I spent the ‘90s trying to hide out, trying to duck the full celebrity cacophony. I started to get sick of myself sitting on a couch, holding a joint, hiding out. It started feeling pathetic. It became very clear to me that I was intent on trying to find a movie about an interesting life, but I wasn’t living an interesting life myself. I think that my marriage [to actress Jennifer Aniston] had something to do with it. Trying to pretend the marriage was something that it wasn’t.
When the predictable Jenifer-Aniston-related outrage followed, Pitt immediately did damage-control, saying:
It grieves me that this was interpreted this way. Jen is an incredibly giving, loving and hilarious woman who remains my friend. It is an important relationship I value greatly. The point I was trying to make is not that Jen was dull, but that I was becoming dull to myself — and that, I am responsible for.
I’m going to keep this short and sweet. Pitt’s follow-up is just as douchey as his original quote. Both he and Angelina Jolie need to leave Jennifer Aniston’s name out of their mouths for eternity. There’s no possible way for him to discuss his ex-wife without the tabloids going nuts, so it’s only fair for him to keep his mouth shut. Because he unilaterally ended his marriage, and he ended up with someone who’s also extremely famous, he owes his ex the courtesy of remaining silent.
Allow me to take you on a tangential-Dishmaster ride for a moment. Should we have convicted Casey Anthony just because we had a personal feeling that she was guilty? There was not enough evidence to support her conviction, which means that the judicial system worked upon acquitting her — not that it failed. Perhaps Hasselbeck should marry Rick Perry and live happily ever after with excessive executions on their conscience. Isn’t this woman pro-life? She’s opposed to killing a fetus, but she has no problem sentencing someone to the death penalty with minimal evidence? Talk about hypocrisy.
Whether or not I agree with Michael Moore is irrelevant. When a man makes a point — respond to it with something other than nonsense. And furthermore, allow him to finish a sentence without your obnoxious, arbitrary interjections.
On tonight’s episode of ‘Bachelor Pad,’ Holly Durst announced her engagement to Blake Julian via a poorly acted, awkward scene on video. Her former fiance, Michael Stagliano, apparently had no idea until entering the stage that she got engaged to another man. He was visibly upset, and he asked why he wasn’t told prior to the show. Blake Julian gave a bad answer, and Holly Durst was silent. Unless Michael was in a ditch somewhere dying, there is no excuse for this deplorable behavior. And by the way — isn’t Holly Durst the same girl that called Jesse Csincsak a fame whore? Didn’t she say that cameras and attention made her uncomfortable? She sure has come a long way.
I’d like to say in closing that Holly and Blake deserve each other. And if Michael Stagliano is reading this — you deserve better — much better.
UPDATE: It’s been brought to my attention via Reality Steve, that Blake Julian was offered a $25,000 Neil Lane ring if he proposed to Holly Durst prior to the ‘Bachelor Pad’ finale. Reality Steve theorizes that Julian would not have proposed to Durst so quickly if not for the offer, and given People Magazine’s recent story/advertisement on Holly’s Neil Lane ring, I tend to believe Reality Steve.
UPDATE #2: The wounded Michael Stagliano defended Holly Durst and blamed the ‘Bachelor Pad’ producers for the on-air announcement of Holly’s engagement, calling it, “the worst thing they could have done for ratings.” First, everyone knows ‘The Bachelor’ producers are blood sucking maggots, and if Michael hasn’t learned his lesson by now then he never will. Second, even if it’s true that both Holly and Blake tried to contact Michael and could not reach him, that still does not excuse showing the proposal on air, which effectively rubs it in Michael’s face, whether he knew of it before or not. It’s gross.