|
2003-06-07 Does anyone else find it extremely unsettling that R. Kelly named his most recent album "Chocolate Factory"? I realize this is hardly fresh news; however, last night I was pondering a certain idiotic debate tactic: namely, when a person counters an attack on a political party or candidate by accusing the opposing party or candidate of the same crime. And I suddenly remembered watching a news segment during the R. Kelly trial that showed a woman standing outside the courtroom and holding up a sign that read: What About The Priests? I found this bizarre. Did she mean A) R. Kelly is allowed to molest children because a number of priests have done so, or 2) the law should be concentrating its efforts on corrupt priests instead of morally dubious celebrities? The point is, no one should have left Willy Wonka alone with those children. The sight of a heavy-lidded Gene Wilder stroking the silken head of a boy while the chocolate river slithered past them was enough to put me off sploshing for life. It bothers me that R. Kelly is rich. And I am by no means principled about the ways my sugar daddies choose to fatten their coffers. For instance, it does not bother me that Snoop Dogg is rich because he made "izzle" a suffix. That was brilliant. However, it does bother me when people like Jamie Lee Curtis, who are already rich, attempt to become richer by writing children's books with titles like "I Can Tweak My Nipple" and "The Leaves Are Falling; It's Time for Grandfather to Die".
|
