I decided yesterday that it’s a really good thing that I’m not famous.
You see, I love getting hot chocolate from Starbucks. If I was really famous, the paparazzi would be following me all the time, photographying me, and there’d be al these pictures floating around of me with a big Starbucks cup in my hand. Then there talking would start… all these people would be saing things like, “She’s drinking coffee! I thought she was a Mormon!” and all the Mormons would be upset and say, “It’s just like Steve Young. He worked on Sundays, you know.” I’d have to put out a statement on my website, saying that Starbucks has an entire line of non-coffee drinks, which I enjoy, and no, I’m not breaking the Word of Wisdom. I’m simply enjoying a cup of hot chocolate. Then Young Women leaders throughout the Church would use me as an example in “Avoid even the appearance of evil” lessons. I’d probably have to make a deal with Starbucks to come out with a cup designed specifically for people like me that is a different color and design, bodly proclaiming “This is NOT a coffee”. However, Starbucks, in all their wisdom, would probably figure out quite fast that it’s not exactly cost effective to make those seperatel cups, so they decide to go with a sticker, instead. I would probably have to give up drinking hot chocolate from Starbucks and try to show all my LDS fans I listen and care about them.
All because of my chocolate addiction.
If people kept their noses out of others’ business (especially everyone who is interested in famous people, like whether they weigh too much or too little or whatever), there’d be no need for “Avoid even the appearance of evil” lectures. People who are confident and do not judge others based on appearances don’t tend to worry what the meddlesome crowd thinks.
It must be tough to live with such scrutiny. Sometimes I pity famous people. (And others who find themselves surrounded by a community of judgmental people.)
Hear hear! I also pity famous people, even the total idiots who can’t seem to keep out of trouble. It really would be tough to constantly have cameras in your face, documenting your every move. On the one hand, you WANT to be photographed because that means good things for your career, but on the other hand, I’m sure it would be nice to make the mistakes of youth in private, you know?
I just realized that my title is grammatically incorrect. I really need to get more sleep. I’m so embarrassed.
Comment by Karen — February 15, 2008 @ 12:13 pm |
Its a good thing the paparazzi don’t get pictures of me when I lose around my kids. Not that I ever do that I was just saying.
Did you know Brit Brit’s antics are worth about 76 million dollars to the tabloids and such? That is why they don’t leave her alone.
I just find it so sickening to see the paparazzi following her SO closely that she has to drive over someone’s foot in order to get by. Or to see them pressed up against the ambulence as she is taken to the hospital. The girl has some obviously serious problems, and while she does go out of her way to get photographed, she needs some privacy to get her life back in order. Yeah, I’m addicted to the gossip of Hollywood and such, but I much prefer those stars who have some privacy. They lead low-key lives and aren’t caught in compromising situations on camera.
Comment by alyson — February 15, 2008 @ 1:19 pm |
HAHAHA! I needed a good laugh today! That is an awesome post. You are SO FUNNY!
K.
My mind seriously goes in some wierd and random directions sometimes. I really and truely thought all of that out. I even pictured the photos on the covers of the tabloids in my head. There I was, my blonde (because I’m famous, so I’d have blonde hair) hair up in a messy pony tail, oversized sunglasses, layered t-shirts, perfect fitting jeans, pushing a stroller on the streets of New York with one hand while the other hand is holding my Starbucks cup and my kid holding a sippy cup and wearing designer shoes. Of course, that’s what EVERY famous mom candid photo looks like.
Comment by Kris — February 15, 2008 @ 1:57 pm |
Did you change the title? Because the current title, “If I Were Famous” is grammatically correct. You are using the subjunctive mood, described here:
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000031.htm
Conditional statements are supposed to use the subjunctive mood to indicate that the situation being described is not real. In common usage, however, it has become (almost) acceptable to eliminate the subjunctive. This is along the same lines as using “they” as a singular, in that the way people actually speak is different from what the grammar books say is correct.
Fascinating, eh? (I know. I am a grammar geek.)
Nope, I didn’t change it. I thought “were” was correct, but I was really tired when I did the post, so when I came back later I thought “was” would be the correct grammar. I just never changed it. I guess I’m good, though. Yay! Thanks!! (I love to learn proper grammar. I really, really hate bad grammar… but my mom is constantly correcting me — still — so I’m not the best.)
Comment by Karen — February 15, 2008 @ 3:06 pm |
Since being pregnant, I have had to give up chocolate in all its wonderful varieties. It is quite depressing to throw up your favorite treats the second you consume them… some day I will be welcomed back into the fold of chocolate eaters. Today though, I have to be depressed about dreaming about your hot chocolate
I really admire people like you who can give up chocolate while pregnant. I certainly can’t. I know a woman from church who has given up all chocolate for forever because she determined just how addicted she is. I may have to do the same someday, but I am unwilling to face my addiction at this point.
Comment by aprilmommy — February 15, 2008 @ 3:12 pm |
Oh oh Sariah, if you were famous we’d have to commit you. You might have to bunk with Britney. Oh I can see the mormon gossip now! Hehe.
Comment by Kris — February 16, 2008 @ 2:59 am |
Wait… You frequent Starbucks? Um…they sell coffee, you know, Lucifer Liquid. And hot cocoa sold in the same cups is practically the same thing. Wow, I feel tainted just talking to you. I’m going to go start gossiping right away
Comment by feathersky — February 17, 2008 @ 1:06 pm |
So, since I work at Starbucks, and starbucks is evil, am I evil?
I’m going to go cry into my pillow. But not until I enjoy a peppermint mocha with green sprinkles (ask for them! they go on leprechaun lattes!) first.
Comment by the greatest one — February 17, 2008 @ 11:02 pm |
p.s. want something really good? next time you go to starbucks and order a hot chocolate, lets say a grande, ask for this:
4 pumps mocha, 2 pumps vanilla, 2.5 pumps peppermint. I promis you won’t regret it!
Comment by the greatest one — February 17, 2008 @ 11:03 pm |
p.p.s. mocha is chocolate sauce stuff, not coffee.
Comment by the greatest one — February 17, 2008 @ 11:04 pm |
I really enjoyed this weird and random post. Knowing you, I saw you just as you later describe yourself. Very funny.
Erica, is all mocha what you described, or is that just a Starbucks thing? “Cause I always thought mocha meant coffee, or coffee flavored [ugh! can't even abide the smell!]
Comment by Allrie — February 18, 2008 @ 12:24 am |
lol! I loved the post – and all the crazy comments
Definitely a good thing you aren’t famous 
Comment by GoofyJ — February 18, 2008 @ 12:09 pm |
Yeah, mocha is just chocolate. When you walk into starbucks and order a “mocha” it’s a latte (=chocolate sauce at the bottom, espresso, and steamed milk). So if you ordered a mocha – coffee, it’s really just chocolate milk/hot chocolate.
Comment by the greatest one — February 18, 2008 @ 7:22 pm |
There were five LDS players on the 49er’s when Young played. They were given permission to hold their own sacrament meeting. Steve Young considered this the 49er’s tithing as 10% of the team was LDS.
Comment by Tim — February 19, 2008 @ 8:09 pm |