Celebrity Feuds

bookworm wrote:Jackson family drama.

I know, right? Just when you think things can't get any weirder and more confusing with that bunch, they do.

The Jackson siblings have long wanted to get their hands on MJ's estate/money, this sounds like a very convoluted attempt to do so.

But why would Janet be involved, then? She has plenty of her own money. It's Janet's involvement that makes me think there's some substance there.

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. If it had just been the brothers behind this, then yeah I would immediately think greed, but Janet and Rebbie being involved gives me pause. Didn't Rebbie practically raise the children after MJ died?

I'm thinking maybe it's money on the brothers' side, but Rebbie and Janet really are concerned about the kids being in Katherine's care. The woman is 82 years old. But I don't know. They're not doing themselves any favors in how they've pursued this. It all looks incredibly shady. That video footage of Janet snatching Paris' phone away while Jermaine tapes it all is just...wtf?

I often wonder why MJ left three young children in the care of an 80 year old woman. I guess she has a lot of help, but still...seems a bit much for someone her age.

Also, wasn't their something in his will about Diana Ross getting the kids if Katherine died? Or am I hallucinating again?

swsa wrote:I'm thinking maybe it's money on the brothers' side, but Rebbie and Janet really are concerned about the kids being in Katherine's care. The woman is 82 years old. But I don't know. They're not doing themselves any favors in how they've pursued this. It all looks incredibly shady. That video footage of Janet snatching Paris' phone away while Jermaine tapes it all is just...wtf?

An article I saw stated that the children hadn't heard from or seen their grandmother in over a week. Who was looking after them while the grandmother was gone? Do they have nannies?

bookworm wrote:Kids have been taken away from Katherine.

Diana Ross is the back-up guardian?

Poor kids. Who knows what the hell is happening, but if we thought they'd have drama-free lives after their father's dramatic life, I guess not.

Well, they're still Jacksons. Part of the reason Michael became what he did is because his family was full of crazies.

And I thought my family was crazy...

And now there are claims that Paris' tweets really aren't her own? This whole thing boggles the mind.

Now Katherine Jackson is saying she was kidnapped by her children after all. Jermaine has rescinded his signature from the initial letter that alleged shenanigans. Randy is tweeting something. It's all so clear now!

This feels like a rejected script for a 1970s madcap comedy starring the Jackson Five.

Arabella wrote:Clay Aiken vs. John Rich

Who on earth is John Rich?

Half of the country duo Big & Rich and apparently winner of Celebrity Apprentice. I don't get his logic, if you have an inclusive charity you can't point out groups that you don't think are inclusive?

The comments under that article make me want to knock myself unconscious.

That is why I abide by the first and only rule of the internet: DO NOT READ COMMENTS ON ARTICLES!!!

I go through life so much happier than many of my friends and family!

biakbiak wrote:That is why I abide by the first and only rule of the internet: DO NOT READ COMMENTS ON ARTICLES!!!

That is such a good rule, seriously.

I watched Celebrity Apprentice this past season, and John Rich conducted final interviews with the contestants since he had won the year before. I got the feeling he didn't like Clay Aiken at all during his interview; he seemed to be just looking to trip him up or piss him off. Or maybe that's just the way John Rich is. I'm not a country music fan, so maybe he's just arrogant and a-holeish to everyone, I don't know.

Team Aiken on this one (reluctantly, since I'm not wild about him either).

biakbiak wrote:Half of the country duo Big & Rich and apparently winner of Celebrity Apprentice. I don't get his logic, if you have an inclusive charity you can't point out groups that you don't think are inclusive?

It's the old "People who won't tolerate intolerance are the truly intolerant ones" nonsense all over again.

I honestly clicked on that link thinking you meant Bruce Willis vs. Apple Martin. Which could have been amazing.

...I thought so, too. And I was like, why is Bruce Willis picking on a little kid?

I hope he takes them on and wins. Apple and Amazon have made such a rights grab, it can't be allowed to continue.

Interesting case. It really is time to get whether we own digital muci sorted because it really is counter-intuitive for most people that music you pay for is liscened. We don't think we're renting it, we're buying it.

It is. When you purchased vinyl or cassettes or CDs is was yours to share with your friends and/or family as you wished. Suddenly it's digital and you're just borrowing and the music industry can't figure out why people pirate. I'm just as annoyed with Amazon as I am with Apple. My aunt and my mother and I all own Kindles but if they're registered to each of us individually we can't share books. WTF, Amazon? If I bought a hard cover I'd share it and then I'd leave it at the hospital for the next person who wanted it. So now I have three Kindles registered to me.