I bring up my moderate interest in the wedding because of the very extreme ways people are reacting to the wedding. There is the news media who are going over the top with coverage. It’ll be interesting to see if they’ll feel it was worth the expense and effort when it’s all over.

But then there are the folks at the other end of the interest spectrum. Not the people who shrug off this real-life over-the-top reality show like they would shrug off a made-for-TV over-the-top reality show. This is anger. Check out Lawrence O’Donnell on “The Last Word:”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

First: The TV networks “obviously would have been on the side of the British” in the Revolutionary War. Huh? And second: The “British Crown has spilled more blood around the world and caused more oppression and suffering in the world than any other regime still standing”? History should never be forgotten, but why is O’Donnell still fighting a war we won over two centuries ago against a country that is one of America’s closest allies?

Yes, the British Empire was involved in the slave trade and the oppression of Indians, and the conflict in Northern Ireland is still unsettled. But every country, including the U.S., has done bad things as a matter of policy. Every country is a glass house. O’Donnell shouldn’t throw stones.

And then there’s Mark Oppenheimer flexing his “American-ness” in Slate. He says one reason for American Anglophilia is the theory that people who are oppressed by a country “internalize the message of the oppressor” and end up loving it. “The child who rejects his mother often loves her more than the child who simply drifts away.” Then he says:

If American royal-worship were confined to this twisted pathology of self-loathing, or to buying newsstand copies of People magazine every time Princess Diana is exhumed for another cover story, it would not be such a problem. But instead we forget our American-ness. We shuck and jive—I mean bow and curtsy—for the royal box at Wimbledon’s Center Court. We call them “the Queen Mother,” “Prince Charles,” or “Your Highness,” instead of the more American, and more dignified, “Mrs. Windsor” or “Charles.” We accept their worthless titles. We forget ourselves.

Not really. Americans love titles. We love a good Doctor, Senator, Madam Secretary or Mr. President. (The seemingly obligatory Mister in “Mr. Trump” has implied reverence, but I hope after this week everyone will go back to calling him “Donald” with the appropriately worthless title The.) While a doctor, cabinet member, and president have actually done something to earn their title other than just being born to a certain family, a title still adds an air of nobility to the person using it.

So, the aristocracy and nobility in a country reflect some of its values: Birthright and money in countries that still value royal families; achievement and money in America.

I can see why a lot of Americans don’t care about the wedding. The Windsors have no direct ties to America and there are a lot of bigger things going on in the world. Wills and Kate’s big day is just as much a celebrity wedding and soap opera as it is history and tradition. But why are some people getting their knickers in a twist? Watch the wedding, or just.. don’t. Taking a stand against the nuptials between a royal groom, who had a famous mother, and his “commoner” bride isn’t much of a stand to take.

He and his camp haven’t responded to the drip-drip, drip-drip of tapes containing angry, racist and misogynistic rants directed at his ex-girlfriend and mother of one of his children, Oksana Grigorieva. (To be clear, there’s no confirmation that the man on these recordings is Gibson. Nor has it been determined if they were edited.)

But people are already proclaiming that his career is over. If it is him on these tapes and the investigation into violence against Grigorieva goes anywhere, it’s easy to see why people would say that. Put the recordings alongside the anti-Semitic comments he made during his 2006 drunk driving arrest, and it doesn’t take a PR expert to doubt the likelihood of a Lethal Weapon 5 or anything else from Gibson.

Nothing is impossible, though. A public figure, particularly a Hollywood celebrity, can do a lot of negative things, but people will still admire and work with them. So, I think Gibson can have a career after all this. In fact, I’m pretty sure he will. It’s just a question of how he’ll go about it.

Apologies mean a lot, especially to the public. If Gibson wants not only to work, but have the adoration of fans and have people see that work, he’s going to have to have a mea culpa moment: Say he’s sorry and get help for the anger. If he suffers from bi-polar disorder, get help for that too.

Then, he must turn his life around. He’ll probably have to reach out people in the black, Hispanic and Jewish communities. I could see him appearing on Oprah to talk about the racist language and the verbal and alleged physical abuse toward Grigorieva. He could even do a film about one or all of these issues. These recordings will probably always haunt him and his career, but time and action can heal many wounds.

Another option is to do nothing. Gibson can independently produce and distribute his films outside the major studio system in Hollywood. Don’t think people would work with him? Look at Roman Polanski. He gave a 13-year-old girl champagne mixed with part of a quaalude and then forced himself on her. Polanski pled guilty to having unlawful sex with the girl, but fled the U.S. in 1978 before he could be sentenced. So, what does the Hollywood community do? They continue to work with him. Hollywood also honored him with one of it’s highest honors: He won an Academy Award for best director in 2003 for The Pianist.

Gibson hasn’t done anything like Polanski, but it shows what Hollywood and the public will let slide. So, Gibson has a choice. He could lay low for a while, wait for the next few celebrity scandals to come around and then slowly reappear in the spotlight with carefully chosen work and parts. As long as his anger issues don’t get in the way of his work (outbursts on movie sets, etc.), he could just wait it out. His other option is to apologize, get help, make amends and then re-emerge as a re-invented person. The second option would obviously be better for him personally. Exorcising whatever demons he has would give him a better quality of life. But, it is his life and career.

Mel, the choice is yours.

See also:
Forgive And Forget

Two weekends ago, Chris Brown tried to resurrect his career and redeem himself in the eyes of the public with a tribute to Michael Jackson at the BET Awards. The performance was almost a year to the day since Brown pleaded guilty to one count of assaulting his ex-girlfriend, pop singer Rihanna. The first half of Brown’s performance was a dance tribute to Jackson. The second half was Brown weeping to Jackson’s “Man In The Mirror.” He was supposed to sing the song, but Brown appeared as if he couldn’t hold back his tears. I say “appeared” because there are allegations that the tears weren’t real.

Another redemption story came to an end a few hours after Brown’s performance. Robert Byrd – the longest serving U.S Senator in history – died that Monday morning at age 92. Byrd was in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940′s, voted against Thurgood Marshall’s appointment to the Supreme Court and filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Then in the late 1960′s, Byrd had a turnaround on race. He supported the creation of the Martin Luther King National Holiday and endorsed Barack Obama for president. How’s that for a switch? A former Klan member endorsing the man who would become the first black president.

Also that same weekend, the world mourned (again) over Michael Jackson’s death. One year after he died, the media and some of the public rehashed the King of Pop’s life, death and money. Though he was never convicted of anything, the allegations of child molestation followed him for over a decade. Those allegations along with the years of strange behavior  - we all know he did, so I won’t list the incidents here – made the Michael Jackson who died into someone different from the one who made hit records. There was one Michael Jackson who was a megastar performer in the 1970s and 1980s and became one of the most famous performers on the planet. Then from about 1993 until his death, he was another Michael Jackson: the guy who once a megastar, but did a lot of weird things and was accused of molesting kids.

I think one reason Jackson’s death was so traumatic to so many is that it could’ve been fantastic to see him perform in his “This Is It” tour. It had the potential to remind both devoted and casual fans why the world loved and admired him so many years ago. But Jackson never made a comeback. We’ll never know if he could have regained his former respect and reputation had he lived and been physically able to tour.

Sadly, I don’t think he could regain them. The abuse allegations and strange behavior were a big part of his image. A child molester label is nearly impossible to scrub from someone’s image. It would have taken a lot for him to completely separate himself from that second Michael Jackson.

Yet, people still love him. The crowd at the BET Awards was cheering both Brown and Jackson.

Which brings us back to the 21-year-old Chris Brown. He is young enough where he has time redeem himself. He has said he grew up in an abusive household, so he could speak out against domestic violence. As someone who knows where that anger comes from and has been on the receiving end of it, he could be a powerful voice against domestic abuse.

How long do you hold a grudge against public figures? Are some transgressions forgivable while others are not? You could hate Robert Byrd for being in the Klan back in the 1940′s and voting with segregationists in the 1960′s, but does being pro-Civil Rights since the late 1960′s – longer than I, and perhaps some of you, have been alive – redeem him? Byrd was constantly apologizing for being in the KKK, and he should have been. More than that, though, he tried to right some of those wrongs for more than 40 years.

Yet, even toward the end of his life and in death, some people couldn’t forget Byrd’s past – even if it might be to score political points. So, when Chris Brown is an old man, could he still be known as the singer who hit his girlfriend, even if he is an advocate against domestic violence? Jackson was never convicted of any of the child molestation allegations against him, but they still lingered along with his weirdness. Could he have ever broken away from the labels and caricatures to regain his Thiller-level cache.. and dollars?

When it comes to public figures, at what point do you forgive and can you ever forget?

Leave your comments below.

In case you haven’t heard, Debrahlee Lorenzana is suing her former employer, Citibank. She claims she was fired after her bosses said her beauty was too distracting. On Wednesday, a 2003 video surfaced showing Lorenzana getting her second breast implant procedure. In the video, she said she wants to “look like a Playboy Playmate” and be “tits on a stick.”

That’s a slightly different impression from the interviews and articles we’ve seen of her over the last week. Her story has been that she’s a single working mom whose bosses at Citibank said her beauty was so distracting to her bosses that they fired her. Whatever she wore, the beauty that blessed her  (or cursed her?) was too sexy for Citi.

Photo by Carrie Schechter

Here’s what she said on Monday’s “Today” show:

What I’m trying to make is the point that enough is enough. I’ve been through my whole entire life going through this type of harassments [sic]. And I have done the other.. gone the other way where you stayed quiet. You just leave, get a better job and it just.. it continues to happen. And it’s the point that you say, ‘I don’t want to go through this anymore.’

After hearing that, it’s hard not to feel a little sorry for her. Which makes it sound like such a great story. She’s a beautiful working mom who was pushed around by the big bank. Then there are the issues of workplace dress codes, what’s too sexy and what isn’t, and tons of reasons to show more photos of Lorenzana and have commentators say how beautiful she is.

The new video, however, shows that some of her beauty wasn’t a blessing. It was a purchase.

I was skeptical about Lorenzana’s motives from the beginning. There was the cover story in the Village Voice along with the extensive and professional-looking photo gallery. There were the “Today” show and “Early Show” appearances. And then all the appearances New York’s local TV media. It was like she was going on a press tour.

But this video and her appearances don’t mean she’s not telling the truth. Her breast implants and desire to be desirable don’t mean Citibank did fire her for her looks. Maybe she and her lawyer see this lawsuit as a way to seek justice and are using her looks and the media to make some money in the future. Perhaps she could be a Playboy Playmate. Maybe she could host a reality show about working moms, personal finance, or people standing up to big corporations.

What do you think?

Does the new video change your opinion about Lorenzana’s claim that she was fired for being too sexy? Does it matter that she claims she was fired for being too sexy when she had plastic surgery to look like a Playboy Playmate and be “tits on a stick”?

What do you think about her making herself available for so much media over the past week? Would you watch a show with her in it?

Leave your comments below.

Watch Debrahlee’s Breast Enhancement Surgery – Long Island Plastic Surgical Group in People & Blogs |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

I was at the gym when coverage of the Masters was wrapping up on TV. When watching TV on mute (or close to mute), the images can speak to the viewer more than when the sound is turned up. At the gym, I was watching pictures and video of this year’s winner, Phil Mickelson, hugging his wife, Amy, who is battling cancer. (Mickelson’s mother also has cancer.) For someone who doesn’t follow golf and wouldn’t have been able to point out Mickelson if he passed me on the street, I was touched sitting there in the gym resting between my sets.

It was great video for the folks at the Masters and CBS, who broadcasted the event. The warm, fuzzy moment was great TV. After all the speculation about how Tiger might perform because of the scandal and the scandal itself looming over coverage of the tournament, it was a guy with a backstory that pulls at the heartstrings who won the weekend.

It would’ve been odd if Tiger won. The win would’ve been great for his career and a step towards the comeback of his image. A win is a win. In light of the sex scandal, though, Woods would’ve looked like an ass if he celebrated exuberantly with his trademark fist-pumping. His wife Elin wasn’t at the tournament. Even if she were, I don’t think there would have been a warm embrace.

All of this, of course, has little to do with actually playing golf. But how viewers feel about winners can impact how they feel about a sport. On Sunday, the golf world could put the scandal behind them – maybe even let out a sigh of relief – and have a feel-good moment.

..until Tiger plays again.

On his website, Martin addressed why he didn’t come out sooner:

Many people told me: “Ricky it’s not important”, “it’s not worth it”, “all the years you’ve worked and everything you’ve built will collapse”, “many people in the world are not ready to accept your truth, your reality, your nature”. Because all this advice came from people who I love dearly, I decided to move on with my life not sharing with the world my entire truth.  Allowing myself to be seduced by fear and insecurity became a self-fulfilling prophecy of sabotage.

Back in the late ’90s, it actually was big news that Ellen DeGeneres was saying “Yep, I’m Gay,” both in real life and as the character on her show. Singer George Michael revealed he’s gay after getting arrested for a “lewd act” in a Beverly Hills bathroom, and Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered for being gay. So, it’s understandable that Martin and the people around him were reluctant to be open about his sexuality. And whatever the context of those times, Martin had to come out on his own clock, whenever he felt the time was right.

It makes me wonder about how much or how little times have changed. If a seemingly unknown singer wowed the audience with a performance at next year’s Grammy’s and was the talk of the show, like Martin in 1999, would it hurt their career if they told the world they were gay? If Martin had come out or had been outed during the height of “Livin’ La Vida Loca,” what effect do you think it would’ve had on his career?

There was the risk of a professional backlash, but because many people believed Martin was gay anyway, I don’t think it would make that much of a difference. And as far as a singer who publicly announced they’re gay early in their career, remember the collective shrug at this Adam Lambert interview?

What do you think? Leave your thoughts below.

The resurrection of the Tiger Woods Brand began Friday with his televised apology. Woods seemed sincere, but the mea culpa to his fans, sponsors and the general public is secondary to something else.

He must win at golf.

The most important part of Tiger’s brand is being a golfer who wins. Yes, his image as wholesome family man helped him be a pitchman, inspiration to kids and known as an all-around good guy. All of that, though, was based on him being a golf champion.

His apology was a good first step to bring reality in sync with what his image was before seemingly countless women came forward to say they slept with Tiger. The biggest step, though, will be when Tiger competes. If he can dominate on the golf course, then he will be “back.” If he can’t, The Tiger Woods Brand will be a contrite face on the memory of a once-great golfing career.