For your consideration...

The Michael Jackson tributes will continue for months to come.

However, if the award show producers are smart, they will include Missy Elliott in the lineup.

Tight grooves. Fantastic execution. Sexual ambiguity. And the fact that Missy can get @$$es out of their seats.

MJ wasn't all gloss; he was sweat, grunts, and swagger!

Let Missy her thing for MJ!!!

The 'Yeah... but' -ing continues

Last Friday, I made the decision to listen to the Rickey Smiley morning show. Mainly, I did this because the other local radio stations that play pop/MJ-friendly format, opted to dedicate one hour to his music, which in my opinion, was all kinds of wrong; Rickey, on the other hand, played music dedicated to MJ. I got past the fact that Rickey talks into the songs way too much; I got over the fact that his fellow on-air colleagues were not well-versed in MJ's music, despite pretending to be. I even listened to it yesterday because I figured that they would discuss the MJ tributes at the BET Awards. But today, Smiley went off the rails for me. Smiley was pi$$ing and moaning about the fact that Jay-Z possibly prevented Chris Brown from participating in the tribute, citing that Brown would 'put it down'. And my answer to that? Yeah... so?!

Rickey Smiley and other so-called Chris Brown supporters need to get something straight. The BET Awards tributes were about paying tribute to Michael Jackson, not repositioning certain artists' comebacks or entertain pedestrian fans. Usher and Justin Timberlake's names were thrown around too, but mercifully, neither of them showed up either. Michael Jackson enjoyed 30 years of a career free of scandal and arrests; Chris Brown couldn't last two. Michael Jackson's relationships with women were reticent, yet respectful; Usher couldn't stop himself from profiting from his infidelities. Michael Jackson, despite having provocation, did not throw his family under the bus for professional gain; Justin Timberlake did this to Michael's beloved sister, Janet, just to keep the McDonald's paper coming in. These people can ape Michael's singing and dancing style, but much like the participants of Sunday's ceremony, they fall short. And frankly, I am sick to death of some people getting more credit than they really deserves.

Which brings me to Joe Jackson. His appearance at the BET Awards was a power play, plain and simple. He wasn't there to be the eyes and ears for his son; he was there to make a statement and a self-serving one at that. While Brown, Usher, and Timberlake would've been a trifeca of egocentricity, Joe Jackson was the granddaddy of self-interest, with Al Sharpton riding shotgun. And personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the family were unaware of Joe Jackson's presence. There was something about Janet's appearance there that seemed hasty, as if she, specifically, had to be there in order to counteract the damage that Joe could've possibly done. And for the record, Joe Jackson, only idiots who thought that Ike Turner made an excellent Svengali would come to your record label. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the music industry and the Jackson family knows that Michael and Janet soared after cutting you out of important career decisions.

Rickey Smiley does what most high-powered, male Black entertainers do - ask for leeway for those they can relate to (read: other Black men). And frankly, the guilt trip that Smiley tried to interject in his argument for Chris Brown, was likely like much of the good cop schpeel that Katherine Jackson laid on Michael. It is high time that high-powered members of the Black entertainment community demand that people follow their instincts. Chris Brown fcuked up HUGE; there are consequences. If Chris Brown is sad, good! If Chris Brown is sadder about this than, say, beating the hell out of Rihanna, that's bad. And the jack@$$es that are championing him without recognizing that Brown has to reevaluate his priorities are laying the groundwork for more fcukups and even more excuses.

Smiley, Brown, Usher, Timberlake, Joe Jackson... man the fcuk up!!!

Tuck yourselves in bed with this, fcukers!!!




And BTW, fcukers... Missy Elliott idolized Jackson too. Her music and videos reek of his influence, along with her consistent demonstration of musical excellence. Why aren't anyone popping off at the mouth about her absence, because she could've turned it out too. And not in the glossy Beyonce/Ciara way, either!

It just keeps bubbling up

Again, I am trying to avoid self-indulgence, given that certain member of the Jackson family and the public at large are engaging in it, but honestly, I can't stop thinking about it.

Maybe it's because of my orientation towards looking back at the past, especially when someone passes away. I knew when I created this blog, paying tribute to those who have left here would be an important component. Plus, death usually initiates reflections on mistakes made by the deceased and their survivors and the Jacksons promise to deliver a lot of lessons. Hell, Joe Jackson could be a master class. But that's for later.

A lot of 'Yeah... but' - ing going on

Several things...

While it was commendable that the BET Awards retooled their show in order to pay tribute to Michael Jackson, it also emphasized the huge hole that MJ left, in terms of putting on performances, building anticipation, and creating magic. Loved Beyonce's Ava Maria/Arms of an Angel medley. Loved Ne-Yo's take on Lady in My Life. Loved New Edition's J5 medley. Loved the tributes to New Jack Swing and to the O'Jays. Other than that, the rest of the affair seemed like piecework.

Much will be made about Janet Jackson's surprise appearance, as it should. Unlike Joe Jackson, who parked his @$$ in the audience, along with Al Sharpton (again!), you got the feeling that Michael's loss was really about the loss of a sibling and a friend, not the primary selling point of a conglomerate. Also, it has to be said that the O'Jays' Eddie Levert added to the gravity of the situation. Despite his faux pas of saying the 's' word while talking about Michael, you couldn't help but think about Eddie's experience of losing two sons within a year of each other. Eddie likely knew how Joe Jackson felt, assuming that Mr. Jackson felt anything.

Now to the point of this entry... MSNBC has been running the Farrah's cancer documentary and the controversial MJ documentary with the British journalist, which ultimately proved to be damaging to MJ. I also noticed that they ran their Headliners and Newsmakers docs on Fawcett as well. While I'd like to think that they were trying to pay Fawcett her due, I still have to question why there's such an overt effort to manipulate emotions. MSNBC isn't the only entity guilty of it - Barbara Walters' special with Ryan O'Neal was heavily promoted last week, with an emphasis on the marriage proposal. Before Farrah's death, I took this as media manipulation at its worse, and as a tawdry attempt to revitalize Ryan O'Neal's tarnished image. After Farrah's death, I feel the same way. I get to that conclusion rationally because O'Neal and Farrah's so-called friends have been getting major face time in the media, whereas when O'Neal was battling leukemia, you rarely, if not ever, saw Farrah discussing his situation, nor did you see O'Neal's friends coming out of the woodwork to this extent. As I resent Sharpton and Jesse Jackson angling for face time, I resent Ryan O'Neal for doing it, especially because he witnessed her suffering. These last few weeks should've been about comforting her, not making a soft landing for him.

Since MJ's death was a shock, we didn't get weeks and weeks of famewhoring from his family and their so-called 'family friends', but we will. Yes, this is a tough pill to swallow, but the media isn't making the situation easier either. I get that they are trying to do their job by showing a more complete picture of Michael Jackson, but I can't help feeling that this is more about 'reigning' people in, especially people of color. Too bad that they didn't do this to Elvis fans who spent the last 20 years having Elvis sightings and some such $h*t. People of color are long on memory, especially when they feel slighted or betrayed and I am sure that some of the things that MJ did is in the back of their mind - I can sure as hell say that for myself. But the media acts as if they, as individuals, never had a family member, friend or colleague who unexpectedly died, someone with whom their past interactions with them didn't always go smoothly. But usually, because of the untimely passing, all of the bad things are stripped away and you tend to remember the better times. This is what the public is trying to do right now. Who knows how long the reminiscing will last, but for Christ's sake, it is very natural and very human.

I just resent that the media is trying to put a lid on it for some unexplainable reason. And if they are positioning themselves as the arbiters of truth about this particular subject, they needn't because they are coming across as imperialist, crass vultures trying to do the same type of angling that Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do so well.

Michael Jackson... gone

This feels like a time-sensitive entry, mainly because the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jermaine Jackson and tabloid journalists who have seen their day, back in MJ's heyday, are poised to take their positions in front of the cameras.

I could go on and on about how Michael Jackson changed my life, in terms of opening that part of me that needed to absorb and observe anything and everything that could be inspiring or the basis for creativity on one's own terms, but I won't. I think that the main reason why I am sad is because, for 20+ years of my life, Michael Jackson represented excellence, unwavering focus, and although it's cheesy to say but - magic too. As an 80s kid, I remember the anticipation for anything that man did - even the Pepsi commercials, which the adult me would say was overblown, were huge events. With all honestly, if any of today's artists tried to do the things that MJ did in the 80s and 90s now, it would look beyond ridiculous because they can't back it up. Michael Jackson could and did.

I think about why he died. Yes, the vultures are getting in line to tell us why i.e. prescription drugs, but that's 'cause of death'. To be honest, I can see him whipping himself into a frenzy trying to top his previous glories, and quite frankly, the thought of that makes me sad. Michael Jackson, not half-@$$ing it, would've been enough... to his fans. Naturally, there are hoards of critics (read: failures) who were likely creaming themselves to continue taking him down a peg. Just look at Britney Spears - the relief about her getting back on track was short-lived. Critics couldn't wait to write and talk about what was wrong instead of focusing on what was right. I have doubts that the critics would have factored in Michael's age, his time off from performing, and his objectives for the tour.

This is a morbid thing to say but I always thought that Michael would be the first Jackson sibling to go. Despite the wide age gap between he and Jackie and Tito, there was something about Michael that screamed 'not living to old age'. Maybe it was because he did so much heavy lifting, where his family was concerned, it just seemed too overwhelming for one person, especially for someone with a fragile disposition. It would've been nice if the majority of his siblings would have carried the load instead of adding to it, but it's too late to change that. It would've been perfection if his parents relieved his burdens as well - and not pepper their extremely vulnerable child with heaping helpings of self-doubt and self-loathing. My hope is that Janet will assert herself against her family because there is no doubt that they are sizing her up as their next potential crutch.

So... how should Michael Jackson be remembered? I guess it depends on the individual. As a child who was molested, the molestation accusations derailed me, not necessarily because I thought he was guilty, but because some people with their own agendas (read: the Jackson family) tried to say that it was impossible. Any child in that moment and space where a parent, family friend, sibling, or trusted individual shifts their priorities and attempts an act that could monumentally alter a child, knows that it is very possible. The audacity of that mindset was what tainted my perception of Michael Jackson - not any instinctual vibe I got from the accusations themselves. Personally, I will remember how he didn't ration out his gifts. He gave out... thoroughly and consistently and this a rare quality among today's artists. I will miss the fun and the anticipation. I will miss the bell-like quality to his voice evident in the slower tempo songs, especially when he was a little kid. So beautiful and uncompromising - you hear that quality in his later works, especially in the often overlooked 'Be Not Always' from the Jackson's Victory album.

The videos I posted, specifically a fan video featuring MJ's performance of Music and Me and the end credits of Smooth Criminal featuring Ladysmith Black Mambazo, seems like an appropriate and respectful tribute to MJ. Hope you will enjoy.

Serious... Ken Baker has issues

Everytime this douchebag opens his mouth, he reaffirms my contention that certain men, namely Ken Baker, should not be in the gossip game.

On Tuesday's On Air with Ryan Seacrest, Ken Baker had the task of recounting what happened during the Chris Brown preliminary hearing. Since the outcome was heavily covered on Monday evening, Baker decided to 'punch up' his version of the facts, which resulted in several WTF moments for me.

According to Baker, he was in the courtroom during the hearing. I assumed that he said that in order to lay some groundwork towards the contention that he was an unimpeachable witness to the doings to Seacrest listeners. Anyway, he made an off the cuff comment regarding how Rihanna was dressed; according to him, she was dressed way too sexy for court. I thought to myself - WTF? I thought back on the previous night's coverage. While there were few full shots of Rihanna, I did recall that she was wearing a dark-colored dress with a very conservative scoop neckline. And a pearl necklace. The fabric of her dress was not satiny; the dress was not super tailored. Hell... the dress, from the waist up, looked matronly. Like Weezie and Mother Jefferson matronly. In fact, I'm pretty sure that both characters and even Aunt Esther wore dresses similar to Rihanna's. And for added measure, I searched the internet for full shots of Rihanna and the dress skimmed Rihanna's knees, much like Weezie, Mother Jefferson and Aunt Esther's dresses. So seriously, Ken Baker, Rihanna was following the sexy bombshell example of these women? Ken Baker needs to see a professional because his fixation on barely legal women, although Rihanna, at age 22, may be a bit long in the tooth for him, is coloring his lens.

Then Ken Baker moved on to Chris Brown's sentence, specifically, the protection order. Because Rihanna agreed to allow Chris Brown within 10 yards of her at music-related events, Baker concluded that Rihanna wanted Brown as close to her as possible because she still loves him.

'Scuse me?

Here's a revelation, Baker - unlike you, who apparently fancies yourself as this generation's Jafar, not everyone lives and breathes destroying other people's lives. Not everyone who is threatened sic the FBI on them, resulting in $55M lawsuits. Should Chris Brown have received a stiffer punishment? Sure, but Rihanna was the victim here and despite Lisa Bloom, Jane Velez-Mitchell and other entitled, self-righteous female pundits' insistence that Rihanna must turn the screws on Chris Brown and make sure that these women have a ringside seat or have a hands-on role in it or face their boycotts and their demoting her of 'role model' status. This speaks to their attitude that their control over Rihanna is better than any control Chris Brown wielded. All along, this was supposed to be about Rihanna regaining control over her life; her making her own decisions is a large part of the process.

Now for the 'she still loves him' part - clearly, Rihanna is a pragmatist. She knew that she couldn't make compost of him, especially when there are a gaggle of disaffected, pseudo-feminists with their own agendas, are screaming for it. It's entirely possible that, deep down, Rihanna knew that if she gutted Brown, she would be vilified. So maybe, like Tina Turner, she opted for expediency versus Warrior Princess justice, because crumbs can't help revealing themselves as same. And if Brown is arrogant about the hearing's outcome, he will likely slip up. It will be Chris Brown's fault, not Rihanna's - the girl's hand will be clean.

No machinations. No manipulations.

And as for close proximity meaning love, Baker, obviously, you are not up on non-White celebrity gossip. Tisha Campbell-Martin had a similar type of stay away/protection order against Martin Lawrence after she accused him of sexual harassment. She allowed a smaller distance because she was contractually obligated to finish filming the remaining Martin episodes of the final season - NOT because she 'loved' Martin Lawrence.

Doing one's job and reaffirming one's professionalism - believe it or not, there are people in the entertainment industry for which this is very important. Likely, Rihanna is one of these people. But Ken Baker opt to spoon feed pantloads to feebs gullible enough to believe him and prejudiced enough to write her off just because she doesn't dance to their tune.

Oscar producers... I hope you were taking notes

Lately, the non-traditional award shows have been kicking @$$, in terms of entertaining viewers. First, TVLand had an awesome tribute to Sid and Marty Krofft with a musical number featuring the various characters and theme songs from their TV shows. And more recently, Spike TV had their Guys Choice Awards ceremony. Fantastic categories, with plenty of profanity. Of course, I was pretty impressed with the Fight Club montage. Spike didn't shy away from showing the more graphic clips; they just blurred and black-barred nips and male junk and bleeped out the profanity. Would the Oscars dare to do that? Not likely. When David Fincher get his recognition from the Academy, it's not likely that Marla's dildo will make an appearance.

But the best part of the whole show was the set. A huge raging fire in the background and a gigantic bear's head at the base of the presenters/recipients stage area.

As networks go, Spike TV is a pretty fun one. While I don't care for the Ultimate Fighting and CSI, their other offerings like 1000 Ways To Die and World's Deadliest Warrior are pretty fascinating and at times, cringe-inducing. And there's an attempt to throw science and even history into these programs, which is appealing to me, since I'm a Forensic Files fanatic.

Good job, Spike TV - much more appealing that watching Lifetime.

Where's Sandra Bullock's pat on the back?

I recorded CBS's Early Show this morning just to check on something, specifically, how a non-Aniston rom-com vehicle would be treated by the on-air personalities. Maggie Rodriguez and Julie Chen were off on assignments and The Insider's Lara Spencer was sitting in. I recorded about an hour and a half of program and there was no mention whatsoever of The Proposal being Sandra Bullock's best box office opening. Nor of her success coming after several years' absence from the screen. Nor of the fact that she achieved her personal best at age 44.

So why was Sandra Bullock's accomplishment completely ignored? Could it be that she was never publicly humiliated for choices she made in her personal life? Or maybe, when she made these choices, they were never subjected to princess scrutiny for the very fact that Bullock didn't review the princesses' rubric about the 'ideal man' for someone like her and followed it to the letter? Or maybe, she took responsibility for any heartache she suffered, got over it, and moved on, without the help of Oprah, the princesses, and paid tabloid flacks.

I saw The Proposal on Friday and while it wasn't my favorite romantic comedy, it did have heart to it. And Bullock and Ryan Reynolds had great chemistry together. And to be honest, I was especially impressed with Sandra Bullock. I have only seen one other movie of hers in the theater and it was Speed 2. I've rented Two Weeks Notice but to be honest, I never saw what others saw in her. Until Friday. She does have a nice screen presence and comedic charm. And she is a lovely-looking woman. The supposed age difference between she and Reynolds was easily overlooked because of her ease and confidence within her own skin.

I hope that Bullock continues her career, although she could use some better scripts. Mind you, that can be said about the majority of Hollywood actresses. Nevertheless, it's nice to include another actress onto my 'maybe/will see' list.

Thank you, Lewis Black!!!

On Friday's episode of The View, Lewis Black was on, talking about anything and everything, since the women were lobbing topics at him left and right.

It's amazing that after - what - twelve years that these women haven't figured out a more organized way to interview their guests.

Anyway, among the many things that Black b*tched about was the '___ is the new ___' phenomenon. Apparently, somebody tried to apply it to him upon turning 60. '60 is the new 40'. The conniption Black threw... hilarious. Sadly, women who continue to use this fill in the blank phrase didn't get the joke at all.

Paraphrasing Black, if 60 is 40, then why the hell are the numbers different? Why is there this ongoing movement to reframe choices or actions that are beyond one's controls? A good example is the use of the word 'cougar'. You're a grown @$$ woman - don't 'cute up' the fact that you like looking at, dating, and fcuking younger men. Why waste energy on that when you can be breaking his back?

And that 30-10 concept that Aniston introduced in her recent Vogue interview - that worries me. A LOT. She and her princesses are already adept at making excuses; I would hate for this behavior to become more mainstream.

Let's hope this crap goes the way of Ebonics. Let's embrace 'making the effort' and 'dealing'.

Happy Father's Day!!!!!!!!

I knew I smelled National Enquirer

Earlier this week, a report regarding Ohio police chiefs breaking into the home of the surrogate for Sarah Jessica Parker's twins hit the internet. A disgusting demonstration of greed and lack of empathy - sure - but there was a definite tinge of cruelty to this whole scenario, which made me think that the tabloid in question was the National Enquirer. Just look at their record lately: the Edwards affair/paternity drama; Patrick Swayze, Paul Newman, and Farrah Fawcett's cancer struggles; and one of their reporters taking Brooke Shields' dementia-stricken mother out for 'errands'. Tabloids are reknown for crossing lines, but the National Enquirer aren't above breaking laws and engaging in ruthless and questionable tactics. And according to TMZ, the Enquirer's record of unethical journalism continues.

For me, this confirms that certain men shouldn't be involved in the gossip game; they can't accurately gauge their audience's taste in gossip or their threshold for sleazy tactics. This is not to say that gossip should be a women only domain; gossip via female writers and editors tend to be anti-strong women and very high school. No way should the Aniston-Pitt-Jolie story have dragged on for four years and yet, female tabloid editors have transformed this story into a Betty-Archie-Veronica derivative. For fcuk sakes, the Archie comics have been around for -what- nearly 50 years?

Again, the whole gossip game could use a major therapeutic purge. Failures shouldn't be in the position to disseminate gossip because their failures and lack of acceptance of same can color their perspectives. And quite frankly, if their failures were due to laziness, incompetence, lack of intelligence and trustworthiness, and credibility, why the hell should anyone believe that these people can redeem themselves in the celebrity gossip game? There is no incentive for these people to do their jobs correctly and with integrity if there's a lack of fact checking and consequences for making mistakes or flat-out lying.

Just look at entertainment shows like Showbiz Tonight and Hollywood 411. They used to have tabloid editors promoting their stories on the shows all the time. About a year ago, the editors stopped promoting tabloid stories, and yet, there's always a seat for these editors to talk around their stories or offer commentary. If these tabloid editors can't stand behind their stories, why continue to reward them with airtime when these entertainment shows can seek out non-tabloid staff (read: experts/cultural critics) for more well-thought out entertainment analysis?

I continue to marvel at why these 24 hour news outlets lack of cleaning house where entertainment journalism is concerned.

And BTW... I consider the National Enquirer the date rapists of tabloids.

I repeat... tread VERY carefully, Bradley Cooper

So, here's a review:

The Jolie-Pitts issued a denial about their breaking up.

Star Magazine claimed that Brad met with Aniston at a NYC hotel rooftop.

The JPs got a People cover story (5 paragraphs spread over 4 pages); within the text/pics boxes, Aniston's rep was quoted as saying that the meeting did not happen. And Brad's rep issued an even stronger statement indicating that no way in hell did he meet with Aniston, just as it has been for the last 4 years.

Last Thursday, Aniston was spotted at a charity event for Congolese women. Her method of support - wearing a T-shirt that one of her friends designed.

Meanwhile, the 'Brad Pitt family' (that includes Angelina), along with the Pitt siblings and their spouses, donated $1M to build a children's cancer wing at a Missouri hospital. The wing will be affiliated with the St. Jude's hospital and it was named after the Pitt's matriarch, Jane.

Then, Aniston takes a dig at her pathetic, much lamented lovelife at an awards ceremony last weekend.

Then, Angelina did some promotions for World Refugee Day which hit the internet last weekend.

Then, the JP Foundation donated another $1M to refugee children in Pakistan.

Angelina participated in World Refugee Day activities, including sponsoring a poster contest for school kids. Then she did several interviews with Anderson Cooper and Ann Curry.

But before the segments were aired, Aniston was spotted having dinner with Bradley Cooper.

Bradley Cooper... really?

You mean the Bradley Cooper who denied dating her weeks ago? The Bradley Cooper who costarred in the #1 movie for the last two weeks? The Bradley Cooper who also made People's Sexiest Bachelors list?

Uh huh.

So I assume that Bradley Cooper is that 'stable' male that Aniston wanted sent to her table at the Crystal Awards. Kinda curious, given that he married a few years ago and ended up divorcing within 4 months. But again, things like that doesn't matter when it comes to movie careers and likely, it will not matter when it comes to dating Aniston, not because she is such a big person that she would ignore it, but her princesses will because he's an attractive, available man who is experiencing some success right now.

Just look at the facts:

In 2005, rumors sprouted about Vince Vaughn and Aniston when they were spotted having dinner. And coincidentally, during that summer, Vaughn broke huge in his turn in Wedding Crashers and the cries for that pairing grew louder. Nevermind that Vince didn't scream husband or father material - the princesses found their new savior.

In 2007, rumors sprouted about Paul Sculfor, just after Jane Pitt was spotted visiting Aniston around Father's Day. Americans were immediately inundated with Paul Sculfor's modelling pics, before breaking up within a month.

In 2008, John Mayer wrote on his blog about douchebags, even dropping Brad Pitt's name in the entry. By February 2008, he was spotted sunning with Aniston on a Mexico beach. Eventually, he made the cover of Rolling Stone, along with some of the greatest guitarists of rock, and got an offer to host a TV variety show. They broke up twice - the final time was after Mayer accompanied her to the Oscars and secured the price of pap pics of him would not plummet like they did before.

So, what will be Bradley Cooper's fate? Will he be tapped to be the Brad that Aniston wish he had? Will the princesses apply undue pressure on him to fulfill their dreams for Aniston? Will he be the scapegoat when their dreams don't come true? Because whenever anything goes wrong with Aniston's relationships, it is never her fault. And the tendency to ignore certain red flags now will end up being several months of fodder if and when the relationship is toast.

So again, Bradley Cooper... tread very carefully, because when the machine kicks in, it could grind you into powder.

What was that?!!

On Wednesday's episode of Bold and the Beautiful, several things jumped out at me pertaining to the Jackie/Nick/Owen power struggle. First, what was Nick's deal in so casually and kinda callously throwing Deacon Sharpe's name out there, especially with Bridget in the room? Deacon was the one who drenched Bridget with buckets of hurt, and Nick, despite his sanctimony, has continued where Deacon left off. I don't care how desperate Nick may have been, but he crossed the line. And his passion against his mother's union with Owen seems inappropriate and over the top. But... I can't help thinking that Deacon may show up soon. And the headlines on one of the soap magazines implied a Deacon appearance on The Young and the Restless and since B & B is its sister soap...

Next, what was the deal with Jackie yelling to Nick that she would shoot Owen if he wronged her? And couple that with her crazy eyed look after Nick and Bridget left, it seems that Jackie is really on the verge of losing her marbles. And Owen clearly has no instincts or is just ignoring them because that look in her eye spells major trouble.

And on Thursday's episode... WTF was with Steffy's hair? It looked really wiggy, for some reason. It reminded me of Jackie's hair as of late. Too much highlights and brassy ones at that. Not an attractive look for either of them.

And enough already with the product placement. Instead of Macy's or a food bank charity, now it's Drew Carey's The Price is Right.

Sheesh... give it a rest.

Gisele doesn't sell? No $h*t!!!

Apparently, the brain trusts at both Vanity Fair and Harper's Bazaar have concluded that Gisele Bundchen doesn't sell magazines. Given that she quit being a Victoria Secret model; dated and married an athlete that hasn't worked in over a year; stepped on the toes of the mother of said man's child in an attempt to look like the ultimate Earth Mother; dated DiCaprio when his career was on fire, etc. Seriously... why would she be a good cover story subject? She's doing a whole lot of nothing; mind you, her body's looking smoking hot while doing it, but still, it's doing nothing.

Occasional modelling layouts and appearances at red carpets and Costume Galas do not an interesting life make. And just because she received some tabloid notoriety doesn't translate into fashion magazine sales. If that was true, Kate Gosselin and Octomom would've been tapped.

You gotta have more sidelines going for you, besides being spanking material, especially when you're trying to get princess cash.

Happy birthday, Phylicia Rashad!!!

Best TV mom ever!!

Claire Huxtable did not play. AT ALL!!!

Smart, beautiful, perceptive, articulate, and tough.

Although she was a very successful lawyer, the fact that she was just as tough, if not tougher, than Cliff, was a very familiar stroke to people of color who watched the show.

Here's a link to one of my favorite Claire Huxtable flip outs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTnTWyvr5v4&feature=related

Get over your 'Diamond and Pearl' fantasy, Megan Fox!

So Megan Fox's been promoting the hell out of the upcoming Transformers movie. Giving vacuous, pseudo-edgy interviews in a futile attempt to separate herself from the herd of clueless starlets so insecure, that they can't be themselves in any way, shape, or form. Though she denies it, she's trying like gangbusters to be this generation's Angelina Jolie. The problem is that the original Angelina Jolie is not finished being Angelina Jolie and she has plenty of Angelina Jolie to go around for generations to come.

So last week, Megan seemed flummoxed about the comparisons to Jolie; this week, she said that when she was between relationships, she wished that Angelina Jolie was her lover. I'm sorry, but while I think that the concept of going gay for Jolie is a pretty standard reaction to her, taking measures, via plastic surgeries, tattoos, makeup and dressing choices to look like her and then making your romantic intentions toward your plastic surgery standard public seems creepy and cannibalistic, in a Jeffrey Dahmer way. Angelina and Megan aren't related and 12 years separate them, along with intelligence, focus, talent, and success, but for someone who made an effort and a financial investment in looking like her ideal's twin or skankier younger sister to think that sex would be the climax of this tribure/performance art is gross, pure and simple. Likely, men will not notice the incestuous overtones and just think of two hot chicks 'doing it', but really, Megan, if you could engineer such a tryst or relationship, what would you bring to the table? Do you really think that Angelina will be turned on by the idea of 'doing it' with someone that could pass for her younger self, or a twin, or even a person who could resemble one of her daughters in 20 years?

To me, it sounds like you are the one who would get off at the thought that your tribute to another woman would be rewarded with lesbian sex. It would be the ultimate validation, although I have the feeling that this hypothetical tryst would not be enough for you - that's where the Dahmer cannibalism comes into it. According to reports, when the sex wasn't enough, Dahmer stepped it up several notches by abducting, torturing, murdering, dismembering and eating victims who were once lovers. Whether Fox has it in her to maim and dismember - I honestly cannot say - but that chick gives off vibes. Gory, yet very pedestrian vibes.

Seriously, Megan... couldn't you come up with something better than Prince's Diamond and Pearl retread? For those who don't know, after Prince ditched The Revolution, he created The New Power Generation. Not satisfied with the new band, he decided to cast 'twins' who became staples in his videos. In actuality, they weren't twins - just two sexy dancers game to titillate audiences with the possibility of incest during a three-way, with Prince being the top-off. Prince thought he was being a provocateur - he really wasn't. And neither is Megan Fox. If you're going to 'front like you're bi, don't be a Joe Francis Girls Gone Wild bi-chick - fcuking for the cameras and not for the sex itself. People, especially straight chicks, want to fcuk Angelina because she gives off the vibe that the sex would be about her and the woman lucky enough to be in her bed.

That's what these 20-somethings don't get.

Happy birthday, Stan Laurel!!!

He was responsible for one of the greatest comedy teams ever. And when his comedy soulmate died, he continued writing routines for them.

Some of my favorite nonsensical Laurel lines were "You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead." Or "Don't you call him dumb. Why... you've forgotten more than he'll ever know... in his little finger."

His Stan was the reason why Mae Busch was so cross at Ollie all the time. And while Stan wasn't a turncoat by nature, he would, innocently and accidentally on purpose, throw Ollie under the bus, especially if he's prompted by a woman. Sons of the Desert is the most hilarious example.

He cut his teeth among the comic greats of the silent era - Chaplin, Keaton, Hal Roach - and enjoyed a pretty successful run during the sound era.

Here's a fan video by yark72, who cleverly discovered that Stan and Ollie's dance from Way Out West and The Gap Band mixes very well together.



One of my favorite faces ever. And the crying... genius.

Too much douchiness for a Monday?

While channel-surfing on my radio (due to the loss of the CBS affiliate), I switched onto the overly synthesized pop rock station. Within minutes, I heard the familiarly cheesy douchiness that is Ryan Seacrest. The youth in my listening area will be indoctrinated with that dude's pantload and there's precious little that anyone can do about it, although, his banal banter takes up less than ten minutes per hour of airtime, which is a major plus. Still, for those paying him, they are totally getting hosed. If you contrast him with, say, the Tom Joyner Morning Show, in terms of getting your money's worth, Tom Joyner is the much better deal. Tom's personality, along with his chemistry with J. Anthony Brown and Sybil, and the total time that they engage in actual on-air discussions about anything and everything under the sun, made their show worth listening to. Unfortunately, the local R & B/hip hop station opted for cheap - hence Rickey Smiley.

Anyway, I listened to a little of Seacrest, since that's as much as that douche would offer up, and the Pratts were on, b*tching and moaning about their treatment at Al Roker's hands. First off, pound for pound, Spencer Pratt can outdouche Seacrest any day of the week, but that amount of douchiness in one place is not healthy for anyone. Anyway, I tried to watch the Today interview in question and just couldn't do it. Even if Al did give them the business, it just wasn't worth watching. And as for Spencer insisting that he wanted Matt Lauer to do the interview - did he really want that? Is he really sure that he wanted to be in Matt Lauer's hot seat? Because people still remember when Lauer grilled Tom Cruise four years ago and Cruise was a real star.

And that crack about Roker being 'just a weatherman'; it rings a lot like when the Republicans kept spinning Obama as 'just a community organizer' or Hillary saying that he's 'just a great public speaker'. Compartmentalizing people, especially people of color is never a smart thing, Spencer. Of course, we are talking about one half of a couple that, collectively, has the IQ of dryer lint. Besides, Roker has done hard-hitting, thorough interviews with celebs before. An example was Star Jones. Despite their friendship, he asked very probing questions and Jones didn't b*tch about it after the fact because she stood up to the scrutiny and provided an interesting interview.

People need to recognize and internalize that just because some of us look cuddly doesn't mean that we are pushovers. Al Roker, in recent years, hasn't been a pushover. In fact, that Don Imus MSNBC debacle was probably Roker's turning point. It was probably the first time that he publicly declared his position about an important matter. And frankly, once a person of color finally feels comfortable exposing their feelings publicly, it will not stop.

Good for Al for checking these vacuous jack@$$es. And a big ups to Whoopi Goldberg for trying to get through to these idiots. It won't work, of course, and it may gives these two dickwads more fodder to work with, but it had to be said and said to their fcuking faces.

Saddle up, ladies... Usher is on the loose!!! (that's sarcasm, ladies)

Somehow, I have the feeling that Usher will rock the same protective dream coat as Jennifer Aniston just because the princesses can't resist a mama's boy. Because a mama's boy implies that he can be controlled by at least one woman and to ingratiate oneself with that woman means that you're golden where he's concerned. A weak-@$$ed man meeting an equally weak-@$$ed woman that Mama likes equal easier life for Weak-Ass Man.

Usher's music are club bumpers, at least they used to be. And clearly, he thinks that he can recapture that magic by reclaiming his position underneath Mama's thumb? Kinda a dumb-@$$ed move, given than now, more than ever, some people's fame are pretty finite, and IMO, Usher's time ran out well before Tameka. To be perfectly honest, his ran a little too long for my taste. For me, he gives off the same vibe as R. Kelly and Chris Brown - something just never gelled with me, as far as Usher's concerned. He was sold too hard; that's a total turn off!!

And when he used his personal dirt to sell records (Confessions) and women shoved those facts aside because he was young and cut, I couldn't wait until this douchebag's time ran out. And when women slobbered over his Essence cover with him and his first biological child alone, with a passing mention of his stepchildren - was that intended to be attractive to the female sex? Of course that type of talk would be attractive to the princesses because they love to lie to themselves about where a man's obligations should belong. Because these women will never imagine themselves behind the eight-ball - it will always be the non-princesses, since being a non-princess implies that you're unworthy.

So Tameka... your douche is loose. Hopefully, he didn't scar your non-Usher spawn with his clear favoritism towards his biological kin. And make sure that he doesn't continue his bull$h*t behavior towards them.

Do not bleed him dry - he's already teetering on the brink of obscurity. Keep your hands clean; let his ego and his mama push him over the edge.

Do not do an expose about what that @$$hole did to you - the dumb hos that bought his previous records can revisit his $hit when they're mentally ready for it.

Take care of all of your kids, period. His level of involvement with his kids is his business. If he allows his mama to get in between his kids, then he's the dick wad who's going to have to answer for it. Because those kids will let him know about it, later rather than sooner.

E!... don't ply me with balloon juice and tell me it's Boone's Farms!!!

For some bizarre reason (more than likely because of the Crystal Awards), E! decided to reair their Jennifer Aniston special. Besides the fact that as the file footage moved from the 90s to now, her nose resembled her father's less and less, this special was chocked full of inaccuracies. Since I watched at the point when Brad ditched her fake ass, my tally will not be accurate, but the first mistake was stating that Aniston spent 2004 mourning the end of her relationship. The problem with that is that she and Brad were still together at that point, although they just came off of a 6 month separation due to Brad shooting Troy in Malta. Or maybe, E! was being fcuking truthful and saying that the marriage was truly toast before Angelina could influence anything or be blamed for everything.

Another inaccuracy which I really can't prove was when her hen, Kathy Najimy, emphatically denied that Aniston would put career ahead of starting a family - which is why she signed up for six back to back projects in 2004 and possibly, used some substances that already resulted in a miscarriage just for her own vanity. The substances is the part I can't prove, but I totally believe it and can see that her gal pals continue to enable her behaviors as well.

But the most glaring inaccuracy was when the show inferred that she still had a connection to Plan B - actually, she doesn't. Actually, it was spelled out in the final settlement that NO! THE BITCH DOESN'T HAVE ANY CONNECTION TO PLAN B. In addition, just last spring, much hullabaloo was made about Aniston taking steps to create Echo Films. And since the E! staff who clearly had access to Aniston's crack could've took some time from their ass-licking and fact check with their puppetmaster, Aniston herself. But no... just another example that the b*tch will not open her mouth to correct anything, even if it helps to emphasize the pantload of her own special brand of female empowerment that she's trying to peddle.

I readily admit that nothing this b*tch has done or will ever do will make me happy or even tolerate her, but I would appreciate it if this b*tch, at least, acted like someone is listening to the crap that comes out of her mouth, be mindful of the responsibility, and fcuking follow through instead of waiting for media opportunities to remind us that her marriage went south.

Sheesh!!!

The conversion to digital

As everybody knows or should know, analog television is out and digital television is in. I have cable, so I didn't engage in the mad rush for coupons and converters. But I am really down because the CBS affiliate has ceased broadcasting its signal on the radio, meaning no Early Show, no soaps, no Everybody Loves Raymond. And to be quite honest, listening to the TV programs helps break up a very long and monotonous day. And while I have the means to record these programs at home, I'm really questioning whether I should. For me, I view CBS Early Show much like E! red carpet coverage - train wreck TV must be watched live. I recorded some of the Early Show this morning; watching it at lunch just wasn't the same. I need to stew on the mistakes for a little bit - process it and laugh about it to myself. I checked their website and even that sucks the spontaneity out of it.

The same goes for the soaps, especially Bold and the Beautiful. While it seems that Rick is doing a 180, it was still fun to slam him in my head. I like cheering on Stephanie and dissing the Forrester and Jackie M. employees for loitering and fcuking their way through a work day. I shouldn't quibble for too long, since my temp job will end soon and I could possibly watch these shows live, but then I will have the problem of less income and mounting bills.

So, the next few days will be interesting.

Any wonder why...

Aniston couldn't get or keep a man even with the assist of football field-sized piece of flypaper?

She continues to interject a 4+ year breakup into her shtick; she continues to dump the blame at the feet of the ex versus taking responsibility for her part in it. She continues to ignore timing and insinuate herself into matters that is no longer her business. And her fans continue to ignore nuances and flat-out blatancies perpetrated by their idol.

Mere days after Brad denies meeting up with the b*tch in People Magazine, she takes a jab at him; doesn't it occur to her that the timing of the jab infers that, maybe, she is upset that Brad continues to distance himself from her, a natural occurrence between divorced people? Remember how she tried to 'create a moment' at the Oscars by making a face at Brad while he sat in the audience? Well, for sharp-eyed viewers, the moment didn't last, since Brad was filmed lookin down Angelina's dress and smiling his @$$ off while Nicole Kidman was paying tribute to her during the Best Actress presentation. All of which, occurred while Aniston was seated a couple rows behind them with her recent ex, John Mayer.

So despite the constant proclamations of Aniston's sweetness and banging body, Aniston still remains alone because of her big, mumbling mouth. And she continues to advertise that Brad Pitt is ungetoverable, therefore no man would want to be measured against that ghost. She seriously needs to get over it and herself because, despite turning 40 and being so-called 'empowered', she continues to look weak.

Here's a sample of her 4 year old retread at the Crystal and Lucy Women in Film Awards this weekend:



Aniston is a Woman of Film? Really?

A Young and the Restless clarification

I made the mistake of inferring that The Young and the Restless takes death pretty lightly; I was absolutely wrong about that. What I should've said was that American soaps typically take death lightly via 'killing' people and bringing them back when the writers write themselves into a corner. Despite the revelation that Phillip C. is really alive, Y & R has among the better reputations of treating death and the ensuing mourning and grieving period with the gravity that it deserves. Y & R even treats miscarriages and stillborns with the same respect, making it a realistic process that affects families and their friends. Sadly, Y & R is the exception rather than the rule. I can't tell you how many times Days of Our Lives' John, Roman, Marlena, Hope, or Stefano came back from the dead. Soaps have to support their talent when they opt out of the show and yet, please long-term fans, but killing off characters, especially when they know that their portrayers rarely leaves a soap and stay gone leave them in a quandary.

Meanwhile Univision's telanovellas and Britain's Coronation Street kill off characters and their deaths leave a profound resonance that can be jarring when you're used to American soaps; but it's a jarring that I like and appreciate. Alma's death on Coronation Street was devastating because she was such a lovely soul (and her death was preventable if only she followed through with her doctor's visits) but it also brought about the introduction of her 'relative', Richard Hillman who went on to marry Gayle; attempted to gaslight her mother, Audrey; stole the Duckworths' nestegg; murdered one of his exes and dumped her body in the foundation of a house that Steve was preparing; scaring the $h*t out of busybody Norris; bludgeoned Emily and Maxine with a crowbar, leaving Maxine dead; and his failed attempt at murder-suicide of his and his family by driving Gayle, her children and grandchild into a canal.

So again, I regret pinning that label on the Young and the Restless.

Now, on to the Mary Jane storyline... I've been listening to it and am wondering if Mary Jane is really Paul's sister, Patty? I remember that storyline - it was probably my first soap memory. I remember Jack (played by Terry Lester) 'rolling around and kissing some woman in bed' on the day of his wedding to Patty. For the longest time, I thought that Lauren was the woman, but maybe it was Diana Coville. Anyway, given what went down with Jack's brother Billy i.e. sleeping with Sharon on the morning of his wedding with Chloe, it would be amazing if the writers is mining Jack's past in this way. But given how much I hate women dwelling on past heartaches, I would hate to think that Patty has allowed her feelings to fester for this long. I mean, this happened at least 30 years ago in real life time because I was in preschool/kindergarten when I saw it. Nevertheless, good for Y & R if they are taking that route.

Talk about mining history!

Maggie Rodriguez... a word...

Anne Frank wasn't a Holocaust survivor.

WTF, woman?!!!

Questions answered

Purchased a copy of this week's People Magazine. After paging through it, I can revisit the questions I posed yesterday.


Will the People piece be a cobbled together piece of nothing, much like their 'All About the Twins' story? Absolutely!!

How many pages will be dedicated to the patchwork story? The 'story' spanned 4 pages How many of the pages will be plastered with photos? All 4 pages

How many 'writers' will be listed as 'contributors' to this story? 6 Because in the 'All About the Twins' story, there were five people listed for 5 pages of story - each page had pap photos covering at least 50% of the page space. The first page has a pic of Brad and Angelina at Cannes; Brad's back spill over into 20% of the second page which consists of 2 1/2 paragraphs of story, broken into two columns. On page 3, there is one column containing the remaining 2 1/2 paragraphs of story. The column took up about 40% of the horizontal space and about 70% of the vertical. The fourth and final page consists of pap pics and text boxes pertaining to 5 specific rumors. On the bottom of pages 3 and 4, a series of pap pics and text boxes detailing a timeline.

And finally... when People 'comes out' as a tabloid, will it rock a cool-looking green snake on its upper thigh? They won't because it would mark the end of the access to the celebs, although their access seems pretty tenuous, given that they need several people to write five paragraphs of story.

Happy birthday, Hattie McDaniel!!!

She was always the maid.

Or the scrub woman.

Or the cook.

Or the mammy.

Many refuse to even entertain the thought of watching her, even if she had a bit part in the film.

Black power... or more like Black pantload.

Because of the 'blackout' by sanctimonous young Black people, they will never see that Tyler Perry and the Wayans continue to recycle these so-called objectionable stereotypes, despite having significant resources, experiences, and latitude to elevate their art. And they will continue to blame Black actors like Hattie for trying to survive within a studio system that willingly caved into Jim Crow segregationist bullshit. These finger pointers will continue to watch Warner Brothers' Looney Toons without knowing that even the Bugs Bunny creators cowtowed to Jim Crow and created racist bullshit alongside universally embraced classics (seriously, check out Looney Toons Golden Collection Volume 3 - several shorts are all kinds of racist fcukery). The same with Tom and Jerry - if you watch it on Cartoon Network, you'll notice that they've (?) dubbed in a less offensive vocal performance for the recurrent housekeeper character.

At any rate, Hattie McDaniel tried to make lemons out of lemonade, and she did an admirable job. Paired with the likes of Jean Harlow, she was, naturally, there to offer a physical counterpoint to Harlow's platinum blonde sleekness; however, she did verbalize the soundtrack that was likely running through Harlow characters' heads. She did the same thing in Gone With the Wind, but was allowed to have a heart.

Hattie McDaniel suffered from the same ailment as many Black stars of today: typecasting. As Chris Rock once said 'The limit is the sky'. Actually, Hattie can and should transcend further if santimonious Black youth and overly empathetic PC folks would accept the constraints heaped on her and her peers and examine whether they made meals out of scraps.

Here's a brief clip from Gone With The Wind:



She made meals.

Happy birthday, Judy Garland!!!!!!!!!!!

She was created by a gay man.

Her singing was gently cultivated by gay men. (And later, Kay Thompson)

She married gay men.

She spawned daughters who married gay men.

She became a gay icon.

Her daughter, Liza, became a gay icon.

Some have allowed themselves to avoid her because of the gayness that seemed to shadow her and those chumps missed out on a whole hell of a lot.

Those who love Judy Garland can sometimes become overwhelmed by the tremendous sadness that seemed to find her. Those who love her can sometime become angry that too many self-serving people plundered and looted her and then deny... deny... deny that it ever happened. And many cringe at the thought that a frustrated, overly ambitious mother handed over her youngest to a studio willing to starve her, strap down her burgeoning womanhood, and drug her to get a little more out of her, while many of their other 'stars' possess less talent than a length of a baby's fingernail. But that isn't the beginning, middle or end to who Judy Garland was and what she meant and continue to mean to people.

She was beautiful and infinitely talented, with charm, vulnerability, inner strength and fire. If you haven't seen a Judy Garland movie or heard a Judy Garland recording, or watched a Judy Garland special, show or concert footage, please do. She was incredible.

Here's a clip from a show I saw on PBS a few years ago; mercifully, 'chunkylumps' from YouTube uploaded it. This was part of a show she did with Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra. PBS really should reair this special during its pledge drives because it was really that good.



She would've been 87 years old.

Guessing that the Jon Gosselin cover didn't sell

Apparently, People Magazine's cover story will tackle the 'true' state of Brad and Angelina's relationship. One of the headlines refer to a purported 'meeting' between Brad and Aniston.

But let's open up the betting window, shall we?

Will the People piece be a cobbled together piece of nothing, much like their 'All About the Twins' story?

How many pages will be dedicated to the patchwork story? How many of the pages will be plastered with photos?

How many 'writers' will be listed as 'contributors' to this story? Because in the 'All About the Twins' story, there were five people listed for 5 pages of story - each page had pap photos covering at least 50% of the page space.

And finally... when People 'comes out' as a tabloid, will it rock a cool-looking green snake on its upper thigh?

So now Ridge is a pillpopper?!!

I knew something stunk when Taylor gave Ridge those pills - now the dude's a hophead!!! Mind you, I don't blame him. I mean, seriously, how many times can a man try to convince a woman that he is hurting? And if the hurt is about the loss of the child... one time is more than enough. But Brooke seems to think that Ridge's loss can be powered through... like a leg cramp. It's not, not that I would know. I know what it's like to lose nieces and nephews to SIDS and to say the least, those were bitches to get through.

But how much do you wanna bet that Rick will be responsible for 'saving' Ridge and all will be forgiven? I hope not, because all too often on soaps, death is treated too lightly.

Just look at The Young and the Restless. I just started listening to it a few weeks ago and just last week, this Adam person allowed a pregnant Ashley to fall down the stairs; he covered up how severely injured she was; hired a dubious doctor to lie to Ashley about her baby's condition; and essentially watching Victor and Ashley dream and love this baby, knowing full well that it died. NOT COOL WHATSOEVER!!!! I don't give a fcuk what Victor did to him or what he thinks Victor did to him. Now the climax of this storyline is going to be brutal.

This is why there is no Feminist leadership

In an upcoming Harper's Bazaar issue, so-called 'feminist' Naomi Wolf decided to tackle the question of why Angelina Jolie is so powerful. The thoroughly uninspired, tabloidy take on Jolie reeked of superficiality, which is why this article could be her ticket to a View panel discussion.

Several issues that I have with this article deals with Wolf's inaccurate assessments of several key issues. First, her assessment that certain women of America's Golden Age weren't allowed to realize various aspects of their personalities, specifically Marlene Dietrich being sexual but not loved. Apparently, Wolf was unaware of the intense love that soldiers and veterans of the Allied Forces during WWII felt for her. In addition, Dietrich was a mother - whether she was a good one is an answer that only her daughter can answer. She also referenced Jacqueline Susann and Marilyn Monroe as women with money, fame, and dazzling careers, who suffered from depression, drug addiction, loneliness, and self-destructive; however, she failed to address that their mental vulnerabilities existed before their careers caught fire and that money and codependent relationships with men with their own issues exacerbated their issues.

My next issue with Wolf's assessment is her reference to Angelina's 'off-key notes' during her early years in the media. Wolf citing incidents that occurred with the men of her life (Billy Bob Thornton, James Haven), but completely omitted the real moments that set the stage for the Angelina Jolie many love today. Her candid explanation about her bisexuality while she was still a relative unknown piqued many people's interests. And if Wolf insisted on pointing out a significant on-camera moment involving a man, why not bring up Randolf Duke? Or rather, the moment when Angelina fulfilled her promise to the press that, after winning an award, she would jump into a pool, while wearing a Randolph Duke dress. Moments like these weren't 'off-key'; they were high notes during a time in a starlet's career when they hide, reconfigure and reshape themselves just to guarantee a place in Hollywood which is never a guarantee.

Wolf would've benefited from Judge Judy's advice: KISS (Keep it simple, stupid!!) Wolf was right it one area; Angelina's appeal has everything to do with possibilities. Angelina could've easily coasted on her looks, which aren't 'conventional', by the way. 'Conventional' looks aren't greeted with a great, big daaaaaaayyyyyyyyyuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmm by straight women. Or gay women. Or gay men. And to say the least, her candor isn't 'conventional', especially because she's White. Because if Wolf and other White women were honest with themselves, they would freely admit that they are capable of getting more from the world if they tow the line and play by men's rules, whereas women of color can never have access to such riches because they already violated the rules by not being White.

Angelina has demonstrated that she doesn't require the protective embrace of 'men' when she continues to keep her father, Jon Voight, at arms' length, despite many women campaigning for a reconciliation for an estrangement that was initially initiated by Jon Voight himself. Actually, if you look at all of the men of Angelina's past, you will notice that all of them need her, or the mere mention of her, to bolster their careers or deflect from non Angelina-related controversies that these men brought on themselves. Meanwhile, Brad Pitt, the man that princesses continue to insist is a passive participant of Angelina's current relationship, has an ironclad reputation for not using his past relationships as fuel for his career, which should indicate that his male beauty and virility wasn't the beginning, middle or end to why Angelina is with him.

The fact that so many women love Angelina and many other women make such efforts to derail her career or compromise her reputation can be summed up with one word: promise. Not the 'promise' that is associated with possibilities. It's the 'promise' that Angelina has clearly made to herself long before she was the megastar that she is today. Women picked up on the 'promise' because it is infused in the way she walks, talks, and conducts herself. And Angelina is obviously keeping that promise to herself. Whether the promise is vague or specific; long-term or short-term; career-based or personal; or made in crisis or while daydreaming, this woman's focus is unwavering, which is why so many women hate her for it. These women either broke fundamental promises to themselves or their promises were so shallow that they belong in copy for Special K ads, therefore when they sense someone, a woman, not doing this, they spend all of their energy trying to destroy the reminder that making and keeping promises to oneself is possible. And since Brad Pitt was their 'safe man' or 'honorary woman', they decide to perpetrate a rewriting of his history too.

Like Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt made a promise to himself and kept it, as demonstrated by his leaving college when he was one term paper away from graduation; driving out to California; living in apartments with out of work actors; wearing chicken suits; driving strippers around for extra cash; and essentially clawing his way to the top of the Hollywood heap. For women to believe that his reward for his grit and tenacity should be Jennifer Aniston is flat out retarded. This not a passive man, and for Wolf to try to depict him as, essentially, a trophy, diminishes her argument about Angelina's power. Wolf would've done better if she asserted that Angelina finally attracted a man that 'got it'. A man who understands the 'promise' and is not threatened by how her promise to herself would affect him.

For me, this article was a colossal FAIL, because Wolf was not well-versed in any aspect of her subject. But then again, these so-called professionals (doctors, journalists, feminists) have put anything resembling professionalism and expertise on the back burner for the instant gratification of benign, anti-Angelina punditry.

Tread carefully, my blue-eyed friend

Listened to CBS Early Show this morning, and amazingly, none of its telecast was sponsored by Gran Torino. Or by The International. Curious, huh?

At any rate, Bradley Cooper was in the hot seat today and Maggie Rodriguez certainly turned up the heat for the phantom princesses' cause.

Bradley Cooper didn't offer up anything, which isn't a criticism of him; it's Maggie Rodriguez. She doesn't ask very imaginative or probing questions, unless it's to a traumatized 3 year old who nearly drowned. But she did get the goods: BRADLEY COOPER IS SINGLE AND LIKES TO COOK!!!

And, according to Maggie, he is solely responsible for The Hangover's $45M success, which again, seems presumptuous and premature. There is some definite PR machinations going on and somehow, I doubt that Cooper's people are behind it. To me, it seems like yet another attempt to sacrifice a viable Hollywood up and comer with the albatross: Jennifer Aniston. Mercifully, Maggie didn't mention her lesbian lover during the interview, but an ad for He's Just Not That Into You, coincidentally, was played during one of the breaks. Another thing that wasn't mentioned was Cooper's four month marriage to Jennifer Esposito back in 2007. Naturally, that would compromise his stock - not as an actor, of course - but as the current solution to an ongoing problem with the princesses' princess.

Bradley Cooper seems to be handling himself well, under the circumstances. And hopefully, he will not let the morning show fellatio go to his head.

Been avoiding Bold and the Beautiful talk...

for the better part of two weeks because I was colossally disappointed with May's episodes, which is likely my own fault. May is typically Sweeps month, and it wasn't like B & B's powers that be touted it as same, therefore I can't claim that May was anti-climatic. It was merely disappointing.

I realize that they had to introduce Bill Spencer's character and sell the audience on the idea that he was an actual threat, but the rest of the story lines left something to be desired. Bridget and Nicks' reunion? Owen and Jackie's revisionist relationship? And the sloppy way they slipped the undocumented worker storyline in the last week; resolving the problem within a two day time period seemed rushed and hackneyed. And Stephanie saving Forrester by recording Bill Spencer? Total cheat.

But there were some good stuff associated with the Bill Spencer - for one, Bill Spencer. Despite the metrosexual gear, including the man purse, Bill Spencer is kinda sexy. And the dialogue between the Forresters during the Spencer crisis was pretty good. And surprisingly, I was really relieved that Donna didn't sleep with Bill. Mind you, I think that Bill did get into her head and will likely get her into bed for free.

Then the funny... Rick Forrester. He somehow convinced Brooke and Steffy that, after mere weeks of therapy, he is a changed man. Personally, I laughed my ass off when he told Brooke that he needed her emotional support, given that his dad was "too busy at the office".

"Too busy at the office"... WTF!!!!

"Too busy at the office" and "Fired" were trying to save the damn company, something, I would think, that Pwesident and CEO would have had a ringside seat for, given they are executives of the company.

And Ridge, rightfully, hit the roof when Brooke took Rick's side. It's about time that Ridge reiterated that when a man has a serious beef, he can't be talked out of it with baby voices and promises of hot sex.

However, when Ridge met up with Taylor at Phoebe's grave, it gave me pause. Isn't it illegal or just plain wrong to give someone a prescription drug when their ailment hasn't been diagnosed?

Anyway, I expect to be annoyed by Rick and Steffy. And Brooke too. But I hope that Stephanie gets back to work at Jackie M. instead of hanging out at Forrester ALL THE TIME!!

The Thai tabloids ain't nut'n to mess wit!!!

The Carradine death coverage continues, with numerous 'interpretations' dominating blogs. I won't use this blog to recount the more salacious and disrespectful rumors, but note that the Thai tabloids took the extra step in publishing the death pics.

It's not a revelation to say that international tabloids operate with different standards that American tabloids, but this move is pretty sad. Like Lisa 'Left Eye' Lopes, international tabloids don't flinch when it comes to the gruesome. But it was a horrific move, on Thailand's part, to publish this pic, especially if it turns out that Carradine's death was the result of foul play. Any possible perpetrator would likely get off to the idea that their handiwork can and would be seen around the world.

Again, I always have a problem with people who can do certain things not debating whether they should do it. But this does shed a light on American tabloids who continue to make accusations about celebs but fail to produce photographic evidence, which seems easier to obtain than Carradine's death pics.

All the same... this story continues to get sadder because of journalistic irresponsibility.

Bradley Cooper's 'time'? I think not!!!

I always have a problem when so-called 'experts' decide to declare certain actors and actresses' 'time' is at hand, especially when the film vehicle in question hasn't been released yet. Last week, on a certain Vancouver-based gossip blog, the blogger in question repeatedly declared that Bradley Cooper's 'time' was at hand, specifically, his 'time' to become America's next talked about male star. Naturally, I take issue with this because this assessment seemed to be a well-planned PR manuever, with the blogger in question, positioning herself as the first to say it. My other problem is that this Canadian blogger continues to try and position herself as an authority of the American star system and manipulator of same. She did it with Slumdog Millionaire; she did the same with Bradley Cooper.

This is not to say that Bradley Cooper didn't do a good job in The Hangover. I saw The Hangover on Friday afternoon; it was a pretty funny movie. Bradley Cooper was very funny and very attractive in the movie. He wore the hell of his clothes; his blue eyes, perfectly coiffed hair and tanned skin made him even more striking. But to say that his role as Phil will ensure his admittance into the upper echelon of Hollywood is pretty premature and inaccurate.

This film will be a feather in Cooper's cap, but his turn as Sack in Wedding Crashers was far more impressive, comedy-wise. He garnered attention back then and has been consistent in the following years, but the people, not gossip bloggers, will determine how far he will climb. Cooper's ambition, not gossip bloggers, will also affect where he will end up.

Another issue I have with this Canadian blogger is her lack of knowledge about American archetypes. For example, she constantly berates Americans for not making actor Colin Firth a much bigger star. A notorious Anglophile, she believes that anybody with a British accent, including Americans who try to ensconce themselves in that culture, is automatically more superior. Unfortunately, accents aren't the beginning, middle, or even end of Hollywood stardom; neither are the hundreds of years of theatrical legacy of the Brits. The reason why Firth isn't a huge star here is not because of American ignorance; it's because Firth continues to seek out roles in which he's the Bellamy. Shakespeare in Love was a perfect example; the Bridget Jones films were others, although the writers, finally, made the Bellamy the winner of the woman's heart. A victorious Bellamy is an anomoly and Firth needs to stop seeking out these roles that are symbollically impotent. The only person who benefited from the Bellamy roles was Ralph Bellamy and his heyday ended in the 1940s.

I don't wish to promote an isolationist approach to critiquing Hollywood films, but it should be said that there are rules within the Hollywood movie system that can't be denied and in order to give an accurate critique of it, you have to, at least, be aware of them.

Another grand dame comes to mind

Kinda weird...

When I rooted around YouTube for a Judy Holliday video, another fantastic comedic actress came to mind; Rosalind Russell.

Often overlooked in favor of tragic blondes who died way too young, Rosalind Russell is a jewel waiting for rediscovery and reverence. Sometimes paired against Jean Harlow's working class girl, Russell's upper class maven was sharp enough to not envy or denigrate Harlow's station and possessed an inner recognition that their existence, no matter how different, wasn't destructive to either, a concept that hasn't occurred, despite so-called inroads within the feminist movement. Kitson's Team Whatzit, anyone?

Sadly, like Holliday, Russell fell to breast cancer, although she lived to age 69. And she was born on June 4th, the same day as another force of nature, Angelina Jolie.

Here are some clips from one of the first roles when her whirlwind energy knocked it out of the park. Russell's Sylvia Fowler from The Women, was one of the most despicable females to grace the stage and film, and yet, you would still want to hang around with her. Now that's charisma:

Melissa Joan Hart has more to apologize for

Apparently, the New York Post overheard Melissa Joan Hart wishing that Farrah Fawcett would postpone her death until after her People weight loss bikini pic hit the news stand; Hart later apologized via her blog. Hart's alleged comments are pretty callous, to be sure, but she wasn't exploiting Farrah's situation, unlike Ryan and Redmond O'Neal, various former Charlie's Angels' stars and NBC/MSNBC.

My problem with Hart is that she is continuing this trend of has-been actresses who thinks that they can jumpstart their careers by appearing on magazine covers just because 'life happened' to them. What are Hart's claims to fame? Clarissa Explains It All, Sabrina, the Teen Witch, and Drive Me Crazy. That's it. And yet, just because some people online insulted her for being fat after baby and she decided to 'show 'em', by dieting and losing weight, she felt compelled, and worse, entitled, when it came to appearing on the cover of People Magazine? She is supposed to be an actress, not some weight loss guru. Show people who you are through your work; elbowing your way onto a celebrity magazine cover when you're barely a celebrity is ridiculous. And lazy.

Hart isn't the first 'actress' to use magazine covers to reignite a career. Tori Spelling, Kirstie Alley, Valerie Bertinelli, and yes, even Farrah Fawcett did it too. Actually, Farrah went a step further; not only did she do a Playboy cover and spread, she filmed an accompanying Playboy video, featuring her 'painting' - we've never seen another example of her 'artwork' since.

Actresses doing magazine cover stories are not new. In Hollywood's golden age, it was required. But those actresses never put on a 'poor me' face; if anything, they presented a confident, albeit, contrived front. Was that a good idea? Maybe, because it did produce a multitude of diverse female stars; however, for stars like Joan Crawford, whose ambitions were out of control, this practice created an eventual environment of 'put up or shut up'. We saw that with Jennifer Aniston, who spent years of her marriage saying that a baby was on the way, and yet... no baby. The downside to female stars putting on a confident front was that when they were truly in crisis, they couldn't discuss it, as demonstrated by Judy Holliday. Judy Holliday suffered from and eventually died from breast cancer. She was treated as if she brought the breast cancer on herself and alienated because of it. Would it have been better if Judy talked about it publicly- probably not - but releasing some of her anxieties and not being burdened down with shame could've extended her life. She was only 43 years old.

And on that note, in tribute to 'actresses' who were really actresses, actresses who didn't chase magazine covers, but good movie roles, and actresses, despite having career disappointments, brought it in any role, big or small, here's a clip of the magnificent Judy Holliday in her Oscar turn in 'Born Yesterday'. A dark-horse winner, in the same year that Bette Davis and Gloria Swanson were nominated in All About Eve and Sunset Boulevard, respectively, she was thoroughly deserving nonetheless.