Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘scarlett johansson’

Apparently the persistence of vision thing nearly unhinged a few of you because after just a few views, Hillary was the first thing you saw in the morning and the last thing you saw at night.  Who knew that blogs could cause retinal burns?

Anyway, only just so many people can beg for mercy before I begin to feel pangs of guilt.  Granted, they were short lived pangs – on the order of two and perhaps as many as three seconds – but they were pangs of guilt nonetheless.  I think it even happened twice.

The implications of that are staggering.  But that is a topic for another post.

So I give you something to soothe those retinal burns.  Clicking on Scarlett makes biggerness.  I think it could be said that she is the Anti-Hillary.

Bis repetita placent – The things that please are those that are asked for again and again. – Horace

Google sent me to someone else’s blog where apparently they got it from somewhere else, probably the place in the lower right corner of the graphic.  Anyway, if Scarlett and Jessica don’t make up for Hillary I don’t know what will.

****

Hypocrisy, get thee behind me, stand next to Vanity – B. Obama

President Barack Obama said the U.S. and its allies had to take military action in Libya to avert a massacre of civilians that would have “stained the conscience of the world.” –  Bloomberg

Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries – the United States of America is different.  –  Barack Obama at the National Defense University in Washington

What about Sudan, Big O?  Done jack or squat about that lately?

Let’s just come out and say “We’re there because of oil.”   Why do people make excuses and apologies for protecting our investments?  I fully support going in there for oil.  What I don’t support is slimy statements about humanitarianism when evidence clearly exists to the contrary.

****

h/t to Soylent Green.  If I understand it right, when you break into a business and threaten to close them down you are supposed to be met with open arms and goodwill, be given soy milk and free-range cookies, and all toke up in one big love-fester.

Fiona Reed who was at Mainshill said: “We were attacked from the minute we entered the site. At no point were we confrontational or threatening, we just wanted to do the action safely so that no one got hurt. First of all huge dump trucks were deliberately driven at us and tried to box us in, then the excavator driver swung the machine’s bucket at us, blatantly disregarding all health and safety rules. Most deaths and accidents that occur on opencasts are because of how dangerous these dump trucks are. A lot of people’s lives were put at risk. We were then pounced on by workers and site security who punched us in the head repeatedly, threw us to the ground and kicked us in the back. They also stole our video camera.”

People’s lives, my dear fruit-bat, were threatened because you broke into a worksite.  By placing yourself there you were endangered.  Had you sat in your dorm room and had another bong hit, with your electric heater powered by coal, you’d have been cozy and warm, just as clueless, but at least safe.

Another Left-Weenie:

We were all threatened with being stabbed by a worker, and the people on the machine were told by an operations manager that as soon as the support had gone they were going to get beaten up. The site manager Steve Griffiths watched all this happen and was totally indifferent to it. Security has no right whatsoever to act like that.  – Jim Slater

Would you believe that you had no right whatsoever to trespass and attack a business like that?

****

Don’t get me wrong.  I cannot stand “The Barefoot Contessa” (Ina Garten).  I think she is pretentious, I think her show panders to people who feel they must compete with others to have the best parties, and I think … well, let’s just leave it at that.

She’s been bashed and vilified for reportedly turning down a little kid’s Make A Wish Foundation request to cook with her not once, but twice.  The LA Times did an article that from what I can tell in the comments did her no favors whatsoever.

Do I think that’s potentially kind of a crappy attitude?  Yep, sure do!   IF SHE JUST PLAIN DIDN’T WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT AND SHE WAS SITTING AROUND SMOKING CIGARETTES AND EATING BON-BONS ALL DAY, BUT I DON’T THINK THAT IS THE CASE.

But can I actually say “Gosh, Ina, you’re really kind of a bitch”?  Nope.  I can’t.

She said no once.  At some point someone had the gall to ask again.

Garten isn’t obligated to say yes nor is she even obligated to explain herself.

Yes, seeing a sick little kid breaks my heart.  It really and truly does.  It’s one of the reasons why I can believe in God and be pissed at Him, because I don’t understand it and don’t feel particularly compelled to relent on that issue.  My problem, I’ll deal with it.  But that doesn’t mean the kid automatically gets the wish.   As the great philosopher Jagger said, “You can’t always get what you want.”

Garten’s publicist said she has many engagements and scheduling makes it impossible.  That should be the end of it. For all anyone knows, Garten may have had a child die of an incurable disease and to do it would be too painful.  Perhaps it’s just too painful regardless.  Perhaps she has a number of charities that she already devotes time and effort to and feels that she can’t add any more.  But it doesn’t matter and people should leave her alone.

The kid’s mother actually made a statement of regret for the problems it has caused Garten:

I had written about our disappointment when we originally found out, but asked everyone in the spirit of Enzo to please just “let it go” and move forward, as I know he has. I know this REALLY hit a strong cord with people, the outrage over this has been REALLY OVERWHELMING. There are so many articles, blogs, radio shows, even a Utube video about this. I want to make it VERY CLEAR we have NO ANGER OR ILL WILL toward Ina Garten. Enzo made his request and she declined, end of that story. As much as I know it has REALLY angered people, she has that right. Furthermore it is not our wish to hurt Ina Garten in anyway.

Hey, Garten is fair game when it comes to her show and the style/substance of it.  But for heaven’s sake, leave her alone about the kid already.

Comments about her that amazed me and just from the first two pages:

Boycott her! And send your letters stating your disapproval and intent to boycott.

Have these people forward the letter to her:
[redacted]

Write to the Onwers of the Food Network to have her thrown off the air:
[redacted]

or call their office and request that her show get cancelled:
[redacted]
Write to her staff and tell them to forward and letter of disapproval and intent to boycott anything she could make a personal profit from:
[redacted]

And once again, another place to announce your boycott and disapproval:
[redacted]

Also, you can call her office and state your disgust and disapproval and intent to boycott:
[redacted]

Also there is a twitter petition going – you have to sign into your twitter and put this link up in your address bar:
[redacted]

Join the fight against greed, pretention, and narcissism.
Thanks!

Posted by: K W | March 26, 2011 at 02:28 PM

Don’t sugar-coat it, KW.  Do you just have nothing better to do than go on a vendetta?

Despite her “heavy schedule” she could have found a time to meet with this boy, like perhaps allowing him to join her as she prepared her “Charity Meal” in the Hamptons for 6 people! If those folks were willing to pay $100,000 each, I am sure they would have loved to have seen her charitable actions at work. That little boy would have been a perfect addition for such an occaision! However, that said…I am positive that her schedule will be offering much more free time in the future, since everyone I know is refusing to watch anything she is on…ever again! There are MANY more popular cooks out there, and she wasn’t that good to begin with. I’ll bet Paula Deen wouldn’t have refused him!

Posted by: Cheri Horgan | March 26, 2011 at 02:21 PM

Cheri – the $100,000 event was a charity event.

Yes, this is an obligation. What is unfathomable to me is if she could not spend time cooking with him then why is there no mention of her sending some kind of goodies basket with a few kind words or books or something. Or, hey, an email takes ten minutes….But a “definite no” is so cold. She should be honored he asked her. I hope more on this story comes out besides the bashing on her appearance and marriage on other website comment pages. Charity work is not the same as this, if a child with a disease asks for you personally, yes you HAVE to do it. I can’t “stomach” watching her show after this even though I havent seen it in a while. Sad all the way round.

Posted by: Anthony | March 26, 2011 at 02:17 PM

A definite “no”, huh?  Did not one adult screen a thing?  Did not one adult perhaps fib a little to protect the little tyke?  You HAVE to do it?  How many hundreds or thousands of requests do you think this lady gets in a year from all sorts of people?

Of course they have an obligation. They have an obligation to be HUMAN. And they are only celebrities because of their fans. How can you let down a six year old baby? How can you live with yourself after that? That poor child.

Posted by: Jenna | March 28, 2011 at 07:59 AM

Not everyone can be Oprah, Jenna, and buy the entire audience a car.  I’m sure she’s quite human and every bit as imperfect as yourself.

“But to disparage her is plain childish and stupid”..
uh… she most definitely deserves it.
To say that the mass media is overreacting is outrageous. This woman is only famous because of fans. And when she offends with such atrocity one of the most important fan that she has, she is going to feel the repercussions of her decision. That is the price of fame. But lucky for her, it does not seem like she’ll be needing to meet any expectations for much longer.
For you heartless people saying that he should get over it, you clearly do not have children of your own. If you were to watch your dying child’s disappointment from the direct actions of such an uncompassionate person, I highly doubt you would be so willing to dismiss his “silly request”.

Posted by: compassionate | March 28, 2011 at 07:55 AM

Pretty sparing of that compassion yourself, compassionate.  What does whether or not she has children have to do with anything?  Some of the kindest people have none and some of the vilest evil fuckers you ever saw walk the earth have multiple children.

What a complete worm she is. She’s a cook not the queen of England, she could take a day off to hep;p a dying kid. I hope everything she does in life from this point on fails as much as she failed this poor child.

Posted by: Bob | March 28, 2011 at 06:56 AM

Nice, Bob, nice.  You would think she’d have dipped the kid in boiling oil for all your vitriol.  The kid is dying, don’t you think there are bigger disappointments in his life than this?  There are other wishes to be granted, just hopefully not yours.

Read Full Post »