So, Justin Bieber, 17, flies off on vacation to Hawaii with Selena Gomez, 18? What fine role models these two stars are to young people. What can their parents possibly be thinking?

Usually, I’ve got issues with the writers of these MailBag letters, but this time, it’s with People. I am a 37 year-old chick who wouldn’t know a Bieber song or a Gomez song. All I know is that there is something wrong with that boy’s hair, and he looks like a wee baby, so if he’s having sex, well, I just can’t even imagine wanting to do that with him. He’s so… young. But that’s not the point. The point is, I am not in these folks’ demographics of fandom, but even I’d read in more than one publication that the two kissing stars were in Maui. With parents–at least one set. I totally forget which set. But one set was mentioned. His. Hers. Whatever.

And if I, a non-celebrity stalkerazzi/non-fan of these two know that their parents were somewhere on that island with them, then surely People knew. There may not be pictures of them, but based on reports, it sounds like there was some chaperoning going on, and there’s at least some reasonable doubt. Are they pushing the envelope in terms of showing their fans (they surely knew the photogs were there) that they aren’t Disney virgins? Sure. But for People to publish Debby Scott’s letter as if there wasn’t some reasonable information that parents weren’t part of this trip, well, that’s just adding smoke to an implied fire.

Sure, you’re a celebrity magazine, and we know you’re corruptible *cough-paying-for-Britney’s-birthday-party-cough* but why publish a letter that emphasizes what you left out of your commentary on the kiss/grope-filled trip, People? It’s one thing to leave the detail out, but to add the Debby Scott criticism as if there was no evidence that parental chaperoning was part of the trip? Well, that doesn’t seem like responsible journalism. And if you want to remain the one celebrity magazine that isn’t completely up for dismissal as hogwash, then don’t let people go up on a pedestal or be taken down from one if there are conflicting facts. And though unrelated, please don’t publish those grainy photos that might be “exclusive,” but are obviously taken without the opportunity for the star to know the photog was there. Those long distance shots just aren’t fair.

Well, Donna, I see that you likely didn’t take many science classes after high school or college. Most commonly, women have two X chromosomes, part of the DNA make-up, and men usually have one X and one Y. But brace yourself, Donna. There are women who have Y chromosomes. And men who have X chromosomes. I use “women” and “men” here to describe how we assign folks based on sex organs, and I mean women like you (and me), who haven’t done anything odd, hormone-wise. One of us might have a Y chromosome with no sign of it–no extra facial hair or deep voices, etc. So, if you find out you have a Y chromosome, Donna, will that make you a man? Really think about that, Donna. THERE ARE WOMEN WHO HAVE WHAT WE NORMALLY THINK OF AS MALE DNA. And the reverse is true.

Am I saying that Chaz has a Y chromosome? Of course not. How would I know? He probably doesn’t know. But he might. You might. I might. If I find out I have a Y chromosome tomorrow, I’m gonna keep going around as a woman, Donna. You’ll have to decide for yourself what you’ll do if you find out you have one. It’s more common than you think. Some people even have THREE instead of TWO. Now what?

DNA is DNA–and it’s a lot more complicated than you make it sound.

I’m all for sticking by a friend, but by defending him…well, you may as well say that when non-black people say “Some of my best friends are black” as a defense against being racist that it is, in fact, proof that they’re not, when we (okay, I) know that many racists have claimed and will claim that “some of their best friends are black.” Next you’ll be saying that when people express surprise that a black person can speak articulately that such surprise isn’t a sign of racism.

And argue the context or the other party’s motives all you want, but he still said what he said, and this isn’t the first time.

People are rarely all good or all bad. Maybe he is a good friend, but he is also a racist. Race is complicated, as I’m sure you know, and so is racism. Somehow, your friendship and his racism seem to coincide. Just because they might seem as if it can be only be one or the other, I don’t believe that is true. We are far more complex than that. You may defend your friend, but I think you are doing more harm than good for the both of you by making the issue so, well, black and white.

And on Facebook, Yahoo! News, and elsewhere, there are these ads with a big ol’ great-looking cupcake. I mean, that thing looks good. It definitely draws my attention. And it has a little “sticker” on it that says, “Get Today’s Deal!” It’s a local “1-DayDeals” ad–they’re in a number of markets. So, I click.

There’s the cupcake, bigger than life, but now they want to know if I want deals of four different types. I’m supposed to select the ones I want. Nothing about cupcakes, but there’s a restaurants option. I leave that one checked and uncheck the rest. Then they want my e-mail address!

Feh.

#1, four categories suggests there is more than one deal (the singular was on the original ad!)
#2, I already don’t trust you: there are four categories, and none of them looked like they were leading to the cupcake of my dreams. So, no, you don’t get my e-mail address. No chance.

Moreover, I hate you for continously showing me that cupcake with no way to get it.

Living Social. Feh!

AT&T: First, you fail because I had to search YouTube and Google to figure out it was your commercial I wanted to trounce. I’ve seen it multiple times, so I should have been able to remember who was doing the advertising, no? No. I couldn’t remember. iPhone? Droid? Whatever. I don’t even know if your smart phone has a name. I’d have to watch the commercial again, and it probably wouldn’t tell me, anyway. After all, I don’t think it even said the brand name *slaps head*

But here’s why you really fail: I have accepted that people love their smart phones, and I have accepted that a world full of very impatient people who seem to get bored at the drop of a hat (which wouldn’t interest them either) now have little toys that help keep them from sighing heavily while waiting in a line. I get that, but come on–the smart phone does not inspire creativity or imagination or a “world where anything is possible.” If anything, a smart phone puts the kibosh on imagination.

You fail because you lie. And you fail because you suggest the opposite of what your product actually produces. Your product distracts and keeps people from imagining possibilities. And you don’t speak your brand name aloud in a television commercial! Seriously?

Feh.

Betty White FTW. Snickers, you have made me happy.

2. I don’t want to watch any of it if it’s not buffered.

3. I don’t care what the executives tell you. I not only have a 13″ television that I don’t watch, but I want your screen to take up no more than half of the square inches on my computer screen. Seven inch wide video? Sweet. Sure, I’d want full-screen as an option, but most of the time, I want to play a game during the show. Or I want to transcribe some notes. I want to do more than watch the show. I’m sorry if that hurts you. But if you make the screen too big (I’m talking to you, ABC), I’ll minimize it during commercial breaks to work on the other stuff. If you let me have a smaller version, I’ll keep it up and make your advertisers happy.

4. NBC and CBS, you could use more shows. Especially you, CBS. No Criminal Minds? What’s up with that?

1. It should entertain and/or interest me.

2. It should make it easy for me to remember what the heck it was advertising after I’ve watched it.

If it fails in either of these, someone just wasted some serious time and money.

When the situation with Israel-Hamas-Gaza started, what I heard was “simple.” Hamas had attacked a passage filled with civilians–mostly Israelis. And everyone knows that Israel fights back and fights back hard. And one might think, why shouldn’t they? After all, in this latest event, Israelis were attacked.

And then the media started, and most of the headlines had to do with how awful Israel was, even though my peeps were talking about the terrorists (not Israel) and how they were purposely attacking civilians and purposely keeping civilians around their weaponry/military. That sounded bad, so yay for Israel. And yet, it was hard to cheer on a country just kicking the ass of the other one, but maybe that would bring it to an end more quickly, I thought.

And then the U.N. school was hit. By Israel. And then I learned that after the people in Gaza were told to evacuate, there was nowhere to go. And then I heard that Israel had managed to attack a vehicle bringing aid to the people in Gaza. Did they have some reason to do so that we don’t know about? I don’t know. I do know that I am having a difficult time.

I knew I was a Jew (before I actually was one) when I finally came to understand the history of Israel. Of course, I don’t mean understood it in a thorough way, but when I came to understand it in a timeline/highlights kind of a way. It became my country. As a Jew, I was pro-Israel. I wasn’t even sure why, except that it was the way to be. I’m still pro-Israel. Which is to say that I am pro-Israelis. I am pro-Israeli culture. I have not been there, but all that I hear of the country is of how beautiful and wonderful it is–even with the problems. I know it’s a country worth having.

And yet I’ve been a Jew for just a little while now, and I’m already questioning Israel. Oh, I’ve had glimmers of the questions in my mind, but I always dismissed them because I was a new Jew. I am still a new Jew. I may not fully understand. I get that I don’t know what I don’t know.

But what I do know is that I have been to many former Jewish ghettos across western and eastern Europe. I’ve seen the walls of some of those cities and ghettos. In Freiburg, I once stayed at a family’s home who had several full panels of the Berlin Wall in their yard. These are the things we tore down with victory–the walls! And there’s that wall in Israel, keeping the “other” people–the non-Israelis–inside. We claim never again, but does that only mean we will never again commit a genocide of millions of people, or does it mean we will never again let a group of people become a scapegoat–a group of “other” people who are not us–who are the problem? It does not apparently mean this. And that makes me question whether I can stand with Israel, no matter what its reasons for its wall.

But even earlier, when I heard about the settlements, about the land that should have been returned long ago, about the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, well I was reminded of the Numbers account of Moses being told by G-d to speak to the rock to get water, and Moses hits the rock–twice–to get water. He does get water for his people, but he is denied the promised land for himself. I can’t help wondering why we should have to fight so hard for a gift. I can’t help wondering if all this hitting means that (according to G-d’s past actions) we don’t deserve the land. Maybe Israel belongs to our ancestors–the ones who speak rather than hit? I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that I am reminded of this story every time I think of the Israeli-Palestine conflict (or any conflict regarding the state of Israel). We keep hitting and hitting, and yeah, it works. The country was established. The country is still a country. There is a Jewish state.

But I’m not sure it’s the right way to receive or keep a gift. I’m not sure if establishing a country where Jews are safe from persecution means anything if the country persecutes another group of people by putting them behind a wall or insists that because the land has changed ownership, its people have lost all rights to it. Does that not sound familiar? How many Jews yelled as they were dragged from their homes, “But I’m German!?!” And they yelled this not because they were hoping to be spared but because they were genuinely surprised that this meant nothing. The “laws” changed, and these people’s identities were supposed to change? They were Germans–and Jews–but they were Germans. And now, we have people who have lived on this land for generations, and a change of “ownership or government” means they are supposed to go. No wonder the native Americans were confused. No wonder the fight for identities continue.

My struggles with Israel do not really relate so much to the current situation in Gaza. And the ideas of this blog are my own internal dialogue about the issue. I do not have any final thoughts on the conflicts in or around Israel. And yes, I do call it Israel because that is its legal name, but I am referring to the land–to the people. Israel is one way to name these places and people.

I understand that Jews have been persecuted and need to know it won’t happen again. I understand that G-d has promised the land of Israel to the Jews. It just seems to me that the way to claim these rights is not to persecute others and one doesn’t ordinarily have to fight for G-d’s gifts. After all, they are provided freely at birth, are they not? I am confused. I am not saying that I do not stand by Israel, but I am saying that the country has foundational, fundamental problems. These are not all internal, either. I don’t know enough about non-Israeli people involved in Israeli issues to comment from their perspective. The amount I do know (not enough) about Israeli perspectives suggests to me that I could not begin to understand either perspective. But I struggle with the questions all the same. That is all this is–no final degrees. No gauntlet thrown. Just working things out.

But oh, how I wish everyone would stop and talk to the rock to see if speaking rather than hitting would bring forth the refreshment we all so desperately need.

Comments from any perspective that are based in a desire to enlighten are welcome. None of my “points” above is one I’d argue as irrefutable, so there’s no need to argue below. Please try speaking before hitting here.

Though your situations have recently changed–nice work with the upcoming television show, Christian–both of your careers are suffering from the same problem. I’m not overly concerned because you both probably have plenty of money. But maybe you’re looking for some satisfaction? Perhaps you want us to like you again. Well, here’s some good news: we want to, and we want to in a desperate way.

Christian, you might be okay soon. You’ve picked what looks like a good role on television, and that can do a lot for you. Sometimes, you pick up a little-seen, independent, edgie role. Good. Those of us who are hunting for you on IMDB to see what DVD’s to get can check that out. And you’re keeping up your acting chops. These are all good things in your recent resume.

Nic, you’re often hit or miss, I’m afraid. Fortunately, you generally get about 1/3 of our roles right, and that’s something considering that plenty of others don’t, plus some of your upcoming choices look good. I can be really specific if you want me to, but let’s step back and look at the forest. According to IMDB, you’re filming two movies right now (though one is voicing, so it’s not so crazy). But you’ve just finished up two others, FOUR others are in pre-production, and two more have been announced. This is going to sound a bit insulting, and I’m sorry that this is what it’s going to take: you have become Ryan Seacrest. That’s right, I said it–at least in terms of stretching your ass so thin that you don’t seem to even be evaluating roles. I mean, seriously.

PROBABLY GOOD: Knowing; Bad Lieutenant; The Ghost (but ONLY because you can’t pass up Polanski–it’s still probably not a great role for you) PROBABLY BAD: Scared Straight (will you be saying another great line like “put the bunny down”?); Kick Ass (stay away from comic books, my friend); Amarillo Slim–you’re even producing this. My goodness. Going back to Vegas will not help, Nic. I really don’t think it will unless you do a heck of a good job keeping us away from the tables and in Slim’s life. This seems unlikely.

But here’s the deal boys: WE DON’T WANT YOU TO BE ACTION HEROES. We don’t. We only like you, Nic, as an action hero in National Treasure movies because of everything that ISN’T the action. And since the sequel had more action than the first, this doesn’t bode well for the third. Still, you’ve got a following, so that’s okay, but we DO NOT WANT TO SEE YOU IN ACTION HERO MOVIES. You can have a little action in your dramas. If you insist on the thrillers, there can be some action. But very little. 

Christian, ditto for you my friend. We DO NOT WANT TO SEE YOU IN ACTION MOVIES. Be our intellectual hero. Be our drama hero. Be our thinking woman’s hero. Do not try to get the damsel off the train tracks unless you’re thinking your way through to find her. And even then, I think you should send a cop or something. And do I need to bring up Hollow Man II? You are Christian Slater. And you did Hollow Man II. That’s just wrong. That was your Con Air with mullet and bad dialogue (who wrote that shit? Great cast–GREAT CAST–but there was nothing of quality there, Nic. You didn’t have a chance.) You both need to stop lowering yourself to action hero.

There are so many other bad examples of stuff you two have done (one of which is in the theaters now), but here is the thing: DO NOT DO ACTION ROLES. DON’T. We want you two to be leading men in meaty roles. And if you’re not being offered good roles, then chill the fluck out. Just enjoy your personal lives, find a play, do an independent movie if you must, but don’t accept these cheesy acting roles that any himbo off the street can do. Seriously. We are waiting for you two in the good roles. Stop fooling us by accepting this crap.

Work less, deliver more.

Thank you. I miss you both.

Concerned Movie-not-goer