Coming out of left field, the completely irreverent irrelevant Roseanne Barr launched a blog grenade at Hollywood’s most visible philanthropic couple.
jon voight your evil spawn angelina jolie and her vacuous hubby brad pitt make about forty million dollars a year in violent psychopathic movies and give away three of it to starving children trying to look as if they give a crap about humanity as they spit out more dunces that will consume more than their fair share and wreck the earth even more. (just sayin’). Also miss
jolie says she likes mccain too and hasn’t decided who to endorse….huh? Aren’t you supposed to be somewhat enlightened, or do you not know that the african daughter you hold in every picture had parents who suffered and died because of the republican party’s worldwide economic assault on africa over the last few decades since reagan? whaaaa…??????!!!! (for that matter, the thai and cambodian sons you are photo’d with weekly too who’s pictures you sell to raise money to help the poor? Their families are victims of America’s right wing military incursions too. Mccain wants to continue with the idea of war for profit…the americans are over that thinking now! They have drugged our troops and lower classes into supporting their oil business atrocities for long enough. We want to save not lose our souls thank you. Now go back to making your movies about women who love to handle big guns that shoot hundreds of people to death. Ps….it might be good for your asian and african children’s self esteem to know you support a brown man for the leader of the free world.)
Other recent posts on her blog include “bit my cuticle, its infected” (sic) and “atlantis is a planet.”
But more to the point, since she attacks Brangelina’s charitable giving, I was curious about how Roseanne stacks up. If you look on her blogroll, the first link goes to the Roseanne Barr Foundation — except the website for that is farked.
Then I decided to see if the foundation actually still exists. It does, but only barely. According to the IRS, the foundation gave away $100,626 in 2006, yet raised $118,512 from the general public. So that money wasn’t even from her.
That’s a mighty glass house she’s got there.
Whatever happened to her accusations that both her father and mother had raped her?
>>Aren’t you supposed to be somewhat enlightened, or do you not know that the african daughter you hold in every picture had parents who suffered and died because of the republican party’s worldwide economic assault on africa over the last few decades since reagan?<<
I love the way uneducated celebrities can make blatant statements like that. She’s really believe that Republicans are responsible of the Cluster-F**k that is Africa right now? Did she noticed that she discarded the incessant bush wars, ethnic clashes and tyrannical local governments only to put the burden on the shoulders over a political party half a world away?
I think her views of Africa are deeply racist in the core. Her apologist point of view let me believe that she sees Africans as unable to function by themselves if they are not backed by a Democrat presidency. Talk about a condescending attitude. Africans are “Old Enough” to deal with their own issues without the patronage of “Whitey”.
I’m thinking Rosanne Barr should probably never accuse anyone else of “consuming more than their fair share.”
In any given week, Rosanne probably eats more than the entire Brangelina village.
Can you really hate a person more than Roseann? Oh, I forgot Rosie…
http://www.ihateyoujulia.com/?id=9730584d862cdc1b7b1b5d67b0539c7c
To be fair, Rosanne also has not built a huge public persona based on being a do-goody saint like Brangelina. So it bothers me a whole lot less that she isn’t exactly giving away the farm too. Sure, she isn’t better than the people she’s criticizing, but she’s criticizing people claiming to be better than anybody else.
I mean, you don’t hafta be a saint yourself to point out someone else isn’t one.
That said, her arguments are a little eye-roll inducing, but eh.
Some of the stuff that she comes up with makes you wonder if she is blogging only on the days she forgets to get a refill on her happy pills.
Say what you will about Angelina and Brad, but I don’t see Roseanne giving near as much as they have and do.
Her short sighted view of African politics, I agree, Toubrouk, is disgustingly racist.
Roseanne who????????????????????
Some shoot Rosanne Pig and perhaps the world will be a better place. She is so clueless she will do anything to try and make her dead career gasp a few more times. Your 15 looonngg ,minutes of fame are over, shut up and fade into obscurity.
As for her take on Africa, I would think all the Liberals would be happy that the Africans have the country that that helps to create. They forced all the white devils out and now Africans are doing what they were doing for centuries until the europeans showed up and put a stop to the ethnic killing. Now there is no one to keep them from slaughtering their neighbors every 2 to 5 years all in the name of tribal purity. IMO all aid to Africa whould be cut off till they can show they can be a civilized 3rd world nation and not a bunch of blodd crazy murders with machetees and AK-47’s.
It also amuses me that so many celebrities think the Democrats haven’t contributed in any way to the turmoil of Africa or the rest of the world. Yes, it amuses me to no end…
As a lover of English, it’s so depressing to see a grown woman of supposed maturity (although the content of her blog would suggest otherwise) writing worse than a prepubescent middle schooler. Granted, I don’t like Brangelina any more than she does, but come on! How does she expect to be taken seriously?
I’m not trying to give you a lecture on history or politics or really tell you why your comment was so numbingly ignorant and straight up racist but I will impart a piece of wisdom that if you’re smart enough to use a comptuer you should already be adhering to: DON’T SPEAK UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.
Thank you. xoxo
PS. Africa is a continent NOT a country.
I hope the downside of Deceiver.com becoming more popular (because this site for sure deserves to be widely read) is not that they’ll be an influx of poorly punctuated, ignoramuses PerezHilton.com is thataway >>>>>>
C’mon now, “Please think up your own screen name next time” Africa is NOT a continent. It’s an ocean buried under a lot of sand.
The downside of your comment finding popularity is, that with the advent of increasing rhetorical ruminations aside, your readership DEPENDS on those very computers you’ve been adhering to.
So next time you need to lecture someone, try to make it a CONTINENT instead of a COUNTRY. Capiche’?
*kisses*
“Please think up your own screen name next time”
Glass houses…they’re difficult to windex
*hugs*
Roseaan, still suffering from multiple disorder personality ? She needs help ASAP ! Oh and her children should be checked with a mother as insane as herself who accused hboth her parents of raping her.
Parents who were cleared after accepting passing the lying detector and when she acknowledged suffering from that multiple disorder personality !!
I am Afro European with relatives still living in Africa (Congo and Angola) and this Roseaan has NO CLUE to what is happening in Africa or how African perceived the different political parties in the western world.
Let me tell you miss Clueless, most Congoelses are PRO conservative party when it comes to the US. It is the democrat party of Clinton that put his veto for not stopping the 1994 genocide, and it is his government who support the illegal war when Rwandan and Ougandan troops come to Congo, rape, kill and are responsible of 5 millions people there. So you see, democrats have blood in their hands too when it comes to crimes .
You are too stupid and too full of hatred/jealousy to understand finesse and ramifications in political affairs. Nothing is white or black but often in between.
In your greed of sensassionalism you have showed blatant irrespect tainted with racism towards a whole continent. You have insult half of your citizens who are republicans. You are a classless, shamless pathetic woman who has demonstrated complete misregard towards people who are better than you will ever be. That’s the dumbest part of it !
For the record, I didn’t name myself
*Please think up your own screen name next time*
I named myself
*Dear Aleric*
because that is who my comment was addressed to. For some reason Deciever changed it so the aforementioned comment seems unduly angry and out of place.
[The reason is that it's supposed to be your screen name, not your greeting. -- MGMT.]
I was trying to be succinct and dare I say witty as the sole purpose of my comment was to address the above commenter. But cheers for completely obscuring my point.
Aleric’s racism can go unchecked but I need to be put in line for attempting to address it.
Thanks for showing me that even those who work to point out the hypocrisy and ignorance in others are capable of flippantly hypocritical behaviour.
The circle is complete, ain’t life grand.
[You're welcome, SoKoKo. And thank you for coming up with a screen name by which you may be addressed. -- MGMT.]
SoKoKo, how on earth do you find it hypocritical for Deceiver moderators to want you to use the comment fields appropriately? That’s not hypocrisy, unless Deceiver had a post somewhere saying “we will never, ever poke fun at you for not understanding what a screen name is”
If you want to address a specific comment, put that in the text of the comment. That’s how it works. Deceiver didn’t obscure your point, btw, it was obvious enough to shine through anyway, and no it wasn’t succinct or witty. But nice try. And nice going getting amazingly over the top angry about it. You weren’t being put in line for attempting to address it, you were called out for doing something silly. Awesome job trying to equate that to defending racism.
Just because someone pissed you off, that doesn’t make it hypocritical of them to do so. But nice try going for the “you guys are just as bad” routine.
NEWSFLASH for Barr:
Lyndon Baines Johnson (August 27, 1908 – January 22, 1973), often referred to as LBJ, was the thirty-sixth President of the United States, serving from 1963-1969. A Democrat, Johnson succeeded to the presidency following the assassination of President Kennedy, and after completing Kennedy’s term was elected President in his own right in a landslide victory in the 1964 Presidential election. Johnson was a major leader of the Democratic Party and as President was responsible for designing the “Great Society” legislation that included civil rights laws, Medicare (health care for the elderly), Medicaid (health care for the poor), aid to education, and the “War on Poverty.” Simultaneously, he escalated the American involvement in the Vietnam War from 16,000 American soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 in early 1968.
President Bush has actually done more for Africa than any other American President - including Clinton!
Ever since President Bush launched his Millennium Challenge Account for African development (March 2002) and his $15 billion Emergency Plan for AIDS relief (January 2003), I’ve been arguing – to the consternation and apparent dismay of almost all who bothered to listen - that Bush has done more (and offers the best solutions) to help Africans than any other world leader in modern history. Yet, one would be hard-pressed to find any politician in America (who is not a Republican), Europe or Africa who has publicly acknowledged this revolutionary and salutary fact.
Well, since rock stars and actors have become the more credible statesmen of our time, perhaps their endorsement of my argument will inspire Bush’s die-hard critics to suspend their pathological hatred of him and show due regard for his leadership on aid to Africa.
Rock star and acclaimed humanitarian Sir Bob Geldof: President Bush is a bloody hero to Africa - no matter what ungrateful Africans, jealous Europeans or stupid Americans say!
In this respect, Live 8 organizer Sir Bob Geldof - perhaps the most recognized, informed and passionate campaigner for African relief and sustainable development – has been most adamant and complimentary of Bush’s efforts.
And, in an interview to be published in the 27 June 2005 issue of TIME magazine, Geldof echoes my frustrating attempts to disabuse critics of their ignorance and political biases concerning Bush’s support for Africa with the following remarks:
America doesn’t have a lack of empathy; they just don’t know the issues as well. Actually, today I had to defend the Bush Administration in France again. They refuse to accept, because of their political ideology, that he has actually done more than any American President for Africa. But it’s empirically so.
But this is not Geldof’s first public declaration of support for or defense of Bush’s policies on Africa. In fact, more than two years ago he joined a small chorus of AIDS activists who were beginning to comment on the stark differences in the amount of funds allocated by liberal President Clinton and Bush to fight AIDS. The lead vocalist in this regard was Melvin Foote, executive director of the nonpartisan constituency for Africa, who observed that “[Bush’s] $15 billion commitment is unparalleled….Clinton offered $300 million, parking-meter money, even though he knew it was a tremendous challenge.” And, in this context, Geldof harmonized his views as follows:
Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn’t talk but does deliver….You’ll think I’m off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical, in a positive sense, in the approach to Africa since Kennedy.
The President and the rock star Bono - The odd couple amongst famous missionaries for the African cause
Rock star Bono, perhaps the most visible member of this chorus, has been diplomatic though no less adamant in his acknowledgement of Bush’s leadership:
I believe the president is sincere in his convictions to put America up front in a way that hasn’t been done before on these issues….If the Millennium Challenge Account and the AIDS initiative go through, we have to be prepared to really stand up and applaud this president’s leadership because it is potentially life changing and life saving for millions of people.
But not to be drowned out by rock stars, actor and AIDS activist Richard Gere became an apostate within the ranks of Clinton’s Hollywood worshippers in 2003 when he stunned the audience at an AIDS benefit - at which Senator Hillary Clinton was guest of honor - by delivering this daring and now notorious line:
Senator Clinton, I’m sorry, your husband did nothing for AIDS for eight years.
Impolite, but relatively true!
Now, I can’t imagine anyone will ever accuse Geldof, Bono or Gere of being right-wing nuts or converts to Bush’s Forest Gump crusade to transform the world according to his notions of democracy. Therefore, where my assertions on this point have been summarily dismissed, perhaps their praise of Bush will help his detractors appreciate the importance of being earnest when it comes to recognizing those who are truly helping the poor.
After all, oppressed and starving Africans couldn’t care any less how anyone feels about Bush’s war in Iraq or his apparent lack of concern about global warming. Moreover, the only thing that should matter to anyone concerned about their plight is that Bush is providing the most aid whilst insisting that African rulers treat their people humanely and stop hording national resources for their personal use.
Finally, it is understandable that the imperious French would be averse to the utterance of anything positive about Bush’s leadership – especially on matters involving the African continent where they retain delusions of colonial noblesse oblige. But it is incomprehensible that so many African leaders and their political enablers in America (from carping liberal politicians to conscientious academics like Jeffery Sachs) seem as impervious as the French are to Bush’s unprecedented generosity (and compassion).
But perhaps Geldof’s endorsement will help them see that their visceral political prejudices are blinding them to (and making them resentful of) the moral and political authority Bush has earned when it comes to global strategies to cure Africa’s ills and make poverty history. And, this recognition is especially critical when one considers the improbability of European leaders following through on their grand G8 Plan for Africa (a $55 billion package) when they can’t even agree on a budget to fund the operations of the EU.
Therefore, even though liberals clearly begrudge the fact that Bush is not only Africa’s most generous patron but also its most reliable supporter, it behooves them to put up or shut up and just give the man his due!
No, Roseanne never marketed herself as a philanthropist, but the Jolie-Pitt Foundation gave away 80 times the amount Roseanne gave away in ‘06. Fox News dug up that info earlier this year.
HI HO, I guess my question is…is it hypocritical just to criticize someone unless you’re doing a better job yourself, even if you never claimed to be trying to? ‘Cause that would mean that 99% of all public criticism is hypocritical, including what a lot of this blog. Few people give away as much as Brangelina, is it hypocritical for us to poke holes in their saintly image then? I’m sincerely just curious what the opinion poll says on this one.
Seems she is irritated that people noticed this latest rant, but didn’t notice enough of her previous rants:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/18/roseanne-attacks-brad-and_n_119558.html
Gee, guess she had to get some attention by going after the bigger stars. Your fame clock stands at 15:01 sister, back to the trailer.
SEEMS ROSANNE REALLY IRRATATED THE ONE PERSON WORHIP JUST TOO FUNNY!!!! I ALWAYS ADORED YOU ROSEANN AND KNOW YOU DO YOUR PART B/C YOU WOULDN’T HAVE SAID ANYTHING
I think Roseanne has made an interesting point about the violence in their movies conflicting with their humanitarian work. Maybe not quite worth detailing in her blog but I guess she has to fill it with something.
Does saving children in third world countries negate the fact that quite a few of their roles in films have been as warrior assassins (Mr & Mrs Smith, Wanted, The Devil’s Own, Troy.) I know the difference between fiction and reality but God knows watching ‘Taking Lives’ almost killed me. Is it hypocritical to make millions of dollars from films which literally just sex up death and murder only to give the $$$ away to under privelledged children?
Also in Fight Club didn’t Tyler Durden blow up buildings with as much intensity as Brad Pitt is rebuilding in New Orleans
Too bad that Roseanne has not moved past skin color herself.
I am African born and I am not voting for the “brown man” as you say. It has nothing to so with his skin color nor my self esteem.
Some of us actually look at the candidate’s stance on issues (*gasp*) and not just his skin color.
Phoenix Said:
“HI HO, I guess my question is…is it hypocritical just to criticize someone unless you’re doing a better job yourself, even if you never claimed to be trying to? ‘Cause that would mean that 99% of all public criticism is hypocritical, including what a lot of this blog. Few people give away as much as Brangelina…”
Well, therein is the rub… few people make nearly as much as Brangelina, either. Their foundation gives away a lot, and I don’t think anyone can take that away from them. I think the biggest question in regards to their activities, and those of most every philanthropist in their tax bracket, comes down to motive. And I think regardless of how much anyone gives away, we are entitled to ask questions about that much. And if the answers to those questions lead us to some negative conclusions, well…
Austin-
Yeah, the fact that Brangelina make more money than god makes me a little suspect of the whole “you didn’t give as much away, therefore shut up” attitude that’s popped up lately. It’s just an interesting question… the term “hypocrite” is getting tossed around like a generic swear word these days.
Phoenix, I would argue that there is a difference between not giving away as much as they do — because like 8 people make that much — and not giving away *anything* like in Roseanne’s case.
As I mentioned in my post, the 2006 IRS records show that the money granted through the Roseanne Barr Foundation didn’t even come from her, it came from public donations to her foundation. But you can click here to see that the Jolie-Pitts gave away $8-million that same year. So that’s why I took issue with her saying Brangelina are “trying to look as if they give a crap about humanity” when they appear to give a far bigger crap than she does.
Isn’t Rosie Barr just Rosie O’Donnell in a dress and a blond wig.
And to be slightly more serious…
“Aren’t you supposed to be somewhat enlightened, or do you not know that the african daughter you hold in every picture had parents who suffered and died because of the republican party’s worldwide economic assault on africa over the last few decades since reagan?”
Oh.. and here’s me thinking that, for example, Zimbabwe had been turned from Africa’s bread basket to an African basket in 27 years by a commie psychopath called Robert Mugabe, and his socialist “solutions.”
You know those “socialist” solutions “rosie”. The ones you and your Hollywood chums support, you fat, ignorant heffer.
Not to be judgmental, or anything.
21 Phoenix
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hypocritical isn’t anywhere in my post, although, yeah, I do think she is a hypocrite.
When she was on top of the heap, her career prospects were limited to the Roseanne show and being a trainwreck. Sure, she did some movies, specifically SheDevil, which happened to be one of the worse screen adaptation of a written work I ever seen, but the opportunities she got was dictated by her so-called strengths. Why is it wrong for Brad and Angelina to explore opportunities that play to theirs?
She slammed young children, compartmentalizing them by race and method in which they arrived in the Jolie-Pitts’ family. Roseanne’s family was unusual; she gave one away, who later came back, thanks to the tabloid press; she had some with her first husband and employed fertility treatments to have another with her boyguard husband. While I don’t remember Roseanne subjecting her children to nasty labels, she certainly exploited them, to the extent of insulting/diminishing the importance of their fathers and their importance as individuals, outside of being her children.
Roseanne’s antics weren’t available to strictly the 17 year olds and older; it was there for everyone, including her children, to see. Brad and Angelina’s movies are clearly marked for content and if their children want to see them, they will have to seek them out.
Roseanne spouted off about how much Brad and Angelina contributed to charity, lowballing the amount to 3 million, when it was upwards toward 8.5 million in 2006. Her partyline during the 80s and 90s was truth and authenticity. If her blog message was so important and steeped in truth and authencity, she would’ve made sure that she had her facts right.
Roseanne lamented that ABC tried to squelch her, in terms of what she could and could not do; now, she is trying to squelch Angelina’s right to mull over presidential candidates, the way her children comes into her life, the way she spends her money. etc.
And finally, her blog message was, allegedly, directed at Jon Voight. Over the last few weeks, Jon Voight’s been trying to convince the world that he and his daughter are one when it comes to party affiliation, while he acknowledged that he hasn’t had physical, face-to-face contact with her or his grandchildren. Those who are astute would’ve noted that it was his desperate attempt to make the world think that he has a connection to his child, even though there is no evidence to back him up. Comedians, typically, are perceptive, and would’ve picked up on that. Instead, Roseanne decides to direct an unfocused, sloppy, and bat$h*t crazy tirade that wasn’t amusing, cogent, or reasonable.
I’ve seen pictures of her, back in her white-trashy, trailer park days. You’re gonna call me nuts but she was kinda hot then. Maybe it’s because I like trashy women. But hey, who doesn’t? It’s a hobby of mine.
I hope she never apologizes. To whomever claimed the white house has nothing to do with her assault on Africa, please make sure you eyes didn’t converge too close to the screen while reading. The whole polarization talk between dems and reps here isn’t even so much the talk than the fact that she rightfully pointed to everyone’s culpability in the demise of this continent. Every UN power emerging after the Cold war HAS had something to do with its collapse. Are these nations “old” enough to procure for themselves now? Sure, but how again does that exonerate our past administrations from NOT having contributed to their carnage? Have we not provided their machetes, guns and grenades, and thus by virtue of doing so somehow directly implicated ourselves in their wars?
“Every UN power emerging after the Cold war HAS had something to do with its collapse.”
“Have we not provided their machetes, guns and grenades, and thus by virtue of doing so somehow directly implicated ourselves in their wars?”
Actually buddy, you couldn’t really be more wrong. You could try - but I just don’t see how you could accomplish it. Have you taken a look at an African army(I use the term VERY loosely) lately? Does that equipment they’re packing look U.S. issued to you? I love how you place all the blame on the U.N. post Cold War too - God forbid we blame the Soviets who filled the entire planet with AK-47’s. By the way, in case you were wondering, it’s estimated that AK-47’s have killed more people than any other weapon in the history of man.
Wanna take a guess how many of those we’ve made in this country? Is your answer none? God I hope so, but considering the intelligence of your post, I’ll try not to hold my breath.
The US never had a whole lot of interest in Africa - little strategic value, few natural resources, constantly shifting governments (just what exactly is Congo known as these days?). The Russians saw it and South America as untapped markets for exporting communism and flooded weapons in to any warlord that claimed they would support them if they came to power. Now that they’re out of the game the Chinese have picked up the torch and are running with it brilliantly.
We’ve tried to come in and restore order a few different times, and it’s always ended badly. These people have ethnic hatreds that make the Middle East look like hippie commune. I just fail to see how it’s our fault exactly. We send them billions in food and medical supplies, the Russians and Chinese send weapons, but we’re the bad guys?
@ Scott F. - Africa actually does have some very rich and desirable natural resources, e.g. oil in Southern Sudan (aka, the contested part of Sudan) diamonds, gold and other precious minerals in Western Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. America has contributed to an extent to the milieu that Africa finds itself in, but the reasons America doesn’t contribute more are fairly obvious - it’s a high risk investment if anything was. The infrastructure and stability of most of the continent’s countries are simply not conducive to high amounts of investment.
You’re definitely spot-on, however, in fingering the Dirty Friggin’ Reds as the main culprits for enabling Africa’s turmoil.
I’m not an expert on the matter, and anyone who is I’d invite to come prove me wrong, but it seems that much like in the rest of the world, our consumption via corporations and sub-contractors fronts the capital, the black market from Russia and Eastern Europe (and now, China) fronts the arms, and ethnic hatred does the rest. Either way, I doubt Obama or McCain are going to make that much of a difference.
America tries to civilize countries-China and Russia just give them guns and say ‘Kill whoever you do not like’. Then America stands by wringing her hands and whimpering ‘Oh my Goodness’. Oh yeah and she sends bandages and bleeding heart idiots to patch up the wounded.
Excuse me? Did you catch yourself thinking per chance when you were typing or I’m sorry is it time for a lesson? You write we cant be the bad guys because we send them billions in food and medical supplies. Are you jocking??? As for as medical supplies go Africa has always been a lab experiment, and food supplies???
Listen, food aid from the US does NOT cost us a penny more. If anything the US is the only nation in the world that sells its food aid today, and so this too in ironic addition to the flourishing of arms trade has been in place since the Cold war when we started soliciting the loyalty of emerging democratic states, and “surprise, surprise” it was also then too that the IMF was created to handpick specifically those nations that would start receiving out OUR favor. How do you figure?? Because asides from wanting to play peacekeeping hero of the day (Mogadishu doesn’t gracefully close this chapter…) you CAN’T say we never not had our favorites much less were not directly been implicated in arms dealing, and that my friend, is just as much a crime as producing the weapons themselves.
Think Rwanda back to 94 for instance. You’d think after the Somali debacle a year before Rwanda wouldn’t have been in any our horizons, but Boutros Ghali HIMSELF was the man who’d helped seal some five million arms deal btw Egypt and South Africa so the Hutu front would stay in the league of their genocidal act (Boutros was good friends with French president Francois miterrand, and basically Mitterand was good friends with Hutu leader Habyrimana). So all that said now, I am the one struggling to see how my omission of the Soviets into this damages my take on the US duplicitous class act. The Soviets were simply besides the point, and even so, I’m still unclear how any omission of them translates as evidence to the contrary.
And hon, please if you were to take anything away from this, and simply b/c I just can’t wrap my mind over the pretentiousness of some people who like to talk straight out of their asses despite or indeed because of the little they know, let me just say this: today the billions of dollars we send in food aid are called export dumping. If we truly cared for these nations we’d find any means possible to diminish the most blatant and disastrous effects of our international export subsidy policies on them. And basically, that means recognizing these people have incompatible diets with the distilled animal feed we send to them (it’s not actual food, everyone), we’d once and for all absorb the fact they don’t have the right infrastructure for the food to even get there, and FINALLY we’d just admit THERE IS NO SENSE IN CRASHING OUR LOADS OF GMOS onto their soils if it only means to disrupt the livelihoods of millions and making their markets only more volatile than before.
And why is all this necessary, you may ask? I don’t know, maybe because it proves we don’t wear our Samaritan robe as well as you choose to think. So no, actually, buddy, YOU couldn’t be more wrong.
Alrighty - thanks for the history lesson, I feel utterly enlightened now.
So, sending medical supplies is bad because we’re treating them like lab rats apparently? The food is bad because we’re ruining their economy? Yeah, it’s us sending them food that’s doing it. Couldn’t have ANYTHING to do with 50 years of ethnic strife and idiots taking back productive farm land from ‘white oppressors’ to hand it over to people who don’t know how to farm!
Oh, and the part about ‘having our favorites’ is just priceless. How naive can one person be? You actually don’t expect a nation to differentiate between what they send their allies and what they send their enemies?
My point about the Soviets wasn’t that you left them out, it’s that you’re completely ignoring their influence. The United States didn’t operate in a vacuum. If the Reds toss a few million Kalashnikovs at rebel army A to try to overthrow a democratically elected government, we’re likely to send that government military aid. It’s the difference in motive that matters. They were actively trying to destabilize those places, we were trying to restore order and clean up their mess.
But that’s fine man. But I elect you to go to Africa and explain to all those people that are going to die of plague and famine when we stop sending food and medical supplies - I’m sure you ‘ll have no trouble explaining to them how they’re really ‘better off’ without our pesky interference.
Africa is a mess right now. Anything anyone can do for them, as long as it’s helping Aficans, is a good thing to me. Of course I don’t think Joilie-Pitt are saints, a lot of what they do is made very public. If that is to draw attention to the cause or themselves doesn’t matter to me as long as someone, somewere is builting hospitals and school for those who need it. No you don’t have to have millions of dollars to make a difference. I know two wonderful young ladies who went to Africa for aid. They paid for their own way their and are building schools with their own hands. I think what they have givin is equal if not greater than what the Joilie-Pitts have done. The Joilie-Pitts have lots of money, it is easy for them to give. These girls gave up their jobs, homes, and their own money to go to Africa and do their part. I admire these girls, sorry, women greatly because they are doing all of this with out the thank-yous and publicity. I think these are the types of people who will make a real difference in Africa.
I never defended a policy of non-interference in my post by the way. All I did was reason that if anyone wanted to clear the US off any liability in the present fate of this continent we all know as Africa, then that person ought to make sure he at least knows which crimes our past administrations stand accused of. And I say this because I know I speak for a majority when I say not all our relatives or friends are aspiring blue helmets. I just don’t like the image of a bunch of capped americans heroes flying all over the globe every time there’s a need for cleanup. That’s not accurate, for one, and two, not real flattering either if you put it like you did. What you do you mean motives matter? Like we have a more legitimate reason to be over there than someone else? What happened to self-determination? Or I’m sorry, what did NOT happen to it? Is this why we’re not in Darfur right now, because we jump only when the Russians or Chinese say jump and they haven’t? So much for our immaculate intents… And since I’m on about intents, I’ll concede this other point too. I’ve basically NO idea why we lend our hand only to a few nations and not others, but it’s true, we do, and not only so, we pull out pretty damn fast too when tables reverse and our protégées become a lost cause. Take the Belgians who for decades loved only the sight of the Tutsis in power yet flew back to Europe almost in a heartbeat when the Hutus overthrew every Tutsi in 1953. Or take again Mitterand who, unless more files become declassified in the next years, I don’t think I can ever understand why his officials conspired against the very regime he’d spent years attending by. So who cares about motives? See how sainted with unconditional love and morals we are?
Who the HELL is Rosanne Barr?????
Yeah, I agree, who the hell is she?
Until this post, I was guilty of thinking Rosie O’Donnell and Roseanne Barr were the same individual.