Are you so very certain that Angelina Jolie is consummately unqualified to teach a college course? Of course you are. The fact that she's an actress means should couldn't possibly know anything about anything else.

It will be interesting to see if she can survive the tenure process. Melissa Click seemed to think she had a chance at tenure, with her scholarship into 50 Shades of Grey, the Twilight Series, and Martha Stewart.

If tripe like that is even considered to be intellectual fodder worthy of tenure, then surely Angelina Jolie could teach an entry-level college course on women who get raped at wartime.

Is she the most qualified person for the job or the hottest and most famous person?

I'm sure she's right up there with that noted biochemistry expert Meryl Streep.

(Hedy Lamarr was quite intelligent, and she obtained some patents on a predecessor to spread-spectrum communications technology. But among Hollywood types, she was very much the exception.)

As show-biz people go, from what I know about Jolie she's probably close to the top in terms of intelligence and thoughtfulness (whether that's saying anything much I leave to others to determine).

But would she have gotten this gig if she wasn't a famous movie star? Bwahahahahaha!

Amy writes:

Is she the most qualified person for the job or the hottest and most famous person?

Sigh. I don't know, Amy. Maybe she is the most qualified for the job.

From the article you posted:

"It is vital that we broaden the discussion on how to advance women's rights and end impunity for crimes that disproportionately affect women, such as sexual violence in conflict," Jolie, a special envoy for the U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR), said in a statement.

Reputedly, Jolie is a very intelligent woman. And I would hope we don't appoint our special envoys merely because they're famous entertainers. I don't see anyone pushing for Miley Cyrus to made ambassador to North Korea. (Though I wouldn't complain if Kim Jong-Un chose to keep her.)

And there is this credential on Jolie's resume, as reported by the article:

The partnership [between Jolie and Britain's former foreign secretary, William Hague] was sparked by Jolie's 2011 directorial debut "In the Land of Blood and Honey" that was set against the backdrop of the 1992-95 Bosnian war in which an estimated 20,000 women were believed to have been raped.

Who knows? Maybe she took her job as director very seriously and decided to learn something about the topic that she's directing a movie about.

The pair co-founded the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative in 2012 to rally global action on such crimes, increase the numbers of perpetrators brought to justice and ensure better support for survivors.

They co-hosted the first global conference on the issue in London in 2014.

Amy, I'm trying to turn down the harsh-o-matic for this, but did you actually read this article before concluding that Jolie got the job only because she's a famous and beautiful actress? Or did you just see her name and decide just because she's a beautiful actress, she couldn't possibly know a thing about the topic she's teaching?

It is possible for beautiful actresses to be intelligent, informed and concerned about issues.

What if Shirley Temple Black was defined by the fact that she was a cute child actress/singer/dancer? She could not have gone on to become U.S. ambassador to Czechoslovakia during those crucial times in Czech history.

FWIW, the goal of the programme: "dedicated to developing strategies to promote gender equality and enhance women’s economic, social and political participation and security".

So if you're into things like gender studies, why not appoint an actress? She's as well qualified as anyone else in a field like that.

The nice thing about graduates of these programs is that the students self-identify: these are people you never want to hire, and never want to work with. Avoid them at all costs.

For a take that only a woman can get away with uttering, see what Judgy Bitch has to say: Why are feminist women so fucking pathetic?

"dedicated to developing strategies to promote gender equality and enhance women’s economic, social and political participation and security".

Umm, women already have more rights than men.

With my generation they earn the same as men - if they want to, but even before most of the money earned by men was still spent by women.

Women live longer, and register to vote in larger numbers than men.

And men are already disproportionally victims of every violent and petty crime.

This program is dedicated to bringing about goals that were met years if not decades ago.

In the US, sure. In the Middle East, and many other parts of the world I also wish to avoid, not so much.

...and as others have implied, there is the fact that the course she's teaching is what I would have called a "B.S. course" in college.

Patrick, she is not unqualified for this but again, is she the most qualified?

A better question would be, "Is the most qualified who applied for the job?"

I'm wondering what are Ms. Jolie's KSAs that are relevant in regards to "women, peace and security"?

I am unaware of her expertise in the fields of security or peace. Perhaps she could point to published white papers on the subjects? To be completely cynical I suspect her only relevant KSAs are "has vajayjay and is smokin' HAWT".

Besides, this is a visiting position, so no tenure necessary, and I would guess LSE is not paying her. She's probably shooting a movie(s) in London, and needed something to take up some spare time she will have. And fluff up the old CV.

Well, I'm sure Angelina Jolie and her husband will remember to consult Amy and Darth before they ever dare to engage in humanitarian efforts again.

Celebrities with more money than they will ever know what to do with would be well-advised to just stick to acting and not, say, give free mid-to-high income homes to people who lost everything in Hurricane Katrina, or try to teach college courses on rape victims during wartime.

Their efforts will only be scoffed at, and not one single positive word will be spared to congratulate them, at least, for their motives.

Take heed and be well-advised, you Hollywood types: your efforts and willingness to expend your own time and money to actually make the world a better place will not be tolerated.

So, fuck off! Right now!

What Mr. and Mrs. Jolie want to do with their own money is their own business. If they want to spend all their money on charities that they build themselves, more power to them.

But don't pretend that she has the scholarly chops to be a professor any more than Jenny McCarthy does. If she does, she should be able to point me to her scholarly works.

Perhaps the LSE will video the lectures she engages in and we can see just how good she really is? I'm willing to suspend my disbelief because I'm willing listen to the evidence.

Who knows? maybe she is that good.

Does she have a degree of any kind?

Amy Says:

"Patrick, she is not unqualified for this but again, is she the most qualified?"

In this case you have inappropriately shifted the burden of proof to Patrick.

It is not proper for Patrick to hold the burden of proof to demonstrate that Angelina Jolie was the most qualified person who applied for the position.

If you believe there was a more qualified applicant for this job that was overlooked the burden is on you to prove that.

Unless you are ready to state and prove that Angelina Jolie is unqualified regardless of other applicants in the pool you need to show which applicant was more qualified and lost out.

You have not shown any evidence supporting your case at this point beyond the implication that she is as qualified to teach a course on women, peace, and security as you are qualified to run CERN. Respectfully Amy... I suspect that Angelina Jolie knows quite a bit more about women, peace, and security than you know about the standard model of particle physics or how modern particle accelerators function and are designed, so your analogy is rather hyperbolic and therefore not very helpful.

In the US, sure. In the Middle East, and many other parts of the world I also wish to avoid, not so much.

MarkD, when feminists start working on the problems in the middle east rather than complain about non existent ones in the west I will withdraw my objection.

In the mean time, observe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zfRn9noL34

How does this address the fact that women earn more money than men, or spend most of what men earn, and that the only income inequality is that faced by men?

I saw "In the Land of Blood and Honey," her bullshit film of 2011, at work. She made it easy to disregard: A slide at the top of the movie flatly affirms that before the 90's, the Serbs and Croats "lived in harmony."

Personalities (such as Patrick's) gratified by simplistic narratives of (illusory) virginity and head-tilty compassion are by nature history-averse in their appraisal of human affairs. Those of us who've read a book, or who've caught a genuine whiff of mankind's nature in our survey of its products, need not worry too much for ones who can't see the Jolies and Bonos of our planet for the self-aggrandizing shitheels that they are: And anyone trusting post-graduate study with Angelina Jolie to improve perspective was never going to do any good on this planet anyway.






Wanna read a really good --truly compassionate-- book about international affairs?

Crid Says:

"Personalities (such as Patrick's) gratified by simplistic narratives of (illusory) virginity and head-tilty compassion are by nature history-averse in their appraisal of human affairs. Those of us who've read a book, or who've caught a genuine whiff of mankind's nature in our survey of its products, need not worry too much for ones who can't see the Jolies and Bonos of our planet for the self-aggrandizing shitheels that they are: And anyone trusting post-graduate study with Angelina Jolie to improve perspective was never going to do any good on this planet anyway."

You just spent an entire paragraph contributing nothing of value to this conversation.

If you have evidence to present then please share it so that people can see WHY you believe what you believe.

All you have done here is insulted Patrick and just stating your opinion that anyone who disagrees with you is essentially a waste of space of the planet.

This is a nasty habit you have. When you have nothing intelligent to say you resort to insulting people and insinuating that everyone who thinks differently than you is somehow deficient.

We get it... you have an opinion, but unless you present information there is nothing particularly special about your opinion. The question is why should anyone take your opinion seriously and elevate it above your stated preference for vanilla or chocolate ice cream. To do that we need things like facts and evidence that support your position... which you have failed to present.

A better question would be, "Is the most qualified who applied for the job?"

Considering what's going on, I believe universities have given up in hiring qualified personnel in favour of just employing nothing but filler.

I personally have a lot of respect and admiration for Ms. Jolie. While most other actors/actresses just send an infinitesimal portion of their fortune to some administrative-heavy charity, then spend years and years patting themselves on the back for it, Angelina has actually *gone* to these impoverished places in the world, and helped the people there personally with vaccines, growing foodstuffs... basically she's been willing to get her hands really dirty, which most other celebs consider themselves much to superior to ever do.

Having said ALL of that: does she deserve this honor? Of course not. Being great in one field does *not* automatically make her or anyone else great in any other field. Although my hunch is that even Angelina is aware of that; at least I hope. :-)

"Well, I'm sure Angelina Jolie and her husband will remember to consult Amy and Darth before they ever dare to engage in humanitarian efforts again."

Most such Hollywood efforts consist of "I'm loaning my extremely valuable name to the project (and, ahem, getting myself a big tax break in the process)". Their "efforts" on behalf of the cause will consist of PR appearances that are designed mainly to be favorable PR for themselves, rather than anything that benefits the cause. How many times have we seen someone from Hollywood parachute into a situation, say "I'm giving them hope", garner a bunch of fawning press, and then leave without actually doing anything? Sorry for being cynical, but I think I have good reason to be. And the Hollywood-Washington axis makes this sort of thing a lot more dangerous for the country.

> You just spent an entire paragraph
> contributing nothing of value to
> this conversation.

I don't think you're (in ascending order of importance) smart, courageous or kind. So, like, whatever. (Institutional childhood, right? C'mon. Tell the truth.)

> It is not proper for Patrick to
> hold the burden of proof to
> demonstrate that Angelina Jolie
> was the most qualified person who
> applied for the position.

Says you. The entire planet is free to contemplate whether she's qualified in any respect. Why would you doubt that? Why should we accept that you know what's proper?







Have you have had typically adult encounters with anyone? Ever hire a series of candidates for a position to be paid by check with money from your own accounts? Ever visit a college campus? Ever fill out a tax form? Ever hire a lawyer to defend yourself, or to sue another? Ever soothe or assist an immigrant who was having problems? Ever repair an old car, musical instrument, or piece of furniture? Ever negotiate distant travel, invest in dynamic financial instruments, or rehabilitate a piece of real estate?

Ever kiss a girl?

If you respond in less than 150 words, Patrick will give you $17.22.

I haven't been this impressed since I heard Chelsea Clinton received a PhD from Oxford University.

It's so cute watching Crid struggle to be relevant.

"Hedy Lamarr was quite intelligent"

That's HEDLEY.

It will be interesting to see if she can survive the tenure process. ~ Patrick at May 25, 2016 5:56 AM

I doubt Angeline Jolie is going for tenure. She's not a researcher. Nor is she published in peer-reviewed academic journals. She's not made a serious in-depth study of the subject beyond her high-profile publicity visits.

She's probably going to use her guest lecture position as a soapbox to advocate her positions and try to reach an audience that would ordinarily dismiss her as a dilettante.

Unlike what a now-famous guest lecturer at the University of Chicago did a few years ago, I don't think she'll use it as a stepping stone to run for the US Senate. At least I hope not.

Like many stars who want people to see them as serious people, she's loaned her likeness and name to a cause. It's a good cause, but unless she's backed up by real research and intelligent thinkers on the subject, it's little more than virtue badging.

We have a bad habit of assigning expertise to Hollywood stars based on movie roles or activist causes. Jack Klugman was invited to testify before Congress based on a Quincy episode, Seth Rogen to testify on Alzheimer's based on his activism, Ben Affleck to testify on the Congo based on his activism, and more. These folks are not experts and have little to contribute to serious discussions on their pet subjects. Affleck even admitted as much in the linked article.

Jolie will probably make a fine guest lecturer, but not an expert one. She'll attract students anxious to meet her or to wrap themselves in the virtue of appearing to care about this cause, or both. The London School of Economics will take a hit to its reputation as a serious school with this, but will survive; and will gain attention and monetary contributions out of it - which is probably what they wanted from it anyway.

I've not seen Jolie's movie, but it got 4.3 stars on IMDB, a site on which even the worst movies regularly top 5 stars, so I would not cite it as an example of her intelligence, expertise, or creativity.

Conan:

She's probably going to use her guest lecture position as a soapbox to advocate her positions and try to reach an audience that would ordinarily dismiss her as a dilettante.

Geez. Cynical much?

We have a bad habit of assigning expertise to Hollywood stars based on movie roles or activist causes.

Maybe you have a bad habit of assuming that performers couldn't possibly be experts on anything other than performing.

I don't see this article as Jolie's attempt at drawing publicity for herself. Actually, this seems relatively quiet. And why assume Jolie is responsible for the publicity surrounding her? Do you think she could do anything in the way of activism and keep it a secret, even if she wanted to? Maybe, if it was a matter of private donations, but actually taking an active role? I doubt it.

Geez. Cynical much?

Generally. Saves time.

Maybe you have a bad habit of assuming that performers couldn't possibly be experts on anything other than performing.

People can be knowledgeable about many things, even highly knowledgeable. Expertise, however, requires dedicated and continuous study.

Aw, geez, an Artemis post.

It's not a burden on Patrick. A rhetorical or direct question here is of the audience - and you're nuts about one thing decisively: the burden of proof is on the affiant, not a challenger. Let us all know you know who those are when you get the chance. Or not, you'll be windy.

"Respectfully Amy... I suspect that Angelina Jolie knows quite a bit more about women, peace, and security than you know about the standard model of particle physics or how modern particle accelerators function and are designed, so your analogy is rather hyperbolic and therefore not very helpful."

Why do you bother commenting? You've just done the same thing you accuse Amy of doing: make an unwarranted assumption.

There's also a ridiculous chasm between the disciplines suggested. Knowledge about "women, peace and security" is historically loaded with subjective and populist nonsense, while a description of the practical examples of physics mandates keen observation of cause/effect and the limits of observation just to start talking.

-----

Meanwhile: many actors and actresses have unsuspected talent. Please note that in order to get work, they must answer "Yes" to any question the casting people make (ride horse or motorcycle, handle guns, tools, etc), they have to sell their character to the audience, and they need to make staff happy with fast takes.

It's Artemis' featureless disregard for practicalities and principles that annoys, his/her resentment of every glandular response. Amy went to college, worked in media in NYC, wrote books with friends, made a name in a tough media market on her own, and wrote more books. Yeah; like other Americans, she gets a voice on what constitutes expertise. Sharing that much of her life was not at all necessary before sharing her opinion, but we've been given plenty of information about what it takes, and doesn't, to earn her respect in academe, whether or not we agree.

I'm not sure Artemis has been outdoors. Artemis is too afraid of being identified (and fact-checked) even to confess a gender... But is continually disheartened by our failure to salute his/her mundane, tightly sealed, and fully imaginary terreria of reasoning. These are childish realms of dickless certitude for which he/she is —perhaps by dint of the unders-socialization apparent to us all— inordinately proud.

Well, Punkin, no... Amy isn't "shifting" anything. Patrick's comment (and apparent gullibility) earned a mild challenge, is all. Your three-times use of the word "burden" is not admirably legalistic, it's deplorably weenybun.

Ever file your own taxes?

Ever pay them?

> Saves time.

☑ Affirmed.

"She's probably going to use her guest lecture position"

BINGO!!!... we have a winner.

People here are getting their panties in a twist all over nothing.

This is a business decision plain and simple by the school.

This is not some harbinger of doom where Angelina Jolie is somehow on a tenure track bumping out a PhD in Economics.

Crid Says:

"I don't think you're (in ascending order of importance) smart, courageous or kind. So, like, whatever."

Thank you for one again proving my point that you are incapable of staying on topic and when you have nothing intelligent to say you attack the person.

"Says you. The entire planet is free to contemplate whether she's qualified in any respect. Why would you doubt that? Why should we accept that you know what's proper?"

Crid... you are "free" to contemplate anything you wish.

What is at issue here is that you have presented precisely ZERO evidence demonstrating that she lacks the credentials.

You're opinion on this subject means precisely nothing without supporting evidence.

What about that is so hard for you to understand?

Disparaging me isn't evidence that Angelina Jolie is unqualified to be a lecturer for this particular course.

Radwaste Says:

"It's not a burden on Patrick. A rhetorical or direct question here is of the audience - and you're nuts about one thing decisively: the burden of proof is on the affiant, not a challenger. Let us all know you know who those are when you get the chance. Or not, you'll be windy."

The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim Radwaste.

Amy and others are making the assertion that Angelina is either unqualified to hold this lecturer position... or that she is not the *most* qualified person who was up for the job.

Those are claims that need to be substantiated.

The burden of proof is not on Patrick to prove that she was the most qualified applicant in the absence of their providing one shred of evidence to support their positions.

When I talk about burden of proof I am referring to the philosophical burden of proof in any argument. Here is a link so you can educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Here is a relevant quote:

"In epistemology, the burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position."

No such evidence has been provided by Amy, or Crid, or anyone else demonstrating that Angelina Jolie lacks the credentials to teach this course.

It is therefore improper to shift the burden of proof to Patrick when he expresses doubt about their unsupported assertions.

As Christopher Hitchens would have famously said:

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Simply stated, Patrick has nothing to prove here until such time as someone provides evidence that Angelina Jolie is unqualified to teach this specific course.

"You've just done the same thing you accuse Amy of doing: make an unwarranted assumption."

My "unwarrented assumption" here is apparently that Amy is not qualified to be a theoretical physicist.

"There's also a ridiculous chasm between the disciplines suggested. Knowledge about "women, peace and security" is historically loaded with subjective and populist nonsense, while a description of the practical examples of physics mandates keen observation of cause/effect and the limits of observation just to start talking."

I am aware of the distinction Radwaste... which is why I find it to be much more likely that Angelina Jolie can teach a course on the rather flimsy topics of "women, peace, and security" than Amy has a chance to be the "chief scientific officer at CERN".

My entire purpose was to point out that Amy's analogy fails because the chasm is indeed ridiculous.

Please remember that this isn't the comparison I chose... it is the one Amy chose.

My point is that Amy taking over CERN is far more ridiculous a proposition than Angelina Jolie teaching a fluff course.

Crid Says:

"Amy isn't "shifting" anything. Patrick's comment (and apparent gullibility) earned a mild challenge, is all."

You sir are a moron who cannot follow the simple plot of a conversation.

Let me spell this out for you all nice and simple.

Amy put forth the claim that Angelina Jolie is in some sense unsuitable to teach this course.

Patrick followed up with the following request for evidence:

"Are you so very certain that Angelina Jolie is consummately unqualified to teach a college course?"

Instead of providing one shred of support for her original assertion she responded as follows:

"Is she the most qualified person for the job or the hottest and most famous person?"

That isn't support for her position. She answered a request for evidence with a question that Patrick provide evidence instead.

That is an improper shifting of the burden of proof.

That you don't get that is rather disturbing.

"The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim Radwaste."

Apparently - and as expected - you missed the whole appointment of Ms. Jolie.

That's the assertion: that she's qualified by dint of appointment.

Your position, should a miracle happen and consistency appear, is analagous to stating that a Presidential candidate is completely qualified to assume office. There's no need to question anything; they don't have to show anyone they can do the job.

Now, please use feet of column space to waste all our time. Outrage is all you have.

That you don't get this is not disturbing: it is expected.

Wow. Lots of opinions on Angelina. I say smart move, London School of Economics. They've got a lot of press, no doubt people will attend just to take this course, I'm sure they'll make back anything they may be paying her 10-fold. Is she qualified? Who knows? She has published, she's not unintelligent, and she does do work in this field. Does she care what any one of us puny people think? Nope. Money is awesome that way.

Funny how a celebrity post garners so many comments, even here. I doubt any of you would call yourselves Angelina-obsessed, but given a chance to judge her, off you go. Sure, she's hot, and rich, and apparently grown into a rather decent person, but....she's not qualified to teach a college course! We can still feel good about ourselves on THAT point at least!

I'd kill to own her chateau in France. Just give me a name.

This is a business decision plain and simple by the school. ~ Artemis at May 25, 2016 11:16 PM

You missed my point Artie. I was being cynical that the school hired someone not qualified to teach a Master's level course purely for the money. Education.com and Biography.com list Mrs. Pitt's highest education as high school and method-acting school respectively. No Bachelor's degree and no Master's degree; no university attendance at all.

Yet, the London School of Economics has decided that, because she is a public figure, she somehow should be included as an instructor in their new, politically-correct Master's degree course of study. That was a pure money decision, and not necessarily one to be lauded.

Whether this will turn out to be valuable to the education of the students in the new program (or whether the new program itself will turn out to be valuable) remains to be seen. She may turn out to be a prodigy. Until then, no one can claim that Mrs. Pitt is, in any traditional way, qualified to teach at a Master's degree level.

"I doubt any of you would call yourselves Angelina-obsessed, but given a chance to judge her, off you go. "

Look, we already know with 99% certainty how this is going to go, because we've seen it hundreds of times before. She will walk into the lecture hall and proceed to advocate the kind of cruel, heartless leftist positions favored by America's ruling class, wrapped up in cuddly words. Starstruck brains full of mush will walk of the lecture hall saying, "It must be true, Angelina Jolie said so!" And another generation is mal-educated. Probably the last one, because after they get done vandalizing and copper-stripping Western civilization, the generation after them won't have an opportunity to obtain education. They'll be too busy looking for wood to keep the fires in their caves lit.

"Hague said the new course would help underpin their work by developing research to help tackle the culture of impunity."

Hell it doesn't matter who teaches this BS course.

The reality is that a percentage of men w/guns or power will rape/pillage anyone not having guns or power. What "research" will change this fact?

Like shooters in gun free zones. Bad/evil guys stop only when someone shows up w/a gun (non-SWAT police are not obligated to go into a shooting zone so don't hold your breath), they get tired (see 2011 attacks in Norway), or they run out of cartridges.

Leaders do not care what their subordinates do to "undesirables" (see the ME in general, the Catholic Church's handling of rape victims, etc.).

"Research" just means money to someone that can profit from bogus but sounding "nice" statements.

My husband is an LSE grad. She's certainly more qualified for this gig than some of the profs we've seen in the news, screaming at students.
And unlike many of their actresses of her generation, Jolie didn't whine about not enough women directors or parts for women.

Aw, geez, an Artemis post. ~ Radwaste at May 25, 2016 7:16 PM

It's Artemis' featureless disregard for practicalities and principles that annoys.... ~ Crid at May 25, 2016 8:50 PM

Now, please use feet of column space to waste all our time. Outrage is all you have. That you don't get this is not disturbing: it is expected. ~ Radwaste at May 26, 2016 12:08 AM

See, Artie, this is what I meant when I said that you're " famous 'round these parts for rambling posts that have no point and only a tangential relationship to the topic at hand." I'd have added Isab's comment several weeks ago about you regularly arguing tangents if I could have found it.

I'd also have included a post that said "oh boy, an Artemis post!" if I could have found one; if there ever was one.

You are not the intellectual giant you imagine yourself to be. And you (almost pathologically) refuse to provide anything to prove your bona fides as you proffer self-declared expert opinions on various unrelated subjects.

As for the "tangential relationship to the topic" I mentioned, in your first post in this thread you immediately veered off topic, arguing not about Jolie's qualifications, but about the burden of proof in Patrick's comment. You subsequently wasted hundreds of words arguing about that burden of proof and insulting anyone who disagreed with you.

The burden of proof in Patrick's argument has, at best, a tangential relationship to the topic at hand, which is Ms. Jolie's qualifications (or lack thereof) to teach at a Master's degree level. It certainly doesn't merit the thousands of electrons you've hurt, maimed, or killed in arguing about it (metaphorical, so don't start lecturing me on electronics).

> You sir are a moron

And you don't say nice things about others!






Even if this is a mere publicity ploy by LSE, there's much to be said for ridiculing it on that basis.

If Johns Hopkins hired Jenny McCarthy as a lecturer on epidemiology, I'd want and expect commenters here and elsewhere to scream bloody murder.

> given a chance to judge
> her, off you go.

I try to be like that for everyone. If you don't exercise "judgment," you're essentially not alive.

Remember!:

Saves time.™

I mean, the contemporary chatter about "judging" is just infantile in the extreme. OF COURSE we're judging.

Jolie has been "judging," and sharing public judgment for matters about which her opinion should matter very little, for quite some time. And doing so in forums from which, had they any integrity at all, she'd be kicked to the street on her ass.

It's just such a twatly, seventh-grade thing to say. And it was in seventh grade that I first encountered it... From another seventh grader! (We were children, so Sue has since been forgiven.) Took my breath away nonetheless. Don't judge! It's as baseless and transparently childish as anything out of primitive Islam: Women mustn't be seen in public!

When did the memo go out to take the fluffiest of fluff blog posts so seriously? 49 comments on a throw away type blog post. Is that a record? It's funny what type of stuff excites people on the internet.

For the record, not that anyone cares, I think the LSE's women and gender something something Master's program sounds like a real BS degree. That being the case Jolie sounds as good as anyone to be a guest lecturer. She'll get the rubes to pony up tuition to hobnob with a celebrity for a semester and who knows maybe she will have a lot to offer on the subject.

"49 comments on a throw away type blog post. Is that a record?"

Not even close.

Like academia, the battles are so bitter because the stakes are so low.

> 49 comments on a throw away
> type blog post.

Shtetl doesn't just have feelings about the things we talk about. He *knows* what's supposed to be going on! He knows what people he's never met are supposed to be thinking about, and talking about. He has an internal metric for this stuff.

Shtetl can't tell us how it works, but he just knows when things are just "throw away type blog posts"... But he also knows when things are very, very important, so important that they deserve a larger number of comments!

...Kind like how Artemis knows where the "burdens" lie for stranger's conversations, and how Patrick knows how much respect we're supposed to give to over-the-hill action starlets who're trying to be grownup without doing the reading.





So! From now on, I'm not just going to be making comments willy-nilly... Not in this blog! No Sirree! I'm going to be checking in with Shtetl first!

And Artemis!

And Patrick!

"...49 comments on a throw away type blog post."

Doesn't matter what kind of forum it is. Posts about Angelina Jolie get a lot of action.

Just the tip, Artemis, we promise.

Amy, you take pride in the knowledge you have attained through your own studies and without a degree in certain areas. Why would you think she didn't do the same?

Matt, is Amy's homegrown knowledge enough to qualify her to teach a Master's level course? Is Jolie's?

So! From now on, I'm not just going to be making comments willy-nilly... Not in this blog! No Sirree! I'm going to be checking in with Shtetl first!

LOL what? Not sure if you are now parodying yourself at this point. Tough to tell these things on the internet. By all means care about you want on the internet. I just thought it was just funny how much time is being invested on this puff post. I hope you didn't get your panties in too much of a bunch because I just thought it was funny where this comment thread was going and that is all my comment was about.

First of all, "LOL" has no coin nowadays. Sincerity has been tortured here on the casual internet, and your use of the contraction is part of the problem, as is your obliviousness to your presumptions. There's this dis-individuated mass of knowingness in our culture nowadays, this unspoken presumption by ninnies that they know what's best without credentials or even study. And it's causing a lot of problems.

Angelina Jolie at the LS-motherfucking-E is very much worth a moment of ridicule... As are you here in our more modest venue.

Heh,(Can I type that?) Mock away on me all you want. Mock away on Angelie Jolie all you want, too. I too am a little mystified and bemused by the way people are white knighting Jolie on this thread. Just as I am mystified and bemused by the people who are getting a little bent out of shape by the people white knighting Jolie.

All I was doing was noting that there a lot of serious comments on a 70 word fluffy light day of blogging blog post. Since I agree you can mock me or whomever you want I am going to personally lighten up. Perhaps you may want to try to lighten up, too, Francis.

Any who is still reading this oh so serious thread(apparently causing E-Coli at this point), have a nice holiday weekend.

Yet no one bit on the suggestion of McCarthy at John Hopkins, and I thought it was a platinum metaphor.

"Matt, is Amy's homegrown knowledge enough to qualify her to teach a Master's level course? Is Jolie's?"

I did not comment on Jolie's worthiness to teach, nor Amy's for that matter, simply because I do not know.