Sometimes, I’m blown away by the intelligence of dogs. I’ll watch any show about dogs, and consistently, the average dog has more emotional intelligence than most humans. Some dogs know how to use tools, and dogs know how to figure out engineering issues, they have strong sense memories, and they have some long-ass memories. But over the past month, there’s been a move by “scientists” to discredit all the good boys and good girls. These academics are getting paid by Big Cat (or possibly Big Fish) to try to convince people that their dogs are not really that smart. These “scientists” are punks.

Your dog may not be a genius, after all. A new study finds that canines are not exceptional in the animal world. https://t.co/DBafJwUGgP pic.twitter.com/l0yPvojPQJ

— Scientific American (@sciam) November 27, 2018

The argument these (fake) scientists are making is that “There is no current case for canine exceptionalism,” and that dogs are, intelligence-wise, “quite ordinary when compared to other carnivores, domestic animals, and social hunters.” So dogs are “ordinary” when compared to another domesticated animal… like, a cat? Cats are geniuses, granted. But I also think dogs are geniuses. What two animal groups have convinced their overlords to feed them, walk them, cuddle with them, get them medicine, and allow them to run the house? Also: why are these dumb scientists being paid to “study” this sh-t? YOUR DOG IS A GENIUS, CASE CLOSED.

The comments were funny though:

I bet you’re not a genius either, study guy. pic.twitter.com/XnrCNfcAFP

— suzy emerson (@suzyemerson) November 27, 2018

The authors pic.twitter.com/IViEDQnzI9

— CJ (@pnwrunnerlass) November 27, 2018

*blocked and reported* pic.twitter.com/zN1t51eWBh

— Nicola Calder (@NicolaCalder7) November 27, 2018

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid.

Dear Gossips,

The National Board of Review announced its award winners yesterday. NBR isn’t always that great of an Oscar predictor; last year their Best Film was The Post, Best Actor and Best Actress were Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep, Willem Dafoe and Laurie Metcalf won for supporting …AND they l…

Yesterday, when I wrote about Alicia Silverstone being ordered to pay her ex 12k a month in spousal support, Erinn commented with a quote from Alicia’s book, The Kind Mama. Alicia quoted Dr. Oz’s bad take on vaccinations as harmful to children. Dr. Oz has been condemned by his peers for the way his show promotes pseudoscience. I get that he needs a lot of content for a daily show but he promotes so much quackery and bad science. One thing he also promotes which seems slightly less harmful and more sciencey is examining poop to see how well formed it is. Like little rabbit pellets mean we’re constipated, very watery poop is diarrhea, and well formed longer poops mean our diet is balanced I guess. Plus the color of poop can be indicative of health issues. So when Alicia said her son knows about poop indicating health, it’s somewhat sensible compared to some of her other beliefs.

“He knows when he eats well, he poops well. So he knows, as a little kid, that when he doesn’t eat right, his poo changes,” Silverstone, 42, tells PEOPLE. “He’ll be like, ‘Mommy, it’s not coming out!’ So he’s learned through his body and the way he feels.”

“He’ll know when he’s starting to get a little sniffly because the kids around him at school are sniffly, and he’ll say, ‘I think I need to eat more vegetables, Mommy,’ ” she adds. “He’s such a healthy boy. When he does get the sniffles or gets a little cough, he’s still running up the wall.”

[From People]

I think the sum of the conversations I’ve had with my kid about poop are “please remember to flush.” Of course when they have diarrhea you talk about it and give Imodium or even Zofran if it’s that horrible stomach virus that goes around twice a year. (I keep that stuff on hand now. I learned my lesson after a $600 ER bill for a saline IV and Zofran.) Alicia doesn’t give her son medication either, because he doesn’t ever need it since he’s so healthy from being vegan. I just can’t get on board with talking to my kid about his poop uh regularly. I do have an easier trick to getting him to eat vegetables though. I give them to him first, always before the main dish, and he’ll eat them. After that he gets nonorganic factory farmed steak from the grocery store. (I’m sorry I couldn’t resist! I do buy local meat from the butcher when I feel flush. Also we don’t eat meat every day. I am conscious of the environmental impact. All respect to vegans, etc.)

View this post on Instagram

Bear at Makani’s Waldorf School. We sat in on her play rehearsal. Bear loved!!! He couldn’t stop watching and didn’t want to leave. Random p.s…..I wish we had tried the pizza at flatbread in Paia. Looks yum for Vegans.

A post shared by Alicia Silverstone (@aliciasilverstone) on Mar 10, 2018 at 11:24am PST

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge made a somber appearance at the Leicester City Football Club today to pay tribute to those killed in a helicopter crash. LCFC Chairman Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha was one of those killed, and he and William knew each other and had some kind of friendship. William and Kate were welcomed by his widow, and they laid flowers at the tribute.

For this appearance, Kate wore a new Catherine Walker look. Initially, I thought this was just a straight-up dress, but it’s not. It’s a coat, and Kate is wearing some kind of short black dress underneath it. What I like about the coat/dress: the shoulders aren’t puffy, and the top part looks very well tailored. What I dislike: the puffy pleats of the “skirt.” And the big cloth buttons are… there. Most of the women attending this tribute event were in black, so even though Kate was in a conservative shade of grey, she still stood out. Also: I really don’t get her current “ponytail with ribbon” trend.

After the tribute, William and Kate met with the LCFC team, plus volunteers and club supporters. Then they went inside the stadium to meet with some of the charities supported by LCFC.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Just recorded my “At-Home Eyelash Extension Video” it will hopefully be up this week on my YouTube ? Used @colourpopcosmetics ‘Afternoon Delight’ Pressed Powder Bronzer , ‘Black n’ Brown’ Precision Brow Pencil ? Lenses: @ttd_eye in ‘caramel’ use “emma” for money off ?

A post shared by EMMA HALLBERG (@eemmahallberg) on Nov 12, 2018 at 12:41pm PST

You can believe that race is a social construct, or you can believe that race is a biology, or you can believe that race is both biological and social. I tend to believe it’s both. Genetics work in funny ways – sometimes – but of course race and racism seeps into cultural, political and social life in a million different ways. This is the first time I’ve heard the term “blackfishing” – apparently, it’s where white women use tanning, hair & makeup trickery to “look black,” especially online. The idea of blackfishing has been in the news recently because apparently, there’s a wave of white women and girls on social media who are pretending to be black… for, like, attention and profit.

The young woman in these IGs is named Emma Hallberg. She’s just 19 years old, and she’s Swedish and a self-styled “Instagram influencer,” meaning that she’s got a lot of followers and she posts a lot of stuff about fashion/hair/makeup. She’s also white. She was recently “outed” as white when someone posted a candid photo of her. Note the stark difference between how she presents herself on Instagram versus how she looks normally.

White girls if you want to pass as Black, how about using your platforms to address the injustices and discrimation actual Black people face. Don’t just appropriate, Appreciate the people you are imitating #emmahallberg pic.twitter.com/gpmkvB0BZj

— Niccole Nero Gaines (@2CsNiccole) November 19, 2018

Emma has a bit of Kardashian to her, eh? Initially, Emma addressed the criticism by messaging a fan, writing: “Yes I’m white and I’ve never claimed to be anything else. And by no way, there are no “before” pictures, the pictures that has been spread are just two diefferent [sic] pictures taken on two different seasons of the year.” Then she went on Instagram Stories with this message:

“Let me explain. You’ve probably seen these two pictures besides [sic] each other all over Instagram, Twitter and Facebook, where they are called the ‘before & after. The left picture was taken 2 years ago right before summer with barely any makeup and my hair straightened. The right picture was taken in July right after I came home from a vacation, with makeup. I’ve been accused of doing frequent spray tans, taking melatonin, getting hair perms and lip injections and many more. When I haven’t done anything of the above.” Hallberg then shared a series of recent photos of herself and credited her skin tone to spending a lot of time in the sun. “This is how the sun tans my skin naturally during the summer.”

[From People]

As I said at the beginning of this post, I believe race is both a biology and social construct. Of course there are white people with olive skin tones, white people who tan very deeply whenever they’ve been out in the sun, and of course there are white folks with naturally curly hair. There are people who are biologically white who can easily pass for mixed-race or black, just as there are black or mixed race people who can pass for white. So, is that what’s happening here? Or was Emma hoping that the “I never claimed I was black” technicality will get her through? Because she certainly seemed to be presenting herself as a black or mixed-race woman, and this definitely feels like blackfishing (from my understanding of it).

Okayyy so I just realized that I’ve over 1000 subscribers on YouTube ? ask me some questions down below that you would like me to answer in a Q&A ?? (I know you already have but since that was a couple of months ago I thought it would be fun with some new questions instead ) FULL OUTFIT: @fashionnova #NovaBabe ?

A post shared by EMMA HALLBERG (@eemmahallberg) on Sep 24, 2018 at 11:22am PDT

Photos courtesy of Instagram.

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt were supposed to be locked in last minute negotiations with their lawyers this week, and next week. Originally, they were due in court on December 4th to begin their contentious custody hearing, which would decide on custody of the five youngest Jolie-Pitt children. I’m still not 100% sure why they chose to tackle custody first, before they had even worked out a preliminary financial agreement, but I suspect that the financial stuff is tied to custody, as in… if Angelina gets primary custody, Brad will owe her more in support. Still, it feels like after two-plus years, they should be a lot further along. Unfortunately, the process seems to be slowing down – Angelina just asked for an extension while her lawyers negotiate with Brad’s lawyers.

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are locked in discussions to try and reach a settlement on the custody of their children and just asked the court to give them more time with the private judge so they can reach the finish line. According to documents, obtained by The Blast, Jolie filed a stipulation to extend the appointment of the Honorable John Ouderkirk as the judge dealing with the custody issue in their divorce. As we reported, Ouderkirk is the same guy who officiated the Pitt-Jolie wedding in 2014.

Jolie, who notes that Ouderkirk is privately compensated by the two stars, wants to make sure he oversee all the pre-trial motions and requests, and then handles the private custody trial, if necessary. The couple is asking that the judge be extended until December 31st, 2019. Ouderkirk was previously slated to be on board until June, so it seems the stars are making sure they have enough time to reach a settlement without going to a trial.

[From The Blast]

My reading of this is that the custody hearing – if it happens – will be pushed back until 2019, but both sides are truly trying to settle this part out of court. I still don’t know how I feel about that, incidentally. Like, I do think that an actual custody hearing will be difficult for the kids, but I also think that Brad will probably get more generous terms from an out-of-court settlement deal. Maybe I’m wrong? Like, a year ago, I would have said that Angelina would never even sit down and talk about a deal. But she seems to have softened a bit. Or maybe there’s some other angle I’ve haven’t considered.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Here are more photos from the Duchess of Cambridge’s appearance last Wednesday, when she made a surprise trip to the Psychology and Language Sciences Division of University College London. Kate was highlighting part of one of her causes, which is early childhood development and the mental health of children. The lab she visited studies the effect of language on infants and young children, basically making the scientific argument that it’s good for parents to talk a lot to their kids, from an educational and psychological standpoint. As it turns out, Kate had an interest in psychology when she attended St. Andrews, but she didn’t end up doing much about it:

The Duchess of Cambridge has revealed she studied psychology at university, as she discussed the importance of early intervention with vulnerable young children. As well as talking to researchers, led by Prof Eamon McCrory, co-director of the unit, she was shown its MRI scanning facility and was told about the university’s ground-breaking research on how early experiences can shape brain function and development, both socially and emotionally.

She asked: “Is the idea as well that you follow the child you are looking at into adulthood? It would be really fascinating. The research in general, have they [the children and their families] got much understanding of the bigger picture?”

The Duchess said yesterday: “I started off doing psychology at St Andrews, with History of Art.” She added, laughing: “It was a bit full on, but it was really interesting.”

At most Scottish universities students will take three subjects in first and second years before specialising in their final subject. The Duchess said her experience in the MRI suite had been “fascinating”. She was particularly keen to discuss how the research could be translated into practical help for families and the wider community.

“It’s trying to translate the amazing research you are doing here into something that parents can understand,” she remarked. “What do you feel is going to make the difference in this field? Is it increased funding? Is it awareness about the importance of early years intervention?” She added: ‘You hear a lot from people who have addiction in the family: have they any chance at all in being able to change the outcome? When you have got addiction stretching across three generations, can you change what will happen?”

[From The Telegraph]

I don’t completely understand the degree system in the UK, but I believe Kate has the equivalent of, like, a Bachelor’s in Art History. She basically took one or two classes in Psychology to fulfill some requirements for her liberal arts degree. I actually believe that she did have an interest in psychology, but she was probably convinced not to pursue it at university so she could spend more time pursuing William and tailoring her interests to his. But now that she has her MRS degree, she’s still finding some way to pursue an old interest.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

View this post on Instagram

Never let anyone burst your bubble. ???????

A post shared by Paris Hilton (@parishilton) on Nov 26, 2018 at 11:04pm PST

Paris Hilton is one of the four cover stars of December’s Gay Times. They put her in a retro photoshoot that’s monochromatic but interesting in a milquetoast way, like Paris herself so they captured that. She’s predictable, she’s been saying and doing the same things year after year and there’s something comforting about her sameness. Paris always talks about how she was a pioneer in reality television with The Simple Life. There’s the feeling that she wants to recapture her early fame but is unwilling to admit that or change her approach at all. That’s why I’m skeptical of the claim she makes in this interview that she turned down a Simple Life reboot. They didn’t offer her enough money to do it or it wasn’t on brand or something. Or maybe Nicole Richie refused to sign on. Otherwise Paris would have jumped at it. I’m assuming this was before she broke it off with her fiance or she would have talked aboutiit. Or maybe not since her narcissism probably doesn’t leave her much room for caring about another person. She’s all about herself and her career and she’ll tell you about it. I’m relying on E!’s coverage as the article is not on Gay Times’ site yet:

On her product lines being sold worldwide
“It’s definitely a surprise for people when they hear that my product lines are sold all over the world. They’re always asking me why I travel so much and it’s because I love what I do.”

“I love meeting with my fans around the world and getting to spend time with them, and it’s important for me to optimize my time when I’m back in these different cities and countries and visit local charities and give back.”

She claimed she didn’t have enough time to do a Simple Life reboot
“They actually approached me to re-do it again but my schedule was so insane that I didn’t have time to do it so I said no, but it would be pretty epic.

“It changed my whole life since it was the first of its kind. There really was nothing out there like it in the world. After that show, I got to go all around the world and it really just started my career in this business.”

On the LGBTQ community
“They’re incredibly supportive of me as a person and a business woman, and they’ve been on this amazing journey throughout my career and taught me so much along the way. They’re so inspirational to me in every way.”

She is for trans rights, but didn’t she vote for Trump?
“No community deserves to have their rights taken from them, and the trans community shouldn’t be targeted with administrative regulations on their human lives. I plan to use my platform to speak out and to continue to give this community a voice.”

On her future plans
“World domination. I’m just going to continue working hard, living life to the fullest, releasing new products, music, and DJ-ing around the world. Just being a boss babe and killing it.”

[From Gay Times via E! Online]

I was going to make this story about Paris saying she was going for world domination, but then I read the comments on Gay Times’ Instagram below. So many people were calling them out for featuring a celebrity who voted for Trump. Paris did say in 2016 that she voted for Trump because she’s “known him since I’m a little girl [sic].” Now, like Caitlyn Jenner, she’s appalled at Trump’s treatment of the transgender community when everyone knew this would happen. We knew that every marginalized group, including gay people, trans people, immigrants, minorities, woman and even animals, would have their rights stripped under this villainous administration. But sure, she’s going to “continue to give this community a voice.” Trans people don’t need Paris f-ing Hilton to have a voice. Is Paris going to support Democratic candidates from now on or is she going to continue to vote with her white girl wallet and blow smoke about supporting LGBTQ rights? Also, last year she later tried to dial it back and claimed she didn’t even vote. She lies through her veneers regularly and in that same interview she said that the many women accusing Trump of assault “are just trying to get attention and get fame.” WHAT ARE YOU DOING THEN PARIS? Isn’t that your whole career? I can’t with her.

View this post on Instagram

GAY TIMES DECEMBER 2018 • PARIS HILTON in conversation with KIM PETRAS The OG influencer, inventor of the selfie, philanthropist, businesswoman, animal lover, ally. It’s hard to describe Paris Hilton in just one sentence, and far harder to speak on her enduring impact on modern popular culture. In conversation with pop star Kim Petras, she speaks on her admiration for the LGBTQ community, her thoughts on the Tr*mp administration’s harmful policies against trans people and wraps it all with a conclusive “That’s Hot” list. Photography: @vijatm Fashion: @sammykstyle In conversation with: @kimpetras Makeup: @samvissermakeup Set & Props: @sarah_hein_ Set: @mykpierce Hair: @hairbyiggy Nails: @mazzhannabeauty As told to: @wjconnolly Subscribe now via our bio link!

A post shared by GAY TIMES (@gaytimesmag) on Nov 23, 2018 at 8:57am PST

View this post on Instagram

The way you look at me makes my heart melt… ???

A post shared by Paris Hilton (@parishilton) on Nov 26, 2018 at 7:52pm PST

Photos credit: Avalon.red and via Instagram

As we discussed yesterday, people really want to believe that Meghan Markle somehow made the Duchess of Cambridge cry just days before Meghan’s wedding. “Sources” came short of saying that Meghan did or said something to Kate to make her cry, but we’re supposed to draw the conclusion. It happened at a fitting for Princess Charlotte’s bridesmaid’s dress, and just weeks after Kate had given birth to baby Louis. Well, even People Magazine made it seem like it was nothing – they made a point of saying that William and Kate were both in good spirits at the wedding:

Kate Middleton was said to be “left in tears” after a fitting for Princess Charlotte‘s bridesmaid dress ahead of Meghan Markle‘s royal wedding to Prince Harry, according to a new report in the U.K. press. A source told veteran royals reporter Camilla Tominey of The Daily Telegraph, “Kate had only just given birth to Prince Louis and was feeling quite emotional” — though just what upset her is unclear.

Several insiders have told PEOPLE that there was a notable amount of “stress” surrounding those involved in the wedding. Still, a royal wedding guest previously told PEOPLE that Prince William “was in a jokey, wonderful mood” at Meghan and Prince Harry‘s private evening reception — and that Kate was in “great form.”

Although Kate, 36, and Meghan, 37, have made several joint appearances as part of the Royal Fab Four – and even attending Wimbledon for a girls’ day without their husbands over the summer – they’re “very different women, despite their similar circumstances,” a source told The Daily Telegraph. “Meghan is an extrovert, whereas Kate is quite shy.”

[From People]

Have I seen that quote before? “Meghan is an extrovert, whereas Kate is quite shy.” Apparently not – it first appeared in the Telegraph article about Kate’s tears. But it’s been the undercurrent of a lot of reporting and a lot of Keen-stan and Meg-stan gossip – the idea that Meghan is ONLY good at this because she’s an extrovert, and poor weepy Kate is so painfully shy. I don’t think Kate is shy – she’s an introvert, for sure, but that’s different than being shy.

Also, the same Telegraph article claims that Meghan and Harry both cried before the wedding, but their tears were about Thomas Markle:

When Meghan Markle’s father, Thomas Markle, revealed last minute that he couldn’t attend the royal wedding, the future Duchess of Sussex confirmed the news in a brief yet cordial statement. “Sadly, my father will not be attending our wedding. I have always cared for my father and hope he can be given the space he needs to focus on his health,” her message began. But her reaction behind the scenes was much more emotional. According to a new report from The Telegraph, the shocking news of Thomas Markle’s absence from the nuptials “reduced both Meghan and Harry to tears.”

The back-and-forth drama, which unraveled just days before the wedding, “perhaps explains why the prince went to such great lengths to ensure his bride-to-be could have everything she wanted on her big day,” according to The Telegraph. A source told reporter Camilla Tominey that the Duke of Sussex is “understandably extremely protective” of the Duchess.

[From Harper’s Bazaar]

I felt like crying in the days leading up to their wedding too. That was the craziest lead-up I’ve ever seen, with Thomas Markle giving impromptu interviews to TMZ and refusing to take his daughter’s calls, and Prince Charles being called in to save the day. It was hectic and stressful and it was a miracle that Meghan and Harry sorted themselves out for the wedding. So, yes, everybody was crying. Meg, Harry, Kate, probably Charles too.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Awards season began this year with a whimper, not a bang. I think it’s just one of those timing things – people are paying attention to politics and thinking about the holiday season. The biggest films of the year are not the ones which will get big award nomination, like Creed 2, or Black Panther. But I also think there’s just been a fundamental shift over the past decade, and even more so in the past couple of years – the awards season is boring. It’s a slog. Some of the worst films end up winning the biggest prizes. And so people have really checked out.

All that being said, I have high hopes for this awards season. One, Black Panther actually came to play, and I feel like there will be hell to pay if BP doesn’t end up with some Best Picture nominations. Two, there are a couple of “hit films” which will end up being major contenders, like A Star Is Born. ASIB was a financial and critical success, and Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga let it be known that they were coming for #AllTheOscars back in AUGUST. And their plan seems to be working out – the prestigious National Board of Reviews gave their biggest awards to Green Book and ASIB.

The National Board of Review on Tuesday revealed its 2018 award winners, naming Green Book as its pick for best film. In addition to Green Book receiving the top honor, Viggo Mortensen, the star of the Universal release, was named best actor.

Bradley Cooper’s box-office and critical-smash remake of A Star Is Born, from Warner Bros., received three awards from the NBR; Cooper was named best director, with star Lady Gaga tapped as best actress and co-star Sam Elliott named best supporting actor.

Barry Jenkins’ Moonlight follow-up If Beale Street Could Talk, which Annapurna is set to release in theaters starting Dec. 14, won two awards: best supporting actress for Regina King and best adapted screenplay for Jenkins. Other major winners include Paul Schrader’s First Reformed script (best original screenplay), Incredibles 2 (best animated feature), Leave No Trace’s Thomasin McKenzie (breakthrough performance), Bo Burnham’s Eighth Grade (best directorial debut), RBG (best documentary), Crazy Rich Asians (best ensemble) and Cold War (best foreign-language film).

[From THR]

I say this every year, but I put a lot of stock in what the NBR says – while they don’t have the best record with picking winners, their awards usually help narrow the field and predict early front-runners. I feel like Green Book is going to stumble, if it hasn’t already, by the time the Oscar nominations come out. But A Star Is Born? That’s here to stay. Lady Gaga will get nominated for Best Actress across the board, I’m absolutely sure. Bradley Cooper will get nominated for Best Director. ASIB is a huge Oscar contender.

Also: the Gotham Awards happened this week, and they are not a good prognosticator of what will happen later in the awards season. You can see this year’s Gotham winners here.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.