The Rumors of My Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
I have been working ever so dilligently ay my job and have been unable to post for some time. Many things have happened since my last post. I was in NYC and had quite a few adventures. I got to assemble all of my best friends there.
Also, in my absence, a number of people have contacted me trying to either purchase this blogger address or have me give it to them. Sorry, but no. There can be only one.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Funny Girl - The Face of Stupidity
Babs
Hack intellectual, Barbara Streisand, has apparently struck again. Since she has a new album coming out, she had to get her name out there by appearing on television in an interview with Diane Sawyer. When most celebrities open their mouths, either lunacy or stupidity vomits forth. Streisand shared her feelings on global warming and how that is what is the direct cause of these powerful hurricanes.
"We are in a global warming emergency state, and these storms are going to become more frequent, more intense," Streisand urgently declares.
But Sawyer did not remind Streisand that a Category 5 hurricane struck the Bahamas with 160 mph winds -- when the singer was five years old, in 1947!
And when Streisand was 8 years old, a Cat 5 hurricane -- named "Dog" -- packing 185 mph churned-away in the Atlantic.
When she was 9, a Cat 5 storm named "Easy" ripped the seas with 160 mph sustained winds.
Streisand was 13 years old when "Janet" hit Mexico with 150 mph winds.
Streisand was celebrating her sweet sixteen as "Cleo" formed with 140 mph.
At 18, Streisand read news about "Donna" AND "Ethel" -- both storms carried 140 mph winds and formed 9 days apart in 1960!
One year later, when Streisand was 19, it happened again: Two Category 5 storms scared the world: "Carla" and "Hattie!"
"Carla" maxed out at 175 mph winds the year Streisand made her television debut on "The Jack Paar Show."
And who could forget Hurricane "Camille" -- which smashed into the United States with 190 mph, just as "Funny Girl" garners eight Academy Award nominations, including one for Best Picture and one for Barbra as Best Actress.
Up next on the weather warning watch, Streisand says to ABC: "There could be more droughts, dust bowls. You know, it's amazing to hear these facts."
Streisand has her own blog, replete with numerous spelling errors, to share her feelings on other matters close to her heart, politics. As if she didn't sound mental when she shared those ideas, she now graces the world with more misinformed crap. I loved when John McCain appeared on SNL and sang Streisand tunes in a truly awful way. "Horrible isn't it?" he said, "Kind of like when celebrities tell me how to do my job." Please Babs, just sing your songs and shut up.
Hack intellectual, Barbara Streisand, has apparently struck again. Since she has a new album coming out, she had to get her name out there by appearing on television in an interview with Diane Sawyer. When most celebrities open their mouths, either lunacy or stupidity vomits forth. Streisand shared her feelings on global warming and how that is what is the direct cause of these powerful hurricanes.
"We are in a global warming emergency state, and these storms are going to become more frequent, more intense," Streisand urgently declares.
But Sawyer did not remind Streisand that a Category 5 hurricane struck the Bahamas with 160 mph winds -- when the singer was five years old, in 1947!
And when Streisand was 8 years old, a Cat 5 hurricane -- named "Dog" -- packing 185 mph churned-away in the Atlantic.
When she was 9, a Cat 5 storm named "Easy" ripped the seas with 160 mph sustained winds.
Streisand was 13 years old when "Janet" hit Mexico with 150 mph winds.
Streisand was celebrating her sweet sixteen as "Cleo" formed with 140 mph.
At 18, Streisand read news about "Donna" AND "Ethel" -- both storms carried 140 mph winds and formed 9 days apart in 1960!
One year later, when Streisand was 19, it happened again: Two Category 5 storms scared the world: "Carla" and "Hattie!"
"Carla" maxed out at 175 mph winds the year Streisand made her television debut on "The Jack Paar Show."
And who could forget Hurricane "Camille" -- which smashed into the United States with 190 mph, just as "Funny Girl" garners eight Academy Award nominations, including one for Best Picture and one for Barbra as Best Actress.
Up next on the weather warning watch, Streisand says to ABC: "There could be more droughts, dust bowls. You know, it's amazing to hear these facts."
Streisand has her own blog, replete with numerous spelling errors, to share her feelings on other matters close to her heart, politics. As if she didn't sound mental when she shared those ideas, she now graces the world with more misinformed crap. I loved when John McCain appeared on SNL and sang Streisand tunes in a truly awful way. "Horrible isn't it?" he said, "Kind of like when celebrities tell me how to do my job." Please Babs, just sing your songs and shut up.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Tom Cruise Has Officially Lost It
Once upon a time, there was an actor named Tom Cruise. Despite being marginally talented, untraditionally handsome, allegedly straight, and a midget, he went on to become the undisputed king of the box office. He started off in mediocre films like The Outsiders and Taps and then went on to capture glory in such films as Risky Business and Rain Man.
Tommy
His success continued into the 90s. Everything he touched turned to cinematic gold. Cruise could play the full range of comedy roles, to drama, to action hero, such as his action franchise Mission Impossible. The film Jerry Maguire captured Tom Cruise at his pinnacle. He took a rather unlikable, slimy sports agent and made everyone love him. Tom Cruise grinned his way through yet another movie.
The new millennium has not been so kind to Tommy, as Rosie O'Donnell would lovingly refer to him. His marriage to Nicole Kidman had crumbled and his next ladylove, Penelope Cruz, left him after four years. He made several movies that just didn't have the impact of his previous works: Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia("Respect the cock!"), Vanilla Sky, Minority Report, and Collateral(he played an assassin of all things) as examples.
He made a film called The Last Samurai and it was critically acclaimed. He played a disenchanted Civil War veteran who traveled to Japan to train the emperor's troops to protect the emperor from his former bodyguards, the samurais. Tom Cruise goes from being a Westerner to a samurai. This was a bit much for many observers. All in all a good film, yet it still did not have that Tom Cruise magic.
Tom's latest movie, War Of The Worlds, is upon us. Coincidentally, his whirlwind romance with Katie Holmes has reached a fever pitch and they have announced their engagement. Tom's declaration of his love for this woman has absolutely destroyed his image with him acting nothing short of a Rain Man on Oprah. The man was jumping all over Oprah's couch and pounding his fist on the floor. It gave everyone in the world pause, Tommy had lost his mind.
Oh, Tom
Many critics feel that this relationship was a publicity stunt to draw attention to each of their films. Holmes is starring in the latest Batman film, Batman Begins. A sequel to the great movie has been announced and all of the actors with the exception of Holmes were invited back to reprise their roles. The producers stated that they wanted to go with a stronger actress.
The story of Tommy's descent into madness goes farther. He either cannot or will not refuse to give interviews. He insulted Brooke Shields' belief in psychiatry and prescription drug use for her post partum depression. He was the victim of a prank at the London premier of War Of The Worlds where the pranksters squirted him in the face with a joke microphone. Then he further humiliated himself on NBC's Today Show.
Cruise actually got into an argument with host Matt Lauer on the "pseudoscience" of psychiatry. The topic of Brooke Shields was brought up and Cruise repeated his feelings of her situation. He felt that there was no such thing as chemical imbalance and that mental health can be maintained through various things like exercise and vitamins.
A transcript of the interview is as follows:
LAUER: TOM CRUISE CREATED A FIRESTORM WHEN HE CRITICIZED BROOKE SHIELDS FOR REVEALING THAT SHE WENT INTO THERAPY AND TOOK ANTIDEPRESSANTS TO DEAL WITH HER POST PARTUM DEPRESSION. AS A SCIENTOLGIST, HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN PSYCHIATRIC MEDICINE. I ASKED HIM ABOUT HIS COMMENTS.
CRUISE: I've never agreed with psychiatry, ever. Before I was a Scientologist I never agreed with psychiatry. And when i started studying the history of psychiatry, I understood more and more why i didn't believe in psychology.
And as far as the Brooke Shields thing is, look. You gotta understand, I really care about Brooke Shields. I-- I think here's a-- a-- a wonderful and talented woman. And-- I wanna see her do well. And I know that-- psychiatry is-- is a pseudo science.
MATT LAUER: But-- but Tom, if she said that this particular thing helped her feel better, whether it was the antidepressant or going to a counselor or psychiatrist, isn't that enough?
TOM CRUISE: Matt, you have to understand this. Here we are today where I talk out against drugs and psychiatric abuses of electric shocking people (PH), okay, against their will, of drugging children with them not knowing the effects of these drugs. Do you know what Aderol (PH) is? Do you know Ritalin? Do you know now that Ritalin is a street drug? Do you understand that?
MATT LAUER: The difference is--
(OVERTALK)
TOM CRUISE: No, no, Matt.
MATT LAUER: This wasn't against her will, though.
TOM CRUISE: Matt-- Matt, Matt, Matt--
MATT LAUER: But this wasn't against her will.
TOM CRUISE: Matt, I'm-- Matt, I'm asking you a question.
MATT LAUER: I understand there's abuse of all of these things.
TOM CRUISE: No, you see. Here's the problem. You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do.
MATT LAUER: Aren't there examples, and might not Brooke Shields be an example, of someone who benefited from one of those drugs?
TOM CRUISE: All it does is mask the problem, Matt. And if you understand the history of it, it masks the problem. That's what it does. That's all it does. You're not getting to the reason why. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.
(OVERTALK)
MATT LAUER: So, postpartum depression to you is--
TOM CRUISE: Matt--
MATT LAUER: --kind of a--
TOM CRUISE: --don't--
MATT LAUER: --little psychological gook--
TOM CRUISE: That--
MATT LAUER: --googley-gook?
TOM CRUISE: --no. No. I did not say that.
MATT LAUER: I'm just asking what you-- what would you call it?
TOM CRUISE: No. No. Abs-- Matt, that is-- the-- post-- now-- now, you're talking about two different things.
MATT LAUER: But that's what she went on the--
TOM CRUISE: No.
MATT LAUER: --antidepressant for.
TOM CRUISE: But what happens, the antidepressant, all it does is mask the problem. There's ways of vitamins and through exercise and various things. I'm not saying that that isn't real. That's not what I'm saying. That's an alteration of what-- what I'm saying. I'm saying that drugs aren't the answer, these drugs are very dangerous. They're mind-altering, anti-psychotic drugs. And there are ways of doing it without that so that we don't end up in a brave new world. The thing that I'm saying about Brooke is that there's misinformation, okay. And she doesn't understand the history of psychiatry. She-- she doesn't understand in the same way that you don't understand it, Matt.
MATT LAUER: But a little bit what you're saying Tom is, you say you want people to do well. But you want them do to well by taking the road that you approve of, as opposed to a road that may work for them.
TOM CRUISE: No, no, I'm not.
MATT LAUER: Well, if antidepressants work for Brooke Shields, why isn't that okay?
TOM CRUISE: I-- I disagree with it. And I think that there's a higher and better quality of life. And I think that promoting for me personally, see, you're saying what, I can't discuss what I wanna discuss?
MATT LAUER: No. You absolutely can.
TOM CRUISE: I know. But-- but Matt, you're going in and saying that-- that I can't discuss this.
MATT LAUER: I'm only asking, isn't there a possibility that-- do-- do you examine the possibility that these things do work for some people? That yes, there are abuses. And yes, maybe they've gone too far in certain areas. Maybe there are too many kids on Ritalin. Maybe electric shock--
TOM CRUISE: Too many kids on Ritalin? Matt.
MATT LAUER: I'm just saying. But-- but aren't there--
TOM CRUISE: Matt.
MATT LAUER: --examples where it works?
TOM CRUISE: Matt. Matt, Matt, you don't even-- you're glib. You don't even know what Ritalin is. If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, okay. That's what I've done. Then you go and you say where's-- where's the medical test? Where's the blood test that says how much Ritalin you're supposed to get?
MATT LAUER: You're-- you're-- it's very impressive to listen to you. Because clearly, you've done the homework. And-- and you know the subject.
TOM CRUISE: And you should.
MATT LAUER: And-- and--
TOM CRUISE: And you should do that also.
MATT LAUER: And--
TOM CRUISE: Because just knowing people who are on Ritalin isn't enough. You should be a little bit more responsible in knowing really--
MATT LAUER: I'm not prescribing Ritalin, Tom. And I'm not asking--
TOM CRUISE: Well--
MATT LAUER: --anyone else to do it. I'm simply saying--
(OVERTALK)
TOM CRUISE: Well, you are. You're saying--
MATT LAUER: I know some people who seem to have been helped by it.
TOM CRUISE: I-- but you're saying-- but you-- like-- this is a very important issue.
MATT LAUER: I couldn't agree more.
TOM CRUISE: It's very-- and you know what? You're here on the Today Show.
MATT LAUER: Right.
TOM CRUISE: And to talk about it in a way of saying, "Well, isn't it okay," and being reasonable about it when you don't know and I do, I think that you should be a little bit more responsible in knowing what it is.
MATT LAUER: But--
TOM CRUISE: Because you-- you communicate to people.
MATT LAUER: But you're now telling me that your experiences with the people I know, which are zero, are more important than my experiences.
TOM CRUISE: What do you mean by that?
MATT LAUER: You're telling me what's worked for people I know or hasn't worked for people I know. I'm telling you I've lived with these people and they're better.
TOM CRUISE: So, you're-- you're advocating it.
MATT LAUER: I am not. I'm telling you in their case-- (LAUGHTER)
(OVERTALK)
MATT LAUER: In their individual case, it worked. I am not gonna go out and say--
TOM CRUISE: Matt--
MATT LAUER: --"Get your kids on Ritalin. It's the cure-all--
TOM CRUISE: Matt, Matt.
MATT LAUER: --and the end-all."
TOM CRUISE: Matt, but here's the point. what is the ideal scene for life
TOM CRUISE: Okay. Ideal scene is someone not having to take anti-psychotic drugs.
MATT LAUER: I would agree.
TOM CRUISE: Okay. So, now you look at-- and you go okay. A-- a departure from that ideal scene is someone taking drugs, okay. And then you go, okay. What is the theory and the science behind that, that justifies that?
MATT LAUER: Let me take this more general, 'cause I think you and I can go around in circles on this for awhile. And i respect your opinion ...
MATT LAUER: Do you want more people to understand Scientology? Is that-- would that be a goal of yours?
TOM CRUISE: You know what? I-- absolutely. Of course, you know. And people--
MATT LAUER: How do you go about that?
TOM CRUISE: You just communicate about it. And the important thing is, like you and I talk about it, whether it's-- okay, if I wanna know something, I go and find out. Because I don't talk about things that I don't understand. I'll say, you know what? I'm not so sure about that. I'll go find more information about it so I can-- I can come to an opinion based on-- on the information that I have.
MATT LAUER: You-- you're so passionate about it. And I'm--
TOM CRUISE: I'm passionate about learning. I'm passionate about life, Matt.
END OF INTERVIEW
There's no telling how successful this War Of The Worlds film will be. The one guarantee is that the star that is Cruise's career, much like his reputation, will never burn as bright. The sad thing is, Cruise doesn't realize the more he talks, the more damage he does to himself. Maybe the universal rule of movie theatres is something that Cruise should observe rather than the scriptures of his Scientology - Silence Is Golden.
Once upon a time, there was an actor named Tom Cruise. Despite being marginally talented, untraditionally handsome, allegedly straight, and a midget, he went on to become the undisputed king of the box office. He started off in mediocre films like The Outsiders and Taps and then went on to capture glory in such films as Risky Business and Rain Man.
His success continued into the 90s. Everything he touched turned to cinematic gold. Cruise could play the full range of comedy roles, to drama, to action hero, such as his action franchise Mission Impossible. The film Jerry Maguire captured Tom Cruise at his pinnacle. He took a rather unlikable, slimy sports agent and made everyone love him. Tom Cruise grinned his way through yet another movie.
The new millennium has not been so kind to Tommy, as Rosie O'Donnell would lovingly refer to him. His marriage to Nicole Kidman had crumbled and his next ladylove, Penelope Cruz, left him after four years. He made several movies that just didn't have the impact of his previous works: Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia("Respect the cock!"), Vanilla Sky, Minority Report, and Collateral(he played an assassin of all things) as examples.
He made a film called The Last Samurai and it was critically acclaimed. He played a disenchanted Civil War veteran who traveled to Japan to train the emperor's troops to protect the emperor from his former bodyguards, the samurais. Tom Cruise goes from being a Westerner to a samurai. This was a bit much for many observers. All in all a good film, yet it still did not have that Tom Cruise magic.
Tom's latest movie, War Of The Worlds, is upon us. Coincidentally, his whirlwind romance with Katie Holmes has reached a fever pitch and they have announced their engagement. Tom's declaration of his love for this woman has absolutely destroyed his image with him acting nothing short of a Rain Man on Oprah. The man was jumping all over Oprah's couch and pounding his fist on the floor. It gave everyone in the world pause, Tommy had lost his mind.
Many critics feel that this relationship was a publicity stunt to draw attention to each of their films. Holmes is starring in the latest Batman film, Batman Begins. A sequel to the great movie has been announced and all of the actors with the exception of Holmes were invited back to reprise their roles. The producers stated that they wanted to go with a stronger actress.
The story of Tommy's descent into madness goes farther. He either cannot or will not refuse to give interviews. He insulted Brooke Shields' belief in psychiatry and prescription drug use for her post partum depression. He was the victim of a prank at the London premier of War Of The Worlds where the pranksters squirted him in the face with a joke microphone. Then he further humiliated himself on NBC's Today Show.
Cruise actually got into an argument with host Matt Lauer on the "pseudoscience" of psychiatry. The topic of Brooke Shields was brought up and Cruise repeated his feelings of her situation. He felt that there was no such thing as chemical imbalance and that mental health can be maintained through various things like exercise and vitamins.
A transcript of the interview is as follows:
LAUER: TOM CRUISE CREATED A FIRESTORM WHEN HE CRITICIZED BROOKE SHIELDS FOR REVEALING THAT SHE WENT INTO THERAPY AND TOOK ANTIDEPRESSANTS TO DEAL WITH HER POST PARTUM DEPRESSION. AS A SCIENTOLGIST, HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN PSYCHIATRIC MEDICINE. I ASKED HIM ABOUT HIS COMMENTS.
CRUISE: I've never agreed with psychiatry, ever. Before I was a Scientologist I never agreed with psychiatry. And when i started studying the history of psychiatry, I understood more and more why i didn't believe in psychology.
And as far as the Brooke Shields thing is, look. You gotta understand, I really care about Brooke Shields. I-- I think here's a-- a-- a wonderful and talented woman. And-- I wanna see her do well. And I know that-- psychiatry is-- is a pseudo science.
MATT LAUER: But-- but Tom, if she said that this particular thing helped her feel better, whether it was the antidepressant or going to a counselor or psychiatrist, isn't that enough?
TOM CRUISE: Matt, you have to understand this. Here we are today where I talk out against drugs and psychiatric abuses of electric shocking people (PH), okay, against their will, of drugging children with them not knowing the effects of these drugs. Do you know what Aderol (PH) is? Do you know Ritalin? Do you know now that Ritalin is a street drug? Do you understand that?
MATT LAUER: The difference is--
(OVERTALK)
TOM CRUISE: No, no, Matt.
MATT LAUER: This wasn't against her will, though.
TOM CRUISE: Matt-- Matt, Matt, Matt--
MATT LAUER: But this wasn't against her will.
TOM CRUISE: Matt, I'm-- Matt, I'm asking you a question.
MATT LAUER: I understand there's abuse of all of these things.
TOM CRUISE: No, you see. Here's the problem. You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do.
MATT LAUER: Aren't there examples, and might not Brooke Shields be an example, of someone who benefited from one of those drugs?
TOM CRUISE: All it does is mask the problem, Matt. And if you understand the history of it, it masks the problem. That's what it does. That's all it does. You're not getting to the reason why. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.
(OVERTALK)
MATT LAUER: So, postpartum depression to you is--
TOM CRUISE: Matt--
MATT LAUER: --kind of a--
TOM CRUISE: --don't--
MATT LAUER: --little psychological gook--
TOM CRUISE: That--
MATT LAUER: --googley-gook?
TOM CRUISE: --no. No. I did not say that.
MATT LAUER: I'm just asking what you-- what would you call it?
TOM CRUISE: No. No. Abs-- Matt, that is-- the-- post-- now-- now, you're talking about two different things.
MATT LAUER: But that's what she went on the--
TOM CRUISE: No.
MATT LAUER: --antidepressant for.
TOM CRUISE: But what happens, the antidepressant, all it does is mask the problem. There's ways of vitamins and through exercise and various things. I'm not saying that that isn't real. That's not what I'm saying. That's an alteration of what-- what I'm saying. I'm saying that drugs aren't the answer, these drugs are very dangerous. They're mind-altering, anti-psychotic drugs. And there are ways of doing it without that so that we don't end up in a brave new world. The thing that I'm saying about Brooke is that there's misinformation, okay. And she doesn't understand the history of psychiatry. She-- she doesn't understand in the same way that you don't understand it, Matt.
MATT LAUER: But a little bit what you're saying Tom is, you say you want people to do well. But you want them do to well by taking the road that you approve of, as opposed to a road that may work for them.
TOM CRUISE: No, no, I'm not.
MATT LAUER: Well, if antidepressants work for Brooke Shields, why isn't that okay?
TOM CRUISE: I-- I disagree with it. And I think that there's a higher and better quality of life. And I think that promoting for me personally, see, you're saying what, I can't discuss what I wanna discuss?
MATT LAUER: No. You absolutely can.
TOM CRUISE: I know. But-- but Matt, you're going in and saying that-- that I can't discuss this.
MATT LAUER: I'm only asking, isn't there a possibility that-- do-- do you examine the possibility that these things do work for some people? That yes, there are abuses. And yes, maybe they've gone too far in certain areas. Maybe there are too many kids on Ritalin. Maybe electric shock--
TOM CRUISE: Too many kids on Ritalin? Matt.
MATT LAUER: I'm just saying. But-- but aren't there--
TOM CRUISE: Matt.
MATT LAUER: --examples where it works?
TOM CRUISE: Matt. Matt, Matt, you don't even-- you're glib. You don't even know what Ritalin is. If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, okay. That's what I've done. Then you go and you say where's-- where's the medical test? Where's the blood test that says how much Ritalin you're supposed to get?
MATT LAUER: You're-- you're-- it's very impressive to listen to you. Because clearly, you've done the homework. And-- and you know the subject.
TOM CRUISE: And you should.
MATT LAUER: And-- and--
TOM CRUISE: And you should do that also.
MATT LAUER: And--
TOM CRUISE: Because just knowing people who are on Ritalin isn't enough. You should be a little bit more responsible in knowing really--
MATT LAUER: I'm not prescribing Ritalin, Tom. And I'm not asking--
TOM CRUISE: Well--
MATT LAUER: --anyone else to do it. I'm simply saying--
(OVERTALK)
TOM CRUISE: Well, you are. You're saying--
MATT LAUER: I know some people who seem to have been helped by it.
TOM CRUISE: I-- but you're saying-- but you-- like-- this is a very important issue.
MATT LAUER: I couldn't agree more.
TOM CRUISE: It's very-- and you know what? You're here on the Today Show.
MATT LAUER: Right.
TOM CRUISE: And to talk about it in a way of saying, "Well, isn't it okay," and being reasonable about it when you don't know and I do, I think that you should be a little bit more responsible in knowing what it is.
MATT LAUER: But--
TOM CRUISE: Because you-- you communicate to people.
MATT LAUER: But you're now telling me that your experiences with the people I know, which are zero, are more important than my experiences.
TOM CRUISE: What do you mean by that?
MATT LAUER: You're telling me what's worked for people I know or hasn't worked for people I know. I'm telling you I've lived with these people and they're better.
TOM CRUISE: So, you're-- you're advocating it.
MATT LAUER: I am not. I'm telling you in their case-- (LAUGHTER)
(OVERTALK)
MATT LAUER: In their individual case, it worked. I am not gonna go out and say--
TOM CRUISE: Matt--
MATT LAUER: --"Get your kids on Ritalin. It's the cure-all--
TOM CRUISE: Matt, Matt.
MATT LAUER: --and the end-all."
TOM CRUISE: Matt, but here's the point. what is the ideal scene for life
TOM CRUISE: Okay. Ideal scene is someone not having to take anti-psychotic drugs.
MATT LAUER: I would agree.
TOM CRUISE: Okay. So, now you look at-- and you go okay. A-- a departure from that ideal scene is someone taking drugs, okay. And then you go, okay. What is the theory and the science behind that, that justifies that?
MATT LAUER: Let me take this more general, 'cause I think you and I can go around in circles on this for awhile. And i respect your opinion ...
MATT LAUER: Do you want more people to understand Scientology? Is that-- would that be a goal of yours?
TOM CRUISE: You know what? I-- absolutely. Of course, you know. And people--
MATT LAUER: How do you go about that?
TOM CRUISE: You just communicate about it. And the important thing is, like you and I talk about it, whether it's-- okay, if I wanna know something, I go and find out. Because I don't talk about things that I don't understand. I'll say, you know what? I'm not so sure about that. I'll go find more information about it so I can-- I can come to an opinion based on-- on the information that I have.
MATT LAUER: You-- you're so passionate about it. And I'm--
TOM CRUISE: I'm passionate about learning. I'm passionate about life, Matt.
END OF INTERVIEW
There's no telling how successful this War Of The Worlds film will be. The one guarantee is that the star that is Cruise's career, much like his reputation, will never burn as bright. The sad thing is, Cruise doesn't realize the more he talks, the more damage he does to himself. Maybe the universal rule of movie theatres is something that Cruise should observe rather than the scriptures of his Scientology - Silence Is Golden.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Sorry About Your Home But We Need To Build a Stripmall
Unfortunately for the American people, the US Supreme Court got it wrong today. Deciding 5-4, people's private homes and businesses, even against their will, may be seized for private economic development. The justices stated that local officials best know how to help cities.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the voice of reason in this case. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist were in agreement.
Unfortunately for the American people, the US Supreme Court got it wrong today. Deciding 5-4, people's private homes and businesses, even against their will, may be seized for private economic development. The justices stated that local officials best know how to help cities.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the voice of reason in this case. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist were in agreement.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Star Wars III: Return Of the Wow
I had the pleasure of seeing the new Star Wars movie this afternoon. While quite enjoyable, this movie had to tie up a lot of loose ends and it managed to successfully do so. However, there were some problems that Lucas could not overcome.
Firstly, Hayden Christensen still cannot act. While his performance was an improvement over the previous one, he still delivers his lines like a third stand-in performer in a high school play. He is actually better in films without the Star Wars moniker. His "Nooooo" scene at the end of the film,complete with exaggerated hand gestures, is just awful. The scene would have been better with him asking about Padme, learning of her demise, and then coldly asking what his master's bidding was. This unintentionally painful scene leads me to my next point.
George Lucas writes horrible dialog. People do not actually speak to one another like they do in a Star Wars film. Natalie Portman, a talented actress, sounded like an absolute moron in Star Wars II. The lines between the two fateful lovers are painful to listen to. I don't remember the original films, IV, V, and VI having such bad dialog. Then again, as a whole, those films had much better actors.
One thing that I could not understand was how Padme died. They explained that it was of a broken heart. You mean to tell me that in this futuristic time, despite all sorts of medical advances(robotic prosthetics, the Force, etc.) that a perfectly healthy person, in a hospital surrounded by medical droids, can just up and die? It's 2005 and they could keep Terri Schiavo alive seemingly forever.
I thought this was a wonderful movie. It has already set box office records for opening day and I can imagine will be the highest grossing movie of all time. It's sad that there are to be no more movies in a galaxy, far, far away. Lucas has scrapped the plans of making episodes VII, VIII, and IX. Tragic, as there would be so much Boba Fett.
I had the pleasure of seeing the new Star Wars movie this afternoon. While quite enjoyable, this movie had to tie up a lot of loose ends and it managed to successfully do so. However, there were some problems that Lucas could not overcome.
Firstly, Hayden Christensen still cannot act. While his performance was an improvement over the previous one, he still delivers his lines like a third stand-in performer in a high school play. He is actually better in films without the Star Wars moniker. His "Nooooo" scene at the end of the film,complete with exaggerated hand gestures, is just awful. The scene would have been better with him asking about Padme, learning of her demise, and then coldly asking what his master's bidding was. This unintentionally painful scene leads me to my next point.
George Lucas writes horrible dialog. People do not actually speak to one another like they do in a Star Wars film. Natalie Portman, a talented actress, sounded like an absolute moron in Star Wars II. The lines between the two fateful lovers are painful to listen to. I don't remember the original films, IV, V, and VI having such bad dialog. Then again, as a whole, those films had much better actors.
One thing that I could not understand was how Padme died. They explained that it was of a broken heart. You mean to tell me that in this futuristic time, despite all sorts of medical advances(robotic prosthetics, the Force, etc.) that a perfectly healthy person, in a hospital surrounded by medical droids, can just up and die? It's 2005 and they could keep Terri Schiavo alive seemingly forever.
I thought this was a wonderful movie. It has already set box office records for opening day and I can imagine will be the highest grossing movie of all time. It's sad that there are to be no more movies in a galaxy, far, far away. Lucas has scrapped the plans of making episodes VII, VIII, and IX. Tragic, as there would be so much Boba Fett.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
The Election Is Over But the Badmouthing & Bitching Continue
It has been a week since George W. Bush won the presidency over John Kerry. I stayed up late watching the results but my prediction of Bush running away with the election was announced many, many months ago. John Kerry, in my opinion, is just not capable of inspiring people to do anything. I thought Edwards was very affable, but Kerry managed to put me to sleep whenever he opened his mouth.
Four years ago, Bush just barely won the presidency. Gore, a competitor with Kerry for most boring human alive or dead, won the popular vote but not the necessary electoral college votes. The debacle of hanging chads and seemingly moronic Floridians cast doubt on the results and there were numerous lawsuits.
There was a pall over Bush's first four years with people like jackass, propagandist filmmaker Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand claiming that W. stole the election in 2000. Well, in 2004 the people spoke very clearly and Bush beat Kerry by 3.6 million popular and 20 something electoral college votes. The people spoke very clearly and selected a man who despite making mistakes, actually has beliefs and stands up for them. Kerry doesn't actually stand for anything that doesn't have an opinion poll attached to it. The people saw this and voted accordingly. Democrats lost important positions all over this country. Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader in congress lost his seat.
So, to all of the bitter people who refuse to concede that their candidate was beaten fair and square; admit that their party has greater problems with being out of touch with the rest of the country; and that people like Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, and Leonardo di Caprio should just shut the hell up and stay out of politics; I say:
It has been a week since George W. Bush won the presidency over John Kerry. I stayed up late watching the results but my prediction of Bush running away with the election was announced many, many months ago. John Kerry, in my opinion, is just not capable of inspiring people to do anything. I thought Edwards was very affable, but Kerry managed to put me to sleep whenever he opened his mouth.
Four years ago, Bush just barely won the presidency. Gore, a competitor with Kerry for most boring human alive or dead, won the popular vote but not the necessary electoral college votes. The debacle of hanging chads and seemingly moronic Floridians cast doubt on the results and there were numerous lawsuits.
There was a pall over Bush's first four years with people like jackass, propagandist filmmaker Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand claiming that W. stole the election in 2000. Well, in 2004 the people spoke very clearly and Bush beat Kerry by 3.6 million popular and 20 something electoral college votes. The people spoke very clearly and selected a man who despite making mistakes, actually has beliefs and stands up for them. Kerry doesn't actually stand for anything that doesn't have an opinion poll attached to it. The people saw this and voted accordingly. Democrats lost important positions all over this country. Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader in congress lost his seat.
So, to all of the bitter people who refuse to concede that their candidate was beaten fair and square; admit that their party has greater problems with being out of touch with the rest of the country; and that people like Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, and Leonardo di Caprio should just shut the hell up and stay out of politics; I say:
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Jon Stewart Brings Down The House
America is quite different from many other countries when it comes to the media. For many decades, the news people used to only present the news and allowed the viewer to decide for himself how he felt about it. In most other countries, that objective system remains in place and allows people to be better informed. This system has been replaced in America by media sensationalism and Jon Stewart has had enough.
With the presidential election being only a couple of weeks away, naturally the media talks about the candidates incessantly. Politics is the word of the day. Each candidate speaking to groups of people of what they will do to improve America's future and fix the problems that currently affect the people. CNN, a cable news channel that broadcasts 24 hours a day, doesn't just broadcast news.
One of its most popular shows is a debate program called Crossfire. On this program, the right and left "debate" back and forth the issues in politics. They analyze and spin whatever gaffes their respective candidates and parties make. The right is represented by Bob Novak and Tucker Carlson while the left is represented by Paul Begala and James Carville. They have a variety of guests on where they can "debate" with them.
I watch this program almost every single day because it's a political version of Jerry Springer. Nothing is ever debated on this show. The hosts argue and yell at one another, talk over their guests, bushwhack their guests, talk about the least important issues possible, make outrageous claims, and most importantly, they never resolved anything on their show.
Jon Stewart, the anchor of the Comedy Central broadcast news spoof the Daily Show, appeared on the program this past Friday. Jon Stewart and his program are quite successful having just won an Emmy and currently have the #1 selling book on the New York Times Best Seller List. He has been a critic of CNN and Crossfire in the past but no one could have expected what would happen on the program.
Stewart was introduced as being either the funniest smart man or the smartest funny man on television. They thought he would come out, plug his book, crack a few jokes, and be the funny man. Instead, they found someone who used the opportunity to be honest about the sad state the media was in. As the 14 minute segment dragged on, it only got worse. It was both beautiful and painful to watch.
A picture of when things were still civil
Stewart started off by asking if they could all just get along. He pointed out that the people of CNN could do so much for the people of this country by calling politicians on their bullshit and really informing the people. Instead, what they actually provide is political theatre. Stewart felt that the media was in fact "hurting America."
The hosts wouldn't actually answer any of Stewart's questions or respond to his challenges. They accused him of being soft on his political guests(Kerry actually appeared on The Daily Show) and that there wasn't a difference between the two programs. Stewart pointed out that his program is in fact on Comedy Central and the program that leads into his is puppets making crank phone calls.
Most of the dialog was between Carslon and Stewart. Carlson was practically pleading with Stewart to be funny. Stewart responded with, "I'm not your monkey." Then Carslon put up a graphic of the questions that Stewart asked Kerry on his show. Why did Carlson have a graphic of this? Was he going to in fact bushwhack Stewart on Crossfire even if things had gone according to plan?
A glimpse of when things turned ugly
Things got so heated that at one point Stewart actually called Carlson a dick. The hosts of Crossfire were totally out of their element with this wise guest. When they tried to counter his questions and statements with their own, Carlson asked about the dildo incident involving Bill O'Reilly. Stewart looked really sad when they did this because they were only proving his point about the sad state of the media in this country.
Recently, there were three presidential debates and a single vice presidential debate. All of them were mindnumbingly boring because all of the candidates with the exception of John Edwards have the charisma of a rotting corpse. Kerry is funny looking, stuffy, longwinded, and just sucks the energy out of a room. Bush is incapable of speaking publicly without giving the impression that he has had some sort of head injury.
In the most recent debate, the candidates pretty much answered the same questions with the same answers. Nothing new happened until the moderator asked this one question: "Do you think that homosexuality is a choice?"
Bush answered by saying that he just didn't know. However, he felt that people shouldn't be discriminated against. Kerry responded by saying that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian and that she would not say it was a choice. All three people grading the debate for CNN, Novak, Begala, and comedienne Jessi Klein from Comedy Central felt that Kerry shouldn't have done that. They each commented on their blogs right as this happened. Kerry's comment is what the media decided to focus on.
In the days after the debate, the Cheneys expressed their outrage that their daughter was singled out by Kerry. Their offense was challenged to be shame by John Edwards' wife. The media couldn't stop talking about it. It was on Crossfire, Hardball, Scarborough, and all the other shows.
This unnecessary but ultimately insignificant comment was taking precedence on the news stations over more pressing issues such as: the war, the economy, the rising costs of healthcare, the deficit, etc.
This is exactly what Jon Stewart was talking about. Rather than talk about the news, the media in the U.S. focuses on something insignificant and sensationalizes it. Mary Cheney's sexual preference is important to no one. The fact that the presidential election is about two weeks from now and the media chose to focus on this is rather disheartening. Stewart chose their forum to bring about change and we can only hope that it comes soon enough. Stewart 2008 does have a nice ring to it.
America is quite different from many other countries when it comes to the media. For many decades, the news people used to only present the news and allowed the viewer to decide for himself how he felt about it. In most other countries, that objective system remains in place and allows people to be better informed. This system has been replaced in America by media sensationalism and Jon Stewart has had enough.
With the presidential election being only a couple of weeks away, naturally the media talks about the candidates incessantly. Politics is the word of the day. Each candidate speaking to groups of people of what they will do to improve America's future and fix the problems that currently affect the people. CNN, a cable news channel that broadcasts 24 hours a day, doesn't just broadcast news.
One of its most popular shows is a debate program called Crossfire. On this program, the right and left "debate" back and forth the issues in politics. They analyze and spin whatever gaffes their respective candidates and parties make. The right is represented by Bob Novak and Tucker Carlson while the left is represented by Paul Begala and James Carville. They have a variety of guests on where they can "debate" with them.
I watch this program almost every single day because it's a political version of Jerry Springer. Nothing is ever debated on this show. The hosts argue and yell at one another, talk over their guests, bushwhack their guests, talk about the least important issues possible, make outrageous claims, and most importantly, they never resolved anything on their show.
Jon Stewart, the anchor of the Comedy Central broadcast news spoof the Daily Show, appeared on the program this past Friday. Jon Stewart and his program are quite successful having just won an Emmy and currently have the #1 selling book on the New York Times Best Seller List. He has been a critic of CNN and Crossfire in the past but no one could have expected what would happen on the program.
Stewart was introduced as being either the funniest smart man or the smartest funny man on television. They thought he would come out, plug his book, crack a few jokes, and be the funny man. Instead, they found someone who used the opportunity to be honest about the sad state the media was in. As the 14 minute segment dragged on, it only got worse. It was both beautiful and painful to watch.
Stewart started off by asking if they could all just get along. He pointed out that the people of CNN could do so much for the people of this country by calling politicians on their bullshit and really informing the people. Instead, what they actually provide is political theatre. Stewart felt that the media was in fact "hurting America."
The hosts wouldn't actually answer any of Stewart's questions or respond to his challenges. They accused him of being soft on his political guests(Kerry actually appeared on The Daily Show) and that there wasn't a difference between the two programs. Stewart pointed out that his program is in fact on Comedy Central and the program that leads into his is puppets making crank phone calls.
Most of the dialog was between Carslon and Stewart. Carlson was practically pleading with Stewart to be funny. Stewart responded with, "I'm not your monkey." Then Carslon put up a graphic of the questions that Stewart asked Kerry on his show. Why did Carlson have a graphic of this? Was he going to in fact bushwhack Stewart on Crossfire even if things had gone according to plan?
Things got so heated that at one point Stewart actually called Carlson a dick. The hosts of Crossfire were totally out of their element with this wise guest. When they tried to counter his questions and statements with their own, Carlson asked about the dildo incident involving Bill O'Reilly. Stewart looked really sad when they did this because they were only proving his point about the sad state of the media in this country.
Recently, there were three presidential debates and a single vice presidential debate. All of them were mindnumbingly boring because all of the candidates with the exception of John Edwards have the charisma of a rotting corpse. Kerry is funny looking, stuffy, longwinded, and just sucks the energy out of a room. Bush is incapable of speaking publicly without giving the impression that he has had some sort of head injury.
In the most recent debate, the candidates pretty much answered the same questions with the same answers. Nothing new happened until the moderator asked this one question: "Do you think that homosexuality is a choice?"
Bush answered by saying that he just didn't know. However, he felt that people shouldn't be discriminated against. Kerry responded by saying that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian and that she would not say it was a choice. All three people grading the debate for CNN, Novak, Begala, and comedienne Jessi Klein from Comedy Central felt that Kerry shouldn't have done that. They each commented on their blogs right as this happened. Kerry's comment is what the media decided to focus on.
In the days after the debate, the Cheneys expressed their outrage that their daughter was singled out by Kerry. Their offense was challenged to be shame by John Edwards' wife. The media couldn't stop talking about it. It was on Crossfire, Hardball, Scarborough, and all the other shows.
This unnecessary but ultimately insignificant comment was taking precedence on the news stations over more pressing issues such as: the war, the economy, the rising costs of healthcare, the deficit, etc.
This is exactly what Jon Stewart was talking about. Rather than talk about the news, the media in the U.S. focuses on something insignificant and sensationalizes it. Mary Cheney's sexual preference is important to no one. The fact that the presidential election is about two weeks from now and the media chose to focus on this is rather disheartening. Stewart chose their forum to bring about change and we can only hope that it comes soon enough. Stewart 2008 does have a nice ring to it.