The Daily Beast, in time for New Years', has compiled a ranking of the 40 drunkest cities in America, compiling data based on average drinks per person per month, percentages of heavy or binge drinkers, and the prevalence of deaths from alcoholic liver disease. The winner: Milwaukee. No big shocker there.
By and large, the top 40 list (warning: slideshow) is predominantly northern cities...
1- Milwaukee, WI
2- Fargo, ND
3- San Francisco, CA
4- Austin, TX
5- Reno, NV
6- Burlington, VT
7- Omaha, NE
8- Boston, MA
9- Anchorage, AK
10- San Diego, CA
11- Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
12- Denver, CO
13- Providence, RI
14- Sioux City, IA
15- Toledo, OH
16- Hartford, CT
17- Tampa, FL
18- Portland, ME
19- San Antonio, TX
20- Philadelphia, PA
21- Spokane, WA
22- Cleveland, OH
23- Sacramento, CA
24- St. Louis, MO
25- New Orleans, LA
26- Tuscon, AZ
27- Buffalo, NY
28- Tallahassee, FL
29- Chicago, IL
30- Seattle-Tacoma, WA
31- Springfield-Holyoke, MA
32- Portland, OR
33- Davenport, IA
34- Phoenix, AZ
35- Cincinnati, OH
36- Las Vegas, NV
37- Baltimore, MD
38- Cedar Rapids, IA
39- Casper, WY
40- Jacksonville, FL
Residents of the list should probably watch themselves. There's an old myth that drinking keeps you warm. All the drinking does is draw heat out from your core. It helps temporarily, but once that heat seeps away, you're just going to freeze that much faster.
The Mythbusters proved this and everything.
In addition, a note to city #1, Milwaukee: today the forecast calls for showers with a high of 48 (living 35 miles west of Milwaukee, I'm currently seeing fog out my window), but tonight it's supposed to drop to 26, with rain still coming down, and not get above freezing again for at least the next few days. So the roads aren't going to be the greatest. Add in a bunch of drunken New Years' revelers, on a Friday night yet, and if you don't get where I'm going with this, just ask Fargo, city #2, what happened last night in their neck of the woods.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Raise The Roof
Here's a question. What is the world's first retractable-roof stadium?
...who said the Rogers Centre in Toronto (1989)? Nope.
...Civic Arena in Pittsburgh (1961)? Good guess, and that's the conventional-wisdom answer. But there's one earlier.
Try the Roman Colosseum.
Obviously, there was no rigged-up chunk of stone and bronze hanging over the facility. There was, however, a canopy, known as a valerium, which could be draped over the Colosseum on hot days.
An artist's rendering of what this might have looked like:
Yes, there's a hole in the middle, but that really always has been the European definition of a 'roof' as far as stadiums are concerned: cover the fans and if the athletes have to play in the elements anyway, oh well. The remaining part of the top of the stadium still has some brackets and sockets used for the purpose of securing the canopy.
The Civic Center does, however, retain the title of First Retractable-Roof Stadium Built For Purposes Where People Aren't Supposed To Die. So there's that.
...who said the Rogers Centre in Toronto (1989)? Nope.
...Civic Arena in Pittsburgh (1961)? Good guess, and that's the conventional-wisdom answer. But there's one earlier.
Try the Roman Colosseum.
Obviously, there was no rigged-up chunk of stone and bronze hanging over the facility. There was, however, a canopy, known as a valerium, which could be draped over the Colosseum on hot days.
An artist's rendering of what this might have looked like:
Yes, there's a hole in the middle, but that really always has been the European definition of a 'roof' as far as stadiums are concerned: cover the fans and if the athletes have to play in the elements anyway, oh well. The remaining part of the top of the stadium still has some brackets and sockets used for the purpose of securing the canopy.
The Civic Center does, however, retain the title of First Retractable-Roof Stadium Built For Purposes Where People Aren't Supposed To Die. So there's that.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
News: The Revisit
At this point, you're likely beginning to reflect on the year that has been 2010. While you do that, though, while you look back on the big events of the year, it may be worth going back for a quick check to see how things worked out after the fact. Or if the fact was actually, you know, factual.
Because as Cracked points out, there's a fair chance that events didn't unfold like you saw or remembered, or at the very least, there's a bit of a postscript to be written.
Blame TV news for a lot of it.
Because as Cracked points out, there's a fair chance that events didn't unfold like you saw or remembered, or at the very least, there's a bit of a postscript to be written.
Blame TV news for a lot of it.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
I Will Turn This Plane Around If You Don't Settle Down Back There
What follows is a list of countries. Alongside those countries is what I have to the best of my abilities determined to be the single most-visited attraction in that country. 'Attraction' is the operative word; most places I looked at excluded places like shopping malls and casinos and I just kind of had to cobble together a know-it-when-you-see-it personal definition. (One place excluded the Mall of America. I disagree. When I was there in May, I confirmed with a mall employee that there are people that fly into the United States, stay overnight, go to the mall, and then fly home, the mall being all they do in the United States. The airport is literally right across the street. I call that an attraction.) Otherwise, I'm kind of going by what's given to me.
Why? Because I can. Why do I post half the content around here? For lack of a better term, intellectual masturbation. Facts for the sake of facts. The kind of thing that makes onlookers go 'Well, that's rather interesting, but wow, you've got way too much time on your hands.'
This was a lot more difficult than anticipated, though. This is a surprisingly inexact thing; numbers were not always supplied and so in several cases I had little choice but to follow a consensus; the link being a reflection of same. The list of countries is not complete- it was a total bear to pull more than one country's top attration off of any one link- but it's as large as I could make it before exhaustion set in. Really, I'm a bit shocked that this kind of thing isn't vastly better-documented than it is. You would think that this would be the kind of thing that gets trumpeted in the travel industry. Granted, a lot of countries on Earth aren't exactly known for tourism, but lack of documentation was a problem even with the countries that actually expect tourists on a regular basis-- Hungary, Uruguay, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, Czech Republic, Romania, Thailand, Chile, Costa Rica, Malaysia, Argentina, Morocco. I never was able to get anything resembling confirmation for any of them.
The countries are not in competition with one another; even if I wished that the case, that would be near-impossible, except to say that number one overall is Times Square of the United States. Speaking of, if the Americans want a state-level equivalent, someone else has you covered already.
And just to clarify: most-visited does not mean best.
Sound good? Here we go.
Anguilla- Shoal Bay East
Aruba- Natural Bridge, never mind that the bridge actually collapsed in 2005; people go look at the rubble
Australia- Great Barrier Reef
Austria- Schonbrunn Palace, Vienna
Bahamas- Two places are equally claimed: the Royal Naval Dockyard and the Bermuda Aquarium, Museum and Zoo. I'd probably give it to the aquarium if forced to guess.
Bangladesh- Cox's Bazar, Dhaka
Barbados- Harrison's Cave
Belize- Ambergris Caye
Bolivia- Yungas Road, and you people are absolutely fucking sick
Botswana- Okavango Delta
Brazil- Christ the Redeemer statue, Rio de Janeiro
Cambodia- Angkor Wat
Cameroon- Waza National Park
Canada- Niagara Falls
Cayman Islands- Can't call it one way or the other. It's either the Turtle Farm or Stingray City. Gun to my head, I'd guess the Turtle Farm.
China- Great Wall of China
Colombia- Chicamocha National Park
Croatia- Plitvice Lakes National Park
Denmark- Tivoli Gardens, Copenhagen
Ecuador- Galapagos Islands
Egypt- Pyramids of Giza
Finland- Linnanmäki Amusement Park, Helsinki
France- Euro Disney, Paris
Gambia- Abuko Nature Reserve
Germany- Neuschwanstein Castle
Greece- Acropolis, Athens
Greenland- Ilulissat
Guam- Two Lovers Point
Guatemala- Xocomil/Xetulul, Retalhuleu (Lonely Planet Guatemala)
Honduras- Bay Islands
Hong Kong- Hong Kong Disneyland
Iceland- Blue Lagoon
India- Taj Mahal, Agra
Indonesia- Borobudur
Ireland- Guinness Storehouse, Dublin
Israel- Western Wall, Jerusalem
Italy- Vatican City, or if you count the Vatican separately, the Roman Coliseum, Rome.
Jamaica- Dunn's River Falls, Ocho Rios
Japan- Tokyo Disneyland, Tokyo
Jordan- Petra
Kenya- Maasai Mara Reserve
Kuwait- Failaka Island
Macedonia- Lake Ohrid
Malawi- Lake Malawi
Mali- Bandiagara Cliffs (aka Dogon Country), Mopti (Mali: the Bradt Travel Guide)
Mexico- Tenochtilan
Monaco- Rock of Monaco, Monte Carlo
Mongolia- Terelj National Park
Namibia- Etosha National Park
Nepal- Mount Everest
Netherlands- Efteling, Kaatsheuvel
New Zealand- Sky Tower, Auckland
Norway- Floibanen, Bergen
Oman- Nizwa Fort, Nizwa
Panama- Panama Canal
Peru- Machu Picchu
Poland- Auschwitz
Portugal- Nothing overly certain here; my best reckoning is the National Coach Museum, Lisbon
Russia- Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg
Saudi Arabia- Kaaba, Mecca
Senegal- Goree Island
Seychelles- Beau Vallon Bay, Mahe Island
Singapore- Sentosa Island
Slovakia- Aquacity, Poprad
Slovenia- Postojna Caves
South Africa- Victoria and Alfred Waterfront, Cape Town
South Korea- Everland, Kyonggi-Do
Spain- Alhambra, Granada
St. Lucia- Pitons
Sweden- Liseberg Nojespark, Gothenburg
Switzerland- Matterhorn, Zermatt
Tanzania- Serengeti National Park, though it and Mount Kilimanjaro help make up what is more commonly referred to as the 'most popular' attraction, the "Northern Circuit"
Turkey- Hagia Sophia, Istanbul; the link shows a museum exhibit that overtook it, but that exhibit has since closed
United Kingdom- Trafalgar Square, London
United States- Times Square, New York City
Venezuela- Angel Falls
Vietnam- Halong Bay
Zambia- Victoria Falls
Zimbabwe- Also Victoria Falls
If anyone has corrections (with numbers; you're certain to find disagreeing sites), or if anyone can fill in some of the countries I didn't get, if you put it in the comments, that'd be great. If you do launch a search, though, note that there is a huge difference between "one of the biggest attractions" and "the biggest attraction".
Why? Because I can. Why do I post half the content around here? For lack of a better term, intellectual masturbation. Facts for the sake of facts. The kind of thing that makes onlookers go 'Well, that's rather interesting, but wow, you've got way too much time on your hands.'
This was a lot more difficult than anticipated, though. This is a surprisingly inexact thing; numbers were not always supplied and so in several cases I had little choice but to follow a consensus; the link being a reflection of same. The list of countries is not complete- it was a total bear to pull more than one country's top attration off of any one link- but it's as large as I could make it before exhaustion set in. Really, I'm a bit shocked that this kind of thing isn't vastly better-documented than it is. You would think that this would be the kind of thing that gets trumpeted in the travel industry. Granted, a lot of countries on Earth aren't exactly known for tourism, but lack of documentation was a problem even with the countries that actually expect tourists on a regular basis-- Hungary, Uruguay, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, Czech Republic, Romania, Thailand, Chile, Costa Rica, Malaysia, Argentina, Morocco. I never was able to get anything resembling confirmation for any of them.
The countries are not in competition with one another; even if I wished that the case, that would be near-impossible, except to say that number one overall is Times Square of the United States. Speaking of, if the Americans want a state-level equivalent, someone else has you covered already.
And just to clarify: most-visited does not mean best.
Sound good? Here we go.
Anguilla- Shoal Bay East
Aruba- Natural Bridge, never mind that the bridge actually collapsed in 2005; people go look at the rubble
Australia- Great Barrier Reef
Austria- Schonbrunn Palace, Vienna
Bahamas- Two places are equally claimed: the Royal Naval Dockyard and the Bermuda Aquarium, Museum and Zoo. I'd probably give it to the aquarium if forced to guess.
Bangladesh- Cox's Bazar, Dhaka
Barbados- Harrison's Cave
Belize- Ambergris Caye
Bolivia- Yungas Road, and you people are absolutely fucking sick
Botswana- Okavango Delta
Brazil- Christ the Redeemer statue, Rio de Janeiro
Cambodia- Angkor Wat
Cameroon- Waza National Park
Canada- Niagara Falls
Cayman Islands- Can't call it one way or the other. It's either the Turtle Farm or Stingray City. Gun to my head, I'd guess the Turtle Farm.
China- Great Wall of China
Colombia- Chicamocha National Park
Croatia- Plitvice Lakes National Park
Denmark- Tivoli Gardens, Copenhagen
Ecuador- Galapagos Islands
Egypt- Pyramids of Giza
Finland- Linnanmäki Amusement Park, Helsinki
France- Euro Disney, Paris
Gambia- Abuko Nature Reserve
Germany- Neuschwanstein Castle
Greece- Acropolis, Athens
Greenland- Ilulissat
Guam- Two Lovers Point
Guatemala- Xocomil/Xetulul, Retalhuleu (Lonely Planet Guatemala)
Honduras- Bay Islands
Hong Kong- Hong Kong Disneyland
Iceland- Blue Lagoon
India- Taj Mahal, Agra
Indonesia- Borobudur
Ireland- Guinness Storehouse, Dublin
Israel- Western Wall, Jerusalem
Italy- Vatican City, or if you count the Vatican separately, the Roman Coliseum, Rome.
Jamaica- Dunn's River Falls, Ocho Rios
Japan- Tokyo Disneyland, Tokyo
Jordan- Petra
Kenya- Maasai Mara Reserve
Kuwait- Failaka Island
Macedonia- Lake Ohrid
Malawi- Lake Malawi
Mali- Bandiagara Cliffs (aka Dogon Country), Mopti (Mali: the Bradt Travel Guide)
Mexico- Tenochtilan
Monaco- Rock of Monaco, Monte Carlo
Mongolia- Terelj National Park
Namibia- Etosha National Park
Nepal- Mount Everest
Netherlands- Efteling, Kaatsheuvel
New Zealand- Sky Tower, Auckland
Norway- Floibanen, Bergen
Oman- Nizwa Fort, Nizwa
Panama- Panama Canal
Peru- Machu Picchu
Poland- Auschwitz
Portugal- Nothing overly certain here; my best reckoning is the National Coach Museum, Lisbon
Russia- Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg
Saudi Arabia- Kaaba, Mecca
Senegal- Goree Island
Seychelles- Beau Vallon Bay, Mahe Island
Singapore- Sentosa Island
Slovakia- Aquacity, Poprad
Slovenia- Postojna Caves
South Africa- Victoria and Alfred Waterfront, Cape Town
South Korea- Everland, Kyonggi-Do
Spain- Alhambra, Granada
St. Lucia- Pitons
Sweden- Liseberg Nojespark, Gothenburg
Switzerland- Matterhorn, Zermatt
Tanzania- Serengeti National Park, though it and Mount Kilimanjaro help make up what is more commonly referred to as the 'most popular' attraction, the "Northern Circuit"
Turkey- Hagia Sophia, Istanbul; the link shows a museum exhibit that overtook it, but that exhibit has since closed
United Kingdom- Trafalgar Square, London
United States- Times Square, New York City
Venezuela- Angel Falls
Vietnam- Halong Bay
Zambia- Victoria Falls
Zimbabwe- Also Victoria Falls
If anyone has corrections (with numbers; you're certain to find disagreeing sites), or if anyone can fill in some of the countries I didn't get, if you put it in the comments, that'd be great. If you do launch a search, though, note that there is a huge difference between "one of the biggest attractions" and "the biggest attraction".
Monday, December 27, 2010
Just Because Christmas Is Over Does Not Detract From Tastiness
The thing I was working on today is getting to run up the hours on me, so I need a quickie to keep you occupied in the meantime.
So... we Allermanns, having a Norwegian ancestry, make these every Christmas. Baking class!
I should say, though, this guy's not doing it quite like we do. The finished product shouldn't be quite that... burnt. It does take some doing to get the timing right on them. There's a very small window in which to get the krumkake right: too quick off the griddle and they retain too much pliability; too long on and they burn.
Also, two stylistic notes: you'll note a cone shape in his finished krumkake; ours take a tube form. And some people like to fill the krumkake afterwards; we however do not.
So... we Allermanns, having a Norwegian ancestry, make these every Christmas. Baking class!
I should say, though, this guy's not doing it quite like we do. The finished product shouldn't be quite that... burnt. It does take some doing to get the timing right on them. There's a very small window in which to get the krumkake right: too quick off the griddle and they retain too much pliability; too long on and they burn.
Also, two stylistic notes: you'll note a cone shape in his finished krumkake; ours take a tube form. And some people like to fill the krumkake afterwards; we however do not.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Rapid-Fire Book Club, Christmas Edition
The books under the tree this year, of course:
Bathroom Readers' Institute- Uncle John's Heavy Duty Bathroom Reader
Bathroom Readers' Institute- Uncle John's Bathroom Reader: History's Lists
Holkins, Jerry; Krahulik, Mike- Penny Arcade: Epic Legends of the Magic Sword Kings
Holkins, Jerry; Krahulik, Mike- Penny Arcade: The Halls Below
There was also a National Geographic magazine subscription. Magazines don't generally count as Rapid Fire Book Club inclusions, nor for any other book club, but I felt it should be noted.
Bathroom Readers' Institute- Uncle John's Heavy Duty Bathroom Reader
Bathroom Readers' Institute- Uncle John's Bathroom Reader: History's Lists
Holkins, Jerry; Krahulik, Mike- Penny Arcade: Epic Legends of the Magic Sword Kings
Holkins, Jerry; Krahulik, Mike- Penny Arcade: The Halls Below
There was also a National Geographic magazine subscription. Magazines don't generally count as Rapid Fire Book Club inclusions, nor for any other book club, but I felt it should be noted.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Disposable Celebrities
Earlier tonight on the radio, I heard news that there was a rumor of a second Paris Hilton sex tape. This rumor, upon returning home, I found to have been squashed and a lawsuit threatened.
Let us review.
Someone heard that there MIGHT be a sex tape floating around with Paris Hilton- and not the first sex tape, either- and this is news to someone. Someone cares enough that there might be a second Paris Hilton sex tape that someone else took the time to report a rumor about it as news. Someone thought enough of it to present updates on it. And here I am wasting my time bringing it up at all.
Why am I bringing it up? Because this has been eating at me a bit. Paris is a prime example of a disposable celebrity.
Now, celebrities are all well and good. It's only natural that some people will be more recognized than others for whatever reason. Here's the thing, though. My home of Watertown is and has been very blue-collar. A blue-collar background instills a bit of a work ethic in you, and you tend to expect others to follow suit. If someone wishes to be a celebrity, well and good. But I want to see them do some work to gain or maintain that celebrity status.
Can you act (e.g. Eva Longoria)? Great. Can you sing (e.g. Lady Gaga)? Great. Can you dance (e.g Carrie Ann Inaba)? Great, though we don't have very many pure dancers in the celebrity universe right now. Can you do more than one of the previous (e.g. the cast of Glee)? Great. Are you an athlete, or are you otherwise involved in the athletic world (e.g. Bruce Jenner, decathlon gold medalist in the 1976 Montreal Olympics, who I really don't wish to drag into this mess)? Great. Do you create or try to affect the creation of policy (e.g. Sarah Palin)? Great.
Do you go about living your life as normal while cameras follow you around (e.g the cast of Jersey Shore)? We've got problems now. Does your fame revolve around mating: attracting a mate (Heidi Montag), selecting a mate (anyone from The Bachelor/ette), deselecting a mate (ditto), mating with your mate (Kim Kardashian), reproducing with your mate (the Duggars)? We've got problems. Have you been on a competitive reality show (e.g. Survivor)? Unless you are still actively on that show, or have done additional things to work for your fame (e.g. Kelly Clarkson), we've got problems. Is your primary identifier "socialite" (the rest of the Kardashians)? We've got problems. Are you only famous because another family member is famous (e.g. Bristol Palin)? We've got problems.
And this is really rather damaging: again, there will always be celebrities; there will always be some amount of time devoted by people to celebrities. That's one thing. But every second spent following a disposable celebrity is time taken away from someone that might be more deserving of that fame; someone who has actually done something to earn it. Time spent on someone who was on The Bachelor/ette three seasons ago and hasn't done anything since is time that could go to any number of people of actual talent or consequence that could use the boost- actors, singers, authors, those in positions of power who might need a little extra scrutiny. Or maybe other deserving people we don't normally think of as famous who might, given a couple extra free cameras roaming around, get a little moment in the sun. Like this guy.
Who exactly qualifies as 'disposable'? Which celebrities do we need to excise from our national consciousness? You've probably gotten to this part of the article already having come up with at least ten different names, all of which are people you deem annoying. Justin Bieber's on your list, right?
Bad news on that. Bieber sings. He works for his fame. Nobody said you personally had to like his music. Enough people do to where he is famous. The celebrities that need disposing of can be figured like so:
Imagine that the entire celebrity-gossip industry vanished overnight. US Weekly, InStyle, People, TMZ, Lucky, Star, the tabloids all gone. Perez Hilton is taken back to Joan Rivers' home planet. Every camera owned by a member of the paparazzi bursts into flames and they all have to go get real jobs. All of that is gone tomorrow. As a result, all the coverage that any celebrity receives in this fashion vanishes along with it.
Who's still famous outside of that which they directly control?
Anyone currently famous that suddenly sees the attention paid to them drop to virtually zero is a disposable celebrity. They are only celebrities because the entertainment industry says they are. Celebrities of merit have other outlets through which they can receive their coverage. Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber can make songs. The English royal family may be a figurehead, but the head of household still gets to be on a bunch of countries' money.
Paris Hilton, without the entertainment industry, drops off the face of the Earth.
Nothing tomorrow. Enjoy your Christmas.
EDIT: 'This Guy', Michael Sharpe of Spruce Grove, Alberta, originally didn't have a link. My bad. Boy, that's... a bit embarrassing, particularly given the subject matter. Sorry about that, Michael.
Let us review.
Someone heard that there MIGHT be a sex tape floating around with Paris Hilton- and not the first sex tape, either- and this is news to someone. Someone cares enough that there might be a second Paris Hilton sex tape that someone else took the time to report a rumor about it as news. Someone thought enough of it to present updates on it. And here I am wasting my time bringing it up at all.
Why am I bringing it up? Because this has been eating at me a bit. Paris is a prime example of a disposable celebrity.
Now, celebrities are all well and good. It's only natural that some people will be more recognized than others for whatever reason. Here's the thing, though. My home of Watertown is and has been very blue-collar. A blue-collar background instills a bit of a work ethic in you, and you tend to expect others to follow suit. If someone wishes to be a celebrity, well and good. But I want to see them do some work to gain or maintain that celebrity status.
Can you act (e.g. Eva Longoria)? Great. Can you sing (e.g. Lady Gaga)? Great. Can you dance (e.g Carrie Ann Inaba)? Great, though we don't have very many pure dancers in the celebrity universe right now. Can you do more than one of the previous (e.g. the cast of Glee)? Great. Are you an athlete, or are you otherwise involved in the athletic world (e.g. Bruce Jenner, decathlon gold medalist in the 1976 Montreal Olympics, who I really don't wish to drag into this mess)? Great. Do you create or try to affect the creation of policy (e.g. Sarah Palin)? Great.
Do you go about living your life as normal while cameras follow you around (e.g the cast of Jersey Shore)? We've got problems now. Does your fame revolve around mating: attracting a mate (Heidi Montag), selecting a mate (anyone from The Bachelor/ette), deselecting a mate (ditto), mating with your mate (Kim Kardashian), reproducing with your mate (the Duggars)? We've got problems. Have you been on a competitive reality show (e.g. Survivor)? Unless you are still actively on that show, or have done additional things to work for your fame (e.g. Kelly Clarkson), we've got problems. Is your primary identifier "socialite" (the rest of the Kardashians)? We've got problems. Are you only famous because another family member is famous (e.g. Bristol Palin)? We've got problems.
And this is really rather damaging: again, there will always be celebrities; there will always be some amount of time devoted by people to celebrities. That's one thing. But every second spent following a disposable celebrity is time taken away from someone that might be more deserving of that fame; someone who has actually done something to earn it. Time spent on someone who was on The Bachelor/ette three seasons ago and hasn't done anything since is time that could go to any number of people of actual talent or consequence that could use the boost- actors, singers, authors, those in positions of power who might need a little extra scrutiny. Or maybe other deserving people we don't normally think of as famous who might, given a couple extra free cameras roaming around, get a little moment in the sun. Like this guy.
Who exactly qualifies as 'disposable'? Which celebrities do we need to excise from our national consciousness? You've probably gotten to this part of the article already having come up with at least ten different names, all of which are people you deem annoying. Justin Bieber's on your list, right?
Bad news on that. Bieber sings. He works for his fame. Nobody said you personally had to like his music. Enough people do to where he is famous. The celebrities that need disposing of can be figured like so:
Imagine that the entire celebrity-gossip industry vanished overnight. US Weekly, InStyle, People, TMZ, Lucky, Star, the tabloids all gone. Perez Hilton is taken back to Joan Rivers' home planet. Every camera owned by a member of the paparazzi bursts into flames and they all have to go get real jobs. All of that is gone tomorrow. As a result, all the coverage that any celebrity receives in this fashion vanishes along with it.
Who's still famous outside of that which they directly control?
Anyone currently famous that suddenly sees the attention paid to them drop to virtually zero is a disposable celebrity. They are only celebrities because the entertainment industry says they are. Celebrities of merit have other outlets through which they can receive their coverage. Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber can make songs. The English royal family may be a figurehead, but the head of household still gets to be on a bunch of countries' money.
Paris Hilton, without the entertainment industry, drops off the face of the Earth.
Nothing tomorrow. Enjoy your Christmas.
EDIT: 'This Guy', Michael Sharpe of Spruce Grove, Alberta, originally didn't have a link. My bad. Boy, that's... a bit embarrassing, particularly given the subject matter. Sorry about that, Michael.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)