Britney Spears..."Circus" comes to Vegas MGM Grand! June 25th!

Just a few weeks ago, San Franciscans maneuvered their way into a frenzied packed concert hall downtown, to get an up-close and personal gander at their Pop Princess!

Although a handful of critics sniped over every little thing - from the pouty star's alleged "lacklustre" robot-like dance moves to her oh-so ho-hum wardrobe struts - the die-hard fans were not disappointed in the least.

Now, the big Britney Spears "Circus" heads into Las Vegas on the 25th of June, and lands at the MGM Grand arena.

I expect the much-anticipated Brit extravaganza will be a sell-out!

See 'ya there, eh?

http://www.thetattler.biz

 

Sarah Ferguson...snake-oil saleswoman Oprah Winfrey manipulates Duchess!

On the heels of crying the blues - and hitting the high-energy talk-show circuit to plug her spanking-new "docu-series" (Finding Sarah) - the latest chapter of Sarah Ferguson's sorry saga spewed out over the broadcast airwaves to titillate the country once again this past week.

Has the woman no shame?

Well, if 'ya ask me, Oprah Winfrey - who made a gracious exit from network television last week - is largely to blame for the tawdry fiasco!

In fact, once the "Sarah and Oprah" interview aired yesterday - to launch the much-ballyhooed "tell-all" - it was quite evident to me that Big "O" is nothing more than a clever snake-oil-saleswoman out to rustle up controversy, boost ratings, and selfishly tout her dubious bill-of-fare at the OWN network.

For example, when Sarah Ferguson was caught red-handed influence-peddling last year in an undercover sting, the cast-out Royal fessed up that she fell victim to the temptation because - she was not only "broke" - but had also hit rock-bottom emotionally.

At this juncture, Oprah - who claimed to be a "good friend" - entered into discussions with Sarah about the development of a vehicle aimed at rehabilitating Ferguson's image in the public eye on the OWN Network.

"Why not a series on cooking," Sarah allegedly suggested to her pal, as she struggled to swallow her pride in a desperate hour of need.

Personally, I believe that the idea for the culinary show was an excellent way to go, for a couple of reasons.

For starters, it would have brought much-needed funds into the coffers - and thus - provided the wherewithal for the former Duchess of York to support herself and her children.

In addition, the cooking spot would have slowly restored Sarah's flaky image to the public-at-large around this country and across the big pond.

Mission: Accomplished!

But, for some inexplicable reason, Oprah elected to offer up a show that would "toss a spotlight" on Sarah's lack of good judgment and fall from Grace in the past.

More scurrilous, perhaps, was Oprah's deceitful decision to draw on the professional assistance of two network personalities (Dr. Phil, for one) she has been vigorously promoting - in what amounts to - a "spotty" television schedule (full of holes).

Oprah's conduct was (and is) particularly outrageous when you consider one obvious fact.

Near the end of the interview, after playing back tapes of the upcoming segments of "Finding Sarah", Oprah actually concludes to Sarah (and her viewing audience) that Prince Andrew's former spouse essentially got into trouble because she was too vulnerable and too trusting.

"So, people were able to take advantage of you," Oprah summarized in so many words.

Ironic, that!

In the final analysis, Oprah Winfrey was guilty of the same cruel and unusual outrageous conduct.

If Oprah really cared about Sarah (some friend!) she would have signed on the flaming red-headed beauty for a cooking show.

Instead, she elected to manipulate Ms. Ferguson into a reality-based docu-series about a tawdry scandal from the past, in order to boost her ratings, and also promote Dr. Phil (and a money guru she's also pushing) on her fledgling network.

In sum, Oprah is just another shark, circling the treacherous waters for innocent prey.

Does Big "O" think we were all born yesterday?

Talk about disreputable conduct!

Shame on you, Oprah.

"Finding Sarah" broadcasts on June 12th (2011).

You be the judge!

http://www.thetattler.biz





Fairy Tale crumbled under glare of spotlight!

Oprah Winfrey...Kitty Kelley tell-all about big "O" & real dad! Dates with John Kesh

Big “O” is facing a controversy!

On the eve of the release of a tell-all bio on talk-show host - Oprah Winfrey - the sh** is flying, and subsequently, titilating tattlers all over the blogosphere.

A tearful Kitty Kelley (who penned the penetrating tome) complained to one tabloid magazine show that Oprah is using her considerable weight in the industry to lock her out of the talk show circuit to promote her new book which is simply titled "Oprah Winfrey".

“Barbra Walters won’t have me on "The View". And, Larry King doesn’t want to have anything to do with me,” she bellowed to all within earshot.

Then, Kelley took a poke at Dave Letterman.

“He said he didn’t want to disrupt his relationship with Oprah. But, he's been in an ongoing dispute with Oprah for sixteen years,.” she lamented in total disbelief.

Gail, Oprah’s BFF (some say Lesbian lover) laughed that Kelley’s credibility was lacking.

“She said she interviewed 850 people for the book. Oprah doesn’t  know that many people.”

That argument doesn’t hold up to me.

Over the 25-year course of the Oprah gab fest, the rotund little interviewer must have crossed paths with at least that many individuals, without so much as a cheery hello.

It is conceivable that those individuals made astute observations on the sidelines along the way.

How a person acts back-stage and out of the spotlight - when they think no one is watching or taking  notes - is often quite a revelation.

If Gail thinks otherwise, obviously she’s been using so much hairspray on that tacky "do", that it seeped into her skull and eroded her brain!

Kelley  pointed out that she culled hundreds of interviews - from dog-eared newspaper clips, insightful  magazine profiles, and talk show appearances - and thus - was able to use Oprah’s "own words" in the book.

Provided the quotes were accurate, of course!

But, critics at the New York Times had their own take on that slant.

“It’s just a lot of old material, gleaned from ancient clippings, rehashed," they accused in so many words.

Kelley is adamant that the book contains choice new morsels for readers to chew on.

“I spoke to Oprah’s Aunt Katherine and she revealed who Oprah’s real father is.”

On talks shows, meanwhile,  the controversy raged.

One guest gushed that she loved Oprah and that she wanted to digest every delicious detail about her favorite TV persona.

Another labeled the book smut and denounced the author.

“I want Oprah on a pedestal,” she rallied in support.

Gail took the position that because Oprah has allegedly been straightforward about her life, that the book amounts to a lot of silly pap, not worthy of a day's read at the beach.

“It won’t end up on the Oprah book of the month club,“ she laughed.

Gail is daft.

Undoubtedly, the book will sell oodles of copies, once the word gets out.

Surely gossip mongers around the country will want to devour every salicious detail about an affair Oprah jumped into with John Tesh way back when.

One charged that Oprah was entitled to her privacy.

In response, another pundit laughed hysterically.

“But she’s on a talk show everyday!”

Vernon Winfrey - who granted a rare interview to Kelley - opined that Oprah’s success was all about timing and came when there was an auspicious upswing in the civil rights movement.

According to Kelly, though, Vernon is not Oprah’s real father.

In a 3-days huddle with Aunt Katherine, Kelley swears that she learned who sired Oprah.

“I was sworn to secrecy, though,“ Kelley confided.

The controversial literary figure with the acid pen would prefer that Oprah discover the truth herself, though.

Is that the bombshell that Oprah doesn’t want anyone to know about?

Maybe Ms. Winfrey is now primed and ready to appear as a guest on the popular new TV hit:

"Who do you think you are?"

As to Kelley, well, if she takes a poke at Oprah for any alleged plastic surgeries - in my mind's eye - that would be like calling the kettle black.

After all, Kelley's plastic-looking (stretched skin) is a sure indicator that she has the corner on that market!

News at 11!

Oprah simple-minded backwoods gal!

http://www.thetattler.biz

 

Barack Obama...donates Nobel Peace $$$ to charities!

When Barack Obama was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize a furor broke out around the globe.

The once prestigious award soared downward in stature in the aftermath.

To many, Barack Obama (only in office a few weeks before being heartily nominated for his alleged contributions to the cause) was an undeserving candidate who didn't pass muster in the lofty realm of world peacemaker (making a difference).

The President appeared to be embarrassed by the honor, too.

In recent days, the White House announced that President Obama will donate the prize money - the staggering sum of 1.4 million - to a handful of good causes.

$250,000.00 will be bestowed on the Fisher House, a National non-profit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care and medical attention at Veterans Administration facilities.

In a noble effort to help Haiti recover from the recent earthquake tragedy, the President will also fork over $200,000.00 to bootstrap a worthy relief fund.

The balance will be distributed to a handful of organizations such as development groups in Africa and Central Asia, to fund scholarships, and plough much-needed cash into education foundations.

I hope Mr. Obama will hold back at least a hundred dollars and use those funds to treat the Missus to a romantic candlelight dinner and night on-the-town.

Most deserving in view of the foregoing humanitarian acts, don't 'ya think?


 

Heh, big spender!

www.thetattler.biz

Hurt Locker...Producer banned from Oscars! Trivia fodder for game shows...

Nicolas Chartier (2nd left) & Hurt Locker crew!

Just a couple of days ago, I reported that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences was pondering what action to take against one of the producers of  "The Hurt Locker" (Nicolas Chartier) for violating Academy rules.

Post:  02/26/10

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2010/02/hurt-lockerdisqualified-from-oscars.html

Chartier e-mailed several hundred promotional teasers to friends, family, and business associates - of which, a few were Academy Members - urging Oscar enthusiasts to turn their backs on Avatar (which he referred to as the "$500 million dollar movie") - and vote for "Hurt Locker" instead (directed by talented Kathryn Bigelow).

The unprecedented slight caused a furor at the Academy where officials of the prestigious organization quickly discussed potential remedies to punish the upstart who cast a pall in the 11th hour of the Oscar race.

According to academy rules, members are barred from participating in negative campaigns against filmmakers in the running for the coveted Golden Statuette affectionately known as the "Oscar".

Over the weekend, when the disturbing news first broke, the Academy was considering pulling Bigelow's offering from the line up of nominated features as punishment and to deter such conduct in the future by Academy Members.

However, yesterday it was announced that disciplinary action would be focused solely on the culprit in question, Nicolas Chartier.

In a press release Tuesday, the Academy announced that Chartier would be barred from attending the Oscar celebrations on March 7th at the Kodak Theatre in the heart of Hollywood.

The naughty producer's tickets were revoked, and he was summarily notified - as well - that he would not be able to attend as a guest of any attendee either.

In sum, Nicolas Chartier has the dubious distinction of being the first nominee to have ever been banned from attending the Oscars.

In due time, Chartier (and the incident) will obviously be reduced to Oscar trivia on TV game shows and the like for decades to come.

Is Chartier the first to go down in the halls of  Oscar infamy?

Well, he's in good company - right up there with Brando's Oscar misstep in 1977 - and alongside a handful of  botched acceptance speeches that didn't gel well with audiences over the years.

Brando Native Indian fiasco!

http://www.thetattler.biz

PEW...rebuttal on allegations of theft & wrongdoing! Art of the Steal (9.14 films)...

Pew accused of Art theft of century!

Protesters angry with Barnes Museum move!

PEW (a charitable trust) was accused of wrongdoing, the rich and powerful in Philadelphia high society allegedly schemed to carry off the art theft of the century, and friends of a respected collector (Alfred Barnes) rallied in court with cries for mercy (amidst a mountain of scandalous documents which pointed an accusing finger).

The whole tawdry tale was documented recently by 9.14 Films and well-received at a handful of prestigious Film Festivals around the country.

In my review of the "Art of the Steal" - I reported on all the juicy titillating details - which must have driven  my readers into a wild disbelieving frenzy!

Post:  01/20/2010

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/search?q=Art+of+the+Steal

Oh, there was malicious gossip about Moses Annenberg, eye-brow-raising rivalry between son - Walter Annenberg - and the insightful financially-independent art collector (and much to-do about his priceless collection which was at the heart of a great controversy), a lot of back-stabbing, sleuthing, and all-round treacherous behaviour on the part of all the power-players.

Curiously, the alleged perpetrators of the crime, refused to chat on-camera with the filmmakers for some inexplicable reason.

On these occasions, the producers (and "friends of Barnes") offered up publicity stills which - for the most part - were downright unflattering.

While Ray Perelman swirled in intrigue in the shadows, the director of the well-crafted documentary, flashed a photograph on screen which portrayed the man as evil personified.



A PEW representative (a woman) came across as - shrill, haughty, a snob - well, you get the picture!

After a painstaking day or two of drafts, edits, and polishing, I finally posted the Barnes drama on the Tattler web site without much thought.

Another one put to bed!

Curiously, when I was checking e-mail today, I spied a communication from PEW tucked away amidst all the rubble e-mails, sales pitches, spam, and so forth and so on.

In that communication, there was a brief note from a PEW spokesperson, who noted for the record that the Charitable Trust had responded to the allegations on their web site.

Right off-the-bat, PEW asserted that the reason they did not agree to interviews with the film crew for their documentary on the Barnes' issues, was because they anticipated  there would be bias.

Rather than be manipulated, or backed into a corner, I suspect they chose to go their own way.

In response, I contacted the PEW spokesperson and assured the individual that - to be fair - I would post their rebuttal at this site.

I cut their responses and inserted them herein below.

Please note that the questions raised to ferret out the information were posed by PEW and/or their associates (attorneys, whomever) and that my involvement amounted to that of  "messenger" only.

So, don't shoot me, eh?

__________________________________________________________
FAQS

The Pew Charitable Trusts' Role in the Barnes Foundation Move

Organization: The Pew Charitable Trusts

The Pew Charitable Trusts has provided support to the Barnes Foundation as part of our longstanding commitment to protecting and preserving cultural treasures held in the public trust.

Most recently, we have taken great pride in serving as an advocate and fundraiser for the Barnes as it plans to relocate its world-class art collection from suburban Lower Merion, Pennsylvania, to a new location on Philadelphia’s Benjamin Franklin Parkway.

Below are some of the most frequently asked questions about Pew’s role with the Barnes Foundation.

Q: Why is the Barnes Foundation moving?

A: The Barnes Foundation is moving its gallery from Lower Merion to Center City Philadelphia as the only feasible solution to severe and chronic financial problems. If these problems had remained unaddressed, the Foundation would have been unable to pay its bills. The physical security of the individual artworks and the integrity of the collection as a whole would have been at risk.

Q: What is Pew’s role with regard to the Barnes Foundation?

A: Pew’s role has been as an advocate and fundraiser. We, along with other donors, helped to raise $150 million (which includes our own funds) to build a new facility in Philadelphia, relocate the collection and establish an endowment to ensure the Foundation’s future security.

In addition, Pew provided interim operating support, enabling the Foundation to stay open in its Merion location.

We acted not only to sustain the Barnes in the short term, but also to help put it on sound financial footing for generations to come, and as an independent institution accessible to all audiences, as Dr. Barnes wished.

Q: How much has Pew contributed to the Barnes Foundation?

A: Pew has made grants totaling $24,350,000 to support the Barnes Foundation, which includes $20 million to support the costs related to the new facility.

Q: Was Pew motivated to meet a test required for public charity status?

A: Pew’s role with the Barnes was neither motivated by nor necessary for our application to become a public charity. Our work with the Barnes Foundation was one of four examples we included in our Form 1023 petition of Pew’s ability to attract public support.

The examples were chosen from a long list of qualifying projects. Pew qualified as a public charity irrespective of our work for the Barnes.

Q: Does Pew have any control or a governing role with the Barnes? 

Q: Did Pew set out to take over the Barnes?

A: No. The Barnes Foundation is led by an independent board of trustees. The Barnes came to us after determining that its very existence was threatened and that it could not accomplish its mission or survive in its Merion location.

We agreed, and provided much-needed support for its operations and long-term plan.

Pew is not involved in operating the Barnes Foundation and we are not represented on the Barnes board.

Q: Does Pew have any control or ownership of the Barnes  artwork?

A: Absolutely not. Pew does not have any ownership of or control over the Barnes Foundation or its collection of artwork.

Control over the assets and programs of the Barnes remains vested exclusively in its board.

Q: Aren’t Pew & others unfaithful to Barnes' intentions by moving the collection?

A: Rarely reported, the governing document establishing the Barnes Foundation states that if the Foundation were no longer financially stable and needed to move, it would have the option to do so.

The Montgomery County Orphan’s Court granted the Barnes Foundation request to relocate the art collection after years of litigation and weeks of hearings.

The judge carefully reviewed the alternatives and agreed that the move to downtown Philadelphia was the best solution to the severe problems facing the Barnes Foundation.

Q: Why didn’t Pew participate in Art of the Steal (documentary).

A: We learned that the film was going be severely biased. Given our institutional commitment to the facts and quality information, we decided it would be inappropriate to participate.

________________________________________________________

http://www.julianayrs.com

Bill Clinton...alleges right-wing conspiracy against Barack Obama!

According to Bill Clinton, there is a right-wing agenda to see Barack Obama fail in his political efforts.

Slick Willy compared the "political agenda" to one that Hillary Clinton alleged existed during the Clinton term in office out to destroy his presidency.

The political machinery targeting Barack Obama now, Bill Clinton noted for the record on "Meet the Press" this past weekend, is not as virulent as it was, though.

The former President known to sit on the fence on political issues, and get ensnared in delicious scandals, further argued that the opposition is not as strong due to the fact the demographic in the voting booths have changed somewhat over the decades.

Bottom line?

"Their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail."

Gosh, it must have been a slow news day, eh?

http://www.julianayrs.com

Liberace...Siegfried & Roy inducted into Hall of Fame in Vegas! Public (& fans) invited to ceremony September 25th...

The Queen of glitter - and the undisputed  Kings of  Lion pampering - will be honored by the University of Nevada "Hall of Fame" tomorrow afternoon (September 25th) at 6:30 p.m.

Fans of Liberace and Siegfeld & Roy will undoubtedly trot down to the Artemus Ham Hall  on campus to join in the fun (free!).

There will also be a VIP reception (after the initial opening ceremonies) for those who pine to meet the celebrated entertainers Siegfeld & Roy in person.

Attendees who cough up a $200 contribution to help raise funds for the organization are invited to the chi-chi after-soiree to mingle and munch on complimentary food and exotic cocktails.

Several months ago, I was inspired to pen a post on the highlights of  Liberace's dazzling career, which also zeroed in on the intriqing private life of the extravagant showman - who chose to not only play the fop - but quip on one hilarious occasion:

"I'm laughing all the way to the bank."

Post:  07/01/2008

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2008/07/liberaceking-of-glitters-museum-sight.html

In recent months, it was announced that a bio of the late-great Liberace is in the works to star - believe it! - Michael Douglas.

Well, if he could handle the "War of the Roses", why not the scandalous romantic battles of Liberace?

The "Hall of Fame" was formed to specifically honor residents of  Southern Nevada (in the Vegas metropolis in particular) who have made outstanding contributions to the Arts which include those of a Visual, Performance, or Archictectural nature.

In addition to Liberace and Siegfried & Roy, other honorees named at press time included respected architect William E. Snyder, Patron Bernice Fischer, and former two-term Nevada Governor Lorraine Hunt-Bono.

Each receipient will be gifted a Sidney Award - which was named after the 1st inductee - Director George Sidney.

http://www.julianayrs.com

Michael Phelps...Daniel Radcliffe vy for top hits! Hot studs in eye of sensual storm...

Generally, Michael Phelps wins hands down when it comes to nabbing top hits at my blog sites.

This phenomenon especially rings true when some salacious tidbit of gossip streaks like lightning across the net piquing the curiosity of die-hard fans.

However, over the past ten days Michael Phelps has been forced to acquiesce a little to another upstart heart-throb, Daniel Radcliffe.

The two high-profile young studs have been running neck-and-neck (not necking; although a handful in some quarters may find the thought an enticing fantasy to dwell upon) in the ratings war.

One lap, Radcliffe edges forward; the next, Phelps powers ahead.

Of course, both are fodder for the gossip mills currently.

Phelps - because of speculation about his love life - who he's dating - and that sort of titillating between-the-sheets stuff.

Meanwhile, Radcliffe's nude publicity stills promoting Equus - and his successful stint on the boards in Broadway currently - are rustling up a whallop of frenzied fan reaction, too.

Even a gay spoof (Video clip) on Harry Potter has managed to stir up a whirlwind of innuendo and speculation about Radcliffe's personal life.

Who's in third place?

Prince William.

A few juicy tidbits about Willy's Royal phallus being over-exposed on film lately have revved up a hornet's nest of activity on these shores and isn't bound to subside in the near future.

Hail to all the young studs!

And, the flurry of precious hits the popular golden boys scatter The Tattler's way!

Sarah Palin...tried to fire librarian and ban books! Sordid past surfaces...

Save me from Sarah, please...

When a reporter asked a McCain spokesperson if Sarah Palin would be tossed aside as a candidate for the Vice Presidency in view of all the negative press in recent days, he was taken aback.

"Over a seventeen-year-old's pregnancy?" he asked incredulously.

The McCain handler has either not been paying attention to the news - or, in the alternative - republicans are just a stupid lot.

It's not a question of a teen being impregnated out-of-wedlock!

In recent days, vigorous efforts on the part of journalists around the country, have turned up a handful of startling - and unsettling - Sarah Palin scandals.

For instance, she allegedly tried to have a librarian fired for not banning books she was inclined to strike from the catalogues.

One must have been a tome on "Pork Funding"; after all, it probably struck too close to home.

Another, must have been a manual whipped up by professionals on the subject of sex education.

Yes, Palin prefers the great white north to be populated with unwed teenagers with babies in tow.

At least it will keep 'em out of trouble at home in their igloos on dark wintry nights.

Then, there are the reports that Palin was actually involved with an ultra-aggressive anti-American organization that sought Alaska's secession from the United States.

Funny that.

This past week McCain's handlers were noting that Palin was a prime choice for the VP ticket.

Why?

Because Alaska was a scant three miles from Russia - and hence - the 44-year old mother of five was keen on security issues.

If that's the case - did she ever ponder what the threat would have been - had Alaska broken off from the United States and been set adrift?

When you view her record - what there is of it - it's also evident that Palin has flip-flopped all over an environment that she now seeks to plunder with intrusive oil drilling in sensitive wild-life habitats.

Yeah, the cuddly Polar Bear is in her targets, next!

Her extremist views on abortion, prejudices against gays, and screwy ideas about teaching creationism in schools add to the lunacy.

Notwithstanding, it should be noted that contrary to what McCain alleges, insiders have confessed that Palin was a last-minute un-thought-out choice.

I half-expect the other hopefuls passed over are laughing behind his back.

"Serves you right, soldier boy."

Yeah, the election battle has been lost.

The Dems are a shoe-in now.


Oil rigs threaten fragile environment...

National Enquirer...Tabloids check facts. DiCaprio & Stone incident proved it to me!

Since the fifties, whenever the names of Tabloid newspapers pop up in a conversation, they conjure up wild images of tales about babies born with three heads, nine-legged aliens that have landed from outer space, whatever!

In recent years - the fodder has tended to be a little tamer - with a big thrust on sex scandals, drug abuse, and corruption in high places.

Like me, you probably expect that when you come across a photo alleging two Hollywood Stars are dating, that the two individuals have never even met; instead, were thrust together in a scandalous clinch by virtue of the skillful hand of a photoshop artist.

Nonetheless - many shoppers at the local supermarket are inclined to give the weeklies a surrepticious glance - before they head out the door with their groceries.

Alhough titillated, many are too embarrassed to be caught dead actually purchasing a dog-eared copy.

For the most part - many Americans are under the distinct impression that - The National Enquirer, The Examiner, and The Star - print up juicy tidbits of salicious gossip without even verifying the facts.

Well, I can attest to the fact that such an allegation would not be true.

A few years ago - I answered an ad in the local newspaper - that was canvassing for talented writers for a "popular" weekly magazine.

When I scheduled the interview, though, I was surprised when I found myself face-to-face with the Editor-in-Chief for one of the top sleaze-bag tabloid newsies in the country.

As one of my favorite characters on "In Living Color" would say,

"I'm not one to gossip, but - "

Although I'm not the type of individual to sort-through dirty laundry, or hang outside sleazy Motels in search of incriminating evidence, I thought - what the heck - I'll give it a shot.

There was one hitch, though.

The Editor requested that I come up with ten story "ideas" before they would sign me on as a regular feature writer.

So, I trundled off in search of a handful of leads from friends and business associates in the industry. God, it was like trying to pull teeth!

One day, I crossed paths with an old friend, and mentioned my dilemma.

"If you hear anything, give me a call."

As it turned out, my gal pal was dating a bartender at a trendy watering hole in Santa Monica. And - her lover noted in passing - that heart-throb Leonardo DiCaprio and Director Oliver Stone were spied huddling in the back room one night snorting cocaine!

When I called up the editor to pass on the tidbit, he demanded the name of the bartender and the exact location of the nightclub.

I put out a call to my friend with a request for the specifics.

At this point, she panicked. Her friend (who happened to be a woman) was antsy about stepping forward. After all, she was a Christian. Also, she was worried about losing her job.

"Well, see if you can get her to change her mind," I urged. "The newspaper will pay well for the tip."

Meanwhile, unbeknownst to me, the tabloid proceeded to contact the Bar behind my back in a scurrilous effort to secure the facts on their own.

Talk about a knife in the back!

Because I let it slip the bartender was a woman - and there was only one female barkeep employed at the establishment - they were able to quickly zero in on her identity.

Then, staff writers proceeded to pester her at work and later at home!

The poor gal freaked out.

Bottom line?

The newspaper wouldn't print the item on DiCaprio and Stone since none of the eyewitnesses were willing to step forward and confirm the facts.

I was surprised as he**.

But, the whole bizarre scenario was reassuring, too.

Until then, I was under the distinct impression the tabloids printed any old piece of gossip unchecked.

Not true!

In light of this, I expect you'll linger a little longer in front of those screaming headlines at the check-out counter, eh?

Hillary Clinton...who to call at 3 a.m.? Pardon, moi!

Hillary steps back in "pardon" issue...


In casting a ballot in the Presidential Race 08, voters are asked to consider who they would call at 3 a.m. in the morning in an hour of crisis...

Well, if the issue pertains to a clandestine "pardon", Hillary would win, by a long shot.

After all, she'd only have to turn over and shake the hubby (if he'd stop snoozing, for a moment or two) to arrange it, quick as a wink. And, all the strings - especially the sinister details as to who pulled 'em - would remain invisible, too.

Of course, in recent days, there has been a big flap in the media - and over at the Obama camp - over the questionable practices of "pardons", especially when they crept up to the Clinton's doorstep in the dead of night.

At issue...pardons Bill bestowed on a posse of close-knit citizens on his last day in office - to a handful of shadowy figures engaged in varying degrees of criminality stateside. And, the Clinton's refusal to release pertinent records pertaining to said individuals, the nature of the "blessings" received, and documents rife with strident opposition from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Obama's stick-to-it gang of inquisitors are on an all-out crusade - openly criticizing Hillary for not taking a more "hands on" approach to the scandal - which has reared its ugly head in the home stretch of the presidential race.

In view of her molasses-in-January speed at dealing with things - it appears to many - that she is thumbing her nose at everyone, lamenting in the process - "I'm not my husband's keeper."

Some critics on the sidelines conclude that if she refuses to hasten the release of red-letter documents at this juncture,

"Why would she offer 'em up, if she is president in the future?"

In a bold-faced effort to effect damage control (as usual) Hill and Bill are inclined to wrestle their way out of the dilemma by pointing accusing fingers at the Federal archivists at the oh-so prestigious Clinton Presidential Library - who they allege - are responsible for blocking the release of hundreds of pages of White House docs. In particular, those relevant to pardons Bill gave a seal of approval to in respect to convicted felon, and head honcho pal, Marc Rich.

The masters of smoke 'n mirrors argue that disclosure of advice received from their aides in respect to pardon issues should remain confidential, bottom line.

Especially if there is incriminating evidence afoot, if you catch my drift.

Heh, it's potent stuff!

The bulk of the materials contain info on pardons granted on the last day Mr. Clinton was fiddling with cigars in the Oval Office; for example, not only the pardons granted to controversial figures such as commodities broker Marc Rich (as aforementioned) but wife, Denise, too - who not only contributed campaign funds to the Clinton bid - but also donated $450,000 towards the start-up fund for the Clinton Library.

And, of course, the docs include volumes of paperwork that take an insightful focus on the eye-brow-raising pardons dolled out to two convicted felons - one charged with mail fraud, the other over illegal drugs. Curiously, it was later revealed, that Senator Clinton's brother actually received a pay-out of $200,000 to act on their behalf in that scurrilous instance.

As usual, Hillary and Bill knew nothing of the transaction. Zip!

Gee, for a couple that knows so little about what goes down in their own family circle, it boggles the mind to fathom how they expect to keep track of all the constituents and their needs, if they ever land back in the White House!

The saga gets more sinister, though, in the aftermath.

When USA Today sought documents under the Freedom of information Act, files arrived in true, Clinton-esque fashion...memos to and from Mr. Clinton and the Justice Department were redacted or withheld entirely, for instance.

The abuse of power did not end there, though.

In 2004, when Judicial Watch sought documents through the courts - in spite of the fact the Judge ordered them released - the "pardon documents" showed up at the watch-dog's headquarters - with key information blacked out.

The Clinton's swear up-and-down to the public, the media, and anyone within earshot that...it is the fault of Administrators at the National Archives who seek to protect the status quo; but clearly, their arguments do not pass the smell test.

Christopher Farrell, Director of "Watch", said it all in a nutshell when he argued that it is a ridiculous notion to withhold clemency petitions over privacy concerns.

"These are people who were convicted in a court and those cases are a matter of public record."

Mr. Farrell, it should be obvious by now...

A proper review of all pertinent documents are bound to reveal the extent of Clinton corruption, not that of the felons in question.

Just betcha, there's a nasty pile of dirt on the Clinton's tucked away in the shadows, bound to cause Hillary the election.

Yup, that's what all the fuss is about, in my estimation.