1) it turns out that aaron spelling's dramas were based on his own life. after his death on saturday, members of the family have been releasing press releases slamming each other. not that is news, as it was well known that no one in the family ever got along. i just find it amusing that a family would have the post-death-of-patriarch argument via press release. remind me to call my publicist next time my aunt asks me when i'm going to get married.
2) britney poses for naked photos, but it doesn't count for my britney will appear naked prediction, as she needs to pose in playboy with all her naughty bits showing to fulfill the prophecy. however, we should all be encouraged as her posing kinda naked in bazaar shows that she's getting more and more comfortable with the idea of being naked on camera. the britney spears playboy prediction is looking better than ever.
3) sleater-kinney break up and kevin richardson leaves the backstreet boys. i really don't have an opinion on either one of these things by themselves, but somehow there's some kind of beautiful cosmic symmetry about the fact that these things happened at about the same time.
4) leo di caprio's latest movie "blood diamonds" is getting some flak from diamond industry flaks who think that it makes the diamond industry look bad. the point of contention is centers around conflict diamonds, those diamonds that have been used to fund civil strife and genocide in politically unstable regions of africa. obviously, they fear that this may hurt diamond sales over the holiday. according to the diamond industry trade group, movie doesn't show how the industry has cleaned up its act and made it harder to buy and sell conflict diamonds. per their press release:
The WDC and its coalition are urging the studio and the filmmakers to present this story in the proper historical context so they can relate how conflict diamonds have improved since then.as you might guess, i find it quite hypocritical that the diamond industry would ask for proper historical context. i'd doubt that they'd want the general public to understand the proper historical context in which diamonds became valuable. you can read a very excellend piece that appeared in the atlantic in 1982 here. basically, diamonds are not nearly as valuable or scarce as you would think. the diamond industry basically put on a blitz publicity campaign to make it seem like the diamond is the traditional symbol of love. in other words, the idea that the diamond is the symbol for love sine qua non is completely made up. and that is how the diamond industry cornered the engagement ring market. diamonds aren't rare, and they really aren't that useful, and it is impossible to sell them used. you may as well buy your fiancee a national secratries' day card, because they're both the same thing, something made up by corporate interests with the sole purpose of gouging you out of your money. seriously, click on the link, and read the story. afterwards, i suspect that like me, you'll resolve never ever to buy a diamond. i ain't nobody's sucka, especially debeers' sucka. don't you be either. in any case, i hope that leo and director ed zwick stick to their guns and don't change the movie.
(blog metanote - it's been a while since i've really commented on the world of pop culture. this was actually a conscious decision by me as it felt like there were already seventeen thousand other blogs that give similar opinions to the ones i do, so i didn't feel like replicating their work. however, with the end of the NBA playoffs, we are hitting the dry season as far as sports goings-ons, so the ragin pop culture blogger shall return.)