LSU’s No. 21 — Even though Louisiana State University didn’t even crack U.S. News and World Report’s 2007 best colleges list, the school is still pretty “high” up on a list that really counts: CollegeHumor.com’s 2006-2007 Power Rankings.
The male chauvinists over at College Humor, with the help of similar-minded students that make up the site’s user base, set out to “scientifically” find the best schools where you can “have the maximum amount of fun while putting forth the least amount of effort.”
They asked all the tough questions: Are free condoms available on campus? (yes) What time do the bars close? (2 a.m.) How many students are interested in drugs? (To get this score, they used information provided by students on their own personal Facebook profiles.)
I admit, I’m a Southeastern girl through and through. And I know LSU has a reputation as a “party school.” Anyone who doubts that should find the Advocate article in which students feebly defended their alma mater in the face of the U.S. News and World Report omission. The best many could come up with was, “But we have a good football team!”
Maybe it’s me, but if I went to LSU I’d be more than a little disturbed about the disparity between these two lists. Then again, SLU made neither.
Just chalk it up to another case of Louisiana being first (or close to it) in everything bad. But wait, since when is a school having an all-male vocal group a bad thing?
•••
Nashville South — I’m becoming thoroughly convinced that Tangipahoa Parish is Nashville South. In my time at The Daily Star, I’ve interviewed and written about four country musicians or bands directing their own careers out of this parish. And I’ve only had this job since late June.
All of them have CDs, mostly on independent labels. They travel back and forth to Nashville all the time, i.e., Kayla LoCicero, and Chris Gray, who is in the middle of work on his third album there now. They work with award-winning songwriters. They travel all over the Southeast and even the world (The Honky Tonk Disciples are actually going on tour in Belgium soon).
And let’s not forget about Lindsey Cardinale, Ponchatoula’s other claim to fame. The “American Idol” finalist is apparently working on more songs in Nashville. Sure, she’s name-dropping Country Music Association vocalist of the year Ms. Carrie Underwood on her MySpace blog (they were roommates and kindred spirits during their “Idol” season), but she’s a star.
I’m interested to find out about any other country music talent in Hammond and the surrounding areas (and Todd O’Neil is on my list). Any suggestions?
•••
“The Sweet Escape” ... to Pop Music Hell — In national music news, Gwen Stefani is set to release her second solo album, “The Sweet Escape” on Dec. 5.
I’m only mentioning this because I am such a huge fan of Stefani, yet I am so disturbed about her artistic direction. If you (or your kids) are considering buying into Stefani’s brand, please do yourself a favor and go here.
Here’s the unfortunate gist. Current single “Wind it Up,” a strange conglomeration of hip-hop beats and yodeling from “The Sound of Music,” is actually one of the best songs on the CD.
Stefani’s first CD, “Love, Angel, Music, Baby” was groundbreaking. Just listening to current hits by Nelly Furtado and Fergie attests to the massive copycatting going on. But I think the experiment has run its course.
•••
Look at me! — OK, I couldn’t resist. Apparently Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are fast becoming BFFs. And when you run with Hilton, underwear is optional.
I suppose I don’t have to actually write what the paparazzi have pictures of this time. Let’s put it this way — one far-from-ladylike party momma plus one low-to-the-ground vehicle plus one bad camera angle equals... yep, you thought right.
So much for my prediction of a slightly more modest comeback.
If you’re interested: www.perezhilton.com.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
In Britney's world, divorce signals maturity
Nov. 7 was a glorious day.
Not only was it a perfect day to go out and exercise our right to vote in the mid-term elections, it was also my birthday.
But it wasn’t my own personal “Best Day Ever” until election-day coverage broke into entertainment news.
Britney Spears had finally come to her senses. She was shipping Fed-Ex out.
I can’t say it was surprising that Spears decided to divorce her wannabe rapper husband of two years, Kevin Federline. There were just too many situations working against these two – the huge gap between Spears’ and Federline’s bank accounts; his two out-of-wedlock children with a previous girlfriend; his whiny and cocky ‘respect-me-because-I’m-a-serious-rapper’ attitude.
The entire world could see exactly what K-Fed really was, including Spears’ mother, according to some reports. As they say, love is blind.
Alissa, a local commenter on The Daily Star’s blog, pointed out that she’s known a few ‘Fed-Exes’ in her time. Even if they weren’t former backup dancers, they still fit the bill.
“I knew a few fellas back in my day who were the epitome of FedEx,” she said. “And then I grew up.”
After more than two years of being in the spotlight for events unrelated to her musical career – the 55-hour annulled Vegas wedding, the baby-riding-on-the-lap-while-driving incident and the doomed “Dateline” interview, just to name a few – Spears is finally realizing that she must make a career comeback to regain her credibility. The K-Fed disaster was just a final learning experience.
Spears, at 24, is finally all grown up.
It sounds strange for me to say that about a woman with two sons. But Spears’ situation is a little different – she’s been famous worldwide since she was 16 years old.
She, just like many child stars, simply hasn’t had the time to grow up.
I actually find Spears’ situation a lot like pop star Madonna’s, who, of course, shared that infamous kiss with Spears on the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards. That act was a lot more symbolic than either Spears or Madonna realized.
In 1995 Madonna announced to the world in an interview that she wanted to be a mother. Quickly after that, she gave birth to a daughter, Lourdes. The girl’s father is Carlos Leon, a personal trainer. Madonna and Leon were never rumored to be much more than a dating couple, and they would never be more than that.
Madonna simply wanted a child, and paternity never seemed to be a big concern. The world wasn’t shocked – consider the source. This was Madonna’s attempt at finding normality within a very public and nontraditional lifestyle.
Likewise, Spears, from the time she announced her engagement to Federline, proclaimed that she always wanted to be “a young mother.” And nothing was going to stop her from having what she thought was going to grant her a normal, adult life – a baby.
I guess I have to give props to Spears for marrying Federline beforehand, but she must not have thought about the ramifications of making Federline a dad for the third, then fourth, time.
I’m not sure if Spears could differentiate between wanting a new car and wanting a baby. In her world, if she wanted it, she got it. Only after putting up with a few harsh realities after the birth of Sean Preston was she finally able to snap out of dreamland. And the same happened with Federline – who was said to be growing increasingly violent during their fights about his flirting, among other things.
It is a shame that the children have to be involved in Spears’ highly public divorce. One positive thing is that they are too young to truly know what is happening.
But if not for the kids, I’m not sure we’d have the Spears we have today – confident, attractive and ready to reinvent herself. I have no reason to believe, even with the baby blunders, that Spears doesn’t love her sons with all her heart.
I’m not a huge fan of Spears’ music, but I know legions of her fans are rooting for a comeback. Unlike a few of this column’s commenters, I think her new image will err on the modest side. With acts like Fergie, I’m not sure even Spears – formerly the top saleswoman of sex – can outdo what’s on the popular music landscape right now.
She’ll just need to do some serious reinventing – something her pal Madonna knows a lot about.
Spears’ new CD is due in early 2007.
Not only was it a perfect day to go out and exercise our right to vote in the mid-term elections, it was also my birthday.
But it wasn’t my own personal “Best Day Ever” until election-day coverage broke into entertainment news.
Britney Spears had finally come to her senses. She was shipping Fed-Ex out.
I can’t say it was surprising that Spears decided to divorce her wannabe rapper husband of two years, Kevin Federline. There were just too many situations working against these two – the huge gap between Spears’ and Federline’s bank accounts; his two out-of-wedlock children with a previous girlfriend; his whiny and cocky ‘respect-me-because-I’m-a-serious-rapper’ attitude.
The entire world could see exactly what K-Fed really was, including Spears’ mother, according to some reports. As they say, love is blind.
Alissa, a local commenter on The Daily Star’s blog, pointed out that she’s known a few ‘Fed-Exes’ in her time. Even if they weren’t former backup dancers, they still fit the bill.
“I knew a few fellas back in my day who were the epitome of FedEx,” she said. “And then I grew up.”
After more than two years of being in the spotlight for events unrelated to her musical career – the 55-hour annulled Vegas wedding, the baby-riding-on-the-lap-while-driving incident and the doomed “Dateline” interview, just to name a few – Spears is finally realizing that she must make a career comeback to regain her credibility. The K-Fed disaster was just a final learning experience.
Spears, at 24, is finally all grown up.
It sounds strange for me to say that about a woman with two sons. But Spears’ situation is a little different – she’s been famous worldwide since she was 16 years old.
She, just like many child stars, simply hasn’t had the time to grow up.
I actually find Spears’ situation a lot like pop star Madonna’s, who, of course, shared that infamous kiss with Spears on the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards. That act was a lot more symbolic than either Spears or Madonna realized.
In 1995 Madonna announced to the world in an interview that she wanted to be a mother. Quickly after that, she gave birth to a daughter, Lourdes. The girl’s father is Carlos Leon, a personal trainer. Madonna and Leon were never rumored to be much more than a dating couple, and they would never be more than that.
Madonna simply wanted a child, and paternity never seemed to be a big concern. The world wasn’t shocked – consider the source. This was Madonna’s attempt at finding normality within a very public and nontraditional lifestyle.
Likewise, Spears, from the time she announced her engagement to Federline, proclaimed that she always wanted to be “a young mother.” And nothing was going to stop her from having what she thought was going to grant her a normal, adult life – a baby.
I guess I have to give props to Spears for marrying Federline beforehand, but she must not have thought about the ramifications of making Federline a dad for the third, then fourth, time.
I’m not sure if Spears could differentiate between wanting a new car and wanting a baby. In her world, if she wanted it, she got it. Only after putting up with a few harsh realities after the birth of Sean Preston was she finally able to snap out of dreamland. And the same happened with Federline – who was said to be growing increasingly violent during their fights about his flirting, among other things.
It is a shame that the children have to be involved in Spears’ highly public divorce. One positive thing is that they are too young to truly know what is happening.
But if not for the kids, I’m not sure we’d have the Spears we have today – confident, attractive and ready to reinvent herself. I have no reason to believe, even with the baby blunders, that Spears doesn’t love her sons with all her heart.
I’m not a huge fan of Spears’ music, but I know legions of her fans are rooting for a comeback. Unlike a few of this column’s commenters, I think her new image will err on the modest side. With acts like Fergie, I’m not sure even Spears – formerly the top saleswoman of sex – can outdo what’s on the popular music landscape right now.
She’ll just need to do some serious reinventing – something her pal Madonna knows a lot about.
Spears’ new CD is due in early 2007.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Blogging Britney
As you all know by now, our hometown girl extraordinaire, Britney Spears, has filed for divorce from her husband of just over two years, Kevin Federline.
And sources as credible as People magazine say Spears visited in Kentwood earlier this week.
This plot has more twists and turns than a game of Chutes and Ladders, with Federline apparently plotting to sell a sex tape of he and Spears in an attempt to weasel out of the pair's supposed iron-clad prenuptial agreement. (Boy must he feel dumb for agreeing to sign that.)
And to top it all off, Spears seems to be staging a comeback.
Will this somewhat-postive (in my opinion) Britney news turn out to be too good to be true? What do you think of her comeback? Can she regain her superstar status? Does Britney, like Times Picayune columnist Chris Rose said in his column last week, put the "ho" back in Tangipahoa?
Tak, discuss, mingle.
And sources as credible as People magazine say Spears visited in Kentwood earlier this week.
This plot has more twists and turns than a game of Chutes and Ladders, with Federline apparently plotting to sell a sex tape of he and Spears in an attempt to weasel out of the pair's supposed iron-clad prenuptial agreement. (Boy must he feel dumb for agreeing to sign that.)
And to top it all off, Spears seems to be staging a comeback.
Will this somewhat-postive (in my opinion) Britney news turn out to be too good to be true? What do you think of her comeback? Can she regain her superstar status? Does Britney, like Times Picayune columnist Chris Rose said in his column last week, put the "ho" back in Tangipahoa?
Tak, discuss, mingle.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Media's messages on body image not hard to decipher
Monday night found me watching the impossibly toned Jennifer Nettles hop around the stage on the Country Music Association Awards feeling just a little inadequate. Nettles is the lead singer of country pop duo Sugarland. If I remember correctly, Sugarland used to be a trio. Suddenly I started to wonder what happened to the group’s plain-looking, not-so-toned, short-haired female guitarist.
Maybe she faded into obscurity in light of the fact that Nettles was not only the group’s lead singer, but for all intents and purposes, the entire band. If you watch the band’s video for “Just Might (Make Me Believe)” it’s tough to tell if there are any members other than Nettles. What can I say? The girl can sing… and her face can sell records.
It’s true that plain-looking people tend to fade into the background. And lately television hasn’t been shy in pointing out that sad fact of biology.
On Friday, “20/20’s” John Stossel set out to uncover what we all already knew about “Privilege in America.” He discussed nepotism and unfair treatment of poor vs. wealthy citizens. He even did some great hidden-camera “investigations” in which a celebrity look-alike sailed to the front of the line in a busy coffee shop just to gauge the reactions. (What were people going to say — oh, yes, we love being cut in front of by Paris Hilton?)
The most harsh experiment came when he took two young women — one considered attractive and one considered plain — and put them head-to-head in a competition for tips at a sports bar and grill. The attractive waitress came back with about $50 more in tips than the other. Another experiment used the same premise and showed that people are more willing to help beautiful people if they drop a pile of books in the street.
Stossel really got me thinking about the predicament we find ourselves in with regard to body image. It doesn’t take Tyra Banks or Vanessa Manillo dressing up as overweight “Ugly Betties” to tell me that this discrimination really does occur (both of which actually happened, by the way).
Academics and psychiatrists are railing against the “rail” thin models filling fashion magazines. French officials recently outlawed anorexic models walking the catwalk in fashion shows. But none of that changes the fact that we are biologically wired to show favor toward beauty. That’s the case according to anthropologist Helen Fisher, who said that beauty appeals to a primal mechanism. Beauty simply equals good genes in our brains. We’re attracted to beauty, and we just can’t help it. We also think beautiful people are smart, hard working and interesting. Anyone who has seen the “Anna Nicole” show knows, mentally, that’s not true.
But the good thing, Stossel said, is that we are now able to help ourselves in the race to be beautiful. “Extreme Makeover” started the whole plastic surgery craze, but it was canceled last week. Luckily you’re never far from a doctor willing to fix your imperfections for the right price.
And it seems like we never make much progress on our want to accept all body types. A typical teen magazine might feature one or two models who happen to be a size 10 instead of a size eight, and that is supposed to suffice for progress. We watch “Celebrity Fit Club” and try to be happy because a has-been celebrity has dropped two pounds. We make front-page news out of an overweight lingerie model strutting down the runway but continue to care about the exploits of such pillars of the community as Kate Moss and Naomi Campbell.
I really don’t see this pattern changing, at least not until America Ferrera of ABC’s “Ugly Betty” can carry a blockbuster film and make millions. That would mean that Angelina Jolie, Reese Witherspoon, Salma Hayek and Pamela Anderson would have to die in a horrific accident.
And everyone knows beautiful people wear their seat belts, right?
Maybe she faded into obscurity in light of the fact that Nettles was not only the group’s lead singer, but for all intents and purposes, the entire band. If you watch the band’s video for “Just Might (Make Me Believe)” it’s tough to tell if there are any members other than Nettles. What can I say? The girl can sing… and her face can sell records.
It’s true that plain-looking people tend to fade into the background. And lately television hasn’t been shy in pointing out that sad fact of biology.
On Friday, “20/20’s” John Stossel set out to uncover what we all already knew about “Privilege in America.” He discussed nepotism and unfair treatment of poor vs. wealthy citizens. He even did some great hidden-camera “investigations” in which a celebrity look-alike sailed to the front of the line in a busy coffee shop just to gauge the reactions. (What were people going to say — oh, yes, we love being cut in front of by Paris Hilton?)
The most harsh experiment came when he took two young women — one considered attractive and one considered plain — and put them head-to-head in a competition for tips at a sports bar and grill. The attractive waitress came back with about $50 more in tips than the other. Another experiment used the same premise and showed that people are more willing to help beautiful people if they drop a pile of books in the street.
Stossel really got me thinking about the predicament we find ourselves in with regard to body image. It doesn’t take Tyra Banks or Vanessa Manillo dressing up as overweight “Ugly Betties” to tell me that this discrimination really does occur (both of which actually happened, by the way).
Academics and psychiatrists are railing against the “rail” thin models filling fashion magazines. French officials recently outlawed anorexic models walking the catwalk in fashion shows. But none of that changes the fact that we are biologically wired to show favor toward beauty. That’s the case according to anthropologist Helen Fisher, who said that beauty appeals to a primal mechanism. Beauty simply equals good genes in our brains. We’re attracted to beauty, and we just can’t help it. We also think beautiful people are smart, hard working and interesting. Anyone who has seen the “Anna Nicole” show knows, mentally, that’s not true.
But the good thing, Stossel said, is that we are now able to help ourselves in the race to be beautiful. “Extreme Makeover” started the whole plastic surgery craze, but it was canceled last week. Luckily you’re never far from a doctor willing to fix your imperfections for the right price.
And it seems like we never make much progress on our want to accept all body types. A typical teen magazine might feature one or two models who happen to be a size 10 instead of a size eight, and that is supposed to suffice for progress. We watch “Celebrity Fit Club” and try to be happy because a has-been celebrity has dropped two pounds. We make front-page news out of an overweight lingerie model strutting down the runway but continue to care about the exploits of such pillars of the community as Kate Moss and Naomi Campbell.
I really don’t see this pattern changing, at least not until America Ferrera of ABC’s “Ugly Betty” can carry a blockbuster film and make millions. That would mean that Angelina Jolie, Reese Witherspoon, Salma Hayek and Pamela Anderson would have to die in a horrific accident.
And everyone knows beautiful people wear their seat belts, right?
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
The magic of negative publicity
Have you ever been to a movie or listened to a song just because you wanted to find out for yourself what made it so “controversial?”
I’m sorry to admit that that’s pretty much the reason I recognize a few of rapper Eminem’s songs.
New York Times writer David M. Halbfinger recently pointed out a trend in Hollywood: the more negative publicity something gets, the more popular it’s going to be.
Case in point: Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” If you’re like me and watch way too much cable news, you noticed that every program discussed this movie for what seemed like the entirety of 2004. Never mind that the film was released near Good Friday or that this nation’s majority Christian movie-going public was going to turn out for the film anyway.
“The Passion” was a whirlwind, dominating force in popular culture because someone decided it was anti-Semitic. That touched off a firestorm of controversy that brought out the non-Christian crowd to a foreign language film about a man they might not even believe in.
In that case, curiosity got the dollar.
Today we’re dealing with the ever-popular country group The Dixie Chicks, who are starring in an upcoming documentary called “Shut Up and Sing.” Major TV networks NBC and the CW have refused to air commercials for the film, citing the fact that it attacks President Bush at a time when Bush couldn’t be expected to buy response ads. For them it is an issue of fairness. (As you may recall, Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines said she was ashamed the president was from her home state of Texas at one of their concerts a few years ago in Britain, triggering quite a few American country radio stations to yank the Chicks’ music off their playlists.)
For the cable news networks, the Dixie Chicks debacle has become an issue of free speech. Free speech is always a timely topic. Only, what the news networks fail to understand is that the regulated airwaves are not exactly public streets. They have the right to refuse advertisements, just like you or I have the right to boycott The Dixie Chicks. It pretty much works both ways.
The Chicks have been featured nightly on TV to discuss their supposed “blacklisting.”
I think the Chicks have the mentality of a contestant who has just opened the $1 million case on “Deal or No Deal.” They know they’ll never get their old audience (and popularity) back, so they’re taking stupid chances and hoping against hope that somehow their anti-Bush stance will win them something greater. Personally, I think they’ve got a small amount in their case. All they seem to have now are fans who like them because of their political stance, not their music. It’s tough to disconnect their political leanings from their music these days because they’re just so vocal about it.
Maybe they should take their own advice. It’s in the title of the documentary, after all.
Yet if they did that, would anyone actually go and see their film? I don’t think so.
This tactic, mostly created by public relations machines, get “controversial” pieces free publicity. That can almost never be a bad thing. You know how the old saying goes.
But Habfinger says the trend is actually slowing down.
Take the documentary “Jesus Camp,” which comes out this summer. It purports to be a shocking look into the world of evangelical Christianity. In particular, it follows a group of church leaders who claim they are training soldiers in “God’s Army.”
Magnolia Pictures President Eamonn Bowles actually said the religious backlash against the film was not as strong as he would have liked it to be. That’s right, a movie maker is upset because one of his films just wasn’t disliked enough.
And because of that, the movie is not a household name. There’s no buzz surrounding it. There’s no compelling news story associated with it. There’s no sense of conflict. There are no picketers or protests. Nobody cares.
And so another documentary — most likely a biased mockery of real filmmaking a la “Fahrenheit 9/11” — gets passed over in the publicity game. It’s not that religious groups don’t disagree with the message, it’s that they now know that ignoring it is a better way to make it go away than meeting it head-on.
It’s a nightmare scenario for film promoters hoping to manipulate the public and make a quick buck off a genre that traditionally generates very little revenue.
Besides, if this marketing scheme is losing favor with films, it’s only gaining favor with celebrities. Just look at Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears. I’ll be first in line at the “Bring the pre-K-Fed Britney Back” rally.
I’m sorry to admit that that’s pretty much the reason I recognize a few of rapper Eminem’s songs.
New York Times writer David M. Halbfinger recently pointed out a trend in Hollywood: the more negative publicity something gets, the more popular it’s going to be.
Case in point: Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” If you’re like me and watch way too much cable news, you noticed that every program discussed this movie for what seemed like the entirety of 2004. Never mind that the film was released near Good Friday or that this nation’s majority Christian movie-going public was going to turn out for the film anyway.
“The Passion” was a whirlwind, dominating force in popular culture because someone decided it was anti-Semitic. That touched off a firestorm of controversy that brought out the non-Christian crowd to a foreign language film about a man they might not even believe in.
In that case, curiosity got the dollar.
Today we’re dealing with the ever-popular country group The Dixie Chicks, who are starring in an upcoming documentary called “Shut Up and Sing.” Major TV networks NBC and the CW have refused to air commercials for the film, citing the fact that it attacks President Bush at a time when Bush couldn’t be expected to buy response ads. For them it is an issue of fairness. (As you may recall, Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines said she was ashamed the president was from her home state of Texas at one of their concerts a few years ago in Britain, triggering quite a few American country radio stations to yank the Chicks’ music off their playlists.)
For the cable news networks, the Dixie Chicks debacle has become an issue of free speech. Free speech is always a timely topic. Only, what the news networks fail to understand is that the regulated airwaves are not exactly public streets. They have the right to refuse advertisements, just like you or I have the right to boycott The Dixie Chicks. It pretty much works both ways.
The Chicks have been featured nightly on TV to discuss their supposed “blacklisting.”
I think the Chicks have the mentality of a contestant who has just opened the $1 million case on “Deal or No Deal.” They know they’ll never get their old audience (and popularity) back, so they’re taking stupid chances and hoping against hope that somehow their anti-Bush stance will win them something greater. Personally, I think they’ve got a small amount in their case. All they seem to have now are fans who like them because of their political stance, not their music. It’s tough to disconnect their political leanings from their music these days because they’re just so vocal about it.
Maybe they should take their own advice. It’s in the title of the documentary, after all.
Yet if they did that, would anyone actually go and see their film? I don’t think so.
This tactic, mostly created by public relations machines, get “controversial” pieces free publicity. That can almost never be a bad thing. You know how the old saying goes.
But Habfinger says the trend is actually slowing down.
Take the documentary “Jesus Camp,” which comes out this summer. It purports to be a shocking look into the world of evangelical Christianity. In particular, it follows a group of church leaders who claim they are training soldiers in “God’s Army.”
Magnolia Pictures President Eamonn Bowles actually said the religious backlash against the film was not as strong as he would have liked it to be. That’s right, a movie maker is upset because one of his films just wasn’t disliked enough.
And because of that, the movie is not a household name. There’s no buzz surrounding it. There’s no compelling news story associated with it. There’s no sense of conflict. There are no picketers or protests. Nobody cares.
And so another documentary — most likely a biased mockery of real filmmaking a la “Fahrenheit 9/11” — gets passed over in the publicity game. It’s not that religious groups don’t disagree with the message, it’s that they now know that ignoring it is a better way to make it go away than meeting it head-on.
It’s a nightmare scenario for film promoters hoping to manipulate the public and make a quick buck off a genre that traditionally generates very little revenue.
Besides, if this marketing scheme is losing favor with films, it’s only gaining favor with celebrities. Just look at Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears. I’ll be first in line at the “Bring the pre-K-Fed Britney Back” rally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)