For one Mr. Butch Pornstache, who likes manly military shit.
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
For one Mr. Butch Pornstache, who likes manly military shit.
Perfect
You know what was really missing from the splendid public conversation we're apparently still having about Chris Brown and Rihanna?
A comment from Mike Tyson.
Men and Trucks and Shit
All right, you collection of tree-hugging limousine liberals, pinko Commies, dope fiends, queerbaits, ladyboys, fat chicks, feminazi castrators, and assorted freaks: Let me explain to you dumbasses why a man and his truck is a beautiful thing.
1. Duh.
2. My truck don't give me no lip. Unlike some ugly hat-wearing, closet lesbo, man-hating bigmouths around here I could mention, my truck never says dumb shit like "misogyny" and "patriarchy" and other words that hairy-legged vagatarians learn at fancypants liberal universities.
3. I've got a Scarface Air Freshener in that puppy that makes it smell like a goddamn motel bathroom. Ain't nothing more beautiful than a clean motel bathroom, amirite?
4. When I'm on the open road, with the windows down and the breeze coming in and blowing through my hair, I look like Ponch from "CHiPs." If this isn't a perfect specimen of unsullied manbeauty, then I don't know what the hell is.
5. You fuckers can kiss my ass.
Pornstache: Out.
Daily Kitteh
I'm pretty sure this means she really is a wizard.
Or possibly a demon.
Clinton Pwns Pence
Shaker Hillevi just sent me the link to this TPM video of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pwning the beans out of the Dumbest Congressperson on the Planet, Republican Mike Pence of (sob) Indiana. Says Hillevi:
Let me briefly paraphrase:Which is a pretty accurate paraphrase except for the fact that Hillevi was polite enough to leave off the "…you ignorant ass."
Rep. Mike Pence: I am an isolationist dunderhead.
Hillary Clinton: I have lived a long time…there are lots of approaches…I will hear your concerns, but ignore them, because your guy's approach didn't work and Obama won the election.
I transcribed the video; transcript is below. Enjoy!
Pence: Isn't it true that having the President of the United States be seen on the world stage warmly greeting a virulent, anti-American, socialist dictator, that, intentionally or unintentionally, our president was used for propaganda purposes, to borrow the phrase that you used. And isn't it also true that, as Natan Sharansky observed memorably in his book, The Case for Democracy, there's almost nothing more demoralizing to people that are fighting for freedom in their own country than to see the leader of the free world in friendly association with the very people that are oppressing them? Sharansky said we could, quote, "never fully prepare ourselves for the disappointment that came from seeing the free world abandon its own values in that context."
And so, in a very real sense, I wanted, I wanted to invite, in a very respectful way, your thoughts about that, recognizing that you serve this president, but also expressing to you my profound concern, uh, that this administration allowed itself, intentionally or unintentionally, to be used to prop up and promote, uh, the image and the interests of a virulent anti-American, a socialist dictator, in Venezuela.
Chair: I'm going to give the Secretary, uh, a little bit of time to, 'cause you characterized an earlier comment that she made, to respond.
Pence: Thank you, chairman.
Clinton: Well, Mr. Pence, I have lived a long time now. I grew up at the height of the Cold War, when we were on the hair-trigger alert of nuclear war; I remember virulent, anti-American communist dictators threatening our country on a regular basis; and I remember our presidents meeting with them, shaking their hands, and negotiating. They did not do so without conditions, or without strong principles, but they did so.
I've also seen us establish normal relations with Vietnam; I have seen the thirty years of normalized relations with China; and I don't think there is any contradiction between standing strongly for our principles and our values and pursuing the give-and-take of diplomatic encounter and negotiation where appropriate.
I think that, uh, you're strong feelings about, um, Hugo Chavez are certainly, um, understood, because he has clearly been someone who has behaved in ways that don't accord with our values and our principles. But so were the Soviet leaders. And so did so many others with whom we eventually created an environment in which we could see some changes that benefited the United States of America.
[camera cuts to Pence looking grim as fuck and totes pwned!!!1!]
That is my bottom line, Mr. Pence. My bottom line is: I am here to serve my country, which I have loved ever since I was a little girl.
And I'm going to support my president, because he is committed to doing whatever he can in the time he is given to serve to make this a better, safer, more secure world.
There are different approaches. I respectfully say, we spent eight years trying to isolate Chavez, and what has been the result? I don't think it's been in America's interests. So we're gonna try some different things!
And I respect your disagreement; we want as bipartisan a foreign policy as possible. And we have, wherever we can, reached out, and will continue to do so, to members of this committee and others. We want your constructive criticism; we want your feedback. But President Obama won the election. He beat me in a primary, in which he put forward a different approach. And he is now our president, and we all want our president, no matter of which party, to succeed, especially in such a perilous time.
So I appreciate your strong feelings, but I think that, ah, we are pursuing a course that, uh, may very well open up some additional opportunities that we hope will be in our interests and advance our values and protect our security.
Pence: Thank you.
Oh, Hugh Jackman. You're Adorable.
I fancy him only slightly less than Tim Gunn:
Despite his obviously close relationship with his wife, whispers have persisted since he played Peter Allen that Jackman himself might be gay. "I'd be happy to go and deny it, because I'm not," he says. "But by denying it, I'm saying there is something shameful about it, and there isn't anything shameful. The questions about sexuality I find more here in America than anywhere else, because it's a big hang-up and defines what people think about themselves and others. It's not a big issue in Australia."I know he actually denied being gay there while at the same time saying he won't deny it, but, as someone who is routinely "accused" of being gay myself, I can appreciate the impulse to say as a fact rather than as a denial that you're not gay, only because you understand that a straight person saying there's nothing shameful about being gay has a very different meaning (to the homophobes whose minds you'd like to change) than a gay person saying it. So I'll give him some latitude; that can be weird to navigate. The point is, there's a big-name action star in the rather conservative Parade magazine talking about how being gay is hardly shameful—and noting (in an undeservedly polite way) that Americans need to get over their issues about sexuality altogether.
And he decided to do a little feminism while he was at it.
[Deborra-Lee Furness, his wife of 13 years] was the far bigger star in Australia when she met Jackman in 1995 on her hit television series, Correlli. But he has now surpassed her. How do they deal with this reversal?Whenever I'm watching any red-carpet event (the Oscars, the Golden Globes, the Emmys), I always find myself intrigued by the mixed-fame couples, where one partner is much less famous or not famous at all (or not famous in America); I watch the "lesser" partner (almost always a woman) and how they are treated, and it's true that they will literally get shoved by interviewers or starfuckers trying to get access to their partner. Jackman and Furness have caught my eye in that situation many times. I've wondered what it's like to be her.
"The thing I find hard is that a lot of people won't even see her, and they'll obviously be talking to her to get to me," he says. "I've seen Deb literally be knocked out of the way. She just knocks 'em back."
Jackman's eyes brighten when he discusses his wife, who is eight years older than he.
"She's a morning person," he says. "Deb pops up, and it's, 'Come on, baby. Let's go!' Yet at night she falls asleep instantly, sometimes in mid-conversation. She's fallen asleep during every movie I've ever done. At one premiere, this big-time producer—he's known for growling—growled down the row to me, 'Wake your wife up!' She's the most honest person I've ever met. The worst liar. Can't do it. Everything she feels comes out. This is just the long way of saying she's not jealous of my success, no. It's not in her DNA. Every person I've ever worked with has ended up liking Deb more than they like me. I'm a little behind in the wit department, and she's always, 'Come on, Hugh, keep up! Keep up!' She looks a lot like Kim Novak, but she's from the Ethel Merman school with her humor."
Since Jackman had decided to evoke old-time stars to describe his wife, I come up with a few myself to describe him. "You're like a cross between Gary Cooper and Gene Kelly," I tell him. "With just a soupcon of Rosalind Russell."
Jackman throws his head back and roars—not with the animalistic rage of his Wolverine character but with an ironic laugh, that most human of sounds.
"Promise to put that in the story," he says. "Deb'll love that."
I've always been drawn to Jackman and Furness, because they seem like a really interesting couple, familiar to me in a lot of ways, with the way they tease and harass each other good-naturedly.
(And truth be told, I don't give a flying fuck if he's gay or they're both gay or whatthefuckev, because any marriage is only as strong as its central friendship, anyway. If he is gay, he also loves and respects her enormously. To each hir own.)
So I love this interview with Jackman, and the way he so carefully and lovingly draws a portrait of her as an individual person, forcing us to really see her after he notes that there are people who won't. I love that he gives her time. I love that he describes a strong woman who is clearly his equal, and does it without patronizing her, and dares you not to like her as much as you like him.
And I love that he does all that not for himself, but for her, and for every partner who's been pushed aside.
(Surely someone feels obliged to point out that talking about his wife is just an attempt to undermine rumors he's gay. I'll just note that I've read plenty of interviews designed to do precisely that over the years, and they do not sound anything like this one. They are utterly devoid of respect. That respect is so evident here is pretty much the exact reason I felt inclined to write about it.)
It's a brand new day
And the sun is high
All the birds are singing...
SEQUEL! 
Well, we don't want to be beholden to anybody," Whedon said in a group interview on Tuesday in Hollywood at a Paley Fest panel on the show. "We want to do the product the same way we did the first one, which is out of our hearts, and then go to people [and say], 'OK, if you're interested in this, this is what it is.' Besides, it could be something theatrical. It could be something on the Internet again, where it's done on the fly and it all comes from us. We don't know how we want that to be. The best thing to do is to write it. Then we can start deciding a business model based on the script."Heyyy! Everybody! Thisisawesome! Wooooo!!!!
A feature-length Dr. Horrible sequel is a serious consideration but not definite. "We've talked about doing an actual studio film, and we've talked about doing an independent tiny little thing," Whedon said. "We've talked about everything in between, the bumper sticker, whatever format."
In a separate interview, co-writer and composer Jed Whedon (Joss' brother) said the sequel's length would be determined by the medium in which it appears. "It depends on what form it takes," Jed said in an exclusive interview on the red carpet. "The story that we're talking about is pretty big, so it might end up being longer."
My favorite song from Dr. Horrible:
What part of STFU do you not understand, sir?
I'm really just going to need to stop reading any article with "Cheney" in the headline, because getting this furious on a daily basis about his every despicable emanation can't be good for me. Today's password is: Hypocrisy.
President Barack Obama's expansion of the federal government into the financial sector is likely to have "devastating" effects in the long term, former Vice President Dick Cheney said in his latest salvo directed at the new White House administration.*CHOKE*GASP*SPUTTER*SEETHE*
..."I worry very much that we're in a situation now where there doesn't appear to be any limitation whatsoever in terms of the spending commitments that this administration wants to make," he said. "Vast expansion in terms of the deficit, but it also says a lot about what they intend for the role of government in this society."
..."I'm one of those people who believes that part of the greatness of the United States is our private sector. "It's what we do as private citizens for ourselves and our companies," he said, later adding, "I think we have to be very, very cautious. I think we've gone beyond what reasonably we could expect by way of intrusion into the private sector."
His administration oversaw two wars + tax cuts, massive deficits, and unregulated markets that caused an economic collapse, all of which was used to make war profiteers, corporate mercenaries, predatory lenders, and various other swindlers—aka his friends and former colleagues—rich beyond their wildest dreams. He used the government as a goddamned ATM for the white collar criminal class, and now he's got the unmitigated temerity to criticize Obama for misusing the federal government because he's trying to use a tiny part of it to help out the Average Janes and Joes on whose backs Cheney and his robber baron cronies stepped while plundering the treasury.
Fuck Dick Cheney and the enormous pillaging elephant he rode in on.
Seen
"A Man & His Truck: It's a beautiful thing." No. No, it isn't! Just shut the fuck up with your meaningless, stupid, dunderheaded slogans!
Wednesday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Portly Dyke's Go-Go-Gadget Masturbatafingers, for laid-up pervy dykes with fucked-up shoulders.
InfamousQBert: My Tiny Piece of Earth
Sweet Machine: 1,000 Calories a Day: Officially Not Torture
Lauredhel: It's Not Sex It's Rape: Strategic Remorse Edition
Latoya: Fade In Magazine Talks Racism in Hollywood
Heads-up, Losties: Me 'n' Ken
And Crystal Ann Gray is blogging the trial of Allen Ray Andrade, charged with the murder of trans woman Angie Zapata (more here), over at Monica Roberts' TransGriot. I also recommend Cara's post here.
Leave your links in comments...
Greetings, Comrades!
With every layer that gets peeled off of the torture onion, things just keep getting more interesting. Take, for example, the new report from the Senate Armed Services Committee which highlights, among other things, where the torture tactics came from:
The Bush administration's interrogation program was based on the U.S. military program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE), which is used to train U.S. troops if they are ever tortured by an enemy that doesn't adhere to the Geneva Conventions. However, none of the top CIA, Cabinet, or congressional officials who approved of the Bush administration's recommendations knew that SERE was designed around "torture methods used by Communists in the Korean War...that had wrung false confessions from Americans." These officials were unaware that veteran SERE trainers said the methods were ineffective for getting useful information and the former military psychologist who recommended that the CIA adopt SERE "had never conducted a real interrogation." One CIA official called the process "a perfect storm of ignorance and enthusiasm."I guess that means we can start calling the torture apologists on the other side of the aisle communists, since they obviously embrace the same approach towards torture.
Dear Onion
Your piece about President Obama going on a killing spree with an illegal gun is a complete mess.
Obama shoots two people at point-blank range with an "unregistered .38-caliber revolver", then threatens to kill another person each week in order to "fill [his] heavenly palace with slaves for the afterlife"? In light of recent mass shootings, saying that this piece is in poor taste wouldn't even begin to cover it.WASHINGTON—More than a week after President Barack Obama's cold-blooded killing of a local couple, members of the American news media admitted Tuesday that they were still trying to find the best angle for covering the gruesome crime.
I get that the Onion is trying to comment on the media here, and on the "Everything Obama does is cool" phenomenon ("Or maybe the story is just that murder is cool now," ). But there are better ways to criticize the media, and Obama worship, than by using a recent string of murder sprees.
[snip]
"What exactly is the news hook here?" asked Rick Kaplan, executive producer of the CBS Evening News. "Is this an upbeat human-interest story about a 'day in the life' of a bloodthirsty president who likes to kill people? Or is it more of an examination of how Obama's unusual upbringing in Hawaii helped to shape the way he would one day viciously butcher two helpless citizens in their own home?"
"Or maybe the story is just that murder is cool now," Kaplan continued. "I don't know. There are a million different angles on this one."
[snip]
The New York Times newsroom is reportedly still undecided on whether or not to print a recent letter received from Obama, in which the president threatens to kill another helpless citizen every Tuesday and "fill [his] heavenly palace with slaves for the afterlife" unless the police "stop the darkness from screaming."
Furthermore, this article positions a black American man who some still insist on calling a "secret Muslim"* as a violent criminal who thinks he is storing up slaves in his heavenly palace. No doubt, hipster irony makes this all okay, and I am the real racist xenophobe for pointing out that we do not in fact live in a glorious post-racial society where these jokes would be just the same if they were made about Bill Clinton. But I'm not buying it.
There is surely commentary to be made regarding the headline coverage of the recent shootings (see, "Police: Kids Killed Because Mom Left", after the man in Washington State killed his five children). This article makes no such commentary. Rather, the Onion is exploiting the recent shooting sprees in order to skewer the news media's love for Obama.
The Onion piece does take a weak swing at the news media's exploitation of violence:"It's enough of a tragedy without the press jumping in and pointing fingers or, worse, exploiting the violence. Plus, we need to be sensitive to the victims' families at this time. Their loved ones were brutally, brutally murdered, after all."
But then, the Onion is doing exactly the same thing.
I came across this piece on another blog where the editor posted it because he thought it was hilarious, so I am not linking to it.
----
*As though it's understood that being Muslim is a bad thing. I swear, if I never see that trope again it'll be too soon.
Breaking News: Hannity's a Giant Hypocrite
Don't stand too close to his void of principle, Shakers: It's a black hole from which none shall escape.
On the April 21 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity asked Miss USA runner-up Carrie Prejean: "What did you think when [blogger Perez Hilton] went on this rant and actually used the "B" word? I mean, I can't think of anything more vicious, more mean, more insulting, more degrading, just because you have a different opinion." However, as Media Matters for America has noted, on August 24, 2007, Hannity aired concert footage of rock musician and right-wing activist Ted Nugent calling then-Sen. Barack Obama a "piece of shit" and referring to then-Sen. Hillary Clinton as a "worthless bitch." After airing the clip, Hannity referred to Nugent as a "friend and frequent guest on the program."Reached for comment, Hannity said: "Goose? Gander? They were both delicious!"
Shaker Gourmet: Five-Layer Easy Burritos
Our recipe this week comes from Shaker LoquaciousLaura!
She recommends checking out local, often dubbed "ethnic", markets for fresh produce, as it's often cheaper. I've found this true at the Indian grocery up the street where I can get fresh ginger the size of my forearm for 99 cents. Not exaggerating on the price (but it's damn near gigantic and much cheaper as compared to a large chain grocery store).Five-Layer Easy Burritos
Four small burrito tortillas (I prefer whole wheat)
1 can black beans, drained and rinsed
1/2 can Rotel original
1 can white corn, drained
1 pat butter/margarine
2 tbsp sour cream (light sour cream is fine)
1 tsp ground cumin
1 tsp ground savory
Salt and pepper
1 fresh, ripe avocado, halved and sliced
4 Morningstar Farms breakfast patties
Approx 1/2 cup shredded white cheese (monterey jack, pepperjack, mozzarella, whatever)
In one small pot, combine the black beans and Rotel (or a few tablespoons of salsa), put on medium heat (you'll need to keep stirring throughout). In another small pot, add the strained white corn, butter or margarine, and sour cream, heat and stir. Once the corn, butter and sour cream combine, add cumin, savory, and a good amount of salt and cracked black pepper. Keep stirring the black beans also! This is a good time to heat your breakfast patties up in the microwave, or fry in a pan -- you can also substitute a torn-up black bean patty, or actual meat, if you like -- either way, heat up your selected meat or meat subsitute. Keep stirring the beans and corn in their pans, working to achieve a smooth consistency, cooking off any excess moisture. I also like to heat up my tortillas, so at this point I turn the oven to 350 degrees and leave them in there for a couple minutes. By now, all things that need to be heated should be, so divide your tortillas over two plates, and layer on the beans, corn, cheese, torn-up breakfast patties (or whatever meat/substitute you chose), and the sliced avocado.
Makes four small burritos, or enough for two people (just multiply if you need more)
If you'd like to participate in Shaker Gourmet, email me at: shakergourmet (at) gmail.com
I 
Tim Gunn
This is not news. But all the same, I felt obliged to mention it again, given this wee interview:
OK!: Do you like Michelle Obama's style?Of course he would! Because Tim Gunn is the definitive mentor, who wants nothing more than for everyone to have a good start in this world. Universal healthcare and education is both generous and practical—which is exactly what one would expect from a fabulous mentor. That's how this country can MAKE IT WORK!
I am in complete disagreement with critics who say there's too much skin showing when she wears shift dresses. What are they talking about? It's an arm!
OK!: What would be your first act if you were president?
I would question the trillions of dollars we're spending on the Iraq war. I'd invest in medical care and education for all.
Oh, Maude, how I love him.
Now, if you'll pardon me, I must continue to obsessively detail in my Big Leatherbound Book of Grievances all the ways in which I am not Tim Gunn.
(Last entry under subhead Disappointing UnGunn-ness: #156 My voice does not have the capacity to nourish nest-fallen baby birds with its sheer soothing cadence.)
Hey
You know what I love about this story? The way they've had to Photoshop Larry David's head into the accompanying image.
Torture Works!
Small Print: When you don't even bother trying other methods.
So, there's this article in the New York Times, "Banned Techniques Yielded 'High Value Information,' Memo Says," which reports that President Obama's National Intelligence Director, Adm. Dennis C. Blair, "told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists."
And from there, I'm just going to turn it over to my pal Steve, who makes precisely the same point I would but niftily saves me the bother of putting words and punctuation together myself to make it:
"A ha!" conservatives say. "The White House is dropping an effective interrogation policy! The president's own intelligence director admitted it! Take that, liberals!"Of course, letting facts get in the way of manufactured outrage has never been a problem for our friends across the aisle. Today will be no different. And forever will conservatives believe, and tell the tale for generations, that even Obama's own director of national intelligence said that torture works.
This is one of those instances in which reading the rest of the article is worthwhile.
We learned from the same report that Adm. Blair, had he been in a position of authority when these interrogation techniques were approved, "would not have approved those methods." Got that? He knows the abuse led to some "high value information," but despite this, Blair still would have rejected the tactics.
And why is that?
"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means," Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. "The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."This is the point at which those overly-excited conservative slink away. The source of their excitement believes the abuse they're so fond of was not only unnecessary, but also proved counterproductive to our interests.
For me, the most important takeaway from what Blair said is this: "There is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means." Implicit in that statement is the admission that we turned to torture before exhausting every other conceivable strategy for extracting information from detainees, and, if I had to guess, we likely tried nothing else before going straight to torture. Our policy appears to have been based on every interrogator treating every detainee as if there's a bomb about to go off in the middle of Times Square.
Which puts me in mind of this passage from, of all things, an article about my boyfriend Matt Damon:
"Look, the best line about torture I've heard came from [retired CIA officer turned war-on-terrorism critic] Milt Beardon," Damon says. "He said, 'If a guy knows where a dirty bomb is hidden that's going to go off in a Marriott, put me in a room with him and I'll find out. But don't codify that. Just let me break the law'."Yeah. And the reason Beardon says that is because he knows what an extraordinary situation that really is. It's not the norm, despite the former administration's apparent insistence to the contrary.
Read Luke Chapter 2 and Call Me in the Morning
by Shaker Ken, formerly known as Brave Sir Robin. Ken is a single father, an unabashed liberal, a former Blogger and a current feminist. Even though he doesn't always get it right, he keeps trying.
Where is it written that women's health matters less than men's? Did I miss that pronouncement? Is there a codicil to the constitution that I somehow overlooked in Government class? I know it will come as no surprise to readers of this site, that some persons apparently believe this to be true, but I guess I'm naive enough to still be outraged and disheartened when I see evidence of it.
Tina Dupey has an article up at the Pasadena weekly about her visit to the Avenues pregnancy clinic. I was home alone when I read it, and I found myself screaming and cursing at the computer screen. Melissa was kind enough to allow me to share this frustration with you.
Avenues advertises itself as a clinic offering free pregnancy tests. Of course, as my father advised me many times, few things in life are ever free. Such is the case with these tests. Women going into these clinics are routinely detained for hours at a time while they are "witnessed" to, and, for the most part flat out lied to about their health choices. You see, even though Avenues is a licensed clinic, accredited by the State of California, it is not there to provide health services; it is there to proselytize to and prey upon women who come in seeking health services.
According to their website, Avenues offers not only pregnancy tests, but ultrasound testing for "high risk" pregnancies. In fact, they routinely give ultrasounds to all pregnant women, even though it is unnecessary medically.
I urge you to read the article in its entirety…. I'll wait.
Are you screaming? Are you shocked? Are you stunned that this is allowed to happen? Remember, these women aren't even necessarily seeking an end to the pregnancy; they simply think they are going into an actual medical clinic. How the hell is this legal?
The thing that struck me so hard was my realization that this, like so many other things in our society, disproportionately affects the poor. These clinics are set up near, and advertise heavily near, college campuses—particularly satellite and inner city campuses. They are preying on scared and confused young women.
Ms. Dupey makes a particularly accurate assessment when she states (emphasis mine):It's usually safe to assume that medical clinics provide medical care. But if you have the capacity to bear children, those rules apparently don't apply. If a cancer clinic were run as a Christian Scientist front there would be anger.
Uh, you think?
Where is the outrage?
What can we do? You can let your congressperson know that this is unacceptable. It doesn't matter which side of the abortion debate one is on—we're talking about flat out deceptive practices here. These people are lying! I guess thou shall not lie doesn't apply if you feel the ends justify the means.
If your Dad went in to have his prostrate checked, and instead of a test, he was anointed with oil and prayed over, you'd be pissed. Well, if my daughter ever needs medical help, and she feels she needs to go it alone, I hope she can look forward to the same assurances that the information she is given is accurate and medically appropriate as the rest of us are accustomed to having.
Question of the Day
Which actor/actress are you convinced should never, for the good of humankind, make another film again?
When we first did this question, in Oct. '07, I answered Ben Stiller.
I'm now going to have to change my answer to Seth Rogan, for what I will presume are obvious reasons.
