Linda Tripp wants me to pay for her legal defense.
How do I know this? Her website told me.
What was I doing on Linda Tripp's website? Checking out her new look! Our local newspaper had a report on Linda's recent cosmetic surgery with a reference to her website, which I didn't know existed. (And wouldn't have cared about if I had known.)
The website lives at www.lindatripp.com (That domain wasn't already taken? What luck!) and is subtitled, "Helping Linda Defend Herself Against the Clinton Machine". Really.
So, why should I donate to Linda's fund after she spent (presumably) thousands on the abovementioned surgery? This question is answered by the prominently displayed "Statement from the Trustee of the Linda R. Tripp Defense Fund Regarding Linda's Recent Plastic Surgery", which reads in part,
...paid for by a private benefactor on Mrs. Tripp’s behalf. NO money from the defense fund has been paid for any such surgery. All money donated to this defense fund is used ONLY to pay for Linda’s considerable legal costs, and the modest administrative costs of running the defense fund.
Well that certainly puts my mind at ease. It kind of makes me wonder about the "Private Benefactor", though. Couldn't Linda have taken the money he/she offered for the surgery and instead applied it to her defense? The conversation probably went like this:
PB:   Linda, here's $XX,XXX, go have your face lifted, your tummy tucked and your ass liposuctioned!
Linda:   Oh PB you're too generous! May I rather take that money as a donation to my defense fund, thereby lessening the burden for my many friends and supporters?
(Can't say that I blame him/her..)
According to this article in the Canadian newspaper, the National Post, Dec. 31, 1999:
Ms. Tripp has had a nose job, chin tuck, neck reduction, facial peel and liposuction, the New York Post reported yesterday. "It's amazing. It looks like she's had a head transplant," Lucianne Goldberg, a literary agent and a friend of Ms. Tripp, told the Post.
(with friends like that --you know the rest)
It looks like she's even had her teeth capped," she said. "When you have John Goodman playing you on Saturday Night Live in a fright wig, it's definitely a message."
Well yes, there's no arguing with that. What I do have a problem with is Linda's (presumed) belief that improving her appearance by such radical means will put an end to the mean-spirited jokes and parodies. Somehow I think she's in for a whole new round of nastiness. Nor should she expect her appearance to have an effect on the outcome of the trial. Is the judge and/or jury to say to themselves, "Wow, she's not nearly as ugly as we thought! Let's acquit her!"
What's even more troubling is the message that this surgery sends to other women, that appearance really IS everything. It's bad enough when men subscribe to this belief but our fellow women, especially when they reach the mature age of 50 as Linda has, are supposed to know better. Ugly is as ugly does and Linda would be in no less hot water today if she'd had her surgery three years ago.
And as for the defense fund, Linda will have to get along without me. If only she'd made those calls from Virginia...
This fits in with the theme of this entry so well, it's scary.. but I came across it via a different surfing route. The "spy" in this case is a program the site sets up according to your specifications, to alert you when the websites of your choice have changed. (Online journals are a natural for this!) You can also check stock quotes, track activity at auction sites, check on local events, find out if anyone uses your name (in vain or otherwise) or just about anything else you can dream up.
I haven't tried it out yet but it looks pretty cool. It also looks as if they're just waiting to be bought out by microsoft and planning early (very early) retirements. Maybe they'd track that for me..