Ben for Senator - cont 001

Interesting article from the Collegiate Times, "an independent student-run newspaper serving the Virginia Tech community since 1903", from Blacksburg, Virginia.

Be careful who you vote for September 29th, 2005 Imagine turning on your TV and hearing the words: “I’m Ben Affleck, running for Virginia State Senator, and I approved this message." Virginia Democrats are talking “Benator" after learning that current Governor Mark Warner ducked out of the senatorial race next year, according to the Washington Post. If he runs, Affleck will oppose current GOP big-shot Senator George Allen next year. Of course, it wouldn’t be the first time a Hollywood star has run for (or held) public office — wrestler Jesse Ventura was Governor of Minnesota from 1999 to 2003, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger is currently Governor of California and most prominently, actor Ronald Reagan was President from 1981 to 1989. According to the Washington Post, however, the Democrats’ mission is not to really get Affleck elected — it’s to steal votes from and slow down the campaign of Allen, who is eyeing the 2008 presidential race. First and foremost, the Democratic Party should be condemned for this tactic that undermines our political system. Affleck may be a great actor, but state senators are not supposed to act — they’re supposed to have knowledge of major issues and a good foothold with their constituents. Affleck has never lived in Virginia, and just because he’s looking for property in Charlottesville doesn’t mean that he understands the issues of Virginians and the diversity that this state embodies. Add to that the fact that he doesn’t even have a college degree, and it’s fairly unlikely that the actor is qualified enough to represent our state in the United States Senate. Sorry Ben, but having a pretty face and a household name doesn’t qualify you to hold political office. Unfortunately, these attributes will attract a lot of votes from a poorly-educated public blinded by the idea that just because Affleck is popular, he’ll make a good senator. And, naturally, that’s exactly what Democrats have in mind by throwing his name around a year before the election. So, what can you do to avoid falling into this trap to grab your vote? Pay attention to candidates’ backgrounds, where they stand on the major issues, and what they intend to do while in office. If the only reason why you’re voting for candidates is because they look cool, and they’re popular, then you really need to re-think your ballot. That said, another poor reason to vote for someone is just on partisan basis. People who vote for a convicted murderer or a pedophile just because he or she is from the Democratic or Republican parties have serious issues. The best thing that voters can do is to educate themselves about their candidates during election time. Knowing who you’re voting for, why you’re voting for them and what will probably happen after they’re elected is far more important than voting on someone based merely on popularity. Perhaps the biggest reason not to elect an unqualified candidate is that it broadcasts a message to the rest of the world that Americans are superficial. If we want the world to take us seriously on matters like the war on terror and Iraq, then we can’t afford to vote for someone like Ben Affleck.

I'm not sure if I agree with the view that a senator should have a college degree. Maybe because I have one of those, and know of enough people who have one and enough who don't, to know it really does not determine our intelligence or ability to do or know anything. If anything, Ben showed incredible clout in chosing Middle Eastern Studies, as he did, and he dropped out to pursue his acting career, not because he was unable intellectually to spend four years in a campus. I think he's shown since that he's very bright, very interested, and very capable.

This sort of stuff always reminds me of how Anthony Giddens never did get his formal PhD, but is a major sociology author, that has changed how we study sociology today. I had a professor chuckle over that, saying "he doesn't need to produce a formal thesis, every one of his books is in itself a thesis". So, for me this is just academic snobs being stupid. In the States!


Anyway, I was almost lucky to find this article, amid what looks like every single zeitung and its friends over at the bar has picked up on "Boy or Girl? JG lets it slip", "Garner Inadvertently Reveals Baby's Sex" and "Garner spills the beans on baby's sex"...