"Baby Bump"

Very high on my list of things that I hate is the term "baby bump." Why, why, why does this term exist? It is constantly printed in publications like Us Weekly, on blogs like popsugar.com, and even on eonline.com and the Huffington Post. It's obviously a product of celebrity-obsession and its strange subgroup, celebrity pregnancy obsession, but it just sounds so stupid. I'm not sure who coined the term, but every time it is used I feel like the piece was written by a giggling teenager who got a 450 on the verbal portion of her SATs. (I realize I have dated myself in that last statement, because apparently the SATs are now graded on a scale of 2400, rather than 1600, but...oh well.)

Can't these publications add some variety (and maturity) their terminology? Perhaps we can look at a pregnant belly? Or maybe we can just say that someone is showing? Or that it appears they may be pregnant? Would that be so awful? Instead it's all baby bump this and "Bump Watch" that. Is it supposed to be cute? And if so, why? Why is pregnancy something that is supposed to be adorable? Is the term supposed to be witty? Because repeating an inane phrase in every pregnancy story you write is not the definition of wit. Are they just really big fans of Fergie and feel that because "baby bump" rhymes with "lady lump" they must use the term ad nauseum?

I realize that the target audience of these publications includes teens and pre-teens, but sites like popsugar and the Huffington Post are looking at my demographic as well, right? I know that I would never use the term "baby bump" in conversation, and I can't imagine anyone I know doing so. I understand that celebrity pregnancy is somehow trendy, but enough already. Trendy does not have to equal inane.

Of course, once that baby bump turns into an actual baby, the parents will be "over the moon." And you all know how I feel about that.

I think I need new reading material

I was reading the Us Weekly blog yesterday, and I saw the following headline:

EXCLUSIVE: The Hills' Audrina Patridge Becomes an Auntie!

This is news? A reality television star's SISTER has a baby, and it makes the Us Weekly headlines? Maybe this is an "exclusive" but I have to imagine that is because no other gossip magazine thought it was worth printing. Couldn't they have run a fifth story about Britney's hospitalization instead?

I will be really curious to see if this story makes the print version.

Now I Just Feel Sad (And a Little Dirty)

Britney Spears has been hospitalized following a custody dispute. People says that she was brought to the hospital after police, at her home in reponse to her refusal to relinquish her children to Kevin Federline's bodyguard at the court ordered time, determined she was "under the influence of an unknown substance." According to US (yes, I read both sites every morning, if you're reading this, don't judge (although I'm totally judging myself for even writing this) she's been designated a "special needs patient" meaning she either overdosed or they believe she is suicidal. Despite the tag I put on this post, I'm really not feeling schadenfreude. I'm just feeling sad.

It was '80s night!

This week's issue of Us Weekly features their 20 best makeovers, with Carrie Underwood and Katie Holmes headlining the list.


I love Katie's new haircut. I think it's super cute, and even though her old hair was fine as well, it is nice to see her sporting something other than long and big-waved like most of her contemporaries. (Although points probably need to be subtracted since it looked so much like Posh's hair and she got the cut when they were hanging out all of the time, so it does seem to look a bit like copying and loses some of its orginality.) And it did make a big difference in her look, so she is a fair addition to the list.

But Carrie Underwood? All she did was lose some weight. Does a diet really count as a makeover? Her hair and makeup look much the same as when she was on American Idol. Which I guess is why Us chose a completely misleading "before" photo for Carrie. Does anyone think Carrie actually walked around with the hair in that shot? Of course not! That was the completely over-the-top hair that the traditionally over-the-top Idol stylists gave her when she sang Heart's "Alone." (Which, incidentally, was one of the all-time greatest Idol performances, and I wasn't even a big Underwood fan, although I liked her more when I found out she is a vegetarian.) The theme of the night was "number one '80s hits." I would completely hate it if someone started passing around photos of me with the crimped side ponytail sitting high on the top of my head and blue eyeshadow that I once wore to an '80s party and declared my typical look an amazing improvement. Aren't there enough unfortunate looks Hollywood stars actually choose and think the better of that could have been highlighted that Us didn't have to stoop to this level? For shame.

I love me some Anthony Bourdain

People is quoting Anthony Bourdain's attack on Rachael Ray in Outside magazine. Apparently Ray is now a spokesperson for Dunkin Donuts? Who knew? Not the girl without television reception, but that's a bitterness for another day, anyway, this is part of what Bourdain had to say . . .

I'm not a very ethical guy. I don't have a lot of principles. But somehow this seems to me over the line. Juvenile diabetes has exploded. Half of Americans don't have necks. And she's up their saying, 'Eat some [...] Dunkin' Donuts. You look great in that swimsuit – eat another doughnut! That's evil.

Man, I love this guy. Of course, I also love a good donut now and then . . .

Today's Top Story

Slow news day obviously, as the non-attendance of Mrs. Billy Joel at Diddy's 'white' party due to the cream color of her dress, is getting that billing on Us Weekly's website. Don't even ask what I'm doing checking Us on Labor Day. But do check out the charmingly racist comments on the story. What trash!

Tan lines are not in vogue

Celebrity blogger Perez Hilton has decided that Bea Schaffer, daughter of Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, is this summer's new "it" girl. No one really has any idea why Perez has chosen to run multiple photos of Schaffer a day, but she is cute and not emaciated, so it could be worse.

But then he ran this post, with the accompanying photo:


And I'm just shocked. How could Anna Wintour, a woman reportedly so mean that she inspired Meryl Streep's character in The Devil Wears Prada, allow her spawn to appear in a strapless dress when she has bathing suit tan lines?

I can't be the only person who hates strap lines with a strapless dress, can I? Certainly I can't be more demanding than a woman who is allegedly nastier than Wilhemena Slater, right?

And I'm not even going to discuss all of those flowers. Sure, it's Valentino, but it still looks like something from a wedding, circa 1988.

They've created a monster!

Yesterday Us Weekly announced that the magazine was going "Paris-free," and there would be no coverage of Paris Hilton in its upcoming issue (the moratorium appears to be for one week only).

Now Us Weekly's blog has also declared it will no longer post about Paris, claiming that her statement to Larry King that she has never done drugs (difficult to believe, particularly in light of photos showing her smoking marijuana) pushed [the Us Weekly bloggers] over the online edge." They haven't told us how long the ban will last, saying only it will be "for the time being." (FYI, Bailey Quarters declared a year ago that she wouldn't post about Paris, because she doesn't contribute anything to...anything, so Pop Culture Junkette is way ahead of Us Weekly.)

Of course, 70 percent of Us Weekly's readers wish Paris "would go into hiding," so perhaps the lack of ink isn't so surprising. But isn't it at least a little hypocritical? After all, Us Weekly was instrumental in making Paris Hilton the celebrity she is today. When Paris was just a teenager, Us Weekly would run photos of Paris and Nicky, back before anyone knew who they were. And they continued to promote her as she became better-known.

I guess Us Weekly is starting to feel a little like Dr. Frankenstein.

Who wore it best?

Rachel McAdams is on the cover of this month's Elle magazine. Wearing Beyonce's Oscar dress. And although I said that mint green doesn't look good on anyone after seeing Beyonce and Kate Winslet at the Oscars, perhaps I was too harsh. Because I actually think that McAdams looks pretty good in Beyonce's dress!

A lesson in counting

Who would have thought that Forbes magazine would need a lesson in counting? Apparently, they do.

They just released their list of the top earners in "Young Hollywood." Tops on the list are Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson, with combined earnings of $40 million in the past year (so I assume $20 million for each Olson? And where is this money coming from? Not movies, right? Perhaps a little from ad campaigns like the one to the right?). Next on the list is Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe, raking in $13 million, and, according to Forbes, "third on the list," is Lindsay Lohan, followed by "No. 4," Dakota Fanning, who pulled in four million.

Okay, Forbes, as much as they may not seem to be it, Mary-Kate and Ashley are actually two different people. So when they tied for first, Daniel Radcliffe became the third biggest earner in "Young Hollywood," Lohan the fourth and Fanning the fifth.

A lot of people have trouble with this exceedingly simple concept, and I don't understand why. But Forbes? A magazine about money, and, therefore numbers? That's pretty pathetic.

Beyonce?!?

So in perhaps the second most exciting "sporting" event of February (after pitchers and catchers reporting because I don't really believe that the Super Bowl actually takes place in February), the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue has hit the newsstand. And what model graces this years' cover? None other than, would you believe, Beyonce. It is really sad that SI now needs someone famous for something other than looking really good in a swimsuit to sell this issue. I hate to talk about integrity when it comes to the swimsuit issue, but this is just wrong. I could live with having celebrities in the issue, but there was something sacred about this cover. Alas, no more. (I have previously bemoaned SI's use of multiple covers to cater to the different markets. Just another sign of the end of the world as we knew it.)

Shame of an Us Weekly Reader

Gawker has a post excerpting the really embarassing comments of Us Weekly readers to Us's blog post on Mel Gibson's revolting anti-Semitic tirade.

Not that I'm going to give up my fantasy league or anything crazy like that . . . but you can color me embarassed.

Tori Spelling is paying Janice Min

Okay, maybe she isn't, but how else has Tori Spelling managed to be Us Weekly's cover story for two out of the last five weeks?

Sure, the first cover was right after her father died when she totally went public with her feud with her mother (along with her ludicrous claim that she didn't know her father, who had been ailing for years, might die after his most recent illness). So at least that one kind of made sense (although I think most would have expected Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban's wedding that week to get top billing).

But again this week? It just doesn't make sense. And the photos Us has of her shopping at the dollar store? Come now.

Oh, and Us must have the best makeup artists ever. Because I never remember Tori looking this good.

Skinny skinny

So this is the newest cover of Us Weekly.



And I have to admit I have a little bit of a problem with it. I'm the first one to call out anorexic celebrities, but why this sudden uproar over Keira Knightley? Is she really any thinner than she has ever been? Now, I'm not saying she doesn't have an eating problem (I'm not saying she does either), but I remember when I watched her in the first Pirates of the Carribbean, wondering how one could possibly be so thin and whether she was anorexic. I honestly don't think she looks any different now. So why is everyone going crazy about her weight now? Why not three years ago?

As for Bosworth, I truly do think that she has a problem. However, the photo of her from Blue Crush is a little unfair to run. She gained weight for the movie (I know, it's not what I would look like if I tried to gain weight, but still). It would be like running a photo of Renee Zellweger from the Bridget Jones days and again now to illustrate that she had an eating problem. Not quite fair. And the thing with Bosworth is that her weight loss is so dramatic that they could run photos of her at her more "normal" size and the difference would still be striking.

Healthy?

US Weekly has some pictures of people it's calling "weight winners" because they look "curvier". I'm sorry, but Nicole Richie is not curvy. She's not quite as skeletal as she was, and she looks healthier, but curvy she ain't.

Is nothing sacred?

It looks like someone may have tried to hack into the computers at Us Weekly. I can't help but wonder if the culprit is someone who wants to get ahead in our proposed Us Weekly fantasy league.

I haven't looked at this week's issue yet, but I have to laugh at the cover story: Janet Jackson telling us "how I got thin." Ummm...isn't this Janet's M.O.? Get thin, put out an album, finish the tour, get fat, get thin, put out an album... lather, rinse, repeat. I hope the article points this out and makes mention that this yo-yo dieting, no matter how cut Janet looks now, just can't be healthy.

ETA: I actually thought about this after posting (yes, I know it is sad that I honestly think about Janet Jackson's weight while sitting at home or shopping at the grocery store) and I think I was being unfair to Janet. Sure, maybe it isn't the healthiest way to lose weight. But if Janet decides that she wants to enjoy food and that she doesn't mind photos being taken of her while a little pudgier, good for her. She has decided she likes being skinny but also really likes food (apparently). So instead of compromising every single day she decides to kill herself to get thin sometimes, but to totally enjoy her food for other periods of time. It seems like a valid choice to me. Sorry, Miss Jackson!

Fantasy Leagues

Remember Wilder's post about a theoretical US Weekly Fantasy League? Well, we decided to make it a reality but today an article in the NY Times shows that this isn't such a new idea after all. There's a whole fancy Celebrity Fantasy League! For anybody interested, a new season starts on Monday and it looks pretty easy to sign up. Just a PSA.

US Weekly Pool

Check out this column by the Sports Guy Bill Simmons. Hmmm. An US Weekly fantasy league? Count me in.

In addition, count me in as a Wife Who Doesn't Understand Her Husband's Utter Obsession With Fantasy Leagues.

US Weekly's Blog

US Weekly has a blog. Who knew.

Just Venting

A few pop-culture related things on my mind lately:

1. I miss Howard Stern on the radio in the morning.

2. I can't wait for Season 3 of Nip/Tuck to arrive on DVD.

3. When it is American Idol season, my week is much happier. I recognize that's a sad reflection of my life.

4. Britney Spears is repulsive to me.

5. Ashley Parker Angel (formerly of OTown, currently of "Here and Back" on MTV) is totally endearing. He was so eager to help with chores around the house during last night's episode - it was sort of precious.

6. I need to start watching #1 Single.

7. US Weekly is my favorite of the trashy tabloid magazines. When given the choice in the supermarket line, 10 times out of 10 I choose that over In Touch, etc.

8. Thank goodness this blog is anonymous. I just felt embarassed for myself reading 1-7.

9. Reese Witherspoon was good in Walk the Line, but not that good; Philip Seymour Hoffman was that good in Capote.

10. I couldn't be less interested in this season's Apprentice.