This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

Friday, 13 January 2012

US film stars for the Democrats!

The US Democrats are a bit skint at the moment. What’s the best solution for that particular problem? Well, it’s usually to wine-and-dine big businessmen and other high-flyers. However, many business types are not that susceptible to the Democrats’ charms. So why not film stars instead? They’ve got a few bob to spare, haven’t they? I know, try Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.
President Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, has told us - and please hold back your tears - that the Democrats’ cash-scrapped situation means that victory ‘is slipping through [their] fingers’. That is, unless the great and the good put their money where their mouths are.

Why else would US politicians patronise film stars?

US actors have always stuck their cash-filled noses into American politics, from Jane Fonda in the 1960s to Jon Voight (Angelina Jolie’s daddy) very recently. Some of what they’ve got to say is OK. Other stuff is utter shit. It depends. I wouldn’t block their voices just because they are actors and not professional politicians. But it’s as if some people, not just politicians, think that these stars automatically have something to say simply because they’ve made a few quid and are very famous. They haven’t always got something interesting or relevant to say. Take our own Bono (or ‘Boneo’, as Alan Partridge put it). (Though a pop - rather than film - star.) Take his banal or vacuous homilies against this and that. Not exactly a great intellect. However, the politicians may have needed his money and Tony Blair, for example, always wanted to come across as Hip to yoof.

Actually, Ms Jolie does come across as having about ten brain cells, which is nine more than Brad Pitt. (And George Clooney! What an arse!) She’s already involved in various political movements and campaigns, including ‘preventing mass atrocities and combating sexual violence against women’. That sounds commendable. But that very phrase, ‘preventing mass atrocities’, sounds terribly vague and even slightly absurd. More specifically, Jolie is a Goodwill Ambassador for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Really? I wonder what she has to say to the many representatives of all those Muslim and Islamic regimes at the United Nations. Does she speak to them about ‘combating sexual violence against women’? Does she tell the Palestinian 'refugees’ that they’ll improve their lot massively if only they stopped their relentless rocket attacks on Israel. Or is that not Jolie’s job? Probably not. Then one automatically wonders what her precise job is in all this.

Jolie is clearly quite bright. But what about Brad Pitt? He met with the President in 2009. What did he have to say? Well, almost nothing. Still, I prefer it when film stars keep their mouths shut in these situations.

No comments:

Post a Comment