Adam Lambert: OUT cover controversy?

As you may have read yesterday, Aaron Hicklin, editor of OUT magazine, wrote an open letter to American Idol season 8 runner-up Adam Lambert, accusing the singer and his management team of the following: only agreeing to the OUT cover shoot if it included a straight woman*; demanding they not make Adam look “too gay”; and not agreeing to be on OUT’s cover while the Idol season was going on. (Little known fact: The Gay Mafia bylaws state that any gay celeb who doesn’t immediately agree to an OUT cover request can have his/her membership card** revoked.

Fact that somehow seems to have been lost on Hicklin: The folks at Fox don’t cooperate with solo contestant covers/interviews till after the Idol season has wrapped.)

But all that fine print aside, what I don’t get is this: If OUT’s editors are so outraged by Adam Lambert and the actions of his publicity crew, how come he’s still on their cover? Why should Adam be held to Hicklin’s ridiculous standard of how a gay pop star is supposed to conduct his life? The hidden subtext in Hicklin’s letter is this: “Yes, Adam, we’ve slapped your image on our cover, but sorry, we’re also going to have to slap you in the face in a thinly veiled publicity stunt to try to boost sales.”*** Because make no mistake, as terrifically talented and/or fascinating as Wanda Sykes, Cyndi Lauper, Rob Marshall, and Dan Choi are, none of them have the newsstand power of Adam Lambert.

(Heck, Adam himself gave OUT a little more free publicity yesterday with a pair of to-the-point and just-bitchy-enough Tweets: “Dear Aaron, it’s def not that deep. Chill! Guess ya gotta get attention for the magazine. U too are at the mercy of the marketing machine.” AND “Until we have a meaningful conversation, perhaps you should refrain from projecting your publications’ agenda onto my career.”) Oh snap!

But hey, it’s a tough economy. Still, when Hicklin combines his stir-up-shizz-at-all-costs cynicism with faux moral outrage, that’s when I’ve got to reach for the Pepto-Bismol (caplets, not the hideous liquid or chewable versions).

Hicklin and writer Shana Naomi Krochmal (in a second, separate tirade) whine that Adam’s handlers attempted to influence the look and tone of the cover (see “too gay” remark above) and the story (Krochmal says she was asked not to make the interview “gay-gay” and “was discouraged from asking about the March on Washington that upcoming weekend or other political topics”). First of all, every magazine writer and editor knows that a good publicist will try to control his or her client’s image with Swiss-watch precision. That’s just what they do. It doesn’t mean you have to go along with it. OUT’s edit team had every opportunity to cut Adam out of the cover-photo shoot, or go in a different direction, but chose not to. Krochmal had every opportunity to tell Adam’s publicist that she had no intention of limiting the scope of her questions, but by her own admission, failed to do so overtly. What’s more, she had a full hour alone with Adam, during which time he discussed what types of men he’s attracted to, his aversion to what he calls the outdated butch/fem politics still prevalent in the gay community, and the inherent political repercussions of having come out at the very start of his career as a major-label recording artist. (Parts one and two of the Q&A are well worth reading.) Gee! Doesn’t sound like Adam was exactly reticent in discussing issues of interest to the OUT audience.

Perhaps most offensive of all, though, is the notion that because Adam is gay, and because he’s a celebrity, he therefore carries some kind of responsibility to advance the social agenda of the LGBT community. Reminder: He’s a singer, not a politician. And the simple fact of his being open about his sexual orientation is, in and of itself, a highly charged political act in these very volatile times. But nope, that’s not enough. Apparently, Hicklin has a (vague) master plan for how Adam should conduct himself personally and professionally. In a passage that really brings up the bile, Hicklin writes: “You’re a pioneer, an out gay pop idol at the start of his career. Someone has to be first, and we’re all counting on you not to mess this up. You have to find your own path and then others can follow. We just hope it’s a path that’s honest and true and that you choose to surround yourself with people who celebrate your individuality.”

Did Hicklin not see the much-discussed cover of For Your Entertainment, y’know, with the photo that’s campier than a drag queen’s feather boa? Has he not seen photos of Adam holding hands with now ex-boyfriend Drake LaBry? Is he, or are any of us, really comfortable telling anybody anytime anywhere exactly how gay they need to be?

Oh, and hey, what about that recent OUT cover of straight dude Pete Wentz that Hicklin mentions in his column? Heck, if OUT magazine itself isn’t going to be held to the all-gay-all-the-freakin’-time standard, then maybe Adam shouldn’t be either?
What do you think of the “Adamgate” controversy? Did Hicklin’s open letter make you more or less inclined to check out this month’s issue of OUT? And as an out gay singer, does Adam have a responsibility to the LGBT community, and if so, how far does that go? Share your thoughts in the comments section below, and do keep it civilized, folks!

Levi Johnston Bares all .... almost

Just because it's a slow news day - LOL

Nicolas Cage caused his own financial ills, ex-business manager says

Nicolas Cage brought about his own financial ruin with a spending spree that included two castles, 15 palatial homes, a flotilla of yachts and a squadron of Rolls Royces, his former business manager said.

Samuel Levin, responding to a lawsuit Cage filed against him, said he warned the Oscar-winning actor that he could face bankruptcy unless he scaled back his lavish lifestyle.

Cage, one of Hollywood's highest-paid movie stars, sued Levin in October, charging that he "lined his pockets with several million dollars in business management fees while sending Cage down a path toward financial ruin."

"Cage discovered that he is now forced to sell major assets and investments at a significant loss and is faced with huge tax liabilities because of Levin's incompetence, misrepresentations and recklessness," Cage's lawsuit said. He asked the Los Angeles Superior Court for $20 million in damages from Levin.

Levin filed a counter-complaint this week demanding $129,000 owed to him by Cage for recent work on his tax returns. The filing also argued that Cage was "deeply in debt" when he started working for him in 2001 because Cage had "already squandered tens of millions of dollars he had earned as a movie star."

Levin said he warned Cage, whose given name is Nicolas Coppola, that he needed to earn $30 million a year "just to maintain his lavish lifestyle." He urged Cage to save "a cash cushion" of at least $10 million "to alleviate the financial pressure to take film roles that might be detrimental to his career," Levin's response said.

Several of Cage's recent movie roles have been seen by critics as "paycheck gigs" taken only because of his pressing debt.
Levin's filing claimed that starting in 2005 and then "with increasing urgency" over the next two years, he "implored Coppola to stop buying real estate and urged him to reduce his real estate holdings, warning Coppola that the financial press was filled with references to a 'real estate bubble.' "

He countered Cage's claim that the actor was left in the dark about his finances.

"Levin repeatedly warned Coppola that he was living beyond his means, urged him to spend less, and warned him that financial disaster loomed if he continued to spend uncontrollably," Levin's filing said.

"Levin described the folly of several other well-known entertainers who compulsively overspent their way into bankruptcy, and warned Coppola 'it could happen to you,' " the filing said.

Cage should have known about his debt because "he signed every check for every monetary transaction throughout the relationship," Levin said.

"Instead of listening to Levin, cross-defendant Coppola spent most of his free time shopping for high ticket purchases, and wound up with 15 personal residences, most of which were bought against Levin's advice," Levin's complaint said. "Likewise, Levin advised Coppola against buying a Gulfstream jet, against buying and owning a flotilla of yachts, against buying and owning a squadron of Rolls Royces, against buying millions of dollars in jewelry and art."

Cage's four yachts included one each for the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, Newport Beach, California, and Rhode Island, Levin said.

In 2007 alone, Cage's "shopping spree entailed the purchase of three additional residences at a total cost of more than $33 million; the purchase of 22 automobiles (including 9 Rolls Royces); 12 purchases of expensive jewelry; and 47 purchases of artwork and exotic items," Levin's filing said.

"Coppola also spent huge sums taking his sizable entourage on costly vacations and threw enormous, Gatsby-style parties at his residences," it said.

Levin's warnings that Cage was living beyond his means were not just ignored, but "at times Levin was rebuked for trying to restrain the outflow of cash," he said.

"The pinnacle" of Cage's spending spree was the purchase of two castles -- in England and Germany -- which Levin warned "were decrepit and needed huge expenditures," he said.

Cage's financial collapse came in 2008 when real estate values plunged and most of his residences turned "upside down, just as the global credit crunch made it impossible to cover Coppola's endless cash calls by borrowing more money," Levin said.
The case of Nicolas Cage versus Samuel Levin is set for a hearing in a Beverly Hills, California, courtroom on February 3, 2010, according to court records.

The sexiest man alive: Johnny Depp

Break out the Bordeaux, the whoopee cushions and the bangin' Keith Richards guitar solos.

The 2009 Sexiest Man Alive party is officially under way.

Say hello, once again, to Johnny Depp.

Bringing the fun with him wherever he goes -- whether it's onscreen in fizzy roles like Captain Jack Sparrow in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise or at home with his family on their private Bahamian island -- is just one reason why Depp, who also scored the honor in 2003, has joined an elite club of two-time SMA title holders (only Brad Pitt and George Clooney have matched the feat).

At 46, the father of two still reigns as Hollywood's most irresistible iconoclast; as one-of-a-kind as his beloved 15-year-old boots and as smoldering as his favorite Cuban cigars.

Story of Jobs: Administration Faces Credibility Gap, as Talk Grows of New Stimulus

For those of you who thought that Change meant that we would actually see some transparency perhaps you could add this little note by the old adage "the more things change. the more things stay the same."

This little goodie was pass along by my dear friend Christine. ABC News' (and not FOX for a change) Rick Klein Reports on the current state of affairs that the Obama administration faces as their credibility is questioned over inaccuracies in the current job creation reports. As you all might remember part of the stimulus package provisions laid out that a specific amount was to go toward funding job creation.

The problem again this week is salesmanship -- and how the administration can get the public to trust its numbers when some of them are so laughably, horribly wrong.

It's not just an exercise in spin: This debate rages while talk starts on Capitol Hill of another stimulus measure -- except it can't be called a "stimulus" this time. (If you have to ask why, you aren't paying attention.)

The administration asked for this -- dare we say, literally asked for this -- with promises of actual job totals and new accountability and oversight mechanisms, all with Sheriff Joe Biden at the helm.

On inconsistencies in job numbers, the sheriff speaks. Vice President Joe Biden, on "The Daily Show" Tuesday: "Look, the bottom line is that we do check [data sent to the federal government]. But what happens is the initial report comes in cold. We don't -- of the 130,000 reports that come in as to what they did with the money, we're now going through it."

"We have now, of that Recovery Act, we've been in business seven, eight months. The one thing you haven't seen is that old thing about the dog that hasn't barked. You haven't seen these big, wasteful projects. No one's come up with anything where we've gone out there and spent $2 million on something that didn't exist," Biden said, per ABC's Steven Portnoy.

For now, congressional districts that don't exist -- there are more of them cited at Recovery.gov than the genuine article -- will suffice.

The Recovery Board says it can't and won't certify the numbers posted at Recovery.gov -- and can't even tell lawmakers who's failed to report jobs data, since there's no "master list" yet. "No, I am not able to make this certification," Earl Devaney, the chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, writes in a letter to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., provided to The Note.

Issa, in a Washington Examiner op-ed: "Apparently, somebody is messing with Joe. Or even worse, Joe seems to be messing with us. ... The manifest inaccuracies in the data the Obama administration uses to justify its economic policies constitutes the promulgation of inaccurate and misleading information by the federal government."

Karl reports: "Officials tell ABC News, so far, they have found 700 mistakenly credited congressional districts out of more than 130,000 stimulus grants."

For the record, there are 435 real congressional districts: "Researchers at the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity found 440 ‘phantom districts' listed on Recovery.gov, consuming $6.4 billion and creating or saving nearly 30,000 jobs," the Washington Times' Amanda Carpenter writes.

Should they have counted on this? "It is worth asking whether the administration's problem stems primarily from its decision to provide the numbers in the first place," Alec MacGillis reports in The Washington Post. "As it is, the administration has left itself open to near-daily assaults on the credibility of the jobs numbers. Finding flaws in the data is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, and reporters have been all too happy to fire away -- first reporting the numbers with fanfare when they are announced, despite all their obvious shortcomings, and then, days or weeks later, reporting that they are not entirely sound."

With his poll numbers slipping to below 50% this week the President is really going to need to wrangle in some of the problem areas and come up with more feasible solutions to handling the economic crisis and unemployment.

In all fairness if we want our economy to return we might want to consider pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean if these people can't offer up solutions for themselves or even contribute to the process then why are we mixed up with them in the first place?

The time for us being the BIG BROTHER of the world needs to end and we need to take care of things at home. We need to sort out the mess we have in our own back yard before we go and ask somebody else to allow us to manage their gardening.

For more information on the administrations numbers you can find the original article at the ABC link below;

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/story-of-jobs-administration-faces-credibility-gap-as-talk-grows-of-new-stimulus.html

'Melrose Place' recap: The bitch is back...with juicy new secrets

Wow…Amanda Woodward is back and it already feels like Melrose Place has been elevated to another level. This was certainly the reboot’s sharpest, sexiest and bitchiest episode, which I obviously mean as a compliment. Bravo, Heather Locklear, you still know how to rock a mini-skirt and infuse any scene with crackling energy.

Amanda revealed herself as the “W” in PR firm WPK, which is of course Ella’s employer. Amanda, who had been living in New York, swept through the L.A. office with swift firings (casualties included Ella’s boss Caleb) and some sassy talk. “This L.A. branch is drowning in red like a steer in a slaughter house. Now when I hired you to give this place a makeover, I didn’t mean smear it with lipstick and turn it into a five-dollar hooker. This office is pathetic,” Amanda announced with her jaw-dropping entrance.

Amanda had plenty of zingers — after Ella came into her office gushing about how Amanda’s profile in Vanity Fair had inspired her career in PR – the boss cut her off quickly: “Shockingly, I didn’t call you in for your life’s story, but your absentee father and pill-popping mother make for a very juicy tale.” She then told Ella to force Riley to sell the press on a fake bio to make the Anton V Real People jeans ads more interesting. Ella protested at first but Amanda put her in her place: “If you have a problem there’s a long list of eager assistants willing to take your place.”

I loved the Ella-Amanda sparks already and think they’ll only get better in time as Ella feels strong enough to stand up to Amanda more. Back in the Melrose 1.0 years, Amanda taking down Allison was like watching a cheetah pounce on a helpless wounded bird. At least in Ella, she has — or will have — a worthy sparring partner.

Squeaky-clean Riley couldn’t go along with the “gang violence, rough streets of Boston” spiel she was supposed to spurt to help Ella save her job, and as a result Ella got in hot water with Amanda (cue exchange of the week: Ella (to herself): “Amanda is going to skin me alive”/Amanda (sneaking up): “Not satisfying enough“). Jonah, aka Mr. Killer Miller Mojitos, was standing by Riley, in his dorky/cute bowtie, giving her lots of support, even though it meant they were out $10,000 for the ad work.
Caleb warned Ella not to trust Amanda. He also revealed, rather intriguingly, that Amanda had been digging around about Ella for months. And later we learned that Amanda hired a rival agent to try to hire Ella at the Anton V party — sure, Ella was up for some girl-on-girl PDA at her own event, but she was loyal to Amanda. Only to a point, it seems — Amanda told her to call Riley’s school and get her fired, but Ella wasn’t willing to go that far. But, Riley did get fired — so we can only imagine that Amanda did the deed herself. Watch your backs, Melrose Place residents.

Also making a return were Auggie’s abs. After Auggie revealed to David that he thought David was being framed for Sydney’s murder, David posted bail and Auggie was back home. You had to love Ella’s awkward hello by the pool: “Auggie, you’re…free.” Even former BFF Riley wouldn’t stick up for him. Crazy Violet was crazily happy to see him even though he left the country minutes after their first intimate encounter. He said their blossoming relationship was too “intense” (translation: back off, crazy-eyed stalker!) and they should just “stick with the friend vibe.” But later when he was considering drowning his sorrows in a cheap bottle of tequila, Violet ripped off her shirt and attacked him without even bothering to kick off her slutty shoe-boots. (Again, the cheetah pouncing on harmless prey image comes to mind.)

David thought that his dad was the culprit trying to frame him for Sydney’s murder. “If anyone’s capable of murder, he is,“ David mused about the anti-father-of-the-year. So he snooped around Dr. Mancini’s house and car until he found the bloody necklace Sydney had been wearing the night of her murder. Multi-tasking during the same trip, he also let Dr. M’s wife Vanessa know that her husband had been unfaithful with Sydney.

David didn’t do anything (yet) with the necklace, because he was busy stirring up romance with Lauren – finally. He broke into her apartment (awww, what a romantic jewel thief!) and decked the place out with autumn leaves because she was homesick for Cincinnati. What a cutie. They got hot and heavy for a few minutes but then she didn’t want to seal the deal. David seemed fine to take things slower, although I have to question his Skyline Chili idea for a first date — it reminded me of Jack’s line on 30 Rock about “a guaranteed disaster, like a burrito before sex!”

But enough about first-date no-nos, back to Amanda’s first-episode jolt. In addition to her Ella fixation, she has a few more secrets to reveal. The episode ended with her back in her abandoned Melrose Place apartment, going straight to a safe in the closet. In there, she found only a note from Sydney saying: “You’ll never find it.”

With that, Amanda not only brings quotable lines and eye-raising hemlines to the new Melrose, but also a new mystery that’s already got me hooked.

What about you, what was your favorite Amanda moment? Did you think this was the best episode yet of Melrose 2.0? Any theories about what was in the safe?