Sunday, February 19, 2012

The unfortunate dabblings in politics of Clooney & Jolie

George Clooney, who never evinced interest in matters political or humanitarian before or since, made news in 2006 by speaking out against genocide in Darfur. The narcissist morphed into activist for about a fortnight. After calling for US & NATO military intervention & testifying at the UN for UN occupation, our intrepid hero morphed back into international playboy (making the world safer for democracy). Angelina Jolie has displayed more staying power but that’s because she thinks disaster zones are such a glamorous back drop to photo ops of her & Brad looking pretty. Following her propaganda film on Bosnia, she now calls for US intervention in Syria.  It’s sweet she adopts kids but that doesn’t make her an authority on international politics. No one should hold youthful folly against anybody, but she’s the woman who said, “When other little girls wanted to be ballet dancers I kind of wanted to be a vampire.” That would certainly explain her choices in politics.


  1. Sorry, but if their politics agreed with yours, I sense you would have no problem with their dabbling.
    I am not a fan of celebrities, but really, seething over what a couple of film stars do to help people in distress is rather petty. Both give generously of their money and time. I say that is something to be commended, not sneered at!


  2. Welcome to the fifth edition of First Nations News & Views. This weekly series is one element in the "Invisible Indians" project put together by navajo and me, with assistance from the Native American Netroots Group. Last week's edition is here. In this edition you will find Aji's essay on the brazen and lucrative slap in the face the
    <span>Twilight </span>series delivers to Indians, a look at the year 1599 in American Indian history, five news briefs and some linkable bulleted briefs. 

  3. I don't seethe, vza; I vituperate. Please try to grasp the political point I am making which appears to elude your grasp: US & UN military intervention is not a solution in Darfur, Syria, or anywhere else.

  4. Oh, it is not eludng my grasp at all, Mary. You did not confne yourself to a "political point" about U.S. or UN involvement. I agree we should stay out of all of it, but I am not going to dismiss them as narcissists or print things that are patently false:

    "George Clooney, who never evinced interest in matters political or humanitarian before or since, made news in 2006 by speaking out against genocide in Darfur."

  5. I never thought he was that hot anyway ;) .  It's another way for the prevailing attitude to be expressed - we assume that these celebrities are heartfelt in their beliefs and have no conflict of interest (like aspirations for a future political career?).  And maybe they do believe in what they espouse.  But Darfur and Syria are presented in a very one-sided way as humanitarian crises.  In fact when one digs a little deeper, there is another side - surprise, surprise!  Once again the US / west's goals are to get to the natural resources (Darfur) and strategic military positioning / alliances (Syria).