Sometimes Andrew Sullivan serves up some real vile concoctions in his so-called "Daily Dish", but he's really served up a sewer full of shit now. John Travolta should sue this ass hat, and The Atlantic too, by the way. Yep, in case you haven't figured it out, Sullivan has implied that Travolta is acting shady over the death of his son Jett.
Of course, he's too clever to come right out and accuse him or murdering his beloved son, who died a few days ago from a seizure-well, according to the autopsy which Sullivan informs us was overseen by Travolta's family physician. No, he just points out that Travolta had the son hurriedly cremated without releasing the official results of the autopsy. He leaves it up to us to fill in the blanks, even throwing in there that Travolta flew the family jet home from the Bahamas. I guess if he was that distraught he couldn't do that, huh, Andrew? What a toad.
Of course if he is sued he would probably claim he was merely implying that Travolta was trying to hide the facts of his son's condition in the face of claims the boy was autistic, something the Travolta's have previously denied. What's next? Did the boy die as the result of some bizarre Scientologist healing ritual, perhaps-or a secret cult sacrifice? Hell, they do believe in reincarnation, you know.
It's not just Sullivan, either. Inside Edition has been covering this story, and one of the correspondents tonight was about to explode out of her panties trying to find out an ambulance driver's opinion as to what Travolta meant when, after his son died, he said to the dead boy, "I'm sorry".
She actually smiled when she asked this. It was ghoulish. She didn't even hide her delight at the prospect of getting a confirmation of something sinister. The ambulance driver however merely said that he figured Travolta meant he was sorry he couldn't help him, or something to that affect. Unfortunately, the editing process blacked out what I would guess was probably her disappointed reaction.
These people are really treading on thin ice, and the First Amendment is not an excuse. This is not an attempt to ferret out the truth concerning a matter of importance or interest. This is nothing but an attempt to sell papers and attract viewers, and rake in advertising dollars.
I usually like to soak in a hot bath at night, but tonight I think I need a shower.
9 comments:
Andrew Sullivan is an interesting, insightful conservative writer. It is out of character for him, even to comment on a celeb story.
The John Travolta controversy is disheartening. I don't take any sides, because I don't really know the whole story. I can say that I can't stant either scientology or this whole witch hunt for people who think "mental illness isn't real".
What I think is going on here, is a bunch of people, not just Sullivan, looking for an excuse to slam Scientology and its practitioners, and Travolta just now happens to conveniently be in their sights. It's revolting. What they are trying to imply, it seems to me, is that Travolta, due to his Scientology beliefs, didn't take the proper care of his son, which led to his seizure disorder, and ultimately his death.
They are fishing for an excuse to accuse Travolta of being in denial of his sons condition to such an extent that he did not seek the proper medical treatment for his autism, and may have pursued cult approved techniques which were ultimately harmful.
Until they have some kind of hard-core evidence that Travolta did something inappropriate or abusive, they should keep their mouths shut. This is just another excuse to try to control people's personal lives even to the extent of interfering in their private religious practices. Of course it doesn't end with Travolta.
In Minneapolis there is a group that pickets the Scientology headquarters every week, wearing masks to be anonymous.
I talked to them once. Only one had an actual personal experience with Scientolgy. I asked them if it's the most important issue to be dealing with, as opposed to war, poverty and terrorism.
Okay, Andrew Sullivan should leave them alone because he's in no position to know. But, it's not like this is a new story that people are suddenly fishing for. There were friends and family saying that the Travoltas weren't treating their son's autism back when he was alive. In other words, there were people who were in a position to observe the kid who were worried that he had a condition that was not being treated. I've seen stories about it for at least three or four years now. Since scientologists don't believe that autism exists, it's not a stretch to say that this could be why the Travolta's refused to believe their son might have autism. Instead they blamed his seizures on a disease that doesn't normally cause seizures. Then the kid died from his seizures. So, now, everyone else is obligated to shut up about it?
People are entitled to hold whatever religious beliefs they want to. But, are the rest of us never allowed to say that we think some of those beliefs are stupid? Because, the Church of Scientology has taken very public positions about mental illness, and picketed the offices of psychologists. Isn't it possible to disagree with them on this matter without violating their relgious freedom?
Well, so what did he say? Probably nothing that made any sense. I'm not an avid Scientology fan myself, in fact I've criticized them, and Tom Cruise, but they are a very small component and have extremely little if anything to do with any of the world's problems. They are kind of nutty, but I'd take their nuttiness over a lot of the crap that goes on any day of the week.
And when you get right down to it, in their own way some of their ideas and spiritual philosophies are probably as valid, maybe more, than most other religious movements.
Rufus-
I'm not saying any of that, but Sullivan, and also the people on Entertainment Tonight, were playing this coy game of insinuation that could be interpreted in a lot of different ways, including even possibly Travolta outright murdered the kid. Then of course you have the alleged game of hide the autism.
Then they straight out misrepresented the autopsy, trying to play it off like Travolta's staff controlled and manipulated the whole thing. To hear them put it, you would think they actually performed the autopsy, as opposed to just being present, and lied about the results.
Then they tried to insinuate that there was something suspicious about Travolta having the boy cremated, as though they were trying to hide something. Then there was the bit about Travolta flying the plane back to the states, as though even that was suspicious. To an expert pilot, by the way, that would be no more suspicious or difficult than driving a car.
They never came right out and directly accused Travolta of anything, but you can tell what they're getting at. Or that's the way it seemed to me anyway. Really over the top stuff. If they were really that concerned about the kid, why didn't they beat this drum while he was alive, when it might have done some good, if this story was that well known? Funny, I never even heard of Jett Travolta before this.
They're just trying to capitalize off the situation, in my opinion. Here you have a famous movie star involved in a suspicious cult, and his son dies, while allegedly suffering from a disease Scientologists supposedly claim doesn't exist.
My problem with that is, you would think they would have killed the kid off a long time ago, or maybe traded him in for a ringer. I'm not even sure Scientologists have a difficulty with autism. Autism is an organic brain disorder, not a psychiatric or psychological condition. If they have a problem with that, wouldn't that be like thinking a person with a gunshot wound to the cerebellum should be able to get along just fine?
A lot of gay activists think that Scientology is anti-gay.
Just an example of what's out there. Sullivan can on the turn of a dime forget even the most basic of journalistic ethics, and engage in tabloid rumor mongering should it concern a perceived enemy of his.
The Trig Palin maternity crap is a similar situation.
Unfortunately he forgets that he writes under the banner of The Atlantic (a highly prestigious publication that published original pieces by Mark Twain) and not The National Enquirer
Lee-
Well, there might be some merit to some aspects of that article. Hubbard's views on homosexuality are definitely old school, and pretty much in line with the prevailing viewpoint at the time he probably wrote them. Most of the other stuff, while some of it is compelling, is still pretty much hearsay at this point.
As for the whole Travolta being gay thing, I don't much buy into that, not so much because of Kelly Preston-Hollywood celebrities marry and divorce as casually as most people who frequent singles clubs have one-night stands. But there was a time back in the seventies when he engaged in an affair, while barely in his twenties, with a woman something like twenty years his senior, who soon died from, I think, breast cancer. He was devoted to her until the end, and her death put him in a really deep depression. Anybody that expresses suspicion as to Travolta's lack of any real romantic relationships from that point up until the time he married Preston seems to be conveniently skimming over that very real and doubtless important fact. It takes some people years to get over such a death to the point they engage in other relationships. Some people never do.
You pointed out something to me though of which I wasn't aware. If Scientology today still has the same views on homosexuality as Hubbard, it would explain why so many people look for a homosexual angle when celebrities like Travolta and Cruise join them.
It's something else all together when tabloid newspapers and Hollywood gossip shows take the bait and make an issue out of it. When they go to the extent of alleging brainwashing and extortion, they need to have some kind of evidence to back that up, or drop it.
Post a Comment