I adore Martha Stewart as much as the next person, but even I have to admit that Martha comes across like a cartoon villain a lot of the time. Martha truly wants her friends to die so she can date their husbands. She also wants people to go back to the office and never work from home, even though she has literally worked from home during her entire career. Well, there more cartoon villainy from Martha: she’s taking a cruise around Greenland and Iceland, and the cruise people let her grab some ice from the melting icebergs. She put the ice in her cocktail.

Martha Stewart’s followers got a little heated about how she chilled her drink. While on a Swan Hellenic cruise traveling from Iceland to Greenland, Stewart revealed that “we actually captured a small iceberg for our cocktails tonight,” she wrote on Instagram.

In a collection of several photos, Stewart shared images of an expedition guests took to check out glaciers. Some shots show the icebergs in their natural state and others show chunks of ice on a bar cart, ready to be made into cocktails. Stewart also posed for a picture enjoying her beverage.

“End of the first zodiac cruise from @swanhelleniccruises into a very beautiful fjord on the east coast of greenland,” Stewart wrote in the caption. “We actually captured a small iceberg for our cocktails tonight.”

Soon after posting, fans were quick to comment on the unusual ingredient. One follower said “drinking their iceberg cocktails while the planet is in flames is a bit tone deaf.” Another said, “Martha the ice caps are melting don’t put them in your drink.”

A representative for Swan Hellenic did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment. The company notes on their website that they adhere to “sustainability policies” required by local authorities where they travel.

[From People]

It’s not illegal (as far as I know) to grab some ice from a melting iceberg and put it in your drink. But it is a cartoonish example of the out-of-touch elite. The world is truly on fire, July was the hottest year (globally) since they started recording temperatures, 2023 is on track to be the hottest year of all time, and Martha is cruising along amid the wreckage of our planet and getting drunk on iceberg cocktails. There’s a Titanic joke in this situation.

PS… Is she drinking a White Russian?

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Martha Stewart (@marthastewart48)

Photos courtesy of Martha’s Instagram.

Something I think about a lot is how Kensington Palace had a staff of (easily) 40 to 50 people in 2017-18, and they ALL threw tantrums for years about the Duchess of Sussex’s preparedness and work ethic. KP is clearly staffed by clowns, morons and lazy, well-connected aristo-adjacents. Is it the same in other palace offices? We know King Charles was grossly over-staffed as Prince of Wales, and Prince William certainly inherited some of his father’s staff. We also know that QEII was a terrible manager and she really never bothered to improve the royal-office situation whatsoever. All of which means that one year into King Charles’s reign, he’s still dealing with his mother’s old staff, his old staff, the KP clownery and too few “royals” for it to make any sense. King Charles has new plans to cut royal household staff by 20%.

The King is planning to axe an estimated one in five of his middle-management staff to boost the Royal Household’s efficiency, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. Charles and Camilla are said to be dismayed by what they believe are too many staff doing similar jobs. Nearly a year into his reign, the King is also weary of senior courtiers telling him: ‘But that’s how the Queen did it.’

The cuts will hit Buckingham Palace, Sandringham, Windsor Castle and Balmoral – which employ hundreds between them – and form part of the King’s long-held ambition to streamline and modernise the Monarchy. Dozens of workers could be affected. For years, a leaner Monarchy with fewer working Royals – potentially seven rather than 11 – has been a priority. But the King realises this involves staff reductions. He is said to be acutely conscious of the financial burden a vast household places on the taxpayer.

‘There is a real feeling that the staffing at all the palaces is too heavy,’ said one insider. ‘There are far too many assistants to assistants. The King and Queen would prefer to pay people proper wages top to bottom but have less people. For instance, there are chefs for them and chefs for the staff. Why, they ask, can’t there be one lot of kitchen staff for everyone?’

Camilla has made it clear that ‘a levelling-up of Royal staff’ is needed. She will have a key role in overseeing any changes. ‘Her Majesty cannot abide too many people doing the same jobs. Senior housekeeper, executive housekeepers and juniors,’ said a source. She has raised the matter with the Master of the Household, Vice-Admiral Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt.

Although Balmoral was his mother’s favourite residence, it does not find the same favour with Camilla. The Mail on Sunday has been told that she has made a conscious decision to stay at nearby Birkhall, the home she has shared with Charles for years in Scotland, because she cannot abide Balmoral’s ‘flummery’. A source said: ‘She is dipping in and dipping out while the King is staying at Balmoral. She is staying at Birkhall where she has a limited number of loyal staff – her people.’

[From The Daily Mail]

I… honestly don’t have a problem with this? Charles is actually right? How many royal household middle-managers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? How many royal-only chefs work in these palaces and castles full-time, when Charles and Camilla only spend a few weeks a year in some of them? Speaking of, that’s interesting about Camilla not wanting to spend time in Balmoral. It’s the same with Charles too – they’re in their 70s, they’re set in their ways, and they already had all of their homes set to their preferences. That’s why Camilla and Charles prefer Clarence House, Birkhall, Highgrove and Ray Mill. Anyway, while I think a culling of the royal household is a good idea, C&C are going to piss off a lot of those staffers and maybe those people will start spilling some real tea.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Jennifer Love Hewitt (@jenniferlovehewitt)

Jennifer Love Hewitt has been relatively quiet for years now. She still works and she’s currently starring in 9-1-1. But I can’t remember the last time she was in the news – it’s been years since she was a tabloid queen, setting up pap strolls at Tiffany & Co and trying to be “America’s Sweetheart.” She’s been married to Brian Hallisay since 2013, and they have three children together. Which might explain JLH officially going for a “mom bob.”

The mom-bob took over from that wacky Kate Gosselin-esque choppy short haircut favored by moms. As you can see in JLH’s Instagram pics and video, she was had a longer hairstyle in a tawny/honey blonde, but now she’s got a brown-red mom-bob. The hair transformation was done by Nikki Lee at her salon. It really did transform JLH too – people don’t even recognize her in these photos. Which begs the question: what else has JLH done to transform herself? I actually don’t think it’s anything major – it looks like maybe she got some eye work at some point, plus lip fillers? She looks good though, and this hair style suits her so much more than the longer, lighter style. JLH’s hair should always be dark!

Baby this is Alyssa Milano, not MY Jennifer Love Hewitt https://t.co/lq0uKLyivJ

— Meech (@MediumSizeMeech) August 29, 2023

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Nikki Lee | Hairstylist (@nikkilee901)

This was JLH back in 2019:

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red and JLH’s Instagram.

Royal commentator Jennie Bond is in the running for the Telegraph’s most delusional royal expert. I’m fully expecting lots of commemoration-columns for QEII as we come up on the first death-anniversary, but I truly didn’t expect it to be framed as “Prince Harry’s one year of estrangement.” The man has been living in North America for nearly four years, but sure. Bond questions, “Harry is continuing to maintain a distance from his father and brother – but what are the effects of ripping up family roots?” Like… anyone who read Spare can tell you exactly why Harry left Britain and why he’s trying to break the cycle of generational trauma. Neglected and abused after his mother’s death, he found ways to heal himself and he’s on his journey to find peace and happiness with the love of his life and their two beautiful children. His story is one of resilience and courage to break those toxic familial bonds. But of course, Jennie Bond quoted an “expert” at length to basically argue that Harry should “come back” pronto. Some highlights:

A complete estrangement: Almost one year on from the funeral of his grandmother, the late Queen, his estrangement from his entire UK family seems complete. He will be in London next month for a charity awards ceremony on the eve of the anniversary of her death, but it is understood he has no plans to see his father, the King, or his brother Prince William. Instead he will head straight off to Düsseldorf for the opening of the Invictus Games for wounded servicemen and women, which he founded nine years ago.

Bitter Meghan? He has planted his own sapling 5,000 miles away in California. His children, Archie and Lilibet, are putting down American roots and will be the first branches of a new tree. But with their mother, Meghan, bitterly estranged from almost the whole of her own family (except for her mother and a niece) that tree looks decidedly sparse.

No thriving unless it’s in the UK, apparently: In an interview which kicked off the whole saga of Harry and Meghan’s unhappiness in the royal fold, the Duchess said, “It’s not enough to just survive. You’ve got to thrive.” But can you easily thrive in self-imposed exile from all you have known since birth? And how much harder must it be when you are part of one of the most exclusive and mysterious tribes on earth: a royal family, steeped in a thousand years of history?

An expert: An expert in the field of human development, Professor Karl Pillemer, from Cornell University in New York, believes the emotional impact must be enormous. “Whether you have originated the estrangement, or you’re on the receiving end of it, people often feel betrayed, rejected, hurt, angry and resentful,” Professor Pillemer says. “They feel the pain of broken attachment. We have strong biologically-based attachment responses – those don’t just go away..Family events are a flashpoint for estrangement. They are filled with expectations of a happy family together, and that is entirely violated with estrangement. And if you don’t attend, there is a profound sense of loss.”

King Charles evicted his grandchildren, but whatever: How sad that little Archie and Lilibet have no prospect at present of getting to know their tribe… on either side of the Atlantic. And what a dreadful loss for King Charles. Bizarrely, Harry and Meghan have chosen to give their children their “tribal identity” insisting they be known as Prince and Princess – and, of course, Lilibet is named after her great grandmother Queen Elizabeth. Professor Pillemer believes it is the children who may prompt a reconciliation. “Many estranged people begin to open up the relationship again, because they want their own children to have relationships with the rest of the family. And Harry and Megan’s children are going to be reaching an age where they’re going to begin asking, ‘Why don’t we see our relatives? I’m certain, they [Harry and Megan] must be considering the impact on their own children.”

They’re saying Harry is headed for a breakdown: Professor Pillemer believes that fragile mental health can be made worse by estrangement. “There will likely be an array of emotional effects for Prince Harry and his family that include the pain of rejection, a sense of betrayal, a profound sense of loss, and most likely, a greater likelihood towards depression and anxiety as a result of this kind of relationship trauma.”

[From The Telegraph]

It feels so childish to argue that, because Harry adored and loved his grandmother, he’s supposed to be cool with being neglected and abused by his father and brother. That’s the argument here – you say you love one member of the family, so isn’t it hypocritical to remain estranged from other members of the family? Like… what is wrong with these people? It’s so silly and pathetic to argue that every family has to stay rooted in one place, forever, and that every family member has to be in each other’s lives and no one is ever allowed to disagree or move or break a toxic family cycle. What f–king world do these people live in? (Also: they truly have no idea about Meghan’s family, they only know the toxic Markles – Meghan has Ragland relatives who have never sold her out.)

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Back in the day, Angelina Jolie loved being in London, and she did a lot of work there. She was made a Dame by QEII for her work with refugees and survivors of sexual violence. She ended up having meetings with (now) Queen Camilla, the Archbishop of Canterbury and she had tea with Prince William and Kate. This post isn’t about Angelina, but I was reminded of that “tea” back in 2015, because it was so random. It sounded like William and Kate cold-called Angelina and Brad Pitt and invited them to Kensington Palace for no other reason than to stargaze. It made me wonder how many other celebrities William and Kate have desperately tried to meet, only to be turned down. It looks like Dolly Parton is one of those celebrities.

Dolly Parton has revealed the hilarious reason why she turned down an invitation for tea with the Princess of Wales. The country singer, 77, explained she received the coveted invitation from Kate Middleton, 41, whilst she was in London for work.

Whilst sharing her love of the capital, the Jolene singer admitted she almost brushed shoulders with the residents of Buckingham Palace, but unfortunately ‘couldn’t go’.

Dolly said during an appearance on BBC Radio 2: ‘This time, Lordy, I even got invited to have tea with Kate but I couldn’t even go. I thought it was very sweet and nice of her to invite me and one of these days I’m going to get to do that – that would be great.’

Then, in true Dolly Parton style, she cracked a joke as to what made her decline Kate’s invite. She said: ‘But she wasn’t going to promote my rock album so I had to say no.’

She explained her regret at not having explored more of the city while on tour, but concluded she didn’t ever have enough time to play tourist.

[From The Daily Mail]

“The coveted invitation” – like, we have no idea how frequently or infrequently William and Kate entertain, but as a long-time royal watcher, it definitely feels like they don’t have many friends and they aren’t socializing or throwing parties, nor are they known for being particularly nice or generous hosts. They practically turn the lights off and hide out when the pre-BAFTA dinner is held at Kensington Palace. How many times did they mooch dinner off of Harry and Meghan? I do wonder if Kate and William have invited many celebrities to Kensington Palace and they get turned down a lot. Anyway, Dolly Parton is an American treasure and her work ethic is unparalleled. She would be shocked by the lazy duo.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

We’ve been playing the “will Prince Andrew actually have to face some consequences” game for four solid years. Longer than that, really, because Andrew’s association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell was common knowledge for more than two decades. Sh-t hit the fan when Andrew sat down for that BBC interview in the fall of 2019 though, and ever since, it’s been a game of “he’s no longer a working royal” and “but he still lives in a mansion and tries to talk his mother into launching a comeback for her favorite son” and “but Charles hates him” and “but Charles is perfectly fine with having Andrew around for various holidays and vacations.” The latest WTF is that Andrew, Fergie and their daughters are vacationing at Balmoral right now, and Andrew was chauffeured to church by Prince William on Sunday. People are starting to wonder if Charles is grooming his human trafficker brother for a comeback. Buckingham Palace ran to the Mail to say of course not. Hm.

King Charles is ‘absolutely resolute’ that Prince Andrew will not return to public duties and there will be no ‘change in tack’ over his royal status, insiders have claimed.

The Duke of York, 63, was seen in a car with the Prince and Princess of Wales as the family travelled to church in Balmoral yesterday in what has been branded as a ‘public statement of togetherness’. But while Andrew appeared to be well and truly back in the royal fold, experts say Charles remains firms there is ‘no possibility’ of him returning to royal duties.

A source told The Telegraph: ‘He has always been clear that the Duke is a much-loved member of the family, but that does not mean there will be a change in tack when it comes to his royal status.’

However, royal insiders allege that while Andrew will not return to public life, the King has made it clear ‘privately’ that he will ‘support his brother and help him get his life back on track’ – as evidenced by the Balmoral outing.

Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams told MailOnline the photographs of Prince Andrew travelling to church with the Waleses were ‘clearly intended to send a message of family unity’. But he insisted it was not a sign Andrew could return to public duties in any form. ‘This is a sad time for the royal family on their customary break at Balmoral. They and the nation will shortly be commemorating a year since the death of the Queen. We know how close Andrew was to the late Queen, his appearance at the Duke of Edinburgh’s Memorial Service in March 2022, where he supported her physically whilst she was giving him emotional and financial support caused much controversy. It has been reported that his allowance has been cut.’

But Mr Fitzwilliams added: ‘It is important to stress that there is no possibility, as King Charles and Prince William have always realised, of him returning to public duties in any form. A glance at his non-existent popularity ratings in the polls make the public mood very clear on this issue. However what is being emphasised is harmony on a personal level and clearly he and his immediate family, who are also at Balmoral, will appreciate this a great deal, especially as the photographs we see today are such a very public statement of togetherness.’

[From The Daily Mail]

While I’m loath to give King Charles the benefit of the doubt on anything at any time, I simply don’t believe that Charles cares enough about Andrew to even plot out some strategy to bring Andrew “back” to whatever working-royal status or what have you. Charles’s goal here is much simpler – he wanted the temporary visuals of a “happy family” gathered at Balmoral for his first summer as king, because Charles is terrified that one of these days, people will start to pick up on the fact that he’s a dogsh-t father. Like, this is all about Charles’s self-preservation, and it’s also about all of the Windsors’ single-minded obsession with Prince Harry. Everything here with Andrew is designed with Harry in mind. Charles wants to look benevolent (towards Andrew), he wants to look family-oriented (except he evicted his son, DIL and grandbabies from their British home). He also wants to say: look, this is the path Harry could take, if only he would come groveling back to us and let us control him, abuse him and manipulate him.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Mark Zuckerberg (@zuck)

Now that all of the drama about his potential cage match with Space Karen has died down, Mark Zuckerberg is free to remind the world just why we all hated him in the first place. Yup, Lizard Boy is back to doing that other thing he loves best: being a shameless billionaire who is all about those shareholder profits, baby!

Back in June, Meta, like many companies, updated their remote work policy, and it was basically one big “just kidding!” Despite Zuckerberg once declaring that Meta would be largely a remote company, the new policy required employees to be back in person three days a week. Late last week, an internal memo went out with some pretty strict return-to-office policies. Remember all of those podcasts and think pieces declaring that thanks to the pandemic, employees held all of the power? Well, quelle surprise, but we are now in the “The Empire Strikes Back” phase of workers vs. big business.

Mark Zuckerberg, once a champion of fully remote work, has doubled down on Meta’s crackdown on working from home—with the company threatening to discipline anyone who doesn’t abide by the looming rule changes.

Late last week, the Facebook and Instagram parent company laid out the precise details of its return-to-office mandate in a staff memo, the details of which were published by Insider.

Describing the shift as an “In-Person Time Policy,” Meta’s head of HR Lori Goler reiterated that from Sept. 5, it would be mandatory for all employees—except those with management-approved exemptions—to be back in the office three days a week.

Meta first told its employees in June that it was updating its remote work policy, meaning they would be expected to work from their assigned offices at least three days a week from September—a move that came much later than many of its Big Tech peers like Google, Apple, and Twitter.

The social media titan said at the time that this “distributed work” framework would allow its staff to “make a meaningful impact both from the office and at home.”

It marked a significant U-turn from CEO Zuckerberg’s pandemic-era assertions that half of Meta’s tens of thousands of employees could be working remotely by the end of the decade, and that the tech giant would become “the most forfƒƒuvward-leaning company on remote work.”

[From Fortune]

I am no legal scholar, but I think that Meta probably has every right to update their remote-work policy. Once the other big companies started ordering employees back into the office, it was only a matter of time. It still sucks that Meta did such a 180 on its employees. Even with three months’ warning, I would be mad if I had completely rearranged my life and, say, moved someplace more affordable and out of the Silicon Valley area based on my own CEO’s words. I have firsthand stories from people who were hired by tech companies during the pandemic for a fully remote position, only to have them turn around and give those workers the ultimatum of going into the office (even if it meant moving halfway across the country) or find a new job. Is Meta trying to get employees to leave so they don’t have to pay to lay them off?

I’m curious to hear what people think about remote vs in-person work now and if their preference has changed since businesses started bringing people back into the office. I love working from home but am also a giant extrovert, and need to have some form of human interaction for my mental health. I think it’s different for everyone because we all have different work-styles, you know? I work better when I’m at home without distraction but have had coworkers tell me they are more productive when they’re in-person, so I guess personally, if I had to choose, I’d pick a hybrid situation with 1-2 days in the office.

There is an acknowledgment among prosecutors that Donald Trump’s most important trial is the one for his crimes in connection with January 6th. That’s the whole ballgame, that’s the crime of the century, that’s the crime which poses the most significance to democracy as we know it. Perhaps Trump will be convicted of all of the other charges, but we still need to go through the process of holding him accountable for organizing and inciting a coup against the government. Special Counsel Jack Smith had asked for a January 2024 trial, and Trump had asked for a 2026 trial. Well, the judge has decided that the insurrection trial will begin on March 4, 2024.

A federal judge on Monday set a trial date of March 4 in the prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, rebuffing Mr. Trump’s proposal to push it off until 2026.

The decision by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to start the trial in March amounted to an early victory for prosecutors, who had asked for Jan. 2. But it potentially brought the proceeding into conflict with the three other trials that Mr. Trump is facing, underscoring the extraordinary complexities of his legal situation and the intersection of the prosecutions with his campaign to return to the White House.

The district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., has proposed taking Mr. Trump to trial on charges of tampering with the election in that state on March 4 as well. Another case, in Manhattan, in which Mr. Trump has been accused of more than 30 felonies connected to hush-money payments to a porn actress in the run-up to the 2016 election, has been scheduled to go to trial on March 25. And if the trial in Washington lasts more than 11 weeks, it could bump up against Mr. Trump’s other federal trial, on charges of illegally retaining classified documents after he left office and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them. That trial is scheduled to begin in Florida in late May.

Judge Chutkan said that while she understood Mr. Trump had both other trial dates scheduled next year and, at the same time, was running for the country’s highest office, she was not going to let the intersection of his legal troubles and his political campaign get in the way of setting a date.

“Mr. Trump, like any defendant, will have to make the trial date work regardless of his schedule,” Judge Chutkan said, adding that “there is a societal interest to a speedy trial.”

[From The NY Times]

Again, it’s not Jack Smith’s fault that the man he’s prosecuting is going on trial in other jurisdictions around the country. But there is an acknowledgement by prosecutors in other jurisdictions that this trial gets priority. The March 4 date is also interesting because that means the trial starts the day before Super Tuesday, where fifteen states have their primaries.

Trump thinks he can appeal the trial schedule. He cannot. I actually cracked a smile at “election interference” with regards to scheduling the prosecution of Trump for inciting a f–king coup.

This is also just in: He can’t appeal the judge’s scheduling order. https://t.co/ZLLMi2XzpR

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) August 28, 2023

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, mug shot courtesy of Fulton County.

With last week’s announcement about Prince Harry’s stop in the UK on September 7th, I thought the British papers would be full of all kinds of speculation and nastiness about the Sussexes over the weekend. While there was some of that, inevitably, there was also an undercurrent of “been there, done that” with the reporting. Like, there’s nothing new, even with Harry’s visit – nothing has changed and the storyline simply doesn’t have enough juice at the moment. So it’s interesting that there were suddenly some royal commentators making forays into “being critical about Lazy William and Lazy Kate.” Granted, there should have been wall-to-wall condemnation for William after he couldn’t be bothered to watch the Women’s World Cup final. But the invisible contract, etc. This is the kind of thing they can manage: noting that Kate and William only have a meager charitable portfolio of 50 patronages (combined) and that Will and Kate have only gone on 40 joint engagements this year, eight months into the year.

The Prince and Princess of Wales have been tipped to take on more responsibility due to their “unique position” in being able to boost the monarchy. Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams has said that he thinks the couple will likely take on a slightly increased workload, and hold a “unique cachet” for doing so. The couple, who are often deemed two of the most popular royals, are currently patrons for 50 charities, as well as running their own projects on the side.

According to the Gert’s Royals website, which is the Encyclopaedia Britannica crossed with the Doomsday Book of royal watching, the couple have taken on 40 joint engagements so far this year. This information, which was collected last month, shows that the couple’s number of engagements appear similar to that of 2019. This has sparked questions as to whether the couple will take on more than they previously have done, particularly now that their three children are growing older.

Speaking exclusively to Express.co.uk, Mr Fitzwilliams said that he believes they will increase their workload, adding: “I would think William and Catherine might well take on more, those they have taken on certainly have a unique cachet…After the Queen’s death and after the Sussexes and Andrew ceased to carry out royal engagements, the Palace announced a review of royal patronages. With fewer of them and only four working royals under 70 expect fewer royal engagements.”

Speaking of the engagement numbers, he added: “This is comparatively few numerically compared to the usual number senior royals such as Princess Anne have been involved with, but [Kate and William] are in a unique position to boost the profile of those they are attached to.”

[From The Daily Express]

They’re “in a unique position to boost the profile of those they are attached to” unless a patronage needs boosting during their two-month summer holiday or during their annual six-week holiday around Easter, or during their post-Christmas holiday when they aren’t seen for about five weeks. I mean, what did the Lionesses think? Their patron would actually show up to support them and do his job? Of course not. Anyway… only 40 joint engagements in eight months is pretty paltry! But way to put a bow on it, royal experts!

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Simone Biles won her eighth all-around national title, which broke a 90-year-old gymnastics record. It will be crazy if she wins everything in Paris next year. [Just Jared]
The trailer for Foe – starring Saoirse Ronan & Paul Mescal – is intense. [LaineyGossip]
Are NDAs a big problem in reality television? [Pajiba]
This ‘90s girl has always loved Parker Posey. [Go Fug Yourself]
I still don’t get this Timothee Chalamet selfie. [Socialite Life]
Joe Biden is already campaigning on abortion. [Jezebel]
Jessica Biel wore Rosetta Getty in Soho. [RCFA]
Rest in peace Bob Barker. [Seriously OMG]
Ariana Grande is releasing some live tracks. [Egotastic]
What is Hugh Hefner’s son Marston up to? [Buzzfeed]
Sister Wives is still getting huge ratings. [Starcasm]
Review of Bottoms. [Towleroad]