Netflix gettin' to know me

...Accurate

Here are some scattered thoughts.

-- Ack! Totally different Blogger format! Deep breaths. Okay. It just looks like the rest of Google now. Freakout averted.

--I made a Mad Men GIF of Peggy's "WTF? ...nm" face

-- So, Coachella. I went. I'm going to do a more in-depth write up later (mostly so that I can remember my life when I'm old) but I wanted to address a lolworthy comment here really quick. So, it's kind of obvious that Coachella is in a bit of a Brochella phase and that, well, there are a lot more douchey people there than in years past. But what's funny is when people say "Coachella got too mainstream. People who are there now only care about the image. I don't want to go any more because I care about the music." Let me make it clear: only people who do, in fact, care about image would choose not to go to a music festival because of the other people who go there.

-- If you're interested in beer write-ups, don't forget about my other blog at http://alwaysanswerbeer.blogspot.com !

Justified GIF

I made a new GIF. It's from the show Justified, featuring the delectable Timothy Olyphant. This GIF is not him, though; it's tough bitch Ava Crowder pimp-slapping someone with a frying pan.

How much of the 60's do we want back in our lives?

This post was inspired by a comment I left on a thread over at Pajiba. I was so pleased with myself I decided to re-post a more filled-out version over here, apropos of this being my blog and a more appropriate forum for going out on tangents.

With regards to Pan Am and The Playboy Club, I'm fairly certain that the initial feeling of many people, after learning that these shows were to premier this fall, was that they were trying to capitalize on the Mad Men phenomenon. People without extended cable may have never seen Mad Men, but they've surely heard of it winning tons of Emmys and influencing fashion by re-introducing several flourishes reminiscent of the 1960's. My immediate concern was that these shows would capture all of the visual flair of Mad Men without any of the depth or critique of the era. The review of the two shows, appropriately written as one comparative piece, more or less confirms my suspicions but allows Pan Am the distinction of being the better show.

Without having watched the pilots, what strikes me about the descriptions of both shows is how much they give away about their protagonists in the first episode. One thing that I love about Mad Men is how each episode helps to review a new detail about the character, but it's a very small detail. You have to look at the show cumulatively to even come close to understanding him or her. These shows have taken the much more flashy approach of "she's married, but they're both gay!" and "she's a stewardess, but she's actually a spy!" which, though immediately interesting, is ultimately superficial and causes writers to work backwards and fill in details behind the already big reveal.

Ultimately, the popularity of either The Playboy Club or Pan Am could be an interesting case study in what works on American network television. Though anyone who actually brought their brain with them to a remedial high school course analyzing media and/or literature could see that Mad Men is a better show, it wouldn't be in the least surprising if the instant-gratification aspect of the new network shows garners them more immediate success.

That success could, as a feminist and as someone interested in social commentaries, be frustrating or even devastating. It is too early to tell if either The Playboy Club or Pan Am is going to sacrifice the dignity of its female characters and racial/ethnic minority characters by glamorizing an era which was, as we generally understand now, pretty unapologetically shitty to those classes of people. What Mad Men does right is that it allows us the visual pleasure of looking back in time, but it certainly doesn't valorize the social and cultural mores of the time. It's pretty frank in its portrayal of how women and people of color were openly treated as second-class citizens (compared to today, in which explicit racism and sometimes sexism are unacceptable, but insidious forms of both still shape our culture.) I'm unsure that the network shows will be able to be as constructively critical. That they are network is damning enough, as much of network television tends to be superficial and banking on cheap thrills. The fact that both shows are ostensibly set in particularly oppressive fields for women at the time doesn't help matters, even if marketing wants us to believe that the female protagonists are "empowered" despite their subjugated positions in the workforce. Protip: sexualizing your character is not the same as making her "sexual." The former objectifies her; the latter gives her personal agency and generally respects her as a human being. There is time yet to see if these shows can get it right, but in the meantime I won't be holding my breath.

Project Runway Fashion Week collections - now with judgements!

So the images from all of the remaining PR contestants' collections are up and about on the internet! There are ten contestants remaining, so that should mean three of these are finalists and seven are decoys. (I feel like the number of decoys gets greater every season... can't they coordinate a little better with fashion week? Or maybe these designers don't mind the exposure, even if they're not in the competition.)

All links are to Tom & Lorenzo, because they posted the pictures so I don't have to.

April Johnston's Collection
I really like a lot of these clothes and would totally wear them, but I don't think this has enough drama for a fashion week runway show.
Prediction: decoy

Andy South's Collection
This is coming from someone who loves shiny, so you must know this pains me: I HATE the metallic chartreuse. Also, the fit and proportions on so many of these are terrible. Someone, please kill satin pants.
Prediction: finalist

Michael Drummond's Collection
Bored. So so so bored. Also, depressed. As per my comment on the TLo blog, I think this is what would happen if Hot Topic tried to go haute couture.
Prediction: decoy

Ivy Higa's Collection
Ivy is, by all portrayals, a massive bitch, so I'm happy to see that her collection looks like it was shat out by J Crew after an overindulgence of chili.
Prediction: decoy

Valerie Mayen's Collection
This is so hit-and-miss for me. Some of the pieces are really interesting and great, and some of them are just plain wack. Kind of like Valerie's work so far on the show!
Prediction: decoy

Mondo Guerra's Collection
Now this is what I'm talking about. There's drama and it's totally weird, but in a perfectly tailored and executed sort of way that it totally works and you know this guy knows exactly what he's doing.
Prediction: winner

Christopher Collins' Collection
I love the gold metallics that are popping up, but overall I feel like the silhouettes here are very tired and uninspired. Not to mention that one of those looks came straight out of the recent team challenge fail that the judges hated, except in different colors.
Prediction: decoy

Michael Costello's Collection
For me, this is actually not bad. It's pretty wearable. But, in perfect Michael C fashion there are some execution issues on interesting concepts, so if this isn't a decoy the sloppiness is unacceptable.
Prediction: decoy

Casanova's Collection
I kind of feel like this collection is an amalgamation of all of the others I've seen already. Maybe it's not his fault that I looked at his second-to-last, but the metallics are everywhere (ref: Andy, Christopher, Michael C) and the goofy shiny pants need to DIE (ref: Andy.) These are nice clothes, but they don't feel any different or any more amped-up from what he's already presented.
Prediction: decoy

Gretchen Jones' Collection
This collection is a shocker. The opposite of what I just said about Casanova - I would not have guessed this was Gretchen if I was not told so. Her elements are there - the nods toward homeless chic, the muted colors - but there are some shapes and silhouettes I would not have predicted from her. And some of the pieces (hot pants, patchwork pants) I would almost have expected her to pronounce "tasteless" had she not done them herself.
Prediction: finalist

Day 03 - My favorite TV show

This is a loaded question because I am of the opinion that there are few quicker ways to open yourself to judgment by others than to align yourself with or against a TV show. It would be really easy to pick a canceled-too-soon critical darling like "Arrested Development," "Firefly," or "Veronica Mars" to get some street cred. Conversely, almost everyone watches some sort of reality show, be it competition-based or the social-reality format of the "Real Housewives" or "The Hills," but no one really admits to loving those shows or calling them their favorite shows unless they're doing so with an apologetic disclaimer ("I know I have terrible taste but I can't help loving...") or a hint of irony.

Up until high school, I never watched much TV. That basically changed when my mom got tivo, but that wasn't even until mid-way through my junior year. After that, there were several shows that I tried to keep up with. Some were addictive even though I wanted to punch the participants (and host!) in the face - "America's Next Top Model" - some appealed to my high school sarcasm and cooler-than-thou affect - "House" - but, few were considered by those with taste to be quality TV.

I have some of those "good shows" in my must-watch list now. But I honestly don't know if they're my favorites, in the way that something that's your favorite is the thing you first thing that comes to your mind, the one that you know the most and can talk for hours about, the one that you're like "I have to watch it RIGHT NOW."

So what's my favorite? Honestly?





Yeah, that.

I love this show firstly because I love food. I also love competition. I love picking teams. Now, that competitive spirit allows me to enjoy a pretty solid heap of other competition shows (see the aforementioned ANTM, also "So You Think You Can Dance") but what sets Top Chef apart for me is the fantasy element. It is sometimes tough for me to watch SYTYCD and not get mad at it because as someone who danced for several years and has (admittedly) a bias toward technically-trained dancers, it frustrates me when trained dancers who excel in every style get voted out (or lose to) someone with a precious backstory or someone who basically floats through on charisma alone. Sure, sometimes the dancers at the end are pretty much all at a certain level and choosing between their proficiency is like splitting hairs, but sometimes there are obvious differences in ability and I just want to bang my head against the TV because America made the "wrong choice."

With Top Chef, the truth is, almost everything looks good, but I don't really know how it tastes. I have to trust the judges and diners, and therefore, even though I am emotionally invested in my favorites, I can't flip my lid and have a heart attack if they do poorly or are eliminated because I honestly have no evidence to suggest that they should have stayed or should have ranked higher. I like that there is that suspense, that I can't just look at what is there and know automatically that someone did better than someone else. I love the moment of anticipation before Tom Colicchio puts something in his mouth and makes ass face, because I don't know what the reaction is going to be. Even more, I love that the cheftestants don't know either, because they can't realistically taste every plate or take the time to make sure every piece of meat is cooked the right way. I love when one of them says something like "I know the judges will appreciate that my meat was cooked properly," but then they get to judges' table and it turns out Padma's was almost completely raw.

So yeah. It's reality! Out the window goes my street cred. But I'd like to think that because everyone loves and appreciates good food, almost everyone could enjoy a show like "Top Chef." Even the food-porn close-up shots of the dishes alone are enough to make me fall in love.

Ruined for me!

Every now and then, I'll go sour on a TV show I enjoy because they introduce a character I hate, or because one of the current characters will start to become totally annoying - and what the writers intend to be salacious drama is actually boring and stupid.

I also have a habit of picking a show I'd never watched before and dedicating an obscene amount of time to catching up or just watching it to see what all the fuss is about.

The two met for me this week when, since I've been laying in bed a lot, I decided to pick Weeds as this year's Buffy and go through - at the very least - seasons 1-3, as I'd read online that generally those were the seasons worth watching. My love affair with the show began on Monday. I found it delightful: funny, sardonic, charming, and still heartfelt. My love affair with the show ended on Thursday, two episodes into season 3.

Even though there are five seasons currently, and allegedly three worth watching, I just don't think I'm going to finish out the third season. The reason why? I can't stand the main character's snotty, arrogant, disrespectful, and wholly un-redeeming oldest son, Silas.

SPOILERS!
He's pretty much responsible for, at the end of season 2, his mother being held at gunpoint and then having to become the bitch of some gangsta kingpin at the beginning of season 3. In a dramatic gesture to his mother to show her that he wants in on her business (because he sucks at actual school and life in general so he feels that, pretty much, drug dealing is his best option) he steals all of her weed which, coincidentally, she was trying to sell off to aforementioned gangsta kingpin to avoid getting busted by the DEA. So when the weed is gone, she's up shit creek.

But that was actually just the last straw for me and Silas. I started hating him much earlier on when he finds out that his girlfriend (who is actually smart and has, y'know, ambition) got into an Ivy League school and thus is not going to be near him in California for his final year in high school. So what's his solution? He proposes that they have a lot of sex and then pokes holes in all of their condoms to try and get her pregnant. I mean, I think anyone can see that's a dick movie, but especially watching that through a feminist lens, I was just infuriated. Then, even worse, when she gets an abortion, he gets all ragey and tries to break into her house. Luckily her dad was able to intercept him and punch him in the face for me, because with Silas obviously having so little respect for her and her bodily autonomy I would have feared for what he might have done to her.
NO MORE SPOILERS!

The thing is, one character, I can manage hating. Usually. But actually with this show, I soured on more characters more quickly than I expected. In addition to my unadulterated loathing of Silas, I also started getting tired of the main character, Nancy, and her inability to make a wise decision. Worse, she drags other people into her bad decisions, so when stuff goes south she ends up screwing a lot more people than just herself. Most of the men on the show have no redeeming qualities; the only one who is usually pretty entertaining is Nancy's brother-in-law Andy. The supporting women are equally useless, most of them being vapid cackling hens, and the only one besides Nancy with a shred of personality is Celia, who is pretty much a raging bitch. So though she's entertaining and most of the time funny, she's also difficult to watch at times because she's just such an awful human being.

So? Fortunately my week of rest is coming to a close, because though I have more of this show available to me to watch, I just don't think I'm going to be doing it. I've read that Terrible Silas matures over time and actually does some useful things during season 3, but frankly, the most useful thing he could do for me at the moment is die in a fire. And since I haven't read of anything like that happening, I think it is time for Weeds and I to part ways. It was fun while it lasted, homie.

Much ado over a red belt - when is it appropriate to stand out?

In the past few days, a few different scenarios have flitted across my radar that all present the same conflict: when is it more appropriate or advantageous to just be a part of a group or community, and when is it best to just be an individual?

It's tricky. Many, even most, socialized people do desire on some level to be a part of something greater than themselves, be it a group of friends, a neighborhood community, an activist group, a sports team or artists' collective. However, for the past several decades it's been seen as distinctly uncool to be one of the masses, to be a conformist, and to not assert yourself as an individual. So we operate within these groups, or within these understood rules and boundaries, but we try to stand out at the same time.

I was watching an episode of Bridezillas (don't judge me) where there was a battle going on between the Bridezilla and her sister, because her sister didn't want to take out her nose ring for the wedding photos. The bride-to-be was a loathsome human being, as evidenced by the rest of the episode, but the show was suggesting that she was being unreasonable over this particular point as well. I kind of wonder if she was. Not because I'm personally against nose rings (I'm not and wouldn't ban them from my wedding photos) but because I don't think it's out of line to ask that your wedding party look how you want them for your wedding photos. The sister was shooting back at her like "My nose ring is a part of ME, and MY individual expression, and you should understand because you have a tattoo for the same reason," etc. I get that it's tough to have to sacrifice your personal expression to conform, but I think the sister needed to understand that the bride is the one that's going to have the wedding album, to have her wedding pictures framed in her home, and who is going to generally be seeing a lot more of those photos than anyone else will. It wasn't like the bride was demanding that her sister permanently take out her nose ring; she just didn't want it in the photos. The sister eventually agreed to take out the ring, but then on the day of the wedding she interviewed to say that (I'm paraphrasing here) she was taking advantage of the fact that the Bridezilla was distracted by a bunch of other stuff and hopefully wouldn't notice if she left her nose ring in. As much as by that point I wanted to see the bride suffer (like I said, loathsome human being) I felt bad for her that her sister was basically playing her just so that she could make her small individual statement that would mean so little to her, but so much to the bride, in the long run when the pictures came out.

This me vs. group conflict was a constant one as part of being in a sorority. In my house, it was there on the individual level - "I'm in a sorority, but I'm not like other sorority girls. I'm different." Amusingly, it was on the level of the house too - "Our house isn't like those other houses. We're different." And after awhile I started to wonder to myself, "Does every sorority say that about their house?" Even the top houses - the "typical" blonde, bubbly, you name it houses - why wouldn't they say that about themselves? It might be that they say "We're not like those other houses because we strive to be the best" and we say "We're not like those other houses because we strive to be ourselves" (how alternative! how hip!), but we're still committing ourselves to a group. And that group comes with its inter/nationally-prescribed rules, expectations, and mentality that each chapter chooses either to accept or to work around (but never ignore - they're always there.)

As much as a sorority seems to people who never went Greek as one of the prototypical conformist organizations, catering to Stepford Barbies and no one really else, there were actually lots of opportunities where we were encouraged to be ourselves. Ironically, rush was actually one of those times. The more individually cool, different, and uniquely awesome each of us were, the more it reflected on the house as being collectively cool, different, and uniquely awesome. So even though rush was all about pushing the house as a name brand, we were required to stand out from the rest as individual people and give the girls going through rush a reason to remember us by.

But then there's the conflict. It seems many sororities seem to be having a personality crisis wherein the best thing to do to seem relevant in today's universities is to push individualism; however, they're deeply rooted in traditionalism and, indeed, rituals that separate the Greek system ideal from other clubs that group like-minded people on campuses. This last week, a picture went up that reminded my friends and I that during an event meant to honor one of our sisters, another girl in the house (perhaps unconsciously) tried to stand out, specifically, by not following the all-black dress code imposed on all girls in the house who were not the sister being honored. It may have been that she just thought the red belt would add a nice contrast and dimension to her personal outfit, and it probably would have if it weren't for the fact that everyone else was wearing black and not allowing themselves to "pop" for a reason.

Based on these two anecdotes, it would seem that a good rule of thumb is that it's almost always appropriate to be an individual, but when there is a day or event where specifically someone else is meant to have the spotlight, it's probably prudent to defer to them. That doesn't mean, in the case of the Bridezilla, giving them whatever they want without blinking, but it does mean allowing her to have a visual aesthetic where the eye goes to her. It's okay to sacrifice a few hours of your individualism to allow her wedding pictures to look the way she wants, or to let the honored sister's colorful dress be the standout in the room.

At the end of the day, you're still you.

I hope at least one of my approximately three readers is watching this.

I myself needed to catch up last night but once I did my glee exploded out of me like Vinny's vodka-scented perspiration.

Jersey Shore is a cultural behemoth. These kids wear their Italian heritage on their sleeves, but they make sure to express that they don't represent Italians; rather, they represent guidos. Never mind that the term used to be (and still is, in the eyes of the Italian-American PR organizations that have protested this show) a pejorative slur for Italian-Americans, the guidos and guidettes on the show have consciously taken all of the worst stereotypes attributed to their culture and amplified them, but it's not out of irony -- it's out of love for the image. And for themselves. They've made guido culture a completely separate entity from Italian identity, and they are using this show to display to the rest of the world how awesome it is to be a guido. They love being Italian, sure, but on a completely different and separate level, they love being guidos.

And I can't get enough of having them on my TV. This is perhaps the trashiest show MTV has ever aired, which explains why it's up there for me with Rock of Love and The Bad Girls' Club. What can I do, therefore, to put my love out there for the world to see? Stick my name in the Jersey Shore Nickname Generator, of course:



Ladies and gents, I'd really love it if from now on, we could refer to me by my true identity, never articulated properly until today - A-Scream.

Also:

Investigative reporting you can laugh at

In probably the most asinine news coverage since Balloon Boy, the media has taken to claiming that attacks on red-headed kids in Calabasas yesterday were inspired by a 5 year old episode of South Park. A few articles even claimed that South Park actually made up the word "ginger."

After some hearty lulz and helpful cluing in by commenters, more thought out stories were published by the end of the day that included mentions of the South Park episode as a satirical episode using Cartman's prejudice against gingers to ridicule general prejudice against given groups.

Even if this story wasn't an earth-shattering mega-important world news story, it's just yet another point scored against proper investigative reporting. It's easy to blame a show like South Park for the creation of the alleged catalyst Facebook group "Kick a Ginger Day," because on the surface South Park has always remained a crass and offensive (to those with delicate sensibilities) show. And because not all of the episodes are trying to portray a specific message, it's not hard to imagine that many might have just seen one episode of the show and written it off as simply crass and offensive. For those of you who are just tuning in to South Park for the first time, here's a big clue in how to analyze the show: almost anything that Eric Cartman likes, or advocates, is NOT meant to be taken seriously and in fact usually is the focal point of the satire. Therefore, in this instance, because Cartman was the one encouraging violence against gingers, the intended message is NOT to agree with him.

Journalists need to stop relying on what the most sensational headlines and stories will be when they're covering what is obviously a very real problem, wherein middle school kids think it's actually okay to beat up red-headed kids. This is just another example of "Blame the Internet!" and "Blame that television box!" when the reality is that those children have parents that have failed to teach them right from wrong. It's one thing to laugh at a ginger joke. It's another thing to think it's okay to actually beat up on gingers, and it's not the Internet or South Park that stripped those kids of their morality. So reporters - I beg you - when you're doing your fancy investigative journalism, I know it seems like the most important thing to get your story up on the internet faster than everyone else, but don't employ the same trite media cliches of blaming the TV because it's the first thing that came to your mind when you were racking your brain about why on earth these sweet little kids would do such a horrible thing. If you think South Park is the reason, I can tell you unequivocally that you are wrong. The reason is that those are not sweet little kids.

At least one blog that my Google News dug up seems to have gotten it right.

File under: Crimes Against Humanity

Until Glee, Hollywood never saw fit to introduce this man into pop culture for me to ogle on my television.

I can only imagine how much more enjoyable dreck like Transformers might have been if the girls in the audience had been gifted hot pieces like Mark Salling to gaze upon instead of Shia Lebouf, since we know that was pretty much Megan Fox's purpose in the movie for the guys.

In fact, just consider this my open letter to casting agents. While the teenyboppers might be attempting to persuade you to put Robert Pattinson in everything you're ever planning on making, I'd like to implore you to reconsider in favor of the hot mo-hawk dude from Glee.

A quick musical note

I just wanted to thank So You Think You Can Dance for bringing a song I used to love back into my life:



"Touched" by VAST.

Also on that note, this site has a comprehensive list of all the music featured on the show, in case you wanted to know what a song was. (I know I have.)

I wish I were a foodie.

So, how awesome is Top Chef this season?

I'm totally loving it! I love that they stepped up their game this season and picked a crop of chefs that includes James Beard Award nominees, a Michelin star recipient, protegees of extremely well-regarded chefs, etc, rather than the usual crop of caterers or would-be restaurant owners (not that there is anything wrong with them.)

There are two things that make me sad about watching the show:
1) I'm allergic to shellfish, so I can't eat about 1/3 of what they cook (hello, scallops? Freaking everyone cooks freaking scallops)
2) I don't actually have a very refined palate and tend to think everything is delicious, so I feel that I would be one of those diners that would just go "Wowee I just adored EVERYTHING!"

If I could, I'd hit up some of the better restaurants in LA from time to time, but being eternally a student does have its downfalls (i.e. I'm still pretty much below the poverty line, even if I am squatting at my parents' this year.)

This is my Top Chef fantasy team this season:



I learned about these goofy fantasy teams on this site Fafarazzi awhile ago, and I don't really do anything with them other than try to score points each week and feel proud of myself for pretty much no reason. I also have fantasy teams for Project Runway and America's Next Top Model at the moment, and I'm going to put one together for So You Think You Can Dance when the Top 20 is assembled. Anyway!

I think the upper echelon of chefs on the show at the moment are the brothers Michael and Bryan Voltaggio, Kevin, and Jennifer from Philly. (That's her name to me.) The favorite chefs in the elimination challenge are usually some combination of these four, give or take, and possibly another chef who did well that particular week.

I love Jen from Philly. She's badass, trained/works with Eric Ripert, a top chef in NYC, and she basically just kicks ass and takes names in the kitchen.

My love to hate? Mike I. I knew I wouldn't like him when on Episode 1, he was racing against Jen from Philly to shuck oysters and he interviews "I couldn't believe that - no offense - a girl was beating me. I couldn't let that happen." And then he kind of proceeded to make several more comments of that nature in the first couple of episodes. Besides that, his food is so inconsistent. He's on the top one week, the bottom another, but more importantly, every single week he cooks some kind of obviously Greek food. It's not my favorite kind of food to begin with, but more importantly in this competition variety is the spice of life and he's really falling short.

I was bummed there was no new episode last week, but here's to drooling in anticipation until Wednesday...

America's Most Hated

I'm fascinated in spite of myself by the constant ill-will that certain pop culture figures earn just by, it seems, simply existing. I, like most people I'm sure, tend to view those people in any of three categories: 1) Don't hate them and don't get the hate, 2) Do hate them, 3) Understand the hate but like them anyway. To illustrate:

I don't get the hate:
1. Megan Fox
So first off I know that not everyone hates her. She's got a large male fanbase. But the males that aren't her fans, and most females, seem to have taken to rabidly hating her to counteract the lust coming from said fanbase. I can't for the life of me figure out why. Her "faults" as I've observed seem to include being too pretty (to which I say, whatever, haters to the left), not censoring herself in interviews (my comment here is that she's said a few boneheaded things but mostly I think her lack of filter keeps her interesting, so kudos to her), being an idiot (as I mentioned, she seems to have said in my estimation a few dumb things, but I think this is a harsh criticism, as even if she's no genius she's certainly not more stupid than several other less-hated starlets with her same level of celebrity), being a whore (so she plays up her sexpot image in photoshoots, but as far as I know she's been with the same guy for several years... and that's not taking into account the debatable merits of calling a woman a "whore" to discount her worth), and being a bad actor (which I can't disagree with, but again there are plenty of other celebrities that get away with murder on their projects acting-wise and don't get the kind of vitriol that Megan Fox gets.) So in general, if you were able to make it through the longest sentence ever, I think she's harshly judged and I don't get why.

2. Jennifer Aniston
This poor woman just can't catch a break in my estimation. I'm not on Team Jennifer vs. Team Angelina because I don't care specifically about that drama. I feel bad for her now because I do think that immediately in the aftermath of her breakup with Brad, she mistakenly played into the media's framing of her as the tragic dumpee because she perhaps thought it would gain her sympathy. At this point, I think she has tried to move past that, but she's still getting written about as if she were this pathetic person with a miserable love life. And even worse, the Internet bloggers eviscerate her by accusing her of loving that kind of media attention. I don't know Ms. Aniston personally (obviously) but I've heard enough in-person interviews with her to get the impression that she's pretty down-to-earth and totally over what happened several years ago, no matter how much others want to dredge it up.

I get the hate and fully co-sign:
1. Jon Gosselin
I so tired of hearing about this guy (and frankly all of the Gosselins), but at the same time, every time I hear some new stunt that Jon has pulled after the divorce I have a worse and worse opinion of him. Especially in the last week it seems that Jon has pulled out all of the stops in his Douche Quest 2009, whether it was throwing a hissy fit via lawyers and a poorly spelled sign on the property when TLC ousted his name from the title of the show, or the recent revelation that he emptied his joint account with Kate that is supposed to be for the kids (!!), this guy really screwed up the hand he was dealt. I mean, he went from having the sympathy of many for being married to ball-buster Kate, to an Ed Hardy sporting poster manchild of Extreme Douchebaggery.

2. Katherine Heigl
I don't like her because I think she is a hypocrite. She and Megan Fox have both been been lambasted because they had the gall to criticize directors or projects they've worked on in the past, which I don't think is inherently wrong or just cause for scrutiny. However, Katherine brought the level of a-hole up a notch when she basically gave the finger in print to the writers of Grey's Anatomy in announcing her non-eligibility for that year's Emmys while she was still on the show. Then, she mentioned that she felt her character in Knocked Up was a sexist stereotype, and I felt that she did have a right to say so. But my annoyance developed when she went on to choose even more one-dimensional, stereotypical characters (27 Dresses, The Ugly Truth), and I couldn't help but wonder if she wasn't just airing a personal beef with Judd Apatow et. al by trashing their particular movie. In that scenario, she's unprofessional at best. In another likelier scenario, she's just a hypocrite. She'll keep on choosing sexist roles as long as she gets her Almighty Paycheck, even if they are of the ilk that she's denounced in the past. And I just can't respect that.

I get the hate, but I don't care.
1. Lady Gaga/Kanye West
Both of these inhabit one spot because I feel the exact same way about both of them. I find both of their public personas irritating, ostentatious, and ultimately flash-in-the-pan. I don't consistently enjoy either of their music, but they both have released songs that I do like. However, I do think that (ESPECIALLY when compared to some of their contemporaries) they possess talent in their craft, and within the arena of pop music one could do worse than listen to Kanye or Gaga. People have been crowing with delight at the news that their joint tour was canceled, but I think it would have been a fascinating show due to both of their showmanship and particularly Gaga's proclivity to completely re-work her songs when she sings them live. So I kinda get why people don't like them, but I can't bring myself to hate them because I think they have redeeming qualities.

2. Jessica Simpson
I mostly would just like to see her left alone. She was a crappy pop songstress at the height of her fame, and she was able to capitalize on her (at the time) relationship with Nick Lachey. Now she's not really relevant in mainstream pop culture, despite releasing country records. So I just can't understand for the life of me why people get up the emotion to hate on her still rather than just leaving her alone and ceasing to write about her. She's a non-issue at this point, and unlike other has-beens of her era, she doesn't seem to be always attempting to draw attention to herself every time she goes out. This isn't a "LEAVE JESSICA ALONE!!!" so much as it is a "Why are we still talking about Jessica Simpson?" I'm just really neutral on her entire existence and am surprised that people still seem to take her so seriously.