Recent Comments:
Denon intros two new high end Blu-ray players {Engadget HD}
Nov 17th 2007 1:06AM Bring the Blu-ray RECORDERS with hard drive to America already. What is the hold up?
Gabriel Byrne to Photog: Have a Seat, B*tch! {TMZ}
Jul 30th 2007 1:19AM You are part Indian, not solely, but it seems to enable you to paint a more exotic portrait of yourself or you wouldn't feel a need to emphasize that part alone as if it were all of you. Your ancestry is in India, but you & your mother were born and raised in America. Trips to India are visits to the home of your ancestors not your homeland. Your homeland is America. You are as much a westerner as I am. 'Back home' for you is America not India. You ARE big on countries as India is your first priority over all else, not people as a whole, otherwise you wouldn't feel a need to set India apart from all others as the one most in need of attention. "We" westerners include you.
I feel you zoomed in on Gabriel Byrne and remain fixated on him as a result because of a few articles you found where he mentioned his appreciation of Indian women (which I don't doubt as genuine albeit a bit PC). He seemed to disappoint you only when he behaved in a manner you deemed not in alignment with your particular brand of Indian philosophy (such as the chair-throwing incident).
You stated for example Byrne brought bad karma to his home with the Clinton soiree as if it were fact, as if you knew he really did not want to do it, & even went so far to say he lashed out at Winfrey to distract people from his bad decision. Your proof was in his so-called body language in a few photos. In actuality, there is no way to know unless he told you personally, (quotes in articles, second-hand accounts from friends don't count as personal knowledge). There is more than ample evidence you are preoccupied with Byrne and his whereabouts. Consider the following:
--You collect and save massive amounts of articles on this one guy
--You go so far as to study his body language in photographs & video interviews (I honestly don't remember seeing him ever give a tv interview, though I do recall some in things like DVD special features, so you had to do some digging, I doubt they're on the surface.)
--Your friend with the Sari store says Byrne buys things from her-- she keeps you informed
--Your cousin talks to him, & likely slept with him-- she keeps you informed
--Your boss at the church informs you. I can't fathom he (a supposed atheist for now anyway) attends Mass there, though it may look good in certain professional & publicity-generating capacities to associate with wealthy pseudo-Catholics like the Kennedys. Perhaps he's doing charity work there. Or perhaps he's still searching. Anyway, if Byrne does attend there I should hope he doesn't take Communion.
--Indian cabbies told you Byrne seeks them out (how does that work? Do only Indian cabbies service Indian neighborhoods, or does he wait 'til he spots an Indian cabbie & then hails them, or perhaps he calls the cab company and requests an Indian cabbie?)-- they keep you informed
--Your uncle who owns a craft services company knows Peter O'Toole who used to be Byrne's neighbor in London--he keeps you informed
Why would these people offer you all of this info if you did not solicit it, or make it known how extremely interested you are in him? How often can the topic of Gabriel Byrne possibly come up in normal conversation that one would be able to amass such a large amount of information? You DO seek it out.
You say you have it on good authority he's not in the Country, or you know from a reliable source he's well-endowed, or that he has not done an ET interview in years, (how could you know that if you did not keep track?) etc. Why so many sources if you're not interested in where he is or what he's doing?
Don't get me wrong, fantasy is great. My friend does all the same kinds of stuff & she's not a stalker either, but she admits her obsession. Why not acknowledge it? It's just an escape into a flight of the imagination. She's loved our posts because got more info. She showed me the TMZ site. I'd heard of TMZ, but was never sure what it was exactly 'til now. It's become a nice little distraction for me too. I do shudder to think what he would think of my assumptions & musings about his life. I'm pretty confident that he wouldn't be interested in TMZ judging from the chair-throwing incident, but I think he, like all of us, might be annoyed by us speaking so familiarly about him. For that I am sorry.
Panasonic's DMR-BW200 and BR100 Blu-ray and hard disk recorders {Engadget}
Jul 11th 2007 9:19PM When are these DVD Recorders coming to the U.S., and will they ever include 2.0 CableCard host slots?
Gabriel Byrne to Photog: Have a Seat, B*tch! {TMZ}
Jul 1st 2007 5:37AM Some of my family is Apache and Cherokee Indian. They contend that no one took their land because the land never belonged to anyone in the first place, that it could never be owned. The White man however is without a doubt responsible for murdering, raping, starving, bringing disease to their people and forcing them out of the land they lived on first. It should never have happened. It was wrong. These Indians had good reason to be wary of these men. They had a right to be.
They also acknowledge that long before the White man came they were warring with one another, killing, raping, stealing etc. They were divided into many tribes, some of whom they got along with, some violently opposing one another. Women were the slaves of men and often brutalized. Had they the type of weapons the White men had, I likely would not be here, but neither would they because they would have killed each other off long ago. It's a sad fact that all human beings, all people fight with each other.
I'm in agreement with the ONE campaign, that we are all African. We can all trace our roots back to Africa. Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that there are millions who disagree with me and will fight to the death to stop such a campaign to succeed in its effort to inform the world of this truth. I don't advocate violence, but like Malcolm X spoke about, we have a right to defend our families, our babies, and preserve this education for them.
I agree with you completely that all people are the same on the inside, we are lovers and fighters. I'm just saying we can't refute and disregard our demon sides. Touchy-feely, hearts and flowers, love, love, love... looks and feels great on the surface, but it's just a band-aid until we can change hearts. Paranoia won't solve anything to be sure. We need level heads. But ignorance is not bliss, and denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Gabriel Byrne to Photog: Have a Seat, B*tch! {TMZ}
Jun 28th 2007 5:24AM My family and I are westerners yes and have not suffered from living as we do yet we have mounds to learn. Both sets of my Grandparents lived to old age. My mother's parents were firm meat eaters, my Grandpa never having met a vegetable he did not like. He lived to be 93, and my Grandmother is still going strong at 90. None were bent over or had any arthritic problems. None were well-versed in the Kama Sutra, or ever spoke about their sex lives openly, yet it was always quite clear both couples enjoyed healthy ones for seven decades each. Some members of my family are hunters whose quarry we have all consumed. While I could never shoot anything, I see nothing wrong or necessarily unhealthy about eating animals. We have had very little illness in our family over several generations. None of us are overweight, alcoholics, drug-users, or prone to violence, and there are a lot of us. The majority has been happily married or in strong monogamous relationships for years. We are of various races (though our skin colors favor white) and religions or none at all which we respectfully debate each other about. We've had our estrangements from one another as families do, but we ultimately co-exist quite nicely. I'd like it to be that way among all the races and cultures, appreciating each others differences while maintaining ethnic pride.
I refer to my "Indian" friend, while you refer to us "western folk", yet we are both American born. I'm of mixed race but describe myself as American and am proud of all parts of my heritage. My political concerns and actions are not concentrated in a single area.
I should be able to refer to my friend without indicating her race. I'd like to refer to the various benefits and practices of things like Kiegeling or Kama Sutra without having to identify them first by their origins except in the initial introduction of them. Do you see what I mean? We can learn without isolating ourselves and making others afraid to approach because we place emphasis on its foreign nature.
Gabriel Byrne to Photog: Have a Seat, B*tch! {TMZ}
Jun 28th 2007 2:08AM I'm curious and am trying to understand your point of view. You say your heart is Indian but you proudly carry an American passport. You used statements like "back home we.....", speaking of ashram as the most spiritual way of life, and India's food being THE "best & healthiest in the world", yet you clearly choose to make your home in America and partake of all its bounty, possibly including government disability aid despite your apparent physical flexibility. (I'm quite envious)
You refer to yourself as a proud "desi girl", (despite your mixed heritage) which is indeed something to be proud of and cherish, so you do set yourself apart from others. You make Indian concerns your priority despite the "one world" philosophy. It's as though you're either desirous of turning America into an Indian nation using its wealth to fund it, or are eager to carve out a separate section of America for Indians subsidized by American money. So capitalism it seems is good for certain things.
The neighborhoods in the city I live in were initially divided according to ethnicity. Germans, Italians, Irish, Polish etc were separate and never the twain shall meet. One was never to intermarry for example. They had their own stores & eateries etc. Then they became integrated, the people assimilated, and no one group was catered to. You began to see restaurants and stores that didn't find it necessary to sell their ethnic background, yet they maintained pride in it & privately and quietly preserved their old world customs. People are now mixtures of various races. I myself am a mutt of four different nationalities. In recent years though, there has been a surge of groups moving in and reviving the racial separation. It's sad.
At one point you referred to Byrne as a misogynist, bourgeoisie. You were happy though when he complimented Indian women. You criticized his personal choice to support Hillary, ascertaining that he must have been talked into it because his actions did not coincide with your fantasy. You even suggested he should have used that money to provide "Indian girls with an education" so as not to be "forced into early marriage, prostitution, or sewing clothes for $1 an hour". As I've stated before, those conditions of "immense poverty, the bugs, the heat, the filth, the disease, the sectarian violence, the female infanticide, the dowry murder, the subhuman treatment of the dalits (untouchables)" are hardly limited to India.
While these are indeed vital concerns and should be attended to, Byrne is not responsible for satisfying their needs simply because he has stated he's hot for desi women and appreciates the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi. We have no idea (well, maybe YOU do lol) how much he has privately contributed to just such causes. It isn't his duty to advertise and publicize his charitable works. In fact, from what you've told me he would find it uncomfortable to do so. I can't help but think that Byrne is your favorite actor mainly because of his comments about Indian women, yet you say, "I’ve never been interested in a celebrity’s personal life, or whom they sleep with." I can tell you I wasn't either until you got me started. His being Irish, his political beliefs etc would not deter me from seeing a film he was appearing in if it looked like a good film, nor would I see anything he was in just because of his presence in it. Am I misinterpreting here? Am I out of line & off base?
Gabriel Byrne to Photog: Have a Seat, B*tch! {TMZ}
Jun 27th 2007 10:22PM Btw I don't think it is necessarily prudish if certain people don't care to speak explicitly sexual in mixed company or be demonstrative in public. It can be extremely annoying, rude, and sometimes inappropriate to do so. And some just prefer to remain private about personal matters as intimate as sex, and save at least some of it for the bedroom. Not everybody feels a need to exploit themselves to prove themselves knowlegable and aware. Not all of us are interested in knowing every detail of others proclivities.
I don't think it's a sign of intolerance or narrow-mindedness, or of being puritanical. Some simply aren't inclined to express every emotion or idea they have. Privacy can be a much sought after treasure, particularly for those from whom it has been taken away or limited.
As long as they are not refraining because they think it is somehow sinful, or they're made to feel ashamed, I think a little reserve is attractive. It's not necessarily healthy to let it all hang out, anymore than it is to be completely closed up.
It's been said it is the quiet ones who are most in tune. I personally think those demure women are intelligent and independent and secure. They don't need to put on a show for everybody & drone on about their exploits in order to prove it to themselves. They have no need to tell everyone they're beautiful because they know people can see it, hear it in their voice, and gleam it from their actions, writings etc . Perhaps this is what your friend Gabriel sees.
My Byrne-obsessed friend told me that his favorite character from 'Little Women" is not the outgoing, flirty Amy, pretty Meg, or even independent, headstrong Jo, but plain, simple, sweet, dependable, altruistic Beth. Who knows if he actually said that or if he meant it for anything but effect on his fans, but it is kind of interesting. If true, it would indicate deeper emphasis beyond mere physicality.
Gabriel Byrne to Photog: Have a Seat, B*tch! {TMZ}
Jun 27th 2007 8:25PM Thanks so much for your comments. You explained in more detail what I was trying to say. My Indian friend was looked upon by her rapist as a type, not a person, and he was clearly was only superficially aware of the Kama Sutra. He viewed her as a means to an end. It's true, most rapes do not involve unknown attackers and are acts of violence, but the sexual act does confuse things. His was a sexual obsession with her. My friend was deeply betrayed on many levels. I just hate to see the idea continually reinforced that the sexual aspects of tantra are its only advantages and purpose. Hardly anyone explains it in terms of anything but sex, I guess because they think it'll get them attention.
People hear Yoga, Kama Sutra and yonic Tantra and think only in terms of sex and it is so much more, the meditation, the discipline, the spirituality, artistry, sensuality all geared towards self-awareness, health etc. If people were given more information, we'd use less drugs to ease pain, control body function, behavior etc. I see too many women go for things like an epidural without question like it's necessary.
It's funny, a teacher friend of mine did simple yoga meditation with his students before class just to calm them down so they could get down to work, and he got angry calls from parents who believed he was trying to teach them a religion. They don't show up for the parent-teacher conferences, or answer his calls when he needs to talk about their disruptive behavior & falling grades, but God forbid they should be introduced to yoga. He wasn't even teaching it.
I too would like to see us as one, but there will always be those who live to do us harm. We have a right to defend ourselves and protect those we love by not putting blinders on and pretending there is nothing to fear if we just imagine a better world. We have to open up a dialogue and talk to each other, and we have to penalize lawbreakers. We must exert fairness & humane treatment (no torture of any degree) but it's not wrong to be wary.
"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many
want in... And how many want out."
--- Tony Blair when asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America
I never saw Dark Obsession. I saw Siesta on a recommendation from a friend and was not enthralled. I was a bit turned off by Ellen Barkin. I think she's an ok actress, but to me she seems to try too hard to act tough-sexy. She appears to go out of her way to prove she's hip, making provacative statements without thinking them through. Apparently I'm alone in my thinking because Mr. Byrne certainly saw the full picture of her. Not knowing her, I obviously could not know what she's really like. I guess I didn't examine Byrne as closely as you did in that film lol. It has been a long time since I''ve seen that one, but I didn't think it was among his best performances. It could have been much better in my opinion.
Gabriel Byrne to Photog: Have a Seat, B*tch! {TMZ}
Jun 26th 2007 8:25PM You're right, he does have feline features. Interesting. He's a cat man for sure. It is a shame if he doesn't realize his own attractiveness. But that's often the case. He seems kind of shy to me, so acting really must be his shy man's revenge. He has more courage than I. I still quiver and perspire whenever I have to address even a small group. I never saw Canone Inverso, but I think I heard a reference to it when reading a review of the Red Violin which I loved. Is it in any way similar to that film?
Gabriel Byrne to Photog: Have a Seat, B*tch! {TMZ}
Jun 26th 2007 5:14AM I welcome new and different ideas, and believe it serves us best to remain open to them and try to blend all of them together like the true melting pot that was intended for America. I just don't care for the judgment that Americans should adopt other customs and practices in a manner that wipes out our own, replacing ours with others because those others are somehow more enlightened. There's a false notion that we are less informed and priggish because we don't conform to another culture's point of view that I resent. Obviously their way of life is not better, does not advance equality, or so many would not be so desperate to escape the failure of their societies. I mean if we are truly meant to be united as one, why are we the only ones expected to abandon our ways while other nations are allowed to preserve their own to the point of severely punishing anyone who does not comply with their customs? There's a double standard taking place. America is the only place where terrorists are allowed to further their agenda by screaming racism. It is not wrong to be cautious or even a bit suspicious of strangers.
It is wrong to persecute anyone different from us, or to promote ourselves as superior beings. All customs and practices can lend themselves to abuse and cannot be too strictly adhered to by everyone. We won't be able to live in harmony together until we stop trying to take credit for each good thing we bring to the one nation. It only serves to isolate us further from one another. We should be able to appreciate each other as human beings, not because we look a certain way or profess to have specific abilities merely by way of our nationality. I try to look upon my White, Iranian, Indian, Mexican, Black friends, as people first, then maybe Americans etc. It is so difficult to do that though, because when we're together, others see our color first, separate us in their minds, & treat us differently. Then we start separating each other in our own minds. It's like we'll never be allowed to meld. Very frustrating.
