Michael Vick Speaks: 'I Cried So Many Nights'
Tonight 60 Minutes aired its much-anticipated Michael Vick interview, conducted by James Brown of CBS Sports, the first time Vick has spoken publicly about his crimes since being sent to prison for running a brutal dog-fighting ring. The segment began with Vick telling the world how he realizes what he did was wrong and how so very sorry he is for having done it: The first day I walked into prison, and he slammed that door, I knew the magnitude of the decision that I made, and the poor judgment, and what I allowed to happen to the animals. And, you know, it's no way of explaining the hurt and the guilt that I felt. And that was the reason I cried so many nights. And that put it all into perspective...I let myself down, not being out on the football field, being in a prison bed, in a prison bunk, writing letters home, you know. That wasn't my life. That wasn't the way that things was supposed to be. And all because the so-called culture that I thought was right, that I thought it was cool. and I thought it was fun, and it was exciting at the time. It all led to me laying in a prison bunk by myself with no one to talk to but myself. Asked who he blames for it all, Vick responded, "I blame me." Brown, who reportedly scooped NBC's Bob Costas and America's thuggish overlord/fast food terrorist Oprah in scoring the interview, didn't seem to go easy on Vick and asked all of the questions one would reasonably hope he would ask. The big post-interview question in the public's mind now seems to be, "Are Michael Vick's expressions of remorse sincere?" Judging by the comments in the thread attached to the story on CBS' website and on Twitter, it seems as though most people think he's full of shit and thus should be punished further and in barbaric fashion, which is just plain ridiculous. Keeping in mind that the crimes Mike Vick pled guilty to are horrific in ways unimaginable to most of us, the guy served his time behind bars as dictated by this country's legal system and did so without incident, losing a multi-million dollar personal fortune and his dignity along the way. Now he's out trying to put the pieces of his broken life back together again, working closely with the humane society to educate inner city kids about the immoralities of animal abuse, and his detractors are still not happy, nor will they ever be frankly. Even if there was some way to tap into Michael Vick's soul to prove without a doubt that he really does feels guilty about what he did, there still would be a large segment of the population that wouldn't be satisfied unless Vick himself were mauled by blood-thirsty dogs inside of cage in an arena filled with thousands of screaming animal rights activists and broadcast around the world on television. Sadly, many of the unforgiving seem to be of the liberal persuasion, the left side of the ideological spectrum where virtues such as empathy, forgiveness and tolerance are supposed to be most revered, proving once again that hypocrisy... MORE >>
These Are Your Excuses For Not Watching Mad Men Tonight
Jesus. Will you people please, please STFU about Mad Men, the third season of which premieres tonight? [Ed. NO!] Fine. For people who'll be opting out of watching this evening, here're your five talking points/excuses when discussing at work tomorrow. 1. It's boring. It's not like 24, or one of those shows were shit actually happens. Dude gets drunk on martinis at lunch. Dude gets undercut by younger dude. Chick gets pregnant and maybe goes crazy. Dude smokes. Dude gets drunk. Dude cheats on wife. It's like the 37 hour-long version of Revolutionary Road without Michael Shannon going all batshit in it. The era Mad Men was set in was boooorrrrring. They didn't have the internet or really good drugs, or people to write like 12 year-olds on the internet on really good drugs for you to read. Also, only boring people get bored, and these people are bored all the fucking time. 2. Everyone's talking about it. No, really: everyone. The show has reached absolute fever pitch, and you want to be able to enjoy it in a bubble, without other people giving you perspective, telling you what to think, what they think, and why certain things about the show are a certain way. Like anything else, buzz should exist in moderation. Fever pitch is a bad thing, folks. Look what happened to The Sopranos! Which Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner was a veteran of. 3. Elizabeth Moss is a dealbreaker for you. Some people absolutely love the actress who plays Peggy! And some people completely despise her, because they argue that she was better when playing the president's daughter on the West Wing. Personally, I like her, but I'm still not watching the show. 4. You're taking a political stand against______. You gotta be subtle about this one, but you can work it. Just be very undercut-y and passive-aggressive (much like the show's characters!). For example: you think the show, while trying to contextualize (drinking/smoking/infidelity/lying/passive-aggressiveness) sometimes fails, and people can get the wrong idea (because, really though, you know there're assholes out there glorifying Don Draper without actually getting the fact that he's an awful person). You're just, you know, not about that. Also, Page Six ran an item today about Jon Hamm - supposedly a diva on set these days - trying to get his wife a gig on the show. You won't stand for nepotism! 5. You don't have cable. Because you're trying to be fiscally conservative in the face of a recession! You are engaged in things like social activities, exercise, reading a book, watching a movie in a movie theater, seeing theater, or doing something that otherwise transcends the "second baseline of culture" (or something) that is longform dramatic television! Or, well, you're broke. Which is true. That works. MORE >>
Washington Post Empathizes With Family "Sqeaking By" On $300K A Year
How does the other-other half live? You know, the families who are now forced to "squeak by" on $300K a year? Leave it to the Washington Post to not only find out, but to attempt to elicit empathy! Yes: "squeak by," as in the article's title: "Squeaking By On $300,000." Now, give the writer the benefit of the doubt. Surely, she knows that $300,000 a year is opulence to some American families, right? She couldn't just write this in a bubble in which that's not much money. Hell, she doesn't make nearly that much money herself. And the case Washington Post staff writer Anne Hull - now the Cintra Wilson of Washinton Post staff writers - makes tries to be fair. It goes something like: various expenses and a bad real estate market, paired with investments (houses, cars, private schooling) made in better times have now become fiscal traps that could - theoretically, bear with me - become difficult to edge your way out of. Right? Let's skip to the very last line in the piece: "We might live in nice houses and drive nice cars, but we're just holding on," she says. Perfect looks perfect from a distance. Oh, yes. More: The decline is found in the fine print. On the bulletin board at the YMCA in Rye, for example, where nannies and maids who've been let go look for new employment. On the wait list at the $7,000-a-year nursery school at Rye Presbyterian Church, where only 30 names hover instead of the usual 300. On the sleepy crime blotter of the Rye Police Department, which shows an increase in neighbor and domestic tensions. "You have a guy who was at the top of his game on Wall Street," explains Police Commissioner William Connors. "For the first time, he gets up in the morning and he has no place to go." He hears a neighbor using a loud leaf blower at 7 in the morning and calls the police to complain. When Wall Street crashed, so did this community. It's like the exact opposite of recession porn. And you know what? Why not? Why not write a story that's not often told? It's something different. It's a story we otherwise don't hear about. A somehow common, yet obscure human story of voices drowned out by larger, louder complaints of economic hardship onto economic hardship. Isn't this what the people want to read? Judging by the comments on the piece, now at 628... ...no. MORE >>
Harvey Weinstein: Sad, Senile, Barely Surviving The Next Big Thing
Or so goes today's lacerating NYT piece on The Weinstein Company's fate, "The Weinsteins Scamble to Regain a Golden Touch in Hollywood." Like old Miramax films, it's juicy, exciting, illuminating, and troubling. It also lays their survival strategy bare. New York Times writer David Segal goes for the jugular with some of the contextualizing work done here. There're the great anecdotes from filmmakers the Weinsteins have worked with, like Quentin Tarantino's story about the time Harvey wanted to buy a restaurant just so he could blow smoke in the fire marshall's face: The story killed, and when the laughing died down, Bob smiled, waited a beat and added another punch line. "A million dollars," he sighed, "for a cigarette." Ah, the flush years. They must seem kind of distant now. Or Weinstein loyalists like Kevin Smith sounding "wistful" about a failure to promote a film: "They had impeccable taste when they were hungry," Mr. Smith says. "The problem is that they're not really hungry anymore. They're starving and desperate." Or guys like the producer of Fanboys going on the record about how terribly trite he thinks the Weinstein's tastes have become: To Dana Brunetti, who produced "Fanboys," the whole episode was a blown opportunity. "I don't think the Weinsteins understood that they had this stalwart audience of 'Star Wars' fans in their back pocket," he says. "They just wanted the movie to be whatever had been hot the previous weekend. It was 'Superbad' one weekend, something else the next." All things that would've never have been mentioned in public - or private, maybe - by the talent in the Weinsteins employed in their heyday. The Weinsteins strange fraternal relationship with each other is documented; so are moments of affability, to push home the point that Harvey and Bob aren't the bulldogs they used to be. But key to understanding the Weinsteins, and the way they keep getting by despite hemorrhaging money on failure after failure, is a scene in which Harvey's rattling off the company's slate of current and upcoming releases. ...the brothers were downright generous with me when it came to screening their coming movies. In fact, they shared as much of their slate as was ready - six movies in all, as well as ads, DVDs and rough cuts of unfinished products. The goal, they said, was to demonstrate the strength of these films. For Harvey, it also seemed as if the screenings were supposed to bolster his case if - or, perhaps in his mind, when - he had to complain about this article. We showed him everything and he still said we're doomed, was the subtext. If there is such a thing as prevenge, this is it. "You see this?" Harvey asks, pounding a finger against a sheet of paper. It's a Nielsen NRG tracking poll, a gauge of public interest in coming movies. He points to figures besides "Inglourious Basterds." Here's the G-rated version of what he says next: "This is called 'smash hit'!" Or the "next big thing" strategy, which is what... MORE >>
The Two Sides of Rahm Emanuel: Sociopathic Political Hitman and Puppy Lover
Today, in the New York Times awesome profile on Rahm Emanuel, some great stories. Chief among them: Rahm not getting invited to Camp David, Rahm nixing Sidney Blumenthal's role in Hilary Clinton's office, and Rahm the "pile driver." But why? Because it looks like the Obama administration's trying to debunk the idea of a psychotic, power-crazed Jew, running around the White House, making decisions and deciding policy for the rest of the country. They don't want him to be seen as the Democratic Karl Rove, which, in all fairness, who would? The spin they're trying to deliver looks to be: Emanuel's role, while important, isn't a man-behind-the-curtains one, and also, that they're trying to make him softer, nicer, kinder, and seen as the hard-working guy they see him as. But they also don't want to completely tone down the stabby. While Rahm declined to be interviewed for his big New York Times profile treatment, plenty of his colleagues spoke on and off the record about him. The anecdotes in it are pretty juicy: The lede, which is the story about Blumenthal: "...Clinton wanted to hire Mr. Blumenthal, a loyal confidant who had helped her promote the idea of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" more than a decade ago. But President Obama's campaign veterans still blamed him for spreading harsh attacks against their candidate in the primary showdown with Mrs. Clinton last year. So Mr. Emanuel talked with Mrs. Clinton, said Democrats informed about the situation, and explained that bringing Mr. Blumenthal on board was a no-go. The bad blood among his colleagues was too deep, and the last thing the administration needed, he concluded, was dissension and drama in the ranks. In short, Mr. Blumenthal was out." A quote by Joel Johnson on the precarious of his role in the White House: "He's about to be tested; he's spinning a lot of plates over there and he breaks a lot of china," said Joel Johnson, a close friend and fellow veteran official of the Clinton White House. Rahm's relentlessly aggro nature, which is pounded into the profile time and time again. For example, Axelrod, on the record: "'The president has a zenlike quality,' said Mr. Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod. 'Rahm is a pile driver.'" The aforementioned revelation that Rahm didn't get invited to Camp David: "When Mr. Obama invited longtime aides like Mr. Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, to Camp David recently, Mr. Emanuel was not included." Obama's visceral reaction to the Valerie Jarrett profile in the Times: "When a New York Times Magazine profile of Ms. Jarrett last month explored the old scratchiness, White House officials said the normally calm Mr. Obama erupted with anger." The attempts to define a softer, kinder Rahm: "While he remains a tough, foul-mouthed scrapper, he is more likely these days to give a dog dish to a senator who got a new puppy (as he did to Kent Conrad this summer) than send a dead fish to an enemy (as he did two decades ago as a brash young... MORE >>
Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "Gawker: Top Stories" or change your subscription or subscribe
| Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 |
No comments:
Post a Comment