First this on the Today Show from Tom Cruise,
"Before I was a Scientologist, I never agreed with psychiatry," Cruise said. "And when I started studying the history of psychiatry, I understood more and more why I didn't believe in psychology. ... And I know that psychiatry is a pseudo science."
Disputing the effectiveness of antidepressants generally, Cruise said, "all it does is mask the problem." He added, "There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance."

Then this from Brooke Shields, "To suggest that I was wrong to take drugs to deal with my depression, and that instead I should have taken vitamins and exercised shows an utter lack of understanding about postpartum depression and childbirth in general," the actress wrote.
"If any good can come of Mr. Cruise's ridiculous rant, let's hope that it gives much-needed attention to a serious disease."

AND now this,
'Tom ought to pipe down about people he doesn't know and [health] situations he hasn't experienced. You're an actor, Tom, not a med student.--Al Roker, the nicest guy in the world, in the National Enquirer. He's weighing in on the Tom Cruise versus Brooke Shields and Matt Lauer psychiatry brouhaha. In other words, Tom needs to shrink…not his head but his ego- From Eonline.

This statement supposedly made by Al Roker-really tops things off, wouldn't you say?? I mean, really, there was a BOMBING last week in London by Jihaadists and yet the Brooke Shields vs. Tom Cruise statements go on..and on..and on...while Brooke Shields promotes her new book 'Down came the Rain: My Journey through Post Partem Depression' and Tom Cruise promotes his movie 'War of the Worlds'.
And I understand no one likes a cat fight better than the American public or the media that sells to it. But, I think there is one major issue no one has bothered to consider-I mean it's been totally over looked.
THEY ARE BOTH PROMOTING PRODUCTS. Brooke wants to stand up for herself and women who are depressed? Okay. And she tells people about her issues, okay, publicly through a book, okay, then gets offended when some hyper anti-depressant vigilante doesn't like her statements???
Granted it's Tom Cruise and he is the world's biggest star, who knows how long he will last at this rate-. But that's beside the point, the point is Tom Cruise then turns around and criticizes Brooke for using anti-depressants while at the same time proclaiming the importance of SCIENTOLOGY and his movie?
What? Hello. I know he's been doing this for years, promoting his work and Scientology, but this was way over the top. He's criticizing someone for promoting something they believe in...and he's promoting what he believes in at the same time. Anti-depressants and Scientology could both be considered crutches-who knows which is worse for you-that are both used to cope with everyday albeit serious problems in life.
How one person can be right and another wrong-whatever you think about either-when they are both out promoting a product? They can't, they can only be hypocrites and annoying at that....Tom, you used to be so hot in Top Gun. Brooke, you were a pretty baby. Now, stop fighting and act like adults..oooh, that might be hard when you are on a Hollywood press junket....

Angelina Jolie adopts Ethiopian child.

Hello!
Well, the London Terrorist attacks have been well covered-maybe too well sinc e there is now controversy over who, and why they bombed those poor Londoners last week. And I feel a bit sheepish devoting a blog to it. But, I can't help myself, I'm a huge Angelina Jolie fan. She's an actress go here if you need a summary
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001401/- She is the daughter of Jon Voight who is divorced from her mother a french actress named Marcheline Bertrand. She was raised by Bertrand along with her brother James Haven.
.. You know that she adopted a son-maybe? Named Maddox from Cambodia. You probably know her as someone who is crazy, likes tattoos-in fact I believe buys tattoos that don't mean anything-her latin'what nourishes me destroys me' has got to have been translated wrong or she just got half a phrase. I would like to think it means 'What does not destroy me, nourishes me' or 'What nourishes me, cannot destroy me' or something...because the other phrase makes no sense in translation. I really need to find a latin scholar to work on that one..
Anyways, you know she is crazy, I'm sorry here we go again" CRAZY". Yes that's better and beautiful. Really she is probably one of the most beautiful women in the world. And I believe her lips are her own, I mean her father has a big pucker too. So, we can say she is probably au naturel for the time being since nothing stays that way for long in Hollywood.
I find this newest event in the news of her life to be very interesting, no not Brad. Her new daughter..which confused reporters who thought she was pregnant when she was seen shopping for girl's baby clothes, they thought it meant a pregnancy by Brad had begun...eeew.
http://www.sky.com/showbiz/article/0,,50001-1188033,00.html-Confusion over her plans for a child. Hindustan News
Silly paparazzi, Hollywood actresses don't like to have kids the natural way!! They like to have them through adoptions!
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20050706/112066470000.html-
She is just crazy to adopt another little girl, but I have to hand it to her. She's dealing with the world's poor orphan population one child at a time. And I admire her for that...I hate the U.N. but I love the fact that she does not go around talking about politics. And the best of all is when she poses with my other favorite person Condileeza Rice! Recently when I was sick my boyfriend put a picture of Condileeza Rice on my computer with Angelina Jolie!
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/UNHCR/56747294e77933ff0dd7de1aa210cd31.htm
It's a weird thing to imagine this woman who travels the world for refugees, makes movies, and sleeps with men on EVERY SINGLE FILM SHE MAKES..yeah, if I were Brad I would not expect this to be a long relationship. Who knows? Maybe she's serious this time....but I doubt it..I mean she can't be serious, she's crazy. I do know this though while I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. They were totally having some sort of affair-whether emotional or physical. And maybe Brad wasn't going to make with Jen Aniston but, as I and all my other gal pals are ashamed to admit that we follow the US weeklys-they were definitely involved before the marriage was over...maybe not seriously until after papers were filed. But, the trips to Africa and time Brad spent in England and on the set of their movie Mr. And Mrs. Smith(very good). PLEASE. I don't care what Angelina told Diane Sawyer, she is or was involved with a man who was married. Her careening love affairs are now up for grabs though since her
Jolie's love life: From real to reel –
former assistant, Patricia Ebert is planning to make her love life into a movie. And I think it would make a great one, if you can include the babies she keeps adopting and her relationship to her father, and her mother, and explain why she kisses her brother on the mouth (Academy Awards 2000) and Billy Bob. If she does drugs(duh), the tattoos, and if she is anorexic?
She's crazy and somehow she gets her work done for the U.N. and Hollywood....oh and adopts babies from Ethiopia and dates Brad Pitt, and eh.....

Chirac-is that your best?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1521483,00.html
Dredge posted this yesterday.
You know a country is not doing well when their leader thinks a good insult is to make fun of a superior country's food. Seriously, Chirac sounds like a kindergartener-or a disenfrachised, quickly loosing respect, frustrated, and spoiled leader...oh wait. Heh. That's what he is.......Is he going to start telling us that no one in the U. S. knows haute couture like he does???? Ouch!Hello!!!
And take this Chirac!
Today, it was announced that London will host the 2012 Olympics. I'm sure it will be a great boon to the English economy. I bear no hard feelings over New York's loss-we just had the games in Utah not too long ago.....here is a blog on it.
http://www.sluggerotoole.com/archives/2005/07/2012_olympic_ga.php
And Dredge has pictures up today-on July 6, 2005.
http://www.drudgereport.com/

Oooh! And today is International Kissing Day! Check out the link. I celebrated by waking up to a series of kisses from my uber cute schnauzer pup. It's better than an alarm clock!
http://bamber.blogspot.com/2005/07/today-is-international-kissing-day.html
Full Article On Chirac:
Chirac's reheated food jokes bring Blair to the boil Patrick BarkhamTuesday July 5, 2005The Guardian Take one unpopular president, a brace of struggling statesmen and a couple of global summits. Heat up a hoary national stereotype, leaven with wit, sit back and watch "les rosbifs" simmer.
Jacques Chirac stirred the pot at a meeting in Russia on Sunday when he joked to Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schröder that the British could not be trusted and worse food was only found in Finland.
The French president declared that the only thing the British have ever done for European agriculture is mad cow disease, the French daily Libération reported.
Mr Chirac then reportedly said: "You can't trust people who cook as badly as that. After Finland, it's the country with the worst food."
His jibes may have amused Mr Putin and Mr Schröder, but they are unlikely to have pleased members of the Paris 2012 bid team lobbying the International Olympic Committee in Singapore. Mr Chirac's absence while Tony Blair has been working on London's behalf has been noted, but Paris officials have excused it by insisting that the president would arrive in time for the final presentation on Wednesday, which Mr Blair will miss.
As a Michelin-starred Scottish chef put the final touches to his French-inspired menu for G8 leaders at Gleneagles, Mr Chirac recalled how the former Nato secretary general George Robertson, a Scot, once insisted he try a Scottish speciality, believed to be haggis.
"That's where our problems with Nato come from," he said.
The chef advising on the menu, Andrew Fairlie, who trained under Michel Guérard in France, describes his cooking as "unashamedly French but with a Scottish twist".
French aides said the quotes attributed to Mr Chirac did not "reflect the tone or the content" of the meeting in Russia. But Mr Blair made what appeared to be a reference to Mr Chirac's outburst when asked if Gleneagles would be an anticlimax after Singapore.
"I won't say the G8 summit would be an anticlimax to it because that would be undiplomatic and I know when I go there I will be in the presence of very diplomatic people," he said.
British chefs were less restrained. "Bollocks," said Antony Worrall Thompson. "Chirac doesn't get out enough.
"Our beef is the best in the world ... All the langoustines they eat are Scottish. So I'd serve him langoustines followed by good Aberdeen Angus beef and then give him a heart attack with some sticky toffee pudding."
Meanwhile Egon Ronay, the food critic, said: "A man full of bile is not fit to pronounce on food."
And today German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said he was looking forward to a "decent steak" at this week's G8 summit in Scotland.
Schroeder refused to discuss Chirac's reported remarks at a news conference. "No word from me on these secret talks," the chancellor said.
He also responded cautiously when asked whether he was looking forward to the food at the G8 summit, which opens Wednesday in Gleneagles, Scotland.
"I'm no fan of salmon, and I hope I will get a decent steak - I'm sure I will get one," a smiling Schroeder said. "Beyond that, I don't know English - or Scottish - cuisine well enough that I could really talk as an expert."

Silly Democrats! Tricks are for kids!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/04/AR2005070400924_pf.html

I have been saying this for months and now the proof is in the pudding-or shall I say in the Washington Post. See the link above. This article was listed on Drudge today. It basically states that-and I urge you to read it-Nancy Pelosi had unreported trips paid for by lobbyists. One must understand this only the tip of the ice berg for the democratic party's members of Congress. The article clearly states they take more 'perk's' from lobbyists than Republicans do....so one must ask why Pelosi would dare admit that she took these trips??
Well, it's simple, she can either admit and give into defeat or be exposed by someone else. She is far better off admitting to her actions and thereby letting it be known how truly common this behavior is by Congressmen on BOTH sides of the aisle. She cannot both castigate Delay and call for his removal from the office of Majority Leader and ask forgiveness for her own actions.
SO, What I have been saying is that the Democrats made a brave move to try and remove Delay from office by creating a media frenzy and tying up the House Ethics committee by prying into Delay's trips and interactions with lobbyists. But, it was ultimately STUPID, because as everyone who has worked on Capitol Hill or in DC KNOWS-virtually ALL Congressmen receive some kind of financial compensation for work done or a perk from interaction with lobbyists. POINT BLANK.
At the very least- Most congressional staffers supplement their meager salaries with free food from Assocation receptions or dinners. There are a few people like Senator Feingold who do not allow their staff to take any of this free food. Mind you, these events do not really influence people the way a nice dinner at Oceanaire-the kind Legislative Assistants get treated to-does, but everyone is guilty on some level of taking food at the least from Lobbyists and special interest groups on the Hill. It has been this way for years, and most people think it is a fair trade for time spent listening to some groups spokesperson.
However, it doesn't leave room for the little people who don't have money for lobbying and have to depend on an issues personal ethos to a staff or Congressmen. OR a personal relationship that was developed over years of contact-which probably required some sort of prestige- money, social status, respect in a field of work, etc.
If we are really going to change politics-then you have to take the money out of it-I mean, stop letting the government administer the big bags of money through Appropriations collected by taxes. This is a sticky wicket no one wants to deal with and so we are stuck with lobbyists who are paid to send money to certain groups. And maybe we don't really want to know what is lost or gained by allowing the lobbyists to continue their work.
In short, the Democrats were completely drowned by their own hubris-because I don't hear them talking about abolishing the practice of lobbyists anytime soon..it was just a hollow attempt to unseat a good and strong leader.