Showing posts with label hollywood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hollywood. Show all posts

Friday, June 4, 2010

An Open Letter to All Celebutards!!!

Dear Celebutards: (And you KNOW who you are)

Have any of you ever heard the phrase "biting off the hand that's feeding you?" Well, that is exactly what you're doing when you consistently attack this country's free market capital economy, for it is only THAT economy that makes your pampered, privileged, and overindulgent lifestyles possible. At the risk of breaching that dreaded "separation of church and state" you have been endowed by your creator with a gift. Whether that gift is a talent, athletic ability, the ability to string words together, or even just the vicissitude of good genes that makes you look good in jeans or a bikini, that "gift" together with some action on your part, enables you to live the lifetstyle and have the fame and adulation you now enjoy. It is that adulation that enables you to command attention when you speak. Sadly, most people don't actually LISTEN when you speak because they are too busy either mentally undressing you, or wishing that they WERE you to hear what you're saying. That enraptured state means that whatever you say will permeate the brains of your fans without any critical thinking intervention on their part so they will parrot what you say as if it were some kind of gospel.

To quote one of your own, the great Stan Lee, "with great power comes great responsibility" In case you don't recognize it, that was the sage Uncle Ben to the young Peter Parker, aka Spiderman. I realize that many of you did not ASK to be role models, and that you would probably rather NOT have gaggles of teenaged boys and girls aping your every move and hanging on your every word. In a perfect world that would not happen, but in THIS one, alas, it DOES. In a PERFECT world your drug and booze fueled exploits wouldn't get found the clock attention from tabloid press and the networks whose sole reason for existence is to expose us to what you do when you're not doing your so-called JOBS, bur without the Lindsey Lohan's of the world, where would the tabloids, the paparazzi, and shows like Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, or the entire E network be? But, because of the aforementioned entities, things you do and say are exposed to young and old alike so for God's sake please THINK before you speak.

Then there are the real hypocrites, like Michael Moore and Al Gore, who reap for themselves the benefits of free market capitalism while advocating for a form of governance that will effectively deny those same benefits to those who come after them. Michael Moore is the worst for he KNOWS that if he achieves the world he claims to want, he will have no place in it. It is only through free market capitalism and free enterprise that he enjoys the lifestyle and menu choices that he has clearly enjoyed with great relish. Hypocrites like these who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk make me ill. Though I totally disagree with the "greenies" like Leonardo DiCaprio, Ed Begley, Jr, Darryl Hannah, Matthew Modine, etc. I can at least respect them because unlike Moore and Gore, they PRACTICE what they preach. But Leo, you can only drive that Tessla sportscar and live in that green condo because people are willing to invest their hard-earnred GREEN so the studios can make your movies and people can buy tickets to SEE those movies. Again, I applaud you for your commitment to the environment, but remember that not everyone can AFFORD to do what you do. Same with Brad and Angie and all the other celebs that have helped out in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and again in Haiti. I applaud your generosity and your selflessness. But again remember that you could only DO those things because of the free market and capitalism.



The reason I chose the Sean Penn/Harvey Milk caricature as the illustration for this essay was that he and others in hollywood LIKE him bring to mind the old commercial that starts out with a soap opera actor saying "I'm not a Doctor, but I play one on TV" and then proceeds to advise us to buy some over the counter antacid.  What does he know?  He flat out said he's NOT a Doctor. At least that commercial was honest enough to give you a disclaimer so you could take the "doctor's" advice for what it was worth.  Sadly, actors like Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Natalie Potman, etc. do NOT give you that disclaimer before they proceed to give political advice or speeches but c'mon, this is Jeff Spicoli we're talkin' about.  Just cuz he's PLAYED politicians doesn't he he KNOWS politics.  In fact he and his ilk are so far removed from the real world consequences of politics they have no business EVER getting involved in them, but thanks to Frank Sinatra and the Rat Pack and their involvement the Kennedy campaign, there's been an unholy alliance between the fantasy merchants of Hollywood, and the political fantasies of Washington, DC.  Problem is that WE in the REAL world have to LIVE with those politics, Hollywood is, for the most part, insulated by layers of wealth and privilege and therefore do NOT experience the horrors they inflict on us by virtue of helping elect "Stuart Smalley" to the United States Senate.


It's not at all surprising to me that more and more celebrity types seem to embrace the "total government" concept of Marxism.  If they're under the age of 40 and attended public school, they've been indoctrinated by left leaning teachers and school administrators since pre-school.  If they went on to attend college, as many actors and athletes did, the indoctrination went into overdrive.  If they never got out of the protected bubble envicornment of academia and into the REAL world prior to achieving their "celebrity" status, they've never had a chance to learn the way th world REALLY works for themselves.  I had the same public school education.indoctrination and also attended a very liberal univeristy, but it was my military service and business entrepreneurial  adventures that taught me (the HARD way) that everything I had been taught to believe in was a crock of SAND.  Today's youg people are having the same realizations I did, but sadly, thanks to liberal thinking a social experimentation, the lack the coping mechanisms to deal with their disappointments.  This is the reason for the phenomenon known as the "quarter life crisis."  In Hollywood, it's what happens when a child star can't make the transition to adult actor cuz he's no longer the cherubic cutie pie he was when he was six.  In sports, it's when an athlete peaks in high school or college and never quite makes it to the big game.  In business, it's when you realize there's no such thing as a participation triphy, and that if you mess up, you don't see a purple pen mark, you grt a PINK SLIP!  If you've never been allowed to fail before, how can you be expected to handle a failure in later life?


The older hollywood liberal/radical types like Sean Penn are the product of indoctrination both in schools, and in their day to day acting experiences.  They were first the protegees of actors from the Boomer generation, many of whom were the drug addled hippies of Woodstock, and they've become drug and alcohol addled themselves.  Add to that a steady diet of memorizing lines written by writers who are (for the most part) to the left of Nikiti Sruschev going back to the days of the early twentieth century when Communism and Progressivism were hip, slick, and cool and attracted the likes of playwright Eugene O'Neil and Hollywood Ten writer, Ring Landner, Jr. and you can see how the post boomers come to think as they do.  As many actors become producers, again due to the beuefit of free market capitalism, the cycle is perpetuated from mentors to protegees.  Notwithstanding all the foregoing, Hollywood is a BIG Union controlled town, and all know where UNIONS come from.  I'm sure that most of this is new information to you, and it's an arrogant person indeed that doesn't think he or she still has much to learn in this life.   The reason the celebutards do not know these things is because they have not been permitted to LEARN them.  Our history and the true nature of what it means to be an AMERICAN has been stolen from several generations of our citizens and it is only NOW that we're starting to realize this and seeking to regain that knowledge for ourselves.


"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of OTHER people's money."  That's a quote from the "Iron Lady"  herself, Britain's Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.  So my dear celebutard, if yiou think your lifestyle will not be affected if the government you champion gets the total control it's craving, think again.  If we are no longer a free marked capitalist economy, where will the money come from for YOU?  There will only be ONE patron left that can afford you, and that patron will be the government.  Evern wonder what it was like to be an enetertainment or sports celebrity in Nazi Germany?  Wonder what it was like for Max Schmelling to return to Gernmany and face the likes of Hermann Goering and Adolf Hitler after getting his butt beat by a black man?  I sure it was NOT a pleasant experience for him.  And I have first hand knowledge of what it was like to be a dancer in the Moscow Ballet back in the days of Leonid Brezhnev cuz I met a woman who used to be one and subsequently became the mistress of the said Leonid Breznev, a man who was about as attractive to her as a bullfrog, but who was able to give her a nicer apartnment, better clothes, jewelry, etc. until he tired of her and moved on to a younger woman.  She fell from grace almost as quickly and found herself in her middle aged years working in a factory that produced parts for tanks.  It was NOT a glorious existence.  Think it can't happen to you?  You're too young to remember the days of the studio bosses, but how about the child stars of Different Strokes?  Their fortunes were stolen out from under them and they turned to lives of prostitution, pornography and crime.  They all DIED well before their time, too.  Think it can't happen to you?  If we get a Totalitarian government that craves money, how long do you think it'll be fore it wans YOURS?  After all, when asked why he robbed banks, famed bank robber Willie Sutton replied, "cuz that's where the money is."


As a small business entrepreneur and free market capitalist, I don't begrudge you your success.  I understand that your pretty face, hot body, talent pool, ability to punt, hit, or catch a ball, are your stock in trade.  Unlike the President you so giddily supported in the last election, I don't think there ever comes a time that "You've made enough money." because I understand that as long as people are willing to buy what you sell, you're entitled to be paid.  If you likeness sells tickets, DVDs, sports drinks, cereal, sneakers, etc., you're entitled to a share in that revenue and it should only be the free market itself that places a cap upon your earnings, not a governmental entity.  I'm sure you see it the same way now that we're talking about YOUR money don't you?  But if that government you champion takes away OURS, then we won't be able to hire people so neither we nor they will be able to buy those things, or tickets to see your movies, concerts, or sporting events.  Should that happen, you won't have the millions to party with, either.  And if that government chooses to increase the taxes you pay, how many of you will keep company with Wesley Snipes in federal court trying to protect what is YOURS from a greedy, grapsing, intrusive federal government.  How long do you think it will be before that same government tells you what kind of content you can produce, or how much skin you can show, etc.  Where does it end?  The reality is, that it DOESN'T end.  Power and control only create a desire for MORE power and control.  If you think your parents and coaches are bad, try a nanny state GOVERNMENT on for size.  I've SEEN what kind of government can do, and it's not pretty.  I've walked in the ruins of the former Soviet Union and belive me, you don't want THAT here.


So, in conclusion, Dear Celebutard, SHUT UP and sing, act, dance, and hit, bounce, or kick that ball, or do whatever it is that you do to deserve your celebrity and notoriety (and believe me when I say for MANY of you, I have no CLUE what that is) secure in the knowledge that, unless we actually GET the government you champion, life will be wonderful for you.  But leave the politics to those of us who live the REAL world and do the things that make your fairytale existence possible.  If you continue to bite the hands that are feeding you, one day there might not be anyone left to do so.  Can you imagine Michael Moore on a DIET?  Unless you want to go back to waiting tables, digging ditches, or flipping burgers, be careful what you wish for because in the words of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, "that government that is big enough to give you anything you want is also strong enough to take away EVERYTHING you have."



Sincerely,




Silence Dewgoode (GOOGLE HER)
Flyover Country,(what the glitteratti refer to as the land between Hollywood and New York or Washington, DC)  USA

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Terrorists, Freedom Fighters, and PSYCHOPATHS, Oh MY!


It has often been said that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Certainly this statement has been proven true at various times in recorded history. Few could argue that the Jewish patriots who died in the mountain fortress of Massada were freedom fighters, yet to their Roman overlords they were undoubtedly thought of as terrorists, and criminals. One of the earliest and more heroic of the "freedom fighter" genre, is Robin of Loxley, aka Robin Hood. This "outlaw" is still considered by many to be the protoypical freedom fighter and folk hero, but to the political establishment under the Regency of Prince John, he was undoubtedly considered an outlaw and a terrorist. But we need not look so far back in history or so far away as there have been more than a few notable examples of the Terrorist/Freedom Fighter dichotomy right here in the good old USA.

The first American example of the terrorist/freedom fighter dichotomy is the organization founded by Sam Adams prior to the start of the American Revolution, the Sons of Liberty. While to most patriotic Americans, these men were the original freedom fighters in our nation's history, to the Tory politicians and British loyalists as well as today's more liberal historical textbook authors, this was a terrorist organization. In the strictly esoteric definition of the word, the Sons of Liberty WERE terrorists. They often employed mob tactics and they did indeed terrorize the targets of their political disagreements. Sometimes this was simple intimidation done by vandalizing property or the more extreme measure of hanging the target in effigy or burning the effigy in front of the intended victim and his family. When the "simple" method failed, they sometimes resorted to the more "personal" attack on the unfortunate person manifesting in either simply assaulting the unfortunate individual, or the more cruel and extremely humiliating act of "tarring and feathering." In this practice, the hapless politician or government official would be overwhelmed physically, restrained, stripped to the waist, and his skin would be coated in hot tar and before the tar cooled, a feather pillow would be opened and the individual would be covered in a layer of chicken or goose feathers.

Now one can only imagine how painful being captured, assaulted, stripped, and painted with hot tar might be. Surely it resulted in second if not third degree burns to the skin as just as likely resulted in loss of a layer or two of skin as it was removed. Then, factor in the humiliation of being paraded around town to be seen by friend and foe alike in this most embarassing condition. Given that these barbarities were more often than not perpetrated as a result of political disagreements, you could easily conclude that the Sons of Liberty were indeed terrorists AND psychopaths, but they were "fighting" for the freedom of the American colonies from the tyranny of the British monarchy which makes them freedom fighters. And since we are the beneficiaries of that liberty they fought for, we should never think of them as anything BUT freedom fighters and patriots for that is EXACTLY what they were.

Another example of this dichotomy can be found in the person of John Brown. John Brown raised a civilian militia to fight to keep the then lawful institution of slavery out of Kansas, and ultimately to abolish the institution altogether and free the thousands of African slaves from bondage. His tactics included mob violence, vandalism, assault, arson, rape, and murder so in that regard he is both a terrorist and a psychopath. He was unapologetic about any acts and atrocities committed by him or his followers because he believed his cause justified his actions. This makes him a psychopath, but since he was fighting for the liberties of thousands of people who were in fact enslaved, he is also a freedom fighter. He met his end when he attempted to invade a federal arsenal to steal weapons to arm slaves so they would fight in rebellion against the lawful authority of the United States and when he was captured by then Colonel Robert E. Lee, he was charged with sedition and treason and executed as a criminal. To his victims he was a psychopath and a terrorist, but to history and to the descendents of those slaves, and to many other Americans today, he was a freedom fighter and a hero. Strangely the same can be said of Robert E. Lee as well.

To my possibly oversimplified way of thinking, to be labeled a "freedom fighter" you must FIRST be fighting for FREEDOM, either your own, or someone else's. The examples I've given thus far surely meet that test. However, there are those on the LEFT, especially the Hollywood Left, that want to consider the likes of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara (shown above), as the POSTER CHILDREN of freedom fighters. Sadly, I think the many Cuban expatriates who daily brave 90 miles of shark infested ocean in the flimsiest of homemade water craft for a chance at the REAL freedom of the United States, might tend to disagree with that characterization. Indeed, Fidel Castro WON his fight, so where's the FREEDOM he ostensibly fought for? It's nowhere to be found on the whole island of Cuba, if you believe the accounts of any resident of Miami's "Little Havana" district. The same can be said for any leftist country in the WORLD today, yet those on the LEFT side of our own political system continue to sing the praises of the likes of Karl Marx, Chairman Mao, Fidel Castro and now that latest liberal fantasy leader, Hugo Chavez. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that there are those on the LEFT that have NO understanding of what freedom actually IS. How else can you account for their embrace of totalitarian DICTATORS as freedom fighters.

Another example the LEFT frequently get WRONG is the Islamic extremist/Terrorist. While celebrities like Roise O'Donnell proclaim that the muslim terrorists are just like we are, fighting for their home and family, you have to wonder what she's been smoking. First of all, most suicide bombers and terrorists HAVE no immediate families. Second, they represent no sovereign state, and what they are actually fighting FOR is to force the world into a state of total submission to a way of life not seen on this earth since the centuries were measured in single digits. What THEY are fighting for is the total antithesis of FREEDOM. And the WOMEN who champion their cause, would be the first to be killed by them. Rosie O'Donnell would certainly not enjoy a celebrity lifestyle under sharia extremism. She would even be KILLED for refusing to submit herself to a MAN as her husband. Her own FATHER would likely have killed her the moment she revealed her homosexuality to him because under sharia law, homosexuality by EITHER sex is a sin and therefore a CRIME. Look at how many muslim fathers are killing their daughters just for wearing makeup and tight jeans? Those guys are just so TOLERANT, aren't they?

Why the political and social LEFT in this country can't seen to grasp the simple FACT that there are people both in and outside this country who want to KILL us for no reason other than we EXIST, is beyond me. They want to deny civil rights and protections to AMERICAN citizens with whom they have a political disagreement on a daily basis, but they can't give our civil liberties to people who are neither entitled to nor deserving of them, fast enough. They want to deprive Americans of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but they want TERRORISTS and KILLERS to have the full protections of our judicial system and our overall way of life, which these terrorists and killers want to wipe from the face of the earth. Does that make sense to anyone?

Last, but certainly not least, why is it that so many of the LEFT and extremists in both our country and the countries that spawn the most terrorism come from parents who have succeeded in thier lives allowing their children to have the best of everything at little to no effort on their part? Classic examples of this are Usama Bin Laden himself, Ayman Al Zawahiri, and even the "knicker-bomber" who tried to blow up the flight to Detroit on Christmas Day. These were all men who came from privileged and sucessful families. The most liberal men and women in this country come from country club backgrounds and ivy league educations. Even the "Mad Major" Nadal Hassan got the best education this country could offer for FREE, and look how he expressed his gratitude. Likewise with President Barak Obama himself, and William Ayers, Bernadine Dorn, Cass Sunstein, and Van Jones, too. The only exception to this is the hollywood celebrities, many of who came from middle class backgrounds or worse. THEY are liberals out of a sense of guilt, because that's the classic recruitment issue for liberals. They are apologetic and feel guilty for their success, just as they are ashamed of and apologetic for the stature of the United States in relation to the rest of the world. This perhaps accounts for their willingness, even EAGERNESS, to bring it to economic and social RUIN. Fairness is all, after all, if you're a liberal. To bad they don't feel the need to extend that "fairness" to the people that actually WORK for and EARN their success.

The thing the liberals just don't seem to get is that if they weaken this country, the people who will overrun it and want to kill us will make NO distinction between them and the rest of us. They may be USED, much as the "sonderkommandos" were used by the Nazis in the concentration camps to help control and exterminate their fellow Jews, but they will only be buying time, because their turn will come. I wonder how Susan Sarandon and Lindsey Lohan would like living in Usama Bin Laden's world? My guess is not very much, but if we get overrun by these extremists, that's EXACTLY the world we'll be living in. Do YOU want to see Megan Fox in a birkha r rather than a bikini on the cover of Maxim? I don't want to see her PERIOD, but if I did, I would want to SEE her cuz the visual is all there is from what I can tell.

As for psychopaths all terrorists are psychopaths, and SOME freedom fighters have a touch of psychopathy in their constitution as well. Anyone who can take human lives without regret, remorse, or even sympathy is a psychopath. As for politicians, there's some pathology at play there, too. There HAS to be to convert elected representatives into dictatorial rulers. And the way our current crop feel that their judgment is superior to the vast majority of their constituents can only lead one to the conclusion that they no longer feel any obligation to respect the will of the people they purport to represent. Thomas Jefferson, the founding father that founded the Democratic Party, once said: "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is TYRANNY." That makes THEM tyrants, and the enforcement of their fiats is likely to make them terrorists as well. Whether it is arrogance, hubris, or chutzpah on their parts, our elected representatives have decided to use their political gang to hijack much of this country's economy and they are doing so without concern for political or judicial challenges that may ensue, To me, THAT'S terrorism on par with anything the Islamic extremists are doing. If Usama Bin Laden wants to destroy our way of life, he may already be too late because Barak Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are beating him to it.



Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Defending Denise Richards

I wish I had a dime for every time one of my friends said I should write an op-ed column or get my own talk radio show. The problem with those things is that on becomes dependent on others for the success or failure of such enterprises. With this method of communication public support is not necessary for an outspoken individual such as myself to find an outlet for the myriad of thoughts buzzing around in my cerebral cortex. When I informed my friends that I had decided to enter the blogosphere with my ideas they were enthusiastic as supportive. When asked what my inaugural tupoc would be, their enthusiasm waned. When I asked why that should be the response was something along the lines of, "With all the things going on in this country and the world, why on earth would you want to write about a minor celebrity?For the answer to this question I go back to my most recent visit to the local hair stylists and something I overheard while waiting to get my monthly mane taming. As I sat in the waiting area reading an old issue of Time magazine perusing an article about the lack of scientific evidence regarding the liberals three card monty issue of global warming I overheard a rather heated exchange among the other ladies in the waiting area. Although I was trying to tune out the conversation, I kept hearing angry words like "bitch", "slut&", "hussy" and several other unflattering epithets. Ignoring my own inner voice and against all my better judgment I asked the woman next to me who is was that they were referring to. She replied in what could only be described as a hissing sound that the subject of the conversation was Denise Richards.

Fortuately for me I was called by my stylist so there was no opportunity to get further involved in the discussion that could only be described as if the Harpies of mythology were ripping a poor unfortunate mortal to shreds before my very eyes. On the way to my destination I noticed a tabloid paper showing an article about the never ending saga that is Ms. Richards divorce from another tabloid favorite, hollywood bad-boy Charlie Sheen. That explained what started these ladies gossipping on this particular topic, but could not explain the seething hatred that these otherwise normal women were expressing. You would think Ms. Richards had run over their pet chihuahuas the way they were acting. What is it about Denise Richards that would turn four ordinary small town women into the harpies of old?

This question occupied my thoughts as I ambled home after my appointment and the only answer I could come up with came from an eposiode of Boston Legal in which the term "schaddenfreude" was defined. Schaddenfreude comes from two german words which separately mean "damage' and "joy." It is the term used to define the tendency of people to enjoy the misery of those who would otherwise be considered better off than themselves. This is especially true is the subject of the misery is pertty, popular, or rich as we love to demonize anyone who has it better than we do.

The other thing that got my attention was that these ladies were reacting to a tabloid story as if it were gospel truth. This is disconcerting to me because tabloid newspapers have always been suspect when it comes to the veracity of the stories they print. Tabloid newspapers typically pay for their information, and they are not known for doing much in the way of research when reporting their stories. What is most disconcerting to me is that the so-called "legitimate press is doing pretty much the same thing these days. What does it say when the purported flagship of journalistic integrity and ethics like the New York Times publishes a story about John McCain based on evidence that would not even be considered in a court of law because of the hearsay rules and totally ignores a story about John Edwards that is more or less bulletproof allowing a tabloid newspaper to scoop them? It says to me that if I want to know the truth of anything I have to do my own research.

Anyone that has gone to college knows that research is work, so why would anyone undertake such work on behalf of Denise Richards. The answer is simple when you take into account that this writer can be considered a knight in rusty aluminum foil. I have never been able to resist riding to the rescue of a damsel in distress This character anomoly has gotten me in trouble on more than one occasion so why should this be any different. That said, trying to find positive press on Denise Richards is like trying to find positive press on a Republican these days. It is next to impossible.

I'm sure Ms. Richards and her publicists experienced the same level of frustration in trying to get her side of the story to the teeming masses which probably accounts for her doing a reality show to try and present her side of things. Thank goodness the tabloid press has created a built-in market to ensure ratings for such a show or the E network might not have green lighted the project. Were it not for my desire to get to the truth of things, I probably would not have watched a single episode, but seeing as there was no other way to hear Denise Richards' side of things I had to tune in.

Here's where things get dicey because I have to live with the fact that I have lost four hours of my life I will never get back in following up on this idea. That said, I am not here to function as a television or entertainment critic. What I wanted to do was observe Ms. Richards in a way that I would not have been able to absent running the risk of a conviction for stalking or a change of career to becoming a paparrazo. Thankfully this was not necessary because thanks to the largesse of the E entertainment network I was able to join America and the world as a video voyeur.

What I observed about Ms. Richards more than anything is that she appears to have gotten a bad rap from just about everone. I did not see a diva, a bitch, a whore, a talentless hack, or any of the other unlattering apellations assigned to her by the tabloid press or the ladies of the hair salon. What I saw was a caring mother and a loving daughter, sister, and friend. That said, I am alo well aware that just because a show is called "realty TV" it is anything but. I know that even an unscripted show is produced and edited to highlight the things the producers and "stars" want you to see.

Notwithstanding the obvious purpose of the show, it can safety be said that Ms. Richards will never give actresses like Meryl Streep, Bette Davis, Katherine Hepburn, or any other academy award winner anything to worry about. Consequently it can be said that with Ms. Richards what you see is what you get. If she can't act, she can't be fake. She may never be a candidate for sainthood, but I did not see anything in her to justify the vitriolic reaction I observed from the ladies at the hair salon. Of course, the ladies in the hair salon would not have reacted as they did had Ms. Richards been given a fair shake in the press so I guess that is where the fault truly lies.

To illustrate this point I refer to a number of critics who opined that Ms. Richards would use her show as a platform for bashing her ex husband and promote herself for her career. There were also charges that she might be an unfit mother for exploiting her children in her show. This point was raised against her repeatedly in interviews on daytime shows like "Good Morning America," "Regis and Kelly," and "The View." As much as I love to disagree with the ladies of "The View," the truth of the matter is that in the four episiodes of her show that I watched, the only time I saw her children was when they ran into a camera show to be with their mother or grandfather. This is hardly the exploitation railed against by the talk show mavens. Even after seeing these four episodes, I would not be able to recognize either girl publicly if they were not in the company of Denise or her father. 

As to the issue of Charlie bashing, the only reference I noted to the tabloid bad-boy was a comment made about the removal of his name from a tattoo and the appropriate comment of "bye bye Charlie" that accompanied the deed. This is further eBvidence that Ms. Richards is a concerned mother and does not want to affect the girls relationship with their father by bashing him publicly.

Before I made it my mission to find out about Denise Richards, my only thoughts about her were as the girl in the pool with Neve Campbell in "Wild Things," Dr. Christmas Jones from 'The World is Not Enough," the cousin with the hair from "Friends,"or the pageant contestant from "Drop Dead Gorgeous," a term which is still appropriate in describing the appearance of Ms. Richards to the naked eye. Since looking to get to know the person behind the hype I've discovered the mother, the daughter, the friend, the cool aunt, the animal lover, and the reuctant blind date. If this exercise has taught me anything, it's that we all have different sides to our personality and that you have to take people as YOU find them, not how someone else tells you they are.

In closing I just want to say to Denise Richards that I found her to be an interesting person, much more so than I would have originally thought. I guess this accounts for her celebrity and it is NOT undeserved. Yes she was born with good genes, but she also works to maintain her greatest assets Though she may never win an oscar, I have to agree with Ron Silver that she has a talent for comedy and should be able to succeed in a television sitcom if given that opportunity. Lastly, how can you hate a girl that can agree to a "white trash weekend" and be such a good sport about everything. I can't but then again I'm a guy. Ironically after they read this, some of my friends may express doubts about the truth of that last statement.

If I had the opportunity to say anything to Denise Richards herself, it would be that,as one Illinoisian to another, I got your back. I wish you continued success and happiness and I'm looking forward to your debut on "Dancing With The Stars. I'm also looking forward to more television in future, next time with some quality writing to support you. I would also say that I'm proud of hte way you handled yourself in the variety of situations I observed and especially the eay you handled your former assistant. You showed a remarkable restraint in not firing him a lot sooner. Personally I would have canned him before hiring an assistant to help him do his job, but that's me. I'm also happy you have a good family and friends as well as a thick skin to help you cope with everything you have to deal with. Lord knows I couldn't do it without going postal on someone. You must be a better person than most want to give you credit for.

So live your live, love your family and friends, date more ordinary guys as they get less negative press than the hollywood types, and don't make the mistake of thinking a guy might be gay if he doesn't mention your steamy threesome on a firest date. Some of us are actually nice guys that would rather get to know the real you than focus on the roles you've played in the movies. If you think about it logically, that would be the equivalent of a date handing you his issue of Playboy with your picture on the cover for you to autograph. Trust me when I say that we all have them, and were all well aware of the scenes in Wild Things," but some of us know better than to use those things to try to make a good impression on you, or at least I HOPE we would.

Finally, best wishes for success as you dance with the stars. I'm sure you'll do your fellow Illinosians proud.