- Celebrity couple (X & Y) goes on a romantic date in a hip cafe.
- Paparazzo A, hiding behind some bushes across the street from said cafe, takes photos of a brief moment when Y is smiling while speaking to a waitress and X is grimacing while digging through her bag.
- Paparazzo A sells photos to trashy tabloid rag A for $$$$$.
- Tabloid A publishes photos under headline "X to Y: IT'S OVER! X is enraged over Y talking to a hot waitress during their date, and threatens to move out and take the dogs with her"
- Tabloids B and C splash old photos of X & Y making angry faces (presumably from noticing a paparazzo rather than being angry at each other) all over their covers, and use similar headlines to Tabloid A.
- X & Y separate because of distress from hearing break-up rumors.
- One week later, Paparazzo A takes pictures of X walking her dogs post-separation, looking tired and not perfectly put-together.
- Around the same time, Paparazzo B takes pictures of Y smiling while speaking with his young female cousin at a family barbecue.
- Paparazzi A and B sell pictures to Tabloid A for $$$$$
- Tabloid A publishes photos under the headline "X: HE BROKE MY HEART! X crying during a lonely stroll one week after shocking break-up with Y. Y speaks with young girl: he's a cradle robber, too!"
- Y publicly rebukes and threatens to sue Tabloid A for defamation. He later brings a lawsuit.
- Cash-strapped "friend" of Y releases photos of Y shirtless and drunk at a frat party in college to Tabloid A, which gives this "friend" $$$$$ in return.
- Other celebrities lambaste Y for "poor choices" on Twitter and Facebook.
- Y refuses to issue apology, saying that those photos should have remained private, and publicly rebukes his "friend".
- X does not issue any statements, despite being coerced by reporters.
- Tabloids A, B, C, online magazines 1 and 2, blogs 1 to n, and "reputable" news sources I-V publish stories and opinion columns bashing Y for being an insolent liar, pervert, and cheater and proclaiming X to be a victim.
- Y is forced to issue an apology to X, and he finally does.
- X does not respond immediately, leading "news" sources to bash HER for being indecisive and secretive. Tabloids coin a nickname for her to mock her indecisiveness: "Waity X-ie". Why can't she act the victim like she should?
- "News" sources claim Y's apology is insincere and attack him again. This man can't be trusted to tell the truth!
- X finally responds, saying that she remains friends with Y, does not believe in these rumors of infidelity, and wishes to reunite with him after a period of time. She also asks for the paps to leave her and Y alone.
- "News" sources bash X for not being an "empowered" woman. Is she stupid or what?
- Paps leave X alone, and she is not photographed out and about for weeks. They ignore her plea for them to ignore Y.
- Tabloids A-C claim that she's a lazy bum who is moping around because she just doesn't know what to do with her life after the break-up. They make up a new nickname: "Lazy X-y". She's a typical clingy chick who can't go on without her man!
- Y wins defamation suit against Tabloid A for an undisclosed amount.
- "News" sources scream injustice at the ruling, claiming that the judge is a fraud who let a known pedophile go free because this wealthy celebrity bribed him.
Showing posts with label celebrities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label celebrities. Show all posts
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING "BORING"?
Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck are boring because they have a normal family life, try not to do anything controversial, and don't try to attract attention to themselves.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are boring for about the same reasons, and also because they don't like displaying their affection for each other in public.
I really don't see what's so wrong with being boring, and why it's so imperative to some people that celebrities be complete train wrecks like Charlie Sheen.
Can't we all just be relieved that there are still strong, steady relationships based on love, affection, and trust in these crazy times?
I'd take long, "boring" marriages over short, "interesting" ones any day.
Monday, August 31, 2009
One long, winding rant
In a forum that I frequently read, the discussion of the bloody murder of a model by her wealthy husband quickly disintegrated into a cruel mockery of her "blonde bimbo" image. To them, she was the epitome of a vapid, naive young woman who used artificially-enhanced looks to gain the affections of wealthy men. Their mockery of her reminds me of the public's and the media's treatment of Anna Nicole Smith, who also died tragically, with the aid of others who were supposed to be helping her. What they forget is that these two women, and others like them, were human beings both before and after their transformations who became caricatures of themselves in order to gain the attention of others. I guess, in a sense, they deserved the treatment...but even after their deaths? It's beyond tasteless--it's cruel.
What also disturbs me is that one member of the forum made a post using Chelsea Clinton as a euphemism for "ugly". Unsurprisingly, another forum member--who has made previous posts which suggest that he is a social conservative--thanked the first member's post for being "useful" (which is the forum's way of letting members show their appreciation for an informative post. Unsurprisingly, it's used often to indicate an agreement with the poster's sentiments, rather than the quality of their posts). Now, when the name of a former president's child is evoked as a substitute for the word "ugly", you know the quality of the discussion has deteriorated beyond recovery. The latest posts in that thread have little to do with the murder itself, which was its topic; it's turned into personal attacks and weak attempts to guide the discussion back to the original topic.
I have learned indirectly that Chelsea Clinton was once called the family dog by a nationally-recognized conservative Republican, whose similarly-minded audience at the time thought the comment was absolutely hysterical(-ly funny). Their ilk also called Hillary Clinton names that should make any woman righteously furious, simply because she did not fit their mold of the ideal woman (subservient and unambitious. A woman's dangerous when she's ambitious, doncha know.). In one of the more stunning demonstrations of their underhanded tactic of using personal attacks when they have nothing substantive or relevant to bring to the discussion, they attacked CHILDREN for being liars when they dared to support a Democratic candidate or a Democratic platform. The best (worst?) example of all is their calling President Obama's oldest daughter some of the same names they had used on Hillary Clinton simply because the 11-year-old dared to wear a shirt with a peace sign on it and to walk out in Europe with her hair unkempt (or so they thought). Little thought was actually given to the purpose of the Obama family's being in Europe in the first place...it was all about Malia's shirt and hair (and her skin color, but the name-callers claim they are not racists.).
Yet, when members of my party pointed out the misdeeds of the Bush twins or former AK Governor Palin's exploitation of her children to score political points, we become the target of "outrage" from conservative Republicans. How dare we criticize the Bush twins for using fake IDs to obtain alcohol and setting a poor example for their age peers. How dare we criticize Palin for a)constantly using her mentally disabled son as a prop to extol her "family values" while her record strongly indicates that she had turned her back on the mentally disabled children of other Alaskans; and b)seemingly being unaware of just how far her daughter had taken her relationship with her then-boyfriend while, again, extolling the family value of no sex before marriage. These people demonstrated their poor judgment by their actions, so we rightfully criticized them for failing to practice what they preach, but their defenders say we have no right to do so (because what? Because you are Republican, therefore beyond all reproach?). Who, then, gave them the right to make personal attacks on innocent members of my party and even children with no political affiliation for having the "misfortune" of looking the way they do by accident of birth (to Democratic parents--those immoral heathens) or the audacity to support an expansion of SCHIP because, I dunno, they are seriously ill and NEED health insurance to pay for their outrageously expensive medical treatments that their working/laid-off parents could not possibly afford? Why can't they just not get sick? If their parents KNEW they couldn't afford to pay for their children's medical treatments, why did they even HAVE children (they had to have anticipated that their children would get seriously ill before they were even born)?
Speaking of which, the cause of health care reform, which was the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's life's passion, has gained new momentum and meaning due to his recent death (may he rest in eternal peace). The cause is personal for so many millions of Americans, both conservative and liberal, and is the cause on which President Obama has essentially staked his reputation and success. Those who are eager to enforce the status quo are stoking the fears of those ill-informed reactionaries of the Republican Party, planting lies in their desperate-for-vindication-of-their-worldviews brains that socialism is an evil to be thwarted at all costs, that Obama's "death panels" (actually end-of-life counseling, which is essential) will "pull the plug on Grandma", that government-administered health insurance under Obama would cover illegal immigrants, and so on. All these arguments are absurd and untrue, and yet so many buy into them because they are so terrified of change that they will hold on to any embankment or rock in order to avoid being swept away by the steady flow of the stream of change. In those health care town halls that have captured the news media's attention these past few weeks, vocal groups (who have not read and will not read the actual proposal) opposed to health care reform have stifled debate, shouted down supporters and Democratic legislators, and even threatened their lives. From bringing dangerous assault rifles to "teabagger" rallies outside of town halls to hanging Democratic legislators in effigy, they have shown that there is no limit to the lengths they would go to prevent even the slightest change, even if it actually benefits them.
Do these foot soldiers of the opposition really know what it is they are really fighting for or against, as opposed to what they only believe is true? Are they so wedded to the culture of "Me", that even the thought of contributing a penny to cover the costs of another American's medical treatments makes them tremble with rage and indignation? Had they forgotten that over a trillion of tax money (including their own) was spent on deadly wars that they supported when Bush was president, and that far less money would be spent on health care reform, which would actually create and aid instead of destroy and plunder? What should be a passionate debate on a moral issue concerning all Americans is instead a ruthless, dangerous assault from one small but seething minority on the right that is fueled by fear, contempt, resentment, and racial prejudice. They have turned health care debate into a war, and they aren't afraid of using violence to silence those who want a reasoned discussion. In order to do what's morally right, and honor the memory of a faithful public servant, this discussion should get back on topic--the assurance of a brighter future for the American people.
What also disturbs me is that one member of the forum made a post using Chelsea Clinton as a euphemism for "ugly". Unsurprisingly, another forum member--who has made previous posts which suggest that he is a social conservative--thanked the first member's post for being "useful" (which is the forum's way of letting members show their appreciation for an informative post. Unsurprisingly, it's used often to indicate an agreement with the poster's sentiments, rather than the quality of their posts). Now, when the name of a former president's child is evoked as a substitute for the word "ugly", you know the quality of the discussion has deteriorated beyond recovery. The latest posts in that thread have little to do with the murder itself, which was its topic; it's turned into personal attacks and weak attempts to guide the discussion back to the original topic.
I have learned indirectly that Chelsea Clinton was once called the family dog by a nationally-recognized conservative Republican, whose similarly-minded audience at the time thought the comment was absolutely hysterical(-ly funny). Their ilk also called Hillary Clinton names that should make any woman righteously furious, simply because she did not fit their mold of the ideal woman (subservient and unambitious. A woman's dangerous when she's ambitious, doncha know.). In one of the more stunning demonstrations of their underhanded tactic of using personal attacks when they have nothing substantive or relevant to bring to the discussion, they attacked CHILDREN for being liars when they dared to support a Democratic candidate or a Democratic platform. The best (worst?) example of all is their calling President Obama's oldest daughter some of the same names they had used on Hillary Clinton simply because the 11-year-old dared to wear a shirt with a peace sign on it and to walk out in Europe with her hair unkempt (or so they thought). Little thought was actually given to the purpose of the Obama family's being in Europe in the first place...it was all about Malia's shirt and hair (and her skin color, but the name-callers claim they are not racists.).
Yet, when members of my party pointed out the misdeeds of the Bush twins or former AK Governor Palin's exploitation of her children to score political points, we become the target of "outrage" from conservative Republicans. How dare we criticize the Bush twins for using fake IDs to obtain alcohol and setting a poor example for their age peers. How dare we criticize Palin for a)constantly using her mentally disabled son as a prop to extol her "family values" while her record strongly indicates that she had turned her back on the mentally disabled children of other Alaskans; and b)seemingly being unaware of just how far her daughter had taken her relationship with her then-boyfriend while, again, extolling the family value of no sex before marriage. These people demonstrated their poor judgment by their actions, so we rightfully criticized them for failing to practice what they preach, but their defenders say we have no right to do so (because what? Because you are Republican, therefore beyond all reproach?). Who, then, gave them the right to make personal attacks on innocent members of my party and even children with no political affiliation for having the "misfortune" of looking the way they do by accident of birth (to Democratic parents--those immoral heathens) or the audacity to support an expansion of SCHIP because, I dunno, they are seriously ill and NEED health insurance to pay for their outrageously expensive medical treatments that their working/laid-off parents could not possibly afford? Why can't they just not get sick? If their parents KNEW they couldn't afford to pay for their children's medical treatments, why did they even HAVE children (they had to have anticipated that their children would get seriously ill before they were even born)?
Speaking of which, the cause of health care reform, which was the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's life's passion, has gained new momentum and meaning due to his recent death (may he rest in eternal peace). The cause is personal for so many millions of Americans, both conservative and liberal, and is the cause on which President Obama has essentially staked his reputation and success. Those who are eager to enforce the status quo are stoking the fears of those ill-informed reactionaries of the Republican Party, planting lies in their desperate-for-vindication-of-their-worldviews brains that socialism is an evil to be thwarted at all costs, that Obama's "death panels" (actually end-of-life counseling, which is essential) will "pull the plug on Grandma", that government-administered health insurance under Obama would cover illegal immigrants, and so on. All these arguments are absurd and untrue, and yet so many buy into them because they are so terrified of change that they will hold on to any embankment or rock in order to avoid being swept away by the steady flow of the stream of change. In those health care town halls that have captured the news media's attention these past few weeks, vocal groups (who have not read and will not read the actual proposal) opposed to health care reform have stifled debate, shouted down supporters and Democratic legislators, and even threatened their lives. From bringing dangerous assault rifles to "teabagger" rallies outside of town halls to hanging Democratic legislators in effigy, they have shown that there is no limit to the lengths they would go to prevent even the slightest change, even if it actually benefits them.
Do these foot soldiers of the opposition really know what it is they are really fighting for or against, as opposed to what they only believe is true? Are they so wedded to the culture of "Me", that even the thought of contributing a penny to cover the costs of another American's medical treatments makes them tremble with rage and indignation? Had they forgotten that over a trillion of tax money (including their own) was spent on deadly wars that they supported when Bush was president, and that far less money would be spent on health care reform, which would actually create and aid instead of destroy and plunder? What should be a passionate debate on a moral issue concerning all Americans is instead a ruthless, dangerous assault from one small but seething minority on the right that is fueled by fear, contempt, resentment, and racial prejudice. They have turned health care debate into a war, and they aren't afraid of using violence to silence those who want a reasoned discussion. In order to do what's morally right, and honor the memory of a faithful public servant, this discussion should get back on topic--the assurance of a brighter future for the American people.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
I am so sick of celebrity-bashing. That it amuses and gratifies so many people disgusts me. They are treated by the public like zoo animals; we point and laugh at their antics while safely behind reinforced glass windows and metal bars. Or, it could be that they are parading across a giant stage, doing their acts for our amusement, and we are the ultimate judges of their performances; unfortunately, their acts include moments of their personal lives we have absolutely no business in.
We shamelessly ridicule celebs like Britney, Lindsay, and Paris for shits and giggles instead of paying serious attention to the real dangers of underage drinking, drunk driving, and drug abuse. We lambasted Britney's poor parenting skills while so many relatively unknown people are abusing, kidnapping, raping, grossly neglecting, and murdering their children. Luckily, the Caylee Anthony story has gotten plenty of national attention, but the vast majority of the rest of the cases similar to hers are given little attention. Instead, people prefer to read the latest posts on their favorite sleazy celebrity gossip blogs or watch yet another E! News story about some celebrity's latest trip-ups and drama. 'Cause come on...real news is bor-ing, right?
We may argue that the news is being forced down our throats by the media. That is right, but we also have superpowers called "changing the channel" or "not reading tabloids". We don't have to pay attention, but we're choosing to. That's what's fueling the unhealthy celebrity obsession. By buying more magazines, tuning in to more TV programs, and bringing more traffic to celebrity gossip blogs, we are indirectly encouraging more of their destructive behavior and ignoring far more urgent concerns.
So a paparazzi took a shot of Britney's girl parts. Members of the general public have come to the conclusion that she wanted us to see that picture to bring more attention to herself. Britney's not 100% mentally stable, but I doubt she would want that kind of picture being shown all over the Internet and on TV. Instead, it is because some photographer wanted to take the most sensational shot to sell to mags for $$$. She may have brought it upon herself by being so (in-)famous, but that doesn't mean that there's a free-for-all for her dignity. Let the woman retain all of it that she has left and leave her alone.
The only celebrities I know of who seem to genuinely want to draw attention to themselves are P. Diddy and Paris Hilton. There are probably others. Call me stupid or call me naive, but cynicism is not how I roll.
We shamelessly ridicule celebs like Britney, Lindsay, and Paris for shits and giggles instead of paying serious attention to the real dangers of underage drinking, drunk driving, and drug abuse. We lambasted Britney's poor parenting skills while so many relatively unknown people are abusing, kidnapping, raping, grossly neglecting, and murdering their children. Luckily, the Caylee Anthony story has gotten plenty of national attention, but the vast majority of the rest of the cases similar to hers are given little attention. Instead, people prefer to read the latest posts on their favorite sleazy celebrity gossip blogs or watch yet another E! News story about some celebrity's latest trip-ups and drama. 'Cause come on...real news is bor-ing, right?
We may argue that the news is being forced down our throats by the media. That is right, but we also have superpowers called "changing the channel" or "not reading tabloids". We don't have to pay attention, but we're choosing to. That's what's fueling the unhealthy celebrity obsession. By buying more magazines, tuning in to more TV programs, and bringing more traffic to celebrity gossip blogs, we are indirectly encouraging more of their destructive behavior and ignoring far more urgent concerns.
So a paparazzi took a shot of Britney's girl parts. Members of the general public have come to the conclusion that she wanted us to see that picture to bring more attention to herself. Britney's not 100% mentally stable, but I doubt she would want that kind of picture being shown all over the Internet and on TV. Instead, it is because some photographer wanted to take the most sensational shot to sell to mags for $$$. She may have brought it upon herself by being so (in-)famous, but that doesn't mean that there's a free-for-all for her dignity. Let the woman retain all of it that she has left and leave her alone.
The only celebrities I know of who seem to genuinely want to draw attention to themselves are P. Diddy and Paris Hilton. There are probably others. Call me stupid or call me naive, but cynicism is not how I roll.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Angelina and Brad are not self-important and attention-seeking celebrities because their doctor addressed the media on the condition of their babies. Would you let all the often ugly lies and rumors spread across the world without feeling the need to set the record straight? Sure, a normal couple wouldn't ask their doctor to give a "press conference" updating the world on the condition of their pregnancy, but when it comes to the most famous couple in the world (which by default makes them highly 'abnormal', in a sense), unwanted attention follows them everywhere. They didn't want to do things in this fashion, as so many commenters in the blogosphere have suggested, but by the public's lust for information and the media's lust for viewership/readership and money, the J-P camp had few other options.
And for some to suggest that Angie/Brad deserve the lack of privacy for being celebrities in the first place, that's the most ridiculous bullshit I have ever heard. Are these critics justifying their own secret pleasure at viewing scandalous, salacious, and sensational celebrity news? One thing's for sure, though: nothing justifies this appalling media circus surrounding the twins' birth--not money, curiosity, nor even their parents' celebrity.
To certain people (you know who you are): We don't care if you don't care a whit about the J-P's. Just don't come to us telling us we're all rotten people for following all the news about them. Among us there are actually plenty of people who actually do care about their lovely family and don't buy into all that bullcrap the tabloids puke out every day. Unlike you.
And for some to suggest that Angie/Brad deserve the lack of privacy for being celebrities in the first place, that's the most ridiculous bullshit I have ever heard. Are these critics justifying their own secret pleasure at viewing scandalous, salacious, and sensational celebrity news? One thing's for sure, though: nothing justifies this appalling media circus surrounding the twins' birth--not money, curiosity, nor even their parents' celebrity.
To certain people (you know who you are): We don't care if you don't care a whit about the J-P's. Just don't come to us telling us we're all rotten people for following all the news about them. Among us there are actually plenty of people who actually do care about their lovely family and don't buy into all that bullcrap the tabloids puke out every day. Unlike you.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Some commenters on the Internet should leave their computers.
To the wonderful examples of humankind that are some of the People.com commenters:
- Get a life. You surely have better things to do with your time than to sneak around on entertainment websites just so you can post insulting comments about a public figure you happen to hate.
- Do you know Hillary/any random celebrity whom you dislike beyond what's presented in public? Didn't think so. Before you make any snap judgments about or heave personal insults at anyone, learn something about him/her. Before she went into politics, Hillary worked her ass off on behalf of women and children while working at all-male prestigious law firms. Bill was a Rhodes Scholar who had a less-than-ideal family situation, but still managed to stay on his feet and succeed. Did you bother to learn all that before you touched your keyboard?
- They are human beings, like you (though I have my doubts about you). Don't think for a second that they don't go through the same crap in their lives as we do. They worry about finances, pay taxes, raise children...just like you.
- Even the people we despise may say something or do something which would ultimately benefit us. Assuming that nothing good can come out of your enemies is doing yourself a disfavor.
- You try being constantly under national and international scrutiny. Chances are you won't like it, but if you're like Ann Coulter, you'd feel right at home basking in the glow of attention (even if it's almost 100% negative).
- Did you graduate from one of the top business/law schools in the country? Did you persevere at your work until you reached a position of prestige at your law firm/company? Did you publicly advocate unpopular positions or little-known issues? Did you run or help to run a country? Didn't think so. So don't assume you understand.
- You can't deny that Chelsea Clinton and Cate Edwards turned out to be fine, intelligent, well-adjusted, successful young women, no matter how evil you perceive their parents to be. Their parents must have done something right--how shocking!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)