Showing posts with label opportunism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opportunism. Show all posts

Thursday, May 6, 2021

OK, Piers, now tell us how you REALLY feel.

 

PIERS MORGAN: How the hell can Meghan 'I hate royalty but call me Duchess' Markle preach about father-child relationships when she's disowned her own Dad, and wrecked her husband's relationship with his?

By Piers Morgan for MailOnline

What would make the current shortlist for the title of World's Most Ludicrously Inappropriate Book?

Donald Trump's Guide to Diplomacy?

The Art of Protecting One's Privacy by the Kardashian Sisters?

Why Marriage is for Keeps by Bill and Melinda Gates?

These would all be good contenders were it not for the announcement this afternoon that Meghan Markle has written a book called 'The Bench' about the very special bond between father and child.

Sorry, WHAT?

Notwithstanding Ms Markle's seemingly unlimited thirst for committing attention-seeking acts of gargantuan hypocrisy, this seemed beyond parody.

But it was real.


I laughed out loud when the news broke via her ecstatic publishers, and even louder when I read the accompanying gush-laden statements.

Ms Markle proudly informed us that her debut literary tome captures 'the warmth, joy and comfort of the relationship between fathers and sons from all walks of life.'

She added: 'This representation was particularly important to me ... and I worked closely to depict this special bond through an inclusive lens. My hope is that The Bench resonates with every family, no matter the make-up, as much as it does with mine.'

Hmmmm.

Meghan Markle has written a book called 'The Bench' about the very special bond between father and child. Sorry, WHAT? I laughed out loud when the news broke via her ecstatic publishers, and even louder when I read the accompanying gush-laden statements

Ms Markle proudly informed us that her debut literary tome captures 'the warmth, joy and comfort of the relationship between fathers and sons from all walks of life'

She added: 'This representation was particularly important to me ... and I worked closely to depict this special bond through an inclusive lens. My hope is that The Bench resonates with every family, no matter the make-up, as much as it does with mine'

I wonder how much these touching sentiments will resonate with her own family, or her husband's?


Lest we forget, Ms Markle has ruthlessly disowned her father Thomas and refuses to have anything to do with him despite the fact they now live just 70 miles from each other.

She is also reported to have disowned every other Markle, none of whom were invited to her wedding.

This doesn't seem like someone overly keen to operate 'an inclusive lens' to me.

In fact, it seems a singularly EX-clusive lens.

She also spray-gunned Thomas in her lie-packed Oprah whine-a-thon in a manner that was more 'ice, rage and irritation' than 'warmth, joy and comfort'.

As for Harry, he trashed his father Prince Charles in the same interview, moaning about how Daddy had stopped taking his calls or giving him cash, sounding like some needy spoiled brat teenager rather than a 36-year-old multi-millionaire doormat who ditched his family, country and duty because his chillingly controlling and ambitious wife wanted him to.

And unforgivably, he did this as Charles was desperately worried about HIS father, Prince Philip, who was lying seriously ill in hospital and later died.



How does any of this sit with Meghan's misty-eyed tribute to 'the warmth, joy and comfort of the relationship between fathers and sons'?

Very, very uneasily, I would suggest.

The pair of them also branded Harry's royal family a bunch of heartless racists, though no evidence has yet emerged to support any of their outrageously hurtful and damaging claims.

And they repeatedly attacked the institution of the Monarchy and everything it stands for.

Yet when it comes to flogging her book, what author name does Meghan Markle use?

Ah, of course: 'Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex.'

Yes, she continues to cynically exploit her royal titles because she knows that's the only reason anyone is paying her vast sums of money to spew her uniquely unctuous brand of pious hectoring gibberish in Netflix documentaries, Spotify podcasts or children's books.

Of course, her equally cynical publishers don't give a damn about any of this shocking double standard.



'Meghan's touching text explores the relationship between fathers and sons and undeniably tugs at the heartstrings that parents and caregivers feel,' said Mallory Loehr, publisher of the Random House Books for Young Readers Group.

She cooed that the illustrator's art 'beautifully matches the tender emotion of Meghan's words, and every spread is infused with a vibrant sense of joy and love. The Bench is timeless—it feels destined to become one of those books that people will be reading for generations to come.'

And unforgivably, Harry gave the Oprah interview as Charles was desperately worried about HIS father, Prince Philip, who was lying seriously ill in hospital and later die

The pair of them also branded Harry's royal family a bunch of heartless racists, though no evidence has yet emerged to support any of their outrageously hurtful and damaging claims. And they repeatedly attacked the institution of the Monarchy and everything it stands for. Pictured: Prince Charles leads the procession of male royals, including Harry, at his father's funeral

Hmmm, I don't wish to rain on the comically sycophantic parade - but I suspect this book will become an instant historical classic for all the wrong reasons.

The whole notion of Meghan Markle dishing out advice to anyone about the relationship between fathers and children is absolutely ridiculous given the appalling relationships she and her husband have with their own fathers.



Yet her brazen decision to do it anyway is so sadly typical of a woman whose tendency for staggering hypocrisy is only matched by her extraordinary tone-deafness.

I'd honestly rather hear parenting tips from Britney Spears's god-awful father because at least they still talk to each other.

In the press release, Ms Markle is described as 'a mother, wife, feminist, and activist' who 'currently resides in her home state of California with her family, two dogs, and a growing flock of rescue chickens.'

What it didn't clarify is that she resides with a lot more animals than family members.

In fact, the only three members of her entire family she seems to have any relationship with at all now are Harry, Archie and her mother.

The rest have been discarded along with her ex-husband, and almost every old friend and colleague.

'What Meghan wants, Meghan gets,' was Harry's famous refrain in the build-up to their wedding.

And so far, she's got exactly what she wanted: the handsome British Prince, the Californian mansion, the millionaire celebrity lifestyle she always craved, and since Oprah's unquestioning softball PR stunt, the coveted and ferociously-contested status of America's No1 oppressed victim – a poor innocent waif cruelly mistreated by the beastly racist British royals until she managed to grab her confiscated passport and escape back home.



The fact none of this ugly incendiary narrative is true is irrelevant to the people who matter to her – the Hollywood woke brigade for whom a personal version of the truth is far more important than the actual truth.

But what Ms Markle really needs now is some old-fashioned home truth.

THE truth, that is, not HER truth that usually turns out to be of the Princess Pinocchio veracity.

And THE truth is that she's a cynical disingenuous manipulator intent on wrecking the Royal Family's image around the world with her shameless, shameful, money-grabbing victim-playing antics, and dragging her hapless husband along for the ride.

This new book about father-children relationships is just another example of Meghan Markle's never-ending penchant for preaching what she never practices.


If she really cared about father-child relationships, she'd take a chauffeur-driven limousine on the hour-long trip to see her own father who's never even met either Harry or Archie.

And if she really cared about father-child relationships, she would never have trashed Harry's family on global TV in the horrible way that she did, causing yet more damage, possibly irreparably, to Harry's relationship with his father.

But then as we've seen from her gruesomely self-interested behavior during a pandemic that's caused so much devastation and pain to billions around the world, Meghan Markle doesn't really care about anyone but herself. 


Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Celebrity Wife Swap: it can't be true!


To what lengths will some people go to resurrect their careers?

I mean, careers shattered by their own stupidity, selfishness and horrifically bad judgement?

Here's how far.

(from an entertainment site)

Reality TV will have another proud moment Tuesday night when disgraced pastor Ted Haggard and unstable one-time Oscar nominee Gary Busey trade spouses for ABC's "Celebrity Wife Swap." To promote their appearance on the show, Busey and Haggard appeared via satellite earlier in the day on Fox's "Good Day LA."
























"Steve, do you remember the last time we talked?" Busey started the interview, then recalling for host Steve Edwards the interview they had after Busey's Oscar nomination in 1979. "You were very much a gentleman and very nice to me, and I've never forgotten that moment. You inspired me."


It's unlikely Busey will have such warm memories of this interview.



What followed was an awkward nine minutes of live TV that featured Haggard engaging in a contentious discussion of gay marriage with Jillian Reynolds, a virtually ignored Busey seemingly amusing himself in the monitor off camera, and a series of pauses caused by some kind of audio lag that seemed to affect only Busey.











Haggard seemed put off by the intro, in which Edwards described Haggard's scandal involving a male prostitute who claimed to have had sex with Haggard (which Haggard denied) and doing drugs with him (which Haggard admitted to). The scandal led to Haggard resigning as pastor at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and as head of the National Assn. of Evangelicals. Amazingly, he's remained married for the past five years and he's willing to let his wife spend a week with Gary Busey.


Shortly after the introduction, Haggard turned to Busey and commented, "That was a jumbled group of facts they had."




The rest of the interview is worth watching for Busey's facial expressions and occasional asides and for his reaction to Edwards' concluding suggestion that he say, "Amen!"


Chances are that ABC's "Celebrity Wife Swap" episode will be slicker and probably less entertaining than Tuesday morning's chat.


As for the wives who actually did the swapping? Barely discussed.

I don't even know where to start here. With his drippingly oily manner and rectangular smile, Ted Haggard seemed like the natural successor to Jimmy Swaggart, whimpering and slobbering with insincere apology after being exposed (though he denies it) having sex with a male prostitute.







































They didn't have sex, Haggard insists. They just did drugs together. Is all.

I watched a rather pathetic documentary about how the disgraced pastor was trying to resurrect his church in what looked like a tool shed in the back yard. A ramshackle group of people showed up, probably spying the camera crew and yearning for a moment of reality TV fame.

Gary Busey, well. . . do we even need to get into it? Where did they dredge him up, and why? I know most reality shows seem to recycle '80s whatever-happened-to's and revolving-door rehab dropouts. But this pairing is particularly bizarre. Why is a so-called Christian evangelist engaging in wife-swapping (even the sanitized version we see on TV), especially with this loser? Why is he callously exploiting the wife who stood by him while he "didn't" have sex with a male hooker, though he admitted to lusting for him in his heart?




If you're truly heterosexual, it doesn't occur to you to hang around using recreational drugs with a gay prostitute. It just doesn't come up. So OK, we've exposed this Haggard guy, but he must be pretty desperate for the spotlight if he's willing to do this.

Maybe he's trying to start a new church: a congregation of evangelical swingers. When they pass around the collection plate, will they throw their keys into the basket?

Or maybe it's just another desperate attempt to convince the world that he's NOT homosexual. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)


This weird press conference is enough of a taste of the impending carnage to keep me away, so I probably won't be able to watch.  I was most repelled by the fact that these men's wives weren't even mentioned in the interview. That's because they are nothing but pawns in this disgusting game of opportunistic narcissism.




It's "wife swap", not "couples swap" or "husband swap". That tells us all we need to know about the balance of power here.

Besides, the wives aren't "celebrities", so who who gives a shit about them? Instead, we're supposed to care about a morally bankrupt hypocrite and a mediocre actor with a horrific reputation, so washed-up I had pretty much forgotten who he was.

What was it Saint Paul said in the gospels? "Wives, submit to your husbands." But does this still apply if your husband is a revolting crackpot masquerading as a man of God?





Saturday, August 6, 2011

Very hard to watch: a transformation comes undone



In researching and digging around to find an update for David Smith, the 650 lb. Virgin of TLC fame, I found a whole bunch of videos for something called Reshape the Nation. None of them are more recent than 2009. I think Chris Powell and David started this fitness business in partnership, but it became extremely awkward when he began to regain the weight.

This is one of the worst, when someone seems to have told them to goof around more and be "loose". The first 99 "State of the Nation" videos are a bit scary: Chris Powell does all the talking, and he seems to come from the Jack LaLanne School of Predatory Sales Aggression. David kind of sits beside him silently, looking either bored, glazed, or medicated, sometimes almost schizophrenic in his lack of affect.

In my last piece I quoted that autobiographical passage in which he described his horrific plan to commit suicide in a plastic swimming pool full of gasoline. You don't escape fantasies of self-immolation by losing a whole bunch of weight. Meantime, Powell  assumed the role of David's personal saviour, eventually bagging the trophy of his own show and dumping David unceremoniously by the side of the road.

The Earth Day one, well, what can I say? He's reading off a card, obviously, and looking fat, his face blown up, those sexy cheekbones buried. Personally I think he has shown some real guts in posting his current stats on two different sites:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/David-Elmore-Smith/207608272410?v=info

http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/David630lbs/more.php?section=progress

I sense a coverup here, probably instigated by Powell. If you've made your name and landed your own show by succeeding in "transforming" someone, well, if that person "un-transforms", it's just embarrassing and makes you both look like failures.

But here is an opportunity that is not being taken. David Smith represents the vast majority of people who experience massive regain after major weight loss, but it's being dumped on his own head. The pressure to keep up his "transformed" image has obviously been crushing, but no one is acknowledging that or helping him carry it. 

I get this pervasive sense of shame hanging over the whole thing, but David has put the truth out there, I think courageously. The YouTube comments are weird: people keep saying he looks great, not acknowledging the obvious regain, as if they either don't want to see it or literally CAN'T see it, the elephant in the living room, so to speak.

I hope this guy will be OK. Enormous changes in weight will eventually take their toll. This is not to mention the huge amount of skin that was removed: I don't even want to go there, do you?


 

Dear Sir or Madam, will you read my book
    It took me years to write, will you take a look