the first (and last) time i met lindsay lohan

What better time than the eve of the imprisonment of Linsday Lohan to look back on the first time I met this maven of unbridled fame, infamy, and absurdity. I don't care to comment on her validity as a "star" or an "actress" or a "sane person." I just think it's time to reflect on the fact that Lindsay couldn't have become the person that she is today alone. Maybe some hard time is what the Long Island gal needs to set her straight, perhaps a quiet dissent into the oblivion of a private life would do. But this is where Lilo is, and this is where I saw it all start out...

The Parent Trap came out when I was 13. Lindsay was a year my junior. We both grew up on Long Island, and due to the sheer magic of geographical proximity we inevitably met one day at the Malibu beach club on the south shore. Although I don't recall who she was with (I'm sure Dina was present) it was palpable that a celebrity was in the vicinity of the pool area after prolonged whispering and excited squeals emanating from every girl my age, and their mothers. At 13 you recognize that famous people are important, and much cooler than you, so of course I shuffled on down to see her in person. What ensued was a disturbing scene and a residual feeling of awfulness that I'll never forget. It was like watching a feeding frenzy. There she was, all red-headed and freckled, just trying to go swimming, while countless kids and parents walked up, ogled, and asked for autographs. Everyone was watching her, and she knew it. I made an executive decision not to bother her like everyone else. But soon enough, she was next to me in the water(!). Not really knowing what else to do, I simply said hi, trying to be cool and above it all, like it was no big thing. Whatevs. So she smiled and went on dodging the people idly staring at her both in and outside the pool. Eventually it was clear that swimming wasn't really going so well for her, so Lindsay was huddled away in a towel and I thought it was all over.

Later on, I stopped at the concession stand for a snack and there she was, trying to remain inconspicuous in line. I was right next to her. It was clear I could take one of two paths; I could tell her how great she was in the super popular movie she was in (that I'd actually never seen) and ask for her autograph, or I could pretend to be very cool and above it all (again) and say hi. I chose the latter, of course--not really acknowledging that it was a flagrant attempt to let her know I wasn't a crazed fan, that I was totally chill with her movie star lifestyle, and that we should definitely hang out. Her response was one of caution and restraint. It was clear she already knew all too well that she couldn't just trust or feel safe around any old person now that she was "known." She smiled politely again and actually said hello. For a second I thought maybe she'd say something else, like, 'hey want to go play?' or, you know, 'let's be best friends forever.' But she walked away instead, and all I could do was feel sorry for her.

I can't say it surprises me that a little girl who couldn't be herself and simply exist like every other kid her age would turn out to have some problems later on down the road. I'm not saying Ms. Lindsay gets to use that as an excuse for reckless behavior, but you'd have to be blind not to see the connections between the her past and present. As much as we have a choice to determine our own destiny, you have to wonder how much of a chance Lindsay really had to be "normal." In addition to her extensive family issues, which have been aired out so publicly it's abysmal, I have to admit that we, the viewing fan-crazed public, didn't help her out much either. Even as a child I could see that everyone wanted something from Lindsay--including me--and she couldn't build anything genuine for herself once she became the exhibit in a celebrity zoo. Even though I think it's irritating for very successful people, a la Kristen Stewart, to complain about the life-sucking vortex of being famous, I sympathize with this Lohan girl. Yes, she could have gotten out and stopped working for good (she did take a break and attempt to go to public high school), but it seems that fickle friend fame is also lucrative, and addictive. It's not hard to imagine why someone would take another movie role (like Mean Girls!) if it's offered to them. It all seems a bit sad and twisted, and in a very insignificant and minuscule way, I was part of it.

So that's my Lilo story. Perhaps it was telling, and perhaps not, but I remember it to this day, and it seems to have made quite the impression on me. Good luck in the slammer Linds, I hope you can say hi and make some friends for once.

everything anywhere will kill you at any time

Deceit! Lies!! Fear mongering!!! LOUD NOISES!!!!

Apparently popular blog writers everywhere are taking a dump in a bag, handing it to us, and calling it critical social commentary, and sometimes, journalism. Why? Page views! [read: money] People want to turn a profit by igniting our pavlovian response to click away like jackrabbits. How? By making relatively mundane events or total non-issues into irrational, conspiratorially crafted pieces of yellow journalism, stoking the rage of the people like hot coals.

This piece of sage-like wisdom comes to us from none other than Emily Gould on Slate.com, in which said blogger rips a blog she has recently written for about skewing it's pro-feminist content to both annoying and needlessly reactionary effect to get more hits. In her post, Gould responds to Irin Carmon's Jezebel piece on The Daily Show and it's evil he-man woman haters club. In full discretion, I actually agree with Ms. Gould that the argument of the post was sloppily strung together and it's point poorly (and stupidly) made. But Gould goes further than that. She tears into Jezebel for amping up the tenor of their posts to get a rise out of readers, and in doing so, scrape the profit barrel with more page views, as Jezebel writers' jobs depend on readership. And all the while, Jezebel touts itself as a subversive force against corporate media- it's apparent basis for existing is a penchant for analyzing the practices of TV, mags, and movies in the way they portray and deal with women and their lady issues. Besides the fact that Emily Gould may have her own reasons to burn bridges at Jezebel, she fails to see the connection between Jezebel and nearly every blog out there, including all of the ones she will ever write for; they all have an audience and will invariably garner their content to it.

Has Jezebel gone too far? Have they muscled past the pseudo-journalistic ethical boundaries of a high-traffic site to manipulate the unassuming masses? To argue the journalistic ethics of pop culture commentary via blogs is as useless as making Lindsay Lohan wear an alcohol detection bracelet. If bloggers want to get boozey and wonk-eyed, they're going to do it. Who's to stop them?! And if Gould wants to criticize one site, she is, in effect, criticizing all. Whether considered a news aggregate or not, blogs can appear to hold themselves to a journalistic standard, but in the internet age, almost nothing is sacrosanct. Consider the recent slew of pieces on The Daily Beast letting you know that everything you eat will kill you, even salads! (Burgers will also kill you.) You're welcome.

It seems as if Gould may just be pissed about how much attention Irin Carmon's basically useless, half-baked post got. Jon Stewart got so jazzed up he mentioned it on air, and the female staff members wrote a scathingly funny response. Dear god it's in the Times!

If anything, I call this luck rather than a hostile takeover of media attention. Lots of stupid things get noticed on the internet and end up on the news. Welcome to the way we live now. But the main thing that's being overlooked here is not merely the fact the Gould is feeding off of and perpetuating chatter about Carmon's post, but that she neglects the reality that there are people capable of rational thought clicking on the other side of the screen.

Yellow journalism is not a new concept in American media, nor will accusations of it fail to plague "serious news outlets" trying to stay afloat in the "digital age." But just as Jon Stewart serves up fake news, blogs are free to bust out fake journalism, or as most would designate it, opinion and editorial content, with abandon. The true editors of online content will be the readers. If they get fed up with the content of Jezebel, or any site, that overreaches into the abyss of stupid and irritating content too often, it will eventually fade into irrelevancy. Sometimes this may be difficult to believe, maybe because Perezhilton.com is, inconceivably, still a "relevant" website. But everyone's day will come. The loudest voices may turn heads, but they are the first to burn out. The female Daily Show staffers' response to the Jezebel post makes Carmon's viewpoint look fairly idiotic. Thus, the ship seems to have righted itself from it's listing course on this one. But when the 24 hour news cycle or other newsmedia picks up a bag of turd like this and calls it news, it's on them, and we should hold those outlets accountable for that. Yay internet democracy! [Drew Curtis of Fark.com would fight me on that one]

In the meantime, everyone has to make a living, even people writing on blogs...even Emily Gould! So we're free to keep trying to make inane points and silly conversations matter to someone, anyone, anywhere, at any time. Like right now. Too bad I don't get paid for it...