Tuesday, May 30, 2006


Am I the only one who finds the way Brangelina basically dictated terms to the sovereign country of Namibia a little icky?

Granted between the two of them they probably have a bigger GDP than the entire impoverished African nation -median income: $2,400 per year- which is precisely what's so creepy and exploitative about the pathetically eager willingness of Namibia's government to cater to their every whim rather than have them leave. Including throwing out all the media rather than have the blessed event of their child's birth in any way intruded upon.

Granted they donated tons of cash to local hospitals, there will be some Namibian children better off because of their visit, but it's a little toxic isn't it, that their celebrity gets them treated like deities?

Does the global economy now have an aristocracy of mega-celebrities who literally constitute the power and influence of huge international corporations? Will the new status symbol in Hollywood be a third world nation falling at your feet?

No comments:

Popular Posts