While driving to get a haircut with T2 yesterday, I was listening to the radio. The DJ on the stationtook off on a tangent about Jackson Browne and that, of course, led to him talking about the McCain ad over which Browne sued the campaign, the RNC and the Republican Party of Ohio.

First, the campaign didn’t make the ad, and neither did the RNC. Browne clearly needs to stick to songwriting because he’s no lawyer (and apparently, neither are his lawyers). Suing McCain and the RNC for an OH GOP ad is like suing McDonald’s because you got a bad cheeseburger at Wendy’s – based on the theory that they all make hamburgers and therefore share in the liability.

All three of these groups are separate legal entities. Suing one for the actions of the other is not legally supportable unless you can prove collusion, which is unlikely (and I’m not even sure that would support anything other than an FEC violation).

Second, Browne’s suit is clearly politically motivated. You don’t sue organizations that had nothing to do with the ad unless you’re trying to make a political point. Browne could have sued the Ohio GOP, but he knew that wouldn’t make news. So they named the RNC and McCain as well. This is about politics and the alleged infringement is BS.

Third, very telling about Browne’s suit is this passage:

The 59-year-old singer claims his reputation has already been damaged and is seeking more than $75,000 in damages.

Browne released “Running on Empty” ‚Äî the song and an album by the same name ‚Äî in 1977. According to the lawsuit, the album has sold more than 7 million copies.

So Browne is suing over a song that’s 31 years old. He’s claiming $75,000 in damages. It seems likely to me that Browne’s sales as a result of this little publicity ploy should result in more sales of the album/song than he has seen in years otherwise.

This isn’t about a musician who was grievously injured by the misuse of one of his songs by a politician he does not support. It is much more likely that Browne suing McCain was more about getting his name in the paper and moving some units of an old song that was likely to remain largely forgotten otherwise.

Need further evidence that Browne’s political activism has hampered his sales, leading to his latest publicity outing? Try this from Billboard.com

With his first four albums, Browne built a loyal following that helped him break into the mainstream with 1976’s The Pretender. During the late ’70s and early ’80s, he was at the height of his popularity, as each of his albums charted in the Top Ten. Midway through the ’80s, Browne made a series of political protest records that caused his audience to gradually shrink…

Browne hasn’t released a new album in six years, instead pursuing “intimate (read: small), acoustic shows around the globe”.

Unable to draw an audience, and unable to sell his unique brand of burned out hippy protest albums, Browne is left with only one option: strike out in a ridiculously frivolous lawsuit at a campaign that has nothing to do with your claim in a desperate attempt to get attention.

Well, Jackson, you’ve succeeded.

This may make you blow chow.

Trying to shout over Whoopi [Goldberg] and her other gabbing [The View] co-hosts and excited audience members, Barbara [Walters] turned to Guest [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and said she has heard Whoopi say before that she’d “do Paul Newman.”

“And I think she’d like to do your husband as well,” Walters deadpanned in that quintessential accent that made her the subject of late-night lampooning over the decades.

Of course, Whoopi being Whoopi, she couldn’t let that one go, which is where the speaker begins blushing.

Yes, Whoopi implicitly acknowledged, she’d like to do Mr. Pelosi – but she might take his wife while she’s at it. “I would do her as well. But we should wait on that because you’re still in office, I don’t want to cause a problem.”

Oh… My… God… I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit…

My good friend Anne and I were having drinks with friends tonight and got into a discussion about the train wreck that is Britney Spears. Reports indicate Spears lost custody of her children after being caught driving without a valid California license (despite possibly being legally licensed in Louisiana). Apparently she had been told to get a California license since she’s been living there for years. She refused, then took the kids for a drive this weekend.

So Anne and I are talking and I mention the fact that I am considering a Britney related post. After begging me to leave the poor girl alone, I explained my perspective. This post is not going to add yet another voice to the chorus beating up on Britney. Instead, I’d like to take this opportunity to address the larger issue of celebrities and their poor hiring decisions.

Celebs generally hire personal assistants, publicists, makeup artists, stylists and countless other staff to make their life easier. The one position they all need to fill is “Driver”.

If you look at most of the problems celebs have had over the last year, it all comes down to one thing – they all involved celebs trying to drive themselves. Keifer, Nicole, Lindsay, Britney, Paris, Mel, etc. etc. All of them were driving themselves and should have had someone else do the job.

Had Mel had a driver, he wouldn’t be staring down the business end of anti-semitism charges. Had Paris called a car service, she would have avoided jail time. If Lindsay had someone waiting curbside, she could go on being a giant coke whore and nobody would care.

It’s not like limos are all that hard to come by in LA. It’s not like the expense is that great given these are people who spend $2,000 on ugly pants and huge sunglasses. It’s just amazing that the one thing that could keep them out of trouble is the one accessory they don’t have.

It’s been a bad week to be sick. With so much celebrity embarrassment on parade, not having the energy to trash them is really troubling.

Let’s set the wayback machine for the VMAs last week. This show had it all – award winners trashing the network that hosts the awards, has-been rockers duking it out over whored out former TV stars, single moms trying to whore themselves out (but nobody was buying), and militant rappers getting peeved that the awards weren’t rigged for them to win. Your entertainment dollar was simply not going to go farther than the 2007 VMAs

Britney was supposed to warm up the audience, but left everyone feeling cold. Blame it on the hair, the lip-synching, the magic act that wasn’t, the drinking, the allergic reaction to eye drops (what?), or any of another 100 oft-repeated excuses for the train wreck we witnessed, the sad reality is we want to see a nubile 20 year-old in skin tight leather dancing like a tramp or tongue kissing Madonna (actually, skip that last part). The fact is, Brit is now a single mom who, with every public appearance, reminds us of the line from Sweet Home Alabama.

Look at you! You have a baby! In a bar!

Here’s some advice Brit. Put on some clothes, write/sing a grown-up song, and stop trying to convince us that you’re the hot little vixen of Baby One More Time. That ship has sailed. You were used up by a douchebag, and the only guy that still wants you is this loser.

Next up… Kid Rock and Tommy Lee. Even with Britney and Kanye melting down at the VMAs, this is probably the most pathetic story of the night. These two guys get into a brawl over a woman who, by her own admission, paid off a poker debt with sex. Yup. That girl is a class act that is worth fighting for. Go get her, guys.

Speaking of Kanye, I don’t think I could sum this one up any better than Joel McHale (host of The Soup). After recapping Kanye’s choice words about his perceived snub at the hands of MTV, McHale said, “Geez. 50 Cent didn’t whine that much when he got shot.” True dat!

In our last glimpse backward at the VMAs, perhaps the one shining moment in the telecast came when Justin Timberlake (surrounded by the vapid cast of The Hills) excoriated MTV for filling its programming with non-stop reality TV and begged them to actually play music occasionally. It seems Timberlake may be one of the few people who owes his soul to MTV, and at the same time feels bad because he’s old enough to remember that MTV used to stand for Music Television.

Finally, back in the present, let’s dip into the overflowing cup of comedy gold that is O.J. Simpson. The same week that his book (If I Did It) comes out, and the world may read his claim that he’s not a criminal (at least not a murderous one), he gets arrested for storming into a sports memorabilia show with armed accomplices and trying to steal pieces of his life. It’s not clear whether he actually owns any of what he tried to steal. And it’s not clear if he was armed, but a tape of the incident clearly demonstrates his anger and rage as he barks out instructions that no one is to be allowed to leave.

Wow, O.J., armed robbery and taking hostages. That’s a hell of a good way to prove you’re not a killer. Maybe next time you could sacrifice a small puppy on national TV and tell people your killing is limited only to the animal kingdom. By the way, aren’t you supposed to be out there trying to catch the real killer?

When I first heard of Keith Urban’s lawsuit against Keith Urban, I thought the whole thing was pretty stupid. Why would a huge country music star sue a nobody in New Jersey for trademark infringement simply because they have the same name. It seemed to be a typical case of those with more money than sense demanding something for free (in this case a domain name) and suing when they don’t get their way.

Well, I owe the country music star an apology for thinking so little of him. It turns out he has a pretty good reason to be miffed at the painter, but I still believe he should lose his charges of “federal trademark infringement, dilution of a federally registered trademark, federal unfair competition and violation of the anti-cybersquatting consumer protection act and the Tennessee consumer protection act.”

At issue is www.KeithUrban.com. Unlike the infamous Julia Roberts decision, Keith Urban the painter has a legitimate reason for owning the domain name. It may not even qualify as cybersquatting. The burden of proving there is a bad-faith motive in holding the name is going to be difficult since it is the guy’s name.

That said, if you look at the site, you’re quickly going to see that the guy goes to great lengths to hide the fact that he is not “that” Keith Urban. There are no pictures of himself, no contact information other than an e-mail, and references to painting as “a hobby”, leading you to believe his day job is something else (country music star, perhaps).

I suspect the legal decision in this will leave the domain with the rightful owner (the painter). However, he’s probably in some danger of being charged with some deceptive trade practices.