Vampires, Shmampires

So a few days ago, "New Moon" the sequel to the movie "Twilight" opened and it has already been a huge success. Holy crap, the first day that thing came out, it made $72.7 million. Overall, I'm pretty sure that the entire series is going to make right around, oh...say...lemme see...carry the three...yeah, about a gazillion dollars. And why is that again? It's because of the subject matter, of course! And what, exactly, is the subject matter you ask? (OK, maybe you didn't ask, but I sure as hell did because I had not a clue.) That would be vampires. Vampires? Yes. Vampires.

Why vampires, you ask? OK, again, maybe you didn't, but I sure as hell did because I'm remembering vampires being around, oh, forever, and I don't recall them being $72.7 million worth of popular. But they are. And apparently they are because they're (get ready for it) sexy. That's right. Vampires are now sexy. Behold!

Wow. They kind of are sexy. And sparkly. They seem to sparkle just a little bit. Is there such a thing as a sparkly vampire? Huh. Well, there is now! Vampires that sparkle! It's a great time to be alive!

No, seriously, when did this happen? The sexy vampire thing. I'm not recalling vampires as being presented (in the strictly historical sense, of course) as a sex object. Let's take a look at some of the vampires of yore and see if we can spot any sexy ones. I'm pretty sure they're making this whole sexy, sparkly vampire (the ol SSVs) thing up.

One of the most, if not the most famous vampire would be that portrayed by a one Bela Lugosi. Behold! Bela!

Yeah, I'm not quite seeing it. No, that strikes me as kind of creepy, actually. And being a vampire, I find that to be rather appropriate. Vampires are supposed to be creepy. AND scary. Granted, most of the time creepy in and of itself automatically denotes the scary, but considering that people are suddenly finding them to be sexy, I thought I should point that out.

Speaking of vampires that are scary and that are absolutely not sexy, here we have Bram Stoker's Dracula. Or, at least, we have the movie poster from it, but it's still pretty darned scary. Behold!

Yeah, I'm not finding so much sexiness in that crazy looking thing. Hey! All of you teenage girls who are flocking to see the skinny dude that looks like he hasn't seen the sun since 1997! What do you think of this vampire, eh?! Not so sexy now is he?! I didn't think so. Moving on....

Speaking of not so sexy and kind of scary is this guy from something called Dracula: Year Zero. Behold!

OK, I'm pretty sure that if I saw that standing over me in some field somewhere, I'd be way too easy prey for him because I'd either pass out or just die right there on the spot from fright. I'd probably pass out and on my way down to the ground I'd probably croak, but I'd definitely be dead shortly after witnessing that. Oh, and in the middle of my demise, I would, in no way, think how sexy that was and boy, am I lucky! What a way to go! (By the way, I don't know why I'd be in the field, but in these sorts of movies, the characters always end up in a field. I don't know if they're just that softheaded or if they're always disoriented farmers of what, but there's usually a field of some sort involved.)

Next up on the List of Vampires That I Do Not Find Sexy would be Count Chocula. Behold!

What? Are you kidding me?! Of course he counts as a vampire! He has that long face and those teeth that are supposed to be fangs! And he has that hood with the turned up collar! That is definitely a vampire trait! But see, I don't find him sexy. I find him to be delicious. Sexy? No? Chock full of chocolaty goodness? Oh, yeah!

Then there's my favorite vampire from childhood, the one, the only, Count von Count! Behold!

The Count is the reason I love math. Nothing gave me more pleasure than watching him noodle through how many of something that someone had, all by way of counting. Again, not so much sexy. Not so much sparkly. But very, very useful when trying to do math quickly. I love The Count.

Next up, possibly the least scary vampire that is not a Muppet, nor on the front of a cereal box, Grandpa Munster! Behold!

Grandpa Munster was sort of like the Joey Tribianni of his time. Very, very lovable, but not so well endowed in the smarts department. Definitely not so well endowed in the sexy department either. (My point here has been way too easy to make so far.)

And how could I get this far on my List of Vampires That I Do Not Find Sexy without mentioning Count Duckula! Behold!

Aww. I heart Count Duckula. He is far from scary and even farther from sexy. He doesn't have fangs and his favorite food isn't blood, it's broccoli sandwiches. He doesn't exactly fall into the sexy, sparkly vampire mold that the "New Moon" folks are trying to sell us, now does he?

And finally, we have Count Blood Count. I'm thinking he might be a cousin or other distant relative of Count von Count. He's not a muppet, but rather he's the vampire that starred opposite of Bugs Bunny in "Translyvania 6-5000". There was the famous duel of magic words between the two of them where Count Blood Count announced to Bugs, "I'm a vampire!" To which Bugs replied, "Oh, yeah? Well, abacadabra! I'm an umpire!" I really don't know what one has to do with the other, but it was definitely funny. Very funny. Not sexy. Not sparkly. Funny.

While I can appreciate the whole SSV concept that the "New Moon" folks have going on, you have to admit that they certainly aren't basing it on anything of historical fact. It is completely unlike anything that I have just demonstrated here. Vampires are one of two things. They're either scary as hell, or they're funny as can be. They are not sexy. But hey! If anyone out there wants to pay me $72.7 million to do something that I'm not, I'm in!

Sphere: Related Content

A Photoshop Is Worth 1,000 Words

Isn't it just assumed that every single magazine cover out there is Photoshopped? I thought that was a given. I thought we all knew at this point that no one looks like the people that are on magazine covers and that includes the people that are on the magazine covers! So why deny it if you're called on it? Tell you what. How about you get someone who can actually Photoshop worth a damn or you get someone who can copy edit worth a damn and then you won't run into debacles like the W Magazine cover with Demi Moore, OK? OK.

Here's the story: Demi Moore does a cover story for W Magazine. The magazine comes out. People take one look at it and say, "No effin' way." Now, it wasn't a "No effin' way" in a jealous sort of manner. It was more of a "No effin' way" in a "Where's the rest of her hip?" sort of fashion. Behold!

Yeah, that's frightening. How old is she? 47?! Wow. Well, listen, Photoshopped or not, that's a pretty darn good looking 47 right there. But whether or not she looks good isn't necessarily the point. The point is that it seems fairly obvious that this photo was touched up and yet W Magazine and Demi Moore are denying that it was. Here are some of the flaws that I'd like to have explained.

First we have this arm over here. Behold!

That seems like a fairly muscular arm and it doesn't seem to be mirrored in it's counterpart, also known as "Her Left Arm". That could just be lighting, though.

But over here, if you look at the picture from W with this shape made with her right arm (that would be on your left) and you compare it to the picture that Demi (also known, seemingly only by herself, as Mrs. Kutcher) posted on her Twitter account (it's called a TwitPic. It's pics for twits. Catchy, eh?) you will notice that it's not the same. It seems to be a little bumpier in the W shot than in the "original" shot. It's not much, but it's there! But bumpy or not isn't so much the point as is really that it adds to the assertion (by everyone except for W and Demi Moore) that it has been, shall we say, touched up a tad?

Honestly though, are we all really supposed to believe that the TwitPic posted by Mrs. Kutcher is just one of the photos right after the popped out of the lens? I don't think that we are!

But here's the kicker: Where's the rest of her leg? Behold!

Yeah, see, you're going to be needing some leg there. See, that's the main reason people are crying Photoshop because do you see that place where there isn't any leg? But there should be leg? That's it! That's where you're going to need your leg. Where's your leg, Demi? Why does it do that?

Perhaps if she wasn't wearing something that merely resembled a conglomeration of one of Michael Jackson's military outfits and Liberace's drapes, she could explain her missing chunk of thigh by saying that she was wrapped tighter than a tourniquet. But judging from the loose fitting-ness of the outfit there, I hardly think that's the case. Someone screwed up. Someone else didn't catch it. The thing went to press. Everyone else pointed and laughed. Isn't that what happened? I'm pretty sure that it is.

Look, again, don't get me wrong, she looks great. A little thin, but great. But she doesn't look that great because no one looks that great. You know what I mean? Of course you do. Am I saying that people shouldn't look like that because it sends the wrong message? Um, not exactly. I'm saying that I'm not a big fan of the Photoshopping of models and acting like they're not Photoshopped nor freaks of nature. If you're going to do it, at least admit it. But really, if you're going to do it, do a better job at it. Sheesh.

Sphere: Related Content

Reality Shows Without Reality Stars

I'm pretty sure that we're all pretty much almost done with reality TV. I mean, if we weren't done with it before the whole Jon-Gosselin-is-a-douchebag-and-probably-uses-Axe-Body-Spray ordeal, we've certainly had our fill of it after above referenced ordeal. So what do we do now that we're all fully aware that reality shows can, just as in real reality, go horribly awry? I think we may have to turn our attention to reality that has already gone horribly awry and we're just enjoying the ride downhill along with it.

Take for example the Twitter account of a one Justin Halpern. But really, he's just Justin. According to the folks over at The Live Feed, Justin's Twitters are so amusing and have amassed such a large following in a relatively short period of time, that they are now developing a comedy pilot TV show for CBS based upon his 140-character pearls of wisdom under a title which he has dubbed "Sh*t My Dad Says". That's right. Sh*t his Dad says. Really, if you think about it, this isn't such a farfetched idea. I am of the bent that everyone needs a crotchety old man in their life to guide them along. And while that's not really how Justin's whole dealio got going, it's still something to think about.

The Bio on Justin's Twitter page sums it all up. "I'm 29. I live with my 73-year-old dad. He is awesome. I just write down shit that he says." And that's all there is to it. It's not like this oldster is spouting out stuff left and right. That would be hard to believe, much less to take. From what I can tell (and so can you if you're interested enough to click the link above) it seems that this man spews genius about once every other day. And what he says is really so awesome that it suffices enough to keep people interested enough to wait for the next one to pop up. Some examples of the Elder Halpern's statements and/or advice to his son are as follows:

"That woman was sexy...Out of your league? Son. Let women figure out why they won't screw you, don't do it for them."

"You sure do like to tailgate people... Right, because it's real important you show up to the nothing you have to do on time."

"The baby will talk when he talks, relax. It ain't like he knows the cure for cancer and he just ain't spitting it out."

"Oh please, you practically invented lazy. People should have to call you and ask for the rights to lazy before they use it."

"Son, no one gives a shit about all the things your cell phone does. You didn't invent it, you just bought it. Anybody can do that."

"No. Tell 'em we're not doing Christmas dinner at a casino...Don't be an ass about it, but tell them why it's a f*cking stupid idea."

Yeah, they're going to need to do a little editing over there at CBS before that sucker hits the air, but I still think it will be awesome. I will definitely give that sitcom at least one look. They'd better not screw it up. That man is a gold mine. Does he have health insurance? Get him some, Justin. Now.

Another website which I could see potential reality show potential is the one Facebook Fails. I have gotten a great deal of amusement out of this website because I take great joy in seeing the multiple ways that people totally set themselves up for complete and utter failure at whatever it was that they were trying to accomplish. It's awesome. (See, it's things like this where I am completely conflicted about not wanting any morons in this world. They're delightful individuals as long as they're entertaining, only on the InterWebs and stay the hell away from me. Oh, and don't vote. Just because you can make someone almost pee because you're so stupid doesn't mean that you need to be making decisions that could potentially effect the entire country.)

Some Facebook Fails samples for you are below. (You might have to click on them to get them to enlarge if they're too small and blurry as-is. Hey! I'm just the messenger. It's not my fault if people can't clean up their screenshots before submission.):

Yeah, that's some awesome stuff right there. I could see a series built around that sort of concept. The characters would all be clueless and overly confident in not only their abilities, but also of their accomplishments. It would, however, be hard to fathom a believable plot in which they were all able to support themselves and not living in their parent's basements. That's a dilemma that could certainly hold up production for a bit.

And finally, while I can't figure out how a series could be made out of this, it would be great if someone else could figure it out because then I'd be extremely entertained at least once a week! Over yonder at the Cake Wrecks blog, fashioned by a one Jen Yates and her husband, John, we get to see what happens when professional cakes go horribly, horribly awry. While there might not be the basis for some sort of TV series, there was enough material for a book and a very successful book signing tour which is still going strong. It's not just the photos of the cakes that are less than one would have expected, but it's also the captions which understand your disbelief and try to help you make sense of it all. (I'm not including the caption in hopes that it will give some the incentive to check out her blog. It really is quite hilarious.)

Yep, certainly wouldn't mind seeing a little bit of reality TV made from any of these, just as long as they're all done with actors and not with the actual individuals involved. Please. Like we need another Jon Gosselin on our hands. There isn't that much Axe Body Spray to go around. Granted, that's not necessarily a bad thing (sounds pretty good, to tell you the truth), but another Jon Gosselin is necessarily a bad thing. Trust me on this one.

Sphere: Related Content

Things That Are Younger Than Senator Byrd

Yesterday marked quite the milestone in American politics and I'm not sure that it was for the better. No, yesterday was the day that the ancient, 92-years old tomorrow Robert Byrd, former Klansman and current Senator of West Virginia became the longest serving lawmaker in the US Capitol. That's right. The barely coherent and only sometimes understandable Senator Byrd has served for a total of 20,774 days, according to the Los Angeles Times. Yep. Ever since January 3, 1953, the voting people of West Virginia have decided that Robert Byrd is the man that they want to represent them, though why I can't quite figure out because I'm fairly certain that the man is not fully in control of all of his mental faculties. He might know where he is and who he is most of the time, but other than that, I'm going to guess and say it's a coin flip. You can check out the video below and judge for yourself. But keep in mind, this is a man who is making laws that effect the nation!

Seriously, West Virginia. What are you thinking?! The man can barely hold his head up. Mind you, I'm not making fun of the elderly and/or the infirm. I'm mocking the people of West Virginia for electing someone like that! What was he saying about the Senator from Timbuktu? Never mind. (But say, what do you think really woke him up for a minute there?)

Look, the point is, Robert Byrd is old. Really old. I know some oldsters and I don't know anyone who is as old as he is. That's when I started thinking about how long Robert Byrd has been around. He's been around not only longer than most people, but he's also been around longer than a lot of things (some of which seem as if they've been around forever!). Let's see some things that are younger than Robert Byrd, shall we?

McDonald's is younger than Robert Byrd. The first McDonald's was opened in 1940, but the first franchised McDonald's was opened in 1955, two years after Robert Byrd was first elected to the House.

Kool-Aid. Kool-Aid was invented in 1927. None of its offshoot products ever really took off (who thought that people would want Kool-Aid pie fillings and ice cream mixes anyway?), but Kool-Aid is still going strong today and it is nine years younger than Robert Byrd.

Band-Aids. Band-Aids were invented in 1920 by a one Earle Dickson whose wife, Janice, was apparently very accident prone and was cutting herself almost every day! Good thing the guy was too dense to just figure out to keep all sharp objects away from that chick, otherwise we might never have had Band-Aids a mere 3 years after the birth of Robert Byrd.

The ballpoint pen. That's right. The ballpoint didn't show up until 1938. Robert Byrd would have been a full 21-years old. It must have been strange for him to have to give up his quill and ink well after all that time.

Prohibition. From the time that Robert Byrd was 3 years old until the time that he would have been turning 16, America was an allegedly dry country. Granted, during that time, all of the lawmakers were sure boozing it up, perhaps piquing Senator Byrd's interest in entering the public service domain.

FM Radio. FM radio hit the airwaves just in time for Robert Byrd's 21st birthday in 1938.

Betty Crocker cake mixes. OK, seriously?! He's older than cake mix?! Well, considering that Betty Crocker commercialized their cake mix around 1947, Robert Byrd has 30 years on the cake mix.

The credit card. For 33 years, clear up until 1950 when Diner's Club first came up with the idea of paying for things with plastic (and then later claiming bankruptcy and not having to pay for it at all), Robert Byrd was paying in cash.

And just a few more little tidbits....In 1917 when Robert Byrd was born....

...gasoline was 18.45 cents a gallon.

...postage stamps were three cents.

...111 people reported their income at over $1 million.

...the average annual income was $368.56. Yes, that's per year.

Congratulations, Senator Byrd?

Sphere: Related Content

The WOTY is What Now?

It's Word of the Year time! The WOTY! (Good Lord, if I ever use the term 'WOTY' again just in just a casual context like I just did, please shoot me.) Every year, for some reason (and I'm blaming The Internets), the Oxford English Dictionary, the ol' OED gives us what they have deemed the Word of the Year. They are, apparently, the only ones who get any say in this sort of thing. I'm actually glad about that because if it were left up to the general public to vote, the Word of the Year would almost always be something like "hella" or "piehole", both of which barely qualify for words as it is, let alone Word of the Year. What I'm not so glad about was this year's winner.

And the Word of the Year as dubbed so by the folks over there at the Oxford English Dictionary and no matter what you say is.......

UNFRIEND

Wait. What now? "Unfriend"? You mean as in to remove someone from your Facebook because they were being a douche to you? I thought it was "defriend". What in the hell is "unfriend"? Well, according to the Oxford University Press (that would be those who do the OED), "unfriend" is "defriend". And while according to OUP that "unfriend" is "defriend", according to me, "unfriend" is wrong.

If I were the only one to think that it should be "defriend" instead of "unfriend" it probably would not stop me from ranting about it. But I am not the only one who thinks that it should be "defriend". In fact, so many people were doing the Scooby head tilt at this one that they asked the OED people what they were thinking how they came to this conclusion. According to a story over there at ABC News, a one Lauren Appelwick, a publicist with Oxford University Press, Inc., said, "Unfriend was chosen because it's much more common than defriend." She also stated that she "couldn't elaborate on Oxford's methodology." Right. Because if we all knew how you came up with the lame-ass "unfriend" as being more popular than "defriend" then we'd all be going out there and doing our own word popularity studies. Uh, no. (Translation: We blew it, but we're not telling you that. "Unfriend" is our story and we're sticking to it.)

She added that "It's funny because there seem to be little clusters of people who have never heard the word "unfriend,"...but added that research indicated that "unfriend is far, far more popular." Yeah. It's funny, all right. Hilarious. Hmm...I don't know about folks who have never heard of the word "unfriend" (that seems completely unlikely unless those "clusters" are folks who are over eighty), but you know who doesn't use the word "unfriend"? That would be a one Chris Hughes. Who now?

Chris Hughes. You've probably heard of what he's accomplished rather than who he is. He's one of the three guys who invented freaking Facebook. According to Syracuse.com, Hughes says “I was surprised that that was the word that they’ve chosen." The article also stated that "Hughes says that’s the term he and his friends use" and "Instead of “unfriend,” he would have gone with “defriend.” But, the OED folks did extensive research that they're not going to explain to us, but we're supposed to take their word that all of us who have only used "defriend" are in the minority (perhaps even in the "clusters" with the oldsters). Whatevers.

Over there at the Oxford University Press blog, we learn that according to a one Christine Lindberg, Senior Lexicographer for Oxford’s US dictionary program. “It has both currency and potential longevity. In the online social networking context, its meaning is understood, so its adoption as a modern verb form makes this an interesting choice for Word of the Year." Oh, it's an interesting choice all right...because it's wrong!

In order to make the incorrect choice of "unfriend" for Word of the Year, the OED folks had to sift through some other words which they held in contention for the title. Of those, I have heard of most of them. The ones that I don't think I have ever heard used in the mainstream lexicon of English speech would include:

intexticated - distracted because texting on a cellphone while driving a vehicle (See, I don't call this behavior "intexticated", I call this "being a dumbass".)

choice mom - a person who chooses to be a single mother (Sooooo....lesbian?)

deleb - a dead celebrity (I have never run across this term being used anywhere. And really, after the 24/7 coverage that went on way too long covering the demise of Jacko, I'd really prefer that they don't refer to them as any particular term and that they just stop talking about it, for cryin' out loud.)

paywall - a way of blocking access to a part of a website which is only available to paying subscribers (Yeah, the term is pay wall, not paywall. Oh, but don't worry. It really is "unfriend"!)


Other words in the running which I am thankful did not take top honors included:

birther - a conspiracy theorist who challenges President Obama’s birth certificate (Translation: Moron.)

death panel - a theoretical body that determines which patients deserve to live, when care is rationed. (Theoretical? Shouldn't that be hypothetical? I don't know of a scenario in which that theory would be applicable. But don't worry! It's unfriend! For sure!)

And my personal favorite: teabagger - a person, who protests President Obama’s tax policies and stimulus package, often through local demonstrations known as “Tea Party” protests (in allusion to the Boston Tea Party of 1773)

Yeah, that's not quite exactly what folks are meaning when they're using the term "teabagger". See, I think that the term that the OED folks are looking for is teapartier or teapartier. See, a "teabagger" is a somewhat derogatory term due to the fact that it's a slang term meaning to place one’s scrotum on the face, eyes or mouth of an unsuspecting person. It is in no way a pleasant experience for the one getting "teabagged" (as the description would imply. A scrotum that isn't yours in your face? Very unpleasant indeed.)

But again, don't worry! They're sure that it's "unfriend".

Sphere: Related Content

Picture Depicts Actual Person

Almost all of the awards out there that are taken "seriously" (as seriously as you can take something that is awarded subjectively) are for things that are done well. What we as a people need are awards that are for things done like crap. These awards need to be handed out at a huge ceremony. There needs to be a red carpet. There needs to be 'round the clock cable news coverage. But instead of getting a trophy, the winners are immediately shipped off to some sort of deserted island which will eventually be completely inhabited solely by winners of the P.O.S. Awards.

Let's start with the Journalism category. I only have one nomination right now. I could dig a bit for competition to this nominee, but I doubt that I'd find a serious contender. So, without any further ado, here is my nomination for the P.O.S. Journalism Award:

Over there at something called truthout is an article by a chap by the name of Dahr Jamail. I'm not including Mr. Jamail in my nomination process here, as I am going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that he did not have a hand in the part of the process that went horribly awry over there. His article is a horrific story about a one US Army Specialist Alexis Hutchinson. Spec. Hutchinson is to be deployed to Afghanistan. She has not been able to find someone to take care of her 11-month old child, Damani while she is gone. (Hutchinson is a single mother. There is no mention in the article of a father, even though one would seemingly have to exist. Hutchinson's family members have their own health issues and are unable to care for an infant as well.) She did not show up when her plane left for Afghanistan. Thus, because this is the most reasonable thing for the Army to do, she was arrested and her son was placed with Child Protective Services. She faces up to a year in jail. Sure. That makes perfect sense. What. The. Hell.

This whole story is a mess. But it's not as much of a mess as the way that they reported it on truthout. Look what they did. Behold!

Yes, yes. That's heartbreaking isn't it. It's also extremely odd and completely ridiculous when you've seen a picture of US Army Specialist Alexis Hutchinson and her SON Damani. Wait. What now? Isn't that a picture of them? Uh, no. This is, behold!

Wait a minute. So, for some reason, truthout doesn't have access to Google and couldn't come up with an actual photo of Spec. Hutchinson and her child so they went with some sort of stock photo for effect? And underneath they went with the caption of "A soldier with her child"? Do they even know if that's really that soldier's child? Do they even know if that soldier was being deployed or returning home? (Usually, you see the crying like in that picture upon return, not upon departure. Granted, I have NO idea which one it is. Purely speculating is what I'm up to.) How asinine is that?

Quick! Someone accuse them of being racist! They didn't want to show a black soldier, so instead they showed a white soldier. Quick! Hurry! Before people figure out that they are not racist, they're only completely incompetent and have no idea how to run The Google!

What's the purpose of a photo that is not of the actual person in the story? I have never understood that. I mean, I get having stock photos for some sort of advertising or display or whatever. I don't think that all of those folks in those Verizon commercials are actually Verizon customers, but they don't need to be because it isn't relevant to the depiction of the product. Is a picture that is actually of the person that the story about necessary? Why, yes. YES IT IS! Why bother using actual pictures of actual people EVER if you're going to do crap like this? Why not just have a big file of photos (I'm sure that truthout could get their employees to pose for them) and just rotate through those. Man smiling. Woman scorned. Child playing ball. School being taught. Work being attended. Dog wagging tail. Cat playing with yarn. Building from afar. No need to use the actual subjects from actual stories. Noooo! That's so old school!

This is just such a P.O.S. excuse for journalism at any level I don't know what else to say. I'd like to know the rationale behind not using an actual photo of Spec. Hutchinson and her child. I'm doubting that it's a cost issue, as the photos for other stories that I've read were provided by Spec. Hutchinson herself. It's not like they had to license it from Getty Images or anything. They're either just lazy, incompetent or both. Whatever the reason, it's inexcusable. Thus, truthout being my leading candidate for the winner of the P.O.S. Journalism Award. If a serious contender emerges any time soon, I'll let you know (but don't hold your breath.)

Sphere: Related Content

CMA Fashion Dos and Don'ts (Mostly Don'ts)

So the CMA Awards (those would be the Country Music Association Awards for those of you who don't give a crap) were last week. That's their logo over there on the left. Judging from the logo, I was under the impression that somehow they were going to incorporate Star Trek with the awards. After all, that looks like a logo that would be emblazoned upon Kirk's and Spock's skin tight space travelling uniforms, does it not? Of course it does. But was there any Star Trek at all? No. None. I felt cheated. Granted, I didn't feel as cheated as I felt stupid for simply watching the awards in the first place, but it was definitely a let down.

So, far be it from me to miss an opportunity to critique the fashion of those a gazillion times richer than I am. Here we go!

First up we have the lovely Nicole Kidman and her interesting choice in partners, Keith Urban. Not that I have anything against Mr. Urban, but he's just a little different considering that Nicole spent almost 10 years married to Scientology Freedom Medal of Valor winner Tom Cruise (and if you don't know what I'm talking about, have yourself a good laugh and click on that link there. The good stuff starts right around 4:50.). Mr. Urban must have thought that there was going to be a pretty rough crowd there at the CMAs as he appears to have put his wallet on a leash. He also appears to have some sort of flaming tattoo sported across his covered up chest. What is that exactly? Flames? Why would he have flames? It is the Hot Wheels logo?

Now, there has apparently been a lot of talk about Ms. Kidman's lips and whether or not she's Botox-ed them. I think it's safe to say that 90% of folks in Hollywood have had something injected into their bodies at one point and time. I don't notice that much of a difference and if there actually is a difference, it must be for the better. My question, though, was about her breasts. What is up with them? Why are they so far away from each other? Why are they so flat and large instead of round and enhancing? They just look weird.


Over here we have Kellie Pickler. Kellie Pickler is quite possibly one of the most unintelligent human beings to ever waltz the face of this planet. Holy cow, it's a good thing that chick is kinda pretty and can kinda sing otherwise she'd be kinda working at Sonic for the rest of her life. But don't just take my word for it. Allow me to change the subject slightly for a moment here and give you a real treat. Here's Kellie Pickler on Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (Spoiler alert! Spoiler alert! She's not.)

Now where was I? Oh, right! There's something noticeably different about Kellie this time around. No, not THOSE! THOSE have been different for quite a while now. No, it's her hair. That and the fact that she now bears a striking resemblance to Kelly Clarkson. Behold!

Yeah, they're the same.

Here we have a one 19-year old Taylor Swift. Now, I've heard that the camera adds ten pounds. If that's true, then this must be a watercolor painting of Taylor because she looks like she weighs 88 pounds soaking wet. I'd hate to think that is what she looked like after the 10 extra camera pounds. Seriously, Taylor. Have a sandwich, sweetie.

This is a name maybe you haven't heard in a while. LeAnn Rimes. Apparently Ms. Rimes has been absent from the headlines lately either because a) she was never in the headlines to begin with, or b) she's been working on perfecting her raccoon look. Behold!

Ooh. Yeah, that's unfortunate. So's this:

Patricia Heaton and her breasts were at the CMAs. How tall is Patricia Heaton? She can't be more than 5'4". It's like she borrowed those breasts from a woman who was 7'4". When did she acquire the breasts? There is no way they have always been the size of two of the five Hawaiian Islands. I would have noticed! Trust me. I have an eye for breasts detail.

Below is the lovely Jennifer Nettles from Sugarland. It appears that the debate is settled once and for all that she is, seemingly, a mermaid. That's an amazing dress.

Do you remember the simply delightful little Diana DeGarmo from Season Three of American Idol? She came in second place finishing right behind your Season Three American Idol Fantasia Barrino. For those who don't remember, let's take a look at her back then. Try to ignore whatever it is that Ryan Seacrest is doing with his mouth. Behold!

Diana made an appearance at the CMA Awards the other night. Um, I think I might have liked her better before. Behold!

I don't know what it is that I find rather off-putting. Is it the bubble gum dress? Is the the elfen heels? Is it the Cher hairstyle? I think it might just be that she doesn't look entirely human. There's either a lot of makeup going on there or there's a little bit of plastic surgery going on there. Either way, it's not entirely great.

And finally we have...who? What? Kris....Kris Kristofferson? Um...behold?

Yep, that's him all right. What was he doing there? Oh, wait. He released a new album at the end of September. Something called "Closer to the Bone". What does that mean? He's kind of old. Maybe it refers to a bone that a dog has buried in a yard somewhere. Maybe he's meaning that he's closer to the bone in THAT sort of way. Is he trying to pose so that we'll think he's a bad ass and might beat someone up at any second? Yeah, that's not working. Good luck with that album, Kris.

Yep, it was quite the night and the whole thing cumulated in the artist formerly known as Hootie winning Best New Artist. We still don't know what a Blowfish was, but it might be for the better. Congratulations, Darius Rucker Sans Blowfish.

Sphere: Related Content

The Reselling of a Scumbag's Ill Begotten Items

Let's see what scumbucket Bernie Madoff spent everyone else's money on, shall we? After all, almost 200 items went up for auction yesterday. All items which were bought with other people's money had been seized from Bernie's three luxury properties that he bought with other people's money (you know, the money that he stole via the biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world). Here is just a sampling of some of the things that Madoff made off with.

Here we have a NY Mets jacket with 'Madoff' stitched onto the back. Oooh! How cool were you, dude? What exactly did you think wearing that would accomplish? Did you think that folks were going to look at the 70-ish old you wearing that jacket with your name on the back and think that you played for the Mets?!

Here we have some of his wife's jewelry. This would be three pairs of diamond earrings and a diamond and an Edwardian-era (who the heck is Edward? He has an entire era?!) emerald bracelet. Isn't that bracelet the kind that one would see on loan and on the wrist of a celebrity at the Academy Awards or something? Who owns something like that? Ruth Madoff is (was) who.

Speaking of Ruth (you remember her. She's his wife who claimed to know nothing about her husband's scheming ways. And she felt so badly about what he had done that when she was being evicted from their property, she asked if she could take her furs with her. Yeah, she clearly felt terrible about the whole thing. Bitch.) and her furs, here they are! Minus Ruth, of course. From my count, there are at least ten furs in that picture. Look, no one needs ten furs. I don't think that anyone even needs one fur, really. How many animals are running around naked right this very moment because they had to give up their fur for those coats?? What's that? Dead?!!? Good Lord, it's worse than I thought!

Here is a cigar box and a cigar box bag that it would appear Madoff had made up for some little jaunt off the Montauk in 1993. What is with that logo on that bag? Did some 5th grade class do that for him? Who has bags made for their boxes when they're going on vacation? I've never done that. It not only seems silly, it seems like it would take up a great deal of my time to get accomplished. (Then again, looking at that logo, it doesn't appear as if a whole lot of effort went into this idea. That's what will happen when you're pissing away someone else's money. You don't give a fat rat's ass what you spend it on. After all, it's not your money.)

Here are a couple of his boogie boards with his name wrote on them with permanent marker. What? Was he afraid someone was going to steal them? Oh, no! Then he'd have to go out and buy new ones and who can afford something like that these days?! (Um, probably people who are operating a Ponzi scheme so big it's only through the incompetence of the SEC that they don't get caught sooner.)

This is an appropriate item. This is a Rolex watch that was available to British prisoners of war during World War II. It's name is the Rolex Monoblocco, but it's nicknamed "The Prisoner". How appropriate for Mr. Madoff, as that's exactly what he'll be for the rest of his life. The prisoner. Dumbass. By the way, did I mention that this was only one of several Rolexes that he owned. Not just watches, but Rolexes. I didn't? He did. Own several. At least ten were up for sale at this particular auction. Un-believable. What a jackass.

And finally, we have what I find to be one of the more appropriate pieces of the Bernie Madoff era. This would be a life preserver for one of his boats, seemingly named The Bullship. That's just way too close to bullsh*t for it to just be a coincidence. Pretty accurate, I'd say. Everything that guy did or said was all a bunch of B.S. Hopefully this auction will net a large sum of money. It will never be enough to pay back all of the investors who lost the billions that he siphoned from them, but something is better than nothing. And he has a buttload of more things that can be sold, so look forward to more auctions in the future. Now, if we could only look forward to Bernie being someone's bitch in prison, that would be restitution!

Sphere: Related Content

Nicolas Cage is NOT a Victim

It's fairly easy for a headline, probably written by some dumbass 22-year old media intern, to make me irritated and/or angry. Usually that's because I know that what follows a really inflammatory, inaccurate and outright misleading headline is an inflammatory, inaccurate and outright misleading article Today's case in point would be this gem from CNN Money: Nicolas Cage: Movie star, foreclosure victim. Um, what now? Does that say 'victim'?

I've long been under the impression that when someone is a victim it is because something has happened to them. I'm having a hard time understanding how Nicolas Cage, movie star, is a victim of foreclosure. Let's see if a one Hibah Yousuf, a CNN Money.com staff writer, can clear things up for us, shall we?

Her article begins with "Even Academy Award winners are suffering from financial woes this recession. Actor Nicolas Cage lost two homes in New Orleans worth a total of $6.8 million in a foreclosure auction Thursday." Financial woes? During this recession? But...but...but didn't she then just say something about $6.8 million in homes? Right. She did! I see it! It's right there! $6.8 million in homes! Lost to a foreclosure auction! Wait a minute.

I was under the impression that folks that were losing their homes during the recession were doing so because they were unable to make their house payments. Now, you and I both know that in the majority of cases, the home prices were overinflated by people who were just trying to get rich (and did!) and the over-priced homes were bought with people who were allowed to do so with almost no credit check, no down payment and, in many cases, no way of ever making a single payment. Granted, I have a hard time using the term "victim" in those cases either, but they do represent your typical person who has had a home foreclosed upon during this recession. (Idiots.)

Let's see...apparently "Cage owed $5.5 million in mortgage payments and $151,730 to the City of New Orleans in real estate taxes, according to (Civil Sheriff Paul) Valteau." Five and a half million in back mortgage payments? Did he lose his job or something? I...I don't think he did!

According to something called The Movie Times, he made $16 million in 1998 for Snake Eyes; $20 million in 2000 for Gone in 60 Seconds; $20 million in 2002 for something called Windtalkers; and $20 million in 2004 for National Treasure. You have to assume that the National Treasure movie that he made in 2007 would have paid him somewhere around the same $20 million range as the first one did, wouldn't you? I would. I am. Mind you, these were just the movies that were listed at The Movie Times that had a salary attached to them and I only included the ones that were double digit salaries. He made other movies in the past 11 years. He made more than just the $76 million that I detailed in those four movies. And that $20 million in 2007? Wasn't that right around the peak of the "recession" that Ms. Yousuf is attributing Mr. Cage's hardships to? I don't know about you, but $20 million doesn't sound like much of a hardship to me - ever!

The article continues by stating that Mr. Cage is suing a one Samuel Levin who is his former business manager. Mr. Cage is claiming in his lawsuit that Mr. Levin "...duped the Hollywood actor out of more than $20 million since 2001 when he was hired." Really? How is "being duped" part of the "recession"? Did Ms. Yousuf not read her own article when she wrote it?

But wait! There's more. "...Cage owes more than $6 million in back taxes and his properties in California and Las Vegas have also been foreclosed on and are designated for auction later this month." Wait. Wait a minute. Two more houses have been foreclosed on? There's another six million in back taxes that he owes? Well, if that's true, then Mr. Cage had at least four houses. That doesn't sound like the recession, Ms. Yousuf. No, that sounds like stupidity and irresponsibility (much like the kind that is peppered throughout your article). There is a difference.

Look, even if that Levin cretin did "dupe" Nicolas Cage out of $20 million, from what I can figure (and he has 5 projects slated for 2010 and has already done 5 this year so far), he still should have had around $40 million easily to play around with. Tell me something, if you have that much money, why wouldn't you just buy a house outright? Why are you getting a mortgage? I don't get it. Then again, I don't get why you'd have four houses, none of which it would seem like you could pay for.

According to an article over there at New York Magazine, it would seem that Mr. Cage has owned 3 castles, 2 Bahamanian islands, 1 pet shark and 1 Lamborghini (formerly owned by the Shah of Iran, of course, which he paid $493,000 for). He also, in 2007, outbid Leonardo DiCaprio in what they described as a "frenzied auction" for a dinosaur skull and ended up paying $247,000 for it. According to that same article in New York Magazine, "Most of his dozen or so homes, 50 cars, 2 islands, 2 yachts and jet have been sold, foreclosed upon or are on the market." What. The. Hell?

We've only read about four of his houses that have been sold through foreclosure so far. You're telling me that there are at least EIGHT more?! And FIFTY cars?! What in the hell is wrong with someone that they go out and buy FIFTY cars? The only type of island that anyone should be buying is Thousand Island dressing. (And personally, even that is questionable.) According to US Magazine "...one Bel Air home, purchased in 1998, features a billiard room with a 1955 Jaguar parked inside plus an array of "shrunken heads." An...an...array? Of shrunken heads? How many constitutes an array? Why would you want an array of shrunken heads? How do you play billiards in a room with a car parked in it. Perhaps Mr. Cage is confused on the concept because that room with the 1955 Jaguar parked inside of it isn't usually known as a "billiard room" as much as it is known as a garage.

Oh, but according to Hibah Yousuf of CNN Money.com, poor, poor Nicolas Cage is a victim of the recession and a victim of foreclosure. Please don't take this the wrong way Ms. Yousuf when I say that you should resign. Immediately.

Seriously, ma'am, what is wrong with you? How on earth can you even attempt to try to paint Nicolas Cage as some sort of victim of anything other than his own irresponsiblity and his own stupidity? He is a moron. He had a gazillion dollars and he pissed it away. All I needed to know in order to figure that out was "frenzied fossil bidding war with Leonardo DiCaprio". But to CNN Money.com, Nicolas Cage is a victim. Spare me. Does that mean that Leonardo DiCaprio is in jeopardy of becoming the next vicitm of the recession? Does he have an array of unusually tiny heads as well?

If I haven't convinced you by now that CNN Money.com has ZERO credibility at all as a credible news source covering the financial market, then you probably are too dumb to have enough money to be concerned about such erroneous reporting. In which case, crawl on back to your parent's basement and poke your head out when Call of Duty 3 gets released. If I'm missing something or I have misinterpreted something, I'd love to hear about it. But I'm fairly astute in the English language and that articles says "Nicolas Cage...Foreclosure victim" and the first sentence attributes his victimhood to the recession. Again, Ms. Yousuf? Resign. Immediately. And take your editor with you. Please. Good Lord, what a pile of crap that article was.

Sphere: Related Content

Answer the Question!

People really need some sort of a timer to determine exactly when their 15 minutes of fame are actually up. When you go over your fifteen minutes, you're not just flirting with disaster, you're courting it and fixin' to marry it. Case in point today would be Carrie Prejean.

Ms. Prejean (pronounced along the same lines as if she were a mustard in one of those commercials, "Pardon me? Do you have any Grey Prejean?") was the Miss California contestant who was "competing" in the Miss USA Pageant. I say "competing" because is it really a "competition" to walk around in high heels and a swim suit. Enjoyable to watch? Sure. Tricky as hell? I'd imagine so. But competitive? Not so much, it wouldn't seem. Anyway, she was the one who was given the question by the loathsome Perez Hilton about whether or not gay marriage should be legal in the country. (It's a ridiculous question because a) marriage is regulated at a state, not a federal, level, and b) who gives a crap what Miss California thinks about it in the first place?) Miss California famously replied with something to the effect of how she supports "opposite marriage", but not gay marriage.

While gay marriage advocates tried to vilify her for that response, they conveniently overlooked the fact that President Barry is also a fan of opposite marriage, as is Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and 36 of the 50 states in the union. But through said vilification she decided to take the road known as that of the Better Than Thou. That would have been fine if she actually had half of a brain in her head. Sadly, but not shockingly, that was not the case.

If she had realized the limits of the 15 minutes of fame, she might not have found herself in the position that she's in. Hell, if she had realized the power of money, the Internet and Donald Trump, she might not have found herself in the position that she's in. Here's the scoop: She sued the Miss California USA folks because she claimed that they fired and that constituted libel, slander and religious discrimination. They claimed that they fired her because she wouldn't do the gigs that they set up for her to do. Meanwhile, during all of this "she said-pageant people said" bickering, she played the little martyred Christian girl card and tried to trump it with the pure as the driven snow card. Whoops! Too many cards!

Mind you, Donald Trump owns the Miss USA pageant. (That's different from Miss America, for all of you pageant newbies. They're both ridiculous and exploit the dumb and beautiful, but what the hell? It's two or three hours of blondes and boobs once a year. I can live with it. I'd rather have them doing that than living in the Middle East and wearing the beekeeper's uniform.) Thus, he owns the Miss California Pageant. Somehow. (I don't get how that works exactly. I mean, if you own Oscar Mayer, it's not like you own all of the hot dog stands out there. Mmm....hot dogs.) If you're essentially going to sue Donald Trump, you'd better make damn sure your closet is skeleton free...something the former Miss California forgot to do.

Turns out that she had sent several cell phone videos of just herself to a guy who she claimed was "her boyfriend" and whom she claimed she "cared about very much". She also claimed that she was 17 at the time that she did said videos (which, by the way, at the time she was only claiming there was ONE and that it was "the biggest mistake of her life". One which, apparently, she repeated another 14-19 times as the boyfriend claims that he has at least between 15 and 20 videos of her, um, pleasuring herself.) OK, so that revelation rears it's ugly head (or maybe not so ugly, she's kinda hot) and what do you think happens to the lawsuit? Miraculously settled, that is correct!

Now, the only way that I can figure that the masturbatory cell phone sex videos (how hot) would have been detrimental to her lawsuit would be if she was claiming that that Miss California USA Pageant had painted her as something less than wholesome when, in reality, she already was something less than wholesome. (Not that less than wholesome is bad! But she was claiming that not only that it was horrific, that she, inexplicably, needed a lot of money for it.) Naturally, the terms of the settlement are confidential, but that doesn't stop a former Miss California USA from going on the talk show circuit and trying to not talk about the reason why she settled.

The problem the former Miss CA USA seems to be having is that she has spent most of her life in high heels and a swim suit and is used to just flashing her ample bosom at folks and having them drool and give her what she wants. She's not used to having to defend herself. She claims that her idol is Sarah Palin. I get that. They both have the moral aspect of their lives going on. The problem is that neither one of them has figured out how to channel that aspect without coming across as sanctimonious or, in the case of Carrie Prejean, a complete idiot.

Carrie Prejean went on Larry King (Barely A) Live the other night and seemed to think that the interview would not include questions that she COULD answer but didn't WANT to. According to the huffy folks over there at The Huffington Post, Larry King actually asked a viable and reasonable question, that being: "Why settle since you had a fight to carry on?" She responded by saying something about how the settlement was confidential and she couldn't discuss it. Larry King responded that he understood that, that he wasn't asking about the settlement and that he was asking for her reasoning as to why she settled. She refused to answer and instead fed him this line: "Larry, it's completely confidential and you're being inappropriate." Um, what now?

Inappropriate?! No, what's inappropriate, you little twit, is going around pretending to be something that you're not. Don't get me wrong. You can absolutely be an outspoken Christian with extremely high moral standards and have had a past that was less than stellar. That's fine. In fact, since the majority of us do have less than stellar pasts (good Lord, do we ever) I appreciate those that demonstrate a much cleaner path once they've dusted off the filth from the previous path. But don't act like you've never been down and dirty. (We've all zigged when we should have zagged at one point or another in our lives. That doesn't make us bad people now. OK, it does make some people absolutely hideous. But most of us? Not so much. Besides, admit it, the zagging felt great!)

But Ms. Prejean acts so offended that Larry King would ask her a perfectly legitimate question that is so not out of the bounds of the confidentiality agreement. At one point, completely bewildered by her claiming confidentiality as why she won't discuss why she settled and dropped her fight against what she claimed was religious discrimination, asks "So, the agreement discusses the motive behind why each party agreed?" (That translates loosely into: You just don't want to say that you had to settle because you didn't want your myriad of solitary sex videos to come out at a trial.")

Somewhere around this line of questioning is when she threatens to walk out of the interview. She is clearly talking to someone who is not in the camera's line of sight and they seem to be encouraging her to act as if she is going to walk out. Instead, she takes off her mike and then just sits there as if there's nothing wrong. Meanwhile, back at Camp King, he has taken a phone call from a viewer who has asked her what her advice is for gay people who do want to get married. Larry King repeatedly asks her if she can hear him and at one point he says, "Can you hear me?" and she responds, "No, Larry. I cannot hear you." Um...what? I...I think you can! By the very virtue that you just answered him, I'm pretty sure you can hear him! It's nothing short of hilarious and the entire exchange is in the video below. Behold!

She's done, isn't she? I mean, she has some book coming out (maybe it's already out, I have no idea, nor do I have any interest in looking it up at the moment) which may or may not sell. Regardless, I highly doubt that her book signings (because don't they always do book signings) are going to involve throngs of followers. It's OK for regular people to lie (for some reason), but when you're putting your own self up on a pedestal and then it comes out that you've lied and/or misrepresented yourself, that's just not OK with people. The public has a short fuse for hypocrisy. (They also have a short memory for it as well, but that's another story.) All I know is that she can't go away quick enough. She's made herself look like an idiot and she's wasted everyone's time with her self-pleasing act (pun totally intended). All I can hope for now is that the ex-boyfriend who likely sold the videos which she willingly gave him got a sizeable amount for them. That seems fair at this point, doesn't it?

Sphere: Related Content