Reversible beret for all your revolutionary needs

Rolling over in his grave.

Let the Rain Fall Down and Wet My Dreams

There's an article on Slate today about song writing, and why pop-stars, some of whom clearly can't write, are increasingly penning tracks on their albums. Jessica Simpson's "With You" is the focal point, but Britney and Justin both get shout outs as exemplifying this trend. The author, Kevin Canfield, wants to pin this on critics, who only respect writers, on record companies, who only want to pay one person, on artists, who want the royalties, and on the growth of Access Hollywood and Us Weekly, who have more questions for a writer/singer than just a singer.
But, personally if I never heard this exchange:
Nancy O'Dell: So where do you get your inspiration for songs?
Jessica Simpson: Well, ""With You" just came to me while I was sitting around my house in just a T-shirt and Nick was watching basketball or something and I just felt so myself. You know? Like, this is where I belong. So I went into the studio with this idea for a song, and we just kind of fleshed it out a little."
I'd be a happier camper.
I think Canfield is kind of missing the point on a number of counts. Pettiest first, being a songwriter doesn't make for a better interview. In fact, when the singer is a bad, insipid writer it makes for a worse interview. And it's not like Access Hollywood or Us runs out of questions in the 30 seconds or 2 sentences spots they give such singers anyway.
More importantly, his article just ignores the idea that artists who are good songwriters actually deserve more of our and the critics respect than artists who are not. Artists are trying to write their own songs because they want the credibility and respect that comes with being a songwriter. And that should come, at least, from being a good songwriter. Granted, it would be great if many of the singers who write some of their songs would spare us, but how can you fault them for trying to elevate themselves from beyond just entertainer to, well, talent?
Justin Timberlake's transformation from puppet to adored super talent exactly mirrors his growing writing credits. Furthermore, a song like "Cry Me a River," is believably a song only Mr. Timberlake could have written. A point he hammered home with his video: this song is my heartfelt confession about my break up with Britney Spears, and not the work of faceless nobodies good with harmonies and gospel choirs. And, most importantly, it’s good.
The writing move doesn't always work, as Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson demonstrate. All of their songs could just as easily have been written by Max Marin or a four year old with a book of clichés as the singer herself. One of the most common early assaults on Britney Spears, and a way in which haters insist she remains distinct from Madonna, was that she didn't actually write her own songs, proving she was a record label pawn. The fact that she now does "write" her own songs hasn't really deflected this attack, in part because there is essentially no difference between songs she writes and songs written for her. In short, she's bad, where Timberlake is good, so she doesn't get any respect, and he gets a bunch. In her case writing doesn't create the hard sought credibility popsters are after. But you still can't fault her for giving it a shot; authenticity and longevity are always worth striving for.
Canfield thinks that this whole writing thing is just a trend, and that as the novelty of songwriting wears off, we'll return to the days when professional songwriters ruled the charts. I am dubious that Spear's song quality was that much better before she co-wrote some of her tracks than after (though, before the recent appearance of Toxic, Baby, One More Time, clearly ruled the Spears cannon).
Furthermore, as long as our respect is reserved for those who are talented, either by virtue of a great voice or great songs, those who lack the former are going to keep trying to come up with the latter. Which is to say, singers who can’t sing, trying to write songs, is here to stay. The most we can hope for then, is not the return of the professional songwriter, but the rise of singers who can actually write.

Jay.Fucking.Leno

Is not cool. Right? Right? No, definitely right. Reasons for thinking this are
1) He has an enormous chin
2) His autobiography is entitled "Leading With My Chin."
3) He looks like he's plastic.
4) He just wrote a children's book called "If Roast Beef Could Fly," which has nothing to do with flying roast beef and makes Madonna look like a transcendent figure in children's literature
5) If Roast Beef... is also illustrated so that the young boy protagonist looks exactly like adult Jay Leno. Creepy and lacking imagination.
6) The people who like Jay Leno are not cool

How, you might ask, do you know about #6? I am not, for clarity's sake, talking about people who watch Leno from time to time, people who can stomach him, or have no feelings either way. I'm talking about the type of people who would attend the Roast Beef book reading and signing session that took place at 11:30 today, a Friday, a working day, at the 66th street Barnes & Noble of their own free will.
I was there. This was, not of course, of my own free will, but for work (and actually, as far as that goes, it was a good task).
Here's a small sampling of those in attendance, just to convince you that fact #6 holds water.
A 40 year old white guy, with glasses and a suit, lugging around a framed caricature of Mr. Leno, which he clutched in his hands while posing with Mr. Leno for a photograph. Heard downstairs saying to his mother "I just hope I was calm enough. That I didn't shut my eyes or anything."
An Australian girl, very soft spoken and mousy, who has been in America for a month though her husband remains back home, remarks after purchasing "Leading With My Chin," "When will I have another chance to do something like this?"
70 year old woman who strikes up conversation with any and every available stranger cooing, "Jay is just amazing with the kids!"
Jay Leno look alike, who had apparently just been on the Tonight Show in that capacity, sporting his Tonight Show sweatshirt and his very overweight wife telling Jay he'd "See him later tonight."
Very attractive New York City mom, cutting the line because she had an infant and then lugging her infant up on stage so she could pose with Leno for a very cozy photograph. Then, repeating the entire flirty, offensive mess with her friend’s toddler.

Happiness the surgical way

Just saw "I Want a Famous Face" and it made me nauseous. I’m left wondering whether my distaste for Matt and Mike’s decision to look like Brad Pitt is based on a bad gut feeling about plastic surgery, and then whether that’s just a feeling or logically sound. I’m less torn about the show itself, which shouldn’t be on the air.
Matt and Mike are ragingly insecure 20 year old boys who are fixated on Brad Pitt because he’s the masculine ideal, gets the girls, has the money and the fame, or, in other words, is everything they believe they are not. The extent of their obsession, acting out his movies, owning all his dvds, mooning over his photographs, and, oh yeah, SCULPTING THEIR FACES TO LOOK LIKE HIS, is freakish, upsetting, and not the kind of thing most people would ‘fess up to (and would get them labeled gay by all the girls they hope to catch). Lucky for them they have a twin to nurture their fetish. You can just imagine the late night sessions when a crush’s off the cuff remark about Brad Pitt being the hottest man in the world snowballed into a desire for $20,000 worth of surgery.
So they’re weird. And insecure. And awkward. And probably could have solved the whole problem with some acne medication. And, to judge from the show, totally lacking in self-consciousness. They seem to have no doubts, conflict, or, even, thoughts about the decision. No one in their life, at least on the show, registers any doubts. Not parents, not friends. They are 100% gung-ho. Mike stands in front of the mirror before surgery and remarks that this is the last time he will ever see this face, the one that’s always looked back at him. He’s excited.
The twins don’t even seem aware that this isn’t the type of thing other people do all the time. Post surgery, when Mike sees old acquaintances he happily enumerates hie surgeries "Nose, chin, jaw, cheek, and porcelain on my teeth. I have 6 implants in all" totally oblivious to the girl standing in front of him with her hand over her mouth saying "That’s so weird."
But the twins are happy with their decision. In a follow-up interview on the MTV website both say they have no regrets, feel great, and are not planning on any more surgery until they start aging. They know they don’t look like Mr. Pitt, but say he was just the model. When asked what they would say to others considering it here’s what they had to say:

MIKE: Those who are down on themselves for a fault in their looks, if you know that surgery will make you happy, go for it. It will change your personality, the way you act and carry yourself forever. I never knew that I could be as happy as I am right now. I feel on top of the world by the few tweaks that I went through. Go through with the surgery now because you don't want to go through life always feeling down with the way that you look, or just accepting the way that you look, that there is nothing that you can do to look better. I am…happy for once.
MATT: Why are you waiting? If any part of you drains all your self-esteem, then why live like that? The longer you go on living like that, the more it's going to affect you, and bring you down. There is something you can do about it. It will change your outlook on life, and make you a happier person. There's nothing to be scared about, just push yourself out the door and stop making excuses. If you don't believe me, then prove me wrong!

I want this to be wrong. And that's because I want to keep believing that beauty is not the determining factor for our happiness. Our outward appearance is not the only way we should be judged. It is not the only way we should judge ourselves. Beauty is skin deep. It’s what on the inside that counts. Cause of all that I believe these loons will get more implants. That they will never be content because what they need they can’t get through surgery. That they are irreparably fucked up. But maybe that’s not true.
If fixing your nose, or tucking your ears, or making yourself look like Brad Pitt will give you the self-confidence and contentment you lack, I can’t condemn you. I can not like it. I can wish there was a way for you to be happy without going under the knife. I can believe there probably is, like a lot of therapy. But, if after spending $20,000 on 2 years of therapy or $20,000 on a nose job the results are the same, I can’t put my finger on why one is better than the other, except that I really, really hope your inside counts more than your outside does.
But I can condemn MTV for airing the show. The editors of the show clearly think the twins are weird too. So they give us a segment entitled "Another Actor’s Story" about a Ryan Phillipe wannabe with a botched nose job who is even more insecure now than he was before. So, guess what, plastic surgery doesn’t solve everything (or really, failed plastic surgery doesn’t solve everything). It also implicitly judges the twins for being so thoughtless. This is a serious affair; it’s your face after all. Fine. The boys are thoughtless.
But then don’t run a promo off the MTV.com main page asking us to "Vote on Matt and Mike’s surgery," and determine whether it was a miss or a match. These are ragingly insecure real people, do we need to determine they look nothing like Mr. Pitt? Is this show really the same as The Newlyweds? Is it like voting on the stupidest thing Jessica Simpson ever said? Don’t use these boys to sell your station and then make fun of them, or disregard that they’re actually people. Don’t give yourself credit for being above it by judging them and then use them to sell commercials.
MTV is also playing into these boys distorted understandings of fame (which is, I think, largely at the root of how disturbing this whole thing is). MTV may not have suggested the surgery to the boys, but by airing it they gave it the largest seal of approval any delusional, fame-seeker could ever ask for. This is MTV. Purveyor of cool. And on top of that, they’ve now made the boys famous, in a weird self-fulfilling prophecy. (Us magazine ran a survey asking whom the twins most looked like, Brad Pitt, Gina Gershon, Isaac Hanson, or Steve Cojocarru, who won). Mike says at the end of the show, "we’re gonna be famous," and though he should have known, I bet he wasn’t hoping it’d be for his surgery. Though, the twins will probably take it anyway they can.
Finally, the real reason this show shouldn’t air is because it is normalizing really extreme behavior that may make some people "happy," but is, at the end of the day probably not something a 14 year old girl who doesn’t like her chin needs reinforced. I am willing to accept that how we look, and how we feel about how we look effects our happiness. Which is okaying plastic surgery against all my better instincts. But I am not willing to accept that how we are on the "inside" does not count. And, to judge from this first episode, that’s exactly this show's message.

Mentally Challenged

I'm confused: does William Hung have Down Syndrome?
I am really. Really. Really not trying to be mean, I just want clarity. Cause he looks like he does. Except he doesn't look like he does here. He looks like he does, but apparently he goes to Berkeley and studies civil engineering. He looks like he does, but I read a quote somewhere, from his high-school principle, calling him a "genius." Is William Hung the least photogenic person alive?
I didn't see his infamous American Idol audition, but people who lack talent to his degree, but somehow believe they are qualified to sing for millions, often seem to be suffering from a serious mental illness. At the very least they are unable to understand themselves with any objectivity and at the very worst they are like the guy who sang Escape, as though he were a dying seal, got ripped apart by Simon & Co., and then showed up in the next city to audition again, totally clueless and really disturbing in his soft-spoken faith in his eventual triumph. Of course the Idol producers didn't seem to get that he was truly, pathetically, mentally disturbed and just had Ryan Seacrest follow him around asking questions and smirking, when he should have been helping him before he took a running start for the nearest window, certain he could fly. If you're that bad, but think you're that good, you're a little cuckoo. So maybe William Hung is a little loopy too. Then again, maybe it's all a ploy to gain fame and fortune.
Weirder though, is how his Downs appearance must be a part of why people took a ken to him, and still no one talks about it. A ton of contestants, some worse, some a little better, have been on the Idol and failed miserably. Why don't they have fan clubs? Do people feel worse for William? Are they more inspired by William? Of course! Because he appears to be the most innocent victim of Simon's wrath ever. And because he can't be blamed for being an egotistical, fameseeker, cause Look! He's mentally handicapped (even if he's not really).
Yet, mums the word. Which is, kind of, as it should be if he doesn't ("William Hung, the failed American Idol contestant who has attracted a large fan base and does not have Down Syndrome..."). But maybe no one talks about it because no one has any idea, and is too embarrassed to ask. Which kind of reminds me of the interview Norm Macdonald did with Nicole Ritchie about her being black.
Substituting (and degenerating into really poor taste. My bad):
Norm: "Aren't you a retarded guy?"
Friend: "He's retarded!"
William: "I am retarded!"
Norm: "You're retarded? Did you get in any trouble because you're retarded?"
William: "No! You're so rude."
Norm: "I thought Americans didn't care for retarded people."
William: "They love me."
Friend: "They love him."
Norm: "Because you're not retarded!"
William: "Yes, I am retarded!"

Would a Groucho Marx 'stache do the trick?

"We've got to get Osama bin Laden, and we know where he is," the former senior intelligence official said..."They've seen what they think is him." But the former official added that there were reasons to be cautious about such reports, especially given that bin Laden hasn't been seen for so long. Bin Laden would stand out because of his height; he is six feet five. But the target area is adjacent to Swat Valley, which is populated by a tribe of exceptionally tall people."
-Excerpt from a recent New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh:

Wrangling with the bull

So I listened to three interviews with various reality show "stars" today and it was fine, I was doing okay, until the last one said, "It's like I always say, quality counts more than quantity," mirroring the first exclaiming "I always say, you've gotta take the bull by it's horns" and the second remarking "you know, I say, live and let live." At which point I threw my headphones down on the desk and stalked off to the vending machine for a twix.
I'm a big believer in the power of cliches. They got to be overused for a reason. And, maybe "It's like I say" is the required introduction to such trite sentiments. But I don' think there's anything wrong with "It's like they always say" or if you really want to claim it, "it's like we all say." Or even, really, to sound as though you're teasing yourself, and laughing through "it's like 'I always say'..."
But there is something wrong with earnestly implying that the banalities plopping out of your mouth are in any way original when that could not possibly be the case. It's not like you always say, it's like EVERYONE always says.
Maybe I'm reading into this because these are the kind of ego-maniacs that go on reality shows in the first place. Maybe regular people do this too. They should stop. Only the phoniest, boringest, annoyingest person alive could unabashedly utter such drivel. And how is one supposed to react? Stare blankly or think "Wow contestant #4, that is really profound. I hadn't ever quite looked at it that way, but now that you mention it, I should just buy those Blahniks. Though I could probably buy 15 other pairs of shoes instead, not to mention food for a month, it's the quality, and not the quantity! that counts. Thanks for giving me a whole new perspective!"

Apologies, but I do work at a tabloid

So Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Lopez have been cast in "American Darlings" a movie about women overcoming men and race and class through the power of song. In the 1930's. At nightclubs. Where, they will both, apparently, be "singing."
Why does this pairing strike everyone- by which I mean me- as bizarre? It's not like they're Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt who, if you can think back to a time before they were anointed, initially seemed like an odd pairing because they came from different leagues: untouchable movie star and cozy TV actress.
Lopez and Kidman are both ridiculously famous, in a similar fashionista, rich, buzzy way, but apparently there are divisions within that category too. Such as Kidman has lots of credibility and respect as an actress and Lopez has lots of credibility and respect as a person capable of making headlines. Or, in other words, J-Lo be trashy.
Mr. Affleck seems to think America was against him and The Lopez because of issues of "race and class," and while I tend to think America turned against them because of their expansive fame-whoring, I wonder if that's part of what seems weird about Kidman and Lopez. Kidman, who must have first dibs on every script in the world right now and has weathered a divorce that most people kind of think was a marriage of convenience, is seen as a pristine, scandal free, beautiful, uber-talented lady, but Lopez is the fiery, sexy, ambitious, scandal maven, with an insane will-to-power.

So I'm just going to pirate both.

So Jayson Blair's new book Burning Down My Masters' House is out and reviewed in this week's New Yorker (which has been on fire lately). I don't want to read it, didn't want to read it before I'd read the review, and don't want to read it even more after reading the review. But, there's something about having all the evidence before writing someone off forever that makes the book slightly appealing, in much the same way that The Passion of the Christ is. Torture isn't really my bag, but I feel like I should see it before writing Mel Gibson off as an anti-Semitic, religious zealot.
The fact that I'm interested in either at all means a critic's word isn't really good enough for me to be the last word about important matters. Sure, it can keep me away from Eurotrip (though not from the equally bad The Perfect Score), but a dozen reviews of The Passion calling it violent, unhopeful, and intentionally or unintentionally anti-Semitic, to zero reviews praising it, still haven't quite convinced me it's okay just to skip it. And I don't know if this is a good thing, in an innocent-'til-proven-guilty, see-it-to-believe-it way, or a bad thing, in an I-want-to-be-a-critic-when-I-grow-up, but-what's-the-point way.
Yet I still can't quite bring myself to pay for either, because as soon as I do I am contributing both to their financial success and the sense that they are well liked. When listening to, again, critics and writers talk about The Passion, all anyone can talk about is what a success the film was, both monetarily and in terms of its general popularity. The Passion's box office take is understood as representing a grassroots outpouring of support for the film. Sure, a ton of people went to see The Passion, but that doesn't mean they thought it was any good (certainly, some people must have, but it's not a given that they liked it just because they saw it). Granted I don't live in the "religious heartland" of America, but I know a lot of people who saw it, and not many of them liked it. But what they, or anybody else, thinks about the film after seeing it is irrelevant: if they paid for it, they must have liked it. And that seems really wrong. Shouldn't the debate about this film have happened after we'd all seen it, and not before, when we were relying on hearsay? But that hasn't happened because no distinction is being made between consumption and satisfaction. Going to see The Passion isn't just putting $10 in Mel Gibson's pocket, it's also saying I'm cool with his kind of fanaticism, it's not just giving Jayson Blair $20, but also saying I forgive him for shitting all over journalistic ethics, my favorite newspaper, and screwing up a dream job.

Lawyers + alcoholic beverages = trust

Trolman, Glaser & Lichtman
(212) MARGARITA
Los abogados numero uno para los hispanos heridos

-Print ad as seen on the F train

I would be "Bitch,"cause, you know, I'm very multi-dimensional

Here's a brief excerpt from a conversation I "overheard" in the restaurant last night between two 20-somethings on a date.
"If you were a song what song would you be?"
"Well, the obvious answer to that is Bohemian Rhapsody."

Because Bohemian Rhapsody clearly conveys that you are modern with old school standards? Or that you have both a rocking and a soft side, are really moody, fear thunderstorms, are kind of gay, have issues with you mom and/or really love Wayne's World?

I think Kucinich did it.

Place: Macdougal Street between Bleeker and West 3rd, New York City.
Time: 4 O’clock in the afternoon
Characters: A 30ish John Kerry Supporter. Tall and skinny, graying hair, black jeans, khaki jacket. Holding six or so rumpled John Kerry posters.
24ish John Edwards supporter. Brown hair parted on the side, slacks, blue button down shirt, and red tie. Knee length trench coat. Looks like what smarmy politicians think voters imagine when they imagine an honest politician. Not to editorialize too much, but he looks like a total tool.

The two men walk past each other and exchange some unheard words. They begin to scream as the entire street turns to stare

Kerry Supporter: But I know your people are putting the posters in the trash!
Edwards the Tool: I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but it just isn’t true!
K: Your staff is totally out of control! You’re playing dirty and you’re trying to sabotage us!
ET: I talk to a staffer on the Kerry campaign every morning! I’m sorry that happened, but we are not responsible. Things happen.
K: Yeah, when you tear posters down and put them in the trash! It’d be one thing if they were Bush posters
ET: Look, who knows? All I know is we didn’t do it! (K starts to walk away towards his van as ET follows him into the street)
ET: What’s your name?! What’s your name?! (K turns back and gets very close to ET)
K: Why should it matter? You’re the ones who are playing dirty!
ET: Hundreds of people walk up and down this street everyday! Anything could have happened to them. I have no idea what happened to them.
JK: Yes you do! And don’t try to pin it on the Kucinich campaign!
ET: I can’t control what everyone does. All I know is that my people were not told by me or by anyone else involved with the campaign to take down posters. If people take it on themselves, there’s nothing we can do about it.
K: It’s just not nice! (walks back to his car)
ET: What’s your evidence?
K: (voice is cracking with anger, as he runs back to ET) MY PEOPLE SAW YOUR PEOPLE DO IT. THAT’S CALLED EVIDENCE
ET: That’s just not possible, because we didn’t do it! How dare you accuse us of something like this?
K: “BECAUSE YOU DID IT!” (gets in his van and drives off)

Thank you gentleman, for making me proud to be a member of the Democratic party.

Yes, I have one pair, and I will be wearing them to your funeral, Barbara.

I attributed Patrick Swayze’s crazy ugly ears in Havana Nights to aging, but apparently I just wasn’t up on a new fashion trend. At last nights extended Lord of the Rings spooning session, two of Hollywood’s brightest stars, Jim Carrey and Tommy Cruise himself, were both sporting a pair of new-fangled, protruding, hideously ugly ears. If you’re not wealthy enough to afford a genuine pair (Jim was rumored to have paid upwards of $500,000 for his authentic, Caucasian pair, though they can go for as low as 100 grand, bleaching not included, natch) the Extreme Makeover site is selling a prosthetic support that simultaneously shoves the lobe and upper rim outwards for a paltry $50. Another way to achieve the look is, of course, to get a really, really bad haircut and then go out and telecast yourself to millions.