yes...it was in the CLE paper today regarding his passing. Apparently, the the chef he visited in CLE was quite famous and he passed away three years after the episode and he stated this after the chef's passing.
Anthony Bourdain suicide...
- Thread starter LionDeNittany
- Start date
Wow. Anyone who is dismissive of the the idea of "comparing oneself to others" doesn't understand how it may feed a depression. My god there are thousands of teenagers with eating disorders and body dysmorphic disorder that are compounded by the drive to have the perfect body as defined in media.
What I was getting at at bottom is, standards aren't standards unless you apply them evenly. And lots of people want to say we need to understand people in other countries and cultures when they don't both to understand lots of people in their own country.
So if some guy in Tennessee won't let his wife work because he wants her to stay home with the kids he's a backwards Neandrathal. But if some guy in another culture won't let his wife work because he wants her to stay home with the kids and on top of that she gets no say in how the house is run and no say in whether they have sex at night and she has to wear the clothes he tells her to wear then well, that's their culture and you're a bigot for questioning it. That kind of thing.
A standard is not a standard if you don't apply it consistently and I think uneven applications of standards is a problem in our culture today.
This is a legitimate point that needs to be either rebutted or accepted but I don't have the time right now to think about it so perhaps I'll answer later.
Yep I agree, like the guy in Tennessee who thinks everyone should live their life according to the Bible and then objects to every program designed to aid the poor.
That kind of thing.
Ok it's 99.999999% the underlying mental illness and 00.0000001% Facebook.
For someone sick of people bringing up politics you seem to keep bringing up politics.
Short answer from a liberal. They are both Neanderthals
Even that's been an issue for a long time--just remember the song "Mother's little helper" from the Stones in the 60s. Or Valley of the Dolls. Nothing new. Anything that can be abused will be. Human nature.
Thank you Gregg.
Keep me and all of us here posted as soon as your book hits the shelves.
He was famous and well known long before his show on CNN.
His face looks familiar, but I'm not a foodie either. Apparently, he was famous. I just never knew.
Is he a Neanderthal if his wife chooses to stay home with the kids and they believe that's the best way to raise children?
Yeah, wasn't implying you should know him.
Just trying to point out why so many others knew him.
His wording was “won’t let his wife work” which would imply she wants to work but he won’t let her. If that is the case, then yes, he is a neanderthal.
If together they decide it is best for the family for her to stay at home, then no, he isn’t a neanderthal.
In the first example, he sounds abusive so maybe she is afraid to leave. Maybe she doesn’t want to divorce, so she sacrifices her own happiness for her children. Which is heroic, but sad.
Purely coincidental and of course probably nothing, but Argento seems to have nothing but tragedy and death surrounding her history. It may, or may not have had to do with his suicide, but she had been photographed in the arms of a French writer, just days before Bourdoin's suicide.
It’s a terrible thing when people reach a point in life when they have no hope.
I'd rather read your book about the greatness of MAF.
Look for that book being available at garage sales and flea markets sir!
And I hear it is only going to coast $4.00 !! LOL!!!
Hey rude dude, I had ODD as a child until my dad gave me a spanking! Had no problem with it after that!
First let me be clear that MS and everyone else has the right to say whatever they like.
Next, I'll get into why people like MS bug me. The awards shows they typically do this at are unnecessary. Just because people make movies for the public to pay to see doesn't mean they have to have awards shows at all, much less ones publicized and put on TV. They are nothing but publicity and marketing events designed to gain money and influence for the industry and actors.
What reason is there to believe that an actors opinion on anything other than acting is more valuable than anyone elses? Why should an actors opinion mean more than that of, say, your next door neighbor? They are trying to use the fact that they are a celebrity to influence us on politics despite the fact that the origin of their celebrity (usually) has nothing to do with their knowledge of politics.
Here's the thing though. Consider Political Issue X. People take sides on it but usually it is far from clear which side is correct. Then the actor gets up at an awards show and takes a side. But still it's not clear which side is correct (which of course is a separate thing from from everyone having their own opinion on the issue).
Next consider the issue of whether it is healthy for a society for people to stay informed on political issues and make up their own minds. Unlike Political Issue X, it seems pretty clear to me that there is no ambiguity on this issue. It is clearly better for people to stay informed and make up their own mind. But that very idea contradicts the idea that people should get their political views from celebrities.
If a celebrity really wants to make the world a better place then how about instead of publicly taking a side on Political Issue X, where it's not clear who is right, they take a side on the issue of whether people should stay informed and make up their own minds on political issues? A celebrity doing that would involve them saying something like "I'm proud of my acting work and I hope you keep going to see my movies, but when it comes to politics you should not listen to me or any other celebrity and instead stay informed and make up your own mind."
Why don't they do that? Because it would reduce their own influence, although it would make for a better society.
You may say what's the difference between them doing that and us discussing issues here. The difference is that we're discussing issues here, back and forth, give and take. That is different from using a platform you've been given for non-political reasons and using it to tell other people what to think about Political Issue X and then walking off. And in the process having more influence than you and I and a thousand others put together while not having to face any direct questioning of their publicly expressed views.
That's why I gave a pass before to Schwarzenegger, Franken, etc. At least they entered the fray and took the slings and arrows. The ones that only speak on political issues only when they know they won't be challenged are cowards, regardless of their views.
It has been about 24 hours or so since news of Bourdain's suicide broke. I won't link to network/cable websites because they'll change over time but as of now, cnn.com has a massive amount of Bourdain stories while the other TV networks websites have much less (especially CNN competitor Fox) and Reuters (a source that doesn't have a TV network) has just one. If they all were reporting just news shouldn't it be about the same for all of them?
Then again, before Bourdain died cnn.com reported on him a lot more than did the other sides. Then again, if he had worked for NBC instead of CNN then nbc.com would have reported on him more and cnn.com would have reported on him less.
Bourdain is gone and CNN TV will create programming to replace his shows and then promote that programming like crazy on their website cnn.com, which supposedly is a news site.
This isn't a putdown of CNN per se. This is how they all operate. If you think I'm mistaken then follow them over time and take notes.
If you decide you want to read news on the web then you should be able to read news instead of stories designed solely to promote TV shows of the entity that owns the website you're reading.
Then again, before Bourdain died cnn.com reported on him a lot more than did the other sides. Then again, if he had worked for NBC instead of CNN then nbc.com would have reported on him more and cnn.com would have reported on him less.
Bourdain is gone and CNN TV will create programming to replace his shows and then promote that programming like crazy on their website cnn.com, which supposedly is a news site.
This isn't a putdown of CNN per se. This is how they all operate. If you think I'm mistaken then follow them over time and take notes.
If you decide you want to read news on the web then you should be able to read news instead of stories designed solely to promote TV shows of the entity that owns the website you're reading.
I think if you decide you want to set up and pay for website, you can put whatever you want on the website. I think if you don't like cnn website you can read some other website, just like if you dont like awards shows you should not watch them.
You think there ought to be all these rules governing what a private company does with its money to serve you, who pays next to nothing for their service.
Actors have political opinions. Ronald Reagan was one. You disagree with the opinions in this case. So you propose that some stranger to the business, you, be permitted to make content decisions for the network. How does that follow?
Anthony’s shows were fantastically interesting. I don’t gotta give a crap that he may have had a sentence or 2 that leaned political on each show.
However, your point above may be the dumbest argument I have ever heard (“only people that have worked for the government should express an opinion on politics”-???). Further, your current president never worked in government until he ascended his throne. Maybe he should not be espousing and opinion on politics. I stand corrected - maybe you’re right....
I do find it odd that people get bent out of shape when celebrities speak on politics. Why is their opinion any less valid than any other American? The only difference is that they have a bigger platform and people care about what they say.
You don't like celebrities offering their political view point or don't like celebrities offering a viewpoint different than yours?
Do you feel the same way about James Woods' viewpoints or Ted Nugent's as you do about Rosie O'Donnell's?
And why are celebrities admonished for having viewpoints but the general population isn't? Or posters on internet message boards?
Just who is allowed to have political viewpoints? Other than politicians that is?
So you want regulations on what private businesses should be able to broadcast to the public via the internet? I suggest you try and find a stream of Russia Today or China Central TV then comrade.
Freedom of the press is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution, and seeing how CNN is also a business should they not be in the mindset to increase viewership and their profits? I mean that's what Foxnews has been doing since their inception by angering up the republican base and railing against Obama for such things as using french mustard. Going to end there before I get ranty.
Last edited:
Hung himself with the belt of his bathrobe.
No matter how dark my thoughts have gotten over the years, I couldn't fathom devastating my daughter in that way.
No matter how dark my thoughts have gotten over the years, I couldn't fathom devastating my daughter in that way.
And, to their credit, they earned (by some way shape or form), the opportunity to have that platform. Whether we agree with them or not, or whether we like what skill set they have that allowed them to have that platform - they have earned it. Whether it's Roseanne Barr, Meryl Streep, LeBron James, James Woods or anyone else.
Good god, man. He was an employee of CNN, and a big part of their programming.
And CNN, for better or worse, isn't just a "news" channel anymore. They now produce/show original programming like Bourdain's show(s) and documentaries. But in any event, the Bourdain news/story is probably a bigger deal to CNN viewers than to those who aren't CNN viewers, so I would expect to see more Bourdain-related content on CNN than on other sites. CNN is just giving their customers what they think they want.
When you first started posting in this thread, you were treading lightly and trying to make yourself appear objective (and for a brief moment, I was buying it), but with each of your posts it's become abundantly clear that you have a political viewpoint (as we all do), and you don't like voices that don't always agree with your political viewpoint (perfectly normal). BUT, you think those voices (or "news" websites) should just shut up with the communication that doesn't agree with your political viewpoint.
You don't want to hear (read) it from them, so they shouldn't say (write) it. You like your bubble nice and clean of any information/opinion that may challenge what you already think.
yeah, I was totally serious. He basically trashed an entire community by saying that there was nothing to offer there but a drug problem. Since I know the community, I knew better.
Totally agree...but on a tangential issue, today they are trying to make AB out to be the modern Ghandi. I am sorry, the guy killed himself. I get he had some wonderful traits and that is to be celebrated. The problem is, it will be conflated with his suicide being conflated with his personality and art. His suicide is NOT to be celebrated. And this is the way these articles and shows come off. For many, AB's suicide now looks like some kind of romantic out-clause and an admirable way to end the pain of life. Sorry, dude had an 11 year old who is now devastated and alone without a father. When AB decided to have a child, he gave up his right to kill himself for her sake. When you become a father, you put the needs of the child above yours (even if that need is the desire to be your kid's friend).
So, not trying to highjack your point...but tangentially pointing out that these romanic reviews of AB's life, without noting he took the coward's way out that irreparably will hurt them, is irresponsible IMHO.
Can you give me one example of an article making his suicide look romantic? Sounds like BS.
Last edited:
Well they didn’t bash him for doing this and dared to memorialize his life. More dumb fake outrage to be honest.
That is a willful misreading of what I wrote. I never said nor remotely implied that there ought to be rules governing what they do or that I be permitted to make content decisions for them.
And the content of their political opinions is beside the point.
