Our Celebs in Disgrace film goes from MA & NV to ME…
WHO WILL BE DISGRACED CELEBRITY OF FALL, 2010??
As winter closes in, we face the chilling task of determining Disgraced Celebrity of Fall, 2010. With no overwhelming disgrace favorite, the race is wide open. THANKS for the suggestions so far. Your votes are welcome in any COMMENT on this blog through Dec. 21rst.
One name thrown into the ring: Glenn Beck, whom star blog commenter ‘W’ described as, ‘insane and obnoxious.’ Reader ‘Barb’ points out that Ann Coulter has been off the wall lately too.
The best comprehensive list came from DEB via Facebook: “Mel Gibson (where to begin?) Roger Clemens (liar, liar, pants on fire) Dave Meggett (former darling of giants, pats, jets now sentenced to 30 yrs) Too many criminal politicians to name… (Can you say Chuck Turner? He is insane.)”
Well put, Deb. Blog fave LIVVY got to the point: “My vote, Tony Parker.” Yes, Tony P. at the very least wins this year’s Tiger Woods award for allegedly cheating on a gorgeous loyal wife (my favorite Desperate Housewife, Eva Longeria, who deserves better).
Our blog star CAITLIN spoke passionately for ‘recognizing’ misguided MARIE CLAIRE writer Maura Kelly and her mean-spirited attacks on TV’s Mike & Molly. Caitlin wrote, “Maura Kelly wins the prize for me…Her comments were hateful and disgusting.”
Which disgraced celebrities have you riled up?
(photos: time.com, sparrerblog.com, kirblog.com)
I second Roger Clemens, who should know better.
Thanks Kathy– yep, he had a lot to lose and a lot of fans to disappoint…
I just came across this footage of Glenn Beck explaining Julian Assange’s sex life, using his chalkboard: http://tv.gawker.com/5708677/julian-assanges-sex-life-as-explained-by-glenn-beck
Maybe Glenn and Julian should tie for the award?
HI Caitlin–
Wow, scary stuff! I like the idea of a Glenn & Julian tie–
thanks for alerting us to this double-dip disgrace–
XX Elizabeth
While I’m still having trouble settling on a final vote, I, too, like Caitlin’s idea of Beck & Assange splitting this dubious distinction. For an imaginary trophy symbol, may I nominate the cone of shame? [a term stolen from Lolcatland, which uses it for those giant veterinary shielding collars for ailing dogs & cats). Oy, Caitlin, your link! That's one of those videos after which my brain needs a shower! Beck is a pornographer of the intellect. [And when he gets in his pseudo pulpit, he's one of the soul.] I liked many of the comments on that link, tho– esp. from Hawtpocket: “Glenn Beck’s ‘woman’ voice has molested my ears. It was not consensual.”
Oddly, Beck looks to be defending Julian Assange. As another comment says, Beck’s hatred of the left seems to have been trumped by his hatred of women with a will of their own. I mean, Assange is someone many of Beck’s fellow wingnuts have said deserves assassination! The more, uh, legalistic (?) among them merely want him executed for treason, but I’m pretty sure an Aussie citizen, let alone one whose own country says he’s broken none of their laws, is subject to such a thing.
Not only Assange’s assault complainants, but Sweden (which has yet to charge Assange; he’s just a “person of interest”) has taken an unfair hit here. Beck is basically calling the women liars & unconvincing, unsympathetic ones at that. Sweden stands falsely accused of being a country which considers any unprotected sex to be a crime (if true, how are there any LITTLE Swedes whose papas aren’t in the dock? Esp. given that, I believe, most Scandinavian births are outside of wed”lock.” Ooh, that rimes!) I admit that a rape complaint based on a woman saying “Stop” in mid-act [&, in fact, that's a FALSE & incomplete characterization of the Swedish accusations] won’t impress many prosecutors. But that reluctance to prosecute is NOT based on the law; it’s based on the odds of conviction vs. so much “reasonable doubt.” Many campus rape victims (esp. those assaulted by athletes) face a much worse gauntlet here in the U.S., so I give Sweden points for at least listening better to “alleged victims.”
But back to Assange, I’m generally a strong First Amendmentist [Faux Noise, for ex., should not be "censored" beyond the bounds of the laws of defamation, clear & present danger & broadcast/cable licensing, exc. by the market]. But I have very mixed feelings about the whole WikiLeak debacle, as I do about other recent conflicts amongst people’s fundamental rights. Those incl. the crazed would-be Qu’ran burners, b/c they are TRYING to incite & inflame extremist reaction w/ their ‘free expression’ & b/c they themselves are hiding behind the 1st Amendment to burn BOOKS representing not just expression, but religion. To me that’s MUCH more debatable & inciteful (not insightful) than burning a piece of cloth which in our country is worshiped more idolistically than idealistically. [I've been told that in other countries, even the most patriotic do not tend to speak of defending their flag, so much as defending their compatriots & their ideals-- e.g., Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. And criminalizing the burning of any flag (esp. given that that is also the protocol for respectful disposal of old ones, making the real crime the political THOUGHT behind the act) is seen as absurd.]
Another challenge to my 1st Amendment puritanism is the demented bigots who protest at military funerals w/ vicious signs saying the deceased heroes “deserved” death for “defending a pro-Sodomite govt.” Our local ACLU is defending these tormentors against a recent county ordinance (based, by its authors, ironically, on the right of privacy crafted by good old Justice Bill Douglas & his famous penumbras.) Frankly, this makes me feel QUITE a bit more impervious to any ACLU guilt trips abt donations, b/c I figure if those hate mongering protesters have such a travel budget, why can’t they pay their own damn legal bills? [Almost called 'em "loons," here, but the birds are far too beautiful in looks & song to insult that way.]
But wending back from my usual ramble, to Assange (& his male supremacy spokesman, the Beckhead)… I was already a poli sci wonk when the Pentagon Papers were published & I later studied NY Times v. U.S. in law school. I thus feel as incensed as Lloyd Bentsen v. Dan Quayle in insisting that Julian Assange is NO Daniel Ellsberg. So it REALLY bothers me when Daniel Ellsberg makes the comparison! Disclosing gossipy cables that say no more than we all know about Sarko’s ego or Berlusconi’s tarts, is one thing. Outing intelligence operations (let alone operatives) & key facilities in defense strategies against nuclear, biological, chemical & terrorist warfare is quite another.
Furthermore, some of what I’ve read of Assange’s writings tell me that he’s a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur, if not godhood. His attitudes toward women as his adoring & disposable courtesans, and the cultish hero-worship of his followers don’t reassure me otherwise.
Since my ego does seek validation among the cogniscenti with whom I most agree (& I wasn’t finding it w/ the likes of CREDO, Avaaz or points left), I was pleased to find it in Rachel Maddow. On Letterman, she said, roughly, that she agrees w/ the WikiLeaks idea that she has plenty of questions about our systems of gathering & classifying strategic information [INCL. how & why a lone private had access to so much of it], but that “I don’t want some random Australian taking it upon himself to decide the answers for us.”
Hi Lupins– Thank you for thinking out this knotty issue and for ending with the perfect Maddow words of wisdom. Thanks also for updating me on Glenn Beck– I can’t keep up with all his utterances and I for one am glad I never heard the ‘woman voice’ he does; sounds scary.
I hear what you are saying on Swedon vs. here; it’s such a tough issue but you are right that in a way they are ‘listening’ at least or trying to.
Speaking of Listening: I am taking the liberty of copying your thoughts about Assange and reprinting them, also, in the new COMMENTS of our new post on Disgrace of the Year. I like the way you pick apart this problem and will reply to that one on the new Post–
Cheers and thanks again for so much Food For Thought…
I too was sorry to hear about Tony Parker cheating on Eva Longoria, just as she has some really interesting scenes to do this fall on Desperate Housewives. I love to watch her and agree–she deserves better! So I guess my vote is with Tony.
HI Penny2–
Yes, I agree; Eva is a doll and smart & funny to boot. I’ve been a fan of hers since her days as a femme fatale on The Young and The Restless. But she really shines as Comedienne on Desperate Housewives. Hang in there, Eva! A better more appreciative man will come along…
Thanks for stopping by, Penny2!
I was wondering why the story of how Tony done Eva wrong seemed to lose steam so much faster than the others [well, Tiger's is hard to top, numerically] & whether it was just “infidelity fatigue.” But it occurs to me that Sandra Bullock is seen as America’s Sweetheart, cast either as fluttery, but heart o’ gold Everywoman who triumphs in the end, or as a demanding, heart o’ gold mother figure, whose protégés triumph in the end. Her real-life persona, as Jesse’s sincerely love-struck & adoring wife, was a match. What’s not to love? And the woman JJ cheated with is so hideously unsympathetic. Meanwhile, Eva is stunningly gorgeous & type cast as femme fatale, glamour girl, w/ looks, jewelry, clothes, men, houses, cars & a life far beyond the dreams of mortal women. And, on Desperate Housewives, while she too has that heart o’ gold, she has done her own share of cheating. So, I’m wondering if people, even the gossip media, tend to mistakenly associate the actress with her characters. Glamour, etc, yes, she has it. But, in the couple of talk show appearances I’ve seen, she really is much more down to earth. And, who’da thunk it, domestic! Love to cook, swap recipes, sew, and all that. The anti-Gaby.
And Penny2- true abt Desperate HW. I esp. loved the heavy-handed, inside joke (aired, so clearly written, before Tony’s story came out)– Gaby’s trying to make friends w/ Vanessa Williams’ new character, Renée, seemingly Gaby’s glam-girl superior, married to a big NFL star. But then Renée spills her story of her husband’s cheating, brought on, she says, by all the girl-groupies throwing themselves at him in every city. Gaby sympathizes to the effect: “Oh, my God, being married to a pro athlete must be just HORRIBLE!”
HI Lupins and THANKS for a trio of thoughtful comments– I think I am going to copy your Assange comments into our newest post to consider as we ponder Disgraced Celeb of the Year too–
On Eva and Tony; so true it does not have a Tiger head of steam scandal-wise; sounds like Tony P. did a lot of his ‘cheating’ online. And true, Eva L. is so perfect as Gaby (loved her fling with the Lawn Boy back in the early DH days) that viewers may get confused. (LOVE her and Carlos together and glad that they are allowed to be happy for the nonce…)
John Edwards! I know he’s been disgracing himself for years now, but with the passing of his wife, I can’t help but think of him and growl. The cruelty of his cheating makes Tony Parker’s little affair seem like a little boy pulling a girl’s pigtails on the playground.
Greetings Tart & Soul–
Yes, what a sad story and what a cad. His mistress, Raielle Hunter, tied with John Mayer as Disgraced Celebrity of winter last year. I did a Post on Edwards right after the scandal broke. I was so mad, personally, because at one point I’d sent his campaign money and now wonder if it helped furnish Raielle’s love nest. Poor Elizabeth– RIP!
Thanks for the vote and bracing words– and the Growl!
Elizabeth
I second Elizabeth’s motion of censure — John Edwards betrayed a lot of us, if no one more than brave, wise, beautiful Elizabeth. Also, second TaS’s growl– Just seeing Rielle’s ugly face on your later entry made me growl about their sickening behavior [among the worst being that vicious, hideous woman saying that "Johnny" said he'd be free to marry her as soon as his wife died! And if he did say that, how exponentially worse!]
I even get irritated at the media’s now universal short cut phrase, “his affair with a campaign worker.” NO, so NOT! If she had been that to begin with, in his constant periphery [Monica Lewinsky, anyone?], it would still have been tawdry, but much more mundane, even, gag, understandable, in an ego-driven pretty-boy. NO, his corruption extended beyond the physical, moral & personal, into the financial. She was a barfly (as a “socialite,” she gets an upgrade from b-girl to a fly) pick-up! Anyone but me see her “work,” which they actually put on Youtube to “humanize” John, before it got taken down? No qualifications whatsoever- my kids did better stuff in h.s. Hell, my younger cousin’s kid did better in primary school. Johnny-boy BROUGHT her, totally pretextually INTO his campaign, as a cover for her to travel with him & for him to funnel her money– which makes her, uh, “profession” FAR, FAR older than “campaign worker.”
Aw, zut, alors! This one was just going to be a one-liner! Shows to go you that we get maddest at those who make us feel foolish for believing in them. Also the truth in that annoying SNL comedienne character’s catch phrase, “Don’t EVEN get me started!”
Greetings again Lupins–
Yes, I too cannot get CLOSURE on this whole sordid affair. So true about beautiful wise Elizabeth (RIP), whose obvious loyalty and value make this one so hard to ‘get past.’ And yes, Rielle was no innocent intern here. Not only could a high school kid do better videos, a high school kid or anyone off the street could have spotted her for what she was…
That’s one aspect of this I still can’t accept: the sheer STUPIDITY of Edwards chosing THAT woman at THAT time (crucial run for White House, actually Had a Chance…) Unreal hubris. I will say he looked sad and worn out at the funeral. I hope reports are true that he is a good dad to those kids; that’s all he can do now with his life, or so say I.
But no need to apologize– we are all (or many of us) still ‘processing’ this one!