Miley Cyrus Inhaling From A Bong

I am always amazed how the public at large fall for publicity stunts by stars, even when said stunts are telegraphed miles away. We are so in awe with these vainglorious denizens that there is a collective willful blindness on our part and we do not hold these stars’ feet to the fire like how we would our common brothers and sisters. I have learned long ago to enjoy the respective crafts of our celebrities, but to ignore their musings, advice, or moreover, not to emulate their behavior. To that end, Miley Cyrus came into my crosshairs because I have spent a bundle on her products because of my daughter’s love for all things Hannah Montana, Miley’s stage name. Miley was recently caught inhaling from a bong, though, we were assured that the substance in question in the bong was not illegal. I am of the opinion Miley’s bong incident was staged... so to give Miley that coveted ‘street cred.’ In essence, the conspicuous bong incident was a calculated effort to distance Miley from the ‘bubble gum’ crowd.

This is not the first time Miley and her people have done this; we all remembered her x-rated lap-dance gyrations on a man who was in his forties. We were later told that the man who enjoyed Miley’s lap dance was flamingly gay, and supposedly, Miley’s grinding was of no consequence – incidentally, any day now, I am now expecting Justin Bieber to give Jane Lynch, of “Glee’s” fame, a lap dance too. My being the cynic knows that Miley desperately wants to move on to the adult stage, Ala Britney Spears; and so… the behavior we are seeing is predictable. If Miley’s latest behavior now being vetted by the public is too much for her base, there will be a hurried apology… with the attendant photo-op, and with Miley innocently adorned in probably powdered blue color dress, hugging Mini Mouse or some Disney character down in Florida -- I swear to you that this has actually happened before (do the research). If the outrage is muted, Miley’s behavior, on what she deems risqué, will continue so to gain ‘street cred,’ which she thinks will elevate her to the ranks of Britney Spears... hopefully without the drama.

This is how far these stars and their handlers will go to maintain fame, even though they are financially loaded. We see now where c-listed celebrities are willfully leaking their sex tapes... so to be back in the spot-light.  I am certain that there are former stars who are wishing with bated breath that some star of note would die… so that they can attend the funeral and be seen, or moreover be interviewed, hoping that it will give them back some ‘shine.’ Case in point, when the great Michael Jackson was being tried for pedophilia, how many of the celebrities you saw at his funeral (John Mayer, Brooke Shields, etc) were at his criminal trials?  All these examples of questionable behavior are no different from what Miley Cyrus is currently engaged in - they are merely gradations on what some of these celebrities would do to maintain, or be back in, the limelight….   

The 'Hypocrats' Are It Again

President Obama just reneged on one of his campaign promises – discarding the Bush tax cuts - which supposedly benefit the wealthy or more specifically… those who make over $250,000.00. Those who follow politics know that there are consequences to elections and the ‘shellacking’ in the recent mid-term elections suffered by the Democrats, as described by the President himself, was the reason for his compromise. Besides the apparent capitulation by the President is the constant refrain by some of the Democrats that the tax cuts will increase the coffers of the ‘rich,’ and moreover, add to the gargantuan deficit. I have no quarrel with the Dems over their position as ‘deficit hawks,’ but stop being ‘Hypocrats’ and pay the taxes that would have been paid… had the Bush taxes were revoked. Do we really need a law to force us to do what is right? In essence, do we need a change in the tax code to make the Democrats who are wealthy to pay the taxes that they are so adamantly against?

One would mistakenly think that only Republicans are wealthy… forgetting that John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi – all Democrats - are some of the wealthiest legislatures in our seat of government. I also know that many of the Democrats supporters are our Hollywood stars… who are wealthy and they too parrot the Dems in their outrage of taxes for the rich. For all those politicians, movie stars, or the regular folks who are against President Obama’s compromise on the Bush tax cuts… simply pay what you would have paid had the taxes been revoked. But alas, I know many of these politicians and stars do not have the courage of their convictions – years ago, when John Kerry ran for president, there was a box designated on the Massachusetts tax form… for him or anyone to check off said box to pay more taxes than were compelled… you guessed it, Senator Kerry ignored the box.

In that same vein, I recently saw a very good movie, “The Good Guys,” by Will Ferrell, but the only critique I have of that movie is the proselytizing at the end when the credits were rolling… against those who work on Wall Street about their greed, which may be true. But Mr. Ferrell makes some $20 million a movie, dutifully negotiated by his agent/lawyer… but does anyone thinks that he gave back any money for the many stinkers he has made before redeeming himself in “The Good Guys”… some of these movie stinkers that did not even made back the money it took to make them? Years ago, there was a report on which politician gave more to charity per capita, it was dick Cheney; this made sense because, supposedly, only Republicans are wealthy… Hypocrats!

The Social Networks: Twitter; Face-Book…

I must confess that I do not have a dog in this hunt… because I have said in past blogs that I am almost a Luddite vis-à-vis computers and their attendant outlets like the growing social networks. Perhaps, I am going to be biased in favor of as many communications outlets to be had because of my legal training… where much emphasis from the first day of law school is placed on the import of freedom of speech codified under our sacred First Amendment. In this vein of opining, permit me a little latitude because a couple weeks ago, one of the prominent preachers in the Tri-State area told his flock not to visit Face-Book and the like because it was the catalyst for many a hookup… resulting in separations, and moreover, divorces - there was quite a debate in the media if the preacher had a right to chastise his flock about the usage of the social networks.

I conveyed this story to show that that there are limits to everything… not that there should be any curtailment of the social networks’ use, but notwithstanding my bias… these networks make it convenient to do bad things. Yes, I know… it is up to the person as to how much he or she values fidelity towards marriage and that no social network compelled anyone to cheat. I supposed the preacher looked at the social networks like the concept in law, which is called an “attractive nuisance:” for example, it is akin to dangling candy in the presence of children to entice them to engage in bad behavior – of course, these adults in the preacher’s congregation are not children, but we can see the apt analogy.   

Anything in its absolutes is bad; you know the old adage, one cannot cry fire in a crowded theatre... notwithstanding the right to free speech. Case in point, we can laud Wikileaks under the rubric of ‘freedom of speech,’ but at the expense of outing Intelligence operatives… who are deep under cover protecting us? I will surmise that the typical user of the social networks do not think so deeply and think that they should have unfettered access to say and access the networks… without any limitations. But there must be ‘checks and balances,’ whereby, now one can go on any social network and spread disgusting rumors about anyone… with cyber space being the protective buffer for such cowards. No one can effectively police this kind of behavior unless one is raised with ‘decency,’ but we seldom see this decency restraint on the social network.    

The genie is out of the bottle and the social networks are in most part a good thing because they make our lives convenient. I know for certain that there are people with great minds working on updates to add or to replace the existing networks. The horse and buggy telephone land line did not cause infidelity, bullying, or the spreading of rumors… and to borrow a phrase from the Second Amendment lovers: guns don’t kill people… nor do the social networks in of themselves cause bad behavior. LOL!