I have mixed feelings about celebrities who take on hot-button political issues. The best way to evaluate these issues is probably case-by-case. Take the 2008 presidential election, for example. Two years ago, a whole slew of liberal Hollywood types gave public endorsements for Barack Obama and raised millions of dollars for his campaign, including Oprah Winfrey, Zach Braff and Halle Berry. George Clooney, at the time, was more hesitant to wave the Obama banner, explaining that although he supported Obama, he wanted to avoid doing damage to the prestige of his campaign. I always admired Clooney's pragmatism in this decision. He seems to be one of the few celebrities who recognize that support from the rich and famous can often be more of a hindrance than a help, especially when it comes to the controversial. Nothing could have been worse for Obama than if Clooney's endorsement had had the adverse effect of dumbing down the campaign's political debate.Beyond this, what makes me squirm when it comes to celebrity endorsements has nothing to do with the celebrities themselves but instead with their intended impact on the plebeians watching from home. Were Halle Berry's fans more likely to support Obama in 2008 because their favorite actress told them they should? Did a single voter say to himself 2 years ago, "I'm going to vote for him because Catwoman endorsed him?" Are these the kind of people who should be voting anyway? Discussion of the popular vote aside, it does seem like nonpolitical endorsements take advantage of a certain subset of American society that may be easily persuaded. Everyday we are told to buy products merely because celebrities use them. An ad in a magazine that shows Hayden Panettiere holding a designer bag gives me no other justification for why I should buy that bag. I don't know if it's well-made or big enough to hold my laptop, but I want to buy it anyway. The concept of endorsements necessarily cuts out room for free thought and individual opinion. And the very fact that celebrities endorse everything from mascara to presidential candidates shows the extent to which we are assaulted with the opinions of others and told we should take them as our own.

Recent events in politics have made this discussion particularly pertinent. Last week, Senate Republicans issued a filibuster and consequently blocked a proposed military defense policy bill that included a repeal of the infamous "don't ask, don't tell" law. Before the vote took place, though, one of its most vocal opponents-Lady Gaga-spoke at a rally in Portland, Maine to denounce the law. She explained that she wanted to protest "don't ask, don't tell" in defense of her young and gay fans. College-aged Americans have been particularly vocal in opposition to "don't ask, don't tell," no doubt because it both directly affects those currently part of or considering military service and because advocating gay rights in general has been a rallying cause of our generation.

Lady Gaga's endorsement is not an exception to the Halle Berry rule of thumb. Her Sept. 20 speech in Maine, in which she asserted that gay Americans are denied the full promise of American equality, was never going to convince anyone who didn't already agree with her. Even the soldiers currently stationed in Afghanistan who danced proudly to "Telephone" in their universally popular YouTube video were fans to begin with and, judging from their dance moves, most likely already comfortable with progressive sexual standards.

But maybe we can make an exception for Lady Gaga's anti-"don't ask, don't tell" activism. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy allows anti-gay members of the military to out their fellow soldiers and have them removed from service. Symbolically, it makes excuses for young soldiers to accept homophobia and discrimination in their generation. Lady Gaga, love her or hate her, is a dynamic force in contemporary culture. Regardless of what she stands for artistically, she has certainly broadened popular understanding of the relationship between music, fashion and sexuality. I see Gaga's activism for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy's repeal as her using her impact on culture for good; she is not only drawing attention to the cause, but she is also seeking to actively change social and cultural standards. I think this goes beyond simply using her celebrity to attract attention to a cause and instead harnesses her impact as an artist to reshape our culture.

On the other hand, consider Lady Gaga's other publicity stunts from the past few weeks. The pop singer wore a gown made of meat to at the MTV Video Music Awards earlier this month. She claimed the dress was a symbol tied to her advocacy for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer rights. She told Ellen Degeneres that the dress could be interpreted many ways, but her personal belief was that "if we don't stand up for what we believe in, . pretty soon we're going to have as much rights as the meat on our bones." To be honest, I don't know what that means, but I think it may be important that I'm confused. Degeneres seemed equally baffled. Whether Gaga was mixing her metaphors or she has a more sophisticated understanding of the artistic significance of her wardrobe choice, her hodgepodge of words and actions seem to reaffirm Clooney's fear in 2008. She should learn that she can't make a bold statement without a clear message. All of her admirable efforts to discredit "don't ask, don't tell" may be dismissed along with, and as easily as, her next provocative stunt. And that, I'm sure, she would consider to be a shame.