Strollerderby : sean preston

Britney Spears Will Cancel Tour If Kids Can't Come

Brett Singer — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Famecrawler and TMZ are reporting that Britney Spears says that she won't tour if her kids can't join her.

When I first saw this I thought, "Oh good. Another loony celeb mom who wants to drag her young'uns around the globe. What's wrong with these people?"

Upon further reading, it seems that Brit wants to set things up so that Sean Preston and Jayden James would stay put at three different "bases" in New Jersey, New Orleans, and Los Angeles. Mama Britney would "commute" from her shows to the home bases, thereby enabling her to tour and see the boys.

Why is this even a story? Because Britney, her family Jamie Spears (not to be confused with Jamie LYNN Spears, Britney's sister) and Kevin Federline (K-Fed) worked out this deal on their own. Without the lawyers. And that, my friends, is a veddy bad idea.

According to TMZ, K-Fed's lawyer Mark Vincent Kaplan says that the situation, "could have been handled better if Jamie and company would have 'manned up' and had Kevin got the benefit of his lawyers to protect his position." K-Fed's attorney will present his own version of the deal, thereby justifying his existence and removing a roadblock to the deal going through – his ego.

Regarding that last paragraph: I'm not sure that I'm correct about that analysis, but I think I am.

Here's what I have a problem with here. As a parent, I would think that Britney and K-Fed would want to keep the details of their custody battle private. If Britney's dad can work out a deal with them, why is K-Fed's lawyer jumping in and mucking up the works, and possibly leaking the information to the press? Again: I need to say that I don't know if Mr. Kaplan, K-Fed's attorney, leaked anything. But he did provide a quote to TMZ about Jamie Spears "manning up". What kind of language is that? Why not keep things as cordial as possible? I understand him wanting to look for K-Fed's interests. But why insult the kids' grandfather, who is also in charge of Britney's interests at the moment?

As for Britney touring or not, I think that she's entitled to go out on the road since that's her job. If it were Federline who had a successful career (or any career at all, frankly), I seriously doubt that anyone would be concerned with what happens to the kids, despite that fact that he has custody. I don't think it's a great idea for kids to be schlepped all over the globe while mom prances around in stadiums wearing Spandex. But if they can work out a way to do it so that the kids aren't overly inconvenienced, what's wrong with that? Anglina Jolie and Brad Pitt bring those kids all over the place and nobody seems to mind.

I have to admit that reading this story, my eyes started to roll back in my head. Even keeping straight which Jamie Spears they're talking about – the father or the sister – starts to get difficult after awhile. Maybe I need to read more gossip magazines.

Source: Famecrawler, TMZ

Bart Simpson-Scientologist

Sarah Palin Says Leave My Kids Alone

Ann Coulter Says Single Moms Are Bad For Society

Is it fair to take pictures of Britney's kids?

Brett Singer — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:53:00 GMT

You may have heard about the photographs of Britney Spears smoking while 2-year-old Sean Preston was playing with her cigarette lighter. Well, the actual photo doesn't quite show that. Here it is:

Now, far be it from me to disagree with the celebrity media machine, but this doesn't look as bad as it sounds. In this pic she looks to be taking the cigarettes away from her child. That would be the right thing to do. The better thing to do would be to not smoke at all, and especially not in front of your kids. Second-hand smoke is very dangerous, especially to little lungs. It also makes me wonder if she was smoking while pregnant, which would be much worse. My guess – and I have nothing to back this up – is that she probably was. As a former smoker, I know how hard it is to quit, and it looks to me like the Britster is quite the nicotine addict.

Here's the part that gets me: the photos were taken at her house. Why? Presumably a photog with a mega-ultra-zoom lens – a "Pavarotti", as El Federline famously referred to them on his ill-fated rap album – was suspended from a helicopter or something and took the shot through her window or on her balcony.

She's a celebrity, and over 18 (although emotionally she might be, like, 12, but let's not go there). But her kids aren't. Not to sound like a celebrity defending dipstick ("LEAVE...BRITNEY...ALONE!"), but maybe there should be a law that prevents the kids from being photographed, at least when they're at home. As someone points out over at MomLogic, they didn't ask to be in this bizarre situation.

There are celebrities whose children you almost never see candid pictures of – Madonna, Howard Stern, Christie Brinkley, and I'm sure there are dozens more that I can't think of at the moment. Of course, those people aren't the unbelievable mess that Brit appears to be. At best, this photo shows poor judgment on her part, not only the smoking but also hanging out with her kid in front of an open window where a sleazoid photographer can get a clear shot. Um, curtains? A really high hedge? Move someplace else?

Of course, if nobody wanted to see the pictures, they wouldn't be worth anything, and photographers wouldn't take them. But that's a different topic.

Here are the rest of the photos. Hey, at least she looks pretty good in her bikini.

images: popsugar.com

Britney - Babe-A-Licious Again!

When playgrounds attack, the sequel

20 Disturbing Baby Products

S&M Barbie

Lourdes and Miley kidnapped?

20 mil for pics of twins

When Cynthia called Cindy

Who Would You Name Your Local Sewage Plant After?

Rich or Rehab: Whatever Happened to the Girl From 'Love, Sidney'?

Michael Savage says kids with autism need to get over themselves

Celebrity Baby Naming Hits New Low

How Do You Know If Your Baby's Too Young For...?

Jessica Ashley (Sassafrass) — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:02:00 GMT

All this hype about whether or not Britney wanted to whiten not-quite-two-year old Sean Preston's teeth has me a) wondering if the Baby Mama in Ripped Fishnets is now solely existing to keep bloggers happy, snarky and getting paid, and b) if there is some substance to her comments -- mistaken or just blurted out in a stream of drunken slurs and plain old wackadoodleness. I wonder how soon you really can slip some whitening trays around those icky "natural-hewed" baby teeth. Do you need to wait until they're already in, or is it worth re-doing just so you don't lose precious fluorescent-colored tooth nub time?

This would be the perfect time for y'all to get on the phone with Brit, Nicole, Paris and Lindsay's people, since this band of starlet disasters I like to think of as the Ankle Bracelet Battalion seems to be all over the parenting thing. Throw down your copies of Belly Laughs and let's set up a real timeline. I want to know when it's OK to take the little boo in for:

* Body piercing. Might as well get that naval ringed up while you're used to swabbing it with alcohol and gauze anyway.

* Tats. Never too early to make that mommy love permanently known. You are breastfeeding him, right? Then you totally deserve the inked up shout out.

* Political onesies. Oh wait. You already have those. Never mind.

* Grills. We all know this is the only way your whiny kid's ever going to get street cred at playgroup.

* Tummy tuck. Baby fat, schmaby fat. Skinny babies are so in next season.

* Aromatherapy facial. You know that baby eczema? That came from a rush of hormones from you, mama. Assuage your guilt for bumping up his little face by splurging for the finest of aestheticians. Just be sure to opt for the organic kind since (duh) she is a newborn and all.

Anything else you can think of on your newborn must-have beauty list?

[photo credit: fark.com]