June 26, 2005
The husband picked up The Machinist the other day at the video store and we finally got around to watching it on Friday. (Thank you, Blockbuster for your no late fees policy!) It seemed a bit dark and I wasn't really sure what the plot was about, but...that, ultimately, turned out to be a good thing. Hence, I'm going to skip describing the plot because I don't want to spoil it for you.
It's a fabulous, if dark, movie. It all just depends upon how you like your stories told. If you want everything to happen quickquickquick, this movie is most definitely not for you. The pace of it will drive you mad. However, if you don't mind the time it takes for a flower open up when sunlight graces its petals, you'll like this film. Because, to continue the metaphor, the plot opens up just like a rose when the sun hits it first thing in the morning. You have to wait a while for it to start blooming, but when it does, you've become utterly caught-up in the story. Ulitmately, it's one of those films where you watch for clues, which are delivered sparingly, you put them together, you form your hypothesis about where it's going and when you're found to be correct, you're satisfied instead of disappointed.
Bale is utterly mesmerizing to watch in this film. How he manages to stand up, let alone walk and talk and breathe, is beyond me. He dropped sixty pounds for this role. He looks like---and I'm sorry for this comparison but it's true---his head should be shaved and he should be wearing striped pajamas. Every bone in his body just sticks out, hence all of his movement, his facial expressions---every little thing he does to get this character across---is heightened. When you receive a flashback to the past, and he's at his normal weight, he seems almost too hale and hearty. This, undoubtedly, was the intention, and it works. I just hope he didn't damage himself in the process.
The Cake Eater Verdict: Spend the money and watch it. You won't be sorry.
Both the husband and I were keen to see Batman Begins. It lost the toss of the coin last weekend (we actually do flip coins to decide which movie gets watched first, or whose movie we see. It's only fair.) so it had to wait until today.
If Keaton's your favorite Batman currently, well, Bale will forever be your favorite after seeing this movie. He's my favorite now. He even does the "I'm Batman" thing perfectly. I would wager that this is where Keaton wanted to go with the character, but where he wasn't allowed to roam because of Kim Basinger's idiotic Vicky Vale, Tim Burton's effects showboating, and Jack Nicholson's over the top villain.
This is the Batman movie we've all been waiting to see. This is what Ebert said in his review and I completely agree with him:
{...}I said this is the Batman movie I've been waiting for; more correctly, this is the movie I did not realize I was waiting for, because I didn't realize that more emphasis on story and character and less emphasis on high-tech action was just what was needed. The movie works dramatically in addition to being an entertainment. There's something to it.{...}
It does work. Very well. I've always been one of those freaks who likes Batman, but who always wished they'd spend more time on Bruce Wayne. Yeah, sure he fell into a cave when he was a little boy and was swarmed by bats and this affected him, but until this movie came along, you never really had a plausible explanation as to why he chose the bat as his symbol, what it really meant to him. With this movie, you do, and it fits perfectly. Not too neatly, because then you'd lose part of the mystery of Batman, but it fits plausibly enough, the ends are tied up loosely, not with Boy Scout knots, and it works.
And while we're on the subject of plausibility, well, this movie has it in spades. You could almost believe that, given the tools he has and how he got them, well, he could exist today. The Batmobile is the perfect example: I could completely see where someone would come up with that for military purposes. The supporting characters are plausible as well. Gary Oldman's Jim Gordon is just a regular cop. He refuses to go on the take, but he doesn't rat anyone out either. He's not someone of above-average intelligence, outstanding political skills, or holier-than-thou-morals but rather someone who just wants to get the job done; a decent man who knows his limits. In every other Batman movie (or even the tee vee show) you have a "Commissioner Gordon" who always reminds me of someone who could have been cast as a supporting player in Plunkett of Tammany Hall.. I'd always wondered how Batman and Gordon got chummy in the first place, and in this version you finally get a plausible explanation: Gordon was kind to Bruce Wayne when he lost his parents as a child. The then-commissioner came in, shooed Gordon away, and tried to treat a little kid, who just happened to be rich, like he was an adult, informing him that they caught the guy. Gordon was kind, and that's what counted.
I, quite literally, could go on about this movie for quite some time, but I'll spare you. Because it's late and I want to go to bed. So, I will simply say that you really should go and see it. It's a great movie.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:58 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 961 words, total size 6 kb.
And charge for it, too!
Remember, if you really want to get somewhere in this world, nothing will get you there quite so speedily as pandering to the ass fucking whimsies of every straight man out there.
And you'll have some spare cash in your pocket, too! What could be better?
UPDATE Oh, and I almost forgot about the offer from Playboy to pose for wanking shots! Every Playboy subscriber could, conceivably, be delivering you millions of pearl necklaces! What could be more satisfying than that?
Posted by: Kathy at
09:18 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
June 24, 2005
NEW YORK: Tom Cruise criticized NBC "Today" show host Matt Lauer on Friday when Lauer mentioned Cruise's earlier criticism of Brooke Shields for taking anti-depressants. Cruise told Lauer he didn't know what he was talking about. "You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do," Cruise said.The interview became more heated when Lauer, who said he knew people who had been helped by the attention-deficit disorder drug Ritalin, asked Cruise about the effects of the drug.
"Matt, Matt, you don't even — you're glib," Cruise responded. "You don't even know what Ritalin is. If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, OK. That's what I've done."
{empahsis mine}
Tommy Boy: world renowned expert in psychiatry. He knows the psychoses and he knows FOR A FACT that drugs are bad, mmmkay!
Because he's done the research.
I have two questions. First, isn't it a bit odd that Tommy Boy can say he's more knowledgeable about psychiatry than Matt Lauer when he never bothered to graduate from freakin' high school? And second, isn't it a bit of a cheap shot to go after Lauer on who knows more about what? Sheesh. Show some kindness, eh?
I'm going to one up my prediction from last week: War of the Worlds is going to tank worse than Gigli, not that it's just going to be another Gigli.
Has anyone actually heard anything about what this movie is about in the midst of all this PR hubbub? I certainly haven't. If Tommy Boy is out there and is supposedly "promoting the film" one would think I would have heard something about the film itself. I haven't. Have you?
UPDATE: Here's the video. If you're running Firefox or some other non-IE browser, you'll need to load up IE to view it.
I cannot get over how much Tommy Boy thinks he knows better than actual doctors because, you know, he's read the research. Ummmmm. Ooooookay. My conclusion: it's dangerous. Seriously dangerous. Some poor soul who is struggling with mental illness will watch that and they will go off their meds because Tommy Boy told them there is a "better way" and that "chemical imbalances don't exist." And something horrible could happen. What he's proposing is dangerous because he makes no room for exceptions.
That's scary, folks.
While I will not argue that perhaps he has a point where this sort of medication is being abused and that there is work to be done even if you're on these drugs, his whole attitude scares me. Because it's one thing to say that if you're mildly depressed you don't need to go on meds. That's one thing. It's completely, entirely, another to lump all mental illness under one umbrella and to say people can handle this stuff better on their own.
A few years ago, a member of our extended family was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Yep. He had all of the usual symptoms they show you on tee vee: delusions about the CIA, voices in his head, etc. His family was forced to commit him when the voices started telling him to kill himself. The only reason this man is alive today is because of psychotropic medications. They brought him out of the dangerous fantasy world this illness had forced on him. He has a job now. He's working. He's getting married later this summer. He's living a productive, satisfying life because of these medications. Now, in Tommy's world, this illness doesn't exist, hence there's no need to medicate for it. Furthermore, Tommy would advocate that it's dangerous to medicate anyone for something of this nature, because those drugs change things.
Well, duh, you asshole. Of course they change things, but when the change was forced on you in the first place, through no fault of your own, what exactly are these people to do? Huh? Run down to the Celebrity Center in L.A.? Do you have a Scientology cure for paranoid schizophrenia? Do you have one for bi-polar disorder, too? Do you treat the mentally ill there for no cost, or do they have to pay through the nose for "enlightenment" ? It's curious, isn't it? You never hear the Scientologists talk about the medications for the mentally ill folks who WANT TO KILL THEMSELVES OR OTHERS, do you? They'll bleat on until the cows come home about ADD/ADHD medications or anti-depressants, but they never do talk about the serious stuff, do they? Why is that, do you think? Are they afraid of being sued? Of having all that money they earmarked for the Celebrity Center going to pay off judgments of people who've sued them for their bad advice instead?
I'll repeat: this is dangerous. There is enough of a stigma attached to mental illness that people already don't seek treatment for serious problems because they're afraid of what people will think about them if they do. The last thing anyone needs is for an uneducated celebrity to stick their nose into the situation, heightening that stigma. It's scary and it's dangerous. And someone who is not healthy and in their right mind could die because of it.
What will Tommy Boy say to their families then? That he's quite sorry for their loss, but, really, it's not his fault because they hadn't shot down to their local Scientology center and signed up for the full meal deal?
Posted by: Kathy at
03:26 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 926 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: Kathy at
01:28 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
One of my brothers co-owns a few dealerships in Montana and he's recently branched out to New Orleans and he would, I'm sure, be mortified that some salesman pulled this stunt. Not because he thinks women are easy targets when purchasing a car and he thinks the guy could have just been more subtle in his sexism---I'm sure he doesn't think that, and if he does, we'll we're going to HAVE WORDS---but because everyone's, man or woman, money is green. You don't discriminate against money. What a way to blow a sale. Holy poor salesmanship, Batman!
Which prompts the question: what is it with the automotive industry that makes the men who work in it think they can take advantage of women? And this doesn't only cover buying a car, but getting one fixed as well. Isn't this just bad business? I know there's one born every minute, but why is this habit so pronounced in the auto industry?
Case in point: I got suckered one day during an oil change. I'd put six thousand miles on the puppy, the oil needed to be changed so I took it to a Jiffy Lube. While the car was being serviced, one of the crew guys came in to show me how filthy my air filter was and that it should be changed, toute suite. It looked dirty to me, so I authorized the change. It, of course, cost extra. When I got home I told the husband about it, he shook his head, told me that it didn't need to be changed and that I'd been had. He told me the next time they hit me up for an air filter, I was to take the old one outside, smack it around a few times to knock the dust loose, hold it up to the sun, and if I couldn't see sunlight through it only then was I to allow them to change it.
Sure enough, after another six thousand miles, they hit me up again for another air filter (even though it was the same shop and they had computerized records of what had been done last time). I did precisely what the husband had told me to do. I could see sunshine coming through it. I walked back into the shop and told the guy, "no, thank you." He gaped at me and went back into the service bay without speaking another word. I will fully admit it's my fault that this happened, because I just didn't know enough about air filters at that point to know when they needed to be replaced.
Don't get me started on serpentine belts!
So, the question of the day is this: why, at car dealerships and repair shops, do you have to prove you aren't a sucker before they'll treat you fairly? While I'm sure there are a fair number of men who don't know anything about cars who've also been suckered on the upsell, it seems to me that this practice is carried out more on women. We have to prove our worthiness to get a good deal. And that ain't fair. Because I know any number of men who have no idea what it takes to keep a car up and running, yet, because they're male, no one bothers trying to take advantage of them. I know many dealerships and repair shops have made a concerted effort in recent years at resolving this problem. But I also know a fair number of women who still have issues with this and won't set foot on a dealer's lot without a man in tow because they're afraid they'll be taken advantage of.
Discuss.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:37 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 631 words, total size 3 kb.
Poor man.
Anyway, Sadie, in a effort to fill up some space and keep a friend's blog alive, is asking a hard-hitting question that's been on everyone's brain for years now: did Mulder and Scully do the dirty deed? Unfortunately, she never seems to actually, you know, answer it. Go over and prompt her to put up what she thinks happened. Conspiracy theorists everywhere will thank you for your time and effort in this matter.
For the record: I'm pretty damn sure Scully's baby was not the product of an immaculate alien conception, ya dig, but rather is Mulder's kid. I believe Scully got drunk one night, showed up at Mulder's in a fit of lust and doesn't remember it. And Mulder left because she didn't remember it. He was ticked off that their one night of passion was nothing but a faint "what the hell?" moment for her.
Stop looking at me like that. It could have happened.
Or baby boy Scully could be Frohickey's. You never know, do you?
Posted by: Kathy at
10:24 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.
No No No No No No No No No No No No No
No No No No No No No No No No No No No
No No No No No No No No No No No No No.
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes!
Posted by: Kathy at
09:25 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.
June 23, 2005
The Supreme Court today effectively expanded the right of local governments to seize private property under eminent domain, ruling that people's homes and businesses -- even those not considered blighted -- can be taken against their will for private development if the seizure serves a broadly defined "public use."In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the ability of New London, Conn., to seize people's homes to make way for an office, residential and retail complex supporting a new $300 million research facility of the Pfizer pharmaceutical company. The city had argued that the project served a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because it would increase tax revenues, create jobs and improve the local economy.
A group of homeowners in New London's Fort Trumbull area had fought the city's attempt to impose eminent domain, arguing that their property could be seized only to serve a clear public use such as building roads or schools or to eliminate blight. The homeowners, some of whom had lived in their house for decades, also argued that the public would benefit from the proposed project only if it turned out to be successful, making the "public use" requirement subject to the eventual performance of the private business venture.
The Fifth Amendment also requires "just compensation" for the owners, but that was not an issue in the case decided today because the homeowners did not want to give up their property at any price.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the case turned on the question of whether New London's development plan served a "public purpose." He added, "Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."{...}
And what is the intended purpose of the land in question now that it's been seized by the City of New London, Connecticut?
{...}During oral arguments before the court, it emerged that the land parcels at issue were earmarked for office space and "support" for the park or marina, possibly meaning a parking lot.
Nice.
This is going to make life even more hellish for those who are fighting eminent domain. We've had quite a bit of this sort of seizure going on here in the cities. The Minnesota DOT has a nasty habit of playing bait and switch with property appraisals. Best Buy recently relocated its corporate headquarters to Richfield, one nearby burb, from Eden Prairie, another nearby burb, and the City of Richfield pretty much gave away the store in an effort to get them over there. Lots of property was seized and then destroyed so that Best Buy could put up three office buildings that look just like the ones they had in Eden Prairie. Only they're closer to the freeway, which Best Buy coughed up a lot of coin to expand. The husband has business contacts with one of the businesses that was formerly located on the spot next to 494 where a parking lot now resides. This guy, to put it bluntly, got screwed. He fought it, but wound up having to move anyway, and he received about a tenth of what the land was worth. Last I heard the guy wasn't doing so well in his new location. Not enough traffic was the complaint, if I'm recalling things correctly.
Lileks took some photos if you're interested.
Currently, they're talking about expanding Light Rail. And, not so surprisingly, one of the new lines they're talking about building would shoot right down the street I live on, because it's one of the few in the area that actually goes straight through. Most of the other streets stop and start and have been designed with traffic barriers to keep people from cutting through residential neighborhoods at high rates of speed. Now, I don't know if this is going to happen, and it probably won't because it would be a mess, but, speaking strictly in hypothetical terms, the width of the light rail lines would decree that houses and businesses on either side of this street would need to be knocked down. Because light rail operates on city streets. Where car traffic is still allowed. And they apparently can't have just one set of tracks: they have to have two, one going in either direction. This could potentially mean that the Cake Eater Pad, freshly purchased by the new landlord, would now be easily siezed. Even if they elevated it, it would be awful and would be an utter mess. Property values for the surrounding area, which are very, very high, would plummet. And my neighbors are not ones you want to get in a pissing match with about property values. They're all Type A's. It would get ugly.
Or maybe not, because the Supreme Court says it doesn't have to be like that. Because, after all, all property owners are not created equal.
UPDATE: Nice quote from Robbo:
This is the equivalent of giving a teenager the keys to the biz-tax revenue liquor cabinet based on the promise that he'll only use them if he thinks a drink would be a good idea.
UPDATE II: Russ makes a very good point in the comments clicky and read.
Phoenix gives a rural example and touches on a point that I neglected to mention: how can the supremes say this is in the public interest when many of the corporations get HUGE tax breaks when they promise to build office parks, etc.
And as far as why someone would want to build an amusement park in the middle of nowhere? Well, tax shelters would be one idea. Another would be that this ruling might, conceivably, make commercial real estate ventures a much nicer place for money launderers to clean their cash. Right now the time turnaround due to litigation is huge on some developments. That's a natural hindrance to people who would like to invest money, but need a quicker rate of return, i.e. people who have dirty money that needs washing.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with Will Collier, who calls this ruling "a license for corruption and abuse."
Posted by: Kathy at
01:54 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1067 words, total size 7 kb.
Posted by: Kathy at
01:00 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.
Because that's my perogative.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:51 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
I could never be described as a Tolkein junkie EVER, but that, I must admit, is pretty freakin' cool. Provided the all-seeing-eye doesn't see me.
{Hat Tip: Martini Boy's Bartender}
Posted by: Kathy at
09:06 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.
June 22, 2005
I understand they're all about being the hosts with the most, but really.
Posted by: Kathy at
05:40 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.
Bloomberg: U.S. Air Force Academy Details Pattern of Religious Intolerance
NY Times: Panel Finds No Overt Religious Intolerance At Air Force Academy.
San Jose Mercury News/AP Wire: Religious Insensitivity Cited at Academy
So, am I to use the "two out of three ain't bad" yardstick here?
Posted by: Kathy at
05:03 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.
LONDON - Married men earn more than bachelors so long as their wives stay at home doing the housework, according to a report on Wednesday from BritainÂ’s Institute for Social and Economic Research.Academics Elena Bardasi and Mark Taylor found that a married man whose wife does not go out to work but is primarily responsible for the cooking and cleaning earns about 3 percent more than comparably employed single men.
But that wage premium disappears if wives go out to work themselves or donÂ’t do most of the housework.
“It has been fairly well documented that married men earn more than single men,” Taylor, a labor economist, told Reuters.
“However, our research established the wage premium is related to the wife doing the chores,” said the academic who teaches at the University of Essex in eastern England.
He said analysis suggests there could be two explanations for the results:
A marriage might allow a husband and wife to focus their activities on tasks to which they are most suited. Traditionally, this would result in the man concentrating on paid work enabling him to increase productivity and in consequence his wages.
Taylor said another explanation could be that marriage may increase the amount of time a man has to hone work-related skills which could trigger higher wages.{...}
Have no fear, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, the husband will be live and well for quite some time. I can't shoot him: he's the breadwinner.
Heheheheheh.
All kidding aside, though, this doesn't surprise me one bit. I learned long ago that no matter what I did, or how brilliantly I did it, he will always make more money than me. While I don't dismiss out of hand the possibility that I, someday, could overtake him in the money department, I don't think it likely and it's simply because he has a different skill set than I do. I have a Liberal Arts---would you like fries with that?---degree; he has a Business---we need to be thinking about the P/E ratio---degree. He's also heavily interested in and has been working in IT for years now. I haven't. Hence, he's made himself highly marketable, whereas I haven't. It makes sense, then, to spend my time working on my stuff, whilst doing stuff around here to clear his schedule. While I'm sure some bra-burning, hairy-armpitted feminist thinks I'm subjugating myself to his will, that's not the case. It makes more sense, financially speaking, to maximize his potential and if that means taking care of the chores around the house, well, so be it. If the situation was reversed, it would make an equal amount of sense for him to take care of the chores.
What would interest me, however, is if someone did a study to see how marriage affected a woman's earning potential when her husband was the one to stay at home.
Posted by: Kathy at
01:35 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 3 kb.
WASHINGTON - With the acquiescence of their leaders, key House Republicans are drafting Social Security legislation stripped of President Bush's proposed personal accounts financed with payroll taxes and lacking provisions aimed at assuring long-term solvency.Instead, according to officials familiar with the details, the measure showcases a promise, designed to reassure seniors, that Social Security surplus funds will be held inviolate, available only to create individual accounts that differ sharply from Bush's approach.
Under current law, any Social Security payroll tax money not used to finance monthly benefits is in effect lent by Social Security to the Treasury, which uses it to finance other government programs. Government actuaries say the surplus is expected to vanish in 2017 when benefit payments exceed payroll taxes collected.
In addition, the GOP bill "doesn't deal with solvency," according to another official, indicating it would avoid the difficult choices of curbs on benefits, higher taxes or changes in the retirement age needed to implement the president's call for long-term financial stability.{...}
{empahsis mine}
Grrrrrr.
Yes, let's suck up to the AARP once again. Never mind the millions of younger people who have to foot the bill for this bit of stupidity. They don't count because our polling numbers tell us they don't vote. And the people who vote are the ones we need to be paying attention to. Because they're the ones who keep sending us back to Congress, and our cushy jobs with our cushy paychecks, every two or six years. By all means, they're the ones who matter. Not the people who foot the bill.
One of the secondary reasons I voted for Bush was that he promised to do something about Social Security. He promised to give me control of a part of my money, to invest as I saw fit. While I never thought the solution he was plugging would be the one that made it through Congress, this proposal is too little, too late. I sincerely hope that he vetoes this pig if it actually makes it through Congress. If he chooses not to, well, that's YET another sign to me that he really wanted my vote, but now that he's got it, he doesn't really care all that much.
Perhaps, the next time an election comes around, I won't vote Republican. Perhaps I won't vote at all. I am sick and tired of playing by the rules. I always vote. Because I believe that if you don't, you don't have a reason to bitch. You didn't take part and you have effectively disenfranchised yourself. Well, you know what? It doesn't do me a fat lot of good to vote when the disenfranchisement happens anyway, does it?
I can understand Congress being a bunch of wishy-washy idiots. That, apparently, is their purpose in life. But if the President accepts this "compromise," and, at some point in the future---after millions of dollars in pork have been attached to the stupid thing---signs it into law, well, that's it. That will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
Posted by: Kathy at
10:24 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 546 words, total size 3 kb.
Now, please don't get me wrong. I would like for her to be found as much as the next person. I am sorry for her family because it's obvious that they are only looking for her body right now. It's a horrible situation all around, but I'm failing to see why so much coverage is being devoted to her story, other than that it's apparently a slow news summer.
That and the fact that the networks apparently needed another pretty young thing to focus on.
I'm tired of this. And I mean, I'm really, really tired of this. Women, it appears, are only of value to the tee vee news networks if they disappear or are murdered horribly. And if they're pretty. They do have to be pretty. Because no one really focuses on the ugly, fat women that disappear or are murdered, do they? Apparently you have to be white, with big eyes, carefully groomed hair, and tastefully applied makeup to rate. Oh, and it helps if you're skinny as well. You can have some extra meat on your bones, but only if you're pregnant. Cable and network news have taken a cue from Hollywood on this one: if they can't cast you as the girl next door, you don't rate.
The families must really have a heck of a time submitting snapshots to the networks, don't you think? Good God, the pressure of that choice must be horrible on top of everything else. And I'm not being sarcastic. Can you imagine what it must be like, to be in that situation, to want desperately to get the word out about it, and then have to find a recent snapshot that's exceedingly good? One that shows your loved one at their finest? Because you'd know that the media wouldn't deign to cover the story if your loved one just had a mistake of a haircut or color job? Or if they were having a bad time keeping control of their weight? It must be a horrible thing to know that their physical beauty could be the one thing that might make the difference. That's a double-edged sword if there ever was one.
I'm weary of this. While I'm sorry for Miss Holloway and her family, I just don't see where this is news. Reporting the latest rumor about which of the four well-connected Arubans contacted their lawyer today is not news. There are literally hundreds of other women who are murdered or go missing every day of the week. I'm sure the fact she went missing in Aruba, a nice tropical locale---with plenty of posh hotels for all the reporters to stay in---isn't hurting matters, either, but let's face facts: it's because she's pretty that her disappearance is a priority story. And that's just wrong.
What's even worse is the number of people who are lapping this story up. And by that you know who I mean, don't you? Yes, that's right. I'm talking about the viewers. They have been devotedly tracking this story, like they knew her when they didn't. The networks at least have the excuse that they're only providing what the public wants. What excuse does the viewing public have? Yes, they can claim they're only interested in the story; that there seems to be an epidemic of violence against women, and that concerns them; that they're interested in poor Natalee's fate. And I suppose those are legitimate excuses, up to a point. But, what I would like to know is that if they're so interested in this particular missing-persons case, why aren't they interested in all the other missing persons cases? Perhaps the ones they read a quick blurb about in the paper? Or see on their local news? Because it's not logical to say that you're interested in this case, but not all the others. Unless, the real reason they're interested in is because poor Natalee is pretty. Could that possibly be it? Hmmm. I wonder.
Everyone's guilty on this one. The people who watch, and the people who provide the content. And I'm tired of being guilty by association in this little media festival of the grotesque because there's nothing else on. I feel dirty after watching some of these reports. And I'm really tired of feeling that way.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:46 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 749 words, total size 4 kb.
June 21, 2005
Oh, le gag.
I'd love to smash in his fat head like an overripe pumpkin on Halloween night.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:03 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.
Did I mention it's stainless steel? And that I can fit wine glasses on the top rack?
WooT!
Anyway, here's a bit of a roundup.
- Does it ever worry anyone else when Steve-o decides to wax rhapsodic...about anything? Yeah, that's what I thought. Your bomb shelter or mine?
- Speaking of the Llamas, I must say, dear Robbo has greatly disappointed me with this very lax critique of the DirecTV Sunday Ticket ads. Who cares if it's from Willy Wonka or not. What really matters is that those @#W$#$#$@#$@$ ads are ANNOYING AS HELL! Particularly when they play it again and again and again. Really, Robbo. I was hoping for more.{Insert windy sigh of disappointment here}
- There are times when I wonder if Doug would like to go down to the Portland Avenue headquarters of the Strib and just start beating the crap out of the editorial board. Methinks they've got it coming. And people wonder why I don't subscribe/bother to read that paper anymore.
- Usually it's the French waiters who do the bashing, but that little bit of truth isn't going to stop Phoenix from dishing out some payback. Oh, and she, too, chimed in on the Diva topic of the day. Go and read.
- Margi's preggers and there's apparently no such thing as too much information.
- The Manolo, he has the inside story on the David Spade.
- Go over and read Rich's blog. He likes it when people do. Really. And because I owe him an email and since you people are my minions, well, you'll have to give up some love on my behalf.
- I meant to link this one yesterday. My bad, yeah, I know. But it's worth the wait. Fausta wonders if Batman is a Republican.
Allrighty then. Go forth and share the love that is a link dump, kids. Your karma will be all the better for it.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:53 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 3 kb.
Remove leftover food, bones, toothpicks and other hard items from the dishes. It is not necessary to rinse the dishes before putting them into the dishwasher. The wash module removes food particles from the water. The module contains a chopping device which will reduce the size of food items.Note: If hard items such as fruit seeds, nuts, and eggshells enter the wash module, you might hear chopping, grinding, crunching, or buzzing sounds. These sounds are normal when hard items enter the module. Do not let metallic items (such as pot handle screws) get into the wash module. Damage can occur.
From my new dishwasher's owners manual. Which is the Whirlpool Quiet Partner II, model DU1100.
Should be interesting to hear that puppy in action, no?
Posted by: Kathy at
05:10 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.
The bad news is that they're trying to install it now, and they're, of course, this being the Cake Eater Pad, having some issues with it. They got the old one pulled out all right, but when they were checking the connections or something like that, some ancient part blew. I was in the office and all of a sudden there's this hissing noise. It didn't sound right. And you know what? It wasn't right. There was water shooting all over the kitchen floor from underneath the sink. No one happened to be there at the moment, but the back door was open so I screamed, "TURN IT OFF!"
Well, we got that cleaned up. And, really, I did need to clean the kitchen floor anyway, so the fact that I now have to mop is really a non-starter. Really. But, as it turns out, the part that blew, well, it's because the plumbing's old and---FOR SOME STRANGE REASON---Tweedledumb brought a new cold line all the way up from the basement a few years back, but didn't bother to bring a new hot line up at the same time. The old hot line was, apparently, good enough for him. So, now they have to replace that. In case you didn't know, I live on the second floor of this house. It makes things interesting.
Fortunately, both the landlord and the plumber seem to know what they're doing and are interested in getting it done quickly. Which is good because I haven't showered yet today. And I smell right now. So it would be nice to have the water turned back on sometime soon.
And I'll have a dishwasher by the end of the afternoon, which will really make my freakin' day! I cannot bloody wait for it. After dinner tonight, I will be able to load it up and NOT HAVE TO WASH EVERYTHING BY HAND!
Woohoo! That will be so freakin' exciting. I cannot wait. I LOATHE washing dishes. So, God Willing, I will be able to retire the marigolds after this afternoon. Keep your fingers crossed that another bit of Tweedledumb's laziness doesn't come back to haunt this endeavor.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:55 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 2 kb.
65 queries taking 0.1366 seconds, 247 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
