If you don't have a day job, you should at least have a good tan.
(Always use spf 50+, of course.)
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Upside to high price of gas
Most of my friends live in Los Angeles while I reside in the next county over. And none of these people are poor like I am. So, when one of them invites me to a social affair, I have to factor in the cost of the drive. But now when I do go to an event, nobody expects me to bring anything. With the crazy cost of gas, driving there is the gift!
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Re: Schwarzenegger, Edwards, etc.
Following the latest unasked-for revelation that Arnold Schwarzenegger is the latest married man to get another woman pregnant, I think I have come up with a theory about why men cheat that indignant women worldwide might understand.
Yes, married men should keep it in their pants, unless they have some alternate arrangement with their wives. And, no, there is no excuse for a man to have unprotected sex on the side. These are givens.
But we all know that men and women are built differently and react to things differently. Usually, that's what we like about them. We also know that the amount of testosterone in a person's body affects the way he or she behaves. So does serotonin. From what I understand, most men go through a period in their lives, sometimes a very long period, where they crave sex. They rarely get enough and still usually want it again by the next day.
Hmm. How can women relate to that? For starters, you could hand me a package of Dove dark chocolate. Most of the time I consume it in moderation. But do I ever stop wanting it? No!
Let me note here that this theory does not apply to ALL men. Just as there are probably some women out there who don't love chocolate.
Suppose you made a commitment when you got married that your husband would decide when and how much chocolate you could have for the rest of your life. Now, that doesn't seem right, does it?
And you probably agree to that arrangement with the best of intentions. But maybe after a few years, you start seeing chocolate all over the place. Maybe it is even offered to you. Will you really turn it down for the rest of your life, even if you're not getting enough at home?
I hope you see the connection now.
That's still no excuse for getting a woman pregnant.
But now say you become very famous and/or rich and therefore, hugely desirable. Ladies, you are being offered versions of chocolate you never even dreamed of. Do you still turn down the George Clooney of gourmet cocoa? Forever?? I think it will likely become irresistible eventually.
And that's why marriages where one person is outrageously popular rarely last. The best you can say to your mate is, "I never thought I'd have this opportunity! Can't I please just try it?" And some mates will understand. But not a lot.
Yes, married men should keep it in their pants, unless they have some alternate arrangement with their wives. And, no, there is no excuse for a man to have unprotected sex on the side. These are givens.
But we all know that men and women are built differently and react to things differently. Usually, that's what we like about them. We also know that the amount of testosterone in a person's body affects the way he or she behaves. So does serotonin. From what I understand, most men go through a period in their lives, sometimes a very long period, where they crave sex. They rarely get enough and still usually want it again by the next day.
Hmm. How can women relate to that? For starters, you could hand me a package of Dove dark chocolate. Most of the time I consume it in moderation. But do I ever stop wanting it? No!
Let me note here that this theory does not apply to ALL men. Just as there are probably some women out there who don't love chocolate.
Suppose you made a commitment when you got married that your husband would decide when and how much chocolate you could have for the rest of your life. Now, that doesn't seem right, does it?
And you probably agree to that arrangement with the best of intentions. But maybe after a few years, you start seeing chocolate all over the place. Maybe it is even offered to you. Will you really turn it down for the rest of your life, even if you're not getting enough at home?
I hope you see the connection now.
That's still no excuse for getting a woman pregnant.
But now say you become very famous and/or rich and therefore, hugely desirable. Ladies, you are being offered versions of chocolate you never even dreamed of. Do you still turn down the George Clooney of gourmet cocoa? Forever?? I think it will likely become irresistible eventually.
And that's why marriages where one person is outrageously popular rarely last. The best you can say to your mate is, "I never thought I'd have this opportunity! Can't I please just try it?" And some mates will understand. But not a lot.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
The decline of legitimate news reporting
I am reluctantly posting a link to a talk show host about whom I feel only lukewarm because of one magnificent monologue that hit the spot with me. Please listen to the rant, starting about two minutes in, and, if you and I have anything in common, feel satisfied. Give it 5-10 minutes and try to ignore the idiotic name-calling, lame rimshot jokes and major liberal bent. It'll be worth it.
http://www.normangoldman.com/uploads/media/2341/NG_04-27-11_FullShow.mp3
Thank you, Norman Goldman, for succinctly explaining why any coverage of Donald Trump is an abandonment of decent journalism. I wish I had said it as well.
http://www.normangoldman.com/uploads/media/2341/NG_04-27-11_FullShow.mp3
Thank you, Norman Goldman, for succinctly explaining why any coverage of Donald Trump is an abandonment of decent journalism. I wish I had said it as well.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Lazy journalist word of the month: Meltdown
Ever since the terrible sequence of events in Japan, I hear the word "meltdown" thrown about in all situations pertaining to the nuclear plant. Do you know exactly what the word means when you hear it on the news? Can a reporter somewhere in the U.S. bother to look it up and define it for the rest of us instead of repeating the same old word?
No, that would take work. I know this because the word isn't even in any of my (many) old print dictionaries.
For all of us who care, here's a definition, courtesy of yourdictionary.com:
"meltdown - A situation in which a rapid rise in the power level of a nuclear reactor, as from a defect in the cooling system, results in the melting of the fuel rods and the release of dangerous radiation and may cause the core to sink into the earth."
There, isn't that better?
No, that would take work. I know this because the word isn't even in any of my (many) old print dictionaries.
For all of us who care, here's a definition, courtesy of yourdictionary.com:
"meltdown - A situation in which a rapid rise in the power level of a nuclear reactor, as from a defect in the cooling system, results in the melting of the fuel rods and the release of dangerous radiation and may cause the core to sink into the earth."
There, isn't that better?
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Red Letter Day
It actually happened.
On March 7, 2011, filling my Toyota Camry with gas at Costco cost $50.00 And that's without a service charge!
What is next for us poor suckers?
On March 7, 2011, filling my Toyota Camry with gas at Costco cost $50.00 And that's without a service charge!
What is next for us poor suckers?
Dear Members of the Academy:
Watching the Academy Awards telecast last month, I was reminded, repeatedly, of the wise old saying that it is better to stay silent and be thought an idiot than to speak and remove all doubt.
In the case of the Oscars, not only were my fears confirmed—these actors are idiots—they washed away my appreciation of these award winners’ fine work. Why do the powers that be even allow these people to speak unscripted? After all, we know only that the nominees excel at delivering words written by others. At what point in time did the producers of the biggest praise-fest in the world start assuming that an Oscar-caliber actor could put together a cogent sentence on his or her own?
Industry types say, “C’mon, it’s their big moment.” Bullsh**. Their big moment was in the film, when they defied the odds and lived their dream of acting in a great role and getting paid for it. And then again when millions of people saw their performances. All the nominees have been receiving attention and accolades for six months to a year before the coveted gold statues are handed out. Isn’t that enough?
After being subjected to approximately 2 hours of intermittent rambling drivel, I’ve come to the conclusion that only NON actors should be permitted to give speeches. It’s hard to say which was the last straw: Melissa Leo’s classless cursing, Natalie Portman’s mindless chatter, Julian Bale, dropping names of everyone he could bore us with except that of his forgotten wife, and virtually every other winner’s indulgent, pointless and decidedly non-entertaining speeches.
You tremendous performers made us love you and innocently overestimate your charm and intelligence. Next year, please, for all our sakes, leave us our illusions and keep your mouths shut.
In the case of the Oscars, not only were my fears confirmed—these actors are idiots—they washed away my appreciation of these award winners’ fine work. Why do the powers that be even allow these people to speak unscripted? After all, we know only that the nominees excel at delivering words written by others. At what point in time did the producers of the biggest praise-fest in the world start assuming that an Oscar-caliber actor could put together a cogent sentence on his or her own?
Industry types say, “C’mon, it’s their big moment.” Bullsh**. Their big moment was in the film, when they defied the odds and lived their dream of acting in a great role and getting paid for it. And then again when millions of people saw their performances. All the nominees have been receiving attention and accolades for six months to a year before the coveted gold statues are handed out. Isn’t that enough?
After being subjected to approximately 2 hours of intermittent rambling drivel, I’ve come to the conclusion that only NON actors should be permitted to give speeches. It’s hard to say which was the last straw: Melissa Leo’s classless cursing, Natalie Portman’s mindless chatter, Julian Bale, dropping names of everyone he could bore us with except that of his forgotten wife, and virtually every other winner’s indulgent, pointless and decidedly non-entertaining speeches.
You tremendous performers made us love you and innocently overestimate your charm and intelligence. Next year, please, for all our sakes, leave us our illusions and keep your mouths shut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)