Author Archives: dangerdorge

Cashmere for Babies

Dear Emily,

Your beloved J.Crew has just launched a line for babies.  This is an adorable sweater:

hug me

The question is, does my 3 month old child need a $93 sweater made out of (hypoallergenic) baby alpaca wool hand knit in Bolivia by “a self-managed community of indigenous women, enabling them to afford proper health care and schooling for their children”?  The answer: No.  What are your thoughts?


Dear Dorigen,

Le sigh.  Le purr.  Le cashmerrrrrrre for babies.

Now, I can understand the obvious connection between babies ‘N cashmere: babies are wonderful and soft and precious and expensive; cashmere is wonderful and soft and precious and expensive.  But, I cannot with babies IN cashmere; these little guys are messy.

If they are lucky, 9 out of 10 babies will be begrudgingly stuffed into one of these tangerine stripped cashmere sweatshirts or a heather grey onesie with a heart/pirate insignia and immediately spew whatever they can all over it, in every impossible direction.  Babies want to be naked anyway, and they don’t understand that this confection wrapped around them cost $178, plus tax and shipping.

Admittedly, I am all for spending a significant price on clothing if need be, i.e. I have said to myself that I will wear these fancy dark wash, straight leg jeans for one year, so I will spend the $129.  But best laid plans something something dark side, because my $129 jeans, purchased oh a few months ago, just ripped a gaping hole in the crotch on my way to work today.  The diligent sew job with the Walgreen’s sewing kit at $4.99 only angered the hole, which reasserted itself more aggressively throughout the day, until I had to then feverishly seek out the nearest Gap for less-than-fancy dark wash, straight leg jeans on sale for $53.  They are mom jeans.

For all that extra spending, I could have just gotten my darling baby niece a darling baby cashmere sweater for a quick snapshot before all the spewing.   So, in about face conclusion, “sure” to baby cashmere, and “absolutely” to sweatpants.

Love you,


No-Chip Nail


Please explain “no-chip” nails.


Dear Dorigen,

When getting a standard manicure, the chipping (for me) begins on day one; in fact, I’ve usually smudged at least two nails when exiting the salon.  So, this no chip business is a miraculous thing.

About a month ago, I experienced the no chip.  After an hour of repeated trips under the heat lamp and a cost double a standard manicure, I had perfect nails.  They were perfect for a whole week, and at the end of a perfect second week, I felt like an undead goddess, unable to tarnish or change.  But, the changes came, and they were unfortunate.

Apparently I was supposed to have this nail polish professionally removed after three weeks (at the most), but I thought I’d see it through.  After the third week, the color had yellowed somewhat and the polish hadn’t chipped so much as peeled off in sections, from the cuticle up.  If I helped the peeling along, the top layer of my nail came with it. 

By the end of the forth week, I was finding chunks of glittered polish surrounding my desk at work.  It’s now been about six weeks, and I am sans polish, with all of my nails a little worse for wear.  I suggest giving the no chip a try if you want to feel like a super being for two weeks, and then a hag monster for four. 




Truly Outrageous


Please explain Jem and the Holograms and its implication on modern society.



For the sisters who are uninitiated…

 “Jem and the Holograms” was an 80’s cartoon show about a well-intentioned rock band and their misadventures with a hologram technology that created the alter ego “Jem” for Jerrica Benton, a recently orphaned heiress to a record company and an orphanage for girls. 

As random as that may sound, “Jem and the Holograms” was on point with sitcoms of the 80’s:

  1. they killed off the mom character and
  2. the show was created in collaboration with Hasbro, and many dolls were sold.  They were awesome; albeit manish in comparison to Barbie. 

Those are some big shoes to fill, “girl.”

I recently watched all 65 episodes (mostly in one sitting), and I learned a thing or two about life, love, and sequins.  Basically, that they are all in the same.  Oh, and that song lyrics really only need one phrase put on a repeat mix.

That deep cut was brought to you by the The Misfits, the bad girls to the do-gooding Holograms, and as advertised, they really made some mischief!  Seriously, they nearly kill somebody every episode.  They will cut a b*tch for a pair of hot pants. 

Back on topic… I also learned that, for a children’s show about drag queens (yeah, I said it), “Jem and the Holograms” can be for reals judgmental.  Like in Season 1, Episode 25: Culture Clash, when Jem openly mocked “concept art.”  Darling, with five and a half pink Pomeranians on your head, you are in no position to read.  Also, Jem was having none of the actor from Season 3, Episode 4: Beauty and the Rock Promoter, after he took off his electric beast costume.  (Is that what happened to Robsten?)

So in conclusion, “Jem and the Holograms” is the best PSA for children of any era, who need to learn how to let a man down easy.



Elizabeth Taylor


As you may know, Lindsay Lohan is starring in a Liz Taylor biopic to be aired on Lifetime.  It looks terrible.  Why do people care about Elizabeth Taylor?  Why do people care about Linsay Lohan?  Why is the styling of this film so bad?  So many questions.



Before I prattle on about the perfect abomination that is Lohan-Taylor, I will first offer a suggested song to listen to while reading my response:

This song is suggested for 3 reasons:

1)      There is a brief mention of Elizabeth Taylor.

2)      Gary Newman is my spirit animal; I’m just sayin’.  

3)      Also, I foresee no future opportunity to share my (yes, brilliant) idea of a re-staging of this song, involving siren calls and the surrounding of a cyclopean statue of Cthulhu.

“I’m in love with a sailor, a sailor who’s in love with the sea,” indeed.

Back on topic, seeing your provided image of Lindsay But-I-Lost-My-Passport Lohan, dressed in a $12.07 Elizabeth Taylor Halloween costume, I am reminded of the insult that was once Aniston / Streisand: 

Whoever thought of this “artful” moment should have been fired halfway through the first pitch sentence.  Unless, of course, it was Streisand herself, who has the personal right to see a painted cliché of her former self, as interpreted by some girl from “Friends,” if she wants to.  No wait, even Streisand should have been fired.  

However, whoever thought of casting Lohan as Taylor in a made for TV film about her relationship with Dick, should be sent fan mail. 

FAN MAIL, I say!  Made for TV anything, has a special set of rules, known as nonsense.  May I remind the U. S. of A., that we collectively accepted and participated in the Drew Barrymore / Alyssa Milano / some legitimate third actress’ simultaneous telecasts of the Amy Fisher story?  

Bad ideas are what make TV Land so endearing, so embarrassing, so terribly wonderful.  Lindsay Lohan’s involvement in “Liz & Dick” could only be out shined by her involvement in an imagined all female cast version of “Moby Dick” for the Lifetime Network.  Fingers crossed for 2013.

I cannot wait to see this Elizabeth Taylor nonsense.  Will they cake makeup over Lohan’s freckles?  Will the purple contacts be neon?  Will Lohan’s years of drinking actually make her look older than John Michael Higgins, who is 23 years her senior?  Will we be able to catch a glimpse of a do-rag under an obvious wig?  Will there be an appearance of Emmanuel Lewis as a young Michael Jackson?  

If this movie is to be any kind of success, the answer to all of these questions needs to be “yes, of course.”



P. S. To learn more about the Chthulu references you have seen here today, visit your local library, and then follow the scent of pimple cream.  I will be the one in the cape.  



What are your feelings about Robsten and the recent traumatic events that have devastated millions of Twihards, myself included?  Is the dream over?  Will there be no more Terrible fan art?



I must admit that I wish Robsten had seen their relationship through to some ridiculous wedding, and perhaps a half breed child of pale coloring.  The charm of Them was not because of a decadently-terrible-movie romance realized; I just genuinely (or naively) thought they were a cool couple, never fully admitting their coupledom. 

Initially, I was less heartbroken, and more disappointed, disappointed that Kristen Stewart is a dumbass after all.  She finally admits that she is in a relationship with Rob, but does so in a public letter of apology for cheating with her married director.  The Robsten relationship officially ended and started for us simultaneously.  The letter should have gone to Rob only, and she should have said nothing to us because their relationship has never been any of our business anyway. 

But its women who wear the scarlet letter.  The affair cost Kristen the starring role in subsequent “Huntsmen” films; meanwhile, the married with children director she slept with gets to keep his job and his wife.  Horrifying.  I instantly forgive her for the affair, the betrayal of that cute-but-too-far-apart-eyed heartthrob, and for sharing her passed note of apology with the class. 




Please explain the media’s obsession with the sordid tale of the billionaire Rausing couple and their descent into drug addiction and death and how it may or may not relate to the novels of V.C. Andrews.



Thank you for the best question ever, because I am fascinated with this story.   I will now relay the events in V.C. Andrews styling, i.e. episodically, with a prequel and an epilogue. 

Book 1

Hans Rausing (unemployed and filthy rich) is pulled over by the police for erratic driving; he is clearly drunk.  In his car, the cops find drugs and a bag containing unopened letters addressed to his wife, Eva.  Who knows what crazed nonsense comes out of his mouth after he explains that his wife is in “California,” because this (all-too-common) drunk driving incident arouses so much suspicion that a warrant is immediately issued to search the house of Hans.

Book 2

 With search warrant in hand, the police enter the Rausing mansion with the intent to search for drugs.  The drug search does occur and they do find a lot (cocaine, heroin, crack, etc), but that happens after the cops follow the smell of a rotting corpse. 

Book 3

In a room filled with flies, Eva’s body is found under a 4 foot pile of clothes and garbage.  This is a taped shut room within a room with in a room with in an annex of a mansion filled with such convergences, with all doors barricaded by various pieces of furniture.  Of course, these precautions do not barricade the smell.  Her body is in advanced stages of decay – initial reports suggesting 4 days, but it turns out to be months.    

Book 4

 After an autopsy, the cause of Eva’s death is still unknown, presumably because of the massive decay.  Hans is arrested, but not questioned until many days later, due to his very real medical need for alcohol detoxification.  Hans is later officially charged with “preventing the lawful and decent burial” of his wife.  This shy, ne’er-do-well, confused, vacant billionaire is then sentenced to a suspended jail term of 10 months.  

Book 5 – Prequel

Hans was not charged with murder, because Eva was on borrowed time.  She had a pacemaker, she was once caught with thousands of dollars of crack, and she lost her mind at some regal social event at Buckingham Palace.  She knew she was going to die; everyone knew she was going to die.  Check out the Eva Rausing “death emails” –


 I actually think the news media has done a decent job sympathetically reporting on this salacious story.  Eva had a drug problem, which led to her death, and Hans has a drug problem, which led to his crazed problem solving skills.  I wonder what will be said when this happens to my boy.



P.S. Recommended Readings…