd be out on their butt in a split second. Or they'd meet with an unfortunate accident. Or have a heart attack. Or be very swift-boated.

[saracat]

11. I thought the VF article was incredible.

It was well written and insightful. The interspersion of his feelings about his brother's suicide and Katrina were powerful. And he criticized ALL officials, not just Nagin. Nagin was no saint either, and people did do those things in the Super Dome and that was part of the horror. What did you want, a bUsh bashing, Nagin praising story? Sorry. This piece was much more than that. It is about how a national tragedy triggered a journey of self discovery.
Anderson Cooper is a journalist. He should not be an advocate. People forget that.

[idgiehkt]

15. sorry, I didn't find any mention of Bush in that article

and I looked.

I didn't find any self-discovery in there either...

[saracat]

18. It was dishonest to post just the bit of the passage you did to make your

point. This is the whole passage and it is clear he holds ALL officials responsible. He doesn't mention them all by name but that is not is point.

"Every politician I talk to seems to say the same thing "Now is not the time to point fingers". Spin doctors use the term "blame game'."I'm not going to play the "blame game' they say,dismissing you when you ask for answers,for the names of officials who made key decision.I notice that some reporters start using the term too. I can't understand why.

Demanding accountability is no game and there 's nothing wrong with trying to understand who made mistakes ,who failed.If no one is held accountable for their decisions, for their actions, all this will happen again.Not one person has yet stood up to admit and wrongdoing.No politician, no bureaucrat,had admitted a specific mistake. Some have made blanket statements,saying they accept responsibility for whatever went wrong.But thats not good enough.we need to know specifics.What was done wrong , what were the mistakes?
I ask any official I can.No one will answer. The only "mistakes" they will admit to are actually veiled criticisms of others."


He doesn't have to mention Bush. It is implicit.

.

[idgiehkt]

22. I beg your pardon.

No it was not dishonest. I clearly stated I have carpal tunnel syndrome and that was about all I could stand to type at the moment. That passage is about six paragraphs...Three sniping at Nagin and the rest taking care not to mention republicans.

In your first sentence posted it says "every politician I talk to". Nowhere in there does it say Cooper tried to talk to officials at the federal level, meaning Brown or Bush. I remember his scathing interview with Landrieu, but she is a democrat. I don't remember if he interviewed Brown. He mentions Nagin turning down his interview requests over and over. Did he similarly harass Brown and Chertoff? Chertoff, hmmm there's a name...

If Bush is implicit, why isn't Nagin 'implicit'? Why isn't Blanco 'implicit'? Why bring up the school buses again, which is one of the most retarded arguments foisted on the public during the whole disaster. To me this just shows Cooper not only a partisan, but a lazy one at that.

[saracat]

24. Oh, please. Landiueux and Nagin also dropped the ball.

The fact that Bush sucks doesn't make them wonderful. I don't cut them slack because they are Dems. And do you seriously think the WH would have talked to Cooper with his attitude? I don't think Cooper is partisan. I think you think he is because you don't agree with him. And that makes you partisan, but heck that isn't a bad thing if you are on our side!:)

[idgiehkt]

29. Wow, you must have missed him at Camp Casey....

...if you think Cooper is not partisan. Btw, my question was not whether the WH would have talked to him or not, but if he ASKED. Nagin turned him down again and again. Did Bush? Did Brown? Chertoff? Is it important? Damn straight, at least to me. It would make an argument of fairness on his part, that he tried to get answers from people who might actually have ACCESS to the resources to save the people that were dying all around him. Instead, he harassed the mayor, which is pathetic given the circumstances.

I think you are really reaching here to defend the indefensible. But I understand. He's a cutie, after all. As far as a more 'fair and balanced' outlook on what happened in New Orleans, one only has to flip forward a few pages and read "How New Orleans Drowned" by Douglas Brinkley. This one puts every single one of them through the shredder from the first paragraph forward. Up until the day of the storm there may have been mistakes made by Blanco and Nagin. From the 29th forward it was federal all the way in my book. Blanco killed alot of animals by not allowing out of state vets to stay in the state, and from the beginning by not allowing people to take their pets. Alot of people died simply because they wouldn't leave their animals behind. She'll carry that, and she'll be held accountable because LA already had a contingency plan on the books for animals in a natural disaster. They just ignored it. So no, I'm not crazy about her. The problem for me with Nagin is there is too much racist and partisan rhetoric floating around him for me to even bother with it. At the end of the day, the man was a freaking mayor. M-a-y-o-r. And the President was off eating birthday cake.

[ladjf]

12. I think that he is boring and .for the most part, just skims over the

real issues. (Not withstanding some in depth work during and after Katrina.)

[Jade Fox]

13. He's from old wealth.....

and my experience with such folks is: they have great difficulty with the idea that some things have absolutely nothing to do with them.

[idgiehkt]

16. thank you, honey.

I felt he was fending off any 'self-discovery' as Saracat said, by trotting out his emotional pain-cred. It's almost not fair of me to judge without reading the whole book, of course, but in an LTTE I wrote that was a little insulting. He probably wouldn't dare write that of his time covering the tsunami that 'gee this is like that time my brother killed himself', or whatever...I don't know, for all he professes about how much it affected him being down there it really doesn't seem to have left a dent.

It also peeved me that he brought up that lame crap about the busses again; in my LTTE I wrote that the American public watched coverage of NOLA/Katrina both on tv and online and how is it we are supposed to believe that surrounding cities would allow busloads of New Orleanians to be trucked in there when we all observed how when days after the storm a group of desperate people tried to gross the bridge into neighboring Gretna ON FOOT, the police from that town opened fire on them...it staggers the mind, that.

[saracat]

20. See reply #18

[saracat]

19. We do NOT have the sane experience then. Most "old money "people

I know are more likely to be concerned with their fellow citizens than are the poor. Maybe because they have the luxury to do so, but it is still a fact.

[Jade Fox]

21. That's not what I said.....

What I said is that old money people have difficulty understanding that many things/situations have nothing to do with them, and will inject themselves inappropriately.

Some of the moneyed people I've known have worked actively to help those less fortunate than themselves. Others have not. It's a separate issue from the above.

[idgiehkt]

23. I'm not trying to pile on you here or anything

but I can't but believe that if that were the case the world would look a whole heck of alot different than it actually does.

[xchrom]

25. i like coop -- and you came to the conclusion you were going to come to.

[swimmernsecretsea]

26. Oh, come on.

I see people here writing "he seems..." and "he's boring...", "rich people are..." and "The Vanderbilt..." That's hardly criticism of his talents, personal beliefs or empathy. Making speculative comments based upon generalizations of others belongs to a more closed-minded way of thinking.

I haven't read his book, but I did read the article. It's an excerpt from his new book, not the whole thing. And condemning his book based upon a passage and commentary that you want to be there is preposterous. The passage describes the descent into madness and the squalor of the conditions. More than enough indictment of President Bush and Mike Brown, by way of inference. The passage is meant to illustrate how the suffering he witnessed made him recall a closed-off area of memory of his brother's suicide, a part of his life that motivated him to go outward and ignore his own reaction to it. Katrina and the horrors he saw there reminded him he had to deal with that loss. I'll have to hold further opinion until I've read it, which I shall.

News Media lately is all about who can tie in a product placement and how corporate news is steered and skewed by those wishing to protect politicians. During the post-Katrina coverage, he used his personal anger over the lack of government response to draw attention the a dire situation. He did not allow the focus to be shifted away from the level of pain he was witnessing there, when other programming (most notably Fox) were attempting to portray the government reaction positively. I don't believe that betrays a "rich are different" personality at all.

[idgiehkt]

27. wow, people are really laying on this 'rich' theme.

Does this have to be about that, just because he's rich? Can't some of you see beyond that?

My post was more about my disappointment that living through all that death and destruction did nothing to move his world-view to the left. He went down there an apparent repuke, right after being at Camp Casey and kiss-assing all the counter-protestors for their patriotism, and apparently, despite all the horror he witnessed, still is. He seems impressed by the overt masculinity of the cops he hung out with, probably just thrilled at being a bottom in 'top-heaven', but other than that I don't see any attempt at identification with the common man dying around him. I did when he was covering it, but it seems to have faded into the background.

Unlike you, I probably won't read the book. This passage says enough. I don't know if this is Vanity Fair's doing, or his, but based on his countenance in the cover shot and in the inside photo with Mom I'd say it's his.

[swimmernsecretsea]

28. I did see beyond that.

I did see beyond that. I was also collecting a few other comments that other people made that I was surprised at. There were a high degree of "he's rich" comments so I made reference to them.

My reply is that I'm disappointed that taking a passage of a book out of context and expanding it into a negative review of his character. Your observation that "he seems impressed by the overt masculinity of the cops he hung out with, probably just thrilled at being a bottom in 'top-heaven'" didn't jibe with me at all. I didn't see that in that passage. Come on. That's just catty. What do you want him to do to show his identification? He's a reporter, a journalist. I don't have a problem with him at all.

Vanity Fair took a passage of his book, put him on the cover, shot photos of him with his famous mom. Nothing there about Anderson Cooper controlling the editorial content or slant of the magazine, which recently has been doing a wonderful job on revealing the betrayal of our elected officials. I think you're squeezing more out of this article, and a media personality, than you can or should.

[idgiehkt]

30. That's possible.

But I don't think so. I'm just damned disappointed. I mean here is another freaking log cabin republican whose partisan slant I've noticed before, that is eye-witness to everything that is wrong with this administration and republican philosophy in general, in the most grotesques and horrifying way possible aside, from witnessing the torture at Abu Ghraib, and yet that doesn't budge his perpective one iota. I mean, it made him look inward, but sometimes outward is where you need to look. Maybe he will, once he processes through all the grief of the suicide. But I kind of doubt it.

Or maybe I just need to ask this question at Americablog where more people understand the problem of queers whoring for an anti-queer administration. Who knows?

[swimmernsecretsea]

31. Yes indeed it is possible.

If you're referring to Anderson Cooper as a Log Cabin Republican, I didn't find any reference to the article, or online sources that he is a member. If you're extending logically that he is a gay man who is betraying people by not being up front about his sexuality and by supporting a conservative agenda, then I didn't see that in your original post, nor in any further response. It seems to me as if you're trying to make him out to be something he is not, or may not be. I can't tell what your issue is here, or why this is in the GLBT forum either. It just appears that you wanted him to say something in this book excerpt that may or may not be in the full manuscript, and because you're disappointed, you think he "sucks" as a person. I might understand that if you say you're disappointed that he hasn't come out as a gay man, and isn't more openly critical of the Bush administration. I would be also. However, discussions of outing closeted people have appeared in this forum frequently, but your original post and other responses didn't seem to indicate that you had that kind of an issue with him until now. And I do wish to point out that no matter what speculation there is out there, he has not confirmed or denied anything. Regarding having more editorialization from him about the administration, I have indeed heard such from him. More precisely, as someone else pointed out, his job as a journalist isn't to make editorial commentary. In fact, that's the mark of a poor journalist and a corrupt media source.

The book passage, and the book in general, is an account of his personal journey and growth in maturity as a person and professionally. There are a number of things that prompt one to look inward and re-examine one's life, and the catalyst for it can be anything. "An unexamined life is not worth living," as Socrates said. I found his writing of the realization that the his becoming a traveller and a journalist whose career is spent asking questions of others because he sought to escape his grief moving and beautifully written.

[saracat]

32. Thank you , thank you thank you. Beautiful post!

Your posts have said all I was trying to say, but you said it so much better!

[idgiehkt]

33. wow. I just think you are seeing a lot in that passage that isn't there.

Someone can talk about a significant event in their life and yet not gain any new ground or growth.Talk is cheap.

I think 'Gawker' put it better than I did, about his appearance on Oprah, under the headline "Anderson Cooper goes on Oprah, and bores us":
"Anderson talks about his brother’s suicide. Anderson comes from a fancy family. Gratuitous emoter Oprah admits her fondness for the gratuitous emotion of Anderson. Yada yada yada. It doesn’t sound like Anderson says anything he hasn’t said before — you know, whatever that might be — nor does it sound like Oprah pushes him to break any new ground."
http://www.gawker.com/news/anderson-cooper/anderson-on-oprah-spoiler-alert-175718.php

a quip along the same lines from jossip.com:
"We visit Anderson Cooper's old east New York apartment, and relive the moment his brother committed suicide. Totally tragic. Coop plays the journalist the entire time, revealing that he goes over the moment his brother died again and again in his mind, wondering if there was a family strolling past on the sidewalk or having dinner in the apartment below, and how they may have been affected. Heart of gold that guy."

He's hitting a painfully false note with this shenanigan, and it's obvious to alot of people. The above references to his brother's suicide just seem exploitive for me, and for what. This is all he got out of the worst natural disaster to hit our country ever? This is it? Dead bodies floating around in the water, people dying of exposure, one of our nation's greatest cities brought to it's knees...and it hasn't altered his world view one iota. Wow.

Regarding the 'outing', I get you, but I've never fucked him. We can speculate about Bush/Gannon but calling Anderson Cooper a closet republican is verboten? That almost seems to offend people more than the insinuation that he is gay. I'm not in a position to 'out' Cooper, but I'm not stupid either.

Regarding making 'editorial commentary', he clearly did just that in what he omitted from his writings. It's what they all do. I would at this point call him a 'poor journalist' and would definitely without hesitation call CNN a 'corrupt media source'. I read this article hoping to find more than what he says on his show, and much to my chagrin, I found less.

[swimmernsecretsea]

34. Yes, that's correct. One can talk to someone also, and not gain any ground

So, do we have the heart of the matter here? That you think Anderson Cooper "sucks" because he discusses his book and personal tragedy on Oprah a "gratuitous emoter", and that he seems false to you because of it? I'd been wondering. And then you cite Gawker.com as a source? The site most notable recently for posting "Celebrity Stalker" sightings on an interactive map? And Jossip.com, whose headline for today is "Russell Crowe Manages Not to be a Complete Dick" ? The sort of breezy, snappy celebrity content most suitable for "David Spade's Hollywood Moment" ? And is the issue that Anderson is closeted, or a Republican, or perhaps both? I don't disagree that he may be closeted. Reason to think he "sucks as a person?" Not much substance there. If you're going to judge his character by a book excerpt then perhaps going to the full source, Dispatches from the Edge : A Memoir of War, Disasters, and Survival would be a better idea, if you're using the basis "in what he omitted from his writings."

Outing someone is a controversial issue, one that has been addressed here many times. I haven't found evidence that he's done active harm to the LGBT community, but if his being secretive about a personal area of his life offends you, well ok, then.

I couldn't find a definitive notation of his sexual orientation, nor his political affiliation, but I'll keep checking. I did find this, however:

• A National Headliners Award for his tsunami coverage;
• An Emmy Award for his contribution to ABC's coverage of Princess Diana's funeral;
• A Silver Plaque from the Chicago International Film Festival for his report from Sarajevo on the Bosnian civil war;
• A Bronze Telly for his coverage of famine in Somalia;
• Bronze Award from the National Educational Film and Video Festival for a report on political Islam;
• A GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding TV Journalism for his 20/20 Downtown report on high school athlete Corey Johnson."

When I studied film and literature in University, I was taught that one of the best and most effective storytelling methods whether in fiction or nonfiction is to let the reader come to his own conclusion based upon what is shown, rather than told. From his stories, I've seen the destruction of lives that occured in the natural disasters he covered. I saw the officials who appeared overwhelmed, the streets that looked like a third-world nation. From your point of view, I've heard opinion, remarks, speculation, but nothing solid. Sorry, idgiehkt. You just haven't sold me on your opinion.

[idgiehkt]

35. I'm not trying to.

I also wasn't quoting gawker and jossip as "sources" for anything except the fact that apparently I'm not the only one reacting to his strange little revelations this way. I knew you would probably have a field day with them but I decided to it might be worth it anyway in order to help demonstrate my point (that he's hitting false notes all over the place), especially since gawker in particular expressed in one paragraph what I've taken a whole thread to do.

It seems strange to trot out alot of journalistic awards that he has won from mainstream media. Frankly, who cares? With the state our media is in today these just don't mean anything, at least not to me. I bet Rita Crosby and Greta Van Sustern could win one for their coverage of Natalie Holloway, and I wouldn't be impressed by that either. The GLAAD one is cool, though, only because of who it's from.

RE: the 'outing' thing. Maybe someone could jump in here and explain that one to me, hmmm? In trying to make sense of your post I'm coming to the conclusion that you feel that gay people are supposed to pretend not to know that someone is gay. Is that right? Gaydar now may be seen but not heard? Wow, I don't know how the gay community is going to handle that one. If this were the front page of the New York Times I could see your point, but this is a website on the internet. I'm not sure that Jeff Gannon has ever come out as a gay man either but people call him a gay hooker with impugnity. So I'm not following your logic on that particular point. I guess it's possible that there isn't any, and you are just trying to back me off of my original theory, that he's kind of a jerk, by changing the debate to whether, in fact, he is gay. BOR-ING. Come ON. It seems to me that you are over-personalizing this a little bit, but that's a crooked road to go down to since only you know what your reasons for that are.

[swimmernsecretsea]

36. Well, in quoting gawker and jossip,

Well, in quoting gawker and jossip, you indeed cite them as sources. That's where you drew the quotes, that's where you compared reactions. You are correct if you're thinking that I don't hold much seriousness with either of those websites. They're using the popular sport of dissing celebrities for fun and entertainment. Not news, not journalism, not reasoned discussion. Strange to "trot out" a listing of journalistic awards given by his peers for his work? "Who cares?" Well, alas there goes my attempt to draw a point that perhaps is less of a reason to think less of his talents, and using evidence to show my point. Comparing his coverage of the Tsunami of 2005 and Katrina to the ongoing media obsession with Natalie Holloway? That is what strikes me as strange.

Re the outing thing; go ahead and infer what you choose. Coming to a conclusion about my opinion would require asking me, but you haven't. Gaydar isn't scientific. It's gossip. I believe your mention of his sexuality was the first one, in reply #4. Regarding my "over-personalizing this a little bit" well, I take umbrage when someone expresses an uninformed and unenlightened an opinion they then refuse to back it up. Most of the time I just consider that person to be willfully ignorant, but I was shocked that there were so many willing to make sweeping judgements on the character of a public figure based upon their notion of what he should act like, and that he came from a wealthy background, and that he or she has no choice as to how his personal life can be revealed or used. For instance, I used to work with someone whose family was extremely wealthy and he didn't have to work, but gained great personal satisfaction from it. Moreover, he was one of the most considerate, generous, and people-focused managers I'd ever met. When he left the company, some smartass wrote that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and given too many advantages. On a goodbye card. Brooke Astor, a beautiful woman inside and out, hosts and donates to a multitude of charity and philanthropic groups. She isn't just a checkbook; she gave of her spirit too. I recall reading with surprise that she and Sistah Souljah, a militant rapper, had bonded and expressed mutual admiration for each other. Why, because they understood each other to be agents for social change, using the materials at their disposal.

I've known many LGBT people who came out at different ages in their lives, or even as different states, such as male-to-female. The struggles that one goes through on the journey are hard enough. Some don't even make it very far at all. I respect the personal decision of others, and leave it at that. Condemning someone just makes it harder.

Nobody is under any sort of obligation to the public to act a certain way to satisfy some selfish need, and I certainly thought a liberal-minded group of people who post to an online forum called "Democratic Underground" would refrain from such negative behavior, in particular a marginalized group as mine called LGBT. Whatever that your notion is, and I don't think I want to know anymore, I didn't feel you should go unchallenged.

[idgiehkt]

37. well, thanks for all that.

It's certainly food for thought. The money issue was never a big deal to me...other people here have posted about it and I guess that that was a pretty successful high-jack of this thread, because it hasn't moved beyond that. However, if I had the choice between being rich and having someone write something ugly on a card to me, and being poor, I'd definitely choose the former, so that anecdote doesn't properly tug at my heart strings. The thing about Brooke Astor...I just don't care. Sister Souljah, who I didn't even know was still performing, was certainly 'militant' in the area of homophobia. I've read some of her writings on it and it's pretty nasty, to say the least, so her association with Astor is definitely a black mark against the latter in my book.

Somehow I don't think Anderson Cooper knows or cares one whit that one more person on one more website on the internet has him pegged. You'd have to be blind and deaf not to. I don't see him struggling at all, in my book, that's a joke. People have raked Mary Cheney over the coals on this board, and probably in this forum, for her hypocrisy in helping campaign for one of the most anti-gay administrations in history, so to deny there are expectations there (here), well it's just silly. I don't think that basic civil rights are a selfish notion, and I don't see what is wrong with expressiing an emotion about how I feel about someone who lacks the same ones that I do appearing to support the party that wants to keep them denied to both of us. I'm getting this creepy feeling about why it's not okay, which seems to have everything to do with social class. That's hit me like a bolt out of the blue, and I don't like the way it feels. Classism wasn't something I expected to encounter here. I'll just chalk it up to a learning experience.

edit: for further reference, see this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x35003

just why is it again that people are so pissed at Mary?

[swimmernsecretsea]

38. OH please.

I hope you do not suggest that I'm using class to separate the worthiness of Mary Cheney versus Anderson Cooper. Mary Cheney should certainly know better, anyway, but I don't want to elaborate. That's for another posting thread altogether. As you've mentioned, she's been discussed numerous times here. Labeled as gay or not, this thread is in the LGBT forum, and you said that you thought Anderson Cooper sucked as a person, citing a book excerpt, but refusing to read the whole manuscript, referred to his possible closeted homosexuality, which, while discussed here and elsewhere, doesn't make him an enemy, really. In fact, based upon my previous post of his award from GLAAD, makes him friendly. But it didn't seem to be the reason you originated the post. You criticized his not mentioning the Bush Administration specifically, in what I and someone else have repeatedly mentioned is not the whole book, but a portion of it. Could it indeed be possible that it does? Well, neither you nor I have read it, but you conjecture without having read it and will refuse to. I just don't agree with your assertions, not that you've been specific with them.

Others here talked about his class and wealth, which doesn't make him "suck" as far as I'm concerned. Someone said "His Vanderbilt arrogance shines through ! The entitled class." Well, let's just continue to make sweeping generalizations about everyone. It's got a cute nickname, however. Prejudice. Being middle class or lower class doesn't bestow virtue. I'm also aware of the feelings of Sistah Souljah and her writings. I looked into her background after hearing of the anecdote in Time magazine. I didn't say they were best buddies, just that they connected as people can when working for a common cause. They were an example, nothing more.

I just wanted to know why you seemed pretty entrenched in your feelings but couldn't pick a focus nor back it up. Still can't, as far as I can tell. Please think of that before you post. Expressing an opinion is free, and everyone is welcome to do it but you seem irritated when someone challenges you on it or asks you to clarify.

[idgiehkt]

39. Why should Mary Cheney know better and Cooper not?

It's your thread. Why should Mary have her ass kicked and not Cooper? I don't see much of a difference between them. I don't think Cooper got an award from GLAAD because he's gay, I think it was his subject matter. Well, if he's 'gay-friendly'...I guess he better be, lol.

That wealth and class thing seems to be a sore subject with you. I'm sorry for that, but it's a repeated theme in American society that the wealthy are jackasses alot of the time. It's cliche, in fact. But that wasn't my point. I've restated my point about 5 or 6 times in this thread, my bewilderment that being an eyewitness to the worst natural disaster in American history didn't appear to change a person's world view one iota. That's a trip to me, it staggers the mind. That is my focus, and I'm not sure what you think should be done to 'back it up'. If this post offends you so mightily, when why on earth not ingore it? It hasn't been locked, so it must be within the rules. I just stumbled onto one in the lounge that I found pretty darn offensive, so I closed out of it. I didn't engage the person who started it in debate nor tell them to 'think before they post'. That's not up to me. As far as it being an excerpt, Cooper put that out there for a reason, to whore that book. He put it out there to get pubs and for people to decide to buy it, or not. I've seen enough, I'm disappointed as hell in him, and I ain't gonna buy it. That was a calculated risk, and that's what he signed up for.

Sorry if I seem irritated, or at least any more irritated than you. I actually enjoy this kind of thing, so I'm really not mad. I don't mean being challenged on it, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna roll over either just because someone disagrees with me.

[swimmernsecretsea]

40. Oh well.

No, the class and wealth thing isn't a sore subject with me. Not specifically, or generally, but it was addressed here. I am not just addressing your comments, you see. Again, I am surprised at the automatic reaction of some posters saying that because he comes from money (Mary Cheney's family is very wealthy, as well) that they have a right to suggest that he's got a particular attitude. I don't forbid anything to anyone, but the suggestion that one should think before "post message" is always a good one. I haven't always followed it, myself, but that's the goal.

I never felt that Anderson Cooper shouldn't address the subject of his own sexuality. I think that's something you inferred from my attempting to point out that if you're using that at a point that he "sucks as a person" it should be addressed and wasn't in your first post. People can decide what they want. Going on the assumption leads to mistakes, however, and no, I don't think anyone is "stupid."

Printing book excerpts is usually a decision of both the book publisher and the magazine, and the writer is only involved per agreement. I don't know of too many instances where a writer has that much control over the editorial content of a magazine, especially one the size of Vanity Fair. "Putting it out there," is that wrong? I'd be happy if I were a writer and Vanity Fair decided to print an excerpt with my photo on the cover. Selling books is what you want to do when you publish, isn't it? If you are suggesting that "being an eyewitness to the worst natural disaster in American history didn't appear to change a (Cooper's) world view one iota" I disagree. I didn't get that take on it at all, but reading your previous messages I don't believe you felt anything about it at all. To each his own.

In my own thread, I directed the subject more at how David Letterman was being direct with Cheney, while she did her best to evade him. An embarrassing response for someone who doing publicity for her book and is now saying "it's her turn" (to paraphrase the book title) all while not addressing any questions directly. If it's her turn now to explain herself, why didn't she? Mary Cheney can be as closeted as she needs to be, but when she broaches the subject and then appears in public to discuss it, well then it's not "her turn" anymore. It's ours.

Perhaps I thought you seemed defensive because of a few comments you made, redirecting the issue at the commenter:

"Regarding the 'outing', I get you, but I've never fucked him. We can speculate about Bush/Gannon but calling Anderson Cooper a closet republican is verboten? That almost seems to offend people more than the insinuation that he is gay. I'm not in a position to 'out' Cooper, but I'm not stupid either."

"It seems to me that you are over-personalizing this a little bit, but that's a crooked road to go down to since only you know what your reasons for that are."

[idgiehkt]

41. interesting.

I missed the Mary Cheney thing so this thread was all I had to go on. There are some people I can't stomach to watch on tv because they make me sick and she is one of them, no matter how curious I am about her 'justifications' or whatever.

I'm toying around with this new theory in my mind now that I've formed reading all these responses, that I had never thought of before, which is maybe people like Anderson Cooper don't come out of the closet for a whole different reason. Maybe it's not because of being afraid of homophobia, but instead they don't make mention of it in a public forum because they don't want to have to defend their politics. This is an 'aha' moment for me. This is, too, where the money comes in because for a certain sector of society money puts them above the law alot of the time, whether it be about abortion or homosexuality or whatever. So maybe he knows he's essentially safe in that way, but it's getting flack from the mostly liberal gay community that he just doesn't want to be bothered with.:think:

One more thing, my reaction about the 'outing' thing probably was a little touchy but that's because of something else I have been dealing with in my own life in that area and I am about fed up with that whole topic of outing/speculation/homophobia from 'well-meaning' straight people regarding another public figure. If you only knew, lol. But you don't...but on that particular topic yes, in some ways I feel like I want to break things just about every day lately because it keeps on circling back around and rearing it's ugly head in new and different ways, just when I think it's finally over. But that is my thing to deal with, sorry if the anger came out at you.

[saracat]

42. So apparently this is more about "you" than Anderson Cooper.!

What I don't get is if the money entitlement thing is so bad, who should people support? Better cross Gore off the list. Dean, too.We never should have elected Roosevelt or Kennedy, and most of the forefathers! Money doesn't seem to have disqualified some of our greatest leaders, who never whould have run for office if they were as some have said on this thread! Just sayin"

[idgiehkt]

43. whatever saracat.

I wish people would lay off this money crap...why is everyone so touchy about it? Is someone feeling guilty? Just be grateful and leave it at that...

[saracat]

44. Hey, I didn't start "the money crap"!

And my point was you indicated something of a personal nature in regard to this thread. I think it is wrong to "project" on to Cooper. JMHO.

[idgiehkt]

45. I think there is alot of projection going on here.

What I indicated that was personal was my reaction to the 'outing' accusation...which wasn't part of the OP. It's a joke to point out my 'personal reaction' here when several of you have practically gone into hysterics because (apparently) it's not okay by you to criticise someone if they have money.

I don't know what your issue is with that, but why not take it up with the people who had an issue with him having money in the first place, hmmm? I wanted more to concentrate on how his personal philosophy was unmoved by the witness of this tragedy...yet he writes a book about the tragedy and his own tragedy and expects it to move others. That was my focus, but I guess you missed that with all your class policing.

[saracat]

46. I meant your "outing' problem was personal, and I am not the "class

police". Class has nothing to do with money.You seem to think it does. As for money, I am not the "money police" either. I have no problem with people either having money or lacking it. They are all just people. I am sorry that some feel differently but we are all entitled to our opinion.

[idgiehkt]

47. Um, there wasn't any outing problem, because there wasn't any outing.

I got annoyed at the implication that there was (regarding Cooper), only because I've been reacting to some straight people in my life who think that a closeted gay person being covered by a gay publication for an article is 'bad publicity' for this person, despite the fact that said person is listed in wikipedia as a 'gay icon' and has oodles and oodles of gay fans. But apparently for the gay community to acknowledge said person in any way, since said icon is closeted (if only in plexiglass) casts aspersions on that person and could somehow damage their reputation not to mention their career (Let me state here just so no one has a hissy that said person's sexual preference was not the topic of the article nor was it mentioned). I'm about worn out on the whole bullshit argument frankly, since I feel that the only one who can out someone is a)themselves b)an ex-lover or c) a third party in possession of a sex tape. Since I am none of these to Cooper I felt that the implication was insulting, and being that I have just gone through this shenanigan elsewhere my temper is a little short in that area, which is why I used the 'F' word in my response to it.

Class has nothing to do with money? LOL, let me just truck on down to the yacht club then...

(On a lighter note, you really didn't give me much to go on in your answer. I am bored out of my mind and not sleepy and it looks like all there is to do is come back to this thread and argue with you. Try to give me a little more material next time, if you don't mind.)

[saracat]

48. Sorry. I am done. I refuse to debate with "Wikipedia"used as a "source"

I am sorry you were insulted, but I have said enough.

[idgiehkt]

49. honeychild you didn't even read my post.

Good lord. And there was good stuff in there too. Oh well.

[transeo]

51. I hope so

I think he's hot. ;-) :hi:

[idgiehkt]

52. ROFLMAO!

:9

[swimmernsecretsea]

53. Dude, I saw him first. nt.

[transeo]

54. I'm willing to share. nt

[swimmernsecretsea]

55. Deal!

High Five, bro! ||||/ Whoo-hoo!