Thom Fowler: Most creative people are intelligent and have opinions and interests in a wide variety of things. There is a long history of artists whose very reason for being is to inspire the imagination of his or her contemporaries. Why do some people blanche at the idea of an entertainer having social or political ideas when history has proven that artists have been among our greatest social commentators, reformers and advocates for positive social change.

Janeane Garofalo: I don’t consider myself an artist. I consider myself a person who in 1985 decided to be a stand-up comic and then when I was 27, I started acting. I don’t consider myself any more qualified than anyone else to have an opinion in regards to politics or any other social issue. My personal politics happen to be liberal. I happen to be a feminist. A lot of people misunderstand that word ‘feminist’ which is defined as just gender equality and social justice. The fact that I’m liberal and a feminist shapes my political views and shapes how I view my environment and my world and how I see the news or how I see what’s going on in the news. So when I speak up about it, it’s not because I think I’m more qualified, it’s because I have an opinion and I guess for whatever reason, the mainstream media books people in entertainment to sometimes give their opinion in regards to political issues.

It’s a double-edged sword, because while you have access, it’s also used against you. The reason the mainstream media tends to book actors for socially progressive issues, to discuss socially progressive issues, is usually, actually, to marginalize the issue. Because mainstream media which is sometimes also called “corporate media” or “establishment media” is not particularly friendly to socially progressive views. They use the actor as a way to point out, “How silly” this socially progressive point of view is. In the most recent case, the anti-war movement.

As pertains to me, and stand-up comedy, Stand-up comics have traditionally been social critics in a way. At least the ones that make strong statements, like the late Bill Hicks and Sandra Bernhard. The stand-up that I do is evenly divided between political stuff, pop-culture stuff and personal stuff. It seems that it’s accepted when comedians on the stage are critical of politics, no matter who the sitting president is. It’s not particularly partisan. But if you put them on mainstream television then somehow people have a real problem with it or conservatives have a problem with it. Everyone has something to contribute. It doesn’t matter if you are a plumber or a painter. It would be ideal if everyone participated more in their own lives and participated more in politics. Unfortunately, political careers are dependant upon and built upon, ignorance and apathy.

You couldn’t sell the war in Iraq as easily as it was with all that propaganda if we had a particularly well-informed population. I think sometimes the establishment media would prefer to marginalize when an artist or a non-artist weighs in on politics because that type of questioning and debate of information goes against the grain of selling a war. The fact that 44% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 is indicative of the problem of ignorance and disinformation. A lot of times, propaganda media, most specifically FOX, is in no way an unbiased news source. It is a very biased propaganda tool for the GOP. That’s why it was created and the motivation behind it, the idea behind Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes brainchild of FOX is to be a safe harbor for GOP biased versions of the news or GOP biased versions of politics.

They are very unfriendly to the anti-war movement or to any actors who are liberal. They are fine with conservative, hawkish actors like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Kurt Russell. I would also say, in regards to the celebrity issue, it’s very strange that the right-wing celebrities don’t like the left-wing celebrities. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly and various pundits and anchors and I use the word ‘anchor’ very loosely, and radio stars, are celebrities. And they are famous and they are wealthy.

Like if Susan Sarandon comes on, they say, “She’s famous and wealthy so how could she possibly have an opinion on politics?” She couldn’t possibly be in touch. This is coming from a right-wing celebrity who makes about 4 million dollars a year. So that’s a very strange thing when the right-wing celebrities seem to have a problem with the fame and wealth of the left-wing celebrity. And I think Bill O’Reilly is on the lower end of the pay scale. Rush Limbaugh is a multi-millionaire.

Those same right-wingers are convincing their listeners that people with money are out of touch as if Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are just salt of the earth, bootstrapping, tightening the old belt loop, guys. You can’t reach those levels of politics without being very wealthy and well-connected and many would say out of touch with the mainstream and very in touch with politics, very in touch with inside-the-beltway lifestyles, but very out of touch with the day to day.

TF: Many people are working in different ways on different issues that all feed back into the progressive gestalt. What would you say is your part of the puzzle, your personal contribution to the larger movement.

JG: I don’t want to come off as sounding arrogant like, ‘Boy, do I have a big contribution to make.’ Because really, I don’t know if I do. I don’t know how many people are aware of the things I say or what I do. And I don’t know how many people particularly care. I would say what I try to do, personally and professionally, is be a proud liberal. I’m not afraid of the words ‘liberal’ and ‘feminist.’ There is nothing dirty about either word contrary to what a lot of the conservatives have tried to perpetuate. They’ve tried to convince the mainstream culture that the words ‘liberal’ and ‘feminist’ are bad. I don’t know why they continue to do that. I guess it’s more indicative of their problem with gender equality and social justice. I can only assume they have problems with gender equality and social justice or they wouldn’t be so disparaging when they said the words ‘feminist’ and ‘liberal.’

I guess my contribution is that I’m not afraid of either of those words. I’m not afraid, as a woman, to be unattractive. I know that sounds a little strange. What I mean by that is that I don’t care to fit in to what some people’s opinion of what an attractive woman is. I don’t care to lie about my age. I don’t care to go to the gym. I do eat bread, rice, potatoes and pasta, which is a big no-no. Because I think, in a lot of ways, women have been cowed into believing that their worth is tied up in their aesthetic value and unfortunately, our culture is a ‘lookist’ culture. But that usually weighs much heavier on the female side of our culture. Men are much more allowed to look any way they want. And to have strong opinions. Women tend to be condemned for it much more. I would say a lot of the DIXIE CHICKS bashing, a lot of the Susan Sarandon, Jessica Lange, Janeane Garofalo bashing, a great, good portion of that is misogyny that comes from morning shock jocks and some of the right-wing radio pundits. They just don’t like women. Or they have a problem with women. They pretend they are being patriotic and they pretend they are being political.

Unfortunately with the conservative party, it’s been hijacked by a lot of not so nice individuals. There’s nothing wrong with being Republican and there is nothing wrong with being conservative. A great many wonderful, intellectual people who identify as conservative are Republican. I’m not talking about them who advocate fiscal prudence, small government, personal accountability. That’s the heart of the conservative agenda, which is fine.

But what’s happened, and it really started happening around 1975, but its really geared up through Reagan and now with Bush Jr. is there are certain elements who have hijacked the conservative name but they are not really conservative, and that is the religious right – the religious, fanatical right who are not particularly political people. They just feel the need to foist their interpretation of The Bible onto mainstream culture. They want to foist their interpretation of women as second-class citizens, people of color as second-class citizens, homosexuals as pariahs. Jerry Falwell and his acolytes and followers have identified as conservative but they’re not. And then there people who have identified as conservative who, even though they are secular, they are misogynist, racist and homophobic. And they hide behind the flag and Jesus even though they are not particularly patriotic or religious.

And then you have a large group of people who are not particularly well-informed. And so it is easy for them to absorb the bellicose nationalism and the aggressive rhetoric of the right-wing. Like the hate radio and Fox News and The New York Post. It is easier for them to get their news without global perspective or historical context.

TF: Is celebrity involvement in social causes a co-coordinated effort?

JG: No. What happened was, there’s obviously, worldwide, millions of people in the anti-war movement, basically starting on September 12th - people whose response to the events of September 11th was to advocate peace.

Obviously, the Supreme Court completely over-riding democracy when they handed George Bush Jr. the election made it clear then that we were living in a post-democratic era. And so the country was polarized by that. And then after the 9/11 tragedy, there were many people whose response, because they are innately good, kind, human people, was to advocate peace and call for calm and cooler heads and don’t just go to a mosque and start beating people up.

The 9/11 tragedy brought out the best of humanity. There were so many people who were helping people and volunteering and lighting candles for peace and donating blood and money and clothing. The anti-war movement, in a way, started then. But you wouldn’t define it as anti-war movement at that time but it was a peace movement. The U.S. had the sympathy of the world. And it was an opportunity to engage the rest of the world. An opportunity to deny some of the unilateralism that was going on under Clinton and unfortunately Bush Jr. perpetuated further by pulling out of treaties like the Kyoto protocol. It was a real opportunity for America to not be the bully on the block but to be the friend and have a good neighbor policy.

Then as the “axis of evil” speech which was the biggest diplomatic blunder in recent history, after that axis of evil blunder, it looked like Iraq was just picked. Osama was a thing of the past, we couldn’t find Osama. Then Saddam Hussein became the demonized Hitler of the day. And then the anti-war movement really started ramping up. The internet was really alive with people mobilizing. And the mainstream media continued to ignore it. And they continued to ignore the huge scope and breadth and size and depth of the anti-war movement. Which was historically unprecedented, thanks to the Internet that that amount of people were against this push, this Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Project for the New American Century push towards invasion of Iraq. And the mainstream media continued to ignore it.

So then there was “Win Without War”, an anti-war group associated with Moveon.org and Peaceful Tomorrow, the NAACP, the National Organization of Women, the Sierra Club, the National Council of Churches, all under that umbrella of Win Without War. I was in Win Without War anyway and then I got a letter asking ‘Would you be willing to step forward because we can’t get the media to pay attention.’ ‘Would you be willing as an actor, because we know the mainstream media will book an actor to discuss it. It’s going to be unpleasant but will you do it?’ And I said, ‘Yes, I will.’

There never was an authentic debate about the wisdom of going into Iraq. And so I agreed to do it and so did other musicians and actors agreed to do it knowing that it’s not ideal. It would be preferable that the media respected the anti-war movement and booked people they knew their viewing audience could respect. If you reversed it, it would be as if the only people they had on to discuss the pro-war movement were Ted Nugent and Kurt Russell and then for the anti-war side it would be all manner of military personnel, veterans, scholars, academics, historians, politicians, which is what happens on the hawk side. They had people from all different venues weighing in. So the audience was like, “Well, he must know, he worked at the Pentagon.” Or “She must know, she served in the Gulf War.” There are thousands of people on the anti-war side they could have had on that were in the Gulf War who worked and do work in the Pentagon, who work inside the Beltway, who are historians. They opted not to do that.

They opted to go with myself, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, Mike Farrell, and others. Knowing full-well they could manufacture a news story around saying that the anti-war movement is just a handful of actors. So therefore, don’t take it seriously, don’t question the president. It was really unpleasant. Another strange aspect of that is when you try to discuss that with someone in the media, they are immediately defensive, even though they are critical of one another. It’s the old, “I can say my sister is an asshole but you can’t.” I can criticize my family, you can’t.

It is clear to any thoughtful or intellectually curious person that the mainstream media is sorely lacking in unbiased information in giving you the whole story, in giving you any kind of context or information that allows you to function properly in a democracy. They do not do that.

If you watched the coverage of the campaign in Iraq on mainstream American television and you also have dish access to international news and the Internet and the radio, you realized that there were two completely different stories going on and so how can we in this country function and make informed, intelligent decisions if we are getting just one version of the news.

TF: What is your personal commitment to the progressive movement and why is it so important for you?

JG: I am a progressive, liberal person. I vote that way and I live that way. That is the way I believe is the ideal way for society to function in a liberal, tolerant, egalitarian way. I contribute money towards causes that espouse that. I believe anyone who values their civil liberties would think it is important especially women and people of color had better vote Democrat, especially the more liberal wing of the Democrats because this radically right-wing administration seeks to keep the playing field very unlevel. Askew, if you will.

They definitely want the playing field tilted. They don’t believe in an egalitarian system of justice. They believe that corporate health is the only health that is important. They believe American blood is the only valuable blood. And particularly, I would say, they value the moneyed. They value corporate America. The Bush Administration caters to the 29 or 30 corporate donors that sustain them and also the religious right. I think anyone that’s concerned about their freedom and their future and their child’s future and the economy had better vote Democrat. And had better vote for the more liberal Democratic candidates. All this partisan flag-waving isn’t going to save the economy. It isn’t going to make you more secure from terrorists and it isn’t going to stop the corporate scandals. It isn’t going to stop the tragedies inherent in the globalization movement sponsored by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

It behooves everyone to be concerned about how radically right-wing this administration is and what Patriot Act 1 and 2 really mean for you and me and your future.

TF: What is your idea of a robust democracy?

JG: Well, we’ve never really had one so I really don’t know. I’m working on a book and a lot of the research I’m doing before the writing is going back and reading texts and memoirs of people and politicians who were around 40 years ago, 70 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago and you find it never was a robust democracy.

But there are cycles in history where things go better and worse. The pendulum swings more liberal where the democracy is more robust and then it swings conservative where it’s decidedly less robust. We happen to be now in a very repressive, post-democratic, neo-McCarthy era, where many people in this country have been hoodwinked and frightened into compliance and many people who think it’s a-ok to if the president says he reads The Bible and God speaks to him, well that’s a-ok with them. No more discussion is needed. You don’t need to go any further, that’s all I need to know is that the president says God is on his side. He also said the jury is still out on Creationism and evolution and that’s just fine with them. That type of narrow-mindedness makes for a time when democracy is decidedly less robust. But the pendulum will swing. You can’t have this kind of repression without the opposite reaction. Which will be, thanks to the Internet, quickly forthcoming.

I think a democrat can easily win in 2004. I think a guy like Howard Dean has the best chance now than he ever would have had to actually win. I don’t know if Howard Dean will win but I do think a Democrat can easily win in 2004 barring any more shenanigans like in 2000.

TF: Many of my friends, who are conscientious citizens and who vote, now feel like there is no point to participating in our democracy and that even one of the hallmarks of a democracy, a popular election, was so compromised in the 2000 election that they feel as if it doesn’t matter if you vote or not. The 2000 elections has turned us all into revolutionaries. Are we in a climate of politics as usual or there is something more sinister at the helm of our government?

JG: I don’t know if this is politics as usual. It is decidedly, radically frightening what’s going on with this administration. They run the government like a private corporation. They don’t want to have any accountability, no congressional scrutiny, no public awareness of what they are doing. Cheney is basically the CEO of the private corporation formerly known as the US Government. Now has there always been elements of that? Sure. Republican, Democrat, yes. I’m certainly not going say the Democrats always have a cleaner government, they don’t. But this particular right-wing administration is probably the most extreme, much more radical than Reagan, probably the most extreme in their catering to the elites and their catering to special interest groups.

For George Bush Jr. to say he doesn’t listen to focus groups, which he referred to 8 million people around the world on February 15, 2003 as a focus group, that’s completely untrue. Karl Rove and he are just as motivated by focus groups as any politician. More so I’d say they are much more specific about it. And their sort of right-wing agenda does not reflect the majority of the country which is in the center. So this is a truly dangerous administration and a pivotal time for Americans to wake up and realize what is happening.

With Patriot Act 2, citizens can be secretly arrested, deported and stripped of their citizenship. Now that’s historically unprecedented. Or if it isn’t unprecedented, at least we didn’t have it on paper. Total Information Awareness program, which was scrapped once it was leaked, which was going to be headed by convicted perjurer and felon Admiral John Poindexter, somehow all the Iran-Contra felons are back in business in the Bush Jr. administration again, which tells you they have no intention of being honest with the public or with Congress this time around, either. They have no compunction with lying with Congress and the public, most politicians don’t.

If you say that oil is a big motivator, a prime mover of the Bush Jr. Administration’s foreign policy agenda, people who discount any attempt to tell an alternate version of the story of the Bush Administration will say, “Oh, that’s crazy, that’s a ridiculous thing to say.” And that’s what proves that it’s oil. Why would they get so hyper about it? If it wasn’t oil, they’d just be like, easy going about it if people mentioned oil and said, “No, it isn’t.”

I equate this, before I quit, I quit drinking in 2001. Before that a lot of people would say, “You’ve got to quit drinking.” I would be like, “Why? I don’t have a problem with alcohol.” And they’d say, “You have to quit drinking alcohol.” I would say, “Alcohol is not the problem. I don’t have a problem with alcohol. I was adamant about that. And then my friend Amy said, “I need you to quit eating oranges. And I went, “Okay.” And then she said, “Do you see? I just asked you to quit eating oranges and you were fine with that. And when I asked you to quit drinking you make a big deal that drinking is absolutely not a problem.” I equate that, if that makes any sense, with the oil issue. If you bring up oil, you are somehow some kind of wing nut.

TF: Is the Bush Administration more interested in forcing the Christian paradigm on American society or in maintaining their wealth through their ties to big business? Is this about God or Money?

JG: Both. God and Money. It’s always pretend about God and I would say that Bush believes that he believes he’s a man of God. But you can’t be a man of God and be such a hawk and be so callous in your budgeting and tax cuts. You can’t pretend that you are pro-life domestically but you have no problem dropping bombs on Iraq where the majority of the population is under the age of 15. You can’t be a man of God and be so pro-capital punishment as he is. I’m sure he believes he’s a man of God. Most people do. Money is the ultimate. That over-rides everything for a lot of these guys. Money is much more sacred.

TF: I have a theory that the hierarchical, top down, command and control power structure inherent in the fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity is very appealing to the militaristic mind-set of the Bush Administration.

JG: I would say the stringently Christian, stringently militaristic mind-set is very easy to absorb because they don’t have to do much thinking for themselves. It is a mind-set that is very good at being an opiate for the masses. It’s very good at getting people to fall in line and shut up. It’s really good for conning people. You can use fear. You can use God. You can pretend you have the moral high ground. It’s really good selling things and using propaganda against the masses. It’s a very effective tool to claim Christianity and also carry a big gun.

TF: What worries you about the ultra-conservative social agenda of the Bush Administration?

JG: Everything. It is the politics of exclusion. It is cruelly Darwinistic. It is dismissive. It seeks to keep the playing field tilted. It is a policy for the few and it ignores the many. It is a philosophy of cruelty that is masquerading as a Christian political agenda.

TF: What do you stand to lose if the Bush Administration was left to roll back civil rights laws, environmental protection laws and make the defense budget the number one priority of his administration, as they are doing and continue to do.

JG: We are losing out on the same things. We are losing a lot of quality of life programs. Programs that help children, the disadvantaged, the elderly, the poor. Arts programs. Music programs. Public schools are suffering. There are places where kids are sharing books and the schools are closing a month early. Teachers are being let go and their salaries are being cut. But that probably serves their agenda in that you don’t want an intelligent, informed populous. So you don’t pour money into the public school system. Because you can’t run a totalitarian regime with a really enlightened population.

Everybody loses when the public school system declines. Everybody loses when the media and the press is more repressed and more self-censoring and more biased towards the conservative agenda. Everybody loses when you are in a state of perpetual war which elevates the security threats to Americans at home and abroad. It also pulls firemen and policemen and first responders and other reservists into the military ranks and away from where they are needed at home. It also pulls money out of desperately needed resources on the local level.

You have, as a result of cruelly Darwinistic policies, that problem in Oregon where people are getting kicked off their meds program. The mentally ill are no longer getting their meds and are being turned out into the streets, which is a problem that happened under Reagan as well. You know Reagan had that Darwinistic tendency as well, but this is even more radical. So everybody will suffer, so I don’t know why a lot of these news anchors and Clear Channel bozos and partisan pseudo-patriots keep waving the flag like that because everybody’s quality life will continue to decline under this regime.

TF: Like the myth of Osama Bin Laden (which the state department later regretted publicizing), the myth of Weapons of Mass Destruction still has a foothold among Americans as our primary reason to support a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. Does it matter if weapons of mass destruction are found?

JG: It matters to people who care. It matters to the people who will vote Democrat. It matters to millions of people who protested in the streets. It matters to anyone who is intellectually aware. Nobody likes being scammed. Nobody likes being sold a war that didn’t have to happen. Nobody likes the words, fair, balanced, diplomacy and compassion redefined. There are plenty of people who don’t care. All they know is their president said he’s a man of God and that’s good enough for them. And there are others who prefer a corporate agenda. That’s good enough for them.

But for the majority of Americans, who are in the center and who I think will vote Democrat, it’s a very big deal. But it’s not surprising. All governments lie. It’s not just the Bush Administration and it’s not just the American government. Governments lie. That’s the way it is. It’s actually worse in this country at the moment to accuse the administration of lying than actually being a liar within the administration.

TF: It’s like Bush is the alcoholic and all the people who suppress the dark side of this administration by failing to report on it, discuss it, call it into question and add it to the debate over the fitness of this President and the values platform he represents to lead the nation are the enablers who let the disease continue in a misguided effort to maintain stability.

JG: That’s the way politics work. It’s not just Bush. That’s how our sort-of Democracy works. As long as we don’t demand a more informative media. As long as we don’t kick and scream and shout when we are conned and lied to and treated badly like the Veterans. “Support the troops.” Well, why doesn’t Bush do so by being more careful when they put us into harm’s way. There are people in this country who say about the anti-war protesters, “They advocate peace. They don’t support the troops. But the guy who puts them in harm’s way unnecessarily and cuts their benefits, he does, because he believes in Jesus.”

There are plenty of people who are not enablers and that’s why I think a Democrat could easily win in 2004 because there are plenty of people who aren’t going to put with this shit.

TF: If the Bush Administration is so keen on liberating the oppressed, as is now the Pentagon sponsored, media-driven, story about our foreign policy towards Iraq, why is the Vice President so against racial integration, gay rights and equal rights for women?

JG: Because they are not into liberation. They aren’t. It’s the politics of exclusion. I’m sure everybody is thrilled that Saddam is gone. There is no question about that. Nobody has a problem with that. Perhaps a lot of these guys that have been around since Gerald Ford shouldn’t have been supporting Saddam in the first place. And perhaps Halliburton shouldn’t have been doing business with him until 1998. But be that as it may, a lot of nations are guilty of supporting questionable regimes. Not just America. That’s a worldwide business-is-business issue.

Don’t try and pretend that you care about human rights and liberation when most governments are perfectly willing to support regimes that are repressive if it serves their purpose. America is perfectly willing and was perfectly willing to court Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party. I’m sure there will be elements of the Ba’ath Party retained in Iraq. I know they are pleased Saddam is gone. I know they are not pleased about Jay Garner and Paul Bremer, that’s not liberty. You can’t have the people that just invaded your country to say, “Hey, we are going to decide for you what it’s going to be.” If they were serious about liberating the Iraqis, they would get more serious about Afghanistan, and they would get more serious about dealing with people who run repressive regimes in Africa and Egypt and Saudi Arabia. And they would stop being such a repressive regime here in this country. They are trying to shred the Bill of Rights here. So why would they be so gung-ho about establishing Democracy in Iraq?

TF: Why doesn’t that story get told in the mainstream media?

JG: It does in dribs and drabs. But the mainstream media has decided to be self-censoring. I suppose it’s because they don’t want to appear to be unlikable, un-American, or its because their corporate masters decree that they tow the party line or tow the establishment line and then of course you have THE NEW YORK POST and Fox whose job it is to not give the whole story.

TF: But Fox’s journalism is Fair and Balanced as they like to remind their viewers dozens of times every day.

JG: According to their definition. My friend Martin Lewis is filing a lawsuit against Fox News because of the words “fair” and “balanced.”

TF: What are ways that progressives can consolidate political power in order to institutionalize the progressive values platform?

JG: I think they will have to take a page from the right-wingers book. The reason the right-wingers and the right-wing punditocracy has been so successful is first of all, they definitely take their marching orders from headquarters. Whatever the message is, they all, uniformly, stay on message. They also don’t worry about facts getting in the way of a good rant. They really believe that assertion trumps fact in their message. They also deliver it well. I don’t like Rush Limbaugh but I gotta hand it to him, he sure is entertaining and he’s forceful and he’s funny and people tend to respond to someone who’s like, “DAMMIT! I AM RIGHT!”

Whereas in the more progressive and liberal and Democratic areas, people are much more diverse. They are much more polite in debate. They are much more willing to walk a mile in another man’s shoes. They are much more willing to check their facts better. So I would say that, heck, maybe it’s time to start taking the gloves off and moving in a direction that the right-wing has, which is let’s start getting tough with conservatives. Because they certainly aren’t going to be fair. And us being fair has not been working out that well.

Contrary to the manufactured stories that you hear from mainstream pundits or from mainstream media, the progressive movement is the majority of this country. The majority is more centrist in its social and political views than is represented by the extreme right-wing conservatism of the Bush Jr. administration. You have people that have been radicalized and politicized by the Bush Jr. Administration, by the 2000 election and by the Iraqi campaign. And also what they fear might next be the Syrian campaign. The Bush administration has been the most helpful to galvanize the center and the center-left.

TF: How important is self-expression and the freedom of expression. Are there limits and do you feel like you’ve “gone too far” or “not far enough”?

JG: How could you go too far? I suppose if I ran naked through CNN studios with my body painted saying, “No War”, that’s going too far because it’s just silly. Have I gone too far? The most controversial thing I ever said on the mainstream media is that I advocate diplomacy, I advocate more strenuous weapons inspections, I advocate internationalism, I advocate heeding international opinion, I am a believer in the United Nations. There is nothing controversial about that but there were certain people that created a myth that that was controversial and that I was to be censored. Or I was to be punished.

And then O’Reilly likes to pretend that me saying that George Bush Jr. is as dangerous as Saddam Hussein is controversial. It isn’t. If you have a president that who is the head of the most historically powerful military in world history who believes in pre-emptive strike anywhere and everywhere and he doesn’t believe he needs anyone’s permission to do so, that’s dangerous. And that is the majority opinion around the world. But Bill O’Reilly wants to pretend otherwise. A lot of the right-wingers do. What they are trying to do is force the right-wing into the center. And they are trying to make it seem like the anti-war stance is some kind of weird, fringe, minority opinion. But unfortunately, them just saying it doesn’t make it true. Assertions do not trump fact. That’s what they base their rhetoric on.

Any reasonable person would say, “Hey, you’ve got a president who is the president of a hyper-power which has the strongest military in history. Who is advocating the doctrine of pre-emptive strike, who is advocating unilateralism, now that’s dangerous. Now for Bill to pretend that what I said is crazy and weird, is disingenuous. For him to tacitly encourage people to condemn me for it, is dishonest.

TF: When do you feel most energized?

JG: I did a benefit last night for in Brooklyn for the anti-war movement, it was called AFTER THE WAR. The anti-war movement is still alive because anti-war movements are also movements for social justice and for things that are important to people who desire peace. Are we going into Syria and Iran? There is no end of the anti-war movement even though the mainstream media has manufactured that it is so, it’s not true.

Last night it was just great, it was different comedians, singers, spoken word performers, musicians and that’s when I feel really energized. When you are around all those great people, it’s very intellectually stimulating, it gives you hope. Like, when you hear about a Clear Channel rally and people burning a DIXIE CHICKS poster and then you go, “Oh, no. Are they that stupid? What a bunch of boneheads.” And you feel bad for about a minute and you get exposed to intelligent people and peaceful people and kind people and you go, “Oh, this is great.”

TF: Can people separate you as the actor from you as the liberal feminist? I read that ABC has delayed your upcoming sitcom because of fear of controversy.

JG: Most people don’t really pay attention to what I do. It’s not like when you watch FRASIER you are going, “I don’t think that’s Kelsey Grammar” If they decide to watch, and it’s not called SLICE OF LIFE, that’s just the working title, a) they either will or won’t watch it because they feel like or b) they don’t even know who I am in the first place and they just check the show out or c) if they can’t separate the two, because I’m not going to be playing myself on the show, whatever.

TF: Most celebrities are strongly encouraged to maintain a consistent public image along the lines of whatever their role or their character is that they are selling at that moment. Some people feel like it’s career suicide to step out of that bubble and to inject some reality into your exchange with the public.

JG: I think unfortunately with the culture of celebrity, like on E!, they’ve made it so celebrities seem like weird space aliens. I am not a celebrity per se. I’m a moderately successful character actor. I don’t risk a whole lot by speaking out. I do risk getting hate mail like I did and people making fun of me. And certain internet sites lambasting me and certain comedy bookers not wanting to book me but that’s their problem and I don’t give a shit really.

What is more important, that you get booked or that you have first amendment rights? First amendment rights are more important. I think there are people that are very famous, I’m not one of them, who are very nervous about speaking out. Because to be very famous, you have to have broad, mainstream support. And broad, mainstream means probably not the most diverse group of people politically. So they are worried that they are going to get in trouble and their agents and managers tell them not to. Then again, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins are very famous and they speak out because they know that it’s more important to speak out than to book a gig. Me being a character actor, it’s not like I’m Drew Barrymore or something. I’m a person that not many people really know.

TF: Drew Barrymore can get away with saying whatever she wants.

JG: I would say that celebrities are infantilized. “So and so has an opinion?” They almost treat it like, “Ewww, we’re real interested in you if you’ve shoplifted but we don’t want to hear what you have to say about voting rights.”

Everybody’s got opinions, it’s just unfortunately, if you are in entertainment, if you have anti-establishment opinions, you are to be berated by the mainstream.

TF: In STEAL THIS MOVIE, you played the wife of the controversial Viet Nam era agitator, Abbie Hoffman. In that movie, federal agents seem to have much more power to openly bully anyone who was critical of the Nixon administration or the Viet Nam war. What was it about Abbie Hoffman that was so threatening that the government did anything they could to shut him up.

JG: It wasn’t just him. They were doing it to so many people. They followed and had files on people who were the most innocuous. There would be no reason in the world to have a file on them. Like Granny D [Doris Haddock] and Martin Luther King’s children.

I think that they saw in a guy like Abbie Hoffman a guy that really, charismatically, moves people. And he’s a guy who’s not afraid of them. And that’s what scares them the most when there are people that aren’t afraid of “them.” That aren’t afraid of the power base. That aren’t afraid of Cointelpro. Aren’t afraid of the government. Aren’t afraid of Joe McCarthy. I know he’s before Abbie Hoffman but they aren’t afraid of guys like Joe McCarthy. And when you are not afraid of McCarthyism and you are not afraid of repressive regimes and you are not afraid of Big Brother, then they wanna know about you.

E-MAIL THE AUTHOR | ARCHIVES