I may be a feminist

Gloria Allred, famed "feminist" attorney and media hound, has done something to make me just sick. Not that was she usually does is peachy and mature, mind you. But this has taken the proverbial cake.

If someone not-as-famous had died, would Miz Allred be worrying over their death certificate with the ferocity she's shown in Mr. Harrison's case? I think we all know the answer to that question.

George Harrison was a private person. He was famous for being private. His family even bungled the date his ashes were to be scattered on the Ganges, no doubt to ward off media hounds and publicity seekers who would profit off his death and his religion.

Now here comes Gloria, seeking to get, as usual, fame and attention from someone else's tragedy and pain. If she wins this case, and I very much hope she doesn't, it would violate the privacy of Mr. Harrison's family and friends as well as his wishes, as always, to just be left alone. I will be contacting her to let her know my feelings on this issue, and I hope that others will as well.

Gloria Allred may call herself a feminist and an activist but she comes off as a tacky, insensitive, tasteless, greedy bitch with little concern for anything but the almighty dollar bill. Even if this case had nothing to do with someone I care about, such as Harrison, I would still be inflamed. What a waste of time and energy.

Aren't there more important things she could be doing with her time and power rather than this, such as defending abused children or the elderly? She gives the rest of us who actually do try to make a difference in this world a bad name.

Grrr.

	Thanks for the tip. (none / 0) (#1)
	by gordonjcp on Fri Dec 21st, 2001 at 07:32:31 AM PST

	Thank you for bringing this up. As you quite correctly state, George Harrison was a very private person, and his (and his family's) right to privacy should be respected. I, too, will be contacting this distasteful little tyke. Of course, being a journo and a lawyer probably puts her in the worst of both worlds.

	What does this have to do with feminism? (none / 0) (#2)
	by em on Fri Dec 21st, 2001 at 12:21:23 PM PST

	Well, more precisely: what the FUCK does this have to do with feminism? --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	oh my (1.00 / 1) (#3)
	by dirty monkey man on Fri Dec 21st, 2001 at 02:12:09 PM PST

	i don't know who the hell you are and i don't know who the hell Gloria Allred is. i know who george harrison is, provided that he is that permanently tanned actor that played dracula in that movie. if he isn't, than i have no idea who he is. but what moved me to post was your line of reasoning reproduced here: "Aren't there more important things she could be doing with her time and power rather than this, such as defending abused children or the elderly?" this whole 'get a life' or 'do something important' argument is a ridiculous one for someone in your shoes to make. you spent all this time posting a fucking diary entry on this pathetic site (err, no offense there admins) while tacitly telling all the children and elderly in the universe, "sorry but i can't be bothered with you lot, i'm posting my diary to the internet!" at least what she's doing requires her to change out of those sweatpants and brush the cookie crumbs off her shirt. note that i'm not suggesting that you do anything more important with your time. i'm no dummy, lady. two nanoseconds after i said that, you'd put your hands on your hips, cock your head to one side and say, "well you're the moron that spent all that time reading and responding to that diary entry. so there!" so let's just say i saw that one coming, and better luck next time toots. check and mate, my friend. moving on, of course she wouldn't be spending all this energy if he wasn't so famous. this should be obvious. famous people get more attention. that's part of fame. i'm sure the guy that carries oprah winfrey to and from the toilet every morning wouldn't work as hard for some regular schmuck. the famous get attention because they're well, famous... anyway, who the hell cares where some regular guy is buried? not me thank you very much. there's regular guys buried everywhere. big friggin deal. but now a guy like that george harrison is a whole different ballgame. we the public need to know where he's buried so we can go there and swap stories about that old dracula movie and hold candles and wear dracula costumes and sing songs. that's how we show our respect and in turn gain a sense of closure. revealing the location of your death is just another installment in the price of fame. and unlike a credit card bill, just because you're dead doesn't mean you don't have to pay.

	Oh my, indeed. (4.00 / 4) (#4)
	by Lint on Fri Dec 21st, 2001 at 06:32:32 PM PST

	Don't worry about what I do with my time--I'm a social worker. I work with abused children on a daily basis. What I do with my free time is not the same as what a powerful attorney does when she picks up useless cases and makes ridiculous complaints as part of her work. Therefore your objection to my opinions, my diary, and the use of my computer when I'm not working doesn't seem to make much sense, does it? If Gloria Allred can find the time to dig up dirt on celebrities rather than actually living up to the title she gives herself (feminist and activist), then I don't give her very much credit. Which was the point of my diary. As a so-called feminist, activist and charitable attorney (which would mean she works to uphold the rights of those in need), she sure spends a lot of time handling cases that fatten her wallet and her portfolio. But as you don't seem to know who Gloria Allred is, your response would be merely a waste of time on your part, don't you think? You also don't seem to know much about George Harrison, or else you were attempting (poorly) to be witty. To which I'll only say: He was a follower of the Hare Krishna faith. Hindus cremate their dead--not bury. Where he was "buried" isn't the issue, since he isn't "buried" anywhere. Where he died is the issue, where Gloria Allred is concerned, as he put down an erroneous address on his death certificate to protect his family and friends from an onslaught of attention from classless fans and media whores. A fictitious place of death on a legal certificate of such is not against the law, as long as it is not an attempt at insurance fraud. Gloria Allred's claim that Mr. Harrison was above the law, then, is irrelevant-- a waste of time and resources, which would make her an opportunistic attention grabber. Such as you have proved with your response. Good day. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	shut up you (2.00 / 4) (#5)
	by dirty monkey man on Sun Dec 23rd, 2001 at 12:37:22 AM PST

	mentioning your work wins no points with me lady. while the average person may fear the social worker, i do not. may i suggest that next time you lie and tell your opponent that you are a CIA assassin or a bear trainer or something - you may find it a more effective technique. "Therefore your objection to my opinions, my diary, and the use of my computer when I'm not working doesn't seem to make much sense, does it?" to tell you the truth that sentence doesn't make much sense. no matter how many times i read it, by the time i get to the "does it?" part, i've forgotten the rest of it, so i have no idea what you are asking me. perhaps a quick brush-up course in rhetoric at your local night school would help. you, not me. anyway to answer your question, i'll have to disagree. "...she sure spends a lot of time handling cases that fatten her wallet" so how exactly does this case fatten her wallet? does she find out where he died, and then his fans pay her to tell them? that seems kind of dumb, because there would be nothing keeping the first fan from telling the other fans and charging maybe half of what she charged him or her who could then charge even less. "But as you don't seem to know who Gloria Allred is, your response would be merely a waste of time on your part, don't you think?" you sure ask a lot of questions, lady. "He was a follower of the Hare Krishna faith. Hindus cremate their dead--not bury." three points: 1) i've seen a lot of hare krishnas in my life and they all have shaved heads, wear colorful robes, and bother me at the airport. i can therefore infer that you are 100% wrong. 2) hindu? a second ago he was a hare krishna! he should make up his mind! LOL!! 3) for all i care they can dress their dead up in cowboy outfits, attach strings to them, and make them dance like grim marionettes. it's not my place to judge, i firmly believe in multi-culturalism. "A fictitious place of death on a legal certificate of such is not against the law" sorry to burst your bubble there perry mason, but it is most certainly illegal. if you don't believe me, next time someone close to you dies, try putting Atlantis or Candyland on the death certificate, and see how long before the cops come and pull you out of your house and beat you to death with truncheons. my guess is very quickly, unless you are a famous person who is above the law. so there.

	Displaying your ignorance wins nothing, either. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
	by Lint on Mon Dec 24th, 2001 at 12:27:44 AM PST

	mentioning your work wins no points with me lady. while the average person may fear the social worker, i do not. may i suggest that next time you lie and tell your opponent that you are a CIA assassin or a bear trainer or something - you may find it a more effective technique. I'm sorry that you have an attitude problem. It must be very difficult for you. However, after you stated: this whole 'get a life' or 'do something important' argument is a ridiculous one for someone in your shoes to make. you spent all this time posting a fucking diary entry on this pathetic site (err, no offense there admins) while tacitly telling all the children and elderly in the universe, "sorry but i can't be bothered with you lot, i'm posting my diary to the internet!" I felt that you should know that I do not, in fact, tell the children of the universe "sorry, I cannot be bothered", as I do bother. I bother here, actually. If you are still convinced that I am lying about my place of employment I suggest you see someone about that pesky paranoia problem. But what I do when I'm not helping abused, abandoned, neglected and disabled children is none of your business, thank you. to tell you the truth that sentence doesn't make much sense. no matter how many times i read it, by the time i get to the "does it?" part, i've forgotten the rest of it, so i have no idea what you are asking me. perhaps a quick brush-up course in rhetoric at your local night school would help. you, not me. anyway to answer your question, i'll have to disagree. I'll get back to you on that once you've developed a basic grasp of the English language. so how exactly does this case fatten her wallet? does she find out where he died, and then his fans pay her to tell them? that seems kind of dumb, because there would be nothing keeping the first fan from telling the other fans and charging maybe half of what she charged him or her who could then charge even less. You apparently still haven't acquainted yourself with just who, in fact, Gloria Allred is. Had you managed to do this before delving into a topic you obviously know very little of, you might have noticed that she has a reputation for picking up irrelevant, sensationalist, high-dollar cases. She also does talk shows. She enjoys making a circus of law in the court room. Etc. Mr. Harrison was a celebrity. He wanted to keep his place of death, address-wise, private. His family put a fictitious place of death on his death certificate. No one knows where, exactly, he died. Gloria Allred complained about this because George Harrison was a celebrity. She wanted to bring some of the attention surrounding Mr. Harrison's death upon herself. If, I doubt, this goes to court, she would stand make a lot of money if she wins. Had this been a non-celebrity (as you correctly deduced, surprisingly) no one would have cared. But she does in this case because that is the kind of senseless, money-grubbing person she is. Which was my original point, by the way, had you bothered to take notice. I'm sorry I had to spell that out for you once again. Do keep working on your 'reading for comprehension' skills--it will do you a world of good. you sure ask a lot of questions, lady. You sure don't use a lot of capitalization, do you? three points: Three replies: 1) i've seen a lot of hare krishnas in my life and they all have shaved heads, wear colorful robes, and bother me at the airport. i can therefore infer that you are 100% wrong. From that statement I can also infer that you have very little knowledge of the world around you. I suggest that you actually venture into it a little before attempting to reply to simple, yet apparently elusive, questions. 2) hindu? a second ago he was a hare krishna! he should make up his mind! LOL!! Once again, you have proven just how little you know. The Hare Krishna movement (more correctly ISKCON, or Krishna Consciousness) is a branch of Hinduism--though it is probably more correct to describe it as a religious movement unto itself. Anyway, to repeat myself yet again, George Harrison was a devout Krishna devotee. You should learn more. 3) for all i care they can dress their dead up in cowboy outfits, attach strings to them, and make them dance like grim marionettes. it's not my place to judge, i firmly believe in multi-culturalism. If that is the case, you might want to multi-culturalize your knowledge base... and your sense of humor. sorry to burst your bubble there perry mason, but it is most certainly illegal. if you don't believe me, next time someone close to you dies, try putting Atlantis or Candyland on the death certificate, and see how long before the cops come and pull you out of your house and beat you to death with truncheons. my guess is very quickly, unless you are a famous person who is above the law. Would you mind providing some proof to back up that statement? Aside from my statement based upon that of a Los Angeles police spokesperson's original remarks on this issue (to which I linked in my original diary entry, but which I will provide again in the event that you are too lazy or dimwitted, or both, to find for yourself): *"The spokesman said it was not a crime to give a different address as the place of death unless there was an intent to defraud in matters such as insurance."* --Yahoo News, Thursday December 13 8:32 PM ET I will also provide for you a copy of a death certificate application for the state of California, in which you will discover that the only penalty for providing erroneous information is difficulty in finding said copy in the future if so inclined. Therefore, from the proof I have provided, it is easy to see that there is no penalty for placing an erroneous address of death on a legal certificate of such. Where is your proof otherwise? Or is this simply another example of your speaking on subjects that you know little or nothing about? Unless, as I stated before, Mr. Harrison's intent was to defraud an insurance company, which nobody believes is the case, he (or his family carrying out his wishes, rather) did nothing wrong. So if it isn't illegal to provide an erroneous place of death on a death certificate, which it isn't, and if the Los Angeles police spokesperson stated that Mr. Harrison or his family did nothing illegal in placing an erroneous address on his death certificate, which they didn't, why then is Gloria Allred complaining-- to the LAPD of all people? Could she be thick-headed? Like you, perhaps? so there. Sure... if that's what you want to believe. Your silly statements, lack of knowledge and poor stabs at personal attack do nothing but instill me with joy that I'm a much better person than you. Thank you, sir, for reaffirming this fact with me. And if I'm ever in need of a laugh, all I need do is re-read your attempt at debate. Thanks again, and have a nice day. :) Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

	you are a racist (nm) (none / 0) (#7)
	by dirty monkey man on Thu Dec 27th, 2001 at 09:51:35 AM PST

	.

	A few questions... (none / 0) (#8)
	by Lint on Sat Dec 29th, 2001 at 05:00:03 AM PST

	Ahem. It took you three days to come up with that nonsensical reply? Do you understand the definition of the word racist? Do people often ask you to repeat yourself? Do you think heavy drug usage is a healthy and relaxing hobby? Do you consider yourself to be a normal human being, capable of at least average intelligence and adequate reasoning abilities? If so, explain. Shoo. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks