Fake Fake Fake! I'm calling FAKE on Sex Video!

I like to check TMZ.Com, and I even leave the channel on if the television show happens to come on.
Of course I like to read the comments too. This "Teen Mom" porn story has been intriguing me lately.

I would guess that about 70% of the comments posted comment on the girl's looks. "Face of a camel", and "Horse face", seem to be the consensus. (ooh that's mean!)

But what REALLY gets to me is that almost everyone agrees that there IS a sexporn-video. The "evidence" of the existence is pretty cheesy if you ask me. Just a dumb photo of the two actors in question holding -hands, and all the "gossip"/SPIN-about an "alleged" production.

Another comment that I have seen, and yes I researched it and NO it does not appear to be true, and yes I even Tweeted @Tmz to ask (me):"Your commenters say that Vivid entertainment has a financial interest in TMZ. Is it true?".....so far no answer. But it does not appear like there is an ownership interest between the two companys.

Vivid Entertainment is the adult entertainment company who distributes a lot of the celebrity, (yes, including the famous Kim K, porn. And they are, (according to this strange story), the company who Teen Mom "HIRED"?????

wait a minute. Yeah, the most recent update to this story now has Teen Mom PRODUCING PORN! I don't know how the pornographic movie industry works, but wouldn't this be like an actor calling-up oh say Universal Pictures, and saying,

"Hi, I want to produce, and star in a movie using your studio." -random actor

Yeah, it just doesn't work like that does it? But THAT is what this Teen Mom is now saying. She is claiming that she PAID to have VIVID ENTERTAINMENT record her sex video, and that she HIRED a professional porno actor as her co-star.

The hired-hand has been quoted regarding this as saying that he is NOT a prostitute! I'm sorry but that is utter garbage as well! He was referencing the "alleged" sex-video that he allegedly was HIRED to perform-in. Hired to perform sex-acts. That is the definition of prostitution. Its all so ABSURD!

Even-if this young woman had actually done what is being claimed, (produced a sex-video), I have to ask, Is that a good investment for someone in her position to be making? But I won't rack my brain on that too much since I really think that entire thing is a GOOF.

What I am saying, is that I think that we the public, TMZ fans, and media consumers, are being jerked-around and PLAYED. Personally, I do not believe that there IS a sex video! I think that there is nothing but hot air and SPIN.

I could be wrong, but the whole story is so utterly DUMB, that it just doesn't make any sense. Notice that I'm not bothering to post Teen Mom's name. Although I would rather not even comment on this publicity STUNT, (thus awarding them more publicity!), I certainly won't give this chick's name any space on my blog.

While I was researching Vivid, I happened to notice that Melissa Rivers was linked with the owner of Vivid. http://www.shalomlife.com/culture/16351/the-perfect-jewish-couple-melissa-rivers-porn-king-steve-hirsch/ I wonder if Joan Rivers thought that her daughter was keeping it classy with that match?

And one more observation on the nonsense that TMZ expects us to believe, is that IF there were a porno, that Teen Mom has NOT already signed, sealed, and received PAYMENT from Vivid! (unless IF there were a porno, and she was working based-on sales).....but the idea, that this big studio would allow someone to use their company to produce a porno, and then they didn't OWN it themselves??? That they would have to pay for the rights for it AFTER they made the porno? No. Just NO. I just do not believe it.

Real Housewives Wiki-War!

Just a little update here about a serious problem. For years I and other people have been utilizing Wikipedia to source and research, and contribute info. about The Real Housewives.
What I am about to try and explain, has actually happened BEFORE! And the matter was resolved. (the info. was restored).
The information that I am talking-about is the signature, title-card, "quotations".

 "I have a taste for luxury and luxury has a taste for  me"-Sonja Morgan/Season ?

-Those "quotes"-for want of a better way to describe.

Currently, there is what is known as an "edit-war", going-on on Wikipedia. The "quotes", are being deleted and the deletion is being undone and the undoing is being undone again.....
The parties involved, (the ones doing the deleting/removal of information), apparently do not watch the shows and they do not understand the significance of the information no matter how many different ways it is explained.
As far as I am concerned, it is not worth my time to continually police and defend the information when I feel like I am being bullied by Wikipedia editors who are more concerned about Wiki-policy and showing-off their status and knowledge of Wiki-short-cuts on Wikipedia than truly helping to build an encyclopedia of relevant information.
I am going to post a few links to the problem here  THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE BEHIND THE SCENES- HERE is the TALK page TRYING to discuss and I'll try and update the situation. In the meantime I am considering claiming the info. and posting it somewhere else for safe-keeping. If I have to write code etc. I may as well be doing something that is not going to be deleted the minute that I let my guard -down.
Although this is a problem concerning The Real Housewives repository of information on Wikipedia, the problem is Global as far as Wikipedia information on ALL topics is concerned. It is a constant battle for legitimate information to remain on Wikipedia. Deletions are rampant in all topics and all you have to do is look at the editors pages to see that they are more concerned with being bureaucratic and showing how powerful they are and knowledgeable about Wiki-policy and short-cut jargon.
That is why sites like EncyclopediaDramatica.org and others are needed.

Getting Better but Jill Z is still Missing.

I didn't post a blog for episode 2 because I tried to watch it more than once, but I could not get past the first ten minutes without falling asleep.
I had low-hopes for episode 3, titled, "How to Succeed in Business without a Notepad.", and I was very pleasantly surprized. When the show was over, I felt satisfied with The Real Housewives of New York City, in a way that I haven't felt in a long time.
And yes, my other thought was that Bravo could have got it completely right IF they had kept Jill Zarin with the new cast members. And maybe Alex too.
I mentioned it on Twitter, but its worth repeating, speaking-of Alex McCord, she has created something interesting with her weekly video reports hosted on RumorFix. http://rumorfix.com/2012/06/alex-mccord-the-truth-behind-those-housewives-trips/
Her first report seemed a little stiff to me, but now that I can see how she is developing a style with this and finding her niche, I like it.
Finally they let NYC play a part in the show! Who cares about Ramona? Her drama was distracting in my opinion. My favorite part was when the women explained how leather is for Downtown. (And of course they were all following the unwritten fashion rules themselves).
And the talk about taking the subway? (Alex gives some inside info. about this in her report)
The pool on top of the roof? Loved it!
Now you might think that maybe I'm watching the wrong show? Maybe I should be watching a real estate show that tours great Manhattan real estate?
No, I like to see how the Housewives live in the city. although I'm not sure how I feel about Aviva as a cast-member yet, I was able to get some idea about what it must be like living and raising a family in the city during the scene that was recorded with her family in her bathroom.

LuAnn in my opinion, is struggling to be relevant this season. I like that she didn't try to force the feud any further with Ramona, but now I'm worried that she could do something crazy like get some poor surrogate somewhere pregnant, just to have some control over her drama.
I still cannot remember all of the new cast-member's names, and Ilana Angel pointed-out something on her blog that also bothered me, and that is the dental-work of the new gals.
Ilana calls it an "overbite'-but what I'm seeing just looks like extra-extra-large sets of chompers. Teeth so big that they don't look like they can fit in a person's mouth. Maybe "big teeth" is the East Coast version of big lips? Remember Cindy from last season and her teeth? So are giant teeth a status symbol in NYC now?

I know that The New York Daily News started a little fuss about The Real Housewives of New York City ratings. The question of whether firing Jill Zarin was a mistake that can't be fixed is asked, and apparently Jill was approached and said that she is still available with the condition that Alex be asked-back as well. Hmmmm. Those kind-of negotiations sound like a reality show right there! Much more interesting than creating some poor innocent child just so Luann has a reason to stay on the show.

Unfortunately, the one part of episode 3 that I didn't like, was the preview of the upcoming season. Maybe it was the way that it was edited, or the pacing was off for me after a nice entertaining episode? And although it was enjoyable, (unlike episode 2 which was unwatchable), the absence of Jill Zarin lingered. We are now into the third episode, with all of these other personalities, yet one red-headed character is still missed. I didn't like Jill's work last season as much as I liked it when she acted more like herself, but if I were Bravo, I would try to bring her back in. I'd LOVE to see some Jill in those talking head segments doing the play-by-play and some color commentary.

Personally, I was offended when Bravo released statements concerning firing Jill and Alex, and saying that they listened to what viewers wanted. The most vocal complainer about Ms.Zarin was the blog that used her name, the "hate"-blog. And although I don't want to interfere in other bloggers business, if Bravo thinks that a blog where the comments are very strictly censored, (contrary to the stated policy there), is the opinion of ALL of the viewers, well, they are wrong about that.

New Season New Housewives

Well we met the new Housewives and out of all three, the only one who really stands-out for me is Aviva. The other two, just kind-of blended together for me, although they did manage to get in a few Real Housewife-style, "digs".
Ramona has no filter. Having no filter is so 2010. Its no wonder that Ramona needed Mario to help her with her dirty-work. Speaking-of Mario, did he forget to put his teeth in? And is his barber mad at him? I hate to say it, but in my opinion, a lot of the trouble is about appearances. And I don't mean "owning vs. renting" in the Hamptons "appearances". I mean flat-out physical looks.
Oh-I know, its all supposed to be about money, style, class, and of course NYC, but I can't help but think that Ramona's whole problemo with LuAnn's children, is that Victoria, Luann's daughter, is prettier than Ramona's daughter, whatever her mousey little good girl name is.
And that is why I had to make the SURVIVOR logo. The competitiveness in last night's episode seemed to me to be more than the normal one-upwomanship, it felt like a matter of survival. The massive bloodbath of season 4, has these women running scared. Well-maybe not Sonja. Sonja is too cool to let it show.
Are the Real Housewives of New York ALL being shown in their opening-shots, without their familys? I only noticed Luann as a "solo", but I'll be watching the beginning very carefully next week.
I'm sure that I wasn't the only one wondering how Jill Zarin would have done with the new mix of Housewives. And Alex-I missed them both-but Kelly not so much ha ha. I'm just not feeling Ramona and if it would have been up to me, she would have been fired instead-of Jill. But I guess she can be entertaining and the idea that she would try and blackmail Luann is scandalous.
As far as the previews for the season, I'm guessing that it is Aviva who has the "agoraphobia/apartment-phobia", or whatever neurotic problem they referred-to. The only reason I'm assuming that is because of that little exchange in the restaurant about artificial-sweetener.
I was a little offended at the way the one new-Housewife, declared that talking-about one's children made one boorish. That one may be the one to watch-out for, I think it was the Princess? Still not interesting enough for me-(yet), to remember her name. "I'll be back when you're done with the mommy-talk"-wow. And just in case anyone missed her point, she continued in her talking head.
Speaking-of children, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's curious about that teaser with Luann and Jacques.  Something about the way this was mentioned in promos, which was something like, "Luann is exploring options"-(for having a child with Jacques).....is anyone else thinking that they are hinting at a surrogate?
Life imitating The Truman Show anyone? They wouldn't-would they? Someone getting themselves knocked-up is one-thing, but purposely creating a human-being for reality television, just seems like it should be illegal or something-doesn't it? One thing I think that Luann would NOT do, and that is put herself at risk of having twins, or more ha ha. And at her age, (Wikipedia says that she is 47), even without fertility-treatment, IF she was able to get pregnant, she is at a much higher risk for twins. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see, or as they say on Bravo, "Watch what happens".

♥ This!

Why I don't like Sponsor Boycotts

http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/allamerican_muslim/2011_Dec_10_lowes-pulls-ads

The post directly before this one, is a plea to see less of the Kardashians. No where in that post, did I suggest boycotting, or even contacting the sponsors of the show. On my NJ Housewives blog, my most recent post does mention my own personal-protest, which involves my resolve to NOT tune-in to The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, except for re-runs. So, that is a bit of a boycott, but in no way do I ask anyone else to join me in my protest. I DO support letting producers, (Bravo), and responsible parties know how we the viewers feel about what is broadcast. And yes, I support organising-efforts in that regard (link to my NJ Housewives blog here) , and in the instance of certain highly controversial events, for example allowing the people who didn't want to be known-as the White-House Party-Crashers, to appear on The Real Housewives of DC.
I recently visited a site called, "Boycott Kim Kardashian", http://boycottkim.com/ and I was surprized to see the call for a massive sponsor boycott, which takes-up the bulk of the site.
In yet one more example, (with a twist of course), today on Reality Blurred (link to article here), I see a request to avoid a sponsor, because the sponsor pulled its advertising from a reality-show that could be considered controversial.
Advertising and sponsoring popular programs has been-around longer-than television. Its the reason why AM/FM radio is still "free". "Soap"-operas, got their name from the companies who advertised their products to the audience. Even William Shakespeare had wealthier patrons who supported, (and they still do!), bringing entertainment to the public. And that is why you will never see me calling BOYCOTT!, on a sponsor.
Why punish the sponsors for giving us something? I consider it to be a compliment, that a sponsor would choose to spend its advertising dollars to pay for my entertainment.
Advertisers do extensive research in viewer demographics. One thing that the BOYCOTT people and I agree-with, is that most commercials and ads are not random. They are specifically targeted to reach YOU and ME, and what they have identified as reality-television viewers. How can alienating sponsors, or asking them NOT to pay for reality-television, benefit the viewers?
Ultimately, sponsors can determine advertising effectiveness with product sales. There is an old rumor that razor companies produce sharper and better razors, to entice consumers to stick with their brand, to coincide with the increased sales that are expected as a result of the Superbowl Sunday advertising blitz. 
So we develop intimate relationships with these companies, and when something disturbs us in the shows that they sponsor, we naturally want to hold someone responsible. The list-of sponsors that we are asked to avoid on the Boycott Kim page, is so extensive that if anyone seriously tried to abstain from all of them, it would make shopping difficult. I saw one brand-name in there that I use due to allergies to other products. How would my family breaking-out in hives, affect the Kardashian empire? It wouldn't. And that's another reason why I'll leave the manufacturing-of quality products to the companies who advertise. And the responsibility for the content of the programs with the networks and those that have more direct input into the editing and production of the shows.

Let's ALL Divorce the Kardashians-please? Beaking-up with the Kardashians (again)

Today was a monumental and extraordinary day. Not because it happens to be Halloween. And not because Kim Kardashian announced that she has filed for divorce right-after after her stupid, fake "Fairytale"-(was that supposed to be a hint?) Wedding". No, today October 31st, 2011, is the day that we welcome our 7 Billionth Person! to the world. (link to story here). Out-of 7 Billion people, it sure seems like The Kardashians take-up a lot of space in the headlines, doesn't it?
What was it that made today seem like a good-day to file for that divorce? Personal reasons? Maybe not. I don't really know, but today was a significant deadline for the NBA-lockout, according-to ESPN (link here). Any hope that Kris Humphries had of earning money in basketball this year just got a lot dimmer. If the NBA-lockout had not occurred, it would not have seemed so strange that the newlyweds are separated by continents. But people were starting to wonder why Mr. Humphries and his bride were not spending their honeymoon together.
When the news broke today that Kim Kardashian had filed for divorce from her bridegroom, I was not surprized to hear it, but I am puzzled by my reaction. I feel like I got played. And just kind-of disgusted with all of them.
Personally, I "divorced" myself from the entire Kardashian circus, and their reality-show, last-season, when two episodes in particular rubbed me the wrong-way. I stopped "keeping-up" with the Kardashians, because I discovered that one episode in particular was a complete lie. And another one was so absurd, (the one where brother Robert "accidentally" overdosed on Viagra© and, (supposedly, but not likely), needed medical-attention for priapisim. (don't ask me how I even know that jargon, I really don't know).
But the one that caused me to break-up with the whole crew, was an episode that I believed to be true. OK-maybe I didn't want to believe that Kim would be so stupid as-to try to feed a dog cookies, but I believed it enough to go online to try to find-out if Princess the chihuahua had survived and recovered from surgery.
I wasn't the only one online asking. As it turned-out, Princess was fine, (allegedly). But I also discovered that the whole story had been a lie.

On the show, Kim just happened to find a dog and bring it home with her. The plot went-on from there-ending-with some dramatic veterinary surgery. The only problem with the story is that it turned-out that yes, the dog did have surgery, but the surgery had been scheduled by it's real owner, an "E"-Network employee-and the dog was never lost at all.
At least that was the explanation that was given to everyone who asked, "What happened to Princess?", after the episode aired.
I really don't know what the truth is in this matter. For all that I know, maybe Kim got tired of the dog, or the dog died, or?????? For all that I know, maybe the Kardashians would rather admit to being liars and fakers than admit to getting rid-of a pet?
Either-way, just , I knew that I was done with them.
Vapid. That word seems to be this month's, "no filter", another over-used media meme that I keep bumping-into. Although I'm now annoyed every time that I see this word being used, it was the first adjective that I thought-of when I attempted to describe the Kardashians. Would it be too much to ask that the media back-off from featuring anyone who could be described as "vapid" for a while?
The "E" Network seems to specialize in bringing the vapid. Although I feel like the Kardashians fit that role, it was also "E" who shamelessly propped-up the beautiful Anna Nichole Smith, who should have her picture next to the word in the dictionary.. And that creepy family who were gorgeous, but they turned-out to be burglars. (and they weren't even really a family, but little details like that don't seem to matter to "E"). At least no one had to die this time, and the only ones who were robbed, were us, the American Public. And all they stole from us was a little-bit of our attention. So the couple will be forgiven and wished-well. But I am taking the extreme step of using the parental controls on my remote, and blocking the "E" Network from my television. At least for a little while.
Yes, they are beautiful eye-candy. Almost too perfectly beautiful to be real. I found myself studying  the "Fairytale Wedding" photos, not to try and identify the designer trademarks, but to search-for the tell-tale fringe of a lace-front wig on Kim's hairline. (I couldn't find it, she was flawless as usual). So-before this made-for-television divorce news broke, I guess that I was starting to get sucked-back-in to the fake drama. Sure a lot of us have seen the, "before they were famous" photos, and it appears that this family has always been "cover-shot"perfect. But what's to stop them from re-writing visual history with a little Photo-Shop©?
Being attractive isn't a "bad"-thing, but like the rest of it, I'm sorry to say that it is a fake thing for most reality celebs. Besides the obvious Botox©, and an especially photogenic blue-black hair-color that they must be buying in industrial-size drums, I decided that it wasn't really the Kardashians at all that made their looks so mesmerizing. I wasn't surprized to find-out that Kim Kardashian shared her brand of artificial-eyelashes, and make-up artist with Kim Zolciak and some other famous-faces. I do find it amusing that the man-behind-the-illusions, artist Steven Moleski, calls his line of lashes, Smoke and Mirrors (link) .
Speaking-of Bravolebrities, The Real Housewives of New Jersey viewers, have been hearing accusations against Teresa Giudice from her not-as-"fabulous" co-stars, of "not-sharing" the headlines, the limelight, and being a "selfish" attention-hog.
I can only imagine how Jessica Simpson must feel today when she finally decided to make her announcement, and it was almost overlooked. The poor girl has been hiding the news of her pregnancy so long, that her baby looks big-enough to get-up and sell newspapers, as my Grandmom would say. The rumor is that she couldn't find a buyer in the media to pay her asking-price for her baby-news, yet we all know that the Kardashians cashed-in for obscene sums for the "Fairytale Wedding".
Remember when the media made a pact to give us all a break from Paris Hilton, and they promised not to run any stories about her for a week or so? At that time there really wasn't much more we cared to know about Ms. Hilton. She had even taken to flashing the paparazzi in a desperate bid for publicity. Lindsay Lohan, and anyone related to her is another TMZ-favorite who isn't really all that interesting, but they continue to be forced on us whether we want it or not. And I can't quite figure what was behind the idea to put Melissa Gorga into a shocking-pink Sumo-wrestler's fat-suit, but I think it was the only opportunity that she had to be photographed? That display was pathetic and embarrassing, but not for overweight people. She may as well have had a sign on her gigantic fake rear-end, that said, "My husband collects $62 grand in Section 8 rent from the government every month, and this is what it bought".
When Kim Kardashian's statement was made this morning, she made a brief request for "privacy", but then thought-better, and invited everyone who ever heard of her to express public condolences. "E" released their own statement saying that they are, "sad" about the news. The only thing that is sad about all of it is that being famous for being famous seems to be the most profitable career right now.(besides politics and stealing from the government of course).
With six billion nine hundred ninety-nine million nine hundred ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine OTHER people to focus-on, is it too much to ask that I never have to hear about Kim K.again?