It's just, well, odd to me.

I spoke with kids in Greensburg, Kansas, who were visited by Leonardo Dicaprio after their F5 tornado and it was disturbing.

I hope what she's doing is helping them.

The impression DiCaprio made? In what way?

I have trouble seeing Jolie as anything but a self-serving publicity machine.

People came out to see him and couldn't talk to him.

He ended up working up a big deal to create a series, he wanted to exploit the tragedy.

I went there just over one year after the tornado, the school's new gym was in and the LEED platinum art gallery, but not much more had been rebuilt yet.

I've stayed on a rice farm in dirt poor rural Asia. I'll never forget those times.
So I think she's cool and don't care who knows it.

I don't think he has the need to be so base. But!
In the words of Herman Cain, "I don't have facts to back this up". You may be right.

He could be eating Romanian baby brains right now for all I know. But there's this;

"... a 'sustainable model of eco-living and one that will save it from future environmental catastrophe,'"
Sounds like good works IMHO.

Perhaps a review of her work would be helpful -

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

On April 17, 2012, after more than a decade of service as a UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador, Jolie was promoted to the rank of Special Envoy to High Commissioner António Guterres, the first to take on such a position within the organization.[85] In her expanded role, she represents UNHCR and Guterres at the diplomatic level to facilitate lasting solutions for people displaced by major crises.[85] In the months following the promotion, she made her first visit as Special Envoy—her third over all—to Ecuador, where she met with Colombian refugees,[86] and she accompanied Guterres on a week-long tour of Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Iraq, to assess the situation of refugees from neighboring Syria.[87
-----

In May 2012, Jolie joined UK Foreign Secretary William Hague in a campaign against sexual violence in military conflict zones, the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative.[98] To highlight the problem, Jolie and Hague subsequently travelled to eastern DR Congo, where rape has been frequently used as a weapon of war by rebel groups and soldiers.[98] In 2013, she spoke at a G8 foreign ministers meeting, where ministers pledged $36 million in funding to go toward developing international standards for the investigation and prosecution of war rape,[106] and before the UN security council—the UN's most powerful body—which responded by adopting its broadest resolution on the issue to date.[107]
-----

Recognition Jolie has received wide recognition for her humanitarian work. In 2002, she received the inaugural Humanitarian Award from the Church World Service's Immigration and Refugee Program,[108] and in 2003, she was the first recipient of the Citizen of the World Award by the United Nations Correspondents Association. She was awarded the Global Humanitarian Award by the UNA-USA in 2005,[109] and she received the Freedom Award by the International Rescue Committee in 2007.[110] In 2011, UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres presented Jolie with a gold pin reserved for the most long-serving staff, in recognition of her decade as a UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador.[111]
-----

otoh - Her activism is designed to raise awareness.

We all know celebrity attracts media, I applaud her for using it for good. She is doing a lot of good in the world and the more people who know about the causes she is part of the better.

I question her motives when so many of her movies glorify the killing and horrible actions she is supposed to be working against. How many more people does she reach with her "sexy violence" promotion than her "humanitarian outreach"? It's kind of like Coke running ads telling people to limit their soda consumption.

As far as her being so liberal, do you remember the 2008 election when she couldn't decide between McCain and Obama and it was only after Rosanne Barr publicly raked Jolie over the coals that she decided to announce in favor of Obama: http://www.today.com/id/26267206/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/roseanne-rips-jolie-pitt-voight-over-politics/#.UitFvj_tlNQ?

The way she handled her "breast cancer scare" (she didn't actually test for positive for cancer, only for mutated BRCA1 gene) seemed not to be a public service like she claims, but publicity seeking. Jolie chose to announce it by teaming up with a company who was sued for intentionally raising the price on their test to which they owned exclusive rights. Not only was the test too expensive for many to afford, so were the subsequent recommended surgeries. The information she and the company were dispensing also ignored that the gene is rare, the surgeries do little to prevent cancer, and, sadly, the most effective cancer preventatives we have to date are cessation of smoking and diet modification.

Many people do buy into what she's selling, but I don't. She strikes me as someone who has adopted this protective humanitarian mantel (as long as it doesn't actually cause any real inconvenience or hardship for herself) in order to further her own interests.

have any significant impact on the risk associates with a mutated BRCA1 gene, you are living in a fantasy world. I have friends impacted by this mutation. The choice Jolie made was an appropriate one which does significantly cut her risk of cancer. For those facing a similar choice (many of whom have lost parents, grandparents, siblings, and cousins very young ages), her public discussion of her own decision was invaluable.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Cessation of smoking and dietary modifications are weak cancer preventatives. Still, they are the best out there. That's why I qualified the statement with sadly. And, unlike some of the chic, expensive, and variably effective other treatments, they're also safe and accessible to most people.

I'm not criticizing Jolie's choice on a personal level -- it may have been appropriate for her, personally. I'm criticizing her choosing to use it for publicity, the message she chose to bring to the public about a rare contributing factor of a common ailment, and the way people fawn over her for making these personal choices that are viewed as altruistic (even when they're not) thus making her above reproach.

Is the carefully crafted message really the one that the general public can access and needs to hear about cancer (do the things you can do -- quit smoking, change your diet, exercise, etc) or one that puts her in the best light (so brave, so altruistic)? Does the possible good that it may have done a very small group of women considering this choice offset the harm it may have done to the much larger pool of women who may be unduly terrified, get tested for no reason (even if they struggle to afford it), or may undergo an unnecessary and drastic procedure?

Anyway, I stayed out of the thread discussing this topic at the time because I didn't want to get into it too much then, and I still don't. So, I think I'll bow out of this train of discussion, too.

and who it isn't - starting with family history.

And, aside from helping people with the particular gene mutation, the public discussion of preventative mastectomy - or mastectomy as an option more generally - has a place in a much broader group of women (and men) as well.

My spouse was diagnosed with lobular carcinoma in situ years ago, by chance. That particular kind of cancer will not, itself, become invasive cancer - but like the BRCA1 mutation, it dramatically increases her risk for breast cancer. For some women with that diagnosis, preventative mastectomy is a good choice. My spouse joined the tamoxifen trials - received tamoxifen rather than the placebo, and when the trial ended early because of the success rate she continued for what is now the standard 5 year treatment. Although she didn't seriously consider a mastectomy - had she been diagnosed a few years earlier is would have been a reasonable option.

My mother has had two different kinds of breast cancer. She had a mastectomy on one side in 2000 because of the size of the cancer. When she developed a new - miniscule, but invasive - different cancer in her other breast a year and a half ago, she decided to have the other breast removed. She has had dozens of lumpectomies in her lifetime, this most recent cancer was discovered purely by chance when they excised a portion of a duct for another reason. She had had enough - and even though it was not medically necessary it gave her the piece of mind that the rest of her breast will not continue to be repeatedly snipped away at for the rest of her life.

A cousin on the other side of the family just had a double mastectomy - she was diagnosed with a very aggressive and invasive cancer. It was a toss-up as to whether she needed a mastectomy for medical reasons - but at her age - with very young children (and a strong enough history of breast cancer that probably would have justified the BRCA testsing), she chose to have a double mastectomy to further decrease the risk that she would develop cancer in the other breast (via metastasis, or a different kind of cancer).

When someone classically beautiful and famous talks openly about having a mastectomy (whether for medical reasons or as a preventative treatment) it helps remove the stigma associated with losing a breast, and generates a national conversation about mastectomy either as prevention or part of a treatment plan. That is helpful not only to the small group of women for whom BRCA testing is justified - but to the 25% of 1 in 8 women who will one day face the choice about how best to treat their own breast cancer, and all those in between who learn, for whatever reason, they may be at significantly greater risk than the average population.

. . . now all we need is for Brad Pitt to start talking about prostate exams & impotence

(Although that is not entirely a joke)

Jolie

I do not think she's starved for publicity or attention.


ugh

I wouldn't let my one brush with famous people mar my image of all famous people. I have no doubt some of these superstars are egotistical assholes, but would be wrong to assume they all are.

Hell, for the mega super duper stars I would say 50%!

She's also a much better actress than her often cartoonish roles would suggest. Her minor pictures have been gems.

I like her, too.

As long as it doesn't involve changing the economic system to prevent systemic inequality... Because then she wouldn't get to be a 0.01%er.

Cyrus has decades to go to catch up with Jolie imo. Not really fair to compare the two.

If she gets out of her self, she'll be fine. I was a bad upi402 to use her famous name and salacious dance controversy to bring attention to suffering refugees.

Let me make amends with 'Sad Dog Diary';

Yoda kitty checking in

Sent that one out to a few friends after I picked myself up off the floor!