Posted on 05/26/2005 11:53:21 PM PDT by T Lady
Webster's Dictionary defines famous as "widely known," but also "honored for achievement," while infamous is defined as "having a reputation of the worst kind," a synonym for "disgraceful." In the big business of celebrity journalism today, there is no discernible difference between fame and infamy.
Today's celebrity journalism is only interested in that which is interesting , no matter how vile the atrocity. It will make all kinds of excuses for the infamous if they can be milked for Nielsen ratings points. Worse yet, it will pay the infamous for the privilege of wallowing in their vomit-inducing lives.
Some of today's infamous are merely highlighted for making fools of themselves on TV. Take Paris Hilton. Try finding something she's accomplished where she deserved to be "honored for achievement." She's famous for being Barbie-doll pretty, stinking rich, dumb as a mud fence, and casually, completely amoral.
But she's not a criminal. There's a separate category for truly infamous convicts. Take Mary Kay LeTourneau, the grade-school art teacher who first collided with the TV news cycle in 1997 when, as a 35-year-old mother of four, she was convicted of seducing a 12-year-old boy into sex. How many people would consider honoring her "for achievement"? She was convicted of child rape and forced to register as a sex offender. She was released early, but then returned to prison when she was caught once again molesting the child. She was a repeat offender, a repeat child rapist, to be precise.
You can see where this train wreck would be fascinating, and appalling. Just imagine being the husband of this woman, or one of her four children. (They moved to Alaska to avoid the glare of reflected infamy.) Imagine being the parents of this boy, who had no idea the art teacher was stalking their grade-schooler, fantasizing about him, and finally violating him.
But today's media will rationalize anything to draw eyeballs to the tube, so when Mary Kay's conquest, a boy named Vili Fualaau, grew into a man, and she was eventually released from prison, the next stage of infamy could ensue: They would be married. Suddenly, the celebrity-making vampires were playing the strains of "Love Story," and pedophilia means never having to say you're sorry.
In the last week of April, Paramount's "Entertainment Tonight" and their spinoff show "The Insider" announced they had obtained the "exclusive rights" to wallow in the pedophile wedding of the century. They also mysteriously claimed that they do not pay for interviews, which no one should believe. The first to point accusatory fingers was the competition at "Access Hollywood," where host Billy Bush insisted Paramount paid big money for the privilege, "close to $1 million -- a figure they deny," Bush said. "Go to prison, get on TV, get rich," he declared.
To fully profit from the "exclusive rights" they insisted they didn't buy, these Paramount "entertainment" shows treated (or better, mistreated) viewers to days of panting after the Lucky Couple. Inside the rehearsal dinner. Inside the wedding. Inside the reception. Then there was the most frightening part: Asking Mary Kay for romantic advice. What? "I think sexual intimacy should be in a marriage only -- or else a close-to-marriage situation," Mary Kay helpfully told the public, her own actions light years removed from those stated beliefs.
The show's amoral neutrality suffused the coverage even as it seeped into the mainstream news media. In a piece for ABC's "Good Morning America," ET reporter Jann Carl hyped the wedding as "the icing on the cake of a notorious soap opera that still sparks admiration and outrage around the world." Wait a minute. Just who "admires" the rape of a 12-year-old boy, other than the folks at Paramount? She then hyped her exclusive first interview with the couple. She cooed: "Was it everything you dreamed?" Without giggling, Carl explained the new Mary Kay Fualaau hoped to teach again in the future, failing to add: If some school administrator can just compassionately look past that registered-pedophile record.
Mary Kay was delighted that Paramount took their time and money to promote her side of the adultery/pedophilia argument against the troublesome opinions of the public. In her first interview, she exclaimed: "I feel like I'm happy for the public that they get to see us finally and that they aren't given misinformation or someone's opinion as information."
A vast majority of Americans may see her as infamous, or disgraceful, but our "entertainment" media is not above devoting their time and millions to promoting the glamorous and romantic side of pedophilia. Paramount has defined itself, as well, as infamous and disgraceful.
Brent Bozell is President of Media Research Center, a Townhall.com member group.
©2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
She's even a disgrace to child molesters!
As I was reading this article, I thought of the 1976 film 'Logan's Run', in which those who reached the age of 30 were hunted down and eliminated.
...To put the current spin on this with Mary Kay, once husband reaches 30, she'll more than likely divorce him for someone half his age.
-Regards, T.
It's a sad story. But not an unusual one. At a school near me, 5 or 6 years ago, a teacher was forced out after she, a woman in her early 30's, was caught in 'affairs' with 2 or 3 sophomores. One of the boys squealed on her. She just disappeared from the school one day, to take (you can't make this stuff up) a job at another school, just not in a teaching capacity. The school hushed it up and no charges were ever filed. Her husband filed for divorce and had to fight for custody of their young child. Yet it never made the news or netted anyone any jail time. So it's sure to happen again.
I think you've said it best. Our cultures downward spiral regarding mores seems to be having some reprecussions. I don't know how much of is was simply unreported or underreported years ago, but it does seem to be more of an epidemic in the last decade or so. The story I'm familiar with locally never made the news, sparing the innocent victims - her hubby and child, but at first it irked me that, once again, scandal at that school was swept under the carpet. There do seem to be more of these women than ever. And it doesn't help that the young males are more sexually active than before.
'There do seem to be more of these women than ever. And it doesn't help that the young males are more sexually active than before.'
...You can thank our wonderful educational system in America for that. Ever since Alfred Kinsey uleashed his sexual threories back in the late '40s, we have been given the Sex Education In The Classroom debacle, with clueless 'educators' standing in for parents. By clueless I mean not knowing what is best for the children on that subject. So now we have youngsters who know better how to put a condom on a banana or cucumber than they know how to read or write. Is it any wonder Latourneau was attracted to this guy? He probably had a Sex Ed class when he was 10 years old. Wouldn't surprise me, not in the least.
-Regards, T.
Theories! Always makes me want to spit, and I don't spit. In my college psychology classes, in the early 80's, shortly before every deviant behavior became normalized, we learned about his theories and how he tested them. And how they were being condemned, the methods at least. (I guess the lefties had to hurry and step up to put an end to that!) It was absolutely revolting. Nauseating and difficult to hear. Now we have a movie celebrating and glamorizing him as some modern day savior. Ugh. Yes, little wonder we have promiscuous teens and teachers hitting on them and worse.
And the educators may be clueless on what is really best for kids, but those supplying the materials have a definite agenda. It's sad. Yes, Vili (sp) was probably well versed in sex-ed by the 6th grade. I wonder if there would have been all the hubbub if Vili had been attracted to a same sex teacher? They want that normalized and the whole 'age of consent' lowered, so... And given the sexual sophistication of jr high kids, and their immaturity, I'm sure they had a whole slew of jokes and innuendos about those sex-ed classes that they 'tried out' on teachers to get a reaction. Perhaps Mary Kay mistook that for appropriate and flirtatious behavior. Ugh...
'Now we have a movie celebrating and glamorizing him as some modern day savior. Ugh.'
...Yep, a film which garnered a Best Actor nomination, and correct me if I'm wrong, Best Picture. Thankfully it lost in all the categories it was nominated for. As much as I like Ralph Finnes, this was not his finest hour (if you'll pardon the pun here). But it certainly does illustrate just how perverted and twisted our society has become. When 'Kinsey' was released last year, the New York Times literally swooned over it; I got so disgusted I could not finish reading the review. What's wrong is right and what's right is wrong.
-Regards, T.
Would anyone be surprised if she cheats on Villi with another kid?
See Post #18.
-Regards, T.
Oops! Sorry! Missed that one!
But it certainly does illustrate just how perverted and twisted our society has become.
We are through the looking glass. And most people have become oblivious to it. Like when Rome burned and the parties rolled on. Racing down that vast, gleaming waterslide to hell.
That's okay. Post #22 is also helpful.
-Regards, T.
Very well stated.
-Regards, T.
Yes, "modern" means not only "immorality" but anarchy and several other undesirable things as well!
Just Nasty! They deserve each other. She'll be in a wheel chair when he gets his second wind.
That's a fascinating story, and very thought-provoking. There's probably a psychological component involved in the transition. The human mind equates beauty with harmony and order, which we honor by allegiance to truth and goodness. When those things are violated, I suppose it's only natural that the transgressor would seek to remove himself from proximity to the things which continually remind him of his sin. It makes me wonder how many sexual deviants indulge themselves in atheism, not because they disbelieve in God, but because the idea of God is simply incompatible with what they do. If you've ever read any of the Marquis de Sade's works (quite nasty, but very instructive) you'll see something akin to this.
For some time now I've toyed with the idea of writing a novel concerning a wealthy middle-aged lute player who uses the beauty of Renaissance music to seduce the young girls under his tutelage. I see now that any allegiance to beauty would probably be nothing more than a sham; that such a person's true qualities would be diametrically opposed to the love of beauty. If I ever get around to actually writing the thing, I'll be sure to adjust the plot accordingly.
Meanwhile, here's a nice English lute song that touches on the demise of beauty:
Love stood amazed at sweet Beauty's pain,
Love would have said that all was but vain,
And gods but half divine.
But when Love saw that Beauty would die,
He all aghast to heavens did cry,
O Gods, what wrong is mine!
Then his tears, bred in thoughts of salt brine,
Fell from his eyes, like rain in sunshine,
Expelled by rage of fire.
Yet in such wise as anguish affords,
He did express, in these his last words,
His inifinite desire.
Are you fled, Fair, where are now those eyes?
Eyes but too fair; envied by the skies,
You angry gods do know,
With guiltless blood your sceptres you stain.
On poor true hearts like tyrants you reign,
Unjust! Why do you so?
Are you false gods? Why then do you reign?
Are you just gods? Why then have you slain,
The life of Love on earth?
Beauty, now thy face lives in the skies,
Beauty now let me live in thine eyes,
Where bliss felt never Death.
Then from high rock, the rock of Despair,
He falls in hope to smother in the air,
Or else on stones to burst.
Or on cold waves to spend his last breath,
Or his strange life to end by strange death,
But Fate forbids the worst.
With pity moved, the gods then change Love,
To Phoenix' shape, yet can not remove,
His wonted properties.
He loves the sun, because it is fair,
Sleep he neglects; he lives but on air,
And would, but cannot die.
"Well, she's half right. She was married when she raped the 12-year-old. She is insane."
She is one weird selfish woman. I feel sorry for her first husband and her first set of kids. Can't even imagine the hurt, disgust and embarrassment her first set of kids endure especially when the whore mongering and pandering media plays and replays the Mary Kay saga like some road side car wreck.
Mary Kay is not Cinderella !!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.