The new Gov. of New Mexico - Val Kilmer?

Well here is a really scary thought. Actors as politicians. Often the thought terrifies me. I was brought to this fearful contemplation when I heard that Val Kilmer is potentially planning to run for Governor of New Mexico in 2010.

Now to be fair, there have been several actors that have gone into politics and done quite well. The list includes: Fred Thompson (actually he was a politician first), Arnold Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, Shirley Temple Black, Fred Grandy, Jerry Springer (actually a politician first as well – still a surprise to most though), Jesse Ventura, and most famously Ronald Regan.

And to my knowledge the most successful of the thespians turned politicians, in America at least, have all been Republicans. Funny considering that most in Hollywood are Democrats, and incredibly liberal. Or not so funny if you think about it.

But when I think of an actor jumping into politics I always have the same group of thoughts. They are even better trained liars than the usual polispeak of professional politicians. They often have agendas that are less clearly known. They can capture a huge base of support solely because people are familiar with their face. And they can capitalize on a public image that may in fact have nothing to do with their actual political views.



Taking Val Kilmer as an example. He is a registered Democrat. Until this moment I had no idea, and less concern. I liked him in Top Gun, Real Genius, Top Secret, and Heat. None of which I expect are his true persona. He is involved in animal rescue, but there is no connection to PETA. He donated to Ralph Nader’s run for President, and has stated he voted for President Obama.

None of this makes me believe anything more about him than I did before. None of this makes me understand how he is qualified to run for the Governorship of any state. But it assures me that if he were to run he would be a media hotspot.

Politics is something every American should be aware of. We all should be involved to some degree, as every decision made affects us all. And the people we elect to office should be dedicated to that purpose. But celebrity can often subvert that.

I don’t know Val Kilmer personally. I am not questioning him on a personal level. But if he chooses to run for public office I believe that he should be very clear in exactly where he stand on his politics, and exactly what he believe that he can do to improve the lives of his potential constituents.

I would love to hear what he believes qualifies him for the position. And I will be the first to say, that if he can prove he is more than a famous personality, he deserves every chance at the position. But if he cannot, then he should never run. Because all he will do is divert attention from real issues and policy, thus preventing the people of New Mexico – and in a manner all Americans – from gaining the best choice for the position.

Trends in political elections pt 2 - 1.29.2007.2

Continued from part 1...

Debates for candidates, even Presidential ones, have been whittled down – presumably to save time – to trite answers on generalized questions. As if a subject like education or the economy or national healthcare or public security can be properly answered in 1-2 minutes. And any public speaking event is carried by few media outlets, and that is generally only carried in part. The net result being that most only get to hear a key phrase or video clip. The soundbite of the actual event. And the public is asked to base decisions on that. Which works well for the youth brought up on a culture of little information and fast delivery.

Of course that is not the best thing for the nation. I think that all would agree, if any party had a plan to successfully end the war in Iraq the majority of Americans would have rallied behind it. Sadly that did not happen in the recent mid-term elections. We were fed ‘There must be a change’ and ‘I will bring you a change’. Neither of which are a plan nor a statement of what will be done. Yet as soundbites they were quite effective. Even now there has only been one plan posed. Whether it is a good plan or not, is not the question. There is no alternative being given. Yet the soundbites ring clear, ‘We need to change.’ [Let me clarify, a plan entails a detailed explanation of goals, with clearly defined resources and actions. ‘We should leave’ is not a plan. We should leave via a gradual reduction of troops over a 6 month period, allowing religious tensions to grow and create a civil war that Iran will back. When all of our troops are gone we will allow Iran to come into the area in force, raise oil prices and set up terrorist groups – that blame us for the chaos resulting from our leaving the country in disarray – that will plan to attack our nation funded by the higher oil prices. Once we are attacked on our soil again we can then nuke the nation in retaliation. That is a plan. It may be bad but it is a plan.]

So the result is that many are using the 30 seconds of information, given by faces that are familiar due to repetition, to base their decisions on. And the next generations of kids are being shown that this is the manner to base their decisions. That is those that are bothering to take the obligation of voting seriously.

I have a problem with this. I have a problem with what I see as soundbite politics. I have a problem with politicians giving one answer in a specific state and an altered, not quite the same meaning, answer in another. I have a problem with politicians avoiding giving a real answer to a serious question because it may take too long. I have a problem with politicians thinking I’m not smart enough to notice the difference.

I’m also scared that this trend will only grow. Fewer people will be involved in electing the President, or any politician and the public will suffer. That is not a democracy, and no one will notice it slip away – well almost no one. But the initial furor over candidates today will be replaced by who is in the finals of some reality show. Don’t be surprised if a debate is scheduled on the same day. It’s your nation too. Don’t let them forget.

For my part I have asked questions. I will continue to do so. I expect answers. And I will call those out that are duplicitous, or so smug to think that everyone is fooled. Regardless of their political party. Copy my letters and send them yourself. Tell me what other questions we should ask. Remind the candidates that they are OBLIGATED to answer our questions and keep their promises if they want our vote.

This is what I think, what do you think?

What does change mean? - 1.22.2007.2

I have been listening for months now and I have a question. Since shortly before the mid-term elections of 2006, there has been a cry to ‘have a political solution’ to the war in Iraq. There have been calls to end the war because it has been going on for too long. There needs to be a ‘change’ in our policy. And so on.

I want to consider each of these demands. The first I have to question is the political solution. Can anyone mention to me a single war, or even a conflict, that has ended solely via politics? Seriously, just name one. The American revolution, The French revolution, The American Civil War, Viet Nam, Korea, WWI, WWII, The Six Day War, the IRA vs. Britain, and everything else. None have ended due to political action. In each it was the actual fighting of troops that caused the cessation of combat.

As I recall, in each battle there has come a point where one side realized the futility of continuing aggression and then engaged in talks. It is not the political talks that ended the conflict, just the observation that the most probable outcome of continued action would yield no further positive results. Thus one side loses and another wins, the spoils of war being divided accordingly.

In the Civil War it meant the surrender of the South. In Viet Nam, regrettably, it meant the creation of Southern Viet Nam and huge numbers of troops being constantly stationed there. With the IRA, as I understand it, it has lead to Britain making concessions; In the Six Day War Israel gained new lands. It is the way wars go. Perhaps the only case where I think there might have been a viable political cessation to fighting was with Mahatma Gandhi. Like all things there is an exception, and Gandhi was an exceptional man. Considering all the conflicts of all sizes in the history of man, I believe he is the only exception.

So all the calls to have a ‘political solution’ are just a PC, soundbite friendly way of saying ‘we give up, you win.’ At least that is what I think, and I suspect it is what those who would want us to lose are thinking as well. Oh, and by the way, what EXACTLY is a political solution? Has anyone asked what that means? Is there an example that anyone has or can point to of a political solution that has worked, or even existed?

As for those that believe a war is like a video game or a sporting match, wake up. There are no preset timeframes. There are no rules, no overtime. It takes as long as it takes. WWI was never expected to last 4 years. As I recall there was fighting still going on in isolated areas in 1947. The Civil War was expected to be over in 1 year maximum. And so on. There is no way to determine how long anyone is willing to fight for their home, religion, or beliefs. The Afghan rebels fought the Soviet Union for over a decade, if I recall correctly. War is not a game, nor can it be calculated on a checklist like a football match. It sucks, but that is the facts. To assume otherwise is to invite defeat.

Most important I must ask those who have cried for a change, what is the change. It’s easy to say ‘do something different,’ but what is that different thing? Nuking the largest cities in Iraq would be a change. Taking the country over and declaring our status as a colonizing empire is a change. Running away in defeat is a change. Instituting isolationist policies is a change. Are any of these the options we want as a nation? Are any of these the option that is being proposed by those politicians heralding the need to do ‘something’ different? It’s nice to say change; it is a far cry different to actually state what should be done differently.

Imagine a corporation selling widgets. The shareholders and a few of the Board of Directors want a change because sales have slowed; profits are not quite what they were. A new CEO is hired, drops the sale of widgets and starts selling children’s books. The scale of economies plummets, the cost of new equipment skyrockets, marketing budgets balloon, and sales are non-existent as the customer base is abandoned. Shareholders are enraged. The CEO holds a conference and says, “You wanted change, I gave you that. You never said what you wanted changed so I had to improvise. Don’t complain now that it’s not what you wanted, you should have been clear.”

I think my point is clear.

This is what I think, what do you think?

What may the next 2 years look like? - 11.8.2006.1

So the Democrats have won the mid-term elections. Yea for them. Now what? I mean this seriously. What exactly is the Democratic platform on Iraq. No longer can the statement “we need a change” be the answer. The fact is we need a detailed description of what that change is. And it will be the Democratic Party that must be held accountable for what they define as needed change.

If taxes go back up in the next 2 years, don’t be surprised. If we exit Iraq and a massive civil war breaks out, leading to Iran and fanatical religious groups taking over sections of that country, don’t be surprised. If due to the above Iraq ceases to exist, oil prices rise dramatically and the Middle East becomes even more unstable, well you know.

I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be a re-evaluation in our current plans. I am saying that walking away with things unsettled because the political advantage was to do that, is not the best plan. I do believe that various fanatical groups find comfort in the current push by Democrats to hide at home [my opinion of the ‘plan’ implied by many of the winners of the elections]. It may be an over-simplification, or perhaps a misstatement of the goals; but based on the lack of an actual platform it’s hard not to make assumptions.

I also will ask something of both parties. What are you doing for Black Americans? In the last several Presidential Administrations I’ve seen nothing. I’ve heard about so called reforms in welfare, yet I haven’t seen a change in the families supported solely by the program. I’m not talking about those who need help temporarily, I mean the grandmother, mother, and kids all living on welfare for the last decade (or more). Fathers and sons are in this too there are just less fathers, living with their kids, for this to apply to. Where is the inner city improvements in education? I’m not talking about making a stupid list of things for kids to rote memorize, I mean actual improvements in class size, age of books, retaining creative programs [football is a gym activity not a creative program. I mean art, music and such] and reducing the number of kids dropping out.

Looking forward, what are we going to do about our soldiers that come home and become veterans? Assuming that within the next year our troops are home (most of them) they need to be re-integrated into society and retrained to join the work force. And where will we get the new military forces we will need if we are out of Iraq (maybe Afghanistan too) in the next year and the region isn’t stable? The people will be in turmoil and such instability fuels fanatics and those nations that hate us. And that means attacks on America.

I would also remind people that the markets may soon be hit. If the minimum wage is increased, lay-offs and slower hiring will ensue. Unemployment will go up. Why? It’s economics that should be apparent from high school classes; small businesses can’t afford the increase. Yes those living on minimum wages will have more money, there will just be fewer of them for a while. Net result in my opinion is that unemployment will increase, as will welfare, and the economy will slow as fewer people will be spending the extra cash. That is no gain for many, at least for 3 years after the increase. Oh, did I leave out that there will be fewer small businesses, some closed due to the increase and others unable to start because the increase creates a ceiling of minimum cost that they can’t cross.

In addition it seems that there is a desire to remove the tax cuts currently in place, so expect higher taxes. That doesn’t help spending and thus slow the economy and increase small business closings. And the healthcare move to lower drug costs. [I kind of agree with this, on generally needed life-saving drugs. Beyond that, if you want a cost cut on Viagra or an allergy medication you are out of your mind, in my opinion.] Of course that means pharmaceutical profits are down, and a slow down in new drug research to try to balance the lower profits so shareholders will be happy. So a major sector of the market will be hit.

Overall the economy may not improve, if all the initiatives wanted by Democrats are passed. And the nation will not be safer, I think, if we cut and run as many are hinting at. Hinting because they want to look strong on security, yet many wouldn’t stand up and say any plan before the elections. I see nothing that will keep African American kids in school, or give them a job if they leave. I see no plan that will remove the ease of letting the Democrats take care of Black Americans, with welfare and such programs, in the potentially difficult time ahead.

So the Democratic Party won the House, and may hold sway in the Senate. Yea for them.

This is what I think, what do you think?