Cele|bitchy

---

• Russell Brand admits he “was really into the idea of marriage and having children”
• Scientologists say that Katie Holmes’ indoctrination went against their religion
• Rush Limbaugh says ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is a liberal conspiracy
• Gwyneth Paltrow offers Goopy advice on where peasants should holiday
• 2012 Emmy nominations: Jon Hamm, ‘Thrones’, Mad Men, Cumberbatch & more!
• Duchess Kate in a blue Stella McCartney dress: mod, youthful and adorable?
• Ed Helms and other celebrities call for Chick-fil-A boycott due to their anti-gay stance
• Us Weekly: Katie Holmes wants to ‘undo the damage’ of Suri’s CO$ upbringing
• Michael Fassbender jokingly slut-shamed Charlize Theron in W Mag: funny?
• Beyonce bounces by Bergdorf’s with braids & baby Blue: beautiful and B-tastic?

Russell Brand admits he “was really into the idea of marriage and having children” Posted: 19 Jul 2012 09:13 AM PDT I always get a kick out of Russell Brand’s self-constructed “uniforms.” As opposed to his yogi uniform, Russell’s wearing (in this photo) his usual deranged, ripped uniform that he wears everywhere else including to testify in front of Parliament. I have to say that I prefer this look, and even though he looks like he smells of patchouli and last night’s sex, I still find him irresistable from a safe distance. Now onto the subject of this story, for Russell has called into Howard Stern’s radio show to promote his new FX show, “Brand X.” Naturally, Howard steered the conversation elsewhere (primarily to the topic of Russell’s short-lived marriage to Katy Perry) as he is well known to do, and Russell answered as candidly as possible. The result? Finally, we have confirmation of how Russell really wanted to start having babies and his dismay that Katy didn’t want to do the same. EW.com has an audio clip of the interview, and here are some excerpts: Why he married & divorced Katy: “I loved her so much, it just seemed like the sensible thing to do [when we got married] … I just loved her so much.” But once they were husband and wife, Brand admitted that he realized, “this isn’t really working out, it’s a difficult situation … I was really, really in love with her, but it was difficult to see each other … We were together when it was right to be together, and when it wasn’t we worked it out … It was a lovely relationship … it mostly didn’t work for practical reasons … We did work it out, she’s happy, I’m happy. She’s young, successful and dedicated. [The reality is] you can’t fully understand it until you do it. I was really into the idea of marriage and having children.” Brand said he’s still dedicated to the idea of being a dad and revealed that he and Perry did discuss starting a family, but he declined to give any details about those talks. “I don’t want anything to hurt her. She’s younger than me, she’s a young woman and she’s beautiful and she’s sensitive and I care about her deeply … I don’t want to be too glib,” he said about fears that Perry would read second-hand tabloid accounts of his Stern interview that will twist his words around. “She’ll read it and she’ll be sad and I don’t want that.” On his newly-single shagathon: “If you’ve been on a diet of rice for a while and suddenly Willy Wonka asked you to take over the factory, you’d be kicking over barrels of candy and swimming in a chocolate river.” Is he dating Isabella Brewster? “Some things in the newspaper aren’t true … that’s true, actually,” he said, adding that he was enjoying the “freedom” of being single again and reaffirming his commitment to hedonism. Though he intimated that there was someone in the bed with him as he called in for the interview, Brand argued that whoever it was is a “real person” and he wasn’t into dragging her into the tabloid muck. Why he didn’t want Katy’s money: “I’ve got a good job. All I want to do I want to live a good life … I’m not into taking money from women.” On Katy’s “Wide Awake” song: When Stern began dissecting the lyrics, citing the lines “I was in the dark … I was falling hard … how did I read the stars so wrong,” Brand got audibly uncomfortable. “That could be about anything … horoscopes, astronomy,” Brand joked. Citing the lines, “Now it’s clear to me/ that everything you see/ ain’t always what it seems,” Stern kept at it, suggesting that Perry was revealing her real feelings on the break. “Your interpretation sounds somewhat arbitrary,” Brand said. “She’s a young woman dealing with the breakup of a relationship … which is understandable. It’s a nice song.” [From MTV] You know what ultimately surprises me about this conversation? That Howard Stern was familiar with the lyrics to a Katy Perry song and had actually put some thought into the song’s faux-goth, gossip implications. Howard is supposed to be edgier than that! In other Russell news, he’s finally making some light of his marital disaster. While filming his “Brand X” show, Russell engaged in some banter with audience members until he came across a woman also named Katy, to whom he responded, “Anyway, enough of you, I’ve had enough ar*e-ache from people called Katy in the last year.” That’s a pretty mild statement, actually. Most people say much worse things about their ex-spouse, and Russell probably just said that because he knew everyone would be expecting him to react in some way to the woman’s name. Incidentally, this is how Russell now wears his hair while attending yoga class. It pains me to admit that the Croydon facelift look does absolutely nothing for him. Not hot. Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN

Scientologists say that Katie Holmes’ indoctrination went against their religion Posted: 19 Jul 2012 09:06 AM PDT This story came out earlier in the week and I sat on it for a few reasons. It’s full of Scientology jargon and concepts that are hard to make sense of, and I’ve been reading about the cult for years. As a non-Scientologist, I sort-of understand what Scientology defector and former second-in-command Marty Rathbun is talking about, but I’m sure I don’t fully grasp it on the level of someone who practices. There is some real dirt in here about how Tom Cruise’s best buddy, cult head David Miscavige, personally oversaw Katie Holmes indoctrination in the form of her “auditing” sessions. There’s also some half-confirmation of the rumors we’ve heard that Miscavige inserted Scientology staff into the Holmes-Cruise home so that he could know everything that went on behind closed doors – at least it’s implied. More than that, and something that may only be very relevant to Scientologists, is that fact that current leader Miscavige gave Katie Holmes some warped, personal version of the Scientology “tech.” That is to say, Miscavige wanted to re-work the Scientology practices as established by L. Ron Hubbard, and made Katie’s indoctrination follow his own view of how it should proceed, which was counter to long-established cult methodology. To us that shit doesn’t matter, I mean I don’t care about that, but to the people who practice Scientology that’s a huge deal and is something that violates their religion. I think the real takeaway here is that Tom Cruise’s best friend Miscavige was so arrogant that his way was the right way, that he re-interpreted the way their “scripture” was delivered for one of their most high profile new parishioners. (If you’re going to treat it as a legitimate religion that is.) Here’s more, and keep in mind some of this may not make sense on first glance. David Miscavige has no doubt by now convinced Tom Cruise that yours truly ought to be the target of his ire for Katie Holmes' splendidly executed split and consequent historic media coverage. After all, he's already got Cruise's attorney, the august Bert Fields, alerting the media far and wide claiming to be victim of me. And just as certainly, as per usual, the real target is David Miscavige himself. I have learned from very credible sources that David Miscavige quite in addition to infiltrating the household of Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise and interjecting his insanity directly into Katie's life through his undue and unnatural influence over Tom, Miscavige also directly and intentionally saw to it that Katie received squirrel, reverse Scientology as explicitly covered in my book What Is Wrong With Scientology? Katie's introduction to Scientology was the Golden Age of Tech II (GAT II) pilot project run directly by Miscavige's organization (Religious Technology Center – RTC) at the Celebrity Center in Los Angeles. Katie was put at the top of the project's line up as one of its first unwitting guinea pigs. GAT II's mission with respect to Tom Cruise's wife? Put her through Miscavige's latest brand of Quickie Grades (for a complete explanation of what that entails, see chapter 6 Grades of my book What Is Wrong With Scientology?) Miscavige's only two tech trained staff (Anne Joasem – once Rathbun – and Elsie Tucker) personally oversaw every session of it and answered and reported directly to Miscavige, every step of the way. Anne and Elsie cherry picked the processes to run from the huge body of tech for each grade, and Miscavige approved every individual one to be run on Katie. So, there too is your Golden Age of Tech II news. Apparently, based on his spectacular results with Katie, Miscavige announced recently he was going to unleash his suppression on the planet at large. In a way, Miscavige did Katie a big favor. Had she been delivered standard grades she might have been more able to withstand the entheta Miscavige brought into her marriage and household. She might also have attributed her wins to the Miscavige administration. The net result would have been that she hang around longer and be effectively spiritually fattened up for a gruesome kill. This is the conundrum of corporate Scientology and the reason why the 'church' of Scientology is dead. You are damned if you and you are damned if you don't in Scientology Inc. The bottom line is four-fold: a) David Miscavige is a squirrel (someone who alters Scientology to the detriment of the people to whom it is applied). b) Religious Technology Center (RTC) is a squirrel group. c) Religious Technology Center is a suppressive (sociopathic) group. d) David Miscavige is a suppressive person. [From Mark Rathbun's blog] That was obviously written for Scientologists, but you get the gist. Miscavige went against their teachings to do his own thing with Katie Holmes, and the traditionalist Scientologists believe it was to her detriment. As an outsider, I don’t see what they believe in or how Scientology goes about practicing their beliefs to be an issue. It doesn’t matter to me if one guy mixes it up. It may seem strange to us, but to each their own. To me the issue is the lack of transparency in Scientology, the human rights violations and the use of intimidation and litigation to suppress enemies and defectors. I don’t care about their religion – that’s their business, I care about how they violate the law and abuse practitioners and their families. Rathbun addresses this in a new blog entry in which he says that the recent PR crisis for Scientology, and Miscavige’s attacking, lying response, is bringing down the entire religion, not just the organization. To people like him, who still see value in Scientology as a practice, it’s not fair because no one makes a differentiation between the religion and the criminal way it’s managed. Is there really a way to differentiate, though? It’s not like you can walk in and out of a Scientology “church,” or casually take a class on it. It’s never been set up that way. From what people have said who have had even minor brushes with Scientology, they will harass you for years. I doubt there’s any way to take whatever’s good and useful about their spiritual practices and separate it from the “bad.” L. Ron was a shyster and he’s the one who came up with their “Fair Game” concept and their war on psychiatry. Their cult-ness and mistrust of others is embedded in their origins. But maybe they’ll be able to separate from that at some point, thanks to people like Rathbun who are going public. Here’s Katie outside spinning on 7-18 and with Suri on 7-15. Credit: Fame

Rush Limbaugh says ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is a liberal conspiracy Posted: 19 Jul 2012 09:02 AM PDT I read about this "controversy" yesterday, and it made me laugh and laugh. I'm still laughing – this is one of the best stories ever. You know how the villain in The Dark Knight Rises is named "Bane"? You know how the biggest (debatable) political story in America right now is Mitt Romney's ties to Bain Capital (and when he actually left Bain, and whether he'll disclose his Bain income, and when he'll release his full tax returns, etc)? Well, join those two stories. Is The Dark Knight Rises some kind of "liberal conspiracy" against Mitt Romney with a perfectly timed release? Will voters automatically assume that Bane = Mitt Romney's Bain? Well, Rush Limbaugh thinks so. Or he thought so yesterday, but now Rush is trying to take it back: Holy backlash, Batman! One day after slamming “The Dark Knight Rises” for featuring a villain named Bane, which he said benefits the Obama campaign because of its similarity to Mitt Romney’s venture capital firm, Bain, Rush Limbaugh backtracked – slightly – from his earlier comments. Comic book fans eagerly awaiting the final installment of director Chris Nolan’s Batman trilogy, which opens Friday, however, turned out to be worse whiners than his usual liberal critics. “Yesterday on this program, I uttered some words about the Batman movie and the evil villain named Bane,” he said during his radio show Wednesday. “I made some comments about it, it doesn’t matter what. I have had more reaction to that than anything – including the Fluke thing,” he said, referencing the controversy stoked earlier this year after Limbaugh called Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” after she testified before House Democrats on birth control health insurance coverage. “More people are concerned about whatever I might have said or didn’t say about a Batman villain than they are about their own jobs,” continued Limbaugh. Batfans took exception to Limbaugh’s suggestion that the filmmakers deliberately chose the villain to terrorize Romney’s campaign just months before the election. “Do you know the name of the villain in this movie? Bane," Limbaugh said during his show. "The villain in the Dark Knight Rises is named Bane. B-A-N-E. What is the name of the venture capital firm that Romney ran, and around which there’s now this make-believe controversy? Bain. The movie has been in the works for a long time, the release date’s been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental, that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bain." Dennis Kneale of Fox Business Channel echoed the point Wednesday in a segment flagged by the group Media Matters: “Is it mere coincidence that the name of the villain is Bane, spelled differently than Bain consulting and Bain capital?” When reached by the Daily News, Bane co-creator Doug Moench said he was “tickled” by the whole controversy and that politics were the last thing on his mind when the character was introduced in 1993. “None of us thought about Mitt Romney or Bain capital, trust me,” he said. “It was 20 years ago, for Pete’s sake.” But Limbaugh vehmently claimed that he’s been misquoted. As conservative comic book fans have long noted, there’s a school of thought that Bruce Wayne – a billionaire with a passion for law and order issues – would naturally be a Republican. “I even said yesterday, at the end of my whole Batman discussion, that Batman is more like Romney,” he said Wednesday. “Made the point that the rich, wealthy, made the point the rich wealthy hero in the Batman movie is more like Romney and that the Bane guy seems more like an Occupy Wall Street guy. And yet, here I am, supposedly articulating a conspiracy between the comic book creators and the Obama campaign that somehow they created this villain with the same name as Romney’s private equity company. No, all I said yesterday was that the Democrats are going to try to make that linkage.” [From NYDN] LMAO. LMAO for all of it – the Bain/Bane thing, Rush having to backtrack, AND for Rush claiming that Bruce Wayne would totally be a law-and-order, fiscally conservative Republican (although…hm…that one might not be completely wrong, actually…?). Obviously, Christopher Nolan has put strong political messages into his Batman trilogy – The Dark Knight was so obviously about the Iraq War, I consider it one of the finest war/insurgency films ever made – but I don't think Nolan was prescient enough to know that Mitt Romney would get the nomination OR that Bain Capital would be the big political story this year. It's just luck. Even Nolan didn't know what to say about it – when asked about Limbaugh's comments, Nolan said, “I’m not sure how to address something that bizarre, to be honest. I really don’t have an answer for it, it’s a very peculiar comment to make." Nolan also addressed the growing, impassioned fan-war over some not so gushy reviews of TDKR – the war SHUT DOWN Rotten Tomatoes it had gotten so bad. Nolan said, “I think the fans are very passionate about these characters the way a lot of people are very passionate. Batman’s been around for over 70 years and there’s a reason for that. He has a huge appeal, so I think you know people certainly respond to the character." Meh. Photos courtesy of WENN, fan-made agitprop.

Gwyneth Paltrow offers Goopy advice on where peasants should holiday Posted: 19 Jul 2012 08:18 AM PDT Oh, Gwyneth. She's gives us so much pain, so much joy, so much laughter and so many tears. After taking a "Goop holiday" (Goopiday?) for three-and-a-half months, Gwyneth's little Goop blog is back. The Goop site got a complete redesign (which isn't all that user-friendly, honestly), and Gwyneth is now offering a "Goop Collection" which consists of a pair of $200 jeans, a $90 white t-shirt, and a new addition: bikinis. All of which are offered in no size larger than 8. Anyway, this week's Goop-letter – her first since the first week of April – is all about "travel". Here's what Goop has to say: A little trip away in the summer is exciting and rejuvenating, especially if you can’t take all of August off like the Italians/French do. Always looking for a new idea or two, we asked some cool travel experts to point us in the right direction. Love, gp [Via Goop] Is it just me or is that carefully worded? "A little trip away in the summer is exciting and rejuvenating, especially if you can’t take all of August off like the Italians/French do." Gwyneth usually takes August off, like an Italian or a Frenchwoman too. I get the feeling Goop is not in her wheelhouse with this one, this whole idea of a "short vacation" or a "little trip" – it's such a peasanty-y concept, don't you know? The elites get to take vacations for the whole summer. Anyway, the rest of the Goop-letter just reads like a travel brochure, as Gwyneth offers suggestions and advice for where peasants should go for their "little trips". In other Gwyneth news, she's in talks to take another lead role in a film. Because Hollywood doesn't understand that America is no longer interested in seeing Goop carry a film, I guess. But don't think that Goop will be going old-school and doing some costume drama (how gauche!). No, Goop is in talks to play… a CHEF! She might take the lead in the film adaptation of Gabrielle Hamilton's 2011 "foodie memoir" Blood, Bones & Butter. THR says, "Like Paltrow, Hamilton is something of a jack-of-all-trades. The owner and chef of New York’s Prune restaurant also is a trained writer with an MFA from the University of Michigan. The book chronicles Hamilton's unconventional background — she is the youngest of five siblings born to a French mother and an artist father who made the sets for the Ringling Bros. and Barnum and Bailey Circus — as well as her unorthodox trajectory to becoming a chef." Well, the actual woman sounds very interesting, but I can't say I'm all that interested in seeing Goop simper and smug her way through a movie about any of this. Photos courtesy of WENN.

2012 Emmy nominations: Jon Hamm, ‘Thrones’, Mad Men, Cumberbatch & more! Posted: 19 Jul 2012 06:30 AM PDT The Emmy nominations were announced this morning, and it's a good day to be working on Mad Men!! HUZZAH. Mad Men and American Horror Story were the two most nominated shows, with 17 nominations each. Some highlights from the nominations: Jon Hamm and Elisabeth Moss scored lead acting nominations (which is weird because Moss didn't have much of a story line this year). Sherlock: A Scandal In Belgravia was nominated (WOO!) for TV Movie, and Claire Danes (Homeland) and Julianna Margulies were both nominated for Best Actress too. Bad news: No Kyra Sedgwick! Let's just do the list: Drama Series Boardwalk Empire Breaking Bad Downton Abbey Game of Thrones Homeland Mad Men Lead Actress Drama Kathy Bates – Harry’s Law Glenn Close – Damages Claire Danes – Homeland Michelle Dockery – Downton Abbey Julianna Margulies – The Good Wife Elisabeth Moss – Mad Men Lead Actor Drama Hugh Bonneville – Downton Abbey Steve Buscemi – Boardwalk Empire Bryan Cranston – Breaking Bad Michael C Hall – Dexter Jon Hamm – Mad Men Damian Lewis – Homeland Mini-Series or Movie American Horror Story Game Change Hatfields and McCoys Hemmingway & Gellhorn Luther Sherlock Comedy Series Big Bang Theory Curb Your Enthusiasm Girls Modern Family 30 Rock Veep Actress Mini-Series/Movie Connie Britton – American Horror Story Ashley Judd – Missing Nicole Kidman – Hemmingway & Gellhorn Julianne Moore – Game Change Emma Thompson – The Song of Lunch Actor Mini-Series/Movie Kevin Costner – Hatfields and McCoys Benedict Cumberbatch – Sherlock Idris Elba – Luther Woody Harrelson – Game Change Clive Owen – Hemmingway & Gellhorn Bill Paxton – Hatfields and McCoys Lead Actress Comedy Zooey Deschanel – New Girl Lena Dunahm – Girls Edie Falco – Nurse Jackie Tina Fey – 30 Rock Julia Louis-Dreyfus – Veep Melissa McCarthy – Mike & Molly Amy Poehler – Parks & Recreation Lead Actor Comedy Alec Baldwin – 30 Rock Don Cheadle – House of Lies Louis CK – Louie Jon Cryer – Two and a Half Men Larry David – Curb Your Enthusiasm Jim Parsons – Big Bang Theory [Full Emmy Nominations List Here] It's interesting to see Best Comedic Actress so packed with nominations, right? And the supporting category is good too – Sofia Vergara, Julie Bowen and Kristen Wiig are all nominated too. As for supporting comedy dudes – ALL of the Modern Family men are nominated, plus SCHMIDT from The New Girl (yay!). Best supporting actress is a drama series includes nominations for Archie Panjabi (huzzah!), Christina Hendricks (she deserves it this year), Maggie Smith (awesome) and Christine Baranski (awesome). Also, Joanna Froggert from Downton got a nom, but… let's face it, Anna's storyline SUCKED. One of my favorite categories? Lead actor in a TV Movie or Miniseries. Benedict Cumberbatch against Idris Elba against Clive Owen = HEAVEN. Nicole Kidman also got a nom for her lippy work in Hemingway & Gellhorn, although I think Julianne Moore will probably win for her role as Sarah Palin in Game Change. Photos courtesy of WENN.

Duchess Kate in a blue Stella McCartney dress: mod, youthful and adorable? Posted: 19 Jul 2012 05:27 AM PDT Aw, I kind of love coming into work in the morning to find fresh Duchess Kate photos waiting for me. It makes my day! Especially when she's wearing something somewhat interesting. While this outfit wouldn't be all that newsworthy on another girl, I do think it's out of character for Kate. Many of you have complained that her style is "too old" for a "girl" her age. I don't know… sometimes her looks are very dated and '80s, and she's a conservative dresser now that she's a duchess, but I think she looks appropriate for a 30-year-old. This Stella McCartney dress is pretty cute on Kate – and it actually makes her look younger, I think. The color is nice on her, and like all of Stella's dresses, the fit is off. Kate was making an appearance at London's National Portrait Gallery (for which Kate is a patroness) to attend an Olympic exhibition called "Road to 2012: Aiming High" – it was a photography exhibit featuring London's preparations for the Olympics. Thus, Kate wore the circular necklace – said to be a piece that she already owned. Here's more from The Mail: The Duchess of Cambridge heralded next week’s London Olympics by wearing a distinctive gold hooped necklace today. The necklace was one from her own wardrobe, but aides said she thought it appropriate to wear it today given the Olympic theme. Kate, 30, also flew the flag as she sported a pretty electric blue dress by British designer Stella McCartney. Her outfit was completed with black Prada heels – and her trademark blow dry. Kate arrived at the gallery just off Trafalgar Square in a chauffeur driven car at 9.05am and was greeted by dignitaries including Dame Tanith Grey-Thompson. The Duchess actually features in the exhibition herself in a black and white photograph taken by Jillian Edlestein at a Team GB hockey event at the Olympic Park earlier this year. The Duchess also popped in to see a couple of the other exhibitions and viewed footage of a bare chested sleeping David Beckham taken by Sam Taylor wood. She also viewed the NPG’s Diamond Jubilee Exhibition on The Queen, Art and Image. Today's engagement was the first of several involving the Duchess over the coming weeks with an Olympic theme. Kate was visiting the gallery, of which she is patron, to view a new exhibition entitled Road to 2012: Aiming High. It is the final – and largest – part of the NPG's three-year Olympic-themed project, which has documented the preparations for London 2012. Working with several internationally renowned photographers, it has created a lasting record of the people who are contributing to the summer's events, from world-class athletes and those working behind the scenes, to people living and working in the host boroughs for the 2012 Games. The current exhibition showcases more than 100 portraits by Anderson & Low, Jillian Edelstein and Nadav Kander following the final stages of the preparations. The photographs range highly crafted images of athletes’ physical perfection and endurance to documentary-style pictures of those living and working the East of London. Royal aides said the Duchess had been looking forward to viewing the exhibition 'immensely' as she is a keen photographer herself. She wrote her history of art degree dissertation at St Andrew's University on the photography of the Alice in Wonderland author, Lewis Carroll. In 2007, she also curated an exhibition of celebrity portraits by the photographer Alistair Morrison at a London gallery. Morrison, who has many of his portraits on display in the NPG and has worked with the Duchess on her photography, has said of her work: 'She is very, very good, and it shows. She takes beautiful, detailed photographs.' Before marrying Prince William last year, the Duchess worked for her parents' mail order partyware business, Party Pieces, where her roles included catalogue design and photography. And during her inaugural royal tour of Canada and California last year, the Duchess was often seen with her camera, taking personal pictures of their trip. The Prince of Wales is understood to be encouraging his daughter-in-law to pursue her love for photography and there has even been talk of her staging an exhibition of her work in aid of some of her charitable causes. [From The Mail] Gotta love the revisionist history for Kate. Now she's being billed as some kind of major photographer who just happened to chance upon a prince and she gave up her first love – PHOTOGRAPHY – for William. Still, this seems like a nice event, and Kate looked cute, and I'm sure she had fun. Do you want me to say anything about Royal Bump Watch? I don't think she's pregnant. Not yet. I do think she's wearing a massively padded bra. Photos courtesy of WENN.

Ed Helms and other celebrities call for Chick-fil-A boycott due to their anti-gay stance Posted: 19 Jul 2012 04:32 AM PDT Another day, another story of an organization speaking out against gay people – and getting their ass handed to them by celebrities. The latest is Chick-fil-A, whose President said in a recent interview that they support “the biblical definition of the family unit.” They support it so much that they’ve given millions of dollars to anti-gay Christian groups. This news has come out before, but last year Chick-fil-A tried to smooth everything over by issuing a press release that they weren’t anti-gay and had “no agenda against anyone. At the heart and soul of our company, we are a family business that serves and values all people regardless of their beliefs or opinions.” He also called for “civility in dialogue with others who may have different beliefs,” which was a decent way to handle it. Their President’s new interview clarifies that they do support “traditional” marriage and a lot of people are saying they will no longer eat there. “Office” star Ed Helms is officially boycotting Chick-fil-A … claiming the restaurant chain’s anti-gay stance has caused him to lose his appetite. Helms is responding to a statement issued by Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy … who recently told a Christian publication that when it comes to accusations his company is actively opposed to gay marriage, Chick-fil-A is “guilty as charged.” Cathy claims his chicken people support the “biblical definition of the family unit.” In fact, Chick-fil-A reportedly donated nearly $2 million towards religious groups that oppose gay marriage in 2010 alone. The comments clearly didn’t sit well with Helms … who tweeted, “Chick-Fil-A doesn’t like gay people? So lame. Hate to think what they do to the gay chickens! Lost a loyal fan.” Helms ain’t alone … the gay rights campaign NOH8 — supported by stars like Miley Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan and the Kardashians — has also called for a Chick-fil-A boycott. [From TMZ] I’m torn about this story. On one hand I agree that people have the right to believe whatever they want about issues like this. When they give a lot of money to groups that work to deny basic rights to people, and when they come out publicly to say that they support denying those rights, I have the choice as a consumer to take my business elsewhere. It’s a shame because Chick-fil-A has decent food, great indoor playgrounds and a nice, family-friendly atmosphere. If that atmosphere wasn’t exclusionary I might be able to enjoy it there. At least Chick-fil-A doesn’t have a policy against serving same sex couples. They’ll take their money but they want us to know that they don’t think they should have the same rights as other couples. You can see what people are saying about this story, and add a comment on Chick-fil-A’s Facebook page.

Us Weekly: Katie Holmes wants to ‘undo the damage’ of Suri’s CO$ upbringing Posted: 19 Jul 2012 04:30 AM PDT This week’s Us Weekly continues the assumption that while the Tom Cruise-Katie Holmes divorce news may have slowed to a virtual trickle, there’s still plenty of details to be squeezed out of the split. To jump right into the fray, the tabloid asserts that the recent puppy shop experience was not a trivial experience but, instead, a lesson from Katie to tell Suri that she needs to grow accustomed to not always getting what she wants. After all, we’ve already heard that Katie was furious when CO$ handlers barred her from disciplining Suri in any way, shape or form. Now this week’s issue of Us Weekly proffers the theory that not only is Katie attempting to keep Suri safe from Scientology but also from the spoiled, privileged upbringing that also comes from being the biological child of Tom Cruise. As such, Katie is trying to enforce a “no more all-night TV marathons and ice cream for dinner” sort of lifestyle upon Suri. Will she be successful? Who knows. Insiders say Holmes was driven to file for divorce — and demand ull custody — from husband Tom Cruise because she’s on a mission to take control of Suri’s upbringing. For years, the precocious tot had been raised under the discipline-free guidelines of Scientology. “Tom would let Suri do whatever she wanted,” says a Holmes source. Add an unlimited clothing and toy budget and the world-famous 6-year-old “had become very demanding and bratty,” says the insider. “Katie saw that Suri was growing into a monster.” Now she is determined to be more than just her daughter’s best friend. “She wants to really become a parent and start teaching her strong discipline. Suri’s life is going to change.” Growing up Cruise and Holmes’ little princess has been good for Suri. From a young age, she was treated to lavish shopping sprees and luxe fashions. “Tom bought her whatever she wanted, whenever she wanted it,” says a Cruise insider. For Suri, that meant an $850 Salvatore Ferragamo tote or a cherished $169 Eliane et Lena faux-fur coat. The unlimited access to designer duds has turned the youngster into a budding fashionista. She is well-versed on the difference between Chloe and Chanel. “Suri knows her fashion labels. She will lay out her clothes and say, ‘This is Dolce & Gabbana,’ or “this is Stella McCartney for Gap.’ She’s seriously like a little stylist.” Because Scientology’s parenting philosophy dictates that children be treated like little adults, insiders say Cruise allowed his daughter to indulge in ice cream for dinner and choose her own bedtime. And if she wanted to visit the American Girl store or a candy shop? Done. “She has been brought up to be in charge of everything,” says the Holmes source, “so she is used to getting her own way.” Not anymore. Now that she has been awarded primary custody, Holmes is finally putting her foot down. “Katie is getting Suri to bed by about 8 P.M. on most nights — she’s trying to put her on a regular schedule. Tom just used to let her stay up all night watching Scientology kids’ videos!” And like most children her age, Suri is starting to pick up a few chores. “Katie’s plan is to get Suri to make her own bed, put away her clothes and help clean up her room.” But after years of living rules-free, Suri is bristling a bit at being told what to do. “There has been some resistance,” admits the insider. “But Suri adores her mom. So, little by little, she’s starting to listen.” And the actress knows her pampered daughter won’t change overnight. “Katie is taking things very slowly.” Holmes is also anxious to have Suri spend the day with her peers. Because the pair have been constantly on the move and spend so much time together, Suri doesn’t have any close friends her own age. “She’s not used to sharing or playing with other kids, so going to school will be a big change for her. Katie wants her to get used to that. She just wants her to be a normal kid.” So far her plan is a success. Thanks to Holmes’ careful strategizing, Suri’s social calendar has been all filled up. In the first few weeks of July, Suri has been meeting new kids in the play area of their apartment building, walking hand in hand with one of her cousins at NYC’s Children’s Museum of the Arts and bonding with the 9-year-old twins of Holmes’ stylist pal Jeanne Yang. Says one insider, “Suri plays nicely with other kids and really seems to enjoy it.” All the scheduled playtime has helped distract Suri from her missing-in-action dad. “Suri is used to Tom being away for work, so this is nothing new,” said the insider. “Katie has delicately told her that Mommy and Daddy will spend time apart, but Suri will still see him. She’s trying to let her adjust to this easily.” Holmes is determined to turn her privileged daughter into a humble little girl. “It will be a process. Katie knows it will take time to undo the damage, but she sees this as a way to start over.” [Us Weekly, print edition, July 30, 2012] Indeed, Katie faces an uphill battle because we all know that Tom will continue to give Suri anything that she desires – even puppies. So that’s going to be an ongoing issue that Katie will need to deal with. A few other details from Us would lead us to believe that Tom “feels like he dodged a major bullet” with the quick settlement because “his entire life was under attack!” Yes that’s right, Tom. Throw some money at Katie (or at least drop some hints as to doing so), and the whole Scientology mess just falls to the wayside, right? Here’s a few photos of Tom and Suri heading out of NYC on a helicopter ride Wednesday morning. Oddly enough, Suri is still wearing the same orange dress that she wore during their Tuesday outings. In addition to the fact that Tom didn’t bother to change Suri’s clothes (was this a planned “everyday dad” sort of strategy?) after an overnight visit, Tom has now also hit out at an upcoming Life & Style report (via TMZ) that he’s a “bad dad” because he’s so often away at work: Tom Cruise has had it with reports he’s a bad dad, and his lawyer is calling one of the mags on the carpet. Attorney Bert Fields just fired off an email, attacking “Life & Style,” for what he says is “a bogus cover headline that Suri has been ‘ABANDONED BY HER DAD.’” Fields says, “That, as anyone knows who saw their photos together yesterday and today, is a disgusting, vicious lie.” Fields goes on, “Until this week, Tom was shooting a film on location, but he spoke to Suri every day.” Fields adds, “He’s with Suri right now; and he was with her the day before Life & Style trumpeted their cruelly false accusation. Tom dearly loves Suri and the last thing he would ever do is abandoned [sic] her.” See how that works? Tom’s lawyer is using Tom and Suri’s non-photo-op as evidence that Tom is a great dad. Of course, I do disagree with the assertion that Tom is a bad dad merely because he’s often away at work. However, it seems mildly amusing that Tom’s attorney is using the recent photo ops as proof that Tom is an awesome dad when the Cruise camp pretended all along that photo ops proved nothing, but that claim was in reference to Katie’s parental skills. With Tom, it’s (obviously) an entirely different matter. In other Katie-related news, Radar has a story about how Tom’s eldest kids, Connor and Isabella, haven’t attempted to contact Katie since the divorce filing — even though the Mail has a story about how Connor is secretly “missing” his “mom“. Here’s Radar’s take on the topic: Tom Cruise’s older children Connor and Isabella Cruise have not been in touch with the actor’s ex, Katie Holmes, since she shockingly filed for divorce from their father less than three weeks ago. A source tells People that during Katie’s “entire time with Tom, it was never lost on anyone that [Connor and Bella] do have a mother and her name is Nicole [Kidman.]” Isabella, an artist and Connor, a DJ, are both Scientologists like their father. As RadarOnline.com previously reported, Isabella had been working for Katie’s clothing company until she was mysteriously fired recently. A source close to the family claims that Bella worked for Katie’s Holmes and Yang line and was suddenly terminated for no reason. “There was never any trouble between them,” the source told the Hollywood Reporter. “Bella called Katie ‘Mom.’ She was fired out of the blue, and once Katie filed for divorce, it all made sense. This was a carefully planned ambush. Katie didn’t want Bella working for her anymore because she was Tom’s kid.” [From Radar Online] The NY Post also had a story (which has since been removed) about how Connor’s latest DJ gigs have been flanked with an army of bodyguards to protect against anyone who dares to inquire how he feels about the divorce. While I suspect that Connor is truly hurt by Katie’s sudden departure, it’s also necessary to mention that Connor (as a devout Scientologist) would also be precluded (per the cult’s disconnection policy) from speaking to Katie since she’s now denounced the CO$. Not to worry about Katie though — she’s currently occupying her free time in the way that many single (and not-so-single) girls would prefer to do — here are some photos of her leaving the gym after a spinning workout yesterday afternoon. Notice: the fug booties are nowhere to be seen. Photos courtesy of Us Weekly and Fame/Flynet

Michael Fassbender jokingly slut-shamed Charlize Theron in W Mag: funny? Posted: 19 Jul 2012 04:27 AM PDT Finally! Here's the sanctioned and official photo shoot from W Magazine's August cover story, featuring Charlize Theron and Michael Fassbender promoting Prometheus, because it's not like that movie didn't come out seven weeks ago. Oh, wait. I previewed the photo shoot yesterday, and last week I wrote an open letter to Charlize telling her to BACK OFF The Fassbender. Did she listen? Of course not. Now, I get that a lot of you Charlize-loonies think that she and Fassy are hot together and you think they're boning of course, because how could ANY dude not want to hit it with your ice queen? But I'm still of the opinion that Charlize has an uncomfortable, one-sided attraction to Fassy and she's really trying to make it happen, and he's just not into it. You know what it reminds me of? The way Julia Roberts was (and probably still is) with Clive Owen. Julia is ALL ABOUT Clive and he's like, "Eh, she's nice. But does she know I'm married?" Anyway, some highlights from W's interview (you can read the full piece here): Charlize on her Young Adult character and Michael's Shame character: "I would like to see a romantic comedy between those two characters." Fassy on the first Charlize Theron movie he ever saw: "The Devil's Advocate. I knew nothing about it before I went, and during the movie I thought, Well, who's this person? I had no idea what the movie was about. Charlize on her first Fassy movie: "Hunger. A friend said, "You have to see this movie. It's the best thing I've seen in my entire life." I thought, Just chill out, okay? But I was absolutely blown away by it. It was, like, all bets are off from now on. This is the guy." Fassy on how he dies in so many movies: "I try to die in most films I do. In 300 I was killed by arrows. In Inglourious Basterds I got my testicles blown off through my ass… I had two exit wounds sewn into my pants: one on each butt cheek. It was a great death." Fassy on sex scenes versus death scenes: "I don't know. Sex scenes sound like more fun than they are. Death scenes are easier, really. Maybe because I've died so many times. I've had a lot of practice. In my movies, I'm often naked or dying." A funny exchange: W: What's harder to do? A death scene or a sex scene? CT: It depends on who you're doing the sex scene with. I don't have issues being naked [pauses]. That sounds very slutty. MF: Kind of. I didn't want to say anything, but yes. CT: What I mean is, I'm not hung up on my body, and I've been lucky to work with people I've been really comfortable with. I've had maybe two occasions where… MF: It's been uncomfortable. CT: And Michael's one of the two who did not make me feel very comfortable [laughter]. MF: I was a robot! [From W Magazine] I like where he (jokingly!) slut-shames her. I would imagine he's friendly and nice to all of his costars and SOME of them just read it the wrong way and convince themselves that Fassy is their immortal beloved (coughCharlizecough). Now, I completely understand how that can happen, which is why I haven't issued a Fassy-fatwa on Charlize. I can't hate her too hard because WE ARE THE SAME. I too could easily convince myself that Fassy is my immortal beloved and perhaps if I just organize a sketchy, leather-clad photo shoot and shove his face into my biscuits while he's hanging upside down… maybe THEN HE WOULD LOVE ME. Photos courtesy of W Magazine.

Beyonce bounces by Bergdorf’s with braids & baby Blue: beautiful and B-tastic? Posted: 19 Jul 2012 04:25 AM PDT Hmm. I'm starting to get the feeling that various celebrities are getting antsy in the wake of the Tom Cruise-Katie Holmes media explosion. Some of these celebrities want ATTENTION. NOW. They want things to be the way they were before. Pay attention! Of course not – that's not what this is about at all. It's just Beyonce – with a new 'do – out with her more-than-six-month-old baby Blue Ivy. They were having a Girls' Day at Bergdorf's. For real. The header photo came from some random person who tweeted the image. Someone else ran into Blue and Bey and tweeted, "It’s cool. Just shopping next to Beyonce at Bergdorf, baby on her hip. No entourage. She winked at me, no s–t.” So what of the aesthetics? I think Blue Ivy is a cutie – we haven't really seen her face since Beyonce and Jay released those photos just before the Grammys. Blue had a full head of hair back then, and it's come in even more now. Blue's also gotten so long! I think she's going to be a tall girl. Isn't Jay pretty tall? Speaking of taking after her daddy – that's who I see in these photos. Blue really does look like Jay so much – I'm assuming Blue will look more like Beyonce as she gets older, though. Should I say anything about Beyonce's braids? I don't really like them, but I do find them fascinating. I wouldn't be able to A) Sit still long enough to have that done to my hair and B) be able to function once the braids are in. If I'm going to go with any braids – a rarity in any case – it's one loose French braid down the back. But even then, I always think it makes me look like Ichabod Crane. Ugh – I can't even look at Bey's braids now! They just look SO heavy. Photos courtesy of WENN and Twitter.

You are subscribed to email updates from Cele|bitchy To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610