Everyone Relax! Its totally not true.

Earlier today, The National Enquirer release a story alledging that Jamie Lynn Spears, who gave birth to daughter Maddie only three months ago, is up the spout again. Here's the Enquirer story:
Whoops – she did it again! Teen Prego Queen Jamie Lynn Spears has another bun in the oven, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER is reporting exclusively – and her pals are begging her to abort. In a blockbuster world exclusive, The ENQUIRER has learned that the 17-year-old Zoey 101 starlet is now expecting for the second time – a mere three months after giving birth on June 19 to baby Maddie Briann. Jamie’s desperate to keep the shock­ing news secret and some people close to her are urging Jamie Lynn to consider ending the pregnancy, sources say. “Jamie Lynn is about eight weeks pregnant, and she and her mom Lynne are hysterical,” revealed a close source. “Neither of them knows what to do, but for now they’re trying to keep the news from getting out.” Too late. The unplanned pregnancy came as a shock to Jamie Lynn, who’d been breast-feeding her infant daughter Maddie Briann, insiders say. “Jamie Lynn believed she couldn’t get pregnant while she was breast-feeding,” said the close source. “She’d expected to have her period by early September.” A home pregnancy test came back positive and Jamie Lynn cried her eyes out, said the source. Her mother Lynne was livid when she found out, divulged an insider. Meanwhile, insiders say that those close to Jamie Lynn are urging her to abort! “They’ve reminded Jamie Lynn how much trouble she had adjusting to motherhood with Maddie, and pointed out that having a second baby now would only be a recipe for disaster,” said the close source. (source)
Thankfully, this news is apparently untrue. Shocking I know! I always believe what The Enquirer says, don't you? Anyway, here's what the Spears camp had to say:

In response to a story in today's National Enquirer claiming Britney's sister is again with child, a rep for the 17-year-old confirmed to OK! magazine that "she is not pregnant." What's more, a source who lives in Jamie Lynn's native Kentwood, La., tells E! News: "I talk to [her mom] Lynne all the time. Believe me, she would have mentioned if that little girl is expecting again. That's just a bunch of made-up crap." (Source)

I must say, I'm a bit relieved. It was bad enough when Jamie Lynne announced her first pregnancy at the age of 16, I don't think I could have handled the media storm that would inevitably happen if she got knocked up again less than a year later. Oh yeah, and I'm also glad for Jamie Lynne and whoever that guy she's doing. Apparently, they're super happy and in love. If you believe OK! Magazine, that is. And I obviously do, because I have no free will. But at least I know how to use a freaking condom!

On to other Spears news, the suddenly reformed, now "good egg", Britney is still dealing with the fallout from her year long ride on the crazy train. And I'm pretty sure her lawyer is just in it for the billable hours. Here's the latest:

The attorney in Britney Spears' forever-pending driving-without-a-license case has rejected a final deal from prosecutors. The seemingly no-brainer offer would have had Spears pay a measly $150 and spend a year on probation in exchange for copping to the misdemeanor charge and avoiding an embarrassing trial in the case. But the "Womanizer" singer's attorney, J. Michael Flanagan, is sticking to his guns that the 26-year-old comeback queen, who long ago corrected the violation and obtained a valid California driver's license, should face nothing more than a $10 fine for her misdeed. "We don't want a misdemeanor," he told E! News. "This should be an infraction. No probation." That means the trial is on for Oct. 15. (source)

I know I've got my calendar marked for that trial. How stupid! Are we seriously wasting all of our tax dollars to send a pop singer to court for an invalid license? Aren't there more, I don't know, important things the court could be deliberating on? I seriously don't understand why this particular issue must go to trial. I realize that the lawyer is making it happen this way, but can't someone, a judge, a clerk, another lawyer, someone, make this stupidity go away? Ugh!

That's it for me. I need to go brush this bad taste out of my mouth.

Later!

Still nothing going on, except for this:

Ok, well its still a pretty slow week in Hollywood and the entertainment world, but there have been a few bits and pieces to trickle down the wire. The biggest news of the day was the hearing for Britney Spears' conservatorship and the restraining order against Sam Lufti. The judge decided to extend Jamie Spears' conservatorship over his daughter through the rest of the year. Since he controls who she sees, the restraining order is no longer necessary. I could put the full story up here, but that's basically all it boils down to. Britney's not getting control over her estate back any time soon and daddy is going to keep being her roommate. Personally, I think having her father be her babysitter has helped Britney immensely. I mean, we haven't seen a vag flash in months and her weave looks much better. Plus, there are rumors that she's actually recording again and might even perform to support the album. And not just the sad kind of performances (see last year's VMA's) I mean, actually perform and know what she's doing and stuff. I've never been the biggest Britney fan, but it was sad to see how far she spiraled out of control. Having her father in control of her seems to be for the best right now. If only that had worked for her little sister.

Anyway, the other thing that's been going on in Hollywood is this debate over making laws to control the paparazzi. There's been lots of differing opinions on this, but the best has to be from the chief of the LA police. Check it out:

LAPD Chief William Bratton has spoken out—and how—against a proposal by a city councilman seeking to put in place new measures that restrict paparazzi. Bratton says the (alleged) behavior modifications of Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton have made the proposal all but moot. "If you notice, since Britney started wearing clothes and behaving; Paris is out of town not bothering anybody anymore, thank god; and evidently, Lindsay Lohan has gone gay, we don't seem to have much of an issue," Bratton told KNBC, L.A.'s local NBC affiliate. He went on to offer similar sentiments to several other local outlets, calling the would-be crackdown on paparazzi a "farce," and further claiming that interest in candid pics has already waned. (Source EOnline)

LOL!!! This is one of the funniest quotes I've heard in a while! Since Lindsay Lohan "went gay" the paparazzi isn't as prevalent? I think that, if he had his way, Bratton would ban Paris Hilton from LA just to get some peace and quiet. It was really considerate of her to go out of town right around the time that all of this paparazzi crackdown craze began happening. He can make it seem like there's nothing to crack down on. Just wait until the newest It girl comes on the scene, then he'll be wishing for more structure. He may get it anyway, whether he likes it or not. There's a meeting with a councilman later on today at City Hall to discuss limiting the paparazzi that's supposed to have, not only some serious star power, but also the heads of the neighborhoods that are most affected by those crazy paps. I have a feeling that this won't be the last we hear of this.

Well, that's basically all that's going on today. Its been such a slow week! I hope to have some better news tomorrow. In the meantime, I've got to go get my hair done.

Later!