Vollständige Version anzeigen : Celebrities vs. Charity: Great article
Not that there's anything wrong with that. But the number of celebrities lining up to be a special envoy, ambassador, advocate or spokesmen or women might suggest the compassionate celebrity is the new public nuisance, as ubiquitous as backpackers with donation buckets.
www.smh.com (http://www.smh.com.au/news/people/charity-begins-in-hollywood/2006/06/11/1149964403312.html)
Just watch Cribs and you'll see who the people that should be charitable are. Their pride in wealth is disgusting.
ANGIE!!!!!
Good or bad, celebrities bring attention.
stoli_sambuca
29-08-06, 12:46
Just watch Cribs and you'll see who the people that should be charitable are. Their pride in wealth is disgusting.I don't think they're that bad for a couple of reasons. There are five types of wealthy people. Rock stars, movie stars, sports players, investment bankers and CEOs. Rock stars, movie stars, sports players and investment bankers get paid based on their performance. If they perform, they get paid. If they don't perform, they don't get paid. Rock stars, movie stars and sports players also make money while consumers (fans) choose to pay money to them. Consumers (fans) buy music and they buy concern tickets. Consumers (fans) watch movies. Consumers (fans) watch sports on TV and at various places like baseball stadiums and tennis courts. And who are celebrities? Rock stars, movie stars and sports players. It's not like they're stealing money. It's not like they're scamming people. (... unless you count celebrity CEOs like Ken Lay)
I'm not saying that celebrities are great people, but ... I don't think that they're as bad as they seem to be if you think about what they do and how they make money ...
greenpeace_mike
29-08-06, 16:31
hollywood stars are getting a lot of hate for being famous. in america they are called liberals or lefties. people like G. clooney are good to look at but he doesn' t influence my political opinion.
Here is another good article:
http://news.scotsman.com/latest_entertainment.cfm?id=1264622006
Madonna's charity plans were announced in an interview with Time magazine, which itself pointed out that for someone who has never been to Africa "the whole enterprise has the pungent aroma of a coordinated act of publicity".
The fact that orphans at a planned care centre in Malawi will be taught a curriculum based on Spirituality For Kids, a group linked to the Kabbalah school of mysticism to which Madonna adheres, could add to the cynicism.
But to people in Mphandula, where the centre is to be built, such arguments are unimportant.
"All I know is that she is rich and a very compassionate mother. She is our mother now," said village headman Mphandula, who had never heard of Madonna. "It is a gift from God."
GWYNETH GRATES
Paltrow's appearance in African beads and with painted stripes on her cheek above the words "I Am African" drew online blogs of derision. "Right Gwynnie. And I'm Martian," said one.
Found this article on the internet:
When celebrities act like politicians.
On the evening of Sept. 29, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and actress Angelina Jolie got together at the Kennedy Center for a gala sponsored by a group called the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS. Just another excruciating Washington benefit dinner, you say. But pause for a moment to contemplate the silliness of the state-of-the art mélange of politics, celebrity, and corporate public relations that such an event represents.
First, there is the assumption—now almost automatic—that celebrities are public intellectuals on whatever issues they choose to take an interest in. I don't know whether Angelina Jolie is smart, smart for Hollywood, or not smart even by Hollywood standards. I do know, because I watched her speech, that she doesn't have much to say about AIDS. Her message to the assembled businesspeople and politicians was that we all must do more to fight this terrible disease. In particular, Jolie pressured the audience to pressure CEOs to pressure politicians to do more. When they have no idea what to do, celebs tell other people to tell other people what to do.
And just how saintly are these stars who give so freely of themselves? Cause-driven organizations like the Global Business Council want celebrity endorsements for the same reason companies like Nike and Coca-Cola do. Beautiful and famous people get everyone else to look at them. They create positive associations for whatever you're selling. But our idols seldom act out of selfless motives. Whereas product endorsements pay cash, actors and musicians gain heft and respectability by supporting fashionable crusades. What fighting AIDS does for Jolie, freeing Tibet does for Richard Gere, relieving African debt does for Bono, and banning land mines does for Paul McCartney. From the cynical celebrity's point of view, the best causes involve the poor, the sick, children, and animals in faraway places, both because of the telegenic aspect and because they bring no objection from fans or employers. If there were endangered baby pandas on the moon, Brad Pitt would be racing Ashley Judd there right now.
As celebrities get more involved in political causes—and threaten to run, or actually do run for political office—politicians are acting more like celebrities. Unglamorous senators and Cabinet secretaries now pose for Vanity Fair, write books with their own faces on the cover, and appear alongside Ben and Jennifer at red-carpet events. Only a handful of current or retired political figures—including the Clintons, the various Bushes, John McCain, and Colin Powell—are actually famous enough to qualify as top-drawer celebrities, but those few have a great advantage over the rest. A politician who counts as a celeb not only gets to bask in acclaim and hang out with the A-list. He or she can be a "leader" on an issue without being elected to anything and without the tedious work of legislating. If Washington is Hollywood for ugly people, Hollywood is Washington for the lazy. When Bill Clinton tries to help the victims of Katrina, Powell champions urban youth, or Bill Frist plays at being the nation's doctor, they are politicians imitating celebrities imitating politicians.
In search of a comeback, celebrity pols sometime try the "celebrity duet." Thus the matchups of former President Clinton with his old nemesis former President Bush to help victims of the Asian tsunami and Katrina, and Hillary Clinton with her and her husband's longtime antagonist Newt Gingrich to promote health-care reform. Like Frank Sinatra singing with Chrissie Hynde, the "fun couple" of adored entertainer and notable politico generates irresistible curiosity, if only to see the crackup. The more unlikely the match, the more attention it gets. Good pairings in recent years have included grizzled rocker with right-wing fanatic (Bono and Jesse Helms on AIDS); hot babe with right-wing fanatic (Cameron Diaz and Pat Robertson for Live ; and chiseled narcissist with libertarian populist (Arnold Schwarzenegger with himself). There are local versions, like Russell Simmons and Andrew Cuomo teaming up to reform New York's Rockefeller drug laws, and politically savvy commercial ones, like Britney Spears and Bob Dole collaborating to promote Pepsi. As we get to the comeback-hungry B-list in both fields, endless mash-up possibilities unfold. Ashton Kutcher and Karen Hughes … Kate Moss and Scooter Libby … Paris Hilton and Bob Torricelli.
Wherever famous people endorse unimpeachable sentiments, large corporations are sure to provide the floral arrangements and stuff the goodie bags. Big companies shun political controversy, but these days all of them want credit for behaving in a "socially responsible" manner. Thus, the pallid consensus created by celebrity-politicians and politician-celebrities suits them perfectly. But the halo of glamour and corporate PR tends to conceal difficult elisions, if not fundamental disagreements. Political-celebrity pairings tend to be about raising money or simply proclaiming the need for action, because oddball, Hatfield-and-McCoy partners seldom truly agree about what should be done or who should do it.
For instance, at the AIDS dinner, the three divas posed together for the cameras and came up with complimentary things to say about each other. They all agree that more must be done. But in her remarks, Rice suggested that she and President Bush were handling the problem of AIDS in Africa the right way. In the only pointed remarks of the evening, Sen. Clinton criticized the administration for its anti-condom and sex-ed policy, which she said "will lead to the unnecessary deaths of many people around the world." In other words, Hillary and Condi are on the same page about doing more about AIDS except for that small matter of Clinton thinking that Rice's team is killing tens of thousands of people because of prudery and moralism.
For her part, Jolie has suggested that money being spent on the Iraq war, which both Rice and Clinton support, should be used to save dying Africans. Instead of posing with them, shouldn't she be protesting outside their offices?
Why can people not accept their sincerity? Whatever they do it's wrong. How sad, sad.
stoli_sambuca
02-09-06, 13:21
Why can people not accept their sincerity? Whatever they do it's wrong. How sad, sad.
I think there are a couple of reasons why they think that. One of reasons is that the main stream media loves bashing celebrities; they don't blame their incompetence for various social problems. They don't blame their employers like GE, Disney, Viacom, News Corp and Time Warner for creating various social problems while they externalize social responbilities. According to the main stream media, celebrities lack moral, and that is the cause of all social problems. This is probably one of reasons why so many people don't appreciate what celebrities do. I'm not saying that all celebrities are great people though.
I think there are a couple of reasons why they think that. One of reasons is that the main stream media loves bashing celebrities; they don't blame their incompetence for various social problems. They don't blame their employers like GE, Disney, Viacom, News Corp and Time Warner for creating various social problems while they externalize social responbilities. According to the main stream media, celebrities lack moral, and that is the cause of all social problems. This is probably one of reasons why so many people don't appreciate what celebrities do. I'm not saying that all celebrities are great people though.
I'd say it's because the media in general has a warped sense of priorities.
Remember the Peter Gabriel charity event that Angelina was late for and the paparazzi crowd that turned ugly, knocked her assistant down and cornered Angie against a wall and would not let her into the event until they got their pictures? Their priorities weren't with the charity event or the people of Sierra Leone it was to benefit, but with getting pictures for the front cover of their scandal rags.
And then there's the criticism by the journalistic community leveled against Anderson Cooper because he devoted a whole program to the crisis in Africa and interspered coverage from Africa with an interview with Angelina about the problem. He was accused of stargazing by doing so. An ironic accusation considering that most of the media were spending far too little time highlighting the conditions in Africa and far too much time trying to get pictures of Angie's child (and complaining loudly about how the Namibian's were blocking them from getting those pictures).
Ultimately, what would you prefer that your celebrity be doing? Do you prefer the self-absorbed celebrity featured on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous who spends his/her time competing with other celebrities at building the largest and most obscenely lavish mansions? The same self-absorbed celebrity who collects a fleet of expensive automobiles in order to keep up with their peers? Or do you prefer your celebrity to be less interested in showing off their bling-bling and more interested in spending their money to help those in need? I'll tip my hat to any celebrity who chooses to be the latter and to hell with what the media thinks about their motivations.
Jessica Simpson is one of the best cases when fake charity backfired. Going to Africa and not even care about meeting those people is simply disgusting. At least she never tried it again.
I remember that. It was sooo embarassing. Like Sean Penn and his NO "rescue" mission.:p
stoli_sambuca
07-09-06, 12:51
Speaking of celebrities, Paris Hilton apparently got arrested ...
LOS ANGELES Sep 7, 2006 (AP)— Paris Hilton was arrested early Thursday for investigation of driving under the influence, police said.
Hilton was arrested shortly before 12:30 a.m. in Hollywood, said police Officer I. Isabella, who declined to give his first name.
"The officers observed that Hilton exhibited the symptoms of intoxication. A field sobriety test was conducted at scene, and the officers determined she was driving under the influence," Isabella said, reading a police statement.
...
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=2404156
:) ;) :rolleyes:
Two thumbs down for Ms. Hilton.
I am glad her album is a flop.
a label is
07-09-06, 13:25
Ultimately, what would you prefer that your celebrity be doing? Do you prefer the self-absorbed celebrity featured on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous who spends his/her time competing with other celebrities at building the largest and most obscenely lavish mansions? The same self-absorbed celebrity who collects a fleet of expensive automobiles in order to keep up with their peers? Or do you prefer your celebrity to be less interested in showing off their bling-bling and more interested in spending their money to help those in need?
Come on, can you tell me ONE celebrity who isn't "showing off their bling-bling"?
There's nothing to say about utlilizing your omnipresence in the media for other issues than your last time on your private jet - or whatever else they're talking about.
But it's just so absurd to "help the poor", go home and don't give a shit about who produced all the luxury you're living in. Hollywood stars are THE personification of our capitalist society - of the reason why there are still that many people starving and killing each other.
It sometimes seems almost cynical when they talk about the problems in the world - sitting there in their designer dresses worth thousands of dollars - and you know they gonna have a big party with champagne and caviar later on.
I don't blame every single celebrity - but how many (esp. in Hollywood) do just soothe their conscience cause they live in the maybe most incredible wealth and luxury?!
stoli_sambuca
07-09-06, 13:36
Hollywood stars are THE personification of our capitalist society - of the reason why there are still that many people starving and killing each other.
It sometimes seems almost cynical when they talk about the problems in the world - sitting there in their designer dresses worth thousands of dollars - and you know they gonna have a big party with champagne and caviar later on.
I don't blame every single celebrity - but how many (esp. in Hollywood) do just soothe their conscience cause they live in the maybe most incredible wealth and luxury?!
I wouldn't say that celebrities are innocent hard working people, but many of them are rock stars, movie stars or sports players; in other words, they get paid based on their performance. In other words, they aren't exactly stealing money from other people. Why do so many (most?) CEOs make tens of millions of dollars or more regardless of their performance? It's because they're essentially stealing money. They often lay off employees and call it restructuring, improvement in management. That's not improvement. That's not profitability. It's simply transferring of dollars from employees to CEOs. It's not absurd to claim that CEOs are stealing money from employees and other people around the world; they even pollute air, water and destroy the environment. Most celebrities aren't like that, though they are not like Mother Theresa or Gandhi.
That's my take ...
Nicole Kidman agianst Angelina Jolie!
Nicole Kidman has hit out at Angelina Jolie for using her charity work for publicity.
The Australian actress - who is about to make her first trip to India as goodwill ambassador for the United Nations Development Fund for Women - claims the 'Tomb Raider' star gets far too much recognition for her good deeds.
Nicole is quoted by Scotland's Daily Record newspaper as saying: "It's not like Angelina is any better than a nurse working in a hospital but she's getting the publicity for her contribution.
"I have a friend who is a doctor and every year he works in Africa for two months for no money. So everyone is on the same playing field, whether you offer your services as the doctor or as Angelina does."
Like Nicole, Angelina is also a United Nations goodwill ambassador. The 'Alexander' actress - who gave birth to her first biological child, Shiloh Nouvel, with boyfriend Brad Pitt this year - is known for her charity work.
She has previously visited victims of the 2005 Pakistan earthquake disaster on behalf of the UN, and donated all the money she and Brad raised from the sale of the first pictures of baby Shiloh to children's charity UNICEF.
More articles from:
Staff
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21238226.shtml
Nicole Kidman is NOT bashing Jolie! She was saying that everybody involved in charity is on the same level. But Ms. Jolie gets more PR for her work.
Come on, can you tell me ONE celebrity who isn't "showing off their bling-bling"?.
I can tell you more than one celebrity. I think you confuse Hip-Hop stars with real stars.
There's nothing to say about utlilizing your omnipresence in the media for other issues than your last time on your private jet - or whatever else they're talking about.
But it's just so absurd to "help the poor", go home and don't give a shit about who produced all the luxury you're living in. Hollywood stars are THE personification of our capitalist society - of the reason why there are still that many people starving and killing each other.
Okay, I hope you never get rich. Because you have to give away all your money.
It sometimes seems almost cynical when they talk about the problems in the world - sitting there in their designer dresses worth thousands of dollars - and you know they gonna have a big party with champagne and caviar later on
So they should sit in Wal-Markt dresses and don't have a party? Because they are rich, right???
Great new article:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1757268.ece
The launch of the Fortune Forum tonight heralds a new style of fundraising, imported from America, and aimed at a new generation of super-rich donors. Guy Adams reports
Published: 26 September 2006
Bill Clinton has agreed to speak. Michael Douglas will present a "special award", and Sir Richard Branson and Lakshmi Mittal are bringing along tables of guests. After dinner, Yusuf Islam, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens, will give his first major live performance for more than 28 years.
Tonight, London's A-list will be on a red carpet near Tower Bridge. The likes of the actress Catherine Zeta-Jones and the ballerina Darcey Bussell will rub shoulders with the supermodel Lily Cole and the television presenter Trinny Woodall.
Champagne will be guzzled by the bucketload, and six-figure sums bid for "once-in-a-lifetime" auction lots. On paper, it promises to be the biggest charity bash since, well, since the last one....
Celebrity goodwill is not a new phenomenon, but the way celebrities are giving to charitable causes has evolved, thanks in part to the global media. A growing number of stars are using their celebrity as a vehicle to negotiate more media coverage for the global issues they care about. Accustomed to setting fashion and lifestyle trends, celebrities are moving beyond the superficial and setting an example by traveling to poor, remote, high-risk areas and providing new incentives for international aid.
Lately, the media spotlight on the high profile charitable acts by big name stars such as actress Angelina Jolie and rock star Bono have focused our attention on the issues they espouse. But well before the advent of 24 hour news, charity work became a mainstay of Hollywood. Comedian Jerry Lewis has been the Muscular Dystrophy Association's celebrity spokesperson for 40 years. Bob Hope and Bing Crosby hammed it up for the cameras at televised charity golf tournaments for four decades and popularized the live overseas shows for United States military personnel that made "USO tour" a household name. Doris Day has given years of her life to the humane treatment of animals, Joan Crawford adopted 6 at-risk children, and the list goes on.
http://www.globalenvision.org/library/8/1127/
Charley Reese wrote:
Clooney To Gaza
I don't know about actor George Clooney. I challenged him once to take up arms and go fight in the Darfur region of Sudan, but it seems he just wants to make speeches about it. Obviously, he would prefer that some minimum-wage soldiers be sent there to do the fighting.
Well, if he really wants to end suffering, I know where there is intense suffering, but suffering that is endable. He wouldn't even have to carry a gun. I'm talking about the Gaza Strip, where the United Nations says there is a humanitarian crisis of almost unendurable proportions.
Most, though not all, of the suffering is directly caused by the actions of the Israeli government. The Israeli government is hardhearted and immune to pressure from all but one source - the United States, which not only pumps in billions of dollars every year but also protects Israel from international sanctions at the United Nations.
Therefore, if Clooney would gather some of his big-name celebrity pals and lead a tour of the Gaza Strip, showing the American people the extent and injustice of the suffering, then the American people might pressure the U.S. government to pressure Israel to stop it.
I bet 5-to-1 he won't do it. Such a trip would be seen as criticism of Israel, and I don't think Clooney has the guts. It's OK to be against big oil and the CIA; liberals don't like either. It's OK to damn a long-dead demagogue most Americans today only vaguely recall, if at all, and liberals have always despised. It's OK to urge other people to go to Sudan. None of that costs Clooney a penny - not even a raised eyebrow from anyone he cares about.
But if Clooney wants to show the stuff he's made of, he should go to Gaza. That would require real courage. It would be like Errol Flynn going through the lines during the Spanish Civil War - real hero stuff, not the make-believe kind.
He would get the Mel Gibson treatment, drunk or sober. He'd be putting his career at risk, but I think the parents of the 37 Palestinian children killed in recent weeks would say it was worth it. He wouldn't even be alone. B'Tselem, an honorable and courageous Israeli human-rights organization, recently condemned the Israeli bombing of Gaza's power plant as a crime against international humanitarian law.
John Dugard, special rapporteur for the United Nations Human Rights Commission, said recently that Israel has turned Gaza into a prison where the conditions are intolerable, appalling and tragic. He said Israel's actions are a violation of international humanitarian law. He said Israel's so-called collateral damage amounts to indiscriminate killing. It is true that Israelis seem to shoot more Palestinians than Dick Cheney shoots doves or quail, and just about as casually.
After touring Gaza, Clooney could see more misery in the West Bank and in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Israel and the United States have been trying to pressure the Palestinian Authority to renounce the refugees' right of return for years, but to its everlasting honor, it has steadfastly refused to do so. Such a trip would give Clooney a chance to meet some real men and some real women who know what courage is.
He'll never do it, though, even if he ever sees this. Clooney has been making safe bets his whole life. He would never, under any circumstances, want to go head to head with the Israeli lobby.
Well, so be it. But then he ought to drop the pretense of being a great crusader for human rights and just confine himself to making movies - which I enjoy, by the way. Make-believe has its place in the world, but it should be kept on the stage, the set and the theater screen. Otherwise, it becomes just another cheap con job.
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20061006/index.php
Link: A in A-List Stands for Africa
Posted Oct 17th 2006 5:50AM by TMZ Staff
Filed under: The Biz, Madonna
So you're an A-list celebrity. You've got everything the observable and commercially-available world could possibly offer -- bling, black card, Bentley. How do you truly distinguish yourself from your peers as a world-class member of celebdom's royalty? Apparently, you take the first Gulfstream to Africa.
Indeed, like lemmings, younger Hollywood is angling to get their own 15 minutes of sub-Saharan fame. Lindsay Lohan has talked about wanting to visit, Britney Spears was rumored to be planning a Jolie-like Namibian birth, and even Paris Hilton is reportedly trying to get in on the act by filming a reality program there.
Of course, Madonna, with her recent adoption of baby David in Malawi, is just the latest celebrity to flock to the continent, making endless headlines in the process. Bono, has been an incredibly diligent and active advocate for African causes for years, and Oprah built a school in South Africa in 2002, among other efforts. Jay-Z, along with the UN, took up the cause of clean water, and has been touring there over the last month, and Alicia Keys has been deeply involved with Africa AIDS charities ever since a 2004 visit.
But if all those stars made Africa seem like a good idea, Angelina Jolie made it a truly glamorous one -- and though she's contributed a great deal, one UN development officer with projects in Africa tells TMZ that it's not all good . "She gave aid work a certain sheen, and made Africa seem like the kind of place you can just go and make something happen," says the UN officer, who asked that we not use her name. "But the reality is that when celebrities decide they're going to go to Africa and 'do something,' the amount of actual good they do can be so disproportionate to the disruption they cause."
Related
Articles
Link: http://www.tmz.com
THE impassioned and highly publicised plea by American actor George Clooney in September for the United Nations (UN) to confront the human rights abuses in Sudan seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Despite the call by the Hollywood celebrity — as well as by a number of human rights organisations — for action on the situation in Darfur, the recent meeting of the UN Human Rights Council has squandered this opportunity to respond to the very abuses it has been set up to address.
......
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/opinion.aspx?ID=BD4A299811
HNOM PENH, Cambodia Oct 30, 2006 (AP)— The director of a conservation project in Cambodia funded by actress Angelina Jolie on Monday rejected a claim by a Cambodian non-profit group that she had stopped funding the program, explaining that she had only changed its structure and management.
The Cambodian government in 2003 approved a forest conservation and poverty alleviation program for remote areas of northwestern Cambodia, for which Jolie has promised $1.3 million over five years,
The group Cambodian Vision in Development, or CVD, had co-managed the project with the U.S. conservation group WildAid, but Jolie terminated the contract with both in December last year to set up an independent Cambodian organization to administer it, said Stephen Bognar, the new group's executive director.
The new group has taken the ongoing program's name, the "Maddox Jolie Project," named after Jolie's adopted Cambodian son.
Bognar said he was dismayed to hear that CVD director Mounh Sarath had earlier Monday accused the Hollywood actress of cheating Cambodia when she stopped providing money to his organization.
"I am accusing her of violating the agreement under which she agreed to provide funds to CVD," Mounh Sarath said. "The more than $1 million she has promised has never arrived."
He claimed Jolie cut off funding and ended cooperation with his group without explanation in December last year.
Because he had not received an explanation of the cutoff, he decided to go public with his complaint, he added.
In response, Bognar said that Jolie had exercised the right to terminate the contract with CVD and WildAid to establish the new, independent organization, which employs some former CVD staff members who had been working on the project. Bognar himself previously worked for WildAid.
"I'm saddened to hear that you have someone complaining that the money hasn't gone to him and his organization, rather than noting how it has gone directly to poverty alleviation projects," he said.
The money had been provided at the local level for such things as building schools, clinics and roads, paying teachers' salaries and bringing in agricultural advisers from Australia, he said.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=2615609
PHNOM PENH (Reuters) - A Cambodian charity threatened on Wednesday to sue Angelina Jolie for breach of contract, saying the Hollywood star had reneged on a promise to give $1.5 million over five years to wildlife conservation.
However, Stephan Bognar, the Cambodia-based head of the star's Maddox Jolie Pitt Project, said the relationship with Cambodian Vision in Development (CVD) had ended amicably in December because their aid work was "moving on to a new level".
"Angelina and I will be unveiling our new program and commitment to Cambodia in about a month," Bognar told Reuters from the western town of Battambang.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=2006-11-01T112636Z_01_BKK315100_RTRUKOC_0_US-CAMBODIA-JOLIE.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-entertainmentNews-2
Hollywood's honesty is well known. So it is completely “shocking” for us to hear about Angelina Jolie’s aid scandal, Madonna’s adoption problems, studio boss a$$holes and some environment hypocrisy.
But that’s not enough for all those do-gooders.
Some rumblings over Stem Cells:
Opponents of embryonic stem cell research have quickly enlisted the aid of James Caviezel, who played Jesus in The Passion of the Christ, and Patricia Heaton, who co-starred in Everybody Loves Raymond, to counter ads featuring Michael J. Fox, who is supporting Congressional candidates favoring expanded federal funding for such research. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, was also criticized by conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, who suggested that Fox was "either off his medication or acting" before filming the spots. On the other hand, New York Times critic Alessandra Stanley wrote today (Wednesday): "These are times in which most actors seem prepared to do anything, and pay any price, to disguise flaws that could harm their careers. So when a famous one exposes the full, frightening extent of his infirmity in the name of saving lives, it tends to get noticed."
Source: IMDB
And finally a positive report. Johnny Depp gets an award for his charitable work:
Depp said he was "thankful" for the award and saluted the doctors and nurses at the hospital for "their generosity".
He concluded in his speech: "Lastly to the kids, the courage that I have seen in the eyes of these little ones that you don't see anywhere else is astonishing and inspiring."
Source: ITV
V-Generations (http://www.v-generations.com/v/content/view/137/30/)
By Caryn James / The New York Times
Published: November 14, 2006
NEW YORK: For the star who has everything - money, fame, awards - the latest must-have accessory seems to be a saintly halo, as images are burnished by high-profile attempts to save the world. Trying to turn themselves into glam versions of Mother Teresa has its perils, though.
George Clooney addressed the United Nations Security Council without derision, lecturing its members about their responsibilities in Darfur, but Madonna had to do a whole damage-control tour after adopting a baby boy from Malawi.
And for every benign image of Brad Pitt hammering nails in India while building Habit for Humanity houses with Jimmy Carter, there's the risk of a Gwyneth Paltrow debacle. When she appeared in a print ad over the line, "I Am African," with tribal stripes painted on her English-rose complexion, scathing jokes flooded the Internet and threatened to overshadow the ad's purpose, to raise money for the AIDS charity Keep a Child Alive. The tightrope that charitable celebrities have to walk reveals how volatile the relationship is between the stars and their public, how easily a credulous audience can turn cynical.
The connection of stardom and charity is almost as old as movies themselves. The silent film idols Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks lent their images to the American Red Cross fundraising campaign during World War I. Today, the Red Cross has a director of celebrity and entertainment outreach, Amnesty International has a flourishing Artists for Amnesty program (both divisions created in the last six years), and many other philanthropic groups have created systems for tapping into the frenzy of celebrities with causes.
Bonnie Abaunza, the director of Artists for Amnesty, said that while celebrities have always been drawn to causes, "they've had more of an impact in the last few years." She said that stars create a valuable ripple effect. "When a Mira Sorvino attends a rally and speaks eloquently and passionately against the rape of women in Darfur, people read about it in People magazine, they see it on CNN, they want to get involved."
At the highest reaches, though, celebrity activism goes far beyond participating in rallies or telethons and becomes an integral part of the star's persona, the ultimate stage of his or her megastardom. It would be naïve to think that spin plays no role in charitable moves, however sincere the star's motives.
Clooney has been among the most successful at managing the altruistic side of his persona, partly by adopting a Bono strategy of choosing a specific issue, in Clooney's case the genocide in Darfur, and becoming well informed. More originally, though, he has put a self-effacing attitude to good use. He has taken his dad, the journalist Nick Clooney, along on fact-finding trips to Africa. On the day of his speech to the United Nations in September, he and his father appeared on the weighty BBC World News report. When asked if he could change minds on the Security Council by urging them to send peacekeepers to Darfur, George Clooney replied: "My job isn't really to change their minds. My job is to make sure that cameras and lights follow where I go" in the region, calling attention to the crisis and the United Nations' responsibility there. It's hard to find a less messianic or more palatable strategy.
If Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were a bit less adept at spin, they could easily be ridiculed for messianic aspirations, with two children adopted from Cambodia and Ethiopia and the famous sojourn in Namibia for Jolie to give birth there. But they are almost always photographed with one of their children in their arms, walking embodiments of caring parents (however many nannies may be trailing off camera).
But Madonna's nanny was photographed carrying her adopted baby home from the London airport, a terrible public relations move that illustrates how the spin slipped out of Madonna's control early on.
Arriving in New York with her three children for the damage-control tour 12 days later, she carried little David through the airport herself, in a nicely compensating maternal photo.
Madonna's frequent shape-shifting may have made the public skeptical, even though she has consistently inhabited her wife and mother role for years now. More likely, callous though it may sound, by adopting an African baby she seemed to be copycatting the Jolie-Pitts, latching onto a celebrity trend.
Such trendiness is sure to backfire because no one likes to feel played, especially a public enamored of its starry idols. When attempts at altruism are so clumsy they seem like ploys, members of the public feel they're being treated like idiots.
http://www.nytimes.com/
By Caryn James / The New York Times
Published: November 14, 2006
NEW YORK: For the star who has everything - money, fame, awards - the latest must-have accessory seems to be a saintly halo, as images are burnished by high-profile attempts to save the world. Trying to turn themselves into glam versions of Mother Teresa has its perils, though.
George Clooney addressed the United Nations Security Council without derision, lecturing its members about their responsibilities in Darfur, but Madonna had to do a whole damage-control tour after adopting a baby boy from Malawi.
And for every benign image of Brad Pitt hammering nails in India while building Habit for Humanity houses with Jimmy Carter, there's the risk of a Gwyneth Paltrow debacle. When she appeared in a print ad over the line, "I Am African," with tribal stripes painted on her English-rose complexion, scathing jokes flooded the Internet and threatened to overshadow the ad's purpose, to raise money for the AIDS charity Keep a Child Alive. The tightrope that charitable celebrities have to walk reveals how volatile the relationship is between the stars and their public, how easily a credulous audience can turn cynical.
The connection of stardom and charity is almost as old as movies themselves. The silent film idols Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks lent their images to the American Red Cross fundraising campaign during World War I. Today, the Red Cross has a director of celebrity and entertainment outreach, Amnesty International has a flourishing Artists for Amnesty program (both divisions created in the last six years), and many other philanthropic groups have created systems for tapping into the frenzy of celebrities with causes.
Bonnie Abaunza, the director of Artists for Amnesty, said that while celebrities have always been drawn to causes, "they've had more of an impact in the last few years." She said that stars create a valuable ripple effect. "When a Mira Sorvino attends a rally and speaks eloquently and passionately against the rape of women in Darfur, people read about it in People magazine, they see it on CNN, they want to get involved."
At the highest reaches, though, celebrity activism goes far beyond participating in rallies or telethons and becomes an integral part of the star's persona, the ultimate stage of his or her megastardom. It would be naïve to think that spin plays no role in charitable moves, however sincere the star's motives.
Clooney has been among the most successful at managing the altruistic side of his persona, partly by adopting a Bono strategy of choosing a specific issue, in Clooney's case the genocide in Darfur, and becoming well informed. More originally, though, he has put a self-effacing attitude to good use. He has taken his dad, the journalist Nick Clooney, along on fact-finding trips to Africa. On the day of his speech to the United Nations in September, he and his father appeared on the weighty BBC World News report. When asked if he could change minds on the Security Council by urging them to send peacekeepers to Darfur, George Clooney replied: "My job isn't really to change their minds. My job is to make sure that cameras and lights follow where I go" in the region, calling attention to the crisis and the United Nations' responsibility there. It's hard to find a less messianic or more palatable strategy.
If Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were a bit less adept at spin, they could easily be ridiculed for messianic aspirations, with two children adopted from Cambodia and Ethiopia and the famous sojourn in Namibia for Jolie to give birth there. But they are almost always photographed with one of their children in their arms, walking embodiments of caring parents (however many nannies may be trailing off camera).
But Madonna's nanny was photographed carrying her adopted baby home from the London airport, a terrible public relations move that illustrates how the spin slipped out of Madonna's control early on.
Arriving in New York with her three children for the damage-control tour 12 days later, she carried little David through the airport herself, in a nicely compensating maternal photo.
Madonna's frequent shape-shifting may have made the public skeptical, even though she has consistently inhabited her wife and mother role for years now. More likely, callous though it may sound, by adopting an African baby she seemed to be copycatting the Jolie-Pitts, latching onto a celebrity trend.
Such trendiness is sure to backfire because no one likes to feel played, especially a public enamored of its starry idols. When attempts at altruism are so clumsy they seem like ploys, members of the public feel they're being treated like idiots.
Angelina wags her finger
By Michelle Malkin
October 20, 2006
Hollywood actress andUnited Nations spokesmodel Angelina Jolie is wagging her finger at the West for its indifference to refugees.
"It's a scandal, really, in such a rich world, that we are not even finding a way to help feed refugee families properly," Jolie vented in the latest issue of the U.N.'s Refugees Magazine. The movie star, a U.N. "good will ambassador" since 2001, singled out America and Australia as insensitive countries that are turning their backs on the persecuted. Many refugees have "died trying to get to the U.S. and Australia," she writes. "But we don't notice. We are simply affronted by their audacity."
Jolie bemoaned a photo taken on an unidentified beach in Spain in 2002, which showed a couple relaxing under an umbrella not far from the washed-up corpse of a black man (presumably a refugee, but who knows?). Her solution to this supposed crisis of callousness? "[M]ore resources invested in the regions the refugees first move to, so they don't feel they have to move on unless they really want to; and more resources for countries where peace has been established."
Increasing aid to a corrupt global bureaucracy may give comfort to Hollywood liberals. (How, by the way, does Jolie think peace is "established"? With a magic wand? By wishing it so? By relying on feckless blue helmets who coddle jihadists and other thugs?) In the land of make-believe, Jolie's call to pour more tax dollars into the U.N. refugee agency's coffers might well help to stem the refugee tide. But in the real world, it will only perpetuate exploitation. The well-read actress ought to read up on the Kenyan bribery scandal that has plagued the U.N. refugee agency, UNHCR.
You want to talk about scandal? For years, U.N. staff members in Nairobi shook down African refugees seeking resettlement in North America, Europe and Australia while the U.N. looked the other way. The extortion racket charged up to $5,000 a head for resettlement rights. Belated investigations found that the scandal wasn't the result of a few rogue workers -- but of negligent management that created a ripe atmosphere for abuse.
You want to talk about callousness? Tell it to female and child refugees across the Congo who have been victimized by sexual predators protected among the ranks of U.N. peacekeepers and civilian staff. Last year, some 50 U.N. peacekeepers and U.N. civilian officers faced an estimated 150 allegations of sexual exploitation and rape in the Congo alone. The abuse is widespread among U.N. personnel -- from the Central African Republic to Bosnia and Eastern Europe. Again, these refugees were exploited while U.N. management fiddled.
You want to talk about failing to take notice? As Claudia Rosett has reported in The Wall Street Journal, the U.N. refugee agency sits on its hands while some 300,000 North Korean refugees have endured decades of abuse and hopelessness underground in China -- where the $4.4 million-funded UNHCR office is fortified against refugee intrusions.
You want to talk about wasted resources? That $10 billion Saddam Hussein siphoned off in the U.N. Oil-for-Food debacle could have fed a lot of hungry people.
Jolie excoriates the West for rethinking lax asylum and refugee policies in a post-Sept. 11 world (even as the U.S. has just announced it will take in some 13,000 refugees from Burundi who have spent 30 years in Tanzania). But porous borders have aided jihadists from Bali to London to Berlin to Copenhagen to Melbourne to Boston. Unlike jet-setting celebrities, the rest of us can't fret about feeding every last one of the world's refugees when the survival of our own children's homeland is at stake.
No amount of ignorant Hollywood guilt-tripping can whitewash the United Nations' abject humanitarian failures. And no sovereign country should apologize for taking steps to look after its own first.
Angelina would do best to tuck her sanctimonious finger away and return to fantasyland.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20061019-090450-8074r.htm
Despite the unfortunate stories about celebrities behaving badly (think Mel Gibson or Michael Richards), take comfort in knowing there are many who work to help and not harm.
George Clooney, among others, is advocating for peacekeeping assistance in the Darfur region of Sudan; actress Marlo Thomas continues her late father Danny Thomas' work as the National Outreach director for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital; and even at age 90, acting legend Kirk Douglas recently volunteered to serve up turkey dinners to L.A.'s homeless.
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061206/LIFESTYLE/612060390/1005
£51K FOR PITT'S TRIP TO POOR
BRAD Pitt and Angelina Jolie spent £51,000 to stay at a luxury resort during their trip to meet impoverished war refugees, it has been revealed.
The Hollywood couple's heavily-guarded bungalow in Costa Rica overlooked two huge beaches.
Their Christmas visit, which was meant to draw attention to the "humanitarian tragedy", saw the pair and their three children enjoy fine dining, a private pool and a spa.
One guest who spotted the family drive through the Four Seasons resort in a golf cart said: "They were laughing and joking together and seemed to be having a great time."
The pair checked into the complex in Peninsula Papagayo last Friday and handed gifts to refugees on Christmas Day.
Angelina - a UN goodwill ambassador - said: "We had a wonderful Christmas both with the Costa Rican people and the Colombian refugee families we met."
In 2005, the couple went to Pakistan to aid earthquake victims.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=-pound-51k-for-pitt-s-trip-to-poor-&method=full&objectid=18344246&siteid=94762-name_page.html
IRISH stars Bono and Bob Geldof were yesterday credited with forcing US President George Bush to treble the amount of aid to Africa.
Statistics just compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reveal that since taking over the Oval Office, Mr Bush, partly under pressure from his Christian supporters as well as Bono and Bob Geldof, has dramatically increased US aid to Africa.
Indeed, African nations have seen both development and direct humanitarian aid from the US jump from a total of $1.4bn (€1.06bn) in 2001 to $4bn (€3.03bn) a year today. Over the same period, trade between the US and the continent has more than doubled.
And in what has become his largest health initiative - the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar) - Mr Bush has pledged $15bn (€11.4bn) over five years to fight HIV and AIDS in Africa.
It is a record that has not been widely noticed in the US, particularly by critics of Bush who prefer to play up his world image as narrowly focused on Iraq and war. Nor is there any obvious domestic political dividend for him. President Bush also signed a law just before Christmas pledging $52m (€39m) annually for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to the Democratic Republic of Congo following elections. As with aid to other countries, it comes with strings attached, including a requirement that the government open up to trade and foreign investors.
Part of an article from the irish Independent Newspaper.
Still pray for the other ones
IT is 22 years since Bob Geldof and Midge Ure penned Do They Know It’s Christmas? for Band Aid, and it is still raising millions for famine-stricken Ethiopia.
Today, Midge writes exclusively for The Sun about his work with AIDS victims and tells us why Africa must never be forgotten.
MANY of us continue to enjoy the festive season. But today, like every other day, nearly 1,400 children will die from AIDS. More than 6,000 adults will also pass away, leaving more children without one or both parents.
By 2010, it’s estimated that 25million children will have been orphaned by the virus.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006590597,00.html#haveYourSay
When you're one of the world's richest rock stars, a knighthood is probably just another string to your bow.
But the premature announcement that Bono is to be honoured has sparked fury among MPs who see it is a cynical political ploy by Downing Street's spin machine.
They have accused Tony Blair of "cheapening" the honours system and trying to shift attention from Iraq by breaking the news about the U2 frontman one week ahead of the rest of the New Year's honours.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=424728&in_page_id=1770
For the star who has everything
By Caryn James / The New York Times
Published: November 14, 2006
NEW YORK: For the star who has everything - money, fame, awards - the latest must-have accessory seems to be a saintly halo, as images are burnished by high-profile attempts to save the world. Trying to turn themselves into glam versions of Mother Teresa has its perils, though.
George Clooney addressed the United Nations Security Council without derision, lecturing its members about their responsibilities in Darfur, but Madonna had to do a whole damage-control tour after adopting a baby boy from Malawi.
And for every benign image of Brad Pitt hammering nails in India while building Habit for Humanity houses with Jimmy Carter, there's the risk of a Gwyneth Paltrow debacle. When she appeared in a print ad over the line, "I Am African," with tribal stripes painted on her English-rose complexion, scathing jokes flooded the Internet and threatened to overshadow the ad's purpose, to raise money for the AIDS charity Keep a Child Alive. The tightrope that charitable celebrities have to walk reveals how volatile the relationship is between the stars and their public, how easily a credulous audience can turn cynical.
The connection of stardom and charity is almost as old as movies themselves. The silent film idols Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks lent their images to the American Red Cross fundraising campaign during World War I. Today, the Red Cross has a director of celebrity and entertainment outreach, Amnesty International has a flourishing Artists for Amnesty program (both divisions created in the last six years), and many other philanthropic groups have created systems for tapping into the frenzy of celebrities with causes.
Bonnie Abaunza, the director of Artists for Amnesty, said that while celebrities have always been drawn to causes, "they've had more of an impact in the last few years." She said that stars create a valuable ripple effect. "When a Mira Sorvino attends a rally and speaks eloquently and passionately against the rape of women in Darfur, people read about it in People magazine, they see it on CNN, they want to get involved."
At the highest reaches, though, celebrity activism goes far beyond participating in rallies or telethons and becomes an integral part of the star's persona, the ultimate stage of his or her megastardom. It would be naïve to think that spin plays no role in charitable moves, however sincere the star's motives.
Clooney has been among the most successful at managing the altruistic side of his persona, partly by adopting a Bono strategy of choosing a specific issue, in Clooney's case the genocide in Darfur, and becoming well informed. More originally, though, he has put a self-effacing attitude to good use. He has taken his dad, the journalist Nick Clooney, along on fact-finding trips to Africa. On the day of his speech to the United Nations in September, he and his father appeared on the weighty BBC World News report. When asked if he could change minds on the Security Council by urging them to send peacekeepers to Darfur, George Clooney replied: "My job isn't really to change their minds. My job is to make sure that cameras and lights follow where I go" in the region, calling attention to the crisis and the United Nations' responsibility there. It's hard to find a less messianic or more palatable strategy.
If Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were a bit less adept at spin, they could easily be ridiculed for messianic aspirations, with two children adopted from Cambodia and Ethiopia and the famous sojourn in Namibia for Jolie to give birth there. But they are almost always photographed with one of their children in their arms, walking embodiments of caring parents (however many nannies may be trailing off camera).
But Madonna's nanny was photographed carrying her adopted baby home from the London airport, a terrible public relations move that illustrates how the spin slipped out of Madonna's control early on.
Arriving in New York with her three children for the damage-control tour 12 days later, she carried little David through the airport herself, in a nicely compensating maternal photo.
Madonna's frequent shape-shifting may have made the public skeptical, even though she has consistently inhabited her wife and mother role for years now. More likely, callous though it may sound, by adopting an African baby she seemed to be copycatting the Jolie-Pitts, latching onto a celebrity trend.
Such trendiness is sure to backfire because no one likes to feel played, especially a public enamored of its starry idols. When attempts at altruism are so clumsy they seem like ploys, members of the public feel they're being treated like idiots.
Stars become a diamond's best friend in row over warzone film
· Celebrities sponsored to lead industry fightback
· Gem sales increasing despite negative publicity
Jeevan Vasagar, Terry Macalister and Marianne Barriaux
Monday January 22, 2007
The Guardian
Wearing a diamond ring, Beyoncé Knowles arrives for last week's Golden Globes in Beverley Hills. The industry paid $10,000 to a charity in return for the publicity. Photograph: Kevin Winter/Getty Images
......
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1995775,00.html
Geldof to launch peace channel
Bob Geldof's company Ten Alps is to launch a new channel devoted to world peace.
The station will available via broadband but also on traditional television networks.
Funded in part by the Norwegian government, the project came about through Ten Alps co-founder Geldof's links with Norwegian organisation Peace Point.
.....
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,2004666,00.html
Bono's pitch to help poor still leaves him time to build business empire
During the final concert of U2's world tour Dec. 9, Bono, the Irish rock band's lead singer, launched into one of the band's signature songs, "One."
"Did I disappoint you or leave a bad taste in your mouth?" he sang to 47,000 U2 fans at Aloha Stadium in Honolulu.
At Bono's command, some fans held aloft their cellphones and sent text messages of support to ONE, the U.S.-based group that's lobbying the government to donate an additional 1 percent of the federal budget to ending poverty.
Tax move, literally
.......
One of them points to the band's decision to move its music-publishing company to the Netherlands from Ireland last June to minimize taxes.
The move came six months before Ireland ended an exemption on musicians' royalty income, which is generally untaxed in the Netherlands.
.......
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003555351_bonoempire04.html
Celebrity cleaners up for auction
Emin also has an artwork up for sale at the auction
The public are being offered the chance to bid for comedian Joan Rivers and artist Tracey Emin to clean their house in a charity auction next month.
Other lots on offer at the auction in aid of the Terrence Higgins Trust include a chance to walk your dog with singer Geri Halliwell.
The annual Lighthouse Gala auction takes place on 12 March in London.
Money raised will help provide care and support to people living with and affected by HIV.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6343617.stm
http://www.v-generations.com/v/content/view/163/30/
Hollywood Report: Johansson, Fiennes, Judd…
http://www.v-generations.com/v/content/view/167/30/
Oprah opens South African school funded by her Angel Network
SHAYAMOYA, South Africa (AP): U.S. talk show queen Oprah Winfrey is to open her second school for poor South African youth Friday, this one an innovative, environment-friendly institution she hopes will be a model for public education in this country.
This comes as authorities at the exclusive private academy for poor girls that Winfrey opened in January dismissed complaints it is too strict.
The 12 million-rand (US$1.6 million; euro1.2 million) Seven Fountains Primary School in a remote town in the eastern KwaZulu-Natal province was funded by Winfrey's Angel Network, a public charity that supports organizations and projects focused on, among other issues, education and literacy.
Winfrey first visited the school when it was located on a farm in the area during her Christmas Kindness 2002 initiative. Bearing gifts, clothing, books and teacher training materials, she was impressed by the school's 1,000 eager pupils and dedicated staff.
The school was later forced to move from the farm and relocated to a building with no windows, little electricity and running water and only four toilets.
During a follow-up visit by Winfrey's Angel Network in 2004, the organization committed itself to building a new school for the pupils.
The school, which will be run by the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education, has 25 classrooms, three multipurpose rooms, a library, computer center and two sports field.
It also has seesaws and merry-go-rounds that pump water, solar powered streetlights and landscaped gardens that supply vegetables for school meals.
"Our intention is that this school design will serve as a template for other public schools in South Africa,'' Winfrey said in a statement Friday.
Winfrey opened her Leadership Academy for Girls outside Johannesburg to great fanfare on Jan. 2 with celebrities like Tina Turner and Spike Lee in attendance as well as former President Nelson Mandela.
The lavish US$40 million (euro30.24 million) school was the fulfillment of a promise she made to Mandela six years ago and aims to give 152 girls from deprived background a quality education in a country where schools are struggling to overcome the legacy of apartheid.
"This school is a symbol of leadership for Africa,'' Winfrey said at the time.
But some parents have complained to local media about academy's rules limiting girls to one visit a month and restricting their cell phone calls and consumption of junk food.
"It was a nightmare,'' foster parent Frances Mans told the News24 Web site. "We had only two hours to see my child. Surely this isn't a prison or an institution?''
There have been other complaints about a lack of respect for African culture and tradition after one of the girls was allegedly refused permission to attend the funeral of a member of her extended family.
John Samuel, chief operating officer for the academy, said unhappy parents who had raised their concerns with Winfrey on the phone had been reassured.
"They say they are satisfied that the girls are not being treated unfairly,'' he said.
He said Winfrey had spent time at the academy meeting with staff and pupils ahead of Friday's event.
Samuel said the academy tried to discourage parents from bringing the girls soft drinks or sweets as they were well-looked after and received a nutritious diet.
Samuel also dismissed complaints that the academy was culturally insensitive and said it was based on the African philosophy of ubuntu, which places an emphasis on the collective.
"We are very conscious of how we deal with people and have the community's interest at heart,'' he said.
Built on 21 hectares (52 acres), the 28-building campus resembles a luxury hotel, with state-of-the-art classrooms, computer and science labs and a library, theater and wellness center. Each girl lives in a two-bedroom suite. It will eventually have 450 students.
But the school has been called elitist. ActionAid, a global development group, said Winfrey's money could have been better spent improving the quality of education for more children.
http://thestaronline.com/news/story.asp?file=/2007/3/16/apworld/20070316180449&sec=apworld
Filmmaker: Beijing More Open About AIDS
HONG KONG (Map, News) - A filmmaker who won an Oscar for a documentary about orphans of Chinese AIDS patients says Beijing is now more open about the disease after being accused of covering up the 2003 SARS outbreak.
"Since 2003, after SARS, they're open about it. I would say they're not doing it for show," said Ruby Yang, who won an Oscar last month for her 39-minute documentary, "The Blood of Yingzhou District."
China had been accused of covering up the outbreak of SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome, which killed 349 people there and 774 worldwide.
Yang said at a talk at the University of Hong Kong late Friday that the Chinese government "put a lot of effort" into public service announcements about AIDS that she helped produce. "Their attitude has changed a lot," she said.
.......
http://www.examiner.com/a-637991~Filmmaker__Beijing_More_Open_About_AIDS.htm l
Young sex workers made me sob: Judd
Hollywood actor Ashley Judd’s visits to brothels in India and her interaction there with young prostitutes, some just in their teens, left her deeply disturbed. She says she would sob at night in her hotel room after such visits.
The award-winning Double Jeopardy actor, while speaking to young students on NDTV 24x7’s India Questions show, also described how her very tough childhood had evoked in her a passion to work for the AIDS affected....
http://www.bahraintribune.com/ArticleDetail.asp?CategoryId=3&ArticleId=147102
Janet Street-Porter: A song by Madonna won't save the world
The egotism of pop stars never fails to amaze. As record sales plummet, they continue to search for ways to promote their wares, and the latest scam is a series of concerts designed to "raise our awareness" of climate change, called Live Earth scheduled to take place over 24 hours in seven locations on seven continents, on July the seventh this year.
Is there anyone in the civilised world who is not aware.....
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/janet_street_porter/article2441970.ece
Madonna wants to be Bono
From VIRGINIA WHEELER
in Malawi
April 16, 2007
MADONNA is turning her documentary on saving orphans in Malawi into a movie — to launch herself as “the female Bono”.
The singer, 48, hopes millions worldwide will flock to see the film, provisionally titled Raising Malawi after the charity she founded in the Aids-ridden country.
Footage of Madge’s adoption of tot David Banda will feature in the flick, as well as her search to find a girl to adopt as a sister for him.
The movie will publicise her Kabbalah beliefs and also show footage of her interviewing her hero NELSON MANDELA.
A family friend yesterday said: “She has poured her heart and soul into this movie and believes it will have the same effect on the world as the Live Aid concerts.
“Madonna wants to dedicate the rest of her life to helping children.
“She desperately wants to become the female Bono and be taken as seriously as him. Her days of being the Material Girl are gone.”
Most of the scenes will be filmed on Madonna’s current trip to the African country
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,4-2007170442,00.html#haveYourSay
A disheveled but defiant Bob Geldof, flanked by U2’s Bono, delivered a ringing endorsement of the G8’s deal for Africa at July’s post-summit press conference in Gleneagles, saying, “This has been the most important summit there ever has been for Africa. There are no equivocations. Africa and the poor of that continent have got more from the last three days than they have ever got at any previous summit.” Representatives from the African civil society coalition could be seen shaking their heads in angry disbelief to Geldof’s glowing remarks....
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Oct2005/hodkinson1005.html
http://www.miami.com/862/story/121062.html
Stars and stunts mark Cannes festival
CANNES, France --
George Clooney auctioned off a kiss. Bono wailed "With or Without You" on the red carpet. And Jerry Seinfeld dressed up like a furry bumblebee and went flying above the beach.
The 60th edition of the Cannes Film Festival was full of stunts and celebrity - not to mention men on a mission, from the "Ocean's Thirteen" crew's campaign for refugees in Darfur, to Michael Moore's crusade to overhaul U.S. health care, to Leonardo DiCaprio's save-the-environment message.
Bob Geldof took over for a day as the editor of Germany's biggest-selling newspaper, which appeared Friday with an impassioned front-page plea for the country's leaders to "end the misery" in Africa.
Geldof's turn in the chair at the mass-circulation Bild daily came as German Chancellor Angela Merkel prepares to host next week's Group of Eight summit in Heiligendamm, where she has pledged to make Africa a major issue.
....
http://www.buffalonews.com/270/story/88880.html
Cause Celebre:Actress Milano tackles tropical disease
Mon 2 Jul 2007 7:00 AM ET
By Steve Gorman
LOS ANGELES, July 2 (Reuters Life!) - Illnesses like AIDS and cancer never want for celebrity attention, but actress Alyssa Milano hopes to shed light on a deadly class of diseases so obscure they are deemed neglected by world health experts.
....
http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N29369593
Law and peace
KABUL, Afghanistan - Jude Law traveled and filmed in treacherous areas of eastern Afghanistan to help promote the United Nations’ annual day of worldwide cease-fire and nonviolence in September.
Accompanied by British director Jeremy Gilley and a film crew, the 34-year-old actor interviewed children, government ministers and community leaders for a movie to mark the U.N.’s Peace Day on Sept. 21.
http://thetrack.bostonherald.com/starTracks/view.bg?articleid=1012241
Spielberg as himself in China-lobby role
LOS ANGELES — Has the U.N. Security Council gone Hollywood? Suddenly it's all action on the Darfur, Sudan, nightmare. Maybe the United Nations got hit with a touch of " E.T."!
For years the U.N. basically sat on its hands as the fierce and unforgiving government in Khartoum relentlessly chopped up rebellious populations in Darfur like cattle into hamburgers. The accumulated body count is said to number well more than 200,000 — many of them civilians — with virtually no end to the carnage in sight....
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20070807tp.html
Amnesty accused of duping stars
AMNESTY International risks alienating some of its high-profile rock star backers in the row over its decision to support women's access to abortion.
The group has been accused of "duping" the singers Christina Aguilera and Avril Lavigne, who have both made statements against abortion and are among contributors to an Amnesty CD released to raise money for survivors of the atrocities in Darfur...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22311127-26397,00.html
Charity a measure of celebrity power
CELEBRITIES have it all – money, fame, power and beauty. But the new measure of bonafide Hollywood superstars is how much of their astronomical wealth they decide to spread around.
Signing up as an official ambassador for a well-known charity has become the official "cause celebre" as stars plough millions into third-world schools, housing and wom.....
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,22310571-7642,00.html?from=public_rss
Liz Hurley to host Chicago charity gala
Liz Hurley is set to host a charity gala performance to mark the 10th anniversary of West End musical Chicago.
Past stars of West End stage, including Denise Van Outen, Jennifer Ellison and Ruthie Henshall, will reunite for the act, which will be held at London’s Cambridge Theatre on December 5. The Beddazzled actress will co-host the event with Andrew Lloyd Webber and actor-screenwriter Julian Fellowes.
German actress Ute Lemper, former Blue star Duncan James and X Factor runner-up Brenda Edwards will also feature in the performance.
The show, which opened at London’s Adelphi Theatre in 1997, has played to over 4.5 million people at more than 4,000 performances.
The latest celeb to make her debut in London is Kelly Osbourne, whose debut performance as prison warden Mama Morton on Sep 10 was appreciated by everyone. The musical is currently playing on Broadway and further productions are planned in South Korea, Japan and Denmark.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Entertainment/International_Buzz/Hurley_to_host_Chicago_charity_gala/articleshow/2369602.cms
Grammy winner Nile Rodgers takes on crusade against poverty
UNITED NATIONS (AP): Grammy award winner Nile Rodgers is taking on a new crusade -- fighting global poverty.
The Grammy Awards producer and lifetime achievement winner will produce a festival in June featuring international celebrities and entertainers that will culminate an educational campaign to galvanize people around the world to help achieve U.N. anti-poverty goals by 2015...
http://thestaronline.com/news/story.asp?file=/2007/9/13/apworld/20070913074023&sec=apworld
vBulletin® v3.6.5, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.