GoneTrending

After over a decade of conquering the underground R&B scene, Victoria Monét has broken through to the mainstream. Thanks to Victoria’s breakout hit, “On My Mama” (co-produced by Deputy), critically acclaimed debut studio album Jaguar II, and her snagging multiple Grammy Awards (including Best New Artist), the public is eager to see what’s next.

Although Victoria’s time on the road via her international The Jaguar Tour has ended, supporters can catch her at the 2024 Roots Picnic. But what else is up her animal print sleeve? According to her latest interview, the answer is new music. So, when should we expect it?

When Does Victoria Monét’s Jaguar II Deluxe Album Come Out?

After expressing that she would be ending the Jaguar series, fans could get one last offering by way of a Jaguar II deluxe album. On February 23, during the “Hollywood” singer’s appearance on iHeart Radio’s The New Hit List, Victoria Monét teased the idea.

As she confirmed to host Angelina that Jaguar III is no longer happening, Victoria did spill details about a Jaguar II deluxe project. “I do want to put out a deluxe to ‘Jaguar II,’” she said. “So, we’re working on that…it will be [released] this year.”

The wait is sure to be worth it. Perhaps it will include the never-released tracks with her bestie Ariana Grande.

Victoria also spoke about her future songwriting plans. “I feel like there’s more of an open timeline on writing songs for other people,” she said. “So, I’m more focused on my artistry right now. My schedule doesn’t really allow for much else. But I do want to eventually get back into collaborating… writing with and for other people. Right now, it’s Victoria Monét world. I’ve done a lot of writing previously, so now I’m flipping into a new chapter.”

Watch the full interview above.

If anyone even a few weeks ago claimed Sydney Sweeney’s rom-com would gross more — way more — than Sydney Sweeney’s Marvel movie, they would have been laughed out of the room. And yet that‘s what happened. Anyone But You has been hanging in the North American Top 10 last late last year, proving a word-of-mouth money-gobbler, and at a time when the genre has been long considered box office poison. Madame Web, meanwhile, stumbled out of the gate and even killed off a potential franchise.

But when will Netflix subscribers get the chance to stream Anyone But You?

The answer is: probably some time in April. Anyone But You is a Sony picture, and Sony has a deal with Netflix that they get their films before anyone else. The same thing happened with No Hard Feelings and The Pope’s Exorcist, both of which appeared on the streamer four months after release. Ergo, expect to watch Sweeney and Glen Powell do a modernized riff on Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing in a month and change.

Sweeney and Powell had a fairly wild press tour, the most scandalous part being their having to address salacious rumors that they were dating. (They’re not.) What Powell did do was save his costar from a spider invasion, so that’s nice.

Again, expect Anyone But You to hit Netflix in April or so.

Duke star Kyle Filipowski was injured when getting caught up in a court storm by Wake Forest students after the Deacs knocked off the Blue Devils at home, his head coach Jon Scheyer said after the game.

As the suddenly-sprinting throng of students made its way onto the court, Filipowski — who appeared to be the furthest Duke player from the bench — was caught in the rush of bodies and came out of the scrum surrounded by Duke personnel helping him limp off of the court.

It’s unlikely the practice of court-storming will be banned, but it is possible to see some tweaks. Pundits can sound like overly-concerned parents when warning of the dangers (particularly to opposing players) of jubilant college students rushing the court after a big win.

But between the incident with Filipowski and Caitlin Clark getting caught up in a court storm earlier this season, there may momentum growing towards either banning court storms altogether or doing more to make them safer. Scheyer, unsurprisingly, would be in favor.

Even when all college students involved have the best of intentions, crowd control and security are concerns. There were no visible Wake Forest security guards even close to Filipowski. But add pregame alcohol consumption and general bad feelings to the mix, and the question of a player getting hurt has always felt like a ‘when’ more than an ‘if’.

The No. 8 Blue Devils had won five in a row before the loss at Wake Forest, which got a huge win to solidify its NCAA Tournament at-large case.

Craig Ferguson was the host of “The Late Late Show” on CBS from 2005 to 2014. He’s probably best remembered for his stream-of-conscious, mostly improvised monologues that often veered from funny observations to more serious territory.

In 2009, he opened his show explaining how marketers have spent six decades persuading the public into believing that youth should be deified. To Ferguson, it’s the big reason “Why everything sucks.”

---

“In the 1950s, late ’50s, early ’60s, a bunch of advertising guys got together on Madison Avenue and decided to try to sell products to younger people. ‘We should try to sell to younger people because then they will buy things their whole lives,'” Ferguson explained.

The problem is, according to Ferguson, that young people are “kind of stupid.”

“So the deification of youth evolved and turned into the deification of imbecility. It became fashionable to be young and to be stupid,” he continued.

‘Why everything sucks’

On a deeper level, Ferguson makes the point that exalting youth and inexperience over wisdom and experience runs contrary to the way of nature.

“Then what happened is that people were frightened to not be young,” he said. “They started dyeing their hair, they started mutilating their faces and their bodies in order to look young. But you can’t be young forever, that’s against the laws of the universe.”

Calling marketers’ war on the over-49 set the reason why “everything sucks” may be a bit of an exaggeration. But the takeaway from Ferguson’s monologue is spot-on. There’s no reason to feel bad about aging. You’ve got experience, wisdom, probably better credit, and have learned that Saturdays are a lot more fun after you’ve been to bed by 10:00 pm on Friday.

This article originally appeared on 2.17.22

Patrick Stewart often talks about his childhood and the torment his father put him and his mother through. However, how he answered this vulnerable and brave fan’s question is one of the most eloquent, passionate responses about domestic violence I’ve ever seen.

---

WARNING: At 2:40, he’s going to break your heart a little.

You can read more about Heather Skye’s hug with Captain Picard at her blog.

This article originally appeared on 06.26.13.

Just when the public thought Benzino’s longstanding disdain for Eminem was over, the decades-long feud is right back on and more heated than ever. On February 17, Benzino appeared on the Drink Champs podcast. After hours of enjoying the adult beverages on set, Benzino somewhat drunkenly confessed that he didn’t have anything “against Eminem” and that he actually believes “[Eminem] can rap.”

Ultimately, he vowed not to address the tension anymore as he felt that it impacted his daughter, Uproxx cover star Coi Leray’s career. But that promise has since been spoiled. During a sit down with The Art of Dialogue on February 21, Benzino, a.k.a. “The Eminem Slayer,” shared that he still thinks his arch-emeny sucks.

“‘Rap Elvis’ already destroyed him,” he said. “I already killed him with ‘Rap Elvis.’ Where’s he at? Where’s the response? I want to battle him face-to-face. I think he’s overrated. I think he sucks as a rapper. And it’s f*ck anybody that’s with him. I bombed on him. I’m going to continue to bomb on him. I’m going to continue to expose him.”

Drunk mouths are supposed to speak a sober mind. But in Benzino’s case, it appears to have been the exact opposite.

Watch the full interview above.

For about two-and-a-half years, Jeopardy! fans got the pleasure of watching not one host but two, with Ken Jennings alternating with Mayim Bialik. And so it went until last December, when the quiz show’s brass decided they only needed one — and it wasn’t Bialik. There’s been much speculation about why they nixed the Blossom vet (who’s working on a more serious revival), but in a new interview with USA Today (as caught by The Daily Beast), Jennings claims there’s a more simple explanation: viewers want one host.

“It’s part of the ritual of their day, and they want to tune in and know what they’re going to see and not wonder, ‘Oh, which host do I see tonight?’” Jennings speculated. And I do understand that.”

Jennings made sure to praise Bialik’s hosting abilities. “You could tell she was just a born performer, very confident on stage in a way that I was not at first. I learned a lot from watching her, and I really enjoyed her hosting,” he said. “But I do understand — there’s a reason why TV shows don’t tend to have two hosts.”

A report by Puck in December claimed there may have been more drama behind the scenes:

Sony TV executive Suzanne Prete and executive producer Michael Davies were furious when Bialik said in May that she would step away from the final week of filming last season in solidarity with the show’s striking writers. After all, Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune are well-oiled machines, requiring precise timing to make the show’s five-episodes-a-day schedule. Plus, Bialik wasn’t loved on set, and Sony had switched up shooting that season to accommodate her Fox sitcom, Call Me Kat.

Whatever the case, Jennings is now the official her to the show’s legendary host Alex Trebek, who passed away in 2020. For the following year-and-a-half, Jeopardy! found a revolving door of guest hosts, including Jennings, Bialik, as well as LeVar Burton and — odd as this may seem now after some of his antics — Aaron Rodgers.

(Via USA Today and The Daily Beast)

To announce her forthcoming album, Kacey Musgraves stripped down to her birthday suit in nature. Now, she’s using the connection to the earth as inspiration for her latest creative venture. As a body of work, Deeper Well is described as Musgraves’ return to her roots. Now, thanks to her collaboration with Boy Smells, fans can experience that through their latest signature candle.

The scent, named after Musgraves’ upcoming body of worth, contains top notes of saffron, eucalyptus, and raspberry and middle notes of beetroot, lavender, clary sage, and mushroom. The overlapping base note pulls in the singer’s goal of earthy elements, including amber, oakmoss, patchouli, iso-e super, and agarwood.

In a statement, Musgraves spoke about her mission when crafting the candle. “It’s airy but grounded,” she said. “Sky and dirt. Foreign but home. The divine feminine. The peaceful masculine. An examination of what you make room for. What fills your soul? A hug from someone you’ve missed. It’s the growing roots in your garden, a symbol of your ruthless reaching for something better. ‘Deeper Well’ is being brave enough to leave the shallow in search of wiser waters.”

Kacey Musgraves’ ‘Deeper Well’ candle retails for $56 and is currently available for purchase on the singer’s website as well as Boy Smells. Find more information here.

Deeper Well is out 3/15 via Interscope/MCA Nashville. Find more information here.

Inequality has gotten worse than you think.

An investigation by former “Daily Show” correspondent Hasan Minhaj is still perfectly apt and shows that the problem isn’t just your classic case of “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”

---

As much as we hear about wealth inequality these days, one disparity remains mostly ignored: the gap between the wealthy and the ridiculously wealthy.

Minhaj spoke to Richard Reeves, an economist with the Brookings Institute, who painted a dark picture:

The study Reeves refers to points to the growing wealth of the top 10th of the top 1%:

“The rise of wealth inequality is almost entirely due to the rise of the top 0.1% wealth share, from 7% in 1979 to 22% in 2012 — a level almost as high as in 1929. The bottom 90% wealth share first increased up to the mid-1980s and then steadily declined.”

And no one’s paid any attention.

Between the cries of the 45.3 million people in poverty and a dwindling middle class in every state, the voice of the average millionaire is all but drowned out.

But not all millionaires are worried about growing inequality in the top 1%.

In his search for a concerned millionaire, Minhaj met Morris Pearl, a retired investment banking director and member of an organization called The Patriotic Millionaires. Minhaj was baffled by what Pearl had to say:

What about trickle-down economics?

Trickle-down theory was popularized under Ronald Reagan’s presidency. The idea was that clearing a path for the rich to make more money would spur more private investment, which would lead to more jobs and higher wages for all workers.

Reagan put trickle-down theory into practice in two basic ways: by lowering taxes for the wealthy and by freezing wages for the poor.

In 1981, he cut the top marginal income tax rate — which only applies to the highest-income households — from 70% to 50%. Then in 1986, he more than doubled-down by slashing the rate to 28%. (The current rate is 39.6%.) And under Reagan’s leadership, the minimum wage was frozen, even as costs of living were rising.

Pearl and other so-called Patriotic Millionaires think top one-percenters like themselves should pay more taxes.

Not only that, they believe raising the minimum wage is critical to reducing inequality.

OK, maybe not everyone — including millionaires — are convinced that giving more money to the rich will fix the economy. So why do our policies do just the opposite?

This article originally appeared on 3.23.15

The legality of abortion is one of the most polarized debates in America—but it doesn’t have to be.

People have big feelings about abortion, which is understandable. On one hand, you have people who feel that abortion is a fundamental women’s rights issue, that our bodily autonomy is not something you can legislate, and that those who oppose abortion rights are trying to control women through oppressive legislation. On the other, you have folks who believe that a fetus is a human individual first and foremost, that no one has the right to terminate a human life, and that those who support abortion rights are heartless murderers.

Then there are those of us in the messy middle. Those who believe that life begins at conception, that abortion isn’t something we’d choose—and we’d hope others wouldn’t choose—under most circumstances, yet who choose to vote to keep abortion legal.

---

It is entirely possible to be morally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice without feeling conflicted about it. Here’s why.

There’s far too much gray area to legislate.

No matter what you believe, when exactly life begins and when “a clump of cells” should be considered an individual, autonomous human being is a debatable question.

I personally believe life begins at conception, but that’s my religious belief about when the soul becomes associated with the body, not a scientific fact. As Arthur Caplan, award-winning professor of bioethics at New York University, told Slate, “Many scientists would say they don’t know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments. The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on.”

But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that a human life unquestionably begins at conception. Even with that point of view, there are too many issues that make a black-and-white approach to abortion too problematic to ban it.

Abortion bans hurt some mothers who desperately want their babies to live, and I’m not okay with that.

One reason I don’t support banning abortion is because I’ve seen too many families deeply harmed by restrictive abortion laws.

I’ve heard too many stories of families who desperately wanted a baby, who ended up having to make the rock-and-a-hard-place choice to abort because the alternative would have been a short, pain-filled life for their child.

I’ve heard too many stories of mothers having to endure long, drawn out, potentially dangerous miscarriages and being forced to carry a dead baby inside of them because abortion restrictions gave them no other choice.

I’ve heard too many stories of abortion laws doing real harm to mothers and babies, and too many stories of families who were staunchly anti-abortion until they found themselves in circumstances they never could have imagined, to believe that abortion is always wrong and should be banned at any particular stage.

I am not willing to serve as judge and jury on a woman’s medical decisions, and I don’t think the government should either.

Most people’s anti-abortion views—mine included—are based on their religious beliefs, and I don’t believe that anyone’s religion should be the basis for the laws in our country. (For the record, any Christian who wants biblical teachings to influence U.S. law, yet cries “Shariah is coming!” when they see a Muslim legislator, is a hypocrite.)

I also don’t want politicians sticking their noses into my very personal medical choices. There are just too many circumstances (seriously, please read the stories linked in the previous section) that make abortion a choice I hope I’d never have to make, but wouldn’t want banned. I don’t understand why the same people who decry government overreach think the government should be involved in these extremely personal medical decisions.

And yes, ultimately, abortion is a personal medical decision. Even if I believe that a fetus is a human being at every stage, that human being’s creation is inextricably linked to and dependent upon its mother’s body. And while I don’t think that means women should abort inconvenient pregnancies, I also acknowledge that trying to force a woman to grow and deliver a baby that she may not have chosen to conceive isn’t something the government should be in the business of doing.

As a person of faith, my role is not to judge or vilify, but to love and support women who are facing difficult choices. The rest of it—the hard questions, the unclear rights and wrongs, the spiritual lives of those babies,—I comfortably leave in God’s hands.

Most importantly, if the goal is to prevent abortion, research shows that outlawing it isn’t the way to go.

The biggest reason I vote the way I do is because based on my research pro-choice platforms provide the best chance of reducing abortion rates.

Abortion rates fell by 24% in the past decade and are at their lowest levels in 40 years in America. Abortion has been legal during that time, so clearly, keeping abortion legal and available has not resulted in increased abortion rates. Switzerland has one of the lowest abortion rates on earth and their rate has been falling since 2002, when abortion became largely unrestricted.

Outlawing abortion doesn’t stop it, it just pushes it underground and makes it more dangerous. And if a woman dies in a botched abortion, so does her baby. Banning abortion is a recipe for more lives being lost, not fewer.

At this point, the only things consistently proven to reduce abortion rates are comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control. If we want to reduce abortions, that’s where we should be putting our energy. The problem is, anti-abortion activists also tend to be the same people pushing for abstinence-only education and making birth control harder to obtain. But those goals can’t co-exist in the real world.

Our laws should be based on reality and on the best data we have available. Since comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control—the most proven methods of reducing abortion rates—are the domain of the pro-choice crowd, that’s where I place my vote, and why I do so with a clear conscience.

This article originally appeared on 01.22.19