Thursday, January 26, 2006
I'm so overwhelmed with your emails and good wishes about Jeff's and my engagement over the weekend! It means so much to me! Thank you from the bottom of my heart! Here's one from Jennifer---and there are so many more like hers...Thank you Thank you!
CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR ENGAGEMENT!!
I am absolutely THRILLED for you and you sound so happy this morning I
can just "see" your beaming face! I have been listening for years
through all the ups and downs and trials of your singleness. I just COULD
NOT be happier for you; you are so deserving! I wish you every joy during
your engagment and look forward to all the fun stories as you plan your
wedding! YIPPPEEEE!!!!
Sharing your joy...Jennifer
I will post news as we work all the details out! YIKES! There's a lot!!!!!! And remember, if you hear me becoming a "bridezilla"....call me on it! 312-357-1106! Okay? With love, Eileen Byrne-??????????
ha ha!
CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR ENGAGEMENT!!
I am absolutely THRILLED for you and you sound so happy this morning I
can just "see" your beaming face! I have been listening for years
through all the ups and downs and trials of your singleness. I just COULD
NOT be happier for you; you are so deserving! I wish you every joy during
your engagment and look forward to all the fun stories as you plan your
wedding! YIPPPEEEE!!!!
Sharing your joy...Jennifer
I will post news as we work all the details out! YIKES! There's a lot!!!!!! And remember, if you hear me becoming a "bridezilla"....call me on it! 312-357-1106! Okay? With love, Eileen Byrne-??????????
ha ha!
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Okay, so I love watching the Golden Globes....just to ask this question: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING when you donned this "lovely" outfit?! These celebs should FIRE their personal stylists. Check out the website below:
http://entertainment.msn.com/tv/GoldenGlobes06/undressed?GT1=7655
http://entertainment.msn.com/tv/GoldenGlobes06/undressed?GT1=7655
Friday, January 13, 2006
The Crying Game
It's hard to write when there are tears in your eyes. Like Sam Alito's wife, Martha, I'm going through Kleenex like handi-wipes at a ribfest. I'm wiping tears of joy that these confirmation hearings are finally ending. I'm crying tears of embarrassment that our elected representatives from both sides of the aisle questioned more than they allowed Alito to answer. And I've had tears of sympathy for the fifty-two year old Martha Bomgardner who broke down into tears during the hearings as Senator Lindsey Graham stated the obvious...that her husband, Samuel A. Alito Jr, is not a closet bigot. I was sorry that Mrs. Alito had to endure questions from scare-mongers like Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin, Joe Biden and Uncle Ted, who tried to make Martha's husband out to be a monster-- that Sam was utterly opposed to women and minorities attending college just because the young Samuel Alito, as a member of Concerned Alumni of Princeton, stood up for the ROTC as a student at Princeton University. These radical Democrats understand that that is the only way to keep Alito from being confirmed and a filibuster invoked: to drag up the past. But here comes a genuine-less-than-twelve-minutes-to-ask question: our own Senator Durbin wonders how Alito could be associated with a such a group in Alito's past...but how can Dick be associated with Robert Byrd, a member of the Ku Klux Klan? How can he be associated with a man like Ted Kennedy who left a young woman to drown at Chappaquiddick? Are you sure you want to go there, Senator? Well, since we're dragging Princeton through the mud....Friday's NY Times reports that Princetonians are embarrassed by these hearings....so, let's go back a little bit further in time...back to 1969.
So many people refer to Mary Jo Kopechne like she's a bad word--like she doesn't mean anything except creating the bump in the road that caused Ted Kennedy the presidency. She was twenty-eight years old and, just a week before her twenty-ninth birthday, she attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island, off the coast of Martha's Vineyard. It was July 18th, 1969 and the party was in honor of The Boiler Room Girls. She was one of them....they were all single women who had worked on the Robert Kennedy presidential campaign and helped to close his campaign office after his assassination. The men in attendence were all married..but partied that night without their wives. The festivity was held at Lawrence Cottage, rented for the occasion by Joe Gargan, Ted Kennedy's attorney and cousin. The twelve attendees gathered at the cottage after two Kennedy boats raced in the Edgartown Regatta earlier that day.
Mary Jo left the party with Teddy...(and you've got to remember...this isn't the old, bloated, sleepy, bumbling Ted Kennedy we know today---this is the young, successful, up-and-comer, handsome, sympathetic-lost-his-three-brothers-tragically Kennedy boy) okay, so they left at 11:15pm after he offered to drive her back to the Katama Shores Motor Inn in Edgartown where she was staying. On his way to the ferry crossing back to Edgartown, Kennedy reported he accidentally turned right onto Dike Road, instead of bearing a left on Main Street. After proceeding one-half mile, he descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge. Kennedy drove his 1967 Oldsmobile Delta 88 off the side of Dyke Bridge and the car overturned into Poucha Pond.
Kennedy got out...Mary Jo didn't. Undertaker Eugene Frieh told reporters that her death was due to "suffocation rather than drowning". Her parents filed a petition barring an autopsy...so her cause of death was never medically confirmed. When the car was recovered, all the doors were locked and three of the windows were either open or smashed in. Investigators wondered how Kennedy, a large-framed 6 foot 2 inch man managed to get out of the car....but the 5 foot 2, slender Kopechne was not able to do the same.
Kennedy claims he dove down several times attempting to free her. After exhausting himself, he rested for twenty minutes, then walked back to the Lawrence Cottage where the party had been held. At the Lawrence Cottage, aka: "The Party House", Kennedy asked for his cousin, Joe Gargan, and sat in the back of Kopechne's rental car, a white Dodge Valiant. Though there was a working telephone at this location, none of the group phoned for police or rescue help. Kennedy then returned to the submerged car with Gargan and Paul Markham who then resumed trying to reach her. The group claimed that the tidal current prevented them from reaching her.
Kennedy did not report the accident to authorities; they located him after the car and Kopechne's body were discovered by a science teacher and a 15 year old boy the following morning. He had, in the meantime, discussed the accident with several people, including Kopechne's parents, who say he omitted to tell them the fact that he had been driving the car.
On television Kennedy later said he was not driving under the influence of alcohol. He explained he was in a state of shock when he emerged from the creek and confused by "a jumble of emotions," and that his conduct in not reporting the accident was "inexcusable." Kennedy was charged and tried for failing to report an accident involving injury. He received a suspended sentence.
Questions remain about his attempts to save Kopechne and the possibility of interference in the investigation and the trial by his family and friends.
And...speaking of questions....THOSE are questions I'd like to hear answered. Come on, Democrat or Republican, wouldn't you be more interested in those hearings than the ones we were subjected to this week? I was shocked to read some of the bloggers today accusing Mrs. Alito and the Republicans for staging the entire thing, tears and all. Well, if those hearings were too tame for you....instead of delving into Concerned Alumni of Princeton....how about Concerned Americans for Mary Jo?
Write back, as always, to eileen.f.byrne@abc.com
It's hard to write when there are tears in your eyes. Like Sam Alito's wife, Martha, I'm going through Kleenex like handi-wipes at a ribfest. I'm wiping tears of joy that these confirmation hearings are finally ending. I'm crying tears of embarrassment that our elected representatives from both sides of the aisle questioned more than they allowed Alito to answer. And I've had tears of sympathy for the fifty-two year old Martha Bomgardner who broke down into tears during the hearings as Senator Lindsey Graham stated the obvious...that her husband, Samuel A. Alito Jr, is not a closet bigot. I was sorry that Mrs. Alito had to endure questions from scare-mongers like Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin, Joe Biden and Uncle Ted, who tried to make Martha's husband out to be a monster-- that Sam was utterly opposed to women and minorities attending college just because the young Samuel Alito, as a member of Concerned Alumni of Princeton, stood up for the ROTC as a student at Princeton University. These radical Democrats understand that that is the only way to keep Alito from being confirmed and a filibuster invoked: to drag up the past. But here comes a genuine-less-than-twelve-minutes-to-ask question: our own Senator Durbin wonders how Alito could be associated with a such a group in Alito's past...but how can Dick be associated with Robert Byrd, a member of the Ku Klux Klan? How can he be associated with a man like Ted Kennedy who left a young woman to drown at Chappaquiddick? Are you sure you want to go there, Senator? Well, since we're dragging Princeton through the mud....Friday's NY Times reports that Princetonians are embarrassed by these hearings....so, let's go back a little bit further in time...back to 1969.
So many people refer to Mary Jo Kopechne like she's a bad word--like she doesn't mean anything except creating the bump in the road that caused Ted Kennedy the presidency. She was twenty-eight years old and, just a week before her twenty-ninth birthday, she attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island, off the coast of Martha's Vineyard. It was July 18th, 1969 and the party was in honor of The Boiler Room Girls. She was one of them....they were all single women who had worked on the Robert Kennedy presidential campaign and helped to close his campaign office after his assassination. The men in attendence were all married..but partied that night without their wives. The festivity was held at Lawrence Cottage, rented for the occasion by Joe Gargan, Ted Kennedy's attorney and cousin. The twelve attendees gathered at the cottage after two Kennedy boats raced in the Edgartown Regatta earlier that day.
Mary Jo left the party with Teddy...(and you've got to remember...this isn't the old, bloated, sleepy, bumbling Ted Kennedy we know today---this is the young, successful, up-and-comer, handsome, sympathetic-lost-his-three-brothers-tragically Kennedy boy) okay, so they left at 11:15pm after he offered to drive her back to the Katama Shores Motor Inn in Edgartown where she was staying. On his way to the ferry crossing back to Edgartown, Kennedy reported he accidentally turned right onto Dike Road, instead of bearing a left on Main Street. After proceeding one-half mile, he descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge. Kennedy drove his 1967 Oldsmobile Delta 88 off the side of Dyke Bridge and the car overturned into Poucha Pond.
Kennedy got out...Mary Jo didn't. Undertaker Eugene Frieh told reporters that her death was due to "suffocation rather than drowning". Her parents filed a petition barring an autopsy...so her cause of death was never medically confirmed. When the car was recovered, all the doors were locked and three of the windows were either open or smashed in. Investigators wondered how Kennedy, a large-framed 6 foot 2 inch man managed to get out of the car....but the 5 foot 2, slender Kopechne was not able to do the same.
Kennedy claims he dove down several times attempting to free her. After exhausting himself, he rested for twenty minutes, then walked back to the Lawrence Cottage where the party had been held. At the Lawrence Cottage, aka: "The Party House", Kennedy asked for his cousin, Joe Gargan, and sat in the back of Kopechne's rental car, a white Dodge Valiant. Though there was a working telephone at this location, none of the group phoned for police or rescue help. Kennedy then returned to the submerged car with Gargan and Paul Markham who then resumed trying to reach her. The group claimed that the tidal current prevented them from reaching her.
Kennedy did not report the accident to authorities; they located him after the car and Kopechne's body were discovered by a science teacher and a 15 year old boy the following morning. He had, in the meantime, discussed the accident with several people, including Kopechne's parents, who say he omitted to tell them the fact that he had been driving the car.
On television Kennedy later said he was not driving under the influence of alcohol. He explained he was in a state of shock when he emerged from the creek and confused by "a jumble of emotions," and that his conduct in not reporting the accident was "inexcusable." Kennedy was charged and tried for failing to report an accident involving injury. He received a suspended sentence.
Questions remain about his attempts to save Kopechne and the possibility of interference in the investigation and the trial by his family and friends.
And...speaking of questions....THOSE are questions I'd like to hear answered. Come on, Democrat or Republican, wouldn't you be more interested in those hearings than the ones we were subjected to this week? I was shocked to read some of the bloggers today accusing Mrs. Alito and the Republicans for staging the entire thing, tears and all. Well, if those hearings were too tame for you....instead of delving into Concerned Alumni of Princeton....how about Concerned Americans for Mary Jo?
Write back, as always, to eileen.f.byrne@abc.com
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Does a private Christian school have the right to expel a student for an off-campus, same sex kiss? We will have the expelled student's attorney on at 9:30 tomorrow (Thursday) morning. The story appears below....email me your thoughts in advance at eileen.f.byrne@abc.com
See you Thursday morning at 9am!~ Eileen
COVENANT CHRISTIAN ACADEMY
School defends expulsion over kiss
Academy faces student lawsuit
By LATEEF MUNGIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/11/06
A private Christian academy is defending its right to expel a female student for kissing another girl off campus.
In court documents filed Jan. 4, attorneys for Covenant Christian Academy in Loganville say the school has a constitutional right to expel students for "sexual immorality."
The school filed its statement in response to a lawsuit by former student Jessica Bradley. The ninth-grader was expelled from the school last April. That prompted Bradley and her father to file a Gwinnett County Superior Court lawsuit in December.
In the suit, Bradley alleges invasion of privacy and breach of contract. The Bradleys are seeking at least $1 million in damages.
According to the suit, Bradley attended a sleepover party off campus with several other female students April 22, 2005.
At the party, she kissed another student and at an earlier date had kissed a different female student, according to the suit.
Four days later, Bradley and several other girls were called into the principal's office.
After being questioned about her "inappropriate relationship" for more than an hour, Bradley, who had a 3.5 grade-point average, was expelled, according to the suit.
None of the other girls involved in the incident was expelled at the time, said David Clark, the Bradleys' Lawrenceville attorney. He said he does not know whether they were expelled later.
Administrators cited the school handbook when expelling Bradley. The handbook states that "any behavior, on campus or away which indicates that a student has disregard for the spirit of the school standards, would be sufficient reason to ask for him/her to withdraw from Covenant Christian Academy."
Clark said the guidelines in the student handbook are too vague, are unenforceable and never specifically talk about a same-sex relationship.
Covenant Principal Anthony Knight and the school's lawyer both declined to comment, citing the pending suit. But in the court documents, school attorneys called the lawsuit frivolous and said the private school's decision was protected by the First Amendment.
The school cited a defense of "ecclesiastical abstention," which prohibits courts from interfering in the internal politics of a church.
Clark said the defense is not valid.
"The First Amendment gives churches the absolute right to believe what they wish to believe; it does not give them the absolute right to act how they wish to act," he said.
"Covenant is not going to get off on a constitutional technicality," Clark said. "If the jury believes that they treated the Bradleys unfairly and invaded Jessica's privacy, they are going to have to pay for it."
See you Thursday morning at 9am!~ Eileen
COVENANT CHRISTIAN ACADEMY
School defends expulsion over kiss
Academy faces student lawsuit
By LATEEF MUNGIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/11/06
A private Christian academy is defending its right to expel a female student for kissing another girl off campus.
In court documents filed Jan. 4, attorneys for Covenant Christian Academy in Loganville say the school has a constitutional right to expel students for "sexual immorality."
The school filed its statement in response to a lawsuit by former student Jessica Bradley. The ninth-grader was expelled from the school last April. That prompted Bradley and her father to file a Gwinnett County Superior Court lawsuit in December.
In the suit, Bradley alleges invasion of privacy and breach of contract. The Bradleys are seeking at least $1 million in damages.
According to the suit, Bradley attended a sleepover party off campus with several other female students April 22, 2005.
At the party, she kissed another student and at an earlier date had kissed a different female student, according to the suit.
Four days later, Bradley and several other girls were called into the principal's office.
After being questioned about her "inappropriate relationship" for more than an hour, Bradley, who had a 3.5 grade-point average, was expelled, according to the suit.
None of the other girls involved in the incident was expelled at the time, said David Clark, the Bradleys' Lawrenceville attorney. He said he does not know whether they were expelled later.
Administrators cited the school handbook when expelling Bradley. The handbook states that "any behavior, on campus or away which indicates that a student has disregard for the spirit of the school standards, would be sufficient reason to ask for him/her to withdraw from Covenant Christian Academy."
Clark said the guidelines in the student handbook are too vague, are unenforceable and never specifically talk about a same-sex relationship.
Covenant Principal Anthony Knight and the school's lawyer both declined to comment, citing the pending suit. But in the court documents, school attorneys called the lawsuit frivolous and said the private school's decision was protected by the First Amendment.
The school cited a defense of "ecclesiastical abstention," which prohibits courts from interfering in the internal politics of a church.
Clark said the defense is not valid.
"The First Amendment gives churches the absolute right to believe what they wish to believe; it does not give them the absolute right to act how they wish to act," he said.
"Covenant is not going to get off on a constitutional technicality," Clark said. "If the jury believes that they treated the Bradleys unfairly and invaded Jessica's privacy, they are going to have to pay for it."
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Book of Daniel: Chapters One and Two
Before I review Friday evening's new television bombshell, "Book of Daniel", I just want to tell you how much I appreciated your feedback of the review of "Brokeback Mountain". I have received a lot of email, both positive and negative of the new movie. If you have not yet read the controversial review, it is posted below.
Okay. Book of Daniel is designed to make religion look impotent--that you don't need organized religion to be a good person, just do what feels right and you'll be okay.
The Episcopalian priest, Daniel, is chastised in the beginning of the 1st episode by the female bishop who finds fault with his sermon: "Don't beat yourself up for giving in to temptation." Another parishioner, another holier-than-thou type, also mocks the liberal sermon. As the 1st episode unfolds, my gut instinct is that the parishioner and bishop are going to be more deceitful and corrupt than the plagued Father Daniel, who is struggling with a drug-dealing daughter (she just needs the money), a promiscuous heterosexual adopted son, a homosexual son, a dead son, an alcoholic wife and Daniel himself is addicted to Vicodin. And I turn out to be right. By the second episode we learn that the bishop is having an affair with Daniel's gay-bashing father who also happens to be married to Daniel's ill mother. The holy parishioner is a bigot and probably responsible for embezzling Church funds. Daniel attempts to gain comfort from talking to the Lord, literally. The Jesus character is reduced to a serene joke-meister who dispenses forgiveness like Pez...or should I say Lifesavers, which Jesus actually offers to Daniel, a lime-flavored Lifesaver, when Danny Boy reaches for a pill.
The show's theme is we all have problems--and figureheads of religious authority are no better than the rest of us. In fact, they are worse. They are intolerant and hypocritical because all they do is pass judgement while up to their eyeballs in scandal themselves. Therefore, religion--what is it really good for and who needs it anyway? A mafia-connected Italian Catholic priest even admits: "These nuns, they got nothing to do all day but pray and gossip." Actually, I should correct myself. Religion is good for one thing--helping people turn off life support machines, which happens at the first episode's midpoint.
The TV show reminds me of comedienne Sarah Silverman--it tries too hard to be controversial solely for controversy's sake. The sexually active adopted son, for example, invites his sister for a romp: "We're not actually related." It's gratuitious and doesn't endear the viewer to these characters. By design, the purest character is the homosexual son and we're reminded that homosexuality is genetic. (We later find out that his annoying aunt is gay too.)I did find some of the subplots, like the embezzlement, to be intriguing. And I thought--why does this show have to be so anti-Christian...to the point where I don't want to watch it anymore...it doesn't have to have religion as the backdrop for the storyline. But it does. It does have to. Here's why--Hollywood's agenda is not merely to entertain but to secularize--to remove religion and its importance from our lives. The reason for this is simple--to create a society of conscience-free abortion, on demand-euthanasia, gay marriage and the legalization of drugs. They are in the business of infotainment--not just entertainment.
I noticed, as I was watching the premiere of "Book of Daniel"--a promo for another NBC show, "The Biggest Loser". I know I don't need to set my Tivo for that show. After watching "Daniel", all I have to do is look in the mirror. One thing I am curious about, however, when this show is cancelled, will Hollow-wood TV execs blame themselves for creating a tedious self-involved program that mocks everything we hold sacred--marriage, religion, family, and blames God for disease which plagues Daniel's mother and bigotry and intolerance which plagues everyone who is religious....or will they blame the religious right for rightfully protesting against a bad show? Somehow I doubt they will be looking in the mirror themselves. But don't doubt at all...they will be able to use the cancellation as a great tool for fundraising. Book of Daniel will no doubt raise eyebrows and lots of cash.
Before I review Friday evening's new television bombshell, "Book of Daniel", I just want to tell you how much I appreciated your feedback of the review of "Brokeback Mountain". I have received a lot of email, both positive and negative of the new movie. If you have not yet read the controversial review, it is posted below.
Okay. Book of Daniel is designed to make religion look impotent--that you don't need organized religion to be a good person, just do what feels right and you'll be okay.
The Episcopalian priest, Daniel, is chastised in the beginning of the 1st episode by the female bishop who finds fault with his sermon: "Don't beat yourself up for giving in to temptation." Another parishioner, another holier-than-thou type, also mocks the liberal sermon. As the 1st episode unfolds, my gut instinct is that the parishioner and bishop are going to be more deceitful and corrupt than the plagued Father Daniel, who is struggling with a drug-dealing daughter (she just needs the money), a promiscuous heterosexual adopted son, a homosexual son, a dead son, an alcoholic wife and Daniel himself is addicted to Vicodin. And I turn out to be right. By the second episode we learn that the bishop is having an affair with Daniel's gay-bashing father who also happens to be married to Daniel's ill mother. The holy parishioner is a bigot and probably responsible for embezzling Church funds. Daniel attempts to gain comfort from talking to the Lord, literally. The Jesus character is reduced to a serene joke-meister who dispenses forgiveness like Pez...or should I say Lifesavers, which Jesus actually offers to Daniel, a lime-flavored Lifesaver, when Danny Boy reaches for a pill.
The show's theme is we all have problems--and figureheads of religious authority are no better than the rest of us. In fact, they are worse. They are intolerant and hypocritical because all they do is pass judgement while up to their eyeballs in scandal themselves. Therefore, religion--what is it really good for and who needs it anyway? A mafia-connected Italian Catholic priest even admits: "These nuns, they got nothing to do all day but pray and gossip." Actually, I should correct myself. Religion is good for one thing--helping people turn off life support machines, which happens at the first episode's midpoint.
The TV show reminds me of comedienne Sarah Silverman--it tries too hard to be controversial solely for controversy's sake. The sexually active adopted son, for example, invites his sister for a romp: "We're not actually related." It's gratuitious and doesn't endear the viewer to these characters. By design, the purest character is the homosexual son and we're reminded that homosexuality is genetic. (We later find out that his annoying aunt is gay too.)I did find some of the subplots, like the embezzlement, to be intriguing. And I thought--why does this show have to be so anti-Christian...to the point where I don't want to watch it anymore...it doesn't have to have religion as the backdrop for the storyline. But it does. It does have to. Here's why--Hollywood's agenda is not merely to entertain but to secularize--to remove religion and its importance from our lives. The reason for this is simple--to create a society of conscience-free abortion, on demand-euthanasia, gay marriage and the legalization of drugs. They are in the business of infotainment--not just entertainment.
I noticed, as I was watching the premiere of "Book of Daniel"--a promo for another NBC show, "The Biggest Loser". I know I don't need to set my Tivo for that show. After watching "Daniel", all I have to do is look in the mirror. One thing I am curious about, however, when this show is cancelled, will Hollow-wood TV execs blame themselves for creating a tedious self-involved program that mocks everything we hold sacred--marriage, religion, family, and blames God for disease which plagues Daniel's mother and bigotry and intolerance which plagues everyone who is religious....or will they blame the religious right for rightfully protesting against a bad show? Somehow I doubt they will be looking in the mirror themselves. But don't doubt at all...they will be able to use the cancellation as a great tool for fundraising. Book of Daniel will no doubt raise eyebrows and lots of cash.