Jennifer Lawrence & Josh Hutcherson Pissed In The Ocean While Filming Catching Fire

Jennifer Lawrence dished a delightful amount of delish deets in her new Vanity Fair spread, but this Hunger Games anecdote is the most HIGHlarious thing we ever heard!!! She and her charming co-star Josh Hutcherson had fun shooting Catching Fire's ocean scenes!! Maybe too much fun!!! The dynamic duo apparently had neither the time nor the inclination for bathroom breaks while filming, so they kept peed right into the ocean in between takes!!! OMG!! We're not even making this up!! J-Law admitted:
“Josh [Hutcherson] and I could just swim in the water or, like, pee any time you want[ed]. Anytime you have to pee, you can just run right in the water. It was amazing.”So that's why they call them wet suits, LOLz!!! Ha! Isn't every one of Jen's stories even more AH-Mazing than the last? She pees in the ocean! We pee in the ocean! OMG, celebs really are just like us!!!

Lindsay Lohan Firing Lawyer Mark Heller

Another day, another development in the life of Lindsay Lohan!

The 26-year-old actress is expected to check into rehab in California by 6 a.m. Friday. If she doesn't, she faces the risk of Santa Monica City Attorney Terry White issuing a warrant for her arrest.

"She has to go [Friday] to also prove that she is taking it seriously, and then she can possibly move to another facility if it gets approved," a source tells E! News, adding, "Nobody knows what's going to happen."

"She is currently doing OK," adds the source. "She was panicked earlier and was really scared because she felt the whole situation could have been more organized, and she expected that it should be."

One person Linds won't be looking to for guidance on this whole situation anymore? Mark Heller.

A source tells E! News the Mean Girls star is in the process of firing her outspoken attorney and in the process of getting Shawn Holley to return as her main legal counsel.

But in the end, Lindsay "is ready for rehab," says the source.

Where did all the money go?

-->

Where did all the money go?

“Your guess is as good as mine,” David Montoya, the inspector general of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, says of $700 million in missing taxpayer money that Louisiana homeowners were given in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to elevate and protect their homes from future storms.

A new report released from the inspector general’s office shows that more than 24,000 homeowners who received grants of up to $30,000 to elevate their homes either misspent or pocketed the money.

“The fact of the matter is that the money they received was for a specific purpose and the specific purpose was to elevate these homes to avoid future catastrophes,” Montoya tells Power Players.

He rates the home elevation program as little more than a complete failure.

“Considering there was just under $1 billion earmarked for this particular program and there's $700 million that wasn't used for that, I’d give it a very low D,” he says.

But the lessons learned from the failed home elevation project provides a useful roadmap as Congress moves to offer recovery funds to victims of Hurricane Sandy.

“Clearly, to give money out on the front end right after a disaster, when many of these people lost everything, with a promise to do something down the road, I think is counterproductive to what the program was designed to do,” says Montoya.

Montoya says his office will recommend that, for future disaster relief programs, funds are disbursed to individuals only after the project has been completed.

To hear more of the interview with the inspector general, including his explanation of why the government likely will never get the money back, check out this episode of Power Players.

North Korea: US signals strength, but speaks softly

As North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has issued increasingly belligerent statements toward South Korea and the United States in recent weeks, many North Asia analysts have concluded that the young Mr. Kim is acting to establish his tough-guy credentials with key audiences: the North Korean public, but also the military and other North Korean elites.

But in response, the Obama administration – while actually saying little – has also been acting to reassure the American public and key allies like South Korea and Japan, even as it tries to figure out what Kim Jong-un is really up to and the best way to deal with him, some regional experts say.

“The early superficial take-away on [Kim] is that he’s not afraid to be out front, not afraid to take risks.... He speaks more directly to the public than his father did, and after he’s established his military credentials he can then turn his focus to the economy,” says Jim Walsh, an expert in international security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program.

RECOMMENDED: North Korea abandons armistice: 4 key questions answered

“But the US is also sending its own messages” by responding to Kim’s rhetoric – which has included a vow to attack the US – with the inclusion of nuclear-capable B-52s in US-South Korea military exercises and a reinforcing of missile defense batteries in Alaska, he says.

The Obama administration “is sending a message of reassurance to South Korea and the American public in particular,” Dr. Walsh says, “but [it is] also telling a leader who is really breaking new ground with direct and specific threats, ‘If you keep talking like that, this is what you have to look forward to.’ ”

But besides such messaging, the US has had very little to say in response to Kim’s actions – which have included tearing up the Korean War armistice, severing a security communications line with Seoul, and publicly reviewing military planning for attacks on a number of US sites including Hawaii and Austin, Texas.

Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.

Secretary of State John Kerry will certainly have more to say when he visits Japan, South Korea, and China in mid-April, but in the meantime the administration is speaking softly as it brandishes its big sticks. A White House spokesman said that the North is further isolating itself with its “bellicose rhetoric” (last Friday) and Secretary Kerry has called on North Korea to “engage in legitimate dialogue” instead of issuing threats (early last month).

The US has also been working to impose new sanctions and to reinforce international implementation of existing measures against North Korea since the United Nations Security Council approved a new round of sanctions last month in response to the North’s February nuclear test.

Some security analysts accuse the US of needlessly provoking Kim with a string of military measures at a delicate moment in the new leader’s consolidation of power. (At 29 or 30 years of age, Kim is the world’s youngest head of state, having assumed power at the death of his father in December 2011.)

But many other experts say the US has acted prudently as the unknown quantity in charge inPyongyang – who has already overseen a worrisome nuclear test and long-range missile launch – has recently issued increasingly incendiary threats.

The US is simply covering its security bases, the latter reasoning goes, while it tries to figure out who Kim is and how best to approach him.

No one can even be certain that Kim is the guy in charge in North Korea, some analysts say. “You can conclude that as a leader he seems to be quite risk-acceptant, but there’s also reason to be cautious and ask questions like, ‘Is he really in charge, or is it a family clique or council?’ ” says Walsh. “Certainly the US government is still asking, ‘What are his relations with the military?’ ”

Given the deep uncertainties about North Korea, the US public seems to be broadly supportive of the Obama administration’s approach – taking precautions militarily even as it imposes new sanctions to try to influence the North’s behavior – according to a new Monitor/TIPP poll.

But the poll also suggests that the public may be out in front of the administration by strongly favoring the kind of “dialogue” the White House is pursuing with Iran over its nuclear program but has not yet proposed with North Korea.

More than two-thirds of Americans – 68 percent – say they favor opening direct talks with the North Korean regime, according to the poll conducted March 25-30. Only 24 percent disagree with the idea of dialogue.

Even more popular is the imposition of economic sanctions. Nearly three-quarters of Americans – 74 percent – support exerting economic pressure and even increasing it with additional measures.

Much less popular among a war-weary populace is the idea of military intervention to “remove” North Korea’s nuclear installations. Still, a sizable minority of 40 percent would support such action, while 53 percent oppose.

And among self-identified Republicans, military action against the North has the support of a small majority – 51 percent.

MIT’s Walsh says he sees very little chance of US military action against the North, because he says no one involved in the current ratcheting-up of tensions wants a military confrontation – neither the US nor the North, nor South Korea.

The danger, he says, is that someone makes a mistake that gets the military ball rolling.

And more long term, Walsh worries there will be repercussions from the precautionary actions the US has taken that the Obama administration may not wish to see. President Obama could see his nonproliferation and disarmament goals set back by the US “brandishing” of its nuclear-ready aircraft, and not all of North Korea’s neighbors will interpret the US measures as a reassuring display of the US nuclear umbrella.

“Clearly one of [the US] goals is to reassure states like South Korea and Japan, ‘You don’t have to go nuclear because we can protect you,’ ” he says. “But on the other hand, my guess is that the Russians and the Chinese aren’t too happy about the US flying nuclear-capable [aircraft] near their borders.”