Tuesday, October 7, 2008
In Defense of Rachel Zoe, Part II
The New York Daily News printed a rumor-mongering paragraph that Rachel Zoe's statement on her show that she is a triple Virgo means that she couldn't have possibly been born in 1971. Perez picked up on this and went to town about Rachel being a big fat liar, fraud, pox on humanity, etc.
If she is lying about her age, then George Washington University is in on the ruse because a GWU publication lists her graduation year as 1993, which would be consistent with an age of 37. Perez looks to have posted an old yearbook photo of Rachel which could confirm her age, but of course, he just posts the picture without any comment about about what year and what grade.
I am reluctant to become Rachel Zoe's crazy-eyed superfan/watchdog, but I feel compelled to defend a fellow sun-damaged 37 year old. SUNSCREEN WAS NOT WIDELY AVAILABLE WHEN WE WERE YOUNG, OKAY?! We have wrinkles! We are AWARE. Back the fuck off, NY Daily News and Perez!
In other news, The Real Housewives of Atlanta premieres tonight. I'm going to give it a shot. A very half-hearted, one-hand-on-the-remote shot. What about you?