The New ForeignPolicy.com
Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call

If Jessica Alba is wrong, then I don't want to be right. Fortunately, she's right.

Thu, 01/29/2009 - 2:44am

Your humble blogger has long been interested in the intersection between celebrity and politics.

I therefore feel compelled to report the following anecdote concerning Jessica Alba and Bill O'Reilly:

Jessica Alba is setting the record straight: Sweden was neutral during World War II.
Alba and Fox TV show host Bill O’Reilly traded punches last week after the presidential inauguration. After Alba told a Fox reporter that O’Reilly was “kind of an a-hole;” he retaliated by calling her a “pinhead” for telling a reporter to “be Sweden about it,” assuming she meant Switzerland.
“I want to clear some things up that have been bothering me lately,” Alba blogged on MySpace Celebrity. “Last week, Mr. Bill O'Reilly and some really classy sites (i.e.TMZ) insinuated I was dumb by claiming Sweden was a neutral country. I appreciate the fact that he is a news anchor and that gossip sites are inundated with intelligent reporting, but seriously people... it's so sad to me that you think the only neutral country during WWII was Switzerland.”

For the record, Alba wins this fact fight. This is the second time in the past year that a right-wing political figure has been brought low by a celebrity.

This is surprising. It's pretty easy to poke fun at celebs like Paris Hilton or Jessica Alba (the latter's inauguration video is unintentionally very funny). Right-wing politicos and pundits should be used to debate.

So why are celebrities schooling them? Has the quality of conservative leadership really fallen so far? What happens when the true A-listers, like, say, Salma Hayek, start focusing their fire on Mitch McConnell or Rush Limbaugh?

Daniel W. Drezner | Permalink |

| Comments? Login or register

( filed under:

Mediasphere | Bill O'Reilly | celebrity activists | pundits | Sweden

)

Yes, Sweden was neutral at some point during its history

by ThreeTrees on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 3:40am

Ha, let's face it, she meant indeed to say "Switzerland" but lucked out when she found out later that Sweden was neutral in WWII. What's amazing is how she initiated this whole thing by calling someone an "a-hole" but then she writes "individuals are taking it upon themselves to encourage negativity and stupidity" and "I appreciate the name calling". I heard that Obama's election was supposed to bring people together and end divisiveness. How is this supposed to work?

If Bill O'Reilly says something stupid, just ignore him, or rebut him with a better comment than "a-hole".

I do think Jessica Alba > Salma Hayek though (and now I've upset Prof. Drezner).

Well, Who Thought O'Reilly Was Smart?

by Appalled Moderate on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 9:00am

I am comfortable with the idea the Bill O'Reilly is stupider than Jessica Alba. Which begs the question of what he's good for anyway, because he is nowhere near as hot as
Jessica Alba.

(And, if O'Reilly claims he was mislead by his careful internet research using TMZ, then...well, he isn't as bright as Paris Hilton pretends to be either.)

I think this counts as a "But..."

by chrismcalonan on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 9:10am

Leaving aside any relative judgements among Bill O'Reailly, Jessica Alba and Salma Hayek...Jules Crittenden has a comment on Sweden's neutrality, and that it's a little complicated:

http://www.julescrittenden.com/2009/01/29/from-the-mouths-of-babes-2/

Oh, and Jules throws in his views on neutrality in general as a bonus.

Well, Alba (hot and dumb; and

by blue13326 on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 10:12am

Well, Alba (hot and dumb; and yes, she's hotter than Selma Hayek) and O'Reilly (ugly and dumb) aside, you can't expect us to believe Sweden was really neutral during WW2. That's like saying Western Europe was neutral during the Cold War, or Iran has been neutral in the Iraq War.

I mean, if providing logistical support for the German military, allowing transport of troops and military equipment for German invasions, and providing Germany with the crucial iron ore needed to build up its military makes you neutral, then you've twisted the word to make it practically meaningless. Sweden could have singlehandedly ended the war by stopping its export of iron ore to Germany. There's a reason why we had plans to bomb the Swedish rail system.

Sweden, neutral, really?

by A.S. on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 11:23am

Sweden may have been officially neutral during WWII (although, as pointed out above, in reality it wasn't). However, Sweden is no longer neutral. It has participated with NATO in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Yes, really.

by AngusmcP on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 12:24pm

I guess Jessica Alba is smarter not only that Bill O'Reilly and Jules Crittenden, but also some of the commenters here.

Sweden was in fact officially neutral in WW2. Just like the U.S. was officially neutral until December 7, 1941. Just like Spain was officially neutral the whole war despite its regime's friendly relationship with the Nazis.

Furthermore, Sweden has a history of neutrality. The last war that Sweden fought ended in 1814. Military actions since then have been limited to peacekeeping operations. Swedish neutrality is why Sweden refuses to join NATO.

O'Reilly is hardly a "leader"

by kwo on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 3:47pm

O'Reilly and Limbaugh are not leaders, they're entertainers.

McConnell is supposed to be a leader.

She got lucky but Conservatives are dumb anyway

by theCardinal on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 11:15pm

As we say in Miami Jessica cagged it - she didn't mean to say Sweden and she got lucky that it was neutral once. More importantly conservatism is in dire straits...and I say this as a conservative. First there is Ann Coulter getting "banned", this bizarre O'Reilly/Alba exchange and finally Rush's ill advised not so best wishes for Obama and by extension the country. WFB, Jr. and Barry Goldwater these people aren't.

obsessions with attractive female celebrities

by sfernando on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 4:06am

it seems foreign policy pundits are worse than teenage boys when it comes to obsessions with attractive female celebrities and their doings. they do prattle about those obviously superficial doings all day.
or is it only you?

Mostly it's just me.

by Daniel W. Drezner on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 7:04am

Mostly it's just me.

it seems foreign policy

by J Thomas on Fri, 01/30/2009 - 10:00am

I've noticed various less-successful pundits do it.

I think the problem is that they go along for months and they watch how many hits they get and it isn't very many. And then one day they mention something at random and the hits go way up, and they look for what it was, and it was mentioning some woman. So they try it again, and the hits go up again. And they post a photo and the hits go up more.

It isn't that they want to run a celebrity fan site instead of a pundit site. It's that high hits is an illusion of success, and they'd rather have the illusion than a clear indication of failure.

So one of them started posting photos of women with snakes. Another wound up with pictures of contortionists. Etc. Whatever random thing got them some attention at a low point.

I doubt this applies to Dan Drezner who's been successful for a long time.