There may be a new addition to the Wilkinson-Baskett brood.
Former "Girls Next Door" star Kendra Wilkinson, 26, was spotted on Sunday carrying two pregnancy tests in a shopping bag.
There may be a new addition to the Wilkinson-Baskett brood.
Former "Girls Next Door" star Kendra Wilkinson, 26, was spotted on Sunday carrying two pregnancy tests in a shopping bag.
Archery is so in right now. Despite the best efforts of Russell Crowe-as-Robin Hood, bows and arrows are enjoying newfound popularity between "Game of Thrones" and, of course, "The Hunger Games." But as Joel McHale proves, it may not be as easy as it looks.
In a pretaped bit at last night's MTV Movie Awards, "The Soup" and "Community" star Joel McHale played Lester Boonshaft, a terrible Hollywood archery teacher. In Boonshaft's world, being an archery teacher involves very little actual shooting and quite a bit of wearing arrow-through-the-head gag hats.
Not only does he sexually harass Jennifer Lawrence, he thinks Hollywood Treasure J.J. Abrams is a horrible person. But hey, if you're an archery teacher, strike while the iron's hot, right?
Just when the Octomom story couldn't get any more tawdry, along comes this report from TMZ.com that Nadya Suleman will undress for money at a strip club in Florida next month.
Suleman will do two topless shows a night from July 11-15 at T's Lounge in West Palm Beach because she feels "sexually liberated" and wants to promote her upcoming solo porn release, reports TMZ.com.
The mom of 14 definitely needs the money - last month, she filed for bankruptcy, stating that she has less than $50,000 in assets but between $500,000 and $1 million in liabilities, reported Us Weekly.
In April, she expressed her eagerness to do any work to make some money. "If it's a job, and it's a well-paying job, and it's gonna allow me to get out of here and move in a very safe, huge home that they deserve, I'm gonna do it," she told HLN's Nischelle Turner.
I am not James Franco, obviously. The only similarity I have to the characters on Girls is I'm a writer/journalist, but I'm not struggling. I can say that I've definitely been there (jobless, aimless), and I have many friends at the moment who're trying to find their "correct" career path.
This, to me, is one of many things Girls does right: it accurately portrays that phase in life when you're stuck in between school and career. You kinda sorta know what you want to do for a living, but don't have the first clue how to get there. You feel a compelling urge to have sex with everyone, but don't have the first clue how to a) approach it or b) stop yourself when you know it's wrong. Suddenly, you have to make money and support yourself, and no one taught you how in school. Whether you're a girl or a guy, it's the same horrible limbo, a place with no rules and no set destination.
What's genius about Lena Dunham's approach in Girls is how she taps into each potential mindset: the more virginal viewers can identify with hopelessly shy Shoshanna, the wild things see themselves in Jessa, the buttoned-down people in relationships know what it's like to be Marnie, and the in-the-wind lost souls find their figurehead in Hannah. While yes, these women live in a very dysfunctional, chaotic world, and most people probably shouldn't look up to them, it's far better to identify with girls like these than the insipid flakes that populate shows like Gossip Girl. Your average guy would never want to watch Gossip Girl, but they may just want to tune in to Girls.
Why? As simple as it sounds, it's real -- on multiple levels. I personally know iterations of each girl on this show -- especially Hannah, the hilarious, creative, yet socially hopeless woman without a clue about what to do with herself. She's an everygirl. It's also refreshing that these people don't all congregate in some ridiculous apartment (ahem, Friends) that they could never feasibly afford, and we don't see them rolling in money or lusting after handbags (as seen on the #1 guy repellent, Sex And The City).
No matter if you're XX or XY, we've all been where these girls are. Dealing with a couple that's been together for too long, who then have a nasty breakup; parents who love you one minute and want to cut the cord the next; trying to cope with your significant other's annoying friend; going from job to job without finding any satisfaction. And people might want to act like the sex on the show is "out there," but I'll be the first to admit that it's hopelessly real. Sex can be wonderful, sure, but it can also suck. Most of the time, it's awkward and strange. Dan Savage said it best when I spoke to him earlier this year:
"Sex is crazy and unique. We all look ridiculous in pursuit of it, we all look ridiculous doing it, and we all feel ridiculous five minutes after we're done, and we should all be able to laugh about it to help keep it in perspective."
I would say Girls does this in spades.
Dunham also hits the nail on the head with her male characters. I agree with Franco when he says they're all losers, but man, do I ever know several guys like these characters. The weirdo with bizarre sexual proclivities, the hanger-on friend who you want to kill, the uberhipster in a bowler hat and the wussy sap who does his girlfriend's bidding (I seriously once knew a guy who tied his girlfriend's shoelaces for her). Yeah, I'd never want to be them, but these types of guys exist. And I'm just as baffled at the female characters who find them attractive. You can never predict who'll dig someone else. It's all up in the air, but hey, that's life.
And that goes for TV shows, too, doesn't it? Appeal transcends gender. Guys can like Girls just as girls can like Top Gear. In the case of Girls, I appreciate it as a perfectly depicted slice-of-life, and if it can completely time-warp me back to a period in my life when everything was undecided and volatile, then it's done its job.
Perhaps the best aspect of Girls is it provides a window for guys to look through, to better understand the thought processes of women in relationships, and to see how their own potential douchebaggery might be interpreted by the women in their lives. Looking at it that way, Girls actually provides society a service, and we should all be thanking Dunham for pointing out that yep, all of us are a little fucked up.
On the June 3 episode of TLC's "Sister Wives" (Sundays at 9 p.m. ET), Kody and Meri brown opened up about their struggles with infertility, and a miscarriage Meri had four years earlier.
“The doctor just said, ‘This is not a viable pregnancy,’" Kody admitted tearfully. "We were just back to a dark place.”
Meri added: “I was so frustrated and so angry."
Fans immediately took to Twitter to share their own sad tales of miscarriage. "Hang in there," Meri wrote. "I understand!"
"Sister Wives" airs on Sundays at 9 p.m. ET on TLC.
TV Replay scours the vast television landscape to find the most interesting, amusing, and amazing moments - and delivers them right to your browser.
Gotta love it when something meant to instigate, instigates. Especially when what it instigates is a conversation of such far-reaching socio-psychological and physiological proportions. Jamie Lynn Grumet, the mom featured on TIME magazine's cover breastfeeding her 3-year-old son, is this year's most controversial subject of a photograph by far. A mom-turned social activist-turned witting attachment parenting advocate and heroine memorialized by the media... her single cover photo sparked heated debates across the nation -- and they have been gorgeous to watch.
Clearly, the idea of breastfeeding a child into toddlerhood has touched a nerve in our country. (Notably, it doesn't spark any debate in other cultures.) It has raised reactive and feisty concerns and simultaneously activated the pro-attachment movement far and wide. Sign me up to add to the fever-pitched overnight education about attachment parenting, helmed by the likes of the beautiful Mayim Bialik, doctors including Dr. Jay Gordon and the cape-wearing heroine, Jamie herself.
There are a multitude of facets to this conversation around attachment parenting that are worthy of being explored. For the purpose of focus and brevity (and because it would be impossible to cover them all in one article), I start with what I think could be one of the first antidotes -- a way to put out part of the fire that burns at the heart of this debate, in my opinion, that is -- to illuminate and outline what the first stages of development in a child's growth toward adulthood are all about.
According to Harville Hendrix's chart of the stages of development, in his book entitled Keeping The Love You Find, the first two stages of a child's life are attachment (which synthesizes the theories of Freud, Erik Erikson, John Bowly and Harville himself) and exploration (informed by Margaret Mahler and expanded and named by Harville Hendrix). During the attachment stage, dependency reigns and is appropriate. The speed with which we can consistently meet our child's needs for emotional and physical nurturance and sustenance is paramount. He or she learns, through consistent and responsive physical nurturing touch and care, to trust life and to love and to connect: with other, with god, with self... This stage of development tells children that not only can they trust life, but that THEY EXIST, and that it is okay, maybe even great, to be here.
I personally believe that the attachment stage, done well, can circumvent countless addictions later in life because many of these addictions are often a temporary attempt at feeling this sense of connection. If a child's needs during this stage of development are not met, he or she will be staving off a haunting sense of cellular disconnection and loneliness for a lifetime. they will not have effectively internalized a loving nurturance as their own love-style.
The next stage of development is called the exploration stage. It's during this time that a lil' one goes out and explores his or her own world, comes up against the first limits and ultimately learns how to navigate frustration and disappointment in the face of those limits parents set during a socialization period. We, as parents, are asked to guard their exploratory and curious nature while instating boundaries and limits (hopefully delineating between their behavior and their very beingness).
While attachment and exploration are linear, the path from one to the other is also non-linear. There is a definitive overlap, and this overlap is at the heart of today's debates.
The goal of attachment parenting is to provide your child with a deep sense of connectedness and bonding, while the goal of the exploration stage is to provide space for their utter freedom to express their authentic selves while being protected and kept safe. This delicate blend will make for a securely attached, connected and authentically expressed child, who feels free, safe and protected. If these stages are thwarted, a child's ability to navigate adulthood and connect with human beings later in life is at risk. That's the real irony that many people are confused by -- attachment parents believe that the more we tend to our child's needs during those first stages, the MORE independence and interdependence he or she will have later in their life! (Note, we are not tending to their every want.) These are qualities they will need in order to have any kind of intimacy in future relationships. (In her books, Facing Codependence and The Intimacy Factor, Pia Mellody addresses this clearly.) It may be counterintuitive, but it's also a beautifully daunting responsibility to have: to intuitively know whether a child needs space, protection, guidance or nurturing from moment to moment -- not to mention helping them delineate between their needs and wants. It is no small task, this being an attuned parent thing.
Which brings me to breastfeeding. We have years of exhaustive research that extolls the physiological and psychological virtues of breastfeeding, skin-on-skin touch, proximity, object constancy and consistency. Science, psychologists and nutritionists alike support its benefits. Interestingly, for babies, it also provides needed protein, nutrients and antibodies that promote better immune systems.
And it's good for moms as well: (IMPORTANT: This is not meant to hold up the "perfect breastfeeding mother" as a model or add fuel to the already competitive element of breastfeeding that is an undercurrent among mothers -- one of a few shames about the tagline of the TIME mag cover, by the way). I believe that the choice around breastfeeding is one a mother and family can only make for themselves, and I know that the decision not to breastfeed when a woman wants to can be among the greatest heartbreaks of her life and warrants profound empathy.
All in all, it is our intention, our intuition, our life circumstance and our healed hearts that dictate how well we navigate these developmental stages, not our standard of "doing it perfectly."
But the conversation around the pros of breastfeeding, interestingly, is not where most of the attachment parenting debate gets heated. Most attention is paid to the idea of whether a developmental stage should have a rigidly enforced beginning and end. A cookie cutter enforcement timetable presupposes that a child won't be able to wean or shift to the next stage of development in his or her own perfect time. Just as we can't force a child to walk or read, providing this trust and freedom that they'll reach stages when they're ready seems braver and certainly a lot more humane than rigidly forcing a young person to stop doing something before he or she is naturally prepared to do so. Their natural weaning is assured, even when our parental bandwidth and understanding is not.
A toddler doesn't nurse 24/7 the way a newborn does. There is no smothering going on (in the most functional of us breastfeeding mothers). When a child is used to breastfeeding, there is no quicker way to soothe their nervous systems than by cradling them and offering what they have equated with peace and connection since birth. The primary reason for breastfeeding into toddlerhood is to maintain that consistent connection, health and sense of well-being (frankly, in both the child AND the mother) until, optimally, they naturally wean.
There is a delicate cocktail of hormones that are at play in the act of the tender exchange between mom and child. As an example, the contents of the breastmilk changes over time to adapt to the growing child's needs as they get older -- there is no better indication that nature had it planned perfectly.
The debate, impossible to be complete in a short article here (there is the conversation around sexuality and the fear of impropriety that would need to be addressed, among others) must of course take into account what is best for the child's parents -- their context and socio-economic climate -- and what is best for the sustenance of the marriage and child him/herself. Each family's answer will be different based on lifestyle, very important financial considerations, proximity to help and community, resources, personal vocations, location, whether they are single parents, etc. All of these considerations play a role in whether someone feels as though they, as a parent, have the bandwidth to "nail" each stage. There is no question that our culture -- politically and otherwise -- needs to better enable and support families' parenting choices, so that the making of them doesn't threaten anyone's being able to put food on their plate.
For now, poetically, it seems that all of our outcries bond us. The two extremes I see people fearing the most are child neglect on one end and smothering and impropriety on the other. It seems as though a healthy moderate version of parenting, where our shame about our bodies and our sexuality, our traumas and our resistances to connection are addressed, is where most of us, ultimately, really want to fall.
That most, if not all of us, want the same thing and have different ways of getting there winds up being the moral of the story.
I am reminded of what a dear friend said to me when she noticed that I was, in a way not uncommon among new mothers perhaps, being really hard on myself. She said to me, "Alanis, there is nothing that consistent, loving behavior can't heal." So, for the purpose of distilling this complex and passionate debate to simple clarity, I would say we are all attempting to love our children well, so they can move forward into the future and part the red seas for us, while being as connected, functional, resilient and healthy as possible. And our understanding of the journey they take, with us as their guardians, is one that requires us all to blend our sensibilities of nurturance, love, guidance and protection. Using both heart and knowledge. Something, upon looking around me at my fellow parents, this generation seems pretty darn good at. No doubt a little well-placed and well-timed education here and there will help us through. An education that has been brought to the fore thanks to the conversation around that envelope-pushing TIME magazine cover. Here's to the ongoing discussion. Becoming louder not a moment too soon.
While Kim Kardashian's new romance with Kanye West has been splashed all over the tabloids, the star's ex-husband has been laying low -- until now. Nets basketball star Kris Humphries was photographed leisurely lounging at Miami Beach recently with a mystery woman, who -- with her long black hair and curves barely concealed in her tiny pink bikini -- could pass for Kardashian from a distance.
The Daily Mail reports that the woman is "his rumored new flame" and that the pair were "out on a beach date." But Gossip Cop reports that Humphries and the mystery girl are not dating, according to an insider who knows Humphries. "The woman is not Kris' 'new flame,'" the source said, adding that "Kris was there for less than four minutes and has no affiliation with this young lady."
Humphries, 27, and Kardashian, 31, married in a much-publicized ceremony on August 20, 2011; the couple notoriously split just 72 days later, citing irreconcilable differences. In April, Kardashian stepped out with West, who was rumored to have an off-again, on-again fling with the reality show star before she shacked up with Humphries.
For every celebrity who talks publicly about their split (Kim Kardashhian, Seal, we're looking at you), there's another who you never even realized had been married, let alone divorced.
Click through the slideshow to learn about five celebrities with surprising divorce histories.
During the 2012 MTV Movie Awards, Big Ang, the scene-stealer from VH1's "Mob Wives," had a meeting of the minds with Snooki, The New York Times best-selling author and star of "Jersey Shore."
The two reality stars discussed breasts, babies, ate McDonalds and Big Ang even brought Snooki a gift for her first born. It's as epic as it sounds.
In the clip below, Snooki and Big Ang discuss the penis size of the men in their life. Snooki later admits she likes "normal pee-pees," but fiance Jionni is not a lame duck in that department.
Get More: Snooki & JWOWW, Full Episodes
In another clip, Big Ang reveals her water broke while at the disco and it felt like she was peeing in her pants.
Get More: Snooki & JWOWW, Full Episodes
This week, I'm joined by Nicole Karlis of Hollywoodlife.com to talk about the latest celebrity comings and goings! I've got all the scoop on American Idol winner Phillip Phillips, the truth on Bethenny Frankel's rumored divorce, possible 50 Shades of Grey castings and what Kristen Stewart and Rob Pattinson are up to!
For more, follow Gossip Gram on Twitter at @gossip_gram and check us out on Facebook at facebook.com/gossip.gram.
In Hollywood it often seems as if it's a race for new moms to shed the baby weight as fast as humanly possible, but two months after giving birth, Hilary Duff isn't rushing anything.
"I think if you ask any pregnant mom, they're like 'I want my body back,' but it takes time," she told Us Weekly at the Bing Summer of Doing charity event on June 1. "It takes nine months for your body to get that way and it's putting on that weight on purpose. The second I start to get down like 'what happened to my body,' I look at my beautiful baby and I've never been more appreciative for the body that I have."
The 24-year-old singer and actress has been spotted hitting the gym a few times a week in an effort to start shedding the pounds, but says she's not overdoing it.
"Obviously, I'm not where I want to be .... but I'm working hard and I'm doing everything I can to lose the weight the right way," she told the magazine. "I'm breast-feeding, so you have to be careful and not do anything too drastic."
Duff has a very different attitude from fellow new mom Beyonce, who pushed herself to lose 60 pounds just five months after giving birth.
"Y'all have no idea how hard I worked. I had to lose 60 pounds! They had me on that treadmill -- I ate lettuce!" she told the audience at her Memorial Day weekend show in Atlantic City -- her first concert since giving birth to Blue Ivy on Jan. 7.
As for Duff, she told Us Weekly she's been far more interested in baby Luca's every move.
"Okay, I'm going to brag for a second. We were at the doctor for one of his checkups and he rolled over," she told the magazine. "He's really only rolled over like four times, but he did it in front of [his] pediatrician, and [the doctor said], 'Wow, they usually start doing that at three months. That's pretty good.' I was like 'Yes!'"
A recent on-stage concussion might have temporarily knocked out Justin Bieber, but it's done nothing to slow his success. Last week, the reigning prince of pop released "Die In Your Arms," the second single off his upcoming album "Believe," due out June 15. Most of us had barely finished listening to the original by the time creative cover artists across the country uploaded their own renditions. Here are 10 of the most-watched so far, spanning from finger-snapping a cappella version to a retro jazz reboot.
"Die In Your Arms" isn't the only hit single to go viral lately. Carly Rae Jepsen's smash hit "Call Me Maybe" spawned endless covers and parodies, including a lip sync by Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez, the fist-pumping Harvard baseball team, the ladies of Miss USA and -- thanks to some impressive video editing -- President Obama and Mitt Romney hopped on the bandwagon with a cover of their own, too.
Which "Die In Your Arms" cover hits all the right notes? Sound off in the comments below or tweet your fave @HuffPostTeen!
Poor Kim Kardashian. Not only did she get upstaged by Kate Middleton in a McQueen dress (well, maybe -- have you compared the dresses yet?), but girl suffered two wardrobe malfunctions in the span of two days.
The reality personality headed to a slew of events this weekend in the black and white garb she's been favoring lately, reportedly because boyfriend Kanye West is picking it out for her.
But back to the gaffes. First, Kim's Spanx, or what looks like some sort of control top underwear, came out to say hi when the reality star bent over her car in a sheer dress at LAX on Saturday. (The Daily Mail has a clearer shot of the waistband, if you, uh, need a better eyeful.)
Then on Sunday, Kim hawked the new Kardashian Khaos store in a sexy black dress in Las Vegas on Sunday afternoon, but the white tag from her dress' lower half was blindingly visible under the camera flashes. Which, of course, has totally happened to us, too. Who really cuts those tags out?
Usually it's just the people in Kim's presence who have (planned?) wardrobe foibles, although, we're sure she doesn't really mind the spotlight.
PHOTOS:
See more celebrity wardrobe malfunctions!
Lindsay Lohan is all dressed up and ready to take on the role of a lifetime -- and TMZ has obtained the first of photo of LiLo in full Liz Taylor wardrobe ... as she gets set to start filming her new movie.
Steve Carell, comedian and actor, mocked how much college students use technology in his address at Princeton University's Class Day.
Carell had the audience look to their right and then to their left to demonstrate that no one looks one another in the eye anymore.
"We have lost touch with our simpler selves, and by 'we,' I mean you," Carell said. "You are young, and because of that, you are wrong.
He talked about being rejected by girls face-to-face, rather than by text. He also touched on going online to Google himself and finding nothing but lies.
"When I was in college, we didn't have Twitter; we had good ol' fashioned gossip," Carell joked. "If you wanted to talk about someone you could do it face-to-face, right behind their back."
Princeton Patch has more:
Despite heavy rain, University officials held Class Day outside, so it was a sea of plastic orange ponchos and black umbrellas on Cannon Green behind Nassau Hall. Students and parents alike wiped down their plastic seats with paper towels before the ceremony began.Carell was once on track to attend law school. But the 1984 Denison University graduate became stumped while filling out Stanford Law School’s application when the essay question read, ‘Why do you want to be an attorney?”
“I really had no idea,” Carell told Princeton’s graduating seniors. “It sounded good. My parents had worked extraordinarily hard to give me a great education, and I felt that I owed them some sort of valid career choice. So I sat down with my folks, and asked them what they thought, and they proceeded to give me the best advice that I had ever received, or would ever receive. Their words were profound, wise, and they completely altered the rest of my life.
“They said something like ‘blah, blah, blah, follow your dreams, blah, blah, blah.’ I don’t remember exactly what it was, but I didn’t go to law school.”
It turns out Carell’s niece, Maggie, was among the audience, since she is part of Princeton's graduating class of 2012.
Carell hoped that his speech would ripple for years to come, unlike other commencement and class day speeches like Stephen Colbert's, who he appeared with on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. "That guy is the worst," Carell said.
Carell is best known for his role as Michael Scott on The Office, as well as big screen hits like The 40 Year Old Virgin and Anchorman.
Watch Steve Carell's Entire Speech In The Video Above
Sheryl Crow was diagnosed late last year with a benign brain tumor after getting an MRI, according to news reports.
"I haven't really talked about it," Crow told the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which was first to report the news. "In November, I found out I have a brain tumor. But it's benign, so I don't have to worry about it. But it gives me a fit."
Crow told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that she initially went to the doctor for an MRI scan because she was experiencing memory problems.
Dr. Joshua Bederson, a professor and the chairman of neurosurgery at Mount Sinai Medical Center, told the New York Daily News that "a benign brain tumor is a growth that arises from normal cells within the brain."
"Although the growth of those cells is uncontrolled, it is not rapid enough to qualify as a malignant tumor," he explained, likening the tumor to a wart because they can grow if they are not treated.
According to the National Cancer Institute, there are estimated to be 22,910 new cases of brain tumors -- both malignant and benign -- in the United States this year, as well as 13,700 deaths from the tumors.
The University of Maryland Medical Center reported that about half of primary brain tumors are benign.
Brain tumors can cause different symptoms, depending on where they are in the brain, how big they are and how fast they grow, the Mayo Clinic reported. Some common signs may include headaches, nausea, balance and speech problems, seizures, confusion, the loss of sensation in a body part or changes in personality.
Bederson told the New York Daily News that sometimes a benign brain tumor grows so slowly that a person's brain actually gets used to it being there, until eventually a symptom begins to arise.
"The patient says, I've got this funny headache; things don't taste right," Bederson told the New York Daily News. "And that can go on for months or years, until an MRI is done and everyone is stunned to learn there is a tumor."
MedicineNet reported that benign brain tumors are commonly found with a CT or MRI scan -- like how Crow discovered hers -- and most can be surgically removed. Even though they're not cancerous, benign brain tumors can grow to put pressure on brain tissue, which can be dangerous, according to MedicineNet.
Last year, actress Mary Tyler Moore underwent surgery to remove a benign brain tumor. The Los Angeles Times reported that Moore's surgeons were monitoring the meningioma for years; this kind of brain tumor is usually only dangerous when it grows so big that it puts pressure on the brain.
And in 2000, actor Mark Ruffalo was diagnosed with a benign brain tumor, PEOPLE reported. He underwent surgery to remove it, and he told People that there was "very, very little chance of it coming back."
Shocking Development: Rush Limbaugh is not a fan of President Barack Obama's newest campaign ads.
Obama For America recently released two videos featuring Sarah Jessica Parker and Vogue Editor-In-Chief Anna Wintour. In the spots, Parker and Wintour explain to supporters how they can win a chance to dine at Parker's house along with the president and First Lady Michelle Obama.
Limbaugh was not impressed by the campaign's display of star power, calling the ads "Celebrity of the United States kind of stuff." He compared Obama to Kim Kardashian by re-branding the president "Barack Hussein Kardashian":
"It's an indication, once again, how out of touch they really are, how distanced they have become from the people who make this country work. It's an indication of what they think the strong drawing power of the presidency is. He's becoming Barack Kardashian. I tell you, that's what he's becoming. He is becoming the male Kim Kardashian with this stuff, and it's been building. He is Celebrity of the United States; he is not the President. And he is actively, and his whole team's out there pushing this. So it's Barack Hussein Kardashian, is what he has become."
The conservative talk radio host scornfully described Vogue as "a magazine for elites. It's a fashion magazine. Very few people actually read it. It's one of these things 'the right people read it.'" Limbaugh went on to slam the dinner contest, explaining, "this whole thing is a fraud. Anna Wintour doesn't want to meet these people. She's not interested in what they have to think, neither is Obama or Michelle or Sarah Jessica."
Meghan McCain expressed a similar sentiment on her blog. "With the recent abysmal jobs report that just came out, touting elitist celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker and Anna Wintour seems particularly out of touch and disconnected," wrote McCain. She went on to ask, "Why in the world would you OK something like this?"
The "Obama-as-celebrity" political attack isn't new. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Meghan's father, released a campaign video during the 2008 presidential election that labeled Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world." The video featured footage of Obama inter-spliced with images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.
In addition, the Karl Rove-linked super PAC American Crossroads released an ad this April entitled "Cool" that asked, "AFTER 4 YEARS OF A CELEBRITY PRESIDENT IS YOUR LIFE ANY BETTER?"
Listen to audio of Limbaugh's comments above
(h/t Mediaite via DailyRushbo)
Don't mess with the 'Ye. While performing in Paris with buddy Jay-Z as Watch the Throne, Kanye West shot down an ardent fan in the audience who had been presumably pointing a laser at the stage. In a video posted on YouTube, West can be heard mumbling "don't f**k with the lasers" into his microphone as "Flashing Lights" (from 2007's "Graduation") gears up in the background. A few seconds into the song, West abruptly stops the performance, then points to the left-hand section of the stage.
"You see this guy right here with the green laser? Don't f**k with everybody's show. This is not a fucking game… You're going to get f**ked up and kicked out, I don't want that sh*t. So chill the f**k out," West instructs the crowd, before getting back to business.
"Are y'all having a good time this evening? I said, are y'all having a good time this evening?" West shouted.
While in Paris, Beyonce, Gwyneth Paltrow and Justin Bieber attended a Watch the Throne show; Jay and Kanye also made news for performing "N****s in Paris" an epic 11 times.
When a Hollywood marriage ends, allegations of philandering often accompany the news. Sometimes, the third party is a regular person (like a flight attendant or the family babysitter). But we're always caught by surprise when the reported other woman -- or man -- is an equally famous person.
Click through the slideshow and vote for the person that you think is the worst alleged marriage wrecker -- from the Scottish heartbreaker who supposedly came between newlyweds to the screen legend who broke up a pal's marriage.
Someone get Jill Zarin and Alex McCord on the phone!
Last night, "The Real Housewives of New York City" returned for the first time since original stars Zarin and McCord were fired and the show’s ratings declined compared with last season's.
The premiere episodes of Seasons 1–4 respectively drew 824,000, 1,640,000, 2,040,000 and 1,965,000 viewers. But early numbers show that the debut episode of Season 5 got 1.7 million viewers, plus 1.1 million for the encore airing.
“Bravo didn’t expect the numbers to be huge," one network insider tells me. "Monday is a new night for the show and it’s the most competitive night of the week. The show used to air on Thursdays. What is good is that it's up over 90 percent over the past four weeks in the Monday time period [for Bravo's programming]. However, the real truth won’t be known until a couple of weeks when the numbers grow or continue to decline.”
Bravo told fans that the network listened to their complaints about Season 4 of the New York franchise and that's why it made the changes. But now the fans have clearly spoken with their remotes. And these numbers might have a bigger impact than just on the New York show.
“This has proven that you can’t just fire cast members and hope the show remains the same in the ratings. Viewers get attached to even the cast members they love to hate,” one TV insider tells me. “If I were a housewife on Bravo at the moment, I would be asking for a raise.”