Cissy Houston Wants Lie Detector Test for Funeral Staff

[abfan]

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3043...o-national.htm

Whitney Houston's alleged open casket photo, which was published on the front cover of the National Enquirer, has stirred controversy over the past few days as more and more people voice outrage over the sensationalism and disrespect exhibited by the tabloid.




0

Now, according to Extra TV, Whitney Houston's mother Cissy Houston is seeking "an in-depth investigation to find out who snapped the picture."

My FOX Chicago reported that Cissy has requested for all those who attended the private viewing on Friday night before Houston's funeral to take a lie detector test. This request includes the staff of the Whigham Funeral Home.

However, the owners of Whigham Funeral Home vehemently deny taking and/or selling the photo. "I'm going to answer you as the publicist told me to answer you: We have no comment. But it was not the funeral home," Carolyn Whigham told the Los Angeles Times. "Whitney was a personal friend to me and my family. We would not do that.

[Jerry Oz]

This is spinning out of control. She needs to let it go. What does she want to do with the knowledge of who did it? Even if she sues and wins a judgment, the damage is done and her daughter is still in that casket. Let it go, Cissy.

[marv2]

This is spinning out of control. She needs to let it go. What does she want to do with the knowledge of who did it? Even if she sues and wins a judgment, the damage is done and her daughter is still in that casket. Let it go, Cissy.

This is how they should have been fighting when Whitney was alive and all the garbage that was printed in the press.

[soulster]

She will never find out who snapped the photo. No one is going to take a requested polygraph, like that will even prove anything. It's no use. The photo is on every grocery store checkout stand. No laws have been broken.

She also needs to grieve.

[soulster]

This is how they should have been fighting when Whitney was alive and all the garbage that was printed in the press.

What garbage? That she was a drug addict? That is not garbage. That is a fact.

[abfan]

What garbage? That she was a drug addict? That is not garbage. That is a fact.

Tell us how you really feel..
I think you mentioned that in every WH thread..It's ok we know she used drugs .It's ok we know'

[jillfoster]

Cissy needs to let this go. Nobody gonna take that test, and she can't make them.

[Jerry Oz]

Tell us how you really feel..
I think you mentioned that in every WH thread..It's ok we know she used drugs .It's ok we know'

Whitney used drugs?! I thought she looked like a coat hanger because she was just hyped up on P90X.

[soulster]

Tell us how you really feel..
I think you mentioned that in every WH thread..It's ok we know she used drugs .It's ok we know'

Just checking...

Almost every single musical artist we like had done drugs and drank alcohol in excess. Hell, a good portion of the world has used recreational drugs and drank alcohol in excess. Some of the members here have partaken in them. It's unfortunate that she died as a result of overdosing and/or drinking an excess of alcohol.

I do not know Cissy Houston. I would advise her, if I could, to get some professional help and to have time to grieve. That is important to her mental stability.

[Jerry Oz]

Just checking...

Almost every single musical artist we like had done drugs and drank alcohol in excess. Hell, a good portion of the world has used recreational drugs and drank alcohol in excess. Some of the members here have partaken in them. It's unfortunate that she died as a result of overdosing and/or drinking an excess of alcohol.

I do not know Cissy Houston. I would advise her, if I could, to get some professional help and to have time to grieve. That is important to her mental stability.

The drugs were a symptom of something much bigger that was wrong with Whitney Houston. By the time she was a geeker, it was much too late to remove the demon that drove her to become one.

[abfan]

I thought she looked like a coat hanger

COAT hanger ????? This was the last picture taken of Whitney w Kelly Price.The night before she died.She looked healthy and Happy to me

[Jerry Oz]

COAT hanger ????? This was the last picture taken of Whitney w Kelly Price.The night before she died.She looked healthy and Happy to me

I take it back. I should have said "I thought she looked like a Weather Girl because she was just hyped up on P90X." That's what I get for trying to be funny, I guess...

[soulster]

The drugs were a symptom of something much bigger that was wrong with Whitney Houston. By the time she was a geeker, it was much too late to remove the demon that drove her to become one.

We don't know that. Sometimes people do drugs just to do them. They may do them just to "fit in", which is a very important thing in the entertainment world. They may do drugs to help cope with the constant pressure or working and always having to be "on". maybe someone slipped them some booze or a cigarette laced or spiked with something.

There are all kinds of reasons get high, but you can't say that they all are trying to escape some life event. Some people have the best lives in the world and still become addicts.

If someone says that they are surprised that Whitney could sing at all because of some childhood event, why assume it was some sort of abuse? How do we know they weren't referring to some medical problem or accident? Unless we know for sure, it's all speculation without any facts to go on.

[daviddesper]

Maybe I am asking too obvious a question here, but wouldn't the easiest way to find out who snapped the picture be to simply find out who the Enquirer paid for it?

[marv2]

Maybe I am asking too obvious a question here, but wouldn't the easiest way to find out who snapped the picture be to simply find out who the Enquirer paid for it?

Yes but the challenge would be gettting the Enquirer to tell. It would make an impact on the Enquirer's business. Meaning, in the future when they want to get pictures they, people that do that type of thing would be hesistant.

[Roberta75]

Maybe I am asking too obvious a question here, but wouldn't the easiest way to find out who snapped the picture be to simply find out who the Enquirer paid for it?

Well considering her own sister in law sold her out to the Enquirer I'd say it could be anyone.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/cele...-crack-whitney

Like all famous addicts, Whitney Houston was prey for leaches, vultures and hangers on. It could have been anyone who took that photo but nobody is going to step forward and voluntarily take a lie detector test. Whoever sold their soul and this photo got a lot of money from the National Enquirer and it will surely bring them no happiness.

May God forgive them and may he comfort Cissy and give her the strength to let this idea go.

Roberta

[tallone]

Roberta, out of all the post I've seen, yours makes the most sense. Thank you.

[soulster]

Maybe I am asking too obvious a question here, but wouldn't the easiest way to find out who snapped the picture be to simply find out who the Enquirer paid for it?

They won't tell, and you can't make them tell you. Again, as long as no laws were broken...

[marv2]

They won't tell, and you can't make them tell you. Again, as long as no laws were broken...

I am thinking now that perhaps they should have had every individual that entered the Funeral home for whatever reason during the days that Whitney Houston and her family were there sign some type of non-disclosure form. I don't know but something that would have legally restricted anyone from violating the privacy wishes of the family.

[Jerry Oz]

Such a document would require foresight of such a classless act occurring and few would have thought it possible last week. Furthermore, the document would take days to draft and also have to state what penalties would be required to fix a violation. The person responsible could mitigate this by negotiating a higher sale price or remove themselves from liability by having an agent sell the photos while the culprit remained anonymous.

[marv2]

Such a document would require foresight of such a classless act occurring and few would have thought it possible last week. Furthermore, the document would take days to draft and also have to state what penalties would be required to fix a violation. The person responsible could mitigate this by negotiating a higher sale price or remove themselves from liability by having an agent sell the photos while the culprit remained anonymous.

True to several points you made. This will not help in this current situation, but for future events such as these maybe the Funeral Directors Association [[or whatever national governing body for that industry that exists) could have something drawn up that could be customized for specific clients. The general World media covering Whitney's funeral conducted themselves better than I have seen in recent times, trash papers like the Enquirer which I don't consider legitmate media must be sanctioned in these instances. They are not offering anything beneficial to society as a whole.

[Jerry Oz]

True to several points you made. This will not help in this current situation, but for future events such as these maybe the Funeral Directors Association [[or whatever national governing body for that industry that exists) could have something drawn up that could be customized for specific clients. The general World media covering Whitney's funeral conducted themselves better than I have seen in recent times, trash papers like the Enquirer which I don't consider legitmate media must be sanctioned in these instances. They are not offering anything beneficial to society as a whole.

Let me play devil's advocate to your last point. We live in a different society than in my [[our?) formative years. Whereas something like this would be considered by many standards be offensive, there is quite obviously a market for it. Sales for the Stinkquirer will not suffer from this. Few will decide "enough is enough" and cancel their subscriptions. If anything, this raises the bar for TMZ and other such "news" outlets to go further and deeper to put such information into the hands of those who desire it. Consequently, society benefits because the lack of decisive action to prevent it from happening again is indicative of the fact that the publication of the photos serves a market, or - dare I say it? - a societal need. Sales figures don't lie.

Things have changed. George Clinton had it right: America Eats Its Young.

[luke]

Addiction was defined as a primary disease in 1956. It is not a symptom of anyting else. That is a myth and allows denial like "if I just learn to handle stress I wont drink or drug." Not based in fact. About 10 percent of the population gets it. It is genetically based.

[marv2]

Let me play devil's advocate to your last point. We live in a different society than in my [[our?) formative years. Whereas something like this would be considered by many standards be offensive, there is quite obviously a market for it. Sales for the Stinkquirer will not suffer from this. Few will decide "enough is enough" and cancel their subscriptions. If anything, this raises the bar for TMZ and other such "news" outlets to go further and deeper to put such information into the hands of those who desire it. Consequently, society benefits because the lack of decisive action to prevent it from happening again is indicative of the fact that the publication of the photos serves a market, or - dare I say it? - a societal need. Sales figures don't lie.

Things have changed. George Clinton had it right: America Eats Its Young.

I understand what you are saying completely. They've tried for years now to pics of Pres. Obama smoking a cigarette with no luck. Where does it end? Who knows. I just believe that if there an Earthly penalty to pay, maybe they would back up a bit. I am not naive enough to think that leaving things up their moral judgement things would improve. . George Clinton was definitely right all those years ago sadly.

[marv2]

Addiction was defined as a primary disease in 1956. It is not a symptom of anyting else. That is a myth and allows denial like "if I just learn to handle stress I wont drink or drug." Not based in fact. About 10 percent of the population gets it. It is genetically based.

I believe that too now that I have lived some. How is it that two people and use drugs, get high; even do it on a semi-regular basis whereas one gets hooked and takes things to a different level?

[Jerry Oz]

Addiction is certainly a disease. When I spoke of "symptom", I guess I should have been specific to the use of drugs that leads to the addiction. I shake my head to think of the kids who laugh at the tweakers lying in gutters on their way to school but wind up later using the same junk and ruining their own lives. Crack dealers have little love or respect for their clientele, but some of them wind up using and becoming addicted themselves. In my town, many of the affluent kids from the suburbs are now using heroin and smoking crack. Why?

My assertion is a simple one: Addiction is a disease but the behavior that leads to it is antithetical to self-preservation, which is the first law of nature for any organism. Why use substances or engage in other behavior that can lead to life-altering consequences [[reckless unprotected sex, for example) if there is not something seriously wrong? So, I stand corrected in saying that the addiction is a symptom of something else. I meant to say the behavior is symptomatic of some other issue.

[stephanie]

I know I am in the minority here but I think Cissy should let it go BUT I think its a good idea for her to know who took the pic because it could be someone who is close to the family who in the future they may not be able to trust with other future matters. If they sold this to the Enquirer what else would they do to betray the family? I personally think it may have been someone in the funeral home if nobody else had access to the body OR when some of the people who were invited came it could have been taken with some remote professional camera in someones jacket. I would be tempted to think its someone who is familiary with photography because whoever developed this pic is not someone who would take it to a CVS or a photo developer shop. Please dont spread this and I hate to be accusatory but when this happened the first thing I thought is the funeral home would not want to be held liable did Bobbi Kristina have someone who she knew do it so she could have money for drugs. NOT an accusation it just crossed my mind when I was thinking who in the family would do it? None of Bobby Browns family was there to my knowledge and he got close to her but I dont know if he was close when the casket was closed or open. Again please forgive me any Whitney Houston fans but those were my thoughts not FACTS! Is there any way anyone can tell what type of camera took this pic?

[Roberta75]

I doubt Bobbi Kriistina Brown was thinking about drugs at her mom's viewing or funeral Stephanie. The girl lost her mom so I personally absolve her of all and any guilt.

Cissy Houston, or Saint Cissy, as she's known in NY and NJ, will never found out the soulless person who hawked that photo. Trust me they have the full protection of the National Enquirer and were probably paid in cash.

The money they received for the casket photo will not bring them any good will.

May God forgive the thief.

Roberta

[jillfoster]

Oh Roberta.... if you had the chance, you'd snap a pic and cash in.

[Roberta75]

Oh Roberta.... if you had the chance, you'd snap a pic and cash in.

jillfoster that's a dreadful accusation to make. LOL

Roberta

[jillfoster]

jillfoster that's a dreadful accusation to make. LOL

Roberta

I'd be pretty damn tempted myself.

[jobeterob]

You guys wouldnt do that.........not really.

I bet one of the relatives or clingers flogged the picture ! one of them that are now out of any money coming in.

No one mentioned this and some might find it offensive, but I thought Whitney's face bore a resemblance to Florence Ballard.

[motony]

now I heard on one of those tabloid TV shows that Whitney was buried in a $40,000.necklace & this was from a family member!How stupid a statement is that!Now every thug will be trying to get into that grave. It seems I remember seeing a pix of James Brown in his casket & other famous people, its not something I want to see, but its not as outrageous to me as making a statement about valuables the person is buried with.

[Jerry Oz]

Didn't they say she was wearing $200 k earrings, also? The first thing that I thought was that was careless information to make public.

[captainjames]

Oh I wish I could be there for Cissy and just grab and hug her. I know she is hurt and wanted this private but its the life of any entertainer as popular as Whitney. Take a deep breath Cissy, it is one of the many steps of grief to be angry. Try and let it go but, if you really need it for closure then so be it.

[marv2]

Didn't they say she was wearing $200 k earrings, also? The first thing that I thought was that was careless information to make public.

It was reported that it was $ 500,000 worth of jewelry to which Mrs. Whigman, the Funeral Director disputed saying that the claim is false and that the jewelry was removed before the burial. It is not clear who made that claim to begin with.

[soulster]

You guys wouldnt do that.........not really.

When it comes to money, all bets are off!

[juicefree20]

And that's the problem with speculation.

$200,000 is a lot of money & for most, $40,000 represents a pretty good payday. Economics being what they are these days, whom in their right mind would possibly believe that anyone in their right mind was going to bury $500,000 worth of anything, when for certain they could put that money to much better use?

Yet there are people who will believe what they read & if opportunity presents itself, they would have no problem trying to sneakinto a graveyard, hoping to score a few jewels.

On another note, I still contend that some sort of law should be enacted which will ensure that private affair such as this remains private. In yesterday's news, the owner of the funeral home issued a statement saying that she was receiving hate mail & others have comeout saying that they will never do business with her in the future.

That's why I don't believe that the funeral home had much to do with this situation. It would be financial suicide for them to have participated in that kind of behavior, while emotions are still red hot.

If the guilty party/parties were held accountable, it would serve to remove the stench of guilt from the innocent. For that reason, if no other [[not to mention needing to know whom can be trusted), it's only fair that the guilty party be outed & held accountable.

[juicefree20]

Inside Edition is on now & reportedly, The Enquirer paid $500,000 to whomever took that picture. Certainly serious incentive to violate The Houstons.

As a photographer, I certainly understand the lure, as 500 G's sure buys a lot of equipment. With that said, I just wouldn't want to be THAT kind of photographer. I simply don't believe that any good comes from violating people in such a way because I wouldnt want anyone to do that to me & mine.

Regardless of price, there should be something that money can't buy.

[marv2]

Inside Edition is on now & reportedly, The Enquirer paid $500,000 to whomever took that picture. Certainly serious incentive to violate The Houstons.

As a photographer, I certainly understand the lure, as 500 G's sure buys a lot of equipment. With that said, I just wouldn't want to be THAT kind of photographer. I simply don't believe that any good comes from violating people in such a way because I wouldnt want anyone to do that to me & mine.

Regardless of price, there should be something that money can't buy.

Sure that level of money is tempting, that's why I believe blame should be focused on the Enquirer. If any laws were developed to prevent this type of thing, they should be aimed primarily at these rags that print and circulate the pictures. The principles at the Enquirer should be held accountable and punished.

[Jerry Oz]

Sure that level of money is tempting, that's why I believe blame should be focused on the Enquirer. If any laws were developed to prevent this type of thing, they should be aimed primarily at these rags that print and circulate the pictures. The principles at the Enquirer should be held accountable and punished.

The problem with this concept is the problem with paparazzi in general. Nobody "owns" his or her own image and anybody that can snap a photo has the right to sell what is essentially their property. The same principle holds in death as in life. Who owns the image of Whitney Houston lying in state? Probably nobody. Therefore, the violation is one of ethics [[which are malleable) but not one of laws. If Cissy or BK can show that they went to a shrink to help get over the shock of the betrayal, perhaps they can sue the Enquirer for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but that would require a judge and/or jury to make the determination that the Enquirer knew the photos would cause them harm. That might be a push to prove although I'd like to see it.

[juicefree20]

Marv,

It's all too easy to blame The Enquirer for situations such as this. But I place more blame on a society where not enough people become enraged over assaults on what should be common decency & a society who considers anything hyped to be something of true meaning or something which holds true value.

For example, Nike just released a new sneaker. Now Nike could come up with a better way to sell their "Limited Edition" sneakers, that much is for certain. Instead, they produce a limited amount of these sneakers & rather sell them online or simply produce enough sneakers to satisfy their fans, they wratchet up the hype for these "exclusives", then send a limited amount to choice stores where thousands of people are lined up hoping to score a pair of those shoes.

Now I don't blame them for the animalistic behavior of the would-be purchasers of these sneakers. But I do blame them for knowing that they're contributing to what amounts to a feeding frenzy because they have had several examples of what would happen due to their marketing strategy, which always seems to take things into chaos & mayhem.

Just as what happened the other day in Jersey.

The truth is that if more people showed their disgust for situations such as this & actually took a stand against folks like The Enquirer, they simply couldn't & likely wouldn't try this sort of crap. But just like with drugs & anything else, it comes down to a matter of supply & demand. And think about it, just about anytime there's controversy over something like this, people are so incensed & disgusted about it that amazingly, the sales figures go UP.

So it means that there are a whole lot of people out there who lap up this crap which is a clear indication that said crap is desirable to someone. If it wasn't, then they'd have been out of business years ago.

I guess when all is said & done, the blame is not so much on The Enquirer, but more on their enablers who make their sort of ''journalism'' possible. Might I point out that this issue was their biggest selling issue in their 86 year history.

Which says just about as much about its readers as it does about them.

What that says, I'll leave everyone to decide for themselves.

[Jerry Oz]

Marv,
So it means that there are a whole lot of people out there who lap up this crap, which is a clear indication that said crap is desirable to someone. If it wasn't, then theyd have been out of decades years ago.

I guess when all is said & done, the blame is not so much on The Enquirer, but more on their enablers who make their sort of ''journalism'' possible. Might i point out that this issue was their biggest selling issue in their 86 year history.

Which says just about about its readers as it does about them.

What that says, I'll leave to everyone to decide for themselves.

This is the essence of it right here. Nike and the Enquirer exploit the market, but they didn't create it. We're not far away from the days where snuff videos [[produced off-shore, of course) will be acceptable entertainment because America is hungry for sensationalism.

[marv2]

The problem with this concept is the problem with paparazzi in general. Nobody "owns" his or her own image and anybody that can snap a photo has the right to sell what is essentially their property. The same principle holds in death as in life. Who owns the image of Whitney Houston lying in state? Probably nobody. Therefore, the violation is one of ethics [[which are malleable) but not one of laws. If Cissy or BK can show that they went to a shrink to help get over the shock of the betrayal, perhaps they can sue the Enquirer for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but that would require a judge and/or jury to make the determination that the Enquirer knew the photos would cause them harm. That might be a push to prove although I'd like to see it.

I wouldn't mind them going that route either. True, no one has rights to their image, but I wonder how strong a case for personal privacy rights would be in court. Simply put, the family requested privacy during the time of the viewing. The National Enquirer bascially responded with NO! Then proceeded to publish a photo of a private event. Does the family have any legal rights to their privacy request being violated?

Can a paper such as the Enquirer get away with publishing a photo of someone using the bathroom?

[juicefree20]

JerryOz,

You are correct, & its funny how many people don't understand that & that misunderstanding can get a person sued.

If a person takes a crowd shot on a busy street & submits it to a magazine for publication, that picture is basically generic & shots like those dont tend to pose a problem.

Now I've taken thousands of pictures of entertainers, many appear here in the archives. some have appeared in magazines & at least one book. As those pictures appeared on the internet or the book for purposes of promoting artists or shows, that was no problem.

HOWEVER, were I to submit those SAME EXACT pictures to a book publisher, regardless of whom it is a picture of, I would be required to obtain a Model Release from the subject of the picture. No self-respecting publisher would run a picture that wasn't cleared, so as to avoid potential lawsuits, ESPECIALLY if that picture is sold purely for profit at the expense of the subject.

Now you may have heard about a lawsuit that a photographer filed against Quincy Jones for a picture that was used for an ad for headphones. I read the comments that readers submitted & most believed that he had the right to use the picture because the picture was of him. How could it possibly be wrong for him to be sued for using a picture of himself? The answer is simple...

The fact that the picture is of him doesn't necessarily mean that he OWNS the image & I don't understand how so many people fail to understand the difference between the two.

Unless working for someone where his rights to the image is limited [[a magazine which supplies equipment or where the artist/company hires him/her to shoot, etc.), the person who TOOK the picture is the owner, not the subject.

If he had the photographer take pictures of him, in what context were they to be used? What was the agreement between the two?

Let's say that the pictures were designated for PERSONAL use ONLY. If so then that implies that they wouldn't be used with profit in mind. But the submission of those pictures for ANY money-making endeavor would violate the rights of the photographer. Though it's definitely a picture of Quincy, the fact remains that Quincy didn't take that picture, the photographer did. And if that picture was to be used for ANY endorsement [[which means that the photographer got screwed out of money), then those pictures should have been cleared, which means that a release shouldve been obtained from the photographer.

Again, unless the photographer was/in shooting under constraints [[which are clearly spelled out contractually) which requires him/her to relinquish the rights to his work, the picture belongs to him or her. Not the subject of the picture.

[Laurel]

I think it's absolutely terrible the National Enquirer would print such a picture and there are people out there who will buy it. Where has decency gone? I know Whitney Houston had her problems, but her death was a tragedy and she was a great talent. We should remember her for the beautiful music she made. My grandchildren and I just adore One Moment in Time.

[Jerry Oz]

Juice, thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately, it backs me up in saying that there is little grounds for recovery in the example we're discovering. It's sad that the distinction you're referring to has to be made after a situation like this has occurred. Our culture is truly circling the drain.

[juicefree20]

Marv,

I would guess that what would prevent them from being able to get away with a toilet shot is 'the subject would likely sue due to ''humiliation''.

In the case of Whitney, I guess that they would have to prove how the picture has negatively impacted upon them. I also imagine that the biggest obstacle would be that there are no laws which directly speak to a situation such as this...no LEGAL confidentiality clauses were breached, only a moral one.

These days, a lack of decency in matters such as this isn't necessarily against the law of the land. With that said, it seems to violate the laws of karma & we all know the old saying about karma.

Sometimes you have to be satisfied that karma usually does his/her thing & tends to mete out punishment which is harsher than the law would.

[juicefree20]

Laurel,

I agree 1000%.

Unfortunately & especially since the advent of the internet, many people seems to believe that our "need" to know, supercedes that of a family whom has requested privacy & I believe that that needs to change.

While many of us may have been fans of Whitney, we are just that....FANS.

Whitney was their BLOOD...a daughter, a mother, a sister, a cousin or a true friend. I don't care how many concerts fans paid to attend, I don't care how many records they bought. I dont care about the standard [[and truly weak) argument that "She was a public figure" b.s. There are simply some things that money shouldn't be able to buy.

The rights of Whitney's survivors to have privacy & to have their wishes respected are but 2 of them.

And to those whom would argue that they have the right to view these pictures, now that you have, I can only ask exactly how have they edified you & how & what have they added to your life?

If the right to view the picture was so important, moreso than the rights of Cissy & family to not have any pictures displayed, then viewing those pictures should have a tangible benefit to those who have no problem with the wishes of the family being violated.

Exactly what was gained or added to your lives?

By the way...these questions aren't aimed at anyone in this forum but more a collective "you" to the public in general.

[juicefree20]

JerryOz

Anytime at all.

And a simple look at what is considered popular these days is to recognize that it's become a case of "garbage in/garbage out".

Everything from music, to games, to movies, seems to be centered around a never-ending deluge of crap. I remember when I was a kid, we had channels 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 & perhaps 41 & 47 to watch Wrestling in spanish [[Lucha Libre) & maybe channel 68 to watch "Zoom".

We have approximately 983 1/2 channels & the most popular shows these days are either songs about kids hoping to become huge singing stars, while creating false melodramas about who had a splinter when they were 5 & the many obstacles it created which they had to overcome. Or a bunch of guys & gals who run around wearing designer clothes, drinking top-shelf drinks, while cursing one another out, sleeping around with whomever & behaving like a bunch of ignorant jerks & why?

Because they're so important that an entire world is "hating'' on them.

That's how far we've fallen in the most "advanced" society on the face of the earth.

I feel the sudden need to take a long bath after having typed this.