Aww.... Ellen is really crying

[MonkeyFunk]

She came out today with no monologue, no dancing. Just sat in her chair and started to weep. Really really weep.

She explained that a few weeks ago, she adopted a dog from a rescue org, and after trying everything and spending mega-money, he just couldn't get along with her cats. So she gave him to her hairdresser, who has two young kids and the dog and the kids were heaven. Everything was perfect.

The rescue org called her yesterday to check on the dog's status, and she told them the truth - he was living with another family.

The rescue org said that wasn't allowed. The forms she signed said she had to give the dog back to the rescue org if she unable to take care of it.

So they came and took the dog from his new family.

She was just weeping. She felt so bad for hurting those little girls this way, and was just begging the rescue org to return the dog.

It was so sad.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

1. That can't be legal...

How does the organization prove "custody" of a dog. I'd think they'd have to prove that the adopting family was unfit.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. I guess the contract she signed

said that custody must revert back to the rescue org if she gave it up.

I wish she had named the group - they'd probably get a few thousand angry calls today.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

23. I'm sure that was on purpose...

Had she just said their name on TV, they would have spent the next three weeks answering angry phone calls and letters. I'm sure that was a conscious decision on her part to now escalate the situation.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. its standard procedure for most shelters.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. I've adopted before...

And I can't imagine that, under the circumstances, they simply wouldn't schedule a home visit with the new family and allow the adoption to be permanent.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

39. i know when i got my cat, they told me if they hear that i have given it away

they will take it back from other persons home.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

48. Would this involve a SWAT team? Tear Gas?

I guess I'm a little annoyed at some people messianic vision of themselves.

[fudge stripe cookays]

46. It was part of our contract...

when we adopted Fargo from the Texas Great Pyrenees Rescue. It was part of the verbiage.

But I wish they could have simply scheduled a home visit instead of removing the dog first. I know they're doing it for the good of the dog, but it seems a little extreme as a first step.

Guess they feel like they have to vet the new family, no matter what.

[Sequoia]

54. The way they seem, you'd think it was a child instead of a dog.

[China_cat]

84. Why? That's a standard clause in rescue contracts.

Not just rescue contracts...it's standard for the majority of SPCAs and every decent breeder I've ever met. The group tries to make sure the dog and the family are a good fit.

And they very well might have placed the dog with family recommended by Ellen if she had just called them first to discuss the problems she was having.

[halobeam]

2. what the hell kind of a rescue org is this?

they got ppl banging their doors down, with a perfect little family scenerio to boot? They had to take this dog away? I must mantra... "never think I've seen/heard everything, again".

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. its a good rescue org. while we are getting upset because we 'know' ellen

what if this was an asshole who then gave it to some dog torturing person?

the reason rescues insist on this is because they screen the person they give the dog to. not the person this person then hands off the dog to.

its a good policy

[MonkeyFunk]

15. as Flvegan wrote...

the org could've evaluated the new home situation.

Ellen constantly talks about her love for animals, and about all the pets she's adopted. She wouldn't give the dog to anybody who wasn't fit to take it.

Sorry, but I trust her on this issue.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. i trust her too. i think the new family can just apply to readopt.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. and I'm sure they will

but the meantime, two little girls are brokenhearted.

[rbnyc]

67. I agree the rule is there for an important reason...

...but if the dog is clearly not in danger in the new situation, I think it's ok to be flexible about the rules. Especially as a non-profit relies on donor money to do its charitable work, and can do more work with more money, and needs to build relationships with rich and influential people in order to raise more money and should have been looking at Ellen as a prospective Major Donor, Policy Volunteer, Spokesperson from the start...doing their best to cultivate the relationship.

I really want to know how their Board of Directors feels about all this.

[flvegan]

3. Simple solution

I can see both sides of this, having been in that situation (the rescue).

Get the info on where the dog is. Make contact with the family. Immediately have them apply to adopt the dog. If nothing is wrong with the app, do the home visit. If all is well, adopt the dog to the new family. Don't remove the dog until it's necessary.

[halobeam]

6. why they couldn't do this in about fifteen minutes

at the families house is beyond me.

[flvegan]

14. Well, it takes longer than that

However, if they know the location of the animal, and the animal isn't in any danger, there's no need to remove him/her. A good rescue will look at vet references/records, and they have to take into consideration the family (kids, other pets, etc) and how the animal will work with them. Can be done over a day or two. Still, no need to remove the dog.

[Susang]

27. I can't believe they didn't do that

I've volunteered for several shelters and that would have been our first line of action. Why take the dog back from a good home, as long as it can be verified? Plus, did they not think of the bad publicity it would generate? I'm pretty sure that Ellen mentioned what organization it was when she first adopted the dog. It wouldn't be hard for an investigative individual to find that info out and publish it on TMZ.

If I had to guess, I'd say that one rather uptight, black & white thinker at this particular organization made the decision to follow the rules by-the-book without evaluating the situation realistically. I hope it doesn't harm their organization. Or the poor dog.

[flvegan]

29. The only, only, ONLY time we'd do this is in one of two situations...

1. Ellen, not knowing the entire dog's past (which we disclose, but not everyone does) gives the dog to the hairdresser who has two kids. Well, the dog has bitten children in the past. We'd explain that to the hairdresser and discuss what should be done.

2. Ellen, not knowing the entire dog's past (which we disclose, but not everyone does) gives the dog to the hairdresser who has two other small dogs. Let's say the dog has been known to be dog aggressive in the past. Now, in this case, a Brussels Griffon, dog aggression isn't really a consideration. However, if it were a bigger stronger dog, we'd want to discuss this with the hairdresser as well.

We would NOT in any case pull an Elian, unless the dog was in danger.

[Susang]

30. Apparently, the shelter has a blanket policy of no kids under 13

So that dog may not go back to the family. The whole thing is sad and was handled horribly for everyone involved.

http://ellen.warnerbros.com/2007/10/iggy.php

The organization supposedly is "Mutts and Moms" or "The Paw Boutique". :shrug:

[flvegan]

33. Which is a stupid policy

that begs the question (seriously):

If an adoptive couple without kids adopts a dog, if they have a baby 2 years later, does the rescue reserve the right to invoke their repossession clause and take the dog back?

That slope is slippery.

[Susang]

36. I don't understand it either

As long as the home is vetted and an appropriate dog for the family is being adopted, why not kids under 13? This sounds like a lawsuit protection policy to me. Makes me wonder if they are fully disclosing what they know about each animal.

[Critters2]

44. I agree. I never heard of such a policy.

Frankly, it makes no sense. Kids learn empathy from having pets, and homes with children can make great families for animals. I don't understand this policy at all.

[Arkansas Granny]

49. That policy makes no sense to me either. I had pets around my

children from the time they were infants. They were taught at a very young age how to be nice to the kitty or puppy and never caused any injuries to the pets. I can't see the reasoning in not placing an animal in a home with young children as long as all other requirements are met and the pet in question is suitable to be around small children..

[Vanje]

37. The org should be renamed :

Control Freaks who cant leave well enough, alone.

Why dont they go find some truley homeless pets to "rescue"?

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Yes

that would be an infinitely better solution.

[Critters2]

42. As someone who's served on the board of a Humane Society,

I have to say it would also have been simple for Ellen to return the dog (as she almost certainly agreed to do when she adopted it), and tell the family that it's at the shelter. The family goes immediately to the shelter, tells them they are interested in that one dog. The family gets evaluated, and adopts dog. Voila!! Everyone's happy!

The contract and its stipulations are there for everyone's protection, most especially the dog's. But shelters are more than willing to work with those who want what's best for the animal. It's too bad that this happened, but it could easily have been avoided.

[Chimpy McCokespoon]

5. Ummm... Can't she just sue the living fuck out of them?

Come on...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. no, because what they did was a good thing.

the new family can apply now to readopt the dog and assuming nothign is wrong with the family they can have the dog.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. Anybody who makes my Ellen cry

can go pound sand.

I have no reason whatsoever to think that dog was in any way endangered.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. it wasnt. i am sure that they just dont want to sound like they were making exceptions to policy

cos shes rich and famous

i like ellen, i think she is adorable and just seems like a really nice person

she and portia are an adorable couple

[MonkeyFunk]

22. They're both very lucky women

But don't make my Ellen cry! I've been in love with her for over 20 years, when I used to see her standup routines in small clubs in San Francisco back in the 80s.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. aww

[Critters2]

43. Au contraire.

She almost certainly signed a contract saying she'd return the dog to them if she didn't intend to keep it. All shelters and rescues have such contracts these days. If anyone is liable to be sued, it's Ellen. She breached the contract.

[Maestro]

9. How stupid is that.

There are far too many dogs and cats put down and when a dog finds a family the rescue organization takes it away just because of paperwork? What am I missing here?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. read any of my posts on this thread. the shelter did the right thing/

[skygazer]

40. I really can't agree

While I understand having the policy in place to prevent cruelty or giving the animal to a bad home, as Flvegan said, all they had to do was investigate the new home. They could have taken the dog temporarily while making sure all was in order but it would make more sense than having the family apply from square one.

This reminds me of the zero tolerance thread - policies should certainly have rules but they should also have room for working them to fit individual situations. Now they have to start from scratch finding a home for this dog when they could have simply done an investigation and, if appropriate, allowed the family to keep it.

And if they really have a policy of no kids under 13, they're idiots.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. the under 13 rule is idiotic. i was great to dogs as a kid.

used to rescue stray dogs in india as a child.

[freeplessinseattle]

10. It is breaking my heart to see this

I've never seen her like this, she really cares about the animals. I sure hope she is able to make a difference with her public forum.

what a dumb policy. I can see why they would want to screen a new family, but to just go in and snatch the pet away, how horrible for the dog and the family. how can they think this is better for the puppy? he must be so confused.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. It's there for the dog's protection.

Shelters do background checks on adoptive families. If somebody adopts a dog then gives it to someone else, there's something fishy going on. If it's legit, then the family can go to the shelter and adopt the dog the proper way.

She could have saved a lot of grief if she had read the paperwork she was signing in the first place.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. That's why she was so broken up

she took full responsibility for her fuckup.

Still, there are solutions short of removing the dog.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. I haven't got a problem with that policy.

Bring the dog back to the shelter first, then figure out what's going on.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. and that's a mindless adherence to written policy

while ignoring what's best for all parties involved.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. It's mindful adherence to safety. Beats mindless adherence to celebrity.

And the policy, I'm willing to bet, was a reaction to this sort of case where they didn't pick up the dog right away because everything seemed legit, and then the dog disappeared.

[Susang]

34. You think it was right to bring police to the house?

Shit, even the Animal Cops handle that shit with more sensitivity. I feel sorry for their organization, if they'd had more tact and not forcibly removed the dog in front of the sobbing children, they might stand a chance of recovering from the backlash they're experiencing. And before you tell me how right they were, let me disclose that I've worked for several shelters, none of them would have handled it that way. We would never have involved police unless we thought the dog or family were in immediate danger. Which was obviously not the case here.

[Scout]

31. we signed a contract just like that...

when we brought home our newest arrival from the shelter.

It is a standard agreement, and I wish Ellen would have payed attention to what she was signing.

I like Ellen a lot, but she messed up this time.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. Indeed she did

and cryingly admitted so.

The issue now is what's best for all parties involved.

[fudge stripe cookays]

47. Yup.

Rescue groups are there because they know these animals have been through a lot, and they're trying to KEEP them from dealing with anymore ill treatment.

They're trying to find animals stable forever homes. Giving a dog you've recently adopted to someone else does not pass muster.

[vi5]

35. Even I knew that is a standard adoption policy..

I don't even have dogs and I know that you can't adopt a dog and then just give it to another family. It's a policy in place to protect the dogs more than anything else. It's a good policy and no amount of crying or wanting to feel all warm and fuzzy about it makes it any less of a sound, safe policy. They can't make the assumption that the person in question is giving Fido to little Suzie and Sammy suburg and not Michael Vick. Plain and simple.

[LeftyMom]

45. Exactly.

A reputable rescue takes a lifelong responsibility for an animal and includes that in the rescue contract.

[Bucky]

50. Man I had the same problem once, except instead of a dog it was with a girlfriend

But apparently you can't just give them away to whoever wants them. People can be such fascists.

Thanks for watching Ellen for us so the rest of us don't have to.

[LisaM]

51. If the dog couldn't get along with her cats

Why on earth did the shelter adopt it out to her in the first place? Did they just let her take a dog they knew might not get along with her other animals because of who she was?

I think it should go back to the home it gets along in.

[bullwinkle428]

52. Maybe the dog was fine with cats in general, but her cats reacted badly

to the presence of a new dog. I'm familiar with some cat rescue groups, and the good ones always are clear about how well a prospective adopted cat can handle other cats, dogs, and young children. The groups always emphasize that an adopted animal is a proper match.

[Fran Kubelik]

53. You make a good point.

The dog was (apparently) doing great with that family. I wish they would reconsider their actions.

[Mike03]

55. I empathize, but having been a longtime volunteer

at a private shelter, I know that the more fortunate, privately funded shelters can and do screen prospective adopters and can require them to remit the animal to the shelter if the adoption fails for some reason.

But I'm also someone who has adopted difficult dogs, and in fact just adopted a new one last week, and it's not always easy to rehabilitate a dog or create harmony in a household. She probablly did try to do the right thing and maybe she was unaware of the stipulation in the contract.

If this second family is a good family, maybe they can re-adopt the dog.

I have a suspicion which shelter this might be, but I don't want to recklessly guess. Does anyone know what city this shelter is in? Just curious about it.

[China_cat]

85. maybe she was unaware of the stipulation in the contract?

She's in show business. Since when does someone in that business sign ANYTHING without making sure they know what's involved?

[Ava]

56. i just watched the video

made me want to cry too :(

video here: http://defamer.com/hollywood/animal-rescue-dept/ellen-degeneress-scrappy-lapdog-meltdown-311528.php

[calico1]

57. This is not the first time Ellen has done something

like this. A few years ago she adopted another dog, had it on the show, had this whole contest on what to name the dog. The dog was named "Lucy." Lucy was cute as could be. About a couple of months or so after this she said on her show that Lucy had gotten big and become too active and wasn't getting along with the cats so she gave Lucy to some friends.

I love Ellen and think she is great and do believe she had the best intentions in mind. However, I have also adopted several of my pets from rescue organizations and know several people who work for them. This organization imo did the right thing. Ellen can say all she wants about these people. But the organization doesn't know them. They screened her, not her hairdresser. As for the rule of children under 13, this is a rule some organizations have because some young kids just don't know how to act around dogs and the dog, in self defense can lunge for a child that is pulling it's tail or doing other stuff like that they consider play but the dog sees as aggression.

I think Ellen should wait until she no longer has cats before considering adopting another dog. I love her but she was the one who screwed up. The agency is just trying to protect the dog. Their work is hard enough. Unfortunately I am sure this particular organization will now get a lot of hate mail and bad publicity thanks to the meltdown.

[MonkeyFunk]

58. I don't think people

are objecting to the policy itself, but rather to the way they chose to enforce it.

[cuke]

61. How else can they enforce it w/o giving up the dog?

The policy calls for the dog to be returned to the shelter. How can you return the dog to the shelter without returning the dog to the shelter?

Ellen made a poor decision in taking the dog in. So why would she think she knows how to place a dog?

[Pithlet]

62. I think there were more and better ways that could have been handled.

They could block the person who violated it from ever adopting from their organization again, and possibly circulate their name and info to other rescue organizations to warn them. They could have checked the home to see it if it was fit, and only used such drastic measures if there were evidence of abuse. I don't think it's a bad policy, and Ellen definitely was in the wrong and screwed up, but the organization really screwed up how they handled it. This is getting a lot of negative publicity, so they may have done more harm than good looking at the big picture.

[kas125]

59. Sometimes these rescue people forget that PEOPLE are involved

and that they matter, too. My mom adopted a greyhound from a rescue group in Northwest Indiana. Then, at my urging when I was at one of their fundraisers with her, she got another one. They were sweet and wonderful dogs and were part of my parents' family for a few years. My sisters and I joked that those "kids" were treated a lot better than we'd been... Then my mom got terminal cancer. She had a short time to live (eleven weeks from the day she was diagnosed) and was worried sick about those dogs, her 'girls.' She asked several times what I thought she should do about the girls when the time came and we decided that Dad would need them around anyway. But then the cancer moved to her brain and she somehow got it into her mind that because of the chemo her immune system was compromised and she was supposed to stay AWAY from the dogs. She started putting them in the room farthest away from hers and the poor things stayed in there for a week. She was tortured by the decision, and really suffered before she finally asked me to call the rescue people like the contract said she should if she couldn't keep them anymore. I called and explained the situation to the woman, told her that my mom was afraid the dogs were making her sick and it was breaking her heart because she loved them so much. I asked her where I could bring them and she insisted that they would come and get the dogs as soon as she found a place to take them. My mom cried for hours both making the decision and when I told her I'd made the call. She was giving away her KIDS, for god's sake. She spent a few hours finding all their brushes, leashes, toys, and put them in a big box on the dining room table and kept asking if I knew what time they were leaving. For days she waited and then I called again. They said they didn't have a place for the dogs, but they would in a day or two. So Mom sadly waited, both for the dogs to leave and for herself to die...

That went on for two more weeks. Every few hours she would start crying about the dogs leaving and asking if I knew when they were going. She said goodbye to those dogs so many times that I couldn't stand it anymore. I called again. And again, I explained to this organization of people who had claimed to be my mother's friends for years now that she was SUFFERING over this and that she was already suffering enough from the cancer. Please come and get the dogs. Please, I can't listen to her cry about it anymore and the dogs are worried and you just need to come and get them so she will stop being upset about this. She thinks they are dangerous for her now and you need to come, please.

And another week went by. Then I called again and told them that I had contacted ANOTHER greyhound organization whose director was willing to ADOPT both dogs herself after hearing my story and she was picking them up in twelve hours. You have twelve hours or they are going to another home. The woman threatened to sue me for breaking her contract. I politely pointed out that it was Greyhound Guardians who was breaking the contract by not providing a place for the dogs when we'd been trying to return them, and that she was free to sue me all she wanted to since I DIDN'T SIGN YOUR FUCKING CONTRACT and I'd love to see what a judge would tell you if you sued my terminally ill mother who DID sign it. If you want your dogs, you have twelve hours to find a place and come and get them. When I asked why, if they cared so much about these dogs, they hadn't come sooner, she said, "We didn't want to have to kennel the dogs. And now, BECAUSE YOU HATE DOGS, we have to." They did come, with three hours to spare and were extremely rude about it. And I had to call the NICE greyhound people and tell them that they couldn't have the dogs after all.

She accused me of hating dogs because I was trying to help my dying mother. I have kids and two twelve year old dogs and a cat I've raised since he was one day old. I do not hate dogs, but I know that people matter, too. Some of these dog rescue folks seem to forget that.

[MonkeyFunk]

60. Ugh...

what a horrible story.

I'm so sorry your mother had that extra pain put upon her. How awful!

Yes, the issue is that real people (and a real dog!) are involved. The policy is a wise one, but it's the way they enforced it that's the problem.

Well, the name of the organization has gotten out, and I'm sure they're getting thousands and thousands of calls. They've taken their website down. They fucked themselves over horribly on this.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

63. I HEARD THAT

on the radio this morning... Bill Press is such an ass. He was talking over the tape of Ellen crying saying "Ellen, it's JUST a dog, get over it." I was shocked that anyone could say that on a progressive station...

[soleft]

64. Unfortunately this seems like its getting ugly

From reading the comments on her site, it appears the agency had had to shut down, people were posting personal info - her emotional appeal only pissed them off even more.

I wonder is some third party can come in and cool down the emotions. But I don't know who that would be?

[rbnyc]

65. This rescue organization's Board should fire the ED and Development Director

Imagine what a tremendous fundraising opportunity they missed. By being flexible and working with Ellen from the start, they could have recruited her as a spokesperson or gotten positive publicity on her show. There are endless positive relationship possibilities here. The Director of Development should have been working this from the start.

The ultimate goal is to provide good homes for the animals. Is this done better by being inflexible about rules and alienating the rich and powerful, or by being flexible if the circumstances warrant flexibility and earn the gratitude of the rich and powerful. It takes money to fulfill your mission and it takes relationships to make money.

They crapped all over this opportunity. The Board should be pissed and heads should roll.

[Capn Sunshine]

68. Board? This is one lady working out of her living room.

Now she's freaked out because of all the death threats. I bet she sues.

[rbnyc]

69. All non-profits need a board.

I don't get it. She was running an animal rescue organization out of her living room? Were all the animals in her home?

[Capn Sunshine]

75. Yep and Yep

She and her friend/partner would "rescue" dogs from the pound, keeping them in the yards of various friends.

Yikes

[rbnyc]

86. So Mutts and Moms is not a legal non-profit...

Since their website is shut down and since their so small, it's hard to research them. They've been misrepresented in the articles I've read as being a legitimate non-profit organization.

Thanks.

[JVS]

66. Who died and made her the dog-pimp?

:grr:

[Generic Brad]

70. They got her and her little dog too

What animal shelter was that again? The Wicked Witch of the West Animal Shelter?

[Ellen Forradalom]

71. The fact that this is so public

makes everyone's positions that much more entrenched, and makes it difficult to reach an amicable conclusion.

This should have been handled in private.

[calico1]

72. Good point.

I think from the moment Ellen went public it created a very hostile environment. Even if they might have been persuaded in private to let the girls keep the dog, all the bad publicity, death threats, etc. put them on the defensive and I am sure pissed them off big time. She lost the minute she did that.

[Ellen Forradalom]

73. Yes, exactly.

A few phone calls could've ironed this out, one way or the other.

It was not the public's business to know. Sometimes Hollywood forgets that.

[TreasonousBastard]

74. Ellen forgot that, or didn't care...

and it became not about a dog but all about Ellen, and now that 12 year old girl who is all over TV asking everyone to "reconsider" because she misses her dog.

Using your TV show to air your side of your personal problems is a bit tacky, to say the least. Others have tried to use their personal problems to illustrate some larger point, with varying degreees of success, but Ellen just wants to whine to us.

[MonkeyFunk]

76. I think

Ellen was very seriously saddened by the situation, and let it show.

She didn't give the name of the agency. She didn't encourage anybody to do anything, other than return the dog.

I think it was a raw, emotional moment that blew up into something far more than she ever expected or wanted.

But, Ellen has now said she won't talk about it anymore, and I wish everyone else would follow her lead. I regret ever posting this OP.

[redqueen]

77. Aw... please don't regret that.

It showed a side of you I don't see that much... and I liked it very much.

Fuck the haters. If people want to bitch about something they will bitch about it whether you posted it or someone else did.

And I agree with you, by the way. She was obviously very affected by what happened and wasn't thinking clearly and made a mistake but it's not the end of the world... and the people acting as if she committed some crime or deserves to be trashed for it are being hateful and needlessly ugly. You weren't being ugly... you were being kind and sympathetic.

[MonkeyFunk]

79. Thank you

that was sweet.

[Der Blaue Engel]

78. I believe the first thing she said was that the rescue org threated to go to the media

if she didn't give the dog back. That was why she was making it public.

They saw an opportunity to get publicity by playing dirty with a dog and a celebrity. I think they're despicable.

Why couldn't they simply let the new family adopt the dog? Oh, right, because they don't place dogs in homes with children. So you're telling me that if I adopt a dog from them and then have a baby anytime within the dog's lifespan that these jokers are going to demand I return the dog?

They may have been within their rights and doing the right thing to ask for the dog back, but the minute they started threatening and acting like asshats they lost the moral highground.

Just my opinion.

[MonkeyFunk]

80. No, she never said that

she never said anything about the agency other than that they came and took the dog.

She didn't accuse them of anything. She never said their name.

I'm just flabbergasted that this became a subject of flamewars. Ellen was sad. She cried. She asked them to return the dog, without naming them.

How people can turn that into a hatefest against her is beyond me.

And the people who are threatening the agency are also assholes, and she addressed that today. I think she's been totally classy, open, honest and sincere in everything she's said or done on-air.

[Der Blaue Engel]

81. Are you sure?

I could have sworn that was the first thing she said, because I was instantly pissed off by the notion. Early-onset senility or the beginning of disturbing hallucinations? x(

[MonkeyFunk]

82. She didn't say it on her show

if she's done other press on the issue, I haven't seen it.

[Der Blaue Engel]

83. I guess it wasn't the show, it was some interview

Here it is on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnEVYYfxHo0&NR=1