I'm sorry, but lumping Gawker in with Perez Hilton and TMZ is just laziness. I usually enjoy Heather Havrilesky, no stranger to snark herself- but reciting hit jobs from Vanessa Grigoridias and N +1- surprise surprise, both with grudges- makes me feel she just doesn't get Gawker.

Gawker is a NYC-centric site, without apology. The "jealous creative underclass" that Vanessa spitefully described in that NY Mag article, from her privileged perch, is fully entitled to vent about the indescribably comic rat-race that is NYC media and culture. Are they not allowed to do this? When it's well-known that editor X's new job comes from being married to financier Y, can we not have a snicker at watching "who you know/who you blow" in action?

Unless you've lived as a young creative struggling in NYC, every day observing what David Sedaris described as people "who not only have more, but much MUCH more, than you", you don't know what you're talking about, comparing Gawker to Perez.

There's something quite reassuring, reading about that hot new punky downtown artist that the media is fawning over is hiding the fact he comes from a billionaire art-world dynasty (hi, Dash!). Or that first-time novelist living in the townhouse of one's dreams in the NYT Styles didn't actually write "Travelling Pants" herself, and the house is paid for by her husband's vast inheritance.

This is rubbed in one's face every single day in NYC- it takes a ton of balls and spunk and brains to survive. So the coddled Yale N+1 trust-fund boys, with their undergrad pretensions, are fully fair game to have a laugh at.

Do you know who Barbara Corcoran is? Steven Schwartzman? Amy Sacco? Arden Wohl? Teddy Forstmann? I don't see Perez Hilton writing about these people. Maybe Gawker just doesn't translate west of the Hudson, but for a lot of us it's a pleasure in the spirit of the old SPY.

As for the Stalker feature, it's not meant literally, it's not really in real-time, and it's not GPS enabled. One of the few compensations us creative undervermin get is to occasionally see Sarah Jessica Parker blow her nose, just like you and me! A lot of the mentions seem publicist planted btw . And spare me, Ryan Gosling is not John Lennon.

Not to be too grandiose, but isn't our celebrity-obsessed culture merely a symptom of an empire in decline?

Our economy has been so good (relative to the rest of the world) for so long (relative to the rest of the world), that we haven't needed to care about what most would deem more attention-worthy events. Despite the atrocities being committed in Darfur, it doesn't change the fact that dog food is 8 bucks for a 50 lb bag at Wal-Mart. Despite humankind's impact on global warming, American Idol still comes on at 8 pm on Tuesdays. The point is that despite the real concerns in the world, most Americans' day-to-day lives are unaffected (or at least not noticeably affected - they surely are affected, but not in a way most of us can detect - we're not being drafted, we're not standing in bread lines, etc.).

This relative womb of safety has led to a shift in priorities, from striving to make it in the world to living la vida aquafina. This has led to an utter lack of intellectual curiosity and an inflated sense of self. Because there's no greater good to contribute to, people see themselves as the only worthwhile goal of life. Technology has merely enabled our national narcissism to flourish - any Tom, Dick, or Jane can start a blog or a podcast, make a ridiculous youtube video that goes viral, or instantly capture what they see on photos, calls, and texts.

Innovation and knowledge are not high priorities in our current culture, because they do not produce instantaneous gratification in the "me-first" milieu. Watching Paris flounder, Lindsay flash cooch, and Bret Michaels wooing strippers and whores does. Watching a trainwreck instantly makes us feel superior, and what is more important to "me-firsters" than that? Never mind the fact that the me-firsters are too thick to understand or care that the trainwreck was created and focus-grouped precisely to appeal directly to their narcissistic cravings. And the circle goes on.

Meanwhile, cultures that are facing actual imminent threats continue to gain ground on us, and will soon overtake us in terms of technology, innovation, work ethic, and power. It's inevitable. The best thing our current or next president could do to actually spur our country off its couches and barstools and into action is to reinstate the draft. That'll turn our attention from Britney's crotch to some "real" issues real quick. But those in charge know better. Those In Charge can't thank the paparazzi, and TMZ, and VH1 enough for keeping the people fed a steady diet of pablum while they erode our constitutional protections and expand their tyrannical power. I guess that stuff's important, but I just found a video of Nicole Richie blowing a bronze statue of a dog! Can you believe how skinny she is?

I seem to remember a remark along those lines being attributed to Bill Murray. It makes sense to me.

Now, though if celebrities were smarter, if they really wanted some distance from the blood sucking parasites that are TMZ, Gawker and well, us they would hire these folks to go to Washington DC and submit our congresspeole and senators to this treatment. They are also public figures, they go out to dinners and do other things that celebrities do, they could start their own, what's your Congressperson doing today paper. Sure it wouldn't make the money that In Touch does, but profit wouldn't be the motive. There would be a bill on the house floor in a few short weeks stating that half this crap that paparrazi do is harrasment and should be illegal.

There's a huge difference between celebrity attention whores who want their names in the news no matter what (see the season end of "Extras") and those who have high-profile jobs (actors/musicians) who manage to keep themselves out of the gossip rags.

The former get whatever they deserve, because they actively seek that attention. Don't you think that Lindsay, Britney, etc. knew there'd be crotch shots of them getting out of cars? Of course they did but they need the attention so badly they don't care if they degrade themselves to get it.

Contrast them with others who do their jobs but keep their personal lives out of the spotlight because they don't want the negative attention. I'm going to suggest the Harry Potter kids as an example. Do you ever see any of them in gossip columns, even in Britain? No, because they know how to behave, and they recognize that kids look up to them as examples. Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson are known worldwide, and yet they've managed to keep their personal lives private and have about as normal a life as they can because they're not out there making fools out of themselves on a regular basis. Or at all, in fact. It's also why they don't have paparratzzi chasing after them, as they don't do anything scandalous. Good for them.