IUC Monday Morning: Leo, Brangie, Kid Rock, Katy, Kanye and Kim

Posted on March 9th, 2015 by HisHighness in IUC: Travel, IUC:Arts, IUC:Entertainment

Leo and Rihanna in new film together - Metro

Angie, Brad Divorce? Read This

Kid Rock’s lesson on use of word Gay – Esquire kkk

Katy poses with Kanye and Kim – Daily Mail

  • 146 Comments
  • Tags:
  1. rushdog said on March 9th, 2015 at 1:07 pm

    The articles simply put are about:

    new film together, co-produce and star

    divorce rumors after make it or break it vacation

    marketing tool – expressing contempt or political correctness used when it’s a benefit

    stony-faced, unhappy photo-op

    I’m thinking the Kid R article re: gay pejorative and radio edit PC = the use of marriage and divorce – they’ll use anything as PR, espouse any cause or way of life to sell their product

    Reply
  2. rushdog said on March 9th, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    This is about the Brand – divorce rumors and stony-face photo-ps (with each other and someone else?) are to make it look like there are marriage problems to help sell their film. JMO.

    Reply
  3. WR said on March 9th, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    @rushdog:
    I agree. Nothing definite, here. Just more pufflicity for Brangelina!

    Reply
  4. Guest2 said on March 9th, 2015 at 3:57 pm

    @rushdog:
    I agree that this is to publicize their upcoming movie. Whatever the nature of their relationship, they are not splitting – we’ve been waiting for yrs and it hasn’t happened. Don’t know why and getting to where I don’t really care much anymore but will wait for the next stunt they pull because each time it gets more outrageous and more people call them out on their ridiculousness. This is AJ more than BP, since she’s the one doing the really crazy stuff. I still can’t get over that she used the Pope and the God she doesn’t believe in to promote her movie and that so few people called her out on it. Maybe when their brand finally becomes a hindrance to each of them they will split.

    Reply
  5. morris maltenburg said on March 9th, 2015 at 10:02 pm

    New memories implanted in mice

    16:53 09 March 2015 by Jessica Hamzelou

    New Scientist

    Sleeping minds: prepare to be hacked. For the first time, conscious memories have been implanted into the minds of mice while they sleep. The same technique could one day be used to alter memories in people who have undergone traumatic events.

    When we sleep, our brain replays the day’s activities. The pattern of brain activity exhibited by mice when they explore a new area during the day, for example, will reappear, speeded up, while the animal sleeps. This is thought to be the brain practising an activity – an essential part of learning. People who miss out on sleep do not learn as well as those who get a good night’s rest, and when the replay process is disrupted in mice, so too is their ability to remember what they learned the previous day.

    Karim Benchenane and his colleagues at the Industrial Physics and Chemistry Higher Educational Institution in Paris, France, hijacked this process to create new memories in sleeping mice. The team targeted the rodents’ place cells – neurons that fire in response to being in or thinking about a specific place. These cells are thought to help us form internal maps, and their discoverers won a Nobel prize last year.

    Benchenane’s team used electrodes to monitor the activity of mice’s place cells as the animals explored an enclosed arena, and in each mouse they identified a cell that fired only in a certain arena location. Later, when the mice were sleeping, the researchers monitored the animals’ brain activity as they replayed the day’s experiences. A computer recognised when the specific place cell fired; each time it did, a separate electrode would stimulate brain areas associated with reward.

    Advertisement: Replay Ad

    When the mice awoke, they made a beeline for the location represented by the place cell that had been linked to a rewarding feeling in their sleep. A brand new memory – linking a place with reward – had been formed.
    This must be the place

    It is the first time a conscious memory has been created in animals during sleep. In recent years, researchers have been able to form subconscious associations in sleeping minds – smokers keen to quit can learn to associate cigarettes with the smells of rotten eggs and fish in their sleep, for example.

    Previous work suggested that if this kind of subconscious learning had occurred in Benchenane’s mice, they would have explored the arena in a random manner, perhaps stopping at the reward-associated location. But these mice headed straight for the location, suggesting a conscious memory. “The mouse develops a goal-directed behaviour to go towards the place,” says Benchenane. “It proves that it’s not an automatic behaviour. What we create is an association between a particular place and a reward that can be consciously accessed by the mouse.”

    “The mouse is remembering enough abstract information to think ‘I want to go to a certain place’, and go there when it wakes up,” says neuroscientist Neil Burgess at University College London. “It’s a bigger breakthrough [than previous studies] because it really does show what the man in the street would call a memory – the ability to bring to mind abstract knowledge which can guide behaviour in a directed way.”

    Benchenane doesn’t think the technique can be used to implant many other types of memories, such as skills – at least for the time being. Spatial memories are easier to modify because they are among the best understood.

    His team’s findings also provide some of the strongest evidence for the way in which place cells work. It is almost impossible to test whether place cells function as an internal map while animals are awake, says Benchenane, because these animals also use external cues, such as landmarks, to navigate. By specifically targeting place cells while the mouse is asleep, the team were able to directly test theories that specific cells represent specific places.

    “Even when those place cells fire in sleep, they still convey spatial information,” says Benchenane. “That provides evidence that when you’ve got activation of place cells during the consolidation of memories in sleep, you’ve got consolidation of the spatial information.”

    Benchenane hopes that his technique could be developed to help alter people’s memories, perhaps of traumatic events (see “Now it’s our turn”, below).

    Loren Frank at the University of California, San Francisco, agrees. “I think this is a really important step towards helping people with memory impairments or depression,” he says. “It is surprising to me how many neurological and psychiatric illnesses have something to do with memory, including schizophrenia and obsessive compulsive disorder.”

    “In principle, you could selectively change brain processing during sleep to soften memories or change their emotional content,” he adds.

    Journal reference: Nature Neuroscience, doi:10.1038/nn.3970
    Now it’s our turn

    It’s a familiar feat from films such as Inception and Total Recall, but will we ever really be able to plant a memory in someone else’s mind as they sleep?

    Karim Benchenane at the Industrial Physics and Chemistry Higher Educational Institution in Paris, France, who implanted new memories into mice while they snoozed (see main story), hopes his technique can be developed to alter problematic memories in people. The idea is to attach good thoughts to bad memories, such as those that linger after traumatic experiences. “If you can identify where in the brain a person is reactivating a phobia-associated experience, you might be able to create a positive association,” he says.
    Fake friends

    You could probably use the same approach to alter a person’s memory to your own advantage.

    Evidence suggests that single neurons can represent specific people in the brain – such cells have been termed “Jennifer Aniston cells” after a woman in a study was found to have one brain cell that only fired in response to images of the actress (Nature, doi.org/cmzdk9). If you could identify a neuron that represents you in someone else’s brain and then stimulate areas of the brain that create a rewarding feeling every time that neuron fires, you might – in theory – be able to make that person like you more. “The fact that you can do it during sleep is a bit worrying, in that it implies that you could make somebody want something even if they didn’t really,” says Neil Burgess at University College London.

    It is much more difficult to create an entirely new memory from scratch. Benchenane’s team drew on the mice’s existing memories of space and altered them. “It’s not like they have created a whole new space that the animal is exploring in its head,” says Loren Frank at the University of California, San Francisco. “Real experiences involve all of our senses and movement through space, and people, places and things,” he says. “We are nowhere near recreating that richness – what we can do is take advantage of it and modify it.”

    These modifications could be for better or worse, says Frank. “There are a few ways of thinking about this – there’s the medical application, and there’s the more Orwellian application, where the government gets inside people’s heads and starts to control them,” he says. “It’s unbelievably hard to do any of this, so I’m not deeply worried about it, but it’s not impossible that it could happen.”

    Reply
  6. morris maltenburg said on March 9th, 2015 at 10:10 pm

    Cincinnati Enquirer Considered Suppressing Coverage of Gay Activist Who Faked His Abduction
    By Tom Blumer | March 7, 2015 | 9:35 AM

    Monday night, a Cincinnati-area same-sex “marriage” activist posted on Facebook and tweeted that he had been abducted and was in the trunk of his car. A short time later, police found 20 year-old Adam Hoover and determined that he had (very clumsily) faked his abduction, and would be charged with the crime of “making false claims.” In the meantime, news of Hoover’s abduction and then its false nature made it to several national news outlets, including the Washington Times, Huffington Post and Buzzfeed.

    In its two reports on the story Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning, the Cincinnati Enquirer posted the following introductory note:

    We decided to publish this story because it dealt with a prominent local figure who posted claims in a very public setting. We understand and respect Mr. Hoover’s privacy, but we also believe it’s important to cover public figures and events that potentially have an impact on public safety resources.

    By indicating that a “decision to publish” was made, the Enquirer has undeniably and outrageously admitted that it considered not reporting the results of a story which had already gone viral. Why?

    It would seem that a factor contributing to that reluctance is that Hoover, according to local TV station WLWT, “is a founder of Marriage Equality Ohio, which he helped create in 2010.” (The Enquirer’s Wednesday report says that “Hoover started working for Marriage Equality Ohio in 2011 and has done most of the promotion work for the organization since then.”)

    Thus, there appear to have been discussions in the Enquirer newsroom about how reporting on Hoover might hurt his cause. It’s also reasonable to believe that the paper was pressured by outsiders and/or parent company Gannett to either not cover Hoover’s hoax or to downplay it as much as possible. The introductory note at its two stories comes off as a de facto “Sorry, we wish we could ignore this, but we can’t, so please-please-please don’t hate us for it” apology to those who would have wanted the story suppressed.

    If there was pressure to downplay the story, those who exerted it appear to have gotten their way, as headlines relating to Hoover disappeared quite quickly from the Enquirer’s home page.

    It’s hard to imagine that the Enquirer would have been so deferential if the person faking his abduction had been an advocate on the other side of the same-sex “marriage” issue.

    Add this to the long list of reasons why, as I noted in a column posted at another site earlier this week, “I won’t subscribe to the paper even if they bring a copy to my door on a silver platter every day.”

    Sadly, it’s hard to believe that the Enquirer is the only local U.S. paper which would have qualms about publishing news which might harm a politically correct cause.

    The handling of this incident also begs the question of how much other less visible bad news which might cast favored persons or causes in a bad light is being suppressed around the country.

    - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/03/07/cincinnati-enquirer-considered-suppressing-coverage-gay-activist-who#sthash.RoodmJEh.dpuf

    Reply
  7. WR said on March 10th, 2015 at 3:03 am

    And the part about Jon Voight rhapsodizing over AJ’s direction of “Unbroken”, and how she deserved, in his opinion, to be among the 5 nominees for Best Director. This is why the Academy has it that the Directors among its membership, chooses who gets nominated. Leaving it up to the Jon Voights in the business would make a worse mess of the nominations.
    Voight doesn’t even consider that there are more superior directors to his daughter, who were NOT nominated. One could easily name them right here.

    Reply
  8. WR said on March 10th, 2015 at 3:26 am

    @WR:
    To continue, with the not nominated:
    Clint Eastwood, “American Sniper”
    James Marsh, “The Theory of Everything”
    Dan Gilroy, “Nightcrawler”
    Ava DuVernay, “Selma”
    Pawel Pawlikowski, “Ida”
    David Fincher, “Gone Girl”
    Damian Chazelle, “Whiplash”
    Christopher Nolan, “Interstellar”
    Mike Leigh, “Mr. Turner”

    Reply
  9. Guest2 said on March 10th, 2015 at 8:16 am

    @WR:
    I think JV is just desperate to have a relationship with his daughter and grandchildren and will say whatever is necessary to heal the rift. Or maybe he’s just getting senile. He clearly didn’t read the reviews for the movie.

    Reply
  10. Togi said on March 10th, 2015 at 1:06 pm

    THANK YOU, WR!!!! And obviously, there are even more. As a fairly rabid movie goer (honestly, we see a movie most EVERY week during the winter) I was really pleased with the movies and performances in 2014. A movie we just saw really surprised me. McFarland USA. It COULD have been a cliche movie. The formula has been used over and over and over and OVER again. But it was really good. Kevin Costner is just such a LIKABLE character. And he never ONCE overshadowed or took away from the kids, the other REALLY IMPORTANT characters in the story. It won’t be winning any awards, and it won’t be making a ton of money at the box office, but it is a GOOD movie, with a GREAT story, and it makes you feel GOOD, for a change.
    @WR:

    Reply
  11. WR said on March 10th, 2015 at 1:28 pm

    @Togi:
    I very much admire Kevin Costner. He’s so All-American! Has the star power of the big names of the old days. But, so relevant, today even though people don’t go to movies so much.

    With your review, I may just hike out to the theater. Heard the boxoffice was miserably unattended last weekend. Oh here in So. Calif. we are having summertime weather, so,…

    Reply
  12. WR said on March 10th, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    My good friend, Barbara, told me that the movie she enjoyed the most last year, (and she saw many movies), is “Whiplash”. With me, of the ones I saw, it was “Nightcrawler”.

    Reply
  13. I'm on the bidet said on March 10th, 2015 at 5:10 pm

    Ian quoted and mentioned multiple times in Gawker story on Kurt Cobain’s death:
    http://blackbag.gawker.com/how-did-kurt-cobain-really-die-the-murder-conspiracy-t-1690091851/+kellyconaboy

    Reply
  14. Togi said on March 10th, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    I was talking with my 15 year old daughter about Kevin Costner. He’s one of those guys who does A LOT, trying his best to help make this world a better place. He’s not so much a philanthropist as he is an environmentalist, but he really does CARE and puts his money where his mouth is (or isn’t, in his case). Just another decent guy you don’t hear anything about. Seems all we hear about are the self-serving narcissists. Hollywood stars can be likened to bad teenagers. The only ones you ever really hear about are the ones who are making trouble or embarrassing themselves. Good deeds just don’t make exciting news, I suppose.@WR:

    Reply
  15. Guest2 said on March 10th, 2015 at 7:20 pm

    @Togi:
    That was an interesting read but I don’t think they will ever be able to prove she’s responsible for his death.

    Reply
  16. Guest2 said on March 10th, 2015 at 7:20 pm

    @Guest2:
    Sorry, meant to reply to iotb.

    Reply
  17. WR said on March 11th, 2015 at 5:53 pm

    To counteract the divorce that wasn’t to be, they are now in the morning’s headlines regarding adopting yet another child; because, get this, the other children are growing up.

    Like I’ve said many times, I’ll believe BP actually fathered a child when there’s DNA proof! But that doesn’t mean it’s not commendable to rescue a needy child; and I’ve always added that I’d shout out my apologies to BP if and when undeniable proof is shown.

    Also, there are innumerable children here in the USA that have no parents that could raise them. Now, unless Brangelina are not allowed to adopt in the USA, there are many ethnic children to choose from, here.

    If the adoptee is still a baby, BP will be in his 70s when he/she becomes an adult.
    Also, if they plan to adopt, then that means all those headline-grabbing health issues were fake. What sick individual in their right mind would adopt a baby, knowing that the child may never know a parent when they grow older?
    The media is part and parcel of all this. Brangelina couldn’t do this, unless the media co-operated.

    Reply
  18. WC Kitty said on March 11th, 2015 at 6:12 pm

    @WR:
    Good points WR, especially with the health issues! I don’t believe that they’d be allowed to adopt in the United States because of Angie’s past (drug use, mental issues, etc.) not to mention the amount of travel hours their children log. The children don’t attend school so she adopting a friend for them? She just dragged the twins across the pond for two days for one of her so-called business trips. What they need to do is take care of their health and stay in place long enough so the children can attend school and make friends. Like that will happen, but it would make headlines and give them positive PR! :lol:

    Reply
  19. WR said on March 13th, 2015 at 4:41 pm

    The group discussion had this as one of their topics: People who are afraid to speak up; Good people afraid of getting involved. The latter is frequently reported in the media. The former is more difficult for regular folks. Most don’t have the thinking process too refined, but even those who do, are afraid to defend what they perceive as the right thing.
    And all of us are guilty of complacency to various levels. We discussed what we can do when
    our comfort zone is threatened. Who wants to listen to messengers who threaten our comfort? Just about no one.

    Reply
  20. WR said on March 13th, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    On a lighter note, Happy St. Patrick’s Day, everyone!

    Reply
  21. WR said on March 14th, 2015 at 3:43 pm

    We’re having a heat wave! Whew, If one has allergies, this is the time to find help!

    Reply
  22. Guest2 said on March 14th, 2015 at 9:57 pm

    This is such a heartwarming story I thought I would share it since all we seem to hear about lately is bad news:

    http://elitedaily.com/news/world/baby-brought-back-life-mom-cuddling/965921/?utm_source=aol&utm_medium=tr&utm_campaign=p10k80&utm_content=30615&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl13%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D627606

    Reply
  23. WC Kitty said on March 15th, 2015 at 2:36 am

    @WR:
    Yep, and everything is in bloom. Too hot and we’re in trouble when it comes to our lack of water.

    Reply
  24. Guest2 said on March 15th, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    @WC Kitty:
    @WR:

    We’ve had more than our share of water, wish we could send some your way. Crazy weather patterns.

    Reply
  25. WR said on March 15th, 2015 at 2:10 pm

    In the morning news, there’s an item about a scientist declaring that California will run out of water in a year’s time. Hmmm!

    Reply
  26. WC Kitty said on March 15th, 2015 at 2:28 pm

    @Guest2:
    @WR:I
    I wish you could Guest2 because I heard the same thing yesterday WR. It’s scary and there are reports that some are drilling for water. A big problem with drilling for water is that eventually the land elevation lowers and with rising sea-levels! :shock”

    Reply
  27. WR said on March 16th, 2015 at 12:31 am

    If I had my act together, so to speak, I’d move out of California. Starting over is not my idea of fun. It can be done, but if I waited until there’s a grand exodus from my area, I’d be in a bad way; because everybody and his brother will be clogging the routes. They have had the same expectations when they decided to move to this area. Those of us who came here when it was still country, now have to uproot ourselves to survive, it seems.

    I go to Google Street Scene to check on favored spots in the U.S. Much research will have to be done, before a decision is made, if at all.

    Reply
  28. WC Kitty said on March 16th, 2015 at 1:05 am

    @WR:
    I’ve been doing research for quite some time on where to move. I actually was thinking of moving near to where I was born, but…after reading Guest2’s weather report and those of other people I know in the New England area, maybe not. I know other people from California are moving to my new chosen spot. Maybe it will be a mass exodus by us all. I don’t envy you since LA’s road system is like a parking lot most of the time anyway.

    Reply
  29. Guest2 said on March 16th, 2015 at 11:28 am

    @WR:
    @WC Kitty:
    I know people in Oregon and they absolutely adore the place. I heard it rains a lot there though maybe not as bad as Washington state. I too am tired of the crowds and traffic though I don’t think it’s as bad as yours, yet.

    Reply
  30. WC Kitty said on March 16th, 2015 at 1:46 pm

    @Guest2:
    I’ve known people who love living in Oregon and others who haven’t. It is wet in both states if you live on the western side of the mountains. I love cooler weather, but not a lot of rain, though the results are a beautiful green environment. Vancouver is also rated highly, but it’s very expensive and that entire part of the coastline is Tsunami area. I need to live near a coastline so it’s either eastern Washington or somewhere back east for me.

    Reply
  31. Guest2 said on March 16th, 2015 at 9:06 pm

    @WC Kitty:
    I like watching love it or list it too on HGTV and I’m always surprised at the house prices. It’s a beautiful place but didn’t know about the tsunamis. I’ve always lived by the coast and would not want to live inland so will probably stay here. Florida’s west coast is nice though it does get pretty hot and humid in the summer and they have hurricanes and tornadoes. But with these crazy weather patterns lately I don’t think there’s any ideal place anymore. Last summer a coastal town just north of Boston had a tornado that caused quite a bit of damage. It was pretty shocking. Fortunately no one was injured but it does make you realize how small we are against the forces of mother nature.

    Reply
  32. WR said on March 17th, 2015 at 2:13 am

    @WC Kitty:
    @Guest2:
    Then there’s Middle America, and the threat of earthquakes. If you google “Madrid earthquake’”, you will be surprised to find that one of America’s biggest earthquakes, ever, happened there. Also, there have been reported swarms of smaller earthquakes in Missouri and Kentucky.
    And the sinkholes in Florida, in addition to the hurricanes and flooding.

    My problem would be to find a good combination of health resources; good transportation, and intellectual stimulation. Maybe Mother Earth in her magnificence!

    I’ve been to Vancouver several times. Loved the people there. So “laid back”, they seemed to be.

    Yes, there’s been speculation that the Seattle area is a tsunami threat. And Mount Saint Helens is not done, yet.

    Lots of speculation, eh?

    Reply
  33. Guest2 said on March 17th, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    @WR:
    Forgot about the sinkholes, it would be pretty grim to fall into one of those. I remember that poor man in Florida who died when his house was swallowed by a massive sinkhole. But you are right, there’s more than climate to think about when it comes to places to live, especially as we get older.

    Reply
  34. LG said on March 17th, 2015 at 11:04 pm

    @Guest2:
    It’s interesting to note that Angelina’s skimpy top which shows her nipples is on display in these photos..When she was scouting for locations for “unbroken “she wore this top on a regular basis. NOW,,, think about it……Brad is “WEARING A WIG” and not a hat for these obviously staged shots…….

    I think Brad is confused and too privaleged to understand how to control the media but anyone who knows what Brad looks like knows that this is not his real hair.,……..

    Things must be bad for Brad to engineer the makeup and hairdressing for this UNPLANNED, FAMILY FRIENDLY SHOOT……Brad is trying to settle and control the commentary…but obviously trying to control Angelina is an uphill battle

    Reply
  35. WR said on March 18th, 2015 at 3:18 am

    @LG:
    He and T.Cruise have had similarities ever since they co-starred in “Interview with a Vampire”. BP’s physical shape is similar to TC’s. But TC works harder to maintain a more youthful look.

    Reply
  36. WR said on March 18th, 2015 at 3:21 am

    Well now, one is expecting a new magazine to come out with a “Brad Pitt is glad to be over with that boring marriage of his”. We know that when someone protests too much, he may either be unwilling to admit he made all kinds of mistakes, or even acknowledge them.

    Reply
  37. WR said on March 18th, 2015 at 3:24 am

    Went over to that humongous park in our city to catch the St. Patrick’s Day doings. Was it packed! A sea of green clothing. Food & drinks all over the place. Quite a few were feeling no pain. But, overall, the people were quite congenial and well-behaved.

    Reply
  38. Guest2 said on March 18th, 2015 at 9:49 am

    @LG:
    They are hard at work controlling the commentary and perceptions and, yes, brad is working hard to try to control angie though I think that’s a nearly impossible task. I also think they need the money they make from those pics of the kids. But what’s with that getup? What mother goes to their children’s sporting events dressed like a hooker? The harder they try the more freakish they look.

    Reply
  39. Guest2 said on March 18th, 2015 at 10:02 am

    @WR:
    Someone at another site made the comment that AJ’s remarks in a recent magazine interview about finally finding a real man (as if brad could ever fit that description) was a dig at BBT because of his comments about being attracted to J Aniston. I think these two are desperate to prove to the world that their relationship is a love story for the ages and not something and born of a sordid affair and a pregnancy. They blame everyone and everything else for their fall from the grace of their golden years when all they need to do is to take a long, hard look in a mirror. All their other partners have moved on quite nicely and are healthy and successful. They, on the other hand, look like a couple of worn out junkie/drunks. Their fake wedding did nothing to improve their image so I think you are right that he will do another interview and talk about how wonderful his life is now compared to what it was. These interviews will coincide with the release of their movie no doubt.

    Reply
  40. WR said on March 18th, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    @Guest2:
    I hope all those tabloid readers can think just a little bit, and question all the headlines that sell the papers. For example, how can she be at death’s door, as Brad sweats bullets over her condition, and yet make those movies? Dumbing down seems to be widespread, and Brangelina has the media in their pockets. But for how long? The world is ripe for a housecleaning!

    Reply
  41. WR said on March 18th, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    @WR:
    And to add to that, what is this about having another baby? Do people really buy that c–p? Apparently, they do.

    The chorus is getting louder about the evils of the media, and its darlings. I see it in various sites and tv shows. It’s not only relegated to religious shows.
    I can only report, but it’s there for anyone who can think for themselves.

    Brangelina has declared many times that they don’t believe in God. That could change, but the godless powers-that-be seem to have them in a strangle-hold; giving them an easy life of fame, fortune and fantasy! JMO!

    Reply
  42. WR said on March 18th, 2015 at 2:28 pm

    @Guest2:
    Do we notice that after Johnny Depp made “The Tourist”, with AJ, that his career and personal life went downhill?

    Billy Bob may be trying to untangle himself from the web of illusion he got himself into. Good luck on that.

    Reply
  43. Guest2 said on March 18th, 2015 at 8:52 pm

    @WR:
    I always thought that she got Depp hooked on drugs again while they were filming TT because his downward spiral started shortly after that. I think drugs are a big part of her life and she pulls her men into that web of hers. BBT was a mess when he was with her but in his last interview I thought he appeared healthy and clean so hopefully he has untangled himself. We all see the mess that BP has become in the years they’ve been together. I don’t believe he’ll ever be able to untangle himself from that web of illusion, her claws are in too deep. I hope their kids turn out okay.

    Reply
  44. WR said on March 19th, 2015 at 2:16 am

    It appears that The National Enquirer was going to feature yet another Brangelina health scare, with the usual formula. Apparently, they sell; otherwise why do it repeatedly?
    Then, to spoil it, Harrison Ford had that close call with a plane. So Brangelina had to settle for a big story inside The National Enquirer.

    I browsed through it, because TC was featured, as well. Supposedly some inside stuff about Scientology. The big surprise: Seems that TC did drugs. His well-guarded image of a clean-cut action star served him well all this time. That’s why I keep saying that Brangelia must have learned a lot from scientology, about how to control their image.

    Reply
  45. WR said on March 19th, 2015 at 2:19 am

    @WR:
    Last sentence should contain the label, “Brangelina”, instead of the typo.

    Reply
  46. joanne said on March 20th, 2015 at 12:46 pm

    @morris maltenburg:
    why must they play with our minds? aren’t they fucked up enough?

    Reply
  47. WR said on March 20th, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    @Guest2:
    I forgot who it was who repeatedly said that AJ is a highly toxic person. This is from several years, ago.

    Other sites have bloggers questioning whether certain celebs have paid posters visiting various sites. Apparently, their agenda is to shut down the site. Divide and conquer is an old, old trick, but it still works. We see that it worked for the controllers in history, works even today. The dumbing down of the public is a key strategy.

    Reply
  48. WR said on March 20th, 2015 at 3:01 pm

    This morning, I mentioned to various people here, that the rich corporations covet the Yukon River land; and that they are preparing the American public for a takeover of that country.
    But it’s too far away for some of them to perceive such a thing. A few recognize their tactics, however. And one friend, who is very right wing, had no problem with it all.

    Reply
  49. joanne said on March 20th, 2015 at 9:36 pm

    @WR:
    The dumbing down worked.

    Reply
  50. WR said on March 22nd, 2015 at 1:02 pm

    @joanne:
    Yes.
    OT; Yahoo has an article detailing an upcoming collapse of the U.S. economy. The author says it will happen within five years. But he is selling something, of course. However, he makes a very strong case to support his theory.

    Actually, other regular people foresaw this coming, as well. I’ve heard it from them for some time. Like I indicated, the majority of people don’t want to feel that their comfortable life is being threatened. No welcome for the messengers, and certainly not for the prophets.
    The rich will probably be well forewarned and will have the means to avoid most of the catastrophe. That’s what I believe.

    It’s interesting; our forecaster here, said that even the rich, with their underground cities/shelters will not excape Mother Nature’s fury. when the time comes. Believers point to the “Three Days of Darkness”, which is prophesied by many holy people; who didn’t/don’t know about each other. ALL do say that
    “It’s up to humanity”, as does our seer, here. In other words, God’s justice demands some kind of repentance from humanity. It will either be Voluntary, (Penance, Sacrifice, Prayers, Alms-giving, and begging His forgiveness) or Involuntary, (Wars, Economic Failures, Drought, Plagues, Earthly Eruptions, Meteors striking our planet, Nuclear bombs, and more). As we can imagine, the latter catastrophes will cause the 3 Days of Darkness.
    If interested, google it.

    It is my opinion, that the current pope is actively preparing his flock for what’s coming. He did say, last year, that God will give him only a short time to do what he must. That is a man of faith, for you. (being able to say he has only a few years; but did he mean he will die; or did he mean he will retire, ala Pope Benedict?)

    Reply
  51. WR said on March 22nd, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    @WR:
    I read about the “3 Days of Darkness” some time ago. I didn’t want to, but my curiosity was too strong.

    Here’s more: This is not a new event. It’s told in the bible. God did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, when he couldn’t find enough just people. Surely, there must be more than enough just people in our current world. Then, how can it happen? It must be a false prophecy, is the way some of us would look at it. But, here’s the thing: The seers say that God will give us plenty of warning; and the warnings will be unmistakable. What sort? A cross in the sky was mentioned. And, they continue, the events will be so terrible, that God’s inestimable mercy will shorten the experience for the just.
    Those who heed the warnings must purchase beeswax candles which will not burn out during the ordeal. These people are not allowed to look outside their homes, (When Lot’s wife looked back in curiosity, she turned into a pillar of stone). (Because God’s Wrath is Holy)
    They are forbidden to answer phones, or knocks on the door. They claim that Hell will be empty, as the demons devour the ones unprepared.
    Doesn’t this also remind you of the Passover? Those who had a sign on their door, were spared.

    After 3 days, the seers say that there will no longer be technology. The earth will be covered with ashes which will act as fertilizer. It will be pastoral. And the survivors will include many an atheist. God’s plan is that they will see beyond a doubt, that He is the Supreme Being.

    I may look it up, again. Our peer group discussion may become more interesting, indeed.

    Reply
  52. joanne said on March 23rd, 2015 at 8:12 am

    @WR:
    I really don’t want to serve a god I have to jump through hoops for. Its not like the people on our beautiful Earth are just and friendly to feel there is a supreme being watching over us, if that were the case I am sure there would be more believers. Sure is a lot of suffering to fit in with ‘righteous’ people.
    OT what is jolie going to do next to get her face in the media? She must be desperate by now.

    Reply
  53. WR said on March 24th, 2015 at 2:46 am

    @joanne:
    It’s all very interesting, and much food for thought. I’m a believer, myself.I’m no better than I listen to all points of view.

    Just this evening, I listened to a conservative’s point of view. I corrected a few misconceptions of his. For example, he thought celeb, Bill Maher is a democrat.
    We talked a lot about Hollywood, as well as politics. He seemed to favor Burt Lancaster, over all the other actors. He had a lot to say, and I am a listener.

    AJ was in the news, but I didn’t pay attention. Brangelina must sell tabloids, as they are in almost every issue of The National Enquirer. I peruse these at the grocery.

    I don’t normally read many, but there was a blind item from Lainey Gossip featured in BLIND ITEMS. It’s about an overbearing film director who was humiliating an actor in front of the crew. Finally, the actor had had enough and reacted. The director, emboldened by his recent award hardware, was giving the actor an even harder time as he, the director, insisted on perfecting his technique, which took a while. He tried to deny the actor some relief from pain acquired during a previous shoot. So he and the actor agreed to discuss this away from the cast and crew. The yelling from the director, reached abnormally high decibels. Then, suddenly there was silence. In a moment, the actor emerged from the enclosure. The crew rushed to the tent, and found the director laid out. It took one punch. The popular guesses? Innaritu, (sp?) for the director, and Tom Hardy, for the actor.
    Now that was of interest to me, over anything Brangelina, currently. Guess time has tarnished their image to such an extent, that some of us lost much interest. There’s still some, however.

    Reply
  54. joanne said on March 24th, 2015 at 8:20 am

    @WR:
    She made the news again. Poor ass will run out of body parts to remove. I least she isn’t picking on the kids. Not a fan of Bill Maher.

    Reply
  55. rushdog said on March 24th, 2015 at 8:20 am

    Well, well…Jolie had the second op. PR. PR. Interesting that right next to her picture in the article I read was an advertisement for her DVD RELEASED TODAY in the US. This is what Iran meant in the 2/9 riddle…

    prediction
    rumors of BPD, missed event, busy schedule
    let’s you select a “group” member quickly w/out overload
    reason why so thin
    to announce, clarify, introduce
    immediate positive PR
    choreographed , repetitive dance to rhythm & blues (singer from SW Louisiana)

    butter to coconut oil conversion – coconut oil has fewer calories so will cover to energy quickly — immediate positive PR. Iran predicted she would “grid add on” to her routine to bring positive publicity to her. Looks like Iran thought she may announce bpd but it was something else. I haven’t had time to post this my guess on this riddle and am taking the time right now to do so. Doesn’t BP start filing in NOLA about now. Probably why the had the photo op recently…to cover over the lack of togetherness lately.

    Reply
  56. rushdog said on March 24th, 2015 at 8:22 am

    Good grief autocorrect -should be Ian!!!

    Reply
  57. Guest2 said on March 24th, 2015 at 9:45 am

    Why would she remove her ovaries and fallopian tubes but not her uterus? Don’t they usually remove everything when there is a cancer scare? Whatever, such a private matter that so many go through and she uses it to get positive PR for herself. She’s shameless.

    Reply
  58. joanne said on March 24th, 2015 at 10:07 am

    @Guest2:
    first miracle woman to have baby without eggs? or Saving it to be removed when she needs to get her mug out there.

    Reply
  59. Payal said on March 24th, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    How surprising this would be her next stunt (NOT!) the question is what next after this? A pretend martyr death to save a child? I bet she’s pissed off about the plane crash today. Something to really cry over, my heart break over what the family/friends of the victims will be feeling and how the passengers felt the last few minutes. RIP.

    Reply
  60. WR said on March 24th, 2015 at 1:36 pm

    @Payal:
    What a stunning event! Prayers for family and friends of the victims.
    First reaction was that there is an awful lot of small debris; but it was reported eyewitnesses saw the intact plane go down. Then, USA officials declared it wasn’t a terrorist act.

    Reply
  61. WC Kitty said on March 24th, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    @WR:
    @Payal:
    @Guest2:

    Such a horrible tragedy.

    AJ and BP make me ill. Thanks to the posters over at FF for keeping things straight as in today they reminded everybody that Unchosen is out on DVD/BD today. They never miss an opportunity to do any form of PR in order to line their pockets.
    http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=682175&start=105

    Reply
  62. anonymous said on March 24th, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    “Why would she remove her ovaries and fallopian tubes but not her uterus?”

    Because the uterus still serves a useful purpose. It is not unusual for doctors to recommend leaving it in when early onset menopause occurs (in this case surgically forced). It continues to keep hormonal levels up despite the loss of ovaries which helps a woman’s overall health. It may be that its removal will be recommended in the future.

    Your notions that this was timed to her DVD or some other event gets tired quickly. Even people consumed with hatred for this woman can’t be this foolish. No one is buying her DVD because she had ovarian surgery. She had the surgery as soon as possible after the test results were in and she followed up her original article as soon as possible before the tabs could distort it as they are wont to do.

    Is there nothing she does that you can’t jump on with some sort of negativity? That alone says so much about your mentality. Not good.

    Reply
  63. Guest2 said on March 24th, 2015 at 4:35 pm

    @anonymous:
    No there isn’t because she is manipulative in the timing of her events to coincide with the release of her movies, dvd’s, or whatever it is she is trying to promote at any given time. She exploits whoever and whatever she can in her pursuit of attention, including her own body. It says more about your mentality that you would come to a known anti-brangelina site just to see what people are saying about her. Glad we can give you something to tsk, tsk about.

    Reply
  64. joanne said on March 24th, 2015 at 5:05 pm

    @Guest2:
    Agreed. The uterus can still get cancer so its bullcrap as usual. I am offended she is in the UN. I think they should disband.

    Reply
  65. anonymous said on March 25th, 2015 at 1:36 am

    Uterine cancer is different from ovarian cancer. As I said upthread the uterus still serves a useful purpose for the overall health of a woman so, no, it isn’t necessarily removed to avoid ovarian cancer.

    Guest2, Ian didn’t set this site up as anti or pro anything. He set it up as a discussion forum. If you can’t handle that, well, that’s your problem.

    Reply
  66. joanne said on March 25th, 2015 at 9:55 am

    http://www.wdxcyber.com/nmood13.htm

    Reply
  67. Guest2 said on March 25th, 2015 at 1:05 pm

    @anonymous:
    I can handle it fine but if you don’t like that people bash AJ then you are the one with the problem since you come here to bash what we say when it doesn’t agree with your viewpoint. I’m well aware that uterine and ovarian cancers are different. It’s been my personal experience that when cancer is suspected in one area then a total hysterectomy is recommended. Obviously, every situation is not the same and if her doctors said it wasn’t necessary to remove the uterus then so be it. But for someone who is so in fear of cancer that she would remove various body parts I wondered why she would leave it in. I don’t disagree that the uterus serves a useful purpose, however, it does not produce hormones which is why she is getting HRT. Maybe getting it through the uterus as she said in her oversharing Op Ed is why she did it.

    What I find so annoying about this woman is that every little thing she does is called “brave” and that every woman should look to her as a role model just because she made decisions concerning her health. What’s brave about having a hysterectomy to avoid getting cancer? Women make these health decisions every day and quietly move on with their lives. The brave ones are the people who actually get cancer and suffer through debilitating treatments and some ultimately lose their lives to this dreadful disease. I lost my father, two uncles and an aunt to cancer and watched them suffer through the pain and fear and they never uttered a complaint. That’s bravery and those are the people I admire. Some a**hole actress using this disease (which she doesn’t have and may never get, with or without the surgery) to further her pathological need for attention is vile and disgusting. But there are many fools who look to her as some kind of saint for this behavior so I guess there is a following for her bull.

    Reply
  68. Guest2 said on March 25th, 2015 at 1:09 pm

    @Guest2:

    If she is so afraid of getting cancer maybe someone should suggest to her that she quit smoking. It’s the leading cause of lung cancer and lungs are a bit more difficult to remove.

    Reply
  69. Keane said on March 25th, 2015 at 3:14 pm

    @anonymous:

    Convenient that she made sure she got papped at that soccer game which she later referred to in her piece and didn’t at any time though isn’t it? Some might even go as far as to say, planned.

    Reply
  70. Keane said on March 25th, 2015 at 3:17 pm

    @anonymous:

    You sure are mightily defensive of this lady aren’t you? Can’t think why anyone would have so much invested that they would go to such great pains to defend someone they don’t know, to sound so angry and like they know more about exactly why Angelina had the surgery than the woman herself! lol

    Reply
  71. Keane said on March 25th, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    @Guest2:

    100% agreed with you there Guest2 – there is nothing that this woman won’t exploit for her own personal gain/fame: orphans, refugees, war veterans and now cancer sufferers. She is beyond shameless, she is in fact disgusting.

    Reply
  72. Guest2 said on March 25th, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    @Keane:
    She not only got papped at the soccer game, she made sure brad got papped on his flight back from France. She even had an excuse about why she didn’t hug the kids, something to do with radiation. She had her checklist covered in that ridiculous OpEd piece. I’d still like to know why the fire department was called to their home several weeks ago. Maybe anonymous could shed some light on that.

    Reply
  73. Guest1 said on March 25th, 2015 at 9:45 pm

    How ironic that in 2008, before The New York Times printed Jolie’s articles ‘My Medical Choice’ and ‘Diary of a Surgery’, the Times printed the following article:

    (warning – it is a long one)

    Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image

    LOS ANGELES — When Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt negotiated with People and other celebrity magazines this summer for photos of their newborn twins and an interview, the stars were seeking more than the estimated $14 million they received from the deal. They also wanted a hefty slice of journalistic input — a promise that the winning magazine’s coverage would be positive, not merely in that instance but into the future.

    According to the deal offered by Ms. Jolie, the winning magazine was obliged to offer coverage that would not reflect negatively on her or her family, according to two people with knowledge of the bidding who were granted anonymity because the talks were confidential. The deal also asked for an “editorial plan” providing a road map of the layout, these people say.

    The winner was People. The resulting package in its Aug. 18 issue — the magazine’s best-selling in seven years — was a publicity coup for Ms. Jolie, the Oscar winner and former Hollywood eccentric who wore a necklace ornamented with dried blood and talked about her fondness for knives before transforming herself into a philanthropist, United Nations good-will ambassador and devoted mother of six.

    In the People interview, there were questions about her and Mr. Pitt’s charity work and no use of the word “Brangelina,” the tabloid amalgamation of their names, which irks the couple.

    Through a spokeswoman, People magazine, which is owned by Time Inc., released a statement denying that any conditions were placed on coverage. “These claims are categorically false,” the statement said. “Like any news organization, People does purchase photos, but the magazine does not determine editorial content based on the demands of outside parties.”

    While all celebrities seek to manipulate their public images to one degree or another, Ms. Jolie accomplishes it with a determination, a self-reliance and a degree of success that is particularly notable. The actress does not employ a publicist or an agent. The keys to her public image belong to her alone, although she does rely on her longtime manager, Geyer Kosinski, as a conduit.

    Jennifer Lopez, who sold pictures of her twins to People for an estimated $6 million in February, has a team of eight to help her navigate such situations. Ms. Jolie, 33, has her cellphone, a lawyer and Mr. Kosinski (and, of course, the counsel of her partner, Mr. Pitt). Getty Images handled the photography and some negotiations.

    “She’s scary smart,” said Bonnie Fuller, the former editor of Us Weekly and Star magazines. “But smart only takes you so far. She also has an amazing knack, perhaps more than any other star, for knowing how to shape a public image.”

    Ms. Jolie did not respond to interview requests and neither did Mr. Kosinski. Her lawyer, Robert Offer, declined to comment. But through interviews with nearly two dozen people who have worked directly with her over the years, a picture emerges of how she skillfully works the press.

    Ms. Jolie expertly walks a line between known entity and complete mystery, cultivates relationships with friendly reporters and even sets up her own photo shoots for the paparazzi.

    Most skillfully, she dictates terms to celebrity magazines involving their coverage of her and her family, editors say, creating an awkward situation for publications that try to abide by strict journalistic standards.

    Ms. Jolie showed her skill at handling the news media in other negotiations. People magazine bid successfully for photos and an exclusive interview after she gave birth to her first child in 2006. Those pictures sold for an estimated $4.1 million, a sum that she and Mr. Pitt said they donated to charity.

    In a separate 2006 negotiation with People, Ms. Jolie invited magazine editors — through her philanthropic adviser, Trevor Neilson — to bid on exclusive photos of her and her adopted Cambodian son, Maddox. But she made coverage of her charity work part of the deal.

    “While Angelina and Brad understand the interest in their family, they also expect that the publications who purchase these photos will use them in a way that also draws attention to the needs of the Cambodian people,” Mr. Neilson wrote in a December 2006 memo to editors.

    He went on to promise that Ms. Jolie would provide “exclusive quotes” to the publication that purchased the photos. “Publications are invited to comment on their editorial plans when submitting their bids,” Mr. Neilson wrote.

    Time Inc. won the photos, paying an estimated $750,000. In the Jan. 8 issue of People came an article headlined “Angelina Jolie: Mission to Cambodia.” As in other instances, the company paid the money to the photography company, Getty Images, which took its fee and split the rest in payments to companies operated on behalf of Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt. Those companies in turn funneled the money to the Jolie-Pitt Foundation.

    Mr. Neilson, the president of the Global Philanthropy Group and a former executive at the Bill and Melinda Gates
    Foundation, said, “She is used to sell magazines and newspapers, so part of why we wrote that memo is that we wanted to use the interest in her personal life to influence people to pay attention to important issues. If Angie can use the interest and redirect it, she wants to do that.”

    The persona that Ms. Jolie projects on screen tends to be intimidating and physical. She is not the girl next door. She won a supporting actress Oscar in 2000 for “Girl, Interrupted,” in which she played a mental patient.

    But more recently, she has emphasized her philanthropic work, and her growing family. Ms. Jolie, with Mr. Pitt, now has a clan of six. There are three adopted children — Maddox, Pax and Zahara — and three biological children: Shiloh and the twins, Knox and Vivienne.

    But she cut a very different, wilder figure in Hollywood during her marriage to the actor Billy Bob Thornton. After their divorce in 2003, Us magazine asked Ms. Jolie if she would agree to an interview and be photographed. According to two people involved, she declined — but then offered the magazine another photo opportunity. Ms. Jolie informed it what time and place she would be publicly playing with Maddox, essentially creating a paparazzi shot.

    The resulting photo, the origin of which was not made public to Us readers, presented Ms. Jolie in a new light — a young mother unsuccessfully trying to have a private moment with her son.

    Shifting the focus is one of Ms. Jolie’s best maneuvers, magazine editors and publicity executives say. When she became romantically involved with Mr. Pitt, for instance, she faced a public relations crisis — being portrayed in the tabloid press as a predator who stole Mr. Pitt from his wife, Jennifer Aniston.

    This time, it was Ms. Jolie’s charity work that helped turn the story. Long interested in international humanitarian work, Ms. Jolie appeared in Pakistan, where she visited camps housing Afghan refugees, and even met with President Pervez Musharraf. Ms. Jolie and Mr. Pitt made a subsequent trip to Kashmir to bring attention to earthquake victims.

    “Presto, they come out looking like serious people who have transformed a silly press obsession into a sincere attempt to help the needy,” said Michael Levine, a celebrity publicist and author.

    That is cynical nonsense, counters Mr. Neilson.

    “People don’t realize the complexity of what Angie is doing,” he said. “A lot of her charity work is done quietly and not in front of the media.”

    According to federal filings, the Jolie-Pitt Foundation, the entity through which Mr. Neilson says the couple distributes photo money, has given grants of about $2 million since its creation in 2006. Mr. Neilson said that filings run more than a year behind and that the foundation has additional commitments of about $5.6 million that that are being paid as the organizations receiving the funds structure their programs.

    Among the grants are $2 million for an AIDS clinic in Ethiopia and $2.6 million to Make It Right, an organization devoted to rebuilding New Orleans, Mr. Neilson said. Smaller grants include $500,000 to groups focused on helping Iraqi schoolchildren.

    The New York Times recently ran a feature article about Ms. Jolie; there were no restrictions on access.

    Ms. Jolie’s attempts to lasso the media have occasionally backfired. In 2006, when she sought the privacy of Namibia to give birth to Shiloh, the government refused to grant visas to journalists unless they had written permission from the couple. Magazines complained harshly.

    More recently, she insisted that journalists at the premiere of “A Mighty Heart,” a movie about the murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, sign an agreement limiting their questions and the use of her answers. In part, the document stated: “The interview may only be used to promote the picture. In no event may interviewer or media outlet be entitled to run all or any portion of the interview in connection with any other story.”

    And, “the interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning or derogatory to Ms. Jolie.”

    Ms. Jolie blamed an overzealous lawyer for the demand at the time, saying he was “trying to protect me.”

    Still, such blunders are rare, and Ms. Jolie’s Q score, a measurement of a star’s likability, has continued to increase. Around the time she won her Oscar, 13 percent of people surveyed viewed her positively, according to Marketing Evaluations Inc. The average rating for female stars is 18 percent.

    Today, about 24 percent of respondents view Ms. Jolie positively.

    Reply
  74. joanne said on March 25th, 2015 at 10:00 pm

    @Guest1:
    All that work and only 24 percent? Poor thing needs to try harder.

    Reply
  75. Guest1 said on March 25th, 2015 at 10:34 pm

    @joanne:
    The following linked article was written the day she published her first op-ed article in The New York Times in 2013:

    http://entertainment.time.com/2013/05/14/angelina-jolies-public-image-turnaround/

    I didn’t want to copy and past another long article.

    Reply
  76. Guest2 said on March 26th, 2015 at 8:29 am

    @Guest1:
    2012: The actress is promoted from goodwill ambassador to special envoy by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, with a focus on “large-scale crises.” As part of the announcement of her new position, a U.N. spokesman said that she has made 40 visits to refugee hotspots and “donated $5 million to the cause”.

    So she does pay for these photo ops. Is it through her charitable organization? Maybe someone at FF will pull up the latest reports on the JP Foundation to see where the money goes.

    Reply
  77. anonymous said on March 26th, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    @Guest1:

    Warning: it’s reality

    NY Times Ombudsman Investigation into Brooks Barnes Claims

    By CLARK HOYT
    THE PUBLIC EDITOR
    Published: December 10, 2008

    IN a time of war and recession, with a historic change of government about to take place, two recent articles far from those weighty subjects angered some readers of The Times and raised troubling journalistic issues.

    One was a front-page report late last month on efforts by the movie star Angelina Jolie to control her image. The other was last Sunday’s cover story in The New York Times Magazine by Alex Kuczynski, an author and former Times reporter, about her battle with infertility and the experience of having another woman bear her baby for $25,000.

    Mia McDonald of Brooklyn objected to the Jolie story. “Does this really merit the front page, let alone a mention in the newspaper at all?” she asked, suggesting that The Times should not devote precious resources to overexposed celebrities. Howard Saunders of Hudson, N.Y., was furious that, with all the serious news to be covered, “the NY Times has disgraced itself by giving so much prominent ink” to Kuczynski, who came off to many readers as a rich woman in a rarefied world of servants and multiple homes, able to enjoy skiing, whitewater rafting and the Super Bowl while her surrogate was pregnant. “All of the words I would like to use are unprintable,” Saunders said. More than 400 readers posted messages on the Web site of The Times, and many were equally scathing.

    I do not think the articles were about undeserving subjects. The Times covers war, recession, politics, science and more with great thoroughness, and a change of pace is refreshing. But each raised other issues worth examining.

    In the case of the Jolie article, it is the most fundamental question in journalism: Are all the facts right?

    Brooks Barnes, the reporter, began with an anecdote about how Jolie and Brad Pitt negotiated last summer with celebrity magazines for photos of their newborn twins and an interview. He wrote that they wanted positive coverage from the winning magazine, then and in the future. Jolie asked for an “editorial plan,” including a road map of the layout, Barnes wrote, citing two anonymous sources “with knowledge of the bidding.”

    While the article did not directly say that Jolie got what she wanted from People, the winning magazine, it strongly implied it. People denied that it had agreed to any conditions, and Larry Hackett, its managing editor, told me that no such conditions were ever even requested.

    Hackett said he handled all the negotiations for the photos and interview with Jolie’s manager, Geyer Kosinski, Pitt’s manager, Jon Liebman, and Jonathan Klein, the chief executive of Getty Images, which took the pictures. He said the discussions were all about the price of the pictures. “There was never any conversation about positive coverage,” Hackett said. “There was never any conversation about a future plan.” Liebman said Hackett’s version was correct. Kosinski said that The Times’s description of what Jolie was asking for was “simply not true.” Klein said People was “free to write what they wanted” and to “do the layout they wanted.” He said Jolie and Pitt chose the photos they sold to People. Hackett said they suggested one for the cover but People used a different one.

    I have read the seven-page contract for the photos and interview. It made no mention of positive coverage, an editorial plan, a road map for a layout or any other editorial conditions. It said the magazine was buying the North American rights to 10 photographs and that Jolie and Pitt would answer e-mailed questions.

    Mary Green, the People reporter who conducted the e-mail interview, said no one put any limits on what she could ask. The story was to accompany photos of the twins, so she concentrated on them and family life, she said.

    The 19-page spread that People published on Aug. 18 was certainly positive, even glowing. “To say our coverage of Angelina is not positive or admiring, that would be disingenuous,” Hackett said. But he said that did not mean there was any advance agreement with her.

    There is no question that Jolie has a history of trying to manipulate coverage of her, and it is frustrating to Barnes and his editor, Bruce Headlam, that some of the people speaking to me would not speak to him when he was reporting the story. But I think that unless one of his sources is willing to come forward — on the record — and state firsthand knowledge contradicting Hackett, Green, Liebman, Kosinski, Klein and the written contract, the paper needs to correct the impression it left of a deal it cannot prove.

    Headlam said Barnes has reconfirmed his account with a third source, and Headlam believes the story is solid. That leaves The Times relying on anonymous sources to dispute on-the-record sources, a questionable position over a story of less than world-shaking import.

    ============

    I’m sure this will sail right over your head but this article is no better than a tabloid with “unnamed” sources. There is no reason why such sources would refuse to be named on such an innocuous matter unless they know they would be embarrassed by the truth. The truth is in the contract and it contained nothing like Barnes suggests.

    Barnes pulled this tabloid-ish type of “reporting” when he covered the Writers Guild Strike and repeatedly published stories without properly vetting his information basis or his sources. Brooks, in effect, simply parroted what the studios told him (that is, only one side of a hotly disputed strike) because he didn’t have the contacts someone in his position should have. The studios saw a hungry neophyte, fed him their propaganda and used him as their messenger boy. Those reporters with long time, extensive contacts and sources called Barnes out at the time. Barnes’ transgressions may have hindered him in efforts to expand his contacts.

    This story reinforces Barnes’ deficiencies as a reporter and writer. Rather than develop his contacts and make sure they were knowledgable Barnes just wrote an article and speculated about the subject of his article, mist likely because he knew it would be widely read and get him much attention. In that regard he also got called out by those who did have the facts. His article and premise is busted.

    Reply
  78. anonymous said on March 26th, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    @Guest2:

    The UN sends its own photographer on all field missions by its Goodwill Ambassadors. That is the whole point of Goodwill Ambassadors, like Audrey Hepburn. They publicize the issue they work on. If you look for them you will find them. Did Audrey pay for her photo ops?

    Reply
  79. joanne said on March 26th, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    @anonymous:
    We live in an illusion and lied to since we understand. This is tiring. Hollyweird/UN/Washington DC need to cut the ties already and find a new approach. The caretakers are getting stale.

    Reply
  80. WR said on March 26th, 2015 at 2:45 pm

    @Guest1:
    Thank you for the article. Makes so much sense! But then, common people who can think for themselves, don’t rely on PEOPLE. For example, that mag has THE MOST BEAUTIFUL (read, WHITE) PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, or some such nonsense. Then, there’s the SEXIEST (again, WHITE, with an occasional token non-white) MAN ALIVE, issue. Most of the chosen are not worthy of comparison to Liam Neeson, for example. And for Pee Wee to be given that label, twice; well the human beings behind PEOPLE, who do the selecting, should be exposed. Although it’s only make-believe, the public takes it seriously. And the apathetic, sex-obssessed public has a huge role in the destruction of the USA; so you can see why they lap up this poison.

    OT:
    Reading reports that the co-pilot of the crashed plane locked the door to the cockpit. The pilot tried to re-enter, but was locked out. Reports that the crew tried desperately to help the pilot re-enter, to no avail. Chilling reports that there were sounds of terror from the passengers on the recorder.

    So many, many questions. Did the co-pilot know he was taking 149 innocent people with him?
    If so, he was a mass murderer!
    Those who knew something about him, said that he was a normal person. There’s a picture of him posing near the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. His look does seem “different”, sort of something like, a person who may have mental issues. JMO!
    This will continue to fascinate the people. Brangelina will have to wait for the furor to die, before another “Poor Me” article appears. JMO!

    Reply
  81. anonymous said on March 26th, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    From the French prosecutor’s remarks so far . . .

    - Lubitz “voluntarily” refused to open the door and his breathing was normal throughout the final minutes of the flight.

    - Mr Robin said the co-pilot’s responses before the captain had left him alone in the cockpit were initially courteous, but became “curt” when the captain began the mid-flight briefing on the planned landing.

    Reply
  82. WR said on March 26th, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    Audrey Hepburn started her career as a spokesperson for UNICEF, after her career wound down. She didn’t NEED photo-ops, by then. Furthermore, she had an exemplary life as a celeb earlier in her career. Of course, there were roles that should have gone to better actresses; and she didn’t take the classy route by refusing them, as did Cary Grant, who said he would not only NOT play Professor Higgins, but he would not see the picture if Rex Harrison was not cast.

    Truman Capote, who created the character of Holly Golightly, was very disappointed in Audrey Hepburn’s performance. He wrote the character for Marilyn Monroe. No matter how we love Audrey Hepburn, it wasn’t worthy of an Oscar nomination. (She got one, over the superlative work done by Deborah Kerr, in “The Innocents”).

    Reply
  83. WR said on March 26th, 2015 at 3:21 pm

    OT;
    “Downton Abbey” is in its last season. Started watching it because of the persistence of good acquaintances, week after week. So, I gave it a go. It took a bit of adjustment, I must say.
    The characters were easy to adapt to, imo. By this time, murmurs of the “soap opera” aspects of the story stared to make the internet. But, how could the writer not use that formula? Story lines were rather limited for the time period, after all. Nevertheless, it held my interest. And it certainly did the people I heard from. Much discussion and speculation. What will happen to Lady Mary? What is Thomas up to, now? And, the general consensus that Violet had the best lines. The beauty of the sets. The scenes outside the mansion, and beyond. Why did they not focus more on Daisy’s fascination with that redhead, who left to go to a school? What happened to the other workers in the kitchen who were in Daisy’s age group?
    So, it seems the soap opera formula was very responsible for its worldwide popularity.
    We will not see it until long after the public overseas has done so. Now, it has a good hold on me.

    Reply
  84. anonymous said on March 26th, 2015 at 3:54 pm

    @WR:

    The only work Audrey did for UNICEF in the 1950s were some PSAs. That’s it. She didn’t start her career working with UNICEF.

    Audrey started her field missions, the few she did, long after her retirement about 4 years before her death. Before that after her retirement she would attend gala events to raise money for UNICEF.

    I don’t want to take anything away from someone who gives of their time to a cause but get your facts right. As admirable as Audrey was, her participation in UN work pales in comparison to Angelina’s. As I said upthread, the UN uses their own photographer to document Goodwill Ambassador work. That’s what it’s all about. As for fame, who’s more famous than Angelina Jolie.

    Audrey’s “exemplary life as a celeb” – whatever that means – included well known and proven affairs with married men throughout her career.

    Reply
  85. Guest2 said on March 26th, 2015 at 4:57 pm

    @anonymous:
    I wasn’t talking about the photographer. I was referring to the “missions” that she does for photo ops in exchange for large donations of money. Nothing you say will convince me this woman has a generous bone in her body. It’s all done for self promotion. Believe what you want, though. And Audrey was not a famewhore.

    Reply
  86. anonymous said on March 26th, 2015 at 10:10 pm

    @Guest2:

    Then be my guest and wallow in your negativity. It’s an ugly place to live and it bears bitter fruit.

    What exactly do you think Audrey’s missions were then? Your double standard is perverse.

    Reply
  87. Togi said on March 27th, 2015 at 12:34 am

    Anonymous, perhaps I am way off base, but it seems to ME that YOUR concerns and apparent knowledge could be put to FAR BETTER use than coming to a gossip site to chide “perverse” posters. I have to admit that I find your attacks on posters quite out of place here.@anonymous:

    Reply
  88. WR said on March 27th, 2015 at 1:47 am

    @anonymous:
    You mix up what I posted to suit your ends. I said that Audrey Hepburn worked for UNICEF after her career wound down. What, in this statement don’t you get? I remember reading many articles about Audrey’s visits to poor countries. She didn’t do it for publicity, except to point out her concern for the poor. She could have enjoyed her home life.

    I don’t know which men she was committing adultery with. I did read William Holden fell hard for her while he was still married to Ardis. But she wanted children, and Holden had had surgery to prevent that. Who were the other married men? She didn’t have that many movies to seduce her co-stars. Fred Astaire? Humphrey Bogart? Gary Cooper? Who? Her last male companion, after her divorce from Mel Ferrer had been married to Merle Oberon, who died.

    In this day and age, there are celebrities known all over the world, thanks to the internet; cd’s; videos; concerts; and tv shows. Who is more famous than Angelina Jolie? There are probably not a few. Even the Kardashians are known all over.

    In today’s world, Miss Hepburn would be known globally because of the above social network.
    To compare Angelina Jolie’s publicity whoring to her, is an insult to Audrey Hepburn, who made sure her child was brought up with her participation. She didn’t have to go to foreign countries to get her family. She didn’t brag about what she and her lover did on the way to an award ceremony. She didn’t have numerous “health incidents’ to maintain her publicity whoring. So, do your own homework about all this. You’ll be so busy, you wont have time to lurk around the pracically only site that America can say is not in AJ’s pocket. Maybe that’s why you lurk around here all the time.

    Reply
  89. WR said on March 27th, 2015 at 2:10 am

    I admit I am “glued” to the news, regarding the plane crash. One hears many points of view. Of course, we all have our opinions, and we hear many from the public. And some of that reverberates to the plane crash in Malaysia, when all those countries did an extensive search. Again, so many viewpoints. The latest I heard, was that the US shot it down because it got too close to a sensitive area: a U.S. base.

    Saw the memorial sites, with the photos. All those students. And to have knowledge that they were going to die. Some years back, I read that scientists theorized that plane accident victims spirits leave their bodies before impact. The stress is that great! I’d like to read more about this theory. Perhaps religious leaders know about this.

    It’s all but official, that the co=pilot acted spontaneously. Read so many theories about why the pilot left his station. Was his drink spiked with a diuretic during the stopover? It’s said the staff didn’t leave the plane.
    Haven’t seen our resident seer, today. Would be very interested in his pov. He cares not a whit for AJ, and tolerates BP, so I don’t bring up that subject. So many in this large complex don’t want to be reminded about, or discuss Brangelina.
    Don’t expect comedians, public and private, to make fun of AJ. It wouldn’t be “classy”.

    Reply
  90. WR said on March 27th, 2015 at 2:17 am

    Do you recall the second plane crash in that same territory? I saw the photo of a young, blond guy joking about a possible accident. He showed a selfie, and posted that this was being saved in case the plane is lost. Maybe not the exact words, but the gist of it.
    Well, in today’s Yahoo site, there were photos of some young people. Smiley faces, and looking so innocent.

    FYI: In some religions, the man responsible has to face his victims in the heavenly court. Could be! I believe there’s life in the hereafter.

    Reply
  91. Guest2 said on March 27th, 2015 at 10:41 am

    @anonymous:
    I’m very happy and not wallowing in anything. If some dumbass actress for hire wants to preach to people about world affairs and medical issues then she is making herself a target for those of us who are not manipulated by her. It’s you who are wallowing in illusions of who these people really are. Honestly, they should just make movies and shut up. There are more legitimate sources of information concerning world affairs of the world and medical issues for most of us. However, there are plenty of dummies out there who take everything this crazy woman says and does as gospel so at least you are not alone in your silly worship of these celebrities. Carry on with your delusions.

    Reply
  92. Guest2 said on March 27th, 2015 at 10:42 am

    @Guest2:
    bad edit…..strike of the world

    Reply
  93. WR said on March 27th, 2015 at 11:17 am

    @Guest2:
    AJ’s fanatical followers with their blinders on, remind me of those who were blinded by the wretched history and persona of, you gessed it, Der Fuhrer.

    Reply
  94. joanne said on March 27th, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    Where would Jolie be without daddy Voight? She would have grown into an exotic beauty if she didn’t mess with nature. Poor woman wanted to be so great and better than everyone else. She has money but not much else.

    Reply
  95. Guest2 said on March 27th, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    @WR:
    Yes, some of them do but I think that some of these posters are paid or have a vested interest in defending her reputation. I can’t imagine there are that many nutty people that actually believe this woman is worthy of worshipping. I think a lot of people make money off her so it’s in their interest to prop up her reputation so that she can keep making money. In that regard, they’ve got a tough job since the camp event gets stranger as she gets older. It’ hard to forget Scott Rudin’s words and he knows her personally. We catch just a glimpse of the crazyland from where we sit.

    Reply
  96. Guest1 said on March 27th, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    Did anyone see the following blindgossip item from yesterday? One of the most obvious blinds I have read. A lot of negative comments aimed at George and Amal. I guess whoever leaked this blind item had an agenda, and it is working.

    Anyone who accuses this actress of doing things just for the publicity probably doesn’t realize that she doesn’t even have a publicist. She has always simply done exactly what she wanted to do.

    When she was younger, she used to do a lot of wild and destructive things, and she was unhappy a lot of the time. Now, she’s calmer and more constructive, and she is much happier. Not perfect, mind you, but genuinely happier. And she is still doing exactly what she wants to do.

    There are four things about which she is genuinely passionate: her business, her charitable work, her husband, and her kids. She also has to take care of her health issues. That’s where she puts her time. That’s where she puts her energy. It’s a very full life.

    There definitely isn’t any time or room for phony people who want to latch onto her to boost their own profile. She knows that this actor’s marriage is a sham. That’s why she didn’t go to his wedding… and that’s why she’s not going to let his phony new wife use her.

    Actress:

    Husband:

    Actor:

    Actor’s New Wife:

    Reply
  97. Guest2 said on March 27th, 2015 at 9:02 pm

    @Guest1:
    It’s nice to know she puts her kids last. I guess she’s moved on from Jen and sunk her witch’s claws into a new victim. Maybe George will retaliate with a juicy blind of his own.

    Reply
  98. joanne said on March 28th, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    I guess its easier to believe all the bullshit. I hope jolie treats her loons well.

    Reply
  99. rushdog said on March 28th, 2015 at 4:37 pm

    Anyone see Gone Girl ;)

    Reply
  100. Keane said on March 28th, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    @anonymous:

    One Direction

    Reply
  101. Keane said on March 28th, 2015 at 4:46 pm

    @anonymous:

    So I guess Ange is copying her in two regards then?

    Reply
  102. Keane said on March 28th, 2015 at 4:50 pm

    @WR:

    Agree – what with the truly awful story about the crash there has been Jeremy Clarkson-gate and Zayn Malik leaving One Direction – it’s been a big week for news. In competition with this Angelina’s ovaries really did not stand a chance.

    Reply
  103. Keane said on March 28th, 2015 at 4:58 pm

    @Guest1:

    Planted!

    Ange is SO threatened by Amal!

    Reply
  104. sinker said on March 28th, 2015 at 4:58 pm

    i realize i’m super cynical…. but i think the cancer scares are smoke screen for a different serious illness / disease. With her earlier heroin use, which is quite often accompanied by high-risk sex, wonder if last week’s surgery was a result of her earlier bad choices. also, i think she’s had hiv or hep c, or possibly even some type of liver, or other organ damage from long term opiates / fentanyl. calling it cancer or cancer prevention is the only think i can think of that would work for her from PR perspective; like i said, i’m very cynical about her (and most of HW).

    Reply
  105. Keane said on March 28th, 2015 at 5:03 pm

    @Guest2:

    I think I would re-order that list to the following: herself, her image, publicity, gongs (she is desperate for those but will never win any more), money, “party snacks”, her brother, Holly, children (an after-thought of course, but they’re useful for sustaining priorities one, two and four).

    Reply
  106. WC Kitty said on March 28th, 2015 at 8:37 pm

    @rushdog:
    I didn’t see the movie, but I read the book.

    Reply
  107. WR said on March 29th, 2015 at 2:31 am

    @Guest1:
    It’s probably true that Brangelina weren’t invited to the wedding, according to earlier blogs.
    In any case, AJ has long had no love lost between herself and GC.

    You might recall a color photo from about 5 years ago, It was reprinted in one of the weeklies. It showed BP looking at GC, as a girl would look at a beau who knew exactly which buttons, of hers, to press. Perhaps, AJ cannot forgive the power that GC had then.
    And, as usual, there was a response when this sort of news about Brangelina was reported in the media. What happened then, was BP started making fun of GC’s alleged sexual orientation. It was reported on several sites. BP conveniently forgot that he, himself, lived with a gay man for a couple of years, before his career took off. He also forgot to forcefully deny the reports that he, BP, was “threatening” to do porn, if his career didn’t get going sooner. Allegedly, his male benefactor (sugar daddy?), convinced him to not do it. (For that, we salute him). It was the typical narcissist’s demand for everything to cater to his selfish ways. JMO!

    Reply
  108. WR said on March 29th, 2015 at 2:44 am

    @Keane:
    Re: the crash. The co-pilot certainly raised a lot of red flags. BUT he was baby=faced, and blond. Who could not give him a pass, when he looked like he did.

    The photo of him in front of the Golden Gate Bridge. After the crash I posted that he looked like he had mental issues. Now, it’s come out that he had had plenty. And very deep! But, he could use his innocent look, at will, it appears.
    Incidentally, that area is reported to have a nude beach, and further down, is a gay area for hikers. Maybe he didn’t know this, but with his looks, he certainly would be “hit on”.

    The tragedy still hasn’t worn off for me. It wasn’t sudden, is why.
    Continued prayers to all the relatives and friends of the victims.

    Reply
  109. Keane said on March 29th, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    God Angelina and her ovaries, whatever next – will she be sharing with us details of her next cervical smear? Did you get a few abnormal looking cells their Ange? Surely an opportunity to do another op-ed piece in the national broadsheet of your choice…

    Reply
  110. Guest2 said on March 29th, 2015 at 8:57 pm

    @WR:
    It’s shocking and incomprehensible that someone could so cold-bloodedly take the lives of all those innocent people, including children. He’s a mass murderer and most likely a psychopath. The warning signs are always there with people like that but somehow they seem to get away with it until it’s too late. Psychopaths are usually very good at manipulating people. It’s frightening because you just never know when your path will cross with someone like this. All we can do is pray for those poor souls and their families. And hope that the airlines have learned something from this tragedy so that it never happens again.

    Reply
  111. WR said on March 30th, 2015 at 1:35 am

    @Guest2:
    After 9/11, the U.S.A. made it mandatory for there to be at least 2 people in the cockpit at all times. Europe was more lackadaisical, it seems. Now, they are putting the rule in for 2 people to occupy the cockpit.

    He had the look that apparently gave him the opportunity to manipulate. Seems like the women in his life couldn’t keep up their relationship. He even told one of them some eerie predictions. Both women didn’t think of the fact he had so many lives in his control, and warn the airline officials. Again, his looks were not the stereotypical one of a mass murderer.
    An acquaintance was quick to point out that Ted Bundy looked so trustworthy and harmless, that he was able to get normally cautious young women to come inside his vehicle.
    We all are easily

    Reply
  112. WR said on March 30th, 2015 at 1:53 am

    @WR:
    Sorry, somebody distracted me. Anyway, to continue: We all are easily swayed by looks. I know I am.
    Other reports claim he was a convert to Muslim.

    OT; The National Enquirer’s lead article is about Robert Wagner. Reports he refuses to cooperate with authorities and the law. And they are not insisting. We know his celebrity is at work, here. Also, he’s 85. Still, justice should prevail.

    Reply
  113. WR said on March 30th, 2015 at 3:10 am

    I mean to see more movies, but my plate is so full, that I don’t even have the time to read more serious classical books. And Easter is coming up. It’ll be here before one can prepare properly. Not enough available hours in the day to do all this. People demand one’s time; and one has to be there for them. It’s because of all the training one gets to help their fellow human beings. And still, one feels like they aren’t accomplishing anything. And it doesn’t help when a respected friend who is a reverend keeps pushing me to start a writing career. Ha!

    I remember the times when a movie would be in the theaters for a long time.

    Reply
  114. joanne said on March 30th, 2015 at 11:45 am

    @WR:
    Now they throw out crap and remakes. Hollyweird lost its originality. All these ego movies are getting stale. I did like Divergent.

    Reply
  115. WC Kitty said on March 30th, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    @WR:
    I love to watch the television show “NCIS.” However, every time that RW is on it playing Tony’s dad, all I can think about is what happened to Natalie. True, innocent until proven guilty, but still is an awful feeling to be watching this man who may have killed his wife. Ryan O’Neil is rumored to have been awful to Farrah, and he is on Bones once in awhile. Both of these men were supposed to be considered heartthrobs in their day, and good looks don’t always equal a prize (in the good sense). If they both get away with what they’ve done here on Earth, I believe they will pay for it on the other side. It’s not what others think they know about us, but what God knows, since God knows the truth – IMO.

    Reply
  116. WR said on March 30th, 2015 at 4:36 pm

    @WC Kitty:
    About 7 years ago, I read on a different site, that RW had been involved in a slaying in his youth; but that his rich family got him out of it. Then, that item disappeared, shortly. It may have stayed in the recesses of my mind, however. Now, it’s better to give him the benefit of the doubt, and let it fade away.

    He’s one of those actors who had very little talent, yet was repeatedly hired because pf his male glamour, imo. He was known for having one of the best smiles in the business.
    Later in his career, he gave an interview about his experience with director, John Ford.
    He was auditioning for a part, but Ford said he had already chosen Jeffrey Hunter. Ford kept leading him on, then stating his choice was Hunter. Finally, RW prepared to leave, and he was reaching the door to exit, Ford asked him if he was really interested in landing the part. RW’s hopes rose immediately. He turned and eagerly said, yes.
    Ford dismissed him as he repeated his choice.

    Ford hired Hunter several times. Hunter was another actor known for extraordinary good looks, but was very limited as an actor.

    Reply
  117. WR said on March 30th, 2015 at 4:37 pm

    @WR:
    Beginning of 6th line should read, “of”.

    Reply
  118. WR said on March 30th, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    @Keane:
    Don’t know of any other celeb who uses the media and exploits her medical conditions
    for self-promotion as much. Others have done it, but not as often. Even Lindsay Lohan has her limits.
    Also wondered what body parts would still be available to exploit. And then to have certain “doctors” rave over her because of her “bravery”. Nevertheless, one wishes her good health.

    Reply
  119. WR said on April 1st, 2015 at 2:40 am

    The media is eating up AJ’s ultra-profound statement: i.e. What doesn’t kill you, makes you a stronger person. Isn’t that original? The media laps it up, as deep thinking. Yet, they neglect to explore the recent alleged shingles incident. Also, the “narrow miss” regarding an auto.

    As I’ve said before, there are similarities between Brangelina and TC. Do you recall, several years ago, when TC would “miraculously” appear when a motorist was in deep trouble.
    And he fixed everything. Great publicity, but it happened too often and the co-incidence was hard to believe. Another time, some woman was in dire straits, and needed some bucks to fix the situation, and guess who just happened to witness it, and give her the needed money. No strings. Except he got more publicity as a Good Samaritan.

    Reply
  120. WR said on April 1st, 2015 at 2:50 am

    His Highness; Almost April Fools Day! Can any site top the one that published an item about BP, a couple of years ago?

    Can any talk show host match the wicked sense of humor that a younger David Letterman had ? Not on April Fools Day, mind you, but he had a young, African American female who could, at will, pop out her “eyes”. So he talked with her as she sat. He then mentioned to her that Michael Jackson was soon going to become a father. Her “eyes” popped out, on cue.

    Reply
  121. joanne said on April 1st, 2015 at 7:44 am

    @WR:
    yet people suck up information on these so called brave and generous ‘movie stars’. At least Cruise gets into his character without making it all about him and can act. We are a sorry bunch of people to admire the super rich who have everything they need at the tip of their fingertips. Well my mom had lung cancer when she died (it was everywhere actually) so i’m off to get them removed. Ain’t I brave? If Cheney could live without a heart then I should be ok.

    Reply
  122. Guest2 said on April 1st, 2015 at 11:29 am

    @WR:
    I’d forgotten about Tom Cruise being a good Samaritan until you mentioned it. Yes, they surely do manipulate the media though I think AJ is better at it than TC, primarily because she’s got the children (what a great investment that was on her part). Tom fared better when he had Suri. As for people believing the BS, I think most people are so wrapped up in their own lives that they just take these things at face value and don’t look too closely at how these celebrities manipulate the media and the public in order to present a certain image of themselves.

    Reply
  123. Keane said on April 1st, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    See look – I have relatives who died of cancer – look! And I have an uncle who says I am a “very private person” twice in one paragraph – so it must be true right! And he also points out that my aunt died of cancer but I didn’t bother going to see her before she died because I was busy shooting a movie in the UK but I did generously send my brother and dear old neglected father Jon in my place. See look how nice I am and how I am in no way trying to profit from the tragic early deaths of my relatives!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021115/The-haunting-picture-tells-Angelina-drastic-ovarian-surgery-SIX-relatives-1977-family-snap-succumbed-cancer.html?login#comments

    Reply
  124. Togi said on April 1st, 2015 at 7:54 pm

    O.M.G. I just want to PUKE when I see this crap! The media makes me SICK. This woman is touted by the media as “brave.” BARF! Brave is my unknown sister-in-law who has battled lymphatic cancer (which has mestastasized numerous times … in her breasts (which both had to be removed and reconstructed), all over in her abdominal cavity, and now, finally, 18 years after she was first diagnosed, in her throat, lungs and heart. At the time she was first diagnosed, her daughter, my niece, was just 4 years old. She was given 5 years to live. This prognosis was not acceptable to her. She has spent the last 18 years raising her daughter to adult-hood and seeing her off to college. She has spent the last 18 years being hacked to pieces because that was what was necessary to keep her alive long enough to see her daughter grown. She has spent the last 18 years losing her hair from radiation and throwing up from chemo therapy. She has spent the last 18 years WORKING as a “teacher” for kids with psychiatric disabilities. In fact, she finally retired in December and just one week later was informed the cancer had finally reached her heart, lungs and esophagus and she was not going to make it. Oh … and one last thing. She has spent the last 18 years LIVING and loving. Last summer she hiked the Grand Canyon WHILE receiving chemo. THIS WOMAN IS BRAVE!!! THIS WOMAN IS GIVING. AJ MAKES ME WANT TO SCREAM.@Keane:

    Reply
  125. Guest2 said on April 1st, 2015 at 9:17 pm

    @Togi:
    I’m sorry to hear about your sister-in-law. She is very brave and it’s a blessing that she got to see her daughter grow up. The infuriating thing about this whole thing is that jolie does NOT have cancer. All she’s done is take precautionary measures to avoid getting it someday. It’s what many other women (and men) do every day in some way and then quietly carry on with their lives. This woman is seriously mentally ill.

    Reply
  126. Guest2 said on April 1st, 2015 at 9:19 pm

    @Keane:
    I liked Patty anne’s comment.

    Reply
  127. Guest2 said on April 1st, 2015 at 9:49 pm

    Cynthia Lennon just died of cancer at age 75. Didn’t see it mentioned on the Daily Mail.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2015/04/01/john-lennons-ex-wife-cynthia-lennon-dies/70770278/

    Reply
  128. Keane said on April 2nd, 2015 at 7:50 am

    @Togi:

    Agree – Jolie does not know the meaning of the word bravery. And to exploit your relatives in this way by publishing a private family photo pointing out exactly who has died of cancer and when to try to justify your own shameless attempt to get PR and gain public sympathy is nothing short of disgusting. Especially when she didn’t bother to go and visit her aunt or her mother before they died as she was too busy partying and shooting a movie. No wonder this woman has no friends.

    Reply
  129. Guest2 said on April 2nd, 2015 at 10:28 am

    @Keane:
    Was she shooting a movie at the time of her aunt’s funeral? I thought she couldn’t attend because she went to the premiere of one of Brad’s movies. I seem to recall seeing photos of her laughing and having a great time which seemed odd considering her aunt had just died. Her father and brother attended the funeral but I doubt it was because she sent them. Think they were probably paying their respects which is what she should have done. When her mother died she was in New Orleans with Brad where he was shooting a movie. Don’t think she was working either time.

    Reply
  130. Keane said on April 2nd, 2015 at 10:55 am

    @Guest2:

    Well according to her uncle who seems to be doing a bit of promo for angie here in return for I would guess a donation to his charity. It’s so awful to think her mother died without either of her children being with her. It’s hard to see how Ange can spin the line that she loved her mom so much when she couldn’t even be bothered to be with her in her last hours.

    Reply
  131. Keane said on April 2nd, 2015 at 10:59 am

    @Guest2:

    I say the brother and father thing because her uncle seems to be trying to spin the line that it was ok that Ange didn’t bother going to see her before she died because she sent them in her place, you know like envoys. Yeah, I’m not sure it quite works like that when someone’s dying Ange – nice try though!

    Reply
  132. Payal said on April 2nd, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    I wonder if Ian knows whether Brad ever said sorry to Jen or asked for her forgiveness? Jolie never would say sorry and Jen clearly forgave them long ago but I wonder if Brad even felt remorse or had any mental capacity to understand what he did and what was wrong.

    Reply
  133. Guest2 said on April 2nd, 2015 at 8:12 pm

    @Keane:
    I guess I should have read the article but it was so offensive I just skimmed it a bit and couldn’t finish. It’s sad that her mother died alone but they are the children she raised and I think she bears some responsibility for the way they turned out. Those two freaks are just not right in the head. And truth be told, Jon Voight is pretty strange himself.

    Reply
  134. Guest2 said on April 2nd, 2015 at 8:20 pm

    @Payal:
    There were some riddles here a long time ago that seemed to suggest they were getting back together but it never happened, fortunately for Jen. It was shortly after she hooked up with Justin that brad starting talking bad about his marriage to her. Maybe Ian will give us a new clue that will provide some info on that. Not that we could ever figure it out, though.

    Reply
  135. WR said on April 3rd, 2015 at 12:50 am

    @Keane:
    Re: The Daily Mail article: I checked out most of the comments afterwards. Again, and again, people are posting about AJ’s looks, and how she looks “beautiful” and that her mother was, as well. Zilch abut photo-shopping. Nada! And those comments ALL sound alike. One is reminded that a few short years ago, whenever TC got in trouble with his public image vs. his private behavior, the sites would feature a slew of comments from apparently paid posters, who ALL sounded the same. Even when they typed in different words, they sounded alike. That’s the impression I got from the mother/daughter comparisons. It’s as if they want the public to believe they were a solid family.

    Reply
  136. WR said on April 3rd, 2015 at 1:02 am

    Ten years later, and some bloggers still drag Jen into any trouble AJ may have with her publicity w…ing. And it doesn’t occur to them, that even if the public is easily manipulated, some people aren’t impressed. Now, they’re focusing on the “How Angelina Jolie turned her life around; so give her all kinds of slack” argument. They don’t have the vaguest knowledge of how the turnaround works. The offender has to say they are sorry. The offender has to promise to not do it again. The offender has to make amends.

    It’s like this: Say, one makes a dent in another person’s car. The offender tells the victim that he/she is so sorry. The victim forgives him/her. BUT THE DENT IS STILL THERE! Making amends is fixing that dent. For Brangelina, it’s calling off their hounds on Jen. This means they contact the site owners and tell them to cease and desist the dragging of Jen as the perpetrator every time that Brangelina has image probems.

    Reply
  137. Guest2 said on April 3rd, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    @WR:
    They contact the site owners all right but to tell them to bash this one or that one, whoever the victim of the moment might be.

    Reply
  138. WR said on April 4th, 2015 at 12:32 am

    @Guest2:
    Then, they just keep piling up karmic debts!

    Reply
  139. Guest2 said on April 4th, 2015 at 9:11 am

    @WR:
    It’s coming home to roost (as it does for all of us). I was reading on another site that the new program “Dig” has a story line with a gay bar called Brad’s Pit. I watch the show just to see if it’s true.

    Reply
  140. Guest2 said on April 4th, 2015 at 9:14 am

    @Guest2:
    I might watch….

    Reply
  141. Guest2 said on April 4th, 2015 at 7:54 pm

    Happy Easter and Passover to all who celebrate.

    Reply
  142. WR said on April 5th, 2015 at 2:31 am

    @Guest2:
    Thanks, and have a Happy Feast Day, too.

    Reply
  143. WR said on April 5th, 2015 at 2:33 am

    March Madness spilled into April. Shocker! I thought Kentucky had it all but wrapped up!
    Missed the game because of shopping, plus the expectation that the final on Monday would feature Kentucky.

    Reply
  144. WR said on April 5th, 2015 at 2:35 am

    @Guest2:
    If “Dig” is on a special channel, then I’ll just read the reactions. Sounds very intriguing, for sure.

    Reply
  145. Guest2 said on April 5th, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    @WR:
    I don’t know much about it but it is on the USA channel and is a drama about the FBI.

    Reply

What do you think? Join the discussion...

How do I change my avatar?

Go to gravatar.com and upload your preferred avatar.

Categories

Posts By Day

March 2015
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Meta