And also the previous owner of George Constanza's car...
Posted on 04/27/2006 5:13:30 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
April 27, 2006
You can't say Angela Jolie doesn't think big - with your tax dollars. In an interview aired on this morning's Today show, Jolie advocated applying the No Child Left Behind Program . . . to every child in the world, courtesy the American taxpayer.
Ann Curry, Today newsreader and NBC Dateline host, had interviewed Jolie during her recent trip to Africa to promote education. At one point, Curry made this somewhat surprising observation to the Hollywood star:
"There is another very famous person who talks about education. And you sound a lot like her: Laura Bush."
Jolie engaged in a, no pun intended, pregnant pause and a nervous chuckle. You could hear the gears grinding as she seemingly asked herself 'just how political can I get here?'
Curry nudged her: "Actually, she talks a lot about this issue, specifically educating girls."
Jolie: "She should nudge her husband."
Curry: "Well, I think she does."
Continued Curry in a surprising bit of fairness to the administration: "And I think it also could be said that the US does spend a considerable amount of money helping poor people get educated. So what's your message?"
That's when Jolie went global: "No child left behind means no child left behind. And that isn't [just] with what we feel we can give right now, but with whatever it takes. Britain gives three-times more than us right now. They are not richer than us. So I don't know what the great excuse is."
Back in the studio, Katie, Matt and Al had to restrain themselves from breaking into worshipful applause at Jolie's performance. Amidst expressing extensive concern about the intrusions of paparazzi , the crew offered up these nuggets of praise:
"She has done her homework. There are some celebrities who promote a cause and you feel they are there for a photo-op. But she's done the research."
"The real deal."
"A powerful girl."
"She's spent so much time there."
"She seems relaxed - I would be a nervous wreck."
A lot of us might be nervous wrecks - if Jolie and her friends ever got hold of Congress and the White House!
Well, bless her heart. She means well, but comes across as another misguided do-gooder who things American taxpayers are responsible for righting all the wrongs in the world.
I LOVE IT!!!! : )
Oh yeah? Well, we don't want you to, anyway!!!
(Trying to use the ole' Jedi mind trick to get him to post it... hehehe, sshhhh)
Here's my thought... Jolie likes to adopt children overseas. How about she also use her own money to start some sort of program to help educate children overseas. When you have money and a passion about helping others, you should also have the passion to use your OWN money. If I had that kind of money, it's something I would want to do.
She puts her money and celebrity where her mouth is...10-20% of her annual income goes to starving kids in Africa. She's been a decent advocate for African charities, even winning some praise from the UN AND Condi Rice.
No doubt she's a wing-nut and far to the left of most of us. But, like Bono, she's the real deal when it come to charitable giving and trying to fix some bad things in the world.
And also the previous owner of George Constanza's car...
All children who recieve the free education, who are not citizens, can repay this with 5 years of madatory military service to the USA.
You write the first check, Jolie, of say 80% of the obscene profits you've made over the years.
"So I don't know what the great excuse is."
The answer is this, dimwit. Britain employs far more Socialism than we do. And they have the problems that are always associated with Socialism to prove it.
By the way, Jolie, America is the most charitable nation on the planet, precisely because we are not Socialist and don't have our charity funds stolen from us. Americans give more to charity than the top 3 charitable nations after us combined.
You know, maybe I'm wrong, but I get the distinct impression that, without makeup, Angelina Jolie would be rather plain looking.
To inject a little bit of fairness (and nuance) into this discussion, which Newshounds left out: Jolie wasn't advocating extending the policy of No Child Left Behind, but instead the principle. And who could argue with the principle of no child left behind?
And yes, the UK does spend more than the US on universal education. I was in a press conference at the World Bank annual Spring Meetings last weekend where no less than Paul Wolfowitz himself related that the US spends roughly $1 per capita on universal education, whereas the UK spends roughly $20. Do a google search and you'll find this quote. I was also in a Senate hearing on this issue yesterday afternoon, and the figures put forward by the panel were that the UK has 1/6 the US economy, but invests 3 times as much in universal education. This is all in the context of the UK's Gordon Brown (who was alongside Wolfowitz in the press conference last weekend) announcing they'll be putting US$15 billion into universal education over the next decade.
In ligh of the UK announcement, and since education is one of the three main issues on the agenda at this year's St. Petersburg G8, expect the President to make an education announcement at some point in the lead-up.
Nowhere in the Newshounds article did I see them relate that 100 million kids worldwide don't have access to even primary education. In Africa, the HIV-infection rate in girls who have a primary education is half that of girls who don't. For every year of primary education, a girl's chances of becoming infected with HIV decrease roughly 8%. Girls with primary education also have a lower fertility rate on average. Millions of kids in the developing world can't access primary school because they can't afford the school fees. When Kenya eliminated school fees they saw 3 million more kids in school. AIDS orphans are hardest hit.
If we're serious about spreading freedom and democracy, education is about as simple as it gets. How does one expect vibrant democracies to sprout in areas where millions are illiterate? Democracy relies and can't exist without educated electorates.
We can hand-wring and say it's not our problem, or we can step up to the plate, act our part as a global leader, and increase our investment in universal education--even if the reason is pure self-interest.
As Bob Geldolf said the other day, all the money in the world won't make a difference if the governments are corrupt, as they are in Africa.
Because, to quote her former husband, Billy Bob Thornton "If Angelina likes you, she wants to screw ALL THE TIME. She once insisted we do it in the limousine, on the way to the Oscars."
She's a nymphomaniac.
True. But this is also changing. Africa isn't a monolith, and the fact is the people themselves are pushing for more open governments. If you take a look at some African newspapers (easy to do online), you'll see editorialists drawing attention to corrupt practices. One of the ways to deal with corruption is to empower the people through proven and effective development strategies, while shining a light on corruption where it exists. If the US were to take a completely hands-off approach, it would only allow corruption it fester and spread, and ultimately cause economic and political imbalance at best--and a national security situation at worst.
If you'll take a look at the World Bank's new World Development Indicators report, released last weekend, you'll see a table inside that actually ranks Latin American countries as being more corrupt and providing more risk to business than Africa's.
So, at a time when many Americans are having trouble paying for gas for their cars, this dingbat wants to tax them further. I wonder if she's a liberal...
She's a try-sexual, if it's sexual, she'll "try" it.
Excuse the expression, but she's a skank.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.