This reminds me of a scene in H.B.O.'s “Life and Death of Peter Sellers” in which Sellers explains to his two small children that he’s leaving them and their mother not because he doesn’t love them, but because he loves Sophia Loren more.
And let’s not forget that those children were adopted. Like adopted kids need more incentive to feel unloved.
And had Tom’s take been “I’ve been so fortunate to have shared my life in the past with many beautiful, talented, wonderful women. Unfortunately it hasn’t worked out. I feel really lucky to be able to share my life at this point with beautiful, talented, wonderful Katie and have all the hope of a guy in love that this one is forever.”
It would still sound like insincere nonsense, but it would at least acknowledge that he’s made a complete fool of himself in the past, and that couples who have known each other six weeks may not want to be picking out the china quite yet.
“Watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat”
“Ah Bullwinkle, that trick never works”
“This time fur sure!”
Cruise strikes me as someone on the manic high of bipolar disorder, itself exacerbated by his aversion of psychotropic meds, the ensuing stressful press junket, textbook narcissism, and a fishbowl life.
Mild hijack here - I realize you weren’t necessarily trying to be offensive, but I was adopted at 8 weeks & don’t think I’ve EVER felt unloved. I’m sure there are cases where the adoptees do, but not in mine and not in that of a number of others I’ve talked to. Please avoid the sweeping generalizations.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. 
He’s a racist and an anti-semite, too:
(link to “Rednecks” lyrics)
Or given to irony. It’s hard to tell. 
[sub]Lyrics to Newman’s “Rednecks” removed, replaced by link. God DAMN it, people, will you stop doing this? Randy’s gettin’ pissed. – Uke[/sub]
And I did feel unloved for a long time…I understood what she meant. I didn’t really think she meant every single adopted child.
On a hijack of the hijack, I’m glad to hear your family loves you unconditionally. Really, no sarcasm.
Oh, no, I did understand it, I was just pointing out that it was a possibly unfair generalization.
And, unfortunately, I never said it was unconditional love. Just that I never felt UN-loved. But this is not the thread for such discussions - and I’ve read enough of your posts to realize you weren’t being sarcastic.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear - I was empathizing with adopted children that might feel that way and then have to deal with the added stress of watching their father behave that way. No offense intended for any adopted children who did not have that kind up upbringing.
And Anaamika, I’m a he.
Moderately? Its a vengeful criminal"religion".
True. Remember when its “god” ordered his followers to violently take over the “promised land” from its current inhabitants?
But Scientology is pretty weird too.
“Pat and Kenny Read Oprah Transcripts” on Letterman just did the transcript from Tom’s appearance. I can’t quite decide whether the original or their deadpan version was funnier.
Pretty much. Someone asked Nicole for a statement on this, and she declined, saying that she wasn’t going to badmouth Tom in public, because it wasn’t fair to her children.
I think you might be overreacting here, Uke. My knowledge of copyright law tells me that all the uses so far would qualify as fair use. We’re using the lyrics for purposes of legitimate commentary. In my case, I didn’t actually quote the entirety of the lyrics, but even if I had, I think it would have been justifiable.
’
It’s in the new Vanity Fair. As always, Nicole handles everything with class. She said something along the lines of, “Where do you draw the line between your private life and your public life? When you exploit yourself, what do you have left?”
That’s not a direct quote, but it’s close to what was said.
Nope. The “fair use” laws are pretty clear. Small portions of the original work qualify as Fair Use, but the entire original work does not. What the quotation is used for is irrelevant to copyright law, except insofar as determining the penalty for breaking it.
And what is your actual authority for saying that? Maybe you want to set forth your basis for making definitive statements about the law before you lead with your chin.
There are no “fair use laws.” There is 17 U.S.C. Sec. 107, which is the only statutory provision regarding fair use in the United States, and there are numerous court decisions interpreting that provision.
I spend my days reading court decisions implicating Section 107 of the Copyright Act, and I’m pretty sure any practising copyright lawyer would be quite taken aback by an assertion that it’s so cut and dried. First of all, the proportion of the work used is only one of four factors to be taken into account when determining fair use and the four-factor test is a balancing test. That means there are no cut-and-dried rules like one you seem to be setting forth.
First of all, you have to define what the “work” is and in the case of a musical composition it includes both the lyrics and the music, and as we haven’t performed or copied the music here, we’re nowhere near using the entirety of the original work. Second of all, when you’re talking about a pop song or a short poem, using the entirety of a work, when it amounts to maybe 12 or 16 lines isn’t nearly as significant as using, say, the entire script for a motion picture.
Why don’t you take a look at Section 107?
You betcha that the “purpose and character of use” is a significant factor here. When our purpose is to make an argument regarding the social commentary and intent of Randy Newman’s music, using lyrics from two songs, even if the lyrics amount to almost all the lyrics from the song are not going to weigh very heavily.