"Celebrities. Is there anything they don't know?"
Posted on 04/27/2006 5:13:30 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Well, we are already educating Mexico's children...its not too far a stretch.
Now you have done it! Its not nice to call this skank a skank! (been there done that)
LOL!!! She must really be somethin' for a man to choose her over Jennifer Aniston.
This old man melts when I see those blue eyes!!!
Hey, Angie...her husband is kind of busy right now. Rather that worrying about "educating girls," he's making sure the "girls" in the Muslim world don't have to worry about being beaten, raped, tortured & murdered...by their husbands, sons, brothers and nephews. Oh, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that Muslim women don't register on Hollywood PC radar, like, they don't exist.
Brangelina, just as soon as Congress figures out how to tax the world to pay for it then maybe.
"Celebrities. Is there anything they don't know?"
Yea, Ayn Rand would agree with this.
I see where you are coming from but I think what I and many others here resent is having this VERY wealthy woman who appears not to scale down HER lifestyle in any way instead wants US middle class folks like myself who work two jobs to stay afloat to give more and more.
What Africa needs is some major uprisings by the honest folks there to kick out those kleptocrats who are robbing their nations blind.
And just what are those? You seem well-informed [although it's NewsBusters not NewsHounds], but I sense someone who is not a conservative. You're a recent member who uses classic lib-speak: spending = investment, belief in various big government programs, demand that the US "step up to the plate" to spend more, etc. Not really sure you are in the spirit of this site.
""She's having her baby in Africa. How pretentious can you get! America is not good enough for her???""
She is just doing that so when the baby comes out black she will be able to explain to Brad that it's because they are in Africa, so the baby came out black. He, of course, would totally buy into that being the intelligent one he is.
Didn't they just spend $8,000.00 a night for some stupid hotel room. Yeah, let me give some of my tax money for your dream world. How bout sterilization?
If all the Hollywood crowd would just spend their money on all the "causes" they think are just, instead of sending it to the DNC to elect officials that will make everyone else pay for them, a lot of poor people would be better off.
They should have declared this intellectual pygmy "persona non grata" and not let her come back.
Matter of fact, they should do this most Hollyweirdos.
I'm a recent member in the sense that I've only been posting here for a few months (funny how many people have checked that), but I've been reading for years. I don't use the same lingo because I work in public policy on international development and global health, and so I have more comprehensive idea of what Jolie's talking about here and of the issue in general.
I'm conservative but I stick more to my principles than I do the party line.
I use 'investment' instead of 'spending' (even most in my field use 'spending') because I think it's important to highlight the return that we expect to receive on our money. A lot of development money that we report to have spent (and that ends up in articles) goes to emergency food aid, technical assistance, debt relief etc, and so there is no real return on that. It's the difference between, say, shipping a boat load of food or investing in community-based projects that replenish soil and use robust seed varieties to increase crop production and surplesses that can then be sold in the marketplace.
As far as disease is concerned, for any infectious disease--say TB--the net loss in productivity for developing countries outweighs the cost of treatment and prevention. So to spend money on prevention and treatment, through common-sense, community-based, locally-driven initiatives, the intended return on that spending is increased productivity, a boon to the receiving economy, and net economic output that is greater than the money put in. Good example: The cost for the drugs of a full course of TB treatment in the developing world (purchased through the Global TB Drug Facility) is roughly US$16. The average adult sick with TB in the developing world will lose roughly 6 months of work time. Those months lost on the job lead to a personal economic loss and also a loss in productivity greater than the measly $16. See what I'm getting at? That's why I frame it in terms of investment. This sort of development effort, over the long run, is intended to build economies in a cost-effective way that allow countries to participate in the free market, which also expands our access to markets.
As far as 'step up the plate' is concerned, believe it or not, for most international development inititiaves, "fair shares" are calculated based on each donor country's Gross National Income (GNI). I've never seen an initiative for which the US is expected to foot the entire bill, or even more than its fair share based on the size of its economy. The same matrix applies to all donor countries. When I see commentary arguing that the US expected to pay the whole thing, I tend to shake my head (or my fist, depending on how inaccurate it is) because it's never the case. I say the US should step up to the plate in this sense, because putting a meager amount of $$ into universal education reaps much on the return (see the stats I wrote in my original post). It's not even a humanitarian or altruistic issue, although anyone with a heart can emulate with kids who work in mines at the at of 6 (like the one I met in a Senate hearing yesterday who's now 12 and the first literate person in his family), or selling garbage pulled from dumps in Colombia at the age of 3 (another kid I met in the same hearing who's now in school and learning). Conservatism shouldn't equal cynicism. If old ways of doing things (and in development we know a lot of the old ways of doing things didn't work) are found to have been ineffective, then we learn from our mistakes, innovate, think creatively, and pursue another strategy based on the evidence we have.
Nor am I advocating big government programs. For one, US money, for instance, can be used to fund local faith-based schools in Africa that now meet under trees and use 20-year old text books. I advocate for initiatives that build local capacity and foster independence.
In this case, the NewsBusters (sorry I definitely confused this) story was factually inaccurate. Jolie wasn't advocating extending the No Child Left Behind legislation or policy globally, just the simple premise that no child should be left behind. I've participated in some media events with Jolie and also a Hill briefing on orphans legislation, and she knows the issues cold.
If you'll look at the President's National Security Strategy, it has three prongs: Defense, Diplomacy, and Development. All three are important, and development shouldn't be hamstrung by cynics who oftentimes have no idea what they're talking about, and offer no input except to say, "Why should the US do it?" The answer to that is because the US is a leader, and when I think of a leader I think of someone or some country that recognizes a problem, innovates, strategizes and eliminates barriers to fixing it. It's what makes us flat-out awesome. As a leader, I think we should be all for doing our share (no more, no less) of fixing the big problems...health and development being two of the biggest.
Well, with all of Hollyweird adopting 3rd world children as the latest prop/fashion accesssory, I'm sure things will take care of themselves.
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.