i ♥ police blotters.

every time i go home to my parents' house, i always read the police blotter in the local weeklies. this is partly because i have an excellent sense of curiosity and literacy, but mostly because i want to see if anyone i knew growing up was caught doing something comprising/naughty/embarrassing/illicit enough to be documented in the free neighborhood newspaper.

anyway, i was reminded of this resume-building trait as a result of the following snippet:

also, what does " 'rectum problems' " mean?

{ source }

best alibi ever?

straight from (where else?) cnn:

Michele Davis-Balfour, Balfour's mother, passionately defended her son Monday to reporters. She said that at least one of the witnesses that police used to build a case against Balfour was lying.

"My son did not do this. I am sick of this. They need to focus on somebody else," Davis-Balfour said.

She said Balfour has a alibi, he was with one of his three girlfriends the night of the slaying.

"He was with Diana that night and with Kate in the morning," she said.

{ source }

for your (oscar) consideration.

i mean, movies about senior year of high school are indeed TOTALLY EPIC (see this, this and that).

{ source }

all the single ladies.

fyi - best snl skit of the night:

Bee skit @ (Nov 15 2008)
by thebeyoncenetwork

here's the pre-assignment if you aren't quite sure why the back-up dancers are dressed the way they are:



also paul rudd, i ♥ you.

why cnn is so awesome.

the headline juggernaut second life affair ends in divorce has been on the front page for at least two full days now. and not even buried in the technology section. or europe. good thing, because IT IS THE BEST NEWS STORY EVER.

to recap:


these charmers got married after meeting in an internet chatroom in 2003. in second life, the dude (on the left) is this dude (on the right):

on top of that, he named his avatar DAVE BARMY. i couldn't find a picture of laura skye (her avatar and DAVE BARMY's now ex-wife) but never fear, time magazine describes her as follows:

Online, Laura Skye works as a club DJ and is 6 feet tall, weighs 112 lb. and has a penchant for skin-tight cowgirl outfits. In reality, [Amy] Taylor, an unemployed former waitress, is 5 feet 4 inches tall, weighs 224 lb. and prefers T shirts and leggings.

solid burn, time mag!

anyway, he blames her for the break-up, despite DAVE BARMY being caught having sex with a second life ho (the pink haired, blue turtlenecked lady above):

Amy never did anything around the house. She just played World of Warcraft all the time.

all's well that ends well though:

[Amy] Taylor is now in a new relationship with a man she met in the online roleplaying game World of Warcraft.

you go girl?

the space-time continuum.

so how dumb am i that i don't understand the whole letters-traversing-a-two-year-span mechanic of this movie?

good thing oxygen is airing it back-to-back so i can catch it again.

also kudos to sandra bullock because honestly, how good of actress do you have to be to actually have on-screen chemistry with keanu?

update: guessing i'm not the only perplexed viewer, in light of this wikipedia bullet point -

The essential plot point, therefore, boils down to this: Alex only knows Kate is at Daley Plaza in the beginning because she warns him — and asks him to wait — at the end, but for Alex to be alive to meet Kate in 2008 he must first be killed in 2006. Even in the case of parallel time lines, for it is an established fact that these must eventually meet if they are to be parallel in the first place (although higher entropy results in more information, not less). So, which came first in time? Valentine's Day, 2006, or Valentine's Day, 2008? It is, in point of fact, neither and both — at the same time. Though not a paradox as such, it is indeed a working contradiction, as neither retrocausality nor duality inherently apply.

hilarious.

what i'm currently debating.

for pretty much all of september, i've had to attempt to contain a raging internal debate. i submit my arguments / rebuttals / redirects for your consideration.

so after watching (wasting?) eight hours (minus commercial breaks, so really more like 6.67 hours), i can't tell which cw show is better. and by better, i mean horrifically, train wreck-rubberneckingly awful.

in one corner, there is one tree hill featuring the utter douchebaggery of chad michael murray, which, when combined with his atrociously amazing dramatic acting skill(z) is a potent force to be contended with:

honestly there were SO many pics to choose from to illustrate my point, but this was an immediate fave. anyway, i sincerely feel that i could write for this show. furthermore, my brother's dog could write for this show. one of their current plotlines involves brooke, who started her own clothing line in high school. in tree hill, north carolina.

anyway, clothes over bro's has clearly evolved into a giant lifestyle empire but brooke chooses to keep it real by running the conglomerate from her boutique in tree hill. i know. and then this season, she gets viciously mauled by some random robber at her store, but now brooke's mother is being fingered as the conspirator who sicced the perpetrator on her own daughter. yes, really.

WHAT? i don't even know what i just said. sometimes the words just flow from my fingers.

so in the other corner, we have the young upstart, 90210 (like you're even surprised i'm watching). not only does it lack any histrionic, hilariously poorly acted teen angst like the original, but sadly chris lorenzo (of silk stalkings fame, i.e., the BEST OPENING CREDITS on tv EVER and don't pretend you didn't watch it on USA during summer break) and aunt becky just do not begin to measure up to jim and cindy walsh.

everyone else and their mom has commented on how painfully tiny the 90210 girls are and so i will just add, why does everyone (and their corresponding maternal figures) think eating a sandwich / cheeseburger / other variant of meat between a consumption vehicle composed of two bread products will solve this problem? i don't particularly enjoy that food group all that much, but i clearly don't have the if-i-turn-sideways-i-become-invisible issue plaguing this show.

also, would kelly taylor really be a guidance counselor? AND brenda just happens to be a drama teacher? REALLY? if they bring donna martin back, she better fucking be a special ed teacher, otherwise the whole premise of bring back the old guys will totally be shot to hell.

i will offer kudos for the inclusion of an andrea-zuckermanesque high school student in the 21-going-on-38 character of naomi:

so both shows are currently among my dvr-ed series (in HD, nonetheless!) and i really think i have to cut at least one of them from the roster. you have no idea how busy my dvr is going to be this week (thank god for the vp debates preempting a somewhat significant portion of my queue on thursday). i literally won't be surprised if it becomes overheated from exhaustion.

btw m is always somewhat surprised to discover the dvr light on at 3:00 a.m. on a tuesday night, to which i am like, what? as there's no chance i'm wasting precious primetime recording slots on the latest real world / road rules challenge, though i wholly support the whole mtv-producers-withholding-food-but-still-supplying-contestants-with-booze initiative.

as you can tell, i am quite passionate about the whole thing. so much so that i'm considering adding this to my list of "activities + interests" on my resume. i suppose these run-ons / stream of consciousness are the results of not doing a tv brain dump since the beginning of the fall premiere season.

what? i've been busy.