According to Cormar Carpets, a new carpet in a fashionable shade is the key to putting a stamp on your home interior.
According to new research from Thérapie Clinic, the majority of Irish (58 per cent) are uncomfortable with starting to look older and almost half (47 per cent) would consider anti-wrinkle injections and dermal fillers to counteract this.
Well, I must say my appearance on Faith Under Fire did not go well. The guest I was debating, via satellite hookup, was a guy named Frank Pastore, a former pitcher for the Cincinnati Reds, who apparently decided god exists because he experienced people praying for him in great earnestness.
What a rude man! In fact, he was so rude to me on the show that the host, Lee Strobel, and the exec producer, along with a gaggle of producers and other crew, all gathered around me after the show and repeatedly apologized for how he behaved.
The show started with Lee asking me a question: why I don't believe in god. "For the same reason I don't believe in Santa or the Easter bunny," I responded, "Because there's no proof any of them exist." Strobel then asked Pastore a question. Pastore responded -- uninterrupted by me, of course, since it would have been RUDE to break in. Strobel asked me a question. I began to answer when Pastore interrupted me and started talking over me. I politely asked that he let me talk. Again and again. He interrupted me again, and again, and again. And he just kept repeating the same long barrage about proof there is a god -- without ever actually offering any -- then berated me about what kind of proof I'd need, yet never let me respond. Every time Strobel would ask me a question, I could barely get a few words out when Pastore would cut in. What a bully. Equally disturbing, while I addressed my remarks to the topic of belief or lack of belief in god, Pastore made it personal, attacking me repeatedly -- down to sneering about my column name, The Advice Goddess. (It's a joke, dude.)
Twice, I said I was about to unhook my mic and walk out, and Strobel did his best to try to civilize the discussion each time -- but to no avail. Pastore's rudeness was really unfortunate, because this could have been an interesting discussion -- but there was no discussion whatsover -- just a bully shouting over me and making derogatory remarks about me instead of sticking to the topic.
I apologize again that the other guest was so aggressive and obnoxious. We had no idea that that was the way it was going to go down.
Meanwhile, you were able to maintain your composure with dignity and femininity in stark contrast to Frank�s demeanor during this segment.
Thanks -- I really appreciate that. You guys were all very nice and professional. Thanks for having me on. I'd be happy to come back some time for some intelligent debate -- with somebody capable of having one. Sadly, I could have had a very intelligent conversation, I think, with Lee -- who has a similar point of view as Frank, but was very gentile in his manner of disagreeing with me. All the best, -Amy
How horrible. That sort of imbecilic behaviour does *not* make good TV. They'll very likely scrap the show.
Yeah. And it's unfortunate, too, because it could have been a good segment. I had a similar experience with Dennis Prager, another fundamentalist bully. He talked over me repeatedly as well. Danielle Crittendon did the same -- both on Cybille Shepherd's old talk show. I finallly turned to her and said, "You're rude!" The crew afterward told me they were all cheering in the background after I did that. What's interesting is that I mentioned this worry to the producers in the beginning -- that men have more boomy voices than women, and that I hoped somebody would caution the guy to have an even, polite exchange. Good intuition, I guess, on my part! Unfortunately, it's a little late to teach a grown manner the rudiments of polite conversation the day of a TV show.
First, kindness is peceived as weakness and the most strident is probably right. These aren't true of course, but in the low brow eye of the public, they are thought of as being generally true.
never let that stand. Never. You must immediately counter attack and keep talking till you have the floor back. Waiting, acting with class and decorum has no place on modern TV. I would keep talking regardless of what the host said until I had the floor wrestled back from him. Then turn to the host and chastise pastore for the host. If I was in the same studio with pastore I would have walked over and bitch slapped him, but that's me.
You've got to know from the onset, it's not going to be a civil exchange. know that. In the end, rightly or wrongly, the pesron that will be perceived as the winner will be the one that presents their ideas more forcefully, more stridently. Be ready to absolutely attack. The producers, despite what they say in their polite notes, love controversy, it's good for ratings.
Recommend me to the producers, put me there with pastore. I'd walk over and pull the mic out of his hand, and tell him to shut his mouth.
The weenie wasn't in the same studio -- perhaps a big reason he felt comfortable to be completely rude. I know what you're saying -- and I can tussle with the best of them -- and have, on Politically Incorrect and other shows. You have no idea -- this went way beyond the pale. Part of the problem was that he was in another studio. Made him feel he had even more license to show what a boor he is. This was way beyond winning a debate. They never apologize for other guests in television. This was outrageous.
being the girl that was run over by pastore and praeger or the red-headed bitch that slapped praeger and pastore down? Create some headlines of your own. remember, as long as they spell your name right. History and TV for that matter, don't favor the slapped down, only the slappers. Career wise, be ready and on the lookout for ANY situation that you can turn to your advantage. Go on fifty TV shows, be just another polite talking head, disappear. Go on Leno, walk over tilt his head back French kiss him, people are talking about it for weeks and you're remembered. It's simply the way it is.
I might have said in the recommended booming and forceful voice if the god pastore believed in wouldn't be terrible disappointed at his fucking boorishness, and suggest that someone way down below was already stoking the eternal fire for his arrival.
You're absolutely right-- and I did say something like that, although I don't have a tape of the thing and it probably won't air. Pax, by the way (the network airing the show), doesn't pay talent -- unlike all the other shows that bring you on. What Would Jesus Do? Apparently, ask you to work for free. The heathens -- Dennis Miller, Bill Maher, etc. pay well.
If you're 15, and a role model for millions of girls, and still look like a child, can you maybe wait a few years before you pose semi-naked (and looking ridiculous in red lipstick) for Annie Liebovitz?
Ah the Daily Mail. Don't get me wrong I think this wasn't the smartest move the young lady could have made. But I always find it funny that the most right wing nut basket newspaper that bemoans the lack of modern morality and constantly bangs on about the pedos under the bed and infesting the internet... (deep breath) just loves to print pictures like this.
Gaah. She's not looking ridiculous, but she does look like she's a youngster out of her depth an an adult world. I'd say that photo borders on child abuse. It certainly makes me feel icky. Ewww.
Well, the original photo spread is supposed to be in the upcoming issue of Vanity Fair; even Miley herself is supposedly not happy about it:
So, I can be found watching Hannah Montana (because I do have two daughters in the age range!), and yeah, I do hope she and mom and dad figure out how to navigate the world of a billion dollars and a billion paparazi. Because that would be a very good thing for her, and she honestly does seem to be very talented, as singer, comedian, and actor.
(It's not the silly lipstick, or all the bones on her back that bother me about the photo. It's those things plus the unattractive hair.... The whole photo is a mess and should've been left in the wastebin.)
Yup, it's a blunder. The pictures are dead-average but the very fact that they took place is a tad disturbing.
This remembers me the mess Vanessa Anne Hudgens got herself into a while ago. Like Miley, she's a Protégée of the Disney Corporation. She also got some nude pictures that surfaced. I have a weird feeling that somebody is sleeping on the job...
The semi-nude, "come-hither" pose photographed by Annie Leibovitz. Haven't we seen this before? I always thought Leibovitz was overrated, and now I'm certain of it. This counts for originality?
And how predictable. Since there are no doubt millions of Miley Cyrus pix in circulation, one more photo, even captured by Leibovitz, was likely to draw snores. So, how to create some buzz? Got it! Let's introduce an element of sexuality to a 15 year old girl who had up till now built a career on a wholesome image. That'll do it!
That's not cool. What's weird is that she comes from a showbiz family (her dad is the bemulleted Billy Ray Cyrus, of "Achy Breaky Heart" fame). You figure someone involved in her career would have the sophistication to avoid this. Let's hope this isn't the first step towards Spears-dom for her.
well, yeah, unless the deal is that this is the exposure they actually want. Sure, everyone has to say that they oppose such things [with a wink] but it does increase ratings, and sell papers, no? Who is under the delusion that this isn't the case? Perhaps because she is laboring UNDER the whole fame machine, they are incapable of just letting her rise on talent. Seems like that is no longer enough for many.
I disagree with this post generally, not specifically. Annie's getting older. If you have a chance to get a portrait from her, you should probably do it!
just lovely. All of Miley's handlers were on set when these digital photographs were taken. They all thought they were very tasteful. Not bad for a girl pulling 7 digits despite her father being a wierd country-music star.
But in steps Disney. "Miley, it's embarassing because we tell you it is." And all of a sudden, a tasteful picture becomes indecent because the Corporate Mouse says it is. OH THE HUMANITY! How dare she show her shoulder.
Can we stop being puritans for like...a day? Sometime? Ever? Because, if this is 'scandalous' you should see how girls dress themselves in jr. high and high school.
Meanwhile, the real child pornographers are hoisting up thier anti-choice banners with pictures of naked fetuses.
With props to JD --thanks for taking the first stab at Devil's Advocacy here-- I don't think glamour photography like this is really what causes pedophilia. This child made more money this year (it's only April!) than I'm going make over several lifetimes; her life is obviously not going to be that of a typically sheltered schoolgirl anyway.
(And speaking of her shelter, I have no idea whether her parents are still married. Anyone care to wager, and then look it up? My money says there's an achin', broken heart in their somewhere. And some bad haircuts besides.)
The drunken horndogs who see this magazine on the newsstand and go home to do some molestin' were not going to be giving their stepdaughters a very good experience with masculinity in any case.
Also, 15 isn't twelve. 15 is too early to get naked in national media, but it's not too early for sane young women to understand that their sexual allure has a very personal power, and that sometimes that power is dark and freaky.
Furthermore, and this is a big one, she's not a "role model" for all those tweeners, she's a scientifically packaged product that's being sold to them... Not because Mr. Iger thinks it would be good for their immortal souls, but because he wants the fuckin' money. The fact that she's a Disney® product doesn't mean anything good was going to happen to your kids when you bought them her stuff, anyway.
Actually, according to the articles I've seen, her parents had left the set by the time the semi-nude photo was taken, and only her grandmother and a handler were left. And I'm guessing that when Annie Leibovitz suggests you do something, you respond, "Yes, ma'am." It's only afterwards you think, "The hell? What was I thinking.
That's how I feel. I agree with Crid in general that getting one's portrait done by Annie Leibovitz is a good thing...but this particular photo is not to my taste.
On some quiet afternoon with an iced tea nearby, I'll compose a list of the 25 shittiest, most annoying words in the English language.
"Seminude" (as per Drudge today) will rank highly. No one who uses that word is going to say anything I want to hear.
The point is that it is one thing for teens to display to each other in this way, it is another thing for them to be displayed to adults. This person appears to be a child. Either she is a child and is therefore being abused, or she is really quite adult and the photo is therefore pandering to people who like to fantasize over her child-like appearance. Either way, it sucks.
I just think it plain doesn't look good. She looks like she's sick. I don't care if she was tricked into it or knew what was going on. What matters aren't the photos, but the reaction to the reaction of those photos. She knows (or should know) that she can't be a Disney product forever, and this could have been the opportunity to say so. A shoulder isn't a big deal unless you pander to the people who make it a big deal, and that's exactly what she did.
You know what's creepy to me? "Handlers." As if she's some certified show pooch. Thinking about that, perhaps it's no wonder she's acting embarrassed about what happened.
Thank goodness she's working for Disney and not being whored out to the media for filthy lucre. That would be a tragedy.
Well she isn't a child, and even so, I don't think the argument that this is abuse is legitimate: it is tennuous as best.
Alternatively, if she is an adult, which she is, it does not follow that she is pandering to those who fantasize over her child-like appearance. Even so, what is wrong with pandering? Or, what is wrong with fantasizing over her child-'like' apperance? On its face, I can sympathize that it sucks: However, her statements noted in the link above illustrate that it, in fact, does not. Perhaps if she was coerced into doing this against her will, this would be a viable argument, but there is no indication of such. Even teenage celebrities have some control over thier career, and I, for one, cannot fault her for wanting to take that next step. As one commenter above said: She knows that she won't be a Disney Product forever.
Gog: are your last two lines intended to be sarcasm? It got me thinking: being whored out, to whomever, is still being whored out. Perhaps it is Disney that is whoring her 'g-rated innocent' for thier own gain.
King Tut ran an empire at the age of 13. Kids are often held to adult standards for civil infractions, and perhaps sometimes younger for criminal. Even contracts law has its exceptions. Eugene Volokh had an interesting discussion regarding this age bracket in a differenct context earlier this week (see volokh.com). Modern religions recognize younger ages as 'coming of age'. Judaism instantly springs to mind. ANd so forth, ad nauseum.
A person in the shoes of Miley's is, with little hesitation, an adult. She's been doing concerts for years, has racked up a half billion in profits, is responsible for, at the least, dozens of projects, not to mention an acting career plus her present tour. She's clearly encumbered with responsibility, and on that tip, has been exposed to it at a very early age. The character that so many have attributed to her, I would also argue, qualifies her as an adult (in contrast to those who I'm sure you know, as I do, and the rest of us, who are in thier 20's and 30's and yet still act like irresponsible children).
personally, I think adulthood is found on a case-by-case basis, and age is not determinative of that status. The argument that she's 'still a child' is, to re-use the word, tenuous. To your credit, there are, and must be, 15yo's that are still qualified as children. I just happen to think that Miley is not categorized as such.
Yes - in an era when people were very lucky to make it to the age of 40 and the concept of adolescence did not exist. Today, a 15-year-old is a legal minor (and is typically several decades away from probable death instead of just a couple). There are a hell of a lot of things she cannot do without the permission of her parents and guardians. If you think the modern concept of adolescence is silly, I won't violently disagree with you, but legally and culturally she is a child. Her career is managed by her parents and various other legal adults.
Plus, I'll point out that the Olsen twins were also millionaires many times over by the time that they were 10 and were involved in multiple projects. They were a two-person empire before they were teenagers. But that didn't make them adults. It made them children who happened to be making a lot of money, just as children ranging from Shirley Temple to Haley Joel Osment have done over the years. Miley Cyrus may be turning a bigger profit that they were, but that doesn't automatically put her into a different category of maturation.
We teach them how to fuck at the age of 13. We tell ourselves that we can't stop them from fucking at that age.
The first thing I thought when I saw this picture was "vampire." Maybe that's what they were going for...
No one expects a 15 year old kid to have enough judgment and experience to make all the decisions for herself; that's why she is under her parents' guardianship. Miley's father and mother should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen.
This reminds me of the movie 'Hard Candy', which pits a 14 year old girl against a 32 year old possible pedophile. It touches on some interesting points with respect to the grey area of sex for kids of that age.
I agree that the photo shoot was a calculated move towards the next step in her career, maybe moving towards acting full time, or a more sultry persona for her singing career.