• South Park: In its famous "Cartoon Wars" episode, Cartman decides he hates Family Guy, hilarity ensues.

• Deborah Solomon: The NYT's stern question lady had a decidedly pissy interview with Seth Macfarlane last month. Sample Solomon questions: "Personally, I find the show's rape jokes especially unfunny...Why is that funny?...I would say Groening is a better colorist...Are you contemptuous of families?...Are you straight?" God, shut up, Deborah Solomon.
• Richard Lawson: Famous cultural critic who did not care for the show. He called it "crude, sloppy, shamelessly Simpsons-derivative non sequitur humor," which is relatively non-debatable, as insults go.
• Microsoft: Microsoft and their supercool ad agency Crispin Porter Bogusky were all signed up as sponsors for an upcoming prime time Family Guy special, but then somebody at Microsoft accidentally watched Family Guy, and, whoa! Microsoft can tolerate jokes about nerds, Apple, the blind, barely legal hoes, and Rwanda, but this show's "riffs on deaf people, the Holocaust, feminine hygiene and incest" were too much, according to Variety.

Remaining Family Guy Fans:

• Seth MacFarlane: That guy is so rich now. Filthy, unclean rich.
• News Corp. Executives: Family Guy makes money.
• Millions of 18-34 year old males: Their taste is America's taste!

Many a nationally respected newspaper has gone wildly careening down the rabbit hole chasing a false rumor or half-baked non-story. With three companies holding joint ownership (Fox, Freemantle, and 19 Productions) and a host of oversized stars and their entourages wandering around the set, little is knowable beyond what turns up on the air. So were we wrong to say Paula quit because of money and ego?

The answer I can authoritatively state is, no. And maybe.

When Paula announced she was leaving, sources close to the former-for-now judge say that after a long, emotionally wrenching struggle with the production, she believed she was ending her Idol journey and was not just trying to ratchet up the pressure in her negotiations.

But since then rumors have persisted that doors have remained ajar; people may still be talking.

With confirmable facts being impossible to come by in the tightly controlled circle involved with Idol contracts, analyzing the rumor mill is a bit like sifting through intercepted Al Qaeda communiques; it is very hard to judge the quality of any particular bit of information, but one can attempt to judge the quantity of radio traffic. And all one can say, from looking at the web the level of chatter has become very high, with three sites separately reporting sources inside the Idol/Abdul machines that a rapprochement may be in the works. Any one of these sites is very capable of getting the story very wrong, but the fact that all three are reporting raises the threat level at least.

First with something hard was TMZ which reported last Friday:

Sources tell us Paula Abdul will make a deal with American Idol if the price is right—and we're told that price is $10 million a year.

We've already reported well-connected Idol sources say they haven't closed the door on bringing Paula back for season nine. We're told they have not communicated with Abdul since she tweeted her goodbye, and auditions start Friday—without Paula.

This morning Perez Hilton seconded this movement:

Her departure from the show wasn't a publicity stunt, but it was definitely a negotiating tactic.

Sources VERY close to Paula Abdul reveal exclusively to PerezHilton.com that the beloved judge is working to get back on American Idol.

"Don't count Paula out just yet," says our Abdrool insider, telling us that talks are being held about having Paula return and trying to come to a deal that makes sense.

And finally the most specific piece of info was posted today on Idol fan blog Joe's Place, which has broken an Idol story or two in its day.

I am hearing that when the Judges are on hand for round three of the American Idol 9 auditions, none other than Paula Abdul will be sitting at the judges table with Simon, Randy and Kara.

[UPDATE: In the minutes since this went up, Joe's Place took down their post saying Paula would be on hand for the Atlanta judging rounds. Did they hit too close to home or is the BS about Paula returning after all withering now that people are paying attention?]

As stated, any one of these places is very capable of getting the story wrong, and any source may not be as plugged in as they think they are.

So what could be behind this? Perhaps the uproar over her departure overwhelmed the Idol team. Idol is not a show that likes to say "no" to its public.

Chances are, however, that with divorce papers already submitted to the courts, the parties are focused on getting on with their lives. But there's enough out there to make one think that, just maybe, what seemed impossible is possible: Idol might stay on the front pages for yet another week of it's off-season.

The new GQ has a story about Bruno, of course, cause what other stuff is happening this month? So they did a photo shoot of the gay-like character with an LA high school football team, and even paid the school a cool $500 for the privilege of handling their young men. Now the principal's in trouble!

"Rules were broken. The principal is ultimately responsible, but I also hold accountable the athletic director, who is also the school's filming coordinator and was present when the pictures were taken," [the head of the school district] said.

"I also want parents to know that this district will allow no one to take advantage of our students."

You know those boys liked it, heh, [MACHO]. Pretty dumb controversy considering the kids got permission slips and everything. GQ declined to give us a comment, although they did make sure we had a copy of the picture, so they must be pretty upset about the whole thing! Thanks, GQ!

Conservative writer James Kirchick started the fire in The Advocate, where he excerpted a Nation article Penn wrote and took him to task for being buddy-buddy with Hugo Chávez and Raul Castro:

Chávez and Castro are guilty of flagrant human-rights abuses, Kirchick writes: "Gay rights are human rights, as Milk said, and Penn discredits both when he rationalizes illiberal ideologies as 'anti-imperialist' and rushes to the defense of thugs who posture as victims of the West." [...]

Kirchick's story includes a quote from Human Rights Foundation President Thor Halvorssen, who says: "That Sean Penn would be honored by anyone, let alone the gay community, for having stood by a dictator who put gays into concentration camps is mind-boggling."

Penn's publicist Mara Buxbaum freaked out to Page Six, and Milk subject Cleve Jones added a rebuttal in The Advocate that more fully excerpted Penn's original article, where he includes an anecdote about his 14-year-old daughter complaining about homophobia in a face-to-face meeting with Fidel Castro:

At just the appropriate moment, still without a word from her, he asked what it is that's bothering her. She answered, "Why do you not offer the same human rights to homosexuals in Cuba as to heterosexuals? Why have you persecuted them?" She was ready for a fight. But no fight was forthcoming. Not even a hint of defensiveness. Castro seemed nothing but impressed with the question, patiently explaining that while homophobia had not been invented in Cuba, it had deep cultural roots, and that he and the revolution had made many mistakes as a result. But that there is an evolution involved in the process of change. And while they still made mistakes, there had been tremendous growth. (In 1979, Cuba abolished anti-sodomy laws. Today in Cuba, affirmation of same sex unions is scheduled for 2009, surpassing the pace of U.S. social reforms, and sexual re-assignment surgeries come compliments of the public health service) My daughter was disarmed and it was my turn.

While all this was going on abroad, Robin Wright Penn drove an SUV over to a friend's house to watch The O'Reilly Factor, for kicks.

• PENN'S TWO-FACED WITH GAYS [Page Six]

Ads for the movie are being rejected across the nation! Boston ads drew complaints. Philly banned them altogether. And in Los Angeles, the dastardly marketing scheme is preventing children from understanding a baseball strategy in which a runner on third base breaks for home as the pitch is thrown and the batter simultaneously bunts, which can pay off in a run unless the batter misses the bunt, in which case it's almost surely an out at the plate:

One complaint came from a man watching a game in September with his young son, who did not understand a suicide-squeeze bunt the Dodgers tried, Rawitch said.

"He was explaining to his son what a squeeze bunt was. Commercial break, the ad comes on, and the kid asks, `Dad, what does porno mean?'" Rawitch said. "Dodgers baseball has always been about family, and we've always been sensitive to the type of advertising that runs on our games."

Is there nothing Seth Rogen's sex drive cannot destroy? [AP]

All I can think of is how would you look at me? How would you look at someone’s sisters, cousins, uncles, aunts, fathers and brothers—are they funny? Are they less human or dirty or stupid? You had years to create the Axiom—didn’t you see any shape of a person that could be recognized or loved?
I was at Columbus GLBTQ Pride today and I saw people of all shapes and sizes laughing and being in love.
Are they worthless too? Are they dirty and stupid and responsible for ruining the planet? Does their shape make them inherently bad?

Which, oh, eek, I really don't think was the filmmakers' point. But, sigh, a writer at Slate agrees with her, arguing that the film upholds the myths about obesity—that it's caused by sloth and gluttony—rather than recognizing the true culprit, genetics. Obesity is not a sign of end times, and how dare a movie imply that, these folks keen.

And the thing is, look. Obviously not everyone who is overweight is a food-crazed slob. Obviously some are victims of shitty genes or whatever. And, really, I don't think Pixar was targeting the genetically obese. Researchers have suggested that those unlucky folks aren't the way they are because of overeating anyway. What Pixar is targeting is a culture, immediately an American one, that has the highest obesity rate in the world, by a lot. As we are all painfully aware by now, fast food is slowly burying us in piles of grease and processed, sickly gray meat. I was at a Burger King last weekend while driving back to New York and there was a hamburger, I kid you not, that had the contents of a loaded baked potato smeared on top of it. We're talking mashed potaters 'n bacon piled on top of a hamburger that ALREADY HAD ONION RINGS ON IT. If that's not a sign of end times, I don't know what is. (Not to mention the environmental impact of such insane consumption. The ecological footprint of keeping one mooing meat sack alive is pretty astounding.)

So yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what Pixar was teasing at, not people who diet and exercise and do as much as they can but still carry some extra pounds. They're shaking their heads at the people who pull up to the drive thru in their SUVs and buy six Gordita Supremes and scarf them down, sitting in their idling car on the side of the road. It's a fairly new, millennial problem, and one that doesn't seem to be getting better. So I don't blame Pixar for depicting a disgraced humanity as lazy blobs. But Pixar isn't saying "look at the fatties," I don't think. They're saying "look at the liquid cupcakes in their hands."

Amongst, you know, lots of other insightful, hand-wringy stuff.

If your kids simply must watch the Cartoon Network, they will be overwhelmed with ads for all kinds of tooth-rotting junk, including Pop Tarts, Lucky Charms, Reese's Puffs and some concoction called Froot Loops Cereal Straws. But critics say there's a different pediatric health risk on the cable channel — promotions tied to violent, PG-13-rated movies. ...

While studios can't sell R-rated movies directly to young kids, they have more flexibility — but not total freedom — in how they market PG-13 releases to children, with some limitations on when certain ads can and can't run. So instead of directly pitching the violent movies straight to little children, the studios are using a more subtle tactic: They let their promotional partners do their bidding through licensed toys and snacks.

So if your 4-year-old suddenly says he has to see The Incredible Hulk — rated PG-13 in part for "sequences of intense action violence" and "some frightening sci-fi images" — it could be that he's seen a Hulk Airheads candy spot running in the middle of the morning on Cartoon Network's Robotboy."

Angry families, meanwhile, have had enough of Hulk Smash Hands: The "Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood" has reached out to the Federal Trade Commission, which in turn scolded the MPAA. As befits their role as the story's imperious bête noire, the MPAA merely yawned in response ("The PG-13 rating is not a restrictive rating and admission is permitted by — and often may be appropriate for — children younger than 13"), thus inspiring a toy-store raid on Lil' Villagers™ Pitchfork-and-Torch Lynch Mob Sets in the first defiant, symbolic step against Hollywood's youth stranglehold.

• Teen flicks targeted at children [LAT]

[pics via Vanity Fair]

Still, if Idol is still clinging to its label as the ultimate manifestation of teenybopper-marshaled democracy in action, then it's not Simon, but We, the Text-Messaging People who shall decide if Smithson's record sales will ever inch above the half-thousand mark. According to the often-accurate voting predictors at DialIdol.com (possible spoilers), at least, it looks as though she'll have another week to prove to America why she deserves to be their next Gaelic Idol.

• AmericanIdol.com