Tag Archives: Lara Logan

Angelina Jolie Tackles War Rape

Jolie_171431356_620x350-300x169Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Fresh off of advocating for elective mastectomy, movie star/director/almost-wife of Brad Pitt, the biological father of three of her six children, Angelia Jolie is stepping forward to join the fight to demand a halt to sexual violence in war zones.

Until being bedded by the anti-war rape spokesperson, Brad Pitt was the husband of Jennifer Aniston.  Now, while his lover serves as special envoy for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and makes comments about rape and war at events like special screenings at the U.N. University in Tokyo, Brad is the babysitter.

That aside, what would be interesting to hear from Ms. Jolie is how one goes about preventing rape in war zones.  Does one counsel the pillagers, or explain to them that rape is mean-spirited, or would threatening to perform surgery similar to what Jolie had, only much further down, do the trick?

Is Angelina Jolie’s ultimate goal to demand war without violence? How about kinder, gentler wars?  Or is it the hope that nice-looking Hollywood adulterers have the clout to convince wartime rapists to just stop it?

As part of a campaign launched with British Foreign Secretary William Hague, Jolie said that she’s hoping her first film as writer and director, In the Land of Blood and Honey, a fictional tale of a romance between a Bosnian Serb man and a Bosnian Muslim woman set during the 1990’s Balkans war, will motivate audiences to think about rape in war.

It’s a pity that Dutch journalist Dina Zakaria, prior to being raped by men who dub themselves revolutionists in Egypt’s Tahrir Square, didn’t get to speak with Angelina.  There’s a good chance that the actress could have given Dina pointers on how to get the assailants to think more humanely before they gang-raped her.

Moreover, whether it was Jolie’s indignant authoritative presence or the screening of her movie, either one might have also prevented a group of men from ripping off CBS reporter Lara Logan’s clothes and “raping her with their hands” when she was also sexually assaulted in Tahrir Square.

Referring to the UN urging sanctions against those who commit rape during armed conflict, Jolie said, “This is just a beginning. Our aim must be to shatter impunity, so that rape can no longer be used as a weapon of war anywhere in the world as it was in Bosnia, and as it is today from Congo to Syria.”

Earth to Angelina Jolie:  Rape is part of war!  It’s a symptom of the unredeemed sin nature and cannot be legislated out of existence.  In the Bible God speaks to the prophet Zechariah and warns him: “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity [.]”

The truth is that Angelina Jolie couldn’t even stop herself from sleeping with someone else’s husband, so how’s she going to figure out how to stop men from using rape as a “weapon of war?”

One thing’s for sure – if she manages to do that, maybe then she can turn her attention toward convincing mayoral hopeful Anthony Weiner to stop shooting iPhone pics of his penis and posting them on the Internet.

Angelina, who, bless her heart, means well, said:

When I started down the road, making this film, I thought only of telling a story and doing my best to try to give a voice to survivors. But today I am here not only as a director, but as a campaigner, and a part of a global effort that is growing every day.

Someone should inform Ms. Jolie that if a global effort could stop rape in a war zone, then a similar effort could also end war entirely and the subject at hand would no longer need to be discussed.

Moreover, there is one small incongruity that Angie should comment on, which is that there’s a good chance that when Jennifer Aniston’s husband Brad Pitt “started down the road, making [the] film” Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Jen was probably similarly enlightened after the fact, but in her case it was to the dangers of a leading lady seducing a married man.

Jolie, who’s been known to willingly comfort a man or two herself with sex, chose not to comment on the fact that Japan’s militaristic government, before and during World War II, forced women into prostitution and called it “comfort sex.”

Next, after a voluntary mastectomy, breast reconstruction, and her war on war rape, Jolie plans to have her ovaries removed in a bilateral oophorectomy.

It will be interesting to see how long after that surgery it will take for Ms. Jolie to make the connection that a similar operation for men could hold a simple solution not only for the Weiners of the world and nomadic husbands like Brad Pitt, but also solve the age-old problem of war rape once and for all.

‘Eye Candy’ Lies, and Candy Swears to It

Originally posted at American Thinker

In the run-up to the second debate, feminists have been moaning about how Candy Crowley, unlike Jim Lehrer, was reduced to a “Vanna White … holding a microphone.”  Advocating for equal debate clout, Crowley has been speaking out on her own behalf and told Mark Halperin of TIME magazine that during the debate, “[o]nce the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?'”

In other words, Candy made it known prior to the event that she had no intention of keeping to the rules and that she in no way would she remain a “voiceless moderator,” fielding questions from the undecided audience and keeping close watch on the clock.  Going rogue, Ms. Crowley succeeded in her objective and in the process managed to weaken the credibility of women as debate moderators.

The guidelines in the memorandum of understanding that was agreed upon by the debate commission, as well as both campaigns, stated:

The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.

Those restrictions did not sit well with feminist groups, who’ve managed to make even a presidential debate about women’s issues.

So, on behalf of the sisterhood, Candy Crowley took to the town hall podium and proceeded to defy the rules and run the debate her own way.  The result was dreadful — not only for Candy’s reputation as a journalist, but also for a weak incumbent who looked like he needed a woman to protect him from being verbally spanked.  Moreover, her performance did nothing to convince the debate commission that female moderators should be granted more freedom in the future.

The reason why?  Candy Crowley cut off Mitt Romney 28 times, including when he was making a point about Barack Obama’s gunrunning debacle, “Fast and Furious.”  According to CNN’s own count, Candy allowed Obama to speak for a total of 44 minutes and 4 seconds and ordered Romney back to his stool by cutting him off and bringing his time down to 40 minutes and 50 seconds.

The CNN anchor showed obvious deference to the president.  Every time he spoke, her eyes widened in admiration and she exhibited an odd mix of what looked like coaxing and agreeing.  While claiming to be an unbiased moderator, Candy Crowley adjudicated on the president’s behalf when he stretched the truth on the subject of Libya.

Most would agree that Candy’s foot-in-mouth moment came when Mitt Romney accused Obama of not calling the attack in Benghazi an act of terror for two weeks and flying to Las Vegas and Colorado for a fundraiser the day after four Americans died. Crowley, like a mother hen protecting her chick, interrupted Romney and said: “It — it — it — he did in fact, sir.  So let me — let me call it an act of terror.”

In response, lily-livered Obama smirked, hid behind mama’s apron strings, and then asked her to restate the falsehood on his behalf, saying, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”  Candy gladly complied.  Stuttering, stammering, and tripping over herself to rush to Junior’s defense, Candy added: “He — he did call it an act of terror.  It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.  You are correct about that.”

If hard-hitting girl power representative Candy Crowley was really looking to bolster female credibility, she should have gone according to the original script and asked Obama, “Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”  If Crowley were really mixing it up with the boys, she could have demanded an answer from Barack Obama as to why it took fourteen days to acknowledge an al-Qaeda terrorist attack that left four Americans dead in the streets of Benghazi.

After the fact, Candy Crowley is now being forced to admit that Romney, who insisted that Obama did not call the incident a terrorist attack for weeks, was right — “in the main” — on Benghazi.

Rather than conceding that Obama picked the wrong way to go about handling the murder of an American ambassador, Ms. Crowley instead chooses to say that Romney “picked the wrong way to go about talking about it.”  Attempting to explain her unmitigated favoritism, Candy underscored that her second “two week” point favored Romney and generated applause much like her first point, which generated applause from one half of the audience led by an unrestrained Michelle Obama.

Prior to the Hofstra debate, America was forced to endure listening to Crowley whine about a woman’s rightful role as a debate moderator.  Then, during the actual debate, the nation witnessed the hot mess Candy made while shilling for Obama.

Suffice it to say that Candy proved that the “memorandum of understanding” was correct in its attempt to limit her role, because by the end of the debate, every headline should have read: “Eye Candy” Lies, and Candy Swears to It.

So, after all the fuss, Candy Crowley’s behavior and inappropriate intrusion did nothing to advance the feminist cause.  But wait, there’s still time!  How about if Crowley’s cheerleaders — NOW, The New Agenda, and former news anchor Carol Simpson — recommend that for the upcoming foreign policy debate, Lara Logan replace Robert Schieffer?

%d bloggers like this: