Dear David,
Reading your blog with great interest and noticed in last Thursday's blog you refer to Rebekah Brooks, of the Rupert Murdoch scandal, and her "public" hair. Did you mean to say "pubic"? Or is there now a difference between public hair and private hair? I, too, think when I see a woman flaunting great masses of hair what hair she is really inviting a man to fall into. Men are such fools, aren't they?
~Berto the French Bombshell, From Paris
Dear Berto,
Please don't go off near me. But I guess there's no great risk of that with you on the other side of the ocean. Yes, my dear, I was referring to Ms. Brooks very-not-public hair but I think my blog mistress got shy and decided to clean my act up. Hi everyone, blog mistress Jennifer here speaking for a moment: I, in fact encourage David to use dirty words - I just type too fast sometimes! ;) Back to the blog...
It is strange, isn't it? Ms. Brooks is sort of the Madame de Pompadour of our time. There is a great video somebody did about the Rupert Murdoch scandal, check it out by clicking here.
When you see it you'll see that Ms. Brooks was quite a beauty in her day but she should shift gears away from her trademark hair. Like Bernadette Peters. Enough all ready. Bernadette should cut off her hair, go to France, do a great dramatic low-budget shocking film and start all over again as a serious film actress. She has a great face in close-up and can really act. Well, enough about hair and how it can be a trap.
(Photo is from the Murdoch scandal youtube parody)
No comments:
Post a Comment