The Oscars – what a pathetic group of people – Reese Witherspoon looks like she does coke

Holy shit does Reese Witherspoon look old! We don’t know how much coke she does or what amount, but she looked “withered”. This year, the Oscars are a pretty pathetic telecast – are we at the Senior Apartments Bingo again? Nope, this is the Oscars. Methinks I see better looking people at Starbucks pouring my coffee.

You know who would spice things up? Arnold Shwarzenegger. But, I think, he stopped going to these things a long time ago because he thinks they are lame. Michael Strahan? Is he still on that dental plan that can’t afford to fix his gaping tooth hole? He looks like one of those commercials for African relief. Sponsor him for only 30 cents a day and maybe he can get his teeth fixed.

Primary Oscar viewership has dwindled to senior homes where disabled people are watching it because they are in a wheelchair and can’t switch the channel. BORE.



Powered by Facebook Comments

2 thoughts on “The Oscars – what a pathetic group of people – Reese Witherspoon looks like she does coke

  1. dental savings says:

    I have learn some excellent stuff here. Certainly value
    bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how so much attempt you place to
    create this kind of wonderful informative web site.

  2. Rhafie says:

    I find it intriguing that the auhtor presents this article as investigative journalism through use of the question marked headline, then proceeds to cite only a handful of small business entrepreneurs and independent label fashion designers as experts on H&M’s manufacturing and marketing practices. An inquiry put through to someone who actually worked for H&M, or any big box retailer for that matter, might make for a more balanced article. How, for instance, is Mr. Brown so certain that H&M must be squeezing the stakeholders in their supply chain in order to keep costs down? As a veteran of fashion retail, I can assure you there are many ways to cut costs, and operations at an L.A. boutique like Mr. Browns, where a t-shirt costs $65, are going to be vastly different than operations at a global retailer like H&M, where the very nature of their business allows for t-shirts to cost only $5. Speaking of the price difference, as someone who lives in middle America and has little to none of the disposable income that those cited in this article are so concerned about, I am always thrilled to be able to dress my family in ANYTHING for under $20 a garment, and I can guarantee that it will be worn at least a year or longer due to sheer financial necessity, allowing for greater financial leeway when it comes to goods of greater consequence, i.e. food and shelter, two things that I highly doubt people who own their own sustainable fashion boutique in L.A. or Brooklyn have any difficulty securing. The most insufferable part of this article, however, is the insinuation by both Mr. Brown and Ms.Starbuck that H&M and companies like them are encouraging a race to the bottom by offering $4.95 dresses as well as being irresponsible about what happens to the goods after consumers purchase them, and should somehow enforce both taste and rate of consumption guidelines on the general populace. I personally enjoy living in a society where I am allowed to purchase whatever kind of clothing I want and replace it at whatever rate of speed I am economically capable of, which I thankfully do not have to justify to the Mr. Browns and Ms.Starbucks of the world. I suspect that the sort of society the auhtor and her sources slyly suggest would be environmentally beneficial, i.e. one in which a personal liberty like clothing is mandated and controlled by government and corporations, would be a society conducive to neither small business entrepreneurship nor uncensored internet journalism. What an amusing quandary the auhtor and her sources might find themselves in were their fondest wishes to come true.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.