Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Must be the British media, because I can't recall seeing a picture or a story on him and his wife in a very long time.
I'm truly sorry to hear about this, because I like them both. But doesn't it sound like they've chosen to pursue their individual careers and projects, rather than pursue a life together? With their money, you'd think they could wall themselves off from the world if they really wanted to. While the media is intrusive, other celebrities (Julia Roberts comes to mind) have learned how to just vanish, and get off the media radar screen, when they chose to. So is there more to this than just the media-excuse?
Doesn't it seem, though, like Paul and Linda McCartney had much more media intrusion? And they managed to make it. I guess this is the celebrity equivalent of "irreconcilable differences", though, right?
On the bright side, Paul can go back to smoking pot again. (I can hear him already, exhaling a big puffy cloud as he utters the word-verification word "xuyhm.")
Didn't they use the media to promote their causes? They sought the exposure for their purposes and they got it because the public is interested in the private lives. They should take responsibility for their role in the publicity.
Heather Mills is a class act. I've seen her interviewed a number of times, and anyone who would be willing to take off their prosthesis on the Larry King show at Larry's request so people could get a better view of it, and then insist (it being a better product than what was available on the market at the time) that people who marketed it in the U.S. limit the price to $2000 (when they had originally wanted to market it for five times as much) is a wonderful person. If you see an interview with Heather Mills you will know what I mean-- you can see that she is just this side of a Saint (sort of like Joan Kroc, only younger).My opinion of Paul McCartney has always been so-so. His and Lennon's egos got too big for one band, which is why the Beatles broke up (despite the presence of an egoless and far more talented musician than either of them) and I wonder if his ego was the root of any of this. And it's interesting that the note blaming the media was only posted on his site.I know he'll be sixty-four one month from today, but I don't need him and if he came to my house I don't think I'd feed him.
You are correct Ann, they used publicity all along, so whose fault is that?I do feel sorry for Vera, Chuck and Dave.
Eli - I totally disagree. Someone who would come out and say that the people who developed a technology that makes a huge difference in her own life have no right to recoup the costs of their research or try to make a profit is an ass. Did she demand the Beatles music be sold for pennies so everyone can afford it? Doubt it - not so long as she was benefiting from the profits anyhow.She's done some wonderful things for deserving people. But she's not a saint. And the example you cite doesn't make her look very good, in my opinion.
What? It's not Bush's fault?
Jennifer,Agree re Heather Mills. The example Eli cites, makes Heather Mills look like a socialist.
But, Bunker, we all know Bush controls the media. Just ask Stephen Colbert O'Reilly. So...
Eli: "Heather Mills is a class act. I've seen her interviewed a number of times, and anyone who would be willing to take off their prosthesis on the Larry King show at Larry's request so people could get a better view of it, and then insist (it being a better product than what was available on the market at the time) that people who marketed it in the U.S. limit the price to $2000 (when they had originally wanted to market it for five times as much) is a wonderful person. If you see an interview with Heather Mills you will know what I mean-- you can see that she is just this side of a Saint (sort of like Joan Kroc, only younger)."Okay, I'm assuming you're joking. I saw Heather Mills on Larry King, displaying that leg (which King seemed to take a sexual interest in, it was so lifelike... more lifelike than King!). She was super earnest about her cause, but really, what's with saying a company that makes a good product ought to have to cut the price way down? Paul's a billionaire. Why doesn't he buy quality legs for everyone? And why are especially lifelike artificial legs important? Most people wear pants.
Ann,The logic of this comment isn't perfect: "And why are especially lifelike artificial legs important? Most people wear pants."Many people have to wear pants simply to hide not especially lifelike prosthetic limbs.It's pretty psychologically - as well as physically -devastating losing a limb. Being given a limb which looks horrible can seem pointlessly cruel on top of everything else.I never did remotely warm to Heather. But she did speak authoritatively for people who have to cope with false limbs or who have friends or family in that difficult position.
Drudge is headlining this by saying that it might be the biggest divorce in british history.Does anyone know if there was a pre-nup?
I blame Yoko.
Jody: Most people wear pants. Period. Whether they have an artificial leg or not, the majority of people wear long pants, by choice. There is no compelling argument for charity to provide more attractive artificial legs. If I were a billionaire (like Paul) and intent on making donations to medical causes (like Paul?), more beauteous artificial legs would be near the bottom of the list! How about medical treatment for children with serious diseases like cancer, asthma, and diabetes? Fill out the list. Tell me when you get to prettier legs. Having to either wear long pants or allow people see that you need an artificial leg may be unpleasant, but it is a rather minor matter when you're requesting charity. I'd put it below getting braces for kids with bad teeth. Of course, it's terrible to lose a limb, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is having an unusually high quality limb, and not even as a matter of better functioning, but just a more likelike leg. Come on.
I'm beating a dead horse at this point, as there have been several good responses to Eli's post.However, I *have* to add... how convenient it is for her, with her ridiculous sums of cash, to insist that someone else dare not make money--which would likely never even approach her riches--marketing their product.Saint, my ass. Running your mouth doesn't make you a saint, even if you do it vociferously on the Larry King show (hardly a brave endeavor). If she's a saint, she would have distributed those legs herself instead of insisting that someone else make the sacrifice.
Yeah, they could buy the company and institute the policies they like. Why didn't they?
Ann,At the risk of sounding mildly unhinged on this esoteric topic _ I can simply see no compelling reason NOT to improve the cosmetic design of articial limbs.Because it's medically inessential, it's understandably an orphan charity cause, well outside the mainstream. Therefore it's one that lends itself, I would have thought, quite well to the eccentric support of a wealthy woman with a personal interest. (Though Heather's associated anti-landmine campaign was hardly eccentric).Maybe the issue is not so much wanting an unusually high quality product as wishing one wasn't only offered prosthetic limbs of an unusually ugly quality?(Granted, I am probably over sensitive for family reasons. But I learned that you were required to be always upbeat and saintly to all curious strangers' enquiries if you wore an obvious artificial leg.)
It is reported that Heather offered to sign a pre-nup but Paul declined - and it is estimated that of Paul's ₤865 million fortune Heather will end up with around ₤200 million (₤1 = $1.88).And as for media coverage, they are constantly in the British media. Heather recently started an anti-milk campaign to go along with her PETA anti-fur campaign.
Well, if Heather's getting all that money, she can buy everyone a prettier leg, then, can't she?Jody: I've got nothing against a company designing and manufacturing an excellent device, only against someone telling them they must cut their prices. Who will be motivated in the future to make medical equipment if it's the sort of business where you're not allowed to make a profit?
"Jody: Most people wear pants. Period."taken out of context, this is the funniest Althouse quote ever.
It is reported that Heather offered to sign a pre-nup but Paul declined I heard that too. I wondered what the real story was. Rather cynically, I wondered whether she was putting his love to the test.
"Most people wear pants. Period."So this all boils down to our clever professor's continuing crusade against the shorts-wearing public.
There was an article in Vanity Fair awhile ago that made her look like a real golddigger. Unless there's a pre-nup, she's going to try to clean his clock. His kids apparently hate her.
Post a Comment