I’m not sure what to make of this. The Mistress Of GOOP doing Cee-Lo? Does this mean that goody-two-shoes, oh-hey-I’m-perfect Gwyneth has – *gasp* – a bad side?

That might be a sign of the coming Apocalypse. Keep your ears on alert for the clattering hooves of the Four Horsemen, people.

Jennifer Aniston is stocking up on baby food – but it’s not for the reason you might think. The pureed stuff is for her. As you may have heard, Jennifer Aniston is rumored to be on the baby food diet by order of celebrity trainer Tracy Anderson (who also works with Gwyneth ‘Gooptastic’ Paltrow.) Folks claim that Tracy Anderson invented the diet but I beg to differ.

Twenty years ago when I first started university I must have met half a dozen non-celebrities that were on the same baby food diet. Jennifer is said to be eating 14 servings of (non-Paltrow trademarked) goop which she punctuates daily with one sensible meal that requires chewing. The girls I knew ate baby food all day and randomly punctuated it with salad in the student union. The salad was optional. Why was the salad optional? Because all these girls had one thing in common: they all had massive eating disorders.

Aniston is said to have lost seven pounds in one week which made me feel faint. But Tracy Anderson warns that those pounds would come right back on once the diet is completed ‘When you do these liquid cleanses I felt a responsibility to come up with something. Liquid cleanses do help you lose weight but you will gain more the next week. I wanted something where you can eliminate toxicity, break bad habits but still have your digestive system going. That is when the baby food cleanse was born.’

I’m wondering if what she means by ‘break bad habits’ is chewing? What’s next Anderson? Deserts made completely of chocolate laxatives? If I hear Gwyneth the Gooptastic raving about how chewing is overrated I say run for the hills. Chewing food, it’s a good thing.

Let’s leave the baby food to the babies.

source

I’m no fan of Gwyneth Paltrow, but even I found this Onion ‘news’ story about Gwyneth getting punched in the face to be a bit much. I mean, come on, people. Violence against women is never funny, unless it’s a fake Sarah Palin against Fake Tina Fey – okay, maybe a real wrestling match between Sarah Palin and Tina Fey, but, like, WWF real, yanno? – or! or! Sarah Palin versus Hilary Clinton! That would be funny.

Also? She’s someone’s mom. You don’t punch a mom. Goop notwithstanding.

‘Iron Man 2′ Buzz Heats Up Over Rumors Gwenyth Paltrow Gets Punched In Face

Oh hey, do you remember the December post that we should have called "HA HA HA GWYNETH FAIL!" but because we are 'mature' and 'restrained' Catherine just called it "GOOPtastic: One More Reason To Be Irritated By Gwyneth Paltrow"?

Fuck maturity and restraint, Gwyneth just gave me MORE reason to loathe her goopy existence.

Apparently the FTC's new blogger disclosure guidelines that apply to bloggers like me, and you, and you, and yes, even you over there sitting in your ripe yoga pants surrounded by dirty coffee cups and a couple of cats – EVEN YOU — well, those guidelines don't apply to dear Gwyneth.

Well fuuuuuuuuuck me. Why is Gwyneth so special?

Because she's famous, y'all, and all those pesky regulations and guidelines don't apply to the cult of celebrity. Apparently it is already common knowledge that celebrities get free stuff and say nice things about free stuff to keep the free stuff coming and you know, influence the plebs who might buy that stuff with the paycheques that are infinitesimal compared to those of the celebs like Gwyneth who get that shit for free. Capitalism is AWESOME.

So when Gwyneth recently gushed about the spa trip that she didn't disclose as being the freebie that it almost certainly was, the FTC didn't freak because it assumes that the average GOOP reader would assume that Gwyneth probably got it for free. That's a whole lot of assuming, which, as we all know, just makes an ASS out of U and ME and also the FTC and Gwyneth Paltrow.

To recap, then: because we JUST KNOW, because she is FAMOUS, that Gwyneth gets free stuff for the purposes of pimping it out to us, she doesn't need to disclose that she gets that stuff for free and that she is, indeed, pimping. However, you and I need to disclose if we ever get free laundry detergent and mention it online because, you know, we are expected to be honest because we are not famous and do not get sent to Morocco to have our bodies rubbed with horseshit FOR FREE.

In other words:

Celebrities = Assumed Liars
Regular Folk = Honest But Need A Disclaimer Proving That We Are Honest, Because.

That's mtherf'ing GOOPtastic, no?

It's hard to believe I actually used to like her as an actor <— SEE?: That's me being HONEST and TRANSPARENT and DISCLOSING SHIT. I used to like her as an actor — and I haven't always loathed her as a personality — but now: UGH.

And I got that lesson for free.

source

I was just going to title this HA HA HA GWYNETH FAIL! but that seemed childish. Still, the news that Her Royal GOOPiness might have run afoul of the FTC's new blogger disclosure guidelines made me titter a little more gleefully than is, I suppose, appropriate for a grown woman.

What did she do to warrant this accusation? Well, unlike your everyday-run-of-the-mill mom-blogger, who might get a trip to Butterball headquarters, Gwyneth got a trip to a spa in Marrakesh, Morocco, and then sang its praises on her website, GOOP. And – here's the kicker – she did not disclose whether or not she paid for the trip herself. Jezebel reckons she didn't. Which, if true, runs totally afoul of the FTC guidelines concerning such disclosure. Hey, if mommybloggers are going to get called out for writing about free laundry detergent, why not Gwyneth and her "ridiculously lavish" Moroccan body rubs?

Jezebel writes that Jeff Bercovici at the Daily Finance got in touch with the FTC to find out what they thought. He says, "I contacted an FTC spokeswoman to ask how it would
determine whether Paltrow violated the guidelines — and what, if any,
steps it would take in the event that she had." There has not, apparently been any response.

This whole thing also raises a bigger question: how about all that free stuff that celebrities get? Jezebel notes that celebrites are bound by FTC guidelines for any online endorsements they make, but what about the rest of it? Shouldn't they be required to wear big disclosure stickers on their asses, proclaiming that they did not pay for that Versace gown/bottle of water/Birkin bag/ass implant, so that their endorsing it, even if just in the manner of letting themselves be photographed in it/with it, can be taken with a big fat grain of salt?

I don't care that celebrities get free stuff; I mean, sure, if you're making a gajillion dollars annually it might be nice if you'd donate your freebies (like some of us un-gajillioners do) or their equivalent cost to a worthy charity or something, but whatever. I get why companies want celebrities to endorse their stuff, and I get that that means tossing freebies their way. But in Gwyneth's case in particular, it seems a bit skeevy to produce a website that purports to tell women – moms! – how to live a better life and hold your own life up as a model and wave around something like a trip to a spa in Marrakesh as just such a lovely thing that would be such the lovely treat and not make it clear that a) she understands that this is out of the reach of the average GOOP reader, but b) not out of her reach, because she's Gwyneth Paltrow, and very, very rich, and c) oh, hey, even though she could afford it, she didn't have to, because she's GWYNETH PALTROW, BITCHES.

Bah.

Anyway.

So when is someone going to send me to Marrakesh? Or to a spa? A mud pit, even, preferably somewhere warm, where I can smear myself with muck and pretend that it's "ridiculously lavish." I swear I'll disclose it.

source

Blind gossip items are one of my guilty pleasures. Call it schadenfreude, call it taking perverse pleasure in knowing that celebrities are as messed up as we think they are, call it a faint, desperate hope that one day, there'll be an item that reads something like 'Desperate Blond Actress with lifestyle website has secret passion for greasy hamburgers and fries and spends whole weekends snorting pulverized candy corn and playing D&D with her cupcake-addicted rock star husband who also, sometimes, wears her underpants. Maybe something worth writing an open letters to her readers about? Goops, did we give it away?'

Call it whatever, I love it. But not when it's something like this:

"Coke mom doesn't get to spend all that much time with her child/ren. You would think what time she does spend with her child/ren would be quality. Well, nothing like this lesson.Coke Mom has her child/ren with her last week when she decided to stop by her dealer's house and make a buy. Well, Coke Mom wanted to be a good mom so decided bringing her child/ren into the house would probably not be a good idea. So, Coke Mom left her child/ren in the car while she bought some coke, took the time to sample some and the next thing you know there is a knock at the front door and it is Coke Mom's child/ren asking to use the bathroom because it has been two hours."

Is it just me, or doesn't it seem that in the time that it would take for someone to pass this story along, they could have been, I don't know, calling child protective services? Seriously?

I don't care who this – I just want someone who does know who this is to get them help, and fast. Ugh. Ugh.

source, via source.