sometimes, these updates occur when our humble narrator (that would be me) is incredibly tired after what can only be described as “a hard day of pushing all those pencils around,” and then proceeds to do the following: come home, pass out somewhere randomly, wake up late, decide to write a probably overdue update at four in the morning.
now, if the update is excellent, hey, it seems that this system works, right? but if it’s not… well… maybe we should just see where this one goes?
almost 11% of the proceeds from whatever the hell it is Kim Kardashian is doing here will go towards something other than making the Kardashians richer
when celebs auction their stuff for charity, they often keep most of the profits
honestly, i assume the average celebrity not named Bill Murray or Geoffrey Holder is a terrible person, which may be unfair to the one or two of them who are NOT raging assholes, but is probably correct 99.4% of the time. that said, i DON’T assume they’re all lying con artists using charity (or, more accurately, “charity”) as a means to enrich themselves, but maybe i should:
“Many times the public assumes that all the proceeds go to charity and not the celebrity,” Glenn Selig, President/CEO of Selig Multimedia, told FOX411â€™s Pop Tarts column. “But that is often not the case. The public should never assume that 100 percent goes to charity.”
now, okay, i am willing to accept the notion that charity DOES require something to reimburse the celebrity for the amount of money they have to pay that assistant to drive the bag of discarded property over to wherever the charity operates. i suspect, however, that this will get a lot worse than “we had to spend a small percentage of the income on administrative costs.”
“Exhibit A: Kim Kardashian. Kim, who has an estimated net worth of $35 million, has been auctioning off her personal goodies via eBay Giving Works for several years, even before she was a well-known reality star. Her auctions are promoted with the tagline “Charity Auction Supporting the Dream Foundation.” “My dad passed away from cancer so the funds go towards granting wishes for terminally ill adults,” Kardashian told Pop Tarts regarding one of her auctions back in 2009. … So how much of the proceeds from these sales will go to Kim’s charity? Ten percent — the minimum required by eBay’s “Giving Works” arm. The percentage is stated below each auction item, and Kardashian acknowledged the 10 percent figure while promoting the event on her blog.”
alright, so i am not sure which of these is worst:
A. giving the absolutely MINIMUM required by the charity, when you could probably do slightly better in terms of the actual charity (let’s say you give away a mere 25%) and STILL reap the benefits of the PR boost and the secret “charity” profits;
B. mentioning your father died of cancer as part of your justification for charity works (because we all know a rich person can’t give to charity without a sad narrative) WHILE giving the absolute minimum and/or making more of the money than the charity does;
C. that this would even occur with someone who has a net worth of 35 MILLION DOLLARS.
however, the correct answer is D: Kim Kardashian’s continued fame and/or existence. but wait, wait, there’s bound to be a defense:
“Kardashian has given more on some occasions. She put herself up for auction last year – offering the opportunity to attend her Las Vegas birthday bash, in which the “winner and guest will get to skip the line and be escorted in to the VIP room where they will get 5 minutes to wish Kim a happy birthday, take photos, and have up to 2 items signed.” The starting bid was $5,000 and it was listed that “25 percent of the sale price will benefit the Dream Foundation.””
sorry, but all this does is highlight the fact that one, you COULD give more regularly, but consciously choose not to, and two, that at best, someone worth 35 million dollars is going to give a charity $1250 while pocketing $3750 … for five minutes of their time in which you can wish THEM a happy birthday. it’s a solid racket, i admit. i only wish MY ass was so attractive that i could make this kind of money.
“A source close to the Kardashian family insisted that Kim and her sisters are and always have been very charitable in many areas, and that the majority of the items they put up for auctions aren’t things they were given, but things they purchased personally. “They strongly believe that every little bit counts and there have been many instances where they have privately donated the whole sum of an earning to a charity, and they would like to continue to do some of these things privately,” the insider said.”
so, in other words, you’ll publicly admit the very minimal charity donations you HAVE to get while claiming secret generous ones that don’t have to meet any degree of verification? sure, that seems 100% true. and telling me it wasn’t a gift, but something you purchased yourself says what, that you’ve got to make some money back on that $1000 purse you bought, or it’s not worth your time to donate to charity? garbage.
but maybe this is just what everyone does?
“On the other end of the spectrum, however, are several stars who give 100 percent of auction proceeds to charity. Last year Sienna Miller auctioned off items … with 100 percent of the proceeds benefitting International Medical Corps … In 2010, Miley Cyrus opened up her closet of clothes and accessories to the public via eBay, donating all the proceeds to Get Your Good On … In 2009, several items were auctioned off from the Collection of Barbra Streisand via Julien’s Auctions, in which all proceeds went to the Streisand Foundation, founded more than two decades ago by Streisand to aid humanitarian causes worldwide. Rocker Steven Tyler, too, cleared out his wardrobe, giving all proceeds to MusiCares and the Musicians Assistance Program (MAP)…”
and i fucking HATE Barbra Streisand. this list goes on to include Charlie Sheen, Nick Cannon, Bette Midler and the Edge, some of whom are terrible people (Nick Cannon, i’m looking at you). now some of them might be worth more than a mere 35 million dollars, but on the other hand, i think they might actually understand the point of charity?
“I would suggest consumers not assume that celebrities are being completely selfless,” Selig said. “They should find out the financial arrangement for a cause marketing project and then decide whether to support it.” Steven Yamin, founder of the Conscience Entertainment Group, a Los Angeles-based philanthropic public relations firm, thinks that as long as intentions are clearly stated, every little bit counts. “Often, the awareness creates more value than the proceeds from an auction,” he said.”
true, the “awareness” is a good thing … but it’s also because the awareness is supposed to encourage ADDITIONAL donations… and wouldn’t the awareness still be occurring if the celebrities in question donated more than the absolutely minimum? exactly. and let’s not fall all over ourselves excusing it because we shouldn’t assume “celebrities are being completely selfless”: we never did. they benefit from the PR of being famous charitable people. it gets them good press and helps them network. the trade-off, though, is that they “earn” this by actually giving away money and time.
“In the case of the Kardashian clan, the family has auctioned off hundreds of items over the years, including some very high-priced personal goods including Rob Kardashian’s Range Rover and sister Kourtney’s Maserati. So even with just 10 to 15 percent donations on a regular basis, they may have raised more money than those who donate all their profits. Kim Kardashian also has a 100 percent feedback rating; so, if anything, she doesn’t let down her buyers.”
yes, i am sure that if Kourtney Kardashian auctioned off a Maserati and gave 10% of the proceeds to charity, then she gave more to charity than i did last year just from that alone. on the other hand, i didn’t sell something i own on eBay, pocket 90% of the profits and then pat myself on the back… and i’m also pretty sure i’m not worth millions of dollars.
perhaps the sad, rant-inducing part of the whole matter is really this: Americans are a very charitable people. it’s one of the best things about them. so to see our celebrities (or “celebrities,” even) portraying themselves as doing what millions and millions of us do –give away our money and/or time to help those who need it– while secretly just mostly making money from it is a little sad. maybe more than a little sad? it’s a good thing i stopped believing in anything in anything good about life years ago!
Mark Wahlberg, immediately before fighting ALL THAT TERROR
Mark Wahlberg comments about fighting back on 9/11 plane, apologizes for comments about fighting back on 9/11 plane
i could largely boil this down to “every time i remember that Wahlberg has been virulently anti-gun, i kind of hope he dies in a fire and thus post accordingly on the internet,” but let’s pretend it’s just random mockery:
On being scheduled to be on one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center
“If I was on that plane with my kids, it wouldn’t have went down like it did. There would have been a lot of blood in that first-class cabin and then me saying, ‘OK, we’re going to land somewhere safely, don’t worry.'”
first off, this is ALWAYS big talk. even if the person in question would actively fight back –and a lot of people would, especially these days– the statement is still something easy to throw out there when you’re NOT in that situation. second, it overlooks the fact that for generations, everyone was told and told and told again NOT to fight back in that situation, which is seen in the fact that the passengers on Flight 93 fought back AFTER they learned that it was less a hijacking and more a suicide mission. this is not to downplay what they did, but it’s worth noting that even they might not have fought back had they not known.
but i digress slightly; in Wahlberg’s case, they was immediate outcry, resulting in this:
“Mark Wahlberg has issued a statement apologizing for his comments: “To speculate about such a situation is ridiculous to begin with, and to suggest I would have done anything differently than the passengers on that plane was irresponsible. I deeply apologize to the families of the victims that my answer came off as insensitive, it was certainly not my intention.””
…which is clearly a bullshit apology, because if we break it done, it’s incredibly lame.
“To speculate about such a situation is ridiculous to begin with”: well, no, it’s not. speculating about random situations is just something that people do; i’m sure many (if not most) Americans speculated about what they would have done in the same situation, if only in the context of “hey, what if this happened again, and i was on the plane?”
plus, am i supposed to believe he’ll never speculate about anything not mundane again? because i don’t.
“-and to suggest I would have done anything differently than the passengers on that plane was irresponsible”: well, maybe, and it’s clearly not worded in the kindest of ways, but i’m going to go ahead and slightly defend the position. do i know people who say, with a straight face, that if they’d have been on one of the planes that crashed into a 9/11 target, they’d have tried to fight back? yes. do i believe them? yes. now, they don’t make themselves sound like big men compared to the people who died, and they generally allow that, yeah, they wouldn’t have easily killed all the hijackers and got the plane landed safely… but the sentiment of “fuck it, i would have TRIED” is still sincere.
however, once you back down to “this was irresponsible,” then i can’t give you credit for being sincere. so there’s also that.
“I deeply apologize to the families of the victims that my answer came off as insensitive, it was certainly not my intention”: fact. he just wanted to sound like a tough guy.
and the REAL question not being asked is this: where the hell did this question come from? was it just a random question? did it spring from another remark? the world may never know.
okay, let’s not be so serious as we close this out:
finally: AN ACTUAL PICTURE OF A GHOST
man says ghost beat his wife?
first off, i LOVE the fact that they threw a question mark into the title of the story, as if there’s a question about what actually happened here. one, the “ghost beat my wife” is clearly a fictional story, so we know it didn’t happen, and two, GHOSTS ARE NOT REAL. the movie Ghostbusters was not real. the movie Ghost was not real. but again, even if you want to argue this point –i mean, i grant that Patrick Swayze died, i just don’t think he’s solving crimes from beyond the grave– we can agree in this particular case there was no ghost, right? here we go!
“A Wisconsin man accused of beating his wife is saying that a ghost did it. Police in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin arrested Michael West, 41, after responding to a domestic disturbance on the night of Jan. 15 … West’s wife Rebecca was “crying very hard and was bleeding out of her nose” when cops arrived at the scene, according to the complaint.”
first off, let’s get this right out of the way: Wisconsin is the most Communist state in America. also, for some reason, there will actually be no mention of alcohol and/or a dog named Skeeter in this story. usually, when some redneck (and yes, they have rednecks in Wisconsin) flips out on his wife, someone’s drunk… but not this time. disappointment reigns!
“She told police her husband punched her in the face several times and strangled her until her vision went black after an argument about financial issues. When police asked Michael West what happened, he said his wife had fallen several times, injuring her face.”
as sad as this sounds, at least he went to the default, technically possible story first: i didn’t beat my wife, she just fell repeatedly onto my fists! luckily for comedy on the internet, he did not stick with this story long:
“When police asked about the marks on her neck, West changed his story. “A ghost did it,” he said, according to the complaint. Cops said West cursed and tried to resist as they arrested him.”
a ghost did it! i’m actually reminded of, of all things, a very-long-ago-and-presumably-no-longer-online house of hate update wherein Saddam Hussein was quoted as blaming everything bad in Iraq on nameless “thieves.” i doubt anyone but me remembers this, but there we are.
but the real problem remains: we know he beat his wife, we know he cursed and fought the cops, we know he seriously claimed that his wife’s injures were caused by the apparition of a deceased person who, i suppose, really dislikes his wife. from this, scientists worldwide can determine one thing with certainty: this man was filled with alcohol. why was this not in the article, Roque Planas? also, Roque Planas, why is your name 100% awesome?