<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Just How Far Has Amy Winehouse Come?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://glosslip.com/2008/02/12/just-how-far-has-amy-winehouse-come/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://glosslip.com/2008/02/12/just-how-far-has-amy-winehouse-come/</link>
	<description>Celebrity gossip from our lips to yours</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:37:33 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: crazymom</title>
		<link>http://glosslip.com/2008/02/12/just-how-far-has-amy-winehouse-come/#comment-22963</link>
		<dc:creator>crazymom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:38:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glosslip.com/2008/02/12/just-how-far-has-amy-winehouse-come/#comment-22963</guid>
		<description>As I mentioned in your other post, which I found when I scrolled down -- I'm on the fence about the whole thing.  

One the one hand, Amy does have enormous talent, and for that she does deserve to be rewarded.  I don't think her personal problems negate her talent by any means.  I mean, with all the people we see being rewarded for having absolutely NO talent, I'd say give Amy 20 grammys!

I don't think it's the equivalent of, say, Marion Jones being stripped of gold medals for using banned substances.  There would be a hell of a lot of grammys that would need to be returned if we followed that logic!

I'd say the situation is more akin to asking whether or not "Zoey 101" should be cancelled because Jamie Lynn Spears got knocked up?  Is she being "rewarded" for inappropriate behavior if Nick keeps her show on the air?  

I think it comes down to more than just "what sort of example are we setting?" -- there are so many layers to both situations that there's no one right answer.

Someone, somewhere is probably going to say yes, and somebody somewhere is going to say no.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I mentioned in your other post, which I found when I scrolled down &#8212; I&#8217;m on the fence about the whole thing.  </p>
<p>One the one hand, Amy does have enormous talent, and for that she does deserve to be rewarded.  I don&#8217;t think her personal problems negate her talent by any means.  I mean, with all the people we see being rewarded for having absolutely NO talent, I&#8217;d say give Amy 20 grammys!</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s the equivalent of, say, Marion Jones being stripped of gold medals for using banned substances.  There would be a hell of a lot of grammys that would need to be returned if we followed that logic!</p>
<p>I&#8217;d say the situation is more akin to asking whether or not &#8220;Zoey 101&#8243; should be cancelled because Jamie Lynn Spears got knocked up?  Is she being &#8220;rewarded&#8221; for inappropriate behavior if Nick keeps her show on the air?  </p>
<p>I think it comes down to more than just &#8220;what sort of example are we setting?&#8221; &#8212; there are so many layers to both situations that there&#8217;s no one right answer.</p>
<p>Someone, somewhere is probably going to say yes, and somebody somewhere is going to say no.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: k</title>
		<link>http://glosslip.com/2008/02/12/just-how-far-has-amy-winehouse-come/#comment-22952</link>
		<dc:creator>k</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:06:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glosslip.com/2008/02/12/just-how-far-has-amy-winehouse-come/#comment-22952</guid>
		<description>Well, I think she went too far in saying these things the day after the Grammys (about a singer who, after all, is somewhat in Natalie's genre of music...it smacks of sour grapes to me), and I think she went too far in criticising someone who is, by all accounts, trying to straighten her life out...just as Natalie did.

I mean, some of us never arrive at our "destination", and I am beginning to believe there really isn't a "destination" but rather just a long journey full of decisions.  I don't think even Natalie can say she is "cured" of her past drug problems...from what I understand of addictions, you are never truly "cured", but rather you make conscious decisions every day not to pick up those bad habits again.

I mean, at what point do we say that this one is deserving of an award, but this one isn't?  Do we reward only those whom we deem are "successful" in exorcising their personal demons?  Does "successful" include hiding one's bad habits from the world?  After all, entertainment is rife with stories of those who hid their drug/alcohol problems from the world for years, even decades, yet received awards.  How many people on the Grammy stage Sunday night have hidden drug and alcohol addictions that just haven't come to light yet?  Do we reward only those who have "successfully" kicked their problems, and ignore those who are making the attempt but who aren't quite there yet?

If you're not trying, that's one thing.  If you haven't accepted that you have a problem, that's one thing.  But if you're actively attempting to get yourself back together, that's another.  No, Amy isn't anywhere near where she needs to be, and she's got a long way to go.  But at least she's trying, which is more than she was doing this time a few months ago.

I totally agree that celeb justice is a travesty.  Celebs should be made to actually feel the consequences of their actions, not just a slap on the wrist and sent on their way.  And I honestly do believe that just being sorry for one's actions does NOT negate any punishment that might come as a result of those actions.  Celebs need to step out of their bubbles and learn what the real world is about, especially when it comes to choices and consequences.

Let's put it this way...my kids are as sorry as all get-out when I catch them in a lie, but that doesn't stop me from punishing them in some way.  They need to learn a lesson.  But...if while they are learning their lesson, they do something really super-cool and deserving of praise, I'm not going to ignore it just because I don't think they've "learned their lesson" yet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I think she went too far in saying these things the day after the Grammys (about a singer who, after all, is somewhat in Natalie&#8217;s genre of music&#8230;it smacks of sour grapes to me), and I think she went too far in criticising someone who is, by all accounts, trying to straighten her life out&#8230;just as Natalie did.</p>
<p>I mean, some of us never arrive at our &#8220;destination&#8221;, and I am beginning to believe there really isn&#8217;t a &#8220;destination&#8221; but rather just a long journey full of decisions.  I don&#8217;t think even Natalie can say she is &#8220;cured&#8221; of her past drug problems&#8230;from what I understand of addictions, you are never truly &#8220;cured&#8221;, but rather you make conscious decisions every day not to pick up those bad habits again.</p>
<p>I mean, at what point do we say that this one is deserving of an award, but this one isn&#8217;t?  Do we reward only those whom we deem are &#8220;successful&#8221; in exorcising their personal demons?  Does &#8220;successful&#8221; include hiding one&#8217;s bad habits from the world?  After all, entertainment is rife with stories of those who hid their drug/alcohol problems from the world for years, even decades, yet received awards.  How many people on the Grammy stage Sunday night have hidden drug and alcohol addictions that just haven&#8217;t come to light yet?  Do we reward only those who have &#8220;successfully&#8221; kicked their problems, and ignore those who are making the attempt but who aren&#8217;t quite there yet?</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re not trying, that&#8217;s one thing.  If you haven&#8217;t accepted that you have a problem, that&#8217;s one thing.  But if you&#8217;re actively attempting to get yourself back together, that&#8217;s another.  No, Amy isn&#8217;t anywhere near where she needs to be, and she&#8217;s got a long way to go.  But at least she&#8217;s trying, which is more than she was doing this time a few months ago.</p>
<p>I totally agree that celeb justice is a travesty.  Celebs should be made to actually feel the consequences of their actions, not just a slap on the wrist and sent on their way.  And I honestly do believe that just being sorry for one&#8217;s actions does NOT negate any punishment that might come as a result of those actions.  Celebs need to step out of their bubbles and learn what the real world is about, especially when it comes to choices and consequences.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s put it this way&#8230;my kids are as sorry as all get-out when I catch them in a lie, but that doesn&#8217;t stop me from punishing them in some way.  They need to learn a lesson.  But&#8230;if while they are learning their lesson, they do something really super-cool and deserving of praise, I&#8217;m not going to ignore it just because I don&#8217;t think they&#8217;ve &#8220;learned their lesson&#8221; yet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: crazymom</title>
		<link>http://glosslip.com/2008/02/12/just-how-far-has-amy-winehouse-come/#comment-22949</link>
		<dc:creator>crazymom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:41:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glosslip.com/2008/02/12/just-how-far-has-amy-winehouse-come/#comment-22949</guid>
		<description>So, do you think that Natalie Cole went too far when she dissed Amy Wino for being "rewarded" with a grammy given all her recent drug/legal/immigration trouble?  

For recovering addicts, the general rule is to wait a couple of years before you publicly declare yourself "sober" because sobriety doesn't happen overnight, and there are usually quite a few pitfalls along the way.  Amy would need to rid herself of the toxic people in her life, which right now pretty much includes everyone she knows.  She's cleaned up her act for the time being, but hey, so did Lindsay Lohan -- until she got to Italy.  Only time will tell... for all of them.

In a way I think Nat's right, but at the same time, it's Hollywood -- the place where Robert Downey, Jr. can get a free pass from jail to make a movie or two; the place where Nicole Ritchie spends 82 minutes in jail for driving the wrong way while under the influence; where a lot of stars view rehab like it's the equivalent of going on a vacation -- so what should we expect?

Sadly, if you're young, rich, good looking and (in)famous there are rarely consequences for ANY of your actions -- in fact, if you're a big enough f*ck up, you'll probably get your own reality show!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, do you think that Natalie Cole went too far when she dissed Amy Wino for being &#8220;rewarded&#8221; with a grammy given all her recent drug/legal/immigration trouble?  </p>
<p>For recovering addicts, the general rule is to wait a couple of years before you publicly declare yourself &#8220;sober&#8221; because sobriety doesn&#8217;t happen overnight, and there are usually quite a few pitfalls along the way.  Amy would need to rid herself of the toxic people in her life, which right now pretty much includes everyone she knows.  She&#8217;s cleaned up her act for the time being, but hey, so did Lindsay Lohan &#8212; until she got to Italy.  Only time will tell&#8230; for all of them.</p>
<p>In a way I think Nat&#8217;s right, but at the same time, it&#8217;s Hollywood &#8212; the place where Robert Downey, Jr. can get a free pass from jail to make a movie or two; the place where Nicole Ritchie spends 82 minutes in jail for driving the wrong way while under the influence; where a lot of stars view rehab like it&#8217;s the equivalent of going on a vacation &#8212; so what should we expect?</p>
<p>Sadly, if you&#8217;re young, rich, good looking and (in)famous there are rarely consequences for ANY of your actions &#8212; in fact, if you&#8217;re a big enough f*ck up, you&#8217;ll probably get your own reality show!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
