MOLLY SCHOEMANN: I am concerned about the precedent set by the historic Female Employees vs. Walmart lawsuit, which was recently thrown out of court for being too big to move forward. You see, that lawsuit was but a fraction of the size of the countersuit that I am currently assembling: Pretty Much All of Us vs. Kim Kardashian.
To give you a little background, which you probably don’t need but wish you did: Kardashian is suing an actress who recently appeared in an Old Navy commercial because she believes the actress resembles her and is thus damaging her public image. I’ve watched the commercial and honestly, the actress does look a bit like Kim Kardashian—but nobody would ever confuse the two of them for more than a few seconds. And the resemblance is mostly because the actress is a dark-haired, dark-eyed, spoiled-looking girl in a tacky outfit. Perhaps the problem is that Kim Kardashian saw herself in the actress, didn’t like what she saw, and, rather than engaging in some deep self-reflection to confront the problem, she indulged in the Hollywood alternative to soul-searching: hiring a lawyer.
Now, I could argue that Kardashian’s public image has nowhere to go but up. I could also argue that the actress being sued has every right to sue Kardashian right back for implying a resemblance between the two of them, which has potentially derailed any chance she has at ever being taken seriously or liked. But instead, I’m gathering together a number of plaintiffs across the country (essentially the entire country) and we’re going to sue Kim Kardashian for existing—since by doing so she is causing every single one of us irreparable pain and suffering.
Think about it. How many times have you been forced to confront the terrifyingly nightmarish fact of Kim Kardashian? Against your will, even? How many magazine covers have thrown her overexposed visage into your unwilling gaze? How many websites have written exhaustively about her many uninteresting relationships and her many untalented siblings and their uninteresting relationships? How many evenings have you channel-surfed past one of her terrible reality shows and shuddered reflexively at being forced to acknowledge that the world contains her? How will you ever get those precious moments of your life back? Who will restore your damaged memories and soothe your troubled soul?
Kim, we’re out for blood. And there’s not a jury in the world that won’t order you to pay out an enormous settlement to every single one of us. The only problem is going to be recruiting jurors who aren’t already part of my lawsuit. Come to think of it, that might be impossible. You win this round, Kim Kardashian. And all of us continue to lose.
AKIE BERMISS: I agree with Molly whole-heartedly. I’ve signed on as a plantiff: Kim Kardashian makes my blood boil. But not in the sex-crazed dude way that everyone is still convinced she must. Rather, I find her a trying on-television celebrity. Too right, Molly, she has no discernible talent. And, honestly, no discernible skill. As long as what is discernible is the reality at hand, I think we have a water-tight case.
We need to be on the look-out for possible loop-holes though. Every time I see Kim Kardashian, or read about her, or hear her voice — or am even compelled to write her name — I fear that perhaps she’s hiding some heretofore unimagined redeeming qualities. She’s very beautiful, yes. But loads of people of very beautiful, frankly. It’s nothing to write home about. I can’t take a relaxing stroll through Whole Foods without running into at least half a dozen gorgeous people! So being beautiful and shapely won’t save you. But maybe there is something else…
Maybe she’s fluent in french or german. Maybe she is an especially talented milliner! Is it possible she’s really good at finding the square roots of large numbers? These kinds of thing could be (mis)construed as redeeming characteristics. If they were true, she could make fairly compelling case (albeit somewhat circumstantial) that she is some how a meaningful member of society. The only benefit to her celebrity now is that we may use this time to ascertain just how talentless, draining, and meaningLESS she is to our society.
Finally, a few words about her lawsuit. From what I have read, am I to believe that she wishes to sue the actress in that Old Navy commercial for some sort of copyright or trademark infringement?! Does she really mean to assert that her looks — taken alone as an abstract “thing” — are some sort of intellectual property? Like that same as if she’d written a poem or discovered the forces that govern the planets? Is she the J.D. Salinger of artificial tanning? Is she the Johannes Kepler of feathered hair? [nb: not entirely sure what "feathered hair" is, but I suspect if anyone would have it, it would be KK.] I rather think most people would argue that one phenotypical attributes are quite possible the complete logical antithesis of intellectual property. They represent no sundering of the personage. They are not the result of one mental capacity to turn electronic brain-zaps into corporeal representations in the real world. If anything, shouldn’t her parents have the right to claim ownership of her looks? I mean, yes, she the one who looks as she does, but she did not create herself. She is the result of the inspired and fortuitous genetic coupling of two other people. Those people are her author and illustrator, they are her composer, her painter, her director-of-photographer, etc. IF one could make a case for owning one’s physical appearance (and I stress that I hardly think one can), then one must actually admit that one’s physical appearance is chiefly owed to the people that made one.
Molly is right again when she say the suit might be damaged by the fact that all the potential jurors are likely to be part of the lawsuit. But you see, at last — at very long last! — there is a reason to keep the Guantanamo Bay military tribunals going. I kid, of course.
We can skip right to sentencing.