The Shotgun Blog
« Iranian regime gets nervous | Main | Brussels Journal »
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
What's Angelina Jolie's Position on Darfur?
I've asked myself that question so many times. Now we finally have an answer.
Posted by Jordan Michael Smith on February 27, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8351d0e4369e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What's Angelina Jolie's Position on Darfur?:
Comments
"The willingness of the "Court of the Future" to try such persons as they think will be sacrificed in absentia, without any realistic prospect of actually seizing them simply to make a political point illustrates more than anything else the perverted nature of NGO "justice". These dramatics may be all about seizing authority and power by establishing jurisdiction, but they have nothing to do with alleviating the ongoing genocide in Darfur nor even bringing its perpetrators to justice."
[SNIP]
"Institutions like the ICC are really modernized attempts to hang on to the overrespresentation of European countries in multilateral power politics. It's really European-style statism with a so-called international face. The ICC is probably not the "Court of the Future" but of the past, as in the Court of Marie Antoinette."
by Wretchard at the Belmont Club
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/02/court-of-future.html
Jolie is irrelevant.
How can anyone take her seriously, she's an actress.
Try saying this:
Scientists and Angelina Jolie agree that......
or
International Representatives and Angelina Jolie reached an agreement on......
Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-28 1:02:53 AM
Well, if a Presidential Also Ran can become an
expert in Environmental Science, make an apocalyptic
film and flog it all the way to an Academy Award, all things are possible.
Even washed ups like Jane Fonda still thinks she can cause a 'stir'.
Most have a difficult time keeping their own lives in order without branching out.
No doubt some very noble causes can be helped by some celebrities.
They should stay away from politics if they want to maintain their popularity.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-28 5:26:27 AM
I'd like to know what the UNHCR's "goodwill ambassador on refugees" thinks about her org's shameless abandonment of North Korean refugees in Communist China.
Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2007-02-28 7:17:52 AM
Speller, Speller, Speller, actresses are people too, with rights to their own political opinions.
She can say whatever she wants to say, or not.
Smith may well have placed the posting to rally around something that is dear to him, -- that of star gazing.
How very boring.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-28 2:34:10 PM
Yes she can, Lady, but she is still irrelevant.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-28 2:37:20 PM
I do not know how irrelevant she is to many who listen to her. But I do know it is very boring to have to see actors and actresses getting the spotlight on schemes they use to win favourable light in their profession.
If you take a stand back, that she has any influence at all, may also not all be that bad. After all, she is an excellent example of a woman who is living her life in freedom.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-28 2:54:59 PM
Jolie>"I've seen how aid workers and nongovernmental organizations make a difference to people struggling for survival."
Jolie>"The death toll has passed 200,000; in four years of fighting, Janjaweed militia members have driven 2.5 million people from their homes, including the 26,000 refugees crowded into Oure Cassoni."
Yes the Janjaweed militia IS an NGO- nongovernmental organization.
So is al-Qa'eda, the Taliban, Hizb'allah, Islamic Jihad, etc.
Jolie>"Until the killers and their sponsors are prosecuted and punished, violence will continue on a massive scale."
And who exactly is going to arrest them?
Jolie blathers about what a great thing the ICC is and how they are going to prosecute the Janjaweed criminals but seems to have missed the part about how these criminals are going the end up appearing before the ICC.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-28 3:08:57 PM
Just out of curiosity, why does Ezra Lavant or Jordan Michael Smith's position on Darfur matter any more than someone who's been there? What exactly, besides writing and pontificating and reading and then more writing, qualifies Jordan Michael Smith or Ezra Lavant as an expert?
One could argue, "The Western Standard post flamebait articles to their ad-revenue-supported site, and then host a comment board wired for debates that drive their pageviews through the roof, jacking up their ad rates with every baited post" just as strongly as one could argue, "she's an actress".
Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 2007-02-28 3:31:36 PM
Speller,
Good point.
That is the current dilemma in the expression of war. Governments fund militia groups, also known as terror groups, so they can evade being held responsible in a court of law.
The informal goes about doing the dirty while the formal stands there pretending they know nothing about it, and can do nothing to control them, like butter won't melt in their mouths.
I have wondered what would happen to these groups, should an equally qualilfied and equally illegal group start to persecute the terrorist militia groups. Bet the government would suddenly find the will-power to deal with that menace to their society, but not the former one that they have financed behind curtains.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-28 4:06:12 PM
Ezra Levant's fame (such as it is) has been earned by virtue of respect por the positions he espouses and promotes.
Angelina Jolie's fame has been earned by virtue of her looks, body, persona and acting. I see no reason why her success in her core competencies earns her respect in international affairs.
That said, she seems to be doing a better job of it than most actors-turned-pundit. Indeed her understanding and instinct seem better than your average American citizen. She's not Victor David Hanson but she's nowhere near Sean Penn. And for that I am thankful.
Posted by: pete e | 2007-03-01 12:18:09 AM
But again. Maybe I haven't looked into it enough, but has the author or Ezra been to Sudan or had first hand interaction with any of the parties involved or are they assembling their position from what they've read in the media, been handed by other pundits, and crafted to suit their target audience per their advertisers needs? Their having political fans versus Jolie's movie fans doesn't really affect either of their actual credibility.
Jolie _will_ sell more movie tickets thanks to her work for Darfur and Levant will sell more magazines and TV appearances thanks to his punditry on the issue too, so motivations are what they are as well.
I'm asking why one's opinion would matter more than the other when one has first-hand experience and consultations with parties closer to the issue, while the other doesn't seem to?
I may prefer to hear my news and truth from source X, but if source Y, annoying as they may be, has better sources than source X, why not listen to source Y. More importantly, why attack source Y and ask source X to tell us how it really is? Considering the mockery of 'the Arab street' way, I'd hope for better than a thin copy of it here.
www.savedarfur.org
Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 2007-03-01 8:46:26 AM
Steve,
"One could argue, "The Western Standard post flamebait articles to their ad-revenue-supported site, and then host a comment board wired for debates that drive their pageviews through the roof, jacking up their ad rates with every baited post" just as strongly as one could argue, "she's an actress"."
On behalf of Ezra and the Western Standard, I'd like to thank you for your contribution in lining their pockets.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-03-01 10:01:27 AM
Formula.
Person A: X is bad. Y is good.
Person B: Why is X bad?
Person A: You're just a Y-sympathizer!
Person B: Why is X bad?
Person A: Why ask why?
Person B: Why is X bad, and why is Y good?
Person A: Visit our sponsors, whitesandseminar.com or trump university. X is bad. Y is good.
I'd say it reminds me of an Ernie and Bert skit but I'm sure Erne and Bert offend some folks here.
Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 2007-03-01 10:25:21 AM
Steve,
Your formula must be the one for ALL LIBERAL /OTHER CONVERSATIONS.
Nobody is better at intolerance than a liberal.
Posted by: lwestin | 2007-03-01 10:57:03 AM
Fair enough, lwestin, then could you take a stab at answering my question because I can't get an answer out of 'h2o273kk9' and 'pete e'.
The question:
"Just out of curiosity, why does Ezra Lavant or Jordan Michael Smith's position on Darfur matter any more than someone who's been there? What exactly, besides writing and pontificating and reading and then more writing, qualifies Jordan Michael Smith or Ezra Lavant as an expert?"
Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 2007-03-01 11:03:01 AM
What should be of great concern to many, even though she is an actress, she is better spoken and seems to have a much firmer grasp on her faculties, and her convictions, than the entire brain trust of the Democratic party.
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-03-01 11:03:18 AM
well, Steve
I'm going to go out on a limb and venture that they are more relevant because they have a better understanding, having been formed by their long standing interest in these things. No doubt she has the emotional advantage of having actually been there. She probably also has compassion. When she speaks, she needs to be knowledgeable as well as passionate (and beautiful).
Posted by: lwestin | 2007-03-01 4:18:32 PM
Steve asked
"Just out of curiosity, why does Ezra Lavant or Jordan Michael Smith's position on Darfur matter any more than someone who's been there? What exactly, besides writing and pontificating and reading and then more writing, qualifies Jordan Michael Smith or Ezra Lavant as an expert?"
Steve also said
"... because I can't get an answer out of 'h2o273kk9' ..."
I'm curious why it is so important for me to answer this question. It's not like I have made any comments one way or the other. Why me?
Why should my position on the legitimacy of Ezra's or Angelina's position on Darfur matter more than, say, lwestin or you?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-03-01 4:33:45 PM
Jolie, Jolie! Jolie, Jo-lie-hee-hee!
Posted by: dolly parton | 2007-03-02 4:11:34 PM
See, that strikes me as odd, 'lwestin', "...having been formed by their long standing interest in these things."
Al Gore has invested years (decades) in the climate change issue, David Suzuki has spent decades on the climate issue too, and yet they're "idiots". So, could someone please lay out the Western Standard criteria for credibility? I'm assuming it's not as shallow as, "Must be a sworn conservative/libertarian."
Posted by: Steve Tsuida | 2007-03-06 10:26:56 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.