Tag Archives: writer

NYT Accidentally Posts Nasty Editor Note About Wedding Announcement [Oops]

Oops! A partially edited version of Danielle Cohen and Jonathan Segal ‘s wedding announcement made it onto the internet today, full of {cq}’s and desperation over how to describe a housewife. The early version, screenshot by noble comment warrior MockerStalker , includes a paragraph that appears to be a note between the writer and editor fretting over how to identify the groom’s mother. It appears they contemplated identifying Mrs. Segal as a sixth-grade teacher, a job she held in 1975, making it difficult to factcheck. The final edition leaves poor Mrs. Segal out entirely, because if one does not have an easily identifiable job, philanthropic hobby, or tony employer, one does not exist at all to the Vows page. If Mrs. Segal would like someone to commemorate her contribution to raising 28-year-old Jonathan Segal, “vice president of Highbridge Capital Management, a hedge fund in New York,” I will happily do so. Write in .

Go here to read the rest:
NYT Accidentally Posts Nasty Editor Note About Wedding Announcement [Oops]

Bill Simmons vs. Keith Olbermann: The War of Words

Earlier this week, Bill Simmons (aka “The Sports Guy”) penned an online column , which argued the following thesis: The eventual comeback by Tiger Woods on the golf course will be more difficult than the in-ring return of Muhammad Ali, following his hiatus from boxing that stemmed from avoiding the Vietnam War draft. It’s a controversial stance, one meant to elicit opinions and one defended by nine well-reasoned points. So, how did MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann react? By immaturely taking to his blog and writing: If the writer can let me know when Woods is punitively drafted by the military even though he is about eight years older than almost all the other draftees, I’ll begin to take him seriously. In the interim I am again left to marvel how somebody can rise to a fairly prominent media position with no discernible insight or talent, save for an apparent ability to mix up a vast bowl of word salad very quickly. Simmons then Tweeted in response: KO, please know the feeling is mutual. You’re my worst case scenario for my career in 12 yrs: a pious, unlikable blowhard who lives alone. We love any war of words between two outspoken individuals, but must side with Simmons in this case. First, Mr. Olbermann, as long-time readers of The Sports Guy, we can tell you how he rose to his position as the top columnist at ESPN.com: By earning a Master’s in Journalism from Boston University; slogging away for years as a bartender while creating/building his own website; and being discovered by ESPN after he earned a loyal online following. Some journalists may look down on Simmons because he represents the age of new media, in which a writer can thrive on the Internet without ever speaking to an athlete or going inside a locker room for his columns. But such a niche still requires wit, knowledge and hard work. Moreover, Olbermann has risen to his level of notoriety due to a similar recent phenomenon: the opinionated, 24/7 news cycle. Finally, go ahead and disagree with Simmons’ take on Woods vs. Ali. But do it in a respectful manner. A few days ago, Simmons took part in a Podcast with fellow ESPN columnist Rick Reilly because the pair has contrasting opinions on the Tiger Woods press conference . Simmons isn’t afraid to mix it up – professionally, respectfully – with those that don’t share his points of view. But Olbermann was clearly using this Woods’ column as an excuse to bitterly rail against The Sports Guy’s overall success. That’s just petty. Choose a side in this feud:

The rest is here:
Bill Simmons vs. Keith Olbermann: The War of Words

How to Properly Reward Your Favorite Starving Writer [The Rich]

The rich : they’re different from you and me. You read a story you like, you send a letter to the editor. A rich guy reads a story he likes and sends a $20,000 check to the writer. Atul Gawande wrote a New Yorker story about health care last year. Warren Buffett’s partner liked it so much that he decided to express himself the only way he knew how. As Buffett tells it : “My partner Charlie Munger sat down and wrote out a check for $20,000 to him and he’s never met him, never had any correspondence with it, he just mailed it to the New Yorker and he said, `This article is so useful socially.’ He says, `Just give this as a gift to the—to Dr. Gawande.'” Uhh. And then Atul Gawande had to be like hey, whoa, I gave it to charity, okay? Which just goes to show Charlie Munger’s fundamental mistake: not mailing a huge check to some dude whose story he liked, but mailing a huge check to a dude whose story he liked who couldn’t accept the money . We’d like to assure Mr. Munger and his fellow wealthiest 1% of 1% of Americans that internet “blogs” are a much richer source of writers who will be only to happy to silently pocket a check of praise, particularly if that check is mailed not to their place of work but straight to their home address, which could theoretically be obtained by emailing the writer directly. As a side note, I too have been thinking a lot lately about health care and other important problems facing America, as well as the insidious harm caused by capital gains taxes, and the best way to ensure that household help doesn’t steal from a summer home unoccupied by its busy, industrious owner. It’s hard to get all these ideas full fleshed out on a meager “blog” salary, though. Ah well. The loss is the world’s, is it not? Sure .

Read the original here:
How to Properly Reward Your Favorite Starving Writer [The Rich]

Knopf Editor Makes Excellent Case for Needing Editors in Poorly Written Post About Needing Editors [Fuckups]

If you wrote a piece for the Huffington Post entitled Do You Really Need an Editor at a Publishing House? , you’d make a strong case, right? The answer, as evidenced by Knopf editor Carole Baron , is a resounding absolutely . Besides the fact that no good editor in their right mind would tell someone trying to make a coherent argument for their job to write a post so explicitly arguing for their job , they wouldn’t let them title it Do You Really Need an Editor at a Publishing House? nor would they let them publish it on the Huffington Post . Where content mostly goes to die. Unless someone else picks it up for being extraordinary in some way, which Baron’s post most certainly is . Clunky Prose: It starts in the lede. Do you really need an editor at a publishing house? I am really annoyed. All this talk about digital. Not to nitpick, but why not? Besides the fact that the text itself is pretty misshapen on the site —a good web editor would’ve taken care of that—the first sentence is also the title of the post (redundancy), the second sentence is a wooden declarative that could simply be spiced up by making a contraction out of “I” and “am,” and the third sentence is a jagged fragment that doesn’t explain what the “talk” is nor what kind of “digital” she’s referring to. Yet most of you are cognizant individuals, and you know she’s referring to digital media, and that the “talk” of which is some idle chatter we’re probably going to learn about. Assuming readers can make it past the first three sentences. Clunky Pronouns : The writer said: “Why not? There is no editing anymore.” Not only is that not true, but it certainly didn’t understand the complex role of the editor in a publishing house. First of all, what kind of braindead company is Baron keeping? Jesus. Also, I know editors often think of writers less as people and more like book-writing-creatures who cost money, but referring to one as “it” seems mildly unnecessary. That is, of course, unless Baron was talking about the writer’s statement, which can only “understand” something in the figurative or poetic sense. Which she already lost credit for in the first sentence, regardless of which, that intention just patently isn’t the case. Finally, who refers to their own job as complex ? Lady, you’re not a machinist. Misspellings and Title Form : Jonathon Gallassi’s: “There Is More to Publishing Than Meets the Screen” in the New York Times, January 2, 2010, expressed it logically and eloquently. “Jonathon Gallassi” has a name, and it isn’t spelled like that. It’s Jonathan Galassi . He’s not exactly a name you want to spell wrong, as he’s the the President and Publisher of Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Also, New York Times should be italicized, and from a later sentence in the piece, “short changed ” is one word. WTF? : “And I am happy to say that as many as there are who complain, there are just as many who acknowledge the good work that editors can and do for a writer.” As many what, exactly? People? Penguins? If they’re penguins, they don’t acknowledge what an editor “can and do for a writer” so much as they acknowledge what an editor can do for a writer. Credit where credit’s due: we cribbed this item from a tipster…who wrote “makes the care for” instead of “makes the case for” in their original tip. And please , like we don’t have our fair share of typos on this site even with an editor. There’s probably one in this post! The difference between Baron and I, though, is that I’m not trying to make a case for an editor. My life is a case for editors. Ryan Tate put it best earlier this evening via email: Who will edit the editors? And who will edit the people who call for editing of the editors? Everything must eventually be published via wiki, is my point. A wiki that no one is qualified to edit. Then again, she could just be playing with our heads, as this might be part of an elaborate “meta” campaign for her job, in which case: golden. But that probably isn’t the case. She’s probably just an editor who needs a good editor. Or a good writer.

Continue reading here:
Knopf Editor Makes Excellent Case for Needing Editors in Poorly Written Post About Needing Editors [Fuckups]

Kevin Smith Reveals Why He’s Laying Low After Airplane Drama

‘When you could have come to my aid, all you did was let me dangle,’ writer/director says of the press. By Larry Carroll, with additional reporting by Anya Zadrozny Kevin Smith Photo: Soren McCarty/ Getty Images In the entire history of the cinema, you’d have a hard time finding a filmmaker who has made himself more accessible than Kevin Smith. From his low-budget convenience-store beginnings to his current incarnation as director of the Bruce Willis comedy “Cop Out,” every move the guy has made over the last decade-and-a-half seems to have been chronicled in some sort of media report, blog, tweet, book or podcast. Which makes it all the more odd that the “Clerks” filmmaker has done very little press to promote his new movie, which opens Friday (February 26). Over the last few days, MTV News covered a “Cop Out” press junket and red-carpet premiere in New York City and both times Smith avoided on-camera interviews. What gives? To say it simply: Kevin is upset at the media. To say it more accurately: There are three factors in play. “If I’m not the guy who’s making Kevin Smith movies then who am I?” – First off is the fact that “Cop Out” represents Kevin’s first non-writing directorial effort. Much like recent Woody Allen films, the studio seems intent on marketing it without his famous name — and trailers like this one need to be freeze-framed to even catch his credit block. As Smith recently told MTV Radio in one of the few interviews he has done to promote the film, he agrees with the technique and is trying to step back from his usual media presence. “[‘Cop Out’] has nothing to say itself; it’s a popcorn movie,” he explained. “Let me see if we can work on this other part of the craft, just me as the director, and leave the personality stuff out of it. Because I’ve got SModcast now, I’ve got this Twitter account I’m on every day, I do Q&A’s onstage all the time. So I can be myself, express myself in any number of forums.” “Before, it used to just be the films, so I’d do it in my films — now I can do it everywhere on a regular basis for free; I don’t feel the need to put it in films,” he added — then admitted that the “Cop Out” experience has him reevaluating his own place in Hollywood. “Without [making references to my life in films] I’m like, ‘Who am I? If I’m not the guy who’s making Kevin Smith movies then who am I?’ I’m trying to figure out if I have any skills after 15 years as a professional director.” “I’m trying to take the high road” – As everyone and their mother knows by now, Smith was booted from a Southwest Airlines flight last week. After tweeting extensively about it, Smith is trying his best to not talk about the situation anymore — in an excellent Huffington Post article , the writer explains that “he seems reticent to even make normal media appearances to promote the film” because he doesn’t want people to ask him about Southwest. On Tuesday (February 23) a follower even went so far as to ask whether Kevin was doing the usual media blitz we would expect to see a few days before one of his films opens. “I did only the print & radio. Skipped TV,” he tweeted to his 1.6 million followers . “As all anyone was gonna ask about was SWA, which I’d already said enough about. Despite righteous indignation, [I’m] trying to take the high road.” When MTV News approached Kevin’s publicity folks for further comment, Warner Brothers declined to make a statement and his personal publicist said, “He very clearly explains himself and the situation [in the tweets]. There is nothing else to add.” “I was so mad at the press” – The final — and most significant — reason why you’re not seeing Kevin Smith on TV this week is the same one that has made his audience love him for all these years: The man is brutally honest and talkative to a fault. As he explained in Tuesday’s tweet, however, he did speak to a handful of radio outlets — and the aforementioned MTV radio interview offers unique insight into his mindset these days. “It’s on my blog. I would waste time talking about it now, but you could pull it off my SModcast where I do the whole story,” Kevin responded when asked the inevitable Southwest question. “I did about 24 video clips called ‘Final Words’ that also contains the whole story. And the blog has it all outlined; it would be a waste of time to go all over it again now.” A good, short, concise, polite answer. The only problem is, fans of Kevin Smith know that such a thing is an impossibility. Sure enough, he spent the rest of the radio interview — approximately one-third of the entire thing — doing exactly what he had just called “a waste of time.” The point seemed to be that Smith wants to get his own message out there and then get back to talking about his movie. So, although we rarely run an article this long, we now present Kevin’s unedited thoughts on Southwest, the media and how he was wronged: “The long story short? My parents taught me if you get f—ed and you don’t want to get f—ed, then you start screaming. And that’s what happened. I got lied to, I got f—ed over and I started complaining. And the airline was like, ‘Well, something did happen — but he is fat and fat people should buy two seats.’ And they put the information out there side by side and made it about weight. But it wasn’t about weight — it was about a dude who bounced me for no reason, except maybe he didn’t like a joke I told him on my way down the jet way.” “First they were like, ‘The pilot told us you have to get off because you’re a safety concern.’ I was like, ‘Are you kidding me? Tell me the pilot’s name.’ And they lied — they lied again and again … two days later, they told me, ‘The pilot didn’t say it, some employee made the call.’ And I was like, ‘OK, so it had nothing to do [with my weight],’ because I could put my armrests down. I literally sat in the seat for five seconds before this chick — who had been all the way up at the desk in the airport — came over. If I just hit my seat and she’s saying the pilot wants me off, I was like, ‘Where’d you get that message, ma’am?’ She’s like, ‘Well, the pilot told me.’ And I can’t even see the pilot! I’m sitting in the front row of the bulkhead — if I can’t see the pilot, how can he see me? “She’s like, ‘Well, we have phones.’ And I’m like, ‘Well, I know you have phones, ma’am. But I’m telling you — I literally sat and here you are.’ She said, ‘Can you please just come with me?’ The lie compounds; the lie compounds. “I go outside, I’m like, ‘Give me more information,’ and she’s like, ‘The pilot, the pilot.’ Two days later, Southwest is going, ‘It wasn’t the pilot.’ But they don’t change that on their blog — they don’t point out that they’ve changed the information. “Everyone’s going, ‘He’s fat’ for the next f—ing three days; the top of Google News is everyone in the world telling me I’m fat. Everyone on network [TV] telling me I’m fat; ‘Entertainment Tonight’ put a f—ing chick in a fat suit and put her on a plane. I’m like, ‘What does this have to do [with anything]?’ “Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know how many ways to say this: For 15 years, I’ve been completely honest with everybody. I believe in honesty. And I’ve been saying I’m fat for 15 years. This ain’t about being fat — they obfuscated the f—ing truth with my fat, which really bums me out. They used my own fat against me. They hid behind my fat. And that’s my job — to hide behind my fat. “The [fat story] is the sexy story that everybody wants to write … I was so mad at the press because for 15 years I’ve done nothing but tell you the truth and give you interesting sh– to write about. And this one time, when you could have come to my aid, all you did was let me dangle and let these f—ers call me fat. Heartbreaking, heartbreaking.” Check out everything we’ve got on “Cop Out.” For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com .

Go here to see the original:
Kevin Smith Reveals Why He’s Laying Low After Airplane Drama

Mos Def is Not a Fan of the New York Observer, Claims Story Fabrication

Letters to the Editor: they’re fun. But the New York Observer doesn’t run many of them online! If they did, people would know how unhappy Mos Def is with the New York Observer . But the voice of the people… …is the voice of blog, and now, the very pissed off letter Mos Def wrote to the Observer is available for all of us to savor. Grievances: they get aired. As the story goes, D.M. Levine wrote a story for the Observer last month about Jay-Z’s former Roc-a-Fella label partner Dame Dash , and Dame’s new venture, called DD172, described as “essentially an umbrella organization housing a number of different projects,” among which are an art space, a online-production arm, and a forthcoming culture magazine. Some of this stuff, like Blak Rok —which teamed up blues duo The Black Keys with a bunch of rappers—is pretty neat! But Mos Def took issue with a specific passage : On a recent blustery December night, rapper Mos Def was in the house. Dressed in brown slacks, shiny dress shoes, jean jacket and a cabby hat tilted to the side, he sipped a bottle of Rolling Rock, taking in the vibe. “It’s like a cross between early Hitsville, Andy Warhol’s Factory and a little bit of the Algonquin roundtable,” he told me. “But it’s something completely different.” In comes Def’s letter to The Pinkest Paper in New York, as transcribed by Jeff Rosenthal of hip hop comedy duo The Real , for our hip hop editorial-comedy gold edification. Rosenthal’s transcription in full : TO THE EDITOR: My name is Yasiin Dante Smith Bey, a.k.a. Mos Def. I’m responding to the “Wannabe Warhol” article in which the writer claims that he saw me drinking “a Rolling Rock” and “in the mood to record” after “a few drinks.” For the record, none of that ever happened … and we both know this, Mr. Levine (if that is your name). I don’t drink alcohol, and have never in your company or presence. I spent no more than a very brief moment talking to you, and only after you pleaded with me to do so on more than one occasion where I politely declined. “Follow your first mind,” my grandmother says. On top of NOT printing what I DID say, you printed what I DON’T do. You are telling the people a lie, Mr. Levine (if that is your name), and if you’ll lie about something so small, to “add color” to your “piece,” what you have to report about me or any person, place or thing is unreliable to say the least. peace & good day sir. MR. SMITH-BEY PKA MOS DEF Good day, sir indeed. For the record, Levine’s a former Conde Nast Portfolio writer who doesn’t appear to have any other bylines with the Observer . I’ve tried contacting him for quote, and we’ll update if he responds. Lesson: Mos ain’t no perfect man, he tries to do the best that he can, which involves not drinking or not doing things reported by the New York Observer . His Umi says things that sound like pretty good advice. And finally, the New York Observer needs to start running their goddamn letters to the editor online. Because this stuff is gold . Update: D.M. Levine got back to us, and noted: I saw Mos Def’s note in the Observer this week. Very poetic! But I stand by the story.

The rest is here:
Mos Def is Not a Fan of the New York Observer, Claims Story Fabrication

‘We Are The World’ Remake: Was The Lineup Too Contemporary?

Original featured classic voices, update has many less-recognizable stars. By Gil Kaufman, with additional reporting by Jayson Rodriguez Celine Dion, Joe Jonas, Kevin Jonas and Justin Bieber perform on We Are The World Photo: Kevin Mazur/ Wire Image The organizers of the “We Are the World: 25 For Haiti” pulled off a Herculean feat, rallying and recording the track and video for the earthquake-relief effort in record time. Like the sessions for the 1985 original all-star famine relief tune, producer Quincy Jones and songwriter Lionel Richie were able to get a galaxy of contemporary and classic voices to drop what they were doing to lend their time and vocals to a higher cause. But whereas the original features vocals from such still-classic megastars as Stevie Wonder, Tina Turner, Kenny Rogers, Diana Ross, Michael Jackson, Paul Simon, Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan and Ray Charles, Jones and Richie said they purposely shuffled the deck on the reboot to focus on contemporary acts . That explains why the track opens with newly minted star Justin Bieber, followed by Jennifer Hudson and Pussycat Doll Nicole Scherzinger, and quickly segues into solos from Sugarland singer Jennifer Nettles, Jamie Foxx, Maroon 5’s Adam Levine, Fergie and Nick Jonas, among many others. While there are major, undeniable stars on the new version — Mary J Blige, Lil Wayne, Kanye West and Pink among them — some are wondering if the song’s lineup was too contemporary? “I looked at the video the other day and I will admit I had several ‘Who the hell is that?’ moments,” said Christopher Morris, contributing music writer for Variety magazine of the 8-minute clip for the song shot by Academy Award-winning director Paul Haggis. “Some like Kanye West leap out at you, but it took several go-rounds for me to identify Nicole Scherzinger from the Pussycat Dolls. In terms of legend power, it’s on the shorter side.” As the new video unfolds, such modern standard bearers as Mary J. Blige, Janet Jackson, Toni Braxton and Pink are thrown into a mix that also includes old-schoolers Tony Bennett and Barbra Streisand, alongside the 1985 vocals from Michael Jackson, who co-wrote the song with Richie, and bits from gospel singers BeBe Winans and Mary Mary. The update’s concentration on contemporary stars, some of whom have voices that are not as instantly recognizable, might have contributed to the song’s relatively low profile at radio (although it did debut at #2 on the Billboard Hot 100 ). “Is it likely that an R&B station will put it in regular rotation? Probably not. As a curiosity, yes. But this is not about airplay, which it won’t get a lot of, it’s about creating a viral hit on YouTube and Vevo, and maybe getting some traction at a few top 40 stations,” said Keith Caulfield, Senior Chart Manager/Analyst for Billboard magazine. At a time when terrestrial radio playlists are more narrowly focused than ever before, such a broad, multi-genre song faces an uphill climb to gain major spins on stations that might cotton to stars like Jennifer Hudson and Wayne, but risk alienating their listeners with the likes of Streisand, Josh Groban, Cyrus and Jonas. “I don’t know if, given the way things are right now, you could have gotten a similar lineup,” Morris said of the high wattage, cross-genre original. “Music is much more niche-oriented right now and there aren’t a huge number of artists who’ve cut across every listening demo. Even someone like Taylor Swift doesn’t command an African-American audience. There’s no Michael Jackson in there, except in the old footage, who cuts through every sector of the international listening audience.” Despite those challenges, the remake’s #2 Billboard debut easily bested the original, which bowed at #21 in March 1985, then rose to #1 three weeks later, eventually earning four-times platinum certification within a month of release (during that era, singles traditionally moved up the charts much more gradually than they do today). The remake entered the Digital Songs chart at #1, selling more than 267,000 copies in less than three days. Even with that firepower, though, it was unable to unseat Ke$ha’s “Tik Tok” from its nine-week run at the top of the single’s charts. One music journalist at a major music magazine, who requested anonymity, told MTV News that even with a fresh sound courtesy of co-producer RedOne and a vaunted hip-hop section with fresh lyrics from LL Cool J, the new song falls short in a few places. “The general consensus on this remake is that, while it’s for a great cause, it is absolutely horrible on a musical level, except for Jennifer Hudson and Pink,” the writer said. One artist who was rumored to be participating but who ultimately was not involved, Jay-Z, told MTV News he simply thought the original was “untouchable” and was not something that should be re-imagined. SiriusXM’s Rob “Reef” Tewlow, an executive for the station’s hip-hop channel Shade 45, agreed with Hov’s take. Tewlow also acknowledged the rap portion of the song was commendable. However, Tewlow suggested the rapper’s contributions weren’t an integral part of the number. “It’s just hard to combine MCs into that song and into that type of thing,” he explained.” It’s like trying to fit a baseball into a golfball or something. Noble intentions, and it’s good that it’s represented in some type of form or fashion, but it’s not a make-or-break thing for the song.” Though Bieber’s fame is brand new, Caulfield understood why Jones and Richie frontloaded his vocals into the song. “Everyone is asking the same question about Bieber, but the creative forces are saying, ‘Bieber is the hottest thing with teens, he’s trending huge on Twitter every day, selling tons of digital tracks and he’ll resonate with little girls going gonzo for his songs. If you think about it that way, it makes perfect sense when you’re trying to craft something that will get lots of attention from as many people as possible.” A spokesperson for “We Are the World: for 25 Haiti” could not be reached for comment at press time. With their concept of tapping the talent of today, Morris also gave Jones and Richie credit for doing the best they could with the artists at their disposal in a media environment that is very different than it was a quarter century ago. “This is a charity single after all, so you want to try and pull in the masses, so they did what they had to, which is to enlist people who sold a lot of records,” he said. “It’s not a miscalculation on their part, but it’s just a very different landscape. The way music is marketed and consumed has changed, the delivery system is fragmented.” Getting the kind of mass audience hit as the 1985 song — which has raised more than $60 million to date — today is elusive, Morris said. “It’s impossible to reach the ubiquity the first one did. It’s a replication of an event that was an unprecedented, huge deal at the time and there’s no way that mining something like that again is going to top it.” Caulfield credited organizers for getting the song and video out quickly and capitalizing on the buzz of the event, but said he couldn’t predict how the song would end up doing commercially. “Is it going to approach the same impact?” he said. “I don’t know. But I think sales now are from the immediacy of it and the fact that you could see the video and then buy it two seconds later.” Learn more about what you can do to help with earthquake-relief efforts in Haiti , and for more information, see Think MTV . Visit HopeForHaitiNow.org or call (877) 99-HAITI to make a donation now. Related Videos Behind The Scenes Of ‘We Are The World’ Related Photos ‘We Are The World 25 For Haiti’ Recording Session Related Artists Justin Bieber Jennifer Hudson Fergie Mary J. Blige Kanye West Jamie Foxx Lil Wayne

See the original post here:
‘We Are The World’ Remake: Was The Lineup Too Contemporary?

Porn Co. to Mayer: Put Your Words in Our Mouths

Filed under: John Mayer John Mayer’s dirty mouth got him into a lot of trouble in the past week — but it also may have gotten him a job … with a porno company. When he wasn’t droppin’ the N-bomb or comparing his dangle to a KKK member, John Mayer also said one other … Permalink

Visit link:
Porn Co. to Mayer: Put Your Words in Our Mouths

Haiti’s Amazing Tales Of Survival

More than two weeks after the earthquake, we’re still reading about miraculous rescue efforts. By Alexandria Bradshaw A Haitian boy sits in a makeshift camp in Port-au-Prince on Thursday Photo: Stan Honda/ AFP/ Getty Images While it’s heart-wrenching to consider the devastation that occurred in Haiti in the wake of the earthquake, there have also been many miraculous stories of rescue and survival. Teams from around the world flew to the island nation in its time of need

Read the original post:
Haiti’s Amazing Tales Of Survival

Harold Ford’s Shadowy Associates: Everyone We Hate

It’s true: Harold Ford , Jr. is a joke. His New York Post editorial today more or less announcing his candidacy for Senate is terrible

The rest is here:
Harold Ford’s Shadowy Associates: Everyone We Hate