I never get the John Mayer hate on this website. Is it because he dates pretty famous women? And therefore he must be a misogynist? Because you know, SO many relationships, and the women are all SO pretty?
I've never read anything about him cheating or being cruel to women. If anything, I saw a TMZ interview where he like defended Jennifer Aniston post-breakup and told them he wasn't gonna shit talk her.
I think he's pretty funny, he's a self-deprecating smart-ass. Anyone see the John Mayer Show? And the man has mastered the art of Twitter. Maybe sometimes his comments are about women or sex? Is that the reason for hate? If so, I'd say lighten up, because I've never seen an interview or tweet from him where he made a joke that offended me.
I say all this... and I'm not even a fan. Ha, I think he is a talented guitarist who writes lame sell-out songs, I just don't think he's a misogynist! And sincerely don't get why Jezebel does?
@cait98: I don't get it either. I liked him back in the day (like, 7 years ago) when everyone else did, but now have little to no opinion. Liking him I get. Indifference to him I get. Outright rage does not compute.
@cait98: I love him. I think he's really hilarious and yes, he takes himself really seriously, but he's self-deprecating enough to make up for it.
I wish his newest album had been better, because his last had so much potential and he's really great live (when he's doing more guitar playing than singing lame lyrics).
@cait98: I'm actually pretty impressed that he's managed to do a host of completely insane things, and none of them have sunk him, or come even close. Highwire relationships, filterless fan communication, tv shows, that weird cruise, a constant stream of self-deprecation... Pretty much every one of those things should have gone awry and hobbled him, and yet here he is.
And I like his music and am unashamed to say it, s'there.
I wonder if this is a prelude to announcing that he is taking a permanent break from dating women and will instead date men as they are far less stressful.
Anna, I agree. I would love to take a break from John Mayer. You know what, while we are at it....I would also love to take a break from Tiger! Oh, and his mistresses. I think you started a revolution in my brain.
According to this link ([www.msnbc.msn.com]), there is no interview with Dugard.
"Dugard was not interviewed by the magazine, although people close to her spoke at length about her rehabilitation and that of her two daughters, Angel, 15, and Starlit, 11. Dugard and her daughters are recovering from their long ordeal at an undisclosed location in northern California; Jaycee’s mother, Terry Probyn, is with them.
The 10-page article is accompanied by many pictures of Dugard and her mother. Dugard’s daughters are shown only from the back.
TODAY’s Matt Lauer asked People’s managing editor, Larry Hackett, if the magazine paid for the photographs, which were taken by a private photographer engaged by the family."
This is going to sound a bit dark, but I'm curious as to how her photo today would match up with an age progression photo put out by the police. I'm always curious as to how accurate those things are.
@hortense: I was actually watching that when I was watching yesterday's oprah, about missing children. They focused on quite a few stories, some of which the child was only 2 or less when taken, back in the 80's. I wonder if those ones are at all accurate, when there's such a huge gap (a 2 year old to a 23 year old for example).
I'm really interested in reading this interview. She looks happy and well-adjusted in the picture, and I've heard good things about her reintegrating with society and her family, but I can't imagine there aren't any deep-seated psychological issues there. With all the isolation and abuse she suffered over 18 years, how can there not be? Hopefully her family won't take her smiling and saying she's okay as proof that she really is and gets her good treatment.
@FormerEnglishMajor: yes. And I'm fascinated that some lawyers choose to be court-appointed defenders. When faced with building a not-guilty case for these criminals, I suppose acting ability (what if he really hadn't murdered those people? Let's pretend...) must come in handy.
@ardentlilac: From what I've heard, for a lot of public defenders it isn't so much their first choice for a lot, it's a matter of finding a job and trying to stay afloat above their steep law school debts.
And for others, they do it for altruistic reasons-- to give a voice to those who can't afford their own representation in the criminal justice system (many of whom *are* innocent). Perhaps a legal Jezzie can clarify-- I was under the impression that as a PD you can't pick and choose your cases, and you need valid legal grounds (beyond just finding your defendant creepy) to be recused from a case?
@formergr: It's mostly the second reason, I think. Anyone who takes a job as a PD expecting to make a dent in their law school debts is pretty sorely mistaken!
But as a public defender the amount of cases like Garrido's are a reeeally small percentage. The majority of cases aren't this notorious or out there.
@formergr: Yeah, PD's aren't that well-paid, although the nice trade-off with a government job is that you get more of a "regular" schedule than a corporate or private attorney.
When I was in law school (I have the degree but chose not to pursue a career in the field), I took a course taught by three appellate defenders. One said that he went into it because "9 out of 10 are guilty, but I do it for the one who isn't."
Sorry to be OT. Jaycee looks lovely and I hope she is recovering well.
@maybeimamazed02: @ardentlilac: I just feel for Jaycee having to deal with a trial. The guy is guilty. Cop your damn plea, you've done enough to her, and serve your time. He was sane enough to keep her hidden and tell her daughters that she was their sister - he knew what he was doing. Putting Jaycee on the witness stand is inhumane. I don't see why the PD's job is to get the defendant to say "not guilty" and go to trial, rather than - look man, no jury is going to have sympathy for you.
@Cher_Horowitz: I feel the same way, but then I consider the other options. If they chose not to do this, you just know somewhere like TMZ would be paying much more for a shot of her going into a courthouse. At least this way it's on her own terms. I'm glad she looks healthy.
@Adah: True, but I think this is one of those situations where there really should be no media circus until she's had some serious time to begin to address what she went through. But you're right - at least this seems to be on her own terms.
@Cher_Horowitz: Agreed. In a situation where she has been the victim, this is a way for her to re-assert some control over how her story is being told. Better to release an image of her smiling and radiant in a picture taken from the privacy of her own home than to have photographers scrambling to get the "first" picture, in which she's stressed/scared/vulnerable.
It's sad that she even has to deal with this after all she's been through, but it seems that she's getting some good PR advice so she can continue to privately seek the help and support she needs.
Dodai: InTouch, along with gossip websites, and the public are the ultimate winners. Mags and websites provide a service that people want. If folks weren't interested, we wouldn't have the mags or the Perez's.
Hell, even people who claim to be above the fray or "to have never watched an episode of (fill in the blank) show" feel the need to comment in Jezebel's mid-week round-up.
@That-Dude: It's totally not that simple and I hate that excuse that comes from tabloid-peddlers and paparazzi that they are just "giving the people what they want." Sure, they are fulfilling a voracious need for this gossip but I think the tabloids play a role in creating that very demand. It's a vicious cycle where both sides play their part in sustaining this culture of voyeurism and schadenfreude. The paparazzi seem to take an entirely amoral approach to the whole deal, asserting that they are just providing a neutral service, when in fact they could have the moral stones to not participate in such a damaging industry. But they want to get rich with the "money shot," so they participate in what amounts to legalized stalking. Celebrities themselves participate in cultivating demand through their publicists and carefully-orchestrated media appearances and information leaks. Tabloid editors create salacious stories that appeal to the lowest-common denominator. And the public eats it up, providing further incentive for the tabloid media to continue the vicious cycle. Meanwhile, real lives are ruined as a result.
@Cerridwen: Meanwhile, real lives are ruined as a result.
. . . please explain.
Sure the tabloids are complicit, but its their business model. If documentaries about classical artists in magazine form were huge sellers, they would move to that model, but its hard to knock them for doing what it takes to get by.
If everyone is somehow "in" on the cycle, as you make it seem, what's the issue?
@That-Dude: I don't think you can argue legitimately that real people are not impacted negatively by the intensity of current celebrity culture. Case in point: Britney Spears. A host of factors went into her breakdown but I think it's fairly obvious that her mental instability was voraciously exploited and consumed by both the tabloid media and the public. Are you really arguing that is a morally-neutral thing to do? I think the Gosselin family is another interesting example. Yes, they made a deal with the devil for fame but would they have made such a deal if that option wasn't available to them? Now their children have been publicly exploited because of the celebrity machine.
Just because it is their business model does not make it ok and morally benign. Is Nike blameless because it utilizes a business model that includes sweat labour just so it can make a fuckload of money off a public that is willing to buy luxury goods without questioning where they come from and the larger impact?
Even if everyone is "in" on it, I still believe it's contributing to a culture in which people seem willing to do anything, sacrifice anyone, or degrade themselves publicly to be famous. It encourgaes vapidity, solidifies negtive stereotypes, unfairly punishes women...need I go on?
12/15/09
I've never read anything about him cheating or being cruel to women. If anything, I saw a TMZ interview where he like defended Jennifer Aniston post-breakup and told them he wasn't gonna shit talk her.
I think he's pretty funny, he's a self-deprecating smart-ass. Anyone see the John Mayer Show? And the man has mastered the art of Twitter. Maybe sometimes his comments are about women or sex? Is that the reason for hate? If so, I'd say lighten up, because I've never seen an interview or tweet from him where he made a joke that offended me.
I say all this... and I'm not even a fan. Ha, I think he is a talented guitarist who writes lame sell-out songs, I just don't think he's a misogynist! And sincerely don't get why Jezebel does?
12/15/09
12/15/09
I wish his newest album had been better, because his last had so much potential and he's really great live (when he's doing more guitar playing than singing lame lyrics).
12/15/09
And I like his music and am unashamed to say it, s'there.
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
[nymag.com]
12/15/09
12/15/09
10/14/09
"Dugard was not interviewed by the magazine, although people close to her spoke at length about her rehabilitation and that of her two daughters, Angel, 15, and Starlit, 11. Dugard and her daughters are recovering from their long ordeal at an undisclosed location in northern California; Jaycee’s mother, Terry Probyn, is with them.
The 10-page article is accompanied by many pictures of Dugard and her mother. Dugard’s daughters are shown only from the back.
TODAY’s Matt Lauer asked People’s managing editor, Larry Hackett, if the magazine paid for the photographs, which were taken by a private photographer engaged by the family."
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
/shallow
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
And for others, they do it for altruistic reasons-- to give a voice to those who can't afford their own representation in the criminal justice system (many of whom *are* innocent). Perhaps a legal Jezzie can clarify-- I was under the impression that as a PD you can't pick and choose your cases, and you need valid legal grounds (beyond just finding your defendant creepy) to be recused from a case?
10/14/09
But as a public defender the amount of cases like Garrido's are a reeeally small percentage. The majority of cases aren't this notorious or out there.
10/14/09
When I was in law school (I have the degree but chose not to pursue a career in the field), I took a course taught by three appellate defenders. One said that he went into it because "9 out of 10 are guilty, but I do it for the one who isn't."
Sorry to be OT. Jaycee looks lovely and I hope she is recovering well.
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
It's sad that she even has to deal with this after all she's been through, but it seems that she's getting some good PR advice so she can continue to privately seek the help and support she needs.
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
Hell, even people who claim to be above the fray or "to have never watched an episode of (fill in the blank) show" feel the need to comment in Jezebel's mid-week round-up.
06/25/09
06/25/09
. . . please explain.
Sure the tabloids are complicit, but its their business model. If documentaries about classical artists in magazine form were huge sellers, they would move to that model, but its hard to knock them for doing what it takes to get by.
If everyone is somehow "in" on the cycle, as you make it seem, what's the issue?
06/25/09
Just because it is their business model does not make it ok and morally benign. Is Nike blameless because it utilizes a business model that includes sweat labour just so it can make a fuckload of money off a public that is willing to buy luxury goods without questioning where they come from and the larger impact?
Even if everyone is "in" on it, I still believe it's contributing to a culture in which people seem willing to do anything, sacrifice anyone, or degrade themselves publicly to be famous. It encourgaes vapidity, solidifies negtive stereotypes, unfairly punishes women...need I go on?