2003 was not a great year for Ben Affleck. Gigli was generally regarded as the worst films of all time (obviously by critics who never saw such cinematic gems as Supernova). Daredevil was a moderately entertaining take on Marvel Comic's attempt to clone Batman, but did not come close to living up to expectations. And Paycheck was one of the first movies based on a Philip K. Dick book to truly bomb. Not to mention the "Bennifer" debacle.
Now, it appears the star of Pearl Harbor is trying to redefine himself by throwing his hat into the political ring. According to Yahoo News, he is joining Senator Ted Kennedy's drive to raise the minimum wage.
This is hardly the first time a Hollywood actor has felt his or her political opinion deserved to be shouted from the rooftops. And at least this time it is not the hystrionics calling for the murder of a president or the overthrow of our government. But it raises again the question of why exactly Hollywood actos feel that their skill at portraying fictional (or occasional historical) characters equates to any credibility in the political arena. Just because Ben Affleck played a part in Armageddon does not mean he would have any luck in preventing it. On the contrary, as with many Hollywood celebrities, Mr. Affleck does not appear to be a man with effective decision-making abilities. Speaking of Overseers (like Elders in a protestant church structure) Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 3:4-5, "He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)" While we certainly do not apply specific religious tests to our elected officials, this seems like a logical and sensible test for any leader. How well does Mr. Affleck - or most other Hollywood actors - hold up when viewed this way?
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder