The Kardashian Divorce And Other Weighty Stuff
It’s official. Kris Humphries wanted to live in his native Minnesota. Kim Kardashian wanted to live in LA. They never discussed it before the wedding vows and didn’t work it out after the marriage. So what choice did Kim have? Divorce was the only solution. You can learn more about this theory of reality-show-for-profit romance, marriage and separation at TMZ .
Not to worry though. USA Today is confident that the split, after only 72 days of wedded bliss, won’t damage Kim’s brand. Now here’s a sad confession. Until I read the USA Today piece I didn’t know Kim Kardashian had a “brand”, though I had heard the Kardashian family made buckets of money selling stuff based on fame they’d achieved through some reality tv show.
But, forgive me. I’m putting off the question by which the fate of the world will be determined. Should the wedding gifts be returned? Sasha Souza, a wedding planner from Northern California, thinks they should. Understanding that world peace or a three point move in the unemployment rate could hang in the balance, what’s your take?
Meanwhile, Lindsay Lohan returns to court today as a California judge tries to figure out what to do with the misfit former Disney sweetie. Seems she failed to complete her community service at a woman’s shelter. She found the assignment wasn’t meaningful for her, though she has no problem with her cleaning duties at a local morgue and has even developed a habit of showing up early for that assignment.
Photogs will line the courthouse steps to see what she wears. Bringing a toothbrush in her purse might be helpful. The prosecutor plans to ask for jail time now that Lohan’s probation has been revoked. How long she’d actually spend in the County lock up for her 2007 DUI and last year’s theft conviction remains in doubt given overcrowding issues.
Yes, The Moderate Voice is a political blog and people show up here to debate the grand policy and electoral issues of the day. I just thought it might help lend some perspective to that discussion if we were up on what the rest of the world was thinking about.
17 Responses to “The Kardashian Divorce And Other Weighty Stuff”
Anybody ever get a laundry list of Sara Palin’s indiscretions?
Not to detract from these very important issues you are raising, but these stories do remind me of a less important issue that’s been in the less respectable news lately: income inequality.
If we were to ask ourselves whether these people deserve the wealth that they have acquired, almost all of us would say No except for the most dedicated celebrity worshipers. However, the fact remains that they acquired their wealth through voluntary transactions. That is, enough of us were willing to fork over cash to see them or buy their stuff that they acquired a significant amount of wealth.
So, the question that occurs to me is this: When are we reflecting what we truly value? When we speak or when we act?
Dear a’sdad,
Seems to me we reflect what we truly value both when we speak and when we act. Speaking may reflect a more idealized notion of value. Action may reflect idealization tempered by reality…or foolishness…or selfishness…or some other human flaw.
Most of us have conflicting values. Do we, for example, value environmental stewardship or do we value being perceived as driving a nice car? For most of us the answer is a little of each.
On the issue of voluntary expenditure resulting in income disparity, you are correct where celebrity is concerned. We also voluntarily grant them power over our lives to the extent that we care about their thoughts or allow their thoughts to influence our own. My greater concern on income disparity occurs in the involuntary sector of that phenomenon, but that’s a whole other article.
Best.
tidbits
very good to see you Elijah. MORE
50% of the value of gifts should be put in a escrow or some such account, until one-year has passed in some sort of blissful matrimony- no separation or legal BS.. Then half of that half would be released. The balance is released at the end of two years.
Of course there should be an exception if a spouse is lost on the honeymoon in New Guinea or parts of Philadelphia.
I don’t even know who these people are. I’m grateful for that.
Seriously?
I read the moderate voice because you DON’T post nonsense about the personal lives of the “famous for being famous”. Why does ANYONE care what these people do? I don’t get it.
Congratulations. After years of reading this blog, this post finally prompted me to post a comment.
Please never do it again.
It’s a little comic relief, we are too serious and filled with passion to outdo the “other side” here. So this silly shit is a good diversion once in a while.
Why can’t we get a regular movie/tv thread or two? I am a lot more interested in debating CAPTAIN AMERICA than politics, these days.
Elijah,
I think you are overlooking that our expression of values through words are imperfect also in that they can’t possibly express enough nuance. I believe it’s wrong to kill, unless it’s in self defense, unless there are other non-fatal ways to defend myself, unless those ways are determined to be significantly less effective and therefore more risky to my own life, unless. … well you get the idea. When someone is trying to take my life and I’m able to stop him by taking his, only then can you truly determine how much I value my life vs. his.
Another, more relevant example: we often hear people say that CEOs shouldn’t make more than x times the average worker’s salary. Well, what if that CEO implemented policy changes that turned around the company from the verge of shutting its doors and laying off hundreds of thousands of employees? And what if that company went on to help find the cure for cancer? What people really mean is “the CEO should paid whatever I think they should be.” and you don’t know what that is until they are in the position to act–to actually pay the CEO–at which point they have to take into account all of the nuances both consciously and subconsciously.
With regards to voluntary transactions, all transactions are voluntary except as our choices are manipulated (I don’t mean that to be necessarily negative) by government regulation. Therefore, in a free market all wealth is acquired through voluntary transactions, although it is more easily seen in the example of celebrities and sports stars. If those transactions represent what we value, which is the premise behind the free market system, why should we then attempt to change that after-the-fact by government intervention to redistribute wealth?
That said, while I’m opposed to redistributing wealth as an end in itself, I support it as it is necessary to equalize opportunity such as by improving our education system and addressing related social ills. That would go at least part of the way to addressing the income inequality problem anyway.
dad,
All government action, and sometimes inaction, has the practical effect of redistributing wealth. The question is to whom and to what purpose?
It strikes me that we need to understand that redistribution of wealth is not a one way street where wealth is always redistributed from the wealthy to those of lesser means. Sometimes the exact opposite is the case. Many would argue that an upward redistribution [and concentration]of wealth is what has resulted from changes in tax policy over the past 30 years.
Similarly one could argue that our national focus on roadways, as opposed to railways, has resulted in a redistribution of wealth from rail interests to automotive interests over the course of the last century.
My only point is that, when government acts or declines to act, there is an impact on wealth and its distribution or redistribution.
tidbits
Sure, and as I said I’m not opposed to all forms of redistribution, just redistribution for its own sake, as is advocated by the Occupiers and many on the left. As you note, redistribution occurs as the side effect of sound public policy or as means to a worthy end such as public education, infrastructure, safety net, etc. So, I agree that the question is, “to what purpose?”
And although I’d disagree that changes in tax policy are a significant driver in the increase in income inequality, I do recognize that government intervention can and does redistribute wealth upwards in some cases. The same logic applies: if it was done for its own sake and not for some other ends that serves the common good, it is wrong. One could argue that is an argument for giving the government, and therefore those with disproportionate political power, less power over our financial transactions, not more.
VeratheGun
You Must read politics. You MUST!
Don’t you understand…Herman Cain has 9’s….!
Let’s see.
The infamous diatribe by Elizabeth Warren recently has been swallowed with glee by redistributionists and of course radical egalitarians (who also typically want redistribution so as to be more “fair”), but it’s no basis for economic policy, nor even appealing.
Who’s Herman Cain? Is it someone who did well on Dancing With the Stars? 27 is pretty much as well as any couple does on that show.
Herman is the guy who is now saying, nein to accuser #1, nein to #2, and now nein, to accuser #3.
Sorry, Allen, it is looking bad, what with his campaign manager smoking and maybe providing illegal funds to Herman’s campaign.
[...] The Kardashian Divorce And Other Weighty StuffThe Moderate VoiceHow long she'd actually spend in the County lock up for her 2007 DUI and last year's theft conviction remains in doubt given overcrowding issues. Yes, The Moderate Voice is a political blog and people show up here to debate the grand policy and …Kris Humphries Found Out About Kim Kardashian Divorce Through TMZ; Kim …Reality Teaall 6,144 news articles » [...]