or has network television news lost a ton of credibility, especially in the wake of the biggest news event of the year... bin Laden's death?
Oh, wait... wasn't the biggest story of the year Prince William and Kate Middleton's royal wedding? Well, that was what the networks wanted us to think, a sentiment that was punctuated by them sending their main firepower to London to, essentially, act like grand marshalls. Meanwhile, the southern region of the United States were ravaged by devastating tornadoes and nary a network dared to pull one of the anchors away from London to cover the crisis. Seems to me that the myopic view of these news organizations mirrored the blase response of the Bush administration during Katrina, although in the government's defense, there were many other issues they had to deal with. And yes, Katrina should've been on the top of the list, therefore the tornadoes should've been on top of the network's list.
Which is not to say that I didn't watch the wedding. I did. On CNN, fortunately. And yes, they had their firepower involved in the coverage, but their approach to covering the wedding was less obstructive. Meaning, I didn't see Anderson Cooper or Piers Morgan's puss more than I saw Will or Kate. I didn't hear their voices or the voices of some dubious pundit or royal insider instead of the vows or hymns. And fortunately, CNN got back to the news and stayed with it, while dropping sparse reruns of it throughout their regular programming. And before you say it, yes, I realize that CNN didn't have to be obnoxious about the wedding, since their skanky cousin, HLN, was more than glad to run the topic into the ground. I mean, really, Brooke Anderson and most especially Jane Velez Mitchell, was it really necessary to rock large hats 12 hours after the wedding? And hello, neither of them was actually at the wedding, so... And fcuk it... Jane Velez-Mitchell's @$$ was in fcuking New York, so why 'front?
And finally, the death blow... all of these questions about why President Obama wasn't invited. Was he snubbed? Would he have been a distraction? Why? Why? Why?
Then BOOYAH!!! bin Laden's death, at the order of President Obama. And frankly, to me, many of the networks' 'firepower' looked like wet packs of matches when Monday morning came. They looked inept, out of place and uncomfortable, which is fitting because, somewhere, along the way, they convinced themselves that stories are only important if and only if their stars have a ringside seat.
Personally, I hope these humiliations continue, especially if they prompt these news organizations to behave like news organizations, not gushy teenyboppers.
Showing posts with label pantload. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pantload. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Small potatas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again... I know that it is wrong for me to still be enjoying this, but the Klein/Pfeiffer c*ck-up is still amusing to me. Apparently, the threats continue, which isn't altogether funny. Personally, I hoped that it would've ended by now. But then again, Klein continue to fan the flames by engaging in an online sparring match with elderly Liz Taylor, so you have to wonder whether, deep down, he's getting off on the negative attention.
He probably was, but sadly, I think the charge he initially got is waning and fortunately, the FBI is helping to throw cold water on Klein. Apparently, they declined to get involved in the death threats being directed at Klein and his 'pal' Pfeiffer and referred them to the local authorities. That must've stung Klein - yet another federal agency telling him thanks, but no thanks. First, it was the FDA ever so subtly telling Klein to move along, since his input about prescription drugs and facial injectibles were not needed at all, and now, the FBI saying that his death threats case isn't all that serious.
Hee... hee...
Because dude thinks that he is an elite. That being a dermatologist to the stars should count for something, because, after all, Michael Jackson was the subject of a death threat and the FBI went to work. Of course, some haters would cite that the loon included President Bush Sr. in the threats, but the fact remains that some serious surveillance were conducted at Havenhurst. And frankly, it looks like Klein couldn't even get an escort to his car. And, then there was that terrorist threat at the 2005 trial. But maybe Klein can keep his fingers crossed that at his trial, the feds will have to intervene for the sake of public safety. Oh, wait... the possibility that the heavy tongued douchebag being locked up and all of his medical licenses pulled permanently could and should protect public safety.
Paraphrasing a line from Frasier, the FBI pricked the balloon of Klein's pomposity. I hope the trend continues.
But not the threats. There should be better ways to apply pressure on Klein and Pfeiffer for their flagrant attempt at disparaging the dead for a fee. Having them hire bodyguards could drain them financially, but stopping entertainment outlets from funding pantloads and various forms of lying should be the priority.
But for now, Klein and Pfeiffer being declared 'small potatas' by a federal agency on an international stage, will do.
He probably was, but sadly, I think the charge he initially got is waning and fortunately, the FBI is helping to throw cold water on Klein. Apparently, they declined to get involved in the death threats being directed at Klein and his 'pal' Pfeiffer and referred them to the local authorities. That must've stung Klein - yet another federal agency telling him thanks, but no thanks. First, it was the FDA ever so subtly telling Klein to move along, since his input about prescription drugs and facial injectibles were not needed at all, and now, the FBI saying that his death threats case isn't all that serious.
Hee... hee...
Because dude thinks that he is an elite. That being a dermatologist to the stars should count for something, because, after all, Michael Jackson was the subject of a death threat and the FBI went to work. Of course, some haters would cite that the loon included President Bush Sr. in the threats, but the fact remains that some serious surveillance were conducted at Havenhurst. And frankly, it looks like Klein couldn't even get an escort to his car. And, then there was that terrorist threat at the 2005 trial. But maybe Klein can keep his fingers crossed that at his trial, the feds will have to intervene for the sake of public safety. Oh, wait... the possibility that the heavy tongued douchebag being locked up and all of his medical licenses pulled permanently could and should protect public safety.
Paraphrasing a line from Frasier, the FBI pricked the balloon of Klein's pomposity. I hope the trend continues.
But not the threats. There should be better ways to apply pressure on Klein and Pfeiffer for their flagrant attempt at disparaging the dead for a fee. Having them hire bodyguards could drain them financially, but stopping entertainment outlets from funding pantloads and various forms of lying should be the priority.
But for now, Klein and Pfeiffer being declared 'small potatas' by a federal agency on an international stage, will do.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Hasselbeck versus Andrews: Smugness run amok
So Elisabeth popped off at the mouth about the skimpiness of Erin Andrews' costumes on Dancing with the Stars... as if skimpiness is a new thing for the show. And per usual, the fellow women on the panel just sat there and snickered, egging her on.
Really, Elisabeth? You really think that watching Erin in skimpy costumes would've been enough for dude? Really? Because the way I remember it, dude found out which hotel she was staying at, tampered with her hotel room peepholes, taped her, in the privacy of her hotel room, and put the images online.
No, Elisabeth... skimpy costumes were not going to get it for this dude. And for that matter, why does Elisabeth continue to take on the shallower aspect of a subject instead of getting to the marrow of things? Remember... Elisabeth was the victim of threats against herself, her husband and newborn child. Maybe Elisabeth should've tried to draw a correlation between that personal event and Erin's situation, especially since Erin is still going through a separate situation along the same lines. And remember when Elisabeth was mortified that Law & Order SVU had a storyline where a character with a name similar to Elisabeth, was brutally raped and murdered? She got coddled and stroked by her fellow co-hosts, and yet, she couldn't do the same for another woman?
Therein lies the problem with the majority of the panelists on The View. They think that they reached a certain level, therefore they can't be mindful of others' situations. They think that everything is a Hot Topic subject, instead of something that's tangible and pressing to real life women. Mind you, I haven't watched The View in years - probably since Star Jones got married - but that mindset was setting in even then.
I do wonder what the ladies' take was when Sandra Bullock adopted little Louis? Was that an act of love to them or was it 'buying a child', an accusation that they readily lodge against Angelina Jolie? And for that matter, why is adoption the only process tainted with the accusation that it's a purchase versus an act of love? Isn't spending large amounts of money to create a biological child buying a child? If anything, one could argue that not only one is purchasing a child, it is also an exercise in egotism, since one is saying that they can't love a child that they can't see themselves in. And yes... this is directed to Sherri Shepherd.
For me, Elisabeth and Sherri are the biggest culprits when it comes to devaluing other women's choices. And if Elisabeth gets a chunk chomped out of her @$$ for this Erin Andrews thing, so be it. And please, public, do not fall for the tears. Some women can cry themselves out of tight spots; Elisabeth Hasselbeck shouldn't be one of them. Hell... no woman should be able to do this. It's supposed to be a new day - women should act like it.
Really, Elisabeth? You really think that watching Erin in skimpy costumes would've been enough for dude? Really? Because the way I remember it, dude found out which hotel she was staying at, tampered with her hotel room peepholes, taped her, in the privacy of her hotel room, and put the images online.
No, Elisabeth... skimpy costumes were not going to get it for this dude. And for that matter, why does Elisabeth continue to take on the shallower aspect of a subject instead of getting to the marrow of things? Remember... Elisabeth was the victim of threats against herself, her husband and newborn child. Maybe Elisabeth should've tried to draw a correlation between that personal event and Erin's situation, especially since Erin is still going through a separate situation along the same lines. And remember when Elisabeth was mortified that Law & Order SVU had a storyline where a character with a name similar to Elisabeth, was brutally raped and murdered? She got coddled and stroked by her fellow co-hosts, and yet, she couldn't do the same for another woman?
Therein lies the problem with the majority of the panelists on The View. They think that they reached a certain level, therefore they can't be mindful of others' situations. They think that everything is a Hot Topic subject, instead of something that's tangible and pressing to real life women. Mind you, I haven't watched The View in years - probably since Star Jones got married - but that mindset was setting in even then.
I do wonder what the ladies' take was when Sandra Bullock adopted little Louis? Was that an act of love to them or was it 'buying a child', an accusation that they readily lodge against Angelina Jolie? And for that matter, why is adoption the only process tainted with the accusation that it's a purchase versus an act of love? Isn't spending large amounts of money to create a biological child buying a child? If anything, one could argue that not only one is purchasing a child, it is also an exercise in egotism, since one is saying that they can't love a child that they can't see themselves in. And yes... this is directed to Sherri Shepherd.
For me, Elisabeth and Sherri are the biggest culprits when it comes to devaluing other women's choices. And if Elisabeth gets a chunk chomped out of her @$$ for this Erin Andrews thing, so be it. And please, public, do not fall for the tears. Some women can cry themselves out of tight spots; Elisabeth Hasselbeck shouldn't be one of them. Hell... no woman should be able to do this. It's supposed to be a new day - women should act like it.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Arnie Klein getting death threats? Ahhh... the poor boo-boo
As a 90s young adult, the Ricki Lake Show was my lunch. Very fun show, although Ricki seemed uncomfortable and wooden at times. But sometimes when things got a bit too heated, she would say, rather unconvincingly, 'Violence is not the answer.'
Violence is not the answer... usually in the tone of a thoroughly unprepared preschool teacher.
But for some reason, Ricki's refrain is echoing in my head because apparently, Dr. Arnie Klein, the self-proclaimed 'best friend' of Michael Jackson, is getting death threats after 'outing' Michael Jackson.
'Outing' Michael Jackson? Errrr... no, since people have been trying to say that Michael Jackson was gay since his teens. So, no... that's not the reason why he's getting threats.
Klein is getting threats because he continues to lie about Michael Jackson, using the guise that he's trying to clear the air about the molestation allegations. That was the reason for the pee story. That is the reason for this story. But Fcuktard, merely going to Reflections of the Dance and various other MJ vindication sites would've been a better idea. But no... saying Michael Jackson was gay was just easier? Profitable, more like.
So I am not entirely mad at MJ fans who are threatening Klein and Fat Boy Pfeiffer, because I totally understand it. For many years, disparaging the dead has been a taboo. But, of course, with anything associated with Michael, exceptions are made. Journalists taking root on their cronies' shows, spending hours rehashing the lies that made them money years ago; journalists throwing out every single rumor out there, muddying the waters in the weeks following his death; and the worst - journalists encouraging (read: begging) every possible egg or sperm donor and surrogate to come out and stake a claim on his children when actions like this are violations of the whole reproduction/surrogacy process? And Klein, MJ's dermatologist, continually violating not only HIPAA but MJ's privacy for little more than money and screen time, because, let's face it, Klein is not an oil painting and the snap! crackle! pop! that is audible whenever he speaks is disgusting to hear. SWALLOW ALREADY, DUDE!!!! So, no, Dr. Klein's dream of being another Dr. Oz or Sanjay Gupta, or Art Ulein , or to a lesser extent, Travis Stork, will be a dream unfulfilled. A good consolation prize - being the sultan of skeeve. And Chunky is along for the ride.
So will the death threats continue? Probably, but I hope they won't since it could lead to Klein winding up on Larry King or something. Mind you, since Larry King sort of banned him from the show, hence Klein taking his message to TMZ and to any other outlet willing to shell out some cash, maybe his next recourse is to take it to HLN. But then again, maybe they have more standards than previously thought.
Anyway, I hope that MJ fans chill on the threats, but not on the pressure. Extra, Pfeiffer, Alicia Jacobs and Klein need to know that this flagrant attempt at lying about a deceased person will not stand, especially when it doesn't add to anything of importance. And their pocket books, egos and careers qualify as same.
But here's a throwback to Klein's earlier days... you know, when he was successfully passing himself off as Michael Jackson's friend. Those days are long gone.
Violence is not the answer... usually in the tone of a thoroughly unprepared preschool teacher.
But for some reason, Ricki's refrain is echoing in my head because apparently, Dr. Arnie Klein, the self-proclaimed 'best friend' of Michael Jackson, is getting death threats after 'outing' Michael Jackson.
'Outing' Michael Jackson? Errrr... no, since people have been trying to say that Michael Jackson was gay since his teens. So, no... that's not the reason why he's getting threats.
Klein is getting threats because he continues to lie about Michael Jackson, using the guise that he's trying to clear the air about the molestation allegations. That was the reason for the pee story. That is the reason for this story. But Fcuktard, merely going to Reflections of the Dance and various other MJ vindication sites would've been a better idea. But no... saying Michael Jackson was gay was just easier? Profitable, more like.
So I am not entirely mad at MJ fans who are threatening Klein and Fat Boy Pfeiffer, because I totally understand it. For many years, disparaging the dead has been a taboo. But, of course, with anything associated with Michael, exceptions are made. Journalists taking root on their cronies' shows, spending hours rehashing the lies that made them money years ago; journalists throwing out every single rumor out there, muddying the waters in the weeks following his death; and the worst - journalists encouraging (read: begging) every possible egg or sperm donor and surrogate to come out and stake a claim on his children when actions like this are violations of the whole reproduction/surrogacy process? And Klein, MJ's dermatologist, continually violating not only HIPAA but MJ's privacy for little more than money and screen time, because, let's face it, Klein is not an oil painting and the snap! crackle! pop! that is audible whenever he speaks is disgusting to hear. SWALLOW ALREADY, DUDE!!!! So, no, Dr. Klein's dream of being another Dr. Oz or Sanjay Gupta, or Art Ulein , or to a lesser extent, Travis Stork, will be a dream unfulfilled. A good consolation prize - being the sultan of skeeve. And Chunky is along for the ride.
So will the death threats continue? Probably, but I hope they won't since it could lead to Klein winding up on Larry King or something. Mind you, since Larry King sort of banned him from the show, hence Klein taking his message to TMZ and to any other outlet willing to shell out some cash, maybe his next recourse is to take it to HLN. But then again, maybe they have more standards than previously thought.
Anyway, I hope that MJ fans chill on the threats, but not on the pressure. Extra, Pfeiffer, Alicia Jacobs and Klein need to know that this flagrant attempt at lying about a deceased person will not stand, especially when it doesn't add to anything of importance. And their pocket books, egos and careers qualify as same.
But here's a throwback to Klein's earlier days... you know, when he was successfully passing himself off as Michael Jackson's friend. Those days are long gone.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
To counterbalance the funk I'm in
Apparently, MJ, despite being gone, has inked an unprecedented recording deal with Sony, which promises at least $250M to his estate. Good news, right? Except, I had to hear this from the anchors of World News Now. They showed a segment about other late recording stars and how many records they sold after they died. Freddie Mercury and Queen made around $30M in record sales since Mercury's passing in '91; Kurt Cobain and Nirvana made around $27M in record sales since Kobain's suicide in '94; and Elvis made around $31M in record sales since his death in '77.
And yet, when they talked about Michael, they poor talked it, saying that his record sales have falling off sharply?
Errr... Jeremy and Vinita... Michael Jackson died less than 9 months ago and he made $31M in record sales since then. $31M for pre-existing material that people have likely bought two or three times prior to his death, due to changes in recording mediums. We are talking about new material that fans are obviously hungry for. And sorry, douches, but the reason why the single This is It didn't do better was because of Paul Anka's ridiculous hissy fit. If he would've shut up and talked to the executors instead of taking it to the Inside Editions and Extras, he would've gotten some major bank. But, as Kelly Bundy would say... Case of rum, case of rum.
That annoyed me, but again, a divine spark has directed me to this little gem. MJ was so adorable in this, which makes me even happier that more money is coming in for his children.
And yet, when they talked about Michael, they poor talked it, saying that his record sales have falling off sharply?
Errr... Jeremy and Vinita... Michael Jackson died less than 9 months ago and he made $31M in record sales since then. $31M for pre-existing material that people have likely bought two or three times prior to his death, due to changes in recording mediums. We are talking about new material that fans are obviously hungry for. And sorry, douches, but the reason why the single This is It didn't do better was because of Paul Anka's ridiculous hissy fit. If he would've shut up and talked to the executors instead of taking it to the Inside Editions and Extras, he would've gotten some major bank. But, as Kelly Bundy would say... Case of rum, case of rum.
That annoyed me, but again, a divine spark has directed me to this little gem. MJ was so adorable in this, which makes me even happier that more money is coming in for his children.
An abysmal week - human nature gone horribly wrong!!
Personally and professionally, my week was pretty good. No upsets at work or home. Was a little too broke before payday, but I managed. In general, everything was pretty good. My only real regret was channel-surfing while watching my telenovelas. I'm officially addicted to them, specifically, the telenovelas that air between the 7 to 10 pm block. While I was sad to see En Nombre Del Amor end, Mi Pecado is a pretty d@mn good replacement so far. And Hasta Que El Dinero Nos Separe is probably my favorite, mainly because of Pedro Fernandez's fantastic charisma and great comic timing - I assume. Again, I don't know Spanish, but I honestly enjoy his performance, along with Itati Cantoral. Crazy chemistry between the two of them... chemistry I haven't seen lately on American soaps. The third telenovela... unfortunately, I don't know the exact name, but it's a period piece and has some promise. I caught a bit of it during its second week and... some chick stole another chick's baby and left it in the elements to die and she eventually walled up said chick in the cellar. The walled up chick escaped... I think... but I don't know how long her escape lasted. Anyway, the historical telenovela looks promising, although I tend to fall asleep before it comes on at 9.
Anyway, it would serve me to not channel surf during commercials because usually the things that fill in the commercial time are absolutely demoralizing. During the 7 to 8 pm block, there's the entertainment shows and Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell. Naturally, because of Sandra Bullock's domestic troubles, watching entertainment shows are out of the question, especially since they were thoroughly kissing her butt not even a week ago about her happy home life. And Jane Velez-Mitchell's show focused on the possibility that George Anthony may have had an affair - as if that fact will hasten Casey Anthony going to trial. The 8 pm hour is no problem, given that Nancy Grace is on and more and more, she's showing her true colors. Really, Nancy... the National Enquirer's take on George Anthony's alleged affair should be the lead-in story 2 or 3 days in a row? Really? But the worse had to be the 9 pm hour - Joy Behar. Luckily, Larry King had Todd Bridges and Betty White on consecutive nights, but I channel surfed anyone and saw that Andrew Young douche talking about Rielle Hunter's GQ spread. And who was his co-panelist/partner in crime? Diane fcuking Dimond!!! I guess lurking on courthouse easements have finally paid off for her. Got a segment on CBS Early Morning, which isn't too surprising since they depend on Maggie Rodriguez sooooooo much. But per usual, whenever Diane gets access, she becomes the biggest toadie/buttkiss/hype man in mass media. Really, Diane, did Elizabeth Edwards deserved to be cheated on while campaigning for Hair Boy and battling cancer because some random people told you that she wasn't a very nice person? My hope is that those who consider some sort of champion for mainstream, whitebread morality, take careful notice of what she really is.
Then the assault of the skanks, specifically that Joslyn James trick and the tatted up b*tch. Yes, famous married men made the mistake of fcuking them, but why is the media making these broads stars? I knew that Joslyn trick would pull something like this when I saw her at an Oscar party. First of all, why was that trick allowed on the premises? And no, I don't think that Tiger apologizing would've prevented the text messages leak. IMO, that b*tch only wanted verbal contact in order to re-established the 'relationship'. And yeah, I heard the texts were very explicit, but $h*t, if Tiger was fcuking a porn star, he wasn't expecting gingersnaps and Country Time lemonade on the sparking couch. And the fact that she had so many profoundly filthy texts from him says more about her. Women have limits, and the women I know would stop contact if a dude's dirty talk got violent and way too out of hand. She just confirmed that she was completely down with what he was dishing and that she was an even bigger chump for doing some, if not all, of his 'special requests'. And BTW... where is Gloria Allred? Her 'victim' is out there, all by her lonesome. That sterling example of flowering womanhood, befouled by Tiger, rigged up her website to recount how she consented to being befouled. Kinda funny, actually. And the tatted trick... 30 grand for your story? Really? Very cheap... but given how you look, it was much too much. Too late for girl power, sweetie. Girl power should've kept you off your knees and Jesse James' balls out of your mouth. Next time, know that!
So many sucky people that don't impact whether I have a roof over my head, and yet, they really got to me this week. Visiting You Tube helped - and I truly thank the divine spark that told me to seek out ole skool Tex Avery cartoons. Some of them have racist elements in them, but they still are funny as fcuk! Here's an example... and may everything that happens to that dog with the creepy-@$$ed laugh, happen to all of the fcuks who brought a downer on my week.
Anyway, it would serve me to not channel surf during commercials because usually the things that fill in the commercial time are absolutely demoralizing. During the 7 to 8 pm block, there's the entertainment shows and Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell. Naturally, because of Sandra Bullock's domestic troubles, watching entertainment shows are out of the question, especially since they were thoroughly kissing her butt not even a week ago about her happy home life. And Jane Velez-Mitchell's show focused on the possibility that George Anthony may have had an affair - as if that fact will hasten Casey Anthony going to trial. The 8 pm hour is no problem, given that Nancy Grace is on and more and more, she's showing her true colors. Really, Nancy... the National Enquirer's take on George Anthony's alleged affair should be the lead-in story 2 or 3 days in a row? Really? But the worse had to be the 9 pm hour - Joy Behar. Luckily, Larry King had Todd Bridges and Betty White on consecutive nights, but I channel surfed anyone and saw that Andrew Young douche talking about Rielle Hunter's GQ spread. And who was his co-panelist/partner in crime? Diane fcuking Dimond!!! I guess lurking on courthouse easements have finally paid off for her. Got a segment on CBS Early Morning, which isn't too surprising since they depend on Maggie Rodriguez sooooooo much. But per usual, whenever Diane gets access, she becomes the biggest toadie/buttkiss/hype man in mass media. Really, Diane, did Elizabeth Edwards deserved to be cheated on while campaigning for Hair Boy and battling cancer because some random people told you that she wasn't a very nice person? My hope is that those who consider some sort of champion for mainstream, whitebread morality, take careful notice of what she really is.
Then the assault of the skanks, specifically that Joslyn James trick and the tatted up b*tch. Yes, famous married men made the mistake of fcuking them, but why is the media making these broads stars? I knew that Joslyn trick would pull something like this when I saw her at an Oscar party. First of all, why was that trick allowed on the premises? And no, I don't think that Tiger apologizing would've prevented the text messages leak. IMO, that b*tch only wanted verbal contact in order to re-established the 'relationship'. And yeah, I heard the texts were very explicit, but $h*t, if Tiger was fcuking a porn star, he wasn't expecting gingersnaps and Country Time lemonade on the sparking couch. And the fact that she had so many profoundly filthy texts from him says more about her. Women have limits, and the women I know would stop contact if a dude's dirty talk got violent and way too out of hand. She just confirmed that she was completely down with what he was dishing and that she was an even bigger chump for doing some, if not all, of his 'special requests'. And BTW... where is Gloria Allred? Her 'victim' is out there, all by her lonesome. That sterling example of flowering womanhood, befouled by Tiger, rigged up her website to recount how she consented to being befouled. Kinda funny, actually. And the tatted trick... 30 grand for your story? Really? Very cheap... but given how you look, it was much too much. Too late for girl power, sweetie. Girl power should've kept you off your knees and Jesse James' balls out of your mouth. Next time, know that!
So many sucky people that don't impact whether I have a roof over my head, and yet, they really got to me this week. Visiting You Tube helped - and I truly thank the divine spark that told me to seek out ole skool Tex Avery cartoons. Some of them have racist elements in them, but they still are funny as fcuk! Here's an example... and may everything that happens to that dog with the creepy-@$$ed laugh, happen to all of the fcuks who brought a downer on my week.
Monday, March 15, 2010
I spell classy 'R-I-E-L-L-E'
This b*tch must be from another planet.
Rielle Hunter.
In GQ.
In a man's white shirt.
Waxing poetic about her 'romance' with John Edwards. And trashing Edwards' cancer stricken wife.
Classy, huh?
Then, she goes on to say that she and John will be together... 'til death parts them.
Alright.
Then, the waterworks. Apparently, she didn't like the resulting layout and cried in Barbara Walters' ear... according to Barbara Walters.
Now, my question is... how did that b*tch get that old crone's phone number? Maybe jump offs have each others numbers.
And my final question... why the white shirt? Didn't she know that she assumed the costume of Jilted Wife Extraordinaire, Jennifer Aniston? Of course, Aniston rocked the look on Vanity Fair's cover, but just the audacity to do that... scandalous!
Rielle Hunter.
In GQ.
In a man's white shirt.
Waxing poetic about her 'romance' with John Edwards. And trashing Edwards' cancer stricken wife.
Classy, huh?
Then, she goes on to say that she and John will be together... 'til death parts them.
Alright.
Then, the waterworks. Apparently, she didn't like the resulting layout and cried in Barbara Walters' ear... according to Barbara Walters.
Now, my question is... how did that b*tch get that old crone's phone number? Maybe jump offs have each others numbers.
And my final question... why the white shirt? Didn't she know that she assumed the costume of Jilted Wife Extraordinaire, Jennifer Aniston? Of course, Aniston rocked the look on Vanity Fair's cover, but just the audacity to do that... scandalous!
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
So the b*tch is still demanding an apology?
Tiger Woods had his press conference... didn't watch it, though.
The media pundits watched and analyzed his performance... didn't bother to watch that, either, although, yet again, Gloria Allred had her @$$ parked on Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell, fuming that Tiger didn't offer her pornstar (oops... former pornstar) client a public apology. Because, as Allred added, Tiger made promises to her and exposed her to diseases, given that he was banging other women at the same time.
Ha!
And she said that Tiger implored her to get out of the porn business.
The b@$terd!! Because he wanted to be the only one in the arrangement teeming with VD from questionable, shady sex partners.
Seriously, Allred needs to give it up because this woman, nor any other of the jump ups deserve an apology. All of them could've refused his advances; all of them could've refused to have unprotected sex with him; and all of them could have camel it instead of allowing him to take refuge between their thighs.
Personally, I think that this demand for an apology smacks of racism. From the beginning of time, those with the gold made the rules. And conveniently, when people of color started making comparable coin, they were subject to stricter expectations simply because the source of wealth came from the majority population. But when members of the majority population make mistakes or flat disrespect both fellow members of their race and members of racial minorities, they are not called upon to apologize. But when a wealthy man of color humiliates a bunch of willing, desperate White women, or rather, scoop up what many other broke, yet observant men would scoop up with little monetary investment, the world has to stop because, now, the flowery integrity of womanhood has been insulted.
Please.
People teach others how to treat them... a lesson that every woman has to learn. And just because some of these broads were pushing 30 or were mothers don't preclude them from being morons.
Personally, I hope Tiger continues to not apologize to these women because they do have a lion's share of responsibility for being humiliated. Just say no, b*tches.
And on that note, I hope Allred's attempts at justifying how Tiger ruined her client's chances of getting 'facials' on camera from random porn dudes, continues. Because I suspect that if it does, her rationalizations will become as convoluted as this woman's:
Edina Monsoon... another unexpected sage.
The media pundits watched and analyzed his performance... didn't bother to watch that, either, although, yet again, Gloria Allred had her @$$ parked on Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell, fuming that Tiger didn't offer her pornstar (oops... former pornstar) client a public apology. Because, as Allred added, Tiger made promises to her and exposed her to diseases, given that he was banging other women at the same time.
Ha!
And she said that Tiger implored her to get out of the porn business.
The b@$terd!! Because he wanted to be the only one in the arrangement teeming with VD from questionable, shady sex partners.
Seriously, Allred needs to give it up because this woman, nor any other of the jump ups deserve an apology. All of them could've refused his advances; all of them could've refused to have unprotected sex with him; and all of them could have camel it instead of allowing him to take refuge between their thighs.
Personally, I think that this demand for an apology smacks of racism. From the beginning of time, those with the gold made the rules. And conveniently, when people of color started making comparable coin, they were subject to stricter expectations simply because the source of wealth came from the majority population. But when members of the majority population make mistakes or flat disrespect both fellow members of their race and members of racial minorities, they are not called upon to apologize. But when a wealthy man of color humiliates a bunch of willing, desperate White women, or rather, scoop up what many other broke, yet observant men would scoop up with little monetary investment, the world has to stop because, now, the flowery integrity of womanhood has been insulted.
Please.
People teach others how to treat them... a lesson that every woman has to learn. And just because some of these broads were pushing 30 or were mothers don't preclude them from being morons.
Personally, I hope Tiger continues to not apologize to these women because they do have a lion's share of responsibility for being humiliated. Just say no, b*tches.
And on that note, I hope Allred's attempts at justifying how Tiger ruined her client's chances of getting 'facials' on camera from random porn dudes, continues. Because I suspect that if it does, her rationalizations will become as convoluted as this woman's:
Edina Monsoon... another unexpected sage.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Apologizing to the jump offs? FCUK THAT
While channel-surfing during a commercial break for En Nombre Del Amor, I switched over to HLN's Issues With Jane Velez-Mitchell.
Apparently, Tiger will be issuing a public apology. Apparently, it will take place on Friday. And apparently, the press will not get a chance to put their oar in, meaning no Q & As. And apparently, Gloria Allred, the loudmouth attorney for several of the loudmouthed whores, expect Tiger to give a public apology to them.
Are you fcuking kidding me?
Grown @$$ women who knew that Tiger was married and proceeded to text him, sext him and fcuk him and they think they deserve an apology because he made the usual promises that cheaters make to their jump offs? Or maybe they want an apology because he obliged a large number of like-minded spotlight seeking, yet limited talented skanks who thought the closest they could get to greatness was by getting on their knees? Getting getting on your knees is much easier than cultivating one's own talent, working and sweating for it, and dealing with the disappointments along the way.
Oh, no... it's just easier getting on your knees. And thanks to Gloria Allred, she makes getting down on all fours all the more easy.
They don't deserve an apology, Allred. If anything, those whores need to give some apologies. To Elin. To Tiger's daughter, Sam. To Tiger's son, Charlie. To Elin's sister and mother. To whomever they were sleeping with while they were letting Tiger ride them bareback. To their children because some of them were mothers. To their employers because their private behavior, which they enthusiastically made public, cast a shadow on their reputations. And mostly, they need to apologize to Tiger because if they exercised any self-control on their part, neither he or they would be in the jam that they are in now.
Seriously... is this the kind of feminism Allred is pushing now - a woman fcuks up and makes the wrong decision and the dude is solely responsible for it? Come on... these b*tches knew what they were doing; they need to take responsibility for themselves, period. And sadly, responsibility doesn't come in the form of payouts, hence Allred working so hard to convince the American public that these women are victims.
Fcuk that!
Apparently, Tiger will be issuing a public apology. Apparently, it will take place on Friday. And apparently, the press will not get a chance to put their oar in, meaning no Q & As. And apparently, Gloria Allred, the loudmouth attorney for several of the loudmouthed whores, expect Tiger to give a public apology to them.
Are you fcuking kidding me?
Grown @$$ women who knew that Tiger was married and proceeded to text him, sext him and fcuk him and they think they deserve an apology because he made the usual promises that cheaters make to their jump offs? Or maybe they want an apology because he obliged a large number of like-minded spotlight seeking, yet limited talented skanks who thought the closest they could get to greatness was by getting on their knees? Getting getting on your knees is much easier than cultivating one's own talent, working and sweating for it, and dealing with the disappointments along the way.
Oh, no... it's just easier getting on your knees. And thanks to Gloria Allred, she makes getting down on all fours all the more easy.
They don't deserve an apology, Allred. If anything, those whores need to give some apologies. To Elin. To Tiger's daughter, Sam. To Tiger's son, Charlie. To Elin's sister and mother. To whomever they were sleeping with while they were letting Tiger ride them bareback. To their children because some of them were mothers. To their employers because their private behavior, which they enthusiastically made public, cast a shadow on their reputations. And mostly, they need to apologize to Tiger because if they exercised any self-control on their part, neither he or they would be in the jam that they are in now.
Seriously... is this the kind of feminism Allred is pushing now - a woman fcuks up and makes the wrong decision and the dude is solely responsible for it? Come on... these b*tches knew what they were doing; they need to take responsibility for themselves, period. And sadly, responsibility doesn't come in the form of payouts, hence Allred working so hard to convince the American public that these women are victims.
Fcuk that!
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Plagiarism doesn't get you fired... it can get you to quit, though
I can't believe that I missed out on this story. Maybe I should blame my current telenovela binging. But then again, I watch the usual infotainment shows like Inside Edition, Entertainment Tonight, Insider and numerous HLN programs, and yet, I have to depend on CNN's Reliable Sources to report on Gerald Posner's recent resignation from The Daily Beast.
Mind you, I am not a regular follower of The Daily Beast. And I didn't necessarily have an opinion on Gerald Posner, although I did notice that he was seemingly all over HLN, MSNBC, Hollywood 411, and other infotainment shows adding to the already muddied waters associated with Michael Jackson's death. I will say that I was getting pretty annoyed with seeing his face damn near every single day since June 25th. And the introductions the show hosts would give him... hyperbolic, much? Especially given that some of the information he gave was eventually discounted.
At any rate, he's getting his @$$ chewed out, right now, but you know it won't last. Over the last few years, journalists who committed huge boners continue to get TV gigs with very little mention of their tendency to get their facts wrong. Sure, people can make mistakes (that's why pencils have erasers... blah, blah, blah) but the infinite number of chances doesn't make sense, especially when news agencies refuse to dig deeper before hiring and rehiring these people. Honestly, is it really fair to give Posner a hard time for lifting copy from the Miami Herald when the majority of Diane Dimond's investigative repertoire for Entertainment Tonight consists of standing on easements outside of court houses and private residents and repeating headlines featured on the cover of the National Enquirer?
Plagiarism should be taken seriously, but so should flagrant lying and showboating. Because like Posner, many like Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell Lisa Bloom, Chris Jacobs, Robin Sax, etc. have legal backgrounds, not necessarily journalistic backgrounds and yet, there are placed in a position of 'reporting' when they are used to giving analysis. Analysis and interpretation have their place, but if you are placed in a position that implies that you are responsible for delivering facts, the line continues to get muddied. Add to it the tendency to be pro-prosecution and the concept of balanced reporting flies out of the window.
Unfortunately, the large media outlets will continue to hire these questionable people with plump resumes for the sake of expediency. Look for Posner to take root in a high profile 24/7 news outlet very soon.
Mind you, I am not a regular follower of The Daily Beast. And I didn't necessarily have an opinion on Gerald Posner, although I did notice that he was seemingly all over HLN, MSNBC, Hollywood 411, and other infotainment shows adding to the already muddied waters associated with Michael Jackson's death. I will say that I was getting pretty annoyed with seeing his face damn near every single day since June 25th. And the introductions the show hosts would give him... hyperbolic, much? Especially given that some of the information he gave was eventually discounted.
At any rate, he's getting his @$$ chewed out, right now, but you know it won't last. Over the last few years, journalists who committed huge boners continue to get TV gigs with very little mention of their tendency to get their facts wrong. Sure, people can make mistakes (that's why pencils have erasers... blah, blah, blah) but the infinite number of chances doesn't make sense, especially when news agencies refuse to dig deeper before hiring and rehiring these people. Honestly, is it really fair to give Posner a hard time for lifting copy from the Miami Herald when the majority of Diane Dimond's investigative repertoire for Entertainment Tonight consists of standing on easements outside of court houses and private residents and repeating headlines featured on the cover of the National Enquirer?
Plagiarism should be taken seriously, but so should flagrant lying and showboating. Because like Posner, many like Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell Lisa Bloom, Chris Jacobs, Robin Sax, etc. have legal backgrounds, not necessarily journalistic backgrounds and yet, there are placed in a position of 'reporting' when they are used to giving analysis. Analysis and interpretation have their place, but if you are placed in a position that implies that you are responsible for delivering facts, the line continues to get muddied. Add to it the tendency to be pro-prosecution and the concept of balanced reporting flies out of the window.
Unfortunately, the large media outlets will continue to hire these questionable people with plump resumes for the sake of expediency. Look for Posner to take root in a high profile 24/7 news outlet very soon.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
A Jacksons Family Dynasty/Rickey Smiley Morning Show mashup
I regret not writing about this yesterday. Because yesterday, things seemed less muddled. My better nature is making things confusing for me when it really should be clear cut.
Yesterday, I was still fuming from Sunday night's The Jacksons: A Family Dynasty. Not because of Marlon and his cute-@$$ grandkids; not because of Jackie's reluctance to meet with Jam and Lewis; and not because the brothers had to cancel the 40th anniversary concert. If anything, those events were the highlights of the show because those moments seemed honest. And I thoroughly enjoyed the confrontation between Jermaine and Jackie after Jermaine put Jackie on speakerphone for Jam and Lewis without Jackie's knowledge or permission. And I absolutely loved how Terry Lewis finally said what many have been thinking for months - the brothers need to seriously think about their direction because there is no Jackson 5 without Michael.
However, whatever good feeling I had went down the crapper when Jermaine mentioned his 'Michael dream' and the brothers ended up at the Forest Lawn mausoleum, which housed Michael's remains. The camera crew didn't film Michael's final resting place, but the fact that the brothers were fine with taking the crew that far into Michael's space was manipulative and wrong. Of course, this stunt has Jermaine's fingerprints all over it, but I HATED that the other brothers went along with this. They have a say on how much of their circumstances can be filmed - Michael doesn't and I hated that they did this to him.
Needless to say, when I heard that the Rickey Smiley Morning Show was going to interview Jermaine on Tuesday, I was stoked because I knew that they were not happy with Jermaine's behavior over the last few months, especially his omission of Randy during his acceptance speech FOR MICHAEL, on the American Music Awards. I expected the morning crew to be respectful and maybe cordial; however, I didn't expect them to be as malicious as they were. Again, they weren't rude, but you could tell that they were being very disingenuous and obviously, Jermaine didn't pick up on it. And despite my absolute hatred of this man, I kinda felt sorry for him because he was completely oblivious. Although, I personally can't understand why he would be, given that it was obvious that they were laughing at him while they were talking to him. Or maybe, he was being manipulative, beyond the evasive answers he gave regarding he and Randy's mutual baby mama. While I did enjoy the irate callers who called BULL$H*T on Jermaine, in retrospect, I was disappointed in the way the morning crew conducted themselves.
Of course, I could feel differently if I dwell on what Jermaine and the brothers did on Sunday night, but right now, I am not feeling good about the interview.
Yesterday, I was still fuming from Sunday night's The Jacksons: A Family Dynasty. Not because of Marlon and his cute-@$$ grandkids; not because of Jackie's reluctance to meet with Jam and Lewis; and not because the brothers had to cancel the 40th anniversary concert. If anything, those events were the highlights of the show because those moments seemed honest. And I thoroughly enjoyed the confrontation between Jermaine and Jackie after Jermaine put Jackie on speakerphone for Jam and Lewis without Jackie's knowledge or permission. And I absolutely loved how Terry Lewis finally said what many have been thinking for months - the brothers need to seriously think about their direction because there is no Jackson 5 without Michael.
However, whatever good feeling I had went down the crapper when Jermaine mentioned his 'Michael dream' and the brothers ended up at the Forest Lawn mausoleum, which housed Michael's remains. The camera crew didn't film Michael's final resting place, but the fact that the brothers were fine with taking the crew that far into Michael's space was manipulative and wrong. Of course, this stunt has Jermaine's fingerprints all over it, but I HATED that the other brothers went along with this. They have a say on how much of their circumstances can be filmed - Michael doesn't and I hated that they did this to him.
Needless to say, when I heard that the Rickey Smiley Morning Show was going to interview Jermaine on Tuesday, I was stoked because I knew that they were not happy with Jermaine's behavior over the last few months, especially his omission of Randy during his acceptance speech FOR MICHAEL, on the American Music Awards. I expected the morning crew to be respectful and maybe cordial; however, I didn't expect them to be as malicious as they were. Again, they weren't rude, but you could tell that they were being very disingenuous and obviously, Jermaine didn't pick up on it. And despite my absolute hatred of this man, I kinda felt sorry for him because he was completely oblivious. Although, I personally can't understand why he would be, given that it was obvious that they were laughing at him while they were talking to him. Or maybe, he was being manipulative, beyond the evasive answers he gave regarding he and Randy's mutual baby mama. While I did enjoy the irate callers who called BULL$H*T on Jermaine, in retrospect, I was disappointed in the way the morning crew conducted themselves.
Of course, I could feel differently if I dwell on what Jermaine and the brothers did on Sunday night, but right now, I am not feeling good about the interview.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Carving out one's career on a magazine cover... sigh
Months ago, I wrote my disdain towards Melissa Joan Hart who allegedly campaigned for a People Magazine cover showcasing her recent weight loss - a campaign consisting of crossed fingers, hoping that Farrah Fawcett wouldn't ruin her groove by dying. Well... the problem seems to be getting even worse.
Much, much worse.
It was bad enough that the Kardashians dominated magazine covers for their weight losses... at the moment; their relationship problems... at the moment; and their quickie marriages... at the moment. Sure, they were showcased on the baser tabloids like In Touch and Life & Style, which are the type of mags that they deserve to be on, but for Heidi Montag to get a People Magazine cover with an US Weekly-type headline... good lord.
Curious thing... once upon a time, a person of a particular vocation, worked really hard in said vocation, and eventually earn enough accolades to garner a possible magazine cover. Not so with Heidi Montag. Crappy home made music videos; crappy morning show interviews; and a crappy performance on the Miss Universe pageant ( a performance within her selected vocation, mind you) and yet, a People's cover about her marathon plastic surgeries... for her career. What career... a Vivid products package pic?
Some people lost credibility when they engaged in plastic surgery - Michael Jackson comes to mind. And just when someone like Jamie Lee Curtis let her natural aging flag fly, we get Montag, all plastic and unrecognizable, although I prefer the unrecognizable involving not seeing her bimbo puss for 5-10 years or a performance that was actually good; that's the kind of unrecognizable that I've been waiting for. But no... this is better.
And by the way, People Magazine, if you want to showcase double Ds, why not get Christina Hendricks for the cover? Not only does she have a natural, lovely face, I suspect her curves are also all-natural. And she is succeeding in her selected vocation. She's a better bullseye than Montag.
Much, much worse.
It was bad enough that the Kardashians dominated magazine covers for their weight losses... at the moment; their relationship problems... at the moment; and their quickie marriages... at the moment. Sure, they were showcased on the baser tabloids like In Touch and Life & Style, which are the type of mags that they deserve to be on, but for Heidi Montag to get a People Magazine cover with an US Weekly-type headline... good lord.
Curious thing... once upon a time, a person of a particular vocation, worked really hard in said vocation, and eventually earn enough accolades to garner a possible magazine cover. Not so with Heidi Montag. Crappy home made music videos; crappy morning show interviews; and a crappy performance on the Miss Universe pageant ( a performance within her selected vocation, mind you) and yet, a People's cover about her marathon plastic surgeries... for her career. What career... a Vivid products package pic?
Some people lost credibility when they engaged in plastic surgery - Michael Jackson comes to mind. And just when someone like Jamie Lee Curtis let her natural aging flag fly, we get Montag, all plastic and unrecognizable, although I prefer the unrecognizable involving not seeing her bimbo puss for 5-10 years or a performance that was actually good; that's the kind of unrecognizable that I've been waiting for. But no... this is better.
And by the way, People Magazine, if you want to showcase double Ds, why not get Christina Hendricks for the cover? Not only does she have a natural, lovely face, I suspect her curves are also all-natural. And she is succeeding in her selected vocation. She's a better bullseye than Montag.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
A peek into Diane Dimond's psyche...
Really quick...
A few weeks ago, Diane Dimond appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources to discuss the Tiger Woods drama. Naturally, she was on there because Tiger Woods is her 'beat' on Entertainment Tonight, not that she revealed anything of significance about him or the situation.
Anyway, she praddled on about how athletes 'like him' shouldn't be role models. But the kicker for me was when she said that he didn't deserve to be named Athlete of the Decade due to the scandal in his private life. And she called him a loser.
Okay... I don't give two $h*ts about golf or Tiger Woods, but who the h*ll is Diane Dimond to declare that Woods wasn't deserving of the title? He played the game, didn't he? He won hella many tournaments, didn't he? He inspired people from various walks of life to follow the game, didn't he? And the Dimond b*tch readily admitted that she knew nothing about golf, nor didn't harbor any interest in the game, so who the fcuk is she to try and overule what voters of this particular magazine/sports outlet decided?
Tiger's job was to play golf - his image was extra. Mind you, he was an absolute dumbass to portray himself as pristine, asexual Anointed Negro, but again, that was extra. The game was what was important and if he mastered the game, he deserved kudos, regardless of if he offended pedestrians such as herself.
Kinda curious how Dimond believes personal character should supercede the particular task at hand. If you're a good athlete... sweet! If you're a good athlete with a drama-free personal life - that's sweet too... for you and you alone. Public figures are only beholden to the public when it comes to executing their professional vocations. Private misconduct matters, but not as much as Dimond wants it too.
She pulled the same cr@p with Michael Jackson too, trying to convince the public that his professional achievements didn't matter because he was accused. Strangely enough, b*tch never admit that she was the main one doing the accusing and never finding incontrovertable evidence to prove her accusations. And yet, MJ fans are supposed to gauge his character based on Dimond's unsubstantiated allegations. But wait... are only Black male celebrities bond by this standard? Because, it seems to me that Dimond, more than a few times, didn't accomplish her professional obligations i.e. actually reporting what really happened in that Santa Barbara courtroom. Or going on Larry King Live and lying about having MJ penned love letters to that Arvizo kid. Or nearly getting her @$$ sued off after going on Hard Copy and claiming that she had a videotape of MJ molesting his nephew.
People like Dimond are fond of saying that Michael Jackson was just an entertainer or Tiger Woods is just an athlete, but nine times out of ten, they perform their jobs immaculately and with extreme precision. Diane Dimond, a 'journalist' has routinely performed her job recklessly. So is she trying to say that people who have drama-free personal lives should go to the head of the line, despite they're being total washouts professionally?
Yep... that's the way she wants the world to be because things would be a lot easier for flameouts like her.
A few weeks ago, Diane Dimond appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources to discuss the Tiger Woods drama. Naturally, she was on there because Tiger Woods is her 'beat' on Entertainment Tonight, not that she revealed anything of significance about him or the situation.
Anyway, she praddled on about how athletes 'like him' shouldn't be role models. But the kicker for me was when she said that he didn't deserve to be named Athlete of the Decade due to the scandal in his private life. And she called him a loser.
Okay... I don't give two $h*ts about golf or Tiger Woods, but who the h*ll is Diane Dimond to declare that Woods wasn't deserving of the title? He played the game, didn't he? He won hella many tournaments, didn't he? He inspired people from various walks of life to follow the game, didn't he? And the Dimond b*tch readily admitted that she knew nothing about golf, nor didn't harbor any interest in the game, so who the fcuk is she to try and overule what voters of this particular magazine/sports outlet decided?
Tiger's job was to play golf - his image was extra. Mind you, he was an absolute dumbass to portray himself as pristine, asexual Anointed Negro, but again, that was extra. The game was what was important and if he mastered the game, he deserved kudos, regardless of if he offended pedestrians such as herself.
Kinda curious how Dimond believes personal character should supercede the particular task at hand. If you're a good athlete... sweet! If you're a good athlete with a drama-free personal life - that's sweet too... for you and you alone. Public figures are only beholden to the public when it comes to executing their professional vocations. Private misconduct matters, but not as much as Dimond wants it too.
She pulled the same cr@p with Michael Jackson too, trying to convince the public that his professional achievements didn't matter because he was accused. Strangely enough, b*tch never admit that she was the main one doing the accusing and never finding incontrovertable evidence to prove her accusations. And yet, MJ fans are supposed to gauge his character based on Dimond's unsubstantiated allegations. But wait... are only Black male celebrities bond by this standard? Because, it seems to me that Dimond, more than a few times, didn't accomplish her professional obligations i.e. actually reporting what really happened in that Santa Barbara courtroom. Or going on Larry King Live and lying about having MJ penned love letters to that Arvizo kid. Or nearly getting her @$$ sued off after going on Hard Copy and claiming that she had a videotape of MJ molesting his nephew.
People like Dimond are fond of saying that Michael Jackson was just an entertainer or Tiger Woods is just an athlete, but nine times out of ten, they perform their jobs immaculately and with extreme precision. Diane Dimond, a 'journalist' has routinely performed her job recklessly. So is she trying to say that people who have drama-free personal lives should go to the head of the line, despite they're being total washouts professionally?
Yep... that's the way she wants the world to be because things would be a lot easier for flameouts like her.
Paul Anka... a word
This is long overdue and probably unnecessary, given that many probably expressed this sentiment months ago, but here goes... GET OVER YOURSELF!!!
MJ was not a thief and he sure as $h*t didn't steal your song. Maybe he borrowed your melodies, but hell, no one else was using them. I have yet to read or hear anyone taking up for Safire's 'interpretation' of your 'genius work' like people did when The Rolling Stones 'borrowed' k.d. lang's Constant Craving.
This is It is not The Lady in My Life. Or Rock With You. Or Human Nature. Or PYT. It's sure as $h*t ain't no Man in the Mirror - now, that's a song worth stealing writing credit for. But MJ didn't do that back then, so why the fcuk would you act like he did that to you? Given that he took back his vocal performance of your original composition, he could do whatever he wanted with it. What occured to him was to never let the recording see the light of day, which would explain why he absconded with the track. Judging your opportunitistic, over-inflated ego-having @$$, he was right to do so. I can totally imagine you using his vocal to sell the original song, which was crap!
His brothers recorded backup vocals. His estate released the song. They didn't do this with MJ's consent, so why pitch a fit about it? And, @$$hole, by showing your natural behind the way you did, I bet that the demand for downloads of this song dropped significantly because MJ fans don't want to line douchebags' pockets.
It's too bad you didn't have it within you to conduct yourself with grace and deference months back, because Lenny Kravitz completely showed your @$$ up. A leak of a vocal performance by MJ was leaked this week, written by Lenny Kravitz and the instrumentation was performed by Lenny Kravitz. Did he accuse the Jackson estate of pulling a fast one? No. He just specified that he wasn't behind the leak and that he hopes that a cleaned up, professional sounding version will see the light of day... someday.
No angling on his part.
No whiff of passive aggressive bitchery in his tone.
Just respect and calm.
And guess what? FANS WANT TO GET THEIR HANDS ON THE KRAVITZ/MJ track.
Next time, know when to STFU.
And @$$hole... don't think that every music fan buys the pantload delivered from TMZ or Inside Edition!
MJ was not a thief and he sure as $h*t didn't steal your song. Maybe he borrowed your melodies, but hell, no one else was using them. I have yet to read or hear anyone taking up for Safire's 'interpretation' of your 'genius work' like people did when The Rolling Stones 'borrowed' k.d. lang's Constant Craving.
This is It is not The Lady in My Life. Or Rock With You. Or Human Nature. Or PYT. It's sure as $h*t ain't no Man in the Mirror - now, that's a song worth stealing writing credit for. But MJ didn't do that back then, so why the fcuk would you act like he did that to you? Given that he took back his vocal performance of your original composition, he could do whatever he wanted with it. What occured to him was to never let the recording see the light of day, which would explain why he absconded with the track. Judging your opportunitistic, over-inflated ego-having @$$, he was right to do so. I can totally imagine you using his vocal to sell the original song, which was crap!
His brothers recorded backup vocals. His estate released the song. They didn't do this with MJ's consent, so why pitch a fit about it? And, @$$hole, by showing your natural behind the way you did, I bet that the demand for downloads of this song dropped significantly because MJ fans don't want to line douchebags' pockets.
It's too bad you didn't have it within you to conduct yourself with grace and deference months back, because Lenny Kravitz completely showed your @$$ up. A leak of a vocal performance by MJ was leaked this week, written by Lenny Kravitz and the instrumentation was performed by Lenny Kravitz. Did he accuse the Jackson estate of pulling a fast one? No. He just specified that he wasn't behind the leak and that he hopes that a cleaned up, professional sounding version will see the light of day... someday.
No angling on his part.
No whiff of passive aggressive bitchery in his tone.
Just respect and calm.
And guess what? FANS WANT TO GET THEIR HANDS ON THE KRAVITZ/MJ track.
Next time, know when to STFU.
And @$$hole... don't think that every music fan buys the pantload delivered from TMZ or Inside Edition!
Thursday, December 17, 2009
People Magazine is really pressing its luck!!!
First, they did that ridiculous '6 page spread' regarding the state of the Brad and Angelina's relationship - 6 pages that consisted of 6 pages of photos and six paragraphs of story, which apparently, was put together by 6 or 7 people. Now, they did this.
Bought the year end edition of People Magazine, featuring a lovely picture of Taylor Swift on the cover, along with MJ's pic for the farewell section. I typically buy this issue because of the tributes section - you have to give props to those who have passed.
As I was ringing up the mag, I got a snootful of grinning, preening butterfaced Jennifer Aniston on the back cover. Apparently, People decided to create a section highlighting the best of the decade, and apparently, Jennifer Aniston epitomed 'the best' of the 00's.
Puh-leeze!!!!
Probably the best at milking a nearly five year old breakup/divorce.
The best at milking a B-plus ensemble sitcom, which, again, saw its day five years ago.
The best at fooling princesses into believing that she's actively seeing good husband/father material, with the likes of Vince Vaughn and John Mayer.
She was deemed 'Friend Forever', which could be read as her being considered America's friend - myself, I read it as the b*tch can't play anything except her Friends part. And yet, People had the nerve to say that she's a 'full-blown movie star'.
Come on!!!
Tell me, People... are you all doing this because the b*tch, rightfully so, was omitted from the Most Beautiful list? Or did you make some deal with her camp to exchange her with another horseface, Chelsea Handler, who, strangely enough, decided to be the mouthpiece for the chronicly discontented princesses who are facing year five of the Brad and Angelina relationship, despite their incessant insistence that the relationship is on its last legs?
Crony-ism is pathetic, but People made it all the more pathetic by having Aniston helming a Bonus Section which only spanned 19 pages!!!!
Pretty lame, People, made all the more lame by the fact that this is the b*tch's second time in two years, being the cover for the year end issue. Mind you, I prefer to think of Taylor Swift as the legitimate cover girl of the issue - hell, she even dressed up in ravishing red for the party, whereas People used a typical Aniston in black stock pic.
Because, really, I like thinking that the promise of a new decade is exemplified by Aniston's smiling puss. I mean, we haven't had enough crappy, contrived romantic comedies yet, have we?
Bought the year end edition of People Magazine, featuring a lovely picture of Taylor Swift on the cover, along with MJ's pic for the farewell section. I typically buy this issue because of the tributes section - you have to give props to those who have passed.
As I was ringing up the mag, I got a snootful of grinning, preening butterfaced Jennifer Aniston on the back cover. Apparently, People decided to create a section highlighting the best of the decade, and apparently, Jennifer Aniston epitomed 'the best' of the 00's.
Puh-leeze!!!!
Probably the best at milking a nearly five year old breakup/divorce.
The best at milking a B-plus ensemble sitcom, which, again, saw its day five years ago.
The best at fooling princesses into believing that she's actively seeing good husband/father material, with the likes of Vince Vaughn and John Mayer.
She was deemed 'Friend Forever', which could be read as her being considered America's friend - myself, I read it as the b*tch can't play anything except her Friends part. And yet, People had the nerve to say that she's a 'full-blown movie star'.
Come on!!!
Tell me, People... are you all doing this because the b*tch, rightfully so, was omitted from the Most Beautiful list? Or did you make some deal with her camp to exchange her with another horseface, Chelsea Handler, who, strangely enough, decided to be the mouthpiece for the chronicly discontented princesses who are facing year five of the Brad and Angelina relationship, despite their incessant insistence that the relationship is on its last legs?
Crony-ism is pathetic, but People made it all the more pathetic by having Aniston helming a Bonus Section which only spanned 19 pages!!!!
Pretty lame, People, made all the more lame by the fact that this is the b*tch's second time in two years, being the cover for the year end issue. Mind you, I prefer to think of Taylor Swift as the legitimate cover girl of the issue - hell, she even dressed up in ravishing red for the party, whereas People used a typical Aniston in black stock pic.
Because, really, I like thinking that the promise of a new decade is exemplified by Aniston's smiling puss. I mean, we haven't had enough crappy, contrived romantic comedies yet, have we?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Joy Behar apologizes... for why?
Supposedly, The View is a female-oriented show, although it doesn't stop them from dissing and judging other women. Of course, they do hold their tongue when pressed by the higher ups (read: Barbara Walters) as evidenced by their 'cheering on' Barbara Walters after she revealed her 2 year affair with a married Black congressman back in the 70s, and yet, they made a meal out of Angelina Jolie, who was never proven to have had an affair with Brad Pitt. But that's neither here or there - consideration happens. But why is Gloria Allred, of all people, subject to consideration?
Joy Behar made a lame play on words using Rachel Uchitel's name which implied that she was a hooker and Joy was made to apologize.
For why?
Didn't she hire the biggest famewhore lawyer on Earth, Gloria Allred, to broker a deal to receive compensation from a dude who, possibly, occupied the space between her thighs? Because that sounds like something a pimp would do for a ho. And pimps usually get a cut of the take. So why did Joy Behar have to apologize?
And personally, while I would love nothing more than to drop kick that Allred b*tch, I am dying to hear Allred's feminist-tinged spin about this whole issue. I know that there are some feminists who believe that prostitution can be taken back from its misogynist roots and reinterpreted in a feminist way - I want to hear Allred spin this crap, assuming she sticks around. She tends to jump ship about certain issues like the Octomom, when she doesn't stand to profit from it financially or PR wise. And she always seems to back lame horses like Mel B, Hunter Tylo, those Rob Lowe nannies, although the Hunter Tylo case still bugs the hell out of me - that b*tch knew that she couldn't pull off the role that Lisa Rinna eventually got - her pregnancy had nothing to do with anything.
Still, Allred tends to win cases, damn her. And obviously, she used her clout to spay Joy. This b*tch needs to be stopped. She is not GrandMama brokering a deal for Gigi. She's a pimp with a growing stable of skanky b*tches. Yeah... I heard about 40-something #14.
And on that note, I'm going to let Suzanne Sugarbaker voice mine and many other people's sentiments about these big-mouthed skanks who are profiting from being Tiger's hookers.
Joy Behar made a lame play on words using Rachel Uchitel's name which implied that she was a hooker and Joy was made to apologize.
For why?
Didn't she hire the biggest famewhore lawyer on Earth, Gloria Allred, to broker a deal to receive compensation from a dude who, possibly, occupied the space between her thighs? Because that sounds like something a pimp would do for a ho. And pimps usually get a cut of the take. So why did Joy Behar have to apologize?
And personally, while I would love nothing more than to drop kick that Allred b*tch, I am dying to hear Allred's feminist-tinged spin about this whole issue. I know that there are some feminists who believe that prostitution can be taken back from its misogynist roots and reinterpreted in a feminist way - I want to hear Allred spin this crap, assuming she sticks around. She tends to jump ship about certain issues like the Octomom, when she doesn't stand to profit from it financially or PR wise. And she always seems to back lame horses like Mel B, Hunter Tylo, those Rob Lowe nannies, although the Hunter Tylo case still bugs the hell out of me - that b*tch knew that she couldn't pull off the role that Lisa Rinna eventually got - her pregnancy had nothing to do with anything.
Still, Allred tends to win cases, damn her. And obviously, she used her clout to spay Joy. This b*tch needs to be stopped. She is not GrandMama brokering a deal for Gigi. She's a pimp with a growing stable of skanky b*tches. Yeah... I heard about 40-something #14.
And on that note, I'm going to let Suzanne Sugarbaker voice mine and many other people's sentiments about these big-mouthed skanks who are profiting from being Tiger's hookers.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Evan's dead!!! Yeah... that's what I said!
Don't misconstrue the title as a gloat, because I am honestly not. The fact remains that the news of his death made barely a splash, especially compared to the splash he made back in the early 90s. But the tabloid press tried its best to elicit tears for this man... lamenting about how 'tortured and harassed' he was by Michael Jackson fans. Some tabloids tried to paint a smile on Chandler's so-called plight, stating that despite his numerous plastic surgeries, he looked like a more gorgeous Rob Lowe.
So looking like Rob Lowe is compensation for a tortured life... of luxury, huh?
And BTW, if dude felt that hunted, then why the hell would he get plastic surgery to look like a famous dude? And not only an average famous dude, but Rob Lowe, who had a bit of underaged sex controversy back in the late 80s. Little things like complete obliviousness towards the far-reaching ramifications of sexual abuse, whether it's male/female, female/female, or male/male, is why I don't but the allegations. When something like that happens to you or a close loved one, one becomes hypersensitive towards anything that could make all involved revisit those memories.
Hence... why was it necessary for the Chandlers, who experienced luxury when they were involved with MJ, opt to use settlement money to ensconce themselves in similar surroundings where their child was allegedly sexually exploited?
This, along with the 2006 restraining order requested by Jordan, just smells.
So looking like Rob Lowe is compensation for a tortured life... of luxury, huh?
And BTW, if dude felt that hunted, then why the hell would he get plastic surgery to look like a famous dude? And not only an average famous dude, but Rob Lowe, who had a bit of underaged sex controversy back in the late 80s. Little things like complete obliviousness towards the far-reaching ramifications of sexual abuse, whether it's male/female, female/female, or male/male, is why I don't but the allegations. When something like that happens to you or a close loved one, one becomes hypersensitive towards anything that could make all involved revisit those memories.
Hence... why was it necessary for the Chandlers, who experienced luxury when they were involved with MJ, opt to use settlement money to ensconce themselves in similar surroundings where their child was allegedly sexually exploited?
This, along with the 2006 restraining order requested by Jordan, just smells.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
So let me see if I have this right... November edition
Michael Jackson... a man who spent the majority of his adult life hiding behind thick makeup to hide his acne scars, both in public and private; a man who, again, both in public and private, wore wigs to hide the burn scars on his scalp; a man who kept his romantic life so private that no one knows, definitively, whether he was gay or straight (although I suspect that he was straight); a man who went through such lengths to keep the births of his children completely private; a man who wore disguises routinely and bemasked/bescarf his children to maintain his and their privacy... would whip out his Waylon and take a piss in a cup in front of guests at a social gathering?
Really?
Really, Dr. Arnie Klein?
Of course, TMZ ran with the story, along with a subsequent interview with Dr. Klein. Nevermind the possibility that Dr. Klein's practice is likely suffering due to his involvement with the last few drug-fueled years of MJ's life; the investigations into whether he did assist an addict in getting drugs; his attempts to imply his biological link to two of MJ's kids, while, sort of, denying it, yet trying to exert legal muscle when the custody issues between Katherine and Debbie Rowe went to court and failing miserably. And let's not forget the Larry King interviews which magnified Klein's creepiness, shadiness, and lack of credibility.
But that's how if works, you know... anyone, no matter their lackluster background and reputations, receive a reprieve or redemption if they disparage/defame MJ. Just look at all of the 'witnesses' to MJ's molestation. None of them were charged for, hello!, not intervening during a commission of a crime, and yet, they were treated as if their words and actions were gold. The idea that a grown man, who was accused of child molestation, being allowed, by a 'friend', to whip out Waylon, in the 'friend's' home and at the 'friend's' dermatologist's practice, in front of parents and their children, is probably the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. And yet again, someone who, pretty much, witnessed an alleged crime, and not only did not put a stop to it, for the sake of innocent bystanders (including children), but encouraged it because MJ, allegedly, 'thought it was funny', is taken seriously.
Not only does this reflect poorly on Dr. Klein, because he is an obvious liar, but on Harvey Levin, who doesn't question the validity of the story or the judgment of a man who allowed these alleged incidents to happen. Plus, you would think that witnesses to these alleged incidents would've come forward with this a long time ago. Not so much Dr. Klein's staff, because their money could've been affected, if this $h*t hit the fan, but the patients and parents remaining silent - I call complete and utter bull$h*t. Dr. Klein is just a dermatologist - not an oncologist or other practitioner who is responsible for life or death treatment. And patients and parents aren't subject to confidentiality/HIPAA, as proven by numerous patients telling the tabloids that Brad and Angelina took their twins to the pediatrician.
So, essentially, a routine pediatric checkup for twin babies get exposed to the press but years of junk exposure and pissing into cups in front of women and children don't? GIMME A FCUKING BREAK!!!
The judgers will believe this story; fortunately, the intuative will not buy this at all, especially if they saw This Is It. MJ, if anything, was exceedingly polite and often felt compelled to explain himself when he felt that he was adhering to an unspoken understanding. Whipping it out is not polite; taking a piss publicly requires explanation. And plus, the dude sported a big, black belt while wearing gold-sequined covered slacks. Maybe he wore it because the pants were really baggy on his thin frame, but the pants could easily have been taken it, given that seamstresses and tailors were readily available on the set. That belt was for MJ's piece of mind.
Not a Waylon whipper, public pissing pervert.
Dr. Klein, on the other hand...
Really?
Really, Dr. Arnie Klein?
Of course, TMZ ran with the story, along with a subsequent interview with Dr. Klein. Nevermind the possibility that Dr. Klein's practice is likely suffering due to his involvement with the last few drug-fueled years of MJ's life; the investigations into whether he did assist an addict in getting drugs; his attempts to imply his biological link to two of MJ's kids, while, sort of, denying it, yet trying to exert legal muscle when the custody issues between Katherine and Debbie Rowe went to court and failing miserably. And let's not forget the Larry King interviews which magnified Klein's creepiness, shadiness, and lack of credibility.
But that's how if works, you know... anyone, no matter their lackluster background and reputations, receive a reprieve or redemption if they disparage/defame MJ. Just look at all of the 'witnesses' to MJ's molestation. None of them were charged for, hello!, not intervening during a commission of a crime, and yet, they were treated as if their words and actions were gold. The idea that a grown man, who was accused of child molestation, being allowed, by a 'friend', to whip out Waylon, in the 'friend's' home and at the 'friend's' dermatologist's practice, in front of parents and their children, is probably the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. And yet again, someone who, pretty much, witnessed an alleged crime, and not only did not put a stop to it, for the sake of innocent bystanders (including children), but encouraged it because MJ, allegedly, 'thought it was funny', is taken seriously.
Not only does this reflect poorly on Dr. Klein, because he is an obvious liar, but on Harvey Levin, who doesn't question the validity of the story or the judgment of a man who allowed these alleged incidents to happen. Plus, you would think that witnesses to these alleged incidents would've come forward with this a long time ago. Not so much Dr. Klein's staff, because their money could've been affected, if this $h*t hit the fan, but the patients and parents remaining silent - I call complete and utter bull$h*t. Dr. Klein is just a dermatologist - not an oncologist or other practitioner who is responsible for life or death treatment. And patients and parents aren't subject to confidentiality/HIPAA, as proven by numerous patients telling the tabloids that Brad and Angelina took their twins to the pediatrician.
So, essentially, a routine pediatric checkup for twin babies get exposed to the press but years of junk exposure and pissing into cups in front of women and children don't? GIMME A FCUKING BREAK!!!
The judgers will believe this story; fortunately, the intuative will not buy this at all, especially if they saw This Is It. MJ, if anything, was exceedingly polite and often felt compelled to explain himself when he felt that he was adhering to an unspoken understanding. Whipping it out is not polite; taking a piss publicly requires explanation. And plus, the dude sported a big, black belt while wearing gold-sequined covered slacks. Maybe he wore it because the pants were really baggy on his thin frame, but the pants could easily have been taken it, given that seamstresses and tailors were readily available on the set. That belt was for MJ's piece of mind.
Not a Waylon whipper, public pissing pervert.
Dr. Klein, on the other hand...
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Rosie O'Donnell and Angelina: It would've never worked!
Recently, Rosie O'Donnell revealed that she very nearly, did something, with Angelina Jolie. Rosie's implication was that she and Angelina nearly dated. Or rather, Angelina gave Rosie her phone number and they had several phone conversations. But per usual, if Angelina Jolie's name is mentioned, the story takes on a bigger life, which may have been Rosie's intention, since she's launching a new radio show next month.
At any rate, this 'revelation' got me to thinking, which is likely the opposite of what most men are doing today. Rosie O'Donnell and Angelina Jolie is not the sapphic combination they were banking on, and for that matter, it's not particularly appetizing to the 'would go gay for Angie' crowd either. But it's interesting to come up with reasons why this coupling would not work. Here's a brief list:
Actually, I think that gay/straight factor is what sticks in Madonna's craw. Madonna was probably the first female star to openly admit to her bisexuality, but that admission kinda fell flat. It always felt like a tactic to titillate the masses. Her Sex book became the symbol of Madonna's detached, clinical take on sexuality. Angelina, on the other hand, generated a lot of buzz when she revealed her bisexuality. In fact, that admission made the 'will go gay/straight for' phenomenon possible. People can picture Angelina having sex and having a hella good time at it. In terms of the sexual revolution, Angelina did more by just being than Madonna who was just doing. Certain things should come easily - Madonna apparently doesn't.
Ultimately, an ultimatum, from Madonna, would've come down. Would Rosie have been strong enough to say no to Madonna?
So many questions and possibilities. Fortunately, the pairing didn't happen; therefore my high opinion of Angelina continues.
At any rate, this 'revelation' got me to thinking, which is likely the opposite of what most men are doing today. Rosie O'Donnell and Angelina Jolie is not the sapphic combination they were banking on, and for that matter, it's not particularly appetizing to the 'would go gay for Angie' crowd either. But it's interesting to come up with reasons why this coupling would not work. Here's a brief list:
- The age difference - Thirteen years separate Rosie and Angelina versus the twelve that separate Brad and Angelina; however, the decades make a difference. Assuming that the phone number was given to Rosie in the late 90s, Angelina was around 21-22 years old, while Rosie was in her mid thirties. It was well-documented that Angelina was going through her wild child phase, while Rosie was taking care of her son, Parker, and very closeted. Could Rosie have handled Angelina's youthful impetuousness? Possibly, but then again, Rosie has a strong personality, bordering on bullying. Would Angelina interpret Rosie's strength as strength or rebel against, as she did nearly everything. Versus, 30-something Angelina, who is more comfortable in her skin and is with 40-something Brad Pitt, who seems pretty mellow about everything.
- Rosie was closeted - Brad Pitt, seemingly, broke his neck getting the hell away from Jennifer Aniston in order to be with Angelina; would Rosie have crashed through the closet door? I think... no, given how invested she was in her talk show. This woman waited until the tail end of her show's run to tell her audience the truth. Would Angelina have been willing to be kept in the shadows in order for Rosie's career to flourish? And for that matter, would that have even been possible, given that she was a lightening rod of controversy even then?
- Personality clashes - Angelina claimed that she and Colin Farrell were too much alike to be together. While Rosie and Angelina aren't alike, on paper, they are both polarizing figures. As I mentioned before, Rosie is a bit of a bully, whereas Angelina, though provocative in her interviews, doesn't attack other people. When Rosie have public feuds, she's usually the person who starts them. When people feud with Angelina, it's usually one-sided, since she rarely participates. Would Rosie stand for this? Would she perceive Angelina's silences as weakness? Or would she escalates the feuds, in defense of her love?
- Rosie's anti-gun stance - In recent years, Angelina has starred in a lot of high-octane, gun brandishing, action flicks - films which Rosie usually wags her finger at. If this coupling happened in the late 90s, would Rosie have tried to dissuade Angelina from tackling action flicks? Would Rosie have gone on tirades similar to the Tom Selleck ambush and anti- Fight Club rants for Angelina's films? If not, wouldn't that have emphasized Rosie's selective outrage?
- The intimidation factor - Angelina is considered the sexiest woman on planet Earth. Ten years ago, she was considered the sexiest woman on planet Earth, but she was also kinda kinky and dark. Rosie, at best, is stocky. Could Rosie have handled the eyefcuking that Angelina, undoubtedly gets? And one on one, would Rosie have been confident enough to be intimate with Angelina. Would Angelina have been sexually satisfied?
- The showtunes - Who knows if Rosie bursts into showtunes at home like she did on her talk show, but could you imagine the looks she would get from Angelina?
- The chin hair - It's widely known that when Angelina goes on her UNHCR trips, she goes hard core - meaning no baths, makeup, etc. So B.O. wouldn't scare Angelina off; but would Rosie's fascination with bodily functions? I refer to Rosie's past obsession with her chin hair. An obsession with resulted in her growing it out and putting beads on it. Now every woman has that strange chin hair that is too thick and too dark to ignore. Most of us pluck it out - Rosie... not so much! Much has been made about Brad's chin hairs, but they're hairs, not a single strand. Angelina has seen a lot of sights, but would little experiments like that make her stomach bubble?
- Rosie's friendship with Madonna - Much has been made about the supposed feud between Madonna and Angelina, but the emphasis has been on the African adoptions and charitable projects in specific regions in Africa. But Madonna is an alpha female of the highest order. Angelina is perceived as an alpha female, but she doesn't work as hard as Madonna to earn that rep. But there is a competition going on, even if it is one sided.
- Acting - game to Angelina
- Sex appeal - game to Angelina
- Will go gay/straight for factor - game to Angelina
Actually, I think that gay/straight factor is what sticks in Madonna's craw. Madonna was probably the first female star to openly admit to her bisexuality, but that admission kinda fell flat. It always felt like a tactic to titillate the masses. Her Sex book became the symbol of Madonna's detached, clinical take on sexuality. Angelina, on the other hand, generated a lot of buzz when she revealed her bisexuality. In fact, that admission made the 'will go gay/straight for' phenomenon possible. People can picture Angelina having sex and having a hella good time at it. In terms of the sexual revolution, Angelina did more by just being than Madonna who was just doing. Certain things should come easily - Madonna apparently doesn't.
Ultimately, an ultimatum, from Madonna, would've come down. Would Rosie have been strong enough to say no to Madonna?
So many questions and possibilities. Fortunately, the pairing didn't happen; therefore my high opinion of Angelina continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)