The staggering genius of Hollywood stars

A little while ago, Brad Pitt made headlines when he announced that he would not marry Angelina Jolie until gay marriage was legal in the US. Many bloggers commented on the stupefying brilliance of Pitt's statement, which simultaneously enables him to a) continue sleeping with Jolie, b) avoid getting hitched, and c) maintain the moral high ground. One of Pitt's admirers, the blogger known as Ace of Spades, even came up with a helpful list of other high-minded excuses for questionable male behavior, including:

10. "I cannot do a dish-washing until all minefields are cleared for the world's children."

5. "Watching TBS' Shark Week for thirty three hours nonstop is my silent protest against CIA defoliant operations against South American coca farmers."

3. "If I give you the television remote, then the terrorists have won."

One AOS commenter pointed out that Pitt might have an additional reason to shy clear of matrimony with Jolie, beyond the normal male aversion to commitment - namely, that Jolie is "crazy as a bag full of ferrets on crack." Another trenchantly observed,  "This is the chick who used to wear blood around her neck, who nearly made out with her brother, and has adopted half of the world's ugliest children.... Seriously, if I'm Pitt, I'd be frightened of this woman. This may be the most creative way yet of chewing his paw out of the coyote trap."

No matter how you look at it, Pitt's move was a master stroke. But now comes word that George Clooney has one-upped his Ocean's Eleven and Ocean's Twelve costar.

According to USA Today, Clooney has developed a foolproof plan for defeating the paparazzi.

"Here is my theory on debunking photographs in magazines, you know, the paparazzi photographs," Clooney says in the November issue of Vanity Fair, on newsstands Oct. 10. "I want to spend every single night for three months going out with a different famous actress. You know, Halle Berry one night, Salma Hayek the next, and then walk on the beach holding hands with Leonardo DiCaprio.

"People would still buy the magazines, they'd still buy the pictures, but they would always go, 'I don't know if these guys were putting us on or not.'"

Now, this, you have to admit, is sheer, unadulterated genius. Not because it would damage the paparazzi, but because on the pretext of fighting tabloids, Clooney gets to go out with "a different famous actress" every night for three months. That's 90 dates in a row with some of the most beautiful and glamorous, albeit narcissistic and emotionally unstable, women in the world. It's a veritable cornucopia of erotic delights!

Admittedly, I'm not sure what Leonardo DiCaprio is doing on the roster, or how he feels about being called a famous actress. I mean, he's not really that famous.

Anyway, the beauty part of this plan is that instead of being condemned as a slick manipulator, a love-'em-and-leave-'em con artist, a jaded  lothario, Clooney will actually be admired for his behavior. Admired not only by the public and his colleagues, but by the women themselves, who will be happy to know that they are only one-night stands, with no commitments, no strings attached, and that whatever they do for or with Clooney is merely their personal contribution to the cause of celebrity privacy. 

But only when we put the two stars' statements together do we see the true scope of their awe-inspiring intellects. Because what we then have is a working formula for the ULTIMATE MALE FANTASY, in which a guy can date all the beautiful woman he wants, night after night after night, and never have to marry any of them, with no adverse consequences to his reputation or image.

Like most people, I had always assumed that Hollywood stars are mostly idiots.

I stand corrected.

Lost in translation

Exciting news! The new TV Guide is here! And it features an article on ABC's new dramatic series Brothers & Sisters, widely rumored to be a "troubled" production. One actress has already been replaced, while another - star Calista Flockhart - is said to have less than a full-season contract.

To clear up the confusion, TV Guide sat down for an interview with producer Jon Robin Baitz and incoming creative consultant Greg Berlanti.

Unfortunately, the interview is conducted in Hollywoodspeak, a language in which not everyone is fluent. As a public service for the cynicism-impaired, I will translate the dialogue into standard English.

Q: Why did executive producer Marti Noxon leave the show?

Baitz: We saw the emotional temperature of the show differently.

Translation: I hate Marti and I want her to die.

Baitz: Not better or worse, just very differently ...

Translation: I was right, she was wrong.

Baitz: ... and it just got messy.

Translation: If you consider knife fights messy.

Berlanti: Marriages on television either work or don't. For whatever reason, [this one was] just more reported on.

Translation: I've taken out a restraining order against Noxon. If she comes within fifty yards of me, that bitch is going to jail.

Q: Why haven't we seen the pilot yet?

Baitz: It's not shame and worry.

Translation: It is shame and worry.

Baitz: Recasting [one role] changed the chemistry and the makeup of it. We just finished editing.

Translation: This thing is a train wreck. We've reshot and recut it a hundred times, and it still doesn't work. I'm popping Xanaxes like sugar pills. I'm scared all the time.

Berlanti: It's in incredible, incredible shape.

Translation: If I say "incredible" twice, does it sound more believable? Maybe not. I'd better add something else.

Berlanti: It really is.

Translation: Yeah, that oughtta sell it.

Berlanti: And I think it's going to be really reflected - hopefully, ultimately, in the numbers - but definitely in the product.

Translation: Our ratings are gonna come in behind those cheesy new telenovela series on MyNetwork. My gut churns constantly, and my shrink is charging me for overtime.

Q: Rumor has it that Calista's not actually signed on for the entire season. Care to dispel that?

Baitz: In absolutely no uncertain terms I can dispel it.

Translation: Calista really is signed on for the entire season, but she's floating the rumor that she isn't so she can line up other work.

Q: You've got a lot of strong personalities in the cast. How are they all getting along?

Translation: Your lead actors are a bunch of notorious bitches, drama queens, and divas. Has any of them anyone actually killed someone yet?

Baitz: They're all breathtakingly, clearheadedly sane, rational and shockingly matriarchal.

Translation: They are insane, irrational control freaks. How the hell does Harrison Ford put up with this crap?

Baitz: And they all love each other - and in the smart sense.

Translation: They hate each other and want each other to die.

Baitz: They've been through various hells in life ...

Translation: And this show is just the latest one.

Baitz: ... and know exactly how to make a grown-up thing work.

Translation: They have the emotional IQ of a spoiled toddler.

Baitz: And they respect each other.

Translation: CAT FIGHT!!!

Cavalcade of quotes

For a change of pace, and because I've been taking myself much too seriously of late, today's entry is ...

(DRUMROLL)

... the Top Five Negative Quotes about Michael Prescott!

I have scoured the Web for these choice comments. I do the Googling so you don't have to.

First, at position #5, a late entry:

A non-entity, a nobody, someone who is colossally ignorant, without debating skills ... just ignore him. He’s nothing. He’s a nobody. He’s a loser and a defeatist.

- Aussie afterlife aficiondo Victor Zammit, unhappy with my criticism of some seances he attended   

Next, straight from the "Loons" folder of my email account, and coming in strong at #4:

Your writing shows you up as the derivitive [sic] mental eunuch you are....  your predictable rubbish (that's your books by the way) is embarrassing. I can't believe you are even published. Maybe your crap is exciting or well written to a lonely 35 year old that still lives with his parents, but I actually find the fact that you are published, offensive.

-  deranged bookstore clerk emailing from Scotland    

At #3, an observation admirable for its pithiness:

What an utter idiot. Really - I quite despise him.

- socially challenged JREF participant commenting on my defense of replicability in psi experiments   

In the #2 position, we have a tie! Two comments from the same thread, posted by different participants:

The guy is either very stupid, or a bold [sic] faced liar. I didn't read much further into his essay.  All in all, it's a complete joke.

- militant Objectivist ticked off about my essay "Shrugging Off Ayn Rand"

And ...

If ever you want an example of a "brain-washed cultist". There's one. This Mr "Nobody liked me" is a complete social metaphysician- and a loser.

- another Randian pod person, contributing the closing comment in the above discussion

(DRUMROLL)

And the #1 negative quote is ...

I set out here to rebut the accusation by Michael Prescott, at
http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm. I spent some two hours gathering the material, made brief notes, and then realized that I was wasting far too much time picking off fleas.

- humbuggery expert James Randi, irritated at criticism of his book Flim-Flam

(Cue APPLAUSE, CHEERS, MUSIC.)

Thank you, thank you. And now for a special treat, two honorable mentions.

Honorable mention #1:

He [Prescott], and I'd guess Zammit as well, are on about a high-school level of emotional control.... Prescott could have taken the high-road but instead comes off really spiteful and weird.

- Near-death and the Afterlife Bulletin Board participant and amateur psychologist unimpressed with my satirical efforts

Honorable mention #2

I corresponded with Prescott directly by e-mail yesterday.  He was cordial, polite, and well-spoken.  But he did continue to defend his belief in spsychic [sic] phenomena, citing me to several sources where it had been demonstrated "scientifically." I wrote back that there existed no such proof, and that the Rhine studues [sic] had been the best they had until they were discredited.  And where are the schools, the academic disciplines, the repeated demonstrations in laboratories?  Therefore, I refused to even check the sources he provided, as I consider the issue to not even possess the minimum level of evidence required for further enquiry.

- intellectually adventurous participant in above-mentioned Objectivist discussion of my "Shrugging" essay

I admit that the second honorable mention is not that negative about me personally, but it is such a good example of the mindset of the hardcore skeptic ("I refused to even check") that I felt it deserved to be included.

You've been a great crowd. Thank you again, and good night!

(APPLAUSE, THEME MUSIC, FADE OUT)