Monday, April 11, 2005

Irresistible Goat-Herders, Jumping To The Wrong Conclusion, And This Is The End

Last night, as I always do on Sundays, I watched “Law & Order: Criminal Intent.”
This particular episode was “ripped from the headlines” about the effects of dioxin poisoning.
A beautiful young woman married to a domineering older man ends up sick in the hospital and overnight her beautiful face is ravaged by the effects of the poisoning. Due to the massive amounts of dioxin she was exposed to, the woman doesn’t survive.
In the course of the investigation, with her husband, a dentist, as the prime suspect, they determine that the woman had been engaging in a “virtual affair,” and they further determine that the “British man” she had been cybering with was, in fact, an American woman.
More than that, though, the woman was actually a friend of hers, a friend who, eleven years earlier, had lost her beautiful sister…to a previously misdiagnosed case of dioxin poisoning.
Further, at the time of her death, the sister had been engaged to a certain young dentist.
So it turns out that years earlier, after discovering that his fiancée had been cheating on him, the dentist poisoned her with dioxin.
Then, years later, the sister of his dead fiancée had become friends with his current wife and, discovering that she too was less than faithful, did him the favor of taking her out in the same fashion he had taken out her sister.
Why? Because she was in love with him.
This really bothered me because not only was this woman so in love with the guy that she would kill his wife for him, she was willing to ignore the fact that he had killed her sister, and meanwhile I can’t even get a woman to return my calls.
Okay, granted, I don’t want some chick to be so pathologically devoted to me that she’ll kill people to be with me, but, you know, a little bit of devotion might be nice.
At a minimum it’d be nice to have someone who would be willing to at least maim people just to be with me.
What made the whole thing even more maddening, though, was that the dentist the woman was so obsessed with was played by frickin’ Balki.
If that retarded goat-herder has chicks killing for him, I’m definitely doing something wrong…
Tomorrow I’m going to a “Time Management” class. It’s the last training class I’ll be attending for a while, largely because Kathleen will be leaving and will no longer be encouraging me to sign up for classes with her.
Getting Horny Nerds’ Hopes Up Dept.
With the final “Star Wars” movie coming out next month, everyone and his brother is hoping to grab a share of the inevitable profits associated with this historic (in relative terms, at least) event.
Playboy magazine is no exception, having a special section devoted to Lucas’ life’s work in its upcoming issue.
In the “Next Month” section of the current issue they hype an article about the movie and mention that one of the female stars of the movie will be appearing nude in a pictorial. They won’t say who it is, and in the accompanying small photo of a slender, nude woman they took great pains to crop out any overly revealing features of her face, exhorting readers to “guess” who it is.
The obvious guess, given that there are no other female “stars” in the movie, is Natalie Portman, and it’s obvious that Playboy wants people to make that guess.
However, I think that it’s highly unlikely that she would pose for Playboy (even though she did, supposedly, appear fully-nude in a deleted scene in the movie “Closer”), and I think that it’s even more unlikely that Playboy would not publicize such a coup for all it’s worth.
Besides that, the nude body featured in the preview doesn’t really match up with the topless photos taken of Natalie Portman on a beach a few years ago, so I just don’t think it’s her.
I’m hard-pressed to figure out who else it could be, though, as there really are no other female stars in the movie, and I suspect that it’s just going to be some random extra who appears onscreen for a half a second behind Jar Jar or something.
After all, throughout the years Playboy has demonstrated the fact that they have extremely broad definitions of words like “star” and “celebrity.” Pick up one of their “Celebrities and Supermodels” newsstand specials, for example, and you’ll find that most of the “celebrities” are just your average Playmate, whose name is largely unknown outside of Playboy’s regular readership.
On Sunday Brian passed a link to this site along to me. It’s a very entertaining site about the end of the world. Very good stuff.
Speaking of the end, I think that’s going to do it for today.
I’m sure I’ll have a lot to say about my class tomorrow, along with various observations on the last day of my 32nd year…

No comments: