Miley's totally public twitter feed: Don't document my life

I found Miley Cyrus' twitter feed ironic today. All the fame and exposure was getting to the Disney starlet and giving her a headache, according to an earlier tweet.

Check it out for yourself:

[caption id="attachment_74" align="alignnone" width="300" caption="Miley's twitter feed from today said she wanted privacy, an undocumented life."][/caption]

Isn't twitter a form of documentation? Especially when the whole world sees it?

Here's a tidbit of advice from a former child star (Harvey, Bad Year for Tomatoes, anyone?) for the teen sensation: stop inviting people into your life. Granted Miley has acheived stardom slightly above my own, but I can relate.

The more you put yourself out there, the more people want to engage you. So you've got two options. Slow it down, fewer shows, less twittering, cut out some appearances, etc. But I can understand if that's not appealing because who knows, in a couple years you could end up like McCauley Caulkin, whose movies you've probably never seen, and you're no longer raking in that Mouse money.

So your other option is to do like Prince. Live in the Midwest. Or heck, move back to Franklin, Tenn.

That's also what Dave Chapelle did. At the height of his career, he up and moves to Nowheresville, Ohio.

The downside: Now they both suck at being famous. So that's the price you pay.

Looks like you'll probably just have to deal with the grief, which will probably give you a headache.



Help? Well, I'd start with a nice dip in my gold-plated hot tub. That'd probably make me feel better.

Any suggestions for young Miley?

Changeling

For those of you who have not seen Changeling, you should remedy that.

 

[caption id="attachment_71" align="alignnone" width="300" caption="This movie totally impressed me when I wasn't expecting it at all. Jolie's performance was Oscar worthy."][/caption]

And while you're on a Clint Eastwood kick. Find a copy of Unforgiven.

Earthly Uncooling

More startling climate change news that nobody is reporting.

The TG Daily reports:

Antarctica’s glaciers may be retreating at a much faster pace than previously believed, a new study released by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates. One major ice shelf has completely disappeared and another shelf three times the size of Rhode Island has broken off since 1986, the maps reveal.

If I know wing nuts, I'm sure they'd attack the credibility of the U.S. Geological Survey, a research-based arm of the Department of Interior, a.k.a. puppets controlled by the Penguin Agenda.

Then they'll gas about the weather. "It was 30 degrees in Nashville today and it's April. I'm cold. Where's the global warming?!? Wah wah wah."

Weather patterns and climate change are  not the same.

I'm not an alarmist, but this news is disturbing. I think reporters really picked up on global warming back when Al won his Oscar. But now. Eh.

We've got Wall Street's melt down to cover. No interest.

Besides, there's no real villain with global warming and no real chance for a coordinated and meaningful response in the foreseeable future, so it's easier this way.

As a side note, it was also easier for the good people of Germany to go along with the Nazi movement or do nothing to stop it.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="Map shows their research."][/caption]

Krugman and the liberal media?

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="328" caption="Timother Geithner could use a liberal media right now."][/caption]

I have a hypothesis about political hacks and talking heads (mostly the big dogs, small town bloggers like myself don't count): Liberal pundits are more likely to attack the actions and plans of Democrats than wingnuts are with regards to Republicans.

 

Or maybe more to the point, when a liberal attacks a liberal, apparently, it's news. 

I have no evidence. Just one, single observation. 

On March 23, 2009, Paul Krugman slammed the Geithner plan to buy up toxic assets off the banks books. (And I don't even have an opinion about the plan, so that's not relevant.)

A Google News search at Midnight showed Krugman's name was mention in about 4,000 articles in the last hour. And a vast majority of them, gauging from a precursory skimming of a few pages, are about how he's blasting Obama's toxic asset plan.

Why is this newsworthy?

Question One: Is he the only damn economist available? Reporters, haven't you ever heard of HARO? 

Answer One: No. But didn't you hear about all the staff cut backs. It's easier just to rehash the wire story, or worse, Drudge.

Question Two: When in the world does the media ever give a crap about Paul Krugman. 

Answer Two: They don't. He gases everyday about something within the confines of his blog The Conscience of a Liberal on NYTimes.com and it hardly ever makes a blip.

Sure the media covered the story about Paul winning the Nobel Prize, but it's all about placement. I guarantee his Nobel Prize win didn't lead the newscast.

So where is the so-called liberal media when Tim Giethner could use it? 

It's a farce. It's a red herring. It's literally a phrase Republicans made up in the '70s to have a scapegoat for why their dirty, secretive president couldn't get any love.

And even though I believe a slim majority of the media probably are more liberal in slant, I think news coverage is slanted to the conservative. It has to be so they can say their actions are beyond reproach.

And this ties into the overall theory here: Liberals are much more likely to be critical of liberals than is true for conservatives judging the actions of conservatives.