-
Content count
242 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Community Reputation
0 NeutralAbout golden*girl
-
Rank
Chatter Bug
Previous Fields
-
How did you find ChitChat?
link from another board, dont' remember which one
-
Actually, the law (U.S.) recognizes that when someone becomes a public figure, they give up much of their right to privacy. One of many explanations: http://www.legal-definitions.com/civil-rig...lic-figures.htm And if the law were otherwise, all the stuff we're reading and hearing about his marriage and alleged affairs would be virtually unreportable.
-
This part of his statement bothers me. If he were just a golfer who never did mega endorsement deals because he wanted to stick to some point of honor, I might be able to understand this kind of whining. But he has been all too happy to trade on his name, image, and success, to earn amounts of money most people can barely imagine. And all those skanks he apparently has been hooking up with--would they have been interested in him if he weren't famous and immensely wealthy? He willingly traded away his privacy and anonymity, and he's never complained until now, when things aren't going the way he wants. Maybe he just should've behaved better.
-
Wow. Doesn't sound like much of a party.
-
I'm impressed that she's discussing this openly--I do think it will help other people. Now I only wish that everyone could afford good medical care.
-
Coupla thoughts. This is the Internet era. She is famous; she lets her boyfriend take naked pix. Stupid. So I am wondering about her IQ level, or maybe she has gullibility issues. Something a H-wood actress really can't afford to have. The other thought is that she has a lovely body and I would like to see these pix. I doubt it could really harm her career, post Paris Hilton and those who have followed her example. Sounds pretty tame after sex tapes and cheap crotch shots.
-
I don't think it's just celebs, hedda. Whatever my shortcomings as a parent--and I have many--I've always been a stickler about properly attiring my kid for the weather. Sun hats in the sun, warm hats and a good coat in the cold, raincoat and boots in the rain, shoes he can actually play in w/out breaking his neck, etc. This doesn't mean that I overprotect him--when he's covered in mud and paint and marker and has scraped or bruised himself once or twice, I know he's had a good day of hard playing. But I think I must just be super old-fashioned. Everywhere I go, I see kids who aren't dressed for the elements. They're just totally exposed. I'll never understand it. And it's the exact logical problem you're pointing out that really gets to me ... the parents protect themselves but not their kids. Whuzzat all about? If a grownup is cold or hot or blinded by the sun, it stands to reason that a human infant or child will be, too. But it seems like some people cannot extend their awareness to their kids' bodily needs. It's just common-sense stuff, but I guess sense is in short supply. Example: I have some family friends--smart people, actually--who used to visit us with their son who was then one and a half or two. Once, we went into a FRIGID air-conditioned cafe, and the kid was wearing a thin cotton onesie, and that's it--no shoes, no socks, no hat, no jacket. Any living being dressed that way in that building would've been freezing. So in as inoffensive a way as possible, I asked if they would like to borrow one of my child's jackets or blankets, since the restaurant was so cold. (They were traveling, so it was pretty easy to ask in an innocent way.) But the dad was like, "No, he doesn't need it. He always feels warm." Good Lord. I guess it'd never occurred to the guy that the poor kid felt warm to the touch all the time because he was losing all his body heat. Sadness for the kid.
-
I rarely walk out on a movie in the cinema. The last one was The English Patient. Maybe if it hadn't been so hyped as a Great Film, I wouldn't have been so pissed off at how much it sucked. And then it went on to win Best Picture, which sort of figured. I walk away from/turn off rented movies all the time, though ... too many to list.
-
I'm no Julia fan--I swear she always has acted with her teeth--but having an alcoholic sister-in-law would be a tough, maybe even no-win situation to deal with. I can squeeze out a tiny amount of sympathy ... here it goes ... ploopf.
-
I really think Dita needs to quit commenting on the Manson marriage. I read this interview in the Times magazine piece on Sunday, and most of it was about her style, her house, her stuff. It was formatted as a Q&A--these quotes about Manson were in a different context and were not all smooshed together the way this brief article has treated them. But when I initially read these three responses in the paper, I knew that they would be picked up and spun as more Dita/Marilyn drama. So if I knew that, why didn't she? So ... is it possible that, consciously or un-, she wants to maintain her media association with Manson, because she's afraid that her public profile will sink lower without the connection to him? Or is she just emotionally and psychologically stuck, a la Aniston?
-
From an interview with Tim Gunn at http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/en...nways.html#more Tim's makeover show is coming back, with some improvements: P.S. You can buy a Tim Gunn bobblehead here: https://shop.emmettmccarthy.com/tim-gunn-bobblehead
-
^^^ I just think it's impossible to generalize about how pregnancy affects various women's bodies. My moderate-sized breasts (sorry, BobbyD) didn't gain any more than half a cup size, and that didn't happen until about month 6. Nursing was a different story, but not greatly different. The upside of the lack of growth was that they look the same as they did before I was pregnant. My good friend's boobs probably tripled in size, early on in her pregnancy--it was terrible for her. Possibly good for her husband, though.
-
Not necessarily. I'm thinking turkey basters and Tommy Girl right now. The "made a baby together" language does sound sort of mad-scientist-like.
-
Well, I, for one, feel really empowered by that song about the humps. Who better than a former meth addict with a reworked face to represent "the people"?
-
Actually, they're reporting that they're neck and neck. And Oprah on the campaign trail apparently scared the $%#$ out of Hillary. She dragged out her daughter who has been (up until now) noticeably absent. I see Oprah's involvement as something new - at least at this level of public exposure. But hey, anything goes. This signals some sort of change and we all know we need change! Thanks, MC. I hadn't kept up. Apparently they're neck-and-neck in Iowa, and he's second in New Hampshire and South Carolina. ??
-
Speaking as an American, I don't mind the occasional low-key celebrity endorsement of a politician. But I do think the way Oprah is featuring herself so prominently in sponsoring Obama is unusual and is a bad idea. Since he's behind in the polls, maybe there was a decision by his campaign managers that he doesn't have much left to lose? Because a presidential candidate probably shouldn't appear to be an extension of or propped up by a celebrity, and that's how this comes across, to me, at least.