As soon as I heard they were making one of my favorite books into a movie, you knew I'd have to go see Marley & Me in the theater.
This trip was a lot less eventful than the last time, maybe because we decided to eat in the food court, instead of a restaurant, and because no one was in the theater when we got there.
When we walked in the ticket taker told us we needed 3D glasses, Mrs. Poop and I were shocked, and a little scared to see Marley in 3D. Turns out the guy was just confused because "My Bloody Valentine 3D" was playing the same theater.
While I really enjoyed the movie, it didn't come close to comparing to the book. There just wasn't enough time to show everything Marley did wrong so a lot of events were combined or edited slightly or completely removed.
Also, because they paid so much to get Jennifer Aniston in the movie, they greatly expanded her part, giving her lines that were actually said by John, not Jenny.
And the book was a lot more centered around Marley, while the movie focused much more on John and Jenny.
But there was one advantage the movie had over the book. Seeing the dog's mischief with your eyes (as opposed to your mind's eye) did make it a little more laugh-out-loud funny (as opposed to smile and quiet chuckle funny).
And as the movie ended and Marley's demise was being depicted, seeing an old slow dog deteriorate on the big screen really pulled at your heart strings.
When the movie ended there wasn't a dry eye in the house, including mine.
And as we walked out, tears still in our eyes, the people waiting to get into the theater seemed shocked. They exchanged glances that seemed to say "I had no idea My Bloody Valentine" was so sad.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Paulo's Book Club: "Marley & Me"
"We could have bought a small yacht with what we spent on our dog and all the things he destroyed. Then again, how many yachts wait by the door all day for your return?"
If you can understand that sentiment then you will love this book. If you can't imagine how anyone could love an animal that frequently causes trouble and often causes damage, then you've never loved a dog before. At least not a bad dog.
While the antics of Marley are what makes the book, the relationship between Marley and John and to a lesser extent Jenny, and eventually with their three kids, is what makes this book great.
But what makes this book one of my favorites ever, is the parallels between my life and the life of the author.
He's got Marley, I've got Diesel.
Marley's a lab, Diesel's a lab.
Marley's a bad dog, Diesel's a bad dog (though thankfully nowhere close to as bad as Marley).
And in both cases we love our dogs, in spite of, or maybe because of the mischief they cause.
When the book begins John just got married and moved into a house with his new wife, when they decided to get a dog, to prepare them to one day have kids.
But having kids isn't so easy, as we both learned. Jenny had a miscarriage, Mrs. Poop had a miscarriage. Jenny cried on Marley, Mrs. Poop cried on Diesel.
And this was the point in my life where I read the book for the very first time, making it a little more meaningful.
But two years later, we have even more things in common, we both had a little boy, and like Patrick and Marley, Chase is constantly giving Diesel food from his tray.
And despite their wildness around others, both Marley and Diesel display an amazing calm around their little brothers.
And someday, we'll probably have even more in common, dogs, not even Diesel, don't live forever.
But even more than the story he tells, what makes this book special, is the way Grogan tells it.
The book is funny, of course because of Marley's antics, but also because of Grogan's humor. When Marley got a job on a movie set, Grogan said "next time, we're hoping for a barking part."
I guess that's what makes this such a great book, is that through the first 270 pages you can't help but laugh, and in the last 30 pages, you can't help but cry.
If you can understand that sentiment then you will love this book. If you can't imagine how anyone could love an animal that frequently causes trouble and often causes damage, then you've never loved a dog before. At least not a bad dog.
While the antics of Marley are what makes the book, the relationship between Marley and John and to a lesser extent Jenny, and eventually with their three kids, is what makes this book great.
But what makes this book one of my favorites ever, is the parallels between my life and the life of the author.
He's got Marley, I've got Diesel.
Marley's a lab, Diesel's a lab.
Marley's a bad dog, Diesel's a bad dog (though thankfully nowhere close to as bad as Marley).
And in both cases we love our dogs, in spite of, or maybe because of the mischief they cause.
When the book begins John just got married and moved into a house with his new wife, when they decided to get a dog, to prepare them to one day have kids.
But having kids isn't so easy, as we both learned. Jenny had a miscarriage, Mrs. Poop had a miscarriage. Jenny cried on Marley, Mrs. Poop cried on Diesel.
And this was the point in my life where I read the book for the very first time, making it a little more meaningful.
But two years later, we have even more things in common, we both had a little boy, and like Patrick and Marley, Chase is constantly giving Diesel food from his tray.
And despite their wildness around others, both Marley and Diesel display an amazing calm around their little brothers.
And someday, we'll probably have even more in common, dogs, not even Diesel, don't live forever.
But even more than the story he tells, what makes this book special, is the way Grogan tells it.
The book is funny, of course because of Marley's antics, but also because of Grogan's humor. When Marley got a job on a movie set, Grogan said "next time, we're hoping for a barking part."
I guess that's what makes this such a great book, is that through the first 270 pages you can't help but laugh, and in the last 30 pages, you can't help but cry.
Try Reading This Without Giggling
In what is being heralded as a "first-ever procedure," surgeons removed a healthy kidney through a donor's vagina, the Johns Hopkins Medical Center has announced.
Although the procedure has been previously done to extract cancerous and nonfunctioning kidneys that threatened a patient's health, this is the first time it's been done for donation purposes.
"The kidney was successfully removed and transplanted into the donor's niece, and both patients are doing fine," Dr. Robert Montgomery, chief of transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins, said in the release.
The surgery is considered less invasive and could pave the way for an increase in organ donations, it added.
"Removing the kidney through a natural opening should hasten the patient's recovery and provide a better cosmetic result," Montgomery said.
"We want to make it easier for people to donate, to have less impact on their lives, [be] in hospital a shorter amount of time and get back to their lives quicker."
The woman was chosen to be the first donor to undergo the procedure because a previous hysterectomy enabled doctors to operate without a uterus obstructing their efforts.
The more traditional surgery requires a 5- to 6-inch incision through the abdominal wall and generally is followed by two or three days of hospitalization.
"If you asked our patient, she said it was like getting a tooth removed. She was walking that night and left the next day," Montgomery said.
The procedure is done by inserting "wand-like cameras and tools" through small incisions in the abdomen and navel.
Doctors then insert a hollow tube through the vagina with a bag at the end.
Once the kidney is cut loose, surgeons use video from the cameras to guide them as they maneuver the bag around the organ, place it in the tube and pull it out through the vaginal opening.
A kidney weighs approximately one pound and is roughly the size of a clenched hand.
In an effort to ensure a more sterile procedure, the vagina is treated with Betadine, a sterilizing solvent commonly applied during surgery.
But some physicians wonder how clean the procedure can actually be.
"It's good to take such [sterilization] measures," said Dr. Jihad Kaouk, director of laparoscopic and robotic surgery at the Cleveland Clinic. "But the tube touched the vagina. And the bag touched the tube. And the bag touched the kidney"
He added, "delivering a kidney from the vagina, which is not sterile -- is it a potential risk or a real risk? We'll find out now."
Although the procedure has been previously done to extract cancerous and nonfunctioning kidneys that threatened a patient's health, this is the first time it's been done for donation purposes.
"The kidney was successfully removed and transplanted into the donor's niece, and both patients are doing fine," Dr. Robert Montgomery, chief of transplant surgery at Johns Hopkins, said in the release.
The surgery is considered less invasive and could pave the way for an increase in organ donations, it added.
"Removing the kidney through a natural opening should hasten the patient's recovery and provide a better cosmetic result," Montgomery said.
"We want to make it easier for people to donate, to have less impact on their lives, [be] in hospital a shorter amount of time and get back to their lives quicker."
The woman was chosen to be the first donor to undergo the procedure because a previous hysterectomy enabled doctors to operate without a uterus obstructing their efforts.
The more traditional surgery requires a 5- to 6-inch incision through the abdominal wall and generally is followed by two or three days of hospitalization.
"If you asked our patient, she said it was like getting a tooth removed. She was walking that night and left the next day," Montgomery said.
The procedure is done by inserting "wand-like cameras and tools" through small incisions in the abdomen and navel.
Doctors then insert a hollow tube through the vagina with a bag at the end.
Once the kidney is cut loose, surgeons use video from the cameras to guide them as they maneuver the bag around the organ, place it in the tube and pull it out through the vaginal opening.
A kidney weighs approximately one pound and is roughly the size of a clenched hand.
In an effort to ensure a more sterile procedure, the vagina is treated with Betadine, a sterilizing solvent commonly applied during surgery.
But some physicians wonder how clean the procedure can actually be.
"It's good to take such [sterilization] measures," said Dr. Jihad Kaouk, director of laparoscopic and robotic surgery at the Cleveland Clinic. "But the tube touched the vagina. And the bag touched the tube. And the bag touched the kidney"
He added, "delivering a kidney from the vagina, which is not sterile -- is it a potential risk or a real risk? We'll find out now."
Thursday, February 05, 2009
A Chance to Change Your Mind
A few of you, most notably Damino, said no to "Would You Bang? Sarah Palin" but maybe this picture of her in fuck-me boots aka hooker boots might change your mind.
Basketball Powers
Check out the top 5 in the current AP college basketball polls (men's first, then women's):
1. UConn 2. Oklahoma 3. North Carolina 4. Duke 5. Louisville
1. UConn 2. Oklahoma 3. California 4. Duke 5. Louisville
1. UConn 2. Oklahoma 3. North Carolina 4. Duke 5. Louisville
1. UConn 2. Oklahoma 3. California 4. Duke 5. Louisville
That's One Way to Get Out of Overdue Fees on Your Library Books
My new hero is Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger. Chase got a toy plane for Hannukah and I told him the pilot was a Sully Sullenberger action figure.
Sully called the Fresno State University Library (a place Melvin Ely never visited) to ask for a waiver on overdue charges for a book he borrowed.
Turns out the book is still in the cargo hold of the plane Sullenberger landed on the Hudson River.
The library told him not to worry about it, it will replace the book in his honor.
Oh, and the book is about ethics. Why did this guy need to read about ethics?
Sully called the Fresno State University Library (a place Melvin Ely never visited) to ask for a waiver on overdue charges for a book he borrowed.
Turns out the book is still in the cargo hold of the plane Sullenberger landed on the Hudson River.
The library told him not to worry about it, it will replace the book in his honor.
Oh, and the book is about ethics. Why did this guy need to read about ethics?
Derek Jeter is a Thief Who Should be Thrown in Jail
While 18 vultures were arrested during the last game at Yankee Stadium for trying to make off with mementos from the soon-to-be-destroyed stadium (knowing Yankees fans they probably also had outstanding warrants), one crook made off with a precious item scott-free.
Derek Jeter now admits to stealing a sign from the clubhouse, the one that says "I want to thank the good Lord for making me a Yankee."
Jeter makes enough money, he should have just paid the ridiculous price to buy the sign at auction.
But Jeter, like the fans who root for him, is a low-life piece of trash who should be thrown in jail.
Derek Jeter now admits to stealing a sign from the clubhouse, the one that says "I want to thank the good Lord for making me a Yankee."
Jeter makes enough money, he should have just paid the ridiculous price to buy the sign at auction.
But Jeter, like the fans who root for him, is a low-life piece of trash who should be thrown in jail.
Senos Grandes
Melody Morales is suing the Hawaiian Tropic Zone for discrimination after getting rejected for a job as a waitress there.
Morales who is 21-years-old, has the right experience, she used to be a Hooters girl.
She has the right assets, she has 34D breasts and as she says "I look good in a bikini" but the Hawaiian tropic racists wouldn't know because "they never even looked at me in a bikini."
Instead, a manager dismissed her, saying, according to Morales: "You don't speak white" and "you are ghetto."
Also, a manager said "I am not going to ruin my business with your Latin accent."
I can definitely see both sides of this argument. First of all, a restaurant does have the right to hire people who can communicate with its customers. And she does look kind of ghetto.
But let's be real here, they're not running a high-class joint. She has big tits and does look pretty good in that bikini. And those are the real job requirements.
Morales who is 21-years-old, has the right experience, she used to be a Hooters girl.
She has the right assets, she has 34D breasts and as she says "I look good in a bikini" but the Hawaiian tropic racists wouldn't know because "they never even looked at me in a bikini."
Instead, a manager dismissed her, saying, according to Morales: "You don't speak white" and "you are ghetto."
Also, a manager said "I am not going to ruin my business with your Latin accent."
I can definitely see both sides of this argument. First of all, a restaurant does have the right to hire people who can communicate with its customers. And she does look kind of ghetto.
But let's be real here, they're not running a high-class joint. She has big tits and does look pretty good in that bikini. And those are the real job requirements.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Song of the Week
"Brilliant Disguise" - Bruce Springsteen
For some reason everyone has been talking about The Boss this week. I'm not a huge Springsteen fan but if I had to choose one, this would be my favorite song.
record label link
For some reason everyone has been talking about The Boss this week. I'm not a huge Springsteen fan but if I had to choose one, this would be my favorite song.
record label link
Why Your Kid Keeps Getting Sick
Mrs. Poop and I (and I guess Chase) have all been very lucky in that in the first 18 months of his life the little tyke has gotten sick only twice, maybe thrice.
Many other parents, and little kids we know, are frequently canceling play dates, or staying home from daycare because of all manner of illness from runny nose to high fever.
Sure, the fact that Chase doesn't go to daycare is a major reason why he's been relatively healthy to this point, but there's also this: Chase eats dirt.
The New York Times offers this scientific advice for all you parents out there: a little dirt is good for you.
"In studies of what is called the hygiene hypothesis, researchers are concluding that organisms like the millions of bacteria, viruses and especially worms that enter the body along with “dirt” spur the development of a healthy immune system."
The article goes on to explain what many of us "relaxed" parents have long professed, that eating dirt, and exposure to germs helps a child develop a strong immune system and fend off disease.
Many other parents, and little kids we know, are frequently canceling play dates, or staying home from daycare because of all manner of illness from runny nose to high fever.
Sure, the fact that Chase doesn't go to daycare is a major reason why he's been relatively healthy to this point, but there's also this: Chase eats dirt.
The New York Times offers this scientific advice for all you parents out there: a little dirt is good for you.
"In studies of what is called the hygiene hypothesis, researchers are concluding that organisms like the millions of bacteria, viruses and especially worms that enter the body along with “dirt” spur the development of a healthy immune system."
The article goes on to explain what many of us "relaxed" parents have long professed, that eating dirt, and exposure to germs helps a child develop a strong immune system and fend off disease.
The Mets are Down with OPP
A few days after the Mets season ended I wrote my offseason plan.
"Absolutely, positively, sign Oliver Perez, no matter the cost. It will probably cost 6-years, $90 million," I wrote.
Thankfully, the Mets came to their senses and got Perez at a bargain basement price. The Mets needed to fill a hole in their rotation and they did by getting a good (not great), young pitcher, at well below market value. Over the past 2 seasons Perez and Derek Lowe have essentially been equals (slight edge to Lowe) and Lowe got much more money, an extra year, and he's 8 years older. Based on market conditions this is a steal for the Mets.
In October I wrote, "The best fit might actually be Manny Ramirez. He can hit under pressure and his lax attitude, while galling at times, may be exactly what this team needs to avoid folding under pressure again."
But that's not going to happen. I think he's exactly what they need, but the Mets are not interested in acquiring his attitude, his surliness, his capriciousness and of course his huge salary. That's because it would put the Mets over the luxury tax, something they said they won't do.
It's not because they lost $300 million to Madoff (that was a separate business venture), it's not because they are worried Citigroup won't give them the naming rights money and it's not because they're cheap jews. It's because they're trying to operate their business on a budget.
And as much as I love Ramirez, I can't say I blame them for that.
And I reiterate, the Mets came up just a couple games short the last two years. They didn't need a makeover, they needed some improvements, and K-Rod and Putz should add 10 wins between them. So if everyone else combines to play only 5 games worse, the Mets should finally make the playoffs.
"Absolutely, positively, sign Oliver Perez, no matter the cost. It will probably cost 6-years, $90 million," I wrote.
Thankfully, the Mets came to their senses and got Perez at a bargain basement price. The Mets needed to fill a hole in their rotation and they did by getting a good (not great), young pitcher, at well below market value. Over the past 2 seasons Perez and Derek Lowe have essentially been equals (slight edge to Lowe) and Lowe got much more money, an extra year, and he's 8 years older. Based on market conditions this is a steal for the Mets.
In October I wrote, "The best fit might actually be Manny Ramirez. He can hit under pressure and his lax attitude, while galling at times, may be exactly what this team needs to avoid folding under pressure again."
But that's not going to happen. I think he's exactly what they need, but the Mets are not interested in acquiring his attitude, his surliness, his capriciousness and of course his huge salary. That's because it would put the Mets over the luxury tax, something they said they won't do.
It's not because they lost $300 million to Madoff (that was a separate business venture), it's not because they are worried Citigroup won't give them the naming rights money and it's not because they're cheap jews. It's because they're trying to operate their business on a budget.
And as much as I love Ramirez, I can't say I blame them for that.
And I reiterate, the Mets came up just a couple games short the last two years. They didn't need a makeover, they needed some improvements, and K-Rod and Putz should add 10 wins between them. So if everyone else combines to play only 5 games worse, the Mets should finally make the playoffs.
The Super Bowl is Poop
Pittsburgh Steelers 27 Arizona Cardinals 23
This one will definitely go down as a Super Bowl for the ages, even after a subpar first half. What made this game so dramatic was that at several points, everything seemed to be going one way, then one play completely changed the momentum. Obviously the first play I’m referring to is the James Harrison interception. It was a horrible throw by Warner because he had two more downs to try to get a touchdown, and had to at least play it safe enough to ensure a tie going into halftime. That would have been a huge boost for the Cardinals because they deferred and got the ball first in the second half.
When the Cardinals try to figure out why they lost this game, not being able to tackle Harrison will be number one.
But when the Cardinals completed their comeback with that long pass to Fitzgerald I declared, incredulously "the Cardinals are going to win the Super Bowl!"
But the Steelers came back and one the game on one of the best pass-catch combos you will ever see. Sure Santonio Holmes did a great job grabbing it and getting both feet inbounds. But a brilliant job by Roethlisberger putting it right over the hands of 3 defenders and into Holmes's arms.
The Best Super Bowl Ever, Again
After a string of blowouts in the 80s and 90s (14 out of 16 were decided by 7 points or more), in the last 8 years we've had 5 great Super Bowls. And the last two are probably the best.
Nice Catch
Santonio Holmes is the 6th wide receiver to win a Super Bowl MVP Award. Three of those receivers (Holmes, Hines Ward and Lynn Swan) won it while playing for the Steelers.
Best Super Bowl QB Ever
Of the top three Super Bowl performances by a quarterback, in terms of most passing yards, Kurt Warner holds the top 3 spots. 414 yards in the Rams win over the Titans. 365 yards against the Patriots in a loss and 377 in this game against the Steelers. Three Super Bowl appearances, even with two losses, two MVP awards, and these 3 prolific performances, I think Kurt Warner is a Hall of Famer.
The Model Franchise
The Pittsburgh Steelers are now the first team with a Super Bowl ring on the other hand (breaking a 3-way tie with the San Francisco 49ers and Dallas Cowboys). They also have never lost a Super Bowl [correction: the Steelers are 6-1 in Super Bowls]. When it comes to the NFL, you’d have to consider the Pittsburgh Steelers the most successful team of the Super Bowl era. And with the team’s ownership being a driving force for racial equality in coaching, and then backing it up by hiring Mike Tomlin, you’d have to consider the Steelers a model organization off the field as well. Although, an ownership squabble is dragging on threatening to turn ugly if the Rooneys don’t sell.
Just Crazy Enough to Work
I'm not saying this would ever happen, but what if Larry Fitzgerald took a knee at the one yard line?
At the very least, it would have killed another 30 seconds, and if they didn't get in on first down, maybe even more than that.
No player should ever do that (maybe trailing by 1 or 2 points with a field goal to fall back on, but never down by 4) but if you break it down mathematically it might make sense. Let's say he stops at the 1. I'd say that only hurts their chances of scoring a TD by about 10%. Don't you think that even with 30 fewer seconds to play with, the Steelers chances of winning (or even tying the game) fall by much more than that?
Just in the Nick of Time
The craziest "coincidence" (I don't use that word, but I think people are sick of reading about the Universe) that I haven't heard anyone mention is this: Santonio Holmes's amazing Super Bowl-winning catch and the one last year by Plaxico Burress both came with exactly 35 seconds remaining in the game. And the previous "greatest touchdown catch to win a Super Bowl, by John Taylor in XXII, came with 34 seconds left.
This one will definitely go down as a Super Bowl for the ages, even after a subpar first half. What made this game so dramatic was that at several points, everything seemed to be going one way, then one play completely changed the momentum. Obviously the first play I’m referring to is the James Harrison interception. It was a horrible throw by Warner because he had two more downs to try to get a touchdown, and had to at least play it safe enough to ensure a tie going into halftime. That would have been a huge boost for the Cardinals because they deferred and got the ball first in the second half.
When the Cardinals try to figure out why they lost this game, not being able to tackle Harrison will be number one.
But when the Cardinals completed their comeback with that long pass to Fitzgerald I declared, incredulously "the Cardinals are going to win the Super Bowl!"
But the Steelers came back and one the game on one of the best pass-catch combos you will ever see. Sure Santonio Holmes did a great job grabbing it and getting both feet inbounds. But a brilliant job by Roethlisberger putting it right over the hands of 3 defenders and into Holmes's arms.
The Best Super Bowl Ever, Again
After a string of blowouts in the 80s and 90s (14 out of 16 were decided by 7 points or more), in the last 8 years we've had 5 great Super Bowls. And the last two are probably the best.
Nice Catch
Santonio Holmes is the 6th wide receiver to win a Super Bowl MVP Award. Three of those receivers (Holmes, Hines Ward and Lynn Swan) won it while playing for the Steelers.
Best Super Bowl QB Ever
Of the top three Super Bowl performances by a quarterback, in terms of most passing yards, Kurt Warner holds the top 3 spots. 414 yards in the Rams win over the Titans. 365 yards against the Patriots in a loss and 377 in this game against the Steelers. Three Super Bowl appearances, even with two losses, two MVP awards, and these 3 prolific performances, I think Kurt Warner is a Hall of Famer.
The Model Franchise
The Pittsburgh Steelers are now the first team with a Super Bowl ring on the other hand (breaking a 3-way tie with the San Francisco 49ers and Dallas Cowboys). They also have never lost a Super Bowl [correction: the Steelers are 6-1 in Super Bowls]. When it comes to the NFL, you’d have to consider the Pittsburgh Steelers the most successful team of the Super Bowl era. And with the team’s ownership being a driving force for racial equality in coaching, and then backing it up by hiring Mike Tomlin, you’d have to consider the Steelers a model organization off the field as well. Although, an ownership squabble is dragging on threatening to turn ugly if the Rooneys don’t sell.
Just Crazy Enough to Work
I'm not saying this would ever happen, but what if Larry Fitzgerald took a knee at the one yard line?
At the very least, it would have killed another 30 seconds, and if they didn't get in on first down, maybe even more than that.
No player should ever do that (maybe trailing by 1 or 2 points with a field goal to fall back on, but never down by 4) but if you break it down mathematically it might make sense. Let's say he stops at the 1. I'd say that only hurts their chances of scoring a TD by about 10%. Don't you think that even with 30 fewer seconds to play with, the Steelers chances of winning (or even tying the game) fall by much more than that?
Just in the Nick of Time
The craziest "coincidence" (I don't use that word, but I think people are sick of reading about the Universe) that I haven't heard anyone mention is this: Santonio Holmes's amazing Super Bowl-winning catch and the one last year by Plaxico Burress both came with exactly 35 seconds remaining in the game. And the previous "greatest touchdown catch to win a Super Bowl, by John Taylor in XXII, came with 34 seconds left.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Jim Leyland Can Saing
During a visit to the Motown Museum Jim Leyland tests out the echo chamber with a little rendition of the Stylistics 1972 classic "Betcha By Golly Wow."
I'm impressed that he actually has a decent singing voice after smoking 3 packs a day for 50 years, but also the guy started at the beginning and knew all the lyrics, not just the cheesy hook.
Note: This video will autoplay everytime you load the Poop. It's kind of annoying but I like it so much I don't care. Unless TON can figure out a way to stop that I'll leave it for a couple days then backdate it so it's off the main page by Thursday.
And here's the original version:
I'm impressed that he actually has a decent singing voice after smoking 3 packs a day for 50 years, but also the guy started at the beginning and knew all the lyrics, not just the cheesy hook.
Note: This video will autoplay everytime you load the Poop. It's kind of annoying but I like it so much I don't care. Unless TON can figure out a way to stop that I'll leave it for a couple days then backdate it so it's off the main page by Thursday.
And here's the original version:
Who's That Girl?
The porn clip that invaded the Super Bowl has made its way onto youtube. While I recognize Evan Stone, I don't think I've ever seen this young lady before.
Who is she?
The naughty parts of this video are covered, making it at least on the surface, safe for work.
Who is she?
The naughty parts of this video are covered, making it at least on the surface, safe for work.
Mother Fucker!
I knew she was going to do this:
"The mother of octuplets born in California last week is seeking $2 million from media interviews and commercial endorsements to help pay the costs of raising the children, the Times of London reported.
Nadya Suleman, 33, plans a career as a television childcare expert. It was learned last week that she already had six children before giving birth to eight more. She now has 14 children younger than 8 years old.
Although still confined to a Los Angeles hospital bed, Suleman reportedly intends to talk to two influential television hosts this week — media mogul Oprah Winfrey and Diane Sawyer.
Her family has told agents she needs cash from media deals.
Suleman is being deluged with offers for book deals, TV shows and other business proposals, but according to her publicist she hasn't decided what she might do once she leaves the hospital.
On Friday she retained the Killeen Furtney Group public relations firm to handle what company President Joann Killeen says are hundreds of offers arriving daily. They include requests for paid interviews, TV show appearances, book deals and other opportunities.
Killeen says Suleman is "the most sought after mom in the world right now," but she hasn't decided what she'll do next, other than care for her children.
But Suleman's earning power could be diminished by the growing ethical and medical controversies surrounding her octuplets' birth. Experts believe that the unnamed fertility specialists who gave her in vitro fertilization (IVF) should not have implanted so many embryos, and in choosing to carry all eight to term, Suleman ignored guidelines, risking both the babies' health and her own.
Public reaction has been mixed: Many have asked how an unemployed single mother can raise 14 children, as her first six have already strained the family budget. Angela and Ed Suleman, Nadya’s parents, bought her a two-bedroom bungalow in the Los Angeles suburb of Whittier in March 2007, but soon fell on hard times and had to leave their own home."
"The mother of octuplets born in California last week is seeking $2 million from media interviews and commercial endorsements to help pay the costs of raising the children, the Times of London reported.
Nadya Suleman, 33, plans a career as a television childcare expert. It was learned last week that she already had six children before giving birth to eight more. She now has 14 children younger than 8 years old.
Although still confined to a Los Angeles hospital bed, Suleman reportedly intends to talk to two influential television hosts this week — media mogul Oprah Winfrey and Diane Sawyer.
Her family has told agents she needs cash from media deals.
Suleman is being deluged with offers for book deals, TV shows and other business proposals, but according to her publicist she hasn't decided what she might do once she leaves the hospital.
On Friday she retained the Killeen Furtney Group public relations firm to handle what company President Joann Killeen says are hundreds of offers arriving daily. They include requests for paid interviews, TV show appearances, book deals and other opportunities.
Killeen says Suleman is "the most sought after mom in the world right now," but she hasn't decided what she'll do next, other than care for her children.
But Suleman's earning power could be diminished by the growing ethical and medical controversies surrounding her octuplets' birth. Experts believe that the unnamed fertility specialists who gave her in vitro fertilization (IVF) should not have implanted so many embryos, and in choosing to carry all eight to term, Suleman ignored guidelines, risking both the babies' health and her own.
Public reaction has been mixed: Many have asked how an unemployed single mother can raise 14 children, as her first six have already strained the family budget. Angela and Ed Suleman, Nadya’s parents, bought her a two-bedroom bungalow in the Los Angeles suburb of Whittier in March 2007, but soon fell on hard times and had to leave their own home."
Still Rooting for Polo Grounds, Where's Ralph Lauren At?
From this morning's Wall Street Journal:
"Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter.
Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people.
In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal.
The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, asking him to push Citigroup to dissolve the Mets deal.
"Citigroup is now dependent on the support of the federal government for its survival as an institution," the letter said. "As such, we do not believe Citigroup ought to spend $400 million to name a stadium at the same time that they accept over $350 billion in taxpayer support and guarantees."
A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance.
Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months.
Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens.
Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium.
If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said.
"The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz.
A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006."
Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions.
When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials.
Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team.
This would suck if the Mets had to change the name of the stadium before they ever played a game there. It would cost millions to reproduce and recreate all the promotional merchandise and memorabilia. But here's the catch: as long as Citigroup is operating normally, I don't think they can legally back out of the deal. Not without at least paying the Mets a substantial breakup fee for their troubles. But if Citigroup declares bankruptcy, that could change this significantly. I think if this Citi deal falls through the Mets should call it Shea Stadium for two years and wait for the economy to turn around before looking for a new sponsor.
"Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter.
Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people.
In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal.
The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, asking him to push Citigroup to dissolve the Mets deal.
"Citigroup is now dependent on the support of the federal government for its survival as an institution," the letter said. "As such, we do not believe Citigroup ought to spend $400 million to name a stadium at the same time that they accept over $350 billion in taxpayer support and guarantees."
A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance.
Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months.
Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens.
Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium.
If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said.
"The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz.
A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006."
Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions.
When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials.
Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team.
This would suck if the Mets had to change the name of the stadium before they ever played a game there. It would cost millions to reproduce and recreate all the promotional merchandise and memorabilia. But here's the catch: as long as Citigroup is operating normally, I don't think they can legally back out of the deal. Not without at least paying the Mets a substantial breakup fee for their troubles. But if Citigroup declares bankruptcy, that could change this significantly. I think if this Citi deal falls through the Mets should call it Shea Stadium for two years and wait for the economy to turn around before looking for a new sponsor.
Does Angelina Jolie Have Mommy Brain?
Angelina Jolie showed up at the Screen Actors Guild Awards in a stunning blue Max Azira gown, with a lovely opening in the back showing off the actress's tattoos. But upon further review, the back was the front, and that opening was supposed to show off her tits, not her tats.
Was she wearing it backwards on purpose or were her kids driving her nuts when she was getting ready and she put it on wrong?
Was she wearing it backwards on purpose or were her kids driving her nuts when she was getting ready and she put it on wrong?
Monday, February 02, 2009
You Drove Me To This
I really didn't want to do this, especially after the uproar caused the last time I went on a rant about multiple births but after reading this latest piece of news I can no longer hold my tongue.
"The woman who gave birth to octuplets this week already has six young children."
The LA Times has had the best most-up-to-date reporting on this story due to repeated interviews with the woman's mother.
The mother, now identified as Nadya Suleman, is a 33-year-old mother of 14 (including the octuplets). She is divorced and she lives with her parents. Her father is going back to Iraq as a contractor to help support his new grandkids.
Suleman had 8 frozen embryos implanted (from a sperm donor) in hopes of having one mroe girl. Her mother has repeated this claim though most people think this is impossible. In fact, Surgeon General Dr. Sanjay Gupta once said no responsible doctor would ever implant more than 3 embryos.
When Suleman discovered that she was expecting multiple babies, doctors gave her the option of selectively reducing the number of embryos, but she declined.
What Suleman has done here (with the help of some unethical people) is the height of irresponsibility. First of all, why does a woman with 6 kids need fertility treaments? Second of all, why did she choose to have 8 embryos implanted? And finally, even though it's an incredibly hard decision to make, she should have reduced. Health risks are so great with mega-multiples she was ready to risk some or all 8 of the babies and her own life (which would also affect her previous six kids).
But what sickens me most about the story is the treatment this woman is getting in the media and will probably get in the future. News anchors on every channel are cooing over what are sure to be 8 little adorable bundles of joy. And Discovery Channel and TLC are probably lining up to give this litter-maker her own TV show, which probably was her motivation in the first place.
And all the religious zealots calling the hospital hoping to donate cribs, diapers and 8 little matching onesies saying "if you think I'm cute, you should see my 7 brothers and sisters" should be ashamed of themselves. What this woman did was not noble, it was disgusting.
In a world where so many deserving couples struggle for years, many unsuccessfully to have just one baby, this freak show popped out 14. Doesn't seem fair now does it?
"The woman who gave birth to octuplets this week already has six young children."
The LA Times has had the best most-up-to-date reporting on this story due to repeated interviews with the woman's mother.
The mother, now identified as Nadya Suleman, is a 33-year-old mother of 14 (including the octuplets). She is divorced and she lives with her parents. Her father is going back to Iraq as a contractor to help support his new grandkids.
Suleman had 8 frozen embryos implanted (from a sperm donor) in hopes of having one mroe girl. Her mother has repeated this claim though most people think this is impossible. In fact, Surgeon General Dr. Sanjay Gupta once said no responsible doctor would ever implant more than 3 embryos.
When Suleman discovered that she was expecting multiple babies, doctors gave her the option of selectively reducing the number of embryos, but she declined.
What Suleman has done here (with the help of some unethical people) is the height of irresponsibility. First of all, why does a woman with 6 kids need fertility treaments? Second of all, why did she choose to have 8 embryos implanted? And finally, even though it's an incredibly hard decision to make, she should have reduced. Health risks are so great with mega-multiples she was ready to risk some or all 8 of the babies and her own life (which would also affect her previous six kids).
But what sickens me most about the story is the treatment this woman is getting in the media and will probably get in the future. News anchors on every channel are cooing over what are sure to be 8 little adorable bundles of joy. And Discovery Channel and TLC are probably lining up to give this litter-maker her own TV show, which probably was her motivation in the first place.
And all the religious zealots calling the hospital hoping to donate cribs, diapers and 8 little matching onesies saying "if you think I'm cute, you should see my 7 brothers and sisters" should be ashamed of themselves. What this woman did was not noble, it was disgusting.
In a world where so many deserving couples struggle for years, many unsuccessfully to have just one baby, this freak show popped out 14. Doesn't seem fair now does it?
Too Bad This Didn't Happen on Cox Cable
People watching the Super Bowl in Tucson, Arizona got a little more action than the rest of us.
A short clip from an adult movie channel interrupted Comcast's feed with full male nudity during the final moments of the game.
Officials at Comcast said about 30 seconds from Club Jenna, an adult cable television channel, were shown on the local Super Bowl telecast.
The company was still working Sunday night to figure out how it happened.
The Star newsroom was flooded with calls from irate viewers who said that the porn cut into the game with less than three minutes left to play, just after Arizona Larry Fitzgerald scored on a touchdown pass from Kurt Warner to put the team in the lead.
Callers said that the clip showed a woman unzipping a man's pants, followed by a graphic act between the two.
"I just figured it was another commercial until I looked up," said Cora King of Marana. "Then he did his little dance with everything hanging out."
The Super Bowl was being shown locally on KVOA. The station sends its signal to Comcast through a fiber line.
KVOA's signal didn't have porn on it when the station sent it over to Comcast.
The porn broke into the standard-definition feed (at least they didn't have to see a cock in HD) reaching analog TV sets. It appears the porn only reached homes in the Tucson area, but Comcast did not know exactly how many homes were affected.
Comcast's high-definition feed was not affected.
A short clip from an adult movie channel interrupted Comcast's feed with full male nudity during the final moments of the game.
Officials at Comcast said about 30 seconds from Club Jenna, an adult cable television channel, were shown on the local Super Bowl telecast.
The company was still working Sunday night to figure out how it happened.
The Star newsroom was flooded with calls from irate viewers who said that the porn cut into the game with less than three minutes left to play, just after Arizona Larry Fitzgerald scored on a touchdown pass from Kurt Warner to put the team in the lead.
Callers said that the clip showed a woman unzipping a man's pants, followed by a graphic act between the two.
"I just figured it was another commercial until I looked up," said Cora King of Marana. "Then he did his little dance with everything hanging out."
The Super Bowl was being shown locally on KVOA. The station sends its signal to Comcast through a fiber line.
KVOA's signal didn't have porn on it when the station sent it over to Comcast.
The porn broke into the standard-definition feed (at least they didn't have to see a cock in HD) reaching analog TV sets. It appears the porn only reached homes in the Tucson area, but Comcast did not know exactly how many homes were affected.
Comcast's high-definition feed was not affected.
Pot of Gold
Michael Phelps got caught smoking pot on cell phone camera and the picture made its way into a British gossip newspaper.
To his credit, Phelps didn't lie by saying "I didn't inhale" (thankfully Bill Clinton's "lie til you get caught" philosophy that so many Americans adopted may be wearing off), he took responsibility for what he did and apologized.
With all that Phelps has gained -- money, fame, the ability to fuck just about any hot chick he wants -- it all has come at a price.
He sacrificed his childhood to swim and train and swim some more. Now in his adulthood he can't do anything without someone taking a picture of it. And presumably turning it into financial gain.
To his credit, Phelps didn't lie by saying "I didn't inhale" (thankfully Bill Clinton's "lie til you get caught" philosophy that so many Americans adopted may be wearing off), he took responsibility for what he did and apologized.
With all that Phelps has gained -- money, fame, the ability to fuck just about any hot chick he wants -- it all has come at a price.
He sacrificed his childhood to swim and train and swim some more. Now in his adulthood he can't do anything without someone taking a picture of it. And presumably turning it into financial gain.
Super Bowl Ads
If you're like Mrs. Poop and were too busy cooking chicken wings for your lazy husband or bathing your smelly baby, then here's a quick look at some of the best Super Bowl Ads in what I thought was a subpar crop.
You can watch every single ad on youtube. If you have a favorite not mentioned here, let me know in the comments section and I'll add them to this post.
Doritos Crystal Ball:
Ed McMahon and MC Hammer poke fun at their own financial problems:
Horse Plays Fetch:
Conan's Swedish ad (for some reason they keep taking down this ad):
Mr. and Mrs. Potatohead go for a Drive:
The Banned Ashley Madison ad:
Mrs. Poop's favorite commercial: Matt Light, Ray Lewis and Justin Tuck do ballet:
You can watch every single ad on youtube. If you have a favorite not mentioned here, let me know in the comments section and I'll add them to this post.
Doritos Crystal Ball:
Ed McMahon and MC Hammer poke fun at their own financial problems:
Horse Plays Fetch:
Conan's Swedish ad (for some reason they keep taking down this ad):
Mr. and Mrs. Potatohead go for a Drive:
The Banned Ashley Madison ad:
Mrs. Poop's favorite commercial: Matt Light, Ray Lewis and Justin Tuck do ballet: