June 09, 2005
Just goes to show that what goes around, comes around.
{Snicker}
Posted by: Kathy at
02:25 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.
Would I lie to you?
What I would like to know is this: where are these people when I need to sell them a bridge? Hmmm. Come right on down. Quality architecture for sale, right here at the Cake Eater Lot!
UPDATE: Apparently, I provide inspiration.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:00 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
June 08, 2005
Except when I'm trying to sell children's books, then I'm not a material girl. Because it's all about the children.
Or at least the message I'm trying to sell these children so I can get some of their parents' cold, hard cash.
Because, you know, Versace ain't cheap. And since Donatella gave up the coke, well, she's just not giving out the freebies like she used to.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:25 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.
June 04, 2005
This morning we have the news that the Tokyo premiere of War of the Worlds has been cancelled because "{...}a lack of measures to protect film stars during their appearances before fans and to prevent people from illegally recording the film during its showing.{...}"
In light of this post by the always effervescent Sheila, I'm thinking it wouldn't be out of line to shout, "Liar Liar, pants on fire, hanging from a telephone wire!" at the studio executives.
{...}What is fascinating about that Times piece is that it confirmed for me my own suspicions that all is not well in Cruise's La-La Land. The people working for him, as well as the studios, and the producers, are not "okay" with this new Cruise. He's been forgiven and pampered for years, and now suddenly we all have this "No comment" stuff? This is a terrible sign. (I mean, I'm not comparing this to an actual world-tragedy, please don't misunderstand me. I'm just talking about in the context of show biz shakedowns - this is pretty huge.) Like I said, I am WAY too interested in this. But I think Tom is, as we speak, going overboard with the Scientology thing, and people are not happy about it. The quotes from the guys at Paramount were particularly telling. They didn't like that Tom was going all bat-shit Scientology when he SHOULD be promoting his new film. Cruise seems to think that just showing up means promotion. But damn - his leaping about on Oprah's couch like a gibbering Dianetics-stoned chimp has taken away, definitely taken away, from the building excitement for his new film ... and so now, Paramount feels compelled to cut back on Tom Cruise's appearances. Like ... Tom Cruise is legendary for being unbelievable and tireless about promoting his own films. It's one of the things he's known for. So many actors get burnt out on that stuff really fast, but Tom Cruise has always seen it as part of an actor's job, part of being a collaborator. This has been one of his highly likable and professional qualities. And now? His presence at the junkets is now seen as a liability to the success of the film. People, this is HUGE news.I can only imagine that the Scientologists themselves (the ones in the upper echelons - the really cynical con-artist ones) wish he would just shut up as well. And I can only imagine his agent, his manager - watching this new open "sharing" and wincing about it. Unless they're Scientologists, too. His sharing about this organization has definitely morphed into a different animal, his protests notwithstanding. He has not "always talked about Scientology". No, he has not. Not to this degree. Not to this insane degree.
And now - this is incredible - the studios are having none of this. They are saying "No" to Tom Cruise. They are actually allowing him to have all this bad publicity. Tom Cruise almost NEVER has bad publicity. But now, there are a lot of people making comments anonymously because they fear retribution. Amazing. Tom Cruise is in trouble.{...}
I'm not buying the security excuse for cancelling the Tokyo premiere. Security is security is security: if you've got the coin, you can hire the best, and there is no doubt in my mind that between Tommy Boy, Paramount and the distributor, they can afford the best. Neither am I buying the "we're afraid of internet pirates" excuse either. First off, how stupid would a pirate have to be to try and videotape during a premiere? Second, the Japanese aren't notorious for this sort of thing; the Chinese, however, are. If the premiere was in Bejing or Shanghai or Hong Kong, yeah, I'd say that this is a legitimate excuse. But the premiere was scheduled for Tokyo, not Beijing, not Shanghai and not Hong Kong. Third, recent evidence seems to point to the conclusion that the movie studios are finally using BitTorrent and other P2P file sharing services as a viral marketing tool. A time-stamped copy of Revenge of the Sith makes it to BitTorrent? Before the release? Puh-leeze. That's covert marketing if I've ever seen it. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Paramount didn't release some form of War of the Worlds to a BitTorrent service to try and get the word out on the film. Furthermore, if Paramount and the distributor are really embarrassed about Tommy Boy's recent behavior, if War of the Worlds made it to BitTorrent before the release later this month, well, that would be a big tip-off to me that they're trying to find alternative ways to increase the buzz on this film without having to resort to sending Tom Cruise on press junkets. Sheila's right on the money here.
Interesting stuff. We'll have to see how all of this works out.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:43 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 825 words, total size 5 kb.
June 02, 2005
Posted by: Kathy at
11:37 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
May 30, 2005
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.
The research is published in the British Medical Journal.
The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.
They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.
None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed. {...}
One of my best friends is English. And she has, in the past, spouted off about how appalling she finds the Second Amendment to be. The last time she did this, I had to laugh. She stared at me for a time and then I explained.
"You do know why we have the Second Amendment, right?" I asked.
"No," she replied, after a long thoughtful moment.
I laughed again. "It's because of the English. King George decided it was all right to quarter his soldiers in colonials' houses and, while they were there, they stripped the owners of said houses of all their armaments. Armaments they needed to survive the wilderness. That's mainly why. The other reason is that the Founding Fathers decided we should always have the means to overthrow our own government if the need should arise."
She stared at me for quite some time. Like I'd grown a third head. Her eventual reply, which skipped over my final reason entirely, was, "Well, too bad we didn't take all the bloody things away."
I should probably mention that what brought this whole subject up was that while I was visiting her place in London, we were watching the news and they were reporting that a couple had been stabbed to death in their own home.
I wonder what she thinks about the possibility of her very nice set of Wustof-Tridents being banned. In her own country. Because they're too dangerous.
{Hat Tip: Andy}
Posted by: Kathy at
10:19 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.
May 18, 2005
After reading this, I'm pretty damn glad I didn't contribute to Chris Martin's ever expanding ego.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - British rock band Coldplay played Manhattan on Tuesday to promote their highly anticipated new album and said they are uncomfortable that they sell so many albums they can move a major corporation's stock price.EMI Group Plc, the world's third-largest music company and owner of Coldplay's label Capitol, warned in February that profits would be lower because the band took longer than expected to finish their first studio album in three years.
This I can understand. The fate of a record company resting on your shoulders would not be an easy thing to deal with...or so we'd think, if we were assuming that Coldplay was actually, you know, a humble entity.
This does not appear to be the case.
{...}But lead singer and charismatic frontman Chris Martin said in an interview, "I don't really care about EMI. I'm not really concerned about that.""I think shareholders are the great evil of this modern world," Martin told Reuters before a concert at Manhattan's Beacon Theatre.
But however uncomfortable Martin is with what he called "the slavery that we are all under to shareholders," the reception to Coldplay's third studio album will be closely watched by EMI shareholders.{...}
Oh, it's slavery, is it? Shareholders are the "great evil of this modern world."
{...}Still, for all the corporate involvement in the band of four friends who met in university, Martin said it was all worth it, since it gave them artistic freedom and the ability to talk about subjects dear to them such as fair trade, or paying fair prices for products such as coffee and cotton from developing nations.On Monday, the band recorded an episode of VH1's "Storyteller" show and told the audience there, "Deadlines mean nothing to us. We'll sink the whole company (EMI) if we have to," Billboard reported.
Hmmph. Someone's got a wee bit of a head on them, haven't they?
In this day and age of program trading---where missing projected numbers by a hundredth of a percentage point can cause the NYSE to go down fifty points in the blink of an eye---one would sincerely hope that the brokerage houses have factored Martin's mouth into their programs.
Furthermore, it'd be pretty nice if everyone who held EMI stock would tell Martin to bugger off, and to not bite the hand that keeps him and Gwyneth in expensive soy-based products (he's a vegetarian, don't you know) by dumping said stock. You know, sort of like these guys. Only without the violence.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 3 kb.
May 07, 2005
Rosie Stamp, 32, a freelance video producer, made the journey hours after arriving in New York when she phoned home and heard year-old Betsy crying in hunger."I had no choice. She just wouldn't take the bottle," explained Stamp, who had expressed breast milk before leaving on the planned five-day trip for a crucial business appointment.
She said Betsy was in the habit of drinking water from bottles, so she and her partner, therapist Nicholas Bolton, 49, assumed the baby would take the expressed milk.
But "she of course knew breast was best," said Stamp, a strong believer in breastfeeding until babies are 2. The trip was the first time she had left her baby, who is now 16 months old.
{...}The incident occurred in January, but Stamp - now pregnant with her second child - began a battle with British Airways and her travel insurers for a refund for her emergency flight.
She had paid $760 for her first round-trip ticket and had to fork over $800 for the early flight home. She then paid another $900 for her second trip to New York. She also spent almost $600 on international cell-phone calls.
"For months I've been trying to get BA to have compassion," said Stamp, who argued that Betsy's need to breastfeed was a medical emergency.{...}
Yes. That's right. It's British Airways responsibility, according to this woman, to pay for her airfare because the baby wouldn't drink pumped milk. Because she's a mother. Her child was HUNGRY and SHE was the only one who could stop her baby from starving to death! It apparently never occurred to this mother that since she was going out of town for an extended period of time, and the baby was a year old, that perhaps, just perhaps, this would have been a good time to wean the kid.
Never mind that a pediatrician probably could have told the father how to solve the problem at minimal expense.
British Airways needs to have compassion. Because this was a medical emergency.
I can only hope that BA holds firm and says GO TO HELL in a resounding voice. I can't imagine why they would cave. This isn't about discriminating against mothers who breastfeed. This is about not picking up the tab that resulted from a woman's irresponsible behavior, who then, doing nothing to help her own credibility, decided to climb up on the cross of breastfeeding martyrdom to get her ticket paid for. That's bullshit.
And no, of course, I have never breastfed a baby. I haven't had kids, hence I haven't lactated yet. Duh. But I know plenty of people who have, and believe you me it never would have occurred to them to cross a fucking ocean because their baby was being picky in their eating habits. What's the matter with that father that after ten hours, he demanded she come home instead of calling the doctor or his mother or someone who knew what they were doing?
This is ridiculous. Far be it from me to point out that this woman is making things harder for the average woman when she tries to feed her child and some puritan takes offense a a tit hanging out in---gasp!---public.
Oy.
{Hat Tip: Michele, who also has some worthwhile things to say about this.}
Posted by: Kathy at
10:42 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 3 kb.
May 05, 2005
*and by that I don't really mean ironic in the true sense of the word, which would be "unexpected," but am rather slagging off and mean it's "moronic" instead. Because I'm hip with the ways and means of language that way.
Posted by: Kathy at
01:43 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.
May 04, 2005
I agree with Puff's sentiment that someone had way too much time on their hands.
The husband, however, when shown this marvelous bit of animation, declared it to be cool. He said there are two choices Geeks have whenever they wake up. Should they continue to have fun today?Or is today the day they decide to subject the world to their dominance?
I have no idea what this person was thinking, but I suspect it was the former.
At least I hope it was. Because if he was shooting for the latter, well, he/she/it fell way short of world domination.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:15 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.
May 02, 2005
{...}One day, which was a day of great tragedy for our world and country — September 11 th , 2001 — Pat and Laura made independent decisions that they we were not going to allow terrorists to take away that which is most sacred to Americans - the right to vote, for September 11 th was an election day in Saint Paul. They each voted that day and they each traveled similar paths to an election night gathering party at Mancini's. It was a time for Americans to be together, and they needed that time. That night, Pat and Laura sat next to each other, talked, and looked into each other's eyes. They were the same.But it was not that fateful day when Pat and Laura officially came together. Some time later, while Pat was sitting at home watching another stimulating rerun of Happy Days, most likely the one where Fonz had to get glasses, Pat's phone rang. The voice sounded like Laura. Was she calling to ask Pat on a date? Not even Andy Summers could imitate someone that well. It definitely wasn't Duff, as the tone was sweet and devoid of references to violence. It was indeed an actual woman calling Pat, and it was actually Laura. For this one brief moment, Pat was surely the Fonz, although with a tattered brown sweater and oversized khakis. {...}
I'm as much of a sap as the next person. Probably more so. But, really, I'm trying to resist the urge to vomit.
I mean, c'mon girls. Aren't you just dying to make your guy feel like the Fonz?
{Shudders}
Many congratulations to the happy couple and all, but sheesh. Watch what you share, eh?
{Hat Tip: Fraters}
Posted by: Kathy at
05:06 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.
{...}The fact that we have an entry today is a testament to Tiger, the new Mac OS. Friday night I went to the Mall (took Gnat, so she may have a dim memory of these wondrous times) to get OS X 10.4, promising her we’d get ice cream. Here’s a sign of how much Apple-flavored Kool-Aid I’ve consumed: as we approached the store I noted the jam-packed parking lot and thought gee, I hope they’re not all here for the new operating system – what if they’ve run out? (It was seven PM, one hour after they’d opened the doors.) Then I realized that most people were here for crude, base things like movies or meals, and relaxed. There was a cattle-chute marked off my ropes that had contained the mob until six; one employee told me people had been queued since three. Three hundred and fifty people were waiting when they opened the doors. At the Mall of America, the line stretched halfway down the length of the Mall, which is no small accomplishment. All this for widgets?Yes. Yes, indeed. That’s why we’re here: widgets. The new OS has a handy little feature called “Dashboard” – hit F12, and the screen fills with mini-apps of varying usefulness. I don’t need an analogue clock, for example. The FedEx tracking widget will come in handy someday. The Flight Tracker widget, which displays flight speed, position, arrival time, is cool beyond measure. But there’s a dictionary widget, a phone book, a weather program, and an FTP widget that makes uploading this site a thing of beauty – I just hit F12, drag the file to the widget, and voila. In the old days I opened the program, logged in, navigated to the proper folder, and dragged it over: four steps. FOUR! This is 2005: I don’t have time for four steps. Now it’s two steps. I will spend the extra time learning how to sculpt marble.{...}
Dude. We Windows users also have "widgets." It's called Google. All of those lovely tricks and treats you silly Mac users lined up for hours for on Friday are available in Google. Want to track a flight? Just enter the flight number in to Google and the information will pop up. Want to track a UPS or FedEx package? Just type the number into the Google engine and VOILA! There's your information.
That these people waited in line for hours and PAID FOR stuff they could get for free means they are officially in need of deprogramming at a de-culting center somewhere in the middle of nowhere. Neither should they be let back into society without a court order confirming said de-culting is complete.
I've mentioned before that Lileks' mall is my mall. Whenever we're down there, I cannot help but note that there's an oxygen bar right next door to the Apple Store. It's times like this when I'm absolutely, positively sure the oxygen bar's tanks are leaking.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:39 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.
April 28, 2005
Oh, and learn how to act, too, while you're at it.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:32 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.
April 25, 2005
According to StarWars.com, the saga's creator George Lucas told attendees at the fan convention Celebration III in Indianapolis Saturday that he is working on two "Star Wars"-related television projects after "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith."The first, "Clone Wars," actually exists as series of animated shorts on the Cartoon Network, but Lucas said it will be turned into a "3-D animated version full-series" 30 minutes in length.
But the surprise came with his announcement of a live-action spin-off series that will take place between movie Episodes III and IV.
At first, according to StarWars.com, Lucas said, "There's none of the main characters from I, II, and III" in the series, but stopped mid-sentence and said that "that's not exactly true now that I think about it." He concluded by saying it's hard to answer what will be in the show since it's a year away from going into production.
He added that a lot of issues from the films are connected, but you won't necessarily see a lot of the people that are connected," the site reported.{...}
The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles should be ringing a freakin' alarm bell right about now.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:22 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.
April 21, 2005
Posted by: Kathy at
06:26 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:41 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
April 15, 2005
Anyone who has watched movies on an airplane or on network TV has seen films that have been sanitized, so to say, by the removal of things like foul language, extreme gore or nudity. Generally speaking, though, film directors don't like altering their original artistic vision, which helps explain why cleaned-up versions of commercial movies are not routinely for sale at Blockbuster. They do exist, however, made possible by new technology and by companies that are responding to consumer demand for hit movies in a "family friendly" format. Hollywood is hopping mad. Put on your seat belt; it's going to be a bumpy ride.{...}Good grief. What companies such as CleanFlix and FamilyFlix really do is buy DVDs of popular movies and make a second, cleaner, version. The buyer gets both copies, allowing the seller to claim that Hollywood has gotten full price for each original-movie sale and that the edited, or "backup," disc is protected by the doctrine of fair use in copyright law. Another company, ClearPlay, doesn't alter discs in any way. It creates coding that works with a special DVD player to filter--by skipping or muting--potentially objectionable parts of ordinary DVDs.
{...}The Family Movie Act (part of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act), if it passes, may end one part of the brawl. It would effectively legalize the technology that ClearPlay uses. As the legislation's author, Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), notes: "This is the electronic equivalent of using a remote control to mute the sound or fast-forward over objectionable material."
If you are worried about junior seeing a pair of b00bies in a movie, or being desensitized by too much violence, well, it perhaps you need this little reminder.
Ahem.
On every electronic device known to mankind there is an "Off" button. Use it. You might have to deal with a lot of lip, but it will ensure that your children are seeing what you want them to see and not making everyone else suffer in the meanwhile. It might also help you in your quest for cleaner material if you said "No," every now and again when junior/juniorette requests something you deem to be objectionable. After all, if you don't buy/rent a movie, Hollywood does not make money. This will force them to consider their options, because they're in business to make money. That's the free market at work, kids. If Hollywood deems there's a demand for something they're not supplying, well, they'll work their tight, little, liposuctioned asses off to provide it. In other words, stop expecting the government to parent your children, and learn how to do it yourself. Stop messing with other people's livelihoods because you can't be bothered to do this, ya dig?
This just pisses me off.
If you are so goddamned lazy that you need a DVD player that skips through objectionable content because you can't be bothered to fast forward through it, you are a waste of space. Get off my planet. Furthermore, that you would attempt to legislate your laziness, well, you deserve what you get the next time someone pulls a similar move. Because it will happen, kids. This is a slippery slope you're advocating. Censorship always is a slippery slope, because where the hell does it end? Pretty soon the choice is taken out of your hands and placed into someone else's.
Posted by: Kathy at
04:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 571 words, total size 4 kb.
April 13, 2005
We're also subjected to Cyndy Brucato constantly plugging stories about whatever blew up in the Twin Cities today for the ten o'clock news. If you're lazy, I would ask you to please click on that link. See how that picture advertises her wares.
Then look at this.
This is how she looks every night of the week.
Aieeeeeee.
All I can say is that the woman is scary looking. I don't know who talked her into this harsh-ass makeover, but the insanity stops here. Lighten up, lady. Literally. Lighten your hair and ditch the Wednesday Addams eyeliner. You're scaring me. {Insert shudder here}
And while I'm on the subject of KSTP news: with all of the firings, Joe freakin' Schmit gets promoted? Joe "I'm a Suckup and I Don't Possess Even Half a Brain" Schmit remains gainfully employed? Explain that one to me, will ya? Oy.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:36 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.
HAVANA - Cuban President Fidel Castro criticized President Bush's attendance at Pope John Paul II's funeral Friday as "hypocrisy" because of the pontiff's opposition to the war in Iraq, and he downplayed the pope's role in toppling communism in the former Soviet bloc.U.S. officials "went to cry in the presence of John Paul II, who was so against war, who so condemned the world order imposed by that empire (the United States), who so condemned consumerism," Castro said in his speech Thursday. "How far will hypocrisy go in this world? In my opinion it's an insult to John Paul II's memory." {...}
But wait, it gets better. Fidel tries to hitch his star to John Paul II's.
{...} Praising the pope for his compassion for the poor, his anti-war politics and his rejection of a long-standing trade embargo against Cuba by the United States, Castro said he shared more similarities than differences with John Paul, and that it was religion, not politics, that shaped the pope's stand against communism.{...}
{Emphasis mine}
So basically, the way good ol' Fidel sees it, if the Pope hadn't been Catholic, he would have been a Communist.
{...}"It's true that the pope was very critical of communism," Castro said. "But he also became very critical of the capitalist system."An impassioned Castro spoke at length about the pope's historic 1998 visit to the island, saying, "He did not come with the intention of destroying the (Cuban) revolution."
The Cuban leader downplayed John Paul's role in helping end communism in his native Poland and Eastern Europe, saying one man could not be credited with ending a political and economic system.
"If one day Cuban socialism comes crumbling down, no one is to blame except ourselves," he said.{...}
Finally! He speaketh some sense! But he must have been drunk when he said this, so it probably doesn't count.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:28 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.
April 11, 2005
Michael Moore is a big fat liar. And yes I do mean that in the metaphorical sense, although I could see where you'd think I was being literal.
I still think he needs to be rolled over by a gigantic wheel of brie, too.
{HT: Galley Slaves}
Posted by: Kathy at
01:31 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
58 queries taking 0.0851 seconds, 179 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
