Glad to see it. If my 48-year-old mother started dating one of my former classmates, who is 19-years-old, I’d probably cut her off, too.

From Perez Hilton:

“Honestly, I don’t know what to say because I can’t relate to her right now. I’m extremely shocked. I know if I was 48-years-old, I wouldn’t date a 19-year-old. I just don’t feel it’s her. And through all this stuff, I really need my mom, and she’s doing her own thing. I don’t talk to her anymore. I see her at the jail visiting Nick and she asks me why. I say, ‘I don’t condone what you’re doing. I’m on my path, and you’re on your path.’ I told her, ‘I’d love to have you in my life, to see you and talk to you, but the kind of things you’re surrounding yourself with, it doesn’t make sense to me.”

I guess Linda’s got her priorities, and her daughter isn’t as important to her as the 19-year-old sex toy. Does this perhaps give us yet another example that the whole “cougar” movement is steeped in ultra-selfishness? You’d think that Linda might look at how this relationship is affecting her daughter and break it off for the good of her children. But NO. It’s so much more FUN! to date a 19-year-old, regardless of how your children feel about it. Who cares how betrayed and humiliated your daughter feels? You’re happy, and that should make your kids happy, and if it doesn’t, well then, too bad for them. They should be more accepting. Isn’t that right?

As I said,

Oh, and to Brooke? You do not have to support your mom in this. You have every right to tell her how selfish what she is doing is, and how hurt, angry, disgusted, betrayed, and humiliated you feel. You aren’t required to get behind something like this just because your mother has the maturity of a dysfunctional sixteen-year-old.

Glad to see that Brooke’s not hiding her feelings on this one.

Not sure who Rupert Everett is? He’s best known for voicing Prince Charming in the Shrek movies, but also played as Julia Roberts’ gay best friend in “My Best Friend’s Wedding” and Christopher Marlowe in “Shakespeare in Love”.

I guess lately he’s bitter about being a washed-up actor, or something, because he’s been spouting some pretty vile stuff left and right.

First, he takes aim at Americans:

I’m totally off the States now. … The reaction to 9/11 and then George Bush - really, they’ve got very blobby as a nation. … Now they (the Americans) are whiny victims whose language is entirely taken from two tv shows - Friends and Sex and the City - and there’s nothing sexy about them any more. And that kind of semi-blindness about the rest of the world, which was attractive when America was exciting, is really unattractive now.

The part about our reaction to 9/11 really riles me up. How is a country supposed to react to such a devastating tragedy? And as far as Americans being “whiny victims”, well… there actually are Americans who fit that bill (they’re called liberals), but by and large most Americans possess a very strong sense of independence, self-reliance, and pioneering.

Anyways, if that annoyed you, just wait until you read this. According to Everett, British soldiers are “dumb wimps”!

English idiot Rupert Everett just bashed British soldiers by saying, “They are always whining about the dangers of being killed. Oh my God, they are such whimps now!”

Unfortunately, he continued on. “The whole point of being the Army is wanting to get killed, wanting to test yourself to the limits,” he told the Telegraph. “Now you have to fly 15,000 ft. above the war zone to avoid getting hit. I don’t think there is any point in having wars if that’s how you’re going to behave. It’s pathetic. All this whining!”

Because it’s real tough being an actor.

That’s the most insulting, ridiculous thing I may have ever read.

If Everett thinks that it’s so easy to be a soldier, then maybe he should try it on for size. Maybe then he’ll get some appreciation for the kind of sacrifice these soldiers are making. Until then, he can keep his mouth shut and focus on being a flaming homosexual actor.

Here’s a new picture, supposedly taken by David LaChapelle. It’s rapper L’il Kim, who recently got out of jail, photographed as the Virgin Mary, complete with a baby in her lap. She’s sitting in a room complete with naked men, cocaine, and heroin. I’m not entirely sure what message this photo is supposed to send, but it’s disturbing to say the least.

Surprisingly, this doesn’t come from your typical man-hating feminist blogs like Pandagon or Feministing. No, this little gem of wisdom comes from that political genius, Elton John:

Sir Elton John has staged a fundraising concert for US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and claimed that the “misogynistic attitudes” of Americans may be hindering her bid for the White House.

The star, an ardent Clinton supporter, raised $2.5 million (£1.25 million) for her campaign with the gig at New York’s Radio City Music Hall.

“I’ve always been a Hillary supporter. There is no-one more qualified to lead America,” he told the audience.

But he added: “I’m amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them… I love you Hillary. I’ll be there for you.”

Yes, of course, it’s the mysogyny! That’s why Hillary isn’t catching on!! All of us who dislike her must do so because we hate women. By comparison, all of us who dislike Obama must do so because we hate blacks, to follow the same line of logic… right?

Why is it that the Clinton campaign does this? She tries to present herself like a tough woman who can handle being the most powerful person in the world, someone who will have to handle being a rare female in a mostly male world (especially when it comes to foreign politics). But what happens when things don’t go her way? She cries, she blames it on the “boy’s club”, she demands special treatment… she basically acts like a whiny twelve-year-old girl. And yet she’s supposed to be able to deal with leaders of Islamic countries that look at women as property, at best?

News flash to Elton John. I do not dislike Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman, nor do I dislike Obama because he’s black. Like most Americans, I dislike them because of where they stand on the policies. I don’t want Hillary in office because she hates the United States like most liberals do, because she’s a pathological liar, because she will ruin this country if she has it in her grasp for four years, because she has zero experience to make her qualified for this job, because she is piggybacking her husband’s presidency — and as far as I’m concerned, he’s the worst President this country has ever seen! I could go on all day with reasons I don’t want to vote for Hillary. Her gender wouldn’t come up once.

Sure, there may be a few people here and there that don’t support her because she’s a woman. But they are a rare, tiny minority. Most people just realize what they’re getting into with putting the Clintons back into the White House, and frankly, would rather play leapfrog with unicorns before enduring four years of that torture again.

One of Hillary’s biggest mistakes was her attitude of inevitability. She was so used to the Clintons being the Golden Couple of the Democratic Party that she just assumed the Presidency was hers. She looked at this whole primary/election business as red tape, but that they key to the Oval Office was already in her hand.

Well, sorry honey. President Hillary Clinton isn’t an inevitability, and it doesn’t make anyone a mysogynist for not wanting her in the White House, no matter what Elton John (freakazoid extraordinaire) says.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Oliver Stone is making a new movie… about President Bush! Woohoo!

Director Oliver Stone has set James Cromwell to play George Herbert Walker Bush and Ellen Burstyn to play former first lady Barbara Bush in “W,” a drama about the formative years of their son, President George W. Bush.
Josh Brolin is playing the title character, and Elizabeth Banks will play first lady Laura Bush.

Stone will direct from a script by his “Wall Street” co-writer Stanley Weiser. Moritz Borman is producing with Bill Block and Jon Kilik.

Block’s QED International is financing the film, which will begin shooting Shreveport, La., at the end of April.

Cromwell recently made another fact-based foray in a film about an iconic political figure: He played Prince Philip alongside Helen Mirren in “The Queen.”

Stone was calling the project “Bush” when he began showing it to buyers (Daily Variety, Jan. 21), but the filmmakers are now calling it “W.” The film is expected to be ready for distribution possibly by the November presidential elections and certainly before Bush leaves the White House in January.

Is it too early to start taking bets on how craptacular this is going to be?

And how about that casting? Fantastic, huh? Here are pictures:

They look just like these people:

I guess with the magic of movie make-up, it doesn’t really matter. Raw, seething hatred of Republicans and a healthy dose of BDS is much more important. And let’s face it, that’s pretty plentiful in Hollywood, isn’t it?

And of course, the very fact that it is an Oliver Stone movie means we can expect it to be chock-full of inaccuracies, lies, twisted facts, paranoia, embellishments, and conspiracy theories. Look at his past movies.

Let’s use Alexander as our first example. He turned one of the greatest military leaders in the history of mankind into a homosexual mama’s boy with horrific blond hair and a penchant for throwing temper tantrums.

Then there are his past political movies: Nixon, JFK, Born on the Fourth of July… all hyper-paranoid, conspiracy theory filled psychotic movies.

It’s surely what we can look forward to with W.

So, last week at work we received the movie 10,000 B.C. a few days before it was supposed to come out (If you don’t want the movie spoiled for you, just go ahead and stop reading now.). As projectionists, we have the privilege of pre-screening movies — the reasoning behind it is that by pre-screening, we can catch any problems with the prints. We even get paid for it. Studios are happy, we’re happy.

Everyone was excited about watching this movie. The trailers looked awesome — action-packed and tense.

Yeah, the movie was horrible. And I mean, horrible on the scale of possibly-the-worst-movie-I-have-ever-seen. Did anyone see Colin Farrell’s Alexander? Remember how bad that was? 10,000 B.C. is just as bad. The plot was horrible, and there was shockingly little action in the movie. The “cavemen” all spoke perfect English, wore dreadlocks, and basically smeared some kind unidentifiable shit all over their faces. It never really says where exactly this is all taking place, but due to the deserts, a river through a desert, and building of pyramids, my best guess would be Egypt.

The plot goes like this: there is a tribe of cavemen who live in this frozen wasteland. A little girl with blue eyes shows up out of nowhere, and as everyone in prehistoric times apparently looked exactly the same, it weirds them all out. A prophecy is made that “four-legged demons” will attack their tribe during the “last hunt”. The girl, named Evolet, will be given to the warrior who will bring down a woolly mammoth during this last hunt. And of course, this warrior will lead their people after being attacked. This warrior ends up being D’Leh, a boy who is disgraced by the other boys in the tribe because his daddy abandoned them. D’Leh brings down the woolly mammoth, and thus wins Evolet — who he then gives up because he “doesn’t deserve her”. Soon afterwards, the four-legged demons show up, killing some but kidnapping most of the members of the tribe. The few men that are left, including D’Leh, set out to regain their captured tribe members and most importantly, Evolet.

So they walk, and they walk, and they come across a bunch of other tribes who have encountered the same fate. D’Leh gets them all to follow him by talking to a sabre-tooth tiger. They wander around the desert for a while until they come across this metropolis on a river, where pyramids are being built. This is where all their captured tribe members are being kept, as slaves. This is all being done at the behest of someone who calls himself a god. D’Leh eventually gets all the slaves and tribes to band together to overthrow their oppressors, and he kills the tyrant. Evolet gets an arrow in the back and dies, but is “magically” brought back to life. Everyone lives happily ever after.

Now, all of us screening this movie noticed something interesting. Everyone in the film is dark-skinned — either black or just darker complected in general (think Middle-Eastern or Native American coloring). The god-tyrant is completely covered from head to toe by a gigantic veil, which slips off when D’Leh kills him. And whoopsie, we see that Mr. Tyrant Man is — gasp!! — white. Whiter than I am. He was a white old guy.

Now, is that really just a coincidence? I don’t like to read too much into things like that, but I wasn’t the only person who noticed, and it definitely made us all wonder if that was on purpose or just an “accident” of casting. Or is it just another one of those Hollywood white-guilt things? To liberals, white guilt reigns supreme, and it only fits that a white guy would be the one to want to ruin everyone else’s perfect little lives for his own benefit.

If you’ve seen the movie, what do you think?

As I reported earlier, The National Enquirer broke the story that Patrick Swazye has been diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer and has only five weeks to live.

His publicist has confirmed it.

Twinkle-toed tough guy Patrick Swayze has been diagnosed with terminal cancer and might only have weeks to live, a rep for the dirty dancer said today.

Swayze’s publicist confirmed to Page Six that he’s suffering from pancreatic cancer, which could tragically bring down the curtain on his remarkably diverse career.

Swayze was diagnosed with the cancer more than a month ago.

The average life expectancy is six to nine months, with only 4 percent of patients live more than five years.

Last month, Page Six reported that the “Ghost” star underwent a serious “gastrointestinal procedure” at Stanford University Medical Center. His rep said then that the procedure went well and that he was “home and happy.”

Swayze is only 55 years old.

This is honestly shocking news. Like virtually everyone else in America, we all remember him from his roles in Dirty Dancing and Ghost, but he’s had a long and diverse career. This is just sad, sad news.

Please keep Patrick and his family in your thoughts and prayers.

The National Enquirer is exclusively reporting that Patrick Swayze has been diagnosed with terminal cancer and has five weeks to live:

In a shocking world exclusive, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has uncovered the devastating news that the beloved Hollywood actor and dancer was diagnosed in late January with pancreatic cancer that has spread to other organs.

For the past month, Patrick, 55, has been traveling to Stanford University’s prestigious cancer center in Palo Alto for radical chemotherapy, but his doctors are no longer optimistic that the treatments will be successful.

Patrick and his wife Lisa Niemi — who both have pilot’s licenses — have been flying their private Beechcraft plane into Palo Alto’s airport, minutes away from the Stanford Cancer Center, where the actor has received outpatient treatment.

He received three doses of chemotherapy and the tumor shrank, but less than his doctors had hoped for — and Patrick was told he should prepare for the end.

“He was told he could have two more treatments, but his cancer was not responding. In short - they held out little hope for a cure,” said an insider.

I have trouble believing this. In Hollywood, it’s near impossible to keep a secret — if Swayze has been visiting the Stanford Cancer Center every day for the past month, wouldn’t the news surely have leaked by now? There’s been no word of a confirmation or a denial from Swayze’s camp. The most telling part of the article, though, that makes me call BS is this:

Full details are in the print edition of the NATIONAL ENQUIRER that goes on sale tomorrow.

How convenient.

Patrick Swayze has cancer! He’s gonna die in a few weeks! We have all this evidence and proof to show you, but you have to buy the magazine to see it… tomorrow!

I dunno, it sounds like a publicity stunt to me. And this is The National Enquirer — c’mon, they aren’t exactly known for their authenticity. Then, there’s this nugget from notorious gossip blogger Perez Hilton:

… [A] very good source just told us the following:

“Patrick has been at rehearsals for a new cheer leading movie at century city studio frequently lately, and he definitely does not look like he has 5 more weeks of life left…im not sure of his medical condition(s), but if he is gravely ill, he is hiding it very well.”

IMDB shows no “cheerleading” movie with Swayze attached to it (Google turned up no info, either), but he has signed on to star in a TV movie called “The Beast”. If Swayze had terminal cancer and thought he was going to die soon, would he really be signing on to new movie projects? I don’t think so.

I guess all we can do is wait and see, but I just have a hard time buying this. If it does turn out to be true, then of course we’ll all keep Swayze and his family in our thoughts and prayers.

Angelina Jolie is the most famous of them. Meg Ryan, Sharon Stone, Sheryl Crow, Kate Jackson, Mary-Louise Parker and Calista Flockhart have all done it. Jessica Simpson and Jennifer Aniston have both publicly stated that they’re considering doing it.

Is this some hot new diet fad? A drug? Guest star on SNL? Nope, it’s adoption. All the women above are single and unmarried, and all of them have adopted children, with the exception of Simpson and Aniston, who are still merely “considering” adoption. God knows how many celebrities have popped out babies with men they’ve dated for a few months at best and aren’t married — and if they are married, split up in record time. Even Paris Hilton is interviewing that she wants a baby, probably because former BFF Nicole Richie is stealing her spotlight by having one. And now, a new movie is coming out that, in a sense, spotlights this fad — except this movie shines the light on surrogacy instead.

I give you Tina Fey’s new movie, “Baby Mama”.

I had only one thought when I watched that trailer for the first time.

What is wrong with Hollywood?!

Tina Fey’s movie “Baby Mama” illustrates an epidemic to me. Her character “wants a baby more than anything else”, so she finds a way to go out and get one. Nevermind that she’s not even dating anyone, so they kid will have literally no father figure in his or her life. Nevermind that an adoption agency turned her down. She wants a baby, damn it, so she’s gonna get one by whatever means necessary. She finds a woman to be a surrogate so she can have her baby.

Now, no one misunderstand. I have nothing against adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate mothers. My own mother and my aunt, her sister, are both adopted (they are not blood-related). A friend of mine is going through the adoption process as well because she’s unable to get pregnant after trying every available option to her for a long time. I think it’s wonderful when people are willing to open their hearts and adopt, or when someone is willing to carry a baby for a woman otherwise unable to have children. And I also know that there are many single mothers and fathers working hard to give their children the best possible upbringing they can. I don’t have a problem with any of that.

What I do have a problem with is how cavalierly Hollywood and celebrities in general seem to treat motherhood.

This trend of celebrities having babies, or adopting babies, just because they decide they “want one” disgusts me. Just because you are rich and famous does not mean you are ready and capable of caring for a child (hello, Britney Spears… ) — like the ones who adopt or give birth to children without haviny any kind of stable family setting to give them. To celebrities, children are accessories — just like having another dog to take care of. And when taking care of the kid is getting to be too much work, or they have a movie premiere to go to across the world, or if they want to go out and get obliterated every night at clubs across the country, they can just hand them off to their army of nannies and caretakers, standing by to take over when Mommy doesn’t feel like it anymore.

How many of these celebrities do you think are truly capable of putting their child before themselves? Celebrities are narcissistic by nature; it’s almost a requirement to be self-centered and self-serving before all else to make it in Hollywood. Putting the well-being of a child before what the celebrity may want right that moment never really crosses their mind; after all, the nanny can take over!

Take Angelina Jolie. She’s reformed her image by adopting kids from all over the word, and then giving birth to an adorable little girl named Shiloh who was fathered by Brad Pitt. But how good of a mother is she really? She gives them no stable family whatsoever — after all, she and Brad are not married, and Billy Bob Thornton was Maddox’s original father — and she doesn’t give them a stable home, either. She constantly talks about giving up working for a year or two to give them a stable home, but she never does. Instead, they’re uprooted every few months to fly to another country whenever Angelina decides she’s getting bored. Does she think about the effect that could have on her children? I’m sure that Angelina loves her children. But I think that she loves herself and her carefree lifestyle more. She doesn’t give them a chance to develop roots anywhere, so how can they grow to be healthy and strong? They’re “children of the world”, she’d say, which I’m sure the U.N. would approve of greatly. But is it what is best for her children? And let’s not forget she used to be Hollywood’s bad girl, engaging in lesbianism, exchanging blood in vials with her beaus, making out with her brother at award shows, and claiming that she could never be monogamous. What will her children think when they see Mommy making out with Uncle?

I’m sure that there are celebrity parents who are genuinely good, caring parents who are able to put their children first. Unfortunately, they seem to be outnumbered.

Celebrities think its OK to just find yourself a kid as soon as you get a twinge of a maternal urge, but it isn’t. Having money does not mean you’re able to give your child the best environment possible. Children need stability in their lives; parents that are willing and able to put the wants and needs of their children before their own, and parents who can be good, steady role models for them. Parents who think of themselves first always and see no problem with having a steady revolving door of lovers, while they’re out partying every night, doing God knows what kind of drugs, do not make good children. The offspring of celebrities often end up on the covers of tabloids with sex and drug addictions, often with no future and no clue what to do with their lives. Do we really need to wonder why? If celebrities aren’t prepared to make their children their first priority, then they shouldn’t have them, no matter how much they might “want them”. Unless they’re actually willing to be parents, it isn’t right to just go out and get one like you would a puppy at a pound to make themselves feel more complete inside.

It’s time to put an end to this epidemic of Celebrity Baby Mama Drama.

What was the hot new fashion trend at the Oscars this weekend? Orange ribbons and bracelets — to represent the glittering celebrities showing their solidarity with terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.

The hot fashion accessory [at Sunday’s Oscar ceremony] was apparently orange ribbons and bracelets in solidarity with terrorist suspects in Guantanamo:

Out on the red carpet, Paul Haggis (the director whose “Crash” won Best Picture in 2006) said he didn’t know what accounts for all these deeply dark, brooding, troubled films. But isn’t it obvious, he asked, flashing an orange ribbon on his lapel. Orange, why orange? “It’s Guantanamo,” his Max Azria-clad wife, Deborah, said, showing off her orange bracelet, which read: “Silence + torture = complicity.” Suddenly, we noticed — orange ribbons and bracelets everywhere.

You’d have to guess there weren’t too many “24″ fans in that gathering.

Strange, I somehow doubt that anyone there was wearing a flag pin, or maybe a yellow ribbon, to show their solidarity with our troops, or, I don’t know, America. Why would they side with the United States when they can line up with freedom fighters terrorists?

After all, we’re the Great Satan, the oppressive ones in their eyes. They’re the ones shrieking about being censored — into microphones beaming their messages into televisions with millions of people watching. They’re the oppressed ones, who are “afraid” to speak out. So of course they side with terrorists, instead of the Evil Empire of the United States of America!

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If that’s how they feel, there’s nothing keeping them here. They can all pull a Johnny Depp and live happily ever after in France. It’s not like they’ve been giving us anything we’ll miss.

Hat Tip: Liberty Film Festival

UPDATE: Atlas Shrugs has photographic evidence.