Duh Aficionado Magazine: Paula Abdul Is Addicted To Drugs
Paula Abdul does a fucking ton of drugs. We know that. But now we really know it, because she's admitting it. From People:
"I could have killed myself," Abdul, 46, tells Ladies' Home Journal in its June issue. "Withdrawal - it's the worst thing."Abdul says she checked herself into the La Costa Resort and Spa, in Carlsbad, Calif., last Thanksgiving to help beat her use of medication. "I was freezing cold, then sweating hot, then chattering and in so much pain, it was excruciating," she says. "But at my very core, I did not like existing the way I had been."
After taking medication to combat pain from injuries that happened during her grueling years as a dancer - beginning with a back injury when she was 17 and including a neck injury sustained in a plane crash in 1993 - the American Idol judge says, "I'd been working nonstop," and her desire to carry on with her work led her to take more pain pills.
"I'm an old school professional," Abdul says of her "Never let them see you sweat" credo.
Yup. When I'm a millionaire, the first thing I'm going to do is bring my traveling cage to your house and I'm going to go toe-to-toe with you and lay you the fuck out but it's going to be the best thing that ever happened to you because of all the opportunities you could never even have dreamed of. But the second thing I'm going to do is start a magazine called Yup! Magazine and whenever something like this happens it is going to be on the cover.
Obviously, the fact that Paula Abdul was addicted to prescription pills is not funny. Addiction is a disease. And the fact that she is getting help to make her life better is to be commended and encouraged and applauded. Congratulations, Paula! Seriously, that is great news. Good luck!
What is funny, though, is that she still thinks that she is an old school professional with a never let them see you sweat credo. Because we have seen so much sweat!
Here's some sweat:
Here's some sweat:
Here's some sweat:
Total pro. When Hugh Jackman lets the actor in him take over, he wets his pants. When Paula Abdul lets the professional in her take over, she melts her face the fuck off.
Posted by Gabe at 2:00 PM in Behind The Scenes
Tags: American Idol | Drugs | Paula Abdul
That 2nd clip emburrssd me. Always Be Having those P. Abdul Moments in work meetings. I need Zoning-Out rehab.
Score = 2
This almost reads like a DaCakeEatur post.
Score = 13
Speaking of Da Cake Eatur, he's back and I'm happy.
Score = 8
Lol, yes, my life experiences have informed my Videogum comments. I need to be more careful with what I put in my eyes.
Score = 4
I would buy Yup! Magazine. I imagine it would make me feel very satisfied with myself.
Score = 14
"Addiction is a disease."
Bullshit. It's a choice, a habit. Tell someone with cancer or ALS or MS or autism that your inability to put down the bottle of pills or a 750 of vodka is a disease. They'll probably want to kill you.
Tragic, yes. Disease, no. Sorry, but statements like that drive me nuts.
Score = -11
Just because it's a *mental* disorder of fractured impulse control and psychological dependence does NOT mean it's not a disease (something that impairs normal bodily function.) It's a disease in much the same way that OCD is a disease; asking why an alcoholic doesn't just stop drinking is much like asking an OCD person why they don't just stop washing their hands. The disease is misunderstood because most people haven't experienced badly distorted impulse control; it *seems* like bullshit for those of us with normal inhibitions and unaffected decision making. But that doesn't mean it is bullshit.
Score = 16
"Constantinople" has already done a pretty good job of framing the disease of addiction in response to your comment, "etc," but I'd just like to jump in for a second and point out the ridiculousness of your logic. Regardless of whether or not you recognize the severity of addiction, the argument that someone with cancer, or MS, or autism would be offended (they would not be offended) by such a classification suggests that we should also recategorize the flu and the common cold because they are not serious enough to be diseases. Which, no. A disease is a disease, whether or not there are worse diseases out there (although one might argue that addiction is in fact very, very serious, indeed).
Score = 16
Oh man, I forgot about that second clip. I love how no one bothers to cut her off as soon as she says "second song" so they just let her keep rambling. So much secondhand embarrassment.
Score = 1
"Seattle hazza besht delusional peeble!" Yes.
Usually, that statement would give me a little flutter of hometown pride. I'm just not sure what the word "delusional" means when Paula Abdul says it.
Score = 0
YES Dan Quinn reference. I want one for every single story from now until the end of time.
But seriously, why is Duh Aficionado not a tag or a section? I want to have some clickable shortcut to all of the Duh i can possibly handle. Because, you know, I'm an aficionado.
Score = 10
Yup! Magazine: For the Duh Aficionado
Score = 6
I read this blog because Gabe never fails to get in at least one LOL moment a day. When I saw this story posted at the top of Huffpo's "entertainment" page, I immediately thought of Duh Aficionado Magazine. This post exceeded my expectations. So much of The Best.
Gabe, I want to send you a gift basket full of fancy prostitutes.
Score = 6
Who picks 'Ladies Home Journal' to announce anything?!?!
Score = 4
Third clip..whoa...really?
Score = 0
Although communicated in foolish manner, I think the point 'etc' was trying to get at was involuntary nature of disease vs. the voluntary (in a sense) nature of addiction. A man who has never smoked a cigarette (or cigar etc.) can still get lung cancer, but can never become addicted to cigarettes. While I do agree with Gabe and Constantinople that addiction does fall under the definition of disease, only addiction can be completely avoided by ones behavior. Even in Constantinoples own example, the man afflicted with alcoholism could've prevent it by choosing to never drink, the man with ocd could never have acted in such a way to prevent it.
Score = -3
alcohol being a vastly common, socially accepted form of imbidement it seems rather ludicrous that a person who - prior to ever trying it - is completely unaware that they may have harbour the potential to be addicted to it should voluntarily CHOOSE to never imbide of it..
so can it really be avoided? sure you can say if this person you never touched alcohol they would not have a problem.. but can it really be expected that in today's society a person who is unaware they yet have a problem would voluntarily refrain from a behaviour that is not in any way illegal?
Score = 3
if we're categorizing addiction as a disease related to impulse control, to say it's totally preventable isn't accurate.
i'm totally curious about what heroin is like but i'll never try it because i think we've already established that it's awesome and i'll like it a lot, so i'm just going to trust everyone else and avoid it, but i also don;t suffer from any kind of addictive behaviors. avoiding behaviors that could potentially lead to addiction requires a level of self-awareness that most people don't have, especially people who don't know they might struggle with addiction. why wouldn't they assume they'll be able to drink casually like everyone else they know? anyway, there's no guarantee that the poor impulse control and self-loathing that could lead to substance abuse problems wouldn't then (if denied access to alcohol and drugs) be funneled into less obviously destructive addictive behaviors - overspending, overeating, sex addiction, gambling addiction, etc. if your brain doesn't tell you the truth - i.e. when to say when - you can't TELL when to say when.
gambling, sex and food addicts destroy their lives and the lives of their families just as readily as drug addicts.
it's true, if they had never had a drink, bought anything, placed a bet, had sex (?), or eaten (??) those specific addictions might not have fully materialized, but who's to say they don't just keep popping up?
i think it's easy for us, who don't personally struggle with addiction, to just blame the addicts for not saying 'no' ahead of time, but if it was as easy as just giving yourself a stern talking-to and not doing it, no one would ever have problems. obviously it's not.
Score = 1
Agreed, addiction is, for the most part, fully preventable - ignoring babies who are born addicted to heroin and the like; you can't be an alcoholic if there's never any alcohol in your body.
Yet, a lot of diseases are fully preventable. For example, you pretty much can't get Trichinosis if you never eat pork or wild game. Does its preventability mean that we shouldn't feel as bad for those who do get it as we would for someone who gets something non-preventable? Fact is, pretty much everyone in American society eats pork at some point; pretty much everyone assumes this risk, though some eat it less responsibly and assume more risk. Likewise, pretty much everyone in American society drinks alcohol at some point; pretty much everyone assumes the risk of developing alcoholism, though some drink less responsibly and assume more risk. Is their disease somehow more bullshit than other diseases because they took much same risk everyone else did and lost?
Score = 3
Not at all, I completely agree that it is a disease, and a terrible thing for anyone to have to go through. I was simply clarifying the point etc was attempting to make in that 'disease' and 'addiction' are different in nature, using alcohol and cigarettes to illustrate my point since they are the most common, but any substance that causes addiction can be used, ex. Heroin and Cocaine. Emotion had nothing to do with what I was saying, and certainly those who deserve our compassion should receive it (as long as pity drives us to good works). I was just showing that, while disease and addiction are certainly both terrible things, they are different. Another example may be (accept or reject it as you may) homicide vs. suicide. Both fall under the definition of murder, but are very different from one another. So I guess to answer your two questions, 1) It does not, both are very horrible. 2) Their disease is equally as valid, but it is *not* the same.
@ Heinous - I wasn't writing about expectations. I can't predict the future, so I don't know what any person may or may not do. I was just saying that Alcoholism CAN be prevented, just like Heroin addiction can be, to show the difference between a disease you catch and a disease you essentially give yourself. So yes, it can be avoided by anyone. Whether or not it *will be* isn't my concern.
Yikes this is long, sorry guys. Just think this is an interesting topic.
Score = 0
I'm not sure I follow your logic. If you agree that alcoholism is a disease and that alcoholism is an addiction, how can this disease be different from this addiction? Something can't be "different in nature" from itself. (Leibniz law) I tried to reframe your argument in terms of preventable and non-preventable diseases because your argument, as it stands, doesn't make sense to me.
Score = 1
I understand your confusion, as my post is a little unclear. The point I meant to make is that the cause of alcoholism(or any addiction) will always be found in the choices of the individual, while something such as cancer will only sometimes find their root cause in there.
Score = 0
i get you all the way. in fact, the addicts themselves differ on the subject of control, esp. in the agnostic/atheist community re. 12-step programs. bottom line, though-- DO NOT take that first drink-- it's a lulu!
Score = 0
You are the world's smartest sloth.
Score = 2
Isn't People magazine (basically) already Yup! magazine?
Score = 4
I didn't know she has this kind of problems. I used to like her but i think i will review my opinion. Is she at least considering going into a drug treatment center?
Score = 0