Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 8:57 PM
Wed Nov 25
55 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/13/09
09/13/09
09/13/09
09/13/09
09/13/09
*I'm a fan.
02/23/09
02/23/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/23/09
02/23/09
Good question. I was just being a wiseass and throwing in a gratuitous Spinal Tap reference.
02/22/09
A: None, none more (Jack) Black.
02/23/09
02/23/09
And I must leap across it, frequently landing on the wrong side, to show others where not to tread.
12/03/08
In short, this musical was funny and it's better late than never.
12/03/08
"A homosexual is someone who, in 15 years of trying, can’t get a pissant anti-discrimination bill through City Council."
— Character of Roy Cohn in Tony Kushner’s Angels in America, Pt. I
12/03/08
12/03/08
[en.wikipedia.org]
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
12/03/08
Plus, we're not congratulating ourselves about anything.
12/03/08
The battle is far from over. No On 8 made some mistakes and I think this video makes a valiant attempt to address them. I believe that the absence of celebrity outcry before the election was intentional. It only invites ridicule and derision on the internet and distracts from the issue at hand. The fact that these "richies" actually took some of their valuable time out to create this is makes it all the more admirable and hardly ego-driven.
For all you knee-jerk commentators that complain it's not funny, I agree. But who cares? That's not really the point. This isn't some lame SNL skit that deserves ridicule. Get your heads out of the comment sandbox for a minute and ponder how this affects all of us, not just your snark-rating in the bowels of Gawker.
12/03/08
I believe that the absence of celebrity outcry before the election was intentional.
This seems like you're saying that there are good, effective ways to support No on Prop 8, and to fight against the religious right and their evilness. And I agree with that, in principle.
But here you say:
complain it's not funny, I agree. But who cares? That's not really the point. This isn't some lame SNL skit that deserves ridicule.
And that seems like you're saying that we should support any effort on anyone's behalf, even if it's terrible. I guess, more precisely: what's changed? Why were celebrity voices detrimental before, and valuable now? Why were we worried about doing things pre-vote that looked ridiculous, but now we're supposed to pretend that nothing is ridiculous?
Also, I'm curious about this one:
The fact that these "richies" actually took some of their valuable time out to create this is makes it all the more admirable and hardly ego-driven.
How valuable is their time? I was under the impression that the point of being a rich celebrity was that you got to have more leisure than everyone else.
Moreover, aren't "ego-driven" ventures ones that pay you in self-satisfaction? Doesn't something in which you're sacrificing your valuable time (presuming that this was the case), indicate that you're getting a reward in some way other than monetary gain? In that case, something like this would seem like it was more ego-driven, rather than less.
12/03/08
12/03/08