Home -> News -> News -> Columnists Monday 15 September, 2003
Advanced search
  Top Stories
  Archive Search
  ISU News
  Mid-Iowa News
  Local Sports
  ISU Sports
  Ask the Tribune
  National News
     Display Ads
     Click -N- Save Coupons
     Advertising Rate Card
     Business Directory
     Our Newspaper
     Online Forms
     Sports Wire!
     Fun and Games
     Consumer Guide
     Personal Finance

Reinig: Bennifer is too much
By:Pam Reinig September 13, 2003
On the eve of the second anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the U.S., the lead story on some cable news channels was the postponement of the J Lo-Affleck nuptials. Give me a break.
      Are there really more than six people in America who care whether these two exchange vows? This isn't exactly happily-ever-after stuff.
      Even if the wedding takes place, the marriage won't last. Affleck doesn't have a track record - he hasn't been married before - but J Lo is another story.
      Here's a woman who thinks "till death do us part" has term limits. Her first marriage lasted less than a year. Her second was a May-December affair, as in a bride one day, a divorcee eight months later.
      They apparently postponed their wedding because too many details about the ceremony and reception were leaked. I haven't heard anything about it but then I've been busy following more interesting stories, like the one about the Arizona man who was recently evicted from the cave he's been living in for 11 years. (Who tossed him out? Yogi Bear?)
      At any rate, Ben and Jen were hoping for a private celebration. That paparazzi-friendly attitude they had while promoting their recent blockbuster bomb is so yesterday. Today, they're all about secrecy.
      I don't know about you but I've had it with the uppity attitudes of celebrities. Remember the controversy when Catherine Zeta-Jones wed Michael Douglas? Not the one about their age differences. The fact that she's married to a man who makes her father look like a spring chicken is between her and her therapist.
      I'm talking about the brouhaha that erupted when unauthorized photos of their reception appeared in a British magazine. The couple sued, saying the photographers invaded their privacy by crashing their party. They had kinder words for the folks from a rival magazine, the one that paid them $1 million for exclusive rights to their star-studded bash. Apparently, even the rich and famous have their price.
      I think any celebrity who complains about the trials of living a public life should be beaten senseless with a copy of People magazine. The only difference between these folks and the guy hawking tickets to see the bearded lady is their bank accounts.
      They spend their early careers crying, "Look at me. Look me!" and when they've made it big, they want to turn the attention off and on like a faucet. Remember the hub-hub when J Lo announced that she'd insured her body for $1 million and protected her backside for three times that amount? It's hard to make a case for privacy when you're shaking your rear axle on national TV.
      I don't blame Ben and Jen, but I don't feel sorry for them, either.
      They were happy enough to exploit their personal lives in hopes of driving up box office receipts. Now they want to live normal lives and do things that normal people do, like share a private moment with 500 of the top names in Hollywood. Yeah, right.
      They'll get Oscar nods for "Gigli" before that ever happens.

©Ames Tribune 2003
Reader Opinions
Be the first person to voice your opinion on this story!
Back to top   

Send us your community news, events, letters to the editor and other suggestions. Now, you can submit birth, wedding and engagement announcements online too!

Copyright © 1995 - 2003 PowerOne Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Click Here for Coupons!