Why Do We Care What You Think? Part III: You Give Love, a Bad (Icky Icky Groddy) Name

A 35 year-old man who goes by the name "Mystery"(aka Erik Von Markovik) is going to be hosting a show on VH1 called "The Pick-up Artist," in which he and some cohorts try to get a couple of guys laid (trailer via youtube).

When I first saw this photo and trailer, I thought that his method must involve dressing up like a goth version of "The Arftul Dodger" from the musical "Oliver!" so that the other men look relatively less douchebag-esq in comparison.

Not so.

Apparently this ex magician has a whole pick-up artist system worked out, has written a book, and travels the country giving seminars to sad sad men in search of companionship; which reminds me of Tom Cruise's character from the movie "Magnolia." Except of course, in that movie, the pick-up artist is deliberately shown as a charismatic misogynist. This non-fiction version of the charismatic misogynist has a system that involves something called "negs" which are when men are supposed to say or do something that briefly disqualifies them from being considered a potential suitor; such as blowing one's nose and then saying "What, are you going to watch?" He says these things disarm the woman and her friends.

I don't understand this logic, and I think these "negs" are close to being "disempowering" rather than "disarming." In the Salon.com article I stole most of this content from that was the inspiration for this post, he actually starts trying to hit on the girl interviewing him. When she says she's all out of questions, he comes up with this stunner:

"You're funny. Have you ever been to a club?"

Gee, I don't know. Have you ever shaved your hat?

He then proceeds to call San Francisco "San Fran." Not a way to get in good with a local

For a much more helpful and insightful commentary, check this out

Photo: Jason Merritt/FilmMagic/Vh1 available at Salon.com

Why Do We Care What You Think? Part II

Ann Coulter. Much like Rush Limbaugh, I don't really understand why people listen to her. Although I do understand that she is a conservative republican's wet dream (pretty in that naughty 1950s housewife kind-of-way, articulate, and prejudiced), she is really nothing more than a pundit. I'm not a fan of pundits generally, but Ann Coulter really adds nothing. Other pundits at least might make you stop and think, but Ann is just angry and offensive.

Case in point, here she is commenting on John Edwards.

I'm sorry, was she just trying to call John Edwards a fag? And I don't think she means he's gay. She's using the word like an ignorant 19 year-old frat boy.

And here she is defending Mark Foley a while ago.
Notice that even Bill O'Reilly seems shocked at her stance. That should tell you something. I think this clip really evinces the fact that Coulter doesn't understand a lot of issues she discusses. She calls the democratic (although I remember everyone being really freaked out by this, not just democrats) outcry after the Foley scandal "gay bashing," and that being upset at the congressional conduct is "hypocritical." In the clip, notice how she refers to Foley as "a gay guy." If you remember though, it wasn't the fact that Foley may or may not be gay. It was that he was being a little too friendly with little boys. Being upset at that is not "gay bashing" Ann. It's being upset at the fact that a pedophile might be your representative in Congress. Truth is, I think if he had been sending little girls lascivious emails, this whole thing would have been even more scandalous.

Oh, and just in case you forgot about this, here are some clips of her from Keith Olbermann's show where she is defending the position in her book that the widows of 9/11 are publicity whores. Yes, women who lost their husbands on 9/11 should not be allowed to speak out because it is politicizing their loss. Yeah, and Rosa Parks should not have been allowed to comment about how she could not get a seat on the bus, because it might have politicized race, or maybe Korematsu should not have been allowed to challenge his detention because it might have politicized both race and the powers of the president. The widows should roll over, accept that the patriotic thing is to accept their deaths were for the benefit of everyone, have a funeral service with some potato salad, and then shut up.

Why Do We Care What You Think? Part I

I have noticed that a lot of celebrities and pundits often give their unsolicited opinion about pretty much anything. And it makes me ask the question: Why should I, or anyone, care about what you think? Whether it's what Nick Carter thinks of Paris Hilton, what that one guy said about Lindsay Lohan's nether regions, or what Bill O'Reily really has to say about anything. I am just floored that what these people say or think is, by someone's definition, "news." As this has been a sentiment I've been harboring for a while, this might be a reoccurring segment.

Nothing illustrates my frustration better than this guy and what he had to say about Michael J. Fox.

Now, in a vacuum, I would also be sceptical about what Michael J. Fox had to say about anything. HOWEVER, Michael J. Fox has Parkinson's disease. He was appearing in support of candidates who in turn support stem-cell research, because stem cell research looks like it could eventually lead to a cure. But Rush Limbaugh apparently decided that Michael J. Fox was off of his meds in the advertisements, and that this was somehow disingenuous because it exaggerated his disease. A few things before I get to my main point.

First. Yeah, sure campaign ads never exaggerate anything, right?

Second. The meds Fox is on quell the symptoms of Parkinson's. Even if he did miss his meds, you would be seeing what the true ugly symptoms of the disease were. He didn't take meds to exaggerate his condition.

But my main point is, why does anyone care what Rush Limbaugh thinks anymore? This is the same guy who fully supported the War on Drugs, saying things like

And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

and then came out and said that, well, actually he had been addicted to pain killers for several years and was put under investigation for doctor shopping. I never thought the guy really added anything to the conversation, but now he was just a hypocritical douchebag.

So when Rush Limbaugh says the beloved Alex P. Keaton is somehow exaggerating the symptoms of this horrible debilitating disease, I am surprised that anyone cares, not only because his comment was just plain mean, but because this guy is so full of it. Why does this man get paid to have opinions anymore?

A side-note to Mr. Rush Limbaugh himself. You should really consider supporting stem cell research yourself, not only because it could eventually cure leukemia, a disease that you yourself are helping to cure, but also because it could eventually help you get over your own illness now that they have mapped and isolated your problem area: