It appears Lindsay Lohan gets amnesia whenever she's in a courtroom. That's the only explanation for how could have been (allegedly) shocked when Judge Elden Fox sentenced her to 30 days in jail with no bail. Although she was dressed to impress, it appears the judge was not moved. Britney Spears once sang, "6-inch heels make a boy wanna bite his lip." Unfortunately, the judge either doesn't listen to Britney or prefers a smaller heel.
In all seriousness, Lindsay has a legitimate problem. I believe that doing drugs should not be considered a crime. Selling drugs, definitely, but not doing them. Of course, Lindsay won't stay very long in jail (overcrowding and all that). Still, this seems to be a woman who needs medical help. Truthfully, she needs a parental figure who cares more about her than about being on TV or in the papers.
It seems her father, Michael, speaks to X17online every day. Her mom, Dina, loves to talk to Extra, the Today Show, or any other entertainment show that will have her. While it may be true that Lindsay is an adult and should be able to take care of herself, we all need strong, supportive parents to guide us. Lindsay only has weak, unsupportive parents. Sure, perhaps even in a loving household Lindsay would have still become a drug addict, but it's less likely.
Yes, Lindsay has to take responsibility for her actions. And, yes, her drug problem is her fault. But the State of California has to get her some help (not put her in the slammer for a few hours). And, truthfully, she's a work in progress (as is any person with an addiction), so it's unfair to expect her to get clean overnight. If she keeps at it, and there's no reason to think she won't, over time she'll become less dependent on the drugs. She just needs the chance (and the guidance).
We should all root for someone like Lindsay, because she could be any of us. Sure, she's been to rehab four times. However, just because she hasn't taken to it yet, doesn't mean she doesn't continue to deserve the opportunities.
We all deserve the chance to live a clean, healthy life.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Covering Up a Possible Cover up
There's so much information out there, it's really hard to know who or what to believe. He says this, she says that, and someone else says this, that and the other. But which one can you trust?
When Adam Leber calls bullshit on a report that Jason Trawick proposed to Britney Spears is he more believable than the magazine(s) that reported the story? Technically, he's supposed to call bullshit on something like that. If Britney and Jason get engaged, she's going to want to make the announcement, not let some magazine beat her to the punch. If the magazine(s) beat her to the punch, what other choice is there but to call those reports lies?
On the other hand, can you really believe magazines that constantly post either knowingly or unknowingly false information? They're really not reliable. These stories are posted, not for their accuracy, but to entice people to buy the magazines. A cover story about Britney and Jason getting married could be very enticing.
So, both sides have reasons to lie: either for personal gain or protection. How, then, do you know who to believe?
You may come to the conclusion that magazines lie all the time and managers/publicists don't. That's a misinformed conclusion, because magazines don't lie all the time and managers/publicists do, in fact, lie sometimes. Concluding that magazines lie more than managers/publicists, etc, so always believe the manger/publicist over the magazine is another misinformed conclusion. While technically true, if you subscribe to that theory, you ignore those times when the magazine got the story right and the manager/publicist lied to cover it up.
The only way to truly go about it is to simply believe no one. Look at the facts and come up with your own conclusion. If there are no facts, necessarily, then go by what you know. Use history as a guideline. Don't just assume that person a is right and person b is wrong. Blindly following that which you're not sure of only gets you lost.
In the grand scheme of things, it's probably no ones business, anyway. Magazines will continue to publish stories (real or imaged) that will entice buyers, and managers/publicists will continue to say whatever it takes to make their client look good.
When Adam Leber calls bullshit on a report that Jason Trawick proposed to Britney Spears is he more believable than the magazine(s) that reported the story? Technically, he's supposed to call bullshit on something like that. If Britney and Jason get engaged, she's going to want to make the announcement, not let some magazine beat her to the punch. If the magazine(s) beat her to the punch, what other choice is there but to call those reports lies?
On the other hand, can you really believe magazines that constantly post either knowingly or unknowingly false information? They're really not reliable. These stories are posted, not for their accuracy, but to entice people to buy the magazines. A cover story about Britney and Jason getting married could be very enticing.
So, both sides have reasons to lie: either for personal gain or protection. How, then, do you know who to believe?
You may come to the conclusion that magazines lie all the time and managers/publicists don't. That's a misinformed conclusion, because magazines don't lie all the time and managers/publicists do, in fact, lie sometimes. Concluding that magazines lie more than managers/publicists, etc, so always believe the manger/publicist over the magazine is another misinformed conclusion. While technically true, if you subscribe to that theory, you ignore those times when the magazine got the story right and the manager/publicist lied to cover it up.
The only way to truly go about it is to simply believe no one. Look at the facts and come up with your own conclusion. If there are no facts, necessarily, then go by what you know. Use history as a guideline. Don't just assume that person a is right and person b is wrong. Blindly following that which you're not sure of only gets you lost.
In the grand scheme of things, it's probably no ones business, anyway. Magazines will continue to publish stories (real or imaged) that will entice buyers, and managers/publicists will continue to say whatever it takes to make their client look good.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Burn, Bitch, Burn!
We're obsessed with weight. Not a news flash, I grant you. But our obsessive behavior has led to the invention of two disorders inconceivable to the ration mind: anorexia and bulimia (or starving yourself and puking). How did these disorders come about? Who was the first person to decided that puking up food was a good idea?
Can you imagine any other being behaving this way? Imagine dogs and cats puking up their food intentionally or fish regurgitating their fish food. Why did we decide this would be a good way to live? Or, forget puking it up, just don't eat it. Save yourself the money and trouble of cooking and just don't eat. These are the genius ideas we've come up with as human beings to deal with weight gain.
It's not just weight we're obsessed with. It's our general appearance. Not our health or well-being, just our outward appearance, how we look. No one cares about the inside, just the outside.
We've invented so many products to "cure" the outside: botox to stop the aging process, implants to give you boobs, liposuction to take away the fat, rhinoplasty to fix the big honker, and so much more. There's a problem, though: you can't actually stop the aging process. And fake tits won't make you more of a woman. And liposuction may suck the fat away, but it won't make you healthier. And a smaller nose won't lead to less blowing or sickness.
When Kim Kardashian says she wants botox because she has lines on her face and is embarrassed, someone needs to remind her that she's nearly 30. Botox may stop her from looking 30, but it won't stop her from being 30. And when she dies, I don't think God will give her preferential treatment because she has no lines on her face.
Women seem to fight these battles more than men do. Unfortunately, men seem to be the reason the battles exist. Women binge and purge or refuse to eat, because their last boyfriend called them fat. Women inject chemicals into their faces, because their husbands don't pay attention to them. In that regard, I have to call out the men for their insensitive and hurtful behavior.
Being a fan of Britney Spears, I read a lot of negative things about her. Most of the negativity concerns her appearance. She's been "too big" in a lot of people's eyes for a while now. I've read a lot of comments about how she looks good, but still needs to lose a few more pounds. When you call these people out for being jerks, their response is typically, "I'm just being honest" or they give you a state of pop music address and rattle off names of those who are hotter than Britney. Well, good for those ladies. No woman should have to look like anyone else to be accepted.
There may be women out there with better bodies than Britney depending on your point of view and taste. So what? I remember a few years ago when people gave Jennifer Love Hewitt shit for having a big ass. Yes, she was on the beach in a bikini and her ass was big. Again, so what?
It is the unjustified criticisms that lead women to become anorexic or bulimic. If JLH hears she has a big ass, maybe she can deflect that and not let it get to her. If Britney hears she needs to lose weight, maybe she can deflect that, too. But what about other women, ones who look up to people like Britney and JLH, can they deflect the criticism when they look in the mirror and realize they're bigger than both these girls?
Why do men put women down? Why do women put women down? Jealousy? No. It's the insecurities we have about our own bodies. If someone convinces Kim Kardashian that she looks old, it's because that person feels old, and he or she doesn't want to feel alone. If you can convince someone he or she looks like shit, you can have a companion in misery.
Just recently, Catt Sadler (of the Daily 10 on the E! network) tweeted she needed to tighten and tone. All I could think about was what could she possibly tone and tighten. If she's bigger than a size 2 I'll eat my keyboard. Now, I'm sure she didn't say this because she feels fat. It was probably more of a reminder to herself to stay fit. However, it's also a reminder some people are never satisfied. They can never be too tone or too fit. Their boobs can never be too big. Their stomach too flat. Their skin too porcelain.
It seems even the best looking of us have insecurities. While that may seem "cute" on the surface, it's a sad reminder of how some people just don't get it.
To some women, Kim Kardashian is the ultimate beauty. But is that good enough for her? Britney Spears has a body many would die for. But is that good enough for her fans? Catt Sadler could put women half her age to shame. But is she toned and tight enough?
I guess the moral is no matter how hard you strive for perfection, you'll always be one-step away. It's best, therefore, to look, not with your eyes, but with your mind. Sometimes the blind can get from point A to point B quicker than the sighted.
Can you imagine any other being behaving this way? Imagine dogs and cats puking up their food intentionally or fish regurgitating their fish food. Why did we decide this would be a good way to live? Or, forget puking it up, just don't eat it. Save yourself the money and trouble of cooking and just don't eat. These are the genius ideas we've come up with as human beings to deal with weight gain.
It's not just weight we're obsessed with. It's our general appearance. Not our health or well-being, just our outward appearance, how we look. No one cares about the inside, just the outside.
We've invented so many products to "cure" the outside: botox to stop the aging process, implants to give you boobs, liposuction to take away the fat, rhinoplasty to fix the big honker, and so much more. There's a problem, though: you can't actually stop the aging process. And fake tits won't make you more of a woman. And liposuction may suck the fat away, but it won't make you healthier. And a smaller nose won't lead to less blowing or sickness.
When Kim Kardashian says she wants botox because she has lines on her face and is embarrassed, someone needs to remind her that she's nearly 30. Botox may stop her from looking 30, but it won't stop her from being 30. And when she dies, I don't think God will give her preferential treatment because she has no lines on her face.
Women seem to fight these battles more than men do. Unfortunately, men seem to be the reason the battles exist. Women binge and purge or refuse to eat, because their last boyfriend called them fat. Women inject chemicals into their faces, because their husbands don't pay attention to them. In that regard, I have to call out the men for their insensitive and hurtful behavior.
Being a fan of Britney Spears, I read a lot of negative things about her. Most of the negativity concerns her appearance. She's been "too big" in a lot of people's eyes for a while now. I've read a lot of comments about how she looks good, but still needs to lose a few more pounds. When you call these people out for being jerks, their response is typically, "I'm just being honest" or they give you a state of pop music address and rattle off names of those who are hotter than Britney. Well, good for those ladies. No woman should have to look like anyone else to be accepted.
There may be women out there with better bodies than Britney depending on your point of view and taste. So what? I remember a few years ago when people gave Jennifer Love Hewitt shit for having a big ass. Yes, she was on the beach in a bikini and her ass was big. Again, so what?
It is the unjustified criticisms that lead women to become anorexic or bulimic. If JLH hears she has a big ass, maybe she can deflect that and not let it get to her. If Britney hears she needs to lose weight, maybe she can deflect that, too. But what about other women, ones who look up to people like Britney and JLH, can they deflect the criticism when they look in the mirror and realize they're bigger than both these girls?
Why do men put women down? Why do women put women down? Jealousy? No. It's the insecurities we have about our own bodies. If someone convinces Kim Kardashian that she looks old, it's because that person feels old, and he or she doesn't want to feel alone. If you can convince someone he or she looks like shit, you can have a companion in misery.
Just recently, Catt Sadler (of the Daily 10 on the E! network) tweeted she needed to tighten and tone. All I could think about was what could she possibly tone and tighten. If she's bigger than a size 2 I'll eat my keyboard. Now, I'm sure she didn't say this because she feels fat. It was probably more of a reminder to herself to stay fit. However, it's also a reminder some people are never satisfied. They can never be too tone or too fit. Their boobs can never be too big. Their stomach too flat. Their skin too porcelain.
It seems even the best looking of us have insecurities. While that may seem "cute" on the surface, it's a sad reminder of how some people just don't get it.
To some women, Kim Kardashian is the ultimate beauty. But is that good enough for her? Britney Spears has a body many would die for. But is that good enough for her fans? Catt Sadler could put women half her age to shame. But is she toned and tight enough?
I guess the moral is no matter how hard you strive for perfection, you'll always be one-step away. It's best, therefore, to look, not with your eyes, but with your mind. Sometimes the blind can get from point A to point B quicker than the sighted.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Mommy, the Fish Makes My Tummy Hurt
I'm a Britney Spears fan. You don't even have to know me long to figure it out. I'm not ashamed of it. I will defend her on most things, i.e. dressing crazy, having crazy hair, wearing no panties, and whatever else. It's her life, she can live it how she chooses.
But I don't wear rose-colored glasses. I've been around for her entire career. I've seen the lows, and God knows some were lower than low. I cannot, with good conscience, dismiss every rumor or get upset when people question Britney or her motives. When her ex-husband Kevin Federline calls the Department of Child Services because he's heard such-and-such may have happened and wants it investigated, I can't blame him. By calling, he's not pointing fingers at Britney, saying she's a bad mother. He's checking to make sure his children are all right. He has every right to do that.
I'm not a Kevin apologist, but what has the man done to deserve hatred? Let's look at the facts: Britney approached Kevin, made the first move, invited him to Europe, proposed to him, and got knocked up twice. All Kevin did was come along for the ride. Since they divorced what has he done: gained custody of his children when Britney went off the rails, kept his mouth shut about Britney, and basically went about his life. He did one reality show, which the point of was to lose weight. He barely mentioned Britney. In fact, he talked more about Shar Jackson, his other ex, who was on the show with him.
No, Kevin didn't run to Britney's rescue back in 2007 when she went off the deep end. He stayed out of her life, except when the kids were involved. Britney divorced Kevin, so that's obviously what she wanted.
I love Britney in the sense that I care about her well-being. But I'm not blind to her faults. I can see those faults and still love her. Jesus did. If you believe in Him, then you believe He loves us even though we're all flawed.
I'm not agreeing with the bodyguard who is suing Britney. I think everything he's claiming is a lie. I believe Britney would never intentionally harm her children. I believe she loves those children. But mothers have been convicted of murdering their children, the same ones they cried about on the stand during trial, the same ones they kissed goodbye before they drowned or stabbed or otherwise ended their lives. Just loving your children doesn't make you a good parent.
In 2008, Britney holed herself up in her bathroom with one of her sons, refusing to turn him over to Kevin's bodyguards when it was his turn with the kids. She was placed on a 5150 hold and basically declared insane. I understand that was over two years ago. I know she's been better since then. But imagine if that was your kid. Wouldn't you take all precautions from that point forward to ensure your child's safety? I hope so.
While I agree that Britney is a good mother who loves her children, I believe Kevin has every right to take every claim seriously and have it investigated. For it is the blind and ignorant whom are the first to miss that which is right in front of their face.
But I don't wear rose-colored glasses. I've been around for her entire career. I've seen the lows, and God knows some were lower than low. I cannot, with good conscience, dismiss every rumor or get upset when people question Britney or her motives. When her ex-husband Kevin Federline calls the Department of Child Services because he's heard such-and-such may have happened and wants it investigated, I can't blame him. By calling, he's not pointing fingers at Britney, saying she's a bad mother. He's checking to make sure his children are all right. He has every right to do that.
I'm not a Kevin apologist, but what has the man done to deserve hatred? Let's look at the facts: Britney approached Kevin, made the first move, invited him to Europe, proposed to him, and got knocked up twice. All Kevin did was come along for the ride. Since they divorced what has he done: gained custody of his children when Britney went off the rails, kept his mouth shut about Britney, and basically went about his life. He did one reality show, which the point of was to lose weight. He barely mentioned Britney. In fact, he talked more about Shar Jackson, his other ex, who was on the show with him.
No, Kevin didn't run to Britney's rescue back in 2007 when she went off the deep end. He stayed out of her life, except when the kids were involved. Britney divorced Kevin, so that's obviously what she wanted.
I love Britney in the sense that I care about her well-being. But I'm not blind to her faults. I can see those faults and still love her. Jesus did. If you believe in Him, then you believe He loves us even though we're all flawed.
I'm not agreeing with the bodyguard who is suing Britney. I think everything he's claiming is a lie. I believe Britney would never intentionally harm her children. I believe she loves those children. But mothers have been convicted of murdering their children, the same ones they cried about on the stand during trial, the same ones they kissed goodbye before they drowned or stabbed or otherwise ended their lives. Just loving your children doesn't make you a good parent.
In 2008, Britney holed herself up in her bathroom with one of her sons, refusing to turn him over to Kevin's bodyguards when it was his turn with the kids. She was placed on a 5150 hold and basically declared insane. I understand that was over two years ago. I know she's been better since then. But imagine if that was your kid. Wouldn't you take all precautions from that point forward to ensure your child's safety? I hope so.
While I agree that Britney is a good mother who loves her children, I believe Kevin has every right to take every claim seriously and have it investigated. For it is the blind and ignorant whom are the first to miss that which is right in front of their face.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Sexy is Raunchy
Beautiful, cute and sexy: three words to describe someone that do not mean the same thing. You can be one or all three, but being only one doesn't make you less desirable. The problem arises when you are one and think you have to be another.
Many girls are cute. Some are beautiful. A few are sexy. Being cute does not mean you're sexy or that you have to try and be sexy. There is nothing wrong with being just cute. The word gets a dirty rap because it gets used to describe everything from dogs to wallpaper to babies. But it's very applicable to some women. For instance, I would say that Natalie Portman is very cute. She's not someone I'd necessarily want to see naked, so I wouldn't classify her as sexy, but she's far from unattractive. She's cute. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Sexy is not cute. Sexy is raunchy and dirty; it's expletives and dirty talk. It's nasty thoughts you would never tell anyone else (except maybe when you whisper them into your lover's ear). Sexy is not classy. It's not supposed to be. Sexy is half-naked, fully naked, soaking wet, on your knees, smeared lipstick, and tattered clothing.
Megan Fox is sexy. You don't want to cuddle with Megan, you don't want to hold her underneath the moonlight, talk about your feelings, and weep softly together. You want to rip her clothes off, throw her down, get on top, put her on top, sweat, scream, push and pull. Sexy is having to have someone, a need to take them then and there.
Some women do have the ability to be all three. Britney Spears, to me, is all three. When she's laughing and smiling and let's herself go, she's cute. When she's with her children, holding them, kissing them and mothering them, she's beautiful. But when she's at the beach in a little bikini, or on stage in some skin tight outfit, she's sexy.
Another woman I would say fits into all three categories is Rihanna. With her ridiculous hairdos and outfits, she's cute. When she puts on a fancy dress, she's beautiful. And when she strips down to barely anything, she's very sexy.
Who fits into what category may vary based on taste, but the point remains: don't confuse sexy, beautiful and cute. If you want classy, elegant, then you want beautiful. Think Christina Hendricks at an awards show. But don't mistake that for sexy. There's nothing raunchy in there, nothing dirty. When you see someone like Miley Cyrus in tight, little shorts shaking her ass on stage that's an attempt at being sexy (it may not necessarily work for you, of course).
Some people would argue that girls are acting too sexy too young. That's quite possible. But sexy gets you the bacon. Guys aren't trying to get into cute's pants. And they're not buying beautiful drinks to take her home. Honestly, sexy gets you places cute and beautiful never will. But not everyone can be sexy. Cute and beautiful will serve most girls well. Of course, the dirty girls want more. If you don't want that, why fake it?
It seems as though many girls want to be thought of as sexy. Here's a tip: you don't have to be. What those sexy girls are getting you probably don't want (and that's not even counting the STDs).
It's time women started taking cute back. Be proud of cute. Be proud of beautiful. Sexy is raunchy. If you're not raunchy, why are you trying so hard to be sexy?
Many girls are cute. Some are beautiful. A few are sexy. Being cute does not mean you're sexy or that you have to try and be sexy. There is nothing wrong with being just cute. The word gets a dirty rap because it gets used to describe everything from dogs to wallpaper to babies. But it's very applicable to some women. For instance, I would say that Natalie Portman is very cute. She's not someone I'd necessarily want to see naked, so I wouldn't classify her as sexy, but she's far from unattractive. She's cute. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Sexy is not cute. Sexy is raunchy and dirty; it's expletives and dirty talk. It's nasty thoughts you would never tell anyone else (except maybe when you whisper them into your lover's ear). Sexy is not classy. It's not supposed to be. Sexy is half-naked, fully naked, soaking wet, on your knees, smeared lipstick, and tattered clothing.
Megan Fox is sexy. You don't want to cuddle with Megan, you don't want to hold her underneath the moonlight, talk about your feelings, and weep softly together. You want to rip her clothes off, throw her down, get on top, put her on top, sweat, scream, push and pull. Sexy is having to have someone, a need to take them then and there.
Some women do have the ability to be all three. Britney Spears, to me, is all three. When she's laughing and smiling and let's herself go, she's cute. When she's with her children, holding them, kissing them and mothering them, she's beautiful. But when she's at the beach in a little bikini, or on stage in some skin tight outfit, she's sexy.
Another woman I would say fits into all three categories is Rihanna. With her ridiculous hairdos and outfits, she's cute. When she puts on a fancy dress, she's beautiful. And when she strips down to barely anything, she's very sexy.
Who fits into what category may vary based on taste, but the point remains: don't confuse sexy, beautiful and cute. If you want classy, elegant, then you want beautiful. Think Christina Hendricks at an awards show. But don't mistake that for sexy. There's nothing raunchy in there, nothing dirty. When you see someone like Miley Cyrus in tight, little shorts shaking her ass on stage that's an attempt at being sexy (it may not necessarily work for you, of course).
Some people would argue that girls are acting too sexy too young. That's quite possible. But sexy gets you the bacon. Guys aren't trying to get into cute's pants. And they're not buying beautiful drinks to take her home. Honestly, sexy gets you places cute and beautiful never will. But not everyone can be sexy. Cute and beautiful will serve most girls well. Of course, the dirty girls want more. If you don't want that, why fake it?
It seems as though many girls want to be thought of as sexy. Here's a tip: you don't have to be. What those sexy girls are getting you probably don't want (and that's not even counting the STDs).
It's time women started taking cute back. Be proud of cute. Be proud of beautiful. Sexy is raunchy. If you're not raunchy, why are you trying so hard to be sexy?
Friday, September 3, 2010
This is Me
(speaking) This is Britney/Britney Spears/You know me?/Yeah, you do
(verse 1)
Everyone says I'm crazy
Eat cheetos, act lazy
Drink my water it don't faze me
Lovin my babies every day, please
Got my boyfriend on a leash?
That so ain't me
You need to check your facts
Before I kick you in the teeth
Not tryin to be angry
Can't let it daze me
Got a million bitches
Who all idolize me
And you know what?
(chorus)
I can't believe the things that I read
While I duck and dodge all the negativity
Trying to be me, stay me, love me
(verse 2)
Everyone says I'm uncool
Act foolish, unlike you
I guess it must be true
Cause you said it, right, boo
I do my own thing
You know I make my own rules
Lean a little to the left
You know how we do
I got people behind me
They rep me every day, please
Stronger than you, tease
Hot as fire when they leave
And you know what?
(chorus)
I can't believe the things that I read
While I duck and dodge all the negativity
Trying to be me, stay me, love me
(bridge)
Careful when you poke me
You won't like me
And my fans?
They'll kick you in the face, you'll see
Don't believe me
Just try us
Yeah, us
Because you know what?
(chorus)
I can't believe the things that I read
While I duck and dodge all the negativity
Trying to be me, stay me, love me
Do you love me?
(verse 1)
Everyone says I'm crazy
Eat cheetos, act lazy
Drink my water it don't faze me
Lovin my babies every day, please
Got my boyfriend on a leash?
That so ain't me
You need to check your facts
Before I kick you in the teeth
Not tryin to be angry
Can't let it daze me
Got a million bitches
Who all idolize me
And you know what?
(chorus)
I can't believe the things that I read
While I duck and dodge all the negativity
Trying to be me, stay me, love me
(verse 2)
Everyone says I'm uncool
Act foolish, unlike you
I guess it must be true
Cause you said it, right, boo
I do my own thing
You know I make my own rules
Lean a little to the left
You know how we do
I got people behind me
They rep me every day, please
Stronger than you, tease
Hot as fire when they leave
And you know what?
(chorus)
I can't believe the things that I read
While I duck and dodge all the negativity
Trying to be me, stay me, love me
(bridge)
Careful when you poke me
You won't like me
And my fans?
They'll kick you in the face, you'll see
Don't believe me
Just try us
Yeah, us
Because you know what?
(chorus)
I can't believe the things that I read
While I duck and dodge all the negativity
Trying to be me, stay me, love me
Do you love me?
Christmas in September
I don't know when Britney Spears' new album is coming out. I assume this year.
I don't know when her new single is coming out. I assume this month.
If the latter is true (and, really, it has to be if the former is true) everyone's Christmas wish will have been granted. All Britney fans want for Christmas (or Hanukkah, if you're Jewish) is new music (OK, maybe a hot body, great hair, and sexy outfits, too). Is that too much to ask for?
Let me be honest and say that, for me, I'm asking for something else. I want everyone and their grandmothers to stop talking about the album. I'm tired of hearing every producer known to man talk about the "hot songs" they're writing for Britney or the "hot beats" they're producing for Britney. If they're so hot, save them for yourself.
I'm tired of people who've heard the album proclaiming it "her best work" or "a return to the Britney of old." What does the second one even mean? Are we getting "Sometimes Part 2?" "Sometimes I still run/Sometimes I still hide." It's like "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer," but without Jennifer Love Hewitt's massive chest (aka "I Still Know What Jennifer Love Hewitt's Boobs Did Last Summer").
I'm sure the album will be amazing. Britney never disappoints. I'm sure it will contain "hot beats" and "hot songs." I just don't wanna hear about it.
I know that statement will offend every Britney fan alive (especially someone like ?, aka the cute blond who runs PoorBritney, since her whole online life depends on Britney news and gossip or someone like Jasmin who runs PieceofBritney or Jordan Miller who runs breatheheavy.com. They all depend on people taking about Britney). But I can survive without album discussion, since no album exists yet to discuss.
And, God only knows how bad it's going to get this coming week with the MTV Video Music Awards on Sept. 12, even though Adam Leber, Britney's manager, specifically said she isn't going to be there. Someone will claim they heard something or one of Britney's official websites will foolishly post something that gets people thinking she IS going to appear (or, perhaps, Britney herself will tweet something that gets people thinking she's appearing).
Don't get me wrong, I love to talk about Britney's music and performances; just ones that, you know, actually exist. I don't get excited thinking about fake song titles and fake album titles and fake duets with Lady Gaga (even though that would be epical). Maybe I'm too old, and were I 16, I would fall all over myself talking about rumors and shit. But I have a job and a life outside of Britney. I just want the actual music.
When the album does come out, most people will have over-hyped themselves to the point that the actual disk can't compete with their own manifestations. Just like with "Circus," a couple months after the release, fans will start bad-mouthing this new album. It's sad, really. Everyone has an idea of how Britney should sound. When the album first drops, people are so excited they forget how they THOUGHT the album should have been. It's only until a couple months go by, after they've listened to it 189 times that they remember, "Oh, yeah, this isn't the direction I wanted Britney to go in," and turn on it.
Make no mistake, this album will probably feature Max Martin, and fans will probably bash that song, and they'll probably do it after it reaches 150 plays on their iTunes. I'm not saying Britney fans are hypocrites or stupid or ignorant, but . . . the facts speak for themselves.
I just know that my Christmas wish is probably not coming true.
I don't know when her new single is coming out. I assume this month.
If the latter is true (and, really, it has to be if the former is true) everyone's Christmas wish will have been granted. All Britney fans want for Christmas (or Hanukkah, if you're Jewish) is new music (OK, maybe a hot body, great hair, and sexy outfits, too). Is that too much to ask for?
Let me be honest and say that, for me, I'm asking for something else. I want everyone and their grandmothers to stop talking about the album. I'm tired of hearing every producer known to man talk about the "hot songs" they're writing for Britney or the "hot beats" they're producing for Britney. If they're so hot, save them for yourself.
I'm tired of people who've heard the album proclaiming it "her best work" or "a return to the Britney of old." What does the second one even mean? Are we getting "Sometimes Part 2?" "Sometimes I still run/Sometimes I still hide." It's like "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer," but without Jennifer Love Hewitt's massive chest (aka "I Still Know What Jennifer Love Hewitt's Boobs Did Last Summer").
I'm sure the album will be amazing. Britney never disappoints. I'm sure it will contain "hot beats" and "hot songs." I just don't wanna hear about it.
I know that statement will offend every Britney fan alive (especially someone like ?, aka the cute blond who runs PoorBritney, since her whole online life depends on Britney news and gossip or someone like Jasmin who runs PieceofBritney or Jordan Miller who runs breatheheavy.com. They all depend on people taking about Britney). But I can survive without album discussion, since no album exists yet to discuss.
And, God only knows how bad it's going to get this coming week with the MTV Video Music Awards on Sept. 12, even though Adam Leber, Britney's manager, specifically said she isn't going to be there. Someone will claim they heard something or one of Britney's official websites will foolishly post something that gets people thinking she IS going to appear (or, perhaps, Britney herself will tweet something that gets people thinking she's appearing).
Don't get me wrong, I love to talk about Britney's music and performances; just ones that, you know, actually exist. I don't get excited thinking about fake song titles and fake album titles and fake duets with Lady Gaga (even though that would be epical). Maybe I'm too old, and were I 16, I would fall all over myself talking about rumors and shit. But I have a job and a life outside of Britney. I just want the actual music.
When the album does come out, most people will have over-hyped themselves to the point that the actual disk can't compete with their own manifestations. Just like with "Circus," a couple months after the release, fans will start bad-mouthing this new album. It's sad, really. Everyone has an idea of how Britney should sound. When the album first drops, people are so excited they forget how they THOUGHT the album should have been. It's only until a couple months go by, after they've listened to it 189 times that they remember, "Oh, yeah, this isn't the direction I wanted Britney to go in," and turn on it.
Make no mistake, this album will probably feature Max Martin, and fans will probably bash that song, and they'll probably do it after it reaches 150 plays on their iTunes. I'm not saying Britney fans are hypocrites or stupid or ignorant, but . . . the facts speak for themselves.
I just know that my Christmas wish is probably not coming true.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
All I Want (Is to Spend Time in Hawaii With My Hot Girlfriend)
There doesn't seem to be place on this planet where paparazzi aren't located. Britney Spears jetted off to Hawaii for vacation and the paparazzi followed suit (unless these are Hawaiian paparazzi in which case I question their career choice).
I wonder if these guys (and paparazzi are 99 percent male) get all expenses paid when they travel. Maybe it doesn't matter. If you heard Britney was headed to Hawaii, would you care if you had to pay your own way? You get to do your job and relax on the beach. I wonder if there's a hotel somewhere on the island flooded with shutterbugs. Imagine booking a room at that hotel.
I guess traveling to Hawaii (or wherever celebs vacation) is the paparazzi's vacation. I doubt they get two weeks off (or could afford to miss two weeks, because God forbid we go a day without a photo of Lindsay Lohan walking). I doubt they get decent medical insurance, either, which has to suck, especially when they're getting punched in the face (no wonder they sue).
You would think when someone like Britney leaves L.A., paparazzi (and the agencies that pay them) would let them go and focus on other celebrities. Spoiler alert: L.A. is filled with famous faces. But, no. We can't possibly go without our daily Britney fix. Of course, that doesn't take into account the number of times she's gone a week or so without being photographed (and that was while she was at home).
Therefore, it stands to reason if the tabloid media can go a week without a Britney photo while she sits around her house, those bloodsuckers can go a week while she spends some alone time with her boyfriend. Unfortunately for her, a bikini picture is just too good to pass up it seems. And Britney hasn't disappointed (from a purely heterosexual male point of view, seeing her in all her different bikinis is a huge turn-on).
How weird must it be for Britney to be doing nothing more than STANDING on her balcony, only to look down and see a horde of photographers snapping away? The only thing more boring than standing is sitting (and God knows we've had plenty of those pictures).
Entertainment news has devalued the photograph to the point where it's almost become meaningless. Photography used to have meaning; now a picture of someone walking, standing, or sitting passes for front page news: "Lauren Conrad walks to her car!" (Exclamation point added for emphasis)
When Britney does something interesting or noteworthy, fine, take her picture. But for all that is good and holy, standing in a bikini or swimming in a bikini or walking in a bikini is neither interesting or noteworthy. Sure, it's sexy. But we have Playboy for that. And as hot as Britney is, these photos would never make Playboy.
I wonder if these guys (and paparazzi are 99 percent male) get all expenses paid when they travel. Maybe it doesn't matter. If you heard Britney was headed to Hawaii, would you care if you had to pay your own way? You get to do your job and relax on the beach. I wonder if there's a hotel somewhere on the island flooded with shutterbugs. Imagine booking a room at that hotel.
I guess traveling to Hawaii (or wherever celebs vacation) is the paparazzi's vacation. I doubt they get two weeks off (or could afford to miss two weeks, because God forbid we go a day without a photo of Lindsay Lohan walking). I doubt they get decent medical insurance, either, which has to suck, especially when they're getting punched in the face (no wonder they sue).
You would think when someone like Britney leaves L.A., paparazzi (and the agencies that pay them) would let them go and focus on other celebrities. Spoiler alert: L.A. is filled with famous faces. But, no. We can't possibly go without our daily Britney fix. Of course, that doesn't take into account the number of times she's gone a week or so without being photographed (and that was while she was at home).
Therefore, it stands to reason if the tabloid media can go a week without a Britney photo while she sits around her house, those bloodsuckers can go a week while she spends some alone time with her boyfriend. Unfortunately for her, a bikini picture is just too good to pass up it seems. And Britney hasn't disappointed (from a purely heterosexual male point of view, seeing her in all her different bikinis is a huge turn-on).
How weird must it be for Britney to be doing nothing more than STANDING on her balcony, only to look down and see a horde of photographers snapping away? The only thing more boring than standing is sitting (and God knows we've had plenty of those pictures).
Entertainment news has devalued the photograph to the point where it's almost become meaningless. Photography used to have meaning; now a picture of someone walking, standing, or sitting passes for front page news: "Lauren Conrad walks to her car!" (Exclamation point added for emphasis)
When Britney does something interesting or noteworthy, fine, take her picture. But for all that is good and holy, standing in a bikini or swimming in a bikini or walking in a bikini is neither interesting or noteworthy. Sure, it's sexy. But we have Playboy for that. And as hot as Britney is, these photos would never make Playboy.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Keeping Crazy Away From Crazy
There was a rumor that Lindsay Lohan was spotted with Adam Leber (who manages Britney Spears). Not shockingly, Britney fans were not happy. The responses were mostly, "Keep Lindsay away from Britney." Apparently, whatever Lindsay has must be contagious.
These fans must have short-term memory loss, because not too long ago Britney was in a similar position (minus the jail time). Imagine if another celebrity's fan base said, "Keep Britney away." Britney fans would have been pissed.
The idea that Lindsay needs to be separated from others is ludicrous. If anything, it's the opposite: she needs to be reintegrated back into society. In fact, hanging out with Britney would probably be great for Lindsay. She'd be a positive influence on her. Obviously, it's unlikely to happen. But for Britney fans to thumb their noses at the idea, as if Britney is somehow above Lindsay, is ridiculous.
Newsflash: Britney's not above anyone. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your queen has problems just like the rest of us. No, she avoided jail, and she didn't go to four different rehabs. She just did other things.
I like Lindsay and I want to see her career restarted. But on a personal level, I just want to see her live a healthy life. Shunning her (or passing the idea around) won't help.
These fans must have short-term memory loss, because not too long ago Britney was in a similar position (minus the jail time). Imagine if another celebrity's fan base said, "Keep Britney away." Britney fans would have been pissed.
The idea that Lindsay needs to be separated from others is ludicrous. If anything, it's the opposite: she needs to be reintegrated back into society. In fact, hanging out with Britney would probably be great for Lindsay. She'd be a positive influence on her. Obviously, it's unlikely to happen. But for Britney fans to thumb their noses at the idea, as if Britney is somehow above Lindsay, is ridiculous.
Newsflash: Britney's not above anyone. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your queen has problems just like the rest of us. No, she avoided jail, and she didn't go to four different rehabs. She just did other things.
I like Lindsay and I want to see her career restarted. But on a personal level, I just want to see her live a healthy life. Shunning her (or passing the idea around) won't help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)