Do you see that picture of Whitney Houston that I put right up there? That picture where she’s happy and smiling and, you know, alive? I chose that picture because I don’t think it’s appropriate to showcase photos of dead people. I don’t want to see a picture of a dead person when I’m checking out some celebrity gossip, and I assume that you don’t either.

Here is where the National Enquirer and I disagree.

If you run out to the grocery store or wherever you browse trashy tabloids, do you know what you can expect to see? You can expect to see Whitney’s body, lying in her casket at her funeral, right on the front cover. Just right there. While you’re trying to find the gum or checking to see when the world is supposed to end this time or what Bat Boy is up to these days, you’ll probably actually see a corpse instead. Is anyone else disturbed by that?

Besides the creepiness of this (I really can’t stress enough how creepy this is to me), what a dick move, right? Think about it: someone had to actually take this picture at Whitney’s funeral. Then someone had to give the photo to the National Enquirer. Then someone, or, more likely, a number of people, had to decide that the right thing to do would be to put the picture of a dead woman on the front of a magazine. There are too many bad ideas here to count.

And it’s not like someone who actually knew Whitney won’t see this, you know? Poor Kevin Costner might step out to buy some milk and come across that awful image. Hell, even someone who didn’t personally know Whitney might have just had someone close to them die, and seeing this cover might not be the happiest thing for them. Seriously, there are so many things wrong with this.

I realize there’s a time and a place for some people to look at photos of dead people. I know there are some people who even take photos of loved ones at their funeral, and while that’s not something that I would do, some people find that a comforting thing to have, and that’s ok. You know what’s not ok? Taking that picture and putting it on the cover of a magazine. Have I emphasized that enough?

Obviously, I’m not posting the cover photo here, but you can easily find it if you’d like. More importantly though, what do you guys think of all this? Is there some reason I’m missing for why this is an acceptable thing to do?

Hooray! Kourtney Kardashian is going to give birth to a little girl! Can you believe it? This newest Kardashian will be an asset to the Kardashian empire: she will inherit all. While Kim, Khloe, and Kourtney are getting too old for their shenanigans (will they ever get too old for their shenanigans though, or will we be seeing Kim famewhoring at 50?), this new generation shall rise up and bring this family to new heights. Or, wait, will people still care about the Kardashians in twenty years? Is it sad that I have to actually present that as a question because I really don’t know?

Regardless, I’m happy for Kourtney. I’m sure she’ll have fun with a little baby girl, and judging by the unbearable cuteness of Kourtney’s son, Mason, this little baby will be a stunner. BABIES.

Can I tell you something? I think that while Khloe is definitely the best Kardashian, Kourtney is the underrated Kardashian. The more I watch her – and oh, do I watch her – the more I like her. I thought she was solid on this season of Kourtney and Kim Take New York, and I think she actually seems like a really good mom. Anybody else?

Oh, and speaking of little girls, guess who else is having one?

Yep, Jessica Simpson has a bouncing baby girl in her uterus as well! Hoorays all around!

From People:

The fashion mogul, who is planning a March baby shower, recently visited L.A.’s Bel Bambini boutique to pick out clothing and accessories for her little one – and one observer noticed that Simpson, 32, was thinking pink.

“Jessica and her mom [Tina Simpson] and spent over an hour at the store,” the observer tells PEOPLE. “She took her time picking out the perfect baby items.”

She’s having her baby shower in March? Baby showers usually come pretty soon before the actual baby, right? Can we assume that Jessica is due in March then? All she’s said before is that she’s due in the spring, and judging by the size of her tummy, I can’t imagine this baby will still be in there in April or May. I’m going to go ahead and guess that if she doesn’t have that baby within the next month, when she does have it, it will actually be three or more babies. She’s huge. And adorable!

You guys. Babies. Who’s next?

Lindsay Lohan spent this morning performing one of her regular activities: going to court. And, just like last time, the judge told her she was doing a great job with her probation. Yawn.

From TMZ:

Lindsay Lohan just got yet another rave review from Judge Stephanie Sautnerduring her probation progress report hearing this AM — as Sautner proudly announced, “You’re in the home stretch!”

Sautner was impressed — that for the 3rd time in a row, Lindsay completed her required community service and therapy sessions.

Sautner gushed, “You seem to be getting your life back on track.”

Lindsay has ONE MORE progress hearing set for March 29th — by which date she must complete her final 14 days of community service at the L.A. County morgue, and 5 more therapy sessions.

If she stays on track, Lindsay will be placed on informal probation, meaning all she has to do is obey all laws.

Does this mean that Lindsay is getting things under control? That she actually cares about her recovery? Sure, she’s been playing some nipple peekaboo on camera, and she’s still doing that horrible thing to her lips, and there were those rumors of her soliciting wealthy men to buy her fancy things, but all that’s more of an “oh, girl, come on” move as opposed to actual red flags, and really, if you look back at Lindsay’s record, that’s some saintly behavior. Also, don’t forget, Lindsay just landed not one, but two new acting gigs. So … could it be true? Is Lindsay really getting her life back on track?

Sadly, even if she does get herself back together, she’s probably never going to be able to get back to looking like Dina Lohan‘s daughter. Dina’s in that picture above, back there in the black. They look like total twinsies, right? Oh, and, as always, I’ll keep an eye out for more photos, because I think her dress might be really, really cute. The jacket’s nice, too! Maybe a little too short for court, but baby steps.

The Brit Awards, if you don’t know, are like the UK’s version of the Grammys. Remember the Grammys? Everyone absolutely loved Adele, she was the undisputed champion of the entire night. If she felt so inclined to do so, I’m sure she could have spoken for hours and hours, and everyone would have loved it, and no one would have cut her off, not in a million years.

Back in her homeland, though, that clearly wasn’t the case. No, in her homeland, she gets cut off after she says about two and a half sentences in her acceptance speech for winning the award for the album of the year:

Yeah, Adele flipped everyone off. What of it? Given the situation, I think it was pretty understandable. Like, really, you cut off Adele, the girl behind the album of the year, so Blur could play? Honestly?

But we all know that lots of people are big ol’ Sensitive Sallys when it comes to flipping the bird, so Adele went ahead and clarified something that I thought was pretty obvious:

“I flung the middle finger. That was for the suits at the Brit Awards, not my fans,” she said, according to theBBC. “I’m sorry if I offended anyone but the suits offended me.”

Because I’m sure everyone thought Adele’s “f*ck you” was meant for her fans. Right.

Were you guys embarrassed for Adele? Because I really, really was. You can tell that she’s so happy and honored and lovely and all the things we know her to be, and then, boom. “You’re the most popular singer in the world right now, you’ve broken so many records, everyone adores you, you just won the biggest award of the whole night, but listen, we gotta bring Blur on, stat.” In what world does that make sense?

But hey, have you ever seen anyone make an offensive gesture so lovable? I sure haven’t, and it only makes me want Adele to be my BFF even more. Anybody else?

Well, this is cute. Earlier today, Rihanna released her remix of “Birthday Cake,” featuring the musical stylings of Chris Brown. Also today, Chris Brown released this song, a remix of a song called “Turn Up The Music,” featuring the musical stylings of Rihanna. That’s what we call a united front, I reckon.

At least in Chris Brown’s song, Rihanna doesn’t have lines like “I wanna f*ck you right now.” That’s something right? She does sing “I love you, baby” towards the end though, so … I don’t know. Here, read some of Chris Brown’s latest, enlightened tweets:

Possibilities are Endless! U make a difference!

The love you withhold is the pain you carry!!!!

Awareness of your consciousness is EVOLUTION!

HOW CAN 1 influence the planet TO HELP THEMSELVES?

I just hope my music inspires people to really come together. LOVE and POSITIVITY.

Peace and blessings

HAPPY BIRTHDAY ROBYN!

CAKE CAKE CAKE CAKE CAKE CAKE

You are not GODS to judge us. U have no say! Positivity & LOVE! My fans make a difference!

He’s a good person, ok? Can’t you see that? These remarks he made on Twitter are totally proof of that, and they totally negate every bad thing he’s done lately. Who are we to judge him when we’ve all made mistakes? It was three years ago! Rihanna is ok with it, so what’s the problem? He said he was sorry! He’s so talented! People just have a problem with him still because of his race! Nobody hates Charlie Sheen or Mel Gibson anymore, so why can’t they let the Chris Brown thing go? He’s paid his dues. TEAM BREEZY*.

Did you like the song?

*These are all things that actual people have actually said in real life. I don’t agree with any of them.

Victoria Beckham has been out and about a bit lately, promoting her fashion line or whatever, and people have been saying that she looks a bit off. I can’t imagine why, can you? In that picture up there, she looks totally happy and healthy to me!

It turns out that people have been making enough of a fuss for Victoria to comment on it:

Victoria Beckham may be difficult to read from a public profile standpoint, but deep down inside, she’s dealing with the balancing act called life.

So when the 37-year-old mom of four, who presented a collection at New York Fashion Week Feb. 15, showed up in London on Saturday like a less-polished version of herself, the star had some frank words for her critics.

“Look, if people want to say I’m miserable then so be it,” she told the Daily Mirror. “I’m really not. I have a lot on my plate. I’m not going to lie about it, I’m tired. I’m really tired but I’m also very happy with my life.”

Beckham, who lives in Los Angeles with her L.A. Galaxy soccer star husband David Beckham and their four children, Brooklyn, 12, Romeo, 9, Cruz, 6, and Harper, 7 months, has spent the past few weeks jetting to New York and her homeland, England. Along for the ride? Baby Harper.

“I’m not getting much sleep at all,” she continued to The Mirror. “Harper’s not sleeping that great, and I’ve been taking Skype business calls throughout the night, too, because of the collections. I’m up with the baby as all mums are, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. There’s not a team of people doing it for me.”

“I’m basically just like any woman who’s working and has lots of children -– it’s tough,” she added.

I don’t know if I believe that Victoria Beckham is “just like any woman who’s working and has lots of children” – most other women aren’t as wealthy as Victoria, nor do they have as awesome a shoe collection, but I do believe that there’s not a team of nannies on call at all times to take care of the Beckham children. They seem like a pretty hands-on family, unlike some other celebrities who have six nannies for one baby. So that’s admirable, I suppose.

Really, the point of this whole thing is to say “Victoria, please, I can respect what you’re doing, but please, go home and take a nap. It’ll be ok.” That’s all.