In amongst the 82.4 things (roughly) I have to do on a daily basis, the fleeting moments I have to myself are fleeting indeed. Whether I keep myself busy, keep myself occupied or keep myself distracted does not matter. My mind does not stop working. It was during these activities that an article on Steven Seagal crossed my eyesight. The article was part of the ‘problem’. It was a minimal associated press message on how the Actor Steven Seagal is considering to be running for the position of Governor of Arizona (at http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/jan/05/steven-seagal-arizona-governor).
A mere 140 word article, surrounded by 8,000 characters of ‘notifications’! Is that all that the Guardian was capable of? The Independent made a much better job of it adding a few things (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/marked-for-governor-steven-seagal-hints-at-arizona-election-bid-9039937.html), my response to that is well done Tim Walker!
So what is the beef I have? Well, many of us, and to some degree me too when I was a lot younger did not take the idea of an actor going into politics very seriously. But is that not at the heart of our own folly? Let’s face it, especially in America; the elected official is a spokesperson for the people who elected him/her.
Even nowadays, many actors become so after getting a University Master’s degree that that tend to include Communication and Media.
Ronald Reagan as the former 40th President of the United Stated will likely remain the most famous of them all. Yet, the other names are not without distinction. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California and one of the more interesting names would be Jesse “The Body” Ventura, who was a professional wrestler, actor and became Governor of Minnesota. The rumour that the bears were so afraid of this governor that they left for the Dakota’s is still unconfirmed. 😉
Finally there is John Lodge who after a decent actor (playing with stars like Shirley Temple and Marlene Dietrich), who would serve in WW2 in the US Navy and become Governor of Connecticut.
There are also several actors who decided on other governmental roles like Alan Autry, Clint Eastwood and Jack Kelly. They became Mayors and several actors went to the House of Representatives.
So many took up arms, did their bit and after making loads of money (in acting) decided to do something for their nation. Is there any worthier cause then to represent the people around you?
So, when that flimsy report of 140 words came on a Guardian page, I thought it was time to take another look at a few things.
First of all, some of the negative responses we see thrown at Steven Seagal are not without ‘reason’. The man has not played the upscale roles Al Pacino played. Is that his fault? When movies go well we all want a piece of the glory, when they are mediocre or bad it is always the fault of the actor, it seems unfair as the movie comes from a ‘vision’ of some director, limited by the funds of the producer. I know that there is more to all this. What is known is the fact that he was the centre part in half a dozen blockbusters that made loads of money. The interesting part is that although these movies were not successful, Seagal made several movies aimed to instil environmental consciousness into the viewers of the big screen.
With numerous acts of activism in protection of environment and animals, it seemed to me that this person deserved more than a mere 140 words. In addition, with what we have seen in the last 20 years, how the quality of all goes up as the spokesperson achieves better goals for them, is it so strange that Actors see this as an option when they leave the tinsel town stage? Let us not forget that the roles these wealthy stars occupy in choices from deputy sheriff to governor go from $48,000 to $125,000 a year (average incomes). For these actors, in many cases it is less than peanuts as they have millions stashed away from their previous careers. Before you think it is easy money, consider that a mid-level banker lacking accountability makes somewhere 200% and 24,000% of the average income of a US governor, depending on which bank that banker ends up with.
The biggest issue I have is that all these papers (LA Times, Washington Post, Guardian and so on) they all just used the Associated press part, with a mere 140 words to mention the name of a possible new governor, all of them ending with the line ‘he wants to increase border security‘.
It was only at www.bizpacreview.com where the following was quoted: “During the interview with ABC15, Seagal said he’s had discussions with Arpaio about a potential run, but does have other priorities to consider. When asked what the country’s number one problem was, Seagal’s response was ‘open borders.’ I think that our biggest problem is open borders,” he said. “I think that across these borders, any kind of terrorism can come, and does come. I think this is a tremendous oversight by the current administration.”
Actually, he only has a partial point in my humble opinion. This issue has played for a long time and the non-actions have been visible all the way back to former President Bush. With its 1950 miles it is the most open incursion area for the United States. The rumour on Al Qaeda getting ‘assistance for a fee’ from Mexican drug cartels has been just that, a rumour.
Linked to this is a statement from Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, who said on C-SPAN’s ‘Washington Journal’ April 17, 2013: “We know al Qaeda has camps over with the drug cartels on the other side of the Mexican border. We know that people are now being trained to come in and act like Hispanic when they’re radical Islamists. We know these things are happening and… it’s just insane not to protect ourselves.”
Here is the kicker, actual evidence has not yet be shown, which is also no evidence that it is not true. The issue for the possible future Governor of Arizona is that his/her 370 mile stretch is almost 20% of that entire borderline. Even if that border was strengthened by a wall, it would not stop the other 80% of the border getting any safer. My issue is that Steven talks a good talk, but the US budgets, the way it is in now clearly indicates that there will never ever be enough money to get these borders secure enough. Whatever the solution it is he wants to implement, it will cost, and it will cost a lot. Until economic prosperity gets back into Arizona, his hands will be tied. Let’s not forget that on the number one spot employer in Arizona is Wal-Mart (the same one where they have mastered the art to pay below the poverty line).
So, whoever ends up in the governor’s chair, his or her goose is slightly cooked. There is of course a creative alternative. He/She could bestow most of Pima County (the southern part or Arizona) to the Navajo, with the only duty that they keep their southern border secure. It is not the worst idea to see these terrorists return to the eternal hunting grounds as a slightly more scalped edition? Is it?
So in the end, should this job go to an actor? Whatever he is labelled as, he has proven to be a fighter, a humanitarian and a philanthropist. Here is where the fight gets interesting. He will go up against Jan Brewer. As a Republican she had increased tax earlier stating that she was forced to ask for the increase due to the state’s $4 billion state budget deficit. In addition, she had been rated as one of the worst governors in America. As such Seagal has more than just a fighting chance. If he can do something about the income of the 30,000 at Wal-Mart in his future state, he could be getting a landslide victory.
This gets us to the actual people in power, meaning those behind a governor advising him/her. Here is where it gets interesting. Those people need funding and sponsors, which makes it interesting for big business to get the right person in power. This means that whatever Steven will try to improve, the places like Wal-Mart will have every intention to get the person elected who serve their purpose. You can read more about that part at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-norman/walmart-lobbyists_b_3632526.html. One of the quotes that come out strong is “the contributions of the Wal-Mart Stores political action committee to federal candidates and other political committees has grown rapidly during the past decade.”
So, when we consider the power Wal-Mart has, we should also wonder who they prefer, Jan Brewer or Steven Seagal. Because behind the power of Wal-Mart hides a fistful of billions, which makes for one mighty punch.
