Friday, June 30, 2006

NO, no, no no no no no!!!!!


This woman needs to sooooooo not come to Texas.....Please no. Unless somebody snatches her up, chops her into little frogface pieces and feeds here to the aligators.....but that would be gator abuse. Or she could easily piss off some Latinas....they'd take care of Frogface for sure.

***

from Ted C. on eonline.com:

"Jones Reynolds hangers-on tell me the woman wants to enter into politics. Uhmawgawd! Jeez, isn't she already there, what with these heavy-handed machinations she's been pulling? Oh, the locale, so say these Jones Reynolds know-it-alls, for Ms. J.R.'s possible future stomping will be in--of all apropos places--Texas."

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

ANY excuse to hide the defect


And what about that photodeal that fell through because it wasn't up to Crazy's crazy standards? I guess it's also doctrine to keep your baby-momma locked up.

***

from ONTD:

"Tom Cruise: Suri, no pictures"

Tom Cruise has refused to release pictures of baby daughter Suri because of his Scientology beliefs.

The 'Top Gun' actor and his fiancee Katie Holmes celebrated the birth of their baby girl in April but are yet to make their first public appearance together as a family.

It has now been claimed Tom is reluctant to show off Suri because Scientology doctrine teaches followers of the sci-fi cult to avoid taking newborn babies out unless absolutely necessary. A friend of the actor told Britain's Grazia magazine: "Tom insists he'll do it in his own time. He won't be bullied into showing his world his precious angel.

Tom wants to obey Scientology rules about keeping babies out of the public eye."Tom is a devout follower of the bizarre faith, founded by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, and is open about his beliefs.

SOURCE

I am SO glad that this heiffer is hearing "NO"


It's about time she started not getting her way.

***

from ONTD:

"Lions and tigers and stupid spoiled whores, oh my!"

HILTON'S FLIGHT DRAMASocialite PARIS HILTON was forced to drive from Las Vegas, Nevada to Los Angeles after airline officials told her she couldn't bring her six pets on her planned flight home.

The hotel heiress brought her monkey, tiger and her ferrets to Sin City for a weekend of partying and was unimpressed when she realised she would have to spend the long drive with all the animals.

Hilton says, "I bought, like, a monkey, a tiger and some ferrets. I tried to bring them on a commercial flight and they wouldn't let me fly with all the animals. They said it wasn't a travelling circus."

So I had to drive all the way home from Vegas in the limo with all these animals, there was like six. It was a lot."

Source: PR InsideI... I have no words. Was the tiger going to fly first class, or was he supposed to be in the cargo hold?

Before you decide to believe any drivil...

I've said it here before. PLEASE please please, people. Popular ideas are not necessarily good science. The science on climate has not changed. Just because Al Gore wants you believe what he believes doesn't make it good science or correct. "An inconvenient Truth" is merely an emotional appeal to get you to believe the alarmists' misconceptions where science and reasoning has proved them wrong over and over again.

ALWAYS ask someone to prove it when they want you to just blindly accept what they say.

***

this from MSNBC.com:


AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
June 27, 2006

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:
Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:
“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.
Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Really DUMB, ashlee!


But then , nobody's ever accused her of being noble laureate material. Posing for Playboy can only help her career and yet she can't see this. $4 million is a lot for anybody's ass and she should have jumped that anyone would throw that kind of cheddar at her. I'd pose for half that...but then, Playboy hasn't offered.

***

from ONTD:

TMZ has learned that Ashlee Simpson has turned down a $4 million offer to pose for Playboy. In Touch Weekly first reported the offer, and said the pop star was considering it.

TMZ spoke with Rob Shuter, Ashlee's publicist, who confirmed that Ashlee did indeed receive an offer to pose in the legendary men's mag -- but turned it down.

A source close to Ashlee told TMZ the offer was big -- $4 million to be exact. A newly glammed Simpson is currently on tour promoting her recent album, "I Am Me."

Source: TMZ.com

I LOVE Milla Jojovich!


I envy any children she would have...but then I envy her!

from ONTD:

Milla mulls over motherhood (KP International)

Multi-talented Milla Jovovich recently confessed she's thinking more and more of adding motherhood to her list of achievements which include model, designer, actress and singer/songwriter.

"I'm getting to that place where I want to think about kids and family and stopping the totalitarian machine that is my life," said Jovovich to Britain's Independent newspaper. "I'm 30 now and I still feel like a kid, but my mother had me when she was 24."

Jovovich's mother, who doubles as her agent, set a good example for the 'Resident Evil' star. "My mother wanted the best for me and wanted me to learn everything possible, and to educate me in everything possible," she said. "Every last dollar was spent on lessons for me acting, ballet, piano, anything you could imagine. I really felt the pressure of needing to create something to help my family. It was like I had to do my share of the work."

Apparently Jovovich, who has already been married and divorced twice, is supposedly sporting a sizable rock on her engagement finger, so perhaps motherhood isn't too far off?

------------I guess she's engaged to Paul W.S. Anderson (who directed her in Resident Evil.) It's a little weird how nobody hears anything about her now, except for these little useless blurbs.

If Lindsey denies it, well......


I'm inclined to believe her.

from MSNBC.com:


By Jeannette Walls
MSNBC

Lindsay Lohan From cute child actor to svelte blonde to redheaded bombshell and Hollywood star.He claims they did — but her furious rep is blasting that story as a publicity stunt. Judd, of the group McFly, is saying that the two had a tryst while filming “Just My Luck,” in which McFly has a cameo. Lohan had flirted with a few members of the band, they claim, and they all went to a night club where she singled out 20-year-old Judd. “Then she said, ‘Kiss me.’ I was really nervous, I can tell you, because she’s so super successful and talented. I thought, ‘This is awesome,” Judd told the London Daily Mail. “Then she invited me back to her hotel, I left at eight the next morning.’”

For about a year, Judd has denied buzz that the two had a fling, but a single on the group’s new album is rumored to be about her. One line of the song “Please, Please, Lindsay, Please!” goes: “You love yourself more than you love me.”

“He’s using these lies for publicity,” Lohan’s rep, Leslie Sloane, tells the Scoop. “It’s convenient how he’s making up these stories when he has an album coming out.”

Here's your chance to take a shot at K-Fool!


off of defamer.com:

· When you play this game, in which the object is simply to pummel Kevin Federline until his skin if flayed from his face, there will come a point when Britney Spears steps in to act as a human shield. And then you will punch her avatar, too, over and over again, wondering why you aren't more disturbed by this act of violence, or by the presence of the baby that your blows occasionally dislodge from her grasp. This is some fucked up shit, yo. [via Kotaku]


click on the headline to go to the game, it is pretty fun and has nice graphics!

Monday, June 26, 2006

Madonna alienating her fans


What a shock. I wouldn't shell out $300 to see her show. A lot of people seem to agree.

***

from ONTD:

Madonna has failed to sell out the first night of her British tour.

The singer is performing at Cardiff's Millennium Stadium on July 30, and although most of the cheaper £55 and £70 tickets have been sold, organisers are having trouble selling the more expensive £150 seats.

A tour insider told The Mirror, "Madonna should be the hottest ticket of the year, but for many of her loyal fans the prices are outrageous."

*Sigh*


Somebody slap this dumb ho and give me her money. Seriously. I have absolutly no feelings of sympathy toward her. She's just stupid.

***

from ONTD:

There's no helping Britney Spears. She is beyond salvation!

Even when she tries to get good press, it ends up backfiring.

The interview with Matt Lauer? It blew up in her face.

And, now, her new photo shoot and interview with OK! magazine is proving to be just as disastrous for the former pop star.

Reports Page Six:

BRITNEY Spears was shocked - shocked! - by the reaction to her wretched NBC interview with Matt Lauer (87 percent of people polled in Us Weekly had less respect for Spears after the chat). So she attempted damage control. Spears had a photographer take pretty pictures of her - this time with professional hair, makeup and wardrobe. And despite tearfully begging for privacy, saying she hates media attention, and calling the celebrity weeklies "trash" in the interview, Spears then tried to sell the photos and an "exclusive" interview to those same trashy weeklies for $200,000. There were no takers. OK! finally bought the shots and the interview for a measly $5,000. A rep for the magazine declined comment but did say, "Who doesn't love a discount?"

Poor Britney. It's time to move back to Louisiana and just be out of the spotlight for a real long time!

How does this play for Anna Nicole?



Since her opposition has been removed...

***

from people.com:

Anna Nicole Smith's Rival Dies at 67

Monday Jun 26, 2006 7:45am ESTBy Stephen M. Silverman

E. Pierce Marshall, who battled for years with Anna Nicole Smith over his late father's estate, has died. He was 67. According to a statement from family spokesman David Margulies, Marshall died unexpectedly Tuesday evening in the Dallas area from a brief and extremely aggressive infection. "The family would politely request that their privacy be respected during this extremely difficult time as they grapple with this devastating loss," the statement said, according to the Associated Press. Smith married Texas oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall II in 1994, when she was 26 and he was 89. He died the following year. Since then, E. Pierce Marshall has been locked in a legal battle over Smith entitlement to the estate.

The U.S. Supreme Court last month revived the former Playmate's pursuit of her late husband's oil fortune, ruling that she deserves another day in court. The colorful case has had twists and turns. Smith won a $474 million judgment, which was cut to about $89 million and eventually reduced to zero. "Mr. Marshall leaves behind a legacy of being, first and foremost, a remarkable husband, father and grandfather, a successful business visionary and a man of unrivaled perseverance and principle," the Margulies statement said.

Here's how Nicole could marry in a Catholic Church


And I thought it was because being married to crazy Tom Cruise who probably never touched her. So she's seen as just living in sin then? TC had to know this, it's all part of his evil crazy master plan. At least he had the decency to let her have her wedding, which she has had before him, by not releasing photos of his cabbage patch doll, er, supposed offspring.

***

off of BBC news:

How did Nicole Kidman, one-time spouse of Tom Cruise, get re-married in a Catholic church if she didn't have an annulment? Clue: she wasn't actually married before.

Nicole Kidman's wedding to country singer Keith Urban in Sydney at the weekend drew plenty of media attention.

But some Catholics will have looked on perplexed at how the former bride of actor Tom Cruise managed to tie the knot for a second time, in a Catholic church.

It was widely reported in the run up to the weekend wedding that Ms Kidman had received an annulment for her previous marriage - the Catholic Church's procedure for allowing a follower to wed again.

Father Paul Coleman, who conducted the latest nuptials, was said to have advised the Oscar-winning actress on the dissolution.

In fact, Kidman didn't need an annulment for one simple reason: in the eyes of the Catholic Church her 10-year union with Tom Cruise, a renowned Scientologist, never happened.

WHO, WHAT, WHY?

A feature to the BBC News Magazine - aiming to answer some of the questions behind the headlinesThe original wedding was performed in the Church of Scientology and wasn't recognised by the Catholic faith.

The divorce granted to the couple in 2001 was a legal rather than religious procedure for Kidman.

So Kidman would only have had to have obtained a licence from the Catholic Church saying that she was legally free to marry and that the Church had not recognised her first marriage.

Not recognised

"The Catholic Church sets down requirements to have a valid Catholic marriage. In the case of Nicole's first marriage, those requirements were not fulfilled," said Father Coleman, who married Kidman and Urban.

The Vatican is unhappy about annulment rates in the USKidman had dabbled with Scientology and Father Coleman talked of her Catholic wedding in terms of a spiritual homecoming.
Annulment is, nevertheless, controversial in some Catholic circles. How can the Church rule a marriage never really happened, especially if it's been a long one and generated children?

The Catholic Church began to make annulments easier to get in the 1970s, adding a category of "psychological grounds", which includes "lack of due discretion" - in other words, an applicant might claim they'd not fully appreciated the responsibilities of marriage.

Today, this category - which also takes in "psychological incapacity assuming the obligations" - is the main grounds upon which annulments are granted.

Complex

Lack of due discretion centres on the question of what it is that couples are consenting to when they agree to marry.

Priests say considering a petition for annulment on such grounds is very complex - and requests for annulments are often turned down (in which case an applicant cannot remarry in a Catholic church).

While many in the Church argue priests should be trying to discern a "grave" lack of discretion, some argue that priests, particularly those in the US, are too easy.

According to the Holy See, 43,153 straightforward annulments were granted worldwide, almost 29,000 of which were issued in north America in 2003. This compares with 511 in Great Britain and 304 across Ireland. Many of these were later overturned by the Vatican.

Rome has long been concerned that priests in the US are handing out too many annulments.
The Vatican argues that American culture demands maximum self-fulfilment and that includes what can be expected from a marriage. As a result, more annulments are granted in the US, leaving Rome worried that the Americans are, essentially, letting divorce in through the back door.

For Kidman, however, such difficult questions never needed to be answered.