Dan, have mercy on a loyal but now time-pressed reader. Why, briefly, may I not dismiss "...politically-engaged stars...as merely an amusing curiosity in foreign policy."

I've been doing exactly that. I intend to continue doing it. I hold no malice toward stars of any description, though I reserve the right to use their names when I think doing so might get me a cheap laugh. They have their money, and their entourages and paperazzi and all that, none of which I begrudge them. Why should we give them more than that?

I smirk in your general direction.

Zathras:

Because one of those folks just might become the next Ronald Reagan.

Which one?

Z:

Well, Angelina Jolie would just be totally hot, and she's probably tougher than Hillary Clinton woud ever dream of being. Plus, a President with tatoos would be so cool. Plus, a gal who admtted to wanting to drink blood might just be properly advers to unecessarily spilling it.

Seriously, Z, Hell if I know. But, Reagan's own future was hardly obvious in say, the later 40s, when, in dealing with the Dalton Trumbos of the world as part of his union work, he figured out a lot of his strategy in dealing with Communists, that he used to great effect as president in the 80s.

Being a celeb and being a politician has a lot of similarities and the flow from one field to the other is something that is just going to continue. (Both fields appeal to narcissistic sorts.) If this is the way these monied sorts learn about the world, fine. If what gets us out of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, repeat ad infinitum... is a celeb -- I'm not sure I'm opposed, just as long as it's not Paris Hilton. (Salma Hayak isn't eligible.)

I wanted to see how Angelina Jolie's publicist responded to an interview request from The National Interest. But, alas, the magazine won't let us read the whole article online.

Said a former actor after a stint as Ambassador to Tobago, "After my long overdue vacation my next step is to return to the honesty and fair dealing of Hollywood."

There are celebrities that are fully engaged in trying to make a difference and others that seem to be parachuting in for the photo-op.

I've watched a DVD that a group of evangelical fundamentalists distribute that has an interview with Bono about his efforts to help Africa - and the evangelicals are now helping local churches and other groups in Africa do the hard work at the grass-roots level. My decidedly non-funadamentalist Episcopal church had a copy they were showing and they've joined in.

Bono's concern grew out of his involvement with Live Aid, the realization years later that Live Aid made no long term impact, and a realization that his faith demanded that he help in the best way he can. He makes no bones about using his celebrity as a form of currency to get attention and access to the powerful.

Contrast that with the tales about big deal stars demanding the NGO provide first class air tickets, 5 star hotels, and massage therapy when they show up for a two day photo-op. (I'd mention a particular A-list actress that was written up on a mid-level blog, but the article was yanked under legal threat - from the NGO that the actress was working with.)