I saw this one yesterday, but was too gobsmacked to comment on it.

Fortunately Michele saved me from my angst and said it all perfectly.

Whichever eedjit came up with this harebrained scheme deserves to be struck down by a Wagnerian lightning bolt.

But I'm pretty damn sure Elmer wouldn't weep over his/her remains.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

Bastards.

Complete, utter and incredibly greedy bastards.

When these people do get their acts together and there's a season in the offing, I would ask my fellow hockey fans to make them pay for their behavior. Don't buy your season tickets. Don't pay gobs of money to go to a game. Don't watch them on TV and deprive them of ratings-driven payola.

Both sides have shown they're all about the money---so much so that they're willing to completely abdicate their livelihoods to make a point about salary caps. Let's show them we're all about the hockey. They will undoubtedly get their acts together sometime before the next season is to begin. Sometime in late September/early October 2005 would be my bet. One season they could take. Two? I don't think so. Major League Baseball learned its lesson after its players strike: don't piss off the fans as they pay for all this largesse. Can we teach the NHL and its players the same thing? Yep. It could be even more satisfying than ignoring MLB, if you ask me, given the attendance levels at games, which would whoop MLB game attendance each and every time. Which says nothing of the ratings. Particularly during the playoffs. But attendance is the key, because I know the Wild has a sweetheart deal with the Xcel Energy Center and derives almost half of their revenue from ticket sales. How many other teams are the same, I wonder. Cut that off and you've got them.

I can go another year without hockey. What say you?

UPDATE Courtesy o' Michele: FREE STANLEY!

This is a great idea. The cup should be awarded this year---NHL or no NHL. Lord Stanley did hockey a great service by presenting the sport with this cup. And he never played hockey!. He was, however, a hockey parent. It was because of his sons' love of the sport that he commissioned the cup to present to the best amateur team in Canada. It was never meant to be held hostage by those greedy bastards in the NHL. The NHL doesn't deserve it.

FREE LORD STANLEY'S CUP!

Posted by: Kathy at 12:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

Courtesy o' Martini Boy, there's new DVD copy protection on the loose.

Macrovision announced new technology today that it hopes will stop users from illegally copying DVD movies. The technology is called RipGuard DVD and it's going to make its way into DVDs starting with the new High Definition DVD films later this year.

The idea behind RipGuard is that it plugs the original security hole that was exposed by the DeCSS software back in 1999, which bypassed the CSS encryption program. This allowed even the average consumer to copy a complete DVD to their computer and distribute the DVD on file sharing networks.{...}

Now, this may seem like the logical choice for the Hollywood higher-ups, but it's not, particularly when there was a better encryption option out there. According to Forbes {registration required}, a gentleman by the name of Paul Kocher, who wrote part of the SSL (Secure Sockets Layer), had a better and cheaper solution to the problem. One, I daresay, which might have actually worked. For a time, anyway.

{...}What Kocher is pushing is the concept of renewable security. Any attempt to erect a one-time, rigid barrier between thieves and content, he says, is useless, including the current method pushed through by the Japanese consumer electronics companies. "With very few exceptions, all the major security systems being used by the studios today are either broken and can't be fixed, or they're not deployed widely enough to be worth hacking," says Kocher.

Under the existing Content Scrambling System, electronics makers install the exact same encryption code into nearly every DVD player. But that was broken by European hackers in 1999 and the trick disseminated widely on the Internet. Even the least sophisticated user can now download a program that easily copies protected movies.

Kocher's alternative is to allow for constant change. His system, called self-protecting digital content, places the security on the disc instead of in the player. A software "recipe" running into the millions of steps is burned onto every new movie disc. Each DVD player would contain a small chip costing only a few extra cents that would follow the recipe faithfully. If the DVD player decides the disc is secure, it will decode it and play the movie. But each film could have a different recipe. So if a pirate breaks the code on Spider-Man 2, he wouldn't necessarily be able to break the code on Elf. The studios would always be one step ahead of the thieves; at the very least it would take pirates more time to break each film. Not a big deal: Studios make most of their money from DVDs in the first three months, anyway. {...}

Well, Hollywood didn't go for that option, which actually makes sense and would provide a relatively small wall against hackers and ther P2P-using ilk. But they didn't go for it. They went for the exceedingly dumb option instead.

At some point in time Hollywood has to realize that technology isn't only good for producing the latest and greatest special effects or the newest blockbuster from Pixar. It's not like I want them to get with the program. {cough, cough} I also derive a great deal of amusement from their idiotic efforts. It would, however, be nice to not have to hear them whine anymore.

Maybe if they weren't all using Macs, they might get an idea.

Ya think?

Posted by: Kathy at 05:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 576 words, total size 4 kb.

Bleech.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.

It's pretty obvious that I'm a Minnesota blogger. Locals will have been tipped off by the phrase "Cake Eater" in the title. Non-locals will have read my various scribblings about what it's like to live in the Twin Cities. People know where I live. Recently, however, some of my very nice fellow Minnesota bloggers have added me onto their blogrolls as a member of the "Minnesota Organization of Bloggers." This is a facetious titling to lump all of us who live around here into a barely coherent group. Short form: I moseyed to a bar in downtown and met a bunch of fellow bloggers who were nice enough to blogroll me. This pleases me and I'm proud to be one of the chosen few. (And I will be reciprocating shortly. I've just been lazy.)

Pleasure aside, though, because of said lumping into Minnesota Organization of Bloggers (aka The Journey to Keegan's), well, I got an interesting email yesterday. From a state level politician who's running for one of the biggie state level offices. I don't want to out the guy until he announces his intentions publicly, so he will remain nameless. I don't mean to diss his campaign manager, either, because he's just doing his job by getting the word out, but... I have to wonder what the hell were they thinking by sending me an email full of paragraphs like this one?

"{...}recognizes the key role that bloggers, and especially Minnesota bloggers, have begun to play on the forefront of the new media
revolution. As 'journalists', in both the original and traditional meanings of
the word, Minnesota bloggers are increasingly becoming opinion leaders
and sources for original information...wants to acknowledge that
vital role in public policy discussion by including bloggers as part of
'the media' as they release information.

While I think it's good that campaigns are bringing bloggers into the fold and I applaud their efforts, my main reaction is what the fuck are these people thinking? I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, when did The Cake Eater Chronicles turn into blog where the author actually gave a rat's ass about Minnesota politics?

I spend very little, if any, time writing about Minnesota politics. And anyone who actually read my blog would know this. There are many reasons I avoid it, but the main reason would be I abhor state-level politics. It bores me. I know other people love this sort of thing but I don't. Yet all is not lost. The beauty that is the blogosphere dictates that if something doesn't interest you, well you don't have to write about it because many, many other people will. But because it was a bulk email thrown out to many people, it's obvious I've been lumped into the CITIZEN JOURNALIST* blog category.

Bleh

Note to campaign managers everywhere: this is my personal op-ed page. I am not a CITIZEN JOURNALIST. I am a citizen op-ed writer. There's a difference. Good luck with everything. I wish you well, but save yourself time and effort in the long run and don't bother me.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:33 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 534 words, total size 3 kb.

Martini Boy on hockey season being officially over:

The last time the NHL failed to award Lord Stanley's Cup, it was due to a global flu epidemic that killed 20 million people. This time, millionaire owners and millionaire players can't agree on a few contractural issue.

Now my stomach is really upset.

Mine too.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

...why they call Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, "Red Ken."

LONDON (Reuters) - London's outspoken Mayor Ken Livingstone has refused to apologise for calling a Jewish newspaper reporter a war criminal and concentration camp guard, despite complaints from Britain's main Jewish group.

"Are you a German war criminal?" Livingstone was heard saying on a tape recording of the exchange with the Evening Standard journalist at a event to mark the 20th anniversary of former cabinet member Chris Smith announcing he is gay.

When the journalist said he was Jewish and was offended by the mayor's remarks, Livingstone replied: "Actually you are just like a concentration camp guard."{...}

But wait, there's more...

{...} A statement from the mayor's office blamed the paper for harassing guests and provoking the mayor. His office said the mayor would not comment further.{...}

Catch that one? Livingstone was the one who was harrassed and provoked. Not the reporter who was compared to a concentration camp guard.

Using Livingstone's own standards for acceptable rhetoric, I believe a comeback including the phrases, "Uncle Joe," "Purges" and "Wanker Mayor not having the necessary skills available to survive them," would have been appropriate under the circumstances.

UPDATE: The husband challenged me in the comments. Here is the transcript of the conversation. Further developments can be found here.

Livingstone is a wanker.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

The past couple of days, as you might have sussed due to a dearth of posts, I've had errands to run. Now, since we here in the Cake Eater household are automobile-less for the time being, this means, on occasion, riding the bus to get places we cannot walk to. On Monday, I had to hop the bus to the library. Yesterday, I had to go down to the area around Southdale. I have to tell ya, I've had it with the sidewalks, or rather the lack thereof, in either place.

I'm sure you know what I'm talking about if you've ever ridden the bus to the suburbs of your fair city: sidewalks made for drivers, not walkers. Any sidewalks that might be around are added strictly as an afterhtought so drivers do not have to risk life and limb walking through an unwieldy parking lot, rather than for walkers/mass transport riders who don't have cars. After being dropped off at the central hub that is the mall, these mass transport users/walkers find themselves walking across great swathes of parking lot to get where they need to go, because the fastest way from Point A to Point B is, indeed, a straight line. At other times, they find themselves having to walk through and then practically halfway around a mall because some landscape designer/urban planner/mall designer dude thought the parking lot would look better from the air if they designed the parking lot in a circle. They find themselves having to dodge traffic because there are no crosswalks and when there are crosswalks, well, the drivers are so surprised to see someone actually walking they forget how to brake. They find themselves, as in my case, hopping off the bus at the library and having to walk from the bus stop and all the way around this huge wrought iron fence and into the parking lot, where the cars enter, because no one thought that it would be necessary to include a break in the fence, let alone lay down seven feet of sidewalk, for someone who had----GASP---taken the bus to the library.

And I'm not even going to get into how the few sidewalks that are meant for pedestrians disappear when it snows because that's where the plows put the snow they clear from the roads.

I am sick and tired of hearing from the Met Council how fabulous the Twin Cities' public transportation system is. I am sick of having to pay increased taxes for the mucho fabulouso 11.5 mile long light rail line that doesn't serve anyone other than the Mall of Gomorrah, the airport and the east side of Minneapolis. I am sick and tired of listening to the bus drivers whine about their pay and benefits. I am sick of service cutbacks and schedule rearrangements. But mostly, I am sick and fucking tired of being told what a great alternative mass transit is compared to driving a car and then having to walk extra because of modern transportation logistics and sidewalks that are designed for drivers rather than walkers! If I have to go downtown or to uptown, I have no issues with riding the bus. Why? Not only is it quicker than driving, but also mainly because there are plenty of sidewalks to accomodate pedestrian traffic. In the suburbs, however, I have yet to see that they even think of pedestrians when they design sidewalks. This is why no one in their right mind wants to ride the bus out in the hinterlands. And this is what the Met Council fails to appreciate. This is what everyone fails to appreciate.

Honestly. Designers don't even think about the fact that people will take the bus places in the suburbs. It does not cross their minds. Case in point: the Edina Branch of the Hennepin County Library. This building is less than two-years old, its former location having been appropriated for the new City Hall/Cop Shop. They put in a bus stop right across the street from the library. Did they perhaps think that someone would take the bus to the library? No, hence no sidewalk through the massive wrought iron fence. This is bureaucratic blindness at its finest. Oh, we have to make sure people have acccess to the library, so we'll make sure the bus stops there, but most people drive and the biggest complaint we had at the old location was that there wasn't enough parking, so we'll must make sure to add more parking! And honestly, that's as far as their thought processes go.

While this is a pain and a half for me, what about other people who ride the bus? The elderly shouldn't have to walk for ages through a non-crosswalked street or climb a snowbank to get to the safety of the sidewalk. And then you have the handicapped. Because no one ever looked at the situation outside of a driver's perspective someone who takes the bus and who is in a wheelchair would have to dodge traffic to get to either end of this library parking lot where they could enter. They wouldn't even have the option of getting onto the sidewalk because cars park on the street, and that's only if there isn't a snowbank the size of Pike's Peak blocking the sidewalk. While there are special buses for the handicapped that do drop them at the door, the regular street buses are enabled for handicapped riders, too. How is someone who is handicapped to handle this? They'd better have a motorized wheelchair, because the library is at the top of a hill, too, and if they had to manually push their way to safety it would take some time. The City of Edina, in an inspired act of idiocy, has just make wheelchair riders more vulnerable to being hit by a car because they didn't think!

Posted by: Kathy at 02:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 986 words, total size 6 kb.

MSNBC's officially scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Yeah. That'll get your ratings out of the ninth level of hell.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

While it might be a bit much to take this early in the morning, I really do mean that.

There's two sides to this story: the nonsensical and the sensible.

First for the nonsensical:

A schoolteacher in France has been fined 10,200 euros (£7,033) for illegally swapping hundreds of music albums on the internet.
The 28-year-old man must pay the money to copyright companies, in a decision aimed at deterring others.

Officials said he was one of the worst offenders for sharing music online, making available up to 10,000 songs.

{...}He also had his computer confiscated and was ordered to take out newspaper advertisements announcing the verdict and punishment.

Poor guy.

Now for the sensible part.

{...}The court case came as 70 musicians, academics and politicians signed a petition calling for a halt to legal action against people who download music for their own use.

"Like at least eight million other French people, we have also downloaded music online and are thus part of a growing number of 'criminals'. We ask that these absurd lawsuits stop," the petition published in the Nouvel Observateur states. {...}

As Mike from TechDirt says,

{...}Either way, as more musicians seem to be recognizing that unauthorized distribution is actually good for them, the claims from the recording industry that they're doing this to protect musicians is looking increasingly weak.

Now if only Metallica, et.al. would jump on that bus.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

Eric Crouch has finally given up the dream of playing quarterback and has signed with the Chiefs to play as a defensive back.

Well, it's about time, you freakin' idiot.

Methinks this is more about the fact he's got mouths to feed and a Husker football commentator position at Omaha's Channel 7 doesn't pay nearly as well as the minimum salary for the NFL, but that's probably just me. I don't think those local car dealership endorsement deals were cutting it, either.

Crouch's head was allowed to swell to gigantic proportions as a result of his Heisman win. He honestly and truly believed he should have replaced Kurt Warner and Bret Favre on their respective teams. He'd won a Heisman, after all. They hadn't.

Idiot.

It's good to see that he's been officially humbled and that his head can return to normal size.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

Dear God in Heaven.

To answer Michele's question: If I had a daughter, no, I would not let her even contemplate purchasing that dress for prom, let alone allow her to leave the house wearing that. In fact, I do believe the husband would lock said imaginary daughter in a closet until she came to her senses.

Any parent who buys that dress for their daughter should expect to become a grandparent nine months after prom. I hope they're ready for it.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:50 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Upon the urging of environmentalists,San Francisco wants to tax its residents 17% for plastic grocery bags. And just so they don't come off as being discriminatory, they're going to go for the paper bag users as well.

The point of all this being to "encourage" people to use their own bags to cart home groceries. It's more evironmentally-friendly, of course. Because these plastic bags wind up in trees, in the bay, etc.

And this comes after the Board of Supervisors passed "A new "backyard dog" law {which} says canines are entitled to a change of water once a day, palatable and nutritious food in a non-tipping bowl, and a dog house with a top, bottom and three sides. Tying up the dog is highly discouraged. "

San Francisco is a beautiful town. I love visiting, but as the saying goes, I wouldn't want to live there. Mainly because the residents of that fair fiefdom have their priorities out of whack.

There is a large contingent of homeless people who live there. They are, quite literally, everywhere. You cannot walk down the street without being accosted by panhandlers. The majority of the homeless I encountered were very, very ill. Most belonged in a hospital and should have been receiving treatment for whatever ails them. But they're not. Why? Because it's too expensive.

According to a native we became chummy with while we were there, the State decided it could no longer afford to pay for their upkeep and let them out. Willie Brown---Mr. Personality himself---as Mayor decided the city couldn't pay for their treatment either. But he didn't let them walk away emptyhanded, either: they receive a benefit from the City which, when added to their Social Security payments, adds up to about $800 a month. Just enough money to keep them self-medicated with booze or drugs, but not enough to help them afford treatment or a place to stay.

While we were there, we stayed in a hotel that bordered the Tenderloin district. It was very noisy at night, with lots of homeless people loitering about and screaming at one another. We wondered why they liked to gather right outside our hotel room window. Turns out there was a convenience store right next door that allowed the homeless to---ahem---run up tabs on liquor purchases. All they had to do to receive this marvelous service was to sign over their assistance checks once a month. And of course the convenience store doubled as a post office, too. Wouldn't want those checks going anywhere else, would they?

What's worse is how the homeless have become so accustomed to not receiving any help from anyone that if you do try to help, well, they'll turn on you. As we were there for a convention, we hosted some receptions and of course there was some leftover food. I asked the waiter if we shouldn't give it to the homeless that were wandering around. He told me, very gently, that while a very nice idea, that he wouldn't do it, because he feared for his safety. And he wouldn't let me do it, either. He said I would be mobbed and attacked. I let the matter go, but it seemed awful to have leftover food that could have done someone some good go in the trash. Particularly when those it would have done the most good were, literally, right outside the door. The leftovers wound up going home with the waiter.

This is how San Francisco deals with their homeless problem. It's an absolute shame and as far as I can see, no one on the Board of Supervisors is interested in dealing with the problem unless they get a fat check from the State or the Feds to tackle it. Gavin Newsom is the new Willie Brown. That they would worry more about dogs being chained up in backyards or that people should bring their own grocery sacks to the store is shameful.

Which judgment, of course, they would reject as bogus because there is no such thing as shame and how horrible of me to throw my Midwestern, faith-based construct on their lofty ideals. They don't deserve that. How dare I judge them. Their ideals are lofty. They came out of Berkeley: they must be correct. Their ideals are fantastic, because everyone's equal and no one is judged poorly for their behavior. Their ideals also allow them to rip anyone who doesn't agree with them a new one as much as they want. Their ideals mean that Golden Gate Park was really set up for protests, not for the enjoyment of their fellow citizens. Their ideals ensure the best of treatment for puppies and the environment. But their ideals also do absolutely nothing for the neediest of human beings they ignore every damn day of the week.

I hope they rot in hell. Because I do believe hell exists, even if they don't.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 822 words, total size 5 kb.

Even if you do manage to remove Joe Buck from calling Sunday's game against Philadelphia, you're still not going to make it to the Superbowl. Sorry, kids. It's not going to happen...again.

So, leave Joe alone, eh? He's a good guy who does his job extraordinarily well. After all, if Joe can sit next to Tim McCarver for the entire baseball season and still manage to restrain himself from beating the crap out of his broadcasting partner (particularly when McCarver soooo deserves it) that should show you something of his professionalism.

That and Randy Moss was actually being "disgusting" when he mooned the fans at Lambeau. You're getting yourselves worked up over nothing.

And just for the record: I'm not a Packers fan.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

As the Cake Eater Father was always saying during my youth: why would women want to be equal when they're already superior?

While I'm fairly certain my dear old Dad was trying to get around the feminazi movement in a clever way with this statement, and that equal pay for equal work wasn't really at the top of his mind, the man's got a point. We bring life into the world and nuture it. Men, no matter how hard they try, simply can't do that. Furthermore, we keep men from killing one another for sport. We keep them in line and our society is better as a result. There is already great power in this, yet most feminists refuse to see it. They only see what they don't have, instead of exploiting the power angles that we already possess.

I've long said that if we women really wanted to rule the world, all we would need to do is have a day like the Great American Smokeout, but only we'd call it the Great American Flash-o-Rama or something similar. It's a pretty simple concept, really. Heterosexual men lose all train of thought when their eyes light on a pair of boobs. If every woman in the country took off their shirt for a day, we could take over while the men were busy looking at our boobs and could fix most of the problems with a little ingenuity and some elbow grease by four p.m.

This would take some sacrifice on our part. Women generally don't enjoy acting like strippers. This is fine, too. After all, women are better than men: we don't want to act like them. Men are constantly acting in reference to their perceived penis size. God only knows what havoc would result if cup size came into it. But I digress---the reason women would never do something like this is because we have men where we want them already. If we have to throw them a bone---like handing over the keys to the kingdom---every now and again, fine. So be it. Strife only enters the equation when you want to balance the equation not realizing it's---ahem---already balanced.

So, no I don't consider it to be a big deal when a man opens a door for me, or pulls out my chair or stands at the table when I'm in the process of sitting down. I like it. While I fully recognize this sort of act is mostly a matter of common courtesy, and not an act of deference to my sex, I sort of like the thought that it might be an act of deference to me as a woman. What is wrong with that, I ask you? Men wouldn't be here if we women weren't around: why not pay homage to that? Why would some woman get upset over having Neil Cavuto let her off the elevator first, and then hold open the door for her? Why is Cavuto's act automatically some demand for submission to the ruling patriarchial world order?

The chick's got problems if a chivalrous man causes her that much bother. There are women, all over the globe, who have serious problems with men who could teach this woman a thing or two about the real struggle for female equality. These are the women who are ritualistically raped by their male neighbors and then are stoned for having committed adultery---even if they're not married. If they're not stoned, they're told that---because of something they had no control over---they have brought shame upon all the male members of the family and are treated accordingly. Which means being beaten to within an inch of their life. Sometimes they're even murdered because of this shame---and the men get off when they're charged with the crime because said shame is an ok excuse for murder.

These are the women whose genitals are mutilated when they are small girls because their male family members do not ever want them to experience sexual pleasure as it might morph them into a loose, libertinious woman.

These are the women who are not free to divorce an abusive spouse, but whose husbands are free to divorce them simply by saying the words "I divorce you" three times.

These are the women who are wrapped up in yards and yards of black cloth to prevent men from being tempted by their wares.

These are the women who are not free to leave their house without the accompaniment of a male relative because no other man is allowed to have contact with them unless that man is there. And not because the male relative is afraid of the sexual ambitions of some unknown man---he's afraid that this woman might lure the man into temptation. He's protecting the man and not the woman to whom he is related.

These are the women who are legally banned from driving a car because if it broke down, who would be able to help them?

These are the women who today, at the beginning of the twenty-first-century, still have no say in how their government runs because they do not have the right to vote.

I could go on, but I think you get the gist. This chick doesn't have a clue as to what's really important, and if she thinks that she's showing solidarity with her oppressed sisters across the globe by refusing a kind gesture, she's kidding herself.

In other words, save your resistance to the patriarchial hegemony for when it's really needed and will really make a difference.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 933 words, total size 5 kb.

Wow.

I didn't think it was possible to take the wind right out of me with a simple statement anymore.

I guess I was wrong.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

King Fahd (or Crown Prince Abdullah. Take your freakin' pick.) may hold the very impressive sounding job title of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, but he's also your friendly Saudi Arabian telephone company owner as well.

And they don't want Saudi citizens texting in votes for a reality show, ala American Idol. Instead of doing the reasonable thing and simply voicing an opinion against this sort of behavior, what did they do instead?

They used their ownership of the phone company and just blocked 9.5 million people from texting in their votes.

{...}"We feel the program does not match the values of the Saudi culture," said spokesman Saad Dhafer. "Our social and economic market research shows that our customers want us to operate in line with these values."

I know. With all that malarkey about morals and values you'd think this move was about the reality show, but in actuality it's about text messaging. Because...

{...}But Dhafer added viewers in the kingdom were still be able to vote using a regular land line.{...}

Hmmm. I wonder how much a call to the land line costs? Is it a toll-free line? Or is there a charge? I'll bet you anything there's a charge for that call.

Anyone know?

If true, well, what does that tell you about what's really important to the House of Saud? Morals or money?

Posted by: Kathy at 02:26 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

To the email spammers of the world:

Ahem.

I don't have a penis. Hence I am not interested in penis enhancers. I am a woman. We don't have penises unless we have "issues" and require serious and painful surgery to resolve said "issues."

Please take note of this and stop sending me spam asking me if I want to enhance junk I do not have to begin with.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:39 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

Snort.

UPDATE: It's a good day for evil chuckling.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

WRONG!

To: Hollywood
From: Me
RE: The Raping of My Childhood

Would you people cut it the HELL out? I've about had it with you people raping my cherished childhood movie memories because some Genius Producer decided it would be a fucking fantastic idea. Furthermore, I've had it with your faulty assumption that because a. I loved the movie when I was a child and b. I am now of reproductive age that I will c. automatically take my 2.5 children to see this flaming piece of crap. And, like, because, like, it's got Johnny Depp in it, and he's, like, all HOTHOTHOT right now! And he was, like, fantastic in that pirate movie!

I am not a sheep. I do not utter multiple "BAAAAAAA"'s because you want me to.

What is the matter with you people? Have you nothing better to do with your time than to exploit my very happy childhood because yours was bad so you spend a thousand dollars a month on therapy? Is this your plan for world movie domination? Are you sitting in some feng-shuied-to-hell-and-back office on the Warner Brothers lot, greedily rubbing your palms together, a maniacal cackle on the verge of slipping from your collagen injected lips, just waiting for the cash to start rolling in?

GOD!

But let us diverge from the topic of the rape of my childhood memories for a moment and focus on other things.

What sort of rhinoplastic hell did you force Johnny Depp to endure to look like what you thought the part of Willy Wonka should look like? Did you set him up for an extended stint in the Elizabeth Taylor Suite at the Joan Rivers' Institute for Advanced Rhinoplasty for all the work, or did you simply inject a botox suppository up his ass to avoid all those troublesome shots of botulism? Have you possibly noticed that he's as white as a goodamn mime, as well? Did you give him whatever Michael Jackson is afflicted with or is that simply makeup? I'm assuming it's the latter, but you people throw around your money like a redneck throws beer bottles up in the air for shooting practice, so one simply never knows. You do realize that with the white face and the obsession with children, Johnny does kind of give off that whole Michael Jackson-pedophile vibe, right? Because that's what I thought of. I began wondering when Charlie was going to be taken aside and shown Willy's wee-wee.

Furthermore, if you're going to spend GOBS of cash hiring Tim Burton---and then spending millions of hours dealing with the weirdness that comes part and parcel with him---you might want to make sure your visionary is actually, you know, being visionary. From what I've seen it looks as if he ran the original film through the filters of the stoners he lived next door to when he was a freshman in college who, like, thought the movie was so trippy, maaaaan! Your visionary envisaged nothing new. He did not take Roald Dahl's work to heart. Rather, he took the original movie to heart and went from there. While I could not pick out the oompa-loompas as the cuts were too quick, all the sets nonetheless looked exactly like the original. Only darker. Because Tim is, like, so dark What? Was Tim having a few off-months or what? You might want to think about getting your money back. This movie is going to scare kids. It will not make them wonder about the wonderful world of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, wishing they could win their very own gold ticket. It will, however, make them worry about the bad, bad man up on the screen. But, take heart, people. If nothing else, it should work as a wonderful anti-drug campaign in about five years.

Which brings us back to the original topic: what the hell were you thinking, remaking a beloved classic? Do you people not know the Rule of Remakes? Let me enlighten you: YOU DO NOT REMAKE A MOVIE THAT WAS GREAT! You just don't do it. You PISS PEOPLE OFF when you do. You can, however, remake a movie that had a great premise but was faultily executed. If you need an example of this rule, see Ocean's Eleven. There are plenty of bad movies around. Go trolling through the vaults and find one of those to remake. Don't fuck with brilliance. The Gods of Brilliance should and will---rightly, I might add---strike you down for your impertinence, you fucking morons, because you're raping my fondly held childhood movie memories.

I'll save my venting about how Johnny Depp will never fill Gene Wilder's shoes for another day.

There. I feel better. Now, run to the therapist and cry your poor widdle eyes out because the bad, bad woman was mean to you. Maybe you'll score some extra prozac for your troubles.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:08 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 822 words, total size 5 kb.