Angelina Jolie is a Celebrity Do-Gooder

# 143 tabitha @ 12/28/2007 at 2:04 pm

:smile: I got it . Thank you ! :smile:

alia @ 12/28/2007 at 2:12 pm

nice pic,I would like to know what photographers told her or what she told them to make people laugh.

#118: and as usual, p*ss on you too. Take your golden shower to the nearest fire hydrant.

How do you think you’re being clever when a preschooler can see thru your stunt?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PGqO88EtE5k

With Mad in New Dehli:
http://www.solcomhouse.com/graphic3.jpg

he he he @ 12/28/2007 at 1:59 pm Lynn # 197

why pushing Charity to someone who publicity told CHARITY IS NOT FOR HER.so even If you want her to do charity so badly,your idol doesn’t want to do it.since according to herself.SHE IS NOT GOING TO SAVE THE WORLD.

___________________________________________________
First I do not Idolize any celebrity, you can’t idolize someone you don’t know! That’s why you people are called loonies. I idolize GOD, my parents and my grandparents not a fraudulent celebrity I really know nothing about! I sure as hell hope you people give to charity to justify bashing everyone that doesn’t worship AJ. And before asking Yes, I do give to many charities may not be millions but I givewhat I can. So back off *******!

the real tita @ 12/28/2007 at 2:17 pm

Me sulat ako sa iyo.

Lynn @ 12/28/2007 at 2:20 pm

Well if as you say you know nothing about her how can you call her FRAUDULENT? That makes you a FIRST CLASS LIAR does it not?

Angie in Darfur 2:
http://angelinajolie.celebden.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/angelina-darfur.jpg

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cQdR9WKJ-KQ

alia @ 12/28/2007 at 2:19 pm

Angie in New Dehli:
http://www.solcomhouse.com/ajindia.jpg
—

Angelina looks so much like her mom on that pic.
BTW, thanks for the pics. They’re kind of dated but they are also relevant to the theme of this thread.

Same arguements, different year.

African Girl aka Time Out @ 11/09/2006 at 8:42 am
This is my third and hopefully, last post on this thread. Normally, I’d read the posts but I had to post on the Jolie Charity vs. Jen Charity.

This is for the Aniston Fans…

You say she gives quietly which is good but she can do better. Many studies have shown there is an increase in donations when a celebrity is attached to a cause. Using her status as a celeb, she could quadruple her own donations by creating and awareness.

Chloe Sevigny said recently…

“Educate yourself and try to get out there, especially with celebrities, go to different events and lend your name and help to raise money.”

She understands that with celebrity come certain responsibilities. It’s one thing to attend a charity dinner worth 10,000 and it’s quite another to be a voice for a cause. I don’t expect much from the Paris Hiltons, Nicole Riches of the world but with Jennifer Aniston….I mean let’s look at it this way, if her hairstyle created so much hype and imitation, can you imagine what will happen if she stood firmly behind a cause? Let’s be reasonable here….forget your hate or dislike for Angelina Jolie for one second and think about this. If some of you still think her giving quietly is the best way, that’s fine BUT please don’t demean what Ms. Jolie is doing by calling it a “photo-op”. In case you aren’t aware what an Ambassador for the UN does, then let’s make it clear….They help SHINE the light on issues. She’d be doing her ambassadorship a disservice if all she did was behind the scenes.

I’m including an article from USA Today, which in my opinion, sums up the importance of celebrity advocates.

HEADLINE: Hear them out;

Celebrity activists are an easy target. After all, when Hollywood stars stoop down to help the underprivileged, their efforts often appear pious or self-serving. The results, though, tell a different story. Celebrity gossip has gotten to be a drag. While it used to be a kick indulging in the guilty pleasure of showbiz dish — marital infidelities, movie set tantrums, the randomly tossed telephone — nowadays Hollywood headlines seem more suited to page one than Page Six. 

In the past few months alone, say the papers, Nicole Kidman was appointed goodwill ambassador for the United Nations Development Fund for Women, Naomi Watts and Matt Damon were in Zambia, sounding an alarm about HIV/AIDS, and George Clooney was kicking up sand in Darfur, hoping to shine a spotlight on that war-torn region. Oh, yeah — and Los Angeles cops plucked a protesting Daryl Hannah from a walnut tree.

When did everything get so darn serious?

The truth is, celebrity activism has been around since Charlie Chaplin first kicked that beach ball-globe as The Great Dictator, and War Bonds saleslady Hedy Lamarr sold kisses for at least $25,000 each in support of our GIs overseas.

But as the news and entertainment industries continue to morph into one another, do-goodism of the rich and famous has become just another front in the culture wars. As a result, the TV, movie and music stars who pipe up on behalf of pet causes often earn more bile than bravos among grumpy pundits.

Politics vs. culture

“The problem with the humanitarianism of the entertainers is that it perpetuates a confusion of politics with culture,” argues New Republic columnist Leon Wieseltier, who calls Angelina Jolie “the African queen” and deems longtime rabble-rouser Michael Douglas unworthy of discussing international peace. “(This) teaches Americans to live vicariously … in slavish imitation of people luckier than themselves.”

Then there’s the hypocrisy factor. Peter Schweizer, author of the celeb-cause wrist slapper Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, reports that Barbra Streisand spends $22,000 a year watering her lawn and gardens, while she lectures Americans on the need to cut back on water and gas consumption by hanging out their wash and junking their SUVs. Oh, Babs.

On one hand, the critics make a good point. Those more accustomed to signing autographs than to penning policy papers often raise eyebrows, not awareness, as theymove from the sound stage to the sound bite. (Bo Derek’s vacant-eyed endorsement of President Bush, for example, continues to amuse me.) And even when a star knows of what he preaches, the delivery tends to teeter between the riotously pious and hopelessly hammy.

Who can forget Richard Gere’s infamous attempt to mind-meld with Chinese leaders over the thorny issue of Tibet from the stage of the Academy Awards? Not exactly a Bono moment.

But to write off all celebrity activists as windy, whiny and woefully out of touch is to ignore the unique advantage celebrities have in getting their message out.

For starters, entertainment idols are notoriously image-conscious, so when they put their careers on the line for a cause, you’ve got to figure they’re drop-dead serious about their positions. (See the Dixie Chicks as exhibits A through C.) But more important, tarring all stars as know-nothing opportunists unfairly undermines those who rise above garden-variety activism and actually conduct the research required for good advocacy.

Take Martin Sheen.

Because of the veteran actor’s famous outspokenness — not to mention the fact that he played the president on TV — conservatives have practically called for an all-out jihad on the guy, depicting him as the worst thing to happen to America since the invention of the Chia Pet. But why not give Sheen his soapbox, especially considering his street creds? Arrested for protests more than 60 times, he has engaged in the kind of investigative legwork expected of journalists and scholars, not empty-headed leading men. He has stood with impoverished migrant workers, provided hands-on aid to the “scavengers” of the Payatas garbage dump in the Philippines, and continues to speak with authority about the hazards of nuclear waste. If this kind of substantive homework doesn’t earn a fellow the right to spout off, what does

Jolie educates viewers

Meanwhile, Leno and Letterman can make all the cracks they want about Angelina Jolie, but when the actress sat down last week with CNN’s Anderson Cooper for her first post-Baby Shiloh interview, I learned more about child starvation in Namibia than I’ve ever gotten from the nightly news. For my money, I have come to appreciate what celebrity activism brings, not to the rancorous roundtables but to where it’s needed most: the coffers.

Last summer, Primetime Live’s Diane

Sawyer followed Brad Pitt to Africa, where the actor was doing work on behalf of the ONE campaign to fight global AIDS and poverty. Sawyer wanted Pitt to spill about his breakup with Jennifer Aniston, and he agreed — provided the show would devote equal coverage to ONE’s battle. While the dashing actor’s romantic confessional made headlines — then evaporated — within a single news cycle, the wrenching images of hungry and impoverished African children clearly had a lasting impact. Within two days of the broadcast, ONE had recorded a 560% leap in Web donations and a sevenfold increase in the sponsoring of needy kids. That’s activism.

What’s amusing about all of this is that conservatives are the ones who most often neer at Hollywood cause-peddlers — and yet they seem to have short memories. After all, 26 years ago this November, didn’t they take a particular shine to a movie star-activist themselves? And if I remember correctly, the guy wasn’t even that good an actor.
END OF ARTICLE

The Reality is, it’s is not about you, me or even the celeb in question, it is about the people at the receiving end. Do you think they care what the celebrity’s motives are? Do you think they care what we…as celeb watchers think? I highly doubt it….When is comes to starving and sick people; let’s agree that the end justifies the means.

If you care to, do a quick google search on CELEBRITY ACTIVISM to read more. The Operative word here is ACTIVISM…which means taking a DIRECT action to support a cause…not sitting in the sidelines or taking a back seat. Angelina Jolie is an Activist, Jennifer Aniston is a donor. Being the former requires you to be out there, so it’s a little silly to fault her for doing so.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AG if you’re lurking can provide a link to the article you pasted?