Poor Britany! Poor Paris!

[3113]

Poor Briteny! Poor Paris!

I guess if you go commando you get judged a little harshly when it comes to fashion....

Spears, Hilton tie for `Worst Dressed'

LOS ANGELES - Dubbed "style-free and fashion deprived," Britney Spears and Paris Hilton tied for the No. 1 spot on Mr. Blackwell's 47th annual "Worst Dressed" list released Tuesday.

"Two peas in an overexposed pod," Blackwell said of the skimpy attire worn by the two celebutantes he called the "Screamgirls."

Some of Blackwell's nastiest words were reserved for Camilla Parker-Bowles, a member of the British royal family, who finished No. 2 on the list.

"The Duchess of Dowdy strikes again," wrote Blackwell. "In feathered hats that were once the rage, she resembles a petrified parakeet from the Jurassic age. A royal wreck."

Blackwell, no longer an active designer but still an acid-tongued critic of celebrity fashion, aimed his poison pen at Hollywood, with young entertainers dominating the list.

At No. 3 was actress Lindsay Lohan, scolded by Blackwell for turning "from adorable to deplorable."

Christina Aguilera was also in Blackwell's fashion hall of shame. He called her a "dazzling singer" but added that she "puts good taste through the wardrobe wringer. All crass and no class."

He referred to Mariah Carey as "Mariah the fashion pariah ... the queen of catastrophic kitsch," and "American Idol" judge Paula Abdul as "a fallen fashion idol."

He said actress Sharon Stone resembles "an over-the-hill Cruella DeVille," and Tori Spelling embodies "down and out in Beverly Hills."

"Grey's Anatomy" star Sandra Oh was faulted for too many beads and bangles. "She's layered lunacy from head to toe," Blackwell said.

Meryl Streep, who starred in the fashion-themed movie, "The Devil Wears Prada," came in at No. 10 on the annual dis-list.

"From Streep you could weep," Blackwell said. "Her beauty of a career cannot be denied, but that beast of a wardrobe is pure mother of the bride."

On a kinder note, Blackwell offered his 10 "fabulous fashion independents" — actresses Kate Winslet, Angelina Jolie and Helen Mirren, singers Barbra Streisand and Beyonce, California Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), Princess Charlotte of Monaco, model Heidi Klum and actresses Katie Holmes and Marcia Cross.

 

[Guest]

Ouch.

 

[rgraham666]

He said something nice about a Democrat!

The traitor.

 

[shereads]

The hair, Britney. The hair!

And the cowgirl boots with the lingerie look over the bathing suit. Who else could make that work, I ask you?

 

[elsol]

Yeah... but Britney probably got the "Best Undressed" vote from males 12 -> 45.

And really... that's the one that matters to the fellas!

 

[3113]

Yeah... but Britney probably got the "Best Undressed" vote from males 12 -> 45.

And really... that's the one that matters to the fellas!

There you, go, Elsol! Teach Briteny how to turn that frown upsidedown

 

[cantdog]

The way celebs are discussed these days, even in hard news, is faintly disturbing. It reminds me of the 'friends' that everyone got to know in the wall televisions (Nineteen Eighty-Four). The same creepy feeling. People have followed celebs already for a hundred fifty years, but there was some psychic distance before, which seems to be dissolving now.

The bad feeling the friends in the walls gives you is very much the way they envelop people and reassure them, while subtly manipulating them, in addition to distracting them fatally from any consideration of the actual conditions of life. And so it is with celebs, now, and with pop culture in total. Have you watched MSNBC lately? The stories are about the stories about the network which have been circulated on the other network. It's all so self referencing. In between are discussions of opinion polls and pop culture, like films and other television shows.

At odd intervals, a 'news' story, on the order of "Fire rages in California," but the news is a bald statement that a fire or a bombing or whatever has occurred. It has no nuance, no analysis. No effort is made to tie the news events to any other event or pattern of events. Not so with the news and discussions of films and television programs, celebs and so on! Those are made to build patterns, to reveal underlying things about the celebrated objects, to describe trends in the culture. It all makes the distracting and trivial manufactured stories of celebrity and pop much more meaningful than the actual doings of armies and diplomats and governments. The pop walls envelop and isolate, crowding out reality.

Never mind. Go back to what you were doing. I'm just an old man. I mean no disrespect to the Parises and Britneys which dominate our discourse, really.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

He said actress Sharon Stone resembles "an over-the-hill Cruella DeVille,"

I live for the day someone tells me that.

 

[Belegon]

He said actress Sharon Stone resembles "an over-the-hill Cruella DeVille,"

I live for the day someone tells me that.

...but you're not over the hill yet...

 

[ABSTRUSE]

...but you're not over the hill yet...

I am the hill baby!!!!

 

[Belegon]

I am the hill baby!!!!

Can I have a picnic on you then? With champagne, strawberries and whipped cream?

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Can I have a picnic on you then? With champagne, strawberries and whipped cream?

God knows there is plenty of room.

 

[3113]

The way celebs are discussed these days, even in hard news, is faintly disturbing. It reminds me of the 'friends' that everyone got to know in the wall televisions (Nineteen Eighty-Four).

I thought that was you guys! Isn't Big Brother behind all of you being on my computer?

Seriously, though, I get what you're saying and I think you're right. On the other hand, celebrity fascination and adoration, etc. has always been around. The Romans treated Gladiators the same way--their pictures on the wall, their doings of more import than other news. Ditto with just about every other civilization.

I sometimes think that 1984 was stating the obvious--that being that people will always be more fascinated with what's going on with the glamorous folk than with problems happing to average folk in the next town.

 

[Misty_Morning]

I cannot believe I read this thread.....


but I did.....

and I say....


Who gives a flying fuck?

 

[3113]

Who gives a flying fuck?

Well, nobody, really. But it makes for amusing jokes, doesn't it?

 

[Guest]

The way celebs are discussed these days, even in hard news, is faintly disturbing. It reminds me of the 'friends' that everyone got to know in the wall televisions (Nineteen Eighty-Four). The same creepy feeling. People have followed celebs already for a hundred fifty years, but there was some psychic distance before, which seems to be dissolving now.

The bad feeling the friends in the walls gives you is very much the way they envelop people and reassure them, while subtly manipulating them, in addition to distracting them fatally from any consideration of the actual conditions of life. And so it is with celebs, now, and with pop culture in total. Have you watched MSNBC lately? The stories are about the stories about the network which have been circulated on the other network. It's all so self referencing. In between are discussions of opinion polls and pop culture, like films and other television shows.

At odd intervals, a 'news' story, on the order of "Fire rages in California," but the news is a bald statement that a fire or a bombing or whatever has occurred. It has no nuance, no analysis. No effort is made to tie the news events to any other event or pattern of events. Not so with the news and discussions of films and television programs, celebs and so on! Those are made to build patterns, to reveal underlying things about the celebrated objects, to describe trends in the culture. It all makes the distracting and trivial manufactured stories of celebrity and pop much more meaningful than the actual doings of armies and diplomats and governments. The pop walls envelop and isolate, crowding out reality.

Never mind. Go back to what you were doing. I'm just an old man. I mean no disrespect to the Parises and Britneys which dominate our discourse, really.

You're old????

(Our engagement is off!)

 

[Misty_Morning]

Well, nobody, really. But it makes for amusing jokes, doesn't it?

Yes it does...it makes us remember how some folks think that their lives are SOOOO much more important than others....


But, hey, we (not me) buy the tickets to the shows, we (not me) watch the daily tabloids......don't we (I sure the fuck don't).......

When does this supposed 15 minutes end?......I do believe it is long over due...

 

[OhMissScarlett]

What? You mean vagina isn't the new cleavage this season?!

*looks for pants*

 

[rgraham666]

What? You mean vagina isn't the new cleavage this season?!

*looks for pants*

Noooooo!

 

[shereads]

The way celebs are discussed these days, even in hard news, is faintly disturbing. It reminds me of the 'friends' that everyone got to know in the wall televisions (Nineteen Eighty-Four). The same creepy feeling. People have followed celebs already for a hundred fifty years, but there was some psychic distance before, which seems to be dissolving now.

The bad feeling the friends in the walls gives you is very much the way they envelop people and reassure them, while subtly manipulating them, in addition to distracting them fatally from any consideration of the actual conditions of life. And so it is with celebs, now, and with pop culture in total. Have you watched MSNBC lately? The stories are about the stories about the network which have been circulated on the other network. It's all so self referencing. In between are discussions of opinion polls and pop culture, like films and other television shows.

At odd intervals, a 'news' story, on the order of "Fire rages in California," but the news is a bald statement that a fire or a bombing or whatever has occurred. It has no nuance, no analysis. No effort is made to tie the news events to any other event or pattern of events. Not so with the news and discussions of films and television programs, celebs and so on! Those are made to build patterns, to reveal underlying things about the celebrated objects, to describe trends in the culture. It all makes the distracting and trivial manufactured stories of celebrity and pop much more meaningful than the actual doings of armies and diplomats and governments. The pop walls envelop and isolate, crowding out reality.

Never mind. Go back to what you were doing. I'm just an old man. I mean no disrespect to the Parises and Britneys which dominate our discourse, really.

They are the Gabor Sisters of the new century.

And you're right - the Gabors never got a mention in the news. If Zsa Zsa had murdered Eva - and if it had turned out to be a contract killing on behalf of the Soviet Union - the story would have been picked up by mainstream news media. Otherwise, they relied on their publicists to keep their scandalous lives in the gossip rags.

Blame the late Roone Arledge, the ABC sports guru who became the head of programming in the '80s and determined that the nightly news would no longer function independently of the ratings wars. Before Arledge, the national TV networks had an unspoken agreement to treat their news divisions as a public service, supported by the profits from entertainment programming. As long as the news was allowed to lose money, it could maintain a seriousness of purpose that sends most of the population scrambling to change channels.

When Arledge announced that the ABC Nightly News Hour (Hour!)would have to support itself with advertising profits just like his network's entertainment programming, he sacrificed journalism to audience size and demographics. Viewers who wanted in-depth coverage of serious news were - and are - the minority. Advertisers have studied the rest of the population so thoroughly that they can predict almost to the second how long an average viewer will watch a talking head explaining a complicated topic before he changes channels.

Not long.

Entertainment is everything. How else to explain why political scandals have to involve sex to hold our interest?

For serious news, we have the McNeil-Lehrer Report on public television. I confess, I haven't caught their show in a while. if I did, and missed Entertainment Tonight, how would I find out what happened to Paris Hilton when her new car ran out of gas?!



[/soapbox]

 

[cumallday]

2006 was not a water-shed year. History will remember it without much favour, fervor or fanfare. History doesn’t have much of a choice; the information is there but few are concerned. There’s not some sinister cabal of corporate planners and military hot heads directly controlling the news - they don't need to. The parametres of debate are set within extremely narrow confines by a conjuncture of ideological and economic factors which journalists rarely break (and are often punished if they do). This year’s elections in the Congo, during a civil war which has claimed more than two million lives, weren’t worthy of more than two days of sub-headlines. Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan deciding to boycott underwear is, however, a major story. These are indeed cynical times, but at least we got to see Britney's cooch!

 

[cantdog]

No, you guys are right-- part of what made the wall friends sinister was the assumption that they were working for the government. And this current set of wall friends are just shills being discussed for ratings.

That said, the line between corporations and power structure is not easy to locate. I think it is now quite some distance deep into the corps area, if you follow the Venn diagram analogy. Logos are what people watch, what they wear, what they consume. The unbranded life is further out of reach all the time. And that's not even discussing the banks, which are entirely within both areas.

The will of corps trumps the interest of states, and swamps the expressed will of the constituents of those states. But so long as we watch the wall friends, how will we know? Elections themselves are now appearing as wall friends. Seen the coverage (sic) of Obama? People LIKE Obama, he is portrayed as having various celeb qualities, he is supposed to be a symbol of "Beyond Race," but do they ever even refer to what ideas he may have? What policies he supports? And the answer seems to be, what for? Why waste one's time with facts? Not a reason in the world, if you can market the candidate like detergent.

Many of the features of elections partake of sports journalism. They come to resemble planned distractions to divert the electorate from the realities confronting the culture. I can buy Britney and Paris as unplanned distractions, originating in a ratings battle. But elections? That shit is planned.

 

[shereads]

Many of the features of elections partake of sports journalism. They come to resemble planned distractions to divert the electorate from the realities confronting the culture. I can buy Britney and Paris as unplanned distractions, originating in a ratings battle. But elections? That shit is planned.

Right down to the pancake breakfasts. What a lovely, down-to-earth feeling it evokes when a small town opens its doors and hearts to offer a tasty, home-style breakfast of pancakes with lots of good, American dairy butter and Vermont maple syrup, or maybe New Hampshire maple syrup if the organizing committee has been on its political toes, to the men and women competing to become the front man for the most powerful person in the world.

Babies are kissed. Hands are shaken. If all goes well, no one confuses the two procedures.

Best of all, the pancake breakfasts provide a forum where the future Commander in Chief (and the runners-up, and the future Miss Congeniality) can set aside political posturing, loosen his necktie, leave the Lear jet someplace miles away, and arrive on a humble bus to mingle with "the people" and hear their concerns.

The people are those hearty, no-nonsense Americans whose ancestors arrived on our shores as poor immigrants, their landlords, or hardcore religious fanatics, and set about building a nation. With the help of native Americans, who helped the pilgrims survive a harsh winter and inspired the first Thanksgiving Day, these stalwart pioneers killed or humbled the less helpful natives, fought and won the War on Witchcraft, conquered the wilderness, conducted a violent overthrow of the government, introduced multiculturalism by importing African men and women to work their vast plantations, and wrote the Bill of Rights when they realized they were in danger of doing to each other what had once been done to them. They also invented pancakes and maple syrup. But not butter; Canada invented butter.

The pancake breakfasts are America's way of reminding those Washington Politicians that they're no different from us ordinary folk. Except for their funerals, which are pretty spectacular, and their virtual immunity from criminal prosecution, and the fact that they never, except when arriving at a pancake breakfast, have to ride on a bus.

The tradition might be old-fashioned, but without it, how would we know our candidates and how would they know us? Not from polls, that's for sure! Polls are nothing but a tool of Washington Politics. For that, there are campaign strategists, analysts, and one or two actual decision makers who remain invisible. They might direct policy, but they don't make pancakes.

Only by shaking a man's baby, kissing his hand, and donning his apron for a photo op at the local YMCA, can a candidate for president hope to compete against Britney and Paris for a couple of minutes of prime time TV.

 

[rgraham666]

And people think I'm cynical.

 

[shereads]

And people think I'm cynical.

Not a bit.

Have some pancakes.