I love Weird Al so very much and have since I was a child in the 80s. He's such a brilliant, funny guy and a great role model for young people.

And I just adore his humor:

Stuart: "When did you start?"
Weird Al: "What, this interview? About 5 minutes ago."

LMFAHS. Real-time sketch comedy.

*promote

[edit]
32-YEAR CONTRACT?! Say whaaat?

Scary times. I guess it could only get worse anyway with all these corrupt politicians serving as role models.

It's not so much where the artist originates, it's the fans that follow him and try to emulate him/use him as a role model...

Not following the advice of the Bible: never argue with an idiot, it is hard to tell who the idiot is: hoping there is someone here who is more interested in the truth than an ideology, (yeah agnosticism and atheism are ideologies), as well as Christianity. I wise man will hear council and rebuke.
Seriously, I hesitate to say this because it screams out so obviously: this is such a ridiculous argument based on probably an underlying wound from Christianity, or more likely a poor Christian role model. It is designed and constructed on emotion and inflammatory to Christians, so we get so mad we cannot think straight and give a good answer. So let me explain why his founding presumptions are wrong:
He states: Any God that allows such suffering of Children and parents is either impotent or evil.
Really? You can’t think of any other possibilities? How about freedom is more important than suffering? Foremost in the Bible we are all free moral agents. God will not step over this except in exceptionally rare instances. I have the freedom to do good or evil. If I choose to pull out a gun and kill a person, good or evil, that person will die. There are consequences of actions and mitigating consequences frequently leads to a reoccurrence of the action. I am not saying a baby dyeing of malaria is a result of someone’s action but how we (human race) grows is by learning most often by mistakes and pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is what life is all about.
How about looking at the long term consequences over the short term? This is a common mistake made among liberals. It should have been written in scripture no pain no gain. Are you going to say you should avoid the short term pain of a needle to inoculate malaria? The short term pain nets a good result in the end. I know this is a stretch but nobody knows the results of all the suffering going on in the world but as for me I trust God does and is working on us the best way. I like to look at the whole planet and all the living organisms as one thing God is working on. He is out for our best. I can tell you this, there is a purpose for everything, despite the fact that we can perceive it, comprehend it or like it.
You should read the whole series Dune by Frank Herbert, I won’t spoil it for you but the series looks at the Human race in a similar perspective.
I could go on and on but I have to work. I hope this offends.

I love this. It's a much better move than a spokesperson for the person saying it, or an official statement from them. This is much more honest and thoughtful and as he's only 19, pretty damn brave. Fantastic role model. *promote

While it's a complicated issue, there's one facet of this that I feel is worth pointing out: What happens when the government creates a welfare state, by giving financial support to single mothers? Well, for one thing, it removes the incentives for those single mothers to pursue stable and responsible men with whom to raise their children, thereby making the less responsible (read: thug, gang-banger, "pretty boy") more desirable. As a result, men feel less motivated to become stable and responsible (thinking, what's the point if all women want is a dude with "street-cred?"), thus perpetuating a cycle in which boys are raised with few male role models outside of those they meet on the street.

Thanks. You are a great role model, Mr Eric.

And actually, I think I should left that line -- and just said -- "most people".

Women need to get this lesson on a bone deep level, too.

Role model status is irrelevant here. They are using their fame to spread a message. If it gets a few celebrity watching idiots to sit up and think about this issue (even if it's for the wrong reasons, "ooh such and such told me to care about this"), that's still a positive outcome.

As much as the cult of the vapid celebrity offends me, I don't have a problem with this. At least most of the people I recognise in this video have actually done things (Stone, Morello, etc)

I think it's pathetic that they have a role model status for anyone. I didn't say that the government and media should be able to do what they want, why the fuck would you think if the celebrities don't stand up to them we're doomed?

The people should and are standing up to them and their bullshit, celebrities we don't need them and their distractions.

Why? Because of their role model status for many people? So the government, biased media and other corrupt people can indoctrinate people by spewing out bullshit for decades, effectively producing blind drones, but celebrities are not allowed to act as a (albeit very weak) counterweight?

This scandal with ''The Jedi Council'' is only the latest in a long line of similar examples of inappropriate behaviour by the armed forces:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/army-shamed-by-sex-videos-20130613-2o79z.html

That article points out that the Army has the lowest female representation of the three defence services, and that a few more senior role models would probably help.

He reminds me of my high school principle telling off the whole school once...

A few questions...
ANYBODY who doesn't give 110% to their career will not reach the highest levels of that career?
Are you saying that Georgew W. gave 110% to become President? Well, if that what he delivered is what it takes to get the job, it's a shame I can't run for office. I wouldn't even have to put on pants to come across as less idiotic as he did.
Are you really buying into this "Just give everything and you'll get there" myth? 'Cause that's not how the real world works for everyone. Have you ever been denied a deserved promotion? That is not that uncommon, especially for women. Look, giving your best is usually necessary but not always required. Luck, a lack of scruple, intolerance of others, manipulative skills and connections can really propel your career even if you don't work hard enough to deserve it. Just think of the cliché of the woman who sleeps her way on top. She doesn't even have to give 110% there, men are easy to please.

And regarding you biological theories, yes, men are stronger but how strong do you have to be to sit in an office? How much strength does it take to type on a keyboard? I'd say the jobs these female breadwinners we're talking about have are usually not involving tasks of great physical strength.
And why is it automatically the women job to take care of the children?
I mean, we're talking 2 parent families here since single women have no other choice than going to work unless you want to suggest poverty or child labour as viable alternatives.
In todays first world society it shouldn't be such a stretch to consider men as caregivers of the family's offspring. What makes the stronger sex so unsuitable to play that part? Because we're emotional cripples, unable to bond with the little ones like people with real breasts? Because society could point at us and laugh about our mangina? What is it a woman does a man can't do?
Oh I get it, that's just how biology wants it, right? We have to listen to mother nature, it's the smart thing to do. Well, that's at least what I told the cops after I left my house naked. You know, pants don't grow on trees and shirts don't run through the woods, evading capture by predators. It's not natural, not what mother wants. Let's not do this. Right?
We decided to shape the world as we see fit a long time ago. We can't change all behavioural routines in our heads but we are not powerless either. Why stick to role models that are ancient when we can make new ones with more benefits? Humans can't fly; didn't stop them from building planes. This is a question of nurture not nature.

What troubles me the the most, though, is your apparent belief that households with both parents working do it by choice. That is certainly not always the case, especially not in lower income families in America. To avoid that both parents would be forced to work, you need to have minimum incomes that are high enough to feed an entire family. How much is the minimum wage in america and how well can one person provide for a family with it? Would you like to raise 2 kids with only that much money?

Another thing is your idea that "women should gravitate to careers that will give the maximum flexibility so that they can spend all the needed time with their children". What kind of career is that? What jobs allow you to have "maximum flexibility" in terms or worktime? Drug dealing? E-Mail spamming? Porn?
I'm sure such jobs exist but I'd say they're very, very rare. Not a viable solution.

You call it "guidelines not rules" but maybe these guidelines are as antiquitated as ducking under the table when the bomb drops. We live in a brave new world, we need to do better than this. We shouldn't leave potential untapped because grampa doesn't like it. This is the 21st century, let's act like it.

There is nothing that makes women less qualified to bring home the bucks. "Think of the children" is simply a lazy argument against it and only shows the real problems of this debate: sexism and a lack of social security.

Because our censors are role-model *Christian* citizens chosen at random . . . and then never re-chosen.

Describing MMA as a gay-positive sport is like describing OJ Simpson as a straight-positive role model.

Dorothy is a murderer and a thief. What kind of role model is that?