Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 1009
August 21, 2015
This supercut of news anchors earnestly discussing “Deez Nuts” is exactly what was missing from your life
"Deez Nuts," the 15-year-old Iowa farm boy polling at 9% in North Carolina, has received lots of press this week. You might even say: Wow! Bet there's some major supercut potential there. In fact, there is -- and WTF Magazine is on it. The magazine uploaded a video to its official Facebook page today, stitching together the best moments in News Anchors Earnestly Approaching Deez Nuts. Welcome to 5th grade, make yourself comfortable. Watch the clip courtesy of WTF Magazine below:
DEEZ NUTSHave you guys heard of #Deeznuts ? He's running for president! Posted by WTF Magazine on Thursday, August 20, 2015
Bobby Jindal’s latest bizarre stunt: Screening Planned Parenthood videos on his lawn
Republican presidential long shot Bobby Jindal has waged a full scale war against Planned Parenthood and in his latest attack the Louisiana governor decided to air the controversial undercover videos in front of his home. The Advocate reported that the governor aired a loop of the undercover videos targeting the women's health organization on the lawn of the governor's mansion in Baton Rouge Thursday as a counter protest to a group of about 50 supporters of Planned Parenthood who had gathered to protest Jindal's decision to cut Medicaid funding to the organization. https://twitter.com/BobbyJindal/statu... Jindal claimed he held the screening to give protestors who objected to his decision to defund Planned Parenthood an opportunity to "witness first-hand the offensive actions of the organization they are supporting":
Planned Parenthood supporters are welcome to protest. We will have a screen set up outside the mansion to display the Planned Parenthood videos. We hope the protesters will take a minute to watch them so they’ll have an opportunity to see first-hand our concerns with Planned Parenthood’s practices.Jindal has launched an investigation into the operations of Planned Parenthood based on allegations made in the video that the organization "haggled" over the sale of fetal body parts. Planned Parenthood has vehemently denied the charges, noting that fetal tissue is only ever donated, not sold for profit and that the procedure is legal. Still, Jindal cut off Louisiana's nearly $300,000 contract with Planned Parenthood, garnering a warning from the Department of Health and Human Services that the state may have moved in violation of federal law. Louisiana State Director of Planned Parenthood Melissa Flourneoy called Jindal's latest move a political "stunt":
Governor Jindal isn’t even in Louisiana today, but he’s made sure to prove that he’s always ready to put politics before Louisianan’s health. This stunt is proof he doesn’t have any real answers for the people of Louisiana. He is ready to cut health care for thousands of low-income women and men without batting an eye. Because for Jindal, it's all politics all the time.Jindal's play to endear himself even more to his rabidly anti-choice base is soundly out-of-step with sentiments of the larger American electorate. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week found that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Republican presidential long shot Bobby Jindal has waged a full scale war against Planned Parenthood and in his latest attack the Louisiana governor decided to air the controversial undercover videos in front of his home. The Advocate reported that the governor aired a loop of the undercover videos targeting the women's health organization on the lawn of the governor's mansion in Baton Rouge Thursday as a counter protest to a group of about 50 supporters of Planned Parenthood who had gathered to protest Jindal's decision to cut Medicaid funding to the organization. https://twitter.com/BobbyJindal/statu... Jindal claimed he held the screening to give protestors who objected to his decision to defund Planned Parenthood an opportunity to "witness first-hand the offensive actions of the organization they are supporting":
Planned Parenthood supporters are welcome to protest. We will have a screen set up outside the mansion to display the Planned Parenthood videos. We hope the protesters will take a minute to watch them so they’ll have an opportunity to see first-hand our concerns with Planned Parenthood’s practices.Jindal has launched an investigation into the operations of Planned Parenthood based on allegations made in the video that the organization "haggled" over the sale of fetal body parts. Planned Parenthood has vehemently denied the charges, noting that fetal tissue is only ever donated, not sold for profit and that the procedure is legal. Still, Jindal cut off Louisiana's nearly $300,000 contract with Planned Parenthood, garnering a warning from the Department of Health and Human Services that the state may have moved in violation of federal law. Louisiana State Director of Planned Parenthood Melissa Flourneoy called Jindal's latest move a political "stunt":
Governor Jindal isn’t even in Louisiana today, but he’s made sure to prove that he’s always ready to put politics before Louisianan’s health. This stunt is proof he doesn’t have any real answers for the people of Louisiana. He is ready to cut health care for thousands of low-income women and men without batting an eye. Because for Jindal, it's all politics all the time.Jindal's play to endear himself even more to his rabidly anti-choice base is soundly out-of-step with sentiments of the larger American electorate. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week found that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support federal funding of Planned Parenthood.
“I always wanted to be black”: Trevor Noah tackles race, immigration and Africa with pure comic genius in this video mashup
Trevor Noah, the comedian tapped to replace Jon Stewart as the host of "The Daily Show" beginning September 28, first appeared on the news satire program as a contributor in December 2014. But his time in the spotlight dates back to years before then — he made his television debut at the age of 18 on a South African soap opera, went on to host numerous television and awards shows and later dropped acting to pursue a career in stand-up, touring around the world. Noah is known for intrepidly tackling issues of racism and often uses his experiences growing up as a mixed race child during apartheid in South Africa as the basis for his comedy. With a little over a month left before Noah takes the stage we decided to take a look at who the next "Daily Show" host is through some of his best stand-up comedy and talk show moments. Watch our compilation below: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/08/Best-o..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/03/trevor...]
Dear Jonathan Franzen: No, women don’t “need” to go looking for a villain — and you are not a victim
There is so, so much weirdness going on in that recent Guardian interview with acclaimed novelist, Oprah shunner and social media disdainer Jonathan Franzen that the thing is best digested in small pieces. There's the part about how he toyed with the idea of adopting an Iraqi war orphan, because "One of the things that had put me in mind of adoption was a sense of alienation from the younger generation." There's his assessment of the famous 2001 incident in which he blew off Oprah's book club as not in keeping with ''the high-art literary tradition'' he considered himself part of — "I think the fact that I was a white guy made that harder." And then there's Franzen on feminism. Hoo boy. Let's just try to deal with that one, because it so not just about him. Franzen has a longstanding reputation as not being fully enlightened on the subject of women, in particular the different ways in which female authors are marketed, reviewed and received differently than their male counterparts. Three years ago, he wrote a New Yorker feature on Edith Wharton that he now describes to the Guardian as "deliriously praising celebration" — and in which he repeatedly made mention of her "one potentially redeeming disadvantage: she wasn’t pretty." And earlier this year, he snarled that "There’s something about Jennifer Weiner" — the bestselling novelist who regularly uses her social media platform to question the literary world's gender and genre expectations — "that rubs me the wrong way, something I don’t trust." He went on to say that "She’s an unfortunate person to have as a spokesperson," and then proudly declared he'd never read her. That Franzen receives a lot of attention, acclaim and splashy reviews is not something he has a lot of control over, nor is it a thing to be faulted for. That Franzen's new novel, "Purity," features "a fanatical feminist who, among other things, forces her husband to urinate sitting down on the toilet to atone for his maleness," is the right of a fiction writer to create a fictional character. But that he seems to adamantly not get that his smug dismissal of female authors and what he once called the "schmaltzy, one-dimensional" novels of Oprah's book club reveals a certain boastful narrowness about things that involve and interest women is a bit off putting? That's on him. In his Guardian interview, Franzen says that "I’m not a sexist. I am not somebody who goes around saying men are superior, or that male writers are superior. In fact, I really go out of my way to champion women’s work that I think is not getting enough attention. None of that is ever enough. Because a villain is needed. It’s like there’s no way to make myself not male. And one of the running jokes in the Tom and Anabel section [of 'Purity.'] is that he’s really trying to not be male…. There’s a sense that there is really nothing I can do except die – or, I suppose, retire and never write again." Awwww, poor victimized famous bestselling author Jonathan Franzen! Why are feminists so meaaaaaan? Funnily enough, his words were similar to those of considerably less famous Feminspire co-creator Ben Schoen, who this week went on a Twitter meltdown — and then explained in a statement that it was okay because "I have done more for the cause of advancing women’s rights than any of the people who are criticizing me." Here's some advice. A good way to prove that you are not a sexist is not to whine, LOOK HOW MUCH I DO FOR YOU WOMEN AND YOU DON'T EVEN APPRECIATE IT. It's understanding that being part of the problem of the incessant sexism that we women deal with every goddamn day of our lives — in our jobs, in our quest to maintain our right to reproductive autonomy, in our desire to just walk down the street in peace — isn't just "going around" saying out loud that men are superior. So, you know, sorry if we don't seem sufficiently grateful, dudes. And I'm going go out a limb and say that a whole lot of us who call ourselves feminists really don't "need" a villain. We already have plenty! You think we wake up in the morning looking around for stuff to be pissed off about? Ted Cruz is running for president. We have enough to keep ourselves occupied a while here. But here's the even bigger truth: We don't want to make anybody "not male." Many, many of us — gay, straight, everywhere in between — like men. We want to like men. We work with them and live with them and raise children -- including male children! -- with them and count them as our friends and allies. That's how we know when they're speaking and acting in ways that are legitimately appropriate, and not condescending and crappy. So when we say that you're not doing that, try believing us. Try not curling up in a ball and playing the boo hoo hoo I can't please you people card. Sure you can. You just have to show us you even want to.
Dr. Dre apologizes “to the women I’ve hurt. I deeply regret what I did”
N.W.A. founder and music mogul Dr. Dre responded to renewed criticisms of his past treatment of women in the wake of the success of the N.W.A. biopic "Straight Outta Compton" in a statement to the New York Times published today. Dr. Dre didn't name the women who have come forward to speak about abuse at his hands — journalist Dee Barnes, a singer and Dre's former girlfriend Michel'le and rapper Tairrie B — instead issuing a blanket apology to "the women I've hurt."
“Twenty-five years ago I was a young man drinking too much and in over my head with no real structure in my life. However, none of this is an excuse for what I did. I’ve been married for 19 years and every day I’m working to be a better man for my family, seeking guidance along the way. I’m doing everything I can so I never resemble that man again.”He added, "I deeply regret what I did and know that it has forever impacted all of our lives.” Dre's statement comes on the heels of a powerful essay by Barnes, published Tuesday in Gawker, in which the former host of "Pump It Up!" addressed how she felt about being written out of "Straight Outta Compton." Barnes detailed her close relationship with the rising hip hop stars she covered for her TV show and the night that Dre “straddled me and beat me mercilessly on the floor of the women’s restroom at the Po Na Na Souk nightclub in 1991" after her show aired a controversial interview with his former N.W.A. mate Ice Cube. Michel'le gave an interview earlier this week as well in which she addressed her own absence from the biopic, saying "I was just a quiet girlfriend who got beat on and told to sit down and shut up." N.W.A. labelmate Tairrie B, who is writing a memoir, says Dre "punched me in the eye" over a diss track she recorded in 1990. "And when I didn’t go down, he punched me in the mouth,” she told LA Weekly. Dre now works as a consultant for Apple, which bought his Beats Music service and Beats Electronics, which makes Beats by Dre headphones, last year for $3 billion. The company also issued a statement to the Times: "Dre has apologized for the mistakes he’s made in the past and he’s said that he’s not the same person that he was 25 years ago. We believe his sincerity and after working with him for a year and a half, we have every reason to believe that he has changed."N.W.A. founder and music mogul Dr. Dre responded to renewed criticisms of his past treatment of women in the wake of the success of the N.W.A. biopic "Straight Outta Compton" in a statement to the New York Times published today. Dr. Dre didn't name the women who have come forward to speak about abuse at his hands — journalist Dee Barnes, a singer and Dre's former girlfriend Michel'le and rapper Tairrie B — instead issuing a blanket apology to "the women I've hurt."
“Twenty-five years ago I was a young man drinking too much and in over my head with no real structure in my life. However, none of this is an excuse for what I did. I’ve been married for 19 years and every day I’m working to be a better man for my family, seeking guidance along the way. I’m doing everything I can so I never resemble that man again.”He added, "I deeply regret what I did and know that it has forever impacted all of our lives.” Dre's statement comes on the heels of a powerful essay by Barnes, published Tuesday in Gawker, in which the former host of "Pump It Up!" addressed how she felt about being written out of "Straight Outta Compton." Barnes detailed her close relationship with the rising hip hop stars she covered for her TV show and the night that Dre “straddled me and beat me mercilessly on the floor of the women’s restroom at the Po Na Na Souk nightclub in 1991" after her show aired a controversial interview with his former N.W.A. mate Ice Cube. Michel'le gave an interview earlier this week as well in which she addressed her own absence from the biopic, saying "I was just a quiet girlfriend who got beat on and told to sit down and shut up." N.W.A. labelmate Tairrie B, who is writing a memoir, says Dre "punched me in the eye" over a diss track she recorded in 1990. "And when I didn’t go down, he punched me in the mouth,” she told LA Weekly. Dre now works as a consultant for Apple, which bought his Beats Music service and Beats Electronics, which makes Beats by Dre headphones, last year for $3 billion. The company also issued a statement to the Times: "Dre has apologized for the mistakes he’s made in the past and he’s said that he’s not the same person that he was 25 years ago. We believe his sincerity and after working with him for a year and a half, we have every reason to believe that he has changed."N.W.A. founder and music mogul Dr. Dre responded to renewed criticisms of his past treatment of women in the wake of the success of the N.W.A. biopic "Straight Outta Compton" in a statement to the New York Times published today. Dr. Dre didn't name the women who have come forward to speak about abuse at his hands — journalist Dee Barnes, a singer and Dre's former girlfriend Michel'le and rapper Tairrie B — instead issuing a blanket apology to "the women I've hurt."
“Twenty-five years ago I was a young man drinking too much and in over my head with no real structure in my life. However, none of this is an excuse for what I did. I’ve been married for 19 years and every day I’m working to be a better man for my family, seeking guidance along the way. I’m doing everything I can so I never resemble that man again.”He added, "I deeply regret what I did and know that it has forever impacted all of our lives.” Dre's statement comes on the heels of a powerful essay by Barnes, published Tuesday in Gawker, in which the former host of "Pump It Up!" addressed how she felt about being written out of "Straight Outta Compton." Barnes detailed her close relationship with the rising hip hop stars she covered for her TV show and the night that Dre “straddled me and beat me mercilessly on the floor of the women’s restroom at the Po Na Na Souk nightclub in 1991" after her show aired a controversial interview with his former N.W.A. mate Ice Cube. Michel'le gave an interview earlier this week as well in which she addressed her own absence from the biopic, saying "I was just a quiet girlfriend who got beat on and told to sit down and shut up." N.W.A. labelmate Tairrie B, who is writing a memoir, says Dre "punched me in the eye" over a diss track she recorded in 1990. "And when I didn’t go down, he punched me in the mouth,” she told LA Weekly. Dre now works as a consultant for Apple, which bought his Beats Music service and Beats Electronics, which makes Beats by Dre headphones, last year for $3 billion. The company also issued a statement to the Times: "Dre has apologized for the mistakes he’s made in the past and he’s said that he’s not the same person that he was 25 years ago. We believe his sincerity and after working with him for a year and a half, we have every reason to believe that he has changed."
Ellen Page confronts Ted Cruz about anti-LGBTQ bigotry — and Cruz’s response is predictably absurd
Texas Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz was interrupted from his very important grilling duties at the Iowa State Fair by someone he clearly didn't recognize as Oscar-nominated actress Ellen Page, who asked him questions about what constitutes "persecution" in America today. Page began by asking how he felt about "LGBTQ people being fired for being gay or trans," and Cruz responded that "what we're really seeing now is Bible-believing Christians being persecuted." "Yes," Page replied, "for discriminating against gay and lesbian people." "No," Cruz said, "for living according to their faith." He proceeded to rattle off the woeful tale of Dick and Betty Odgaard, who were fined for refusing to allow a same-sex couple to host their wedding in couple's church/bistro/flower shop/wedding venue. Page offered that people made very similar arguments "during the segregation era," but Cruz shut her down, saying "I'm happy to answer your question, but we're not going to have a back and forth debate." As a large man in overalls leered over his shoulder, seemingly concerned about the hamburgers the senator wasn't flipping while talking about politics, Cruz compared the plight of "Bible-believing Christians" to "a Jewish rabbi forced to perform a Christian wedding," or "a Muslim imam forced to perform a Jewish one." "We are a country," he continued, "that respects pluralism and diversity, and there is a liberal intolerance that says that anyone who dares follow a biblical teaching of marriage must be persecuted, must be fined, must be driven out of business." Page pointed out that it was once illegal to be gay or lesbian in many states, a fact with which Cruz seemed unfamiliar. "Where was it illegal to be gay?" he asked, before realizing an opportunity to pivot had arisen, and that it was time to trot out tired GOP talking points about Iran and ISIS's treatment of gays and lesbians -- the suggestion being that LGBTQ people have it so much better here, so they should be grateful and shut up. Which is, of course, exactly what Page refused to do, pointing out that it's American Christians like Scott Lively who are responsible for the "Kill the Gays" legislation in Uganda. Cruz responded by talking about Jamaica, then circling back to Iran and ISIS and asking her why she's not hectoring Obama about that. "I'd love to talk to Obama about that," Page said. "Then we agree," Cruz replied, before turning away. Watch the entire exchange via ABC News below. Texas Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz was interrupted from his very important grilling duties at the Iowa State Fair by someone he clearly didn't recognize as Oscar-nominated actress Ellen Page, who asked him questions about what constitutes "persecution" in America today. Page began by asking how he felt about "LGBTQ people being fired for being gay or trans," and Cruz responded that "what we're really seeing now is Bible-believing Christians being persecuted." "Yes," Page replied, "for discriminating against gay and lesbian people." "No," Cruz said, "for living according to their faith." He proceeded to rattle off the woeful tale of Dick and Betty Odgaard, who were fined for refusing to allow a same-sex couple to host their wedding in couple's church/bistro/flower shop/wedding venue. Page offered that people made very similar arguments "during the segregation era," but Cruz shut her down, saying "I'm happy to answer your question, but we're not going to have a back and forth debate." As a large man in overalls leered over his shoulder, seemingly concerned about the hamburgers the senator wasn't flipping while talking about politics, Cruz compared the plight of "Bible-believing Christians" to "a Jewish rabbi forced to perform a Christian wedding," or "a Muslim imam forced to perform a Jewish one." "We are a country," he continued, "that respects pluralism and diversity, and there is a liberal intolerance that says that anyone who dares follow a biblical teaching of marriage must be persecuted, must be fined, must be driven out of business." Page pointed out that it was once illegal to be gay or lesbian in many states, a fact with which Cruz seemed unfamiliar. "Where was it illegal to be gay?" he asked, before realizing an opportunity to pivot had arisen, and that it was time to trot out tired GOP talking points about Iran and ISIS's treatment of gays and lesbians -- the suggestion being that LGBTQ people have it so much better here, so they should be grateful and shut up. Which is, of course, exactly what Page refused to do, pointing out that it's American Christians like Scott Lively who are responsible for the "Kill the Gays" legislation in Uganda. Cruz responded by talking about Jamaica, then circling back to Iran and ISIS and asking her why she's not hectoring Obama about that. "I'd love to talk to Obama about that," Page said. "Then we agree," Cruz replied, before turning away. Watch the entire exchange via ABC News below. Texas Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz was interrupted from his very important grilling duties at the Iowa State Fair by someone he clearly didn't recognize as Oscar-nominated actress Ellen Page, who asked him questions about what constitutes "persecution" in America today. Page began by asking how he felt about "LGBTQ people being fired for being gay or trans," and Cruz responded that "what we're really seeing now is Bible-believing Christians being persecuted." "Yes," Page replied, "for discriminating against gay and lesbian people." "No," Cruz said, "for living according to their faith." He proceeded to rattle off the woeful tale of Dick and Betty Odgaard, who were fined for refusing to allow a same-sex couple to host their wedding in couple's church/bistro/flower shop/wedding venue. Page offered that people made very similar arguments "during the segregation era," but Cruz shut her down, saying "I'm happy to answer your question, but we're not going to have a back and forth debate." As a large man in overalls leered over his shoulder, seemingly concerned about the hamburgers the senator wasn't flipping while talking about politics, Cruz compared the plight of "Bible-believing Christians" to "a Jewish rabbi forced to perform a Christian wedding," or "a Muslim imam forced to perform a Jewish one." "We are a country," he continued, "that respects pluralism and diversity, and there is a liberal intolerance that says that anyone who dares follow a biblical teaching of marriage must be persecuted, must be fined, must be driven out of business." Page pointed out that it was once illegal to be gay or lesbian in many states, a fact with which Cruz seemed unfamiliar. "Where was it illegal to be gay?" he asked, before realizing an opportunity to pivot had arisen, and that it was time to trot out tired GOP talking points about Iran and ISIS's treatment of gays and lesbians -- the suggestion being that LGBTQ people have it so much better here, so they should be grateful and shut up. Which is, of course, exactly what Page refused to do, pointing out that it's American Christians like Scott Lively who are responsible for the "Kill the Gays" legislation in Uganda. Cruz responded by talking about Jamaica, then circling back to Iran and ISIS and asking her why she's not hectoring Obama about that. "I'd love to talk to Obama about that," Page said. "Then we agree," Cruz replied, before turning away. Watch the entire exchange via ABC News below. Texas Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz was interrupted from his very important grilling duties at the Iowa State Fair by someone he clearly didn't recognize as Oscar-nominated actress Ellen Page, who asked him questions about what constitutes "persecution" in America today. Page began by asking how he felt about "LGBTQ people being fired for being gay or trans," and Cruz responded that "what we're really seeing now is Bible-believing Christians being persecuted." "Yes," Page replied, "for discriminating against gay and lesbian people." "No," Cruz said, "for living according to their faith." He proceeded to rattle off the woeful tale of Dick and Betty Odgaard, who were fined for refusing to allow a same-sex couple to host their wedding in couple's church/bistro/flower shop/wedding venue. Page offered that people made very similar arguments "during the segregation era," but Cruz shut her down, saying "I'm happy to answer your question, but we're not going to have a back and forth debate." As a large man in overalls leered over his shoulder, seemingly concerned about the hamburgers the senator wasn't flipping while talking about politics, Cruz compared the plight of "Bible-believing Christians" to "a Jewish rabbi forced to perform a Christian wedding," or "a Muslim imam forced to perform a Jewish one." "We are a country," he continued, "that respects pluralism and diversity, and there is a liberal intolerance that says that anyone who dares follow a biblical teaching of marriage must be persecuted, must be fined, must be driven out of business." Page pointed out that it was once illegal to be gay or lesbian in many states, a fact with which Cruz seemed unfamiliar. "Where was it illegal to be gay?" he asked, before realizing an opportunity to pivot had arisen, and that it was time to trot out tired GOP talking points about Iran and ISIS's treatment of gays and lesbians -- the suggestion being that LGBTQ people have it so much better here, so they should be grateful and shut up. Which is, of course, exactly what Page refused to do, pointing out that it's American Christians like Scott Lively who are responsible for the "Kill the Gays" legislation in Uganda. Cruz responded by talking about Jamaica, then circling back to Iran and ISIS and asking her why she's not hectoring Obama about that. "I'd love to talk to Obama about that," Page said. "Then we agree," Cruz replied, before turning away. Watch the entire exchange via ABC News below.
Scott Walker makes a complete clown of himself: Now he says he has no position on birthright citizenship
On Monday, after Republican frontrunner Donald Trump released an anti-immigration plan that called for the repeal of 14th Amendment protections for children born to undocumented immigrants, Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker clearly stated that he agreed with the inflammatory suggestion but today the Wisconsin governor appears to be regretting that decision. On Fox, Walker eagerly told the "Fox and Friends" hosts that his own immigration plan was "similar" to Trump's and then told NBC's Kasie Hunt that he agreed with Trump's extreme proposal to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States:
KASIE HUNT: Do you think that birthright citizenship should be ended? SCOTT WALKER: Well, like I said, Harry Reid said it’s not right for this country — I think that’s something we should, yeah, absolutely, going forward — HUNT: We should end birthright citizenship? WALKER: Yeah, to me it’s about enforcing the laws in this country. And I’ve been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it’s important to send a message that we’re going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we’re going to enforce the laws in this country.But by Friday, the wannabe Republican presidential nominee had already changed his mind on this constitutional issue. "I'm not taking a position on it one way or the other," Walker said in an interview with CNBC's John Harwood today:
Today, Walker said his stance had been misunderstood during a long campaign day involving numerous interviews marked by interruptions. Walker once stood on the left side of the Republican debate, favoring a path to citizenship for immigrants who entered the country illegally. He has since explained that he changed his mind in response to additional information. Walker, who titled his recent book "Unintimidated," insisted he had not been intimidated by the blustery Trump or his views.How exactly to undo 117 years of precedent may have proven too big a challenge for Walker to take on but he's once again backed off a previously held position on immigration. Walker already has a controversial history with the base of his party who still fault the Wisconsin governor for his past support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. "You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that. To me, I don't know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place," Walker said during a 2013 editorial board meeting with a local Wisconsin paper.On Monday, after Republican frontrunner Donald Trump released an anti-immigration plan that called for the repeal of 14th Amendment protections for children born to undocumented immigrants, Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker clearly stated that he agreed with the inflammatory suggestion but today the Wisconsin governor appears to be regretting that decision. On Fox, Walker eagerly told the "Fox and Friends" hosts that his own immigration plan was "similar" to Trump's and then told NBC's Kasie Hunt that he agreed with Trump's extreme proposal to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States:
KASIE HUNT: Do you think that birthright citizenship should be ended? SCOTT WALKER: Well, like I said, Harry Reid said it’s not right for this country — I think that’s something we should, yeah, absolutely, going forward — HUNT: We should end birthright citizenship? WALKER: Yeah, to me it’s about enforcing the laws in this country. And I’ve been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it’s important to send a message that we’re going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we’re going to enforce the laws in this country.But by Friday, the wannabe Republican presidential nominee had already changed his mind on this constitutional issue. "I'm not taking a position on it one way or the other," Walker said in an interview with CNBC's John Harwood today:
Today, Walker said his stance had been misunderstood during a long campaign day involving numerous interviews marked by interruptions. Walker once stood on the left side of the Republican debate, favoring a path to citizenship for immigrants who entered the country illegally. He has since explained that he changed his mind in response to additional information. Walker, who titled his recent book "Unintimidated," insisted he had not been intimidated by the blustery Trump or his views.How exactly to undo 117 years of precedent may have proven too big a challenge for Walker to take on but he's once again backed off a previously held position on immigration. Walker already has a controversial history with the base of his party who still fault the Wisconsin governor for his past support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. "You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that. To me, I don't know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place," Walker said during a 2013 editorial board meeting with a local Wisconsin paper.
August 20, 2015
Donald Trump is the harbinger of GOP doom: The devastating history lesson that Republicans are completely ignoring
There was a time back in the day when I used to joke with Republican friends that I would happily support a constitutional amendment that would ban all presidential candidates from California if they would agree to ban all presidential candidates from Texas. The joke, of course, was that my home state, "the land of fruits and nuts" had recently produced two conservative Republican presidents, Nixon and Reagan, while Texas's most recent contribution had been the man responsible for "Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today." In those days of post-Vietnam liberalism, that trade seemed like an excellent deal for the left. It's hard to imagine now, but from Harry Truman until Bill Clinton, California voted for a Democratic president just one time, for John F. Kennedy in 1960. With a few exceptions here and there, California also voted for GOP governors and senators more often than not. Even though the state had a longstanding reputation for social tolerance and cutting-edge cultural change, politically speaking it was a conservative state, as red as Texas is now. There were obviously many factors that contributed to California's evolution into the deep-blue state it is today, from demographics to the culture war. But none of those things come close to the damage that then-Governor Pete Wilson did to the longterm interest of the California Republican Party in 1994, when he scapegoated Latino immigrants as the cause of all the state's woes. Wilson was running for re-election, and as part of his campaign to distract from the economic failure of his first term and increase turnout among his base, he ran on a platform promising to crack down on undocumented workers, and enthusiastically supported the infamous Prop 187, which set up a statewide system designed to deny any kind of benefits to undocumented workers, including K-12 education and all forms of health care. (He also supported a constitutional amendment to repeal birthright citizenship, currently guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.) Here's the famous "they keep coming" ad the Wilson campaign ran that year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLIzz... Wilson ultimately won the race, and the proposition passed with a 57 percent majority. Nativists everywhere applauded and cheered. Unfortunately, they apparently didn't know how to count. They failed to recognize that Latinos were the fastest growing ethnic minority in the state, and knew very well that all this "concern" about undocumented immigration stemmed from a nativist impulse that had little to do with economics and everything to do with bigotry. The reaction was swift:
The Rev. Jon Pedigo remembers he was so angry that he instantly started planning a march from his parish in Morgan Hill to St. Joseph's Cathedral in San Jose. "I said, 'I'm going to take that frickin' cross from the church and I'm gonna walk to the downtown cathedral and demand that something be done,'" said Pedigo, now pastor of East San Jose's Our Lady of Guadalupe Church. The next morning he led 250 people on the 21-mile walk. "We filled the cathedral. We filled the park. It was amazing," he said. "We said, 'We will not put up with this, and we want God on our side.'"I don't know if God was on their side, but Latinos certainly did not put up with it. The Republicans lost the Hispanic vote in California and have almost zero chance of getting it back. The Hispanic population saw the ethnic hatred on display during that period, hatred which was enthusiastically stoked by the Republican Party of California. The demographic trends in the state guarantee that the GOP will be in the minority in California for a very long time to come. And needless to say, if anyone thought that after 20 years a younger generation might forget why their parents rejected the Republicans and give them another look, the primal scream we are currently witnessing in the 2016 presidential primary is giving them quite a refresher course. This story is almost a political cliche, repeated so constantly in the media that it has the taint of a moldy morality play rather than a true political lesson. Certainly it's been an article of faith that the Republican Party simply cannot win nationally if they don't find a way to attract some Latinos. This is what they themselves wrote in their post 2012 autopsy report:
If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay aityttention to our next sentence. It does not matter what we say about education, jobs or the economy; if Hispanics think we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies. In the last election, Governor Romney received just 27 percentof the Hispanic vote. Other minority communities, including Asian and Pacific Islander Americans,also view the Party as unwelcoming. President Bush got 44 percent of the Asian vote in 2004; our presidential nominee received only 26 percent in 2012. As one conservative, Tea-Party leader, Dick Armey, told us, “You can’t call someone ugly and expect them to go to the prom with you. We’ve chased the Hispanic voter out of his natural home.” We are not a policy committee, but among the steps Republicans take in the Hispanic community and beyond, we must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only. We also believe that comprehensive immigration reform is consistent with Republican economic policies that promote job growth and opportunity for all.Unfortunately, their base doesn't care about their models and their projections; they are convinced that immigrants are the source of all their troubles. And that's a huge problem. A recent analysis by Latino Decisions shows that Republicans need to get at least 47 percent of the Latino vote in order to win in 2016. (For reference, Mitt Romney won 23 percent.) I'm going to take a wild guess that Donald Trump and the cowardly clown car that's chasing him have just made achieving that 47 percent figure impossible. It's very hard to imagine that they can put this nativist genie back in the bottle. Even Jeb Bush, who is married to a Mexican American, was out on the campaign trail talking about "anchor babies" yesterday. All GOP candidates are getting drawn into the vortex, whether they want to or not. And some of them are just diving in had first: https://twitter.com/dennis_welch/stat... https://twitter.com/dennis_welch/stat... In case it wasn't clear, Dr Ben Carson, the man who is coming in second in many GOP presidential polls, is suggesting that the government use armed drones to kill undocumented immigrants. Pete Wilson was a bleeding heart liberal by comparison. Wilson's California Republicans are now a rump party of angry, white Tea Partyers and a handful professional operatives. It's a very sad motley group compared to the political juggernaut that produced Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. There used to be an old saying "As California goes, so goes the nation" meaning that California was the modern, forward thinking laboratory of democracy which started the trends that everyone else would soon follow. If that holds true in this case of this Latino bashing, the Republicans are in for a long road back from the debacle of 2016.There was a time back in the day when I used to joke with Republican friends that I would happily support a constitutional amendment that would ban all presidential candidates from California if they would agree to ban all presidential candidates from Texas. The joke, of course, was that my home state, "the land of fruits and nuts" had recently produced two conservative Republican presidents, Nixon and Reagan, while Texas's most recent contribution had been the man responsible for "Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today." In those days of post-Vietnam liberalism, that trade seemed like an excellent deal for the left. It's hard to imagine now, but from Harry Truman until Bill Clinton, California voted for a Democratic president just one time, for John F. Kennedy in 1960. With a few exceptions here and there, California also voted for GOP governors and senators more often than not. Even though the state had a longstanding reputation for social tolerance and cutting-edge cultural change, politically speaking it was a conservative state, as red as Texas is now. There were obviously many factors that contributed to California's evolution into the deep-blue state it is today, from demographics to the culture war. But none of those things come close to the damage that then-Governor Pete Wilson did to the longterm interest of the California Republican Party in 1994, when he scapegoated Latino immigrants as the cause of all the state's woes. Wilson was running for re-election, and as part of his campaign to distract from the economic failure of his first term and increase turnout among his base, he ran on a platform promising to crack down on undocumented workers, and enthusiastically supported the infamous Prop 187, which set up a statewide system designed to deny any kind of benefits to undocumented workers, including K-12 education and all forms of health care. (He also supported a constitutional amendment to repeal birthright citizenship, currently guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.) Here's the famous "they keep coming" ad the Wilson campaign ran that year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLIzz... Wilson ultimately won the race, and the proposition passed with a 57 percent majority. Nativists everywhere applauded and cheered. Unfortunately, they apparently didn't know how to count. They failed to recognize that Latinos were the fastest growing ethnic minority in the state, and knew very well that all this "concern" about undocumented immigration stemmed from a nativist impulse that had little to do with economics and everything to do with bigotry. The reaction was swift:
The Rev. Jon Pedigo remembers he was so angry that he instantly started planning a march from his parish in Morgan Hill to St. Joseph's Cathedral in San Jose. "I said, 'I'm going to take that frickin' cross from the church and I'm gonna walk to the downtown cathedral and demand that something be done,'" said Pedigo, now pastor of East San Jose's Our Lady of Guadalupe Church. The next morning he led 250 people on the 21-mile walk. "We filled the cathedral. We filled the park. It was amazing," he said. "We said, 'We will not put up with this, and we want God on our side.'"I don't know if God was on their side, but Latinos certainly did not put up with it. The Republicans lost the Hispanic vote in California and have almost zero chance of getting it back. The Hispanic population saw the ethnic hatred on display during that period, hatred which was enthusiastically stoked by the Republican Party of California. The demographic trends in the state guarantee that the GOP will be in the minority in California for a very long time to come. And needless to say, if anyone thought that after 20 years a younger generation might forget why their parents rejected the Republicans and give them another look, the primal scream we are currently witnessing in the 2016 presidential primary is giving them quite a refresher course. This story is almost a political cliche, repeated so constantly in the media that it has the taint of a moldy morality play rather than a true political lesson. Certainly it's been an article of faith that the Republican Party simply cannot win nationally if they don't find a way to attract some Latinos. This is what they themselves wrote in their post 2012 autopsy report:
If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay aityttention to our next sentence. It does not matter what we say about education, jobs or the economy; if Hispanics think we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies. In the last election, Governor Romney received just 27 percentof the Hispanic vote. Other minority communities, including Asian and Pacific Islander Americans,also view the Party as unwelcoming. President Bush got 44 percent of the Asian vote in 2004; our presidential nominee received only 26 percent in 2012. As one conservative, Tea-Party leader, Dick Armey, told us, “You can’t call someone ugly and expect them to go to the prom with you. We’ve chased the Hispanic voter out of his natural home.” We are not a policy committee, but among the steps Republicans take in the Hispanic community and beyond, we must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only. We also believe that comprehensive immigration reform is consistent with Republican economic policies that promote job growth and opportunity for all.Unfortunately, their base doesn't care about their models and their projections; they are convinced that immigrants are the source of all their troubles. And that's a huge problem. A recent analysis by Latino Decisions shows that Republicans need to get at least 47 percent of the Latino vote in order to win in 2016. (For reference, Mitt Romney won 23 percent.) I'm going to take a wild guess that Donald Trump and the cowardly clown car that's chasing him have just made achieving that 47 percent figure impossible. It's very hard to imagine that they can put this nativist genie back in the bottle. Even Jeb Bush, who is married to a Mexican American, was out on the campaign trail talking about "anchor babies" yesterday. All GOP candidates are getting drawn into the vortex, whether they want to or not. And some of them are just diving in had first: https://twitter.com/dennis_welch/stat... https://twitter.com/dennis_welch/stat... In case it wasn't clear, Dr Ben Carson, the man who is coming in second in many GOP presidential polls, is suggesting that the government use armed drones to kill undocumented immigrants. Pete Wilson was a bleeding heart liberal by comparison. Wilson's California Republicans are now a rump party of angry, white Tea Partyers and a handful professional operatives. It's a very sad motley group compared to the political juggernaut that produced Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. There used to be an old saying "As California goes, so goes the nation" meaning that California was the modern, forward thinking laboratory of democracy which started the trends that everyone else would soon follow. If that holds true in this case of this Latino bashing, the Republicans are in for a long road back from the debacle of 2016.
This new TV show is totally not about Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes and Scientology — and we’ll be watching, for sure
We’re here to declare a new, budding subgenre: dramatizations of the Tom Cruise-Katie Holmes romance that insist they are not really dramatizations of the Cruise-Holmes romance. The latest is a pilot acquired by E!; the Hollywood Reporter describes it as “about a TV actress named Megan Morrison who is offered a $10 million marriage contract with Hollywood's biggest star.” The huge Hollywood star, it turns out, is involved in an unusual religion. Here’s what the Reporter says about "The Arrangement," to be helmed by “Mad Men” producer Jonathan Abraham and which has recently begun casting:
The script details star Kyle West's commitment to a spirituality center called The Institute for the Higher Mind, which is headed by a controlling best friend who takes credit for his career. Toward the end of the pilot, West offers to take the actress, who is at the time best known for her work on a TV series, on a date to Italy, where Cruise and ex-wife Katie Holmes were first photographed.But lest you jump to any conclusions, the story warns us that, “an E! spokesperson says Cruise isn't the inspiration: "The character of Kyle West is not at all inspired by anyone in particular. Kyle is a young, rising star who was recently left at the altar by his actress ex-girlfriend." Funny, it reminds me of a book that just came out last month: The novel “Movie Star by Lizzie Pepper,” in which celebrity ghostwriter Hilary Liftin writes about a fictional Midwestern girl who breaks out on a television show aimed at teens and then marries a huge movie star tied up in an unusual religion. But lest you think there’s any resemblance to anyone you might have heard of, forget it. Sure, there are some superficial similarities, Leah Greenblatt writes in her review:
But the strange, secretive religion her future husband is devoted to is called One Cell studios, not Scientology, and he jumps on the roof of a car to publicly declare his love for his young bride, not on Oprah’s couch, and a lot of other details (her hair, his height) could be anyone’s, which the book’s press materials are very, very careful to point out. So let’s all just be cool and agree that nobody needs to call their legal team, okay?I think I know the answer to the hasty disavowals (like Liftin’s statement about which actress she had in mind for her novel: “It's really pulled from all of the tabloids and this tabloid culture that we all absorb.... It's not about a specific celebrity but all the drama we see play out every week in the gossip magazines.”) — nobody wants a lawsuit from Cruise, Holmes or the Church of Scientology on their hands. But why are we so obsessed by the romantic life of Cruise, who may – depending on which gossip site you read – be on his way to a fourth marriage with a young, British-born personal assistant? Well, for reasons we can’t figure out, despite a saturation on all media fronts, new and old, fascination with celebrity just continues to grow. And Cruise has pulled off the unusual trick of staying bankable – whether in action-movie sequels or serious dramatic fare -- since the ‘80s. The idea that someone as rich and famous as him would need help finding a wife is sort of head-spinning. But the other context here is that arranged marriage – of which these may be a kind of, uh, eccentric version – has been part of human history vastly longer than the romantic marriage that currently reigns in the post-industrial West. And in a lot of the world, it’s still the rule. The Cruise rumors (and their thinly-veiled fictional counterparts) then become eerie throwbacks to the days when families made sure young people married well and to everyone’s — including the religious institution in charge's — advantage. One of the most chilling and fascinating parts of Lawrence Wright’s Scientology exposé “Going Clear,” which Alex Wright used as the base for his chilling HBO documentary released earlier this year, is the story of actress Nazanin Boniadi – now probably best known from “Homeland” – who, as Wright writes, was tried out as a potential Cruise wife and later dismissed. (The Church of Scientology contests some of Wright’s chronicle; it is summed up here by Business Insider.) According to Wright, the actress was pressured in the early stages to break up with her boyfriend. When she refused, he says the Church presented her the next day with a dossier of his cheating. (That relationship ended pronto.) The mind reels contemplating the whole story of this and the other failed attempts to get one of the world’s most eligible bachelors a "suitable" wife. And you don’t have to read the tabloids to be fascinated by them. One day, maybe these rumors will be put to rest as the real truths comes out — one way or another.We’re here to declare a new, budding subgenre: dramatizations of the Tom Cruise-Katie Holmes romance that insist they are not really dramatizations of the Cruise-Holmes romance. The latest is a pilot acquired by E!; the Hollywood Reporter describes it as “about a TV actress named Megan Morrison who is offered a $10 million marriage contract with Hollywood's biggest star.” The huge Hollywood star, it turns out, is involved in an unusual religion. Here’s what the Reporter says about "The Arrangement," to be helmed by “Mad Men” producer Jonathan Abraham and which has recently begun casting:
The script details star Kyle West's commitment to a spirituality center called The Institute for the Higher Mind, which is headed by a controlling best friend who takes credit for his career. Toward the end of the pilot, West offers to take the actress, who is at the time best known for her work on a TV series, on a date to Italy, where Cruise and ex-wife Katie Holmes were first photographed.But lest you jump to any conclusions, the story warns us that, “an E! spokesperson says Cruise isn't the inspiration: "The character of Kyle West is not at all inspired by anyone in particular. Kyle is a young, rising star who was recently left at the altar by his actress ex-girlfriend." Funny, it reminds me of a book that just came out last month: The novel “Movie Star by Lizzie Pepper,” in which celebrity ghostwriter Hilary Liftin writes about a fictional Midwestern girl who breaks out on a television show aimed at teens and then marries a huge movie star tied up in an unusual religion. But lest you think there’s any resemblance to anyone you might have heard of, forget it. Sure, there are some superficial similarities, Leah Greenblatt writes in her review:
But the strange, secretive religion her future husband is devoted to is called One Cell studios, not Scientology, and he jumps on the roof of a car to publicly declare his love for his young bride, not on Oprah’s couch, and a lot of other details (her hair, his height) could be anyone’s, which the book’s press materials are very, very careful to point out. So let’s all just be cool and agree that nobody needs to call their legal team, okay?I think I know the answer to the hasty disavowals (like Liftin’s statement about which actress she had in mind for her novel: “It's really pulled from all of the tabloids and this tabloid culture that we all absorb.... It's not about a specific celebrity but all the drama we see play out every week in the gossip magazines.”) — nobody wants a lawsuit from Cruise, Holmes or the Church of Scientology on their hands. But why are we so obsessed by the romantic life of Cruise, who may – depending on which gossip site you read – be on his way to a fourth marriage with a young, British-born personal assistant? Well, for reasons we can’t figure out, despite a saturation on all media fronts, new and old, fascination with celebrity just continues to grow. And Cruise has pulled off the unusual trick of staying bankable – whether in action-movie sequels or serious dramatic fare -- since the ‘80s. The idea that someone as rich and famous as him would need help finding a wife is sort of head-spinning. But the other context here is that arranged marriage – of which these may be a kind of, uh, eccentric version – has been part of human history vastly longer than the romantic marriage that currently reigns in the post-industrial West. And in a lot of the world, it’s still the rule. The Cruise rumors (and their thinly-veiled fictional counterparts) then become eerie throwbacks to the days when families made sure young people married well and to everyone’s — including the religious institution in charge's — advantage. One of the most chilling and fascinating parts of Lawrence Wright’s Scientology exposé “Going Clear,” which Alex Wright used as the base for his chilling HBO documentary released earlier this year, is the story of actress Nazanin Boniadi – now probably best known from “Homeland” – who, as Wright writes, was tried out as a potential Cruise wife and later dismissed. (The Church of Scientology contests some of Wright’s chronicle; it is summed up here by Business Insider.) According to Wright, the actress was pressured in the early stages to break up with her boyfriend. When she refused, he says the Church presented her the next day with a dossier of his cheating. (That relationship ended pronto.) The mind reels contemplating the whole story of this and the other failed attempts to get one of the world’s most eligible bachelors a "suitable" wife. And you don’t have to read the tabloids to be fascinated by them. One day, maybe these rumors will be put to rest as the real truths comes out — one way or another.We’re here to declare a new, budding subgenre: dramatizations of the Tom Cruise-Katie Holmes romance that insist they are not really dramatizations of the Cruise-Holmes romance. The latest is a pilot acquired by E!; the Hollywood Reporter describes it as “about a TV actress named Megan Morrison who is offered a $10 million marriage contract with Hollywood's biggest star.” The huge Hollywood star, it turns out, is involved in an unusual religion. Here’s what the Reporter says about "The Arrangement," to be helmed by “Mad Men” producer Jonathan Abraham and which has recently begun casting:
The script details star Kyle West's commitment to a spirituality center called The Institute for the Higher Mind, which is headed by a controlling best friend who takes credit for his career. Toward the end of the pilot, West offers to take the actress, who is at the time best known for her work on a TV series, on a date to Italy, where Cruise and ex-wife Katie Holmes were first photographed.But lest you jump to any conclusions, the story warns us that, “an E! spokesperson says Cruise isn't the inspiration: "The character of Kyle West is not at all inspired by anyone in particular. Kyle is a young, rising star who was recently left at the altar by his actress ex-girlfriend." Funny, it reminds me of a book that just came out last month: The novel “Movie Star by Lizzie Pepper,” in which celebrity ghostwriter Hilary Liftin writes about a fictional Midwestern girl who breaks out on a television show aimed at teens and then marries a huge movie star tied up in an unusual religion. But lest you think there’s any resemblance to anyone you might have heard of, forget it. Sure, there are some superficial similarities, Leah Greenblatt writes in her review:
But the strange, secretive religion her future husband is devoted to is called One Cell studios, not Scientology, and he jumps on the roof of a car to publicly declare his love for his young bride, not on Oprah’s couch, and a lot of other details (her hair, his height) could be anyone’s, which the book’s press materials are very, very careful to point out. So let’s all just be cool and agree that nobody needs to call their legal team, okay?I think I know the answer to the hasty disavowals (like Liftin’s statement about which actress she had in mind for her novel: “It's really pulled from all of the tabloids and this tabloid culture that we all absorb.... It's not about a specific celebrity but all the drama we see play out every week in the gossip magazines.”) — nobody wants a lawsuit from Cruise, Holmes or the Church of Scientology on their hands. But why are we so obsessed by the romantic life of Cruise, who may – depending on which gossip site you read – be on his way to a fourth marriage with a young, British-born personal assistant? Well, for reasons we can’t figure out, despite a saturation on all media fronts, new and old, fascination with celebrity just continues to grow. And Cruise has pulled off the unusual trick of staying bankable – whether in action-movie sequels or serious dramatic fare -- since the ‘80s. The idea that someone as rich and famous as him would need help finding a wife is sort of head-spinning. But the other context here is that arranged marriage – of which these may be a kind of, uh, eccentric version – has been part of human history vastly longer than the romantic marriage that currently reigns in the post-industrial West. And in a lot of the world, it’s still the rule. The Cruise rumors (and their thinly-veiled fictional counterparts) then become eerie throwbacks to the days when families made sure young people married well and to everyone’s — including the religious institution in charge's — advantage. One of the most chilling and fascinating parts of Lawrence Wright’s Scientology exposé “Going Clear,” which Alex Wright used as the base for his chilling HBO documentary released earlier this year, is the story of actress Nazanin Boniadi – now probably best known from “Homeland” – who, as Wright writes, was tried out as a potential Cruise wife and later dismissed. (The Church of Scientology contests some of Wright’s chronicle; it is summed up here by Business Insider.) According to Wright, the actress was pressured in the early stages to break up with her boyfriend. When she refused, he says the Church presented her the next day with a dossier of his cheating. (That relationship ended pronto.) The mind reels contemplating the whole story of this and the other failed attempts to get one of the world’s most eligible bachelors a "suitable" wife. And you don’t have to read the tabloids to be fascinated by them. One day, maybe these rumors will be put to rest as the real truths comes out — one way or another.
