Jennifer Aniston, Usher, Ruth Madoff

Jennifer is the new Goldie Hawn...in style for sure.

Jennifer is the new Goldie Hawn...in style for sure.

What do these three have in common you ask? Well, not much, besides the fact that they are in this weekend’s news. And when I say in the news, I say that with maximum sarcasm. Jennifer Aniston was honored by some Women in Film Crystal Award or some such nonsense, because her films are so deep and meaningful. At least the redeeming quality of Jennifer is that she can finally poke fun at herself about the joke that is her love life. In her acceptance speech earlier this week, she said, “I have a strange parallel with movies I was doing and my life off screen. First, it was The Good Girl…which evolved into Rumor Has It, followed by Derailed,” she said, perhaps making a quip about her marriage with Brad Pitt, who left her for Angelina Jolie. “Then there was The Breakup,” she continued…”If anyone has a movie called Everlasting Love With an Adult Stable Man, that would be great!” Aniston joked. “I’m at table six, and my agents are at table 12.” High time you got in on that joke, girl.

Usher and Tamkea...I mean...what?!?

Usher and Tamkea...I mean...what?!?

Usher is getting divorced. Excuse me, but I knew this before they got married. Why is this news? This romance or rather bromance…look at her, drag queen plenty…never had a chance. They had drama leading up to the uneventful marriage off the bat. He got her preggers (oy), she began acting like a witch, he tried breaking it off, then she got him in a full nelson, and scared the beJesus out of him and into marrying her. Well, in 2007, I knew then that this would not last. I am surprised they even managed to spit out another child. If I were him, I’d want to see a blood test taken to prove that it’s his kid. Yes, I said that, whatever, arrest me. These two had a chance of having a long lasting marriage, as I have going to the moon. Period.

This bag lady, Ruth Madoff, is the big story in The New York Times Style section.  I mean...what?!?

This bag lady, Ruth Madoff, is the big story in The New York Times Style section. I mean...what?!?

Ruth Madoff is the lead story in The New York Times Style Section. A few weeks ago I bashed the Times Style for doing stories that spoke nothing of style. I guess that fell on deaf ear, because falling out of style is by no means a style story. The Times is really sad. This week they did a piece on round glasses, and of all the images for reference they used, the obvious omission was a picture of the Grande Dame of The New York Times, Carrie Donovan. She was STYLE. Under her tutelage, the fashion section of the times was powerful and meaningful. Back to Ruth, the ganiff (thief in Yiddish). Duh…she is not welcome in stylish places like Pierre Michel hair salon, or the Amagansett florist, Flowers by Beth (who clearly is desperate for press here) or the Bella Blu eatery on the tony Upper East Side. Why is this the lead story again? Ruth being unwelcome in all her past circles is not only old news, but even a toddler could figure that out. I give up.

Do you agree about the Time Style Section?

Tagged:You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

3 Responses to “Jennifer Aniston, Usher, Ruth Madoff”

  1. Irene Dakota says:

    Is there really nothing better to write about than to take up 2 pages with Ruth Madoff. Please!!!!!! I just turned on my computer to see if this was going to be your blog today.

  2. eleonora says:

    With the current crisis and the drop in readership, I think the NY Times ought to completely drop their so-called Style section. They write about such obvious subjects!

  3. Shahrazad says:

    I might agree that this wasn't the best style section piece ever written. I enjoyed the content. What was jarring to me, however, was the its placement within the style section. It seemed as if it could have gone some place else. Perhaps the times is trying to change its "approach" to that type of news. Regardless, in this day, the entire thing strikes one as a bit superfluous.

Leave a Reply to Irene Dakota