Christmas Break: What I Did and Happy New Year!

         Spent some some much-needed time with my two best friends I've known since I was in a training bra.
Too much information?

Celebrated Christmas with my family

Enjoyed precious time with my goofy nephew. He poses like that for every picture now. Fortunately, I don't.

"Awwed" over animals (not mine)

...and more animals (unfortunately not mine either)...

...and more (this one is mine.)

Shopped 'til I dropped! I took full advantage of all of the Boxing Day sales. Not just on Boxing Day but also on the 27th, 28th and 29th. I told you I have a shopping problem! Don't act surprised. I bought this Co-lab bag at Winners. I'd been looking for a bag like this for months! It's the perfect size.

My friend Jenessa did my makeup. She does the best eyes!

I got my hair colored at Ponytails + Horseshoes

D. and I took in a very exciting Junior World Hockey game with his work. Czech Republic won 5 to 2 against USA. Here they are singing their national anthem at the end of the game.

And I relaxed and read books and watched movies. I took a break from work and blogging and just enjoyed my time off, recharging my batteries ; ). I hope you all had a wonderful holiday spent with family and friends and had some time to relax as well. Happy New Year! I wish you the absolute best in 2012! Thank you to all of you who read my blog. Thank you for your clicks, your comments and all-around love this past year. You don't know just how much I appreciate it.






You have read this article Animals / family / Friends / Personal / Retail Therapy with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/christmas-break-what-i-did-and-happy.html. Thanks!

Congratulations to Johnny and Victor!!

Johnny and Victor, Holiday Dreams on Ice,
VIP party, December 23.Another shot with those fabulous flowers!

In case you missed it (where WERE you?? I tried to alert absolutely everyone in the known universe!!), a new interview with Johnny by the lovely Lynn Rutherford popped up on IceNetwork last night. 

I first saw it around 9 pm CST, and in addition to discussing his upcoming exploration of a
You have read this article David Ingogly / Johnny is getting f*cking married / Johnny Weir / Johnny+Vitya=♥ / love forever / Patti and John FTW / so many happy tears / yeah I borrowed two of these tags from dapperderp because they’re awesome with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/congratulations-to-johnny-and-victor.html. Thanks!

Safety First.

Johnny acknowledges the audience at the end of the Holiday Dreams on Ice opening number, which featured LMFAO's "Sexy and I Know It"--one of the songs to which he skated 
at Improv-Ice on December 15. Also while wearing this costume. About which he said: "My pants are obscene."

Look, let's just get this out of the way right now so we can move on to the rest of our Holiday Dreams on Ice coverage
You have read this article David Ingogly / Johnny Weir / love how much the kids always love him / more adorable kid pics coming up / so much happiness and excitement this holiday season I can’t stop smiling / wowowow with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/safety-first.html. Thanks!

Ashton Kutcher and Lea Michele: New Year’s Eve

Ashton Kutcher and Lea Michele:  New Year’s Eve
Lea Michele
Ashton Kutcher and Lea Michele:  New Year’s Eve
Ashton Kutcher
Ashton Kutcher and Lea Michele:  New Year’s Eve
 New Year’s Eve Movie

                                                     


New Year’s Eve! The biggest party of the year!

Kutcher and Michele are featured in the romantic comedy “New Year’s Eve” directed by Garry Marshall.  Let’s check out Ashton Kutcher’s personal plans for New Year’s Eve!


Lea Michele: What are you going to do for New Year's?  Why don't you come celebrate with my big Italian family and me? They would die.

Ashton Kutcher:  I don't know where I'm going to be on New Year's, I haven't sorted it out.


Talking about your future plans for New Year’s Eve is quite common at this time of year.  The common conversation question at this time of year is:

“What are you going to do for New Year’s (Eve)?”
"I don't know where I'm going to be on New Year's,"

Some people have already made their plans and some people like Ashton aren’t exactly sure yet. 
Often as language learners we search for more difficult ways to express ourselves.  However, in this case, the use of ‘be + going to + infinitive’ is quite common and useful in the question or answer form.  However if you are looking for something new both Ashton and Lea use some common, casual expressions that might be new to you in this context.

Expressions


(1)I haven't 'sorted' it 'out'. =
Same English
I haven’t clarified my plans or I haven’t put my plans in order.

Ashton feels he will go out ‘somewhere’ on New Year’s Eve but hasn’t created an exact or detailed plan yet.

(2)They would 'die'.  = 
Same English
(Longer English) They (my family) would die if you came to my family’s house.

They would be very, very excited/surprised.

Lea feels her family would be thrilled to have Ashton at their house for New Year’s Eve.
Ashton Kutcher and Lea Michele:  New Year’s Eve

Original Lea Michele and Ashton Kutcher New Year's Eve interview  (above excerpt - Time: 05:43 - 05:53)


Practice Speaking Style

Question: What are you going to do for New Year's? 
Answer:  I don't know where I'm going to be on New Year's.

Ex.1
Question: What are you going to do for New Year's? 
Answer:  I am going to go to New York’s Time Square and watch the ball drop.


Ex.2
Question: What are you going to do for New Year's? 
Answer:  I am going to be at a nightclub with my friends.

Ex.3
Question: What are you going to do for New Year's? 
Answer:  I am going to stay at home and watch movies.

Ex.4
Question: What are you going to do for New Year's? 
Answer:  I am going to go to a restaurant with my boyfriend.

Have a safe and Happy New Year’s Eve!  

Also check out related blog:
Josh Duhamel: New Year’s Resolutions

Enjoy!

  

FEATURED LINK OF THE MONTH!
START
THE NEW YEAR WITH A BANG!
ADVENTURE OVERSEAS!
New China! Teach Abroad!
Let the Adventure Begin!
http://www.newchinalr.com/


Ashton Kutcher and Lea Michele:  New Year’s Eve


Alex
Celebrity English
You have read this article Alex / Ashton Kutcher / Celebrity English / comedy / Gary Marshall / Interview / Language Learning / Lea Michele / Movies / New ChinaRecruitment / New Year’s Eve / New York / romance / Sarah Jessica Parker / TEFL with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/ashton-kutcher-and-lea-michele-new.html. Thanks!

HDOI: A Whole Lot of Happy for the Holidays!

Johnny at Holiday Dreams on Ice dress rehearsal, Friday, December 23. He's not really skating in his sleep (although I'm sure he could), but he was definitely having a good time during much of the two days of rehearsals...

(Blogger General's Warning: Do NOT Cheat By Scrolling Down To See Exactly How Much Fun He Was Having. Repeat: Do NOT. Scrolling Down May Cause Uncontrollable Fits of Giggling
You have read this article asdfjkl the gifs kill me / David Ingogly / Johnny Weir / so many photos / so much fun and worth every mind-numbing hour behind the wheel / so very many photos / yeah did I mention we got some photos with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/hdoi-whole-lot-of-happy-for-holidays.html. Thanks!

The last 280 films I have watched

Christmas holidays are almost upon us so here are the last 280 films I have watched since July 2000 – or at least those I remembered to write down.

Many were watched on long plane journeys, some in the cinema and others at home with the family.

Taste for films is very personal and although I enjoyed most of those listed I have marked with an asterisk (*) those I would particularly recommend and have given my top ten a double asterisk (**)

Some in the list below I would definitely not recommend!

If you have any suggestions about films you would recommend that are not in this list, or comments about those that are, then please make them below.

1. Erin Brockovich*
2. The Hurricane*
3. The next best thing
4. Return to me
5. Mission to Mars
6. The Truman Show*
7. Wrongfully accused
8. Sixth sense
9. The Mummy
10. The Fugitive
11. Price of Glory*
12. Where the Money is
13. The Skulls
14. The whole nine yards
15. The last musketeer
16. Lightning Jack
17. Fried Green tomatoes*
18. Casper
19. Independence Day
20. Escape form Alcatraz
21. Octopussy
22. Titanic
23. Mousehunt
24. 101 Dalmatians
25. A bridge too far
26. Chicken Run
27. Dave
28. Platoon
29. Deep Impact
30. High Fidelity
31. Mrs Doubtfire
32. The Man in the Iron Mask
33. The Miracle Maker
34. Dances with Wolves
35. Air Force I
36. Vertical Limit
37. Space Cowboys
38. Wild Wild West
39. Jerry McGuire*
40. Patch Adams
41. Out of Sight
42. The Bravados
43. Extreme Measures*
44. Raw Deal
45. Galaxy Quest
46. Gattacca*
47. The Battle of the Coral Sea
48. Ground Hog Day*
49. Last Orders*
50. Rush Hour
51. Matilda
52. Lord of the Rings*
53. Regarding Henry
54. Shrek
55. Antz
56. Flubber
57. Enemy of the State
58. Lord of the Rings (2nd time)*
59. Rush Hour 2
60. Entrapment
61. I am Sam
62. What’s the matter with Jimmy Grimble
63. The Count of Monte Cristo*
64. Behind Enemy Lines
65. Lost in Space
66. Lilo and Stitch
67. Force 10 from Navarone
68. Miss Congeniality
69. Pearl Harbour
70. Spies Like Us
71. Naked Gun 2 ½
72. What women want
73. Beverly Hills Cop 3
74. The Mummy (2nd time)
75. Minority Report*
76. The Mummy Returns
77. Lord of the Rings 2 (Two Towers)*
78. Cats and Dogs
79. The Bourne Identity*
80. The Third Wheel
81. The Mission*
82. A Fish called Wanda
83. Gattacca (2nd time)*
84. Lord of the Rings (Two towers) (2nd time)*
85. Brassed Off**
86. Gloomy Sunday*
87. The Full Monty*
88. The Four Feathers
89. Mr Holland’s Opus*
90. Goodbye Mr Chips
91. XXX
92. One Hour Photo
93. Jurassic Park 3
94. Blues Brothers*
95. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
96. Bend it like Beckham*
97. Captain Corelli’s Mandolin*
98. Swordfish
99. Lord of the Rings (Two towers) (3rd time)*
100. Dietrich Bonhoeffer*
101. Jumanji*
102. Johnny English
103. The Sound of Music*
104. Naked Gun 33 1/3
105. The Thin Red Line
106. Catch me if you can
107. Showtime
108. East is East*
109. Lord of the Rings 3 (Return of the King)*
110. Love Actually
111. Sum of all Fears
112. Finding Nemo
113. My Left Foot*
114. The Widow Maker
115. Reach for the Sky
116. The Road to Perdition*
117. Angela’s Ashes*
118. Shrek III
119. Suzi Gold
120. The Day after tomorrow
121. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
122. Laws of Attraction
123. Flatliners
124. The Passion*
125. Million Dollar Baby
126. As good as it gets*
127. The Island
128. Outbreak
129. Star Wars III*
130. Troy
131. The Lion, the Witch and the wardrobe*
132. King Kong*
133. The Last Samurai
134. Snow Walker
135. Motorcycle Diaries*
136. Amelie
137. Millions*
138. Amazing Grace*
139. War of the Worlds
140. Waking Ned
141. Lost in Translation
142. Saving Private Ryan*
143. I love my wife
144. Tsotsi**
145. Pleasantville**
146. Alien
147. Sixteen Blocks
148. Firewall
149. The River King
150. Perfect strangers
151. Something New
152. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid*
153. Fastest Indian*
154. Fracture
155. Keeping Mum
156. In my Father’s den
157. Last King of Scotland*
158. Rain
159. The Quiet Earth
160. Eagle vs Shark*
161. Casablanca**
162. The Untouchables*
163. The Usual Suspects*
164. The 11th Hour
165. Stardust
166. Forest Gump**
167. Conversations with my gardener*
168. The Conversation
169. Terms of Endearment
170. The Bourne Ultimatum*
171. The Choir
172. Four (Vivaldi)*
173. The Band’s Visit*
174. The Wizard of Oz
175. The Bank Job
176. The Happening
177. Caramel
178. Iron Man
179. Prince Caspian*
180. The 1st Ladies Detective Agency
181. Atonement
182. Pan’s Labyrinth*
183. The Insider
184. Blades of Glory
185. Predator
186. The 39 Steps*
187. In the Line of Fire
188. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly**
189. Citizen Kane*
190. Slumdog Millionaire*
191. Lions for Lambs
192. The Reader
193. Defiance*
194. Last Chance Harvey
195. Billy Elliott*
196. Doubt*
197. The Black Balloon
198. Gran Torino**
199. Taken
200. Seven Pounds
201. A river runs through it*
202. Juno*
203. Avatar
204. District 9*
205. Sin Nombre*
206. Inglorious Basterds
207. A Perfect Getaway
208. Whiteout
209. Priceless
210. 21
211. The Lives of Others*
212. It’s a wonderful life**
213. Valkyrie
214. I love you, man
215. In Bruges
216. The Blind Side*
217. Invictus
218. The Hurt Locker
219. The Raffle*
220. Napoleon Dynamite*
221. Inception*
222. Up**
223. Hotshots
224. She’s out of your league
225. A few good men
226. The untouchables (2nd time)*
227. Toy Story 3
228. The History Boys
229. Nativity Series (4)*
230. Apocalypse Now*
231. Rain Man*
232. Alaska
233. The Usual Suspects (2nd time)*
234. Hot Fuzz
235. Star Wars 5*
236. Time Bandits*
237. Star Wars 6*
238. Sophie Scholl**
239. Seven Pounds (2nd time)
240. Beautiful Mind*
241. Green Mile*
242. Shawn of the Dead
243. Sound of Music (2nd time)*
244. Slumdog Millionaire (2nd time)*
245. The Italian Job (Original)*
246. Hotel Rwanda*
247. Mary Poppins*
248. Defiance (2nd time)*
249. Cool Hand Luke**
250. Terminator Salvation
251. Shadowlands*
252. My Sister’s Keeper
253. The Book of Eli*
254. The Social Network*
255. Wall Street*
256. The American
257. Patriot Games
258. The King’s Speech*
259. Crash
260. 127 Hours
261. The Town
262. Tuxedo
263. Blind Side (2nd time)*
264. Flawless
265. You’re my hero
266. Greenzone
267. Lorenzo’s Oil*
268. Goethe*
269. Knight and Day
270. The Sunset Limited*
271. Never Let me Go*
272. Unknown
273. The Adjustment Bureau
274. Casablanca (2nd time)
275. Battle Los Angeles
276. Bonnie and Clyde*
277. Deliverance
278. Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf?
279. Twilight
280. Africa United
281. Black Sheep
282. Gladiator*
283. Braveheart*
284. Shawshank Redemption**
285. Schindler's List**
285. Days of Glory
286. The Kite Runner*
287. Shutter Island
288. Prince Caspian
289. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull
You have read this article films with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/the-last-280-films-i-have-watched.html. Thanks!

Styling By Moi: She's in Parties


dress - Nicole Miller from Firoz, faux fur coat - H & M (mine), shoes - Target (mine), purse - H & M (mine)



 black sequined dress - KERSH from Bamboo Ballroom, coat - L.A.M.B. from Firoz, shoes - model's own

coat - Diane Von Furstenburg from Firoz, dress - Nicole Miller from Firoz, gloves - mine

And some fun shots:

 tank top - Betsey Johnson from Firoz, jeans - Joe from The Bamboo Ballroom, jacket - Winners (mine), 
boots - Spring (mine), ring - H & M (mine)

 jacket - model's own


Model: Hayley @ Mode Models

Here are some shots from a creative shoot I styled for Harvey Miedreich last month. We had a great gang to work with and I think the photos turned out beautifully.

Sorry I've been M.I.A. from the blogging world. I don't think I've ever been this busy in my life! Can't wait to relax during the holidays and do NOTHING!








You have read this article Harvey Miedreich / Styling with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/styling-by-moi-she-in-parties.html. Thanks!

Weirmas Came Early—And Brought Us a Winter Warrior!




Johnny in the behind-the-scenes-at-the-

Glitter-and-Ice-photo-shoot video posted yesterday 

by M∙A∙C Cosmetics on their YouTube channel. 

He described this as his "Winter Warrior" look. 

May I also add: "WOW."



IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!! Holiday Dreams On Ice just announced yesterday that they're offering a special promotion on tickets for this Friday's show in Philadelphia--starring our
You have read this article he could seriously model for a living Y/Y / Johnny Weir / MAC Cosmetics / OMG MAC VIDEO OMGOMGOMG AMAAAAAZING yes this / the makeup the costuming and the incredible attention to detail are beyond awesome with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/weirmas-came-earlyand-brought-us-winter.html. Thanks!

David Cameron has professed Christianity but fails Luther’s test of confession

David Cameron’s comments last Friday about Christian values have generated a huge amount of media coverage but what did he actually say?

Those who rely solely on the BBC, or media reports based on press releases from AFP or UKPA will miss much of his message.

The full speech, which was given to mark the end of the 400th anniversary year for the King James Bible, is available on the Downing Street website and a highlighted version (for those with less time) has been posted by Cranmer on his blog.

The Prime Minister confessed to being only a ‘vaguely practising Church of England Christian’ who was ‘full of doubts and, like many, constantly grappling with the difficult questions when it comes to some of the big theological issues’.

His stated aim in the speech was to present his personal conviction that ‘The King James Bible is as relevant today as at any point in its 400 year history’ and that ‘none of us should be frightened of recognising this’.

He gave three reasons for this conviction:

First, the King James Bible has bequeathed a body of language that permeates every aspect of our culture and heritage… from everyday phrases to our greatest works of literature, music and art. We live and breathe the language of the King James Bible, sometimes without even realising it.

Second, just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics. From human rights and equality to our constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy… from the role of the church in the first forms of welfare provision, to the many modern day faith-led social action projects…

Third, we are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so… and the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today.


He then set out to elaborate on these three points.

In support of the first he gave a long list of ways in which the Bible had influenced literature, music and art – in which Shakespeare, Tennyson, Bach, Handel and Michelangelo were amongst the highlights.

Expounding the second he argued that the Judeo-Christian roots of the Bible provided ‘the foundations for protest and for the evolution of our freedom and democracy’, placed the 'first limits on Royal Power’ and that ‘the knowledge that God created man in his own image was… a game changer for the cause of human dignity and equality’.

But it was the third section on Christian values that was probably the most interesting. Here Cameron argued that ‘the Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country’. He quoted Margaret Thatcher who once said, ‘we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible’ and then gave a list of Christian values including ‘responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love…pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities…’

This provided the framework for an analysis of the cause of problems as diverse as the financial crash, the London riots and the expenses scandal which he claimed were evidence of the ‘absence of any real accountability, or moral code’. He concluded that ‘one thing is clear: moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn’t going to cut it anymore’.

The Prime Minister was later critical (with some justification) of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s selective defence of (some) Christian values and warned that the Church of England must keep to an ‘agenda that speaks to the whole country’.

But what interested me most about the speech was what Cameron didn’t say – the Christian values that he himself left out.

Four key omissions stood out to me.

First there was no mention of the importance of respecting the right of Christians to live according to Christian conscience. This was particularly ironic coming a few days after the government had been heavily criticized by former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey over its decision not to back four British Christians who have taken their cases to the European Court of Human Rights.

Second, there was no mention of the sanctity of life, consistent with Cameron’s poor voting record on abortion and his caving in under Liberal Democrat pressure at the time of the vote on independent counseling for those with unplanned pregnancies.

Third, there was no mention of sexual purity or the biblical model for marriage as ‘one man, one woman, for life’. This also would have been impossible given Cameron’s own backing for same-sex marriage and his general posturing over homosexuality.

And finally and most crucially, there was no reference to the foundation on which all Christian values are based, Jesus Christ’s divinity, incarnation, death and resurrection, the need for repentance and faith and his imminent return in judgement.

Melanie McDonagh recently made this final point in her Spectator piece ‘Cameron's missing the point: Christian values require Christianity’:

‘Mr Cameron's remarks about Christian values fail to get to the heart of the contemporary moral malaise. Look, Christian values flow from Christianity. Without those beliefs in the God who became man, and who died for sinners and rose from the dead, and forgave sins, the moral values don't count for much. It's because of who and what Christ was that we take to heart what he said about loving our enemies, turning the other cheek. Values aren't something free-floating; they come from what we believe. So when Mr Cameron says we should return to Christian values, he misses the point. What we need – with all respect to other faiths – is a return to Christianity.’

The Prime Minister has been bold in defending the King James Bible as a powerful cultural, political and moral influence but he appears to have shrunk back from proclaiming Christian truth precisely at those points where it is currently under attack – in part from his own government.

I am reminded of Martin Luther’s words:

‘It is to confess we are called, not merely to profess. If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.’

The Prime Minister has certainly ‘professed’ Christianity. But his flinching at these most crucial points makes it, by Luther’s reckoning, not a true confession of Christ but rather ‘mere flight and disgrace’.

NB. Since writing this blog I have come across an article by Carl Wieland who argues that the Luther quote above has been misattributed and is based on another source. It's well worth a read. He says that Luther did not use the battle analogy but did say that if people were publicly open about every other aspect of their Christian faith, but chose not to admit their belief on some single point of doctrine (for fear of what might happen to them if their conviction on that one point became known) they were effectively denying Christ, period.
You have read this article Christianity / David Cameron / politics with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/david-cameron-has-professed.html. Thanks!

BBC uses distortion, hype, exaggeration and selective reporting to promote gay rights agenda

With the consultation about legalizing same-sex marriage already underway in Scotland and with the Westminster consultation about to start, the BBC is ratcheting up its support for the gay rights agenda with more distortion, hype, exaggeration and selective reporting.

The latest example of this is the coverage given to a new study recently published by the American Journal of Public Health on the alleged health benefits of same-sex marriage.

Aware of the tendency of the BBC to give an international platform to anything, however obscure, which might further its liberal agenda I decided to investigate further.

Under the provocative headline ‘Gay marriage “improves health”’ the BBC reports:

‘Legalising same-sex marriage may create a healthier environment for gay men, say US researchers. The number of visits by gay men to health clinics dropped significantly after same-sex unions were allowed in the state Massachusetts. This was regardless of whether the men were in a stable relationship, reported the American Journal of Public Health.’

These words are all most people will ever read as they are the only ones that will appear on CEEFAX.

However, on turning to the BBC webpage, we also see highlighted in large letters, a quote highlighted in a large font drop-in that originates from the Terence Higgins Trust, an organization which campaigns for gay rights:

‘It's no surprise that people who are treated as second class citizens tend to have low self esteem, which in turn makes them more likely to take risks. Whether this is drugs, alcohol abuse, or unsafe sex, treating gay men unequally has lasting repercussions for their health.’

There is no balancing quote from anyone else and this quote from a lobbying group is given equal authority to the study by the BBC although there is no evidence whatsoever given to support it.

So what about the article itself? What does it really say?

Now normally when journalists quote an article from a peer-reviewed medical journal it is customary to give the title of the article and a link to the original source.

But the unnamed BBC journalist who wrote this article has neglected to do so. Why?
The answer is not difficult to deduce. He/she hasn't actually read it!

The link at the bottom of the BBC piece to the American Journal of Public Health leads not to the article itself but rather to the home page of the journal. But I could not find the article in question in either the December or January journal contents lists. Nor was it available through PubMed where all published journal articles are listed.

However, the BBC does give a link to a Yahoo News article, which contains all the facts the BBC journalist has quoted and was clearly his primary source.

Now let me just spell that out.

This unnamed BBC journalist has written a report about an article which he has never seen, nor even read in abstract. In fact he has simply copied it from another secondary news source – Yahoo!

It took me less than a minute to find the original article in question on the American Journal of Public Health website. He (or she) had clearly made no effort even to look.

As it turns out the article is in a section titled ‘First Look’ with over 50 other articles that have been accepted for publication but not yet published in the paper edition of the journal. Its full title is ‘Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Health Care Use and Expenditures in Sexual Minority Men: A Quasi-Natural Experiment’

Only the abstract is accessible without subscription and reads as follows:

Objectives. We sought to determine whether health care use and expenditures among gay and bisexual men were reduced following the enactment of same-sex marriage laws in Massachusetts in 2003.

Methods. We used quasi-experimental, prospective data from 1211 sexual minority male patients in a community-based health center in Massachusetts.

Results. In the 12 months after the legalization of same-sex marriage, sexual minority men had a statistically significant decrease in medical care visits (mean = 5.00 vs mean = 4.67; P = .05; Cohen's d = 0.17), mental health care visits (mean = 24.72 vs mean = 22.20; P = .03; Cohen's d = 0.35), and mental health care costs (mean = $2442.28 vs mean = $2137.38; P = .01; Cohen's d = 0.41), compared with the 12 months before the law change. These effects were not modified by partnership status, indicating that the health effect of same-sex marriage laws was similar for partnered and nonpartnered men.

Conclusions. Policies that confer protections to same-sex couples may be effective in reducing health care use and costs among sexual minority men. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print December 15, 2011: e1-e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300382)


So this is an article which looks at one year’s data from one US state and evaluates just three healthcare measures (medical care visits, mental health care visits and mental health care costs) which it finds are marginally decreased over the twelve month period after the law change.

This is as much as one can say without reviewing the full article but the abstract does nonetheless raise some very interesting questions.

Why, when the paper was published in 2011, were only the data for 2003 and 2004 reviewed? Was this decrease a one-off or part of a continuing trend? One rather suspects the former.

Was this one year trend mirrored in other states that had legalized same-sex marriage? How were potential confounding variables controlled for? (ie Was the observed effect apparent or real?)

Why were mental care health costs included but not medical care health costs? Why were these particular three measures of health chosen and not objective measures of specific diagnosed illnesses? Were other health indices measured?

These are just a few questions that would immediately spring to mind to anyone wanting to know what conclusions about the health effects of legalising same-sex marriage could reasonably be drawn.

The cautious conclusion in the abstract, ‘Policies that confer protections to same-sex couples may be effective in reducing health care use and costs among sexual minority men’ actually justifies neither the confident BBC headline ‘Gay marriage”improves health”’ nor the highly emotive Terence Higgins quote.

Rather the article itself appears to have been cherry-picked simply because its tentative conclusions provided some fodder for the campaign which could be sexed up into misleading headlines.

And I’m betting that gay rights activists, and sympathetic MPs, will be trotting out these headlines when the parliamentary debate comes along.

I have documented previously on this blog the way the BBC advances other social and political agendas by selectively reporting stories about euthanasia, abortion and stem cells.

This is apparently yet another area where we need to read far beyond the headlines and drop-ins to learn the real truth.

But sadly public policy is often built on such distortion, hype, exaggeration and selective reporting.
You have read this article Homosexuality / same-sex marriage with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/bbc-uses-distortion-hype-exaggeration.html. Thanks!

Pro-abortion lobby admit that most abortions in Britain are illegal

Last week the Academy of Royal Colleges presented a report which, as a result of the strong spin in an accompanying press release, was widely reported as ‘proving’ that abortion was no worse for mental health than childbirth for women with unwanted pregnancies.

These strong conclusions, as I have already argued, were based on weak data from just four studies. Furthermore the author of the strongest of the four studies, David Fergusson, has already disputed the conclusions.

That particular debate will no doubt rage on and on.

But the most interesting conclusion to follow from last week’s report is that 98% of abortions are actually illegal. When I made this claim last week on Radio Four the presenter John Humphries gasped and almost jumped off his chair. But no one has since seriously or publicly disputed it.

Almost all abortions in Britain are indeed carried out on the grounds that the continuance of the pregnancy constitutes a greater risk to the mental health of the mother than abortion does, something that the author of the report, Professor Tim Kendall, explicitly confirmed in our Today Programme debate on 8 December. And yet there is no evidence that continuing a pregnancy ever poses a greater mental health risk than abortion.

This means that when two doctors sign forms saying that ‘in good faith’ they believe that having an abortion will lead to better mental health outcomes they are committing a form of perjury under section five of the Perjury Act 1911. And when a third doctor performs the abortion on the strength of that certificate he is actually carrying out an ‘unlawful killing’ under the terms of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

It has been interesting to see the pro-abortion lobby reacting to this new challenge.

Jeremy Laurance, in the Independent, a strongly pro-abortion journalist, wrote last week:

‘Reassuring as that finding may be for the 200,000 women who have abortions in the UK each year, it does raise a tricky question. To obtain an abortion women must to find two doctors who will authorise it. By far the commonest ground, cited in nine out of 10 abortions, is that to proceed with the pregnancy would put the mental health of the woman at risk. This study appears to put that ground in jeopardy.’

Yes exactly Jeremy. Except that the figure I think you will find if you look at section 2.8 of the 2010 abortion statistics is 98% and not ‘nine out of ten’.

Laurance goes on to report reaction to this disturbing fact:

‘Abortion organisations were split in response to the finding, with half still insisting a termination did permanent damage to women's souls, with the other, cannier, half hoping the finding was true so that they could challenge the legality of the procedure.’

Again this is interesting spin. Note that he doesn’t name any pro-abortion organizations specifically and I have been unable thus far to find any quotes from them in the public domain. As there are only really two main pro-abortion organisations, BPAS and MSI, it raises the interesting question of which said what to Laurance on the phone. But regardless, Laurance should have called the ‘cannier’ half the more ‘honest’ half because the finding itself is not in doubt.

Laurance goes on to report that:

‘The authors of the study reject this challenge, insisting the findings could indicate doctors are successfully identifying women at risk from the pregnancy, and referring them for abortion to obviate it.’

Now that I find fascinating because, again, they have not said this publicly. And do they really expect us to believe that this is the case for each of the 185,000 abortions carried out every year?

But now we see the real agenda exposed in Laurance’s conclusion:

‘It is clear already that this world-beating review, despite its size, will not settle the debate. But it is surely time now, in the wake of its findings, to abandon the pretence of "grounds" for abortion and acknowledge, once and for all, that it is a woman's right to choose.’

In other words if 98% of abortions are illegal then let’s change the law to make them legal!

Deborah Orr, writing this week in the Guardian, is more honest than Laurance about the true implications of the report.

‘But pro-abortion groups have something to learn from this research as well, and to campaign for. In Britain an abortion can only be given if two doctors authorise it. In the absence of any other medical reason, they tend to agree that it would be bad for the mental health of a woman if the pregnancy continued.

Mostly, people know that this is poppycock, something that three people have to conspire to say in order to tick the boxes that earn the right to have a medical procedure that is requested, perfectly sanely, because they don't feel that they are in a position to have a child. It is ridiculous, infantilising, that women must play the "it'll drive me to despair" card in order to obtain a sensible intervention. It is appalling, too, that medical professionals are obliged to play along. The only really important opinion about the suitability of an abortion is that of the pregnant woman. The excuse of dire effects on her mental health has always been an insulting and craven figleaf. It has to go.’


So she admits that for most abortions in Britain to be carried out three doctors have to, knowingly and wilfully, break the law. So she concludes’ ‘Let’s change the law’.

What we actually have here, by the liberal press’s own admission is a culture of ‘unlawful killing’ and ‘perjury’ to which the police, the judiciary, the crown prosecution service and parliament are turning a blind eye. Furthermore it is leading to 185,000 deaths a year and has resulted in over 7 million deaths altogether since the Abortion Act was passed in 1967.

This bears striking similarities to MPs’ expenses’ scandal where everyone was breaking the rules but no one was doing anything about it because so many were involved.

In that case it needed the Daily Telegraph to take up the cause for the perpetrators to be brought to justice. Money wrongly obtained was repaid and some MPs went to prison.

In the case of abortion, of course, the lives of those seven million British lives taken by abortion can not be brought back. But justice can still be done and still be seen to be done.

But in order for that to happen the police, the crown prosecution service and the courts will have to begin doing the job they are actually paid to do, which is to uphold the law.

I wonder if any British newspaper is as concerned about seven million unlawful deaths as the Daily Telegraph was about a few hundred thousand pounds of taxpayers’ money.
You have read this article Abortion with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/pro-abortion-lobby-admit-that-most.html. Thanks!

Sham euthanasia report from Canada should make us more wary about Charlie Falconer’s ‘commission on assisted dying’

Charlie Falconer’s sham ‘Commission on Assisted Dying’ is due to report on 5 January 2012, over a year after it first launched in November 2009.

The private commission was set up by Falconer because Dignity in Dying (previously the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) had failed three times since 2006 in legalizing assisted suicide in Britain and was losing credibility.

The House of Lords were so sick of debating the issue that they refused to set up a Royal Commission or any other official parliamentary committee to revisit it.

Therefore children’s novelist Terry Pratchett, a Patron of DID, agreed to pay for a private commission headed up by Lord Falconer, a known pro-euthanasia advocate who had attempted to decriminalize assisted suicide through an amendment in the House of Lords in 2009 in order to provide new impetus for the campaign.

Included in the panel of twelve ‘independent’ people assembled for the commission were no less than nine known to support the legalization of assisted suicide and/or euthanasia.

Given these circumstances it was not surprising that over 40 organisations refused to give evidence to the commission, and that it ran out of ‘witnesses’ half way through last year after DID had encouraged its members to send in their own ‘evidence’.

The panel was due to report in November this year but the report was put off until the New Year, apparently to avoid the eurozone financial meltdown news storm in the hope of attracting more publicity. It is also thought that a 2012 date was needed, to prevent the report immediately losing its relevance and in the hope that journalists with short memories would have forgotten what had previously been written about it.

DID are expected to launch more assaults on Britain’s Suicide Act and Murder Act in the New Year and for this reason we have seen a recent escalation of high profile cases demanding a change in the law.

Following the publication of the report we expect either another bill in the House of Lords (sponsored by one of the members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Choice at the End of Life – the parliamentary wing of the pro-euthanasia lobby) or, if one of their supportive MPs comes high enough in the Easter ballot, a similar bill in the House of Commons.

Falconer’s commission is expected to make recommendations in line with DID’s incremental legalization strategy. That is, he is expected to conclude that there is a case for ‘assisted (suicide) for mentally competent terminally ill adults who are suffering unbearably, but with robust up-front safeguards’.

In the meantime we should take warning from a similar recent report recently produced in Canada as part of a similar pro-euthanasia campaign.

The Royal Society of Canada’s Expert Panel Report on End-of-Life Decision Making sounds impressive and on first appearances it is – 117 pages of carefully documented ‘evidence’ and ‘recommendations’.

But this is only on first appearances. Its conclusion last month that assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia should be ‘legally permitted’ should alert our antennae and it is perhaps no surprise to find that the ‘expert panel’ which put it together consisted of five members, four of whom are known to be adamant euthanasia advocates.

An October press release from the RSC had said that the report was ‘designed to be balanced, thorough, independent, free from conflict of interest, and based on a deep knowledge of all of the published research that is pertinent to the questions that have been posed.’

But as commentator Wesley Smith has pointed out, ‘expert commissions’ to advise on contentious issues of public policy are usually political tools designed to come to a predetermined conclusion in order to pave the way for a desired policy changes.’ He adds, ‘the bias [in the report] isn’t even subtle’.

Queen’s Philosophy professor Udo Schuklenk, who headed the panel, is a well-known pro-euthanasia philosopher. In an essay explaining why he is an atheist, Schuklenk argued that ‘our end-of-life decision-making’ is interfered by ‘religions’ that ‘stand as one in their rejection of many dying patients’ requests to end their lives in dignity’.

Also on the panel was Sheila McClean, who argued in favor of legalizing assisted suicide in her book ‘The Case for Assisted Suicide’, Jocelyn Downie, author of ‘Dying Justice’, a book urging the decriminalization of both euthanasia and assisted suicide, and Johannes J. M. van Delden, a Dutch euthanasia researcher.

In its report the RSC speaks of human dignity as a ‘value whose meaning is obscure’ and adds that the ‘concept of dignity cannot provide a sound basis for either supporting or rejecting a permissive regime with respect to voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide’.

The RSC report argues that legalizing euthanasia and/or assisted suicide does not ‘result in vulnerable persons being subject to abuse or a slippery slope from voluntary to non-voluntary euthanasia. The evidence does not support claims that decriminalization will have a corrosive effect on access to or the development of palliative care.’

Consistent with its use as a campaigning tool the report was published just a day after the commencement of a case in British Columbia in which B.C. Civil Liberties Association and Gloria Taylor, a 63-year-old woman suffering from ALS, are challenging Canada’s laws against assisted suicide.

Margaret Somerville, founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, has attacked the report as follows:

‘The arguments against the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are almost completely absent. Moreover, issues are considered almost entirely at the individual level. There is no in-depth discussion of the impact of legalizing euthanasia at the institutional level (in particular, the impact on health-care institutions and professions, and on the law) or at the societal level (in particular, on important shared values, such as respect for life). In fact, the value of respect for life is not discussed - an extraordinary omission.
The reporting on practices in jurisdictions that allow euthanasia and assisted suicide is seriously deficient, and selective. The report's coverage of abuses, problems or controversies is minimal.

For example, the report indicates that there has been one case of the use of euthanasia on disabled babies in the Netherlands. This is probably correct in the short time since the criteria for allowing such euthanasia was formally accepted by the Dutch Society for Pediatrics in 2005. But an article in the New England Journal of Medicine documents 22 cases of babies with spina bifida being euthanized in the Netherlands prior to that; this is not mentioned in the report. Likewise, a survey of Belgian physicians who had carried out euthanasia that found that 32 per cent of those physicians had euthanized patients without their request or consent, is never mentioned.’

‘The report emphasizes the burden and health-care costs of an aging population, and gives the impression that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide will help to resolve this "problem." The authors note that euthanizing people "in advanced stages of dementia" will be an issue to be addressed in the future, and they don't reject the possibility that this might be acceptable.’


Falconer is not expected to go as far in his recommendations as the Canadian Royal Society Panel.

But he will use similar arguments and his more modest ‘recommendations’ will be in keeping with a clever incremental strategy. If Britain can be made to accept the general principle that assisted suicide or euthanasia should be legalized for some the boundaries can later be extended using equality and human rights legislation.

I said earlier this year that Falconer’s commission was unnecessary, biased and lacking in transparency.

My position has not changed. I do not expect to be surprised by its conclusions.
You have read this article Assisted Suicide / Euthanasia / Lord Falconer with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/sham-euthanasia-report-from-canada.html. Thanks!

Random Friday Faves


This is one of the most gorgeous photos
of Johnny I've ever seen.Taken by the awesome Tatiana Edrenkina last weekend in Moscow.See more in her Facebook album.

Bonus video!! So Improv-Ice happened last night, but I think we mostly have to wait until the NBC broadcast of the show on Sunday, January 15, 4 pm EST, to really get a good look at anything. All I know is he skated to LMFAO's "Sexy and I
You have read this article can’t wait to see his Improv-Ice performances / Johnny Weir / outraaaaaaaaaageous / Tanya thank you this photo is just breathtaking and I love that he looks so happy / why yes he is family friendly with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/random-friday-faves.html. Thanks!

Brooke Mueller Needs a Stylist



Don't you think?  Like bad hair days we all have bad "dress days," I am guilty of many. Yes, I have gone to the grocery store in sweatpants and Uggs when I didn't know any better! Thankfully that's all behind me now and there wasn't any paparazzi around to document my bad choices. But Charlie Sheen's crazy ex can't seem to catch a clue.  She dresses up in costumes instead of outfits and looks tacky. Maybe it's all the drugs that have clouded her judgement? In any case, Brooke, I would happy to give you some fashion advice once you get out of rehab. Call me.

Have a great weekend guys!






You have read this article Celebrities and Entertainment with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/brooke-mueller-needs-stylist.html. Thanks!

The blessings of marriage

Marriage leads to better family relationships, less economic dependence, better physical health and longevity, improved mental health and emotional well-being and reduced crime and domestic violence.

These are the (unsurprising) main conclusions of a new report (1) on the benefits of marriage from the Institute of American values.

Based on a survey of over 250 peer-reviewed journal articles on marriage and family life from around the world, a team of 18 leading American family scholars chaired by Professor Wilcox of the University of Virginia has drawn 30 conclusions about the positive benefits associated with marriage under five headings. Each of the conclusions is substantiated in the report and 20 pages of supporting references can be downloaded from Institute of American Values' website.

Amongst these conclusions are:

•Marriage, and a normative commitment to marriage, foster high-quality relationships between adults, as well as between parents and children.
•Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy better physical health, on average, than do children in other family forms.
•Marriage is associated with reduced rates of alcohol and substance abuse for both adults and teens.
•Marriage is associated with better health and lower rates of injury, illness, and disability for both men and women.
•Children whose parents divorce have higher rates of psychological distress and mental illness.
•Married women appear to have a lower risk of experiencing domestic violence than do cohabiting or dating women.

The findings of the landmark 2006 report 'Breakdown Britain' (2) were similar. Based on an extensive evidence-based analysis by the Centre for Social Justice (3) it found that the breakdown of marriage and the family was the key driver of Britain's collapse. The percentage of children born outside marriage went from 8% in 1970 to 41% in 2003 to 46% in 2009 (4); lone parent families have increased by 40,000 per year since 1980.

Many of the mental and physical health problems that daily fill our GP surgeries, hospital wards and outpatient departments are symptoms of this. The main drivers, the five 'pathways to poverty', are all correlated with the collapse of marriage: family breakdown, educational failure, economic dependence, indebtedness, and addiction.

Furthermore the five 'pathways' are all interrelated. Children from a broken home are twice as likely to have behavioural problems, perform worse at school, become sexually active at a younger age, suffer depression, and turn to drugs, smoking and heavy drinking. A parent who has a serious drug problem or is addicted to alcohol can exhibit destructive behaviour patterns which can destroy the quality of life for the other parent and for children, leading in turn to family breakdown.

Solutions must be multi-layered. We need sound legislation to strengthen and protect the vulnerable, a welfare system that helps those in genuine need and encourages independence, active corporate philanthropy and flourishing voluntary organisations. All levels of society including government, the corporate and charitable sectors, communities, and families have a role to play in reversing the decline. But government, charities and business are increasing failing to deliver in Britain's increasingly indebted and fragmented society.

That is because the breakdown of Britain and its five 'drivers' are themselves symptoms of a more general spiritual malaise – a loss of Christian faith and values leading to a breakdown of marriage and family. The church has a huge role to play; not just in what it does directly to support families in the community, but through the actions of individual Christians in positions of influence in health, education, local councils and government.

But more than this the church has at this time an amazing opportunity to model marriage and family to a society where alternative models have failed.

Marriage is a virtually universal human institution because it was originally God's idea. It was God who first said that it was not good for man to be alone and who created the unique complementarity of the marriage relationship for companionship, pleasure, procreation and the raising of children – one man, one woman, united for life (5) – illustrative of Christ's own self-giving abandonment to his bride the church (6) and pointing to a greater richness of human relationships beyond the grave of which the very best on earth are but a pale shadow. (7)

Let's celebrate, demonstrate, promote and protect marriage as the vehicle of blessing that it is for husbands, wives, children, parents, extended family, community and ultimately the world.

References

1. Why Marriage Matters: Thirty conclusions from the social sciences, Institute for American Values and National Marriage Project, 2011.
2. Breakdown Britain. Social Justice Policy Group. December 2006
3. www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk
4. 'Proportion of births outside marriage 'has risen to highest ever level'. Daily Telegraph 2011; 24 September.
5. Genesis 2:24
6. Ephesians 5:31, 32
7. 1 Corinthians 2:9, 10

(My editorial from Triple Helix winter 2011 out this week)
You have read this article marriage with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/the-blessings-of-marriage.html. Thanks!

Judge rules in favour of life in M case – A review

(My review from Triple Helix winter 2011 out this week)

On 28 September the Court of Protection ruled in favour of life in the case of M, a 53 year old woman who suffered severe brain damage as a result of viral encephalitis in 2003.

M's sister and partner wanted artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) given via a gastrostomy tube to be stopped with the explicit intention of ending her life. But the PCT caring for M and the Official Solicitor opposed them.

Since the 1993 Tony Bland decision, 43 patients with permanent vegetative state (PVS) have died following court rulings to remove ANH but M was the first case with minimally conscious state (MCS), the next step up from PVS, to come before the courts.

In his judgment (1) Justice Baker found that M had some awareness of herself and her environment, and some understanding of language. She occasionally spoke, appeared to be able to appreciate some things that were said to her, and responded to music. She regularly experienced pain, but this was not constant or extreme, and her condition was stable. The prospect of any significant improvement in the level of consciousness was remote. In reaching these findings he found, not surprisingly, that the carers who had daily contact with M had the greatest insight into her condition. It was their observations that squared most accurately with the more objective results from the 'Sensory Modality Assessment and Rehabilitation Technique' (SMART) and 'Wessex Head Injury Matrix' (WHIM) assessment tools.

The judge applied principles established by previous cases and affirmed by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). ANH can only be removed if it is in the best interests of the patient (2) and the burden of establishing this rests on those who want it withdrawn. (3) In determining best interests a balance sheet approach is used, (4) but the assessment is holistic, including not just medical considerations, but also the patient's wishes, feelings, beliefs and values.

M had not given any indication before her injury about how she might like to be treated should she lose capacity. This meant that the deciding legal principle was the right to life. Justice Baker concluded: 'the principle of the right to life is simply stated but of the most profound importance. It needs no further elucidation. It carries very great weight in any balancing exercise.'

The decision was not surprising. The key problem enshrined in the MCA remains – it already allows legally binding advance refusals of ANH placing some vulnerable patients at risk – but this case has not taken us further down the slippery slope.

References

1. W v M and S and A NHS Primary Care Trust [2011] EWHC 2443 (Fam)
2. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789
3. R (Burke) v GMC [2005] QB 424
4. Re A (Male Sterilisation) [2000] 1 FLR 549
You have read this article PVS with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/judge-rules-in-favour-of-life-in-m-case.html. Thanks!

And A Whole New Audience Meets the Incredibly Quotable Johnny Weir...

The panel for last night's CNN Dialogues in Atlanta. Left to right: LZ Granderson, ESPN columnist and CNN contributor; Donna Rose, transgender activist; Jane Velez-Mitchell, CNN anchor for "Issues"; Robin Brand, deputy executive director at the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund; and Johnny.
Photo from AtlantaBoy.com.

So once again he may have stolen the show.

Among those live-tweeting CNN Dialogues'
You have read this article Army of One / CNN Dialogues / he loves his penis / I love watching people discover him and figure out that he’s nothing like the preconceived notions they may have had / Johnny Weir / Patti and John FTW with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/and-whole-new-audience-meets-incredibly.html. Thanks!

Tom Cruise: A Christmas Memory

Tom Cruise
                                               Tom Cruise
 
Christmas is a time to share with family and friends.  Also people will be talking about Christmas memories from the past.  Let’s take a look at Tom Cruise’s favorite Christmas as a child... 


Interviewer: When I was a kid the time of year that I loved was Christmas because it was the only magic time.  Didn’t you one year, I read that there was a gift of poems.

Tom Cruise: Yeah

Interviewer: Tell me.

Tom Cruise:  As I said, a beautiful mother, and it was actually the first Christmas when my parents were divorced and we didn’t have any money. And really not enough to buy each other a present.  And all of the money kind of went to…well didn’t kind of, it went into paying for food on the table.  And so my mother said listen: “What we are going to do is we are not going to buy each other gifts.  We are going to pick names out of hat.  And for a month you are going to do something for that person and on Christmas day we are going to reveal who you are and we are going to write poems for each other.


Tom Cruise: It was actually the best Christmas I had as a kid! It was a great Christmas!

Interviewer: It sounds like a great Christmas.

 
The story is direct.  Tom starts by setting the ‘scene’ for the listener.  His parents had just divorced.  There was no money to spend on Christmas gifts.  Food was the most important item.  Tom uses past verb tenses to create the scene for the listener. 

Next, Tom tells the story from his mother’s words.  She is using ‘going to’ to express a future within the story time period.  This gives the story a change of pace.  It feels like we are there with Tom, listening to his mother’s Christmas plan.  It is a nice style and more interesting than telling a whole story with past tense verbs only.  Also, changing the pace of a story helps keeps the listener interested.  In the final two sentences Tom reverts back to the use of past tense verbs and finishes telling the story.  Tom reveals the importance of this memory to the listener with great enthusiasm and excitement in his voice:  this was the best Christmas he had as a kid with excitement in his voice.  The excitement in his voice also creates interest from the listener. 

If you want to try out Tom’s Christmas Memory/Story Style, here it is:

Tom’s Story Telling Template:

1.Set the scene in the past in your own ‘voice’ or perspective.
2.Have one of the main characters in the scene/memory tell the story.
3.Return to your own ‘voice’ and why it was important to you (enthusiastically).

 
Full and original interview with Tom Cruise 'Christmas Memory" 
(Counter: 6:05 - 7:01 – ‘Christmas Memory’ portion of interview)



Tom’s latest movie Trailer
Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol


FEATURED LINK OF THE MONTH! START THE NEW YEAR WITH A NEW ADVENTURE OVERSEAS!

New China Teach Abroad
 
 Teach English and other languages in China!
http://www.newchinalr.com/






happy holidays

Celebrity English

You have read this article Actor Studio / Celebrity English / Christmas memory / English Conversation tips / Ghost Protocol / gift giving / gifts / Interview / Listening / Mission Impossible 4 / Movie Star / story / Tom Cruise / Topics with the title 2011. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2011/12/tom-cruise-christmas-memory.html. Thanks!