I know I'm not adhering to the immediacy of blog temporality by commenting on events of a few days or even weeks ago. But I feel that I owe some substance to those of you who continue patiently to click on this pathetic excuse for a blog, hoping that someday I will return to my penetrating yet witty yet sentimental when necessary self.
So let's talk about how Tom DeLay is like Kate Moss.
Not intuitive, is it?
He's American; she's British. He's ugly; she's not (or so people seem to think--as you may remember, she's not my cup of English Breakfast). He goes to Scotland with Jack Abramoff; she goes to Glastonbury with Pete Doherty. But they are both, at the moment, vehicles for the absurd hypocrisy of contemporary culture.
Don't get me wrong, I think Tom DeLay sucks. A lot. And I don't really care one way or another about Kate Moss. But let's face it, everyone in electoral politics does everything they can to get around campaign spending regulations, even if they support them. Why do you think Emily's List bundles checks? And are the DCCC and the DNC any financially cleaner than the RCCC and the RNC?
Um, no.
Then there's Kate. The heroin chic, rock star girlfriend model (I can't say she's the original, because that would be slighting Anita and Marianne, but at the moment she's certainly the paragon). What?! She does coke?! No! My illusions are smashed!
Not.
Who care that Kate does drugs? She's a consenting adult. If she's neglecting her child--and we have no evidence thereof--I'm sure the kid is no more neglected than any other offspring of wealth left most of the time with the nanny.
OK, so campaign finance shenanigans have significantly broader consequences than a few lines of coke in a recording studio, and my parallel does not hold much water. But my point is that this holier-than-thou need to scapegoat one exemplar for what everyone does is...well, it's lame. And actually maybe my parallel does hold, for in heaping opprobrium upon both Tom and Kate, we are implying that the flaw in each is individual: personal wrongdoing. In fact, however, the difference between them is that Tom's real faults are emblematic of a particular Republican ethos that has wreaked havoc within our government, while Kate's just a girl who wants to have fun.
There, politics and celebrity gossip all rolled into one. I feel like myself again.
[And I know this should have links, but I'm just not up to that.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
No, the conclusion is backward. Kate is emplematic of the declining stage of post-monopoly capitalism that objectifies the individuals who serve no purpose other than to symbolize materialism in its purest form: the model as pure symbol divorced from persona or intention. Tom is just trying to win a few seats in the house for his homies.
That's not all Tom is trying to do ... frightening individual, he is. But not much more frightening than so many others of his ilk.
heh, I thought you were going to write about the Cruise duo, as well.
but I second your every word.
Post a Comment