LiLo is hell-bent on being the most unpopular chick in Hollywood!!!

Lindsay Lohan, the Mean Girls actress became a real-life mean girl when she reportedly picked on Scarlett Johansson, Sienna Miller, Keira Knightley & Jessica Simpson at a party.America’s National Enquirer claims Lohan called Johansson “ugly” and “fat,” Simpson “dumb” and Miller a “no-talent crackhead”.

Lindsay Lohan called Johansson “ugly” and “fat; Keira Knightley a “flat, shallow, cardboard cut-out of an actress”

Lindsay Lohan calling Jessica Simpson “dumb” and Miller a “no-talent crackhead”

And, after insisting to all who cared to listen that she was “the greatest actress in the world,” a source tells the publication Lohan then turned on Knightley, calling her a “flat, shallow, cardboard cut-out of an actress”.

Ironically, Lohan was slated to appear alongside Knightley in new Dylan Thomas biopic The Edge Of Love but pulled out of the project, leaving Sienna Miller to take her role.

Well, Lindsay Lohan certainly has an attitude that is for sure!

Source: Anything Hollywood

That didn’t take long!

Apparently Posh is already looking for new digs for her family!  Three whole weeks!

Their current home is described as classy rather than sprawling by the Daily Mail.  Why ever on earth would Posh want to be classy??

She’s looking at a homes in a section of Malibu called Billionaire’s Beach, and the price tag of homes she is eyeing is in the vicinity of $78.5 million.  Their current home is around $5 million.

Think the law is colourblind? Think again.

A new study, reported in Newsweek and published in the August issue of the American Sociological Review, indicates that black inmates convicted of murdering whites are more likely to be executed thank both whites who kill minorities or blacks who kill other minorities.

Black and White

A new study finds that blacks who kill whites are more likely to face execution.

WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Eve Conant

Newsweek

 

Aug. 1, 2007 – Is American justice colorblind? A new study finds that blacks on death row convicted of killing whites are more likely to be executed than whites who kill minorities. It also concludes that blacks who kill other minorities are less likely to be executed than blacks who kill whites. The authors of the report say their findings raise serious doubts about claims that the U.S. criminal justice system is colorblind.

Appearing in the August issue of American Sociological Review, the report claims to be the first of its kind to study whether the race of murder victims affects the probability that a convicted killer gets the ultimate punishment. The study examined outcomes of 1,560 people sentenced to death in 16 states between 1972 and 2002. NEWSWEEK’s Eve Conant spoke to David Jacobs, coauthor of the study and a professor of sociology and political science at Ohio State University. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Why did you do this study?
David Jacobs: Because the role of race is a fundamental question about the death penalty. There was a lot of research, mostly on one or two Southern states, which found that if an African-American killed a white, that they’d be more likely to get the death penalty. But you have to remember that only about 10 percent of those who get the death sentence actually get executed. Most people wind up leaving death row and going back to prison where they serve long sentences. But we really didn’t know much about what happened to offenders after they were sentenced to death and that’s what’s unique about this study. We didn’t know the factors that cause executions. There have been a few studies, but we didn’t know if a black or Hispanic who kills a white person would be more likely to be executed. We knew it was more likely that these offenders would get the death sentence. But we didn’t know if they were more likely to actually get executed.

So what did you find?
Holding a whole bunch of stuff constant, including several political variables, we found that if a black person killed a white person they were more likely to get executed. If a Hispanic killed a white person they were also more likely, but this probability wasn’t quite as strong. There is more than a twofold greater risk that an African-American who killed a white will be executed than a white person who kills a nonwhite victim. A Hispanic is at least 1.4 times more likely to be executed if such an offender kills a white. Both findings are statistically significant. Also, the findings indicate that blacks who kill nonwhites are less likely to be executed than blacks who kill whites, which shows that the postsentencing capital-punishment process continues to place greater value on white lives.

Can we tell if the differences have been getting more even or time or not, given the time span of the study?
No, most executions happened in the 1990s, so we really couldn’t discover period effects. As a result of the appeals process, people spend a long time on death row, so there weren’t that many executions in the 1980s.

Was age at all a factor, or just race?
We checked for age but it was not significant.

Or the nature of the crime? Or was it simply race?
We don’t have much data on the nature of the crime. But Supreme Court regulations require a state to come up with aggravating and mitigating factors for capital cases. Aggravating factors might include, say, the killing of a child or torturing a victim. Mitigating factors might include the age of the offender or their childhood experience, whether they were abused, etc.

So why do you think that blacks are twice as likely to get the death penalty for killing a white than a white for killing a nonwhite?
There are two plausible explanations. Prosecutors often win higher office if they win well-publicized cases. When a black kills a white such killings gets more publicity and we have evidence for that. Secondly—and perhaps even more plausible—appellate court justices at the state level are often subject to elections, called retention elections. That means they run unopposed without a party label. It’s hard to blow an election like that. But some appellate justices in California and a few other states supposedly granted relief in too many death penalty appeals and got unelected in these retention elections. That’s also why some states that are reluctant to execute just stall. California has something like 650 people who’ve been on death row, and since 1976 but this state has only executed about 15 people. They are dragging it out because they see the pressure and don’t want to lose their seats. My fundamental point is that the death penalty is intrinsically political.

But also about race; that’s what your study found.
Yes, it’s both. The findings, in short, show that we clearly value white lives more than those of blacks or Hispanics.

You’ve been researching race in the judicial system for years. Was there anything in this study that particularly surprised you?
What is interesting is the characteristics of states that make the death penalty legal and lead to additional executions. At the state level we found that … the greater the strength of the Republican Party in the state, the more likely you’ll have executions, death sentences or that capital punishment will be legal in the state.

What about the size of the African-American population in any given state, does that play any role?
Yes, up to a point. As the black population grows in a given state, then executions become more likely, probably because whites fear blacks. But after a point—when the black population reaches about 16 percent—executions start to diminish probably because blacks become politically strong enough to reduce executions when their proportions reach that level. What bothered me about this study is that we couldn’t get more cooperation from state corrections departments. We’d like to expand beyond the 16 states we studied: Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

Source: Newsweek.com

Someone finally makes a serious challenge to DC gun laws!

Taking Aim at D.C.’s Gun Law

A wealthy libertarian is bankrolling a challenge to D.C.’s gun regulations—the most restrictive in the country. What drives him—and his take on whether the case will go to the Supreme Court.

Web exclusive

By Daren Briscoe

Newsweek

 

July 30, 2007 – The District of Columbia has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. But that’s a distinction the nation’s capital will soon lose—if Robert Levy prevails. Levy was born in Washington, but left years ago; a resident of Naples, Fla., who made a fortune as an investment analyst, he is now a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. A critic of what he sees as unnecessary government regulation, he rounded up six D.C. plaintiffs who either owned firearms or wanted to, for self-protection, and helped bankroll their challenge to the city’s gun law—which makes it illegal to own or possess an unregistered handgun (D.C. stopped registering handguns back in 1978). The city permits registered “long” guns like shotguns and rifles, but they must be disassembled or disabled with trigger locks, and it’s illegal to use a firearm of any kind in self-defense—even in the owner’s home. The suit, which is being bankrolled by Levy, has been successful so far; in March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found the gun law unconstitutional. Earlier this month, D.C. officials announced plans to take the case (Parker v. District of Columbia) to the Supreme Court, in hopes of having the appeals court’s ruling overturned. If the high court agrees to hear Parker, it could finally settle one of the biggest arguments in constitutional law: whether the Second Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right or was meant to apply only to members of a “well-regulated militia.” NEWSWEEK’s Daren Briscoe spoke with Levy about the suit’s prospects, and what drove him to bring it to court. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Why did you file this suit?
Robert Levy: First, because I’m a fervent believer in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, and I read the Second Amendment as securing an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. In most jurisdictions, the courts have read the Second Amendment only to protect members of militias. In D.C., that issue has not been resolved. I saw an opportunity, with my two co-counsels, to vindicate Second Amendment rights and to establish a precedent that, if it reached the Supreme Court, would be applicable across the nation.

You don’t own any guns personally. Why not?
While I believe the Constitution secures my right to own guns, as a practical matter, I don’t sense the need to do so. I live in a safe area, a relatively affluent area, and crime isn’t a major issue where I live. I don’t have the same need for self-defense as the six plaintiffs in the Parker case.

Why is the Second Amendment so important?
Originally it was important as a protection accorded to American citizens against a tyrannical government. But even before the Constitution was written, even before the U.S. government was formed, the right existed. It was a means of self-defense, and today the right to bear arms protects us against predators. It’s important to note that the Second Amendment doesn’t grant a right to bear arms. It says the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed,” meaning that it already existed.

How expansive is your view of what the Second Amendment protects? What if I want to walk around carrying a fully automatic machine gun?
The right to keep and bear arms, like all other rights, is not absolute. Under the First Amendment, we can’t incite other people to riot. Under the Fourth Amendment, reasonable searches are permitted. Well, in the case of the Second Amendment, there can be reasonable regulations. It’s quite clear that some weapons can be regulated, weapons of mass destruction, for instance. Some persons can be regulated against bearing arms, minors for instance. Some uses can be and are regulated. Uses of guns in crimes, for instance. The question is what constitutes reasonable regulation.

D.C.’s mayor, Adrian Fenty, says that the gun laws have saved countless lives by keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt themselves or others. What’s your response to that?
I’ve looked at the evidence. I’ve taught regression analysis and statistical inference, so I know a little bit about how to understand what it means, and the evidence is that gun laws do not help. Gun restrictions tend to increase violence. So, on both a constitutional basis and as a general matter, these gun restrictions have been counterproductive. The evidence is that more gun laws lead to increased crime and more guns lead to decreased crime.

You’re paying for this case out of your own pocket. How much has it cost you?
I have paid for the whole thing, but a good part of this case was put together on donated time on the part of the attorneys involved. My co-counsel Clark Neily and I are working on this pro bono, and our lead counsel, Alan Gura, is working at subsistence-level wages. But I’ve spent a sizable sum of money, a substantial five-figure number.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

Now, I’m against general gun ownership. Not prohibiting it, but just the premise. Statistics show that in general people are often victims of their own weapons. Additionally, too often they don’t know how to properly use them. They often fail to trigger lock them resulting in tragic accidents where children shoot themselves, playmates, or siblings.

But more than that, I am against prohibiting guns. (A) I feel that it violates the Second Amendment. (B) Cities that have gun restrictions often have higher-than-average crime rates (and DC has one of the highest in the nation!). (C) The restrictions are useless! People will buy guns illegally or buy them legally but in another jurisdiction. John Hinckley brought the gun he used to shoot Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady from another state. Even if guns are banned in every jurisdiction in the country (again, a Constitutional issue) a restriction is useless. Criminals will still have guns.

I am for some restrictions. I think anyone who buys a registered weapon should have to go through weapons training. I don’t think anyone under 18 should be able to purchase guns of certain calibre without just cause, to be determined by law enforcement. And I do NOT think people need automatic weapons! Collectors being an exception, though they should be licensed.

I have no problems with hunting, I have lived in areas where people hunt for food, both primary food source or a supplemental food source. I support sport hunting as long as the meat isn’t wasted.

Source: Newsweek.com

Gorbachev is the new face of Vuitton?

Um, okay. I mean, yeah, I understand dumping LiLo! Who wants a wacky klepto* representing your line! But he’s not the first person that comes to my mind. Although I have to admit, it’s definitely an interesting choice!

Shot by photographer Annie Liebovitz, the ads focus on travel – a “core value” for the company which started in 1854 as a trunk-maker, the statement said.

Gorbachev is featured in a car, a Vuitton bag at his side and the Berlin Wall in the background.

Graf and her husband Agassi are shown snuggling in a hotel room bed.

A vampy Deneuve sits perched on a Vuitton suitcase in a foggy train station – or is it a movie set?

The campaign – which is to run alongside more traditional fashion ads that in past seasons have featured American screen siren Johansson – is to hit magazines in September, the statement said.

*(Klepto comment) “Louis Vuitton had sent over some samples for her to wear in the shoot,” said a snitch. “Lindsay, kept shoving the clothes into her bag, and a stylist’s assistant kept getting them out of the bag, only to have Lindsay keep trying to take them. She ended up walking off with a very expensive shirt and some other items – which screwed Louis Vuitton because they were set to go to Vogue, W and Harper’s Bazaar for other shoots. They were furious and kept trying to get their clothes back, but . . . Lindsay walked out with them and never returned calls.”

Source for quote 1 Sydney Morning Herald, via Celebitchy

Source for quote 2 NY Post

Poor (?) David Beckham

Seems Los Angeleno football fans are less enamoured of the footballer than their European counterparts. Seems odd given we Americans are (in general) celebrity whores and should be worshipping a superstar footballer.

But I think in the sports world we like to see players prove themselves and he has not had a lot of field time due to injury. We don’t get to see much European football except during World Cup time, and though he played on England’s Cup team. I’m not sure American’s watched it. We seem to prefer pro sports except during Olympics time. I’m just speculating. It could just be the intense publicity and having him shoved down our throats before he even got here! There are some pics on In Case You Didn’t Know

Bush and Bin-Laden want Bobby Bumped?

Famous paranoiac Bobby Brown is still under the impression that Osama Bin Laden and George Bush want him dead.

Brown, according to Rush & Molloy, said recently while on tour in Melbourne, “I figure if Bin Laden wants me, and everybody is looking for him, it probably won’t happen … Come on, if anybody [else was] threatened by Al Qaeda, they’d take it seriously.” Brown attributes Bin Laden’s displeasure to a claim last year that public enemy no. 1 had a thing for Bobby’s ex-wife, Whitney Houston. Bobby’s ex-lover, Karrine Steffans, now says he also thinks the President wants him offed as well.

Paranoid much?  Gee Bobby–lay off the drugs and the paranoia will probably go away!

Source: TMZ

You gotta fight for your right to potty!

Fighting for the Right to Flush

Tuesday, Jul. 31, 2007 By CERI AU

Among the laundry list of inconveniences most of us can’t abide: cold coffee, airport delays, the high price of gasoline. Our complaints about them are loud and long. But how about the dearth of clean, accessible public bathrooms in the U.S.? Surely each of us knows the desperation of being stranded without a bowl when we needed it most. And yet it’s a predicament that we quietly cross our legs and accept.

“Ladies prefer to keep silent while they queue up all their lives at public toilets, missing the show after [intermission], doing kung-fu stances to pee because the seat cover is too filthy,” says Jack Sim, president of the World Toilet Organization (WTO), a global body with representation from 42 member countries, which advocates for better public sanitation practices around the world. “We don’t talk about [public restrooms]. And what we don’t discuss, we can’t improve.”

If you’ve ever been a commuter or a tourist, a jogger or a caregiver to small children, you can attest that there’s a serious lack of public toilet facilities in America. “As if the need to go to the bathroom does not exist,” travel expert Arthur Frommer once quipped. In Australia, by comparison, all 14,000 of the country’s public facilities are accounted for on the electronic National Public Toilet Map, a project funded by the Department of Health and Aging.

America doesn’t have any comparable figures or resources. Instead, the dirty job of toilet advocacy falls entirely to volunteer groups, like the American Restroom Association (ARA), which represents the U.S. in the World Toilet Organization.

“You wonder what it says about our country and culture that we don’t take responsibility, individually or collectively, for having clean facilities for people to use,” says Steven Soifer, a professor of social work at the University of Maryland and a co-founder of the ARA. Soifer contends that the first step to improving our toilet deficit is to start a national potty discourse: “Ninety-eight percent of Americans don’t know the laws regarding the use of public toilets and 80% of businesses do not know,” he says.

For example, many of those pesky “Restrooms for Employees Only” signs that hang in most small businesses are actually in direct violation of building codes. Nearly all states have plumbing codes that require businesses to provide restroom access for customers and visitors. In New Hampshire, denying entry to a bathroom is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $1,200 fine.

The issue, then, is less about regulation than about education and enforcement. Restroom facilities are required by federal law in the workplace, says Robert Brubaker, who heads up the ARA’s public-restroom initiative, and he thinks the government should treat the need for public facilities with the same seriousness. “We need to have the Department of Health and Human Services address this at a high level. You shouldn’t have to fight [for public toilets] in every community,” he says.

Indeed, in some communities the call of nature has become a call to arms. When the Ballard neighborhood council in Seattle rejected the installation of an automated self-cleaning toilet in its major intersection in 2002 on the grounds that it would be an eyesore, a community-based walking group called Feet First stepped into action. The group produced a “pit-stop” map of local, independently owned coffee shops that would happily welcome the additional pedestrian traffic a public toilet could draw. The Seattle toilet project, however, was ultimately scrapped.

Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control’s Healthy Aging Research Network suggest that lack of readily accessible restrooms is among the factors that can shape the exercise habits of seniors. No washroom, no workout.

But getting people to hit the pavement is more than just a health concern. As urban sprawl sends development — and money — farther from downtown, municipalities are looking to combat inner-city decay by keeping the streets flush with pedestrians. In Portland, that means implementing pilot projects such as an artist-designed public restroom in Old Town Chinatown. Many people still regard such municipal facilities as germ-ridden no-go zones or the grotty province of drug dealers and criminals. Regaining confidence in public restrooms would remove one obstacle to renewing the vibrancy of urban centers.

According to Prof. Katherine Anthony, a restroom expert at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, the U.S. has a history of toilet-based discrimination. She says this country’s lack of potty parity — equal speed of access to public restrooms — reinforces an unspoken social hierarchy. Men spend an average 30 seconds using the toilet, and women take an average of 90 seconds; most of us are intimately familiar with the waiting lines that form outside women’s restrooms.

California was the first U.S. state to confront the issue, pioneering potty parity laws in 1987, mandating, for example, that new buildings must have at least 50% more stalls available for women than for men. Other states and major cities like New York and Chicago have followed suit. “Unisex was a dirty word when they started this project in La Jolla,” says Mary Coakley, who spearheaded the construction of an all-user-friendly beachfront restroom in San Diego. “But in the end everyone was really happy.”

Coakley spent three years in southern California researching her project, talking to everyone from crime prevention specialists to architects. In 2005, having corralled support from 45 local businesses and 65 residents, La Jolla’s Kellogg Park, which gets more than 2 million visitors a year, was finally outfitted with a state-of-the-art unisex loo. The final product was awarded a Public Works of America Award for successfully addressing a wide variety of requirements: the open-air trellis roof minimizes odors; the stalls each open to the outdoors, removing fears of crime; the amenities are vandal-proof, constructed from the same grade materials used in jail cells. “I didn’t reinvent the wheel,” says Coakley of the comfort station. “It was a matter of taking the best pieces of the ones I saw and putting it together.”

When members of the WTO meet for the World Toilet Summit later this fall in New Delhi, India, delegates will learn about the best global toilet practices, from developments in eco-sanitation to the latest offerings from the Restroom Specialist Training Course at the World Toilet College in Singapore, the only program in the world that teaches toilet design, maintenance and hygiene. Such topics may elicit the public’s distaste, but that makes WTO president Jack Sim all the more adamant that his organization is necessary. “People go [to the bathroom] six times a day, yet they can’t talk about it. We are in a state of denial that we are toileting beings,” says Sim. “We need to make toilets a mainstream subject.”

I am going to find out now if NYS is one of the states that requires business to provide toilet access. A store of ours closed its public toilets ‘due to shoplifting’.

Source: Time.com

Anne Hathaway ‘not a good celebrity’

LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) — She has acted opposite stars like Meryl Streep and in hit movies including “Brokeback Mountain,” but for Anne Hathaway, the pressure of playing British writer Jane Austen in the film drama “Becoming Jane” was so great, she almost quit.

Hathaway, 24, is one of Hollywood’s rising young stars who mostly stays out of tabloid headlines dominated by the likes of Lindsay Lohan and other troubled young celebrities. “Becoming Jane” opens in major U.S. cities Friday.

“A lot of people put pressure on me. I put a lot of pressure on myself,” Hathaway said in an interview. “There was a time when I considered stepping away from the project because I really didn’t want to fail.”

She stayed on, Hathaway said, because she felt she had more to gain by overcoming her fears than walking away.

The actress became a teen sensation in 2001’s “The Princess Diaries,” displayed real acting talent as the wife of a gay man in “Brokeback,” and held her own as a plucky assistant to a wicked fashion editor (Streep) in “The Devil Wears Prada.”

“Becoming Jane” marks the first film in which her popularity is the key draw.

For the movie, Hathaway had to master an English accent as well as learn the history and customs of the late 18th century. Further raising her anxiety was the fact “Becoming Jane” is a fictional tale of Austen’s life.

The movie imagines Austen as a young woman falling in love with a brash young man, Tom LeFroy, and it creates events that audiences are led to believe could have shaped Austen’s novels such as “Sense and Sensibility” and “Pride and Prejudice.”

Taking liberties with history has raised eyebrows among Austen purists, but Hathaway argues that little is known about Austen’s early years and what influenced her writing.

“The fact of the matter is no one can write the definitive portrait of Jane Austen,” she said. “The film says, these are the influences, and whether her experience or imagination made her a great writer, we’ll never know.”

Hathaway said she read Austen’s novels as a 14-year-old, and while they take place some 200 years ago, the stories’ themes are still relevant today.

“Her novels are unbelievably entertaining, but they also ask some pointed questions about the lot of women in life,” Hathaway said. “She had a mind of her own. She questioned the world around her, and that is something very modern.”

The actress was raised in New Jersey and when she was young, dreamed of playing Broadway. She said she never thought acting in Hollywood also would require being a celebrity.

But Hathaway has used fame to raise money and awareness for causes supporting women and kids, among others.

Unlike Lohan or other Hollywood contemporaries, such as Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, Hathaway described herself as a “private person” who prefers to stay out of the limelight.

That changed in June when Los Angeles investor Ron Burkle sued Hathaway’s boyfriend, Raffaello Follieri, claiming Follieri improperly used investment funds for personal expenses.

Thankfully, that remained primarily a business scandal that didn’t draw her in, Hathaway said.

“I know I’m not a good celebrity,” she said. “I’m boring and closed and probably seem very safe.”

I think she’s a perfectly lovely celebrity.  Doesn’t provide a lot of fodder for goss bloggers like me, but hey, not everyone can be a knicker-less-crotch-flashing,  rehabbing,  party girl.

Source: CNN.com

F#!@ That! China threatens to detain football fans for swearing

China threatens to detain football fans for swearing

Fri Aug 3, 1:55 PM ET

BEIJING (Reuters) – Worried that loutish behaviour will shame the nation during next year’s Beijing Olympics, police are threatening to detain fans who swear at a football match in the capital this weekend, as a way of stamping out the habit.

Police will be positioned at each stand filming the crowd at Sunday’s Barcelona versus Beijing Guoan match, looking for evidence of swearing, fighting or throwing trash, the official Xinhua news agency said on Friday.

“It is just way out of line to have 30,000 people shouting and swearing en masse,” police spokesman Liu Chunjiang was quoted as saying. “What we are trying to do is to give the right guidance in how to view a football match, not to impose anything on the spectators.”

In addition to being detained, badly behaved fans may be banned for 12 months from attending a football match, it said.

The police will use Sunday’s match, which is expected to attract 30,000 fans, as a “drill for next year’s Olympics”, Liu added.

Beijingers are well-known in China for their willingness to inject particularly earthy expressions into their everyday speech.

The government is worried that swearing and other “uncultured” behaviour like spitting in public and pushing will embarrass the country at next year’s Olympics, and has been running campaigns to get people to be more “civilised”.

Um, yeah.  Sure… uh… I don’t think Americans would be too bothered, personally…

NO NO NO! EW! TomKat to do a nude shoot??

02 Aug 2007 (Sawf News) – Are Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes planning to do a steamy photo shoot like their close friends David and Victoria Beckham’s raunchy spread for W.

Victoria and David Beckham on the cover of W Magazine August 2007 issue. Photo Credit: W Magazine

Australia’s New Weekly magazine reports, a friend of the couple told, “They have already started planning some of the photos. One suggestion they were keen on was a shot of them posing together in the shower, dripping wet and covered by nothing but steam.”

Cruise and Holmes, 28, have so far kept a wholesome family image in Hollywood but they also want to show off a more sensual side of their relationship.

“Tom and Katie really have amazing chemistry,” says the pal. “They want to show the world how much.”

The couple is in Berlin with their 15-month-old daughter Suri where Cruise, 45, is filming his latest movie Valkyrie.

Amazing how his church will condemn psych meds that help people, but apparently have no problem with premarital sex and raunchy photo shoots…

Source: sawf.org