Several weeks ago, Jeremy Irons caused a major kerfuffle during an interview with HuffPo. He was asked about his thoughts on the gay marriage debate (which was being discussed a lot at the time because of the Supreme Court cases). Irons went off, mid-interview, on some insane tangent about property rights and incest, and when all was said and done he basically said that it’s only incest if someone gets pregnant and if you allow gay marriage, fathers will marry their sons to protect their assets. So… it was weird. Jeremy later tried to clarify his statements in a blog post and he totally made it worse by continuing to insist that that it’s only incest if someone gets pregnant.

So, Jeremy sat down for yet another interview, this time with the BBC. It was fascinating and creepy! I do think that in the original HuffPo interview, Jeremy was slightly off-guard and he really doesn’t “get” many American laws and controversies and such. But on his home turf with a BBC reporter, he was only mildly less offensive. To be fair, Jeremy is trying to roll back some of the controversy, but he still manages to say some offensive stuff. Here’s the video:

When they get to the gay marriage part, Jeremy is confronted by his own statements once again and he says:

“I didn’t have an opinion on gay marriage… I don’t actually have much of an opinion on heterosexual marriage except I think it sort of might possible protect children, make it easier. That’s why I married my wife. Gay marriage is not something I have any feelings about at all. I’m quite interested in what it does to marriage, which is why were we having this very bizarre conversation.”

When presented with his own quotes, Jeremy doubles-down again and says, “Well, it [gay marriage] changes it, doesn’t it? Marriage is about procreation. That’s how, historically, it’s always been.”

“But I’m very badly informed and I actually don’t know the difference between a civil partnership, which we have in this country, and marriage, which is what the government just voted on. I don’t know what the difference is. I know the Church has problems with historically and I don’t know that those problems will go away. In America I think it’s different because in some states you can marry… same-sex partners and some you can’t… I was just rather amused by the idea that I put forward, it had nothing to do with my feelings. But… I think gay marriage is wonderful. I think any reason that holds anybody together in a relationship is great. If it works as glue, if it makes you feel better, if it makes you feel you love your partner more, then great. I felt I should’ve buttoned my lip. I was just flying a kite.”

[Transcribed from the video]

This “marriage is about procreation” thing needs to stop. Some marriages are about procreation. Some aren’t. And the ones that aren’t about procreation aren’t any less valid, gay or straight. And I bet Jeremy’s wife is feeling pretty good about his “I only married my wife for our children” thing. Yikes. Such a charmer.

If you watch the whole video, you see the BBC interviewer ask Jeremy at the end about his statements – a few years ago – about how he loves to put his hands “on a woman’s buttom” just to be all friendly like. Jeremy insists in this interview that if the women don’t like it, they’ll say so. The BBC guy is like, “Um, but shouldn’t you just keep your hands to yourself in the first place and not expect the ladies to tell you to bugger off?” To which Jeremy disagrees, saying: “We need to touch, we need to love each other we need to communicate, it’s all part of that.” I just can’t even start with Jeremy anymore.

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN.

Back in February, English author Hilary Mantel gave a speech about Duchess Kate which was widely covered and excerpted. Mantel seemed to be slamming Kate as “a jointed doll on which certain rags are hung… with no personality of her own, entirely defined by what she wore… painfully thin as anyone could wish, without quirks, without oddities, without the risk of the emergence of character… She appears precision-made, machine-made, so different from Diana whose human awkwardness and emotional incontinence showed in her every gesture.” Mantel compared Kate unfavorably to Anne Boleyn, saying that Boleyn had been “a power player, a clever and determined woman” but at the end of the day, a royal wife is “valued for her body parts, not her intellect or her soul; it was her womb that was central to her story… a royal lady is a royal vagina… at the most basic, they are breeding stock, collections of organs.”

Mantel’s comments were a big deal – Mantel is a respected and award-winning historical novelist (specializing in royal historical fiction) and most media outlets reported Mantel’s speech as “author slams poor Duchess Kate”. Even David Cameron chimed in. It was a big deal. But Hilary Mantel defended her comments last week, and now she’s claiming that she was merely shading the media and not Kate:

Award-winning novelist Hilary Mantel has defended her comments on the Duchess of Cambridge after saying she was becoming “a shop-window mannequin” who was “designed to breed”. The author insisted she had nothing to apologise for. The double Booker Prize winner hit the headlines last month when she referred to the duchess during a lecture at the British Museum as having no personality and appearing to have been “glossed-varnished” with a perfect smile.

In an interview on BBC Radio 3′s Night Waves programme on Thursday night, she said her words had been taken out of context and had no regrets about her comments.

“My lecture and the subsequent essay was actually supportive of the royal family and when I used those words about the Duchess of Cambridge, I was describing the perception of her which has been set up in the tabloid press,” she told presenter Anne McElvoy. “My speech ended with a plea to the press and to the media in general. I said ‘back off and don’t be brutes. Don’t do to this young woman what you did to Diana’. My whole theme was the way we maltreat royal persons, making them one superhuman and yet less than human.”

Mantel, whose latest novels are set in the Tudor court, said she believed she had been set up. She told the radio programme: “I don’t believe for one moment that there was any lack of clarity, after all, I have been practising my trade for a number of years now. It was a matter of taking the words completely out of context – twisting the context – and setting me up as a hate figure. I have absolutely no regrets. What I said was crystal clear.”

During the controversial lecture, organised by London Review of Books a month after her latest novel Bring up the Bodies won the Costa prize, Mantel suggested that “painfully thin” Kate was selected for her role of princess because she posed no risk of showing any character.

But she said on Radio 3: “I do think that the Duchess of Cambridge is an intelligent young woman who, if she cares to read my essay, will see that I meant nothing but good to her.”

[From The Guardian]

While I don’t doubt that Mantel’s full speech was nuanced and media-bashing, I think she’s playing it too coy by half by claiming that her speech was completely supportive of Kate and the royal family. You know why? Because Kate and the royal family have a lot of control over their PR images, especially in the UK media. They are not mere celebrities angling for favorable coverage. They have a huge press machine promoting certain images, and Mantel was dead-on about Kate’s image: In the image they push of her, Kate is only a royal body, a clothes hanger lacking in personality. And that is how the royals want her to be seen. And that’s how they promote her – like a second coming of Diana, only without the humanity, heart, work ethic, audacity, modernity or mess. Basically, Kate’s “like Diana” because they both liked clothes.

Meanwhile, “bashing Kate” is the new thing in England. A comedian named Sandi Toksvig recently did a bit in which she said Kate is so basic and meek, she’s like a character out of Jane Austen. She said: “Kate Middleton is not enough for me. We used to admire women who got their place in life through marriage and having children, but I like to think we’ve grown up a bit. I can’t think of a single opinion she holds – it’s very Jane Austen.” That’s an insult to Austen and her characters! Elizabeth Bennett is one of the great heroines of English literature, and Lizzie had more guts than Kate. Same for Marianne Dashwood and Emma Woodhouse and especially Anne Elliott. Austen wrote complicated, beautiful and flawed women. This woman doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Did you know that the Boy Scouts of America still discriminate against gay men? Not just gay men – they discriminate against atheists too, but that’s a discussion for another time. As far as I know, the Boy Scouts (as an organization, and through the leadership of various chapters) has always rejected gay Scouts and Scout leaders, openly banning them from the organization. But over the past decade, the Boy Scouts have dug in their heels more and more, refusing to change their policies, and some high profile politicians and celebrities have been highly critical of those policies. One celebrity in recent memory was Steven Spielberg, who resigned from the board of the BSoA in 2001. Now Carly Rae Jepsen has withdrawn from a scheduled performance at the 2013 National Scouting Jamboree in July after Change.org publicly pressured her to drop out:

Urged on by tens of thousands of petitioners, Carly Rae Jepsen has backed out as a headliner of a Boy Scouts of America concert this summer, saying the Scouts’ ban on gay members conflicts with her personal beliefs.

Jepsen, 27, was one of two headlining acts scheduled to play at the 2013 National Scouting Jamboree in West Virginia in July.

In a tweet Tuesday morning, the Canadian singer said she couldn’t participate in an event held by a group with an anti-gay agenda.

The other headlining act, the band Train, has not backed out – but has promised to cancel if the Scouts fail to overturn the ban at a scheduled vote on the matter in May.

Jepsen was apparently swayed by a petition at Change.org started by gay Eagle Scout Derek Nance that specifically urged her not to play the concert. Nance’s petition has garnered more than 60,000 signatures.

“I came out as gay because I realized the best way to help end this dangerous policy is to stand up, speak out and tell the organization I love to do the right thing,” Nance said in a statement.

“A Scout is brave, and I’m thrilled that Carly Rae and Train have joined me in standing up for what is right,” the statement continued. “I hope the Boy Scouts of America also choose to be brave this May.”

[From People]

I think this is a good sign for gay rights in general, and I admire Carly Rae for choosing what was probably a difficult option. I mean, she was going to be screwed either way – if she chose to ignore the petition, she would have been raked over the coals by her gay fans and the gay community. Now that she’s withdrawn, she’ll be raked over the coals by conservative groups and her conservative, “family-friendly” fans. Still, I think it’s wonderful that a young woman with absolutely ZERO political edge is throwing down a specific gauntlet about treating people equally.

Incidentally, did you know that the Girl Scouts of America is super-friendly to the gay community? They actively educate their Girl Scouts about gay and lesbian role models and they’ve been active in anti-bullying campaigns of transgendered youth too. Girl Scouts ROCK!

Also: here’s that Carly Rae/Nine Inch Nail remix/splice or whatever. It’s actually kind of awesome.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Hey, you know how poor, pitiful, overworked, exhausted Duchess Kate took a grueling eight-hour flight to Mustique last week so that she and Prince William could enjoy a fancy vacation? True story. Kate has literally made three two public appearances in the past three months, which means that she was sorely overdue for yet another vacation. Well, while on vacation in Mustique, some photographer got some snaps of the pregnant duchess in a bikini. The photos have been sold to Chi Magazine, one of the European tabloids that ran Kate’s naked-vacation photos last year. And the palace is super-pissed!

Another royal photo flap is brewing.

This times it’s over pictures of a pregnant Kate in a bikini that are set to be published.

The Duchess of Cambridge was vacationing on the beach with husband Prince William on the private island of Mustique last week when the long-lens shots were taken.

“We are disappointed that photographs of the Duke and Duchess on a private holiday look likely to be published overseas,” a spokesman for the couple at St. James’s Palace tells PEOPLE. “This is a clear breach of the couple’s right to privacy.”

The photos are expected to be published in Chi magazine this week – six months after the publication printed photos of Kate, 31, sunbathing topless while the couple were on their tour of South East Asia.

[From People]

A few questions…

*Is it still considered a “private” vacation when the British taxpayers are paying for some or all of it? We don’t know who is paying for what, there is only the assumption that the Middleton family picked up the tab. And even then, taxpayers are paying for Kate and William’s security.

*Is this some kind of karmic retribution for being lazy? When everyone saw Kate’s nips last year, that was also because they were on vacation in France (after they lied about previous commitments to get out of doing appearances at the Special Olympics). And now this! Another “inappropriate photo op” involving nudity… while on vacation.

*Why is the “if she doesn’t want people to see her bits and pieces, she should her clothes on” argument never made? Is it because that argument is deemed “victim-blaming”? I don’t think it is, especially in this case. She was wearing a bikini on a beach!

*Why does St. James Palace get to dictate the terms of when is and is not “private” and “public” time with these two?

*Who is William going to scream at this time? Do you think we’ll get some reports in which “sources” describe how William is in the midst of yet another hissy fit? Alternate question: does Kate even care? Even with last year’s scandal, it seemed like she was the one who was more blasé about it, and I bet it’s the same situation now – William is the one freaking out and Kate doesn’t care.

*Why are photos of Kate in a bikini some big deal at this point? We’ve seen her in a bikini many times while she was on vacation over the years. We’ve seen her out of her bikini too.

Photos courtesy of WENN, Chi.

Beyonce-gate, Day 4 (if we’re counting the beginning as Inauguration Day). Sources and theories abound about the state of Beyonce and whether or not she sang the National Anthem live. Even the initial reporting was sketchy, with two different Marine Corps band spokespeople saying different things. Here are some of the latest pieces of information:

*White House press secretary Jay Carney actually got Beyonce questions during Wednesday’s press briefing. Think about that!!! Pres. Obama is in the midst of a gun control campaign, he has a slew of new cabinet appointments and Hillary Clinton was giving testimony on Benghazi and the press ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT BEYONCE. Anyway, poor Jay was aksed if the president knew anything about Beyonce’s lipsynching and Carney said he “has not had the discussion with him [Obama]. I am not sure that I understand the variety and contradictory reports on the matter… My understanding, and this is what I recall from the inauguration in 2009, as a precaution, recordings were made. But I actually have no idea what’s true and what’s not about what happened here. And I don’t think it’s a particularly important issue to address from the podium here.”

*A well-known British sound engineer analyzed the footage and he claims that Beyonce sang live AND used a pre-record too.

*An anonymous “inaugural official” (this sh-t is like Watergate!!!!!) told CNN yesterday that “She did not sing live,” and that Bey “made the decision herself” to lip-sync. The official said: “Because she didn’t have time to rehearse with the Marine Band, she decided to use her recording with the Marine Band… It was all Beyoncé.” Conspiracy!!!

*A source confirms to Us Weekly (once again, anonymously) that Beyonce did use “a backing track” and that Beyonce “didn’t think there was anything wrong with it… Pavarotti has done it! It was freezing out, and if she messed up just one note, that would have been the story….Everybody uses these tracks, and the music director advised it. Any big outdoor live performance is almost always with some kind of track.” The insider goes on the clarify – “She did sing, but used a track.” Meaning she sang live and used a back-up recording too? Anyway, Beyonce thinks this whole controversy is “a technicality which everybody does took away from the beauty of the moment.”

Photos courtesy of Beyonce’s Tumblr.

I mentioned this in yesterday’s Michelle Obama post, but as it turns out, everybody is still obsessed with discussing the hilarious FLOTUS eye-roll at the inaugural lunch at Capitol Hill. This video has become my generation’s Zapruder film, hand to God. I’ll set the scene – Michelle was seated in between her husband and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, for the fancy lunch. At some point, nearing the end of the meal (I think the waiters were serving the desserts at this point), the camera comes in on Boehner and Pres. Obama, who were talking to each other behind Michelle – Michelle was sort of hunched over, concentrating on her food. Boehner raps his knuckles against her arm, referencing her in his conversation with Pres. Obama, and you can see Pres. Obama laughs with him. But while the men laugh, Michelle only gives a little head shake and rolls her eyes. The videos:

So the conversation has become: “What was being said? Was it disrespectful of Michelle to roll her eyes? Was it disrespectful of Boehner to knuckle her like that? Why was Michelle so unamused?” My take was always something along the lines of “Boehner and POTUS were joking around, and they made a joke at Michelle’s expense, or it was some kind of dirty joke that Michelle wasn’t happy with.” I also kind of think it was no big deal, but… whatever.

Anyway, the geniuses at Inside Edition got a hold of a lip-reader who tried to determine what was being said during the eye-roll.

It was the eye-roll seen ’round the world, and now we may know why First Lady Michelle Obama was less than impressed with Republican House Speaker John Boehner during Monday’s inauguration luncheon.

Michelle sat forward in her chair, allowing her husband, sitting to her right, and Boehner, to her left, to exchange a few words. She seemed annoyed with the banter, then rolled her eyes.

Lip reader Larry Wenig tells “Inside Edition” that Boehner asked President Obama — a longtime smoker who claims to have kicked the habit — if he’d had a chance to have a cigarette before the luncheon. The speaker, a chain smoker, then quipped, “Somebody [Michelle] won’t let you do it.”

[From Page Six]

I think a cigarette quip makes perfect sense. Go back and look at the video with those words in your head – doesn’t that absolutely make sense? Unfortunately, the DC blogs got in touch with Boehner’s office and his spokesman said that Inside Edition’s theory “is not true” but someone else claims Boehner has no idea what was being said. Guess it will have to be a mystery for years to come! Now… did anyone else notice how POTUS was chewing gum during the parade? Lots and lots of people suggested that he was chewing Nicorette. I would believe that too!

Photos courtesy of WENN.

I feel like I’ve been name-dropping (film-dropping?) Zero Dark Thirty all week. I know I’ve mentioned it in like half a dozen posts already. In my defense, I just saw it over the weekend I think it’s a really, really good film. I don’t really understand the “generation-defining film” or “Best film of the decade” labels being given to ZDT, but it was a well-made, thought-provoking, bold, interesting film with great performances. I don’t think it’s the definitive “killing Bin Laden” movie (at least, I hope not), but I took it as more “This is what the CIA is like now, this is how CIA officers had to change and respond to the changing intelligence landscape, this is a microcosm of the successes and failures of modern intelligence work.”

So it’s sad to me, having seen ZDT, that the conversation about the film is dominated by the continuously nonsensical debate about torture and what constitutes torture and how we do and do not torture people. Once you see the film… I don’t know, I didn’t come out of it thinking “OMG, torture is awesome, torture always brings such great leads!” The point that’s made in ZDT is cold, cynical and brief: torture dehumanizes not just the tortured, but the torturers. No one “wins” and torture is either zero-sum gain or it causes more problems than it solves. As Jason Clarke’s character tells Maya (Jessica Chastain’s character), “Politics are changing and you don’t want to be the last one holding the dog collar when the oversight committee comes.”

But still, people are freaking out and they will continue to freak out and blame Kathryn Bigelow for daring to portray methods of “enhanced interrogation” which were debated on the floor of the Senate and publicly and legally pushed by President Bush, VP Dick Cheney and their team of revenge-seeking Washington sadists (see: John Yoo, John Bybee, David Addington). I believe that Kathryn Bigelow’s snub for a Best Director Oscar nomination was about this controversy in particular. So, at long last, Bigelow has written a defense of her film and her portrayal of torture. Here you go:

For a long time, measuring more years than I care to count, I thought the movie that became “Zero Dark Thirty” would never happen. The goal, to make a modern, rigorous film about counter-terrorism, centered on one of the most important and classified missions in American history, was exciting and worthy enough, or so it seemed. But there were too many obstacles, too many secrets, and politicians standing in the way of an easy path.

Somehow, though, thanks to the great persistence of my filmmaking team and an enormous dose of luck, we got the movie made and found studio partners with the courage to release it.

Then came the controversy.

Now that “Zero Dark Thirty” has appeared in cinemas nationwide, many people have asked me if I was surprised by the brouhaha that surrounded the film while it was still in limited release, when many thoughtful people were characterizing it in wildly contradictory ways.

The Times asked me to elaborate on recent statements I’ve made in response to these issues. I’m not sure I have anything new to add, but I can try to be concise and clear.

First of all: I support every American’s 1st Amendment right to create works of art and speak their conscience without government interference or harassment. As a lifelong pacifist, I support all protests against the use of torture, and, quite simply, inhumane treatment of any kind.

But I do wonder if some of the sentiments alternately expressed about the film might be more appropriately directed at those who instituted and ordered these U.S. policies, as opposed to a motion picture that brings the story to the screen.

Those of us who work in the arts know that depiction is not endorsement. If it was, no artist would be able to paint inhumane practices, no author could write about them, and no filmmaker could delve into the thorny subjects of our time.

This is an important principle to stand up for, and it bears repeating. For confusing depiction with endorsement is the first step toward chilling any American artist’s ability and right to shine a light on dark deeds, especially when those deeds are cloaked in layers of secrecy and government obfuscation.

Indeed, I’m very proud to be part of a Hollywood community that has made searing war films part of its cinematic tradition. Clearly, none of those films would have been possible if directors from other eras had shied away from depicting the harsh realities of combat.

On a practical and political level, it does seem illogical to me to make a case against torture by ignoring or denying the role it played in U.S. counter-terrorism policy and practices.

Experts disagree sharply on the facts and particulars of the intelligence hunt, and doubtlessly that debate will continue. As for what I personally believe, which has been the subject of inquiries, accusations and speculation, I think Osama bin Laden was found due to ingenious detective work. Torture was, however, as we all know, employed in the early years of the hunt. That doesn’t mean it was the key to finding Bin Laden. It means it is a part of the story we couldn’t ignore. War, obviously, isn’t pretty, and we were not interested in portraying this military action as free of moral consequences.

In that vein, we should never discount and never forget the thousands of innocent lives lost on 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks. We should never forget the brave work of those professionals in the military and intelligence communities who paid the ultimate price in the effort to combat a grave threat to this nation’s safety and security.

Bin Laden wasn’t defeated by superheroes zooming down from the sky; he was defeated by ordinary Americans who fought bravely even as they sometimes crossed moral lines, who labored greatly and intently, who gave all of themselves in both victory and defeat, in life and in death, for the defense of this nation.

[From the LA Times]

Yeah. Cosign. I completely agree that if you want to be angry about the portrayal of torture in a film, you should probably direct your anger at the men who wrote The Torture Memos and opened the door for “enhanced interrogations” rather than the artist who is struggling to accurately DEPICT NOT ENDORSE those methods. #TeamBigelow

Photos courtesy of WENN.

There was a lot of back-and-forth and anger and ambivalence and name-calling with that story about Farrah Abraham waxing and plucking her 3 year old daughter’s unibrow. Farrah had posted a story about the Unibrow Controversy on her blog, and it quickly became a “hot topic”. I covered it a few days ago, and I still have the same opinion on the matter: she shouldn’t have waxed her 3-year-old’s unibrow (she said it was unsuccessful anyway), but I’m meh on her plucking Sophia’s unibrow. I came from a place of knowing what it’s like to be a somewhat hirsute Indian girl in a land of blondes with no rogue hairs out of place anywhere. Eyebrow maintenance is important to me, not because my mom stressed it or taught me to be self-conscious about it, but because I liked my brows to look a certain way at a young age.

Anyway, the controversy continues. Good Morning America did a segment about the situation (you can see the video here), and Farrah gave an exclusive interview about it to GMA. She’s (smartly) trying to re-frame the issue as a simple grooming issue, and she says that she needed to ban the unibrow because she didn’t want Sophia to be bullied for it.

Teen Mom’s Farrah Abraham made headlines Tuesday, Jan. 8 after she wrote a blog about waxing her 3-year-old daughter Sophia’s eyebrows. Despite criticism over her parenting decision, the MTV star tells ABC News it was the right thing to do.

“People just kept commenting on a unibrow,” Abraham, 20, explained in an interview that aired Wednesday on Good Morning America. “And I was like, maybe I am letting it go too far.”

Abraham shared in her blog post the her daughter “freaked out” when she put a dab of wax on her eyebrows. So instead, the mom decided to use her tweezers to pluck her brows while she was asleep.

The Teen Mom star has been criticized for being too obsessed with her appearance. After undergoing a breast augmentation in 2011 to go from an A to a C cup, Abraham received a $16,000 rhinoplasty and chin implant on Oct. 7.

“Cosmetic surgeries to me, are something that is way different from plucking your eyebrows,” Abraham explained to ABC News.

Though ABC News reported that dermatologists recommend that plucking only begins after age 7 or 8, Abraham is happy with her decision.

“If I can help my daughter in a little way by just plucking a few hairs . . . I think I did something right,” she said.

The young mom furthered defended her action on Twitter. “Unibrows are not sacred! Do the right thing tweeze no matter what age,” she wrote Tuesday. The following day she added, “Sophia’s beautiful with unibrow or without! Point is take care of your child’s hygiene.”

[From Us Weekly]

If you watch the GMA video, they say that Farrah is being “accused” of pushing her own hyper-narcissism and superficiality on her daughter by focusing on Sophia’s brows at such a young age, and that’s why Farrah says the thing about plastic surgery not being comparable. To be fair, I think everybody has a valid point in that particular situation – Farrah seems very superficial and like she has significant body image issues (she’s gotten A LOT of plastic surgery), and she’s giving her daughter an awful role model. That being said, Farrah is right too – eyebrow maintenance is a grooming issue and it’s not comparable to plastic surgery. Again, she shouldn’t wax her daughter. But I guess I’m one of few who doesn’t mind some plucking.

Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet and Farrah’s Twitter.

You guys know I’m a Ke$ha apologist. I like her. And I had already downloaded “Die Young” last month and it was part of my workout jam. I never really gave too much thought to the lyrics: “I hear your heart beat to the beat of the drums/Oh what a shame that you came here with someone/So while you’re here in my arms/Let’s make the most of the night like we’re gonna die young/We’re gonna die young” – it’s a song about young love. Teenage love. Staying up all night and making out LOVE. It’s part and parcel of the “Hollywood Martyrdom” of people like James Dean and Marilyn Monroe, the idea that everything is so intense when you’re young and when you get old, you lose that intensity and focus and passion.

But, of course, in the wake of Sandy Hook tragedy, the lyrics took on a different meaning, and radios across the country pulled Ke$ha’s song (which had been steadily rising on the charts for weeks). I really don’t think anyone really blamed Ke$ha for the tragedy, do they? Something similar happened here in Virginia (where CB and I live – not together!) – Virginia radio stations refused to play Foster the People’s “Pumped Up Kicks” because that song is about a kid playing with a gun, and many people around here were deeply affected by the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.

Anyway, Ke$ha has spoken! She’s fine with her song being pulled, mostly because (she says) she was “forced” to sing those lyrics. The hell?

Ke$ha has just — shockingly — come out and said she never wanted to sing the controversial lyrics in “Die Young” — even though she’s listed as one of the writers of the song.

TMZ broke the story … Ke$ha’s hit song has been yanked from a huge number of radio playlists since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

Ke$ha just tweeted, she understands why her song is now inappropriate, adding, “I had my very own issues with “die young” for this reason. I did NOT want to sing those lyrics and I was FORCED TO.”

The lyrics include this: “Let’s make the most of the night like we’re gonna die young. We’re gonna die young. We’re gonna die young.”

A bunch of people lashed out at Ke$ha on Twitter, slamming her for the song in the wake of the tragedy.

Ke$ha is listed as a co-writer of “Die Young,” along with Dr. Luke and others. She does not explain why she was forced to sing those lyrics.

[From TMZ]

Part of the reason I’m a Ke$ha apologist is because I think she’s a talented pop songwriter and I usually like her interviews and her “Whatever, dude, I’m just partying with my glitter bombs” attitude. But I feel like Kesha is copping out by saying that she was “forced” to sing those particular lyrics. Maybe there’s more to the story, and if so, I’d like to hear it. But I think she probably should have just stuck with a more general statement about the tragedy and how devastating it is for everyone, and not made it specifically about her and her lyric dramz.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Here are some photos of Kim Kardashian in Bahrain over the weekend. She stopped in Bahrain after her promotional trip to Kuwait, and she opened up a Millions of Milkshakes in Manama, Bahrain as well. Did you know Manama is the capital of Bahrain? I didn’t know that. So, thank you, Kim Kardashian. I learned something new today.

Shall we discuss this outfit? Much like her outfit in Kuwait, I think this is inappropriate for a (primarily) Muslim country, and once again, while I am no Middle East expert, my impression is that Bahrain is more conservative than Kuwait. While Kim could “get away” with wearing a cut-out dress in Kuwait, she needed to go more conservative for Bahrain. I’m not saying she should have worn a hijab! But maybe she shouldn’t have worn a too-tight dress that makes her tits into a shelf. I do have to say, though… I wonder if that necklace is real? I wonder if some sheik gave her that as a “gift”?

Before Kim even got to Bahrain, their Parliament was trying to ban that ass. The ban didn’t go through, so upon Kim’s arrival in-country, the hardliners started a riot. That ass started a RIOT.

Hardline Islamic protesters rioted over Kim Kardashian being in their country of Bahrain on Saturday. Riot police fired tear gas into the crowd, putting down protesters holding signs that said “Kim Not Welcome,” some in Arabic and others in English.

The Keeping Up with the Kardashians star is in Bahrain for the opening of a Millions of Milkshakes store near the capital city of Manama and had staged photo ops with many smiling locals.

As RadarOnline.com reported, Kim was in Kuwait on Wednesday for another store launch.

Her visit there was equally controversial.

“Her values clash with our traditions as a religiously committed people,” Mohammad Al Tabtabai, a Kuwaiti preacher, told the Gulf News. “Her visit could help spread vice among our youth.”

[From Radar]

I should mention that the dude who owns the Millions of Milkshakes franchise in Bahrain claims that there no protests – you have to go and read CNN’s report on the controversy because it is HILARIOUS. CNN is trying to be all proper and nail down what really happened and then halfway through they’re like, “Oh, by the way, Kim Kardashian has a sex tape.”

And finally, you should go here to see a really awful photo of Kim’s cold sore. GROSS.

Photos courtesy of WENN.