Amber Rose: �If I'm Not Married to Wiz Right Now, I Don't Want to Be Married�

ByJasmine Simpkins|December 19, 2014

Amber Rose has no plans to go back on the market anytime soon. HipHollywood caught up with Rose on the red carpet for the People Magazine Awards where she told us shes still heartbroken from her split with Wiz Khalifa, and cant even think about being married again.

Im not thinking about that right now, Rose admitted. If I not married to Wiz right now, I dont want to be married. I dont even want to date right now, I just want to get my heart back together.

Rose filed for divorce from Khalifa on September 24, 2014, after just one year of marriage. The mother and model cited irreconcilable differences as the reason for the break-up. Rumors of infidelity had been swirling about both parties in the weeks leading up to the filing. Rose has been adamant that she did not cheat on Wiz despite rumors of a fling with her now manager Nick Cannon. Reports linked Wiz to several video models and p**n stars, though he never responded to claims. But, since the split, he has hooked up, and shot a s*x tape, with Playboy model Carla Howe. Boy does he move fast.

Rose however doesnt seemed phased by Wiz recent escapades, and just wants her family back together. Honestly, we dont see how he let her go. Have her seen her latest twerk video?

Source: http://hiphollywood.com/2014/12/amber-rose-exclusive-amber-rose-if-im-not-married-to-wiz-right-now-i-dont-want-to-be-married/

Continue Reading ..

Obama vows US response to North Korea over Sony cyberattack

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama vowed on Friday to respond to a devastating cyberattack on Sony Pictures that he blamed on North Korea, and scolded the Hollywood studio for caving in to what he described as a foreign dictator imposing censorship in America.

Obama said the cyberattack caused a lot of damage to Sony but the company should not have let itself be intimidated into halting the public release of "The Interview," a lampoon portraying the assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

"We will respond," Obama told an end-of-year news conference. "We'll respond proportionally, and we'll respond in a place and time and manner that we choose."

Earlier, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced it had determined that North Korea was behind the hacking of Sony, saying Pyongyang's actions fell "outside the bounds of acceptable state behavior."

Obama said North Korea appeared to have acted alone. Washington began consultations with Japan, China, South Korea and Russia seeking their assistance in reining in North Korea.

Japan and South Korea vowed to cooperate. China, North Korea's only major ally, has yet to respond but a Beijing-run newspaper said "The Interview" was not a movie for Hollywood and U.S. society to be proud of.

"The vicious mocking of Kim is only a result of senseless cultural arrogance," the newspaper said.

It was the first time the United States had directly accused another country of a cyberattack of such magnitude on American soil and set up a possible new confrontation between longtime foes Washington and Pyongyang.

The destructive nature of the attack, and threats from the hackers that led the Hollywood studio to pull the movie, set it apart from previous cyber intrusions, the FBI said.

A North Korean diplomat at the United Nations in New York said Pyongyang had nothing to do with the cyberattack. "DPRK (North Korea) is not part of this," the diplomat told Reuters.

Obama said he wished that Sony had spoken to him first before yanking the movie, suggesting it could set a bad precedent. "I think they made a mistake," he said.

"We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States," he said. "Because if somebody is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary that they don't like, or news reports that they don't like."

"NOT CAVED IN"

Sony Pictures Entertainment Chief Executive Michael Lynton insisted the company did not capitulate to hackers and said it is still looking for alternative platforms to release "The Interview." This week, a spokeswoman for Sony had said the company did not have further release plans for the $44 million film starring Seth Rogen and James Franco.

"We have not caved, we have not given in, we have persevered and we have not backed down," Lynton told CNN. "We have always had every desire to have the American public see this movie."

Despite Obama's stern warning to North Korea, his options for responding to the computer attack by the impoverished state appeared limited. The president declined to be specific about any actions under consideration.

North Korea has been subject to U.S. sanctions for more than 50 years, but they have had little effect on its human rights policies or its development of nuclear weapons. It has become expert in hiding its often criminal money-raising activities, largely avoiding traditional banks.

The FBI said technical analysis of malicious software used in the Sony attack found links to malware that "North Korean actors" had developed and found a "significant overlap" with "other malicious cyber activity" previously tied to Pyongyang.

But it otherwise gave scant details on how it concluded that North Korea was behind the attack.

U.S. experts say Obama's options could include cyber retaliation, financial sanctions, criminal indictments against individuals implicated in the attack or even a boost in U.S. military support to South Korea.

But the effect of any response would be limited given North Korea's isolation and the fact that it is already heavily sanctioned for its nuclear program.

There is also the risk that an overly harsh U.S. response could provoke Pyongyang to escalate into cyber warfare.

Non-conventional capabilities such as cyberwarfare and nuclear technology are the weapons of choice for the impoverished North, defectors said in Seoul.

They said the Sony attack may have been a practice run for North Korea's "cyberarmy" as part of its long-term goal of being able to cripple its rivals' telecommunications and energy grids.

(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton, Susan Heavey, David Chance, Arshad Mohammed and David Brunnstrom in Washington and Ju-min Park and Jack Kim in Seoul; Editing by David Storey, Bernard Orr and Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/20/us-sony-cybersecurity-usa-idUSKBN0JX1MH20141220

Continue Reading ..

'Serial' Podcast Finale: What We Know (and What We Don't Know)

Thu Dec 18 18:16:10 EST 2014

"Serial" is over. Deal with it.

Elise Bergerson/This American Life Sarah Koenig of "Serial"

Yesterday, Funny or Die shared a video skit featuringMichaela Watkins playing Sarah Koenig before the final episode of "Serial." Though poking fun at a real-life murder investigation is in questionable taste, the spoof did get something right -- the pressure on Koenig to deliver a satisfying ending to the blockbuster "This American Life"-spinoff podcast.

So now that the "Serial" is over, did Koenig manage to deliver?

[Spoilers follow.]

Anyone who is expecting the 12-episode podcastto wrap up like a scripted series (other than "Lost" or "The Sopranos") will invariably be disappointed. There's no surprise ending. The butler didn't do it. But to be fair, Koenig never promised we would have hard answers by the end of her investigation into this 1999 murder. Part of the appeal of "Serial" all along has been that we've all gotten to be amateur sleuths, speculating on everything, asking "what if" to infinity. And the speculations continued with the latest episode.

The episode delivers some updates, but mostly, Koenig and her colleagues recap what they know about the murder of Hae Min Lee and the case against Adnan Syed.

In a frustrating move, Koenig spends too much time talking to a new player in the "Serial" story, Josh, who worked with Jay at the p**n video store back when Hae was murdered. Josh says he remembers Jay being afraid of people connected to the murder and was freaked out about a van parked across the street from the video store.

But Josh's recollections, ultimately, don't really add up to much except that he didn't think Jay was the type of person to be involved in a murder (as if anyone can identify that type of person so easily).

"He wasn't the type of guy that you really got the sense he could do something real," Josh said about Jay. "He wasn't a killer and he wasn't a thug in anything. He was kind of the opposite. He seemed like he was in way over his head."

This American Life Adnan Syed, the subject of "Serial," in 1998.

But again, that's neither here nor here.

Koenig also finally managed to talk to Don, Hae's boyfriend at the time of her murder. But aside from confirming that Adnan was a good guy, nothing really comes out of that conversation either (although interestingly, Don, like Adnan, also didn't call Hae after she went missing).

So many questions still remain and, as Koenig herself pointed out, "there's something that's not computing here."

After running through the cell phone call record and the infamous "Nisha call" yet again, Koenig acknowledges the unresolved discrepancies -- discrepancies that may never be resolved.

She comes to a realization that honestly, you'd have hoped she would have reached quite some time ago: that it's not a question of whether Jay was lying or Adnan was lying, but rather the possibility that they were both lying. Ding ding ding.

But, as Koenig says, there's so much speculation here and "all speculation is equally speculative." And then she speculates some more.

Koenig defers to her colleagueDana Chivvis, who is more impartial to the case (the "Dr. Spock" of "Serial," according to Koenig). If Adnan didn't kill Hae, then he certainly had a string of unusually bad luck, Chivvis concluded (and, certainly, being convicted for a crime, if he didn't commit it, is spectacularly unlucky).

Instead of focusing on the "most likely" explanation, Koenig decides to focus on the "most logical." But so much of the case defies logic. Did Adnan just happen to lend Jay his cell phone and his car on the day that his ex-girlfriend went missing? Why did Jay help Adnan (or whoever the killer was) bury Hae's body if he wasn't involved? If some random serial killer or murderer killed Hae, how did Jay get involved? If Adnan is guilty, why did he agree to participate in the podcast?

"I think you shouldn't really take a side...just go down the middle," Adnan told Koenig, offering advice about how to end the podcast. "Leave it up to the audience to determine."

"Why on Earth would a guilty man agree to let me do this story?" - Sarah Koenig

Though clearly Koenig is reluctant to draw any conclusions, she knows her audience expects her to deliver a verdict.

"I don't believe any of us can say what happened to Hae," said Koenig. All that's really know is that Jay knew where Hae's car was, but does that really prove anything? "That all by itself is not a story...it's not enough to me to send anyone to prison for life, let alone a 17-year-old kid."

So if she was a juror, Koenig said she would have to acquit but "as a human being," she admits, "if you ask me to swear Adnan Syed is innocent, I couldn't do it." So more hemming and hawing.

"Most of the time, I think he didn't do it....why on Earth would a guilty man agree to let me do this story?" she adds.Still, "as much as I want to be sure, I'm not," Koenig confessed at the end, leaving us as confused as ever.

Though the episode didn't resolve anything, there is some real news about Adnan's case: The group from The Innocence Project has filed a motion to test the DNA from Hae's body, which, unbelievably, was never tested 15 years ago. It also turns out that there's another possible suspect: a serial criminal responsible for a couple of rapes and at least one murder was out of jail and in the area at the time of Haes murder. But then how would Jay know anything about the murder and where Hae's car was?

Which leads us to more speculating... At least one thing we know for sure: Adnan's appeal, based on inadequate counsel, is still alive. So we'll continue with the "what ifs" until there are more answers...or more questions.

READ MORE: Obsessed with "Serial"? You'll Love These Documentaries

Season 2 of "Serial" is coming sometime in 2015. Listen to the final episode below:

Source: http://www.indiewire.com/article/serial-podcast-finale-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-know-20141218

Continue Reading ..

Celebs React On Twitter To Sony Pulling The Interview! Hollywood Cannot ...

WOWZA!

Jennifer Lopez, you are dangerously close to that iconic Versace look of yours!

Y'all know what we're talking about!

The bootylicious queen KILLED the game the moment she stepped out of her vehicle and onto the People Magazine Awards red carpet Thursday evening!

In true JLo fashion, the star showed up in a sparkly tan jumpsuit with a SUPER deep neckline that almost made contact with her belly button!

The star kept her hair down and added a number of rings and bracelets to tie the whole look together.

b***s on FLEEK.

[Image via Getty Images.]

Source: http://perezhilton.com/2014-12-17-sony-cancel-the-interview-celeb-react-twitter

Continue Reading ..

WATCH: Andre Roberts Channels Bruno Mars

Posted by Jake Kring-Schreifels on December 18, 2014 7:48 am

RELATED LINKS:Redskins Send Frustrated McCoy To IR5 Takeaways: Dec. 17 Jay Gruden Presser

Washington Redskins wide receiver Andre Roberts channels most of his energy onto the field. But when he has some free time, he uses the rest to tickle the ivory.

Roberts posted a video of himselflast nightplaying piano and singing a cover of Bruno Mars When I Was Your Man.

Its pretty impressive, especially the falsetto he hits near the end.

It provokes some questions: Can he sing more than ballads? Can he and Bruno Mars collaborate at some point? What should he practice next?

Like this:

Like Loading...

Posted inUncategorized | No Comments

Source: http://blog.redskins.com/2014/12/18/watch-andre-roberts-channels-bruno-mars/

Continue Reading ..

Massacre in Pakistan

IT TAKES something unusually vile for the world to pay much attention to a terrorist outrage in Pakistan. Since 2007 the annual toll of murders by jihadists has never dropped below 2,000 and in 2012 and 2013 it was not far off 4,000. This year has actually seen the mayhem decline by a third. But the horror of the attack by the Pakistani Taliban, an umbrella organisation of militant groups officially known as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), on an army-run school in Peshawar stands out for the scale and nature of its brutality.

At about 10am on December 16th, seven heavily armed Taliban gunmen scaled an outer wall of the school and began shooting indiscriminately. By the time army commandos regained control of the compound 141 people, most of them teenagers and younger children, had been killed. Given the seriousness of the wounds that the injured have suffered, the number of deaths will almost certainly rise (see article). This is the deadliest terrorist attack in Pakistans history.

The army, and previous governments, must take much of the responsibility for the violence the country has suffered in recent years. The growth of the TTP is a direct consequence of neurotic fear of encirclement by India which is widespread in Pakistans ruling class and has led to the disastrous policy of exploiting and encouraging jihadist groups in Kashmirterritory disputed by India and Pakistanand in Afghanistan. The TTP operates from North Waziristan, one of the ungoverned tribal areas that border Afghanistan, where the Haqqani network holes up. This highly effective Afghan criminal-terrorist gang, responsible for some of worst violence in Afghanistan, is an ally of Pakistans intelligence service and was seen for many years by the army as a key strategic asset to be cosseted rather than disrupted.

A further inhibition for the armys top brass has been the growing Islamist radicalisation within the once-secular and Westernised institution itself, a reflection of both changes in Pakistani society and a policy of recruiting poor boys from the inner cities. And as the TTP grew in strength, the security forces held off taking it on for fear of reprisals.

No going back

After Nawaz Sharif became prime minister in June 2013 and Raheel Sharif (they are not related) took over as chief of army staff a year ago this disastrous policy began to change. Both men came to the conclusion that jihadist terrorism poses a greater threat to their country than India does. Since June 2014 the army has been carrying out an offensive against the militants. Operation Zarb-e-Azb is aimed at destroying their sanctuaries in North Waziristan. The army claims that around 1,000 militants have been killed with few civilian casualties. The TTP says that women and children have borne the brunt of the air strikes and the army should feel the pain of retaliation in kindhence the attack on the school.

Now that battle against the terrorists has been joined, the army cannot retreat; and there are some other modestly encouraging signs from other fronts. Since the election of Ashraf Ghani as president of Afghanistan in September 2014, relations between the two countries have improved dramatically. Mr Ghani has offered a hand of friendship to Nawaz Sharif by agreeing to a range of confidence-building measures that include sending Afghan army officers to Pakistan for military training and reaching a deal on managing the border. Mr Ghani also appears to have given permission to the Americans to carry out drone strikes against TTP havens in eastern Afghanistan, something his predecessor refused. In return, Pakistans army seems to have given up protecting the Haqqanis, at least for now.

That is progress, but more is needed. Reining in other terrorist groups that the state has cultivated will ultimately require moves towards a rapprochement with India over Kashmir. For that to happen Indias government will also have to show vision. Pakistans feuding politicians and its potentially rebellious army need to find something that has eluded them in the past: common cause in the national interest.

Defeating the terrorists will take a long time. But the slaughter at the Army Public School and Degree College in Peshawar may just persuade Pakistans politicians and soldiers to unite in this necessary fight.

Source: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21636746-attack-sign-militants-are-under-pressure-pakistans-leaders-must-unite

Continue Reading ..

Jeb Bush's Rivals Already Running

Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz share the podium in July 2013. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

Former Florida Governor and ex-First Brother Jeb Bush announced his plans to start a fundraising committee next month, and immediately some big names in GOP money such as Florida developer Mel Sembler got behind him. Bush has recently proven his ability to raise big bucks, but some of Bushs likely competitors for the 2016 GOP nomination already have a head start. Three of them Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ted Cruz (Texas) have the advantage of a national podium in the Senate and plenty of places to start stashing away cash.

All three of the senators most likely to join Bush in the 2016 Republican primaries have been hard at work raising money and spending it while Bush has been sorting out whether to run. Theyve built up large reservoirs of cash in their campaign committees and simultaneously used their leadership PACs the type of committee Bush says he will form to raise and spend big sums.

When it comes to all-around fundraising, Paul has the clear advantage of the trio. His campaign committee has raised $5.5 million this cycle the most of any senator who was not up for election in 2014, and more than some senators who were. Pauls leadership PAC, Reinventing A New Direction PAC, has raised $3.6 million this cycle.

Rubios campaign committee has been notably less successful when it comes to fundraising, bringing in just $2.9 million. But his leadership PAC Reclaim America PAC pulled in $3.8 million. Cruzs campaign committee has raised $3.7 million, but his leadership PAC, the Jobs, Growth and Freedom Fund, took in only $2 million.

Just as important as fundraising however, may be how the committees have spent the money. While Bush has a strong fundraising record, these three senators have been criss-crossing the country, using the funds they already have to drum up support, make fundraising pitches and line up new friends who can be helpful down the road.

The senators leadership PACs all spent down their funds nearly to zero. In fact, Rubios and Pauls spent more than they raised this cycle,relying on money in the bank from previous cycles. Rubios leadership PAC had just $15,000 left as of Nov. 24, while Pauls had $290,000. Cruzs leadership PAC spent $1.9 million, and was left with just $138,000.

The expenditures of the PACs may say something about the kinds of campaigns the senators would run in 2016.

The biggest vendor of Pauls leadership PAC, for example, was Strategic Fundraising Inc., a firm that specializes in telefundraising for conservatives. The PAC has paid the firm$635,000 in the 2014 cycle. Close behind is Saber Communications, which is run by political operative Mike Rothfeld, a board member of the National Association for Gun Rights who is known for his email and mass-mail fundraising prowess and his cutthroat political sensibility.Saber Communications has made $560,000 from the leadership PAC in this cycle. The fundraising firms, which cast a wide net for donations, combined to account for more than one-third of RAND PACs spending this cycle, suggesting a strong emphasis on not just fundraising, but grassroots fundraising.

Rubios leadership PAC has spent most heavily with Something Else Strategies, a firm formed by three of his top aides, including John McCain and George W. Bushs top strategists in South Carolina in 2000. Close behind is Targeted Victory a consulting firm closely aligned with Carl Forti, a close ally of Karl Rove.Rubio, it would appear, is the senator among these three whose political spending suggests a campaign that would most overlap with the Bush brand. Maybe thats why the leadership PAC has spent so much on what appears to be brand-building advertising, promotional materials (including more than $47,000 on PAC-themed water bottles) and surveys.

While Paul may have a strong brand and Rubio may already be an acknowledged fundraiser, Cruzs leadership PAC spending suggests his camp is worried about shoring up both brand and fundraising. The top recipient of Cruzs leadership PAC spending is CampaignHQ, an Iowa firm that has done fundraising phone calls for Cruz. The firm has been paid $156,000 by Cruzs PAC. But not far behind is survey firm Wilson Perkins Allen, with $145,000.

All three men have clearly been zooming around the country ranging far from their home states with their leadership PACs picking up the expenses.

RAND PAChas spent more than $123,000 on airline flights and an additional $130,000 on charter jets. Pauls PAC also listed expenses to Caesars Palace in July of this year, and stays at the Breakers Hotel, an upscale Palm Beach resort in March of both 2013 and 2014. The PAC also paid for stays at the Cloisters at Sea Island, a five-star resort in Georgia, and a pricey hotel in Guatemala where Paul, an optometrist, was doing highly-publicized free surgeries. Not all of the travel was for Paul, however. Many of the expenses are reimbursements to aides, like former Iowa GOP chairman A.J. Spiker.

Rubios PAC has spent less on travel, but still has some notable travel expenses. While he wasnt among the potential candidates rumored to have attended the Sheldon Primary in March at the Las Vegas casino owned by billionaire Sheldon Adelson the biggest individual donor in the 2012 election Rubios leadership PAC has paid for what appear to be two trips earlier this year to the Venetian.

Cruzs PAC spent $64,000 on airlines and another $36,000 on private charters, and for what appear to be fancy getaway resorts, likely fundraising events. Like Pauls, Cruzs leadership PAC picked up a weekend at the Breakers Resort in Florida the same weekend as in Pauls case. His PAC also paid for another stay at the resort in late 2013. There were also several trips to Jackson, Wyoming; on a June 23 trip, the PAC paid for both black car service and $72 for something at Teton Mountain resort. Cruzs PAC also notably paid for stays at the Attitash Grand Mountain Resort in New Hampshire.

Their leadership PACs were also used by all three men to spread some of their fundraising takes around to those who might be useful in a 2016 presidential bid.

All three donated to the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, while Pauls and Rubios PACs both supported the Republican Party of Iowa. Cruzs PAC made gifts to the GOP in South Carolina, another crucial early-primary state.

All three leadership PACs also made large donations to the campaign of newly-elected Iowa senator Joni Ernst, as well as to Scott Brown, who was narrowly defeated in his bid to unseat incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire.

And just in case theres any lingering doubt about what these senators and their PACs were up to, a couple of their other expenses might help settle things: All three made independent expenditures uncoordinated ad buys that explicitly advocate for or against a candidate in support of Ernst in Iowa. Paul and Cruzs leadership PACs also made six-figure buys in support of Brown, in New Hampshire.

Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/12/jeb-bushs-rivals-already-running/

Continue Reading ..