It seems the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences paid attention to the notoriously edgy Golden Globes this year, opting for a racy opening as delivered -- with plenty of audience laughs -- by Oscar host Seth McFarlane on Sunday night.

However, not everyone was humored by the ABC-broadcast monologue, which was peppered with such things as cocaine-snorting puppets and racial/domestic violence "jokes."

"Seth McFarlane spoon fed sexism and likewise innuendo through song, setting a terrible example for young children watching the show," political and entertainment publicist Angie Meyer told FOX411's Pop Tarts column. "His opening monologue was rather inappropriate, providing a poor example of Academy Awards etiquette that's suitable for all audiences."

McFarlane banted with Hollywood great William Shatner, who appeared as his Star Trek character Captain Kirk on a drop-down monitor and attempted to give advice on how to improve the ceremony, mocking himself, the media and almost every A-lister in Tinseltown.

Among McFarlane's zingers was a comparison between "Django Unchained" and a Chris Brown/Rihanna "date night," and a pondering whether the always-in-character "Lincoln" star Daniel Day-Lewis would have tried to free Don Cheadle if he had run across him during filming.

And then there was Shatner -- speaking from the future -- quipping that McFarlane would be a member of the Los Angeles Gay Men's Chorus in a few years.

Take a big gulp, New York: Hizzoner is about to give you a pop.

Nanny Bloomberg unleashes his ban on large sodas on March 12 — and there are some nasty surprises lurking for hardworking families.

Say goodbye to that 2-liter bottle of Coke with your pizza delivery, pitchers of soft drinks at your kid’s birthday party and some bottle-service mixers at your favorite nightclub.

They’d violate Mayor Bloomberg’s new rules, which prohibit eateries from serving or selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.

Bloomberg’s soda smackdown follows his attacks on salt, sugar, trans fat, smoking and even baby formula.
LESS SODA, MORE DOUGH: If you order a pizza, you cannot get a large bottle of soda delivered with it. Already, Domino’s locations across the city are doing away with 1 and 2 liter bottles of soda, deliveryman Philippe Daniba says. They’ll sell smaller bottles instead — costing you more money and increasing plastic waste.
Angel Chevrestt
LESS SODA, MORE DOUGH: If you order a pizza, you cannot get a large bottle of soda delivered with it. Already, Domino’s locations across the city are doing away with 1 and 2 liter bottles of soda, deliveryman Philippe Daniba says. They’ll sell smaller bottles instead — costing you more money and increasing plastic waste.


The city Health Department last week began sending brochures to businesses that would be affected by the latest ban, including restaurants, bars and any “food service” establishment subject to letter grades.

And merchants were shocked to see the broad sweep of the new rules.

“It’s not fair. If you’re gonna tell me what to do, it’s no good,” said Steve DiMaggio of Caruso’s in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. “It’s gonna cost a lot more.”

And consumers, especially families, will soon see how the rules will affect their wallets — forcing them to pay higher unit prices for smaller bottles.

Typically, a pizzeria charges $3 for a 2-liter bottle of Coke. But under the ban, customers would have to buy six 12-ounce cans at a total cost of $7.50 to get an equivalent amount of soda.

“I really feel bad for the customers,” said Lupe Balbuena of World Pie in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn.

Domino’s on First Avenue and 74th Street on the Upper East Side is doing away with its most popular drink sizes: the 20-ounce and 2-liter bottles.

“We’re getting in 16-ounce bottles — and that’s all we’re going to sell,” a worker said.

He said the smaller bottles will generate more revenue for the restaurant but cost consumers more.

It will also trash more plastic into the environment.

Deliveryman Philippe Daniba said he had brought countless 2-liter bottles of soda to customers over his 19 years at the restaurant. The ban, he said, “doesn’t make sense.”

Police have identified a suspect in an early morning shooting and pileup that killed three people and injured at least six on Las Vegas' famous Strip Thursday, NBC affiliate KSNV reported.

Police are seeking Ammar Harris, 26, in the shooting and subsequent car crashes that occurred in a section of the Strip that includes Caesars Palace, Bally’s and the Bellagio.

The shooting came after the occupants of a black Range Rover and a Maserati got into an altercation in the valet area of the Aria hotel and casino, according to Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie.

“We have numerous witnesses to this,” Las Vegas Police Sgt. John Sheahan said. “But what is the genesis of this? We don’t know yet.”

The suspect was in the Range Rover, while 27-year-old aspiring rapper Kenny “Clutch” Cherry of Oakland, Calif., was at the wheel of the Maserati.

According to reports, the Range Rover pulled up and allegedly opened fire into the Maserati near a stoplight in the pre-dawn hours. A passenger was injured by the gunfire and Cherry was killed, causing the car to spin out of control. The careening silver Maserati smashed into a taxicab, trapping the passenger and driver and causing the cab to burst into flames; both occupants were killed, police said.

In a scene witnesses describe as looking like a Hollywood set, a confrontation between a group of men escalated into a shooting, multiple vehicle pileup, and an exploding taxicab. The incident left three people dead. NBC's Miguel Almaguer reports.

Then, the Maserati smashed into three other cars before coming to a stop.

The taxi driver was identified as Michael Boldon, 62, of Las Vegas. His passenger was Sandra Sutton-Wasmund, 48, of Maple Valley, Wash. She was a two-time breast cancer survivor. Both died of "multiple blunt force injuries," the coroner's office said.

Here's what the crash involving Kyle Larson and 11 other Nationwide drivers looked like from the grandstands.

Tyler Andersen, a resident of Jacksonville Beach, Fla., was at the Drive for COPD 300 on Saturday and was filming the final lap when Kyle Larson's car got turned into the catchfence just in front of him and debris from his car flew into the grandstands.

You can see the panic in the stands in the crash's aftermath and the tire that flew over the catchfence landed just feet from Anderson.

At least 28 fans were injured in the crash, two critically, which also damaged the catchfence. Daytona International Speedway President Joie Chitwood said that the fence would be repaired in time for Sunday's Daytona 500.
Discover Yahoo! With

Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.

What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?

The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.

“There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,” Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.”

The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”

A majority of Republicans did vote for the Budget Control Act that summer, which included the sequester. Key Republican staffers said they didn’t even initially know what a sequester was — because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government.

At the Feb. 13 Senate Finance Committee hearing on Lew’s nomination to become Treasury secretary, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) asked Lew about the account in my book: “Woodward credits you with originating the plan for sequestration. Was he right or wrong?”

“It’s a little more complicated than that,” Lew responded, “and even in his account, it was a little more complicated than that. We were in a negotiation where the failure would have meant the default of the government of the United States.”

“Did you make the suggestion?” Burr asked.

“Well, what I did was said that with all other options closed, we needed to look for an option where we could agree on how to resolve our differences. And we went back to the 1984 plan that Senator [Phil] Gramm and Senator [Warren] Rudman worked on and said that that would be a basis for having a consequence that would be so unacceptable to everyone that we would be able to get action.”

In other words, yes.

But then Burr asked about the president’s statement during the presidential debate, that the Republicans originated it.

Lew, being a good lawyer and a loyal presidential adviser, then shifted to denial mode: “Senator, the demand for an enforcement mechanism was not something that the administration was pushing at that moment.”

That statement was not accurate.

On Tuesday, Obama appeared at the White House with a group of police officers and firefighters to denounce the sequester as a “meat-cleaver approach” that would jeopardize military readiness and investments in education, energy and readiness. He also said it would cost jobs. But, the president said, the substitute would have to include new revenue through tax reform.

 A growing number of firearm and firearm-related companies have stated they will no longer sell items to states, counties, cities and municipalities that restrict their citizens' rights to own them.

According to The Police Loophole, 34 companies have joined in publicly stating that governments who seek to restrict 2nd Amendment rights will themselves be restricted from purchasing the items they seek to limit or ban.

Extreme Firepower Inc., located in Inwood, WV has had a longstanding policy that states:

"The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms...If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction."

York Arms, located in Buxton, ME released a statement following new legislation in New York:

"Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York.  We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York."

Quality Arms, located in Rigby, ID writes on their website, "elected officials have their own agenda to circumnavigate the truth and destroy the constitution of the United States."

The site states: "Quality Arms Idaho will not supply and firearm or product, manufactured by us, or any other company nor will we warranty, repair, alter, or modify and firearm owned by any State, County or Municipality who infringes on the right of its citizens to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment."

"The people at Bravo Company USA and BCM support responsible private individuals having access to the same tools of civilian Law Enforcement to affect the same ends...As such Bravo Company's policy is that law enforcement officials and departments will be restricted to the same type of products available to responsible private individuals of that same city or state."

The Transportation Security Administration has apologized after the family of a wheelchair-bound 3-year-old girl with spina bifida was pulled aside and told she would receive a pat-down.

The family was heading to Disney World when the incident took place on February 9. It was "really strange and stressful," said Nathan Forck, the girl's father.

His daughter, Lucy, was taking her first big airline trip. "She didn't know what to expect," he said. "She was pretty upset."

In a video taken by her mother and posted on YouTube with the title "Shh! TSA Wants to Touch Your Kids," Lucy appears visibly distraught. Sitting in her hot pink wheelchair, Lucy weeps, crying for her stuffed lamb doll. A TSA agent can be overheard telling Lucy's mother, Annie Shulte, to stop her "illegal" recording. There is discussion by the agents over whether to give Lucy a pat-down.

The video has been viewed more than 136,000 times.

"TSA regrets inaccurate guidance was provided to this family during screening and offers its apology," the agency wrote in an email. "We are committed to maintaining the security of the traveling public and strive to treat all passengers with dignity and respect. While no pat-down was performed, we will address specific concerns with our work force.”

Furthermore, TSA policy does not prohibit passengers from taking photos or videos at screening locations as long as they're not interfering with or slowing down the process.

The trouble apparently began with mom's earrings.

According to Nathan, Annie was pushing Lucy through security when alarms were tripped by her metallic earrings. In the case of a passenger in a wheelchair, "a pat-down procedure is used to resolve any alarms of a metal detector," TSA says on its website.

It may have appeared to the agents that it was Lucy who set it off, not Annie.

After 30 minutes of tense isolation as agents and supervisors discussed options, Annie proposed carrying Lucy through security while agents swabbed the wheelchair separately.

 Oscar Pistorius' murder case took a sensational twist Thursday when it was revealed that the chief investigator who analyzed the scene of Reeva Steenkamp's fatal shooting faces seven counts of attempted murder charges himself.

Hilton Botha sits inside the court witness box during the Oscar Pistorius bail hearing. (AP)Hilton Botha, whose stumbling and at times incoherent evidence on day two of Pistorius' bail hearing gave the Blade Runner's case a serious boost, was allegedly one of three drunk police officers who opened fire on a mini-bus taxi full of passengers in 2011, according to South Africa's Eyewitness News.

According to Botha, the shooting took place as part of the investigation into the murder of Denise Stratford, a Girl Scout leader whose body was discovered stuffed into a drain in 2011. Botha and colleagues were tracking the suspect and as part of their inquiries fired at the mini-bus when it failed to pull over when requested.

Botha was arrested at the time due to the charges, which were subsequently dropped, before it emerged Thursday that they had been reinstated.

"There was a decision taken by the director of public prosecution's office to charge the members, each one of them, with seven counts of attempted murder," said police spokesman Neville Malila. "That was the number of people that were in the taxi."

Botha denied he was drunk during the alleged incident and told South African legal journalist Karyn Maughan on Thursday morning that the reinstatement of the charge is "beyond my comprehension."

"I can only think it is linked to my work on the Oscar Pistorius case," he said.

In a statement, however, the South African National Prosecuting Authority revealed the murder charge against Botha was reinstated before the Pistorius incident, reportedly as early as Feb. 4. Botha insisted to the media that he only learned of the reinstatement after the Valentine's Day killing of Steenkamp. According to Malila, Botha is scheduled to appear in court in May to face the charges.

Thursday, the NPA called for Botha to be taken off the Pistorius case.

"If we have an investigating officer that is facing such serious charges, it cannot happen that he continues with this case," a spokesperson said.

Botha had become one of the major characters in the Pistorius case as it has unfolded with a bail hearing that stretched into a third day and resembled a mini-trial with detailed evidence being given from both sides.

The reason for the elongated hearing is a product of both the vagaries of the South African legal system and the desire of both the prosecution and defense to gain a positive result on bail.

During his testimony Wednesday, Botha unraveled under cross-examination from defense attorney Barry Roux, admitting that he couldn't find anything to contradict Pistorius' claim that he mistook Steenkamp for an intruder. Botha also opened himself to allegations he had contaminated the crime scene by revealing he had not worn protective shoes and was forced to admit one of his witnesses, a neighbor, was more than a quarter mile away from the scene.

Barack Obama is widely known as the United States' first black president. But is he really the country's first African-American commander-in-chief?

Of course author Toni Morrison famously declared that former president Bill Clinton was really the nation's first black head of state, however, rumor has it there are six other former presidents who had African-American ancestry.

Several scholars have discussed the genealogy of these presidents in the past, and the debate was reignited after Obama was elected in 2008.

Check out the slideshow below for a list of former heads of state who allegedly were descendants of African-Americans.

    For years now I’ve warned of the many potential dangers of genetically engineered (GE) foods, pointing out that such crops might have wholly unforeseen consequences.

    In recent years, such suspicions have increasingly proven correct, forcing the biotech industry to up the ante of their propaganda campaign.

    A recent article in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Monsanto: Battered, Bruised, and Still Growing”1 sets the stage for the discussion that follows. The dark heart of Monsanto has been exposed in recent years, and they’re in dire need of an image makeover.

    I bet they probably have the best and brightest propaganda experts on speed dial these days. In the featured article, the company is lauded for “fending off” California Proposition 37 last November, as labeling foods containing genetically engineered ingredients would be “befuddling” to consumers.

        “I'd be up for the dialogue around labeling. Maybe we'll look back and say [Prop 37] was the start of a more reasonable debate. But it was a confusing proposition,” Monsanto Chief Executive Hugh Grant tells the Wall Street Journal.

    Grant goes on to talk about how the company is now going “back to the basics of reconnecting” with their  customers, and how consistency in messaging and predictable pricing is helping turn the tide that has threatened to engulf them over the past three years.

Biotech Industry Ups Propaganda Efforts with Undercover Ambassadors

    Part of this makeover program appears to be the recruitment of seemingly independent “ambassadors” to covertly lobby the GE agenda. The appearance of being an independent voice is imperative for the role to be effective, SpinWatch2 said in a recent article.

    According to an October 2011 article in the Guardian, leaked emails from a PR company working with EuropaBio listed potential candidates for the role3, including Lord Patten, chancellor of Oxford University and BBC Trust chairman; Sir Bob Geldof; former Irish EU commissioner and attorney general David Byrne; former UN secretary general Kofi Annan; and Mark Lynas, an environmentalist and writer who claims to have helped create the anti-GE movement back in the mid-1990’s. According to the Guardian:

        “The 10 or more ambassadors will not be paid directly, but the lobbyists have offered to write, research and place articles in their names, arrange interviews and speaking engagements with the Financial Times and other international media, and secure for them what could be lucrative speaking slots at major conferences.

        In addition, EuropaBio says it will introduce them to the highest-level European bureaucrats and MEPs in order for them to make the case for GM within EU institutions.”

    In 2011, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas responded to the news by saying:

        "This brazen attempt by EuropaBio to recruit covert 'ambassadors' to 'change the debate' on GM is yet further proof that the powerful GM lobby will stop at nothing to push its hugely unpopular and unnecessary products onto European citizens. We need far stronger regulation on corporate lobbyists across the EU to prevent this kind of insidious behind-the-scenes maneuvering from seriously undermining our democratic system."

The Art of Spin, and the World of “War Craft”

    When confronted, the above named candidates denied knowledge of EuropaBio4, known as “the voice for the biotech industry at the EU level.” Most, including Mark Lynas, also claimed they’d reject the offer to peddle GMO policy should they be asked.

    What a difference a year makes. While Lynas suddenly began writing about his “conversion” in 2010, he recently took to the stage as a veritable born-again proselytizer of genetically engineered crops at the January 3 Oxford Farming Conference5.

    What better ambassador for the tattered and bruised Monsanto than a “former foe” having “seen the light of science” and, of his own free will (supposedly), deciding to mend his ways and right the wrongs he’s done against the biotech industry?

The White House is not directly commenting on a newspaper report that the administration is considering a path for illegal immigrants to become legal permanent U.S. residents within eight years.

USA Today said it obtained a draft of a White House immigration plan that contained the proposal.

The White House wouldn’t comment Saturday night directly on the USA Today report but released this statement:

“The President has made clear the principles upon which he believes any commonsense immigration reform effort should be based. We continue to work in support of a bipartisan effort, and while the President has made clear he will move forward if Congress fails to act, progress continues to be made and the administration has not prepared a final bill to submit.”

Since his re-election – which got a boost from Hispanic voters -- President Barack Obama has renewed his push for an overhaul of the nation’s immigration policy, including the topic in his inaugural address and State of the Union speech and making a trip to Nevada last month to highlight the issue.

And there’s been some progress in the Senate: A bipartisan group of senators announced in late January that they had agreed on goals for a major rewrite of immigration laws. Those include creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are here already and creating a system to ensure that employers don’t hire illegal immigrants.

But reaction to the USA Today report by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., points to the difficulty in passing any package. Rubio issued a statement Saturday saying that if the president's eventual proposal follows the draft described by USA Today, it "would be dead on arrival in Congress."   

If your Valentine’s Day plans include an engagement, congratulations! Besides romance, you also are more likely to experience financial joy – if your marriage works out.

Couples who get and stay married can have as much as four times the wealth of their single or divorced peers. Experts say that's not only because they can combine their salaries and share expenses once they get married.

Spouses are better off because of a combination of factors, starting with who is getting married these days.

“It’s more educated, more affluent and also more religious Americans that tend to get married in the first place,” said Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.

That gives them a starting advantage over their peers who aren’t married. 

Once they are married, the couples also are able to take advantage of economies of scale – anything from buying just one dishwasher to relying on one another’s health insurance. That allows them to build wealth more quickly than their peers who are single, divorced or  living together romantically.

“You have further advantages,” said Pamela Smock, director of the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Would you renounce your U.S. citizenship if it meant you’d be sending less of your hard-earned dollars to Uncle Sam?

As Americans face higher taxes and stricter enforcement, a growing number of them are, indeed, deciding to turn in their US passports. As of 2013, 77% of Americans will pay higher federal tax rates because the cuts in Social Security payroll taxes expired when Congress passed its tax package on New Year’s Day.

But the wealthiest households face the highest tax increases. From 2009 to 2011, the number of expatriates, or those who renounced their U.S. citizenship, doubled to 1,781.

Nigel Green, CEO of deVere Group, which provides financial services for expatriates, said that since the start of this year, 48% more of his clients in January than in a typical month inquired about moving funds abroad and the possible tax implications of changing citizenship.

The income tax rate rose this year to 39.6% from 35% for individuals earning more than $400,000 a year and married couples earning more than $450,000.

The Tax Policy Center estimated that those who earn more than $1 million would pay an average of  $170,341 more in taxes.

Green said there’s a tipping point for most people with regard to tax issues affecting their choice of location and citizenship. “If there’s only 10% tax [on income], no one would be leaving. But if there’s 90%, then most people would leave,” he said.

Federal taxes aren’t the only issue, though. Increases in state income tax rates factor into these decisions as well. Recently, California enacted Proposition 30, which raised state income tax rates to 10.3% from 9.3% for individuals making at least $250,000 and 13.3% from 10.3% for those earning at least $1 million. Golfer Phil Mickelson publicly voiced his concern over the tax increases and threatened to leave California because of the higher rates.

Famous Faces
In the first three quarters of 2012, more than 1,100 people left the United States, according to the Federal Register, which tracks Americans who renounce their citizenship. (The Federal Register doesn’t make note of why these people give up their citizenships; we can only guess there are financial considerations in many situations.) Among them, one of the most high-profile examples was Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, who filed to relinquish his U.S. citizenship in September 2011; Facebook had its initial public offering in May 2012. Saverin, a Brazil native, had already been living in Singapore for three years after emigrating to the U.S. in 1998. He could reportedly save as much as $100 million in taxes because Singapore does not tax capital gains.

Saverin isn’t the only famous renunciation. Singer and socialite Denise Rich also gave up her citizenship last year under her maiden name, Denise Eisenberg. She is well-known as the ex-wife of former international fugitive Marc Rich, a commodities trader who was indicted on 50 counts of wire fraud, tax evasion, racketeering and other charges. But on his last day in office in 2001, former president Bill Clinton pardoned Rich. Reports claimed that Eisenberg gave up her citizenship to be closer to her long-time partner, an Austrian citizen. Austria also has tax benefits for nationals who live abroad for more than half the year.

Chinese kung fu star and actor Jet Li held American and Chinese citizenships, but dropped both in 2009 in order to be a citizen in Singapore. (Singapore prohibits dual citizenship.) In interviews Li indicated that he chose Singapore because it was free from paparazzi and provided language opportunities for his children.

Most recently, actor Gerard Depardieu made headlines for renouncing his French citizenship to become a Russian citizen in order to avoid France’s proposed 75% tax on earned income above $1.4 million. Russia has a flat 13% tax rate.

The editor of the Italian magazine that published pictures of a bikini-clad Duchess of Cambridge defended his decision yesterday saying they did not “harm” her image.

Alfonso Signorini said the reaction to the photographs that show William and Kate on holiday on the exclusive Caribbean island of Mustique was “over the top”.

The pictures were published in the gossip magazine Chi and were trailed on the front cover as showing the growing belly of Kate, who is about four months pregnant.

On-air apology

Earlier yesterday in Britain, presenter Eamonn Holmes was forced to make an on-air apology on This Morning programme after an unblurred image of the magazine’s front cover showing the duke and duchess in their swimwear “accidentally” appeared on screen. Holmes told viewers: “Unfortunately we accidentally showed an unblurred image of the magazine cover, which briefly showed the photographs.

“This was a deeply regrettable error and we are very sorry. We apologise unreservedly to the duke and the duchess.”

Mr Signorini justified his decision to publish the pictures of Kate and William on holiday in a series of interviews. He told the BBC: “The photographs, which can in no way be considered scandalous, were bought from an international photo agency, do not harm the image of the protagonists and the reaction of the media seems to me wholly over the top. Moreover, the photographs can hardly be considered an invasion of privacy when the subjects are public figures in a public place, in the open air; specifically on a beach surrounded by other bathers.”

Meanwhile, the editor of an Australian magazine also defended her decision to print photographs of Kate in a bikini, saying her readers will “love” the images.

Woman’s Day is the second publication to use the pictures of the pregnant royal. It also controversially published pictures of William and Kate’s Seychelles honeymoon in 2011.

The Mustique pictures were reportedly taken from a boat using a long-lens camera, but Fiona Connolly, editor of Woman’s Day, claimed a member of the public snapped the duchess.

Kate Middleton may be mother to the future King or Queen of England, but that can’t protect her from tabloid attention, much to the frustration of the royal family.

Italian magazine Chi published two photographs of the pregnant Duchess of Cambridge in a bikini on Wednesday, inciting protest and disapproval from the palace.

Kate Middleton: Royal Pregnancy Mysteries Solved

"We are disappointed that photographs of the duke and duchess on a private holiday look likely to be published overseas. This is a clear breach of the couple's right to privacy," a spokeswoman from St. James Palace said in an official statement on Tuesday, when news of the photographs hit the Internet.

The photographs show the Duchess, with her naturally curly hair, sporting a tiny baby bump in a blue bikini, walking along the beach with William in the Caribbean island of Mustique.

In the press, pregnant celebrities often face unwelcome scrutiny over their changing bodies. But the royal baby fever is on an entirely different level. For the right to publish the first glimpse of Kate's "baby bump," publishers all over the world are paying upwards of $500,000.

Chi is the same magazine that published 18 photographs of a topless Kate Middleton in September. When French magazine Closer published the photographs, the Duke and Duchess took legal action, barring their publication.

Alfonso Signorini, the editor of Chi, balked at the palace’s suggestion that the images were an invasion of privacy. “The photographs can hardly be considered an invasion of privacy when the subjects are public figures in a public place,” he told People Magazine. “What out readers will see is simply a moment of joyful relaxation being enjoyed by a smiling, happy couple. Where’s the scandal in that?”

Women’s Day editor Fiona Connolly also ran the photographs, claiming no boundaries had been crossed. “There is no photographer hiding in the bushes and she is not inside a private villa,” she told News Ltd.

Chi Magazine cover with pregnant Kate MiddletonChi Magazine cover with pregnant Kate MiddletonFor Americans, it can be difficult to understand what the fuss is all about. But in the U.K., the press has a “gentlemen’s agreement” with the royals and with many celebrities out of respect for their privacy, Victoria Arbiter, ABC News Royal Contributor, told Yahoo! Shine. “The Palace is incensed over the publication of these photos because they're realizing that this is a battle they cannot win. The British press has been incredibly well behaved. But the idea of the whole world playing fair when there is money to be made is just ludicrous.”

Follow the story here and at CNN affiliates KCBS/KCAL, KABC and KTLA. Anderson Cooper 360º devotes the entire hour to the frenzied manhunt, the final shootout, and the people allegedly killed by an ex-LA cop. Watch "9 Days of Terror: The Hunt for Christopher Dorner" Wednesday at 8 p.m. ET on CNN.

Riverside, California (CNN) -- Authorities said Wednesday they are reasonably sure that the body found inside the burned cabin near Big Bear Lake, California, is that of Christopher Dorner, the rogue ex-cop who had been pursuing a vendetta against his fellow officers.

"We believe that this investigation is over, at this point, and we'll just need to move on from here," San Bernardino Sheriff John McMahon told reporters.

Although the description and behavior of the man who was killed are consistent with Dorner, officials "cannot absolutely, positively confirm it was him," McMahon said.

"We're not currently involved in a manhunt," he said. "Our coroner's division is trying to confirm the identity through forensics."

Authorities say Dorner launched a guerrilla war against the Los Angeles Police Department over what he considered his unfair dismissal in 2009.

McMahon identified a sheriff's detective who was fatally shot Tuesday by the man presumed to have been Dorner as Jeremiah MacKay. MacKay, 35, was a 15-year veteran who was married with two children, a 7-year-old daughter and a 4-month-old son.

Another officer has undergone "a couple of different surgeries" after being wounded in the shootout. "He's in good spirits and should make a full recovery after a number of additional surgeries," McMahon said.

The two men were ambushed Tuesday when they responded to a report of a vehicle stolen by a suspect matching Dorner's description, McMahon said.

"It was like a war zone, and our deputies continued to go into that area and tried to neutralize and stop the threat," McMahon said. "The rounds kept coming, but our deputies didn't give up."

The suspect then fled into a nearby vacant cabin, which caught fire after police shot tear gas canisters into it, McMahon said.

Although the canisters included pyrotechnic tear gas, which generates heat, "We did not intentionally burn down that cabin to get Mr. Dorner out," McMahon said.

It wasn't clear when a formal identification could be made of the charred remains found in the cabin about 100 miles east of Los Angeles after Tuesday's shootout with police. Until then, "a lot of apprehension" remains in the ranks of the LAPD, Lt. Andy Neiman said.

'A very trying time' for the LAPD

"It's been a very trying time over the last couple of weeks for all of those involved and all those families, friends and everybody that has been touched by this incident," he said.

On Wednesday, police from around the Los Angeles area and beyond gathered to bury Michael Crain, who was among the four people fatally shot, allegedly by the 33-year-old former Navy officer.

Dorner also killed the daughter of a former LAPD captain and her fiance and shot three other officers, including Crain's partner, police say.

 Investigators have located charred human remains in the burned out cabin where they believe suspected cop killer and ex-LAPD officer Christopher Dorner was holed up as the structure burned to the ground, police said.

The human remains were found within the debris of the burned cabin and identification will be attempted through forensic means, the San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner Department said in a press release early this morning.

Dorner barricaded himself in the cabin in the San Bernardino Mountains near Big Bear Tuesday afternoon after engaging in a gunfight with police, killing one officer and injuring another, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department said.

Cindy Bachman, spokeswoman for the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, which is the lead agency in the action, said Tuesday night investigators would remain at the site all night.

FULL COVERAGE: Christopher Dorner Manhunt

When Bachman was asked if police thought Dorner was in still in the burning cabin, she said, "Right… We believe that the person that barricaded himself inside the cabin engaged in gunfire with our deputies and other law enforcement officers is still inside there, even though the building burned."

Bachman spoke shortly after the Los Angeles Police Department denied earlier reports that a body was found in the cabin, contradicting what law enforcement sources told ABC News and other news organizations.

Police around the cabin told ABC News they saw Dorner enter but never leave the building as it was consumed by flames, creating a billowing column of black smoke seen for miles.

A press conference is scheduled for later today in San Bernardino.

One sheriff's deputy was killed in a shootout with Dorner earlier Tuesday afternoon, believed to be his fourth and victim after killing an LAPD officer and two other people this month, including the daughter of a former police captain, and promising to kill many more in an online manifesto.


Cops said they heard a single gunshot go off from inside the cabin just as they began to see smoke and fire. Later they heard the sound of more gunshots, the sound of ammunition being ignited by the heat of the blaze, law enforcement officials said.

Police did not enter the building, but exchanged fire with Dorner and shot tear gas into the building.

One of the largest dragnets in recent history, which led police to follow clues across the West and into Mexico, apparently ended just miles from where Dorner's trail went cold last week.

Police got a break at 12:20 p.m. PT, when they received a 911 call that a suspect resembling Dorner had broken into a home in the Big Bear area, taken two hostages and stolen a car.

The two hostages, who were tied up by Dorner but later escaped, were evaluated by paramedics and were determined to be uninjured.

Officials say Dorner crashed the stolen vehicle and fled on foot to the cabin where he barricaded himself and exchanged fire with deputies from the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office and state Fish and Game officers.

In the past few months, schools have banned everything from yoga pants and Ugg boots to birthday candles and peanut butter sandwiches. But one Utah middle school is cracking down on hair color—even if the color in question isn't a garish blue or green but just a dark shade of red.

After being kicked out of class last week for dyeing her brown hair auburn, an honors student at a Utah middle school has been allowed to return to school—but only after she toned down her hair color.

Though Rylee MacKay, 15, had been dyeing her hair the same shade every six weeks since September, it wasn't until earlier this month that the school took issue with the color. On Feb. 4, Hurricane Middle School vice principal Jan Goodwin spotted Rylee in the halls and ordered her into the office. She had just had her hair touched up two days earlier.

The Washington County School District dress code states that "Hair, including beards, mustaches and sideburns, should be groomed so that it is neat and clean. Hair color must be a naturally occurring color; i.e. red, brown, black, blonde." And while Rylee's stylist had assured her that her new color complied with the dress code, Goodwin felt that Rylee's auburn-hued hair didn't look natural enough.

"In the light he said it was pinkish-purplish," Rylee told KUTV. "He told me to have it fixed by the next day or I couldn't come back to school."

But she didn't want to dye her hair back to brown—and her mother refused to make her.

"I absolutely am not going to dye it brown. That is not an option," Amy MacKay told Utah news station KSL.com on Sunday. Rylee had a hard time with the family's move to Hurricane two and a half years ago, MacKay said, and when she was finally allowed to dye her hair last year she felt better about herself. "My daughter feels beautiful with the red hair. Changing her hair really changed her; she really blossomed," she explained. "And now I have to say, 'No, sorry, you have to dye it brown?' I'm not going to change it back."

MacKay said that the district's hair policy is too open to interpretation. "It's totally his opinion whether it's too bright or not," she told KSL.com. "There's no set standard, no hair palette you can look at and say, 'OK, I'll go with that red'."

It was a small mistake but one that cost British hairdresser and mother of two "Sally Donaldson" thousands of dollars.

More on Yahoo! Bank Security Group Warns of Website Attacks

According to The Guardian, in October 2012, Donaldson (not her real name) experienced a sickening, gut-wrenching moment when she discovered that over the course of two years, each time she had transferred her monthly paycheck of $1,500 from her HSBC account to the joint one she shares with her husband at Nationwide building society, she had accidentally been placing the money in a total stranger's account. After two years, the amount she had transferred was roughly $40,000.

More on Yahoo! Shine: 12 Money Mistakes Almost Everyone Makes

"It wasn't until October 2012 that I discovered the £1,000 was not showing on our joint account's monthly statement. Having moved over to paperless statements in 2010, I had been checking that my wages were leaving my business account held with HSBC at the end of every month. However, to my horror, I now saw they had never arrived in our joint Nationwide account. Scrolling back, the last time my wage appeared on our statement was May 2010," says Donaldson in The Guardian. "I frantically checked my numbers for the bill payment scheme I had set up with HSBC and could see that, on setting it up, I was one digit out … the money has been going to another Nationwide account holder for the past two years, amounting to £26,650!"
"The payment was set up clearly to my name, my sort code but with one account number digit being incorrect…..Phone calls to Nationwide that night, many tears and numerous subsequent calls and letters, have left us with just £1,000 returned and a complete blank of information from Nationwide," she says.

It may be difficult for Donaldson to get her money back. According to The Guardian, the recipient refuses to return the money and the bank cannot reveal his or her identity due to data protection rules. What's more, British law dictates that when money goes into the wrong hands, it can be withdrawn without gaining permission first for up to six years after it's wrongfully transferred. But in Donaldson's case, the recipient had withdrawn the money through ATMs so there is nothing they can do. Shine attempted to contact Nationwide for comment but emails were not returned.

"People have become so dependent on technology that they've developed a blind trust in computers," says Manisha Thakor, CEO of MoneyZen Wealth Management. "But technology isn't perfect; when you consider the sheer volume of transfers that banks make every day, it's actually very easy for an error to occur. People have a personal responsibility to take ownership of their finances." Here's how to avoid making a similar mistake:

Communicate: It seems unlikely that Donaldson, who was supporting herself on a hairdresser's salary, could overlook the fact that her family's bank account wasn't as flush as it was supposed to be but according to Thakor, many couples don't communicate enough about finances. "What's most troubling about this story is that it occurred between a husband and wife," says Thakor. "It was a very personal transaction and would have been easy for Donaldson to check in with her husband and ask if he received the funds." Yes, a simple, "Hey did you get that huge money transfer I sent you?" over dinner could have prevented the problem from escalating. Even if one person is better at managing money—which is so often the case between couples— staying in the loop about bill paying and money transfers is crucial.

Read in reverse: When you're double checking the number you typed in, read it again but this time backwards. "By reading from the last number to the first, you'll avoid scanning on autopilot," says Thakor. "This process forces your brain to stay alert while you read so you're more likely to catch typos."