I absolutely hate that we've come to a place in society where songs like this are not only accepted, but commonplace, with no one to stop and say, "You wouldn't like it if they sand that about your kid."[I'm not holding you responsible for all of life's problems; I'm just venting]And that said, damn if the song isn't catchy! Damn you, Half-Dead-Kitty!
Wait, really, Hyperion? Somehow this song seems a lot less mean to me than the average paprazzi photo of Britney Spears. Maybe because it fits in a long tradition of well-crafted parody of powerful figures. Whereas Britneymania is just about voyeurism and kicking a girl when she's down.BTW, I just watched that Scientology video of Tom on YouTube (yeah, I'm behind the times too). His manic "I have all the answers/I can save the world/You're for us or against us" rant is way too George W. for my tastes.
I'm not in favor of the Britney-mania, either. I wasn't comparing them. And to be clear, I have zero problems hoisting Tom Cruise (and anyone else), on his own petard. For example, when he spoke about Brooke Shields, he got what was coming to him. Not that he's not entitled to his opinion, and not that he doesn't even have a point, but he should have kept the discussion more scientific, like, "I think many medicines are over-prescribed today, as doctors are so clearly in financial bed with Big Drug, when in actuality some of the more homeopathic treatments might prove just as efficacious."He says that, no one can really have a beef. And I guess the Oprah-couch thing is fine too. He's a celeb: he should know that's on the table. What I have a real problem with is people making cracks about his (or others') sexuality, especially with the flimsy non-proof and rumor-mill most people offer. If someone is lying about who they are, that's one thing. But think about it: the implication is that Tom Cruise is not only gay, but that makes him less of a man. Well, I reject both ideas. To just call someone out, to mock his marriage and life with no proof, that's below the belt. And the insinuation that being gay would make him "less," well I don't like that either. None of this is Schrodinger's fault, and I'm not trying to pick on her. I know the RDA revelations and the Anderson Cooper knowledge has made her bitter. But I just think if we're going to pick on people, we should do it fairly. (As for Britney, that deserves its own column. Maybe we should co-write it, Cheryl.) Long Live L. Ron! (just kidding)
I've been waiting for days! Why won't Cheryl respond back? She can't possibly have better things to do than obsessively check the comments section of her friend's blog, can she?Arrrrrrrrrgggggghhhh!
I'm here, I'm here! (And queer, incidentally.)Although I'm generally against mocking anyone's sexuality (from orientation to kink to pop culture's annoying notion that unattractive people should not be sexual), most halfway intelligent people/sketch comedy shows/etc. don't mock out celebrities. The Ian McKellen parodies aren't exactly taking over YouTube, you know? I think what's getting made fun of is the hetero ruse (and if it's not a ruse, I'm sure Tom couldn't care less if people call him gay). That said, I'm sure many people will use closeted-ness as an excuse to say the homophobic things they always wanted to say, in the same way that people use a dislike of Israel's foreign policies as an excuse to make anti-semitic comments.Finally, do I think celebrities owe it to us to be out? Do I agree with queer columnists determined to out them? No and no. Being an actor doesn't mean you're obligated to donate money to charity and be a spokesperson for good causes either. But if you happen to be famous, why not do something good with it? Wow, this turned into an essay! But I've got to get it all out before the Scientologists come to get me.
Post a Comment
A quantum superposition of classical coherent states with small amplitudes. Duh.