Many professors, regardless of which academic discipline, are avid supporters of the establishment- and that extends to their supporting the conservatives and the Neocons.

It goes with the territory as academia is essentially an establishment order and they will support whatever and whoever has ordained them and feeds them (and their research).

Russians must really love Sachs, eh? But Americans should think a little further about another professor of law, Barack Obama. The only ‘change’ he ever wants is for a black man to be president - himself!

Outraged:

You have FAR too much time on your hands!  LOL.  Do you have any life outside of Lie Dig?

Maybe if you dig deep enough, you’ll find that Britney Spears is actually a member of the Trilateral Commission, Paris Hilton is an MI6 agent, and Lindsay Lohan is a Navy SEAL.

Peace.

[IRAQ] - Oh Baghdad..They Killed You! - Ahmed AbdRapo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9WUpIcsJRw&NR=1

Um Kulthum - Baghdad (as it once was)… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Ztt73zN6o

While many of Angelina Jolie’s acts “appear” to be humanitarian, one has to at least question the motives.  She has involved herself with some strange bedfellows, not that she’s ever avoided controversy.  As I was questioning some other information about the Council on Foreign Relations I was surprised to find Angelina was a member. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_foreign_relations

She also apparently has worked very closely with Jeffery Sachs, a rather capitalistic exploiter of economic systems, professor and consultant.  From Wikipedia:

“In addition to her political involvement, Jolie began using her public profile to promote humanitarian causes through the mass media. She filmed a MTV special, The Diary Of Angelina Jolie & Dr. Jeffrey Sachs in Africa, portraying her and noted economist Dr. Jeffrey Sachs on a trip to a remote group of villages in Western Kenya. There, Sachs’s United Nations Millennium Project team is working with locals to end poverty, hunger and disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelina_Jolie

Wikipedia content concerning Jeffrey Sachs:

“Sachs has been variously criticized for his staunchly neoliberal perspective on economy. Socialist feminist Nancy Holmstrom pointed out in a 2000 article that, in advising implementation of his shock therapy on the collapsing Soviet Union, Sachs “supposed the transition to capitalism would be a natural, virtually automatic economic process: start by abandoning state planning, free up prices, promote private competition with state-owned industry, and sell off state industry as fast as possible [...]” Holmstrom goes on to cite the drastic decreases in industrial output over the coming years, a nearly halving of the country’s GDP and of personal incomes, a doubling of the suicide rate, and a skyrocketing unemployment rate. [1]

What is viewed as one of Sachs’ great successes, the reversal of hyperinflation in Bolivia the late 1980’s by using extreme methods of economic shock therapy, is analyzed in depth in chapter 7 of Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2007). Klein argues that the story of Sachs’ Bolivian “success” is clearly not true. In Klein’s analysis, the radical reforms pushed by Sachs were neither democratically agreed upon nor achieved without violent state repression, and left the majority of Bolivians in far worse circumstances.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs

So, Angelina’s alliance with the Council on Foreign Relations, her close work with Jeffrey Sachs and Sachs’ “shock doctrine” mentality, really makes me question her sincerity. I don’t know.....I haven’t investigated it that thoroughly but...I question it.  It really seems like one of those “not all that glitters is gold” suppositions.

Somewhere I read that she advocated staying in Iraq to “fix it”. How many times have we heard that to justify the Occupation?
This is the oldest civilization on earth--maybe our “help” has done enough damage and they would prefer to have their country back, their oil back, their culture back and their hope back to rebuild their own lives without US contractors getting the funds.

There is a certain arrogance in the assumption that only the superior we can “fix it” best.

If you are the voice of truth then you must be very high on the pork barrel payroll because working an honest job in this country these days just keeps a person 2 steps ahead of foreclosure and bankruptcy.
That idea of working hard doesn’t get anybody anything much these days, so go read Orwell’s “Animal Farm” for hard working honest jobs.

It’s not the math of the American economy--except that it has left so many hard-working Americans behind.  The facts seem to indicate that we’re in a recession.  Even the venerable Warren Buffett admits that.  But for way too many Americans for way too long, staying afloat is nearly impossible. 

Financial statistics for middle class Americans indicate that their lot has worsened steadily over a long time.  Working longer for lesser dollars and inflation eating away at their buying power. 

I always felt that I don’t expect my government to help me earn more--I, like most Americans have worked longer and harder to try to do that--I just don’t appreciate my government making policies and legislation that favors big business over me and, in fact, take from me to give to big business in the form of subsidies, big subsidies, and other tax breaks.  I thank congress, my vernerable republicans and democrats for that. 

People who don’t mind living like this and who think their hard work yields for them and their families a just amount--like large corporations get--should go ahead and keep in office those elected officials who make it all possible. 

Nader speaks my brand of truth and that’s why I’m delighted he’s jumped in.  In my mind it will make no difference if my vote is “wasted” because if it helped to put in one of the others, my life will only get worse. 

Take an inventory of your financial position over the last twenty-five years and figure how much of your success you can attribute to your own doing and how different it might be for you in a country that didn’t tax you to death for what you get, and one that didn’t spent close to a trillion on its War Department every year. Remember, the decline has been precipitous the last eight years.

Hey Moron.  In case you can’t understand mathematics, the US economy is still, in fact, growing.  Anyone who wants to take advantage of this fact and work hard can actually participate in that.  Alternatively, one can sit back and whine because someone else has more then you do and that the government should do something about that.

Ms. Jolie is well-intended .... but think about it

5 years of occupation, and just NOW security is sufficient to allow foreigners to go in and do humanitarian relief ... which is provided by hated westerns and which does not accelerate the independence or self-reliance of the Iraqi peoples??!?

what a cluster-f&4k;- designed and implemented by neo-conservatives who proved to be completely ill-informed about Iraq and totally incompetent in executing their dreams about Iraq

Sorry, Ms Jolie - time for US to get out, let Red Crescent or Hamas social services take care of folks in need in Iraq.

Thank you for this intelligent and heartfelt comment.

DennisD and Dr.Knowitall you’re both wrong in your attitudes. Angelina’s act by visiting Iraq and writing about the need to help it is both noble and patriotic. She knows the wrong all of us committed in allowing the evil and wrong war to happen in the first place, and now she is doing her little part trying to atone for it; and this is both good and noble. Helping solve the problem in New Orleans is basically the responsibility of our government through tax-payer money. You should direct your anger and blame on the evil Bush Administration that you directly or indirectly helped to bring to power.

GC:

Brava!  Always good to look in the mirror when we judge others.  And as the expression goes: when you point your finger at someone, you have three fingers pointing back at YOU!

Peace.

Patricia:

“I just read somewhere today that Angelina won`t get married to Brad untill he signs a `prenup` that say`s he will pay her `One Hundred Million Dollars` if the marriage fails.”

This idea is prima facie lunatic: Jolie makes and/or has made as much from her movies as Pitt has from his, particularly the Lara Croft films, which have made her a multi-multi-millionaire as well.  Since 2000, they have each made 15 pictures, and in each case four of them grossed over $100 million or more.  And although Pitt may command a slightly higher salary per picture, it is negligible when we are talking millions or tens of millions overall.

In short, she doesn’t NEED his $100 million.

Peace.

Pitt has spoken publicly more than once re their marriage…
To paraphrase:...When all consenting adults can legally marry, we will join in the celebration......

Jolie has spoken publicly more than once re her money…
She gives, as I recall the figure, roughly 1/3 of it to humanitarian work…

PS..they and family live mainly in New Orleans where Pitt is VERY active in rebuilding projects..(probably Jolie as well since, as we have noticed, they are a team)

....We Strive On.......

performed by others, Always comes the question:

“What acts of service am I performing?”

thereby ensuring a bed in heaven (do they sleep up there?).  Why not quietly go into Camden and help lift up some fellow Americans living in squalor, no fault of their own?  I think they’d appreciate that and so would Jesus.

Marshall:

Me: “Would you chastise Lennon, Bono, Sting et al simply because the causes they fought for were not specifically “U.S."-centered?"

You: “Given that none of these guys is from the US, I would say no.”

Thanks for catching that.  Shows how carefully I was paying attention to my own rhetoric.  LOL.

Peace.

I like your idea but I don’t think this is what motivates the STARS.  If it is, it’s a little underhanded on their part. 

I wonder why Jolie wouldn’t focus her efforts on helping Americans who are the reason she has become fabulously wealthy and famous.  The Iraqis didn’t. Nor did those in Darfur. 

BTW, the way to help the Iraqis would have been for the US to become the instrument of peace in negotiating a representative government in Iraq, even if it took fifty years, not to attack them, blow them back to the stone age with S&A;and occupy their country for what will now probably become decades or centuries, as some of our venerable politicians would have. Some help, but typically American.  Especially being predicated on the BIG LIE.

What did she do wrong.?  I guess if America’s right, then she is, too.  (I assume she’s an American citizen.)

Agreed, but I tend to also agree with the idea of cleaning up your own mess first.  If I were an American in dire need, I think I might resent the attention given offshore.

Narrow, yes, but IMO, justifiably so. America’s activity has been far too BROAD for far too long, contributing greatly to the sorry state of millions of American citizens.

I’m all for isolationism for a few years until we can figure out who we are, what we should be doing and the kind of government we want. 

I don’t see that Hollywood contributes much of value to our society.  In fact, I think it’s a toxin and most of the STARS, deluded.

^ the reason the “stars” go outside of “our” country is because our country, who should be taking care of it’s own, isn’t.  So, I for one would concentrate on the poorer countries, to help their hopeless/helpless, to shame our country for the total lack of care for the impoverished here.  With our wealth; there should be no poverty; no poor; no homeless!  Instead we spend trillions fighting a worthless, illegal war, in a country far, far away.  Please tell me; what has Jolie done wrong?

<<Would you chastise Lennon, Bono, Sting et al simply because the causes they fought for were not specifically “U.S."-centered?>>

Given that none of these guys is from the US, I would say no.

As to the issue of celebrities and causes - they are little different from any wealthy individual who takes up a public cause.  But one difference is that many celebrities are not particularly intelligent, educated or informed.  They live in a rarified atmosphere and, to assuage their feelings of guilt for living such privileged, insular lives, they take up social causes… often pretending to identify with the “common person” as though their lives are anything like those of the rest of us.  To those of us who are not star struck, it often comes off as disingenuous and naive.  And it often is.  Because on top of that, many celebrities use public causes to advance the one thing that drives their wealth machine; publicity.  So these self-promoters start with a liability, and it’s not surprising that they aren’t taken particularly seriously outside of Hollywood.  And that’s as it should be.

DKIA:

As I pointed out below, many celebs do devote time, energy and money to problems here (e.g., those with Farm AID).  But don’t forget that some problems transcend national boundaries, affecting many - including those at home.  AIDS, the environment, nuclear weapons/power, etc.  Would you chastise Lennon, Bono, Sting et al simply because the causes they fought for were not specifically “U.S."-centered?

As well, would you chastise those who speak out and devote time, energy and/or money to such issues as Darfur, tsunami victims, etc. just because those people are not in the U.S.?

I think you are being a bit narrow in your reasoning here.

Peace.

I just adore Hollywood.  Enlighten me, please.  These people have profited obscenely from the American peoples’ unquenchable thirst for, usually, very bad entertainment.

Why do so many STARS feel compelled to go outside their country to “do good” when the need here is so great?  Is there something too, shall we say, ordinary or unusual about Americans?

(I do realize that a few have worked to better the human condition at home, i.e., New Orleans.)

The only problem is with the illusion of progress. Nir Rosen’s Rolling Stone article, The Myth of the Surge, makes clear the trouble boiling just below the surface. Wish it were not so, but this relative quiet is more likely a brief respite before the storm.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/th e_myth_of_the_surge

Jolie seems to be sincere.  And I have no problem with celebrities taking positions on, and speaking out for, issues or causes as long as they put actual money, time, energy or other effort behind that cause, and don’t just use it to “look good.”

Indeed, there is a rich history of entertainment celebrities - mostly music, but also film, dance, theater, etc. - taking “leadership” roles in socio-political causes, from Vietnam to nuclear weapons and power, from the environment to AIDS.  Indeed, it is because they have a larger “public eye” platform from which to speak that their voices can be, and often are, critical in bringing attention to, and maintaining attention on, critical issues.  Figures such as Dylan, Baez, Lennon, Taylor, Sting, Bono, Mellencamp, Nelson et al have all “put their money (or time, energy, etc.)” where their mouths are and made a significant impact on the causes they chose.

Peace.

^ and so you now see; we are not, all of us, bad.

What a beautiful soul this Angelina Jolie is! I can hardly believe that she belongs to the same nation, culture, and taxpayers who produced all this tragic human disaster in Iraq. Possibly, she is an angel as her name indicates, sent to this troubled humanity with a wake-up call!