These vapid, know-it-all celebrity types crack me up with the stupid things they come up with sometimes...Angelina Jolie says the U.S. government has "strange" priorities when it comes to spending money on war rather than on AIDS or refugees.
"Our priorities are quite strange," the 31-year-old actress said in an interview that aired Tuesday night on CNN.
Our spending priorities aren't half as strange as watching her french-kissing her brother on the red carpet at the Academy Awards a few years ago. Or how about the vial of Billy Bob Thornton's blood she used to wear as a necklace? Eeeeew!!!
Jolie said spending money on war rather than "dealing with situations that could end up in conflict if left unassisted" could prove costly in the end."We're missing a lot of opportunities (to do) a lot of good that America used to do and has a history of doing," said Jolie, who is a goodwill ambassador for the U.N.'s refugee agency.
"dealing with situations (AIDS) that could end up in conflict if left unassisted"...what in the world does that mean? It's as if she misread some U.N. pamphlet on AIDS and then misquoted it as well.
AIDS is very simple to avoid...don't take drugs or have unprotected sex, or better yet...abstain altogether. As for the African children who have AIDS, I'll be willing to bet that no country gives more taxpayer money, provides more doctors, donates more medical supplies, and provides free drug treatment than the U.S. does to the victims of AIDS in underdeveloped countries.
Sure the war on terror is costly, but what's the alternative? Being nice to radical Muslims, and trying to treat the African AIDS epidemic, won't get them to stop trying to kill us. If we don't fight terrorism at it's roots (with war), we will be doomed to suffer dozens of 9/11's in the future.
If Angelina really wanted to do something to help prevent AIDS in children, she should start by doing something to overthrow the corrupt leaders of the nations who have stolen the country's wealth for their own. Doing something to foster free-enterprise, capitolist economies so that the financial boats of every citizen rises with the national economic tide. Doing something to end the reign's of terror foisted upon the people by tribal warfare and ruthless dictatorships.
Perhaps she should rethink spending hundreds of thousands in a posh Namibian resort avoiding the press, while trying to make Americans (the most generous people on Earth) feel guilty for not doing enough to prevent a disease which has many other preventions besides money.
Just shut-up and act!
4 comments:
Nice take Reid.
You are generous to applaud the good that celebrities actually do accomplish. I failed to acknowledge them in my post for their service, such as it is.
But you are also correct in pointing out that they do their giving very publically so as to show everybody how socially concious they are. I guess if it draws attention to their cause that's OK, but don't try to use guilt as a means to raise funds for your cause.
I too applaud their generosity and I hope that these celebrities give, as they do, from a genuine place in their hearts (and I think that most do). I also think it may be difficult for a celebrity to act totally anonymously in their giving and for that we may need to blame the media. But I do have a problem with the ones who are hypocritical in their actions...carrying on about how much money we are "wasting" on the war when they spend more in one month than many of us will make in a lifetime.
I agree with Farp.(great call-sign by the way) I think most celebrities, at least the smug, self-righteous ones, think of themselves as the enlightened class and the rest of us as their subjects, the crude masses, the unsophisticated commoners, who should be told how to live since obviously we don't know, or we would be doing it already.
Reid, I didn't mean you, or any of the very altruistic celebrities who do good for others out of genuine, heartfelt concern. I was addressing the celebs who tell us that we have too much as Americans and that we should feel guilty about it.
I don't have much, but I certainly am not going to be made to feel guilty for what I do have by some flighty, self-involved, superior elitist who is only trying to alleviate their own guilt by transferring it to me.
Post a Comment