The 200th Anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar comes and goes and we have not one squeak out of Robbo about it.

Hmmmph.

I wonder if this could be the reason.

Oh, and just because I can...

Posted by: Kathy at 10:00 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been hit again---twice---in the meme department.

If you're interested, take the jump! more...

Posted by: Kathy at 02:25 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1410 words, total size 9 kb.

*At least that's the Cameron I think they're referring to, but we are talking about MIT geeks. It could be something obscure.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:04 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

I simply cannot make my mind up about Live 8. I really can't.

I remember watching Live Aid during the summer of 1985. I remember actually having permission to watch MTV all day long, and that was unusual because MTV and VH1 were VERBOTEN in my parents' household. (According to my parents, they only showed "smut," in case you were wondering.) Not like that usually stopped me, but at least, for one day, I didn't have to be covert about it. Don't ask me why I remember this bit, but I also remember my mother having purchased a boatload of peaches that weekend. She was going to can something like fifteen flats of peaches (there had been a bumper crop that summer) and she needed my help to slip them of their skins while she filled the jars and manned the canning equipment. This wasn't a job you had to be there the entire time to do: she'd pour the hot water on the peaches, she'd call me in from the family room where I was watching Live Aid, I'd run and do my deal, scalding my fingers in the process, then I'd run back to the family room, three rooms down to see what else was happening.

Because a lot happened that day and it was pretty cool for an impressionable fourteen-year-old. People were actually doing something about the pictures they saw on the news every night and that was cool. And it was new. History was being made and I, who was busy running back and forth between the tee vee and the kitchen in my house in Omaha, Nebraska, was a part of it because I was watching. I didn't have any money to give, but they had my support. My fourteen-year-old self supported their efforts wholeheartedly.

But I'm not fourteen anymore.

And that's precisely why I'm leery of this whole thing. Here's the official website of The One Campaign. I'm sure you've seen the ads in recent days, like I have. And while I'm wholeheartedly for the overall goal they're advocating, it's this "One Voice" business that's bothering me. Because if we're all to speak with "one voice," well, if I sign my name to this, doesn't that, in a way, make me responsible for stupid statements on the part of the celebrities who are a part of this along with the good things they're advocating? Because they've made it plain and clear that they don't want my money: they want my voice instead.

And I value my voice more than I value my money. Even if neither of them means all that much in the real world.

Here's their declaration:

“WE BELIEVE that in the best American tradition of helping others help themselves, now is the time to join with other countries in a historic pact for compassion and justice to help the poorest people of the world overcome AIDS and extreme poverty. WE RECOGNIZE that a pact including such measures as fair trade, debt relief, fighting corruption and directing additional resources for basic needs – education, health, clean water, food, and care for orphans – would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the poorest countries, at a cost equal to just one percent more of the US budget. WE COMMIT ourselves - one person, one voice, one vote at a time - to make a better, safer world for all.”

I agree with most of that. Debt relief is good, provided it's not going to countries ruled by kleptocrats and dictators, like Zimbabwe. Corruption is, of course, reprehensible and should be fought against vigorously. Same goes with the living conditions of much of the developing world. I disagree, however, with the notion that there is such a thing as "fair trade"---nothing in life is fair, particularly economics. These people, I believe, would advocate more WTO and IMF intervention in these matters and I don't believe that would help anything. A free market is what is needed to level the playing field. A free market where countries could get a fair price for the goods and services they produce without protectionist tariffs and subsidies screwing things up for the little guy. These people, I believe, would advocate a legal solution that would ensure that first world economies would suffer and that the see-saw would swing toward developing nations. I think that if first world countries ended subsidies and tarriffs, the market would open up to developing countries' goods and services and the market---not some IGO---would decide who would be successful and who wouldn't. But that's just me.

And my voice isn't worth as much as say, some rock star's voice.

{...}"I think in some ways that's the key thing -- the actual money on the table," said Richard Curtis, the writer of hit films such as Four Weddings and A Funeral who is one of the leading members of the anti-poverty campaign.

"None of the pop stars would tell you that they understand these issues in depth, but the politicians do and what politicians have to understand is that actually the pop stars do represent normal people."{...}

{emphasis mine}

Ummm, no they don't. Chris Martin---Mr. "All Shareholders Are Evil, Yet I'm Very Happy To Cash The Multimillon Dollar Checks My Record Label Sends Me"---doesn't represent me. I have absolutely NOTHING in common with Chris Martin. He's not a "normal" person. Or Richard Curtis, other than we both call ourselves writers. He's not a "normal" person, either. I have nothing in common with Brad Pitt or Emma Thomspon or Jamie Foxx or Tom Hanks, either. These are not common people. They're all loaded to the gills with money. They live in big houses that cost millions of dollars, and they don't have to struggle to come up with the mortgage payment. They drive fancy cars that they purchase with cash. They are famous, well-paid people, who are probably, in part, motivated to help because they feel guilty about all the money they have. My voice means absolutely squat in the real world. I can yell all I want, but all I'm ever really doing here with the blog or in real life is adding it to the cacophany of people who still won't be listened to no matter how loudly we all yell. We're easily blocked out by those in charge. But my voice still means something to me. I value it highly, even if other people don't. These celebrities' voices, however, are worth something. When they speak, the world listens.

So, you can understand why I would be a bit leery to sign this thing, can't you? I mean, in essence, I would be advocating an international shadow government made up celebrities, who want to wield their power to do good, but whose methods I would perhaps disagree with. Is the end worth the means? And that's only provided their ends actually work and do some good. If I add my voice to theirs, well, it would finally be worth something, wouldn't it? But is that what I want? To signal politicians that the only time they have to pay attention to the masses, me included, other than on election day, is when celebrities get involved and push hard for something?

I don't know. Good intentions do indeed pave the road to hell. I believe the Ethiopians who were supposed to be helped by Live Aid might have some opinions about that, provided they're still alive today to give them. Yet if this whole thing could mean even a partial end to poverty; that it could potentially give relief to people who need it, how could I deny them that? After all, my voice isn't worth much by itself or even with a million others added to it; my voice is cheap; why should I hesitate to add mine to theirs?

Hmmmmm.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1315 words, total size 8 kb.

Victorino, one of the Galley Slaves, had the opportunity to attend a screening of The Great Raid, which is a story about American POW's being rescued from a Japanese camp in the Phillipines in 1945 and has a mini-review about it up. (Sorry, kids. Couldn't find a trailer to save me life!)

The Japanese were horrible during WWII. They hadn't signed the Geneva Convention, hence they weren't going to even bother with the little things, let alone the biggies, like food, water, basic sanitation, or even medicine. In particular the Japanese treated the Philippines like it was their own personal violent sandbox. And, yes, we're talking civilians, too. Once the Americans evacuated in 1942, it was like someone had waved a red cloth at the charging bull. They'd already done their worst in Nanking and Shanghai and other parts of China: I don't think anyone thought the Japanese could actually do worse than that, but they were wrong.

(Victorino has his own bit of disclosure about his father, as do I: my next door neighbor when I was growing up---the closest thing I had to a grandfather---was a survivor of the Bataan Death March. And he was a doctor, too, so just try to imagine what he saw and lived through. And, no, I never talked to him about it, so I don't know. After looking it up in the encyclopedia, I couldn't bear to ask, even though my mom encouraged me to.)

I digress as usual, so, anyhoo...

Noting that portraying such baddies might be touchy for Japanese actors, Victorino states:

{...}Credit should also be given to the Japanese actors who no doubt made a courageous decision in accepting the roles of ruthless killers. And who knows if the film will ever be shown in Japan? (Thanks to its distributor, Miramax, the movie should get some good press stateside.) Unlike The Thin Red Line, there are no moral ambiguities here. It is quite clear the occupying power did some really bad things.{...}

This is where the "you never know" bit comes into it. It might be released in Japan, and they might actually like it. A few years back I read a wonderful book: My Spy: The Memoir of a CIA Wife by Bina Cady Kiyonaga, a redheaded Irish-American from Baltimore who married a Japanese-American from Hawaii. In 1946. Yeah, your eyebrows should be up somewhere near your hairline. Her husband, Joe, worked for the CIA and, in between stopovers at Langley, was posted all over the world---along with his wife and five kids. As you might imagine, one of his postings was in Tokyo. Where, one night in 1957, they were invited to see the Japanese premiere of The Bridge on the River Kwai.

You can find the relevant excerpt after the jump. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 12:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1070 words, total size 7 kb.

Courtesy of Sheila, we have MORE Tommy Boy nuttiness.

{...}Cagle: Most people are reluctant to talk about religion, or anything controversial, when it is your job to be likable to mass number of people around the globe. Why, especially in recent years, have you become so vocal about Scientology, about psychiatry, which you're against?

Cruise: Communication is the universal solvent. That's why I talk about it. What I believe in is that people should be able to think for themselves, and they should be able to make decisions, based on information, on being informed. I don't believe that children should be forced on drugs. I think parents should be informed on the effects of these drugs.

Cagle: I think what upsets some people when you talk about this, what upset Brooke Shields, for example, is that you imply that someone's own experience with psychiatric drugs was, they were mistaken by the way it helped them; that other studies that are done that contradict what you believe are erroneous

Cruise: What do you mean?

Cagle: Other studies that show that maybe Ritalin does help some kids.

Cruise: When you see a study done, you have to look and see who did the study. When someone's on these psychiatric drugs, they have to try and step off these drugs, and I've stepped people off these drugs, Jess. They can go into seizure. All right, it's easier to step someone off heroin. It's more dangerous. They need a medical detox on these drugs.

Cagle: And yet some people have said they've taken them for a while, and then they've gotten off them, and it's helped them through a rough time.

Cruise: Jess, it's a point of, you look at something and you go OK. I've been on the other side of that, when people's lives have been torn apart, where you talk about suicides, where we're looking at now Ritalin is street drug; it's a study drug, because it's an amphetamine. Look, you don't have to believe me. I'm just saying, look at the data and where does that data come from? Now you need to evaluate" What is help, Jess? Is "help" that that person will sit there quiet? Did you really get to the root of the problem?

So, let's see where Tommy Boy has upgraded his message since his interview with Matt Lauer.

1. Tommy Boy, apparently, cannot conceive that someone's own good experience with psychotropics is better than Scientology studies that make claims to the contrary. Because they only took them as a result of faulty research. And if we only really knew the whole story, well...

2. Tommy Boy, apparently, seems to be implying that suicides happen because people are on psychotropics. Most people see them as the things that KEEP PEOPLE FROM KILLING THEMSELVES.

Now, Tommy Boy is not only claimng to be an expert on psychiatry, he's also a detox counselor. And apparently Ritalin is worse to get off of than heroin. Yeah, right. And he knows this for a fact because he helped them "step off" these drugs. Yeah, Right. I'm pretty freaking sure he sat there and held their hair back while they puked. Mmmhmmmm.

And the phrase, Tommy Boy, is not "step off" it's "get off." Learn your detox lingo, my friend.

"Doctor," heal thyself! Before someone gets killed.

As far as the whole universal solvent thing is concerned. That sounded a wee bit funky, like it came from someone else's mouth, so the husband googled it for me. Here's a funny, and telling, anecdote about "universal solvents."

One day the famed German chemist Justus von Liebig was approached by an assistant, who excitedly declared that he had just discovered a universal solvent. "And what is a universal solvent?" Liebig asked. "One that dissolves all substances," the assistant explained. "And where," Liebig replied, "are you planning to keep this solvent?"

Posted by: Kathy at 10:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.

Courtesy of the Llamas, we have an individual who's going to stick it to A Supreme for their Kelo vote.

{Insert evil cackling here}

Posted by: Kathy at 03:56 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

It's Tuesday, so of course it's time for the Demystifying Divas and the Marvy Men's Club to step up on their soapboxes and start pontificating.

This week's topic on which I am about to start pontificating: The guy flick/chick flick thing.

Now, I will admit, I have been somewhat lax in following along on the message boards we have set up for the private hashing out of future topics. Hence, I have no idea what I'm supposed to be shooting for with this subject, or if I'm supposed to be shooting for anything at all. Fortunately, I have plenty of ideas for this subject without prompting from my cohorts in any particular direction. I'm all about the diversity, no?

When one thinks of the typical "guy flick" a beefy, greased up, camo-wearing, M-16 holding Sylvester Stallone comes to mind. You automatically think of Rambo, in other words. This, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, is the penultimate guy flick. Or at least that's what my brothers would have told you way back in the day. (I fully realize I'm dating myself with this one, believe you me. My only defense is that, at the time, I was twelve.)

I've never seen any of the THREE Rambo movies, nor will I ever want to. Why? Because a. Sly looks just freakin' greasy in these movies and it's revolting and b. I am not interested in some dude running around the jungles of Southeast Asia (read Vietnam) fighting off whatever the hell he's supposed to be fighting off. (At least that's what I think the plot line is about. Who knows? I could be wrong. Pffft. It's not like I'm interested enough in the subject to look it up.) It just doesn't interest me. Neither am I interested in any John Wayne movie. Neither am I a big fan of Clint Eastwood (And, no, I've never seen Unforgiven. Yes, I fully realize most people think it's one of the best movies ever made. Pfft. Just not interested in it.) or his Spaghetti Westerns.

However...

There are plenty of movies that most would consider to be "guy flicks" that I do like. I am a James Bond nut, and have been ever since my brother Dave introduced me to the joy and wonder that is Dr. No and From Russia With Love. I'm a Sean Connery girl, just in case you were wondering, but Pierce Brosnan is a very close second. My favorite Bond movie? Thunderball. It's got it all: Sean Connery in those tight little swim trunks; a good Bond girl and a bad Bond Girl (and, man, was she ever bad...and that was cool); supersonic jets landing on water; Largo and SPECTRE; and a massive underwater fight scene with those super-duper cool motorized thingymabobs. I, mean, honestly...what more could you ask for? Dave also introduced me to another guy flick that has since become one of my absolute favorites: Die Hard. When I was younger, I was a big Bruce Willis fan because of Moonlighting, hence he was the main reason I liked this flick. As I've gotten older, however, I've realized that Alan Rickman, truly, is the reason to watch this movie: it would be half of the movie it is without him. He's the man with the plan, and that's ever so much fun to watch.

And that, I believe, is what it comes down to. Guy flicks, provided they're not overloaded with testosterone, are fun to watch. Chick flicks, or what some people would describe as Chick flicks, like Beaches or Waiting To Exhale, aren't. They're loaded with estrogen. They're all about jerking tears, and if they can't get them honestly, well, they'll do it dishonestly and make everything sad, so that if you happen to be in a bad mood, well, pull out a box of kleenex and settle in for a long night of feeling sorry for yourself. As someone who personally despises crying, well, they're just not my cup of tea. There's something contrived about them. I can't quite put my finger on it, but that's the feeling I get. Yet, lest you think me a cold-hearted chick who's all about the espionage flick, all is not lost in the weeping department. I will fully admit to thinking Steel Magnolias is a brilliant movie, even if---those rat bastards!---it makes me cry every single fargin' time. As is Terms of Endearment, which also turns me into a blubbering fool every time I watch it. You could also throw Love Story into this category, because it will really turn on the faucets.

I have to wonder what it's like for women who don't have older brothers. I have four of them and each of them, in their own distinct way, transplanted a bit of their own likes and dislikes to me, and this includes their choices in movies, reading material and other things as well, too. Besides hooking me on James Bond, Dave also hooked me on a Tom Clancy and Robert Ludlum (I'm referring to the Ludlum novels that were written before he died, of course). I have a fine appreciation of Steve McQueen and war movies (particularly Where Eagles Dare. I can't tell you how many times we watched that one together.) because of my brother Mike, even if I did reject his attempts to indoctrinate me into the Tolkein Fan Club. Steve helped to develop my love of fast cars. And Tim, well, let's just say that Timmy helped to put all of this into perspective for me. They led me down the path that gave me a fine appreciation for the middle-of-the-road guy flick. I have plenty of sisters, too, but they weren't as influential as the brothers. Interesting, no? Well, not really, I know, but still, it's a wee bit curious. What's it like for women who don't have brothers? It's an interesting question. If you, as a female, are influenced by the men in your life and you only have a dad, are you more into chick flicks?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, as far as this goes toward interpersonal relationships, well, the husband has also influenced me in the guy flick department as well. Star Wars was just another movie I was fond of before I met him. I didn't know what Anime was until I met him. And I most certainly did not know anything about the wonderful world of gaming until I met him. But, if you flip the coin, he wasn't familiar with the works of Jane Austen until he met me. He didn't have the patience to sit down and watch a historical drama until he met me. And he most certainly was not fond of the romantic comedy until he met me, either. I've gained an appreciation for new things because of him, and vice versa.

While our tastes have converged over the years, we sometimes still have to flip a coin to determine whose movie we're going to go and see. Because we rarely agree on which movies we want to see. This, we've learned, is the only fair to do it. We'll pull a quarter out and we'll flip while one of us calls it in midair. Whoever loses the flip is the automatic winner the next time around. If, by chance, there are two movies we both want to see, like the conundrum we had this past weekend, where we both wanted to see Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Batman Begins, we assign heads to one movie, tails to the other and flip the coin for that, too. It's simple and it works to keep the marital strife to a minimum.

Now, that I've rambled on long enough to have bored a horse to death, it's time for you to go and see what the other fabulous demystifying divas have to say on the subject. Make sure you go and give a wonderfully warm welcome to one of our new Divaesque Ladies, the magnificent Margi Lowry, who's also got something to say.

I, unfortunately, have some sad news to pass along this week. The Wizard, the famous instigator of The Men's Club, had decided he has too much to do and too little time to do it in, so he is bidding us a fond farewell. We will miss his contributions, but he should still be stopping by on a regular basis. Hopefully. Fortunately, however, Stiggy, Phin and the Minister of Propaganda have decided to keep the side going, so go over and read what they have to say.

In other Diva related news, well, we have something rather large and exciting to announce. We're going to be moving our regularly scheduled Tuesday postings to THURSDAY. This will start next week, July 7, 2005, so adjust whatever you might need to adjust accordingly.

UPDATE: Since it's his perogative, The Wiz has changed his mind about leaving us to our own devices. Hence, he kicked in an essay. Go read.

WooT!

Posted by: Kathy at 12:34 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1504 words, total size 10 kb.

1 Message board?

Posted by: Margi at June 28, 2005 01:19 PM (nwEQH)

2 Now that's what I call pontificating. Excellent, dahling.

Posted by: sadie at June 28, 2005 03:07 PM (7SNDe)

3 I do believe Sadie is working on making it available to everyone...but is having some issues. Or something like that Like I said, I'm not good at keeping up with them.

Posted by: Kathy at June 28, 2005 03:43 PM (yCuZO)

4 Ohhh, YES! Sean Connery {{swoon}}}!! He is definitely the one against whom I guage all others. I'm a huge bond fan. I was so hoping that Highlander dude, Adrian Paul, would be the next Bond. ; )

Posted by: Chrissy at June 28, 2005 04:07 PM (zJsUT)

5 Ahh hes. Adrian Paul. Slurp! Yes, I am a slacker. I will make it my mission to get those invites out via email in the next two days.

Posted by: sadie at June 28, 2005 04:44 PM (2xn/2)

6 Which movie among the "guy flick" genre comes the closest to being a "chick flick"? I always considered "Desperado" to be one for the ladies, despite the death & destruction. Maybe it's Antonio's constant preening for the camera, but several women I've known have professed their love for that movie, despite their aversion to violence in the rest of their lives. Oh, and Kathy - the Ultimate Guy Movie of All Time is Sergio Leone's "Once Upon A Time In the West". No Clint Eastwood, but Charles Bronson, Jason Robards and Henry Fonda ably take his place. The key to a great "guy flick" is having a deep bench, and the presence of Woody Strode & Jack Elam make this the movie the cinematic version of the Jordan/Pippen Bulls teams. You NEED to see this movie.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at June 28, 2005 08:46 PM (M7kiy)

7 The one Clint movie every "person who likes guy movies but doesn't like Clint all that much" has to see is For a Few Dollars More. He's doing his usual Man With No Name schtick, but the cool/grotesque Older Anti-Hero with Bond-like Gadgets and Dapperness (Lee van Cleef, much more sympathetic than in Good, the Bad and the Ugly, unless you have some strenuous objection to the shooting of horses) totally upstages and outwits him at almost every turn.

Posted by: derringdo at June 29, 2005 03:12 PM (BFuRo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If you hadn't noticed, a new mini-blogroll has been added on the right hand side of the page. The Cotillion is not, in this instance, where you learn how to dance and which fork to use so you can consider yourself a proper member of society, but is rather a grouping of female bloggers who would like you to know that the answer to the question, "Where are all the female bloggers?" is "RIGHT FRICKIN' HERE!"

Every Tuesday a few different members of the Cotillion host a ball, where, between them, you can find a roundup of the latest and greatest of what the conservative better half of the blogosphere has to say. This week's ball is graciously being hosted by:

Righwingsparkle
Not a Desperate Housewife
SondraK
MaxedOutMama

Go and check it out.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

There's apparently a slump in box office reciepts.

{...}It was the 18th weekend in a row the box office declined, passing a 1985 slump of 17 weekends that had been the longest since analysts began keeping detailed figures on movie grosses.

{...}Theater revenues have skidded about 7 percent compared to last year. Factoring in higher ticket prices, movie admissions are off 10 percent for the year, according to box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

{...}If the slump continues, Hollywood is on course for a third straight year of declining admissions and its lowest ticket sales since the mid-1990s.

"We're working with a pretty huge deficit that would take a lot of business to overcome," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations. "Just breaking the slump is not enough. We would have to reverse the trend and see attendance on a big uptick."

Well, kids. If the problem is low ticket sales, perhaps you should:

a. stop putting out crap
b. lower your ticket prices

Because option a flows into option b. I can't tell you how many times I've been subjected to full-priced crapola. I get tired of paying full price for crapola. You people have put out so much crapola over the years, and yet you expect us, the paying customer, to shell out our hard earned money for the pleasure of watching said crapola. Perhaps you should think about your business model, because you're not really paying attention to the laws of basic economics, are you? Supply and demand, kids. If you want to make money on the demand portion, you have to supply a product people are willing to pay for. It's pretty simple stuff, on the whole.

I was horrified to learn that a very good film we watched this weekend, The Machinist, was rejected by the American studios. The director had to go to Spain to get it made. Apparently, they know how to tell a story in Spain, whereas if the American studios had made this film, it probably would have been hacked to death to fit some stupid marketing demographic. I'm sad I didn't get the opportunity to see this one in the theater. I would have paid good money to see it in the theater because that action promotes the kind of movie I would like to see more of.

The choice now rests with the consumer. You have to please us or we won't spend the money. You do realize that, don't you? I sincerely hope so. Your expectations, Hollywood, are out of whack and you're now receiving this message loud and clear. Most people make certain calls nowadays about when to see a movie: they go to the theater only for stuff they want to see in the theater; if they're somewhat lukewarm, they'll wait for the DVD; if they really don't care all that much, they'll wait for it to come on cable. You people just seem to assume we're going to go to the theater, then we're going to purchase---or at the very least rent---the DVD, and then that we'll watch it again on cable. That's not the case. We're not made of money, kids. We have to be discriminating consumers nowadays because a trip to the movies can make a serious dent in your wallet.

Now, the basic underlying problem comes in when you go to the theater to see something that looks appealing, you fork over the $8.50 ticket price (and I know this more expensive elsewhere) and then you come out of said theater two hours later, disappointed. You've been forced to sit through God only knows how many commercials and trailers before the film even started...and then the film turned out to be crap. The story was disjointed and poorly told. The overpaid actors didn't do their job very well. The director refused to use a stead-i-cam and you felt like you were going to puke when the action scenes started. All of these things will keep people away from the theater. Because if you want to charge $8.50, you might want to make a product most people would consider worthy of that amount of money, and you haven't done it lately. Perhaps they'll rent it on DVD later on, or maybe they'll watch it on cable. Who knows? But the overall point remains clear: you can only burn us so many times before we start voicing our objections by not buying your product. Do you get it yet?

You don't? Well, let's talk about ticket prices, shall we? This is where you could make up some losses. Because if it didn't cost $8.50 to go and see a movie, more people would go. It's pretty simple. It might become affordable for people. But right now you people don't seem to think that this is an expensive activity. Let me disabuse you of that notion, because it is. When the husband and I go to see a movie, we try to go to a matinee, which costs us a whopping $6.50 per ticket. Not much of discount, eh? And furthermore the local movie theater just informed us the other day that any show after four p.m. on Friday, Saturday and Sunday was going to be the full-price $8.50. Do the math: if we go to see a matinee, it's $13. If we go after four on a weekend, well, it's $17. Imagine buying tickets for a family with four kids and two adults at these prices. The kid price at the local movie theater is $4.50 for a matinee and $6.50 for evening. That's $31 for a matinee showing and $43 for an evening showing. That's hardly affordable and that's just to see the movie. Then if you perhaps want the whole meal movie deal, like a soda or a bag of popcorn, you'll get raped at the concession stand. A small soda costs $3.00. In what universe are you people living? That's affordable? That's fair market value? That's baloney and you know it. People should not have to take out debt to see a movie. And that's what a lot of people do: they use their credit cards to pay for this treat. Because that's ultimately what a movie is: a treat; an entertainment. You make your money on entertaining people. That's fine and dandy, but perhaps you might want to realize you've built your business model on a foundation made of sand. Your product is not necessary in our lives. It's fun and it's cool, but it's not necessary. Your product is the first thing that gets cut from a family budget that needs to be tightened. I know you'd like to think that Art--with a capital A---is as necessary to life as breathing, but really, when the choice comes down between eating or going to a movie, you're going to lose every time.

So, you see, it all adds up. This is our bottom line. We have to pay attention to that like you have to pay attention to yours. We've made our adjustments. You, on the other hand, haven't. You expect business to go on as usual: with us forking over the cash for crap product, and you laughing all the way to the bank.

Not anymore.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:21 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1215 words, total size 7 kb.

Yes, usually I am full of it. I will be the first to admit to it, too. But there are times when my overlarge ego is well deserved.

And this would be one of them.

A-freakin'-HA! I have confirmation! My ego is well deserved.

I rule!

Posted by: Kathy at 01:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems Phin got Madame Sadie to thinking about her new profession:

Phin:

{...}In general I've found that most people hate to ask for help; especially to resolve a situation we've screwed up. Personal observations have lead me to believe that once we've shit the bed we're typically not happy until we've also to flung poo into the ceiling fan trying to take care of the problem ourselves. We'll finally quit when we're neck deep in our own crap with no way out and we call somebody else to clean up it up. It's that moment of being helpless, when we realize that we can't solve the problem and we've made it worse, that causes us to loath lawyers.

Sadie:

{...}With divorces so commonplace these days (Everyone's doing it, didn't you hear?), and most people thinking they got screwed over royally in the legal process, of course lawyers are disliked. Especially when one considers that it a divorce essentially results from the ill contributions by both parties, and not everyone is willing to admit that they failed in love. Add children to the mix, and it gets even stickier. Interestingly enough, the criminal law judge that I once worked for had just transferred off the domestic docket, and he pointed towards the relative civility of the criminal defendants in relation to divorcing couples. I do suppose that since most criminal defendants opt to plea bargain, they must be rather content with the relatively lighter punishment they receive at the hands of their attorneys. Heh. On the other hand, an attorney certainly isn't a marriage counselor, no?

When lawsuits are resolved by negotiation or mediation, there is possibility for solutions that perhaps might benefit both sides. When things get to a lawsuit, only one party technically "wins," although that party may not be as big a winner as they had hoped. So right there, that's at least fifty percent of people involved in litigation at any given time that would tend towards disliking lawyers. With multiple lawsuits and lower verdicts than ever these days, it's easy to see why more parties see themselves as "losers" in the fight against lawyers. {...}

There is much truth to both what Phin and Sadie have written, but as one who's been on both sides of it---working for lawyers and having to have my beloved represented by one---I think there's a wee bit more to it than just the inherent odds of the situation.

Lawyers are a specific breed: they are there to mediate your troubles away. And it's important to realize that they are there to mediate. To negotiate a compromise to a conflict, and to do it within the reaches of the legal system. That's why you hire them. They attempt to solve your problems to the best of their abilities. Now, many people don't realize this. They want the problem to go away and they expect to win. There is no compromise where these people are concerned. They believe they're right, the other party is wrong and that's the way it should be seen by everyone involved. Duh. So, to that extent, I will agree with Madame Sadie.

Where I disagree, however, is in how some lawyers conduct themselves. The good ones will lay the odds out on the table for you, first thing. They will say this is where we have the best option of saving grace, but to save said grace, we will have to give something else up over here. They will make it clear from the get go that there will be no winners, and hopefully everyone will come out of this without feeling like a loser. These are the lawyers who will work their butts off to resolve the situation. They will throw themselves into defending your side of the equation.

These are also, it should be said, the lawyers it costs an arm and a leg and part of the other leg to hire.

The bad lawyers, however, are the ones who promise the moon and the stars. They can make it go away, they'll say. And they'll do it for x number of dollars, which is not cheap, but is a more reasonable number than the other prices you were quoted. You, who are in the desperate situation, want to believe them, and you're really grasping for hope, so, despite your better judgment, you do believe them and you fork over their retainer. Then after a brief flurry of activity on your behalf---announcing to the court that they're your counsel, copies of letters they've sent to the prosecutor proclaiming the same, copies of police reports, etc.---you can't get them on the phone. Suddenly they're "in court" all the time. Their paralegals have no time for you, either. You only see them when you have a court date and then they spend as little time as possible telling you what the deal reportedly is. They scoot off as quickly as possible because they have some other pressing matter to attend to. These are the guys who have subscribed to doing their business by volume. And I'm not only referring to ambulance chasers here, but respectable firms, with nice offices, friendly, well-coiffed receptionists and a big, impressive client roster. These are the firms who strictly keep their eyes focused on the bottom line. You, to them, are a commodity, not a client. Yet another sucker who's gotten themselves into trouble and you are, in their eyes, just another way to make some coin. Hence, all their promises about the moon and the stars and your freedom, which is something you value highly, suddenly disappear. They've baited you, and now they're going to serve up a monster switcheroo: your case is worse than they originally thought. They believe this plea bargain they've arranged is the best option for you to take and they'll push for it. And if you want to take another option, and fight it out, well, it will cost x amount of dollars more than what was originally agreed.

And you'll say, "Hey! You can't do that! I signed a fee agreement where you promised these services, should it come to this, and you now want more money for them? Well, no. That's not the deal we struck. Damnit, live up to your end of the bargain." And they'll say, "Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but you weren't exactly honest with me (which you were, but apparently that's not the way they see it) when you signed up and you can feel free to find other counsel. Which is generally a bad idea at this late date. And by the way, don't bother suing me for breach because I'm a lawyer. I'll just countersue claiming that you breached the original fee agreement by not divulging certain information. This is what I do for a living. I sue people. Do you really want me suing you? I didn't think so. Really, it's not that much time in jail. Or on probation. Just take the deal because the deal with evaporate if you fire me. Then you're back at square one and the prosecutor will be pissed off, too, and won't be so generous the next time around, I promise. Just take the deal. If you don't, you'll find yourself in a whole mess of trouble."

Have I mentioned that this particular type of lawyer is also the kind who will send you a bill for their services and will then bill you for the postage which enabled your bill to work its way through the postal system? I just flat-out love that. It's just so brazen! So brash! So fucking arrogant! If the rest of us tried this sort of thing, we'd be beaten within an inch of our lives. So we don't do it. But that doesn't stop them. They're entitled.

Not only have I worked for this particular breed of lawyer (I was the low woman on the totem pole in the office: I was the one who had to add the cost of a stamp to every client's bill), the husband has also been represented by their ilk. And I despise them. They are so desperate to increase their bottom line, they will violate any and all trust that they've established with you to get what they want, which is maximum money for minimum effort. And they're not above using coercion to get it. The judge that Sadie refers to was so surprised at how agreeable criminal defendants were compared to divorcees. This is because, I believe, by the time they actually get before the judge to enter their plea, some criminal defendants have been beaten into submission by their lawyers. They're tired of it. They just want to get it over with. They've been abused already and what's one more whack when it's all said and done with?

Do I sound bitter? I'm sure I do. When you've paid thousands of dollars for ineffective, lazy counsel who did much less than they promised, you'd be bitter, too. Money doesn't grow on trees, after all, and when you've been suckered one too many times, it stings. Not only in the pocketbook, or because they did what they did, but because you let them get away with it. You may not have felt you had a choice in the matter, but you did let them off the hook nonetheless. You didn't call the Bar Association to complain, because would they actually listen to your petty complaints? No. Did you tell the judge? No, because why on earth would they believe you an "alleged" criminal. It's a "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me," situation. And the shame of it is huge. Because not only have you been stung financially, you've lost your freedom as well. It's, ultimately, your own damn fault because you were stupid enough to believe them in the first place.

So, while I'm sure I sound bitter, let it be said, however, that we have had good experiences with lawyers, too. One in particular who saved the husband's bacon with his felony dwi. He was one of the aforementioned "good lawyers" who laid everything out on the table first thing. Not surprisingly, he also cost an arm and a leg to hire, too. He bluntly told the husband he could not escape jail time. There was just no way to do it. But he worked the situation and he worked it hard to make sure it was the most positive outcome he could deliver. He answered questions. His paralegal answered questions. He updated the husband on the developments in the case without having to be prompted. But, most importantly, HE DIDN'T FUCKING CHARGE FOR THE POSTAGE HE USED TO SEND OUT HIS STATEMENTS. He was worth every dollar we paid him. And he'll probably be hired again soon when the husband applies to the court to be released from his sentence. Because the husband has been a good boy and has done everything the court has asked of him. He thinks he has a fighting chance of being released early from his probation, and with this lawyer on his side, I, too, think he has a decent chance. But what's really important is that if the husband doesn't have a good chance, well, this lawyer will tell the husband that flat-out. He won't "try." He'll either do it or he won't. And he won't send us a bill, either, to tell the husband that.

So, to wrap up this bit of longwindedness, yes, lawyers perform an important task. No, they don't all deserve the bad rap they receive. But there are plenty who do deserve the bad rap and they're the ones who ruin it for everyone else.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:14 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1968 words, total size 11 kb.

1 Damn woman! I think I just received a crash course in professional ethics.... You definitely made your case. Just damn! Yeah. We all know that the pricks are out there. I just hope like crazy that I'll never become one of them.

Posted by: sadie at June 27, 2005 02:25 PM (7SNDe)

2 The toughest thing to do is that which the client needes most--the attorney's unvarnished assessment of where things are and how much it will cost. I do not sugarcoat anything and if something sounds like a bad idea, I will tell them that they will be wasting their money. Sometimes, I have to preface it with something like: "while my kids will appreciate your willingness to put them through college . . ." Clients appreciate it when you give it to them straight, even if the news is not what they want to hear.

Posted by: LMC at June 27, 2005 03:10 PM (61/Yb)

3 Sadie: you won't. I'm sure of it. LMC: I knew you were one of the good ones

Posted by: Kathy at June 27, 2005 04:01 PM (yCuZO)

4 Being that I work for attorneys also, I've found that the easiest way to separate the wheat from the chaff is ask a few trusted lawyers whom they would hire to represent THEM.

Posted by: Margi at June 27, 2005 09:35 PM (nwEQH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We had a bit of a Christian Bale weekend here at the Cake Eater Pad.

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.

Yes, ladies. Fame, fortune, a fat book deal, and good reviews in the NY Times Book Review can be yours if you take it up the ass.

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.

1 This story kind of puts a new spin on the old saying "Working Your ASS Off", huh? Whoa Nellie! This one just BEGS for a myriad of snarky puns. I don't know which is worse, being famous for being famous (Paris Hilton), being famous for being a reality show loser, or being famous for bragging about your "anal receptivity".

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at June 26, 2005 09:24 PM (M7kiy)

2 As if being a woman and working like hell to be taken seriously in a man's world were not enough, some bimbo has to go out and make it THAT much harder for the rest of us. Trash. Just trash.

Posted by: Christina at June 26, 2005 09:52 PM (zJsUT)

3 Russ, I actually had a hard time narrowing it down. So many snarky things to say, so little time. Oh, the title change is due to you. Works better.

Posted by: Kathy at June 26, 2005 10:05 PM (yCuZO)

4 Skanky Washintonienne's put to the test the ages-old maxim, Whoring pays, and there you have it. Expect movie rights to follow.

Posted by: Fausta at June 27, 2005 06:37 AM (G3tVf)

5 Kathy - I thought your original title was better, but I'm flattered you used my line. Fausta - this might be the first time in history that the mainstream Hollywood movie follows the lead of the porn flick. Usually, porn flicks have to steal ideas from mainstream films ("Crocodile Blondee", "Splendor in the Ass", "Reservoir Bitches", etc.) In this case, I'm shocked that porn flicks featuring a backdoor-oriented congressional staffer haven't filled the shelves like Teddy Ruxpin dolls or Star Wars Merchandise. PS - please don't hold my knowledge of porn titles against me - my mind is like the trap on a sink, I just can't control what gets caught in there.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at June 27, 2005 07:02 AM (6krEN)

6 I sure hope she enjoys her fifteen minutes. Because as a woman at 40 looking back on my 20s, I have to say that I'm thinking the money will likely be her only comfort when SHE's looking backward. To me, it's cheap and tawdry and that doesn't even address her sexcapades. Skank. That's the word that keeps coming to mind.

Posted by: Margi at June 27, 2005 01:05 PM (nwEQH)

7 Margi, she ALREADY looked backwards......and while doing so she said "Hey, are you about done in there? I've got another appointment at 4 o'clock." Calling this woman a Skank is almost doing a disservice to all the upright God-fearing Skanks out there. PS - congrats on your "Blessed Event"

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at June 27, 2005 05:49 PM (M7kiy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Oh. My. God.

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.

1 He's just gone off the deep end....I can't even fathom the lengths this publicity stunt has endured. I guess we can look forward to the E! True Hollywood Story....

Posted by: sadie at June 24, 2005 06:31 PM (zZMHN)

2 Ton didn't graduate from high school??

Posted by: Fausta at June 25, 2005 07:54 AM (G3tVf)

3 Make that "Tom"

Posted by: Fausta at June 25, 2005 07:55 AM (G3tVf)

4 Hey Fausta, it's Dr. Cruise, OK? He didn't spend eight years in imaginary medical school just so you could call him "Tom" or "Ton", whatever. You don't have to respect the man, but show some respect for the imaginary medical degree.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at June 25, 2005 09:48 AM (M7kiy)

5 So you're saying I shouldn't take his advice on dealing with the issues I've been having as of late?

Posted by: phin at June 25, 2005 11:05 AM (DGPlf)

6 Fausta: I've read in many places that he dropped out. Whether he went on to earn his GED, I don't know. I suppose it's possible that he could have, but I doubt it. The Cake Eater Chronicles: We're all about regurgitating useless knowledge gained while getting our teeth cleaned! Russ: play nice

Posted by: Kathy at June 25, 2005 11:07 AM (yCuZO)

7 Are we talking about your fascination with puddin' wrasslin, phin?

Posted by: Kathy at June 25, 2005 11:08 AM (yCuZO)

8 Kathy dearest, I know no other way to play. Good call on their position on ADD/ADHD meds versus meds for full-blown schizophrenia. I guess that the difference is that parents of ADD children are more likely to invest their money in THE L.RON HUBBARD VITAMIN LINEUP FOR GOOD MENTAL HEALTH (TM) than the victims of schizophrenia would be willing to do. Talk about preying on the helpless. What's next, will Dr. Tom pull a John Edwards & say "if all of you would just convert to Scientology, your mental problems would just fall away and your physical limitations will evaporate...and you can all rise and walk."???

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at June 25, 2005 01:24 PM (M7kiy)

9 I had a dream last night that we lived high on a mountain-top in a cabin with all modern conveniences. We had Secret Service type guards to protect us from Tom Cruise. I have GOT to lay off the pizza before dinner. Point being: Tom Cruise = Mid-life crisis. Definitely.

Posted by: Margi at June 25, 2005 02:39 PM (nwEQH)

10 It's not so much that Tom thinks he's a doctor, it's that L Ron was paranoid about psychiatrists and that Scientology makes money off of their "therapy." So we're a direct threat. In his mind, at least. And of course he's more knowledgeable than Matt Lauer about psychiatry. Obviously, ignorance is the only reason someone wouldn't think psychiatrists are evil.

Posted by: owlish at June 25, 2005 05:14 PM (QqkkN)

11 Does Tom Cruise know more about psychiatry than a medicial doctor? No. Does Cruise know more about psychiatry than Matt Lauer? Yes. Is Cruise a quack? I think so, but even quacks aren't wrong all the time. Some peychiatry is quackery. Cruise would like you to believe it all is. I believe the correct approach is to sceptical about psychiatry, not hostile.

Posted by: David L at June 25, 2005 07:58 PM (enA7B)

12 I think the "research" he did was when he read those scientology papers on psychiatry, so you know, now he's an expert. He certainly knows more than we do about what what decisions we should make with regards to our own mental healthcare. You know, I've never really been that impressed with Tom Cruise as an actor, but I think he could quite possibly become one of the greatest cult heroes of our time...

Posted by: val at June 25, 2005 10:12 PM (NTaUK)

13 Great post - it shows why celebrities are not precisely the oracles of wisdom. Why Congress keeps inviting them to testify I don't know.... If it's okay with you, I would like to use this one for your Cotillion entry!

Posted by: MaxedOutMama at June 26, 2005 08:50 AM (J6SSl)

14 Go right ahead I tried to send it to your email account, but it apparently doesn't like yahoo mail.

Posted by: Kathy at June 26, 2005 05:01 PM (yCuZO)

15 I submitted a piece on Kelly Preston and pschyotropic drugs for Cotillion. Tom Cruise is an idiot, that's for sure. And it is the Scientology movement fighting to remove the drugs as an alternative. My piece however was about school districts making it mandatory for kids to be medicated without the proper testing that's needed for a legitimate diagnosis. It has become a growing problem and Kelly Preston, et al. have been fighting it. Perhaps if Mr. Cruise would have approached it the way Preston does he wouldn't look the fool. But hey, I'm sick of him so I REALLLY enjoyed it.

Posted by: Stacy at June 28, 2005 12:43 PM (pO1tP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Nothing quite like being asked for poetry ideas.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Don't ask Chrissy if "she's got her husband's permission to buy a new car."

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.

Have I mentioned that the Divas have taken over WitNit? Mark's in Singapore, just trying to keep himself from chewing gum, and he asked us to take over.

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
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.

Not usually a big Joni Mitchell fan, but it seems appropriate in regards to this.

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.