Monday, June 28, 2010

Should I Side With Mel Gibson?



If you cannot tell by my last name, I am Jewish. So it would be safe to say that I was not happy that Mel Gibson went on an Anti-Semitic tirade several years ago when he was arrested for driving while drunk. The guy has hatred in his heart for Jews and I no longer have a desire to go to the theater to watch his movies.

As a Jew, I try to be extremely careful before I label anyone an Anti-Semite, which means that the person is a Jew-hater. When I saw “The Passion of the Christ” in the theater with the Catholic Student Association, I told them that I noticed that all of the Jews in the film had hook noses. I also said that the film perpetuated the view that the Jews did this to their savior, while those who understand Christianity know that society killed Jesus and according to Christianity, Jesus was to die for their sins. I felt that the film pushed a view hostile to Jews instead of explaining that he was killed by and for society. I was not ready to accuse Mel Gibson of being an Anti-Semite because it was not clear that he had any hatred of Jews.

When he was arrested for driving while drunk, Mel Gibson shouted hateful comments about Jews. After that point, I can clearly call him an Anti-Semite with an understanding that I am judging him for what he truly is, not what I think he could be. Mel Gibson is an Anti-Semite.

That being said, Mel Gibson and his wife broke up and he started dating Oksana Grigorieva. Unmarried, they are now the parents of a child. Now both Mel Gibson and Oksana Grigorieva have filed restraining orders against each other. I do not know who is at fault for the breakup of their relationship. Both people blame each other. Without knowing who is at fault, I pose this question... Should I side with Mel Gibson or Oksana Grigorieva?

On one hand, Mel Gibson is an alcoholic and an Anti-Semite. I do not think that he’s a bad person for being an alcoholic and I do not know if he is currently sober or not. I do think that he is a bad person for being an Anti-Semite.

On the other hand, Oksana decided to date him after the entire world found out that he was an alcoholic and an Anti-Semite. What is her problem? How can she accept an Anti-Semite into her life, her heart, and her bed? Was David Duke taken? Does she hate Jews herself? Did she look at the size of Mel Gibson’s bank account and say, “He’s rich and handsome. I don’t care that he hates Jews.”

So who should I side with, Mel Gibson who is a Jew-hating alcoholic or Oksana Grigorieva, who is okay with dating a Jew-hating alcoholic? I have to side with Mel Gibson. I think that Mel is a horrible person, but I think that Oksana has to be the dumber than a bag of bricks. We all knew that Mel Gibson was a piece of crap, but she accepted that piece of crap into her life, so she played with fired and probably got burned.

I feel bad when people date or marry a horrible person without having a clue what that person is really capable of doing. I feel bad for Nicole Brown Simpson. When she married O.J. Simpson, she didn’t know that he could potentially kill her. Sure he has not been found guilty. Let’s say for a second that he didn’t kill her. We at least have proof that he was an abusive husband. She didn’t know that he would beat her. I am still shocked that he has had a girlfriend after the murder trial. If a guy is accused of murder, can’t the girl look for other fish in the sea? How wealthy does a guy have to be for a girl to risk her life to date him? Would it really matter how wealthy a guy is to a girl if he kills her?

I cannot feel sorry for people who date those who have already been in trouble. I cannot feel bad for a girl who would date O.J. Simpson. I also cannot feel bad for a guy who would date Lorena Bobbitt. If he loses a part of his body, at least he knew her history and had knowledge that she could do something like that to a guy.

I cannot feel sorry for Oksana Grigorieva even if she was the perfect girlfriend and Mel Gibson was a nightmare to live with. Mel Gibson was an open book and she decided to turn the page. The book is called “Jew-hating alcoholic.” She knew that she would be taking a risk by dating a guy with such problems and she accepted him for who he was already known to be.

People usually cannot side with those who have no disregard for their own safety or well-being. The reason why the majority of people hate the Octomom is because she had zygotes implanted in her to have more children when she could not take care of the ones that she already had. How can someone make more children when that person cannot take care of the current ones? Her actions outraged the majority of Americans because her actions went against survival instincts and common sense.

Oksana Grigorieva also went against common sense when she decided to date a Jew-hating alcoholic who may or may not be currently sober. Maybe she should have waited a little longer before making a daughter with him. I have to side with Mel Gibson because he came to the table with all of his dirty laundry and she decided to accept the Jew-hating alcoholic for who he is. She knew exactly what she was getting with Mel Gibson so she has no right to complain. Oksana is one or more of these things: stupid, ignorant, an Anti-Semite, or an extremely greedy gold-digger. I do not feel sorry for her and no one else should either.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Amanda Bynes Retired, Betty White Did Not



This article is dedicated to Kate Arney-Cimino, who is a beautiful and talented actress. To learn more about her, check out her website:

http://www.katearneycimino.com


I have only seen one movie with Amanda Bynes. That movie was the remake of Hairspray (2007). I saw it because I enjoyed the original one. I felt that the new version was also well made. I liked both versions. Don't expect to see her in a sequel because she recently announced that she has retired at age 24.

At age 88, Betty White is still acting and now has a new television show called Hot In Cleveland. It is clear that Betty White has been very popular in the last year. Maybe she is still acting because of all the positive attention that she receives... or maybe she just loves to act.

While I was joking by making the picture of Amanda wanting to play Bingo and Betty having a new acting role, I really cannot fault either person. Betty White probably had enough money to retire before I was born. I think she continues to act because she loves to do so.

When it comes to Amanda Bynes, I cannot actually criticize her for retiring because if she does not want to act, there are many other actresses who would gladly love to take the roles that she will not. Amanda developed a career in acting at a young age and she is lucky to being able to make a living as an actress. In Los Angeles, there are many aspiring actors and actresses who would love to act, but there are not enough roles for them to take.

This is the ultimate win-win situation for the Entertainment Industry. On one side, Amanda gets to retire and sleep in on Monday. On the other side, Hollywood gets the opportunity to fill movie roles with actresses who really have a passion to act.

To the credit of Amanda Bynes, it may be better that she has the ability to quit acting while she is still employable than to be a has-been actress who can no longer win roles. Think of actors or actresses who were big years ago and now have difficulty getting roles. Whether Amanda would have had a great career or one that fizzled, at least she was able to leave the Entertainment Industry on her own terms.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Perez Hilton vs. Miley Cyrus: Going Too Far



This article is dedicated to Jenny Haddow Doman, a responsible and loving mother to her three children.

Yes this is the second article in a row about the raising of a child, but sometimes the topic is important enough to be discussed at the time. On one hand, I can criticize Miley Cyrus for dressing and acting slutty. On the other hand, when a child is the victim, the child is still a child (regardless of how she dresses or acts).

Miley Cyrus has followed in the footsteps of Britney Spears by being another wholesome singer who starts to engage in slutty behavior and wear skimpy clothing. She is only 17 years-old, and anyone who saw Britney Spears self-destruct in the middle of the 2000s knows when we are seeing a copycat. First, Miley takes slutty photos, then she performs a song while using a stripper pole, next we think she will probably break her “until marriage” vow, marry a relative of Kevin Federline, and hit rehab.

Am I being mean? Yes, because when I see slutty behavior, I call it how I see it. She deserves to be criticized for dressing and acting like a slut.

But… Perez Hilton crossed the line.

Perez Hilton is a blogger who is so successful that his website is his job. I write these articles for fun and have not received any compensation for my articles.

Recently, Perez Hilton posted a link to a fake photo of Miley Cirus with some nudity in the photo. I have not seen the photo and do not wish to look at it for the sake of going into detail. The reason why this is so controversial is because Miley Cyrus is 17 years-old, which means that the doctored photo of her could be considered child pornography.

Luckily for Perez Hilton, Miley Cyrus has decided not to press charges against him. I am not a fan of Perez Hilton or Miley Cyrus, but I am fascinated by this story for two reasons:

1. It is unclear if Perez Hilton actually broke any laws or if the law would have to be clarified. Had Miley Cyrus pressed charges, Perez’s lawyers would probably argue that the doctored photo is not actual child porn because it wouldn’t be Miley’s nudity. Instead, her head on a body with nudity. A case like this could actually go all the way to the Supreme Court due to the fact that it is not clear if his actions are a crime or not.

2. This is a reminder that there is a huge difference between picking on children and picking on an adult.
In the first example, I do not know if what Perez Hilton did was a crime or not, but I think it is inappropriate to doctor a photo of an underage person to include nudity. Just based on my own morals, legal or not, I believe that we draw a line in the sand at age 18 so we can have a clear point as to when to treat someone as an adult or a child. If Perez posting a doctored photo of a 17 year-old is allowed, then how young can a person be before actions against that person be considered off-limits? We draw the line at age 18 so we can clearly say who is a child and who is an adult. Legally, Miley Cyrus is a child, so putting her head on a photo with nudity is wrong and possibly illegal.

In the second example, the media and bloggers do criticize celebrities. As a blogger, I criticize celebrities. I like to think that when I criticize them, I don’t just call them names, but go into detail as to why they are doing something wrong. But we all have to remember that just because Miley Cyrus is famous does not mean that we should treat her like adult celebrities. I was a child in the mid-1990s. I turned 18 in 1996. I’m trying to imagine how well I would take the media picking on me if I was underage. I would probably feel very hurt hearing adults making fun of me. She probably feels that way too.

But just like with the age of 18, there are lines that people should not cross. As you may have noticed, I began this article really criticizing Miley Cyrus. I criticized her for dressing like a slut, acting like a slut, and following in the footsteps of Britney Spears (which is probably the harshest way to criticize her). At the same time, I’m criticizing her for something that she should know better than to do. Any teenage girl in the United States knows that girls who dress and act slutty get criticized. I call her out on her actions because she knows those actions will bring her criticism. While I may have been harsh with my criticism, I think I am being fair and did not cross the line. If she read my article, I would hope that she would see that I think she should tone down her actions a bit.

At the same time, there is a line that should not be crossed. Perez Hilton crossed that line. He should have stuck with the things that I have said to criticize her. Instead, he took it a step too far and is lucky that he wasn’t arrested. Perez Hilton should call out celebrities when they act like morons or like sluts, but remember to be careful when talking about the actions of a child.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Should I Still Defend Diddy?



This article is dedicated to Brent Bowie, who is a wonderful father to his son.

Happy early Father’s Day everyone!

Five years ago, I defended Diddy in my article “P. Diddy’s Case” on May 24, 2005. I felt that the mother of one of his children was asking for too much money to raise their child. She wanted $21,782 per month to support one child. Doing the math, that comes out to $261,384 per year. I stated in my article that, “Even if I was a millionaire, I would not want over $200,000 spent every year on my children because it could make them spoiled.” Here is the link to the article:

http://moviemike.blogspot.com/2005/05/p-diddys-case.html

Now it’s five years later and Diddy (formally known as P. Diddy and other names) has decided to purchase a $360,000 Maybach for his son’s 16th birthday. Can I defend this? No. I believe in my opinion that spending $360,000 for a Maybach is very similar to an ex-girlfriend wanting over $200,000 to spend on the child for a year of care. Both are excessive. Let’s face it, I don’t think that anyone would believe Diddy’s ex-girlfriend would spend the entire $261,384 per year on the child. Most likely that money would be taking care of the ex-girlfriend as well. After a few years, she would probably have enough money left over to retire. In this situation, the entire $360,000 Maybach would go to one child. Diddy’s justification could be that he’s giving directly to a child and not to support an ex-girlfriend. At the same time, I believe that both the child support and the Maybach are far too excessive.

Diddy not only has a lot of money, but obviously loves all of his children and wants to spend money on them to make them happy. Unlike Diddy, there are extremely wealthy people who are not generous with their money. I think that Diddy’s generosity could potentially have negative consequences. In my life, I have had a few minor accidents with my car. None of these accidents came from reckless actions. At the same time, I have known people who have totaled their vehicles. I have known young people who have caused so much damage to their cars that the cars could not be fixed. Imagine being 16 years-old and your first car is a $360,000 Maybach. What if you crashed your car? What if Diddy's son completely totals this car? Will he get a new Maybach, or many a more modest car under $100,000?

I’m not worried as much about the price of the car as I am about how the son will turn out if he is spoiled. Some children of rich parents turn out well and some don’t. One of the best examples is Ivanka Trump. However you feel about Donald Trump, he did an excellent job raising his daughter. She has a college degree from the Wharton School of Business, works for her father, and has not done anything controversial that would make her family look bad. On the other hand is Paris Hilton. From her sex tape to her time in jail, Paris Hilton has done more damage to the Hilton name than a typical rock star does to a Hilton hotel room. Maybe Paris felt that she could do anything she wants in life without having to try to set an example or maybe she would be the exact same way had she been raised without wealth. Her parents are probably very embarrassed by her actions over the last several years.

Diddy’s children can turn out like Ivanka Trump (great example), Paris Hilton (bad example), or somewhere in the middle. But in this situation, if Diddy's son gets into a lot of trouble later in life, Diddy’s generosity will be blamed for the child’s behavior.

While I strongly disagree with Diddy’s choice to give his son a $360,000 Maybach, he is a better person than the parents of Abby Sunderland, who let their 16-year-old daughter attempt to sail alone across the world. Her family provided permission and financial support for their daughter to risk her life. The family tried to exploit her daughter’s work to get fame and fortune. They tried to get a reality show and they even sold products on Abby’s website. I saw shoes that had the name “Abby” on the side. Luckily their daughter is alive and all they have to fear is media criticism, the exact same thing that Diddy is getting for giving his son an expensive car.

Diddy may spoil his children, but he doesn’t risk their lives. His decision to give his son one of the most expensive cars in the world is excessive and outrageous, but he is a better father than the parents of Abby Sutherland. The safety and love of a child are more important than any material item. I think that Diddy would agree.

Thursday, June 03, 2010

Fire Bud Selig



Baseball has two big problems right now. First, it is now considered to be the third most popular sport in the nation behind football and basketball. Second, there are many villains in baseball and not enough heroes. Maybe more kids in the last 25 years decided that they wanted to be Like Mike (Michael Jordan) and not enough wanted to be like Barry Bonds. I think that baseball does not have enough players like Cal Ripken, Jr. and too many players like Barry Bonds. It’s easy to cheer for players who are outstanding role models. It is hard to cheer for cheaters.

Recently, pitcher Armando Galarraga threw what should be considered to be a perfect game. For what would be the final pitch in the ninth inning, the ball was hit and the batter started to run to first base. The ball was thrown to the first baseman who caught the ball before the batter crossed the first base bag. The umpire, Jim Joyce, called the batter safe. The umpire messed up and when seeing this on instant replay, knew that he had messed up. This incorrect call would mean that officially Armando Galarraga had not thrown a perfect game.

Jim Joyce is not the villain in this situation. Unlike many people, he was willing to publicly admit that he messed up. He feels sorry for his incorrect call. There are people in this world who pretend that the mistakes they have made are meaningless and there are people who have the compassion to publicly admit their mistakes. Jim Joyce is a man of true character.

There is a villain in this case, though. Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig has the power to overturn the call and allow Armando Galarraga to be the 21st official pitcher of a perfect game, but he decided that he will not overturn the call. Selig is letting history stand uncorrected and justice not served.

Bud Selig is exactly what Major League Baseball does not need. He is someone who will stomp on the good will of fans who just want to see an honest pitcher receive credit for an achievement that he earned. Since baseball has been tarnished by home run records by players who have cheated through steroid use, the sport of baseball needs people like Armando Galarraga who can achieve greatness without sticking a needle in his rear end. Baseball needs people like Jim Joyce who have the integrity to admit their mistakes.

Baseball does not need Bud Selig.

I am going to take a stand. The National Baseball Hall of Fame would be more honored with the induction of Pete Rose while he’s filling out his NCAA tournament brackets and Barry Bonds while he has a needle sticking out of his butt than someone like Bud Selig.

When I think of what Bud Selig is doing, I imagine being given a parking ticket for an incorrect violation and having the police officer say, “Well I’m still going to give you the ticket because I’ve already filled it out.” When people watch sports, they have a common desire for justice in its purest form. When people look at politics or a Supreme Court decision, they tend to have different opinions on issues. Ironically, when it comes to sports, people who are fans of opposing teams would rather see an honest decision made about a play than see it even benefit their own team. As a Redskins fan, I wouldn’t want the Redskins to win a game by a completely incorrect call. When they win, I want to feel that they truly won the game. When they lose, I want to feel that nothing unfair caused them to lose.

The desire for justice has led to people being outraged by Bud Selig’s unwillingness to allow Armando Galarraga the credit for something that would negatively impact no one. It would not change which team won the game. All it would do is give people something to feel good about without causing anyone pain.

If Bud Selig wants to be a stickler to the rules, then maybe he should spend some time in the empty stands at one of the teams that cannot sell many tickets. He should sit in a seat with no one around him and ask himself why so many people decided to stay home instead of buy a ticket to the baseball game. Maybe, just maybe, he will realize that he is throwing away the greatness of a sport that used to be America’s Pastime.

Recently, Ken Griffey, Jr. announced his retirement from baseball. He was the first pick in the 1987 MLB Draft. Yes I said 1987! That is the year that I had finished second grade and I’m 32 years-old. The first pick of the 2009 MLB Draft, Stephen Strasburg, wasn’t even born yet. For someone to play professional baseball for 23 years, that person has to truly love the game. Let me be the first person to say that the sport of baseball would be better served with Ken Griffey, Jr. as the new commissioner. He could bring leadership back to the sport and repair the image of baseball.
magic store
Free Hit Countersstats
magic store