Gwyneth Paltrow to America: Grow a Pair
http://www.thesuperficial.com/archives/ ... ml#comment

American actress Gwyneth Paltrow has praised Londoners for their resilience after the British capital's transport network was attacked by suicide bombers on 7 July (05).

The Shakespeare in Love beauty, who lives in London with her rock star husband Chris Martin and daughter Apple, admits she is amazed by the locals' courage in the face of adversity.

She says, "I find the English amazing how they got over 7/7. There were no multiple memorials with people sobbing as they would have been in America. There, they are constantly scaring people but at the same time, people think nothing of going to see a therapist."

Seems unneccesary to trash us for mourning too much. I mean shit, this isn't about a political/military response.

What a bitch!

She's just overdoing the whole "I can be English if I try real hard" routine that so many American actresses put on.

*cough*Madonna*cough*

-Sunny

Well if you don't like Americans than make your $$$ off the English, not us Americans.

Sept. 11th is way overhyped in the US, no doubt about it.

But, it did also kill 10 times as many people as the London bombings, plus, the whole thing was caught on camera ans was for lack of a better word, just spectacular.

Little wonder Americans have it etched in their minds a little more firmly.




I'd still do her though...

i think she is just saying news wise, it was covered as news and life went on. Within 6 hours of the attacks, we had the streaming flags as a frame to our news. The news didn't cover who the people were and what their intentions were, it was about people crying in the streets. Yes, 9/11 is sad, but it was treated like another big story that needed to provide the "scoop" instead of just giving us the facts.

I dont really think its a big deal and I don't particularly take offense to it.

because what paltrow says means much to me.

please.

I named my kid Apple, you fucker!

Are we really referring to all tragedies by their dates now?

Should i be calling Pearl Harbour 12/7??? I'm confused

Not to those of us who lost people they know and saw the destruction first hand. But we are probably just a bunch of braindead mo-rans right?

I think he is talking about the media overkill and the people who latched onto the story and went and bought their flags and hung them for about 6 months after it happened. I don't think anyone is talking about anyone directly affected by 9-11 overhyping it.

Being hurt deeply by it and having the thing overhyped are not the same thing.

There's a significant part of the media here that links everything to Sept. 11th and it starts to get ridiculous.

And yes, to the extent that Sept. 11th was not, and never will be as significant as Pearl Harbor, it is overhyped.

By no means does any of that lessen the tragedy and hurt it caused so many thousands of people. You can't really quantify that in any way, and you cannot play it down, and I certainly don't mean to do that. But the fact is, Sept. 11th has not, and never will change the face of the future permanently.

Terrorism existed long before it, and regrettably will exist long after. It just doesn't always get captured as spectacularly live on CNN.

the media doesn't ever get things wrong or take statements out of context.

Because 9/11 was the catalyst for a significant portion of world news. The largest expansion of the federal government. Two wars in 5 years. Massive international political conflicts. You are deluding yourself if you think it didn't change the whole world.



I disagree with you here too. US guns boats were all around Japan before pearl harbor. It was a surprise attack, but it was hardly unexpected that Japan would attack the US. The US was already an active arms supplier in WWII anyway. All it did was bring the US into the front line.

9/11 did change everything permantly. Do you really think we could go back to the way ti was before? The US changed directions from sneaky meddling to overt action on foreign soil. Everything is different.



Not on that scale and with that level of world wide visibility.

Hey what Gwyneth says is important! Dammit!


Bruce...Paltrow....:sobs:

She's always been too skinny for me, anyway.

Brad?

9/11 is not related to the price of milk in China. 9/11 is not responsible for who does and doesn't win an Oscar. 9/11 is not responsible for El Ninio. 9/11 is not responsible for a plethora of things birdbrains on cable news think it's responsible for.

To that extent, I will always maintain, with good reason that it is overhyped.



Swings and roundabouts. Overt meddling on foreign soil is nothing new to US foreign policy. Ask the South Americans and Vietnamese.

As for the WWII analogy: when the "war on terror" claims 40-50m lives, we'll start talking.



Um, 800,000 died in Rwanda just over 10 years ago due to what was effectively terrorism. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying as we speak in Darfur, Sudan due to what is effectively terrorism. Don't tell me that it hasn't happened on that scale before (hell, fucking Nazi Germany was terrorism in the worst possible way). Don't tell me that the death of 3000 people in NYC is more terrible than what happens overseas routinely. It's not less terrible for those immediately affected by it, but in the overall scheme of things, the simple arithmetic of it just kills this debate.

3,000 deaths is not the same as 800,000 deaths, and it's certainly not the same as 50,000,000 deaths.

Again, if CNN is the litmus test for world visibility, you're right. But what does world visibility have to do with the horror and significance of an event?

Goddamn right, those dirty no good sneak attacking Japs will never be forgiven in my book.