Tomorrow, on an Emotional Episode of Dr. Phil...
Tomorrow on Dr. Phil, we’re supposed to get all teary-eyed at the emotional reunion of “supermodel” Bridget Marks and her twin daughters, who were taken away from her by their biological father.
I wanted to projectile vomit!
The girls’ biological father is multi-millionaire casino tycoon John Aylsworth. Mr. Aylsworth is in his 60’s. When I tried to find more background on Ms. Marks, I was directed to such sites as BabeInvasion.com and Celebrity Breasts. Although, I did find from Bonus Books Inc. that she earned her Masters Degree from NYU at 21, and that she’s “a sometimes actress, poet and community activist since her teen years”, and a single mother.
A single mother who’s naked in a soft-core lesbian scene at celebritymoviearchive.com.
Also—at the time, Mr. Aylsworth was married.
Now….I find REALLY HARD—no, IMPOSSIBLE! I find it bloody IMPOSSIBLE to feel sorry for some borderline professional whore who skanks around with some rich guy old enough to be HER daddy!
The New York media jumped all over this story when it first happened. Not necessarily because it was a travesty of justice, but because Ms. Marks belongs to the same gene pool that spawned Julia Roberts. Apparently the media feels that her full fellatio lips would make slack-jawed Red-Staters overlook her stupidity, loose morals, and bad judgement.
I love that promo they ran, too—YOU WON’T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT!!
Yeah, I can’t believe Dr. Phil kissed her butt when he should’ve came at her with some of his favorite sayings:
“What gives you the right to lay with another woman’s husband?”
“If you take those children away from their father, they will resent you for the rest of their life.”
“Relationships that begin in infidelity have less than a 10% chance of succeeding.”
What does he say instead? “Give those girls a hug for me.”
And what was that….that SCENE where she’s screaming like a banshee, clutching the girls (who themselves are crying—because they’re afraid of HER?), with all that PRESS, flashbulbs going off, and the girls’ grandmother calling their father “an evil man”….
Why didn’t Dr. Phil LAY INTO HER for exposing her children to that? I thought he was the king of “tough love”. Just before the segment, they ran a promo in which Dr. Phil berates a couple for exposing their children to traumatizing violence. I didn’t see any overt, physical violence, but I dare anybody to tell me that was a positive experience for those two girls.
Everybody else might’ve seen a loving mother who was victimized by a man abusing his power, but I saw an unfit mother and two kids who should’ve been put up for adoption.
Lemme ask—how did the press know to show up? The date. The time. The location. And once you saw they were there, why did she go through with it?
They knew because you’re a drama queen, Ms. Marks. You wanted them there. Once the press began conglomerating around the exchange point, you could’ve contacted John Aylsworth and made other plans. Call his cell phone. He’s a multi-millionaire, I’m sure he can afford T-Mobile.
Lastly, that part about the children being denied their faith—disgusting. Tell me what branch of Christianity teaches the Eight Commandments. (You’re Christian, right? Or was that little “t” around your neck the only design they had available in that karat?).
Phil, you make me puke. You claim to have 2 rules with regards to children: never ask kids to deal with adult issues, and don’t burden them with things over which they have no control. In not reprimanding Ms. Marks for violating these rules, you’ve proven yourself a hypocrite, and in the process sold these two little girls down the river.
You’re a good businessman, I guess, but this is gonna lose you credibility, which is gonna lose you business. Which makes you a BAD businessman.
Posted by at May 16, 2005 07:12 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/907
|# May 17th, 2005 7:32 AM jagorham|
|Nothing like sweeps month to make even those shows that have some modicum of class to turn Springeresque. |
|# May 17th, 2005 7:26 PM gregw|
|You don't really watch Dr. Phil, do you?
|# May 17th, 2005 8:00 PM Daddy|
|Every day. |
|# May 17th, 2005 9:10 PM Laura|
|I saw it once and I completely got the appeal of the show; some nitwit was explaining why she rarely saw her children because it was important to her to be fulfilled at work. Dr. Phil said, "You don't get to be fulfilled. You're a parent," or something along those lines. I liked the emphasis on responsibility.
In this case maybe he was too distracted by her Celebrity Breasts to think of anything good to say.
|# May 17th, 2005 9:39 PM KariLynne|
|I agree I couldn't believe what a publicity (you know what) Bridget Marks is. I was WAS a huge fan of Dr. Phil but I've lost all respect for him. I witnessed the media circus (who didn't) and was appalled. I'll never forget when she was first on the show I thought Man Dr. Phil is just going to let her have it. And he didn't...then...... she's on two more times and nothing, not a word. I emailed his show and pretty much said that if she was on one more time I could never watch it again. So guess what BUB-BYE Dr. Phil. I cannot stand that woman and I as well feel terrible for the kids. Like when she freaked out because the car seats weren't strapped down, they're booster seats they don't need to be. The whole thing was ridiculous. You haven't seen the last of her, she will never give it up. I as well wanted to vomit. |
|# May 17th, 2005 11:10 PM Daddy|
|Actually Laura, I think his wife Jiggling Falsies keep him plenty occupied.
I used to think it was cool at the end of the show when he took her by the hand and walked off with her.
Yeah, no need for the camera to zoom in on 'em; you walk 'em right into our living rooms. Subtle.
At least have the dignity of "The Man Show" and put her on a trampoline. ;)
|# May 17th, 2005 11:10 PM Daddy|
|For the record, I hate The Man Show. |
|# May 19th, 2005 11:05 AM nelly|
|you should read this transcript of john alysworth's attorney soeaking on the matter. www.hisside.com/store/4305.htm
there are many interesting clues regarding the nature of the case. for example, bridget unsure of who the father of the twins would be because she was having two sexual relations during the time she was impregnated. and perhaps most condemning of her is the fact that her then fiancee who testified that he paid her legal fees, forensic fees, rent, bought her a $35,000 engagement ring, etc...., even he testified that he did NOT think the father molested the children. to me that says it all about bridget and her motivations.