Category Archives: Blogroll

You dress better than Kate Moss!

Posted on by

Cocaine KateOh yes you do, even if you don’t manage to get paid for it.

I’ve never understood the “she’s a style icon” bullshit chorus for Kate Moss. Tell me what the Kate Moss style is, what the Platonic Ideal of the Kate Moss Outfit would be…you can’t, can you? That’s because there isn’t one. Listen to the fashion editors and the photographers, who all say that she photographs best naked; that’s because of the crap she insists on throwing on her body.

Kate Moss has gotten the reputation of being an incredible style leader not because she has an amazing gift for putting clothes together, but rather because she would look good in a torn, faded and full green garbage bag.

Seriously, Kate, did you mug an accountant and take his clothes?Right now, the odds are that you are dressed better than Kate Moss. I am dressed better than Kate Moss, and I’m wearing an old grey t-shirt with a peeling Maverick Mountain surfing picture on it, a faded grey velour hoodie, and a torn cream-coloured silk circle skirt lined in flannelette. Barefoot.

But at least what I’m wearing isn’t covered in Pete Doherty‘s bloodstains, or my own crusted vomit. And it doesn’t look like this: Continue reading →

Brian Atene 2.0: Good Day Mr. Kubrick 2006

Posted on by

Stolen from BoingBoing, but I’m sure it’ll be all over in twelve hours. Click here for the original, perhaps the most perfect, and most perfectly amusing, bad audition ever captured on film; the fellow in the video in this post claims to be the contemporary, 43-year-old Brian Atene, and it’s just so cheaply amusing that I’m not going to question it even though the fellow looks nothing whatsoever like Brian Atene.

“Me so hoooooorny. Me love you long time!“

The real Brian Atene, if he knows what’s good for him, should just let this ride. The last thing he needs is to go toe to toe with somebody this mean and this much bigger than him.

yet ANOTHER Feitelberg against the war

Posted on by

the director asked if it would matter if she left the politics out of Marie Antoinette 

I was quoting this for some jaded youth on Boris‘ blog when I thought I might as well post it here. It is the winning essay from last year’s Vanity Fair Essay Contest, and the subject was, basically, what in tarnation is up with kids today? the real cris de coeur coming from the fact that, like frogs in a slowly warming braising pan, nothing at all, no matter how severe, seems to bother them.

I cannot understand why prophylactic tranquillizer sales are so high when, in fact, nothing seems to upset these people because nothing whatsoever seems to register. Maybe the answer is in here:

Another Feitelberg Against the War

…We are spoiled realists. History has funneled us into deeply individual, almost solipsistic lives. We’re a generation that doesn’t expect, in its wildest dreams or worst nightmares, to be directly affected by something so oblique as politics. When my sister’s reserve unit was called up to serve in Afghanistan, I was flabbergasted that her life should change or suffer because of her moment in history. Not particularly optimistic (as our 60s-era parents were), nor particularly well equipped to deal with hardship (as our grandparents were), we have learned history’s lessons about the way things really work, yet have no real need to put that knowledge toward any great cause. Oh, sure, we have plenty of promise, but, as yet, haven’t been given a screen to project it on.

We don’t have a common enemy with a greasy handlebar mustache, although Dick Cheney does come close. Not that we want one. But, as a result, we don’t always know who the bad guy is.

We do know from our parents’ divorces that marriage actually isn’t forever.

We know that free love isn’t a great idea and can kill.

We know that Democrats lie and Republicans lie. We know that good presidents lie as much as the bad ones do.

We’ve learned from cheap furniture, the sprint of technology, and the pendulum of fashion not to get too attached to anything…

Which is as good a point as any to note that Vanity Fair no longer has this essay on its website. This link goes to the Google Cache version, and how long that remains useful is anyone’s guess.

Things get unsurprisingly complicated, and still our rage is bloodless…

YouTube’s “We’re Killing Kenny” letter

Posted on by

You're on notice!

Here’s a copy of the actual demand letter YouTube sent YouTubers who’d posted Colbert Report, Daily Show, or South Park footage to YouTube. Got this via Idealog. It has a copyright notice on it…wonder what they’ll do to me. If I don’t post in 48 hours, call the cops…no, call the UN. Note also that it was removed simply on receipt of the complaint, not after investigation of the complaint. Looks like Gawker‘s (and mine! and Christopher Walken’s Mother‘s) boring YouTube Cassandrizing is starting to manifest.

YouTube

Dear Member:

This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Comedy Central claiming that this material is infringing:

Stephen Colbert Interviews Steve Wozniak: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-whFuN0S0M

Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to avoid future strikes against your account, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube’s copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.

If you elect to send us a counter notice, to be effective it must be a written communication provided to our designated agent that includes substantially the following (please consult your legal counsel or see 17 U.S.C. Section 512(g)(3) to confirm these requirements):

(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.

(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.

(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

(D) The subscriber’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriberis address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection©(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

Such written notice should be sent to our designated agent as follows:

DMCA Complaints

YouTube, Inc.

1000 Cherry Ave.

Second Floor

San Bruno, CA 94066

Email: copyright@youtube.com

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification may be subject to liability.

Sincerely,

YouTube, Inc.

Copyright © 2006 YouTube, Inc.

Pentecostals want to spend taxes de-gaying Norwegian bunnies

Posted on by

Gay dogs do it doggie styleThat’s about it, really.

Except that the Lutherans, by contrast, simply wish the Norwegians to burn in Hell, rather than waste any time in attempts at animal re-heterosexualizing first.

I guess they don’t like waiting.

A Lutheran priest said he hoped the organisers would “burn in hell,” and a Pentecostal priest lashed out at the exhibition, saying taxpayers’ money used for it would have been better spent helping the animals correct “their perversions and deviances”.

To be fair, this one looks like he's on the DLGot this from ArchieArchive‘s report on the Oslo exhibition of animal homosexuality. It’s a really interesting report, and the links provide some much-needed insight into the very nature of human character.

Big horn sheep “need to have sex with their own fellows just to be accepted. And by being accepted they are making up very important social relations which later give them better access to females,” says Mr Soeli. 

So Hollywood really IS run by sheep. That would explain why nobody’s bought my script yet. Maybe I should have my agent fuck them…oh right. Anybody know a pretty, gay agent? 

And look, here’s Annie and Susan, explained:

Among swans and flamingos there have been cases of two females living together using sexual contact with males purely to reproduce.  

And, look over there, behind the bearded moss: Tom and John!

Strap in!

Or is it Lance and Matchew?

It has been reported that in certain bird species males double up, allowing them to control a larger territory than a heterosexual couple, which in turn serves to attract more females.

Looks like it’s working…

Tom Cruise, So in love