Elton John says too much - 9.27.2006.1
Who the hell does Mr. Elton John think he is? I really would like to know the answer. I realize that many do not share my desire to generally disregard news and commentary that deals with the very private nature of the lives of celebrities and entertainers. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry that includes everything from talk shows, news papers, magazines, blogs and of course Mr. Elton John.
It’s nice that Mr. John is now funding a foundation to fight AIDS. I’m happy for him that he’s stopped the drinking and drugs. I could care less about his sex life. Apparently Mr. John shares my concern about individual sexual preferences. He refuses to speak about the sexuality of Mr. Clay Aiken [as if he would know magically for some reason]. It’s not the publics’ concern, nor does the public deserve to know that much about a celebrity if it’s not publicly disclosed. The same applies to whomever an entertainer dates, marries, whatever.
What I don’t get is that Mr. John felt the need to speak about the separation of Mrs. Whitney Brown [Mrs. Whitney Houston and Mr. Bobby Brown filed a separation as I mentioned in my post It's a separation - Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston 9.14.2006, unless other papers were filed – I really don’t follow this stuff.]. Where does he get off on speaking about how their 14 year marriage was ‘doomed a long time ago’. What gives him the right.
Doesn’t it strike you as more than a bit hypocritical to refuse to speak about one person because it’s “none of my business” and then speak about someone else that is equally not his business. I mean he wasn’t involved with either of them. He wasn’t married to either.
If he felt so strongly about their lives he should have spoken to them directly. There is no need to kick them when they are down. Nor is there any reason to bandy about their names publicly without provocation.
This is what I think, what do you think?
It’s nice that Mr. John is now funding a foundation to fight AIDS. I’m happy for him that he’s stopped the drinking and drugs. I could care less about his sex life. Apparently Mr. John shares my concern about individual sexual preferences. He refuses to speak about the sexuality of Mr. Clay Aiken [as if he would know magically for some reason]. It’s not the publics’ concern, nor does the public deserve to know that much about a celebrity if it’s not publicly disclosed. The same applies to whomever an entertainer dates, marries, whatever.
What I don’t get is that Mr. John felt the need to speak about the separation of Mrs. Whitney Brown [Mrs. Whitney Houston and Mr. Bobby Brown filed a separation as I mentioned in my post It's a separation - Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston 9.14.2006, unless other papers were filed – I really don’t follow this stuff.]. Where does he get off on speaking about how their 14 year marriage was ‘doomed a long time ago’. What gives him the right.
Doesn’t it strike you as more than a bit hypocritical to refuse to speak about one person because it’s “none of my business” and then speak about someone else that is equally not his business. I mean he wasn’t involved with either of them. He wasn’t married to either.
If he felt so strongly about their lives he should have spoken to them directly. There is no need to kick them when they are down. Nor is there any reason to bandy about their names publicly without provocation.
This is what I think, what do you think?
posted by M. Vass | 11:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home