Andy's Blog

In 2004, Angelina Jolie was named the sexiest woman alive by Esquire magazine. At the time, I thought, “that's an odd pick.” Don't get me wrong. Angelina is attractive and hot and all, but honestly, the sexiest. I can think of others who in my opinion are sexier. However, I have to say, after watching her interview on Anderson Cooper 360° last night, the picture to the left has to be the sexiest picture of her I have ever seen, and quite possibly the sexiest picture of anyone I have ever seen.

Now I should state that I am a sucker for simplicity. Take college for example. The sexiest part of college, in my mind, were all the girls roaming around in their pajamas. This is not to say that I don't appreciate well dressed occasions, however, I usually find "cute" sexier than "hot" and "simplicity" sexier than "done-up." So this statement about Angelina isn’t just a “noble” relation of good works equaling sexiness (I am not that good of a Christian). I actually do find this picture above to be sexy. But I digress.

To see someone so attractive and wealthy, with literally endless possibilities in ways to spend that money and fame, choose to make poverty an issues closest to her heart is inspiring. When all of her other celebrity cohorts are spending their money on Botox and plastic surgery so they can be the scoop of Esquire's pointless designations or E!'s countless "sexiest people countdowns," Angelina has taken her sexiness and turned it into one of the most noble works on the planet: taking care of the poor, especially children.

I have to say the coolest thing about Angelina is that she both talks the talk and walks the walk - which is rare in Hollywood (and the world). She is as loud as anyone out there about poverty. But she also gives up 1/3 of her income, adopted two children, and travels to countless countries all in the name of poverty. Having both of those elements makes me respect Angelina more than just about any celebrity or well-known political figure in the entire world.

So Esquire, you got it wrong this year by naming Jessica Biel the new sexiest woman alive. That title still goes to Angelina, and this picture is the proof.

This past week I worked a 79.5-hour week. And instead of being wiped out like a normal person, I found myself so rejuvenated that I laid awake at 2:30 in the morning on Saturday night (Sunday morning?). So what did I do? What else but turned on my TV and watched VH1’s Behind the Music: The Nick Lachey Story. It is at precisely 2:37 am that I am writing this, and it is at this moment I have decided that fame sucks!

I should add this disclaimer that I want to be famous. I don’t just want to be pop star famous, because that is too fleeting. I want to be president of the United States famous. And not just any POTUS, but like George Washington POTUS so that my legacy will last beyond my death (I know. I am self-centered. Although I sincerely want to be famous so that I can influence the masses for the kingdom of God, you know, like C.S. Lewis But I digress).

As I watched the Nick Lachey story, and watched the footage from their wedding, I felt overwhelmed by the fact that he truly loved Jessica. Seeing him practically heave to death at the first sight of her as she walked down the aisle almost made me cry. Seeing the amount of love he had for her, was inspiring in a land filled the ridiculous standard of love being set by the Cruise/Holmes relationship. I don’t think it was faked. I don’t feel like it was a show.

But life happens – even more so when you are famous. I don’t know if he cheated. I don’t know if she cheated. I am not excusing any personal decisions made in private. But I do feel that they were in love in the beginning and it was torn apart simply by the pressures of fame.

Now I am not pulling the whole “poor” celebrities thing here. In more ways than not, they are blessed beyond belief, especially in light of billions of people starving in this world. But if love truly is the greatest blessing in life, and the ultimate ascension of humanity. It seems that love is the only thing fame can’t buy, and maybe not even possible to sustain. And if that is the cost of fame, fame sucks!

This week has been quite a week for the Dixie Chicks. Their new album is at the top of the charts, and two nights ago they were on Larry King Live talking about the past three years. I have to admit, I am one of the Americans (although we seem to be fleeting) that will probably never buy another Dixie Chicks song. This isn't because I hate them vehemently. They are probably great people and they sure as heck produce great music. But just like Barry Bonds for baseball, the Dixie Chicks will always have a sour taste in my mouth.

If you've read this blog before you know that I am pro-Iraq because ultimately I think life will be better for Iraqis once a stable government takes over. I have been to the Middle East, I have seen first hand the amount of oppression over there, and anything that removes oppressive regimes in my book is a noble feat. (This is not to say that I think this is why Bush went over there, nor do I feel we have been dealt with honestly, but that's another topic).

I also should state here that their is a part of me that truly respects the Dixie Chicks. I admire anyone who stands so strongly to their belief, especially when their careers are on the line. Principle is something America seems to have forgotten. I also respect the Dixie Chicks stance on the war, even if I do not agree with it. I have many friends that are against the war in Iraq, and for good reason. Anyone who can come to an educated, reasonable decision about their opinion of the war is respectable, and the Dixie Chicks appear to have that.

So Andy, gosh, what's the big deal. Why the sour taste. Here's why. I think the Dixie Chicks as their name alludes to are Chickens. The biggest problem I had with their sentiments back in 2003 was not what they said, not how they said it, but where they said it. London!

Now many have made the point that they weren't willing to say this in Dallas or Nashville or even New York, and I disagree with them. I think that they were willing to say it anywhere. However, where they chose to say it for the first time is of great importance. And the point is Dixie Chicks, you might be willing to say it anywhere, but the truth of the matter is you didn't.

I would have had no problem if they said what they said in New York (which would still probably agree with them) and then travel to London and say the same thing. But you don't backhand your country, even if you disagree with it, and even if a lot of people in your country would agree with you, on foreign soil for the first time. It is like a husband who tells all his buddies what he hates about his wife in hopes that somehow it will get back to his wife and his wife will change his ways. You just don't do that. Have the balls to look America in the eye, on American soil, and say, "America we are not right in our stance on the war, and I for one am ashamed that W. comes from Texas." That is a statement and a context that I would respect.

Since the statement made from London, they have apologized for how they said it, but to my recollection, not where they said it. So I hope 500,000 of you enjoy your Dixie Chickens CD, I for one, will not be buying it.

As I sit on my computer right now, I am staring at my AOL Buddy List and an ad for ONE.ORG begins to play. Basically what we have here is a bunch of celebrities snapping their fingers in order to show us how simple it can be to end poverty if we all just speak up!

Now this brings me back to the glorious summer of '05 and the Live 8 concert. Do you remember? For a week it seemed like we had every celebrity in the world, telling the 8 leaders from the 8 "great countries" that the world wants them to end poverty.

Before I get into what I feel about this, I should add the disclaimer that I am sure there are some truly amazing celebrities deeply concerned with the poverty issue. One case in point is Angelina Jolie. She has moved her family. Adopted her kids. And given tons of money and time in order to fight poverty all around the world, and for that I congratulate her. There are probably others (Bono, George Clooney maybe?).

However, here's my problem with this. If anybody in this world has the ability to do something about poverty it is celebrities. They have the money, and more importantly, the time to really do something about this issue if they wanted to. But instead, they settle for a concert once every 20 years (Live Aid = 1985, Live 8 = 2005), and very little in their own life changes. They are still pulling in millions of dollars and wasting it on their own greed and selfishness. Then they have the audacity to produce commercial telling us not even to help ourselves, but rather, just sign a petition so that others (i.e. governments) will step it up and help the situations in Africa. This is ridiculous.

I have spent my life trying to make the lives of others better. There are families in Mexico that have houses in part due to my effort. There is an orphanage in Honduras that has a gym do to work I have done. There are gardens in South Africa I have helped get started. Now I am not saying all this because I am prideful and want the glory. Far from it. What I want is for America and Celebrities in particular to recognize that poverty is not going to end just by snapping our fingers and signing a petition. Nor will it even end by wealthy countries canceling the debt of poorer countries (does that work on a personal level - does a poor person become rich because a bank cancel their mortgage?) Poverty will end when rich countries' citizens make sacrifices to share the wealth, and aid in the empowering of poor countries' citizens to empower themselves. Until we as a culture put away the idea that Hollywood sells us everyday that materialism brings us happiness, we will never make any grounds in helping impoverished countries. So celebrities out there, I will see you in about 20 years when you decide to throw another concert telling the world that you care, yet ignoring the fact that for the past 20 years you & poverty are at polar extremes of each other.

All right, I will let you take a second to swallow that. I know it might seem hard, but give me the benefit of the doubt for a second.

I just spent a week with the beautiful Jadyn Elise Mills. Ohh what fun we had! Playing on the beach and eating sand. Being dunked underwater in the pool. Waking up at 6 am, only because she wanted some attention, and after she was pulled into bed with me would just fall back asleep on my chest. This week of pseudo-parenting was, believe it or not, a nice break from my single 20s that have a tendency to be very self-centered and all about "my schedule."

But all this parenting has got me thinking, I don't think Britney is that bad of a mom. (Disclaimer: I am not the typical 20-year old male that before Britney had a child thought she was somewhat of a modern day goddess. For the most part, I don't like her music. I don't like her "image." And while I will admit she is very attractive, I don't think the way she flaunted that, especially for young girls, is very good for society. But I digress.) Now, of course, Britney doesn't hold a candle to the amazing mother Andrea is! But then again, who could? Some moms are coming to her defense and saying, sure she's not perfect, but cut her some slack. They all say, just as I learned this week, the mistakes we all make in parenting aren't getting critiqued everywhere we go. No press this week covered as a momentary lapse in my concentration allowed Jadyn to slam her face into the coffee table. Sure, I am not encouraging it, but she's a baby, things like that happen. If we all had the press in our face, CPS would be after all of us.

But I want to go a step further and applaud her. And this is where I know you are going to think I am crazy. Britney has not out-sourced parenting (at least not yet). I have never seen a celebrity mother photographed with her baby as much, and in the "mundane settings of life" (i.e. the grocery store) like Britney has been. And for that I congratulate her. She certainly has the money. She certainly has the "things to do" besides raising a child. Yet for the time being, she has turned from the temptation so many of her Hollywood cohorts, and a lot of American moms, have succumb to - which is ignoring their child and letting someone else raise them. For that, Britney, I say, thank you for setting a good example (maybe the first time) for parents everywhere. Despite your inequities, you have proven to be a good mom!