Sorry Madonna, but my kids won't be reading you

Madonna’s latest childrens book which will be released next summer, “Lotsa de Casha“, is about a dog who has money but no happiness. Childrens books from Madonna? Next thing you know, Wes Craven will be writing Harlequin Romances.

Madonna’s bio is comically ironic.

At one time, Madonna ruled the world of pop music. She was riding high atop the charts (as well as several athletes and actors). Her album “Like a Virgin” has sold around 20 million copies, half of which were purchased by collectors who knew it could be the last time the world would ever see Madonna and the word “virgin” in the same photo.

She then married Sean Penn, a man with a head more cavernous and helium-filled than a blimp hangar, stayed in the news by continuing to release hit singles and strip, and because her husband treated tabloid photographers the way they deserve to be treated. Realizing that, in the celebrity industry, you have to flow with the tides if your career is to survive – Madonna did just that, and flowed away from Penn. Sean later went on a “fact-finding” mission to Baghdad, where the word “Penn” is now an Arabic term meaning “the dumbest guy in Iraq.”

Madonna has since “reinvented” herself a couple hundred times – each reinvention a little filthier than the next until the day she realized that the only way she could get nastier would be to engage in Internet porn with six circus clowns and a pack mule. She then put the brakes on (couldn’t find a pack mule), had kids and made a couple of movies that were the celluloid equivalent of a root canal.

She now lives in England, where she moved to get her kids out of the US, and badmouths the United States, coming back only often enough to pick up sacks full of money.

Now come children’s books written by Madonna. It’s only a natural progression, or in this case regression. She released a picture book in the early ’90s called “Sex,” so this all fits into her backward slide away from a scene she helped create. It was good enough for everybody elses kids, but not hers.

I simply won’t let my kids look at any of her children’s books for fear of chapter titles like “If it doesn’t fit, don’t force it,” “No, you won’t go blind,” or “Why is Mommy’s ‘flashlight’ buzzing?”

I do, however, like to use her as an example of somebody who claims to care about children so much, yet must shield her own from the very place that she and her like-minded music and film-industry shock dealers helped build.

Sorry Madonna, but my kids won’t be reading you

Madonna’s latest childrens book which will be released next summer, “Lotsa de Casha“, is about a dog who has money but no happiness. Childrens books from Madonna? Next thing you know, Wes Craven will be writing Harlequin Romances.

Madonna’s bio is comically ironic.

At one time, Madonna ruled the world of pop music. She was riding high atop the charts (as well as several athletes and actors). Her album “Like a Virgin” has sold around 20 million copies, half of which were purchased by collectors who knew it could be the last time the world would ever see Madonna and the word “virgin” in the same photo.

She then married Sean Penn, a man with a head more cavernous and helium-filled than a blimp hangar, stayed in the news by continuing to release hit singles and strip, and because her husband treated tabloid photographers the way they deserve to be treated. Realizing that, in the celebrity industry, you have to flow with the tides if your career is to survive – Madonna did just that, and flowed away from Penn. Sean later went on a “fact-finding” mission to Baghdad, where the word “Penn” is now an Arabic term meaning “the dumbest guy in Iraq.”

Madonna has since “reinvented” herself a couple hundred times – each reinvention a little filthier than the next until the day she realized that the only way she could get nastier would be to engage in Internet porn with six circus clowns and a pack mule. She then put the brakes on (couldn’t find a pack mule), had kids and made a couple of movies that were the celluloid equivalent of a root canal.

She now lives in England, where she moved to get her kids out of the US, and badmouths the United States, coming back only often enough to pick up sacks full of money.

Now come children’s books written by Madonna. It’s only a natural progression, or in this case regression. She released a picture book in the early ’90s called “Sex,” so this all fits into her backward slide away from a scene she helped create. It was good enough for everybody elses kids, but not hers.

I simply won’t let my kids look at any of her children’s books for fear of chapter titles like “If it doesn’t fit, don’t force it,” “No, you won’t go blind,” or “Why is Mommy’s ‘flashlight’ buzzing?”

I do, however, like to use her as an example of somebody who claims to care about children so much, yet must shield her own from the very place that she and her like-minded music and film-industry shock dealers helped build.

What would we do without psychiatrists?

A psychiatrist who founded the CIA’s centre for personality analysis watched the latest episode of Osama bin Laden’s hit series “Crackpot Knows Best” and has diagnosed bin Laden as a “malignant narcissist.”

Do ya think so? There’s certainly nothing benign about the narcissism.

I had bin Laden pegged as more of an “easy tempered altruist”, but maybe that’s why I don’t make a living as a profiler.

Note on Veterans Day

Dear members of the US Military past and present,

Thanks to you and your predecessors, we’re free. Throughout our history, you’ve fought for, and won, independence. You’ve helped put an end to slavery, oppression, genocide and all manner of craziness put forth by every spiral-eyed deranged dictator and tin-pot wanker on the planet.

You can be sent to fight in some of the biggest dung-heap, dirt-bucket and generally scummy areas on the face of the earth – places that make a septic tank look like the Presidential Suite at the Bellagio. You perform tasks – from the incredibly dangerous to the intolerably mundane – without complaint or plea for recognition.

You’re often called upon to take on unhinged nut cases – the aberrant likes of whom may make one long for the stability of Courtney Love – and dive head first into a big bowl of “Crackpot Bouillabaisse” against knee-jerk fascists, totalitarian fist wavers and psychotic zealots– All this is offset by the lousy pay and unfair criticism from Malibu pinheads who will only appreciate your existence when there are Chinese tanks sitting in Rob Reiner’s foyer.

Why do you do it? I’m sure there are many reason, but there can be only one response: Thanks.

Former Clinton stomping ground named "meanest city" toward homeless– Data also shows it's not too good for those with homes, either

Some group called the “National Coalition for the Homeless” (must be a real challenge when they have to send out a mailer) has declared Little Rock, Arkansas as the worst place to be if you’re homeless. According to the story, the building of the Clinton Presidential Library and Bowling Metroplex added to the misery for the housing-challenged by displacing a bunch of homeless folks. Not surprising that the man with a monopoly on compassion allowed that to happen. Things in Arkansas were never good under Clinton, especially for minorities.

For most of the ’80s, as Arkansas governor, Clinton did his best to see to it that blacks didn’t fall for all that “decade of greed” talk, with 1990 census statistics showing white families with a median income of $22,550, and black families at $12,128. Good thing Clinton was there to fight for them, or else black families in Arkansas would have finished the ’80s owing money.

Not really what you would expect from the man who author Toni Morrison once called “our first black president.” If that’s true, he’s one hell of an Uncle Tom.

In 2001, the historic landmark, the Choctaw Terminal, built in part by craftsmen who were former slaves, a building which was truly a piece of black history, was leveled to make room for the Clinton Presidential Library. Arkansas finally gets a library and it’s got to be smack on top of a piece of black history? Not something a “black president” would do, I wouldn’t imagine.

For Little Rock, getting the title “worst place to be homeless” is far more desirable than “best place to be homeless”, but to get that title, construction would have to cease on all the Clinton monuments, which ain’t gonna happen.

Former Clinton stomping ground named “meanest city” toward homeless– Data also shows it’s not too good for those with homes, either

Some group called the “National Coalition for the Homeless” (must be a real challenge when they have to send out a mailer) has declared Little Rock, Arkansas as the worst place to be if you’re homeless. According to the story, the building of the Clinton Presidential Library and Bowling Metroplex added to the misery for the housing-challenged by displacing a bunch of homeless folks. Not surprising that the man with a monopoly on compassion allowed that to happen. Things in Arkansas were never good under Clinton, especially for minorities.

For most of the ’80s, as Arkansas governor, Clinton did his best to see to it that blacks didn’t fall for all that “decade of greed” talk, with 1990 census statistics showing white families with a median income of $22,550, and black families at $12,128. Good thing Clinton was there to fight for them, or else black families in Arkansas would have finished the ’80s owing money.

Not really what you would expect from the man who author Toni Morrison once called “our first black president.” If that’s true, he’s one hell of an Uncle Tom.

In 2001, the historic landmark, the Choctaw Terminal, built in part by craftsmen who were former slaves, a building which was truly a piece of black history, was leveled to make room for the Clinton Presidential Library. Arkansas finally gets a library and it’s got to be smack on top of a piece of black history? Not something a “black president” would do, I wouldn’t imagine.

For Little Rock, getting the title “worst place to be homeless” is far more desirable than “best place to be homeless”, but to get that title, construction would have to cease on all the Clinton monuments, which ain’t gonna happen.

Would threats of a "pro Bush" speech at the Academy Awards be enough to get the show cancelled?

The 77th annual Academy Awards are still over three months away, but I was thinking about the Oscars this morning, and how distraught most of Malibu must be right now. That said, there are conservative actors, and now they’re more motivated than ever. Would any of them have the guts to give a “pro Bush” speech at the Oscars? The very thought of that would scare the Vera Wang off any leftist starlet. The Academy would sooner cancel than let that happen. If they got word that an actor was preparing a “pro Bush” acceptance speech, you’d probably see a press release along these lines, announcing the cancellation of the show:

“The fine actors and actresses who grace this stage are expected to behave with decorum, decency, and voice their opposition to all war and tax cuts, have a profound interest in freeing the Tibetan people, believe that meat is murder, Bush stole the 2000 election, and probably even the 2004 election, support the ramming of whaling vessels, oppose medical testing on animals, are pro gun control, anti logging, demand freedom for Leonard Peltier, loudly denounce the shafting of Native Americans, want a ban on fossil fuels and nuclear weapons, fly their private 747’s thousands of miles to attend summits on ozone depletion, believe you can’t hug your kids with nuclear arms, want free medical care, spray paint fur coats, and encourage everyone to worship L. Ron Hubbard. Anything other than these common principles is simply political grandstanding, and will not be tolerated. Once this pro-Bush individual is identified and the proper precautions are taken, we will consider the rescheduling of the Oscars.”

Hey…could happen.

Would threats of a “pro Bush” speech at the Academy Awards be enough to get the show cancelled?

The 77th annual Academy Awards are still over three months away, but I was thinking about the Oscars this morning, and how distraught most of Malibu must be right now. That said, there are conservative actors, and now they’re more motivated than ever. Would any of them have the guts to give a “pro Bush” speech at the Oscars? The very thought of that would scare the Vera Wang off any leftist starlet. The Academy would sooner cancel than let that happen. If they got word that an actor was preparing a “pro Bush” acceptance speech, you’d probably see a press release along these lines, announcing the cancellation of the show:

“The fine actors and actresses who grace this stage are expected to behave with decorum, decency, and voice their opposition to all war and tax cuts, have a profound interest in freeing the Tibetan people, believe that meat is murder, Bush stole the 2000 election, and probably even the 2004 election, support the ramming of whaling vessels, oppose medical testing on animals, are pro gun control, anti logging, demand freedom for Leonard Peltier, loudly denounce the shafting of Native Americans, want a ban on fossil fuels and nuclear weapons, fly their private 747’s thousands of miles to attend summits on ozone depletion, believe you can’t hug your kids with nuclear arms, want free medical care, spray paint fur coats, and encourage everyone to worship L. Ron Hubbard. Anything other than these common principles is simply political grandstanding, and will not be tolerated. Once this pro-Bush individual is identified and the proper precautions are taken, we will consider the rescheduling of the Oscars.”

Hey…could happen.

Now they're blaming us for their unwatchable movies

You just have to love Hollywood, in a “loser brother-in-law who won’t get a job, drinks all your beer and keeps you entertained due to your sheer amazement at his stupidity” sort of way. Now they’re blaming Bush and his ilk when their films tank.

Paramount Films’ “Alfie”, about a womanizer, played by Jude Law, was a total floater at the box office after it opened. Wayne Llewellyn, the president of distribution at Paramount, said that the conservative ethos reflected in last week’s election results might have hurt the film. Quoted in the New York Times (so you know it must be true) , Llewellyn said, “It could be the mood of the country right now. It seems to be the result of the election. Maybe they didn’t want to see a guy that slept around.”

There you go. It’s Bush’s fault, and it’s your fault. Could it be that their film blew chunks like a Saturday night beer bonger after a marathon frat party? Nah!

Think about it. They’re now accusing mainstream Americans, in angry condescension no less, of having good taste! That’s an insult we should gracefully accept.