Did Your Mama Teach You That?

In my book, celebrities can earn fame in two ways:

1. Talent and hard work.
2. Engaging in very public relationships filled with the sort of drama found in badly-scripted teen soap operas. Then, hopefully someone cheats/dies/comes out of the closet, allowing for an even MORE tasteless second act. And probably somewhere along the way children should be born, to ensure the supply of the fame-hungry and socially-inept.

[NOTE: Can't WAIT for Brit and K-Fed's kid to grow up... that child will be a GOLDMINE of white trash misbehavior.]

Speaking of which...

NYT: Justices Hear a Drama Straight From Tabloids

One might wonder why a simple inheritance case was being heard by the choosy Supreme Court. However, now it is clear that Chief Justice Roberts just wanted a chance to talk about Anna Nicole Smith's "substantial assets". (Heh heh...pervert.)

[NOTE: Or as Holly would say, Anna Nicole's 'ta-tas'. I sometimes think it was such a shame we broke off from England before absorbing all their fascinating slang terms... if only, you know, they weren't so pushy with the taxes and the tea.]

NYP: 'BLACK-EYE BANDIT'

Ok, forget the whole bank-robbing thing... the real crime here is this woman's shoddy appearance. Serious criminals would at least comb their hair before going about their business... there's mug shots to consider, people! Looking all crack-addict crazy in the Post, that pretty much guarantees a conviction. There is no chance in hell people will see this and think, that nice girl couldn't possibly have done anything wrong... as this photo just screams GUILTY CRACK-WHORE.

NYT: To: Professor@University.edu Subject: Why It's All About Me

Calling all parents - if your child is the kind of idiot who emails her professor that she was late to class because she was still hungover from a "wild weekend party", you best start planning to pay for your own retirement NOW. Because obviously she will never be a good enough liar to hold down a decent job. [Examples of professional faux pas you can look forward to - here.]

NYT: No Cinderella Story, No Ball, No Black Debutante

I know it's more complicated than this, but... jesus, rich white people of Louisiana, there was a HURRICANE. People DIED. This is a time for unity if there ever was one... so, invite this poor girl with the fabulous dress to your stupid ball already! In the spirit of America, middle class of all races should be able to join up and scorn the poor together! She just wants her chance to be an elitist snob, the same as you, and why would you let a little flood water drown her dream?

NYT: Stretched to Limit, Women Stall March to Work

...working mothers... spent an average of 12 hours a week on child care in 2003, an hour more than stay-at-home mothers did in 1975.

Uh... am I the only one wondering what the hell else those stay-at-home mothers were doing the other 156 hours of the week? Even Donna Reed had her vacuuming limits...

But seriously, I think this whole debate saddens me, since it seems to be missing the point - feminism shouldn't be yet another lifestyle dictated to women by society, it should be about women making their own lifestyle choices.

Also, it's about men doing household chores. (I figure we girls have done them for a few millenia - your turn, boys! Don't worry, we'll let you know if you missed a spot. During the commercials, of course.)

ECONOMIST: Priceless pranks

Ahhh... the old ones are the best. Especially when a stiffed military contractor managed to trick the Crusadors out of sacking Jerusalem. Apparently the Crusadors weren't the sharpest swords in the shed.

ECONOMIST: Trashy magazines junked!

I am glad to know that the Economist has validated my choice of trashy mags - I would never, ever stoop to reading the National Enquirer. (At least not out of the grocery line, and then only with very loud scoffing to show my utter and complete disdain of such garbage.) I also would never spend more than $1.99 on a tabloid - obviously, the willingness to spend over $3 for celebrity gossip would mean I had a problem.

Not that I subscribe, because I don't have a problem. Just buy them at the newsstand once and awhile. I CAN STOP ANY TIME I WANT. Really - cold turkey. I only get them for the sparkly dresses, anyway...

And while we're on the topic, even though OK! has a new and attractive low price, do not be fooled. Even $2 is too much to spend on that celebrity propaganda... while all the other magazines were discussing TomKat's imminent split (because I would like to think the pregnancy hormones had shocked Katie back into sanity - Katie! Do you want your child to be exposed to Tom's couch-jumping antics?!), OK! trumpets their marriage plan as a happy and sane course of action. Really, people - in the spirit of free press and American democracy, such pandering to the publicists is just shameful and wrong. People magazine, I am looking at YOU.

Not that I take tabloids that seriously. Really, I only read them once in a while! Maybe a few a week! And only the cheap ones! When I need a little pick-me-up! No problem here... I subscribe to the Economist, for chrissakes. Am obviously a very intelligent and serious person...

Comments

[Massander]

The one about kids emailing professors was interesting. I didn't do much of that in undergrad. I agree though - our communication is much sloppier now that we depend on email so much.