Hillary Praises That Helpful Heather Mills
Heather Mills, this century's biggest shrew, has helped (herself, to a fortune in Paul McCartney's money).
Here's the tape Hillary Clinton's handlers have to be dying to erase: Hillary Clinton endorsing Mills a few years back -- pretty much a commercial by Hillary for Heather for her land mines' work -- but, especially at the end, in light of the vile Mills' ugly divorce from McCartney, it's unintentionally hilarious. (Very SNL.)
Whoa, I just typed a long comment and it disappeared...weird.
The amount that Heather Mills was awarded was a fraction of Paul McCarney's total capital, it propably wasn't even the interest that he makes in a single year.
George Harrison's widow earned something like $40 million last year and George Harrison died how many years ago? And that 40 million didn't even include the regular annual earnings from the regular investments.
Look, I think that Heather Mills is a skank, (although I admire her for participating in Dancing with the Stars)but at the same time I don't idolize Paul McCartney. The amount that she got was equivalent to interest on the interest. And, she's the mother of one of his children. The award she got wont even cause a dent in the McCartney fortune. His life won't change one iota.
oh and for the record, he's spent the last year of so banging everthing that walks... and that's not malicious gossip, his divorce proceedings haven't hindered his lifestyle at all.
belledeville at March 20, 2008 12:32 AM
Disappeared? It's not in my spam folder. Just looked.
Amy Alkon at March 20, 2008 12:36 AM
> he's spent the last year
> of so banging everthing
> that walks... and that's
> not malicious gossip
Like man, dude, bro, what would be malicious gossip?
Listen, forty years ago Paul dated this one incredibly beautiful woman, and wrote an incredibly beautiful song for her called "Here, There and Everywhere." It was kind of the champion boomer ballad for about twenty or thirty months, until George wrote "Something."
Anyway, here's what that woman looks like as of a couple years ago: http://tinyurl.com/2jypho
Does that light-eyed, inanely-receptive and long-toothed smile remind you of any recent newsmakers in Great Britain?
It's not that McCartney's not pathetic, but it's kind neat to think he might have just been responding to an older stimulus... Like a normal human being might have done.
Crid at March 20, 2008 1:02 AM
If he walked among the living, I mean
Crid at March 20, 2008 1:03 AM
Of course Hillary would defend Mills, neither one of them has a leg to stand on.
Bikerken at March 20, 2008 1:25 AM
Stole my line, Bikerken, but I forgive you, for it was truly inspired!
Flynne at March 20, 2008 6:49 AM
But, Bikerken, do you think Heather will be stumping for Hillary?
BlogDog at March 20, 2008 7:14 AM
"The amount that she got was equivalent to interest on the interest." - belledeville
er yeah? at what point does he owe her money that was his from before they were married? or is that part of the "you can marry more money in a minute than you can make in a lifetime thing?"
SwissArmyD at March 20, 2008 8:23 AM
BLOGDOG!! Just once I would like to come to Amy's blog and not have to wipe coffee off my monitor. Nah, never mind.
Flynne at March 20, 2008 8:31 AM
I wonder whose stump is bigger, Heather's or Paul's?
kg at March 20, 2008 8:54 AM
Do I understand correctly that Mills THREW A GLASS OF WATER over McCartney's (attractive female) lawyer in court the other day?
As for scurrilous gossip, I believe that Mills was claiming in court that McCartney had physically abused her, in addition to pressuring her to sacrifice career opportunities, shouting at her, etc. etc. The judge essentially said that he took none of that seriously, and that she'd proved herself to be highly unreliable - but still, she said those things about the father of her only child in order to try to get a whole lot of money as opposed to "just" a lot of money.
Paul and Linda McCartney's approach to various social issues often had me rolling my eyes. That having been said, from all accounts they were completely devoted to one another to the point where he didn't like to spend nights apart from her. I can't imagine what a blow her death must have been to him. One of the differences between men and women, I've noticed, is that men who were very happily married for quite some time, upon the deaths of their wives, seem highly likely to try to recapture that happily married state as soon as possible. (This isn't a criticism - just an observation.) It was McCartney's "luck" that he had the money and the fame to attract a far younger woman that the typical middle-aged widower with four kids would be able to land. While I'm sure the signs of her alleged temper and instability were there during their courtship, I'm thinking that McCartney was in no position to recognize them.
I do feel sorry for his older children, though. When your widowed dad announces that he's marrying a hot-tempered one-legged younger woman who's survived uterine cancer and another type of cancer, the one thing you'd typically console yourself with is that she'd never be able to get knocked up, right? Well...
As for him banging everything that moves over the past year....I personally don't think doing that while one is legally separated but in the middle of a bitter divorce battle to be particularly wise, but I don't think it's evil, either. Sir Paul has proven that he can be a very good husband when he has a receptive partner - not a submissive partner, I'll point out, just a non-harpy one - and if he, having lost that partner and having separated from the next one, wants to sow some rock star wild oats, good for him. I would advise him to pick women past birthin' age, though.
marion at March 20, 2008 9:07 AM
Sir Paul could always come to see me (sorry, Crid, I'm fickle that way!)! o_O
But of his older children, Stella did warn him, before things had supposedly gotten "too far" that she was a gold digger and not fit to walk his dog. And yes, marion, Mills did throw a glass of water on Sir Paul's attorney. Classy bitch, huh?
Flynne at March 20, 2008 9:47 AM
> I'm sure the signs of her alleged
> temper and instability were there
> during their courtship, I'm thinking
> that McCartney was in no position
> to recognize them.
Awright, let's gossip! Let's gossip with a capital G, sisters...
Back in the muffled mists of ancient time, the Beatles were bigger than big. They were so big and so novel that it felt like they were inventing whole new vectors of showbiz just by their whims (Grooming! Humor! Cinema!). And then they brought the melodies to back it up.
From his early twenties onward, this guy was thought to be as cute as a guy could be. He got "more tail than Sinatra." And from the word go, everyone said he was vain and self-centered. (And a gifted bass player.) This was even acknowledged in the cartoon movie they franchised. People always knew he had a blind spot. And if you remember the attention this woman got from her first appearances in the papers --and there's no reason that you would remember, being a generation younger than Paul's core fan base-- people always said Mills was an icy manipulator. So this has been like watching a train wreck.
But it's wrong to say that McCartney wasn't in position to see this coming... He just didn't have the personality to see this coming. And thousands and thousands of people over the years probably tried to warn him. One contemporary in particular is probably snickering in his coffin.
Stella McCartney benefited from her last name, certainly. But she's still a successful businesswoman in her own right. I bet most widowed fathers would think twice about remarrying if a daughter like her asked them to move carefully.
> I would advise him to pick
> women past birthin' age,
> though
Cain't. Nothing personal, it's a biology thang. When all controls are removed (as for a rock star), men will always aim towards the fertile ones.
> Mills did throw a glass
> of water on Sir Paul's
> attorney
I'd bet a thousand dollars that Paul popped wood under the conference table. Let's hope he bought the lawyer a case of Steuben goblets as compensation.
Crid at March 20, 2008 11:39 AM
Cain't. Nothing personal, it's a biology thang. When all controls are removed (as for a rock star), men will always aim towards the fertile ones.
True, dat. A friend of mine worked security for the most recent Stones tour. At Madison Sqaure Garden, there was a dressing room with a door, with a curtain beyond the door, so you couldn't see what was going on in there anyway. This guy told me there were young ladies, a couple of them even had their moms with them, sitting at cocktail tables outside the door, waiting their turn. He recounted how one of the girls came out of the room, as she was "readjusting" her outfit, turned and looked at him, wiped her lips, gathered herself and her mom, and went on her merry way. All I could think of was "eeeewwwwwww". I wouldn't touch Jagger, or any of the rest of 'em, with a 10 foor pole (not that they'd want me to, I'm much too old!). o_O
Flynne at March 20, 2008 12:26 PM
10 fooT pole. oy.
Flynne at March 20, 2008 12:39 PM
When all controls are removed (as for a rock star), men will always aim towards the fertile ones.
Then let's hope someone can convince him to get a vasectomy. Otherwise, his next babymama is a splashy benefit or two away. However, if I read various gossip sites correctly, he's apparently dating a mix of women in their 50s (and the like) and younger women.
But it's wrong to say that McCartney wasn't in position to see this coming...
While I don't disagree with your assessment of his basic character, I have yet to hear any source, on the record or far, far off the record, claim that he was anything but a devoted and faithful husband, for what, more than half of his life up until that point? Now, maybe it's just that Linda McCartney was a master manipulator herself, but if so, she apparently wasn't a hot-tempered one. The guy literally did not like to spend the night apart from her, and suddenly she was gone. Maybe two years is enough to get over that, but I have my doubts.
marion at March 20, 2008 6:05 PM
"The amount that she got was equivalent to interest on the interest."
That's not the point. She's a gold-digging sow.
I got news for some people..sooner or later, Hollyweird is goint to be the ONLY viable place for a gold-digger to ply her trade. Sane men are wising up..let the marriage strike begin!!
Norman L. at March 20, 2008 10:11 PM
Oh, and so what would have been the correct amount for Heather, the mother of one of his legitimate children, to have been awarded. 1 million, 5 million?
Does the Beatles adulation never stop?
I already said that she was a skank, but skank no less, he married her and fathered a child with her.
Marriage strike Norman? Oh please, men have been knocking up women and running off for years...what's new?...or marrying them, fathering children and then spending 80 grand on hookers, a la Eliot Spitzer.
A "marriage strike" isn't much of a threat.
belle at March 20, 2008 11:18 PM
Actually there won't need to be a "strike" as such; men will simple stop marrying, having realized that marriage amounts to placing yourself and your life's work and savings, not to mention any forthcoming children, into his wife's hands.
As far as Mill's motherhood, what about McCartney's fatherhood?? They are both parents, thus if Paul is to pay her, say, $10 million as the amount for her motherhood, shouldn't she in turn pay him $10 million for his having provided fatherhood?
I've always been at a loss to understand the contorted logic involved in divorce settlements. What it amounts to, and what some judges have even effectively stated, is that the man isn't worth a shit in the relationship, except when it comes to any monies to be paid.
Finally, allow me to reword your final paragraph from a more accurate perspective:
"Marraige strike? - hell yeah! For years, women have been duping men into getting them pregnant, then running off and not informing the man (or the court) that there has been a child, until it's 18th birthday..then sueing for 18 years of back child support. And in even in cases where the man finds out he is a father earlier than this, he is denied (by the mother) whatever meager visitation rights he may be awarded by the court. And, even men who remain married, are eventually denied sex by their wives as a form of manipulation, in one context or another, until the repeated application of this type of domestic abuse by the wife, results in the man having no choice but to obtain sexual gratification outside the marriage, either by cheating with one or more other women, or by consulting with a prostitutes".
Norman L. at March 21, 2008 12:19 AM
Actually the issue of her motherhood is interesting from a philosophical perspective, as well as what is just. Take a few deep breaths, and let me walk you step by step through the logic..
What you seem to be saying, is that on the one hand, the child is HIS, and SHE has provided motherhood for it..so he owes her money. But when it then comes to custody, it is suddenly HER child.
But if one is to say that it is HER child, and she is to become the custodial parent, then it is actually the case that HE has provided fatherhood for HER child, so therefore she should pay him. Or if they are to have joint custody (50/50 for the sake of argument, although it's usually much less for the man), then neither party owes the other this amount for motherhood or fatherhood.
Therefore all that remains is the issue of supporting the child, until it reaches 18 years of age. Why should it be that Mills is excluded from having to now work, to contribute to supporting the child? It seems that we are back to it now being HIS child, so he must pay all support himself!
Effectively, the child has changed hand several times, each time so as to place the man at a disadvantage.
And somehow this is oppression of women!!
Norman L. at March 21, 2008 12:40 AM
> a devoted and faithful husband
Absolutely!
Man, I know and care far too much about this fucker's life. On the other hand he wrote, sang and played bass on "You Won't See Me"... A recording that's arguably rock 'n roll's finest offering to popular music. And get this: He played that bass left-handed on that song! It's fucking incredible!
A little known-fact about the Beatles catalogue is that I personally sang one of the "ooh-la-lahs" in the third-from-final measure of this track, heard as the song is fading out. I'm in the left channel, shortly after Ringo drops one of his drumsticks and George ends his chop-chord performance and descends into mundane studio conversation about the nearby coffeepot. I was only six years old, and had to be taken from first grade (Mrs. Graham's first grade class at University [grade] School in Indiana) to be flown to London for the session. My young voice was very high-pitched, as you hear it. Of course, at that age, I had no idea what it meant to be performing with perhaps the most talented songwriting team the planet has ever seen. But they wanted me, and they sent the ticket, so they got me. My brother was pissed that I didn't have to take out the trash that weekend, so he had to do it. On a deeply personal level, it's great to have a small piece of that history-making session. I'll always remember that day. (George Martin wore a bad sweater, and kept yammering about 'Yanks in Indochina'....)
Listen, no one else liked Linda as much as Paul did. But nobody felt much of anything else for her. People never hated her as much as they did that famously conniving bitch Yoko... yet, to the best of my knowledge, nobody ever saw Yoko poke a puppy with a stick either. Maybe Linda used powers of manipulation similar to what Mills used, but she used them for good and not for evil. If we want to make fun of adult Paul for writing shabby songs --and since he's probably the best songwriter of his generation, who doesn't?-- we must at least concede, as you suggest, that he had a particularly successful marriage for a quarter of a century, and it may have distracted him from a talent that favours young men.
We grow up and see that childhood heroes are like any other heroes, that is, hollow and blind and horribly flawed human beings. The Beatles made wonderful, childish music for my childhood, and then fell into stupidity at just the right moment. It was a demonstration of human nature that couldn't have come from any other source.
Still ...
In 3rd grade I was head-over-heals in love with an unremarkable blond. But the color of her hair in the afternoon sun was insanity. And listening to Beatles records after I got home from school made it *even prettier*.
So I think it's kinda cute that the smile of the woman who just squeezed him for $50 million is so reminiscent of the one for whom he wrote not one, but two of his best melodies in those very years.
Crid at March 21, 2008 12:58 AM
Its true that divorce law does not treat men, or fathers, fairly.
Its odd that for all the nods at equality the law takes such a blatently biased view in favor of the fairer sex when it comes to marital unions. This made a measure of sense 50 years or so ago, when there was likely just one person working, the other was not as likely to have had a quality education or be able to get a job quite as easily, and essentially spent the days at home rearing children and tending the household affairs. Work for which there was no pay. And work it was.
Then it made sense to give the primary care giver custody and support.
Now, when men are involved in the house hold matters and child rearing issues other than simply discipline, and women leave the home to work on their own jobs and careers, the cultural situation has changed...but the viewpoint of the law has not.
Robert H. Butler at March 21, 2008 3:00 AM
Robert, please don't feed the troll. Norman L is a mysogynist, or haven't you caught that yet? He has serious issues, and probably needs psychological treatment. I'd say he suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder, but I've never met him in person, and I'm not qualified to diagnose. But the vitriol he spews about women says it all.
Flynne at March 21, 2008 5:35 AM
A little known-fact about the Beatles catalogue is that I personally sang one of the "ooh-la-lahs" in the third-from-final measure of this track, heard as the song is fading out.
Crid, did you really? I love you more than ever now. Marry me? o_O
Flynne at March 21, 2008 5:36 AM
You're on, sugar. I do minor housework but never cook.
Crid at March 21, 2008 8:47 AM
Aw shit, I bungled the snickering Lennon link in the earlier comment
Crid at March 21, 2008 8:57 AM
You're on, sugar. I do minor housework but never cook.
No worries, I'm an excellent cook! Last night I made cajun catfish wtih sweet potato fries. The night before, chicken paprikash with homestyle noodles. And my homemade pizza rocks, too. o_O
Flynne at March 21, 2008 9:02 AM
"In 3rd grade I was head-over-heals in love with an unremarkable blond." - crid
dude, if her name was Kelly Sue Ringsdorf, I'll see you out on the playground... although I'll admit I was blinded by her hair, to the point where I didn't notice a tall brunette named Sandra who followed me around a lot. Whose face do I remember after 34 somesuch years? Sandra's
meanwhile... flynne, you make sweet potato fries? mmmm, me and the kids love 'em... although I hate cleaning up, the oil gets everywhere. I'm generally more of a bake the sweet potatoes up, and hit 'em with maple syrup... which of course the kids like too...
SwissArmyD at March 21, 2008 11:12 AM
SwissArmyD, I do them up like home fries, I cut them up into little chunks, and saute' them in a little olive oil in a 2" deep frying pan (BF got me Wolfgang Puck cookware for Yule this year) with some cinnamon. Me and my kids love 'em too! o_O
Flynne at March 21, 2008 12:02 PM
Leave a comment