</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Aggie @ Mar 10 2003, 08:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> One of his daughters even dated my nephew for a while. In the 70's he was the one responsible forOhhh Robert Redford hits a sour note with this fat lady! I know him. not allowing a coal fired power plant on the kapowerwits (SP) plateau. All due to his celebrityhood. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Telling arguments, Aggie. I did not say that I agreed with Redford and his views, but he worked hard for what he believed. A test of reality, for me, would be to consider the alternatives: Are we to somehow limit a "dedication" to a cause according to some sort of scale that measures "celebrity"?
And, if so, how are we to separate the "celebrities" from the "politicians" - and
what would - or should - we have done with a celebrity - turned politician?
I am familiar with what I consider to be "misguided" crusades. Some time ago I toured the local Atomic Power plant (Seabrook, NH) with a good friend - and fellow pistol target shooter. He was the author of the report on Three Mile Island, written for the Nuclear Regulatory Commision - and the engineering *realities* at Seabrook are so far from the propaganda of the "Antis" as to make one's eyes water.
All we can do is to do all we can. I have defended Seabrook among trying situations, and sufferd the catcalls and hoots of those who will not listen to any viewpoint that even slightly deviates from their own. Our duty as citizens is to make sure that everyone has the chance to be heard.
Let me guess - the real "one-sided-ness" came not from "celebrity" but from unbalanced and prejudicial media coverage.... yes? - no?