Tag Archives: book

Time’s Joe Klein Profiles Liberal Vineyard Owner Practically Pining for Days of Higher Taxes

With its dwindling readership, Time magazine is fast becoming a museum piece.  What better way is there to celebrate than for the publication to bring to its few readers’ attention other strange curiosities? Three weeks into his cross-country Election Road Trip , Joe Klein filed a Swampland blog post  shortly after noon Eastern time today from Sebastopol, California, where he found a true rarity, a businessman practically pining for the days of heavier federal taxation (emphasis mine): Barry [Sterling, founding partner of Iron Horse Vineyards] said he was deeply worried about the country. “I was born on the day of the 1929 stock market crash, so I’ve lived from the Great Depression to the Great Recession,” he said, “and I must say I’m amazed by how little progress we’ve made. We stopped regulating. We dropped taxes to unsustainable levels. I spent a good part of my life in the 70% tax bracket. It didn’t discourage me from working,” he said, referring to the supply-side argument that lower tax rates spur enterprise. “It made me work harder. My father lived with 90% rates during World War II. I’m actually mystified by the greed now. I don’t understand families like Koch brothers,” he said referring to the Republican Tea Party bankrollers. “They have so much money. Why do they need more?” No wonder Joe Klein found Barry to be delightful dinner company.

See the original post:
Time’s Joe Klein Profiles Liberal Vineyard Owner Practically Pining for Days of Higher Taxes

Wildest Larry O’Donnell Tirades: 9/11 Was Bush’s Fault, Trashes Vietnam Vet as ‘Creepy Liar’

Prior to tonight’s debut of Lawrence O’Donnell’s new show, The Last Word, MSNBC has been running promos where O’Donnell proclaims how much “political pressure there is on everyone involved” in governing decisions and that it leaves him “respecting every one who steps into that room to do that,” adding he’s “gonna disagree with some of those people” but will always “respect the strength it takes to go on in there.” Well “respect” was the last thing O’Donnell displayed to a couple of guests that appeared with him on various MSNBC programs. Back on the February 12 edition of Morning Joe, he was such was in such a rage against former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, going as far as to blame that administration for the 9/11 attacks, host Joe Scarborough actually had to call the proverbial whistle on him and stop the program, to let him cool down. However, when they got back from a commercial break O’Donnell launched into yet another tirade as he called Thiessen a “torture-monger.” (video below the fold) Perhaps O’Donnell’s worst performance came on the October 22, 2004 edition of Scarborough Country when he want lashed out against Vietnam veteran John O’Neill of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth for daring to challenge then presidential candidate John Kerry’s veracity, as he repeatedly called him a “liar” and charged he did nothing to stop the war. The following are transcripts of those unhinged attacks by O’Donnell: First up O’Donnell’s rants against Thiessen on the February 12, Morning Joe: O’DONNELL: You as a former speechwriter in the White House, you took an oath of office, when you took that job, that you might or might not remember. You actually published a book that says that the President of the United States, on its title, the President is inviting the next attack. Isn’t it true that the President you worked for invited the first attack, by having no idea what was going on with al Qaeda. You just admitted that when you were hit on 9/11, you just said, “We didn’t know who hit us.” You said, “We didn’t know who hit us.” You were told who was going to hit you before we were hit on 9/11. Your administration invited the first attack, for which you should live in shame! MARC THIESSEN: Lawrence, Lawrence, Lawrence. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Go! THIESSEN: Listen here’s the record. When the, when the, when the Obama administration approach, the law enforcement approach was first working the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of our embassies in… O’DONNELL: Talk about the Bush presidency from the day he was sworn in! THIESSEN: …and, and, and the 9/11 attacks. (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH CUTTING IN: We’re, we’re going to break right now! We’re, we’re going to break right now. We’ll be right back and I’ll be interviewing Marc by myself. We’ll be right back. … SCARBOROUGH COMING BACK FROM BREAK: So here we go. Lawrence you have 30 seconds and then Marc gets a response. Ready? Go! O’DONNELL: Marc I’m wondering about your own personal experience with torture. I know you grew up in the richest zip code in America, in the upper East Side. You went to the only boarding school in Connecticut that I know of that has a golf course as well as two skating rinks. THIESSEN: Oh my goodness…opposition research. O’DONNELL: And then you went to Vassar and of course like all the torture-mongers in the White House, the Cheney family included, you never served a day in the military. Never considered that. THIESSEN: What does that prove Lawrence? O’DONNELL: Well I’m wondering with that background what is it that gives you an expertise on torture? What makes you love it so much? Now to O’Donnell’s, October 22, 2004 Scarborough Country, rampage against Vietnam veteran John O’Neill for his part in the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth: PAT BUCHANAN: Al lright, let me ask you, Lawrence O’Donnell, I mean is this, clearly, Kerry has expressed anger about these ads. And he said later, “I should have answered them earlier in August, and we didn’t do it, and they clearly hurt.” But Max Cleland was very public. He went down to Crawford, Texas, to the ranch. Why has Kerry not only ignored the ads, but almost dropped all references? You know, at the convention, it was the convention, “John Kerry, reporting for duty.” Why has he dropped all of that now? Are they just trying to sweep that aside or what?  LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, MSNBC SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, let’s get back to the truth. The fact of the matter is that John O’Neill on MSNBC had to face—debate an argument with Kerry’s bands of brothers people who served with him in Vietnam and knew him well, and plenty of the people who served on that boat with him have come on MSNBC and other networks and refuted much of what’s in that book. And then John O’Neill’s own sources, like Larry Thurlow, turned out to be nuts. He turned out to claim in John O’Neill’s book—and Pat Buchanan and I have both written nonfiction books, and we write them to a very high standard, not this O’Neill standard, where he never tells you in his book that Thurlow got a Bronze Star for the same thing that Kerry got a Bronze Star for, the same encounter with the enemy. And that citation says that there was enemy fire. And the guy, and this Thurlow, who received this Bronze Star, wants us to believe that 35 years had passed and he had never read the words on his own citation. It’s one of the many lies that the book advances. To me, the most interesting lie, John O’Neill, that I would submit to you that you should answer is, you make a lying claim that John Kerry’s anti-war activity prolonged the amount of time that prisoners of war were held in Vietnam. You know the truth is what got them out of Vietnam was ending the war. You know the truth is that John Kerry helped end that war sooner through the protests. And I’d like to ask you, John O’Neill, when you got back from Vietnam, what did you do to save a single life that you left behind in Vietnam? What did you do to get the American soldiers out of Vietnam?  (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Hold it. Okay go ahead, John O’Neill. JOHN O’NEILL, AUTHOR, UNFIT FOR COMMAND: I’d like to respond. First of all, Larry, I don’t think there’s a thing you said that wasn’t a lie in everything you just said. To start off with, with respect to John Kerry, John Kerry’s anti-war activities didn’t get any POWs home. The Treaty of Paris got the POWs home.  (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Ending the war, ending the war which you didn’t do a thing to do. You didn’t have the courage to lift a finger against it. (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Look, he has got a right to respond. I was in the White House at the time. Nixon had brought half the troops home by the time Kerry made his protest. Go ahead, John O’Neill. O’NEILL: What actually happened, Kerry wanted to abandon ship and leave the POWs there.  We negotiated a treaty that brought them home. That’s why they’re all here. If Kerry had helped them out, they wouldn’t be in that photograph with us. Kerry’s a guy they’ll never forget. He wanted to leave them behind. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: That’s a lie, John O’Neill. Keep lying. It’s all you do. BUCHANAN: Hold it, John O’Neill. How do you justify the—how do you justify the statement you just made that Kerry wanted to leave the POWs behind?  O’DONNELL: Lies. He doesn’t justify anything. BUCHANAN: Where did he do that?  O’NEILL: On the Dick Cavett show and elsewhere, John Kerry’s position was that we should accept the Madame Binh seven-point proposal, which called for unilateral withdrawal, setting a date after which at some future time, we’d negotiate the return of the POWs. So we would set a date. We would withdraw and then we would begin to discuss how to bring them home. That would have never worked. Our position was, you had to have a deal where the POWs came home. The POWs know that. This is like trying to claim—that’s why they’re all with us, because he would have let them rot in jails. (CROSSTALK) O’NEILL: With respect to the rest of what you said, Larry- (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: What did you do to get them out? What did you do to end the war? What did you do to get them out? What did you do to end the war? You didn’t lift a finger. O’NEILL: Oh, you’re wrong. You’re exactly wrong, Larry.  First of all, I spent 12 months there.  I wasn’t a fake who spent three months, like John Kerry. O’DONNELL: What did you do to end the war, not what you did to fight it? What did you do to end it?! … BUCHANAN: Tell me, tell me John, about—did not the citation Thurlow got say that they were taking fire? O’NEILL: It said under fire. That’s true. It was based upon Kerry’s own after-action report. O’DONNELL: That’s a lie. It’s another lie. That’s a lie. O’NEILL: Which said there had been 5,000 meters of fire.  O’DONNELL: Absolutely lie. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: You lie in that book endlessly claiming that reports belonged to Kerry that don’t have his name on it, John O’Neill. You lie about documents endlessly. His name is not on the reports. You’re just lying about it.  (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: And you lied about Thurlow’s Bronze Star. You lied about it as long as you could until the New York Times found the wording of what was on the citation that you, as a lying writer, refused to put in your pack-of-lies book! (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Disgusting, lying book! BUCHANAN:  John, let me ask you this. O’NEILL: And you, Larry, are a professional liar.  (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: You have no standards, John O’Neill, as an author. And you know it. It’s a pack of lies! You are unfit to publish!  (CROSSTALK) O’NEILL: There are 254 of us, Larry. It’s a little hard to call us all liars.  BUCHANAN: All right, John O’Neill, let me ask you a quick question. How do you know for certain that John Kerry wrote the after-action report that said the boats were under fire?  O’NEILL: It has been tracked down specifically in… O’DONNELL: Lie! (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Oh, let him talk. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: He just lies. He just spews out lies. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Point to his name on the report, you liar! Point to his name, you liar! These are military records. Point to a name! (CROSSTALK) O’NEILL: I will, if you’ll shut up, Larry. You can’t just scream everybody down. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: There’s no name. You just spew lies!  (CROSSTALK) O’NEILL: -let everybody talk, isn’t- (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Look, Lawrence, take it easy. You’ve made your point. We’re going to take a break. We’re going to give John O’Neill a chance to answer that when we come back. We’ll continue this discussion after the break. … BUCHANAN: Welcome back. We’re talking with the author of “Unfit For Command,” John O’Neill, and Lawrence O’Donnell is with me here in the studio Washington. We have an e-mail, Lawrence, that says: “Why is Mr. O’Donnell so angry? In fact, why are Democrats so angry?  If they don’t calm themselves down, they’re going to have a heart attack.” O’DONNELL: I just hate the lies of John O‘Neill.  (CROSSTALK)  O’DONNELL: I hate lies. BUCHANAN: I know. Now, you’ve argued that these are lies, but let me suggest… O’DONNELL: It’s not an argument. They’re proven lies. Every single journalistic look at this book has ripped it apart, left it in shreds. O’Neill is a liar. He’s been a liar for 35 years about this.  And he found other liars to… … O’NEILL: Can I say one thing? BUCHANAN: John O’Neill, go ahead, John. O’NEILL: Pat, Mr. O’Donnell has certainly shown he has a good pair of lungs. But to try and return a little bit to just basic information, you asked the question, how do we know the report was written by Kerry? The first way we know that is that the other four officers that day, all four of them, say Kerry wrote it. The second way we know it is the journalist Tom Lipscomb tracked the report to a Coast Guard cutter and proved that the only one on the cutter to write the report was John Kerry. Third, the report is compatible with John Kerry’s account, which as late as the Democratic Convention. O’DONNELL: What are the initials on the report? What are the initials on the report? What are the initials? (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Let him finish, Lawrence. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Lies. O’NEILL: Mr. O’Donnell, this is what you all did to the POWs.  (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Just tell me the initials, you liar, creepy liar. O’NEILL: You’re afraid of the American people getting the truth. That’s why you scream and you yell.

See the original post here:
Wildest Larry O’Donnell Tirades: 9/11 Was Bush’s Fault, Trashes Vietnam Vet as ‘Creepy Liar’

Pentagon Destroys Thousands of Copies of Army Officer’s Memoirs

Washington (CNN) — The Department of Defense recently purchased and destroyed thousands of copies of an Army Reserve officer's memoir in an effort to safeguard state secrets, a spokeswoman said Saturday. “DoD decided to purchase copies of the first printing because they contained information which could cause damage to national security,” Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. April Cunningham said. In a statement to CNN, Cunningham said defense officials observed the September 20 destruction of about 9,500 copies of Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer's new memoir “Operation Dark Heart.” Shaffer says he was notified Friday about the Pentagon's purchase. “The whole premise smacks of retaliation,” Shaffer told CNN on Saturday. “Someone buying 10,000 books to suppress a story in this digital age is ludicrous.” Shaffer's publisher, St. Martin's Press, released a second printing of the book that it said had incorporated some changes the government had sought “while redacting other text he (Shaffer) was told was classified.” From single words and names to entire paragraphs, blacked out lines appear throughout the book's 299 pages. more at link… Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer was a member of “Able Danger” a group on the hunt for Osama Bin Laden years before 9/11. Problem is, they found him numerous times and were told to stand down. Unlike Pat Tillman, they weren't able to kill him before blowing the whistle, just censoring his book. Definitely listen to some interviews of his; I'll post one in the comments below. added by: rodstradamus

What’s Mine is Yours – The Rise of Collaborative Consumption (Book review)

Images via www.collaborativeconsumption.com “Barter, Swap, or Pass on this Book.” These are the first words you see on opening What’s Mine is Yours – The Rise of Collaborative Consumption . Printed on the inner jacket of the book, in the style of a library lending card, this invitation to share your literary possession gives an instant flavour of what this book is all about. The lending card graphic might look old school, but the digital nature of contemporary collaboration is made immediately clear by the option to create an online code to track your copy of the book as it embarks on it… Read the full story on TreeHugger

View original post here:
What’s Mine is Yours – The Rise of Collaborative Consumption (Book review)

Stoners Celebrate Decriminalization of Pot at Hempfest Boston 2010 Today

Massachusetts decriminalized the possession of an ounce or less of pot in 2009. Anyone caught with that amount only gets a $100 ticket (minors must also perform community service). http://www.current-movie-reviews.com/politics/2010/09/18/stoners-celebrate-decri… added by: JackHerer

New Orleans: Systemic Police Brutality Exposed

Bio Jordan Flaherty is a New Orleans-based journalist and works with the Louisiana Justice Institute. He was the first writer to bring the story of the Jena Six to a national audience, and his award-winning reporting from the Gulf Coast has been featured in a range of outlets including the New York Times, Mother Jones, and Argentina's Clarin newspaper. Jordan just published released his new book called “FLOODLINES: Community and Resistance from Katrina to the Jena Six”. t's hard to believe all this took place in america, not mexico or venezuela… Transcript PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. And now joining us again from our studio in Washington is Jordan Flaherty. He's the author of the book Floodlines: Community and Resistance from Katrina to the Jena Six. Thanks for joining us again, Jordan. JORDAN FLAHERTY, AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST: Thank you, Paul. It's a pleasure. JAY: So one of the things that people have talked about after Katrina is the role of the police and the Armed Forces particularly. But a lot has come to light about the role of the New Orleans police and abuses of power. Tell us a bit about what people are looking at. But also, was this an anomaly, where, you know, police went nuts in the course of a storm? Or was this kind of normal New Orleans police behavior that is just getting looked at because of the storm? FLAHERTY: The first thing to understand, Paul, is in those first days after the storm, suddenly the media coverage shifted from sympathy to the people trapped on rooftops, the victims of this disaster, to portraying people as criminals, as looters, as armed gangs roving the streets, shooting at police helicopters, raping infants. We later found out those stories were false. But they were propagated by the chief of police, who said that infants were being raped in this Superdome; by the mayor, who said that there was lawlessness on the street, that he declared martial law, even though no such thing exists under Louisiana law. The governor of the state of Louisiana—Kathleen Blanco at the time—said, I'm sending in the National Guard troops; they're locked and loaded, they've been trained to shoot to kill, and I expect they will. JAY: Now, hang on for a sec. You're saying there were no incidents? Or some incidents were exaggerated to look like it was a bigger phenomenon than it was? FLAHERTY: I'm saying those incidents that were specifically talked about that were incredibly outrageous, like infants being raped in mass numbers in the Superdome—there was no raping of infants that anyone's documented that happened in the Superdome. Shooting at rescue helicopters—again, no one's documented where that happened, although that was widely talked about at the time. Another incident that was talked about, the second-in-charge of the police department said he heard officers radioing in saying they needed more ammo, they were running out of ammo, like they were in a wartime situation. Again, this call never actually happened. So these major incidents that were talked about never happened. There were certainly people, both police officers and regular civilians, that were taking goods out of stores, mostly food and water to feed people in their community. But the massive, violent outbreak that was talked about in the news that was used to demonize people, that actually didn't happen. JAY: So why do people think the police were doing this? I mean, what's in it for them to exaggerate the issue? FLAHERTY: I think it was a time of chaos. It's hard to imagine, if you weren't in the city, what it was like there, but we never imagined this entire city would be underwater. Everything was unimaginable. Everything seemed like we were in a fantasy world. And so many of the things that actually did happen seemed like they couldn't possibly have happened. For example, one thing that really did happen is people were trying to cross out of the city over the Crescent City Bridge, and they were met by armed police from the suburb of Gretna that didn't want people of New Orleans in their city, and they shot at the people from New Orleans and forced them to turn back. This seemed like fiction when we first heard about it. Many of the police killings that happened in that period after Katrina seemed like fiction. It was hard to believe any of this. It was a time of almost mass hysteria. added by: treewolf39

Howard Kurtz, White House Mouthpiece? Article Rains ‘Fact’ Fire on Forbes

On Friday, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz wrote a “White House rips Forbes” article . Dinesh D’Souza has drawn a “torrent of criticism” for writing that President Obama is motivated by his African father’s “anti-colonial” views, Kurtz wrote, but emphasized how the White House is training its fire on Forbes magazine for publishing it, suggesting it’s un-factual. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs asserted “It’s a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist’s office, so lacking in truth and fact.” (Has he read Newsweek?) This isn’t about “facts,” it’s about spins. D’Souza can be accused of putting the president on a psychoanalyst’s couch about his father. (As if the media never did this for George W. Bush.) D’Souza shot back to Kurtz that it’s simply a fact that the president had a Kenyan father. But Kurtz went into Gibbs-echoing rebuttal mode:  The facts are also these: Obama Sr. abandoned the family when his son was 2, and the future president saw his father only one more time, during a visit in Hawaii when he was 10. Obama Sr. died in 1982. Gibbs says the Forbes attack comes at a time when there is “no limit to innuendo” against the president, including baseless charges that he is a Muslim and was not born in the United States. Forbes, he says, “left the facts on the cutting-room floor.” D’Souza acknowledges one error. He wrote that Obama “is a man who spent his formative years — the first 17 years of his life — off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa.” Obama visited Pakistan once, as a college student, when he was older than 17. (Hawaii, of course, may be off the American mainland, but it is hardly out of the American mainstream.) This is again, not a “fact,” but a spin. Hawaii is clearly more than 2500 miles form the mainland. As much fun as reporters make of hicks in Kentucky or Alabama, suggesting they are out of the mainstream, it’s just as fair game to question the “mainstream” cultural viewpoint of Hawaii. If the red states are “less than cosmopolitan,” the blue states are “less than nationalistic.” D’Souza’s article borrows heavily from Obama’s own fact-challenged memoir “Dreams From My Father,” so it would be just as fair for Kurtz to suggest to Gibbs that getting elected to office (and becoming a multimillionaire) off a gooey grew-up-fatherless memoir carrying a huge factual disclaimer doesn’t grant you the higher ethical ground on “fact twisting.” Even if Howard Kurtz thinks it does.  Obama’s introduction admits that his quotes in the book are an “approximation,” and “some of the characters that appear are composites of people I’ve known, and some events appear out of precise chronology. With the exception of my family and a handful of public figures, the names of most characters have been changed for the sake of their privacy.” Kurtz put an exclamation point on the liberal argument at the end, without labeling it as liberal: Columbia Journalism Review this week called the D’Souza article “a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia” and “the worst kind of smear journalism — a singularly disgusting work.” The Columbia Journalism Review is a left-wing rag. The Forbes-bashing writer, Ryan Chittum, also thought Rick Santelli’s 2009 on-air outburst that started the Tea Party movement was comical. His article was headlined “CNBC Editor: The People Are Revolting. Santelli Plays Mel Brooks Playing Louis XVI.” Chittum began:  In the annals of CNBC cluelessness, this morning’s outburst by the channel’s Rick Santelli is up there with the worst….The segment couldn’t more clearly illustrate the disconnect between the financial-services sector, certain financial journalists, and, you know, “reality.” So how is this magazine some sort of nonpartisan, independent arbiter of political writing, as Kurtz implied?

Originally posted here:
Howard Kurtz, White House Mouthpiece? Article Rains ‘Fact’ Fire on Forbes

Emma Stone Recalls Asthma Attack During ‘Easy A’ Fake-Sex Scenes

‘I can’t even simulate sex without dying!’ she jokes to MTV News. By Kara Warner Emma Stone in “Easy A” Photo: Sony Pictures If you’ve been longing for a smart and sassy teen comedy, “Easy A” is your next must-see movie. Starring cutie-pie actress Emma Stone and “Gossip Girl” star Penn Badgley, the film revolves around the omnipresent teenage obsession with reputation. Nice girl/ semi-outsider Olive (Stone) makes a deal with a guy friend to pretend to have loud, crazy sex at a house party so the bullies at their high school will think he’s “cool” and leave him alone. But that one good-natured act soon spirals into many more “requests” from other similarly plagued students. Soon the high school rumor mill has been set ablaze with exaggerated accounts of Olive’s alleged exploits. Speaking of rumors, when MTV News caught up with the charming actress to discuss the film, we mentioned that we had heard one ourselves — a little something about Stone hyperventilating during the filming of the hilarious fake sex scene and needing an oxygen tank to recover. “Oh, for the love, I can’t even simulate sex without dying!” Stone jokingly admitted. “I had a little asthma attack, without any prior knowledge that I had asthma, during the scene where we had to jump up and down for hours and hours screaming and yelling on the bed. [It] was humiliating, because it was the second day of shooting,” she explained, adding that her little episode must have made a great impression on the crew. “Here’s what it’s going to be like the whole movie, as I’m breathing into an oxygen tank,” she said. “The crew was like, ‘She’s going to be a real blast. Wow. Amazing. A 20-year-old having an asthma attack.’ ” Fortunately, Stone said that day was the only time she needed any medical attention. Check out everything we’ve got on “Easy A.” For young Hollywood news, fashion and “Twilight” updates around the clock, visit HollywoodCrush.MTV.com .

Originally posted here:
Emma Stone Recalls Asthma Attack During ‘Easy A’ Fake-Sex Scenes

Lady Gaga Lands In ‘Guinness World Records’ Book

Gaga sets record for most weeks on the U.K. chart and most-searched female. By Gil Kaufman Lady Gaga Photo: Mark Ralston/ Getty Images Fresh from her record-setting eight wins at the MTV Video Music Awards, Lady Gaga is celebrating yet another milestone this week. According to the folks at the Guinness World Record organization, Lady G has beaten Oasis’ record for the most weeks on the U.K. charts. Since its release in August 2008, singles from Gaga’s debut, The Fame, have notched an amazing 154 consecutive weeks in the top 75, besting the Gallagher brothers’ previous record of 134 weeks. And that’s not the only record Guinness reported that Gaga broke. She is also now officially the Most Searched-For Female on the Internet, according to the 2011 edition of the records book, beating out the previous top female search target, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Gaga takes her place alongside late pop icon Michael Jackson, the Most Searched-For Male on the Internet, while Madonna notches the distinction of the Best-Selling Female Act of the 21st century in the U.K. Also making the book: Miley Cyrus (Most Charted Teenager), Jay-Z and Beyonc

2010 VMAs: Relive The Blink-And-You-Missed-‘Em Moments!

From Rihanna’s coy reaction to Drake’s ‘Fancy’ set to Katy Perry’s toast, we revisit our favorite split-second moments. By Jim Cantiello Katy Perry sitting next to Rihanna, asking for a refill at the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards Photo: MTV News From Kanye West’s bright red suit to Lady Gaga’s plumed Mohawk, the 2010 Video Music Awards gave viewers plenty to look at. But there were also plenty of blink-and-you-missed-it moments worth revisiting. Here are some of our faves. Jane Lynch’s Surprise! The VMA stage was especially massive this year, with platforms extending and wrapping around the orchestra section of the Nokia Theatre at L.A. Live. So you can’t really blame “Glee” ‘s Jane Lynch for not noticing Rihanna’s surprise entrance happening directly behind her. By the time Lynch realized where Ri’s voice was coming from, she delivered a reaction shot that screamed over-the-top shock and unbridled joy. Who knew Sue Sylvester was such a diehard Rihanna fan?! Rihanna Flips Her Hair at Drake! Speaking of Rihanna, the Bajan beauty had a playful response to Drake’s VMA debut: a sassy “well, isn’t he fancy?” hair flip. Chelsea

Continued here:
2010 VMAs: Relive The Blink-And-You-Missed-‘Em Moments!