James Bowman of the American Spectator has a column about performers bloviating on the issues of the day. The article is well written, but I've lost count of the number of items I've read (and written) on the subject. Actors and singers are not politicall astute! Film at 11!

Bowman, however, touches on an irritation I often have with such columns:

Not long ago I read that Ethan Hawke -- who is a movie actor, for those of you fortunate enough not to have had to witness, as I have had to do, any of his characteristically hang-dog appearances on the silver screen -- said that President Bush was "probably the least prepared person to be president of the United States that's been elected in a long time, if not ever." The quotation speaks for itself. As does the fact that the Washington Post reported it with a straight face, demonstrating no apparent shame for citing as an authority on the President's preparedness for office a man who has never in his life done anything but impersonate other people in front of a camera.

Does being a competent actor make one more qualified to knowledgably discuss political issues and figures? I think Bowman would agree with me that it does not. So as such, why does it matter if Bowman thinks that Hawke is a bad actor? Sure, being an actor can help a politician be suggessful at getting his ideas across, but it has little or no bearing on whether or not they generate or attach themselves to good ideas. I've noticed that whenever a stupid celebrity utters stupid ideas, one of the first things out of their mouths is "Well they can't act/sing anyway."

I consider Alec Baldwin to be a good actor. Same with Ethan Hawke. I think that Natalie Maines has a great singing voice. But their views are no less idiotic than Ben Affleck, who can't act.

I find it interesting how many people will talk about how presumptuous it is that the artist links their talents to political wisdom and then turn around and imply that their lack of talent makes them less politically wise.