Then I watched while the Lamb broke open the first of seven seals, and I heard one of them four living creatures cry out in a voice like thunder, "Come forward."

I looked and there was a white horse, and its rider had a bow. He was given a crown and he rode forth victorious to further his victories.

When he broke open the second seal, I eard the second living creature cry out, "Come forward." Another horse came out, a red one. Its rider was given power to take peace away from the earth, so that people would slaughter one another. And he was given a huge sword.

When he broke open the third seal, I heard the third living creature cry out, "Come forward." I looked, and there was a black horse, and its rider held a scale in its hand. I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures. It said, "A ration of wheat costs a day's pay, and three rations of barley cost a day's pay. But do not damage the olive oil or the wine."

When he broke open the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature cry out, "Come forward." I looked, and there was a pale green horse. Its rider was named Death, and Hades accompanied him. They were given authority over a quarter of the earth, to kill with sword, famine, plague, and by means of the beasts of the earth.

---Revelations 6:1-8

Yep. It's official. It's just about over with kids.

NEW YORK -Kathie Lee Gifford will join anchor Pat O'Brien on "The Insider" next month as a special correspondent for the syndicated entertainment-magazine show.

Beginning Sept. 12, Gifford will appear at least two days a week to cover "big name celebrity interviews and the Broadway beat," Paramount Domestic Television announced Monday. {...}

The Four Horses of the Apocalypse are upon us. Technically speaking they are known as War, Plague, Famine and Death, but they're more commonly---and respectively---known as Frank, Cody, Cassidy and Kathie Lee Gifford.

Make your peace with God now, kids. It's not going to last much longer.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.

I had a banana for breakfast this morning. As is the norm there was a sticker on the banana.

Everything's fine, right? There are always stickers on bananas. Then I actually looked at it...

What the hell was the thought process here? Did some marketing punk think, "Hey, most kids have bananas with lunch, and statistics show that shoppers go through the produce aisle before they go to the freezer aisle, so we'll put the stickers on the bananas. This will remind people to go to the freezer aisle to pick up our uncrustables for the entire lunch experience."

What utter bullshit.

It should probably be a clue that when you're marketing your product by putting stickers on bananas that you've reached the peak selling potential of said product. If people aren't buying them now, a sticker on a banana surely isn't going to do the trick.

It's just a thought, but, perhaps the reason Uncrustables aren't selling well is because, ahem, unless you're him, most people would think it incredibly lazy to buy pre-made, frozen, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that have the crusts cut off. Not to mention they're expensive. I looked them up on Simon Delivers. Four sandwiches for $2.99? Or you can get the 18 count for $12.99 What a freakin' waste of money! That's just the epitome of laziness. If you can't slap peanut butter and jelly on two pieces of bread and then cut off the crusts in the time it takes you to defrost one of those things, you have no mad sandwich making skillz. You're hopeless and you are entirely too susceptible to marketing campaigns.

Grow a spine and make your kid a sandwich that doesn't require defrosting.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

In this instance "they" would be the Scottish Police and legal system. They must not because they're prosecuting some guy for cutting the fin off his pet goldfish.

A MAN cut the tail off his goldfish with a pair of scissors because he was "bored" after a day of drinking.

Kenneth Grindlay, 20, launched the vicious attack on his pet goldfish - before tossing it back into its bowl for his horrified mother to find.

Grindlay, of Rosyth, Fife had started drinking after being left alone in the house for an afternoon and decided to cut off the family goldfish's tail with the scissors - left out for him by his mother to trim his beard - because he was "just bored".

He admitted carrying out the cruel attack at a court hearing yesterday but will not learn of his fate until detailed psychiatric reports are prepared.

Dunfermline Sheriff Court heard yesterday how Grindlay's mother Shona returned home to find the bloodied scissors he had used to maim the six-year-old fish out on the kitchen worktop.

She found the fish thrashing desperately around in its tank without its tail. She then called the police - who arranged for the mutilated pet to be taken to the vet.

The practice decided, however, that its injuries were so severe it had to be put out of its suffering. Grindlay pleaded guilty by letter to cruelty and ill-treating the fish and causing it unnecessary suffering at a hearing last month.

The hearing was told by depute fiscal Azrah Yousaf that the fish's injuries were among the worst that the vet had ever witnessed.

She said: "The police were called. When they arrived the fish was still alive but the police had noticed that it wasn't very active in the tank. The vet described it as one of the worst injuries they had ever seen."

When police arrived to interview Grindlay he told them: "I cut the fin off. I was a bit drunk. I was just bored."

He was later charged under the Protection of Animals Act of 1912 and referred to psychologists at Dunfermline's Queen Margaret Hospital. {...}

Yes, that's right. The guy was bored and drunk and cut the fin off his pet goldfish. He "launched a vicious attack" on his pet. He's having to undergo psychiatric evaluations because he did this. While this was not a nice thing to do and while I fully understand that harming one's pets or other small animals is a big alert that someone will become a serial killer, don't you think that perhaps, just perhaps this is a wee bit over the top? Particularly since it was a freakin' GOLDFISH that was maimed? A fish that, ahem, cannot feel pain.

What's the crime rate in Scotland again? Hmmmm. I wonder. Is there, possibly, anything the cops could be doing other than prosecuting people for cutting the tails off their goldfish? Hmmmmm? Could it be that the only reason they prosecuted this guy was because, ahem, he fessed up to his dirty deed?

It makes one wonder, doesn't it, what they'd do nowadays to all those people who used to participate in "how many goldfish can you swallow?" contests?

Posted by: Kathy at 09:55 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 546 words, total size 3 kb.

I can't say that I enjoy email spam all that much, but there are times, I will admit, when I find the creativity of some spammers interesting. When your inbox is full of penis/breast enhancement spams, it's somewhat refreshing when someone actually puts some effort into trying to rip you off.

Between the husband and I, we've received some interesting variations on the Nigerian Oil Scam Spam in the past couple of days and I thought I'd share.

If you're at all interested, take the jump. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 01:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1515 words, total size 9 kb.

If this guy really is a cop, I don't want him anywhere NEAR me.

{Hat Tip: WitNit}

Posted by: Kathy at 11:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Get a freakin' grip!

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) -NASA is prepared to waive a flight safety rule so it can launch space shuttle Discovery on the first mission since the 2003 Columbia accident if a fuel sensor glitch reoccurs, managers at the U.S. space agency said on Monday.

The malfunction involving one of four hydrogen fuel sensors forced NASA to postpone Discovery's first launch attempt on July 13. For its second liftoff attempt on Tuesday, NASA is considering changing a rule that all four sensors must be working.

"Any time you talk about changing a launch (rule), that is a big deal," said Stephanie Stilson, Discovery's vehicle manager.

"It's huge. That is not something we would go into lightly, as we should not," Stilson said in an interview.

Officials said NASA was willing to waive the rule requiring all four sensors to be working because it feels there are sufficient safeguards and they are confident the shuttle's safety would not be endangered even if one sensor malfunctioned.

Liftoff of Discovery and seven astronauts on a long-delayed resupply mission to the International Space Station remained on track for 10:39 a.m. EDT (1439 GMT), despite minor damage found on a heat resistant tile on Monday that delayed launch preparations slightly.

NASA spokesman Bruce Buckingham said technicians spotted a "small ding" on one of the tiles that protects the spaceship from superheated atmospheric gases on re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, and it was "swapped out." Launch preparations were quickly brought back on schedule, Buckingham said.{...}

Sigh. I feel sorry for the poor people at NASA. That they should have to defend the action of waiving a rule that says you have to have four working sensors when three are working is ridiculous. Never mind that the fourth sensor is three times redundant, these poor people have to defend their actions to the utmost, otherwise this could be---ahem---something an astronaut could die from!

Well, far be it from me to point this out, but I do believe these astronauts know what the hell they're getting themselves into when they strap into a machine that's going to slingshot them into space. Nothing in this world is perfect, particularly not with a machine that flies into space. The entire endeavor is not safe. It never has been and it never will be. Figure it out.

What is it with these nannies in the media and in Congress? Ever since Columbia exploded two and a half years ago, I've watched in awe as everyone and their mother has bellyached about making space travel safer. And by that I don't mean they want to make it safe within reasonable expectations. They want the shuttle to be a freakin' Volvo, replete with side airbags and parachutes for the astronauts. They seem to think that if the astronauts had parachutes and a better way of exiting a space shuttle that's---ahem---in the process of exploding at a high altitude, these astronauts would be able to exit the shuttle and pull a rip cord. They would then float safely to earth from 50,000 feet or higher and would live to tell the tale.

Ok, that's a nice thought, but it's not going to happen. Do you remember how quickly both Columbia and Challenger exploded? I believe it took eight seconds for Columbia to explode. That's simply not enough time for the astronauts to undo their restraints and jump out of an escape hatch. Never mind that parachuting from that altitude is generally something only SEAL's do on on a rare occassion. The only reason pilots of F-18's and the like find themselves alive after an accident is because the roof of their plane explodes and they're forcefully ejected from their plane. Nothing even remotely similar was proposed for the Space Shuttle in all of the caterwauling that occurred after Columbia exploded. They simply couldn't remodify the shuttle for such a thing. Which should be a big honkin' clue to the rest of us that the commission meetings were not about making the shuttle safer: they were about making the people on the ground feel better about astronauts dying. They were doing something. Well, that's all well and good, but what did they actually get done at the end of the day? What, exactly, is different on Discovery because of Columbia's explosion? If they'd really wanted to make the shuttle safer, they would have done something about those ridiculous tiles that have been a problem since day one, wouldn't they? Those tiles were directly responsible for Columbia's demise, but they did nothing about them. The shuttle is still lined with them.

Space travel is something we're obviously still working out. The shuttle was a big step toward making a reusable aircraft. What I don't understand is how people could not understand that we don't know everything when it comes to flying into space. We just don't. We're still working on figuring it out. These new Magellans and de Gamas, our astronauts, know this. I have to think that they know precisely what they're risking in this endeavor to learn more. If they're willing to take on that burden, why shouldn't we, the people on the ground, trust that they know what they're doing?

I'm not saying that NASA doesn't have it's problems. God only knows that that organization has its issues. But it's time to go already. They shouldn't have to defend against worthless accusations of not wrapping the shuttle up in bubble wrap.

Nothing will happen tomorrow when---and if---the shuttle lifts off. It will all go smoothly, I predict.

So, stop worrying and light the fuse, already, eh?

Posted by: Kathy at 10:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 946 words, total size 6 kb.

Does anyone find it even remotely ironic that Roman Polanski is suing Vanity Fair for libel over "allegations" that he slept around right after his wife's---Sharon Tate---death, yet this is the dude who PLED GUILTY to sleeping with a thirteen-year-old girl and then fled the country to escape sentencing?

Good. I didn't think I was the only one.

I'm somewhat tired of always being told how sorry we should feel for Roman Polanski. He's a genius, his defenders say. He didn't mean to sleep with a thirteen-year-old in Jack Nicholson's hot tub. She looked older than she really was. She seduced him. It only happened because he was so distressed over his wife's death. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Whatever.

You're either a grown-up and you take responsibility for your actions, even if they land you in the can for a while. OR you have the good sense to shut the fuck up about it. It's pretty goddamned simple, if you ask me. But the one thing you do not do is sue a magazine for libel because they point out the one part of your well-documented sex life that seems disrespectful to a dead woman. You made your bed, Roman, you little slut. Now lie in it.*

pun fully intended

Posted by: Kathy at 03:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.

For the love of God.

LOS ANGELES - Actor Colin Farrell is suing a woman for allegedly trying to distribute and profit from a sex tape he says the two recorded with the agreement they would never make it public.

The lawsuit filed Monday in Superior Court seeks general and compensatory damages as well as a temporary restraining order and injunction prohibiting the sale and exploitation of the videotape.

Farrell, 29, accuses Nicole Narain of trying to distribute the tape through an intermediary. The two had an intimate relationship 2 1/2 years ago and both agreed that the 15-minute tape that shows the couple having sex would be jointly owned by them and would remain private, according to the suit.{...}

See, here's the thing, Colin. You're a celebrity. You're famous. You're also tabloid fodder because of the way you act. Soooooooo, doesn't it make just a wee bit of sense to you that perhaps, just perhaps, if you don't want a sex tape of yourself running around on the internet YOU SHOULDN'T MAKE ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Jeez. How stupid can you be? Ah, but I'm judging Colin from the mantle of sobriety. He's a boozer. He doesn't see things clearly.

I ask you this, my devoted Cake Eater Readers: are there ever times in this life when you can just see the outcome of stuff, like you're an author and you know how the book is going to end? Can you see it coming? See, here's what I can see for Colin's future. Brilliant, widely acclaimed actor will keep on acting for a while, and he's going to keep on partying hard, too. Women will walk in and out of his life, and the reason they will keep on walking out of his life is because he's a feckin' drunk. An alcoholic if you will. His family works very hard to keep him from imploding, but they will ultimately fail. It's predestined, because everyone who tries to keep a drunk---famous or not---from imploding fails. It can't be forestalled. So, one day, he will drink himself into yet another stupor and...

...here's where you can play with the ending. But logic dicates that there are only two choices because Colin's the kind of guy where it's either all or nothing.

The Sad, Literary Ending: he will choke on his own vomit whilst sleeping it off. Or he could be behind the wheel of a car and will drive off some cliff in L.A. Or, if you want to be ironic about it, he could be killed by a drunk driver as he stands incoherently in the street, disgusted with his behavior, promising to make amends, swearing that last Guinness he drank was his last drink just as the car smacks him. However you want to slice it, he will die an early death and he will be lauded for the rest of eternity. Like an Irish James Dean.

or

The Happy, PR-Friendly, Tee-Vee Movie of the Week Ending: He will realize he's letting his life slip past in a haze of booze. He will check himself into rehab, and two months later, a shaky, but somewhat solid Colin will emerge from the dark to be praised for his courage in overcoming his demons on the cover of every magazine across the world.

I'm afraid that after having lived through this sort of shit, it all becomes rather obvious after a time. I can spot a boozer at ten paces and it's a tedious sort of knowledge, because you see all the talent that's wasted. Colin Farrell is yet another boozer who thinks he's got his shit together and he doesn't. What's sad is that if you've seen Tigerland you know how talented this guy really is. I don't think any of the standard Hollywood fare he's made since has showcased his talent as well as that small film.

I know. I'm getting my knickers in a twist over someone I don't know or really care about all that much. But when you see it happen, over and over again, well, you just want to knock your head against the wall. It's frustrating because you can see it, but they can't. And you can't even tell them what they're missing because they won't believe you until they can see it for themselves. That's just the nature of the beast. I sincerely hope, even though I will despise the fact his face will be plastered all over the newsstands for months, he opts for the PR-Friendly ending.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 758 words, total size 4 kb.

Because someone is outgeeking you!

Go read the article and be amazed, once again, at what people will do to fill the hours.

Posted by: Kathy at 08:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

This is just disgusting.

From the outside, Ruth Knueven's Mount Vernon home has real charm: a verdant lawn, manicured hedges, flowers blossoming from fresh mulch beds and, near the front door, a garden ornament depicting two playful cats.

But police said that what lurked inside Knueven's two-story home was hardly so delightful. Hidden behind that garden ornament was a house bursting with real cats.

Animal control officers removed 273 creatures -- 86 of them dead -- after neighbors complained vehemently of odors Friday. Cats were still being plucked from the house yesterday, extracted from the walls and from deep within the brick chimney. Traps were set.

"I don't know how they got in there," Fairfax County police officer Richard Henry said of the hidden cats.

Before leaving, officials slapped a bright-orange sticker on the front door, condemning the dwelling on Ludgate Drive that they said was overflowing with feline feces and urine. Knueven, 82, and her husband and daughter were ordered to leave.

Last night, police said, Knueven returned to the house and ripped down the condemnation order. Animal-control officers found her inside trying to smuggle an additional 30 cats out of the home, bringing the total last night to 303. The animals were confiscated, and more traps were set.{...}

Why on Earth would anyone think this is the kind thing to do?

Disclaimer: I've never had pets. The Cake Eater Parents just didn't go for them. Rumor has it we had two cats before I was born, but they didn't make it past day two. (The cats, reportedly, had a love of cars and traffic.) And forget about owning dogs: my ex-farmboy father thinks it's cruel to keep dogs anywhere other than a place with a field attached.

So, while I will admit I have very little experience with pets, I nonetheless have a REALLY hard time understanding why anyone would be so incredibly freakin' selfish as to keep THREE HUNDRED AND THREE cats in their house. And let's face it: this comes right down to human selfishness. This woman, obviously, wasn't worried about the cats as over eighty of them were found dead. She was thinking about herself as some noble rescuer of unwanted beasts even though she did not have the capacity to take care of them properly. I think it should be a big freakin' clue that when you can't keep up with the kitty litter---and the neighbors are complaining about the smell---you probably have too many cats.

I am very tired of people treating animals like they were human beings. Yes, love your dog or your housecat, or your gerbil or whatever sort of pet you have. These are not the animals/people I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who claim to be serious animal lovers, who will do anything necessary to ensure their survival, yet get in over their heads and don't realize it because they're too busy being righteous about their love of animals. A online community I used to frequent had a sort of virtual church attached to the community: people would go there and post about their problems. It was a wonderful place where they could find support because we were an exceedingly friendly bunch of people. (We had no trolls. It was wonderful.) One time one woman posted about how she'd moved cross country to be with this man, who, as it turned out, was abusing her. She would not remove herself from this dangerous situation---even after the bastard put her in the hospital a few times---because she couldn't afford to cart her horse or her five dogs, three cats and god only knows how many small rodents back from whence she came. She was afraid of what her abuser might do to them if she left. So she stayed until she could afford to move all of them, and, of course, she wound up in the hospital one more time because of her refusal to abandon them. She had plenty of friends who wanted her to leave the guy and who offered to shelter these animals, but she refused them: she didn't want to leave without her pets because "her life wouldn't be complete without them." Ooooookay. They're animals not human beings. You are a human being who's having the crap beaten out of her on a regular basis by another human being. Your best option is to leave. You have to leave or YOU MIGHT DIE and you put the animals first? WTF? It made no sense to me then, and it still doesn't make any sense to me now. It was selfish. And what made it even more selfish on her part is that she refused to invoke her right to self-preservation because, apparently, she was willing to martyr herself for her pets.

Now, that's selfish, my friends. And what was worse about the whole situation was that she kept posting about all of this and people agreed with her. They offered her "support to get matters taken care of so she could leave." One other woman and I were absolutely flabbergasted at how her supporters had absolutely no common sense where this woman was concerned. Furthermore, we were verbally slapped at when we told her to just pack up and leave, the animals be damned. Her life was the one that counted. Animals were animals; a human being was entirely something else. But she didn't get it and neither did her supporters. Fortunately, she got away from her abuser, but what would have happened if she hadn't? Would the local media have told her story as one of a devoted animal lover who wouldn't leave without her horse, implying that she'd made the correct, albeit deadly, decision?

It's just wrong to think that because you love your pets their lives have the same meaning as yours---a living, breathing, human being---does. Animals can be wonderful, I will admit, but when you're willling to give your life for theirs, when you're willing to adjust your life around theirs, something is seriously wrong with the way you think. You may claim to be a lover of nature and animals and all that jazz, but you have forgotten about Nature---with a capital "N"---and how Nature doesn't really make allowances for your sort of love.

{Hat tip: Victorino at the Galley Slaves, who has some fun with puns.}

*the husband is deathly allergic to cats and hates them accordingly. To his way of thinking, they hated him first by making it impossible to breathe when they're around so fair's fair.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1115 words, total size 7 kb.

From Brian Williams' Blog yesterday:

{...}Many Americans woke up to a curious story this morning: several of the former Iran Hostages have decided there is a strong resemblance between Iran's new president and one of their captors more than 25 years ago. The White House and most official branches of government are ducking any substantive comment on this story, and photo analysis is going on at this and other news organizations. It is a story that will be at or near the top of our broadcast and certainly made for a robust debate in our afternoon editorial meeting, when several of us raised the point (I'll leave it to others to decide germaneness) that several U.S. presidents were at minimum revolutionaries, and probably were considered terrorists of their time by the Crown in England.{...}

{emphasis mine}

Bullshit.

No one in England---or anywhere else for that matter---would have called George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or John Adams "terrorists." They would, however, have called them---ahem---traitors, because that's what they were to the average Joe or crown sporting monarch in England. They told King George III to go and do something obscene with said crown because they were fed up and they weren't going to take it anymore. That, generally, will get you labeled as a traitor because Kings, as a rule, don't like that sort of behavior. It makes them testy.

Yet, there's a bit of difference between a traitor and a terrorist. And if you can't see that, well, you're a dolt, Williams. But we already knew that because you're the "managing editor" of the NBC Nightly News, which, let's face it, is not exactly the most taxing form of employment and you only need the IQ of your average zoo-residing chimpanzee to get the freakin' job.

{Hat tip: Martini Boy's Bartender. See also: Doug}

Posted by: Kathy at 02:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 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, 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

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.

Well, not anymore he doesn't.

Oh, le gag.

I'd love to smash in his fat head like an overripe pumpkin on Halloween night.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:03 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Sniff.

Posted by: sadie at June 22, 2005 05:01 PM (2xn/2)

2 Yeah, I know. You love him. Sorry babe

Posted by: Kathy at June 22, 2005 05:13 PM (yCuZO)

3 Sokay. We still have Keanu;-)

Posted by: sadie at June 23, 2005 12:55 PM (zZMHN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We had some nasty weather move through roughly about two hours ago. When I left the house a little before noon to go walking around the lake, it was sunny, hot and the skies were blue. And humid. Really, really humid. Because we'd had another set of thunderstorms move through around nine this morning and they'd just---to quote Stella from Rear Window---made the heat wet. As I huffed and puffed around the lake, sweating up a storm (yeech!), I wasn't really surprised to hear over the radio that another set of storms was going to move through. What I was surprised about, however, was that the county was in a severe thunderstorm warning, instead of a watch. I decided to hustle home. And a good thing I did, too, because by the time I'd reached the house, I could see big, blue clouds rolling in from the northwest.

Then the husband called. Our new landlord had called him, wondering if he was home and could walk his suddenly available plumber through a preliminary check of the place because he was stuck at work. Obviously, I was home and was more than willing to show the guy through the place. No hassles. But he was going to be there in five minutes or thereabouts. I raced through the shower---did I mention it was humid when I was at the lake?---and when I got out, well, you'd have thought night had descended upon the Greater Twin Cities area. The clouds had turned blackish-green, which, any native of the midwest could tell you usually means bad things. Like hail. And the occasional tornado.

It started to downpour, and wow, what a storm! It was the first really nasty one of the season. In between keeping an eye out for the plumber, I was watching the waterfall on the south side of the house. You see, Tweedledumb never bothered to clear out the gutters after all the leaves fell. Have I mentioned we have three oaks and five pine trees in the yard, and a few of them hang over the house? So, to put it mildly, there's a few years worth of debris in the gutters. Rather I should say there was a few years worth of detritus in the gutters because it was raining so hard it actually knocked crap out of the gutters and sent it careering to the ground. I've never seen that happen before and it was kind of cool. But no tornadoes, which is always kind of a blessing and a curse. No running to the basement, but no excitement, either. Sigh.

Well, the plumber didn't show up until two-thirty. He'd waited the storm out, but hadn't bothered to tell anyone. Which wasn't really pleasing, but was understandable. I wouldn't have wanted to drive through that storm, either. The "world coming to an end" situation comes in when the plumber left and I left the house in search of a pack of smokes.

I'd run out before I'd gone to the lake. Now, normally this isn't a hassle. Just walk down the street to Walgreens and pick up a pack. No hassles. But where we hadn't lost electricity, which I must admit is a first for this kind of storm, everyone else had. And NO ONE wanted to open up and sell their wares to people who wanted to buy stuff. Because they didn't have power.

Now, I know this is going to sound very "When I was your age, I walked five miles to school, uphill both ways, and it snowed a lot too," but what the hell is up with that? Are you that crippled without power that you can't ring things up by hand? Can't you do the math with a calculator? Can't you keep track of what you sold with a pen and a piece of paper, and then enter it in manually when you have power again? None of these things, apparently, are possible nowadays.

Back in the day when I managed for Caribou, we lost power due to an overeager construction crew one afternoon. And it was no big deal. In fact, it was an adventure. The kids working with me had a ball---when they got over their fear of performing all the transactions manually. I gave the drip brew away because I couldn't guarantee that it was hot and I was just going to have to pitch it anyway. Obviously, espresso drinks were out. But I had a boatload of of bakery products to sell, and believe you me, boy, did they sell. People were hungry. It was lunchtime, and here they were in the middle of a freakin' grocery store, loaded with food, and they couldn't buy anything. I was out of product within an hour. And all because I knew how to use a calculator and how to record things with a pen and a piece of paper, I sold stuff I normally would have pitched at the end of the day. There's opportunity everywhere, and yet, no one in this neighborhood apparently cares about capitalism. No one cares about the law of supply and demand. Because the power's out. And they can't be bothered. Because this was more of a "Woohoo, we've got the afternoon off!" situation for most of these employees, and not one where money could be made.

Not a lot of initiative there if you ask me.

Now, I realize you're thinking "well, the cash drawer locked up. They can't access it." Sorry, that one's not going to fly, because I've seen people get into the drawers at these places with a simple turn of a key. Or you might be thinking, "there's liability issues. Dark store, people bumping around, hurting themselves." Yeah, I understand that one, too, but when they've actually let friends into the store---and I can see them---and you're standing at the front door, telling me to go away because there's no power, well, that's not going to fly, either. And, yes, they had flashlights.

You should have seen this chick at Walgreens. Man, was she ever peeved with me. I told her I didn't need change, but I just needed a pack of smokes. That's all. Here's my id. Here's the three bucks. PLEASE? (Yeah, I was having a nicotine fit. But I was polite about it.) But we don't have power she said in a really whiny voice. We can't sell you anything because it would ruin our inventory. "What?" I replied, somewhat baffled, "Aren't you keeping track of sales manually? You can enter them in when the power comes back on, can't you?" When she whined some more, I finally had to play my trump card: "what are those women doing in there? They don't work here. They work at the salon across the street. How come you're selling to them and not to me?" At which point she let out an incredibly windy, My-God-Are-You-Ever-Putting-Me-Out sort of sigh and then handed over the smokes. I took them and boogied. I didn't want to "bother" her anymore.

It kind of makes you wonder what the case would be if there was a really serious outage. A days long outage. Because that's been known to happen in this neighborhood in the past because our power lines aren't buried. This happened before I moved here, but I heard nothing but goodwill stories. People helping people. Stores pitching in and helping their customers. Gas pumps were unlocked manually and no one stole anything.

I wonder if that would still be the case today. Or would it be more like this, even if it was a godawful movie.

Posted by: Kathy at 04:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1290 words, total size 7 kb.

Oh, that makes soooooo much sense.

In other Tom "I'm MOST DEFINITELY NOT GAY" Cruise news, did you see where he got squirted with water by a fake reporter in London? I don't exactly see how you could have missed it unless you're just checking in from the top of Everest, via a sat phone hookup. In which case, you're excused. But for the rest of you, well, gosh, isn't it striking how well Tommy can dish it, but just can't take it?

{...}Cruise initially appeared to laugh at the incident but then asked the prankster: "Why would you do that?"

As the man gave a barely audible excuse, Cruise said: "Do you like thinking less of people, is that it?" The prankster tried to walk away but Cruise reached across the metal barrier, held his arm and said: "Don't run away. That's incredibly rude. I'm here giving you an interview and you do that ... it's incredibly rude."

The actor grew increasingly irritated and told the man: "You're a jerk." Footage of the incident appeared on Sky News TV on Monday.{...}

Ain't that rich?

We've been subjected to the "Tom Cruise Circus of Dysfunction" for over a month now. We've been told we should be happy because Tom's IN LOVE! That this is the reason why he's, to steal a phrase from Sheila, running around like a gibbering chimp. To make sure his new movie doesn't tank, Spielberg is being forced to give interviews defending his star. And we're supposed to feel sorry for Tommy Boy because he got squirted in the face with a little water? Furthermore, Tommy Boy has to transform the whole incident into a matter of personal philosophy. "Do you like thinking less of people, is that it?" Like Tommy Boy is a complete and utter angel and has never done anything so revolting in his life! The nerve of some people! Scientology preaches against exactly this sort of behavior and, if you'll step right over to the tent that's set up over yonder, those nice people will explain to you exactly where you're going wrong and they'll give you a personality quiz that will last, roughly, for four hours and they won't let you leave! Then they'll tell you exactly how much enlightenment costs, roughly, within the Church of Scientology. Have a good time, sucker!

Bleh.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:21 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.

{Insert Gomer Pyle Voice Here}

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.

Man, I simply, flat-out, cannot freakin' wait for the Baba Waba interview five years from now, when Katie announces to the world---as a part of her "comeback pr tour"---that, yes, indeedy, she made a huge mistake marrying Tommy Boy; that Scientology, really and truly, is a cult; and that---insert drumroll here---Tommy Boy really does prefer cabana boys over cabana girls. Because methinks Katie will be bitter when she finally realizes she's been used. And everything's going to be fair game at that point in time.

Have you ever seen a more self-loathing, closeted gay man? Nope. Tommy Boy really does take the cake on this one. What's really sad is that he's taking advantage of a moderately talented, but extremely naive, young woman who has a future---but doesn't now---to prop up the biggest lie he tells himself. (There is a reason he picked her, after all. Don't kid yourselves. The fact that she's naive in the extreme was a bonus for Tommy Boy.) It's sad, really. If he can't come out publicly, for obvious reasons, he could at least stop taking advantage of young women to cover his ass and, you know, just be alone, living a discreet life. Because the women keep getting younger and younger. You have noticed that, right? And, in my little world of theory, it's not because he prefers them young, per se, (look at Mimi Rogers for chrissakes) but rather because they've got little experience to suss this sort of thing out. That and his ex-es always seem to go running for men with who possess an overabundance of testosterone once they break up with Tommy Boy. Penelope Cruz has hooked up with Matthew McConaughey; Nicole Kidman was reportedly upset when Russell Crowe got married because she wanted to date him. The pattern is clear. He's using these women as uninformed beards. They've bought into the myth that is Tom Cruise. And he takes full advantage of it. It's just mean and selfish.

And when Katie does talk to Baba Waba, well, it's going to be sweet.

Oh, and just for the record, I believe War of the Worlds is going to tank. Big Time. It's going to be Gigli all over again.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:26 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 393 words, total size 2 kb.

Some random fan quotes given upon Michael Jackson's acquittal

• "This proves that justice can prevail in America," said Tara Bardella, 19, who came from Arizona two weeks ago to wait for the verdicts. "We love you, Michael!"
• "I'm shaking," said Emily Smith, 24, of London, who was among the few lucky fans who got courtroom passes. "I believe justice has been done today."
• Lifelong fan Raffles Vanexel, 29, of Amsterdam, said he "cried like a little baby" when the verdicts were read.

  "I feel like I was reborn," said Vanexel, who claimed he helped lift Jackson onto an SUV for his notorious rooftop dance after his arraignment. "The best is yet to come for Michael. This time around, the world owes him something."

• Martin Stock, the founder of a Jackson fan club in Germany who stayed up past 11 p.m. to watch the outcome, said he was overjoyed, even though he had expected his idol's acquittal.

  "The whole trial was laughable and Michael was treated inhumanely. I think people were trying to throw him into prison to get at his money," Stock said.

I just have one question for these so-called fans: would you leave your kid alone with this man?

If so, you deserve to have your reproductive rights cancelled. You're not intelligent enough to bring a child into this world.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:00 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.