King of Popping Pills

I speak for most of us when I say that we were all shocked when we heard the news that Michael Jackson had died. The fascinating thing about Michael was that his music traveled through so many decades, producing countless songs that still hold a special place in our hearts. I mean would a party, wedding reception, or bar mitzvah be the same without Thriller? I don’t think so. Therefore, part of the shock behind MJ’s death was not just the death alone, but that the legend that was Michael Jackson was over. The music had literally stopped.

            Many people have been following the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray, the physician who essentially poisoned Michael to death. Prior to his trial, what did any of us really know about this guy? Furthermore, what did Michael even know about him? According to Biography.com, Murray was not necessarily the portrait of someone who had all his pills in a row. The site claims, “Unpaid debts, lawsuits, and tax liens have followed Dr. Murray’s life. More than $400,000 in court judgments alone were issued against his Las Vegas practice, and in December 2008 Dr. Murray, who has an unknown number of children, was ordered to cough up $3,700 in unpaid child support.” Something I will never understand is why people seek medical help from someone they know nothing about. This person has the potential to ruin your life! Unfortunately, in this case, Michael’s life ended after a chance encounter with Murray in Las Vegas. Biography details how only after they became friends and having discussed Jackson’s 2009 concert tour, did Jackson hire Murray for an astounding $150,000 a month.

            When Michael’s dead body was finally examined, it was determined that he had died from an overdose of propofol, an anesthetic. Perhaps it’s just me, but why is it so hard for people to fall asleep these days? We’ve all seen the commercial with that little neon green butterfly that flies around while people are sleeping and it just makes me wonder, what ever happened to just going to bed when you’re tired? If Michael Jackson was so exhausted from all of his touring and prep work for that tour, don’t you think he’d find it easy to fall asleep? This begs the question of who is really to blame for Michael’s death. Is it really Dr. Murray’s fault? Or is it Michael’s?

            The Biography of Conrad Murray discusses how another registered nurse and nutritionist whom Jackson had also employed actually turned down Jackson when he approached her, begging for more propofol. To me, this is one gigantic red flag. Whenever a person is so in need of a drug that they need to consult whomever they can just to get some shut-eye, the person is obviously doing it for the wrong reasons. An article on the abuse of Benzodiazepines and ‘doctor shopping’ describes some pretty relevant information in the Michael Jackson case making it fairly easy to draw a connection between the two. “Doctor shopping is a particular form of patient behaviour, which involves a patient both consulting several prescribers during the same period and obtaining overlapping prescription orders from these different prescribers. This behaviour is thought to be one of the principal means of diverting prescription medications in the US and it has been linked to substance abuse-related deaths.”

            Conrad Murray ultimately received a sentence of the maximum, four years for involuntary manslaughter. I for once, think this is a fair trial. Involuntary has always signified an accident in my opinion, which is what this was. Yes, he did have control of the drugs Michael was taking, but Michael clearly had an addiction. If he was willing to drop $150,000 to pay a man to make him go to sleep, don’t you think he kind of set himself up for failure? Can you really blame a man whose job it is to prescribe medication for giving you that medication you requested? Michael clearly had issues that couldn’t be fixed with drugs and though I miss his music, I hold him responsible for his own death.

           

Pradel, V., Delga, C., Rouby, F., Micallef, J., & Lapeyre-Mestre, M. (2010). Assessment of Abuse Potential of Benzodiazepines from a Prescription Database Using 'Doctor Shopping' as an Indicator. CNS Drugs, 24(7), 611-620.

http://www.biography.com/people/dr-conrad-murray-481814

Do the crime, do no time

No matter how hard we try, society just can’t avoid Lindsay Lohan! She is back in the news again, only this time it’s to pay the piper, figuratively of course. This past Wednesday, she was sentenced to thirty days behind bars at the Lynwood Jail in Los Angeles. The sad truth is that everybody knows she won’t have to serve the full sentence, just like Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, and Khloe Kardashian before her. This is really upsetting because with celebrity crimes seemingly on the rise within the past ten years, judges are missing their opportunities to make an example out of them.

            Paris was given a sentence of more than three weeks for violating her probation in a DUI related case…she served 3 days in LA county jail and served the rest of her “hard time”/house arrest in her luxurious LA mansion. I wonder if the inmates in Lynwood have assistants to bring them dinner from The Ivy and Starbucks every morning too…You may also recall my second post in which Nicole Richie’s freeway exploits were detailed. She had pot and Vicodin in her system and drove on the wrong side of the freeway. An ordinary person might think she has officially lost her mind. Apparently the judge in that case felt differently because he put her through eighty-two minutes of hell. I mean, she got out of jail in less time than it takes to watch Titanic!

            Back in 2007, HecklerSpray.com posted an eerily prophetic statement about the freckled-felon Lindsay Lohan, stating “Any minute now we'll tell you that Lindsay Lohan will spend one day in jail for repeatedly failing to realize that shoving cocaine into her pockets and driving around drunk isn't really all that legal.” The fact that someone was able to predict that this would in fact happen, and it pretty much will, is either indicative of the celebrities’ lack of awareness or the judges’ lack of awareness. Situations like these make a mockery of the criminal justice system. Call it overcrowding, call it special treatment; I call it ridiculous. For years we have been taught in our criminal justice classes that the goal of incarcerating someone is to not only hold them accountable, but to attempt to rehabilitate them. How exactly is that being exhibited here? L.A. sherriff’s spokesman Steve Whitmore was quoted this past Wednesday on PeopleMagazine.com saying, “[Lindsay] probably won’t be serving the full 30 days. She’s subject to early release for good behavior and overcrowding.” If there are criminals already incarcerated that are dealing with the effects of prison overcrowding why are Paris, Nicole, and most likely Lindsay, not forced to get in the trenches with the rest of them? This is just too similar to when parents threaten to spank their children and then after years of never being hit, the children learn that their parents are just full of empty threats.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20541943,00.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10819127

http://www.hecklerspray.com/nicole-richie-my-82-minute-jail-sentence-hell/20079796.php

Arm Strong, Character Weak

            Domestic violence is no laughing matter which is why I’m stepping away from my usual humorous approach, and giving this post the respect it deserves. It has always been my opinion that abuse is in the eye of the beholder. What people are and are not willing to put up with is really their business. To some individuals, being on the receiving end of verbal put-downs or snide remarks is a normal way of life and they turn the other cheek. However, to many individuals, this could be considered abusive. Neglect, an under-rated form of abuse, deprives a person, young or old, of the love or environment needed to grow and thrive. Physical violence however is without a doubt an overt form of abuse and should be taken seriously.

            Taylor Armstrong first entered our households as the frail and mousy wife and mother on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. Hearing the things she said and the way she interacted with the other ladies on the show was indicative of someone who had been traumatized. She seemed afraid of her husband, hesitant to even broach the thought of leaving him. Before ‘Housewives’ had aired, reports surfaced detailing the abusive relationship she was involved in with her now deceased husband, Russell Armstrong. In an interview with Entertainment Tonight, Taylor claimed Russell “grabbed me by the back of the neck and shoved me against the wall and he said, ‘if you ever make my children a pizza without a vegetable again, I’ll kill you.” Why do men do this? As a man, I’m ashamed to even read this not only because of his actions, but because of his motivation for doing it in the first place. That a man would lay a hand on his wife over a PIZZA is beyond me.

            By the time Real Housewives of Beverly Hills aired, Armstrong was in the middle of a very messy marriage. As Taylor has noted, had it not been for the show, her situation could have been a lot worse. “If cameras were not in my life, there’s a good chance I wouldn’t be sitting here today.” This, I feel, is a very important statement because I am a firm believer in everything happening for a reason. Taylor goes on to say that she pursued a spot on the show “subconsciously” to bring her problems into the public eye. Smart move, Taylor. Who knows what condition she’d be in had she not done the show? Perhaps, this was a blessing in disguise.

Following the release of details on Taylor’s abuse, Russell was found dead in his home on August 15^th, due to suicide. Shortly after his death, pictures surfaced of Taylor’s wounded face at the hands of Russell. She admitted to having lied to doctors about their 5 year old daughter kicking her in the face, causing the injuries. Doctors were quick to notice however that her injuries were not caused by a 5 year old. On the contrary, they were indicative of blunt trauma by a fist and that Taylor could have easily gone blind from an injury like that. I don’t wish bad things on anyone; however I’m also not one to sit on the sidelines and watch as someone gets taken advantage of. Russell is where he belongs. He may not have faced the justice of the legal system, but he has certainly been punished.

Why do people stay in abusive relationships? Why are we so quick to jump into a relationship that is bad for us but find it so hard to leave when that relationship causes us pain? What makes us stick around? "Multivariate studies suggest that income is the strongest predictor of leaving or staying. Economic dependency on the batterer is the primary reason women do not leave" (Kim & Gray, 2008). This could very well be the case seeing as how none of us had even heard of Taylor Armstrong until she appeared on RHOBH. According to her personal website, the aptly named TaylorArmstrong.com, she was able to support herself with her own career until she met Russell in 2004. Perhaps the money he brought to the table was enough to make her stick around and endure his unfair abuse. Another fear she may have had was the potential abuse of their daughter, Kennedy. It is ironic how this is a common fear for many women yet their fear of leaving only puts them and their children at greater risk. Countless studies can be done to try and determine why certain women never leave. However at the end of the day, it is up to the individual woman to decide when that time is safe and right for her. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/taylor-armstrong-russell-_n_970898.html

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/10/taylor-armstrong-i-might-be-dead-if-not-real-housewives

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/09/taylor-armstrong-russell-made-me-blame-daughter-5-eye-injuries

Kim, J., & Gray, K. A. (2008). Leave or stay?: Battered women's decision after intimate partner violence. Journal Of Interpersonal Violence, 23(10), 1465-1482. doi:10.1177/0886260508314307

D.U. Why Risk It?

Being the celebrity fanatic that I am, it should come as no surprise to see me curled up on the couch with the latest issue of People or Us Weekly. Every so often, the magazines will place a two page spread entitled “Stars, they’re just like us.” This has to stop. The fact that Angelina Jolie drinks water or Cameron Diaz was seen walking her dog does not automatically make us “twinsies”. The truth is stars are not like us. They attend award shows, donate insane amounts of money and support when the world is in a time of need, and have privileges that many people have only dreamed of. One of these privileges is financial security. That being said, why the hell do so many celebrities get stopped for DUI’s when they could just as easily have called a driver?!

            She is in no way the first person to have done this and certainly won’t be the last, but for some reason, Paris Hilton was the first one to pop into my head. We all know her for her bleach-blonde hair, her famous lineage, and that doe-eyed stare that begs the question, “the lights are on, but is anyone home?” Her first DUI arrest took place back in 2006 where she was booked at 1:43 am and released shortly after. The unfortunate thing is that from the get-go, the seriousness of her offense was trivialized. Hilton later spoke with Ryan Seacrest on his radio show and when asked about her DUI she said, “It was nothing.” Furthermore, her publicist Elliot Mintz told the press that “…I don’t know if this is going to have an impact on [her fans] one way or another. But of course she regrets what took place.” What if her fans are teenage or even 21 year old girls, who now think that it is ok to drink and drive? "The potential of celebrity figures to influence others exemplifies the concept of observational learning, or modeling, which is an integral component of Bandura's Social Learning/Social Cognitive Theory" (Smith, Twum, & Gielen, 2009). Essentially, developing individuals tend to mimic what they see. If what they see sends a negative message, then they're being set up to fail.

            Also back in 2006, Paris’s gal pal Nicole Richie was stopped after motorists saw her driving the wrong way on a Burbank freeway. Once CHP caught up with Richie, her car was stopped in the carpool lane and she was on her cell phone. She admitted to police that she had taken Vicodin and smoked pot and was subsequently booked. Last but not least, the one and only Khloe Kardashian. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Kardashians. I may even have seasons 1 and 2 of Keeping up with the Kardashians on DVD…but that’s beside the point. Back in 2007, Khloe was stopped on her way home after having several drinks with her sisters. Even though the DUI itself was reenacted on an episode of Keeping up with the Kardashians, America was exposed to the reality of Khloe being released from jail and having a discussion with her mother about it on the car ride home. In some way, I feel that perhaps Paris and Nicole may not have been such repeat offenders had their mothers sat them down and explained the severity of their actions as Khloe’s did. Also, Khloe stated in an interview with Tyra Banks that she has to “go to the hospital and see injured people who were either a drunk driver themselves, or were hurt by someone.” Why is it that she seems to be the only one who did some soul searching?

Stars, they’re just like us….but with money. Celebrities can afford the best lawyer, the biggest house, and the fastest car on the block. If you can afford all that, then the least you can do is buy a driver. And what’s the best part, you ask? They don’t have to be the best; they just have to be sober.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/14712866/ns/today-entertainment/t/paris-hilton-says-dui-arrest-was-nothing/

http://www.tmz.com/2006/12/11/nicole-richie-popped-for-dui/

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20226263,00.html

Smith, K., Twum, D., & Gielen, A. (2009). Media coverage of celebrity DUIs: Teachable moments or problematic social modeling?. Alcohol And Alcoholism, 44(3), 256-260. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agp006

Parents Behaving Badly

             For years, I have wondered what the big deal was with Lindsay Lohan. Things like, “why is her mom always going out to clubs with her?” and “what’s with her disappearing freckles?” But now more than ever, when people hear the name Lindsay Lohan, there are only two words that come to mind…mug shot! I know that it’s probably not fair to fault one or even both of her parents for her life choices. But after looking at the shining examples they both have set over the years, I find myself asking if it’s them who are really to blame for Lindsay’s downfall.

            TruTv.com has compiled a list of Michael Lohan's (Lindsay’s father) criminal, not to mention immature, behavior over the past twenty years. In 1990, Michael was sentenced to three years for insider trading. Fast-forward to 2003 when he punched a sanitation worker in the face. Three years later in 2007, Michael served over two years in a New York correctional facility for driving under the influence after causing a potentially fatal car crash. The website goes on to say that in May of 2009, Papa Lohan was “charged with misdemeanor aggravated harassment after he allegedly made a phone call threatening to kill his 24 year old girlfriend Erin Muller…”

            Now, I move on to the notorious Dina Lohan. You may have seen her gettin’ down with Lindsay at hot L.A. nightclubs, or putting her “mom-ager” skills to work on the E! show, Living Lohan. Either way, it is undeniable that a mother should not be out partying at bars with their daughter, especially when Dina has two other children, both younger than Lindsay. Not only does this set a bad example for all three children about what it means to be responsible, but as her manager, she should not be mixing business with pleasure. Let’s face it, we’ve all been there. You invite a group of friends over and your parents inevitably butt in while attempting to fit in. Either way, there is an invisible line drawn between appropriate parent-child interaction. Dina has definitely crossed that line.

            I’m sure it is difficult to grow up with parents as obnoxious as Michael or Dina Lohan. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending Lindsay. I think she’s ridiculous. But is it really that hard to understand why Lindsay behaves the way that she does? Look at the example that was set for her. A recent article discussed the issue of vicarious responsibility and whether parents should be held responsible for delinquent behavior in their juvenile children. Granted, Lindsay is not a juvenile, though she behaves like one. "Research has consistently demonstrated that children who participate in illegal activities often have poor relationships with their parents or come from homes where parents are not actively involved in the children's lives" (Brank, Greene, & Hochevar, 2011). The article goes on to say that if someone is in a position of power over another, in this case Michael and Dina Lohan, those people may be "causally implicated in any harm created by that individual."
           In an interview with Matt Lauer, Dina was quoted saying, “When [Lindsay] went out to Los Angeles when she was 19, I had to let her live and fall and fail and survive. Without failure, there’s no success.” Clearly, Dina’s plan backfired. Let the mug shots speak for themselves…

http://www.trutv.com/dumb_as_a_blog/gallery/dumbest-parents-of-celebrities.html?curPhoto=3

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/photogallery/problem-parents.html?curPhoto=1


Brank, E. M., Greene, E., & Hochevar, K. (2011). Holding parents responsible: Is vicarious responsibility the public's answer to juvenile crime?. Psychology, Public Policy, And Law, 17(4), 507-529. doi:10.1037/a0024566