Socks, Pizza, Hookers...

You know, you can get lots of things with money.

Socks, pizza, hookers, a haircut, power, a college education, crack cocaine, (btw, this is not a fully inclusive and/or wholly representative list), (it’d be kind of awesome if it was, though), kitchen appliances, a puppy, healthcare, et cetera ad nauseum and so on and so forth and things of that nature and oh god I’m stuck in a loop of redundancy and I can’t get out!!!

Uh, anyway. I think when money was first invented (by me in 1975), people ‘wanted’ money in a proxy sense and not directly because money was the way to get the things that they did want directly (like socks, pizza, hookers…), but then somewhere along the way some sort of psychological transference happened that made people want money itself and not necessarily for any specific thing that it could buy.

I think that’s kind of what has happened with fame. People used to want to be famous because fame was usually indicative of having done something important, and everyone wants to feel important. (Also, fame can also help you in your quest to acquire socks, pizza, and hookers.) But now people just want to be famous for the sake of being famous, regardless of whether or not it’s because they’ve done something of value. Granted, ‘value’ is totally subjective, but some things (developing an affordable, life-saving treatment or cure for HIV/AIDS) are objectively and relatively more valuable than others (farting on your brother’s head).

(I’m not saying that farting on your brother’s head has NO value, or that the jerkface didn’t have it coming anyway, or that curing AIDS is the only thing of value; I’m just saying, y’know, given a choice between the two, the

HOLY SHIT WHAT IF THE CURE FOR AIDS IS FARTING ON THE PERSON’S HEAD.

Uh, anyway.)

With the rise of new media, it’s much easier to become famous, even if it is just for the fabled fifteen minutes. I mean, back in the old days, you used to have to cure something or kill somebody or star in a major motion picture or invent Post-Its™ (or kill somebody while curing them of something while concurrently starring in a major motion picture based on the true story of how you invented Post-Its™). Now, all you have to do is make a viral video with your $50 digital camera or star in a porno where you eat another girl’s poop and vomitus or have a lot of MySpace friends and get your own MTV dating show or kill somebody (that one will probably always work) or be the offspring of a billionaire or whatever.

Hell, even writing a blog can make you rich and famous—just look at Dooce. It seems like the people who read her site are in one of two camps re: her being rich and famous for blogging; either they hate her for it (yet paradoxically keep reading, thus generating more ad revenue, and thus contributing to her salary, which is kind of hilariously ironic), or they hate the people who hate her for it, and think she’s the second coming and totally deserves every single penny she makes from her writing, plus a golden sceptre and a lifetime supply of chocolate (or a chocolate sceptre and a lifetime supply of gold).

I’m not really in either of those camps, but I can definitely see both sides, and probably am closer to the second one (quite honestly, I would shit my pants if I ever saw her on the street… not saying that’s rational, just saying it is what it is). Yeah, it’s kind of astounding that she makes so much money just for writing about herself and her life, and if you don’t ‘get’ her humor and all that, I can see how it seems unfair. But at the same time, there’s more to it than just typing shit and pressing publish; she clearly puts time and effort into her writing, and despite what the flamers say, she IS good at it (I think being a good writer or speaker means being able to make even the mundane seem interesting and entertaining, and she definitely does that), and there obviously IS a demand for her work since she does get that much readership.

(Also, it’s kind of fucked up when people denounce her parenting skills. The only people who should be criticized for being bad mothers are probably, like, Hitler’s mom, and the mother of whoever invented weaponized anthrax. And even then, it’d probably just be like, Hey, you could have given lil’ Adolf some more hugs.)

Frankly, people who can find a way to make money doing something that (1) they love doing, (2) they are good at doing, and (3) doesn’t really hurt anybody, are usually pretty good people who are smart and do deserve to get paid for whatever it is that they’re doing. Since most people aren’t really able to do that, for whatever reason, it’s only natural to have a sour-grapes reaction to those who can, especially those who are relative strangers to whom you have no obligation to be nice.

I mean, I must say that I am QUITE envious of the fact that the money she earns from her blog in one month (I believe the figure quoted in the ABC News article was $40,000) is what my yearly starting salary will be when I start residency.

But I don’t think it’s for anyone to say what someone else does and doesn’t deserve, especially when it comes to money. (And, to be fair, my eventual salary as a practicing physician will in fact be comparable to or in excess of Dooce’s current yearly earnings. Also, she supports her husband and her child on that money so it’s not like she’s spending it all on socks and pizza and hookers. That we know of.)

I mean, (and this is a reeeeally bad analogy, but I’m gonna use it anyway) look at Paris Hilton, who is pretty much reviled by anyone with a brain and/or a conscience. She’s famous for doing nothing. She’s even more rich for doing nothing. I don’t think she’s a bad person who deserves bad things, or that she does literally NOTHING (I mean, the lack of privacy and the harsh and constant criticism, while not entirely undeserved or sought out by her herself, has to suck (I refuse to validate her ‘singing’ and ‘acting’, though)) but more so, I just think it’s a terrible shame that she is THAT hugely rich and famous but doesn’t really seem to feel an equally huge sense of social obligation.

I think EVERYONE has a social obligation to (1) be happy and (2) help other people be happy. I mean, Paris Hilton has so much money, and so many people watching her, that she has this incredible opportunity to do something huge with that money and do something worth watching or learning from, and she does neither. I think the more talent and/or ability and/or money you have, the more responsibility you have to both yourself and to the people around you, and to humanity as a whole. So I guess what bothers me about her, and other people like her, is not that they are rich and famous for doing nothing, but that they try so hard to get the world to pay attention to them, and when they do, they don’t even do anything worth paying attention to.

Groan-inducing-yet-annoyingly-true cliché time: It’s not about what you have, it’s what you do with what you’ve got.

Here’s another really bad analogy—it’s kinda like Faith in that season 4 episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, entitled ‘Who Are You?’, where Buffy and Faith switch bodies and at first Faith (in Buffy’s body) is a total skankface and takes advantage of the fact that Buffy is seen as good and pure and responsible, but then towards the end, she sees that she has the power to save innocent people (it’s especially moving because she spends the whole episode doing things Buffy would never do, mockingly saying ‘Because it’s WRONG’, but then when she tells the vampire he can’t eat the people in the church and he says ‘Why not?’ and she says ‘Because it’s WRONG’ but you can totally tell she really means it, oh god me fangirl embarassment), and it looks like she’s really going to choose to be good (but then Buffy figures out how to switch back and things kinda end up sucking for Faith, but that’s beside the point). It didn’t matter that Faith had been bad and slutty and murderous; she made the right choice in the situation she was in.

In Hilton’s defense (or to my detriment), I can’t say that I wouldn’t act exactly the same way that she does if I were in her situation. Because, like everyone, I tend to look first for the quickest, easiest, and funnest solution to the problem at hand. I think the difference between the mature, socially responsible person and the immature person is that s/he chooses to look further than that, consider all possible options, and THEN make the decision to act. I personally am at the point in my life where I am just beginning to make that transition. And it’s slow goings. Sometimes you just want to kick back with your socks, pizza, and hookers instead of studying for your pathophysiology final.

I mean, I’ll be the first to admit that I have selfish reasons for wanting to be a doctor. Respect is a huge part of it. Money and security, while not primary driving forces, ARE quite important, and are certainly not unattractive features of the profession. I think the ‘right’ career choice for anyone has those qualities I mentioned above (something you like doing, are good at doing, and is generally more helpful than hurtful to other people), and is something you would do for free. I can’t honestly say that practicing medicine is something I would do without financial compensation, but really, I don’t think that there is ANY job I would do for free. Even adjusting for that, though, I still cannot at this point say I would practice medicine if I made only enough money to live off of at a minimum standard. But I do really believe that someday I WILL be able to say, hey, I’d do this for free, and for now, that’s enough.

Sometimes I wish I were famous. But I’d rather do something worth being famous for and NOT be famous, than be famous for just being famous.

I just wrote the word ‘famous’ so many times that now it looks like a French word to me. Pronounced ‘fah-MOO’.

What?

I think I’ve just been watching too much reality TV. Actually, I started this entry planning to write about all the bad MTV reality shows I’ve been watching. But then I started talking about socks and pizza and hookers and got distracted.

(P.S. The Paper is total win. I’m not even being sarcastic. Amanda Lorber is total win and a half.)

If you’ll excuse me, I have to go put on some socks and have pizza with hookers (as companions, not as toppings) now.