June 9, 2008, - 12:27 pm
It’s Hard Out There for a (Pseudo) Ho: Sarah Jessica Parker’s Guide to Ethics
By Debbie Schlussel
As I suspected would happen, the National Female IQ Test a/k/a “Sex and the City,” was a one-weekend wonder, as it sunk to fourth place this past weekend.
Still, it’s fun to watch the desperate Sarah Jessica Parker flailing around promoting this movie. And now she’s instructing the world on her own special brand of “ethics.” The woman who built her career on a show (and now, movie) glorifying high-style ho-dom, without batting an eyelash, has an interesting sense of what is ethical and what isn’t.
It seems Parker is upset that a gazillion-dollar designer gown she wore to the “Hags and the City” premiere was once worn by equally ho-ish but far more attractive Lindsay Lohan, in a fashion mag back in December and was also worn by an attractive heiress at a charity event. And now the world is over:
What they did was so short-sighted. It’s just unethical and disappointing that they would allow the dress to be worn again.
To sum up: Teaching the world’s 12-year-old girls about giving oral sex and the glories of sleeping around, on her syndicated SATC TV show–not “unethical and disappointing” or “short-sighted.” Two far more beautiful women wearing the same dress some time ago–completely “unethical and disappointing,” not to mention “short-sighted.”
Glad this one-note, over-rated movie starlet has her priorities straight.
As a friend of mine–a former Muslim who converted to Catholicism–writes:
“Unethical”..?! Humans starving, genocide, terrorism,and allowing illegal immigrants to stay is unethical. “Disappointing” is that people actually care about what this hag has to say. Silly that she gets that much attention because her whole act is about “putting out” and being a psuedo-whore.
As you’ll recall, back in late 2000, Parker told the Washington Post that she was worried about the Bush Presidency because her poor Ohio relatives on welfare would have their services cut. Not that she’d ever give her relatives a dime of her estimated $100 million empire (endorsement deals, perfume line, acting gig and syndication royalties, clothing line). But “Oh, No!” if the taxpayers stop funding them.
Yet more reinforcement of why Maxim Magazine picked SJP as its 2007 Unsexiest Woman Alive.
Well Debbie what did you expect. After the sexual revolution, immorality is a badge of honor and only backward people would dare deny them their right to get bent, spread disease, kill babies, lower their self-esteem, etc. But horror of all horrors wear something used. I am sure her poor relatives have never donned a hand me down.
Of course, she doesn’t want to help her relatives get off of welfare. As long as they are on welfare, they are slaves to the federal government and must vote for the party that provides for them in exchange for their servitude. As a member of the hollywood elite, she knows that she and all her virtous stars and starlets control this morally deprived party. They not the party leaders dictate what is important and politically correct in this country. If her relatives were to be weaned from the welfare teat, they might gain some sense of pride and accomplishment from fending for themselves and realize that the “evil” businessman is not out to get them. They might actually think for themselves instead of doing what Hollywood says they should do.
Ford Jones on June 9, 2008 at 2:36 pm