TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2011
BORN THIS WAY? Gaga’s ta-tas are look noticeably bigger all of a sudden.
In 2010, the British tabloid Daily Star reported that Gaga was overheard telling a silicone enhanced waitress in Manhattan, “I really want to get implants, too, I love false boobs.”
Now we've really seen it ALL: Lady Gaga leaves nothing to the imagination as she hits the dancefloor in a sheer body suit
By Chris Johnson
Last updated at 12:44 AM on 8th June 2011
After accidentally exposing her nipples as she arrived at the CFDA Fashion Awards, Lady Gaga decided she may as well go the whole hog at the after-party.
The flamboyant singer ended up removing her custom-made Mugler gown to just the sheer bodysuit underneath, leaving nothing to the imagination.
The 25-year-old had just nipple covers and a G-string protecting what little modesty she had left as she danced at the bash at The Standard hotel in New York.
Baring all: Lady Gaga leaves nothing to the imagination in a sheer body suit as she dances at the CFDA Fashion Awards after-party at the Standard Hotel in New York last night
Boogie wonderland: Lady Gaga was in high spirits as she danced beside the DJ booth
The singer was clearly in high spirits after being named Fashion Icon at the CFDA Fashion Awards hours earlier.
Her revealing after-party outfit came hours after Gaga's wardrobe malfunction on the purple carpet at the awards at the Lincoln Center.
Posing with her left arm clutching her turquoise wig, it was hardly surprising that the precarious outfit gave way.
Gaga was assisted by a minder as she arrived at Alice Tully Hall, staggering around in a staggering pair of 24in vertiginous platform heels.
Singalong: Gaga and Patti LaBelle belted out a song
Letting it all hang out: Gaga teamed her over-exposed outfit with a more sensible pair of high heels
Whoops: Lady Gaga reveals more than she bargain for as she poses at the CFDA Fashion Awards at Alice Tully Hall in the Lincoln Center in New York last night in a dramatic punk rock prom outfit
Her dramatic outfit came complete with a ruffled train and with spikes running down between her derrière, begging the question as to how she sat down inside the awards show.
Lady Gaga accepted the Style Icon award from V magazine editor-in-chief Stephen Gan.
Accepting her accolade, she said: 'All of you made me feel like a star before I was.
'As much as this award means to me personally... I just want you to know how much this means to young Americans.'
Standing out: The singer teamed her look with killer platform heels and had spike on her corseted dress as well as running between her derrière
Make some room: With her large train and 24 inch heels, it's amazing Gaga managed to stay upright
Ruffled train: Gaga completed her look with a turquoise wig with lashings or red lipstick and nail varnish
Designer Marc Jacobs received one of the biggest honours of the night from the Council of Fashion Designers of America - the Lifetime Achievement Award.
The 48-year-old said: 'This achievement is born of love, passion, creativity and a hell of a lot of hard work.
'I believe we all know and feel the greatest reward is the process itself.'
Daring to bare: Lady Gaga arrives at the CFDA awards in New York
Helping hand: The singer was assisted by a minder as she arrived, staggering around on her vertiginous heels
Camera-shy: Dressed-down Gaga wasn't quite so ready for the camera earlier on Monday
The awards were dominated by male designers with Jack McCollough and Lazaro Hernandez of Proenza Schouler being named Womenswear Designer of the Year.
Michael Bastian was named Menswear Designer of the Year, with Alexander Wang achieving Accessories Designer Of The Year.
The morning after: Lady Gaga was more conservatively dressed after the party
Credit: Mail Online (www.dailymail.co.uk)
Far Out, Fido!
Surf's up! Watch these dogs ride the waves at the Loews Coronado Bay Resort Surf Dog Competition in San Diego.
He can’t lead, so leave
Weiner’s shameful behavior proves unfitness for office
During his pitiful tell-all press conference yesterday afternoon, New York Rep. Anthony Weiner had no explanation for his colossally stupid actions, only apologies and regrets. He actually tried to claim that he didn’t know what he was thinking about while sharing explicit photos and having raunchy sex chats with six women on Facebook, Twitter, over the phone and via email. Baloney. He wasn’t thinking about baseball, he was thinking about sex.
But what he needed to explain is why on earth he thinks that refusing to resign is good for anybody but himself.
Sure, it’s possible that he didn’t break the law (and we hope a prosecutor checks out his cringeworthy line: “They’re all adults ... to the best of my knowledge.”). But he did flatly lie to the world deliberately and repeatedly. He only came clean after the evidence had become so damning that no twisted fiction about computer hacks and doctored photos could explain it away.
So he showed that, when given the chance, he’d much rather save his own hide than do what is right. This is not the behavior of a committed public servant — it’s the behavior of a weasel.
He gambled his political career and his marriage to get his kicks — and he lost. As a congressman, he makes important decisions every day that affect millions of people. But he has demonstrated that he can’t be trusted to exercise good judgment in his own life. So he clearly can’t be trusted to exercise good judgment for his constituents or the nation.
He needs to resign. Now.
Misdiagnosing cell threat
WHO report on phones and cancer gets it wrong
BY GEOFFREY KABAT
Thirty years ago, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health published a study in a prestigious medical journal purporting to show that drinking coffee increased a person's risk of pancreatic cancer. When asked how his results had influenced his own habits, he responded that he had stopped drinking coffee. The following day a professor of biostatistics set up a Mr. Coffee in the departmental offices, indicating what he thought of his colleague's study.
I mention this because last week a committee of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, announced that it would classify cellphone use as a "possible carcinogen," putting it in a category with 240 other exposures, including coffee and the pesticide DDT. Despite decades of research, neither of these exposures has turned out to be a carcinogen in humans.
Although the report from the committee has not yet been published, we know that the WHO based its conclusion largely on the 13-country Interphone study, which provoked a large degree of confusion when published a year ago.
A number of points can help put the perplexing anxiety about the potentially dire consequences of using a cellphone in perspective. First, brain tumors are extremely rare, and their incidence has changed little in most advanced industrial countries over the past two decades. In Scandinavia, which has excellent registration of all cancer cases and where cellphone use was widespread early on, there is no evidence of an increase in different types of brain tumor.
Second, cellphone technology makes use of radio frequency energy, which is millions of times less powerful than ionizing radiation, such as X-rays and gamma rays that can damage DNA and other molecules in a cell and potentially initiate cancer. There is no known mechanism whereby radio frequency energy can induce or promote cancer.
Because of the rarity of brain tumors, they are usually studied using the case-control approach, in which cases of the disease of interest are identified after diagnosis, and a comparison group is assembled, composed of people without the disease who can serve as controls. Both groups are then questioned about their use of cellphones and other factors of interest. A major weakness of this type of study is that a person's memory may be inaccurate and, even more serious, people with brain tumors might answer questions about their exposure differently from the healthy people serving as controls, leading to biased results.
The Interphone study enrolled more than 5,000 cases of people with brain tumors and nearly 6,000 controls. The main findings were that overall, regular users of mobile phones had significantly reduced risks for glioma and meningioma, the two most common types of brain tumor. Only in the small group of users whose reported cumulative call time was 1,640 hours or more was there a modest increase in risk of glioma — but not of meningioma.
The results of this study were baffling, even to the authors, and they went to great lengths to caution against giving a causal interpretation to this result. So, it appears that International Agency for Research on Cancer is putting more weight on this result than the authors.
A reading of the Interphone paper as well as a judicious 2009 review of the epidemiology on this question by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection makes one wonder what the WHO thought it would achieve by classifying cellphone use a "possible carcinogen."
We are faced with a paradox in our increasingly health-conscious society. It is simply a fact of life that research is going to be done on topics like cellphones. But we can never prove a negative or exclude the possibility of a miniscule risk, no matter how large the study. So even when expert bodies concede that there is no convincing evidence of a threat, we get impossibly vague advisories like the current one warning us of "possible carcinogenicity."
In an echo of the Harvard incident, Donald Berry, a professor of biostatistics at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas, said "anything is a possible carcinogen." Speaking from his cellphone, he added, "This is not something I worry about and it will not in any way change how I use my cellphone."
Geoffrey Kabat is a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the author of "Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology."
Syrian blogger Amina Arraf, of the Gay Girl in Damascus blog, has been kidnapped. According to a post on her blog by her cousin Rania, Amina was abducted at 6 PM Damascus time on Fares al Khouri street when she was seized by three men and put into a red Dacia Logan.
Her cousin Rania posted an update saying that the family is still unable to find out where Amina is.
I have been on the telephone with both her parents and all that we can say right now is that she is missing. Her father is desperately trying to find out where she is and who has taken her.
Unfortunately, there are at least 18 different police formations in Syria as well as multiple different party militias and gangs. We do not know who took her so we do not know who to ask to get her back. It is possible that they are forcibly deporting her.
If you want to stay tuned in on this, Andy Carvin (the unofficial news king of Twitter) has been paying attention to updates about her and you can follow #Amina.
How long have you waited at an airport?
Chris Herren: To Hell And Back
Chris Herren was a Massachusetts high school legend who made it to the NBA to play for his hometown Boston Celtics. He also lost his career, money and nearly his life due to his alcohol and heroin addiction. Herren, 35, details his descent and road back to redemption in a new book, "Basketball Junkie: A Memoir."
Credit: The Daily (www.thedaily.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment