Jolie’s Refugee Plan – Moon of Alabama

November 15, 2007

Jolie’s Refugee Plan

The Economist is paying actress Angelina Jolie to present conflict solutions for Africa:

"Accountability is perhaps the only force powerful enough to break the cycle of violence and retribution that marks so many conflicts," the Hollywood star wrote in The Economist magazine’s "The World in 2008", out on Wednesday.

The actress, who is a goodwill ambassador to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said she hoped the coming year will see the international community seek "true accountability" for victims, particularly in Darfur.

Angelina may need the money as she just purchased a pricy patch of real estate:

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have bought a man-made island in the shape of Ethiopia that is part of an ambitious luxury development off the coast of Dubai, a newspaper reported today.
…
Prices for the islands range from $US6 million to $US36 million.

There is yet no information on how many refugees Ms. Jolie plans to resettle to her island.

Posted by b on November 15, 2007 at 19:23 UTC | Permalink

Comments

The celebrity moral crusade is becoming a bit over the board even for the industry that “aid” has always been.
Look at this video of Angelina and the Shock Doctor – Jeff Sachs – turned liberal humanist flying around in private chartered jets to help poor people get from 1$/day “extreme poverty” to 5$/day “poor”. That’s what they mean by end poverty – “extreme” poverty.
One Down How Many to Go
The video is targeting western audiences to pony up some money to help their fellow man – I’m just curious why African’s need aid in the first place when they are swimming in wealth. Why isn’t the Shock Doctor in Bolivia where he got his start?
Angelina seem’s like a nice person – but so is the mother of her Ethiopian baby and it seem’s mommy wants her baby back some how – maybe she can join the Angelina UN family on the slave labor erected Arab dictators for life and American warships harboring “Ethiopian” island off Dubai?
I would love a good ending wouldn’t you?

Posted by: BenIAM | Nov 16 2007 4:35 utc | 1

Contrast Ms Jolie’s publicity seeking by poking a stick at a subject she and her audience have little chance of having any great effect upon with the reaction to Brian De Palma’s latest movie, “Redacted”.
I am having my third break from the movie which I downloaded yesterday. It is too much for me to take in one hit. The frustration and anger at seeing an ultra-real portrayal of exactly how the amerikan invasion of Iraq plays out on the day to day existence of Iraqis who have no conception of who/why/what these people are shouting at them red faced and angry, pushing them , never hearing that the old man they are screaming at to stand up has a broken back, laughing at the platoon perv groping a 14 year old girl at the checkpoint they work. No one thinks for a moment she is carrying explosives or a gun or they wouldn’t be getting so close. It’s a joke right?
I assume this kid is the one that is eventually raped and murdered by these assholes who are unable to understand that as the visitor to another’s land it is their job to get a handle on Iraqi culture not the Iraqi’s job find out about amerika. Where from? Where could an Iraqi peasant possibly go at the moment to get insights into the amerikan society. No power to go on internet even if they did have a computer, telephone lines and an ISP account. What books where?
As the link describes the story is told using all the available means of showing video images.
YouTube clips from the troops, resistance propaganda vids from the resistance websites, embedded journalists’ lying pro-amerikan spin, a french documentary whose attempt at objectivity has the makers appear morally bankrupt, an amerikan soldier trying to make a doco about his Iraq tour to use as an entree into film school when his stint finishes.
Thus far it is a powerful movie but nearly unwatchable.
O’Reilly’s attack attests to the potential power of the thing. So far, (just entering second Act) there has been no attempt to create a warped viewpoint to absolve the soldiers, and insinuate guilt upon the locals for having the gall to be Iraqi.
Still there’s nearly two acts to go and traditionally Hollywood saves that dishonest sub-text for the last act. The ‘yes but’ scenario.
Yes what happened was awful but what else could a poor amerikan soldier-boy do?
It was/is the fault of his captain, generals, George Bush, lying pols, SADDAM HUSSEIN!! so give the kid a medal, a pat on the back and move on.
It is interesting that such a good print of a Hollywood movie should be all over the net before it’s been released. Kinda makes you wonder if that happy circumstance is part of De Palma’s “Jane Fondarization”.
Like Vanessa Redgrave who hardly worked in Hollywood for twenty years after she starred in a brit made for TV movie which had PLO fighters in it who weren’t child raping genocidal judeophobes this filmography shows Julia 1978 for which she won an Oscar (acceptance speech mentioned “zionist gangsters and thugs”) yet just about everything after was UK productions. How often does that happen to a best actress Oscar winner?
So maybe De Palma will be bootlegged into bankruptcy.
Meanwhile Angelina Jolie gets a pat on the back instead of therapy for her eating disorder (I’m not trying to be petty or gossipy but I saw an unplanned shot of her a few weeks back and that woman is severely malnourished), invitations to the big houses and great contracts for her and Brad.
Why? – cause she distracts with her finger pointing at Darfur and away from Iraq.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 16 2007 4:49 utc | 2

You’re being a bit disingenuous, b, considering the White Man’s Burden belongs to Jolie, but not to Germany (your previous parenthetical post), therefore, since at best you’re being hyperbolic, and at worst, hypocritical, let’s do a reality check:
REF: Energy Consumption Characteristics of Commercial Building HVAC Systems
Detlef Westphalen and Scott Koszalinski
Arthur D. Little, Inc., 20 Acorn Park, Cambridge, MA 02140-2390
Office of Building Equipment
Office of Building Technology State and Community Programs
U.S. Department of Energy
Project Manager: John Ryan (DOE) Contract No.: DE-AC01-96CE23798
April 2001
Some quick summaries from the report regarding giveaways on global warming:
Total commercial US heating load: 1.7 quads (1 quadrillion Btu’s)
Total commercial US cooling load: 1.4 quads
Ratio of retail to commercial energy use: 8:1 (est)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/images/figure_33small.jpg
Total US cooling energy demand: 12.6 quads (est)
Regional share of cooling load, Southern states: 61% (7.6 quads)
Ratio of roof square feet as percentage of total floor space: 27% (est)
Reduction in roof absorption by painting with white ceramic: 83% (literature)
Reduction in energy use by painting Southern roofs white: 1.7 quads
Percent savings in total US cooling energy demand: 13%
Commercial:residential energy use as percentage of total energy use: 55% (est)
Ratio of cooling to total cooling:heating energy use: 45%
Percent savings in total US heating:cooling energy use: 3.2%
Total US energy use: 239 quads
Savings in US energy use by painting Southern roofs white: 0.7%
Total US oil and gas usage: 28MBBL/day (million barrels per day)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/images/figure_34small.jpg
Total savings in US oil and gas imports by SWR program: 72MBBL/year
Total roof area commercial:residential Southern roofs: 53.4B sf (est)
Cost of white ceramic paint, installed: $1.75/sf
Total cost of Southern White Roof program: $93.3B
Ratio of SWR program to oil imports saved by SWR at $90/BBL: 1,440%
Total Iraq war costs: $1,000B (est)
Total Iraqi oil imports to US: 0.42MBBL/year
Ratio of Iraq War cost to Iraqi oil imports saved at $90/BBL: 2,702,702%
Cost effectiveness of SWR compared to GWOT: 1,876 x
Southern White Roofs would result in near minimum unemployment, especially post-war,
and inject $93B into the civilian population at the bottom income tier, generating
at a generally accepted 6:1 recycle, at least $558B worth of economic growth.
I rest my case. Painting all Southern US states roofs with white ceramic paint will suspend Peak Oil for the foreseeable future, bridge the US economic and unemployment slump, especially post-war, and go some distance towards mitigating global warming.
First shoot all the hypocrites!
You may now return to your Angela Jolie diatribe.

Posted by: Peris Troika | Nov 16 2007 5:24 utc | 3

@Peris 3
Not so fast. The Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumption/index.html is indeed a good source of energy use data. However, the main breakdowns on energy use in buildings are Residential and Commercial, and retail is a category of Commercial. The chart you cite discusses water use, not energy use. Your numbers fall apart, starting there.
Regarding white roofs: there were studies in the 1980s showing anticipated energy savings with white, and they were fair to good, not exceptional. Chicago introduced its green roofs effort (green includes white) not so much for building energy savings, rather to counter the heat island effect, following the deaths that occurred during the summer of 1995. White turns gray and green turns brown, and the effort has not had a big payoff.
Summertime shingle temperature of “white” south-facing shingles is 22% cooler than black shingles. But with substantial amounts of insulation, these temperature differences lead to only small changes in heat flux across the ceiling, and heat flux across the ceiling is a small part of building energy cost. Residential roofs are rarely white. There is also a downside to white roofs in clear-sky areas such as the US desert southwest. The average net long-wave radiation to the sky in winter (150W/m2?) from an emissive surface may exceed the solar gain of a highly reflective roof (50-100 W/m2?), and cause cooling so great it can suck water out of dry air.
In short, white roofs are fine, and currently most US commercial low-slope roofing is white, and showing energy benefits from that choice for the consumer. But it is not a planet-saver by any means.

Posted by: Browning | Nov 16 2007 15:18 utc | 4

@Browning – thanks for trying to debunk the off-topic nonsense.
But you say: The chart you cite discusses water use, not energy use. Your numbers fall apart, starting there. which is wrong as the chart is from a page titled: Chapter 3 – Petroleum and Other Liquids Fuels and is clearly about oil.
Anyway –
@Peris Troika – in future I’ll go back to the practice of deleting any off-topic stuff you post if it is not in an open thread.

Posted by: b | Nov 16 2007 16:09 utc | 5

saw the nazret threads on the dispute over the adopted child that BenIAM links to the other day. along w/ the platform that celebrities get to amplify issues to mass audience, there’s a lot of baggage that goes along, since they also become moving targets/scapegoats open to potentially each & every criticism/cause.
on jolie & issues of race, this one still sticks in my mind
Marianne Pearl is Black

The wife of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was murdered in Pakistan by Al-Quaida associates, is Black. Hollywood chose to cast her as a white woman, Angelina Jolie, for the film, A Mighty Heart. Jolie put on a curly wig, and darkened her makeup – as if that changed the reality. The American media machine cannot digest Black life, and can only package its semblance of real life in white-face. Apparently, white people cannot stare “Others” in the face, and must tell stories that have their own made-up existence featured. What a shame.

Posted by: b real | Nov 16 2007 17:16 utc | 6

Jolie’s baby adoption was ‘legal’
“Angelina Jolie’s adoption of a baby from Ethiopia was “legal” according to the agency that approved it in 2005.
Recent news reports said a woman who claimed to be the birth mother of Zahara, two, wanted the child back.”
..see the very low key prudent bbc news: link
or the more pointed :
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt could lose adopted daughter herald sun
and so on.
Toy children, black or yellow, are all the rage.

Posted by: Tangerine | Nov 16 2007 18:15 utc | 7

Why doesn’t Angela just put a blonde wig and some pale makeup on her kid and claim that she adopted it legally in the Czech Republic?

Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 16 2007 18:41 utc | 8

What a fucking mess the final line from the Sun Herald article “Angelina and Brad have reportedly just purchased a man-made island in Dubai, in the shape of Ethiopia, for Zahara.” pretty much sums up the insanity that befalls fools with money who are unable to acknowledge the money has not really conferred any real power upon them so they play pretend. By paying for islands shaped like Ethiopia to be built in the whitefella colonised Disneyland of Arabs.
This powerlessness of some rich particularly the Hollywood gliteratti is quite a new phenomenon one I find rather interesting. There was a time when Hollywood stars had immense power movie stars once had political leaders in their thrall. However there are so many of em now and many are considered to be ‘unreliable’ so by using the publicity weapon against rich stars particularly rich women stars, they have ben rendered powerless.
Someone who made million out of business wheeling and dealing and who adopted an Ethiopian child would never be in the position that Jolie is in. The ‘investment’ would be secured quite simply. The ‘former’ parent would be made aware of the fact that his/her life was endangered more with every word they uttered. Celebrities can’t do that because all that happens then is the parent goes off to a media outlet and causes more trouble.
The whole UN ambassador thing seen from Jolie’s point of view is probably an attempt to reclaim some power. However she will be played like a marionette by pols and is likely to end up feeling more frustrated. Hence the all too obvious psychological dysfunction.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 16 2007 18:49 utc | 9

Yes it is interesting. Angelina Jolie has been labelled in the press as an abused child (John Voights daughter, look it up), is said to be anorectic, reportedly throws nasty temper tantrums, the latest being about Brad Pitt’s mother inviting Jennifer Anniston (and not herself) for Xmas festivities (or whatever), and is bisexual or lesbian, while being in a loving marriage, hugely rich, and gloriously humanitarian…
Angelina Jolie insists adoptive parents are more fit to raise a child than biological parents, because their background and personality is thoroughly scrutinized to see if they’re suitable for the challenge. The actress was put through stringent tests before being granted permission to adopt Maddox, 5, and Zahara, 1. link
She is a real heroine, even a saintly figure. Suffering, abused, incredibly rich and weeping over the poor (all those adopted kids), sexually ambiguous (that is glam), but married to a major Hollywood star, humanitarian right down to her skeletal clanky bones, feted and glorified for all of it, she represents a model for millions of young girls.
Tough call for teachers, social assistants, tutors, caretakers of various kinds, world wide. Of course her teen admirers (here anyway) realise they cannot adopt – they just get pregnant – and prefer to have a skinny sick black baby. Multi culti and weeping self destructive victimhood pushed to its limits to lord it …
Jolie has an advisor, ghost, for her humanitarian / political stances, the discourse is scripted, she does not write it herself. Darfur is a big deal. That is why she is published in the Economist.

Posted by: Tangerine | Nov 16 2007 22:18 utc | 10

If girls go on to become as mal-nourished as Ms Jolie they too will have to adopt. Anorexics have extremely irregular fertility cycles and if they do fall pregnant, the mother and child compete against each other for nourishment to the detriment of both.
She is a worrisome role model for her own children let alone millions of teenage girls. Not the sexuality thing which is irrelevant and anyhow seems to be in the past, but how many of those kids understand that it is Ms Jolie’s face in the close-up shots but the voluptuous figure in wide angle is a silicone injected body double?
As they strive for the haunted cheekbone look, they think there must be something wrong with their own body since it can’t provide both the face and the body image.
I feel pity for the woman, but not so much I want her to succeed in her duplicity.
Fortunately my teenaged daughter thinks the woman is both grotesque and vacuous.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 16 2007 23:40 utc | 11

reuters: Ethiopian mother supports Angelina Jolie adoption

AWASA, Ethiopia (Reuters) – The mother of an Ethiopian baby adopted by Angelina Jolie has denied that she had ever challenged the adoption, and said she was happy her daughter had found a home with the Hollywood star.
In an interview at her tiny home in the southern city of Awasa, Mentwabe Dawit on Saturday rejected recent newspaper reports in the United States and Europe that she wanted two-year-old Zahara returned to Ethiopia.
Her words had been twisted, she said, by “so-called journalists” who had visited her and claimed to be working for the Oscar-winning actress.
“I have never disputed the adoption,” Mentwabe told Reuters. “This was a mistake. It was something I never said.”
…
In Awasa, Mentwabe kissed a picture of the actress.
“This is to show I have no ill feelings towards her,” she said. “I think my daughter is a very fortunate human being to be adopted by a world-famous lady. I wish them both all the success they deserve.”

Posted by: b real | Nov 19 2007 3:56 utc | 12

Back to Main