Ahh yes, it's the Holidays, time to head off to your family or pseudo family's home for a time of sharing and fun or in my family the Rockefeller Family Christmas from Hell. My mother will tirelessly cook and then make us place silver, crystal, china, and linens just so-or be forwarned we will be forced to place them just so over and over and over and so it's been since I was six yrs old. But I have revolted and luckily my Mom's best friend has offered to have us for dinner.
Thank God for the little things.. anyways-in the midst of all the shenanigans I call Christmas and New Year's there is a wonderful array of TV fare from the last year-Talk Soup's Clip Countdown! And shows on hiatus-I'm seriously going into withdrawal without Desperate Housewives, and then there in the middle of December is the Season Finale of Nip Tuck. A smart idea to place a finale in a month of reruns and Christmas-Holiday movies but alas, I didn't even watch the Finale. Why? Por Que?? http://www.tv.com/nip-tuck/gala-gallardo/episode/912025/summary.html?tag=ep_list;title;14
The Show has inevitably and untastefully jumped the shark. Joely Richardson is nowhere to be found in the end of the show. Julian McMahon has gotten fattish( I do not like middle aged paunch on sex symbols) and since I specifically watch the show to ogle him-this is no good. Sure, a real plastic surgeon can have a big belly, he's also not paid to look good he's just paid to make other people look nice. But I digress, I am unsure where to put the blame for this moment in the show that combines the icky with the dramatic and the sexy. Sometimes the show just made me nauseous, but I usually came back for more..until now. I would like to line up the ways this beauty has gone to pot.
First of all, the plotline of Julia McNamara falling in love with the Dwarf Marlowe Sawyer played by Peter Dinklage is nuts. It's just too much for a soap opera. It fits nothing in the show since the show usually pursues icky sexiness bordering on depravity not true drama. It seems overblown and far fetched.
Christian Troy played by Julian McMahon having sex with Rosie O' Donnell's character whom I cannot be bothered to name. But I hear O'Donnell is thinking about leaving the View to go star in that same recurring role on Nip Tuck next season! Oh joy, I can hear the screams now. Please, please, please the sex scene with those two was far more gratuitous than any surgery scene from this show's entire history. Really. Gross. Not cool with the show's original vibe.
Then there is the weird kidney plotline played out between Vanessa Redgrave's character-Erica Noughton and Sanaa Lathan's Michelle Landau. Really weird, hard to understand and again too far fetched. But, I at least found this one more plausible than the above and somewhat more compelling to watch.
And here is the point I hesitate to make, the character of John McNamara played by John Hensley. This actor has aged and his receding hairline is really icking me out. He's supposed to be the young son, precocious and basically good, but he's an adult now. And his face has aged in a way that cute boyish looking men do not usually survive. In other words, he needs to beef up his build, wear lifts?, and really compete physically with the two other men on the show, or get the hairline fixed in order to revert back to his Season 1 look. Sorry, I don't care what people look like in the real world, but on this TV show which is based on beautiful people living neurotic lives, he just doesn't fit right now.
I will give the show's 4th season Two saving credits. The plotline between the Roma Maffia's character and Alanis Morrisette's strike some real insight into the complexity of what happens when one person has low self esteem and seeks plastic surgery to please their partner. And finally, the baby drama for Julian McMahon's character-Christian Troy, I actually want him to have his adopted baby and be happy. I really do hate his ex-wife.
This show has lost it's grip as if it were a metal pot on ice. While the show strives to maintain it's sexy and somewhat dangerous balance but it seems to have skittered uncontrollably of course banging and clanging all the way. The oomph is just gone, leaving some really weird episodes behind that in other shows history always seem to forcast the end. I mean, Friends? This show is not.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Saturday, December 02, 2006
A Healthy Sense of Life...Tyra, Brittany, and Paris
http://www.vh1.com/shows/dyn/vh1_goes_inside/85914/episode.jhtml
I am currently watching America's Next Top Model marathon on VH1. I have to admit these girls are the prettiest of any group so far.. I never watch the show during primetime-NO TIME! But I love the VH1 marathons of the show and I have seen every season as a result! I know I'm not alone because I always dish about the show with other career women who are too busy to watch during the week! BTW-as I am about to dish on women who are seemingly out of control when it comes to their publicity picks and personal life-I have to comment that Tyra Banks always seems to be really on top of things. I can only imagine how hard it is for her to have a love life with her anal retentive nature but, you won't find her drunk and ranting in the street like so many other celebs or running around H-wood without her underwear and she's obviously worked for what she has got....I figure she can always loosen up when the camera is not on....ignoring the time she went off on camera at an incompetent ATNM contestant.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/149556,CST-CONT-paris26.article
Paris Hilton-I have to post this article because it's great! It summarizes everything about Paris Hilton-it's true hating Paris Hilton or at least being non-plussed by her is the mark of a person who is self aware, involved in the rest of the world, and who has a sense of morality and ethics. Paris is gross not because she is just slutty, materialistic, power hungry, and attention starved-but because she is a snob who values nothing in life that has real value, has never worked a day in her life and doesn't know the value of hard work, doesn't have values, and is ignorant to the extreme. As an example: Many people dislike Madonna, but no one can argue that she did not work hard, really really hard to get where she is, and she obviously has a sense of what is important in the world. In fact, she has used her sense of pop culture, politics, and life to inflame, sell records, and frankly make money. Whatever I think of her sketchy Kabbalah practices, superficial use of politics to sell records, and her latest adoption... She is quite honestly the mirror opposite of Paris Hilton. Paris' list of items she seems to be ign0rant on is long and involved. The truth is she would do her life very differently if she had a clue, but she is not just unaware of the real world or even what the real world thinks-she is pathologically stunted in her ability to conceive of what her life means in the big picture. It's probably all the drugs. I blame her parents as well but, today as an adult she is to blame.
http://www.eonline.com/photogallery/index.jsp?category=editors&galleryUUID=7bbbbcdc-1cb3-4114-81b6-cd448ed27cf7&uuid=a6dc5a2d-b3f7-4d6c-9567-002edada9a93
Brittany Spears-I'm so glad I'm not the only person in the world who is upset by her going out partying and hanging with the likes of Paris Hilton. I wanted to blog on this earlier this week but I am so busy. It's true. She should not be running around partying in public like that with Paris Hilton, I can see her desire to get out, show she is hot, and reve up the career. But the reality is life is different now for her, she's got responsibilities. And the public knows that-she's a divorcee with two kids, and her image needs to reflect that or she will find people talking about her mistakes-not buying her records. And right now everyone is wondering if she will jinx her slam dunk divorce from KF with bad PRand allow him to gain the upper hand in court. Frankly, I need her to be entertaining not make me wonder about her kids???!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,233458,00.html
I am willing to give her a shot again as she enters the Entertainment industry again. The process of watching her marry Kevin Federline, finding out she is really dumb(that it is all about her old manager-who she finally hired back! Good move!), and watching her loose that great body(and trust me, no matter what she does, that old body is gone) has convinced me that she deserves a break. But first she needs to stop going around with no underwear on and flashing the Press because-nothing is going to turn off her audience faster than showing her hoochie with a C-section scar!!! AAAAAAH!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10413503
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=11449
I originally wanted her to go away for good but that bad marriage and baby issues have humanized her. People want to see her succeed. One of my girlfriend's recently began chanting her praises at a party to my confusion, she screamed that the b-girl would be back bigger and better. That remains to be seen.
At the end of the day in Hollywood it's a dose of real world understanding and the ability to empathize with what the public sees outside the bubble that makes a good and long career.
I am currently watching America's Next Top Model marathon on VH1. I have to admit these girls are the prettiest of any group so far.. I never watch the show during primetime-NO TIME! But I love the VH1 marathons of the show and I have seen every season as a result! I know I'm not alone because I always dish about the show with other career women who are too busy to watch during the week! BTW-as I am about to dish on women who are seemingly out of control when it comes to their publicity picks and personal life-I have to comment that Tyra Banks always seems to be really on top of things. I can only imagine how hard it is for her to have a love life with her anal retentive nature but, you won't find her drunk and ranting in the street like so many other celebs or running around H-wood without her underwear and she's obviously worked for what she has got....I figure she can always loosen up when the camera is not on....ignoring the time she went off on camera at an incompetent ATNM contestant.
http://www.suntimes.com/news
Paris Hilton-I have to post this article because it's great! It summarizes everything about Paris Hilton-it's true hating Paris Hilton or at least being non-plussed by her is the mark of a person who is self aware, involved in the rest of the world, and who has a sense of morality and ethics. Paris is gross not because she is just slutty, materialistic, power hungry, and attention starved-but because she is a snob who values nothing in life that has real value, has never worked a day in her life and doesn't know the value of hard work, doesn't have values, and is ignorant to the extreme. As an example: Many people dislike Madonna, but no one can argue that she did not work hard, really really hard to get where she is, and she obviously has a sense of what is important in the world. In fact, she has used her sense of pop culture, politics, and life to inflame, sell records, and frankly make money. Whatever I think of her sketchy Kabbalah practices, superficial use of politics to sell records, and her latest adoption... She is quite honestly the mirror opposite of Paris Hilton. Paris' list of items she seems to be ign0rant on is long and involved. The truth is she would do her life very differently if she had a clue, but she is not just unaware of the real world or even what the real world thinks-she is pathologically stunted in her ability to conceive of what her life means in the big picture. It's probably all the drugs. I blame her parents as well but, today as an adult she is to blame.
http://www.eonline.com/photogallery/index.jsp?category=editors&galleryUUID=7bbbbcdc-1cb3-4114-81b6-cd448ed27cf7&uuid=a6dc5a2d-b3f7-4d6c-9567-002edada9a93
Brittany Spears-I'm so glad I'm not the only person in the world who is upset by her going out partying and hanging with the likes of Paris Hilton. I wanted to blog on this earlier this week but I am so busy. It's true. She should not be running around partying in public like that with Paris Hilton, I can see her desire to get out, show she is hot, and reve up the career. But the reality is life is different now for her, she's got responsibilities. And the public knows that-she's a divorcee with two kids, and her image needs to reflect that or she will find people talking about her mistakes-not buying her records. And right now everyone is wondering if she will jinx her slam dunk divorce from KF with bad PRand allow him to gain the upper hand in court. Frankly, I need her to be entertaining not make me wonder about her kids???!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,233458,00.html
I am willing to give her a shot again as she enters the Entertainment industry again. The process of watching her marry Kevin Federline, finding out she is really dumb(that it is all about her old manager-who she finally hired back! Good move!), and watching her loose that great body(and trust me, no matter what she does, that old body is gone) has convinced me that she deserves a break. But first she needs to stop going around with no underwear on and flashing the Press because-nothing is going to turn off her audience faster than showing her hoochie with a C-section scar!!! AAAAAAH!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10413503
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=11449
I originally wanted her to go away for good but that bad marriage and baby issues have humanized her. People want to see her succeed. One of my girlfriend's recently began chanting her praises at a party to my confusion, she screamed that the b-girl would be back bigger and better. That remains to be seen.
At the end of the day in Hollywood it's a dose of real world understanding and the ability to empathize with what the public sees outside the bubble that makes a good and long career.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Dems Politcal Moves Funnier than Borat!
It seems the Dems are going to ruin their big moment.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/15974-1.html, Nancy Pelosi may be doing this to reward Murtha for his support. But I think it has more to do with the fact that Hoyer is so competent and would definitely outshine her in his leadership.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009243- And oh yeah raising taxes is helpful! NOT. Yes please remind people why they hate the Democrats.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/15974-1.html, Nancy Pelosi may be doing this to reward Murtha for his support. But I think it has more to do with the fact that Hoyer is so competent and would definitely outshine her in his leadership.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009243- And oh yeah raising taxes is helpful! NOT. Yes please remind people why they hate the Democrats.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Simmer Down Dems...
It's interesting to listen to the Dems this morning on Fox and CNN. They are not taking their win well, they keep making blatantly untrue statements that are so base they sound drunk. Maybe they are??
I mean saying the Washington Post is Conservative and that they think the statement 'The republicans don't deserve to win but the Dems deserve it even less' was made by a Conservative shows how nuts they are today-granted it was made by a Radio Host. Still singing about change and what the American people want when you are not the majority party in the Elected body is crazy and stupid. It's obvious that the country is still very conservative and that the Liberals haven't made the big win they hoped for with Marriage Ammendments for Gays and on other issues. Also-the new Democrats who have been elected reflect George Bush's policies to a tee while Nancy Pelosi's positions are nothing they can vote for-watch the Dems fall apart and see Pelosi struggle to stay in power. I must admit I am afraid Steny Hoyer will become Majority Leader he's much more conservative and he is not a flighty bird.
I firmly believe the Democrats will make fools of themselves and loose the Majority again in 2008 or 2010 provided Nancy Pelosi stays in power.
I mean saying the Washington Post is Conservative and that they think the statement 'The republicans don't deserve to win but the Dems deserve it even less' was made by a Conservative shows how nuts they are today-granted it was made by a Radio Host. Still singing about change and what the American people want when you are not the majority party in the Elected body is crazy and stupid. It's obvious that the country is still very conservative and that the Liberals haven't made the big win they hoped for with Marriage Ammendments for Gays and on other issues. Also-the new Democrats who have been elected reflect George Bush's policies to a tee while Nancy Pelosi's positions are nothing they can vote for-watch the Dems fall apart and see Pelosi struggle to stay in power. I must admit I am afraid Steny Hoyer will become Majority Leader he's much more conservative and he is not a flighty bird.
I firmly believe the Democrats will make fools of themselves and loose the Majority again in 2008 or 2010 provided Nancy Pelosi stays in power.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Republican Majority will plow on...
Happy Halloween!
http://time-blog.com/allen_report/2006/10/why_some_top_republicans_think.html
I have to say I agree with the logic of this article. Although I must admit I would not be totally surprised if we lost the House and kept the Senate. It is a grevious mistake for the Democrats to run about crowing about their win in advance. The act makes it hard to respect them as if their heads really aren't in the game. In a campaign race it's always important to keep your eye on the goal and saying you are going to win without pushing a real campaign strategy which they don't seem to have other than 'Bush Sucks' is what makes me confident that their success is as substantial as the hot air they have been puffing out in the last month.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/31/D8L3OOHG0.html
And Kerry's not helping by spreading rumors of a draft that is never going to happen and being rude to current troops. He must be trying to get into the spirit of Halloween with a good scare. The reality is no matter what someone's political affiliation is or if they have none-almost everyone knows someone in the military and who has served in Iraq and statements like his just make people feel bad.
http://time-blog.com/allen_report/2006/10/why_some_top_republicans_think.html
I have to say I agree with the logic of this article. Although I must admit I would not be totally surprised if we lost the House and kept the Senate. It is a grevious mistake for the Democrats to run about crowing about their win in advance. The act makes it hard to respect them as if their heads really aren't in the game. In a campaign race it's always important to keep your eye on the goal and saying you are going to win without pushing a real campaign strategy which they don't seem to have other than 'Bush Sucks' is what makes me confident that their success is as substantial as the hot air they have been puffing out in the last month.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/31/D8L3OOHG0.html
And Kerry's not helping by spreading rumors of a draft that is never going to happen and being rude to current troops. He must be trying to get into the spirit of Halloween with a good scare. The reality is no matter what someone's political affiliation is or if they have none-almost everyone knows someone in the military and who has served in Iraq and statements like his just make people feel bad.
Friday, October 27, 2006
No Movie for Dixie Chicks
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
NBC's recent decision not to run the Dixie Chicks movie is a good one-for one reason the Dixie Chicks while talented musicians have no place on the main networks. There desire to continue political infighting with the right and most of midwestern america plus their old fan base is not good for the interests of a major network like ABC, CBS, or NBC.
The Chicks have a right to say what they want and do what they want and they certainly don't deserve death threats but then again-most celebrities don't deserve the death threats that they recieve from crazy people simply for being famous. It's the paradox of fame- a lot of people really love you and some people love you sooo much-they hate you. Throw in some inflamatory remarks at a trying time on the American psyche coupled with traitor like behavior on the part of the lead singer and it's no surprise people went nuts and threatened to kill the poor silly Natalie Maines.
She should have had more control and composure being a celebrity comes with responsiblity and the response should have been expected. At the very least she should have made the statements in the U.S. and not to a foreign audience-duh. The fall out has left the Dixie chicks with no where to go but more liberal and to loose their core audience and look for a new set of fans altogether-which may not be hard or may be career suicide. I suppose there are lots of liberal women who like country music and they are talented musicians...sooo. They may change their tune once they see how the bottom line suffers from reminding people of their ingnorant mistake.
I would still think the continuation of this strange event from 2003 is not good for the Dixie Chicks and at the least there management should be smart enough to know a documentarty on their Bush hating and fall from grace belongs on HBO or Showtime.
NBC's recent decision not to run the Dixie Chicks movie is a good one-for one reason the Dixie Chicks while talented musicians have no place on the main networks. There desire to continue political infighting with the right and most of midwestern america plus their old fan base is not good for the interests of a major network like ABC, CBS, or NBC.
The Chicks have a right to say what they want and do what they want and they certainly don't deserve death threats but then again-most celebrities don't deserve the death threats that they recieve from crazy people simply for being famous. It's the paradox of fame- a lot of people really love you and some people love you sooo much-they hate you. Throw in some inflamatory remarks at a trying time on the American psyche coupled with traitor like behavior on the part of the lead singer and it's no surprise people went nuts and threatened to kill the poor silly Natalie Maines.
She should have had more control and composure being a celebrity comes with responsiblity and the response should have been expected. At the very least she should have made the statements in the U.S. and not to a foreign audience-duh. The fall out has left the Dixie chicks with no where to go but more liberal and to loose their core audience and look for a new set of fans altogether-which may not be hard or may be career suicide. I suppose there are lots of liberal women who like country music and they are talented musicians...sooo. They may change their tune once they see how the bottom line suffers from reminding people of their ingnorant mistake.
I would still think the continuation of this strange event from 2003 is not good for the Dixie Chicks and at the least there management should be smart enough to know a documentarty on their Bush hating and fall from grace belongs on HBO or Showtime.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Leave Jess Simpson Alone!
It seems these days that picking on celebs is the next best thing to liking them. On page 34 of this weeks Us Weekly the gossip magazine shows Jessica Simpson in a hard to find pose comparing her to Courtney Love. The comparison is ridiculous and stupid making me wonder if they need their vision checked. In the past 6 months I have noticed that the magazine has taken a lot of time to write nasty articles about the actress/singer.
My impression is that some silly syncophant that's s-y-n-c-h-o-p-h-a-n-t, of Nick Lachey's has been driving the agenda. Well get over it, Nick Lachey is moderately talented and not interesting in the slightest. I was personally hoping he would quit showbiz and go back to Ohio. He was cute-8 years ago when he was in 98 degrees and that was still in a beefcake-who probably would get lost in a large parking lot sense-.
What mystifies me is the backlash against her when he is so obviously the player and less likeable person-sympathy for his divorce must play a part. He acted like a bonehead on the show Newlyweds and his personality was carved into the more steady and house hubby character that was needed to balance Jess' obvious driving of the show with her personality.
Most important, I don't feel sorry for someone who cheats on their wife early in a marriage and wonders why it didn't work out. YEP, that's right. Go look at the early shows, he repeatedly went out and talked to other women about their marriage problems. And any crack psychologist can tell you that a man who discusses his problems openly with other women is not going to stay married and faithful. Try the early episodes with all his female dancers where he complains to them about her. 'Oh poor Nick, rich and married to a hot woman! Let me help you out of that dreadful marriage!!'
And now he is happily bonking Vanessa Minnilo an MTV VJ, and singing songs about heartbreak. Excuse me if I don't feel sorry for him or believe he is heartbroken at this date. And it's annoying to watch him dance across the country doing promos for the now old release while smugly smiling at the camera. It's like you can hear him thinking 'Now I'm finally getting the attention Jessica got!' Aaah, poor Nick, there's a reason she gets more attention than you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Lachey
If you look at this posting it says that neither Jess or Nick would have a career without the machinations of Joe Simpson and the show Newlyweds-and this could be true. But Joe Simpson his dadager skills, their marriage and Jessica Simpson are another post and an entirely different blog. The point is Nick Lachey owes his current career success to his marriage and divorce of Jessica Simpson at this point. (Ouch, that hurts!)
Time could prove me wrong, but he faded in the late 90's next to the other boy bands of the time-that being N'Sync and Backstreet Boys- not a good sign for him, and I don't see him turning this current renaissance into anything long lasting. In fact the last two Us Weeklys don't even mention the Lanillo couple and it's a good thing because seeing them together makes him look bad and far from the pitiful image he put out to promote the album. Call me cold but seeing someone rich and out with a former Miss Teen USA doesn't bring pangs of sympathy to my heart.
There is some entertainment in covering the slings and errors of fate for celebs (duh!). But the ribbing of Simpson for her failed relationships, bad clothing choices(they picked on her for wearing sweaters last week!), and flub at the MTV VMA's are dumb and not entertaining-think lighter and less jealous girl nasty US. I can honestly say the jealous petty female attitude is not fun and if it doesn't work for Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie- and it doesn't work for you.
At the same time some publicity is better than no publicity for Jess and she is in every issue of US Weekly as she should be at this time. Time will tell which part of this fallen couple will survive and thrive in the entertainment world. My money is on Jess Simpson especially with the new film 'Employee of the Month' opening this week. It promises to be entertaining and fun-love DANE COOK.
So it would be prudent for Us Weekly and other gossip mags to go easy on the charasmatic JS and back off LANILLO coverage which just makes Nick Lachey look bad. I mean it's just good business....
My impression is that some silly syncophant that's s-y-n-c-h-o-p-h-a-n-t, of Nick Lachey's has been driving the agenda. Well get over it, Nick Lachey is moderately talented and not interesting in the slightest. I was personally hoping he would quit showbiz and go back to Ohio. He was cute-8 years ago when he was in 98 degrees and that was still in a beefcake-who probably would get lost in a large parking lot sense-.
What mystifies me is the backlash against her when he is so obviously the player and less likeable person-sympathy for his divorce must play a part. He acted like a bonehead on the show Newlyweds and his personality was carved into the more steady and house hubby character that was needed to balance Jess' obvious driving of the show with her personality.
Most important, I don't feel sorry for someone who cheats on their wife early in a marriage and wonders why it didn't work out. YEP, that's right. Go look at the early shows, he repeatedly went out and talked to other women about their marriage problems. And any crack psychologist can tell you that a man who discusses his problems openly with other women is not going to stay married and faithful. Try the early episodes with all his female dancers where he complains to them about her. 'Oh poor Nick, rich and married to a hot woman! Let me help you out of that dreadful marriage!!'
And now he is happily bonking Vanessa Minnilo an MTV VJ, and singing songs about heartbreak. Excuse me if I don't feel sorry for him or believe he is heartbroken at this date. And it's annoying to watch him dance across the country doing promos for the now old release while smugly smiling at the camera. It's like you can hear him thinking 'Now I'm finally getting the attention Jessica got!' Aaah, poor Nick, there's a reason she gets more attention than you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Lachey
If you look at this posting it says that neither Jess or Nick would have a career without the machinations of Joe Simpson and the show Newlyweds-and this could be true. But Joe Simpson his dadager skills, their marriage and Jessica Simpson are another post and an entirely different blog. The point is Nick Lachey owes his current career success to his marriage and divorce of Jessica Simpson at this point. (Ouch, that hurts!)
Time could prove me wrong, but he faded in the late 90's next to the other boy bands of the time-that being N'Sync and Backstreet Boys- not a good sign for him, and I don't see him turning this current renaissance into anything long lasting. In fact the last two Us Weeklys don't even mention the Lanillo couple and it's a good thing because seeing them together makes him look bad and far from the pitiful image he put out to promote the album. Call me cold but seeing someone rich and out with a former Miss Teen USA doesn't bring pangs of sympathy to my heart.
There is some entertainment in covering the slings and errors of fate for celebs (duh!). But the ribbing of Simpson for her failed relationships, bad clothing choices(they picked on her for wearing sweaters last week!), and flub at the MTV VMA's are dumb and not entertaining-think lighter and less jealous girl nasty US. I can honestly say the jealous petty female attitude is not fun and if it doesn't work for Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie- and it doesn't work for you.
At the same time some publicity is better than no publicity for Jess and she is in every issue of US Weekly as she should be at this time. Time will tell which part of this fallen couple will survive and thrive in the entertainment world. My money is on Jess Simpson especially with the new film 'Employee of the Month' opening this week. It promises to be entertaining and fun-love DANE COOK.
So it would be prudent for Us Weekly and other gossip mags to go easy on the charasmatic JS and back off LANILLO coverage which just makes Nick Lachey look bad. I mean it's just good business....
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Why ask Hastert to resign? Foley's the Guilty One.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/new_foley_insta.html
If you haven't read the newest round of messages that Foley sent to pages during the last Two congress' including the current one. Then you may have heard about his behavior through Fox News, CNN, or your local neighbor. And you probably can't decide what's worse, the guy in Pennsylvania shooting little Amish girls execution style or the former Florida Congressman who headed up a Panel in Congress to extend laws to protect children from sexual predators only to turn out to be one himself. (Whew that was a long sentence!) See above link for newest round of messages on Foley.
IF you don't read or watch or listen to the news at all, then this blog will make no sense to you. In the days since Friday the 29th of September 2006 many pundits, and Journalists, and politicos have expressed a rising dismay over the fact that Foley took advantage of his position of power to entice and use young adolescent men, specifically House pages, for what looks like phone sex. It seems that much more was possible with these men since one email points to a future date that would include underage drinking for Foley and one of the boys.
Really, many people knew Foley was gay. That was not a secret. I have known for years that he was gay and I believe the constituents he served also knew that about him. He seemed to be a man who cared about children in a good way. But the impact of his email messages is that they involve children who are victimized by his predatory behavior.
Conservatives express dismay at the unseemly behavior of this leader and how he behaved as someone in power in the Government; he has reinforced the idea that a powerful government is not a good thing.
Liberals have spearheaded a campaign to make Hastert resign or at least admit to knowledge of Foley's illicit behavior. It seems to be a bit ahead of the real problem: no one ever wants to admit that they know someone with a perversion like pediphilia. And anyone who says they have never denied that someone they knew committed an act like theft, rape, lying, or any of the other 7 deadly sins is flat out lying to themselves. Even if Hastert had been aware of the issues with Foley it would have only been in some vague degree and easy for anyone and I mean anyone to dismiss. Frankly, if he had known than that means everyone knew in the House and that makes the Democrats in the House look pretty bad too. It's just a fact that once a secret travels that far in the House; it's no longer a secret.
Until someone releases strong evidence that Hastert knew about the behavior and it was proven beyond a shadow of doubt; the call to remove Hastert from House leadership is nothing but a partisan campaign time trick. And the real issue is what needs to be done in the House to prevent male as well as female pages from being misused by the Congressmen or staff in the future.
Most importantly, this is not the first time a Congressman has misused their power to take advantage of a person-period. And it won't be the last.
If you haven't read the newest round of messages that Foley sent to pages during the last Two congress' including the current one. Then you may have heard about his behavior through Fox News, CNN, or your local neighbor. And you probably can't decide what's worse, the guy in Pennsylvania shooting little Amish girls execution style or the former Florida Congressman who headed up a Panel in Congress to extend laws to protect children from sexual predators only to turn out to be one himself. (Whew that was a long sentence!) See above link for newest round of messages on Foley.
IF you don't read or watch or listen to the news at all, then this blog will make no sense to you. In the days since Friday the 29th of September 2006 many pundits, and Journalists, and politicos have expressed a rising dismay over the fact that Foley took advantage of his position of power to entice and use young adolescent men, specifically House pages, for what looks like phone sex. It seems that much more was possible with these men since one email points to a future date that would include underage drinking for Foley and one of the boys.
Really, many people knew Foley was gay. That was not a secret. I have known for years that he was gay and I believe the constituents he served also knew that about him. He seemed to be a man who cared about children in a good way. But the impact of his email messages is that they involve children who are victimized by his predatory behavior.
Conservatives express dismay at the unseemly behavior of this leader and how he behaved as someone in power in the Government; he has reinforced the idea that a powerful government is not a good thing.
Liberals have spearheaded a campaign to make Hastert resign or at least admit to knowledge of Foley's illicit behavior. It seems to be a bit ahead of the real problem: no one ever wants to admit that they know someone with a perversion like pediphilia. And anyone who says they have never denied that someone they knew committed an act like theft, rape, lying, or any of the other 7 deadly sins is flat out lying to themselves. Even if Hastert had been aware of the issues with Foley it would have only been in some vague degree and easy for anyone and I mean anyone to dismiss. Frankly, if he had known than that means everyone knew in the House and that makes the Democrats in the House look pretty bad too. It's just a fact that once a secret travels that far in the House; it's no longer a secret.
Until someone releases strong evidence that Hastert knew about the behavior and it was proven beyond a shadow of doubt; the call to remove Hastert from House leadership is nothing but a partisan campaign time trick. And the real issue is what needs to be done in the House to prevent male as well as female pages from being misused by the Congressmen or staff in the future.
Most importantly, this is not the first time a Congressman has misused their power to take advantage of a person-period. And it won't be the last.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Travis Barker n' Paris Hilton
So Jenna Moakler has an article in Us Weekly of the September 25, 2006 edition-who is famous I assume because she's cute and had show with Travis Barker of blink 182 on MTV about their wedding and life. Davd and Electra they were not...Jenna's rather sweet and cute, but Travis had the personality of a goldfish and oddly looks like one too...
Anyways, the article claims Travis hooked up with Paris Hilton when he was supposed to be on break from Jenna. I mean he was separated and not legally divorced yet...
I have to say as a just a normal everyday girl. I think Paris just wanted to hook up with a guy that was newly single and formally 'owned' by a very attractive girl that made Paris jealous. PH obviously hates all the girls she is friends with who are successful at some point or get more attention than her.
And she's running out of girls to hate and fight with on a fresh basis. So why not take make out with Jenna Moakler's husband?? Aaah to be vapid, too wealthy and have everything you want..or does she? Paris Hilton's antics make it obvious that she has nothing that she wants since she wants everything other people have...
And may I add-Travis Barker is ugly and acts like he has the borderline IQ of a border collie. Shoot, that makes border collies sound dumb. And this makes Paris look desperate.
I think personally Jenna Moakler will be better off without tweedle dee and tweedle dumb.
Anyways, the article claims Travis hooked up with Paris Hilton when he was supposed to be on break from Jenna. I mean he was separated and not legally divorced yet...
I have to say as a just a normal everyday girl. I think Paris just wanted to hook up with a guy that was newly single and formally 'owned' by a very attractive girl that made Paris jealous. PH obviously hates all the girls she is friends with who are successful at some point or get more attention than her.
And she's running out of girls to hate and fight with on a fresh basis. So why not take make out with Jenna Moakler's husband?? Aaah to be vapid, too wealthy and have everything you want..or does she? Paris Hilton's antics make it obvious that she has nothing that she wants since she wants everything other people have...
And may I add-Travis Barker is ugly and acts like he has the borderline IQ of a border collie. Shoot, that makes border collies sound dumb. And this makes Paris look desperate.
I think personally Jenna Moakler will be better off without tweedle dee and tweedle dumb.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Cruise on Tom Boy, Cruise On...
I know, you expect me to write something searing about Tom Cruise. Really I can write about that later it's all pretty clear he deserved this from my previous posts. And I think Paramount did the absolute right thing. It makes perfect sense for the head of the board to come out on the issue and take the heat for the studio's CEO and management. And what makes it even better is the New Yokr Times article that sums it all up perfectly. But the nail in the coffin is that the other producers at Viacom were willing to back up the head of the studio.
I find it all fascinating because no matter how many other celebrities love you or back you up as a celebrity : AKA, Leah Remini, John Travolta, or Will Smith. It's the people with the money to fund your films that matter in Hollywood.
It's a PR fiasco gone unmanaged and un hinged. Damage control should have been done a year ago for his hits on Brooke Shields, Matt Lauer and the weird scientology stunts. I mean as weird as Scientology is none of the other Scientologists act quite this weird. John Travolta is still a man people like to watch twist, Leah Remini plays moms well on TV, it's all fine for them.
He should have come out and talked about how sensitive he is to women's issues after giving birth. How he loves women and would never want to downplay their feelings-that would be the women who make up his largest and most loyal audience. The Matt Lauer incident just drove how out there he is home to that once loyal demographic in case they tried to convince themselves otherwise. It's like someone created a targeted PR strategy to ruin his career with his core demographic money producing audience. Yes I know women in their 20's and 30's don't run to movies the way 14 yr olds do-but they have a cult like allegiance to certain stars. One of whom is no longer Tom Cruise.
The New York Times article basically asks the question why did Paramount sign cruise for Mission Impossible III. That's easy, a star as big as Cruise deserved a last chance and there was hope that he would recover, I mean he was once Joe Cool, Maverick, and he even pulled off the sexually homoerotic Lestat. But he just did not recover himself PR wise, he needed to do a big campaign sans the scientologists to show how considerate and sorry he was to his audience and fans. He didn't do it because he ultimately believes he was right ( I guess), hubris anyone??
But the weirdest stuff with Katie Holmes, the no account baby who I believe does not exist, why would you say do I think that?? Well I've never seen it, Katie Holmes stomache changed sizes daily getting bigger and then smaller, it looked like a prosthetic. And because Tom Cruise is gay. I say this because I have two sisters living in Hollywood since 1994 and they swear everyone says he is gay. They believe he is gay. The rumor has been around since the 1980's and I often tell people this piece of advice about Tom Cruise. "When tempted to ask yourself why does Tom Cruise act so weird? Why does he do Scientology? Why did he dump Nicole? Don't ponder, just say to yourself, TOM CRUISE IS GAY. HE's GAY, and if he would just admit it and deal with it instead of holding young starlets hostage to prove he's not-heck his career might improve...
I once loved Tom Cruise, he now makes me feel uncomfortable and embarassed for him.
I find it all fascinating because no matter how many other celebrities love you or back you up as a celebrity : AKA, Leah Remini, John Travolta, or Will Smith. It's the people with the money to fund your films that matter in Hollywood.
It's a PR fiasco gone unmanaged and un hinged. Damage control should have been done a year ago for his hits on Brooke Shields, Matt Lauer and the weird scientology stunts. I mean as weird as Scientology is none of the other Scientologists act quite this weird. John Travolta is still a man people like to watch twist, Leah Remini plays moms well on TV, it's all fine for them.
He should have come out and talked about how sensitive he is to women's issues after giving birth. How he loves women and would never want to downplay their feelings-that would be the women who make up his largest and most loyal audience. The Matt Lauer incident just drove how out there he is home to that once loyal demographic in case they tried to convince themselves otherwise. It's like someone created a targeted PR strategy to ruin his career with his core demographic money producing audience. Yes I know women in their 20's and 30's don't run to movies the way 14 yr olds do-but they have a cult like allegiance to certain stars. One of whom is no longer Tom Cruise.
The New York Times article basically asks the question why did Paramount sign cruise for Mission Impossible III. That's easy, a star as big as Cruise deserved a last chance and there was hope that he would recover, I mean he was once Joe Cool, Maverick, and he even pulled off the sexually homoerotic Lestat. But he just did not recover himself PR wise, he needed to do a big campaign sans the scientologists to show how considerate and sorry he was to his audience and fans. He didn't do it because he ultimately believes he was right ( I guess), hubris anyone??
But the weirdest stuff with Katie Holmes, the no account baby who I believe does not exist, why would you say do I think that?? Well I've never seen it, Katie Holmes stomache changed sizes daily getting bigger and then smaller, it looked like a prosthetic. And because Tom Cruise is gay. I say this because I have two sisters living in Hollywood since 1994 and they swear everyone says he is gay. They believe he is gay. The rumor has been around since the 1980's and I often tell people this piece of advice about Tom Cruise. "When tempted to ask yourself why does Tom Cruise act so weird? Why does he do Scientology? Why did he dump Nicole? Don't ponder, just say to yourself, TOM CRUISE IS GAY. HE's GAY, and if he would just admit it and deal with it instead of holding young starlets hostage to prove he's not-heck his career might improve...
I once loved Tom Cruise, he now makes me feel uncomfortable and embarassed for him.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
ANTI-SEMITIC ANTI WAR MOVEMENT????
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206576,00.html
The above link describes an interview with The Big Story With John Gibson, featuring Ariel Cohen a policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation and Brian Becker of the Answer Coalition. This article adequately describes the intrinsic hate on the part of the anti-war movement for Israel run mostly by ANSWER. The group has completely shifted its focus over the past year from wanting the world to be at peace which-you would think should include Israel's happiness-to anti-semitic blaming of Israel for the U.S's problems with terrorists.
A person may question why I would determine that it is anti-semitic on the part of ANSWER to take the side of Palistine, Iran, Hezbollah, or Al-Qaeda. Well these countries leaders and these groups specifically site Israel's existence-period-as a reason for their anger. Never mind that Palistine is a country that any number of Arab nations could help if they did not value it's agitation against Jews, that Iran's leader has stated that he wants to bring about the end of the world, that Hezbollah was founded and funded by the Iranians who hate Israel, and that Al Qaeda is run by extremists who couldn't survive in their home country of Saudi Arabia. My point is that Israel is not at fault for the insanity of these people and extremist groups.
Israel has done everything they can, especially under the dear Ariel Sharon who painfully withdrew his own people and troups from Gaza last Fall to no avail from these corrupt organizations that want nothing but complete demolition of Israel. And it's pretty hard to fault a country for trying to protect themselves. More importantly, ANSWER constantly says the people of Lebanon and Syria like Hezbollah. Well I am part Syrian and Lebanese and my family has traveled there many times and I can tell you that children and families just want to live their lives in peace. And there is no love for a group like Hezbollah which brings this war on them.
The crux of ANSWER's faulty logic is not that they hold Israel to be an equal partner in the conflict because they fight back aggressively. But that ANSWER maintains any action on the part of Israel to defend itself in a WAR is wrong. More importantly, they defend the action of Hezbollah, Iran, and pretty much any other terrorist group that goes after Israel. ANSWER can hold up Jewish peace activists as examples of Jewish disapproval of Israel, but anyone can express disapproval of a country's method for dealing with violence. Anyone can say 'I am not happy with how my country has dealt with this situation' that is completely different from saying that the country is a terrorist group when they defend themselves against people who are obviously terrorists.
I think someone needs to remind ANSWER what the definition of a terrorist is-Webster's anyone?
Worse yet, the group ANSWER is run by FENTON COMMUNICATIONS, that's right, the entire anti-war movement is funded by donor political money from the DNC, Dem lobbying groups, and run by the Left's powerhouse communications firm-FENTON COMMUNICATIONS. Just contact Fenton Communications or go to their website and you will find out the truth. They run Answer's campaigns and their parent groups campaigns.
Not from peace loving hippies who gather of their own free will like back in the 'glorious' 1960's Vietnam movement to smoke weed and practice free love.
And this leads to a disturbing thought, if the movement is run by a large communications firm like Fenton and sponsored by these Democrat donors. That means that this anti-semitic movement, which is what it is since it squarely blames Israel and the U.S. for supporting Israel, is sponsored with money from Jewish people since they are some of the biggest donors to the DNC, it's affiliated left groups and is institutionalized.
It should be no surprise that people like Mel Gibson in drunken stupors say crazy things about Israel-I mean he lives in Hollywood which is by definition soaked in the anti-semitic alcohol of the liberal anti-war movement. He's only saying what I have heard people in Hollywood say repeatedly never realizing the defunct logic and hate they were hashing out. Maybe it's a good thing.
It's definitely time for the Jewish people to reexamine their allegiance to the Democrats, the left, and the reality of the Anti-War movement.
The above link describes an interview with The Big Story With John Gibson, featuring Ariel Cohen a policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation and Brian Becker of the Answer Coalition. This article adequately describes the intrinsic hate on the part of the anti-war movement for Israel run mostly by ANSWER. The group has completely shifted its focus over the past year from wanting the world to be at peace which-you would think should include Israel's happiness-to anti-semitic blaming of Israel for the U.S's problems with terrorists.
A person may question why I would determine that it is anti-semitic on the part of ANSWER to take the side of Palistine, Iran, Hezbollah, or Al-Qaeda. Well these countries leaders and these groups specifically site Israel's existence-period-as a reason for their anger. Never mind that Palistine is a country that any number of Arab nations could help if they did not value it's agitation against Jews, that Iran's leader has stated that he wants to bring about the end of the world, that Hezbollah was founded and funded by the Iranians who hate Israel, and that Al Qaeda is run by extremists who couldn't survive in their home country of Saudi Arabia. My point is that Israel is not at fault for the insanity of these people and extremist groups.
Israel has done everything they can, especially under the dear Ariel Sharon who painfully withdrew his own people and troups from Gaza last Fall to no avail from these corrupt organizations that want nothing but complete demolition of Israel. And it's pretty hard to fault a country for trying to protect themselves. More importantly, ANSWER constantly says the people of Lebanon and Syria like Hezbollah. Well I am part Syrian and Lebanese and my family has traveled there many times and I can tell you that children and families just want to live their lives in peace. And there is no love for a group like Hezbollah which brings this war on them.
The crux of ANSWER's faulty logic is not that they hold Israel to be an equal partner in the conflict because they fight back aggressively. But that ANSWER maintains any action on the part of Israel to defend itself in a WAR is wrong. More importantly, they defend the action of Hezbollah, Iran, and pretty much any other terrorist group that goes after Israel. ANSWER can hold up Jewish peace activists as examples of Jewish disapproval of Israel, but anyone can express disapproval of a country's method for dealing with violence. Anyone can say 'I am not happy with how my country has dealt with this situation' that is completely different from saying that the country is a terrorist group when they defend themselves against people who are obviously terrorists.
I think someone needs to remind ANSWER what the definition of a terrorist is-Webster's anyone?
Worse yet, the group ANSWER is run by FENTON COMMUNICATIONS, that's right, the entire anti-war movement is funded by donor political money from the DNC, Dem lobbying groups, and run by the Left's powerhouse communications firm-FENTON COMMUNICATIONS. Just contact Fenton Communications or go to their website and you will find out the truth. They run Answer's campaigns and their parent groups campaigns.
Not from peace loving hippies who gather of their own free will like back in the 'glorious' 1960's Vietnam movement to smoke weed and practice free love.
And this leads to a disturbing thought, if the movement is run by a large communications firm like Fenton and sponsored by these Democrat donors. That means that this anti-semitic movement, which is what it is since it squarely blames Israel and the U.S. for supporting Israel, is sponsored with money from Jewish people since they are some of the biggest donors to the DNC, it's affiliated left groups and is institutionalized.
It should be no surprise that people like Mel Gibson in drunken stupors say crazy things about Israel-I mean he lives in Hollywood which is by definition soaked in the anti-semitic alcohol of the liberal anti-war movement. He's only saying what I have heard people in Hollywood say repeatedly never realizing the defunct logic and hate they were hashing out. Maybe it's a good thing.
It's definitely time for the Jewish people to reexamine their allegiance to the Democrats, the left, and the reality of the Anti-War movement.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Paris Hilton has got to go!
So, I was tricked for 5 minutes into listening to Paris Hilton's song 'Stars Go Blind' and thinking it was cute. Then I found out it was by her! I was grossed out. Now, it turns out that she STOLE UB 40's song Kingston Town from the 1980's??? I mean really, it took her two years to get a song out and it's not even close to being original, really, just listen to the UB 40 song and it's totally the same song just speeded up a bit. And I doubt she can sing publicly. Just check it out for yourself! This blog has the UB 40 song on it!
http://www.thesuperficial.com/2006/06/07/paris_hilton_stars_are_blind_m.html
And there is the fact that even though she is so obnoxious even this event can't get people totally turned off on her. http://www.stereogum.com/archives/002675.html I need a break from her,
http://www.perezhilton.com/boardroom/viewtopic.php?p=13081&
Really. First she ruins her friendship with Nicole Richie, then Mischa Barton and now Lindsey Lohan. It's quite obvious she can't handle being friends with any females who are successful in their own right. I supposed she still talks to Kimberly Stewart because she's just not that interesting and could never take over Paris' well paid for limelight. It was interesting to watch Paris try to replace Nicole Richie with Kimberly Stewart last Summer for the Simple Life, too bad. Paris doesn't get that talent can't be replaced by PR. I have to say that is actually sad.
That's what makes it all very funny and annoying, Paris Hilton would be nothing without all her family's money and work to make her famous. She would just be a slutty cheap girl who needs a thick layer of lacquer to get her face together every day. Her sister is obviously saner and more talented by her avoidance of the public and her own clothing line.
The most ironic thing is that the one time Paris Hilton did something 'good' and took a stab at political activism-she promoted Puffy Combs 'Vote or Die' campaign?? It turned out she was not even REGISTERED to vote. I think that says it all, I can say she probably single handedly undermined his campaign with that action, it proved everything that was wrong with the idea. And whomever thought she would appeal to the voting audience is nuts.
She appeals to-I don't know-I figure at this point her appeal is more because of her stupidity, her ridiculous and artless sluttiness, and her complete disregard for other people. Case in point, she drives away all her friends. I honestly believe if she died today no one would mourn her but her close family and the paparazzi. And she doesn't know that..I actually speculate that she will die an early death unless she changes her life.
You know, stop partying so much, start doing charity work, develop a sense of the world outside the camera and herself, oh you know-grow up!
http://www.thesuperficial.com/2006/06/07/paris_hilton_stars_are_blind_m.html
And there is the fact that even though she is so obnoxious even this event can't get people totally turned off on her. http://www.stereogum.com/archives/002675.html I need a break from her,
http://www.perezhilton.com/boardroom/viewtopic.php?p=13081&
Really. First she ruins her friendship with Nicole Richie, then Mischa Barton and now Lindsey Lohan. It's quite obvious she can't handle being friends with any females who are successful in their own right. I supposed she still talks to Kimberly Stewart because she's just not that interesting and could never take over Paris' well paid for limelight. It was interesting to watch Paris try to replace Nicole Richie with Kimberly Stewart last Summer for the Simple Life, too bad. Paris doesn't get that talent can't be replaced by PR. I have to say that is actually sad.
That's what makes it all very funny and annoying, Paris Hilton would be nothing without all her family's money and work to make her famous. She would just be a slutty cheap girl who needs a thick layer of lacquer to get her face together every day. Her sister is obviously saner and more talented by her avoidance of the public and her own clothing line.
The most ironic thing is that the one time Paris Hilton did something 'good' and took a stab at political activism-she promoted Puffy Combs 'Vote or Die' campaign?? It turned out she was not even REGISTERED to vote. I think that says it all, I can say she probably single handedly undermined his campaign with that action, it proved everything that was wrong with the idea. And whomever thought she would appeal to the voting audience is nuts.
She appeals to-I don't know-I figure at this point her appeal is more because of her stupidity, her ridiculous and artless sluttiness, and her complete disregard for other people. Case in point, she drives away all her friends. I honestly believe if she died today no one would mourn her but her close family and the paparazzi. And she doesn't know that..I actually speculate that she will die an early death unless she changes her life.
You know, stop partying so much, start doing charity work, develop a sense of the world outside the camera and herself, oh you know-grow up!
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Law and Order Hits Cruise
It's really bad when Law and Order starts using Tom Cruise's neurosis for characters in their episodes. Tonight's episode featured a rock star Derek Lord who encouraged fans to stop using their psychiatric medications. One female high school age fan Jamie Hoskins in particular stops using her bi-polar medications (she's on two) and she ends up accusing several male classmates of raping her. She runs over and kills a young girl and accuses her parent's of ruining her life-all while not taking her medications.
NFLUENCE - SEASON FINALE
10pm 2006-05-16ALL NEW!
The episode the the young girl's trial comes to an end with the placement of the Tom Cruise like character being placed on the stand. This character then admits that he received treatment in a mental institution for depression and received shock treatment which helped him overcome suicidal behavior.
Tonight's show spent time debating the use of drugs, high amounts of treatment vs. smaller more helpful amounts of drugs. It confronted the fact that many people who seek help for their problems by using medications are made into social pariahs by their peers and penalized.
It also pointed out that the Norman Reedus (Tom Cruise) character had no college education-just like Tom Cruise-and that he had only 'read many books' on the subject of psychiatric treatment.
The obvious point of the show being that a celebrity with no medical education or training had no business advocating that fans give up medications and seek alternative treatments. I have to applaud NBC for going on a limb by putting this mock up of Tom Cruise into the the show for their Season Finale.
He just can't avoid the Matt Lauer/Brooke Shields debacle. If people are still talking about this in 10 years it will be an Exxon Valdez type disaster in the Entertainment PR world. Frankly, he deserves it for the irresponsible statements that he made.
NFLUENCE - SEASON FINALE
10pm 2006-05-16
ARE PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS NECESSARY? - In SVU's season seven finale, former rock star Derek Lord (guest star Norman Reedus) goes on a national talk show and lectures about the abuse of psychiatric drugs. Meanwhile, an unstable young woman Jamie Hoskins (guest star Brittany Snow), who loses her virginity, goes off her prescribed medication, gets behind the wheel of a car, and mows down 10 people. As these events are played out in a highly charged way, the argument about prescribed "meds" is challenged. Mariska Hargitay, Chris Meloni, Tamara Tuni, B.D. Wong, Richard Belzer, Ice-T and Dianne Neal also star. TV-14 D
The episode the the young girl's trial comes to an end with the placement of the Tom Cruise like character being placed on the stand. This character then admits that he received treatment in a mental institution for depression and received shock treatment which helped him overcome suicidal behavior.
Tonight's show spent time debating the use of drugs, high amounts of treatment vs. smaller more helpful amounts of drugs. It confronted the fact that many people who seek help for their problems by using medications are made into social pariahs by their peers and penalized.
It also pointed out that the Norman Reedus (Tom Cruise) character had no college education-just like Tom Cruise-and that he had only 'read many books' on the subject of psychiatric treatment.
The obvious point of the show being that a celebrity with no medical education or training had no business advocating that fans give up medications and seek alternative treatments. I have to applaud NBC for going on a limb by putting this mock up of Tom Cruise into the the show for their Season Finale.
He just can't avoid the Matt Lauer/Brooke Shields debacle. If people are still talking about this in 10 years it will be an Exxon Valdez type disaster in the Entertainment PR world. Frankly, he deserves it for the irresponsible statements that he made.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Tom Cruise Has Lost His Momentum
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/08/movies/08impo.html?ei=5065&en=ca7bdb379a6d5553&ex=1147752000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
So the numbers have come back from MI-3's opening week-end and it looks like the movie has done nowhere as well as the last MI-2. It's interesting that the executives at Paramont are denying that anything about the films success has been affected by the star (Tom Cruise) 's antics over the last year.
It is easy for them to deny that Cruise has lost star power , but it is hard to deny in the face of the film's numbers this last week-end. And more imporantly there is no accurate way to know if the film would have done better if it had been made sooner but-audiences seemed excited about the film. There was a large gap between MI-1 and MI-2 and the second still did well.
The problem seems lay with the fact that Tom Cruise has broken his star quality seal. First he divorced Nicole Kidman while she was pregnant and the stress caused her to have a miscarriage. Then there was the weird 'She knows what she did statements' to the cameras and paparazzi about his wife and the divorce which would give anyone the willies.
Then he got into trouble by fighting with Brooke Shields over the use of Anti-Depressants for post partem depression. And he made it worse by getting in Mark Lauer's face on the Today Show and behaving quite frankly like an arrogant dupe. His lack of understanding and sympathy that displayed- arrogance, ignorance and a sense of superiority over the rest of us-turned people off. More importantly, it turned off the biggest audience that has made Tom Cruises' career. WOMEN.
Aaah yes, the power of women at the box office, women of all ages, creeds, and races liked Tom Cruise-he was at least-cute and charismatic who didn't love Joe Cool? Well, all the women who have suffered from post partem depression or known a woman who suffered from post partem depression didn't like his attitude. How about all the husbands, brothers, and sons of these women who felt annoyed by his attitude that really put down their experience with this problem?
Or what about all the Moms, sisters, and wives who have lived with a loved one who depended on Ritalin, or some other mild anti-depressant to control a problem with Depression or ADD? Anyone can argue and some might agree to use less of these drugs, and the argument is reasonable as an opinion. But for a Hollywood actor without a medical degree of ANY KIND, much less a college degree to make the statements this man made over 2005, is career suicide and plain old stupid.
And no one can forget Oprah, his jumping and screaming, his catapulting around stage frankly made me uncomfortable to watch for all it's fakeness. Then there is the quick relationship with Katie Holmes, a woman far younger than him, pregnant out of marriage and to the chagrin of her parent's and the Public. Most Americans may write off Hollywood values as incomplete and silly, but this relationship has pressed too many boundaries and asked too much of Tom Cruises' corn fed midwestern fan base. He appeals to the wholesome and the chipper part of the human psyche-he's Jerry Maguire-not Mr. Vanilla Sky. He just can't get that through his head.
No one would blame him for wanting some freedom but with Katie Holmes looking like a trapped animal-she succors sympathy from his once partial female fan base. She appears to be a trapped woman who has been saddled with a too fast too sudden and too controlling relationship. Her demeanor has become fodder for US weekly and The Soup, shows that appeal to the general population of Women.
Most importantly, Women's interest in Cruise has fueled his career when Men grew tired of him, he was hot and cute, Men admired that woman liked him. He was an action hero that brought women and teens into the theater. The general population ignored the rumors that he is gay and poo poo'd the control of the Scientologists over him. But, he lost all of that when he let his cult the Scientologists run his career for him and became so publicly open about his relationship with them. Maybe the Scientologists can't work with him anymore either-maybe their own tender grasp on him has suffered and failed.
I ate lunch yesterday and 9 out of 10 woman at the table believed Tom Cruise is gay and that Katie Holmes was not pregnant with his child. The one person who did not care is a friend who doesn't go to the movies and cares nothing for Hollywood. The child Katie Holmes carried is maybe a fake or even worse yet, someone elses other than Tom's because as you know-he's been remored to be sterile and his fan base now believes it. The best he could do for his career is give up the charade, back off from films, apologize to Brooke Shields, stop promoting Scientology and his weird relationship with a too young too freaked out Katie Holmes because no one believes him anymore. Heck at this point he might gain back some points with his fan base or get a new one by admitting he is gay. At least that would allow people to write off his weird behavior and forgive him for his actions.
If the President can allow Porter Goss to cry Uncle and leave the CIA to be replaced by a better appointee who can kick some butt to clean up the agency-Tom Cruise can do better too. In the meantime, a huge vacuum of fame has been left open in Hollywood with none of the too young, too imperfect, and not quite ready for superstardom male actors ready to fill the void.
Woman have been isolated by his actions and free to move onto who? Brad Pitt? He's tarnished by Angelina Jolie. George Clooney? He's gone too political. It seems that whenever a famous person looses touch with their base audience who what they do for a living and starts using their fame as a bully pitt-their career takes a dive. Affairs and divorces are actually slightly more forgiveable by the American Public's standards than political and social badgering by the people they trust to help them relax.
Oddly enough the only major Hollywood stars with untarnished reputations these days are Women, namely Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon who have not only garnered the attention of men as attrative women, but gained the respect of a female fan base as likeable and cute people.
Maybe this is all the better for Woman to finally take over Hollywood and gain a better place for equality at this time. In that case, I would have to Thank Tom Cruise for his actions. He may have even done us all a favor.
So the numbers have come back from MI-3's opening week-end and it looks like the movie has done nowhere as well as the last MI-2. It's interesting that the executives at Paramont are denying that anything about the films success has been affected by the star (Tom Cruise) 's antics over the last year.
It is easy for them to deny that Cruise has lost star power , but it is hard to deny in the face of the film's numbers this last week-end. And more imporantly there is no accurate way to know if the film would have done better if it had been made sooner but-audiences seemed excited about the film. There was a large gap between MI-1 and MI-2 and the second still did well.
The problem seems lay with the fact that Tom Cruise has broken his star quality seal. First he divorced Nicole Kidman while she was pregnant and the stress caused her to have a miscarriage. Then there was the weird 'She knows what she did statements' to the cameras and paparazzi about his wife and the divorce which would give anyone the willies.
Then he got into trouble by fighting with Brooke Shields over the use of Anti-Depressants for post partem depression. And he made it worse by getting in Mark Lauer's face on the Today Show and behaving quite frankly like an arrogant dupe. His lack of understanding and sympathy that displayed- arrogance, ignorance and a sense of superiority over the rest of us-turned people off. More importantly, it turned off the biggest audience that has made Tom Cruises' career. WOMEN.
Aaah yes, the power of women at the box office, women of all ages, creeds, and races liked Tom Cruise-he was at least-cute and charismatic who didn't love Joe Cool? Well, all the women who have suffered from post partem depression or known a woman who suffered from post partem depression didn't like his attitude. How about all the husbands, brothers, and sons of these women who felt annoyed by his attitude that really put down their experience with this problem?
Or what about all the Moms, sisters, and wives who have lived with a loved one who depended on Ritalin, or some other mild anti-depressant to control a problem with Depression or ADD? Anyone can argue and some might agree to use less of these drugs, and the argument is reasonable as an opinion. But for a Hollywood actor without a medical degree of ANY KIND, much less a college degree to make the statements this man made over 2005, is career suicide and plain old stupid.
And no one can forget Oprah, his jumping and screaming, his catapulting around stage frankly made me uncomfortable to watch for all it's fakeness. Then there is the quick relationship with Katie Holmes, a woman far younger than him, pregnant out of marriage and to the chagrin of her parent's and the Public. Most Americans may write off Hollywood values as incomplete and silly, but this relationship has pressed too many boundaries and asked too much of Tom Cruises' corn fed midwestern fan base. He appeals to the wholesome and the chipper part of the human psyche-he's Jerry Maguire-not Mr. Vanilla Sky. He just can't get that through his head.
No one would blame him for wanting some freedom but with Katie Holmes looking like a trapped animal-she succors sympathy from his once partial female fan base. She appears to be a trapped woman who has been saddled with a too fast too sudden and too controlling relationship. Her demeanor has become fodder for US weekly and The Soup, shows that appeal to the general population of Women.
Most importantly, Women's interest in Cruise has fueled his career when Men grew tired of him, he was hot and cute, Men admired that woman liked him. He was an action hero that brought women and teens into the theater. The general population ignored the rumors that he is gay and poo poo'd the control of the Scientologists over him. But, he lost all of that when he let his cult the Scientologists run his career for him and became so publicly open about his relationship with them. Maybe the Scientologists can't work with him anymore either-maybe their own tender grasp on him has suffered and failed.
I ate lunch yesterday and 9 out of 10 woman at the table believed Tom Cruise is gay and that Katie Holmes was not pregnant with his child. The one person who did not care is a friend who doesn't go to the movies and cares nothing for Hollywood. The child Katie Holmes carried is maybe a fake or even worse yet, someone elses other than Tom's because as you know-he's been remored to be sterile and his fan base now believes it. The best he could do for his career is give up the charade, back off from films, apologize to Brooke Shields, stop promoting Scientology and his weird relationship with a too young too freaked out Katie Holmes because no one believes him anymore. Heck at this point he might gain back some points with his fan base or get a new one by admitting he is gay. At least that would allow people to write off his weird behavior and forgive him for his actions.
If the President can allow Porter Goss to cry Uncle and leave the CIA to be replaced by a better appointee who can kick some butt to clean up the agency-Tom Cruise can do better too. In the meantime, a huge vacuum of fame has been left open in Hollywood with none of the too young, too imperfect, and not quite ready for superstardom male actors ready to fill the void.
Woman have been isolated by his actions and free to move onto who? Brad Pitt? He's tarnished by Angelina Jolie. George Clooney? He's gone too political. It seems that whenever a famous person looses touch with their base audience who what they do for a living and starts using their fame as a bully pitt-their career takes a dive. Affairs and divorces are actually slightly more forgiveable by the American Public's standards than political and social badgering by the people they trust to help them relax.
Oddly enough the only major Hollywood stars with untarnished reputations these days are Women, namely Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon who have not only garnered the attention of men as attrative women, but gained the respect of a female fan base as likeable and cute people.
Maybe this is all the better for Woman to finally take over Hollywood and gain a better place for equality at this time. In that case, I would have to Thank Tom Cruise for his actions. He may have even done us all a favor.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
United Arab Emirates Agreement on Ports w/ U.S. Administration
Okay, now I can relax on this issue, I agree with what the article says that the Administration would have made the arrangement sound more strict if they had realized what it meant to the public without the information on the private documents from the UAE owned Dubai Ports World.
I still feel scared whenever Jimmy Carter backs up a decision..whatever it is..the man seems to be a harbinger of future trouble. But maybe he would not have supported the President if he knew that the Administration had gone to all this trouble to find out what the UAE port company was planning to do with the ports. Oh yes, I have that little faith in Past President Carter.
Read the article below.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/22/D8FUHNM00.html
Arab Co., White House Had Secret AgreementFeb 22 9:20 PM US/Eastern Email this story
By TED BRIDISAssociated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
1d08c5bfc6d0@news.ap.org The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."
The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.
The concessions _ described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies _ reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.
The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.
Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.
Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.
"We're disappointed," Bilkey told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.
The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.
It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.
Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats, over the sale. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Senate and House leaders urged the president to delay the takeover, which is set to be finalized in early March. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland." House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.
In Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the agreement was thoroughly vetted. "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from," Rice said Wednesday. She described the United Arab Emirates as "a good partner in the war on terrorism."
Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently. The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.
"I think somebody dropped the ball," said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y. "Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information."
At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush learned about the deal "over the last several days," as congressional criticism escalated. McClellan said it did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a government review and was determined not to pose a threat.
McClellan said Bush afterward asked the head of every U.S. department involved in approving the sale whether there were security concerns. "Each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward," he said.
Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez told the AP the administration was being thoughtful and deliberate approving the sale.
"We are not reacting emotionally," Guiterrez said in an interview Wednesday. "That's what I believe our partners from around the world would like to see from us is that we be thoughtful. That we be deliberate. That we understand issues before we make a decision."
___
Associated Press writers Jeanine Aversa in Washington, Anne Gearan in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and John Christoffersen in Danbury, Conn., contributed to this report.
I still feel scared whenever Jimmy Carter backs up a decision..whatever it is..the man seems to be a harbinger of future trouble. But maybe he would not have supported the President if he knew that the Administration had gone to all this trouble to find out what the UAE port company was planning to do with the ports. Oh yes, I have that little faith in Past President Carter.
Read the article below.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/22/D8FUHNM00.html
Arab Co., White House Had Secret AgreementFeb 22 9:20 PM US/Eastern Email this story
By TED BRIDISAssociated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
1d08c5bfc6d0@news.ap.org The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."
The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.
The concessions _ described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies _ reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.
The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.
Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.
Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.
"We're disappointed," Bilkey told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.
The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.
It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.
Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats, over the sale. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Senate and House leaders urged the president to delay the takeover, which is set to be finalized in early March. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland." House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.
In Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the agreement was thoroughly vetted. "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from," Rice said Wednesday. She described the United Arab Emirates as "a good partner in the war on terrorism."
Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently. The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.
"I think somebody dropped the ball," said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y. "Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information."
At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush learned about the deal "over the last several days," as congressional criticism escalated. McClellan said it did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a government review and was determined not to pose a threat.
McClellan said Bush afterward asked the head of every U.S. department involved in approving the sale whether there were security concerns. "Each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward," he said.
Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez told the AP the administration was being thoughtful and deliberate approving the sale.
"We are not reacting emotionally," Guiterrez said in an interview Wednesday. "That's what I believe our partners from around the world would like to see from us is that we be thoughtful. That we be deliberate. That we understand issues before we make a decision."
___
Associated Press writers Jeanine Aversa in Washington, Anne Gearan in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and John Christoffersen in Danbury, Conn., contributed to this report.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Arab run U.S. Seaports
It does seem like an insanely bad idea to allow arab run companies to run U.S. seaports when they cannot be sure of their own employees intentions-heck most of the 9/11 terrorists hate the Saudi royal family-more than the U.S. Just imagine if they had a chance to ruin business for another group of elitest Arabs who are not Wahabi enough for them...and hurt U.S. Citizens???
Does anyone besides me think that if Jimmy Carter is supporting the U.S. decision to let these Arab companies run U.S. seaports that it must be a bad idea?? The man is notorious for letting elections in foreign countries go wrong and supporting foreign government's that treat their people badly.
Or is this just a move by the Democrats to make the President look even worse to his supporters-like the problems with Erhlich and Pataki coming out against this plan aren't bad enough...read the article below..
U.S. SECURITY
Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal
Former President Jimmy Carter downplayed criticism of White House support of an Arab-owned company's purchase of a major seaport-operations firm.
BY LESLEY CLARK
lclark@MiamiHerald.com
WASHINGTON - President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.
But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.
''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''
The show of support from the Democrat, who has not hesitated to criticize Bush, underscores the odd political lines that have emerged since news broke last week that the United States gave the thumbs-up to the $6.8 billion sale of the British firm P&O Ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.
Both Democrats and Republicans have called on the president to scrap the deal. On Monday Republican Govs. George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland questioned the decision. And congressional outrage persisted even as the White House signaled it's unlikely to block it.
Political analysts suggested that challenging the president gives Republican lawmakers a chance to deflect Democratic criticism.
''This is a homeland security, national security issue and I think Republicans think they own this issue and they don't want to give Democrats an opening,'' said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of The Rothenberg Political Report, a Washington newsletter.
REPUBLICANS WORRIED
Republicans said they're simply worried no one was paying enough attention to security concerns.
''After Sept. 11 we can't blindly follow the president in a way that seems to create a homeland security concern,'' said Rep. Mark Foley, a Palm Beach County Republican. Foley said he's working on legislation to give Congress the authority to approve or reject all applications made through the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, the top-secret group that OK'd the transaction.
Port security officials have dismissed the congressional concerns, but Republicans suggest an administration that is usually politically attuned has sorely misread public reaction.
''I don't know if they were tone deaf, but they certainly didn't have a pulse on what people were thinking in terms of security,'' said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican. She and Foley plan news conferences today in Miami. ``We haven't forgotten Sept. 11. I know the president hasn't either, but that has to extend to more than just speeches.''
Traveling with the president, White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Monday repeated the administration's contention that the sale was thoroughly vetted by a ''rigorous review process.'' His comments came after he was asked if Bush was ''comfortable'' with the deal after Sunday morning talk shows featured Republicans criticizing it.
The Port of Miami-Dade is taking a neutral position, stressing that DP World would only be the majority owner in one of three terminals. But Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez said Monday the matter ``raises issues.''
At Miami's port, P&O Ports owns 50 percent of the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Co., which handles about half the cargo containers at the port.
Senate hearings are already planned and Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, vowed Monday to push legislation to block the sale if President Bush doesn't act by March 2 -- the day the sale is set to close, affecting ports in Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, New Orleans and New Jersey, as well as Miami.
Visiting Dubai, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes sought to rebuff suggestions that Congress' criticism is based on anti-Arab sentiment, according to the Associated Press.
''The lawmakers are questioning about security concerns in light of the fact that a couple of the Sept. 11 hijackers did come from the United Arab Emirates,'' Hughes said, adding that the Middle Eastern nation has been ``a strong partner in the war against terror.''
PREJUDICE ALLEGED
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington group that seeks to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims, said some of the reaction smacks of prejudice.
''No one seems to be criticizing the company itself, but they're most concerned with the religion and ethnicity of its owners,'' said spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. ``It's what we have to deal with in the post-9/11 era.''
But lawmakers like Ros-Lehtinen, who is aiming to become the next chair of the House International Relations Committee, were unapologetic about their stance.
''They've been a strong ally, but what about tomorrow?'' Ros-Lehtinen said of the United Arab Emirates.
Miami Herald staff writer Steve Harrison contributed to this report from Miami.
Does anyone besides me think that if Jimmy Carter is supporting the U.S. decision to let these Arab companies run U.S. seaports that it must be a bad idea?? The man is notorious for letting elections in foreign countries go wrong and supporting foreign government's that treat their people badly.
Or is this just a move by the Democrats to make the President look even worse to his supporters-like the problems with Erhlich and Pataki coming out against this plan aren't bad enough...read the article below..
U.S. SECURITY
Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal
Former President Jimmy Carter downplayed criticism of White House support of an Arab-owned company's purchase of a major seaport-operations firm.
BY LESLEY CLARK
lclark@MiamiHerald.com
WASHINGTON - President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.
But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.
''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''
The show of support from the Democrat, who has not hesitated to criticize Bush, underscores the odd political lines that have emerged since news broke last week that the United States gave the thumbs-up to the $6.8 billion sale of the British firm P&O Ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.
Both Democrats and Republicans have called on the president to scrap the deal. On Monday Republican Govs. George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland questioned the decision. And congressional outrage persisted even as the White House signaled it's unlikely to block it.
Political analysts suggested that challenging the president gives Republican lawmakers a chance to deflect Democratic criticism.
''This is a homeland security, national security issue and I think Republicans think they own this issue and they don't want to give Democrats an opening,'' said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of The Rothenberg Political Report, a Washington newsletter.
REPUBLICANS WORRIED
Republicans said they're simply worried no one was paying enough attention to security concerns.
''After Sept. 11 we can't blindly follow the president in a way that seems to create a homeland security concern,'' said Rep. Mark Foley, a Palm Beach County Republican. Foley said he's working on legislation to give Congress the authority to approve or reject all applications made through the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, the top-secret group that OK'd the transaction.
Port security officials have dismissed the congressional concerns, but Republicans suggest an administration that is usually politically attuned has sorely misread public reaction.
''I don't know if they were tone deaf, but they certainly didn't have a pulse on what people were thinking in terms of security,'' said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican. She and Foley plan news conferences today in Miami. ``We haven't forgotten Sept. 11. I know the president hasn't either, but that has to extend to more than just speeches.''
Traveling with the president, White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Monday repeated the administration's contention that the sale was thoroughly vetted by a ''rigorous review process.'' His comments came after he was asked if Bush was ''comfortable'' with the deal after Sunday morning talk shows featured Republicans criticizing it.
The Port of Miami-Dade is taking a neutral position, stressing that DP World would only be the majority owner in one of three terminals. But Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez said Monday the matter ``raises issues.''
At Miami's port, P&O Ports owns 50 percent of the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Co., which handles about half the cargo containers at the port.
Senate hearings are already planned and Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, vowed Monday to push legislation to block the sale if President Bush doesn't act by March 2 -- the day the sale is set to close, affecting ports in Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, New Orleans and New Jersey, as well as Miami.
Visiting Dubai, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes sought to rebuff suggestions that Congress' criticism is based on anti-Arab sentiment, according to the Associated Press.
''The lawmakers are questioning about security concerns in light of the fact that a couple of the Sept. 11 hijackers did come from the United Arab Emirates,'' Hughes said, adding that the Middle Eastern nation has been ``a strong partner in the war against terror.''
PREJUDICE ALLEGED
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington group that seeks to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims, said some of the reaction smacks of prejudice.
''No one seems to be criticizing the company itself, but they're most concerned with the religion and ethnicity of its owners,'' said spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. ``It's what we have to deal with in the post-9/11 era.''
But lawmakers like Ros-Lehtinen, who is aiming to become the next chair of the House International Relations Committee, were unapologetic about their stance.
''They've been a strong ally, but what about tomorrow?'' Ros-Lehtinen said of the United Arab Emirates.
Miami Herald staff writer Steve Harrison contributed to this report from Miami.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)