IUC Tuesday: Cinderella or Catwoman?, Cirque du Soleil, Blind Gaydar

Posted on June 2nd, 2009 by HisHighness in IUC:Entertainment, IUC:Exclusive

- Today kicks off IUC’s Michelle Obama week.  First off, I must put the question out to everyone – is Michelle Cinderella or Catwoman?  Is she really the new Jackie-O, the icon many fashion magazines have compared her to.  Is Michelle the real deal?  And how deep is Michelle in influencing her hubby Barry-O’s decision making?  let us know. 

- Today, I launch my new tome about the most fabulous person I have ever come across in showbiz, Cirque du Soleil creator, billionaire and humanitarian Guy Laliberte.  Yesterday, this article appeared in Quebec’s most widely circulated daily newspaper, Le Journal de Montreal.  If you understand francais check it out here.  The book hits stores today French and English.  For more visit TransitMedias. 

- My top mole in Hollywood called me yesterday to inform me that an A-list Hollywood actor, early 20s, was spotted making out with an older man poolside at the Roosevelt Hotel last week.  Can you guess who it is?

  1. mooki said on June 2nd, 2009 at 6:57 am

    -I’ve heard nothing but nice things about Michelle…
    -would love to hear about the inner workings of Cirque du Soleil. Their Vegas shows are somethin’ else…
    -two words: Zac Efron

    Reply
  2. Constant Gardner said on June 2nd, 2009 at 7:01 am

    @mooki:
    Agree. Zaquisha.

    Reply
  3. MiniGirl said on June 2nd, 2009 at 7:09 am

    @Constant Gardner:
    Zac Efron…it would make sense – vanessa hudgens is much more popular because they are “together” and he would never come out due to the bulk of his fans being female

    Reply
  4. anon said on June 2nd, 2009 at 7:45 am

    pfft … more fawining … meanwhile Michelle Antionette’s NYC date night cost taxpayers roughly $250K. Let them eat cake!

    Reply
  5. Canuck said on June 2nd, 2009 at 8:08 am

    For those of you who don’t speak French, a not so quick translation for you (you can call me Bable’Nuck today, lol):

    Tomorrow, the controversial non-authorized biography of Guy Laliberte will be in bookstores. “All that I’ve said in this book can be proven”, says the Montreal author, Ian Halperin.

    In “The Fabulous Life of the Creater of the Cirque du Soleil, Ian Halperin paints Guy Laliberte as a determined, passionate man who shied away from nothing to build his multinational company.

    “I’ve met a lot of stars and producers in my life, but never met another like Guy Laliberte. His story is the most interesting and unique. He started his career as a fire breather. It’s a very unusual story and I’m surprised that no one has written a book on him before this.”, says Mr. Halperin

    In telling the story of the Cirque du Soleil, the author also gives it a political dimension by reminding us that the very first subvention came from Rene Levesque.

    “Laliberte showed the world that an organisation could be successful (in Quebed and elsewhere in the world) without the rest of Canada. Without Rene Levesque, there would not have been a Cirque du Soleil”, he says.

    The controversy comes in particular from the fact that the book claims to lift the veil about the famous parties thrown by the businessman during the Formula One races at Montreal. Citing his sources, of whom several remain anonymous, the author evokes sex and excess of all sorts.

    “I interviewed over 1000 people during a 5 year period”, he explains and saying that he based a part of his writing on what was said by the former wife of Guy Laliberte, certain artists and “friends” of the Cirque”. “I need to corroborate three sources. If I get that, it’s a go”, he says, while adding that he has kept some information out of the book, as he didn’t have sufficient proof to publish it.

    Ian Halperin admits to never having officially contacted the Cirque du Soleil or Guy Lalibere before publishing his book, although he says that he has met the businessman on several occasions.

    “I never tell my subjects that I’m writing about them, he says, and explains that he has spoken with Guy Laliberte after running across him on Rue Saint-Laurent or at “La Cateteria” restaurant”

    “He is not at all superficial and these meetings changed the way I saw him. He’s fascinating and remarkable. He has a lot of money, but he never lost his identity or forgot where he came from (…) We spoke together about the street arts and he answered all of my questions”, says the author.

    The Cirque du Soleil has already denounced the book by saying they doubt the trustworthiness of the sources on whose information is revealed by Halperin.

    “The Cirque should first read the book before they say it’s not true (…) It’s like saying that Bob Marley never smoked a joint in his life. It’s ridiculous”, he says, while pointing out that his work “is balanced” and that he speaks of the parties, but also the history of the Cirque and the huge risks that Guy Laliberte took.
    “He worked very hard”, the author says about Laliberte.

    During the last few days, the credibility of the author has been attacked, he who has in the past published several non-authorized biographies, including one about Celine Dion, one about Britney Spears and another about Kurt Cobain.

    “I have an international reputation and the book should be read before saying anything. It’s not right to judge it and attack it’s credibility before having read it”, he says, while reminding us that he has already been named a “best selling author” by the New York Times.

    About Quebec politics

    In July, the author who hails from Montreal but is now based in New York, will publish a book about Michael Jackson. Next year, Ian Halperin will once again have people talking about him in Quebec as he has promised us a provocative film about what goes on behind the scenes in Quebec politics.

    “It will be an undercover film (…) about Quebec politicians. It’s a documentary about how it functions, but I don’t want to say more for the time being”.

    Reply
  6. sinker said on June 2nd, 2009 at 8:52 am

    please tell me zac efron is not a-list.

    Reply
  7. mooki said on June 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 am

    @sinker:

    sadly, he is.

    Reply
  8. Constant Gardner said on June 2nd, 2009 at 8:58 am

    @Canuck:
    Thanks for the xlation, Canuck.

    Reply
  9. Kate said on June 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 am

    @Canuck:
    Thanks for that, good article.

    ,

    Reply
  10. Canuck said on June 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 am

    @Constant Gardner:
    @Kate:
    You’re very welcome :)

    Reply
  11. Constant Gardner said on June 2nd, 2009 at 9:22 am

    @Canuck:
    Totally OT but is anyone hear following the HBO series, True Blood?

    Reply
  12. Canuck said on June 2nd, 2009 at 9:38 am

    @Constant Gardner:
    ‘Fraid not.

    Reply
  13. fresca said on June 2nd, 2009 at 9:39 am

    @Constant Gardner:
    I am!! I had read all of Charlaine’s books, the mysteries as well, and my whole family loves the Sookie books. Love the show as well. Not quite like I had imagined the characters but not bad.

    Oh and I DONT think Michelle O is at all like Jackie O. I dont like her fashion choices at all!

    Reply
  14. Constant Gardner said on June 2nd, 2009 at 10:05 am

    @fresca:
    I am a big fan of Alan Ball since Six Feet under, love the series. But to get back OT, MO may be comparable to Jackie however, the times were very different, the US public was much less cynical, much less enslaved by the media then, IMO. I am ambivalent about MO. I neither especially like or dislike her. She seems like a very cool woman and the kids are precious, seem respectful and well behaved. I like that. She is also CFR.

    Reply
  15. BMB said on June 2nd, 2009 at 10:50 am

    Why do I have a feeling that A-lister is Emile Hirsch? I would consider Efron upper B list.

    Reply
  16. I'm on the bidet said on June 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am

    “The Cirque should first read the book before they say it’s not true (…) It’s like saying that Bob Marley never smoked a joint in his life. It’s ridiculous” – lol! Good line Ian.

    “he credibility of the author has been attacked, he who has in the past published several non-authorized biographies” – oh dear, its ‘non-authorized’! Its not like the ‘authorized’ biographies of celebrities are considered the gold standard of credibility. If Britney Spears wrote an autobiography, how much of it would anyone believe? “And that’s when the homunculus entered my skull, y’all, so I had to like shave my head so he wouldn’t get too hot in there!” I’ll take Ian’s version if you don’t mind.

    Reply
  17. meg said on June 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 am

    “My top mole in Hollywood called me yesterday to inform me that an A-list Hollywood actor, early 20s, was spotted making out with an older man poolside at the Roosevelt Hotel last week”

    THE PIC PLEASE! :roll:

    Reply
  18. meg said on June 2nd, 2009 at 11:23 am

    @meg:
    because everybody can tell this.

    Reply
  19. SZ said on June 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 am

    I like MO a lot. Sometimes I think she could reconsider a few of her fashion choices, but overall, IMO, she’s been a blessing to this new admin and has gone out of her way to meet and speek to many of the gov’t’s employees and groups. She’s very smart, and I think she’ll continue to find a balance between her motherly/first lady duties, and also utilizing her own sense of self in the process. It’s a true “breath of fresh air” to have these two people in the WH.

    Haven’t a clue about who the young A-Lister could be. So many are popping out these days and, suddenly, are “A-Listers.” Ah, for the old “Glory Days” of H-Wood when you had to have at least a few really good films (or PR stunts) to gain that moniker.

    Reply
  20. SZ said on June 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 am

    O/T (sorta): Cheney is at it again on TV. This time he’s almost “standing up” for gay marriage becuz his daughter is gay…but, of course, backtracks by saying it should be “left up to each state” to decide. This may be the only thing I have ever agreed w/ him about — otherwise, Mr. Cheeeneeey, STFU. Can somoene stop his serial interviews? Can’t he just return to his “undisclosed location” as other VP’s have done once they’ve left office?

    Hmmm…..older man….kissing a young A-Lister…?

    Reply
  21. kalan said on June 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    Define older, 30s? 40s? 50s? 60s?, 30s or early forties is cool. Anything older is disturbing. and typically Hollywood.

    Reply
  22. Kate said on June 2nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    @mooki:
    Maybe by name recognition, not by talent.

    Michelle, hardly a Jackie O, far from it, no other comment.

    Can’t wait to read the book, wow five years, just like Jacko..that is extensive. Sounds solid to me, hope it gets great reviews.

    Reply
  23. bluiznsmilez said on June 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    @SZ: Could it be Cheney and Adam? Causing him to rethink gay marriage…(just something that ran across my mind….sorry)

    Reply
  24. Constant Gardner said on June 2nd, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    @SZ:
    Cheneyferatu. I notice he wasn’t standing up for gay marriage when he was president. Yes, I said president, LOL. He needs to go back into his underground coffin. One evil mofo there!

    Reply
  25. Canuck said on June 2nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    @Constant Gardner:
    Totally evil, IMHO

    Reply
  26. Z said on June 2nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    Rob Pattinson?

    Reply
  27. Z said on June 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    @SZ:
    LOL….you are funny!

    Reply
  28. Z said on June 2nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    @Constant Gardner:
    Agreed!

    Reply
  29. SZ said on June 2nd, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    @bluiznsmilez: Tee hee!

    @Z: Back atcha cuz ya’ “got it.”

    Reply
  30. another me said on June 2nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    Chris pine?

    Reply
  31. SZ said on June 2nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    @Constant Gardner: “underground coffin” — Excellent! Yep. Prez indeed!

    Reply
  32. Alif said on June 2nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Is that to keep our minds away from waterboarding, or worse?

    Reply
  33. meg said on June 2nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Michelle must change her stylist and clothes tastes to hope reach Jackie O.
    Letizia of spain has the best style: look here

    Reply
  34. Arlene said on June 2nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    @SZ:
    I so agree with you!!

    Reply
  35. Z said on June 2nd, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    @SZ:
    LOL…and “Cheneyferatu”…lmao. ; )

    Reply
  36. Yawn said on June 2nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm

    Zzzzzzzzzzz ho hum………falling asleep.

    Reply
  37. BMB said on June 2nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm

    I now switch to Efron after reading this excerpt from People.com

    http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20282560,00.html

    Reply
  38. SZ said on June 2nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    @Alif: Oh, heaven’s no. Why would he want to defect? I mean, deflect?

    Reply
  39. Sunissmiling said on June 2nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    Hey Ian, I can appreciate the ‘putting it out there’ of Michelle O but it’s kind of a non-story in a way. Sure, she won’t be perfect but she’s held down a tough job, a tough marriage to an ambitious guy and seems to be genuine with her community efforts. Anyone’s gonna get slagged or make some wrong choices up in those heady heights but i’m keeping non-cynical. Personally, I like her style and the fact she’s an older career woman who’s not built like a stick. I wouldn’t want to denegrate her at this stage by comparing her to Jackie O. That particular woman was a whole different ball game! If you want muck raking there’s plenty there to be had. Jackie had some good points and added style and flair to high office but bloody hell – take it with a pinch of salt but ‘Nemesis’ by Peter Evans is a good starting point on the dark side fo Jackie O. I spose what i’m saying is…move along here…nothing really that interesting to see….when Ian could be getting stuck into far juicer and dodgier characters in hollywood. I understand you’re busy on your books and legal wranglings etc and it’s good to have a breather from the brangelina epic but looking forward to some new exlclusives. By the way…i’m sure BP and AJ are going to split up following the Cannes PR – akin to doing a Hello magazine cover in terms of relationship voodoo! – but have a horrible feeling he’s going to stick it out for image purposes while having all of his secret shenanigans on the sly. I’d like see A) A pic of Pitt with someone else i.e. blow the gasket off the image and B) something that reassures me those kids are OK or that exposes to the world that they ARE being looked after by a team of nannies so that pair can stop shoving their god-like parent status down our necks!

    Reply
  40. Sunissmiling said on June 2nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    Apologise for rubbish grammar and spelling above – you know what i’s like when you want to get somethng off your chest!

    Reply
  41. Truth said on June 2nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    Zac Efron while the older man was Obama, who was in Hollywood last week. Don’t believe it. Google Larry Sinclair. And before the liberals on this site get riled up, it’s well known Dubya messed around too(Jeff Guckert/Johnny Goss).

    The last straight President we had was Clinton.

    Reply
  42. Keane said on June 2nd, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    Hm well my opinion on Michelle Obama and Jackie O is just that they are women who happened to be married to a President who the media were and are intent on turning into major celebrities. This makes even less sense to me than the celebrity of HW types. I mean at least Angelina Jolie has “acted” – I am obviously using that word in the loosest possible sense of the term(!) – in a few flicks. Michelle Obama? Well she has turned up at a few events and looked like a nice lady, does that an icon make? Not for me. And Jackie O, well she wore some nice frocks/suits and sunglasses and looked purdy stood next to President Kennedy? Does that an icon make? Well again, not for me, no. For me icons have to actually do something significant which raises them above their fellow man. Have either MO or Jackie O done that? Not for me! And the A-lister snogging the older man, is this our bi-racial BI again? We never did get to the bottom of that…..

    Reply
  43. Constant Gardner said on June 2nd, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    @Keane:
    To be fair we must add Diana to that list of questionable”icons”. Seriously, the way the press likes to throw around such magnified terms. Icon this, icon that. Bunch of distractions and bullshit for the masses is all it is. Who really gives a fuck who is wearing what? Is society really that superficial? Don’t answer that.

    Reply
  44. Keane said on June 2nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    @Constant Gardner:

    Yeah I’m totally with you on the Diana front too. I think if you trace the development of our current state of celebrity culture, the concept of “famous for being famous”, then Diana would certainly be a key player in that process. She was idolised for being reasonably attractive and having married a Prince, nothing more, nothing less. People were just interested in her life, like a soap opera. And then a few years down the line we now have or had the likes of Jade Goody and Katie Price. People who are famous for their lives, not for doing anything in particular. The media is trying to do the same with Carla Bruni and Michelle Obama. These people sell a lot of magazines and papers I guess, they’ve got to keep creating someone for people to read about.

    Reply
  45. Canuck said on June 2nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    Seems Guy Laliberte is heading for space:

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25580331-12335,00.html

    Reply
  46. too curious said on June 2nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    @I’m on the bidet:

    I’ll take Ian’s version, too! (I’m almost said I’m there with you, but truthfully, I’m NOT on the Bidet).

    Reply
  47. Constant Gardner said on June 2nd, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    @Canuck:
    I resent this type of activity by the wealthy. It is so crass, selfish, arrogant and ostentatious. Whatever happened to old school quiet wealth? Why does it have to be so obscene? Sure, you can say the guy earned it and he did. I bought some of those overpriced tickets in Vegas and loved the shows. But can we just be happy with the entire world at the fingertips of the uber wealthy? Could we be happy with mansions and private jets, lovers, clothes, jewels and maybe quietly divert that trip to space money to some needy Canadians or something? Or how about just keeping the money instead of this conspicuous gilded age shit? I just don’t like this shit. I didn’t appreciate the Obamas date night either. The country is fucking broke. People are living in their cars, do we have to charter a jet to a play and dinner? Whatever happened to the leaders taking austerity measures just like the people do? Sorry for the rant.

    Reply
  48. TobyKat said on June 2nd, 2009 at 6:16 pm

    @Constant Gardner:
    Well, When they say “icon” i tend to think that JO was an Icon when it came to fashion. Before her there were really no other first ladies who could “out shine” their husbands as JO did at times. People were not only following Pres Kennedy’s every move but hers as well. Also, I respect that JO was into the arts and a big supporter of the arts as well as preserving history. Now on to Diana, she was one of the first “celebities” to truly use her international fame to bring awareness to helping the poor and sick. i believe she did have a very big heart. But most of all these two very public women managed to shield their children from the press as best as they could. Both the late JFK Jr. and Caroline Kennedy managed to become “normal” adults in a very public life. Both Princes thus far seem to be growing up to be fine young men. I cannot comment on MO yet. However, she seems like a terrific mother. A mother whose children come first and foremost. How can you not respect that.

    Reply
  49. bluiznsmilez said on June 2nd, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    I must say, I don’t think of Michelle Obama as interesting, nor in the course of anything I do in my life. I’m sure she is a nice person. I’m just not interested.

    Reply
  50. Uh-oh said on June 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm

    Michelle Obama = Jackie O, like Lindsay Lohan= Marilyn Monore…NO! And she should stop trying…She needs to be more Hillary Clinton rather than arm candy. This is a smart lady…We want to hear what she has to SAY…She don’t have the looks to interest in what she wears. Leave that to Carla Bruni (even though bitch has to do it ALL in FLATS cuz Napoleon don’t want his bitch taller than him…Hey even with her in flats, you with lifts in your shoes and mousse in your hair, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR SHE IS TALLER THAN YOU!
    I say let Carla shine, that’s what she’s for, and let ‘Chelle speak, that’s what SHE’S for…Bitch can’t dress for shit though.

    Reply
  51. MusLopil said on June 2nd, 2009 at 9:45 pm

    What interesting article, but where took information?

    Reply
  52. Kate said on June 2nd, 2009 at 10:12 pm

    @Constant Gardner:
    Constant Gardner said on June 2nd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
    @Canuck:
    I resent this type of activity by the wealthy. It is so crass, selfish, arrogant and ostentatious. Whatever happened to old school quiet wealth? Why does it have to be so obscene? Sure, you can say the guy earned it and he did. I bought some of those overpriced tickets in Vegas and loved the shows. But can we just be happy with the entire world at the fingertips of the uber wealthy? Could we be happy with mansions and private jets, lovers, clothes, jewels and maybe quietly divert that trip to space money to some needy Canadians or something? Or how about just keeping the money instead of this conspicuous gilded age shit? I just don’t like this shit. I didn’t appreciate the Obamas date night either. The country is fucking broke. People are living in their cars, do we have to charter a jet to a play and dinner? Whatever happened to the leaders taking austerity measures just like the people do? Sorry for the rant.

    I agree , right on. WTH is wrong with them? The date night was ridiculous. He ask people to cut back but yet…nevermind, this is why I don’t want to discuss them..not what I thought he would be, that is for sure.

    Reply
  53. Z said on June 2nd, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    @Constant Gardner:
    I agree…so agree, I could care less what people are wearing. And I think it’s totally superficial, too. Another word that gets thrown around that drives me nuts is diva. This from Wikapedia “Divas are celebrated female singer. The Italian term is used to describe a woman of rare, outstanding talent in the world of opera (Maria Callas, Montserrat Caballé) and by extension in theatre, cinema and popular music. The meaning of diva is closely related to that of “prima donna”". So I guess the media is using this term as “prima donna”….but it still drives me crazy, even if Maria Carey is a prima donna. Which I think she is. lol. I wish they would reserve Diva for opera singer. period.

    Reply
  54. backalleyknees said on June 3rd, 2009 at 1:01 am

    Michelle Obama week? Is there something wrong with me that I don’t find this couple at all intrigueing? Why is the media trying to celebratize the first couple? Shit is going so wrong in this country and the media can’t be bothered to report it. Things are way too shakey for me to even begin buying into the romanticized notion of “Camelot 2″. And for important events, old girl really should listen to a stylist.

    sorry for any spelling errors…I’m imbibeing.

    Reply
  55. The Duchess said on June 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 am

    I don’t care much for Michelle Obama. I would rather have Hill in the White House because she would be able to use Bill as her arm candy. ;P

    Reply
  56. Constant Gardner said on June 3rd, 2009 at 6:00 am

    @TobyKat:
    I realize that is it sacreligious in this country to bitch about first ladies and Diana and other female “icons”. At the same time, JO was not the first first lady to inspire women, Eleanor Roosevelt was, at least in living memory she was. Betty Ford was a middle aged drunk as first lady yet I am more inspired that she DID something useful to help others with it than what she wore. That is my point. Diana was a narcissistic, immature clothes horse. I’m sorry. To me that is not an accomplishment. Jackie O was hardly lily white, she was also an opportunist and was positioned by her very wealthy family to marry into wealth. Nothing less would do. Her marriage to JFK was a complete sham bc he screwed anything that moved yet she suffered in silence and was therefore a willing participant to maintain the illusion of Camelot. Her shopping addiction was so legendary that even Ari Onassis bitched about how much she spent. I do not hold a special place for women who are fashion icons. It is not that hard to be a clothes horse when you have unlimited wealth and designers lining up to dress you and stylists to make sure you have the right look. It is not hard to do charity work when you are one of the idle wealthy. As a woman, I do not need to be told who to admire. As a woman, I do not appreciate the media pre determining my personal values and telling me who to admire and why. I do not admire MO. I do not care what she wears. I am not impressed with this presidency. I am not going to be told that I am expected to admire her for what she pulls out of her closet. Or anyone else for that matter. If all I have accomplished in my life is that of celebrity worship of women for what they wear then shame on me because that makes me just an organic portal for consumption and marketing ploys. I don’t like any of this. There are women who are truly worthy of admiration and respect for their accomplishments. Doing so because of what they wear, to me, reinforces the image of the shallow and ugly American, a role I refuse to play.

    Reply
  57. dg said on June 3rd, 2009 at 6:02 am

    First name that came to my mind is Shia LaBoufe. He has this Transformer film coming out . Maybe Zac Efron. Rob Pattinson was in Italy the whole last week, there were photos everywhere, so I doubt it’s him.
    Wasn’t there another BI about a young star who was involved in a gay group sex with an older producer or something like that? I think everyone guessed it’s about Zac Efron. He seems to has a thing for older men.

    Reply
  58. Constant Gardner said on June 3rd, 2009 at 6:12 am

    @Keane:
    Yeah, I am getting a real kick out of the purification of CB as first lady. Talk about your rock star groupie sluts!!!!!!Read Eric Clapton’s autobiography. Real eye opener about the now first lady and FASHION ICON, Carla Bruni of France. LMAO.

    And her husband is a big tool as well.

    Reply
  59. Constant Gardner said on June 3rd, 2009 at 7:19 am

    @Truth:
    I have heard the Larry Sinclair stories. Who knows? This type of thing sells in homophobic far right America. Could be true, not saying it isn’t (that BO had a gay affair). GWB is most certainly a vicious closet case, to me, the scariest kind of queen there is. He is a deeply closeted one who co opts the homophobic fears of the far right to marginalize and punish the gays while he is getting blown in the WH by a “Military Hot for Male” prostitute. The Jeff Gannon/Guckert stories are legendary as are the stories of GWB’s lifelong affair with Victor Ashe. To me the biggest pisser of all is the idea that having a gay president is a bad thing. Be out, be proud. Gays have been some of the greatest leaders, artists, teachers, etc in world history.

    Reply
  60. Canuck said on June 3rd, 2009 at 7:34 am

    @Constant Gardner:
    No he’s not, he’s a little one, LOL

    Reply
  61. mooki said on June 3rd, 2009 at 7:39 am

    @Truth:

    Obama is straight (I can verify through several of my Chi-town sources). He has a very diverse gay/lesbian cabinet (Hil is not among them).

    Wasn’t there a rumor a while back that Efron and Jesse McCartney were butt boys for Clive Davis?

    Reply
  62. Canuck said on June 3rd, 2009 at 7:43 am

    @Constant Gardner:
    The French have a pretty good idea of who Carla is and what her past was. The thing is, they really don’t care much. So long as she isn’t doing anything publicly that will embarrass the French Republic, they are pretty cool about the personal lives of their politicians and spouses.

    Reply
  63. Constant Gardner said on June 3rd, 2009 at 7:50 am

    @Canuck:
    Yeah, you make a good point. The French are less puritanical and more realistic about these things. It seems as if most of Europe is. Man, not so much here! If the media wasn’t so busy reporting what the first lady wore somewhere they would have to report some real news. Not gonna happen.

    Reply
  64. Keane said on June 3rd, 2009 at 8:12 am

    @Constant Gardner:

    I am with you with every word you said there, I too am sick of the deification of certain women for looking pretty, wearing nice clothes and doing a bit for “charidee”. We did not have a feminist movement so we could all aspire to be clothes horses who live off our husbands and repay them by looking nice stood next to them when dressed up for functions. I have no interest in any woman for what she looks like, what she wears or some very minimal charity work or “awareness raising” that she might do. I want to see hard work, responsibility, achievement and perhaps a transcending of the boundaries stereotypically attributed to a woman’s role in life. Which is why I was always a supporter of Cherie Blair QC, even though she was trashed by the British press (as a means of trashing her husband) for not looking hot enough. I was genuinely ashamed to be British when all that negative commentary about her looks started when the woman occupied one of the highest, most responsible positions in society. That’s the hypocrisy of our predominantly right-wing press for you; yes, yes we know we’ve had a sexual revolution but would you mind still trying to look nice in whatever important job you are doing at the same time please? Makes my blood boil. So yes, women who are icons for wearing gowns and looking fragrant at photo opportuites do not do it for me I’m afraid! Give me Mo Mowlam, Aung San Suu Kyi and Benazir Bhutto any day of the week!

    Reply
  65. Constant Gardner said on June 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 am

    @Keane:
    Yeah, they did a right royal trashing of CB. Witchcraft!!!!! Fingernail clippings!!!!!!I remember all of that. There is a big price to pay if you are a woman of fame and are not stereotypically pretty or fashionable. Hell, look at Hilary Clinton. I am not a fan of hers at all but some of the press about her is completely inappropriate. She may wear ugly pantsuits, she may not be politically my cup of tea but there is no doubt that she is a woman who has accomplished much. Even Oprah, who I love to bitch about, is at least self made and a woman of accomplishment!!! I am a much bigger fan of women who stand up to social injustice, who speak truth to power, who do not allow themselves to be forced into the media image machine and regurgitated to the masses than of any woman the media tells me to admire as an icon. I will decide who my icons are, thank you very much. I find more things to admire of women in my own circle of friends than I do any of these so called icons.

    Reply
  66. Keane said on June 3rd, 2009 at 9:56 am

    @Constant Gardner:

    Yep me too, that’s what I think too. People I went to college with have all gone on to do the things for real that people like Jolie like to play at. Working for The Clinton Initiative, for the UN in Darfur or as high-flying lawyers. That’s why I laugh at the affectations of Miss Jolie, pretending to be a certain type of person without doing any of the study or hard work, getting all the applause for it while people like my friends toil away, full-time, year after year after year, with no public recognition whatsoever. I’m sure they just LURRVE Angelina. And the whole thing about judging professional or all women by what they look like appalls me and it has to stop. It should be considered an unacceptable form of prejudice, of sexual discrimination, but it is still for some bizarre reason acceptable for journalists to talk about female professionals in this way. This must change. I feel we are still far from being a truly equal society when it comes to issues of gender, sexuality, race or age really. And I don’t think people like Jolie help any. Its like what is now desirable is to be a person of consequence through the deeds that you do, but also to look really hot while you’re doing it. By all means publicise causes for the UN, but make sure you look beautiful in a series of artfully shot black and white photographs while doing it. Its like we have a new form of sexism in the twentiest-first century to me: yes we are expected to go out there and pursue careers in the same way that men do, but we are also supposed to meet high standards of beauty and stylishness at the same time. So how far have we really moved on as a society in reality? Yes we have the same opportunities men have nowadays, but we are still judged as sex objects at the same time. Sarah Palin was another case in point. It was all about how hot she was, and not about what she had to say. Are we going backwards as a society? Sometimes I wonder.

    Reply
  67. too curious said on June 3rd, 2009 at 11:21 am

    One thing I will say for Diana is that she did help with AIDS awareness in terms of shaking hands (whatever) with her gloves off at a time when some people were treating people with AIDS like historically one thinks of lepers being treated. And she did give William and Harry some experiences, like going to Disney World, that prior generations of royal offspring would not have been able to do – you know, just not protocol. To me she also made the royals seem slightly less obsolete than I had previously viewed them.

    Note to all of our Brits: this is an opinion by an American and should be treated as such :)

    Reply
  68. TobyKat said on June 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 am

    @Constant Gardner:
    Well, we can agree to disagree. I admire women who do not stand in the shadows of their husbands. I do admire people who use their celebrity wisely. If the media labels these women as icons it’s not their fault. I will say again, to raise your children in the type of limelight they were both in is an accomplishment. In a world were men still dominate in politics, buisness ect. i think it’s important to not under value the importance of the women in these mens lives. Nuff said that’s my story and I’m sticking to it :-)

    Reply
  69. Constant Gardner said on June 3rd, 2009 at 11:49 am

    @TobyKat:
    Then I challenge you to a duel when you come to FLA, bitch!

    Reply
  70. dg said on June 3rd, 2009 at 11:49 am

    I think that this A-list young actor is Zac Efron. This is a report from another website:”Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens were filmed on their way out of the Roosevelt Hotel last night after the MTV Movie Awards, …”
    The BI says that the guy was seen at the Roosevelt Hotel.

    Reply
  71. Constant Gardner said on June 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 am

    So Ian, is this it, are you going to bleed us with one post every day or two now? We have this gossip habit to feed you know. It is good to see the board calmed down again, I really enjoy the tone of the debates about various topics when the trolls aren’t around.

    Reply
  72. Constant Gardner said on June 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 am

    For the Brits, there are rumors that the gov is on the verge of collapse. What do you hear, what is true and what is hype?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190242/Communities-Secretary-Hazel-Blears-joins-ministers-scrambling-exit.html

    Reply
  73. Keane said on June 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    @Constant Gardner:

    Well the Daily Mail as you may well know is the most hateful, right-wing, anti-Labour, scare-mongering, prejudiced piece of crap alleged “newspaper” that you would be better off wiping your bottom on so I won’t read or respond to anything there because they, like all the right-wing press, have been out to get Gordon Brown since day one of his leadership. We’ve had this major expenses scandal in the UK lately so lots of the MPs who have resigned would have been for the chop anyway, but they’re jumping before they’re pushed because they have an axe to grind with Brown and want to try to take him down too. One of them is Hazel Blears – a politician I loathe for her total insincerity – and it doesn’t surprise me at all that she has done this. I think she’s a petty little viper. The thing is the expenses scandal has been across the board, probably worse in the Tory party if anything, so it will be a real injustice if it brings Brown down. But if he has a rebellion against his leadership – which has been threatened ever since he took office – then he may be in trouble. I feel sorry for him, he is a decent man and a good politician, just lacking somewhat in decisiveness and PR nouse. He has been an easy target for the press and his political opponents. However, as long as the Conservatives don’t gain power I’m happy. I don’t want a bunch of old Etonians with massive trust funds making decisions about running the country and never will. And those are the only options in the UK unfortunately!

    Reply
  74. Constant Gardner said on June 3rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    @Keane:
    Didn’t know that about the Daily Mail. So they are like Fox news, then-right wing sound and propaganda machine! We distort, you decide!!!! This expense scandal amazes me because it is a scandal. It is SOP to do this kind of shit to taxpayers by Congress. In fact, unless they get caught, they are shameless about screwing over the taxpayer!!!

    Reply
  75. TobyKat said on June 3rd, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    @Constant Gardner:
    You’re on, I’ll bring the wine/vodka!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
  76. Keane said on June 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    @Constant Gardner:

    Well yes but the reality is MPs were encouraged to think of expenses as being part of their salary. Its a very stressful job invovlving very long hours and the pay is really not that good, they haven’t had a significant pay rise in years. Even Gordon Brown only earns about £100K a year (used to be about $200K, but now more like $150K), not that much when you think about how important the job is and the hours he has to do. I used to want to be an MP at some stage of my life until I realised what the reality of the job was and thought no way! The expenses were supposed to be a supplement to their not very great salary, I think it’s something like £60K a year, although I’m not sure about that so don’t quote me! Unfortunately people like Blears and lots of others took it to its limit and were gaily profitting off the system as much as they possibly could. Nearly all of what was done was not against the rules, it was just that the rules were so lax. So obviously there was a great discrepancy between people gaining tens of thousands a year from their expenses claims and people who gained very little at all. So now all the regulation has to be completely tightened up, in the same way as it has with the financial systems. But yeah, the Daily Mail is a big no go: it hates immigrants, asylum seekers, gays, people on benefits, single mothers (I’m sure you get the picture) and loves to drum up prejudice and anger against all these groups. By contrast it loves wealthy people, royalty, materialism and so on. I’m sure you get the picture. The Daily Mail and its even more basic sibling The Daily Express are big no-no’s. The Times, The Sun and The Telegraph also have a heavy right-wing bias, take everything you read in them with a big pinch of salt. The Guardian is the lefty, liberal paper, the Mirror is the left-wing, least offensive tabloid and The Independent aims to be just that (whether it achieves this or not I can’t confirm though, its pretty difficult to ever be free of commercial or political bias I would have thought). So yeah, please do not ever darken the door of The Daily Mail website and add to their profits again!

    Reply
  77. Constant Gardner said on June 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    @TobyKat:
    We should get lit and live comment here on IUC!!!!

    Reply
  78. Constant Gardner said on June 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    @Keane:
    Thank you for that rundown of the press there-now I know.

    Reply
  79. backalleyknees said on June 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm

    Ian! What news of The Brand? A lot of other outlets are picking up the story that they split…will there be anything new from you? My curiosity is slowly killing me.

    Reply
  80. Gitano said on June 3rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    Not much from Ian et al. Busy promoting his book or is a week featuring The First Lady not going over well with TPTB?

    Reply
  81. Cazza said on June 3rd, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    Oh Keane I cannot disagree with you more if I tried. Gordon Brown a decent man? After the mess he made of this country for the 10 years he was chancellor? As usual Labour leaves the mess (see the 70s) and the others have to come in and clean it up. We are bankrupt as a country, a record number of single teenage mums, people on the dole and the divide between poor and rich greater than ever, and you worry about the Tories coming in? Errrr…. Okay. Oh and the “A list” has to be Zac.

    Reply
  82. Cazza said on June 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    Oh and I agree about the Daily Mail being hateful. The Times etc. Not so much. That is a serious paper. I kinda resent you stating this as facts because you youself clearly have a very left wing bias. I am centre and disagree with most of your points (and FYI voted Lib Dems). Anyone still supporting Labour after the smears on a man who has just lost a son and all the other stuff (the war, the expenses, the ID cards) I just cannot believe. Still.. It is your opinion and I disagree with it.

    Reply
  83. Constant Gardner said on June 3rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Field day for loons in Dlisted comments:

    thanks for giving me a reason to tell every fanboard in existence, to block this site and never darken your door again. What ridiculous lies and science fiction you weave – you should be ashamed. I find it hard to believe in this day and age of instant news, where every fan can witness and verify for THEMSELVES via video footage, eyewitness accounts, and stills that are instantaneously posted on the , exactly what occurred and what happened, yet a few stupid trashy rags and blogs think they can get away with telling us are eyes and ears are lying to us. Get this straight, Brad and Angelina have been inseparable, pregnant, and happy raising their family for 5 years plus. If you think that by writing this kind of b.s., there are enough Jolie Pitt haters to sustain your site, you should ask the tabloids how their revenue numbers are faring. Maybe one day, some of you will put your own bitter envy of this beautiful loved up couple aside, and decide to REALLY come out ahead of the game and write the TRUTH, and get the revenue the millions of Jolie Pitt fans could give you. Until then. You and your cookies and links are toasted and blocked for all fcking time. By the way, I think this site has given my pc a virus.

    Bless her heart.

    Reply
  84. backalleyknees said on June 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    @Constant Gardner:
    Hahahahahaha!

    Reply
  85. I'm on the bidet said on June 3rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    @too curious:
    “I’ll take Ian’s version, too! (I’m almost said I’m there with you, but truthfully, I’m NOT on the Bidet).”

    I like to think that metaphorically, spiritually, philosophically, and sometimes physically, we are all on the bidet . . . because if we aren’t, the bidet is on us! As in the immortal words of Pliny the Elder, “in bidet veritas” (note: line also attributed to Pliny’s brother, Poopy the Younger).

    Reply
  86. backalleyknees said on June 3rd, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    we’re being discussed on Celebitchy…

    Reply
  87. Constant Gardner said on June 3rd, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    @I’m on the bidet:
    omg lol:

    I like to think that metaphorically, spiritually, philosophically, and sometimes physically, we are all on the bidet . . . because if we aren’t, the bidet is on us! As in the immortal words of Pliny the Elder, “in bidet veritas” (note: line also attributed to Pliny’s brother, Poopy the Younger).

    That reminds me it is time to do bong hits!

    Reply
  88. Keane said on June 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    @Cazza:

    Did you think David Cameron would have done any better? The Tories wanted lighter regulation of the financial systems than the Labour party did, or are you referring to something else? Do you think Maggie Thatcher and John Major left the UK in a great state and the Labour party came in and wrecked the wondrous society they had created? (Sold off all social housing under the right-to-buy scheme, promoted a policy of everyone for themselves over social responsibility from “our Maggie” and the meaningless, pointless policy of “back to basics” from Major). What did you tihnk these policies achieved? We would have been bankrupt whoever was in power, as neither party wanted heavy financial regulation, in fact we would be worse off because it would have been even less controlled. And you think the Tories would have dealt with the crisis better than Labour, with their policy of non-intervention, allowing the banks to go to the wall, are economy to be possibly irreparably broken and thousands upon thousands of more jobs lost? You prefer this as an option? Not that I 100% agree with the actions of the govt, they should have nationalised the banks to force them to lend again not just bail them out, but Cameron’s inaction would have been much worse for us as a country. And yes , knowing a fair few toffs from Eton, I would not want them running the country and representing my and other people’s interests in a million years. Good luck to you if you welcome them though, I’m sure it will be interesting to see how people who have no concept of living in poverty will represent the interests of the poor. And yes I am left-wing and wouldn’t vote Lib Dem in a million years as they wouldn’t have the first clue how to run this country. They’re better of sticking to dating cheeky girls and appearing on satirical panel shows in my opinion. The Times is a Rupert Murdoch paper and as such could not be more biased or right-wing, that does not mean it doesn’t have pretensions to seriousness, but ultimately it is still a rag. And Cazza, the Tories supported the war as strongly as Labour did, they have more outrageous expenses claims than the Labour party (servants quarters, a duckhouse, cleaning my moat and so on) and we don’t actually have ID cards yet, I believe they are only for foreign students. And as for the smear on a man who has just lost his son I really have no idea what you are talking about.

    Reply
  89. Keane said on June 3rd, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    @Constant Gardner:

    Did someone post that on the comments section of Dlisted? That is hilarious! Well done MK – ha ha!

    Reply
  90. Keane said on June 3rd, 2009 at 4:06 pm

    @backalleyknees:

    Good lord, they really don’t have anything better to do, do they?! What is the report now? Am I maintaining my reputation as evil, malevolent gatekeeper of IanUnderCovern.com? Lol

    Reply
  91. backalleyknees said on June 3rd, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    @Keane:
    surprisingly, they didn’t mention you by name. No, they are upset that people are quoting “The Enquirer” and what a piece of trash it is and maybe CB should stop getting their news from Ian Halperin etc. etc. Funny thing though, in the other threads where they quoted “The Enquirer” the same people who are slagging off (did I use that Brit term correctly?) The Enquirers story on The Brand say shit like “Well, that paper usually does have good scoops” etc.

    And Keane, since you are Ian, when are we getting another Brand story? (That was a complete joke)

    Reply
  92. backalleyknees said on June 3rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    @backalleyknees:<@Keane:
    I like the Daily Fail for their gossip stories. I’m always so impressed that they can write a full on essay about someone’s “knobby knees” or tummy bulge. And that lady Liz something who seems to always have such scathing views of women. Absolute trash reading, but it makes me giggle. I do very much enjoy The Times though.

    And totally a side note: I didn’t realize the gentleman who played Tony Blair in “The Queen” was Kate Beckinsale’s daughter’s babydaddy. The picture of him with his daughter holding up his medal (The OBE) from The Queen was really cute. She’s got his eyes. Question: Is the OBE the medal, or just a title?

    Reply
  93. Keane said on June 3rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    @backalleyknees:

    Wow, I must be doing something wrong not to even get a mention, maybe I need to up the malevolence a little bit to really make an impact! That is a joke of course, I am now trying to keep a low profile (cough, bullshit, cough) honest guv! I didn’t realise Celebitchy was picking up stories from here, I thought the sit was up Angelina’s arse, never read it much though. Do they realise we critique the nature of every story in a tab though and try to figure out whose PR person made it up? If they did they’d probably understand where we’re coming from better. And they are right the NE does get scoops, just as the UK News of the World does, they’re so behind with this so, they’ve barely touched it. Too caught up with Susan bleeding Boyle! And under the guise of Ian I will reveal that there may or may not be a new post about the Brandge (I feel this new word is a good conflation of the central issues at stake here, so hope we will all learn to adopt it!) tomorrow – I think that should cover all bases. Yes The Mail does do some quite hilarious novel-like gossip stories, usually an amalgamation of all previously known rumours with no basis in reality whatsoever, quite entertaining though nonetheless. Yes that is Beckinsale’s baby daddy, much more down to earth/normal looking than Len Wiseman hey? Although I hear that marriage is also finito – probably what her and Posh are bonding over! If you look a pics of Beckinsale before she came to HW you would not recognise her, she is the classic English rose Oxford grad playing the ingenue in literary classics and kooky parts in contemporary films. So strange that she moved to HW, got breast implants and a perma-tan and started ho-ing it up for the benefit of the awaiting paps. Her career has never really hit the heights as a result of it though, I think she should have stuck to being the kooky English rose, at least it made her different to all the other fake-boobed perma-tanned ho’s in HW! And I actually didn’t know that you got a medal with an OBE or any other title. I am anti-monarchy so think the whole thing is a load of baloney. Plus so many get given to celebs, as if they are such noble members of our society!

    Reply
  94. Lisa said on June 4th, 2009 at 9:29 am

    just have to say I really enjoyed hearing about the Obama’s “date night” and feel honored that our money is being put to such good use. WTF ever.

    Reply
  95. Uh-oh said on June 5th, 2009 at 8:45 pm

    Hey, Ian you freakin alive up in here???? I mean…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….

    Reply
  96. Zqznzfuy said on June 30th, 2009 at 9:31 am

    Ycmdy3 comment1 ,

    Reply

What do you think? Join the discussion...

How do I change my avatar?

Go to gravatar.com and upload your preferred avatar.

Categories

Posts By Day

June 2009
M T W T F S S
« May   Jul »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

Meta