Just a few weeks ago, Hecate did a story about Kourtney Kardashian and Travis Barker, and the rumors that they are dating. They were apparently leaving flirty messages on each other’s social media. It seemed sort of out of left field, but I would also imagine that they probably have mutual friends. I also remember watching Travis Barker and Shanna Moakler’s reality show – Meet the Barkers – which predated Keeping Up with the Kardashians! God, that just sent me on a journey to read Shanna’s Wiki page. Meet the Barkers had a lot of fun/dumb drama. Anyway, the point is that Kourtney and Travis have their own reality show histories and they have complicated relationships with exes and they’ve both lived and learned a lot. And now they’re officially together?

Kourtney Kardashian and Travis Barker are dating. Over the weekend, Kardashian, 41, and Barker, 45, enjoyed a trip to Palm Springs, California, where her mother Kris Jenner has a home. On Saturday, the Keeping Up with the Kardashians reality star and the Blink-182 drummer both shared poolside views of the residence’s backyard on their Instagram Story.

“They’re in Palm Springs together. They’ve been dating for about a month or two,” a source tells PEOPLE. “They’ve been friends for a long time but it’s turned romantic.”

“Travis has liked her for a while,” an insider shares.

A rep for Barker did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment. Barker shares stepdaughter Atiana, 21, daughter Alabama, 15, and son Landon, 17, with his ex-wife Shanna Moakler, whom he was married to from 2004-08. Meanwhile, Kardashian and her ex Scott Disick co-parent their three kids: sons Mason, 11, and Reign, 6, as well as 8-year-old daughter Penelope. Kardashian and Disick, 37, ended their nine-year relationship in July 2015.

Kardashian and Barker have known each other for years. In addition to living in the same Calabasas, California, community, Barker has previously made brief cameos on Keeping Up with the Kardashians.

[From People]

I seem to remember Travis saying some problematic stuff back in the day, but hopefully he’s grown up and matured and chilled out a lot. Honestly, I think these kinds of “adult love stories” are kind of nice. Two people in their 40s who have been friends for years finding a love connection. Kourtney’s past two boyfriends have been much younger than her, and I would assume that Travis has also got a list of younger exes too. Maybe they’re both in a place in their life where they just want to be with someone who remembers when Friends originally aired. Also: this could totally be a reality spinoff show for their new Hulu deal. Keeping Up with the Barkers?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Yet another biography has been written about Queen Elizabeth II. This new one is by Clive Irving and it’s called The Last Queen: Elizabeth II’s Seventy Year Battle to Save the House of Windsor. Provocative title for royalists, I suppose. To promote the book, Irving chatted with Vanity Fair about what QEII has done right and why Irving thinks the Crown is actually on pretty tenuous standing these days. Irving seems to be intensely critical of Prince Charles and Charles’ autocratic tendencies as Prince of Wales, but he isn’t *as* critical of William and Kate. Some highlights from this VF interview:

The monarchy could go off a cliff with King Charles: “I think we know far more than we would ever really want to know about Charles, right? I think there’s a really real risk that if Charles does succeed her that the monarchy will go over a cliff very fast. This question of the survival of the monarchy hasn’t really arisen since the time of [Edward VIII’s] abdication, but it will come up as a real smack in the face. She’s enjoyed such a command of the role that the whole idea of abolition or republicanism has been beyond reality. Charles has a serious problem. One problem is that he doesn’t look like an invigorating generational shift, does he? That’s what would be needed, something that reinvigorates and sends a sense that they’ve understood the modern world. In some ways, Charles looks older than the queen. He’s a man more suited to the 18th century than the 21st, and I’m not being facetious about that. That’s his deliberate and chosen style, like a younger brother of the queen rather than a son.

Charles thinks like an autocrat: “He’s also run [the Duchy of Cornwall], a separate branch of the Firm, for such a long time, that it’s revealed to us the ways in which he likes to operate, which presumably would be the way he would continue to operate if he were on the throne. He’s talked about the method he’s preferred to use his influence, which he calls his “convening power.” He pulls in groups of advisers he targets for his issues and invariably they’re sycophants. He doesn’t like to be challenged, and he thinks like an autocrat. And he’s shown himself to be a hypocrite. He was an early campaigner for recognizing the importance of climate change and that’s very good—he even lectured [Donald] Trump on the subject, which was pretty brave to do. But at the same time, he flies around on executive jets, uncaring about the enormous carbon footprint of that. If he had been using commercial flights for the same trips, he would have saved about 95% of the emissions. He’s born with such a sense of entitlement that it’s never occurred to him that maybe you can’t continue to do that.

On Meghan & Harry: “If you take the case of Meghan and Harry, it’s been an atrocious act of hypocrisy on Charles’s part to [take the view] that it wasn’t right for them to use a brand, Sussex Royal, to monetize the royal name, because Charles was the first person ever to do that in a serious way, with the Duchy brand of grocery items. He makes about $27 million a year [off of holdings that include] grocery items like ginger biscuits, party crab, and so on. It never seemed to strike him or anybody else in the royal family that it was hypocritical to attack Meghan and Harry for wanting to do their own brand, and in their case not to sell groceries but to do good work. They’re much better understood here in America, mainly because the opinion of them in the U.K. was driven by the right-wing press and all the people who held up an incredible groundswell against Meghan because she was seen as an outsider, or some kind of exotic show-business plant who wasn’t suitable.

Why Meghan got the hell out: “In an odd way, the members of the royal family are the least free people in the nation. They’re like indentured actors in a theater company, and they have to perform the same drama over and over again from birth to death. They have little choice about where they live, their program is fixed in precise details months ahead and the success of the show is not assured. A lot of people wouldn’t want to be trapped in that life to begin with. I think that’s what Meghan discovered very rapidly. As a career actress, it was like being enlisted in the wrong repertory company, and she didn’t want to play in those plays. She wanted to do something more serious. Otherwise, it was like a series of waxworks dummies performing.

The Sussexes are holding up a mirror to the Windsors in the same way Diana did: “The first person to hold the whole family’s feet to the fire on that one was Diana. She went out there and led by example, like in the anti-land-mine campaign. It is deciding that your position enables you to be an influence to get things changed that need changing, and then going out and leveraging it. Diana really did that, and by doing it to the extent that she did, she really did shame them. In a more modest way, Meghan and Harry are doing a similar shaming exercise. Though their move to Hollywood and deal with Netflix sounds like show business, what they’re really intending to do is to leverage their ideas and their philosophy in ways that can be positive. They have these toffs in London pissing on them for doing that, but at the same time, missing the point.

The larger problem: “The [Windsor] family’s good works and their philanthropy is not in line with their wealth and their position. You get a feeling that they’re much more into themselves than they are interested in thinking about what they can do to follow in the tradition of Diana and really do something really good. I think that Prince William and Kate Middleton are probably acutely aware of that problem, but they’re not really able to do much about it. But Charles gets very peevish if people raise the question of, “well, why don’t you do more?” He’s not transparent about his own finances, and he runs a miniature palace of his own, Highgrove; it stinks of privilege and entitlement, and a lack of understanding of what they can really do in a positive way.

Will the monarchy be in okay shape for King William? “That’s probably the key question: Can it survive long enough under Charles for it to be still intact for them to take it over and do a better job with it? We don’t know. Wouldn’t it have been nice if it could just jump a generation and go straight to them. And does it matter in the end? It does to the Brits a lot. I’ve always felt this placebo effect of the monarchy as a head of state. It’s a very valuable thing, not having a politician or a general as the head of state—as we can tell in the United States. If the head of state turns out to be really wrong, things go down the tube very rapidly. As long as the head of state and the people to whom the people swear allegiance and the person that they look up to is not a politician, a church figure, or a general, there’s a healthiness to it.

[From Vanity Fair]

I think Irving raises a lot of solid points, actually. I’ve never really thought of Charles in terms of his autocratic tendencies, but Irving isn’t wrong there. I guess I always think of Charles as someone who means well when it comes to charitable and philanthropic efforts, but doesn’t always know the right way to speak about those efforts so he ends up getting a raw deal. I mean, Charles does so much environmental stuff, he’s got The Prince’s Trust, and a million other charities and issues he’s working on. If anything, even with Charles’ autocratic tendencies (and he is surrounded by sycophants and limited thinkers), he’s still better than William and Kate, who seem lazier and duller by the moment. I especially think Irving makes a really solid point about Meghan and Harry holding up a mirror to the Windsors like Diana did in her day. That’s exactly what’s happened, and if the past is prologue, that means that the Windsors will just copy what H&M are doing, claim that they were doing it from the beginning, and continue pushing H&M further away.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Dear Gossips, If not for the pandemic, Oscar nominations would be announced around now. Everything has been pushed back, as we know, but the races are starting to shape up. The big question is how different voting will be now that award season campaigning isn’t happening the way we’re used to seeing…

Above is the latest photo of Ben Affleck, picking up packages and Dunkin’ delivery while smiling for the paps. These aren’t exclusive photos which is why we have access to them. That means multiple photographers were there. For someone who doesn’t want to be famous, he sure knows how to ham it up. However I’ve known dudes who are incapable of making two trips. (My ex). Ben must also know that the photos of him picking up deliveries often go viral. So Ben is playing it up, or maybe he’s just having a good day and the paps happened to be there. He can’t stand it when we talk about him. That’s why his people had to give sourced updates on his breakup with Ana de Armas to all the major outlets. Here are stories we haven’t covered yet.

They started having problems in the fall
“They took time apart, but found a way to get back together,” the source said. “After spending the [December] holidays apart they both agreed that moving on was for the best.”

The insider added that Affleck and de Armas “are both very busy with their careers,” adding, “The quarantine period was unique because they had down time and really got to know each other spending time at home. Once things started opening back up and work picked up, things started to change. Ana decided she doesn’t want to live in L.A. She didn’t want to be tied down. Their lifestyles are very different and they are in different places.”

Affleck and de Armas’ breakup, the source said, is “disappointing” and it “has been hard to let it go because they had a great year together and fell hard.”

“Ben has been seeing the kids and doing all of the same stuff they have always done,” the insider said, “That chapter has closed and now they are all moving ahead to the next one.”

“They are a source of great joy for him,” the person said. “He’s working on maintaining his mental well-being and co-parenting with Jen.”
– From E!

They still talk
“Ben and Ana’s friendship has not ended,” a source close to the pair tells PEOPLE in this week’s issue. “They still talk regularly…”

Affleck will soon trade in L.A. for the east coast, though, when he heads to Massachusetts to shoot the George Clooney-directed Amazon film The Tender Bar.

“George really wanted to work with Ben on this adaptation,” a production source says of the film based on Pulitzer Prize-winner J. R. Moehringer’s 2005 memoir. “Everyone is excited to have Ben onboard. He seems perfect for the role.” – From People

“The quarantine was unique because they had downtime and ­really got to know each other spending time at home,” a source who knows Affleck and de Armas told The Post. “But once work picked up, things started to change.”

For de Armas, LA is only a place for work. She owns a house in Cuba, where her family still lives and considers that her home, according to friends.

“She’s here for work reasons; like all actors, she lives wherever work takes her,” said one de Armas pal.

“Ana decided she doesn’t want to live in LA and Ben wants to be close to his family,” said the source who knows both stars, of Affleck’s three young children with ex Jennifer Garner. “His priority is to be rooted in LA. They are in different places [in their lives]…”

But insiders also say that, despite his past substance-issues, Affleck is a devoted, involved father.

They also say that Garner, who is described as a fiercely protective mom, approved of de Armas, as she seemed to keep Affleck on an even keel.

“They had a really solid relationship and are truly upset to have come to a place where they need to break up,” the source said. “There is a lot of love there. They were real­ly good for each other and I think that will carry into a friendship.” – From Page Six

[From E!, People and Page Six]

If you read the E! story closely, they state that their source spoke to them on Tuesday, January 19th and Wednesday, January 20th. Plus both Page Six and E! bill their stories as exclusives. They wouldn’t be able to do that if Ben Affleck’s side was giving the same damn quotes to both outlets. Ben’s PR team words things a little differently to get more mileage. As I always say, we get so many updates on Ben’s relationship status for someone who hates attention. Also we talked about this on the podcast this week. That’s at minute 21!

Ben has a new interview with Sacha Baron Cohen for Variety’s podcast. They’re getting the most press for the ribbing they gave each other about their full frontal scenes. Interesting that Ben bookended his breakup announcement with podcast interviews with prestigious outlets.

Also Ben was cracking out. This is for you Rhiannon!

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by A N A D E A R M A S (@ana_d_armas)

photos credit: Backgrid

I’m still going to cover some of the Donald Trump stuff, even now that he’s in exile in MAGAland Florida. Part of the reason why I’m still paying attention to his sh-t is because in 2016, I was really in denial about how millions of Americans were and are so profoundly stupid and evil. I just think we should continue to keep tabs on these whackjobs, because they will absolutely try to overthrow the government again and Trump is going to try to incite more terrorism. So, what is his political power at this point? There are millions of morons willing to donate their life savings to the MAGA cause, and there are so many people in his cult who will never be deprogrammed. So this is terrifying: Trump is still threatening to create a MAGA Party to take down disloyal (to Trump) Republicans.

Former president Donald Trump threw himself back into politics this weekend by publicly endorsing a devoted and divisive acolyte in Arizona who has embraced his false election conspiracy theories and entertained the creation of a new “MAGA Party.” In a recorded phone call, Trump offered his “complete and total endorsement” for another term for Arizona state party chairwoman Kelli Ward, a lightning rod who has sparred with the state’s Republican governor, been condemned by the business community and overseen a recent flight in party registrations. She narrowly won reelection, by a margin of 51.5 percent to 48.5 percent, marking Trump’s first victory in a promised battle to maintain political relevance and influence after losing the 2020 election.

In recent weeks, Trump has entertained the idea of creating a third party, called the Patriot Party, and instructed his aides to prepare election challenges to lawmakers who crossed him in the final weeks in office, including Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.), according to people familiar with the plans.

Multiple people in Trump’s orbit, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, say Trump has told people that the third-party threat gives him leverage to prevent Republican senators from voting to convict him during the Senate impeachment trial. Trump advisers also say they plan to recruit opposing primary candidates and commission polling next week in districts of targeted lawmakers. Trump has more than $70 million in campaign cash banked to fund his political efforts, these people say.

The prospect of a divisive battle threatens to widen a split in the Republican Party and has alarmed leaders in Washington, who have been pleading publicly to avoid any new rounds of internecine retribution. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel are among the leaders who have worked to protect politicians like Cheney, who supported Trump’s second impeachment and now faces an internal effort to remove her from her role as the third-highest-ranking member of the House Republican leadership.

[From WaPo]

I mean, on one side, we get to just sit on the sidelines and sip our tea and watch the Republican Party rip itself apart. And if it was just that, I would do a champagne toast. But as we’ve seen, this kind of Republican melodrama spills out and affects us all, because these people are stupid as f–k and armed to the teeth. So I’ll say this… at the time, I was unsure if deplatforming Donald Trump from social media would really work, and while time will tell long-term, in the short-term, it’s been completely and utterly positive. I think it’s the same thing for the Republican Party on the whole: once Republicans are no longer afraid of him, once they realize that they can stand against him and take away his power, they’ll be shocked by how easy it was and how much better their lives are. Or, you know, they could keep empowering him and being afraid of him and the GOP will become a permanent minority. We’ll see! Also: like hell Trump has $70 million to spend on his own party. All of that money he raised is long gone, in some Cayman Island account, or it’s being used to pay off creditors.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid and Avalon Red.

I think many of us are still processing the trauma of the Trump era and trying to put that nervous energy to good use by advocating for Donald Trump and his enablers to face consequences. I mean, *just in 2021* they incited an insurrection and tried to murder the vice president and Speaker of the House. It feels like over the past twenty years – especially, but it started earlier than that – the GOP has grown more delusional, more insulated by their propaganda bubble. They’re still in deep denial about what they’ve done. I was never joking when I called Trump and his supporters a death cult. That’s exactly what they are: a cult, and a murderous one at that. So is it so off-side for Katie Couric to make a pretty even comment about Trumpers needing to be “deprogrammed”?

There are concerns about Katie Couric as a guest host of “Jeopardy!” after her “condescending, elitist” remarks that GOP and Trump supporters should be “deprogrammed.” Days after “Jeopardy!” producers announced Couric would be a guest presenter of the ABC show following the death of beloved host Alex Trebek, she went on Bill Maher’s show and backed Trump’s impeachment and Twitter ban.

The former “Today” host told Maher on January 15 of GOP congressmen, “It’s really bizarre, isn’t it, when you think about how AWOL so many of these members of Congress have gotten. But I also think some of them are believing the garbage that they are being fed 24/7 on the internet, by their constituents, and they bought into this big lie. And the question is how are we going to really almost deprogram these people who have signed up for the cult of Trump.”

A “Jeopardy!” source told Page Six the remarks immediately worried the producers of the Sony Pictures-created show, which attracts an audience with a median age of 64.2 years old. The source said, “The ‘Jeopardy!’ audience is very conservative. And the show has always steered clear of politics. Katie’s comments so soon after she was announced as a host are very concerning to the producers. They are worried there will be a backlash against her. There has already been some complaints. Jeopardy viewers are quite a traditional bunch, and there’s fears she might be too polarizing after this. At the very least, she already appears to have ruled herself out of becoming the permanent host of the show.”

Couric has been weathering criticism for her partisan comments. The Hill columnist and Fox News contributor Joe Concha said, “This sort of rhetoric from Couric — which comes across as so condescending and elitist — underscores the divide between our media, which primarily resides in New York and Washington, and the rest of the country, which is moderate to center-right per multiple polls. And it’s why the industry is so mistrusted and frowned upon.”

[From Page Six]

I’m not even some big Katie Couric fan or defender, but what she said was completely… fine. Couric’s statements actually ARE the centrist position: that Trump and his cult of terrorists and white supremacists are the outliers. There has to be some way to deprogram these people so that we can at least have political conversations in good faith, with an acknowledgement of the facts. Facts like “Joe Biden won the election,” “racism is bad” and “we need a vaccine distribution plan.” Those facts are still disputed by the people wrapped up in the Trump cult of personality, lies and delusion. I have to think that once the impeachment trial gets going and we learn more from the inevitable hearings on the Capitol siege, more people will understand just how Trump weaponized his cult of unhinged followers to literally try to overthrow democracy.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s ten-year wedding anniversary is coming up in April. I’m not looking forward to the coverage, which I imagine will be cloying, embiggening and asinine. I’m already preparing to hear, ad nauseum, about Will and Kate’s “love match” and their “fairytale romance,” and how keen they are to really get going now that they’ve been married ten years. But will the Queen do something special for them for their tenth anniversary? Perhaps. In 2019, for their eighth anniversary, the Queen gave Kate the Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order. Kate got it a lot later than other married-in women, and she got it right after the Rose Hanbury kerfuffle. At the time, I read the Queen’s honoring Kate for being a good royal wife and not causing a big headache for the Firm because of William’s wandering sceptre. So, will Kate get another honor for the tenth anniversary?

It’s almost 10 years since they walked down the aisle at Westminster Abbey, and the Queen is reportedly planning a new honour for Kate Middleton to mark a decade of marriage to the future King. On the couple’s eighth anniversary in 2019, the Queen bestowed her highest seal of approval, making the Duchess of Cambridge, 39, a Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order. Awards under the Royal Victorian Order are made personally by the Queen for services to the sovereign, and the Queen is said to be considering another prestigious honour for April, in recognition of Kate’s work as a member of the monarchy.

Royal expert Duncan Larcombe told OK! magazine: ‘It’s highly likely she’ll be planning a special secret something to honour Kate’s 10 years in the royal family – something she can do to mark it. Kate and the Queen have a fantastic relationship. Kate strikes that balance between bowing to her as head of the royal family in public but being able to check in with her as the great-grandmother to her children.’

He added that, despite the ongoing pandemic, the Queen and Kate have remained close with the Duchess having a direct line to speak to Her Majesty. Kate checks in on her and gives her updates on her and Prince William’s children – George, seven, Charlotte, five, and Louis, two. Duncan also said that it is believed Kate taught the Queen how to use video calls, so that she could see her great-grandchildren while they were unable to visit each other.

[From The Daily Mail]

Yeah, I don’t think Kate helps the Queen with anything, especially not Zoom calls. I doubt Kate even calls the Queen and offers updates about the Cambridge children. And I doubt the Queen would even want Kate to do that?? Kate and the Queen have never seemed particularly close, but I suspect that’s mostly because William keeps Kate away from his family at that kind of level. He’d rather be a Middleton and spend time with Kate’s family. Anyway, sure, I could see the Queen giving Kate another “I’m so glad you’re okay with your husband banging other broads” honor. Or maybe the Queen will make Kate wait another eight years. Who knows.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

For his inauguration, Joe Biden wore a nice suit, a nice coat and leather gloves. I didn’t pay any attention to his watch, because I rarely notice men’s watches anyway. Before this weekend, if you asked me if I thought Joe Biden owned at least one really nice, expensive watch, I would have said “yes, probably.” He’s old and he’s worked hard a long time and he’s from the generation of men who appreciated fine craftsmanship in all things, especially stuff like cars and watches and clothes. Of course he owns some nice stuff. But the issue of “Joe Biden’s watch” became a headline this weekend because of this story:

President Biden may cast his arrival in the White House as a return to business as usual at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but there’s at least one way he’s breaking from prevailing presidential tradition: he wears a Rolex.

At his inauguration, Mr. Biden laid his hand on the family Bible wearing a stainless steel Rolex Datejust watch with a blue dial, a model that retails for more than $7,000 and is a far cry from the Everyman timepieces that every president not named Trump has worn conspicuously in recent decades.

To many, a president wearing a luxury watch might not seem unusual. Shouldn’t the leader of the free world wear a power watch befitting his position? (Never mind that it costs the equivalent of dozen or so stimulus checks.) That concept was widely accepted once, back when Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson posed guiltlessly for Oval Office portraits wearing gold Rolexes. Not for nothing is Rolex’s storied gold Day-Date model known as the “President.”

[From The NY Times]

The piece goes on to point out that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both favored cheap watches and Obama favored Shinola or Jorg Gray watches, usually pieces which cost less than $500. Yeah… I think men and women should be authentic to who they are and what they like. If a public servant is a sneakerhead, so be it and good for him. If the president enjoys a fine timepiece, God bless. I find it disgusting that we expect someone like Biden to not have anything nice, or that we expect the wealthy people who run for office to play-act this patronizing idea of performative poverty. “Yes, I’m worth $600 million but I’m like you, I’m just wearing this humble flannel shirt and boots from Walmart.” And God help us all when they start listing what Kamala Harris’s clothes cost. I can already see the headlines about her Jimmy Choos.

Also: there’s some evidence that President Biden was wearing a Rolex which once belonged to his late son Beau Biden. Which would make sense, if President Biden made some quiet tributes to his beloved son.

It appears that the Rolex that Joe Biden wore to the inauguration used to belong to Beau. If this is true, the Biden family deserves a major apology from the New York Times. pic.twitter.com/HoNhJpxu6p

— United for the People (@people4kam) January 25, 2021

Oh my God, Biden has a Peloton and wears a Rolex. pic.twitter.com/3t4ARII3sV

— Saverio Guerra (@saverio825) January 22, 2021

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Intro: Minutes 0 to 5:00
We will be off next week and will be back February 7. My goal this year is to do more stretching so I’m taking zoom classes for that. Chandra hasn’t stretched much either as she’s not going to the gym but loves walking outside. She’s feeling out of shape after the past year in lockdown and I went up a size. It’s hard to tell how much weight we’ve gained as we’ve been wearing sweatpants and leggings. You can listen below!

The inauguration: Minutes 5:00 to 21:00
The inauguration was a relief but I don’t know how to feel. We’re still processing the trauma from the last four years. We both love the new press secretary, Jen Psaki. Chandra mentions Sean Spicer, the first Trump press secretary who yelled at everyone. Lady Gaga and Jennifer Lopez performed. I thought Lady Gaga’s Schiaparelli outfit was too over the top for the occasion. People were making Hunger Games comparisons. Chandra liked it and said it was very Gaga. We appreciate that Gaga is a good Democrat and that she campaigned for Biden. Jennifer Lopez was in a sparkly white Chanel pantsuit. Chandra wishes Gaga and J.Lo would have worn American designers. I play a segment from Zoom where Courtney, Michelle, Ameerah and Alnaaze talk about Gaga and J.Lo. We remember when J.Lo was making herself cry at the Oscars.

We like how it’s finally ok to talk about fashion again! During the Trump administration we covered Melania’s fashion when it was relevant but Chandra felt bad writing about superficial things in that era. Michelle Obama wore Sergio Hudson, he’s a Black designer from South Carolina, and she had absolutely amazing bouncy gorgeous hair. Jill Biden was in a blue tweed coat from Alexandra O’Neil for Markarian. I loved how sparkly it was and that it had a contrasting collar. People were also talking about VP Harris’ stepdaughter, Ella Emhoff, who wore a really cool looking tweed Miu Miu jacket with sequins on the shoulders. It was very retro looking and striking. Hillary Clinton wore a purple ruffled top. I play a segment from Zoom where Sara, Zakia, Ameerah and Alnaaze talk about this.

The star of the inauguration was 22 year-old poet Amanda Gorman. She just blew everyone away with the poem she wrote and recited, called “The Hill we Climb.” She wrote it right after the Capitol siege and yet it was so optimistic. Her poem used simple language and was so elegantly constructed.

Ben Affleck and Ana de Armas: Minutes 21:00 to 25:30
Ben Affleck and Ana de Armas announced their breakup on a Monday. At first we heard that it was her idea, but by the day after there were so many stories that it was mutual. Ben’s side blanketed the press with news about how he’s doing, how the breakup happened and what’s next for them. It was so ridiculous, but it was typical for him. We think they were growing apart and that Ben was probably treating Ana poorly while waiting for her to break up with him. She also may have had more of a look at his addiction. We wonder who she’ll date next. Ben complained so much in that Awards Chatter podcast about the way the tabloids treated him in the Bennifer era, which was 16 years ago! We talked about that because Ben treated Jennifer Lopez like dirt! I play a segment from Zoom where Courtney, Sara, Karen and Alnaaze talk about this. Chandra and I think Ana’s pageboy is cute.

Comments of the week: Minutes 25:30 to 30:00
My comments of the week are from Wiglet Watcher and janey on the post about bout Ben Affleck saying that he hates being famous. Chandra’s comment of the week is from Ariel on the post about Tiffany Trump getting engaged to a Nigerian millionaire.

I tell Chandra I want to be happy but am worried something bad is going to happen. She tells me not to worry because bad stuff is still happening. There’s a story that the Trump administration left absolutely no vaccine distribution plan.

Thanks for listening bitches! Call us or leave a voicemail at 434-218-3219.

photos credit: Avalon.red, WENN and via Instagram. Music credit: A.A. Alto, Meydan and via Premium Beat and Sound of Picture

Prince Harry gave a new interview to Fast Company about one of the larger issues he and his wife will be working on for years: healthier social media and a fairer internet. It’s a big issue and it’s not something that someone can just dip in and out of, honestly. Terrorists are radicalized on the internet, and coups are planned on social media. Kids and adults are bullied, harassed, threatened and doxxed on the internet. There are so many places on the internet which operate as the Wild West, with little to no governance or ethical standards. Just a few weeks ago, with the Capitol siege, we saw an event which was the culmination of years of digital fascist propaganda, racist hate speech on the internet, and online radicalization. You can read Harry’s full interview here. Some highlights:

His Fast Company essay six months ago warned of what happened at the Capitol: “When I wrote that piece, I was sharing my view that dominant online platforms have contributed to and stoked the conditions for a crisis of hate, a crisis of health, and a crisis of truth. And I stand by that, along with millions of others who see and feel what this era has done at every level—we are losing loved ones to conspiracy theories, losing a sense of self because of the barrage of mistruths, and at the largest scale, losing our democracies. The magnitude of this cannot be overstated, as noted even by the defectors who helped build these platforms. It takes courage to stand up, cite where things have gone wrong, and offer proposals and solutions.

It’s personal to him: “I was really surprised to witness how my story had been told one way, my wife’s story had been told one way, and then our union sparked something that made the telling of that story very different. That false narrative became the mothership for all of the harassment you’re referring to. It wouldn’t have even begun had our story just been told truthfully. But the important thing about what we experienced is that it led to us hearing from so many others around the world. We’ve thought a lot about those in much more vulnerable positions than us, and how much of a need there is for real empathy and support. To their own degree, everyone has been deeply affected by the current consequences of the digital space. It could be as individual as seeing a loved one go down the path of radicalisation or as collective as seeing the science behind the climate crisis denied. We are all vulnerable to it, which is why I don’t see it as a tech issue, or a political issue—it’s a humanitarian issue.

Creating a better digital world: “The avalanche of misinformation we are all inundated with is bending reality and has created this distorted filter that affects our ability to think clearly or even understand the world around us. What happens online does not stay online—it spreads everywhere, like wildfire: into our homes and workplaces, into the streets, into our minds. The question really becomes about what to do when news and information sharing is no longer a decent, truthful exchange, but rather an exchange of weaponry. The answer I’ve heard from experts in this space is that the common denominator starts with accountability. There has to be accountability to collective wellbeing, not just financial incentive. It’s hard for me to understand how the platforms themselves can eagerly take profit but shun responsibility.

A shared accountability too: “There also has to be common, shared accountability. We can call for digital reform and debate how that happens and what it looks like, but it’s also on each of us to take a more critical eye to our own relationship with technology and media. To start, it doesn’t have to be that complicated. Consider setting limits on the time you spend on social media, stop yourself from endlessly scrolling, fact-check the source and research the information you see, and commit to taking a more compassionate approach and tone when you post or comment. These might seem like little things, but they add up.

On the Capitol siege: “We have seen time and again what happens when the real-world cost of misinformation is disregarded. There is no way to downplay this. There was a literal attack on democracy in the United States, organised on social media, which is an issue of violent extremism. It is widely acknowledged that social media played a role in the genocide in Myanmar and was used as a vehicle to incite violence against the Rohingya people, which is a human rights issue. And in Brazil, social media provided a conduit for misinformation which ultimately brought destruction to the Amazon, which is an environmental and global health issue. In a way, taking a predominately hands-off approach to problems for so long is itself an exercise in power.

[From Fast Company]

What surprises me is that so much of what has happened in the past month has been something of a grand experiment in both directions. The terrorists who committed insurrection on the Capitol were conducting a violent experiment on the state of American democracy, and the resilience of the republic. On the other side, the social media companies that decided to deplatform Donald Trump and his Nazi minions en masse were also conducting an experiment: to see if they could effectively deplatform those people and what would happen next. The results of both experiments have been grotesque and fascinating. For one, I think social media companies *did* learn that they had more power than they initially believed, and they had more liability too. As for the Capitol terrorists who were largely radicalized by Trump and the internet… we still don’t know the half of it.

Anyway, I like that Harry is trying and that he and Meghan are using their platforms to draw attention to work being done by other groups too.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red.