She'd better be careful
Sandra Bullock might run the risk of alienating some of her friends in the entertainment industry by donating a million bucks to the tsunami relief effort. Stuff like this could make them look bad.
Doesn't she know she's merely supposed to talk and act concerned and deliver angry anti-Bush sermons, but she's not, you know, supposed to actually do anything? I mean, if she really wanted to send money, she should've done what a normal celebrity would do: hold a "benefit" and charge working class people hundreds of bucks to attend. She's show up for an hour or two and get good publicity, and the tsunami victims would receive aid without any celebrities actually having to sacrifice. Doesn't she know how this works? Crimminy, don't they explain this stuff to you in the Screen Actors' Guild or something?
Comments
It's amazing she did this. I will say that following 9/11 I think a lot of "stars" gave money to the American Red Cross. I remember reading articles about it at the time. But she is definitely the first to give such a large sum for tsunami aid and relief. Linkin Park has donated $100,000.
Posted by: K | January 4, 2005 12:37 PM
Leonardo DiCaprio, the Young Man Who Terrifies Straight Males Everywhere Because Just Maybe They Find Him A Little Bit Attractive And Omigod Does That Make Me Gay?, gave a substantial donation to Unicef as well.
I'm still waiting to hear how much money Tom Selleck, Bruce Willis, Toby Keith, and other American patriots of the right have donated.
This is a silly argument on the face of it. We have no idea how much anyone prominent is donating, so to assume that just because we hear about two people donating, it means no one else is, is ridiculous.
You're really reaching here, Barry. I guess that now that your team controls everything, it's harder and harder to find anything REAL to be angry at liberals about.
Posted by: Jill | January 5, 2005 07:49 AM
Omg thats right! Please come see me and my friends! ;)
Posted by: watch moi | March 18, 2005 05:38 PM