New York Strip Clubs: Why Is The New York Times Blaming Sandra Bullock?!
His thesis, sketched out in an opinion piece titled “The Sandra Bullock Trade”? Sandra wins Oscar. Sandra’s marriage goes bust. Ergo Sandra’s success is somehow connected to Jesse’s philandering. In his column, Brooks poses this mathematical equation as a philosophic question, asking his readers: “Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?”
I’m flummoxed. First of all, are the two mutually exclusive? And would a story like this ever be written in the New York Times if the Oscar winner was a guy, and it was his relationship that went belly-up because of her cheating heart? Isn’t Brooks just digging at Sandra, subtly implying that while she was off making an inspirational film, her husband just couldn’t stop himself from lunging at any tattooed motorcycle chick, stripper or ‘fetish model’ who happened by his shop? It sounds to me like Brooks is suggesting that Sandra’s Oscar win somehow justifies Jesse’s decision to stray.