Wouldn’t it be great if “fame” was not synonymous with vapid notoriety? That was rhetorical. I’ll answer it: It wouldn’t be merely great, it would be unbelievably awesome.

“Fame” has been usurped by people who don’t mean anything, and I don’t like it. “Fame” should refer to those who are authentic, those who are confident—those who are remarkable. Having “Fame” means you are known for right reasons. (Not because you nailed a guy on video, Paris.)

I propose that starting today society should take back “Fame.” I refuse to call dumbass “celebrities” famous. I think we should call them “Dumases.” ($1 to the guy from Shawshank Redemption.)

The point is this, friend: We spend entirely too much time concentrating on people and situations that don’t matter. Consequently, we end up with the TMZ.com’s of the world taking over [though I do have to say TMZ on TV is a very funny program for reasons I don’t have time to discuss today]. News is inundated with stories about what Dumas has done what. It is a lot of effort, and I for one am no longer willing to put up with it.

That means I have to stop watching TMZ on TV, I guess. Harumph!

In this new world, you can HAVE Fame. It’s a simple choice. You have to decide: Are you in?

Twitter www.twitter.com/laermer for more like this, and not too much either.

Tags: Dumas, Fame, ncentration, notoriety, Paris Hilton, rhetoric, Shawshank, TMZ, vapid people