Denise Rich | New York Times on Vanity Fair

Some observations about the last week’s worth of news:

Denise Rich Donations an Old Fox411 Story

Now that Denise Rich’s former assistant has fessed up, the government is finally looking into some interesting political donations.

We told you about this more than two years ago. Hello!

Jimmy Hester, Rich’s longtime aide, recently alleged in a lawsuit against Rich that she put him up to donating money to the 2000 Democratic campaigns, to the DNC, to Hillary Clinton’s run for the Senate, etc.

This is not news here at Foxnews.com. Apparently it was news to the government, which has let it be known that their investigation of Rich has been reinvigorated. The government, you know, never comments on “ongoing investigations.”

Rich, if you recall, denied that her financial enthusiasm for the DNC and for former President Bill Clinton (search) played any part in the presidential pardon of her ex-husband, the fugitive financier Marc Rich. Hester’s lawsuit suggests otherwise.

But I told you right from the start in the fall of 2000, when Denise was busy running to the White House and then having the Clintons as her guest of honor at her Angel Ball to raise money for cancer research, that something was up.

Indeed, it was this column that reported the donations to the DNC by not only Rich, but by her business associates and family members.

I don’t understand why the government took so long getting to this point. I do know that Hester’s friends told me when the case seemed cold almost two years ago that it wasn’t over, that the pardon business would rear its ugly head again even though Rep. Dan Burton’s committee dropped the ball and gave Denise immunity during her congressional hearings.

How all of this will affect the upcoming Angel Ball in October is the next issue. Rich has already announced a bunch of high profile honorees for the event, as has been her wont in the past. And her charity, the G&P Foundation for Cancer Research, has given away millions and has promised to give away millions more. But how comfortable donors will be with appearing in public at the Angel Ball if the pardon business is headline news again is anyone’s guess.

Maybe Marc Rich will show up to help kick things off. No — just joking. Regardless of his pardon, the multi-zillionaire Rich would be served by the IRS and New York State with a bill for 20 years of back taxes.

New York Times Blackens Vanity Fair

The biggest circulation general read magazine in the U.S. is Vanity Fair. But as I’ve mentioned in the past, VF obviously thinks the world is composed entirely of Caucasians. The current issue —dubbed The Royals issue — contains not one story or photograph of a non-white human being. The sole exception is a small picture from 1933 of the late-acting legend Paul Robeson.

Interestingly, New York Times movie critic Elvis Mitchell has been moved to mention just what we’ve been talking about for two years. Mitchell, reviewing the horror film “Freddy vs. Jason” on Friday, wrote of singer Kelly Rowland: “She alone keeps 'Freddy' from being as white as the royalty issue of Vanity Fair.”

It doesn’t matter that Mitchell himself is African American. It’s about time more critics start taking Vanity Fair to task for their ridiculous view of the world.

At the same time, and just to show that I’m not picking on the celebrity bible, there is a story in The Royals issue of VF that should not be missed. Michael Shnayerson’s exhaustive piece on the environment is a must-read in one sitting. Considering VF’s pandering to whatever administration happens to be in power, it’s a little surprising to read such a thorough and critical account of government's actions. If Vanity Fair concentrated more on this kind of stuff, and less on the chillingly god-awful royal families, the whole world would be a better place!