What do you get when a bunch of divas come together to salute our troops? Kathy Griffin in a camo bikini, and Katy Perry singing a sexy version of the WWII-era hit ‘Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy,’ that’s what!

VH1 hosted their annual ‘Divas’ series, but this year gave it a patriotic twist by having the women of the evening— singers like Keri HilsonNicki MinajParamoreSugarland, and Grace Potter & the Nocturnals—  perform for the troops. The ‘Divas Salute the Troops‘ concert filmed at the Marine Corps Air Station in Miramar on Friday, and had an estimated audience of 27,000 in attendance. This event partnered with the USO (United Service Organizations), a nonprofit whose goal is to lift the spirits of American troops and their families at military stations worldwide.

The host for the evening, funny gal and outspoken activist Kathy Griffin, sported a camo bikini and cracked jokes in between performances. The show aired last night on VH1, and opened and closed with a performance by Perry— twice that of anyone else in the lineup , which perhaps goes to show who’s the biggest ‘Diva’ of them all.

It’s great to see these women supporting our troops! You can watch Perry sing the boogie woogie here.

  • don miguelo

    OK NOT green celebs AGAIN!
    Fur-wearers Keri Hilson, Nicki Minaj and Katy Perry. Must have learned it from watching J-Lo!

    Hey I support the troops and all, but this IS a green themed site, right?

    • stephanie

      I agree.

      • http://www.herwinsvegancafe.com herwin

        i am slightly confused what this silly topic is doing on Ecorazzi, its so totaly out of tune with the rest of this site. Not the first time though that Erin La Rosa posts a not-so-green topic that makes me feel i am on the wrong website..

    • David

      OK don, how ‘green’ do they have to be to meet your standard and be on this site?

      Is vegitarian with a hybrid car enough?

      How about a meat eater but they only use bicycles?

      What about a vegan but they drive a Hummer?

      This site is about whatever the owners decided to post. If you don’t like it, then take your own money and start your own site and then you can decided what stories and which celebrities are green enough.

      • don miguelo

        Celebrities who promote wearing fur to their audience should not be advocated for on this particular website. That’s what all those other regular celebrity websites are for. It’s ECOrazzi, not just EGOrazzi, last time I checked.

        I’m not looking at hypocrisy or double standards here, (in fact I’ve been an advocate for there not being a “line” like that if you check back). I have promoted the idea that it’s all cumulative, not exclusionary.

        YES, this site is about whatever the owners decide to post, I agree. Why are they posting this non green story? What is green about it, I have to ask? Fine I will email Erin La Rosa that question, and will await her reply to why they are doing this (the 3rd one in a week), BTW.

        Just cuz you’re sensitive about the troops doesn’t make you right. If you let your bias affect your reasoning that’s just as bad as all the people here you call out on crying foul when they don’t back it up with a reason. Like when they say the japanese have killed millions of whales, you always point out the exact reported kill counts.

        Hello, this is a green themed blog, it has nothing to do with my alleged standards.

    • David

      “Hello, this is a green themed blog, it has nothing to do with my alleged standards.”

      Then why are you trying to be the arbitor of who is or isn’t green enough?

      “Celebrities who promote wearing fur to their audience should not be advocated for on this particular website.”

      That is your opinion or ‘standard’ and obviously it isn’t the websites standard.

      “Just cuz you’re sensitive about the troops doesn’t make you right.”

      This has nothing to do with my senstivities. And actually in my opinion USO shows like this at stateside bases aren’t about the troops anyway, they are PR vehicles for the acts involved.

      And what am I not right about? I asked you how green a celeb had to be to meet your standards. Where is there something right or not in that questions?
      I didn’t say you where wrong, or that your standards where wrong. I just asked what your standards where and why your standards should be the ones that this website should follow.

      • don miguelo

        I won’t be painted into that corner you keep bringing up, because it sidetracks the real issue. My “green standards” are, in a way, a part of this discussion because this is not a general gossip website. Do I care when celebrities that are known to be promoting lifestyle choices opposite of this blog’s main theme are promoted on in daily articles, with no green theme in sight? YES!!

        From Ecorazzi’s very own “About Us” Tab: “Ecorazzi has been providing the latest in green gossip since August 2006. Ecorazzi takes the latest in celebrity gossip and entertainment news and filters out all of the fluff. What’s left are fun and interesting stories that you want to hear about, without the guilt.”

        How is this story, the one about J-Lo being the Boys+Girls Club rep, and the one about P. Diddy buying NY tickets “the latest in green gossip”? It’s not articulated anywhere in the articles. Prove me wrong, I’m sure you’ll try as usual, but those are the facts you always want. It’s just not in the articles, and it’s supposed to be.

        That’s the point you forgot to focus on.

        Again, I will contact Erin L about it, maybe in the meantime you can keep “your standards” about my posts to yourself?

    • David

      Well don, lets look at the statement you seem to think important.

      “Ecorazzi has been providing the latest in green gossip since August 2006. Ecorazzi takes the latest in celebrity gossip and entertainment news and filters out all of the fluff. What’s left are fun and interesting stories that you want to hear about, without the guilt.”

      I seems to me that key words in our discussion are ‘fluff’, ‘fun’, ‘interesting’ and ‘guilt’. And all of those words are subjective, what is fluff to one person may be vitally important to another. So your subjective definitions of those words don’t match the websites subjective definitions of those words. That’s the way the world is, different people have different opinions. And since it isn’t your website then the fact that your opinions don’t match those of the people who run the website is just to bad for you.

      I also don’t see where the statement says they ‘only’ provide green gossip.

      • don miguelo

        Why don’t you let the owners of the website (or at least Erin La Rosa) defend what the website should be about? If you say I cannot know what they mean due the subjectivity of the words on their own blog’s role, then you can’t say you know what it is either. It’s just our opinions on their description. You’re saying ecorazzi is a mostly eco-themed website, but not soley. Wow, you are a stickler. Again, you get yourself out on a technicality but ignore the forest thru the trees.

        ECOrazzi IS an eco-themed website: it’s in the title, it’s in the mission statement, it’s in most of the articles (until now). C’mon.

      • David

        I have no problem with them posting any article they want to. You are the one who has a problem. I don’t need or want them to defend anything.

        I never said what the words mean did I? But you seem to think they should mean what you want them to mean. Again you are the one that has the problem.

        Burger King has burger right in its name, but they have things other than burgers.

        Maybe the website has decided to branch out in an effort to raise their level of traffic. Amazon started as a book seller and Google started as a search engine, websites expand into new areas all the time. If the change upsets the loyal fans then the site has to decide if the loss of those fans is offset by other factors.

      • don miguelo

        I suppose that this article and the J-Lo one could be filed under “green and famous” because the green means money and famous means being known at all by even 1 other person. But that’s probably not why. Reasonable assumption says it’s because there is a ecological element with these celebs in this article (that I still have not seen).

        Why is this article filed under “green and famous”, on a site that traditionally has environmental content, a site that has an environmental term integrated into its very title? Not to mention that the celebs mentioned are proponents of fur– a topic other articles on this same site are vehemently against? Semantics? A sudden carelessness about those issues? My ridiculous standards are unbelievable? I think not.

        It’s a straightforward question that you have resorted to hiding behind improbable reasons to defend your own ego from being seen as possibly wrong.
        (Here’s the part where you call the kettle black and turn it all around on me)-
        ok go!

      • David

        “My ridiculous standards are unbelievable?”

        No they aren’t, but they don’t matter unless it is your website.

        “Not to mention that the celebs mentioned are proponents of fur– a topic other articles on this same site are vehemently against?”

        And there are many articles that mention celebs who are meat-eaters – a topic other articles on this same site are vehemently against.

      • don miguelo

        Well I guess you are as determined to stay in your way of thinking as I am in mine. I agree to disagree. But you’re gonna have to get used to my opinion not being up to your own subjective standards, ironically enough, by your own reasoning up there: “That’s the way the world is, different people have different opinions.”

        I think we’ve made our points ad nauseam; possibly you disagree with that too, I don’t care.

        To that end I await a response from Ecorazzi on the email I fired off about this yesterday. I think it could at least be explained by them that they do this kind of thing. I am apparently supported in this by Herwin, Chris H, Stephanie, and Melissa, I’m sure there are others that do not see the world as black and white as David needs it to be.

  • Chris H.

    @ don,

    you said (to David):

    “Why don’t you let the owners of the website (or at least Erin La Rosa) defend what the website should be about?”

    The problem is that no one really wants to get into a discussion with David (because he’s such a nasty character…). The people that do respond to him do so out of a sense of obligation to defend all that is right and decent in the world.

    David is unfamiliar with the concept of “feedback”, and he thinks that the only opinion that should count is his own.

    All IMHO.

  • melissa

    I agree with Don and the others. Why is this a featured article? I come to ecorazzi to read about celebs who give a crap about the environment, animal rights, veg issues, etc. I don’t want to see J-Lo, Diddy, and these other self serving ‘divas’ plastered all over this site unless it’s a story related to the purpose of ecorazzi. None of those stories posted had anything at all to do with the environment or animal rights or even sustainable food issues :(

  • David

    “I’m sure there are others that do not see the world as black and white as David needs it to be.”

    So now don is a comedian.

    My position is to allow the website to post any article they want whether the topic is deepest green all the way to its core or has no green at all. Don’s position seems to be only articles that meet some minimum ‘greenness’. Now which position is black and white and which position allows for infinite shades of gray and differences of opinion?

    • don miguelo

      Yeah yeah I get your “position”, I don’t really have a problem with that. I am not arguing that ecorazzi CANNOT post anything it wants, just saying that it has a 4 and a half year track record of being green themed, has ‘eco’ in the title, has tags like “green and famous” on articles themselves, and is generally known as a green website. People don’t come here thinking this site is about interior design, or about car repairs– unless there is a green facet to that discussion. They probably do not come here only to hear about celebs either, since there are so many other websites that do that specifically.

      However if they want to do an occasional article about something without a green, eco, environmental, activist, or awareness facet I think that it’s reasonable to ask for a clarification. If the new policy is to include new articles that are other than the trend, like you said the website is expanding, that’s ok with me of course. So yeah, can they put anything they want up here? Absolutely. But would that be expected to happen without a little blurb about it posted as a change in content? No. (‘Do they have to do that?’, I know you will ask, David? No, but I say it would be a smarter move).

      I think without a clue about that on the site, many readers would question what is going on, as evidenced by several posters on this very article itself. It would be more understandable if, like they did for the newer Privacy/Abuse Guideline Enforcement change, they did a little post to the readers.

      As for you saying that my requirement is that every article here has to have some minumum “greenness”, that’s your misunderstanding (one that conveniently paints me in a bad light, I might add!). My standards on this website that I don’t own are irrelevant, as are yours. My opinion is that it should posses a green tie-in for the reasons mentioned above (again, ad nauseum).

      Thank you though for championing the rights of these website owners to not have to write a green story, you really put your energy into worthy causes like the rest of us. That’s a joke, because apparently I’m a comedian to you. By the way, that would make you a heckler. Ohhwww!! *cue applause*

      I look forward hopefully to Ecorazzi clearing this up publicly, not that they have to, but just because it would be good to know for all the regular readers.