Over at Ragged Thots, Robert George weighs in on "mega-celebrity inanity" recently evinced by Tom Cruise, Oprah Winfrey, Martha Stewart, and L'il Kim.
It's Not the Heat, It's the Stupidity...
Comments to "It's Not the Heat, It's the Stupidity...":
The Wine Commonsewer | August 4, 2005, 8:42pm | #
Martha proved her idiocy by proclaiming to the nation that she had figured out how to get the bracelet/monitor off. I'm surprised the judge didn't revoke her probabtion.Sharp as a Marble Regards, TWC
While I'm not a Tom Cruise fan, I honestly don't understand the sheer amount of rage directed at the guy either. Nobody's forcing people to watch Entertainment Tonight to the best of my knowledge.
panurge | August 5, 2005, 12:15am | #
Sadly, the celebrity culture, much like the "Blob" from that Steve McQueen flick, seems to have engulfed cinephilia itself, sucked out the few positive things left, and rendered the hobby joyless. Movie buffs like myself are stuck renting DVD's that preserve the Hollywood of yesteryear, since there is currently no real reason anyone who has any respect for what movies can truly be should go to a theater. An excellent article on the trend can be found here:http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-movies31jul31,0,4521247.story?coll=la-home-sunday-opinion
Tom Cruise was correct of course about much of psychology being pseudo science. He was right for the wrong reasons perhaps but even a Scientology clock is right twice a day.
Tom Cruise | August 5, 2005, 1:17am | #
I am very, very, very heterosexual.Phil | August 5, 2005, 6:18am | #
Tom Cruise was correct of course about much of psychology being pseudo scienceOf course, Cruise didn't say "psychology," he said "psychiatry." They are two very different things, whatever the controversies and criticisms of their practice.
Douglas Fletcher | August 5, 2005, 7:00am | #
When I hear a man applauded by the mob I always feel a pang of pity for him. All he has to do to be hissed is to live long enough.-- H.L. Mencken
H.L. Mencken | August 5, 2005, 8:49am | #
Unless, of course, that man is Tom Cruise; he's just a pompous blowhard.joe | August 5, 2005, 9:40am | #
"Martha proved her idiocy by proclaiming to the nation that she had figured out how to get the bracelet/monitor off."With lime juice, two lobster forks, and some Brazilian Paprika Essence.
Don't just use the regular paprika you find in the supermarket.
Gwyn Thomas | August 5, 2005, 9:45am | #
I heard no adverse comments when Brooke Shields made the rounds with a book promoting a dangerous drug that she claims helped her post-partum depression,nor did anyone point out that she is not a doctor. God bless Tom Cruise, a great Welsh-American.Screw Tom Cruise. How is some celebrity jackass going to go on midmorning TV and talk about how all people with depression need to do is eat right and excercise? While many people with milder cases of depression can heal themselves with this type of regimen, many other people can't even get up off the couch and get to a doctor's appointment. Screw Tom Cruise for not being willing to accept the fact that for whatever stupid reason, people look up to him and all he had to do was be decent about it and preface his statement with an "IMHO." Everyone's entitled to an opinion, and I can't fault him for expressing his on TV, but he should have thought for one second about the people out there who might be on the fence about going to get help, who are having a hard time mustering the courage and strength to admit they need to see a professional. And he should have forgotten for one second about stroking his ego by touting his religion on national television.
Gwyn Thomas | August 5, 2005, 11:51am | #
Actually, Mr. Cruise's views on psychiatry were formed before his involvement with his religion. His remarks are the opposite of self-serving, as he could have just plugged his movie without controversy. If one person "on the fence" was dissuaded from taking Paxil, a dangerous drug whose side effects include depression and suicidal ideation, he's performed a public service and we are in his debt.I think Brooke Shields is in a better position to know what she was and wasn't helped by than Tom Cruise is, unless he wants to add mind-reading to his already impressive list of accomplishments. (Does mind-reading kick in at OT-IV, or later?)
dpotts | August 5, 2005, 2:28pm | #
His remarks are the opposite of self-servingSpare me, Tom Cruise bashes psychiatry on national TV out of the goodness of his heart? Thanks, but no thanks.
In other news... ALL drugs carry a risk of dangerous side effects, it's up to the individual and their doctor to decide the best course of action, and a half-wit celebrity talking about it can only serve to confuse the matter, and muddy the perspectives of people who are having a difficult time understanding what may be happening to them. I'm not saying he should have just shut his mouth, but he should have had the decency to realize he was talking about (and therefore, to) people with real, not imagined, illnesses.
Gwyn Thomas | August 5, 2005, 3:07pm | #
So you have no problem with Cruise giving an opinion,as long as it's not contrary to conventional wisdom? I know all drugs have side effects, but they usually provide a benefit that outweighs them--how would a so-called "anti-depressant", originally marketed as a cure for "social anxiety disorder(shyness!)", benefit a woman who has a medical/hormonal problem? I know an affected super-cynicism is useful to those rely mainly on ad hominems, but do you really mean to say that Cruise's remarks were calculated to further his career?Gwyn Thomas | August 5, 2005, 3:26pm | #
You're confusing drugs that provide a tangible medical benefit, with one(Paxil) that does nothing of the sort.mediageek | August 5, 2005, 4:49pm | #
do you really mean to say that Cruise's remarks were calculated to further his career?No, they were the rantings of a man who has gone completely nutters and is now beyond the reach of his kid-gloved handlers who would have otherwise told him to STFU about anything political and stick with "Spielberg is a god among men. Go see my movie*, you'll probably dig it."
*I haven't seen it.
Gwyn Thomas | August 5, 2005, 5:16pm | #
I saw the program in question, Dr. Geek, and detected no "ranting" or any signs of Mr. Cruise being "having gone completely nutters". What tipped you off, if I'm not asking to violate any doctor/patient confidences?Rhywun | August 5, 2005, 5:28pm | #
Actually, Mr. Cruise's views on psychiatry were formed before his involvement with his religion.Unless you ARE Mr. Cruise, I find that statement to be unprovable at best. Since Mr. Cruise's views on psychiatry happen to coincide EXACTLY with what his "religion" very loudly proclaims on the topic, I find the reverse to be rather more likely.
It's clear you're an axe-grinder, Gwyn, so I'll take your statements regarding Paxil and its medical benefits or lack thereof with all the respect they merit, which is to say none. Unless you have a CV you'd like to share with us.
mediageek | August 5, 2005, 6:28pm | #
What tipped you off, if I'm not asking to violate any doctor/patient confidences?You know any actors?
Gwyn Thomas | August 5, 2005, 7:01pm | #
Rhywun,I'm afraid you're just wrong about this-his antipathy to psychiatrists and their drugs goes back to his youth when they attempted to "treat" his dyslexia; fortunately, he had parents who were sceptical, unlike Phil, who wishes to remain ignorant about Paxil, so I will honour his wishes.As for my "CV", he's reinforced the point I started the argument with; NO ONE demanded Ms. Shield's credentials when she made medical claims, and NO ONE booked a doctor with a contrary view after her appearances, and it's not because none exist.Gwyn Thomas | August 5, 2005, 7:47pm | #
Yes, it's done wonders for your spelling and manners as well. I detect a much cheerier and more well-balanced individual.Gods, and here we are arguing about what Tom Cruise believes or doesn't believe. I can't stand the "celebrity culture". Ohmigawd, Jen is still in love with Brad! Who the hell cares? Do I know these people? Do you? No. So why the hell should their private lives matter a pair of rancid dingo's kidneys to us? As far as Tom Cruise and his loony beliefs go, all I have to say is that Scientology is evil, and I hope I live to see the day they get bitchslapped so goddamned hard their grandparents are fucking crosseyed.
Gwyn Thomas | August 5, 2005, 9:51pm | #
Not clear on who the "they" are you wish to see bitch-slapped. Is it Cruise's looney beliefs, or Scientology itself? Beliefs and a religion don't generally have grandparents, cross-eyed or otherwise. Sorry to let you down, you did wade through thirty posts on a subject you claim no interest in.Phil | August 5, 2005, 10:13pm | #
. . . fortunately, he had parents who were sceptical, unlike Phil, who wishes to remain ignorant about Paxil . . .Apparently you've also reached the OT level that allows mind-reading, as you have no idea whether or not I know anything about Paxil, or, indeed, whether I've ever taken it or not. But please, continue with the smug condescension. It's amusing.
As for my "CV", he's reinforced the point I started the argument with; NO ONE demanded Ms. Shield's credentials when she made medical claims, and NO ONE booked a doctor with a contrary view after her appearances, and it's not because none exist.
Apparently, you cannot tell the difference between "Things That Are Alike" and "Things That Are Not Alike," so I'll help out:
1) Nobody demanded Ms. Shields's credentials or CV for the same reason that nobody demands them in patients involved in a double-blind study; because Ms. Shields was self-reporting on the medication's effect on her. Either the medication actually helped her, or she experienced some placebo effect; in either case, she self-reported feeling better after taking it than before. This does not require medical or research credentials.
2) You, and Tom Cruise, are claiming that Paxil never ever helps anyone, ever. This is not self-reporting. This is making a broad claim about what medication does and does not do for other people. So, show me. And show me you're qualified to make the claim in the first place.
3) If you can find a doctor who will make, on television, the specific contrary claim, "Although Brooke Shields claims that, subsequent to taking antidepressant medication for treatment of postpartum depression, she felt relieved of the symptoms of that syndrome, she did not actually feel any better," I will pay $50 to the charity of your choice immediately.
Now, please, go on with your condescending to everyone and your making of medical claims that I have a sneaking suspicion you are manifestly unqualified to make.
Gwyn Thomas | August 6, 2005, 6:25am | #
Thanks for your reply,and for the opportunity to grind my axe once more, probably time to give the OT line a rest, though. Ms. Shields was part of no double-blind study that I'm aware of, and her "self-reporting" is just that, anectodal evidence of little value. As you yourself have noted, she could have experienced the very same sense of "feeling better" from a placebo. Would you then pronounce sugar pills a useful treatment for post-partum depression? And, for the third time, as she has made the claim, it falls on her to prove it.mediageek | August 6, 2005, 9:08pm | #
Hi Gwyn.I notice you haven't answered my question.
:-)
Cheers,
mg
Gwyn Thomas | August 7, 2005, 6:36am | #
All apologies.Thanks for including the smiley face indicating a funny remark, saving us all that guesswork.