Daniel Craig, who will attempt to be the next successor to Sean Connery, gets the Trenchant Observation of the Day.
"Look at the Kardashians, they’re worth millions. I don’t think they were that badly off to begin with but now look at them,” says Craig.

He continues, “You see that and you think, ‘What, you mean all I have to do is behave like a f***ing idiot on television and then you’ll pay me millions. I’m not judging it – well, I am obviously."
The sisters are not that badly off, which means we get to see a lot more of their life-management skills before they're too boring or too old.

It's when the crudity trickles down to the lower orders that people who are pretty close to being badly off become badly off.
Call me a child of another era – one where tattoos meant that someone had been in the military (good) or prison (not good), but I think America is going to wake up someday from its fixation with tattoos the same way people woke up from hair styles they tried back in the seventies – except they won’t be able to get a hair cut and burn a bunch of photos to eliminate the evidence.
That post was motivated by what might be an apocryphal story, but the story confirms enough priors about generalized crudity, whether among the lower orders or Hollywood, to resonate.


Dr. Tufte said...

What I remember, and do not look forward to, is that circa 1970 every middle-aged man had a fading, splotchy World War II tattoo. Not one of them ever said they looked lousy at the time they got them. I think we're looking towards a 2040 of Brooklynn's and Zachariah's covered with nasty looking stuff.

Stephen Karlson said...

Hmm, you might have grown up in a different kind of neighborhood. I would guess, though, that the Marine Corps emblem or an anchor or a sweetheart's name, even splotchy, would be less hard on the eyes than what passes for body art these days. For instance, it's a good thing that "Tat-man" on the Arizona Diamondbacks is such a good hitter, as no self-respecting circus sideshow would have him with that art.