Kate Winslet Wins Money from Magazine That Implied She Wasn't as Hot as She Could Possibly Be

Kate Winslet is totally hot and hates magazines, and now she's richer for both.

After the British glossy Grazia (which I assume is like Us but with the word "humor" spelled incorrectly) ran a story that Winslet had visited a diet doctor--a move that would appear to contradict the 31-year-old actress' outspoken stance against Hollywood's fixation with ultra-thinness--she sued the magazine for libel, and now she's getting paid. Turns out that Winslet's visit to the Chinese Healing Institute in Santa Monica, CA, was regarding a neck injury and not her weight.

Suck on that, Grazia. You don't step to the hotness that is Kate Winslet and expect to not get burned. Although there is one aspect of this story that I find somewhat confusing:

If Winslet doesn't read celebrity glossies--going so far as to, as she claims, refuse to have magazines in general in her home...how did she even know about the Grazia story in the first place?

I should work for Scotland Yard.

AARP The Magazine Cashes In on Sexagenarian Softcore Action Craze

In the time between when she emerged as "unexpectedly doable" at the 2007 Golden Globe Awards and when Will Ferrell, Jack Black and John C. Reilly musically expressed their sexual attraction towards her at the Oscars ceremony, Dame Helen Mirren firmly established herself as the over-sixty object of inappropriately lustful thoughts worldwide. Perhaps it was inevitable, then, that even a publication as seemingly innocuous as AARP The Magazine would utilize the sex appeal of the Oscar-winning actress du jour in an attempt to spice up the presentation of articles on the rising cost of prescription drugs and Rod Stewart concert promotions.

To be sure, the AARP cover isn't nearly as racy as that of February's Los Angeles Magazine featuring Mirren, but one can't expect a periodical aimed at America's retirement community to go whole-hog on the Helen Mirren sex train its first time out of the box; to do so would run the risk of eliminating a large percentage of their readership via coronary. What counts in the latest AARP The Magazine cover is what's implied...and what's implied is eventual full-frontal nudity.

Lawsuit Won't Stop Amazon.com from Fulfilling All Your Cockfighting-Related Needs

Following up on a threat made over the summer, on Thursday the Humane Society of the United States filed a civil lawsuit in District of Columbia Superior Court against online retailer juggernaut Amazon.com, accusing the website of illegally promoting animal fighting because it offers two cockfighting magazines for sale. The Humane Society is claiming that the magazines violate federal animal cruelty laws; Amazon.com's position is that refusing to sell books or magazines simply because their messages may offend is censorship...but one particularly astonishing fact has arisen from this dispute that, curiously, neither side is paying much heed to:

There are at least two magazines in existence in the United States that are dedicated to cockfighting.

One's called The Gamecock; the other, Feathered Warrior. What I've gleaned from the customer reviews (scroll down--they're worth a read) on Amazon.com is that The Gamecock is the New York Times of cockfighting magazines--the gold standard by which all others are measured (one reviewer actually states that the monthly contains "lots of sage advice from elders")--while Feathered Warrior, despite having been around since 1903 (according to its Amazon page) (and, for my money, boasting the superior name) appears to fulfill the market role of a distant second banana (while The Gamecock currently holds the 80th position in magazine sales on Amazon.com, Feathered Warrior is languishing at #928)...not so much the Pepsi to Gamecock's Coke as it is perhaps its Shasta.

The good news for both is that, as of this writing, the two magazines remain available for purchase on Amazon.com, who stands defiant in the face of the Humane Society's lawsuit. As Feathered Warrior owner-editor Verna Dowd, 77, told reporters: "The Humane Society are crazy people...I don't know what's wrong with them."

Amen, Verna. In a world where the practice of training birds to murder other birds for amusement and profit might possibly be seen as wrong...I don't want to be right.