Will Smith hearts Hitler. Wait, what?

From the moral outrage department, movie star (and former Fresh Prince) Will Smith has apparently been taking flak for the last couple of days for a remark he made to a Scottish newspaper that Hitler "didn't wake up going, 'Let me do the most evil thing I can do today.' ... I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good.'"

As of Monday, the Jewish Defamation league, according to TMZ, was "calling on Barack Obama [whom Smith has publicly supported] to repudiate Smith's comments, and [wanted] theaters to pull Smith's new flick 'I Am Legend' from their screens," saying that his words, "spit on the memory of every person murdered by the Nazis. His disgusting words stick a knife in the backs of every veteran who fought (and sometimes died) to save the world from the intentions of Adolf Hitler." For his part, Smith subsequently tried to defuse the situation, issuing a statement that said, "It is an awful and disgusting lie. It speaks to the dangerous power of an ignorant person with a pen. I am incensed and infuriated to have to respond to such ludicrous misinterpretation. Adolf Hitler was a vile, heinous vicious killer responsible for one of the greatest acts of evil committed on this planet."

Seriously, guys? Are we really that sensitive today that you can't even mention Hitler except to denounce him? I think we're all in agreement here that the Holocaust was a travesty (minus a few crazies, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ron Paul), and I'm pretty sure that Will "Get Jiggy With It" Smith is not a neo-Nazi, so what exactly are we getting so riled up about? Frankly, while I don't necessarily agree with Smith's comments -- personally, I'm more inclined to believe that Hitler's rhetoric was a calculated effort to gain power through hatemongering (kind of like President Bush's...) -- I don't think that they are particularly radical. He didn't say that Hitler was a fun guy to be around, or that the Jews had it coming, he just said that the Nazis thought they were doing the right thing. And...?

Of course, I'm not entirely sure what business Will Smith -- star of "Wild Wild West" and "I, Robot" -- has waxing philosophical about Hitler's motivations, but I don't think he should be crucified for it, either. On the bright side, maybe this will finally teach celebrities not to act like they're experts on everything under the sun just because they read a script about WWII once, or teach the rest of the world not to listen to them if they're talking about anything besides how they did their own stunts (probably not, though, on both counts).

On a deeper level, I think we need, as a society, to be able to discuss historical events like the Holocaust without having to fear this kind of unmitigated backlash, because all this ideological bullying does is to alienate anyone with a different point of view from our own. I know that these are sensitive subjects for a lot of people, but freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution in order to facilitate debate in this country -- are we really choosing, of our own accord, to undermine that?

At least if Will Smith thought that people were "basically good" before this shitstorm, he's probably nice and cynical like the rest of us now. What would Uncle Phil say?

Sources:
Will Smith angry over Hitler comment interpretation [CNN]
Will Smith -- Hitler, Schmitler; He Wasn't That Bad [TMZ]
Smith: 'Hitler was a good person' [Yahoo News]

Dress LC in corduroy and denim

I saw my 9 year-old sister playing on this website today (needless to say, she was introduced to it by my 18 year-old sister) and it was so bizarre that I couldn't resist posting about it. The site is called Stardoll (www.stardoll.com) and it allows you to dress up your favorite celebrity/British royal like some sort of creepy, computer-generated paper doll. Stardoll (which you can view in like 15 different languages) claims to have over 400 personas to choose from, all of which are rendered with extraordinarily disturbing detail, from Britney Spears to Michelle Pfeiffer to Prince William. It also has a whole bunch of other features that I haven't really explored (yet), like the ability to create yourself as a doll and the ability to social network with your fellow Stardollers. There is also a shopping function where you can buy clothes and accessories DESIGNED BY HILLARY DUFF!!! The site accepts payment online by credit card, by phone or by text message.

I'm not really sure what to make of all this. On the one hand, this site more or less represents everything that is wrong with the world today: The celebrity worship, the exploitative capitalism, the unwavering focus on the superficial. On the other hand, it is kind of surreal and awesome. The fact that I can take a simulacrum of Lauren Conrad in her underwear and choose how to clothe her (or not clothe her) is crazy enough, but the fact that I can then make her go on a date with me to the Eiffel Tower is absolutely insane, in the best way possible (P.S. Lauren, if you're reading this, I will take you anywhere you want to go, baby...)

In fact, my only suggestion to Stardoll would be that, by gearing the site almost entirely to tweenage girls, they're missing out on a segment of the market with plenty of time and disposable income on their hands: Nerds. Why not spice things up a little? Throw some lingerie on the clothes rack. Add the ability to move the dolls into provocative poses. Allow users to anonymously communicate with 13 year-old girls who don't know any better. Oh, wait, they do that already. (P.S. Stardoll, your site is just begging to be overrun by weirdos. I would know.)

Ultimately, whether it's the teeny-bopper imagining herself as best friends with Ashley Tisdale and using her "emergency" credit card to buy that really cute imaginary skirt, or her pimply-faced brother spanking it to Hayden Panettiere in her panties, this thing has the potential to be good, clean, masturbatory fun for the whole family.

Zoey 101 got knocked up

So, the big news around the Internet this afternoon (when I awoke from my finals-induced coma) was that Britney Spears' 16 year-old sister and star of the hit Nickelodeon show "Zoey 101," Jamie Lynn Spears, is three months pregnant. Normally, I wouldn't blog about such a wildly unsurprising story but 1) I need to get back into my groove and 2) I promised my sister (consider this a thank you for being 18 and baby-less).

Look, I know that there are probably a lot of good jokes to be made here but I don't really have much to say about all this. The Spears family is super-fertile and kind of trashy, so saying that one of them is pregnant is kind of like saying that Lindsay Lohan fell off the wagon -- we all knew it was coming, it was only a matter of when. I know that Jamie Lynn is cute and seems nice enough and everyone was hoping that she would break the chain here and avoid becoming a train wreck but, let's be honest, you can't fight science. Ultimately, I guess it's sort of admirable that she's trying to do the right thing by keeping the baby, if you're into that sort of thing -- after all, she did meet her boyfriend at church (Jesus must be thrilled...) -- although, if it were my kid, the whole situation would have been taken care of faster than you can say "life begins at conception" (sorry, J-man).

In fact, it's pretty hard to feel bad for the Spears family when Jamie Lynn's mother, Lynne (incidentally, her father is named Jamie -- get it???) apparently brokered a $1 million deal with OK! Magazine, giving them exclusive rights to the story. I know that Jamie Lynn's career as the next Disney Channel star to make the foray into Hollywood super-stardom is probably over but, somehow, I think she's going to be okay. After all, if you're going to be 16 and pregnant, it helps to have $1 million in your pocket.

All in all, the story is kind of sad but, hey, that's what happens when you refuse to teach teenagers about the birds and the bees. I know that there are a lot of people in this country dead-set on occupying some moral high-ground, but the fact is that hormones are powerful and kids are stupid, and there's not much you can do about it. So, for all of the parents out there worried about the message this is sending to your children, by all means tell them that this girl made a mistake but don't neglect to tell them how not to make it. When the time comes (and it's coming sooner than you think), talk to your kids about sex, and then go vote Democrat so we can teach sexual education in the schools. Or, just lock them up until college. Either way.

And let's all keep our fingers crossed for Hannah Montana (at least until she turns 18 -- then she's fair game...)

Sources:
How do you talk to kids about Britney's sister? (CNN)
Jamie Lynn's $1 Million Paycheck and Dad's Pissed (Popsugar)
Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant (IDLYITW)

Brad Pitt is going to build you a house

While I was skimming through CNN.com this afternoon (it's my home page -- how impressed are you with me right now?), I couldn't help but notice this headline standing out from the rest of the "news" like a dashing diamond in the rough: Brad Pitt ponders quitting acting. In spite of myself, I couldn't resist -- to what, I wondered, might the handsomest man alive be devoting himself if not to acting? Producing? Directing? Spending more time with Angelina Jolie and their adopted African children (and that needy little bitch, Shiloh)?

Not exactly. It turns out that Brad -- ever the philanthropist since ditching his wife of five years -- plans to focus on rebuilding New Orleans by putting up "150 eco-friendly homes in the Louisiana city's Lower 9th Ward" with "the ultimate goal [being] to build eco-friendly homes throughout New Orleans and the Gulf Coast." According to CNN's interview -- in which the star of Meet Joe Black also has interesting things to say about the Katrina disaster ("it was a man-made failure"), the lack of a "concept of waste" in nature ("Anything that's discarded becomes fuel or becomes food for something else") and how he "leverages" his celebrity for good causes ("The press uses me, I use it") -- Pitt says that acting is a "younger man's game" and that "there's just other things I'd rather be doing."

Now, I'm torn, because on the one hand I think it's great that Brad Pitt is putting his money and his fame toward a good cause (you can learn more about his organization at www.makeitrightnola.org), but on the other hand, I'm kind of hesitant to give him a big pat on the back because he's doing some community service and installed solar panels on his mansion. What about all the people who don't command $10 million per film who were rebuilding homes in New Orleans while Brad Pitt was busy filming Ocean's 13? Why aren't they mentioned in this article?

I guess my problem isn't really so much with Brad Pitt as it is with the notion that celebrities deserve some special praise for being involved with something other than themselves. Because, frankly, I think that celebrities have an obligation to get involved in good causes. I know that Brad Pitt works hard and all, and that he has to put up with people sticking cameras in his face or whatever, but the guy is clearly kind of blessed to be where he is in life. Really, everyone should try to be involved in their communities, but celebrities like Brad Pitt are in a special position because they have more money than they need -- which they can use to help out and which means they can afford to take time off -- and people listen to them (although, I'm not entirely comfortable with the notion that we should care whom Oprah or Madonna endorses for president, but whatevs). For better or worse, movie stars and musicians are leaders of the world that we live in, and they (should) have a responsibility to use that power to make it a better place.

So cheers, Brad, for doing a genuinely good thing. But you'll forgive me if I don't pin the Medal of Freedom on you just yet.

Sources:
Pitt: Acting becoming 'less a focus' [CNN]

Reese Witherspoon = Higest-paid actress. Ryan Phillippe = Seriously bummed.

On Friday, Reese Witherspoon topped The Hollywood Reporter's annual list of highest-paid actresses with an asking price of $15-$20 million per movie. Despite the box-office failure of her most recent film, Rendition (which I didn't even realize had come out in theaters), the star of Legally Blonde 2: Red, White and Blonde beat out the likes of Angelina Jolie (who was 2nd on the list), Nicole Kidman (who was 4th) and Halle Berry (who was 10th). Somewhere, Ryan Phillippe could be heard banging his head against a wall (I know, dude -- we all thought you were going to be the famous one, too).

I like Reese Witherspoon -- I liked Cruel Intentions, I liked Walk the Line, I even liked Legally Blonde and, while I never saw Sweet Home Alabama, I'm sure she was really pretty in it. And I don't mean to pick on her because she's successful, but it seems to me that the ongoing writers' strike, which is currently keeping everyone's favorite shows off of the air, could be resolved very easily if, instead of getting paid $20 million a movie, Reese got paid $10 million. Or if the Desperate Housewives chicks got paid $340,000 an episode instead of $440,000, or if Jay Leno got paid $30 million a year instead of $40 million (actually, you know what? How about Jay Leno doesn't get paid anything until he starts being funny? We get it, people are uninformed and they give stupid answers to simple questions -- it was kind of cute the first 7,000 times but I think the novelty is starting to wear off there, Jay...) Hell, Oprah could single-handedly end the strike tomorrow! Not that they don't deserve all that cash but, you know, the less-attractive people who write all those clever things that come out of your favorite actor's mouth are fighting for an extra 4 cents per DVD sale or something. You do the math.

I know that I've said this before, but the astronomical amount of money that celebrities make is symptomatic of a culture that worships any kind of fame, for better or worse (usually worse). It's the reason why Britney Spears' shitty parenting is consistently a bigger story than the genocide in Darfur, and why so many people in this country can't point to Iraq on a map but can recite 50 Cent's "In Da Club" by heart. I don't want to make any value judgments here, but it seems like our priorities (and I'm certainly as guilty as anyone else) are out of whack.

There isn't an easy fix to all of this, but I do have a few suggestions: Next time you're on CNN.com and you see a story about Christina Aguilera pregnancy rumors, don't click on it. Next time you're watching the "news" and a story comes on about Paris Hilton's vagina, change the channel. And next time that really sexy actress you like makes yet another romantic comedy about finding yourself when your husband dies (and they had been together since high school!), take that $10 and go buy a book -- and not a novelization of Tranformers but a real, genuine book. Not only will you feel better about yourself, but you'll be a more attractive person.

Of course, if that movie happens to be Legally Blonde 3: Guantanamo Blonde, you can find me in line. After all, there's only so much you can ask...

Sources:
Sliding scale: Salaries of Hollywood's leading ladies [Hollywood Reporter]