Trimspa, bish

-- I been sitting here working on my laptop with CNN playing in the background for the past six to seven hours and there has been, maybe, 15 cumulative minutes of news coverage that didn't deal with the death of Anna Nicole Smith.

This is perplexing me. I just can't see how this woman's death can hijack a cable news channel for almost two full days now. Surely, more important news items are breaking, developing, effecting as we speak. Thats not self-righteous, corn-cynical babble...that is effing real talk. If a movie star, musician, etc dies...I'm cool with coverage and retrospects and ish. But this broad?

But then I thought about it: If Paris Hilton died, I'd probably spend, at least 20 to 30 minutes checking out coverage and being generally interested in what happened. Which crystallized things for me. Apparently, Anna Nicole started this whole famous for being famous jump-off..and for someone in their mid-30s to late 40s, this is somewhat newsworthy.

I just find it to be puzzling. somehow we let these people grab our attention. Lets talk chicken and egg...if the media never began the obsession with Anna Nicole (a busty, red-lipped, ditz-brained gold-digger) or Paris (a skeletal, hot-crotched, closet-bigot) then they wouldnt be famous and require any news coverage when they overdose on some type of drug.

My nigga Wolf Blitzer is on right now and, interspersed between a shot-down US helicopter in Iraq and some Obama news, The Cafferty File has finally asked the question: "What the eff are we making this junk worthwhile for?" But not so fast, as soon as Blitz and Caff wrap up, Blitz lets us know their will be more coverage on his show: "Autopsy Results" and "Battle Over Bucks" being the two topics...On the friggin Situation Room?

I'm bout to turn it to the Food Channel...which is where it shouldve been to begin with. my girl Paula is on.