Category Archives: celebrities

This basically made my week.

Posted on by
1

I was minding my own business on Tuesday night, sleeping like the good American I am, when into my head popped a dream that befuddled me.

I finished The Marriage Plot about a week ago. The book is about a young woman, Madeleine, who is entrapped in a love triangle with her troubled boyfriend, Leonard, and a long-lost friend, Mitchell, whose plans to travel the world after college are centered on forgetting that Madeleine ever existed.

The book is beautifully written, with well-developed, daringly human characters and a plot with enough twists and turns to keep the reader interested in a story that is, essentially, about the banality of upper middle class existence. It’s one of those books that is just begging to be made into a movie. And that, apparently, is where my brain comes in.

Rich Sommer, for those who don’t know, plays Harry Crane on Mad Men. He’s phenomenally adorable in that role (even in his less likeable scenes), but in a role as Madeleine? I’m not sure about that. (Though I’d love to see him in drag.)

The craziest thing, though, was not that I dreamed he was playing Madeleine (though that was pretty nuts), but that he responded to my tweet. I never anticipate that celebrities are going to respond to my tweets, especially when it’s about inane bullcrap like “OMG I HAD A DREAM YOU WERE SO-AND-SO.”

But shit, if he’s willing to make that movie, can I at least get some credit for casting?

What are you doing New Year’s Eve?

Posted on by
Reply

Raeann thinks this video is “hipster bait,” which I’m not denying, but seriously, fuck ANYONE who thinks this isn’t the cutest video they’ve ever seen and the most delightful song they’ve ever heard.

(Oh, and for the record, I’ll be spending New Year’s Eve with Raeann, her hubby, and my parents as we usher in 2012 while stuffing our faces with dim sum and ice cream cake.)

Happy New Year, everyone!

In Memory Of

Posted on by
3

A lot of people have already posted about Steve Jobs’ death almost two weeks ago. This post isn’t about that. Instead, I will refer you here, here, and here. I think those ladies can handle it.

What this post IS about is his influence. Influence that we all know about (because really, who these days DOESN’T have an iPhone / iPod or an Apple-inspired smartphone or digital music player?), but never really get to see, except on the occasional street corner where bunches of people are too busy interacting with their phones to interact with each other.

I drive down University Avenue in Palo Alto, past the Apple Store, every day to get to work. The day after Jobs’ death, a tiny memorial of flowers and candles popped up outside the Apple Store. I thought, “Aw, that’s sweet.” I thought it was a nice gesture from the public to acknowledge that influence that we all so often take for granted.

Nearly two weeks later, that gesture has exploded into an out-and-out shrine. The Apple Store is COVERED in pictures, flowers, and post-it notes with messages ranging from “thank you” to “I love you” to “you were a genius,” and beyond. It’s one of the most heartening things I’ve ever had the pleasure of seeing.




"Don’t Hate Me Because I’m a Feminist," and other country tunes.

Posted on by
1

As much as I love Jezebel, I’m getting pretty tired of the anti-Taylor Swift articles that they’ve been posting since the country phenom beat out Lady Gaga and Beyonce for the award for best album at the Grammys just last week.

One after another after another after another, various bloggers on the website have badmouthed Swift’s princessy persona and poppy tunes. And after reading today’s post, entitled “Taylor Swift is a Feminist’s Nightmare,” I’ve had quite enough.

And while I was going to write a huge post on the terrific irony of a feminist blog criticizing one woman’s choice in self-presentation and personal artistic expression, I found that some of the other readers of Jezebel have beat me to it in the comments section.

From user Cairn:

Feminism is about being able to make choices. It it NOT about always making choices that are popular. Calling Swift a feminist’s nightmare because she makes “traditional” choices essentially reduces the entire movement to a reverse-patriarchy. In other words, do what we want you to, or we’ll turn on you.

I fail to see how that position is any less of a problem than traditional patriarchy.

… 

May I point out: Lady Gaga has specifically and explicitly disavowed feminism. Taylor Swift has not. Yet Swift is a “feminist’s nightmare”? If Swift disavowed feminism too, would that give her more feminist cred, or less?

From user Dancingfrog:

I’m not going to address the actual musical aspect of this. People have different tastes in music.


What I am going to address is the idea that a young woman choosing to, say, be abstinent until she finds the right guy, or who prefers watching sunsets to watching punk rock shows, is somehow less of a feminist than women who have casual sex or who are punk rockers. That just isn’t so. The point about choice is that everyone will choose something different, and that includes traditional things, too.

From user egg cream:

In addition to taking into account some of the awesome points made by commenters below — i.e., it’s ridiculous to say a young woman who sings about how there are bigger and better things in life than boys, and exhibits more control over her career than most 20-year-old women in the music industry are allowed is “a feminist’s worst nightmare” — if you pay more than five seconds of attention to Taylor Swift, it becomes very very clear that the cute/sweet/virginal/infantilized image is not all there is to her, and is not the image she most often chooses to project. If you want to have a conversation about why we, as an audience, can only see women in the public eye (and in life) as either sexed-up whores or sweet baby virgins, fine. But don’t conflate the image projected upon Taylor with the image Taylor projects.

Amen, sisters.

Bad Newz of the Day

Posted on by
Reply

For those of you who haven’t heard, convicted animal abuser Michael Vick was signed to a two-year deal by the Philadelphia Eagles. Personally, I find it bad enough that he was reinstated to the NFL to begin with; the fact that he is now being paid to “potentially” play is, to me, unfathomable.

John Saraceno of USA Today wrote in 2007 that for Vick’s dogs, “electrocution, drowning and strangulation were the preferred forms of death, execution-style, by human hands.” I can’t help but wonder why any team would want to condone these activities by signing the man who promoted them.

Numerous studies have shown that people who demonstrate abusive tendencies towards animals early on in life later navigate those abusive tendencies towards other human beings. Granted, Michael Vick is an adult, not a child, but what is to say that a man who demonstrates these abusive tendencies as an adult is not just as likely to widen his circle of abuse?

Additionally, would the NFL have been as keen to welcome Vick back into its folds had his violence been directed at other people, specifically women or children, or even dogs that are considered more “family-friendly?” I have a feeling that had Vick’s dog fighting ring involved Golden Retrievers instead of unfairly stigmatized Pit Bulls, there would be an even greater push from the public to void his reinstatement and playing deal.

This situation is completely unacceptable and only further speaks to the issue of American society failing to hold celebrities accountable for their actions. You can contact the Philadelphia Eagles by clicking here – let them know your feelings on this important issue.