Lindsay Lohan's New Lawyer Bows Out

Lindsay Lohan has been lawyer shopping since her attorney, Shawn Chapman Holley, said she's done. The Judge reportedly told Shawn she can't withdraw until Lindsay gets a new lawyer.

This morning's news said Stuart Goldberg of Chicago had taken the case. Now, Goldberg has bowed out, giving this interview to People.

"My impression of Lindsay is that she's a fragile lost child – a sleeping beauty with her head in the sand. I found her not fully forewarned of the consequence of her actions," Stuart V. Goldberg, who was contacted by Lohan after her attorney resigned, tells PEOPLE.

"I'm concerned that she's not disciplined or tethered enough to the reality of adult consequences," he says. "She doesn't seem to have the awareness of what's going to befall her."

Goldberg makes a good point about her having multiple legal problems: one is the imminent jail sentence, the other is how is she going to get through a lengthier period of probation afterwards?

"My real worry for her is not just the jail time," adds Goldberg, "but my fear is that she's overly susceptible to a probation system that's set up for her to fail."

What's next for Lindsay? Goldberg said he recommended she hire Robert Shapiro.

What options are left between now and July 20 when Lindsay is supposed to report to jail? A mental health crisis and intervention, requiring an extended inpatient commitment? Would the judge be inclined to delay execution of the sentence if she were committed to a mental facility (not just a drug facility) if she is an imminent threat to herself? I haven't seen any reports of suicide threats, but I won't be surprised if that's next.

Also, what about medical opinions on the effect of immediate withdrawal from the panapoly of medications she is taking? I can't imagine the jail will give her adderall and ambien, to name a few. Maybe she needs to be weaned off them before she can safely do a jail sentence.

For some reason, I don't get all the attention being paid to Lohan's case. Paris Hilton's case was much more interesting to me, probably because I thought she was being treated unfairly. There's nothing particularly unique about Lohan or her circumstances -- although I question why she pleaded guilty to the charges that got her put on probation in the first place. Even then, someone should have realized she'd never make it through without violations.

< Drugs, Inc. Airing on National Geographic Channel | Monday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why is Goldberg talking to the press (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 06:47:43 PM EST
    about Lohan?

    Pretty outrageous thing to do imo.

    That was my question (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by BDB on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:46:34 AM EST
    just because something won't get you disbarred doesn't mean it's ethical.

    he's not repeating what she said (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 06:52:08 PM EST
    or confidences, only his impressions. Her mother and sister were present for his interview, which technically waives the attorney client privilege. Also, they are now saying he wouldn't take the case over money, which he denies, so I think he's allowed to respond with his reasons for not taking the case.

    I don't think this hurts her. When the judge reads about, she might decide a jail sentence is not a good idea right now. Not only will it not have the desired punitive effect, it could be dangerous for someone in a perilous mental state.


    I think it is pretty slimy (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 06:58:36 PM EST
    I do not know him but I think less of him already.

    Here here! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Rojas on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 07:10:04 PM EST
    Absolutely no tact, I was taken aback. Disgusting.

    If he's trying to help Lohan with these (none / 0) (#6)
    by observed on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 07:17:20 PM EST
    comments, is it forgiveable?
    I"m not sure myself.
    I'm reminded of when Reuben Fine, chess grandmaster and Freudian analyst, and a personal friend of Bobby Fischer, publicly psychoanalyzed Fischer in the 70's, to urge him to seek help.
    I thought that was tawdry.
    Why can't the lawyer just say something respectful?

    Don't know the ground rules (none / 0) (#7)
    by Rojas on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 07:56:29 PM EST
    but a call or letter to the court seems more appropriate. People mag. seems the wrong venue. His thoughts should be held in confidence.

    Perhaps it's part of the game... I can't see how it helps. This kid needs something to come back to.


    Goldberg is completely disloyal! (none / 0) (#15)
    by nvrglty on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:00:35 AM EST
    Having the clients mother and sister present does not waive the privilege, if their participation was necessary to promote the client's interests.  They are effectively part of her team.  Goldberg has a duty to protect her secrets and confidences and to keep his impressions to himself.  Whether is self-promotional comments might help her is irrelevant.  You don't talk about a client unless you are hired and authorized to do so.  

    Oh well then, that makes it all O.K. (none / 0) (#129)
    by derver on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 02:35:43 AM EST
    "he's not repeating what she said (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 06:52:08 PM EST
    or confidences, only his impressions. Her mother and sister were present for his interview, which technically waives the attorney client privilege."

    Wow. So technically he's O.K. I'd say it's time to change the laws here. Attorneys should shut up. Close their mouths. No "no comment," no nothing. Just shut up.

    Goldberg's really sleazy here. As for Jerilyn's rationalizations, they are very eye opening. There was an article recently about doctors covering up for each other. I guess it's the same in the legal profession.

    Is there a sort of "pre-nup" you can sign before you speak to an attorney that would prevent his speaking about "impressions" or taking loophole views of privilige?


    Goldberg is his own PR agency (none / 0) (#20)
    by derver on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:34:29 AM EST
    I think ethics takes a back seat to trolling for business in the case of the law profession. Now Mr. Goldberg is anointed as a Hollywood attorney. He can wait until another celeb, whose credit record comes back a little better, to contact him.

    Sounds like (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:01:24 AM EST
    He's trying to set up an ineffective assistance of counsel claim by saying she "wasn't properly forewarned" of the consequences and trying to get her some leniency ny saying she's not truly competent.

    good point (none / 0) (#25)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:26:26 AM EST
    The Truth Emerges - Lohan Can't Pay Goldberg's Fee (none / 0) (#106)
    by derver on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 07:12:48 AM EST
    "Lindsay Lohan Running Out of Time ... and Money"

    "The lawyer also seems to have another reason for not going the Lohan trainwreck-- Lindsay can't afford him. "Goldberg wanted a retainer and other financial assurances," a person close to the case told TheWrap, "and Lindsay simply doesn't have the money."

    "In fact, with only Robert Rodriguez's Grindhouse homage "Machete" (Sept. 3) in the can and nothing substantial lined-up filmwise - not to mention a lawsuit from a Hollywood boutique for almost $17,000 -- Lohan's professional life has hit the skids nearly as hard as her personal life.

    "The 24-year old actress' only real form of income is the couple of grand she picks up for promoting diet aids, handbag sales and other accessories on her Twitter account and the odd photo shot."



    Jeralyn has reported that, indicating (none / 0) (#107)
    by Untold Story on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 08:33:56 AM EST
    Goldberg denied it.

    Search "by Jerilyn" (none / 0) (#130)
    by derver on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 02:38:59 AM EST
    No she didn't, at least that I can find.

    At any rate, what is the guy going to say? He's not going to admit that.

    And anyway, why is is denying anything. The guy just needs to zip it up.


    Yeah (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 09:00:31 PM EST
    Some people also believe that corporal punishment is one size fits all too. YMMV.

    Seems to me that setting up a situation that is bound to fail, serves no one, although some seem to get some weird pleasure at seeing social deviants get destroyed, particularly those who have made a lot of money. Something about knocking them down to size..  

    Seems like a waste to me. I just hope that her reverence of Marylin does not go the same way.

    Treating her in a mental health clinic sounds waaaay more likely to yield success than throwing her into the slammer with  long probation period.

    the point is (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 02:31:10 AM EST
    a lawyer doesn't do a client any favors getting him or her probation when he/she knows or should know the client is likely to violate probation. It's an easy way out for the lawyer, since the lawyer's role is finished at sentencing and he or she won't have to deal with the after mess, unless the lawyer is retained again. (Most fee agreements specify that the representation is through plea and sentence and doesn't cover appeals or post-conviction matters.)

    I think this is the problem Charlie Sheen is running into -- the DA wants him on probation and his lawyers have been trying to get a deal without it, so as not to leave him in that precarious position.

    Probation is no walk in the park. It comes with a lot of rules and conditions, and many people are not going to make it.

    Charlie Sheen (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by BDB on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:54:10 AM EST
    should really quit beating up on women if he wants to stay out of jail.  Apparently, however, that bar is a bit too high for Mr. Sheen.  

    As for Lohan, I think part of the problem is that 1) she probably set no jail time as one of the conditions she wanted for her deal and that is always likely to come with probation and 2) for functioning people, like presumably Lohan's lawyer, the conditions of probation don't sound all that onerous.  The problem, of course, is that Lohan isn't functioning.

    I don't generally support our jail-obsessed society, but getting Lohan away from all the folks feeding off of her and, by extension, enabling her - including apparently her lawyers - might not be the worst thing that ever happened to her.  I don't know.  I don't usually buy into jail as some sort of salvation, but it does seem the outside world for her has an anti-support system.  


    Attorney needs to zip it (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by derver on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:05:38 AM EST
    How is it ethical for Mr. Goldberg to be making the public statement that he made?

    He's welcome to turn down clients, but he should shut up and not blabber about them after he does.

    Jeralyn recognizes the pitfalls (none / 0) (#22)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:42:16 AM EST
    with her vast experience recognizes the problems with probation as she has stated.  

    Based on that, perhaps Goldberg recognizes the same.  He was probably rebuffed by LL as she doesn't want to do any jail time.  Perhaps the mother and sister are there only to support this, realizing probation may well end with LL getting years of prison time.  (Had never looked at probation before in this way - an eye-opener!)

    There are excellent mental facilities.  

    Menningers (used to be in Topeka) is known as one of the best.  It has mergered with Baylor and is now in Houston.  Don't know what replaced the Topeka college campus-like feel with nature abound - but believe they probably would get it right.  

    There must be more of these top drawer facilities that she could enter for perhaps, even a year.  It would certainly be worth it down the road for her as Jeralyn points out, consequences of violating probation will be terrible for her. This type of intense treatment is expensive, probably somewhere between $10,000 to $15,000 a week.  LL can afford this and, really can't afford not to do it!

    Just my opinion.


    Grow up? What does that mean, exactly? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:36:24 AM EST
    Is it anything like the "just snap out of it" that people with depression are told to do?  Or the "just get over it" that people who have experienced some sort of tragic or traumatic experience are told?

    Simple solutions to complex problems would make things so much easier, but there is nothing simple about addiction, even for those whose lives have been otherwise "normal" - you know, like an intact and loving family that doesn't see you as the gravy train, a life of school and playmates instead of TV and movies and agents and paparazzi and "friends" who all want something from you.

    Yes, she does need to grow up, and yes, she needs to decide that this is the turning point, the "bottom" she doesn't want to get any deeper.  She can come to that point whether or not she does any jail time, but the question is, if she does come to that point, will jail time speed or hinder that process?  Maybe she needs to be in a facility that doesn't cater to celebrities, but to people living more "ordinary" lives.

    I have no doubt that she has no idea who she really is, and little ability to be at all honest with herself; figuring that out and learning how to be brutally honest with one's self is hard enough without the addiction issues, but she is the one who ultimately has to be ready to do the hard and painful work that's required, she has to be the one who realizes that she's going to have to ditch a lot of the toxic people in her life who prefer that she be dysfunctional because it's better for them, end the co-dependence that keeps that cycle going, to stay out of and away from the places where she's likely to fall into old patterns.  She'll have to learn that a lot of people aren't going to like the "new" Lindsay, and these people will find ways to sabotage her recovery if they can, rather than support her.  That can be an enormous hurdle for someone who judges her worth by how others see her, and who lacks the self-esteem necessary to push back against people who don't have her best interests at heart.

    Goldberg's comments, for whatever reason he made them, did one thing, I think: they humanized Lohan, and made her look less like a spoiled and over-indulged brat than someone whose emotional growth stopped a long time ago - and not entirely of her own choosing.

    I hope she gets the help she needs before it's too late.

    Don't feel to bad for her (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:32:44 AM EST
    From the NY Post

    Lindsay Lohan may soon be on her way to prison, but her legal woes are turning into her biggest payday in years. Bids for the troubled starlet's pre- and post-prison interview are now coming in at over $500,000.

    Major TV networks -- which technically don't pay for interviews but often get around that by paying for pictures -- are putting in bids by joining forces with weekly magazines to score the big jailhouse chat.

    Why not? (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:02:45 PM EST
    What should I feel - jealous?  Envious?  Resentful because she's going to get paid for being caught up in the court system?  Because it's a "reward" that won't teach her anything about consequences?  Because she didn't turn it down?

    Honestly, I'm kind of offended by your comment.

    The paycheck Lohan gets isn't going to make her better, isn't going to solve her problems; she's not where she is because she needed a paycheck, but because she's made bad decisions as a result of what is probably a lot more substance use and abuse than we have any idea of.  

    And it's pretty clear that the use of drugs and alcohol is not the hey-it's-five-o'clock-and-time-for-a-nice-glass-of-wine, or hey-I think-I'll-kick-back-and-light-up-a-doobie, but the I-feel-so-bad-all-the-time-and-I'm-having-panic-attacks-no-one-even-knows-about-and-I-just-hurt-insi de-and-out-and-no-one-likes-me-for-me-and-everyone-wants-pieces-of-me-and-there's-nothing-left-for-m e-and-sometimes-I-just-want-to-die kind of use.

    She's sick, for heaven's sake, and dollars to doughnuts, she's self-medicating, trying to kill a pain that doesn't go away no matter how much stuff she swallows, snorts or smokes.  I wouldn't be in her shoes for a hundred prison-interview paychecks - and I'd be willing to bet that she would trade a hundred of those paychecks not to hurt as much as she does.

    This young woman needs a lot of help, and even if she gets it, there's no guarantee that she will succeed at being clean and sober.  I wouldn't have her life for love nor money, so yes, I do feel bad for her.  


    Yes she does (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:30:56 PM EST
    But she's been to rehab 3 times.  The point of the article was to show that she is going to rewarded handsomlu for screwing up yet again.  She has the means, the abitility, and the support to change her life and succeed.  She does not have the fear of not being able to support hersf when she gets out.

    I have compassion for her struggle.  But it's hard to get all weepy over someone who has been given multiple chances and refuses to try and help themselves, and even goes so far as to deliberately try and be stupid while standing in front of a judge while asking for mercy.  

    I'm sorry if you were offended, but I reserve my sympathy for those who can't help themselves.


    While it's true that people of means don't (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    have the financial barriers to treatment, it's certainly no guarantee that addiction or mental illness will be any easier to treat or recover from.  Sure, maybe someone of little means hits bottom faster than someone who has the cushion of wealth, but that's only part of the process, not the end of it.

    As someone who has/had family members with addictions, it really kind of pains me when I run up against the kind of attitude you have, because you make it sound so simple: she's been to rehab three times, so how come she isn't, like, okay now?  She has money, so why isn't she using it to get better?  

    My favorite is the "refuses to try and help themselves" line.  Any addict who is in recovery will tell you that every day, they would wake up and say, "I'm not going to drink/drug today," and will tell you that they believed it, they knew this was the right decision, they were going to turn their back on the booze and the drugs.  But they would always find a reason, an excuse, for why they had to break that promise to themselves: they were late for work, and traffic was bad, their back hurt or they got a really bad headache, or they were so tense, or work was too stressful, or they didn't want to be the party-pooper - just one, that was all they were going to have.  One little drink, one little pill to take the edge off, and, gosh, somehow, it just got away from them.

    You claim they aren't helpless, but anyone who has been in the throes of addiction knows that even though there is still a rational part of their brain that knows the right decisions from the wrong ones, it is the disease, the addiction, that runs the show.  And the self-loathing for not being able to control this gives them one more reason to say, "the hell with it; if I can't stop myself, I might as well stop trying."

    I don't know the extent of Lohan's problems, but I've seen enough and know enough to understand that what we see is probably not even close to how bad she really is - or how bad she feels, physically and mentally.

    I'm not saying that she doesn't have to, or shouldn't have to, accept the consequences of her actions, but what I am saying is that the underlying issues that resulted in her being about to go to jail are no less deserving of treatment than if she had cancer or diabetes.  And it makes no more sense to resent her for not successfully completing rehab than it would to resent her if she had cancer and her body did not respond to the first three treatments she got for that disease.

    No one's asking you to weep for Lindsay Lohan, just maybe not be so judgmental about something you clearly don't understand the complexity of.


    Bean Counting Method? (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:49:43 AM EST
    $$$ solves everything? Or is it that if someone is making a lot of money then there is no reason to feel any compassion for them. Pretty shallow set of values, imo.

    Of course, (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:02:54 AM EST
    Shrug.  I didn't say anything about not having compassion, but it's typical of you making stuff up.  It wouldn't be a day that ends in "y" if you didn't make stuff up.  

    Oh I See (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:08:18 AM EST
    Your admonition for others:

    Don't feel to bad for her

    Has nothing to do with compassion... Hilarious... bet you have a clever definition for compassion.

    Or is it that you are feeling compassion for those who feel bad for Lohan, and you are offering them a salvo..


    Agreed and (none / 0) (#92)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:41:39 PM EST
    it's possible that those who care most for her -- mom & sis -- have trouble setting limits, and Lindsay may well have the Michael Jackson problem of being surrounded largely by people who will not say no.

    And, just because she has $, does not mean she does not have real problems.  In effect, as in M Jackson's case, $ may be an impediment to reform.  A very smart friend of my family, now 94, once told me that money does not buy you happiness, although it may buy choices.  The sad thing is not that celebs have it "better" than the less fortunate when it comes to addiction, jail and treatment issues, but that the less fortunate often have no recourse to a system of treatment and rehabilitation that might actually work.  The system of probation for those with substance issues seems to be a no-win situation for all.


    So many good comments (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:24:04 AM EST
    and some lemons, too.

    The thing is, asking TL to compare any of her clients to Lohan is absurd.  In counseling a client as to the merits and demerits of any particular plea bargain or other litigational avenue, the lawyer has to deal solely with that particular client and that client's foibles, personality and longer-range goals.  To get to the longer-range goals, BTW, requires both extended time and in-depth communication, two things most lawyers either lack or can't pull off and most clients can't or aren't willing to afford or pull off themselves.  I posit it's kind of hard to have a real conversation with someone who knows they're going to court to be sentenced and nonetheless goes ahead and paints "F-U-C-K-Y-O-U" across her fingernails for the judge to see.  

    She's just a mess, and sometimes the most a lawyer can do is triage - stanch and stop the bleeding and hope the client can straighten themselves out.  

    It's pretty clear that DFH is of the opinion (none / 0) (#98)
    by Rojas on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 08:39:25 PM EST
    that a competent defense attorney as an enabler. It's not the first post like this. A sad and pathetic state for a human being.

    Donald, I don't get the outrage that (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:35:30 AM EST
    people feel towards Lohan.

    She is guilty of two non-injury DUIs in 2007.  And the world just revels in her punishment.

    Her sentence--90 days in jail, followed by 90 days in patient confinement--exceeds what the customary sentence would be.

    A first DUI in California--and more specifically in LA County--typically draws no jail time, aside from the time in jail on the initial arrest.

    A second DUI typically draws a few days in jail, if that, in LA County.  The harshest County--Orange County--generally imposes 60 days in jail for a second DUI.  And often such sentences are served via home confinement.  Lohan got way more than that.

    So, the outrage is misplaced. She is being treated worse than the average person.

    But people really just love seeing Lohan get slammed.

    Lohan is in trouble and punishing her may or may not be a "reality check."  Some people who suffer from addiction and mental illness cannot be reached by simply punishing them.  But punishing Lohan makes other people feel good or vindicated somehow.

    Jeralyn points out the very real risk of suicide.  Since Lohan is such a public figure we all know a lot about her.   Her eerie posing as Marilyn Monroe--and as a gifted actress, she made herself look just like Marilyn--does give great concern.


    My 2 cents (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 08:34:04 PM EST
    I was fortunate to win a baseball scholarship to a major university, famous mostly for its football/basketball programs. While baseball wasn't the major sport it did give me an opportunity to live with, and socialize with, the big time jocks of football and basketball.

    First, a caveat; not all of the athletes, but certainly a majority, were also big time jerks. Spoiled rotten, from their first pre-pubervescent hint of their specialness, their narcisstic, anti-social behavior only gained steam as they aged. To call them rotten human beings would be a libel against rotten human beings. As the rest of the students were handed a single Salisbury steak for dinner, the athletes piled their plates with 4-5 filet mignons, only to throw 2-3 in the garbage as an, "f-u" gesture to the regular students. From disrupting classes to abusing the women, they were an embarrassment to everything a university education is supposed to stand for.

    I'm just pointing this out as a way to say that these, so-called, "gifted people, chose that life, revel in it, and abuse their standing wantonly, and freely.

    Maybe L.L. is simply a jerk, and/or maybe she's a truly troubled youngster who deserves our sympathy. My prejudice makes me lean towards the first....I hope I'm wrong.

    Time will tell.

    Maybe if they had fed the baseball jocks (none / 0) (#128)
    by Untold Story on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 09:27:26 PM EST
    just 2 or 3 filet mignons, they might have had top baseball team as well, do you think ;)

    Look at Al Gore - doesn't think he needs to go through TSA security (well, now we might know why!)

    Get what your saying - and who knows what exactly is going on with this girl.

    If she truly is without money, then she goes to prison like everyone else - end of story.  If she has money and is able to possibly blaze a new trail - then why not.


    if she's a female peter pan (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jen M on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 06:54:39 PM EST
    what can any lawyer do

    A comment I can totally agree with. Well said. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 08:29:15 PM EST

    Does your youngest cousin (26) (none / 0) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 11:07:11 PM EST
    have paparazzi dogging his/her every move?  Does TV have shows dedicated to analyzing his/her every facial expression?

    Seriously.  It's simply not comparable, and I think it's putting one's head in the sand to pretend that someone whose entire life has been lived in the spotlight of celebrity has no more of a burden in dealing with this kind of thing than, say, I would or you would, or your cousin.

    That in no way excuses her behavior, but it seems to me it calls for a bit more thought than the U.S. justice system would routinely give to how to handle young people in this kind of very, very bad trouble.

    LL asks for much of the attention from the (none / 0) (#59)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 01:17:08 PM EST
    paparazzi.  Why else would she and two of her girlfriends exit an auto without underwear with her legs spread knowing full well that the press was out there waiting to snap some shots?  And then do it again several more times.  She was asking for the attention and the resulting reaction of the public.  

    Why Else? (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 01:28:03 PM EST
    Maybe she knew members of the puritan virtue squad, like you, would be getting off on getting a free look at the family jewels.

    IOW, she was giving something to fantasize about while recovering on your fainting couch...  


    Thank you for proving my point (none / 0) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 02:46:35 PM EST
    so ably.

    It's more like mooning (none / 0) (#80)
    by ks on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:06:55 PM EST
    LL was getting the paparazzi attention long before the going commando shots.  I think it was more of a case of "I don't care anymore" or "If you want follow me and see something, I'll show you something!".  How long would it take you to flip out if the paparazzi were follwoing you around every day?  

    Young people, especially (none / 0) (#93)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:44:49 PM EST
    when high, do rather stupid things; that's not a basis for despising them or calling for harsh punishments that may satisfy public need for "putting brats in their place" but do little to solve the problem -- for society or the 'offenders'.  

    I wonder if (none / 0) (#13)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 11:08:41 PM EST
    a long, long talk with Robert Downey, Jr., would do any good at all.  She's heading down that same road, but clearly lacks even the modest emotional resources he had to cope.

    She needs to find herself first of all (none / 0) (#14)
    by Untold Story on Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 11:30:30 PM EST
    Or, perhaps, some would say, she needs to find her inner core - she probably doesn't even know of its existence.  

    She is still a little child inside, a bud that never blossomed.  A syndrome affliating many child actors.

    Neither jail or rehab will help her, imo.  She might do well in the proper mental facility - but it will take some time.

    Just my opinion.

    Seems to me.. (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:03:26 AM EST
    all she needs to do is not drive while f*cked up and society's concerns should be satisfied...whatever other demons she has are her business (and her loved ones), and not the place of strangers to demand anything...all we can demand is she not drive while drunk or high.  It can be difficult to see someone destroy themselves with booze and pills, but at the end of the day it is their life.

    And since no one is saying she has driven while intoxicated while on probation, I think we should leave her the hell alone.


    What would you do if (none / 0) (#26)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:28:07 AM EST
    you saw someone drowning?  Jumping off a building?

    I'd help them... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:22:08 AM EST
    of course...if they wanted help.  Lindsay isn't asking for help, it is being forced upon her by the court...that rarely works.  It's like using the taser on a guy threatening to jump off the building.

    But if they are jumping off a building (none / 0) (#29)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:32:14 AM EST
    do you think they using a rational thought process?  

    And, I realize what you are saying, and agree that yes it does take the individual himself/herself to begin to see themselves as someone worthwhile, someone they needs to start looking after themselves, develop self-esteem from the inside out -- but if they are jumping off a building then they are not capable at that period of time of helping themselves - hence, we do have to help them to turn the next corner in their lives.


    I see your point too... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:40:00 AM EST
    we should help one other...I just think our systems have a funny way of "helping".

    Let's remember too Lindsay isn't threatening suicide, she's getting high.  From the outside it looks like she's using too much and her life is hanging by a thread, but we really don't know.  Drug use is often confused with drug abuse, like they are one in the same...they most certainly are not.  And I firmly believe in our right to imbibe anything and everything we want...it is inalienable.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    She sounds a bit suicidal to me. The tipoff is that her role model is Marilyn Monroe. And, Monroe was brilliant woman, but seriously damaged, and we know what happened to her.

    Okay (none / 0) (#35)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:49:54 AM EST
    Since her life is hanging by a thread, then would you not agree it is drug abuse?

    And, what do you think is going to happen to her if she does go to prison - even lower self esteem will emerge and, yes, more than likely it will all end in suicide.

    It is not so much this one individual, but since she is so famous, what the courts do right in this case may affect how many others are treated in the future.  One baby step to helping in a constructive way.


    I said it appears.. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    it is hanging by a thread, but only Lindsay and those closest to her really know.  And Lindsay must want help or else we're just wasting our time.

    The dehumanization of prison...I don't see how that helps any addict.


    Not letting up! (none / 0) (#39)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:06:50 AM EST
    Lindsay, clearly, is not able to know that she needs help or think what's best for herself right now, and those closest to her may well be her greatest problem - who knows.  Based on the past, they certainly don't appear to have helped.

    And, exactly, prison, imo, will lead her further into despair and next step will be suicide or an unintentional overdose.

    If she had a broken leg and continued to try and use it, not realizing infection could set in, etc., thereby threatening losing her leg - would no one bother to help because she is supposed to do this all by herself even though it is clear she doesn't understand the consequences!


    It's a fine line man... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:25:18 AM EST
    you're talking to an everyday user of an illegal substance...some people may think I need "help", but I don't think so and I don't want any.  

    In a case where someone insists they have no problem and refuses help, what are ya gonna do? You can beg and plead with the person but you can't force "help" upon them...at least I don't think so, as sad as the results may be.


    Need and want ? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:34:08 AM EST
    You are too smart to not recognize that!

    Do you support... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:38:51 AM EST
    the forced feeding of prisoners on hunger strike?

    They need nourishment but don't want it...would you force a feeding tube down their throat or respect their wishes?


    Yeah - would do that! (none / 0) (#47)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:48:58 AM EST
    However, if a person is brain dead then I would pull the plug!  

    Or, if someone is diagnosed with a horrible fatal disease and is in great pain and suffering, then I do think there should be a right for them to end all that sooner rather than later -- provided, of course, that the person is in their right state of mind and it is not the heirs making decisions!


    Thanks... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:56:00 AM EST
    I do not support force feeding of prisoners...strapping a human being down and shoving a tube down their throat is inhumane, cruel and unusual.

    As is caging a person to save 'em...all imo of course.

    We're in the same boat on assisted suicide...ending your own life is also an inalienable right in my book.  We come to the fine line again with "right mind"...by whose estimation?


    Good one - (none / 0) (#53)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:10:47 PM EST
    isn't it our insanities that make up our personalities!

    She's in denial (none / 0) (#94)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:49:18 PM EST
    One thing I understand that works on non-adult adolescent minors is commitment to treatment for a very extended period -- I think a minimum of 6 mos.  Otherwise, the person devotes time in treatment to hanging on & being obedient until the commitment is over, so that the person can return to the same addictive behavior.  

    Are You Seriously Suggesting We... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:56:51 AM EST
    ...need to wean her off drugs before jail, or after incarceration ?  Is this something we do for all jail bound criminals or just the pseudo-debutantes ?  Because that would cost more than the space program.

    Sorry, but all she had to do was make a court date instead of leaving the country to party.  That's it.  

    I like her, and I could care less if she is addicted to 100 different drugs.  But she has got to stay out of the driver's seat, that's enough in my book, but she can't.  That is why she deserves exactly what she is getting.

    A woman recently died (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:00:59 PM EST
    in the Orange County jail because she was detoxing.....and did not get adequate medical care....She was a middle-age, white woman from suburbia who got hooked on prescription drugs.

    Making someone go "cold turkey" makes people feel good--that Lohan is really getting what she deserves....

    You are talking about creating the possibility of a true medical emergency if she detoxes in a jail setting....And even if she survives physically, detoxing in that setting could very well push her over the edge mentally.

    People really want to see Lohan suffer.   Too bad.  It sounds sadistic to me.


    Great post (none / 0) (#56)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:19:33 PM EST
    Obviously how this is being handled is not the correct way for anyone -- perhaps in the face of  failure we need to explore other methods that may, or may not, produce better results.

    LL has money to just do that - and with direction from the court could become a sample of what can be done for people with addiction.


    How she handles this may well become a (none / 0) (#31)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:34:40 AM EST
    precedent for many young people out there facing similar situations.

    It is not just one - she is well known, front page news, so why can't it be set on the right path?


    Don't forget (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    This isn't her first time at the rodeo.  She has at least 2 DUI's and has been to rehab 3 times.

    How many second chances will she get?


    I truly do understand your position (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:30:08 AM EST
    however, just as at times examples are made of famous people insofar as punishment goes, perhaps the opposite can be tried, at least once.

    The choice of many paths the court has to follow may well be a huge turning point in how misuse of drugs and low self esteem is handled in the future.

    She is too fragile to go to prison, imo.  She is empty inside, but beautiful outside.  She has to develop self support management skills to enable herself to go forward - much as others finding themselves in similar situations must do. She has no inner strength and that is so apparent.

    It is a sorry case and, I feel, perhaps our justice system can intervene and establish more constructive means by which to save many from self-destruction.

    Just my opinion.


    I Totally Disagree (none / 0) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:10:02 PM EST
    She is in no way too fragile for prison.  She is making decision that don't come from a fragile mind.  Blowing off court is the mindset of someone who thinks they can get away with it.

    A fragile mind would never get herself in this situation, maybe influences by another, but in my opinion she is running her own show.

    She is choosing not to follow others advise, and that to me is not fragile, that is stupid in this case.  If she were truly fragile, I highly doubt her lawyer would leaver her.

    I think her lawyer, like the court is just sick of her thinking she is either above it and/or can sweet talk her way out of it.


    I think you don't know much about (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:18:09 PM EST
    addiction; she is definitely making decisions from a very bad, and not very rational, place.

    The person with an addiction will almost always make the wrong decision, and will do so because the part of their brain that is ruled by the disease (and yes, I do believe addiction is a disease) will always overrule the part of their brain that is rational.  They know - know - that the right thing to do is not to do the things that get them in trouble, and they believe - always - that this time they will do the right thing - until they don't, which reinforces their belief in their general unworthiness, and then they keep doing it in the hope of killing the bad feelings they have about themselves.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    But, no doubt you are one of those people who think she should just snap out of it and grow up.

    Amazing to me how much ignorance still exists about this subject.


    People need to help themselves (none / 0) (#66)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 02:51:27 PM EST
    Way too much experience with addiction... father, brother, friends, friends son..... only one person wasn't successful with treatment.

    I was advised by to not cater to the irrational actions of the addicted (in fact, cut the person out), that they be allowed to bottom out, suffer the consequences and assistance made available.


    Kinda like pushing a whole bunch of kids (none / 0) (#73)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:01:17 PM EST
    into the swim pool and telling them they have to learn to swim or drown . . .

    "Number of Drownings this Summer has only
    increased 18% compared to earlier years, while the numbers of swimmers has increased by 20% . . ."


    Random thoughts (none / 0) (#77)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:58:07 PM EST
    What are you talking about?  Looks like you responded to the wrong post.

    Absolutely not, it is an analogy to your (none / 0) (#84)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:23:14 PM EST
    attitude of leaving addicts to their own peril of perhaps life or death, or sink or swim philosophy.  

    Some may make it, the less diseased may be able to survive.  Others will not.  

    The reason you have so many in your family is that it is a genetic disorder - just as many other mental illnesses are caused by genes inherited.


    Poor analogy (none / 0) (#87)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:40:39 PM EST
    Your remark was merely a snide comment in response to the legitimate recommendation of a psychiatrist to not engage in enabling behavior.

    I notice you have a tendency to add weird unrelated 'factoids' to spread your own biases.  You wrongly assumed the family member was a blood relative.


    You named numerous family members (none / 0) (#89)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:56:14 PM EST
    Perhaps you are adopted - now that would make sense.

    The teachings of psychiatrists today would not be to simply toss the addicted aside.  Intervention is working for many families.

    Enabling is not tossing someone away.  

    It is supporting them in recovery by not giving them money to buy drugs or engaging in any manner in their obtaining the opiate or alcohol.

    You should report the psychiatrist who recommended such treatment to you to the Board of Psychiatry.

    Please, do not get personal.

    This should be a respected sharing of opinions.  My remark was in no way snide - it was simply an analogy to throwing people into a sink or swim situation similar to tossing them away under the veil of 'not enabling'.

    I respect your opinion that I have weird unrelated
    factoids - actually I take that as a compliment -darn it, there goes another which would not be in your line of thinking, sorry ;)


    The inability to (none / 0) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    do what you know you need to do is pretty much the definition of addiction.

    Yes, and that may prove to be (none / 0) (#74)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:20:39 PM EST
    as simple as thyroid hormones not functioning correctly as alcohol and opiates block the breakdown of certain thyroid hormones in the brain, which may be the cause of addiction.

    We are not going to learn anything by someone put away in a prison cell, imo.  

    Knowledge is power and we need to be on that road.


    She has the mind of a child (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 02:57:35 AM EST
    and a drug-addled one at that. For the same reason we shouldn't treat juveniles as adults, we should treat juvenile drug offenders outside of the criminal justice system.

    Everyone relapses a few times. It's expected.

    She doesn't have the adult thought capacity to reason and understand her situation. I've met many clients like that. You may think they are faking, but they are not. They have serious deficiencies in comprehension. I dont' know her, but she seems to fall into that category, and jail will be of no benefit.


    The DUI's are probably just the (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:10:55 PM EST
    tip of the iceberg, and the rehab has probably not worked because (1) she wasn't ready for it, (2) she did it to try to stay out of jail, (3) it was a condition of being able to be insured to work - production companies don't like to spend a lot of money on actors that may not be able to complete a project and get insurance for that reason; with Lohan's track record, that might have been hard to get without her going to rehab.

    As for how many chances she should get to avoid jail time, I don't know the answer to that.  

    As for how many times she should try rehab - I would say, "until it works," which is what I would say to someone trying to beat cancer, or diabetes or mental illness.  

    Until it works.


    But this time why doesn't she (none / 0) (#58)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 12:36:02 PM EST
    enter a certified mental facility (sounds so much better than institution) rather than a run of the mill rehab (my opinion only)?  

    Certified mental facilities place emphasis on board certified psychiatrists, psychonanalysis and behavioral science rather than attention to how plush or how many amenities provided.

    The success rate is much higher.

    She may well have to stay for a year.

    Eventually, it may get noticed that the $1M spent per year on a prisoner might be better spent on critical mental treatment in a certified facility.


    Average per-prisoner cost (none / 0) (#64)
    by lc on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 02:11:07 PM EST
    It doesn't cost $1 million per year to house a prisoner.  You've said that in other threads on other topics, and it's just not true.  According to the California Legislative Analyst's Office, the average per-year per-prisoner cost is $47,000.

    I said corrected - however, (none / 0) (#70)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:15:59 PM EST
    I did question in my earlier post the figure was from memory only and questioned it -- but thanks for your correction now.

    The $47,000 is based (for California only) on the year 2008-2009.  So that figure is low when one considers costs, especially medical costs, almost three years later.

    However, my memory served me as to the death penalty averaging out to about that amount per year.

    Yes, realize LL is not a death penalty case, so it isn't applicable.

    "California and federal taxpayers have paid more than a quarter of a billion dollars for each of the state's eleven executions"

    (Note the 'b' as in billion, not a misprint)

    Florida spent $57M for 18 executions.

    Link for different states



    Sorry, stand corrected! (none / 0) (#71)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:18:38 PM EST
    jbindc, she only has 2 DUIs (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 11:51:30 AM EST
    And she received 90 days in jail--when the standard sentence in California for a second DUI is no more than 60 days.

    She received a harsher sentence than most.

     As to second chances, Lohan hasn't received a single break from the Judge that I can tell.  Often jail time for DUI's and other misdemeanors can be served via home confinement--especially because of jail overcrowding.  She hasn't been offered that.  They have thrown the proverbial book at her and you still have a problem with that.

    Remember, she has pled guilty to two misdemeanor, non-injury DUIs.  She has not been convicted of a felony and hasn't hurt anyone.  

    As to rehab, she does have a problem.  But it is not a crime to have a substance abuse problem.

      When prosecutors stop imbibing at all, and face being fired for drinking, then perhaps they would have more standing to get all outraged at someone else's substance abuse issues....Prosecutors have all kinds of drinking problems too.


    She also busted probation (none / 0) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 02:54:06 PM EST
    several times, tried to jigger the SCRAM ankle thingy and drink, and blew off numerous of the judge's orders.

    Violation of Probation (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:02:26 PM EST
     I get why Charlie Sheen would rather do some time than have a lengthy probation--which often prevents the consumption of alcohol and carries all kinds of other conditions that can be extensive.

    Lohan ostensibly got 90 days for not attending her DUI classes.  The SCRAM device issues were supposedly not considered.  Her FTA on a prior hearing was what, I think, doomed her.

    But all the Probation conditions seem to be about obeying authority--not about the original offense....What they call a pis*ing contest that the government always wins....


    Agree entirely (none / 0) (#105)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 12:09:43 AM EST
    but I have zero problem with the idea that if the court orders you to do something, you make sure to do it.  And you don't then show up to defend your refusal to do it with "F U" painted on your fingernails and be surprised if the court comes down on you like a ton of bricks.

    I don't know what the court, or anybody else, "should" or can do about this girl.  But whatever her troubles, I don't think it helps her to let her get away with this stuff anymore.  I think that's what they call "enabling," no?


    Short-term (none / 0) (#95)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:52:11 PM EST
    rehab does not appear to work, especially on those in denial, who go to rehab and come out only to return to substance abuse all over again.

    Going commando ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 03:43:22 PM EST
    ... is "political action"???

    (laughing so hard it hurts ...)

    Sure Is (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:21:50 PM EST
    Particularly for the set that buys into the virgin bride approach to womanhood.

    Of course it is nothing new for those who have been paying attention, but for mainstream consumption, it appears to be making its intended point.

    Artists of course, have been in the forefront for ages...  Manet's Olympia was "skied" in the 1862 Paris salon, because it embarrassed all the proper gentlemen who had porn secretly hidden in their pocket.

    And then there was Carolee Schneemann whose 1976 radical performances at the Judson Church expanded the femminist dialogue and later  Karen Finley, whose radical performances, along with other artists brought the reactionary Helms amendment which was adopted and then overturned with the words:

    the committee concluded, censorship "inhibits and stultifies the full expression of art" and therefore: free inquiry and expression" are "reaffirmed."

    And then more up to date there is British Artist Tracy Emin, who is probably a big influence on Lohan. Emin's major works have been In 1997, her work Everyone I Have Ever Slept With 1963-1995, and My Bed -- an installation, consisting of her own unmade dirty bed with used condoms and blood-stained underwear.

    But I am sure that you are aware of all those things and in the end believe that women should be nice and tidy and feminine at all times.... just like the VIctorian nursery rhyme

    2. What are little girls made of?
    What are little girls made of?
    Sugar and spice and all that's nice,
    And that are little girls made of.

    4. What are young women made of?
    What are young women made of?
    Ribbons and laces, and sweet pretty faces,
    And that are young women made of.

    Funny, how you're always ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 04:45:19 PM EST
    But I am sure that you are aware of all those things and in the end believe that women should be nice and tidy and feminine at all times.... just like the VIctorian nursery rhyme

    ... so sure of what other people think, believe, feel, etc.

    If only certainty was synonymous with actuality.

    BTW - Now going commando while clubbing is a form of performance art???


    You want some cocoa butter or Vitamin-E oil?  You're gonna need something for all those stretch marks ...


    As Angel Pointed Out (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:00:35 PM EST
    It was for the Paparazzi. as was her F'u fingernail decal. Lohan is a political activist, and a feminist. Clearly she is influenced by Tracy Emin.

    Lohan is not some random clubber, she is a public figure and an artist.

    Although I do believe that any act a woman does to counter the prudish and victorian non sexual image of femininity is political, and a good thing. If that gesture has made it into the clubs, thank the sun gods, feminism is working.


    And you know ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:16:42 PM EST
    ... her fingernail painting and panty-free clubbing are political statements how, exactly?  Since she herself has never even made the slightest suggestion that either one was a feminist, political statement, unless she's personally confided in you, it would appear you're simply engaging in more creative mind-reading, which ... to be honest ...

    ... you're not very good at it.


    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:21:01 PM EST
    Sorry, I find it hard to explain without appearing condescending.

    Maybe you can do some research on it yourself, I gave you some names to start with, and I would think that any woman who acts to counter the stereotype in the nursery rhyme I provided, is countering a stereotype of how a woman is supposed to behave.

    Lohan's appears to be countering the sexist stereotype, imo.


    If she's 'countering the sexist stereotype' then (none / 0) (#86)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:37:15 PM EST
    why do you keep commenting about how much like Marilyn Monroe she is?  

    Not Like Marilyn (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:22:04 PM EST
    But that Marilyn is the actor she most revers. IOW, Marilyn is a role model for Lindsay, of sorts.

    Oh (none / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:27:14 PM EST
    Did not see the header...  Marilyn was a genius actor, her favorite author was James Joyce and favorite book was Ulysses, I am sure she was working on FInnigans wake. Her dumb blonde persona was opposite to who she was.

    And what a better way to attempt to critique the notion of femininity that to start with the prototype to get everyones attention and then break it down.


    Your opinion of femininity is dumb and blonde? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Untold Story on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:49:00 PM EST
    Well.. (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 02:02:50 PM EST
    If you look around, it is the going stereotype...  All you have to do is look at the top of the food chain...  rich and powerful men, like trophy wives.

    Trophy wives, are not known for their brains...  


    Well perhaps few of us actually think (none / 0) (#122)
    by Untold Story on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 04:13:44 PM EST
    rich and powerful men are known for their brains either!

    I'm all for feminism but (none / 0) (#96)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:56:33 PM EST
    to me, LL's behavior is more that of a substance-addicted, rebellious post-adolescent.  You are turning a situation that is tragic into something heroic, which it is not.  

    Yeah (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:27:39 PM EST
    That too. There is a pretty high percentage of people in the creative arts, many stars, who are drug addicts, alcoholics, general freaks with weird behaviors, who contribute big time to western civilization. Substance abuse In the various art industries it is considered normal behavior.

    Just because she is a pop star doesn't mean she is not an artist.


    So, ... it was mind-reading (none / 0) (#99)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:52:21 PM EST

    Sorry, I find it hard to explain without appearing condescending.

    Add it to the list.


    Vulgarity does not equate to feminism, no matter (none / 0) (#85)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:36:04 PM EST
    how much you want to believe that it does.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 06:02:11 PM EST
    Educated classy women are not supposed to be vulgar. Vulgar behavior is something you would find in a low class commoner aka a trollop. ( An untidy or slovenly woman; a slattern, slut; also, sometimes a morally loose woman, a trull. In quot. 1615 transf. of hounds.) Classy women keep their mouths shut and their legs crossed.

    Lohan is certainly not lower class or uneducated. She is a political activist, and not buying your idea of what a woman should or should not be able to do.

    And for someone who is so vulgar, she sure seems to have a big following.

    And thanks for this, I owe you one, as I was totally unaware of the term or practice of commando gestures and find them refreshingly political.

    Postfeminism provides us with no adequate theory to describe this phenomenon other than an unproblemetized "embracing of female sexuality" or pleasure. Not every kind of exhibitionism or sexualized behavior "counts" as acceptable. In other words, postfeminism cannot account for the opposite pole of this embracing of sexuality--the trashy, trainwreck woman deemed a slut. Second-wave feminist Luce Irigaray provides an account of the logic behind this polarization, because her theory of feminine pleasure and subjectivity distinguishes meaningfully between self pleasure and pleasure for the consumption of others....

     What cannot be seen is understood as nonexistent or at best secondary: touch, because it cannot be seen, cannot be represented, and is thus disavowed. In this context, the vagina is a phallocentric organ: defined as sheath or receptacle, itself properly singular and decorously out of sight...

    Thus these images, unfettered by social norms restricting the consumption of pornography, made it impossible to turn away from the horror of nothing to see--they constituted, rather, the horror of something to see.



    Oh oh oh, squeaky! You're so militant! (none / 0) (#100)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:09:13 PM EST
    Sorry kid, but vulgarity isn't feminism, don't care what rabid or militant writer you find on the internet says.  I lived through the feminist movement, don't try to tell me what it is or isn't.  What you don't seem to understand is that what Lindsey Lohan did when exposing herself was NOT about sexuality.  It wasn't about achieving self pleasure or giving other people pleasure.  It was a childish act that she performed with her two drunk celebrity friends all in a flagrant attempt to garner some attention.  

    LOL (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:44:35 PM EST
    What you don't seem to understand is that what Lindsey Lohan did when exposing herself was NOT about sexuality.  It wasn't about achieving self pleasure or giving other people pleasure.

    She's a tramp?  

    In any case, the point about the freudian lack switching to being an object, which is what I believe is the point, blows Freud away. And I am not sure why you think that transformative change cannot be a mutually pleasurable experience for both activists and their targets.

    And calll it a childish act. most artists strive to make as good art as they made during childhood. It is never surprising when a star type talent acts childish, comes with the territory, imo.


    Lohan is not a political activist, she (none / 0) (#91)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:03:49 PM EST
    is a young woman whose hasn't figured out who she really is or how to own her own life.  There are countless people in her life who have made a living off of Lindsay Lohan - The Product, and probably not many who give a damn about Lindsay Lohan - The Person.  Her mother made her media bait early and often, so flashing the paparazzi is probably her way of flipping off both.

    In order to be a feminist, you first have to know who the hell you are - and Lohan doesn't have a clue.  The drugs and the booze aren't helping her find the answer, just keeping her from feeling too much.

    I don't think she is hooked on celebrity, as much as she's just living the only life she's really ever known - she's just doing what she's always done because she doesn't know how to do it any other way.  It was done for her when she was much younger, and now she's doing it for herself: keeping her name front and center, no matter if it's good or bad.

    I don't know if I have seen an explanation for Lindsay Lohan that has been as far removed from reality as yours, but it has been entertaining to see you try to make her a martyr to her "art," blazing a trail of politically active feminism.


    Well Maybe (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:51:39 PM EST
    But many times the arts are more advanced than the culture at large. I know nothing about Lohan other than following the latest flap, nor the other stuff that goes on in the pop world.

    I do know the art world and this is the type of material is very familiar and many top artists are using. It is feminism now. Young artists and fashion are usually cultural indicators, way ahead of the pack.  


    While I appreciate your attempt to (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 08:41:49 AM EST
    elevate the discourse with your information about, and links to various artists, and with your thoughts on feminism, I am pretty much gobsmacked by your admission - pretty late in the game - that you "know nothing about Lohan other than following the latest flap."

    So all that business about whose art might be influencing Lohan, and all that commentary about her political activism, was just fantasy pulled out of thin air so you could have an argument with someone with whom you disagreed.

    This is one example of why it is so hard to take you seriously: when you're not distorting other people's words, or expressing what is in other people's minds as if you had any clue at all about that, you're just making stuff up in order to argue with people.

    By your own admission, you don't know anything about Lohan; that should have been the first thing you disclosed before you expressed any opinion.  Or, instead of telling others to do research on the art world and feminism, don't you think you should have been researching the person about whom you wanted to express an opinion?  

    I mean, come on.


    Hardly (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:18:13 PM EST
    So all that business about whose art might be influencing Lohan, and all that commentary about her political activism, was just fantasy pulled out of thin air so you could have an argument with someone with whom you disagreed.

    Not thin air, but lots and lots of research. Not to mention the things Lohan is doing, is the same behavior that I have a great deal of knowledge about.

    I am not judging the quality of her artistic talent, as I know nothing about pop, I am judging her actions in the public sphere as an artist, using the media, and her cultural criticism, which I am extremely well versed in.

    Let's put it this way, if medicine was my field I would not have to know what whale meat tasted like, to understand how it is digested and expelled from the body.


    Here's the problem, squeaky: (none / 0) (#117)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 02:20:28 PM EST
    you are looking at someone you admit to knowing nothing about through a lens of artistic/political activism and feminism that is based on what others in the arts world have done, but because you know nothing about her, think that what you are seeing through that lens represents her reality; it just doesn't work.

    "The things Lohan is doing" are being fueled by drugs and alcohol, a distorted and dysfunctional childhood and young adulthood, the many people who continue to use her for their own advantage, and her moving-toward-the-D-List celebrity status; if she's attempting to put forth some new and edgy feminist, artistic reality, when do you think she's going to let the world in on her campaign?  Do we have to wait for the book, or will she star in the movie?

    Art is a great way to get the world to look at and consider other realities, other points of view, but Lohan isn't using her art - film - to do that, and it seems unlikely that she has decided that her life is her art, and all of the things she is doing are just a series of performances in furtherance of opening people's minds to a new feminism.  Or political activism.  Or something.  It just doesn't wash, sorry.

    There's a difference between acting, and acting-out, and it might be that if you knew more about her, and her history, you'd be able to tell that what we're seeing from her is acting-out.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#118)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 03:26:59 PM EST
    And I know nothing about Tracy Emin either, on the personal level.

    But I can read her work and where if fits in the bigger picture of feminism, history, cultural criticism, cult of celebrity and art.

    The same goes for the actions of Tracy Emin. All I have is my ability to interpret actions and what makes it out into the public discourse.

    Those are the actions that are the vehicles of social change.

    And the work of many great, rich and famous artists have been fueled by drug and alcohol, that does not make them any less important. Sh*t the biggest drug of all fueled most of western art, and it is called religion, that does not take away one note from a bach chorale's magnificence.

    Just because you see Lohan as a drug addled loser, doesn't mean that I have to see her that way, nor does it mean that her actions do not reverberate as political and powerful.

    You sound a bit like those who wrote off rock music as garbage foisted on society by a bunch of drug crazed heroin addicts.

    Many said the same about countless artists who entered "high art".... Bacon is a good example, for a start.


    You're still not getting it, and (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    I don't imagine you ever will.  How can you decide what Lohan's actions represent when you admit to not knowing anything about her - which I would guess also means you haven't reviewed or experienced her actual work in movies?  You are looking at - or reading about, because you say you have no TV - a mere snapshot and trying to make it fit into some socially and culturally worthwhile frame that has a broader and more meaningful message, and it's just not working.

    Lohan's life is not her work, squeaky, and whatever reverberations it is having are not so much powerful as they are pitiful, and pity is not likely to effect the kind of grand change you want it to be about.

    I don't think she is a drug-addled loser - I would think that would be evident by the many comments I have made here - and you don't need to try to set me up that way just to help your (albeit detached from reality) argument.  But that's the way you roll, it seems.

    And as someone who came of age in the 60's and 70's, don't try to put me in a corner on the whole rock music issue - that's just another attempt by you to make your point by making things up.

    Have a Lindsay Lohan Movie Weekend, and then come back and tell us about the art she has made and how it relates to her actual life, what powerful and meaningful messages it contains, and how deeply it reverberated in your soul.

    We'll all look forward to your reviews.


    Acts are in the Public Sphere (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 05:05:46 PM EST
    I don't need to know anything about Duchamp to be shocked by his radical piece "fountain". No one needed to know anything about Stravinsky to riot at the Paris Opera during the premier of Rite of Spring.

    My body of knowledge is independent of artistic acts done in the public sphere. Artists do not have to even have a vague idea of what there work means, they are vessels who shock and change, many times without a clue as to why.

    As far as trying to put you in a corner, I am doing nothing of the sort. I used a rock model in order to give you something I assumed you were familiar with in an attempt to illuminate you as to the use of drugs among artists, many of whose music you undoubtedly revere.

    And I am not interested in Lohan movies, I am interested in the actions I have just learned about that she has done. Those acts are political, her movies, probably just a job.


    Correction (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 03:27:58 PM EST
    The same goes for the actions of Lindsay Lohan...

    Squeaky, it isn't your comments I find irritating, (none / 0) (#79)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:05:17 PM EST
    it's you.  You always think you're right, that you know how other people think.  You aren't and you don't.  

    And if you find showing your most extreme private body parts to the entire world to be some smart 'political action' you are delusional.  That was nothing more than a desperate cry for attention.  She's hooked on her celebrity and she's hooked on drugs and alcohol.  I'm not sure which is worse, the addiction to the drugs and alcohol or the addiction to celebrity.  I think it's probably the latter.  

    I'm no prude, hell I grew up in the 60's and 70's, but what she did was so wrong on so many levels it's ridiculous.  And the fact that you were not aware that she had done it proves that you really don't know that much about her at all, yet here you are defending her to the death without really knowing what she's done in the past.  lol  Go educate yourself on her behavior and then come back and make your comments.

    Yes (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:14:41 PM EST
    I agree that I am not the best at being personable,...

    but I wholeheartedly disagree with this:

    And if you find showing your most extreme private body parts to the entire world to be some smart 'political action' you are delusional.

    Most artists who rise to the top, as well as political activists are attention seekers. That is a fact, otherwise they could not tolerate their job.

    My guess is that you would also find Schneemann, Finley, Sprinkle, and Lohan's most obvious influence Tracy Emin, objectionable.

    I find this a most welcome political act. She may be out of control of certain aspects of her life, but she absolutely appears to be in control of her body as a political instrument, and also in control of her art.

    I hope she gets through this rough patch, as it is clear to me that she has a lot to offer, and the show is just starting.


    Exhibitionism is the word, imo, not delusionalism (none / 0) (#88)
    by Untold Story on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:42:59 PM EST
    Performers are Exhibitionists by Definition (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:20:00 PM EST
    LL's action was anasyrma (none / 0) (#125)
    by Untold Story on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 06:15:11 PM EST
    I agree (none / 0) (#97)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 07:59:50 PM EST
    LL's actions are not those of a feminist making political statements, but I think Anne's view of LL's celebrity as the only thing she's known is more on target.  

    Lindsay, (none / 0) (#102)
    by desertswine on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 10:38:35 PM EST

    Call me.

    Distorting - it's your middle name, squeaky. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 04:05:34 PM EST
    We'll leave it to others to decide who has more wisdom.  You are, again, delusional.  

    LL has performed vulgar acts, repeatedly.  The drunks I was referring to are Paris Hilton and Britny Spears, who I'm guessing you also put into the category of artists just doing their thing for feminist and political activism!!! Me, I put them in the useless bimbo category. LOL