I haven't read or listened to anything about Mackenzie Phillips beyond the headlines, so I may be writing this without all the facts (nothing new in the blogging world...). This is one more aspect of our American culture that I don't understand -- why are the most personal, sordid, illegal, embarrassing and tragic events of a person's life (usually a celebrity) exposed to the world -- and why does the world care about these things? The rationale usually given is "so I can help someone else learn from my experience." The actual immediate truth is, "so I can sell my book," although the reason for writing the book may be under the guise of "helping" others.
And to this I cry, bullshit.
I find the lack of privacy in our culture disturbing and distasteful to the max -- and quite alarming, and this goes for Facebook, Twitter, all other social networks and the very personal forms of blogging.
When I grew up, it was called exposing one's dirty laundry to the world and was to be avoided at all costs -- now it's called being open, honest and "taking responsibility for one's actions." I wonder why this open and honest method of taking responsibility can't be confined to one's family or individuals directly affected by the smarmy situation. Do you really want to know all this stuff? I sure don't. I also don't want to know who has had plastic surgery on which body parts, who has been in drug/alcohol/sex addiction/ rehabilitation one more time, or the vast number of people with whom one has been romantically (ha!) involved with. I'm also not sure why the general public is expected to respond "Bravo! Well done!" when a celebrity has exited rehab for the 14th time or owned up to the latest felony.
Excluding the financial return on their confessions, maybe if these people need to assuage their guilt so desperately, they should investigate the Catholic faith, which celebrates the sacrament of Reconciliation weekly.
Apparently I'm in the minority on this one, though, as these expose-everything-including-my-ouchie-piercing books become best sellers. What does that SAY about our culture? Certainly nothing very flattering, for either the exposer or the lapper-upper. I know "right" and "wrong" are completely out of fashion and qualities only a right-win nutcase might value, but dammit, some things really are WRONG, and I'm neither buying their books nor applauding the victims or perps.
Random Rambling Number 2.I haven't felt up to blogging about Obamarama in the past ten days or so because...well...I'm really sick of seeing his face and hearing his drone, particularly when it comes to his hard, hard, hard sell on health care. It did occur to me on the occasion of his 437th redundant speech that he is a victim of his birthday and his astrological sign of Leo, the Lion. I know, I know, astrology is bunk...but I learned it at my mother's knee, and much of it is truth to me. Indulge me -- and see who this sounds like to you: (Excerpted From Linda Goodman's Sun Signs)
"You may find him making flowery speeches... on a stage or in front of a circle of adoring friends. He may waste money but...there will always be an audience."(with apologies to Cathy, my Leo niece, who is an official dues-paying Friend Of Cynwrites.)
"Beneath his courteous manner...are smoldering fires of proud dignity and arrogant vanity..."
"He'll either get the center of the stage with dramatic statements and actions, or he'll get it by pouting and sulking..."
"Leos just can't help feeling superior and behaving dramatically..."
And my favorite paragraph: "Is he kindhearted or dangerous, generous or cruelly selfish? Does he gain his reputation for superiority under false pretenses. Whether the Leo man is truly a king or just a pretender to the throne, we may never know. He has insatiable appetites, and he's as proud as a peacock. He has an enormous need to command and to be loved by those he rules. He secretly fears he may fail and be ridiculed . It's a constant inner torture, and the true source of his vanity and exaggerated dignity."
Random Rambling Number 3.
I don't know how valid or respectable THIS LINK is -- it was sent to me by an old friend who parks his car on the right side of the road, but it looked intriguing to me. If you follow the link to THIS ONE, you reach an internet organization, "Operation, Can You Hear Me Now" which is a group dedicated to exposing the liberal bias of the mainstream media. It's about damn time!
Of all the topics I've written about in this blog the past couple of years, this is the one I feel is the most critical and the most downright frightening.
The simple truth (in my vision) is that if one watches only the Big Four network news programs (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN) and reads only newspapers like the NY Times, one receives such a slanted, biased viewpoint that all objectivity is lost. If you consider all the critical issues we face as citizens of the world in 2009 and how important facts are to each of us -- then you consider that the "facts" we are served are as twisted as a cop's cruller -- the outlook for the accuracy of our knowledge and excellence of our decisions based on that knowledge is grim.
We are at the mercy of the folks who work the trenches and ferret out the news for us -- but they then apply their own spin to shade the presentation of that news. Whether this is due to their own innate bias, the bias of the editorial/managerial staff or the corporations paying the bills simply doesn't matter.
What matters is, ordinary citizens following only the Big Four and newspapers like the NY times do not get objective facts because the writing slants so far to the left. It seems to me in the past three months or so that Joe and Mabel Everyperson are at last wising up to this. I've seen more about liberal bias in this time period than in all of the past two years -- and believe me, I've been looking for it (in vain thus far).
We have lamentable, ridiculous political polarity in our country, where each side considers its views as originating from the single valid perspective. We need all of these viewpoints, and the tenets they are based upon, to be presented factually, objectively, without bias. We deserve nothing less from our "news" organizations, and if we get less -- if we get what we've been getting for 40+ years -- we can't call it news. We can call it opinion or entertainment -- but it doesn't meet the criteria for news.
OK, I'm done rambling. Have a groovy weekend.