I had the greatest weekend, and am really sad that it’s over. On Friday, I hung out with R and went to see The Uninvited. Then yesterday, I had my second date with G. He’s adorable, and I’m mostly smitten, and we had a great time. I caught up with some other friends of mine just in time to get a ride back home to NJ, which is great, because I have no idea what I would have done otherwise (would probably have stayed with one of my city friends, but I’m glad I didn’t have to try to arrange that as inebriated as I was). I awakened this morning with a pounding headache and mild nausea, but it’s really no more than I deserved, considering how much I had to drink!
Then today was the Superbowl. As usual, I had no stake in either team, so I randomly chose to go with the Cardinals. Well, maybe I’ll pick better next year. We went to the Reade Street Pub, which was great. The house beer (who ever heard of such a thing??) was this great dark, and there were tvs all over. The food was pretty great, too. The waitress started out being professional but kind of surly, but then she won $1,000 because her Superbowl grid numbers hit, and she was all smiles after that! It was great to hang out with friends old and new, and the weather today was so lovely. We got up to a balmy 53, and even though it’s almost midnight, it’s still 37 degrees. It’s going to snow and get cold again later this week, but I appreciate any duration of weather ths awesome.
Tomorrow it’s back to the salt mines.
Unfortunately, The Uninvited was even dumber than its Rotten Tomatoes rating would have had me think. The “twist” was pretty obvious after a certain point, but I actually really really enjoyed the movie, due in large part to the ghetto-fabulous crowd at the movie theatre. They shrieked at the screen, had loud, awful conversations with each other, and screamed with such abandon that I couldn’t help but find the whole thing amusing. Elizabeth Banks was kind of a joy to watch, because she seemed to be the only actor who realized how terrible the movie was and just went with it, injecting unnecessary creepiness into her role.
I hate it when The New York Times uses terms without definition, as if anybody should automatically understand exactly what is meant. It’s pretty lazy, especially considering the fact that they often link to more information about terms, people, places, and events that are mentioned in their articles.
I was reading this article today, which speaks about the Supreme Court revisiting the exclusionary rule, which states that “evidence obtained by police misconduct cannot be used against a defendant.” That definition was provided by the Times. Anyway, The Court is recently ruled that not all types of police misconduct should automatically exclude the admission of evidence into legal proceedings.
I found the article to be fascinating, but I was a little confused by the phrase “Warren Court,” which was used several times through the article without any background information being given. I kind of knew that there had been a chief justice named Warren, but I didn’t know when that was or why it was significant to this particular issue. Enter Wikipedia. I know, I know. Librarians should not get their information from a web site that can be edited by anybody (at least for now), but I find it to be a good starting point, and if I really needed more in-depth information, I have tons of databases at my disposal. So anyway, according to Wikipedia, the Warren Court “represents a period in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States that was marked by one of the starkest and most dramatic changes in judicial power and philosophy. Led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court expanded civil rights, liberties, the judicial power, and the federal governmental power in ways previously unseen.”
The article also talked about the current and former compositions of the Supreme Court, and how the this ruling may signal a change in other exclusionary rule cases. For more information on the doings of the Supreme Court, you can visit SCOTUSblog.
Here’s a blurb from a review of Renee Zellwegger’s new movie, New in Town:
“There have been a lot of bad romantic comedies that have come along in recent months but this one really takes the cake–it is so condescending, so stupid and so utterly devoid of laughs, charm or recognizable entertainment value that I kept waiting for Kate Hudson to show up at some point to relieve Renee Zellweger of her duties and take over the lead role.” Peter Sobczynski of efilmcritic.com
I sort of imagine Bradley Whitford saying that, and then it’s even funnier.
I had no intention of seeing this, so I can revel in the halfheartedly wretched reviews and 12% fresh rating that it has garnered over on Rotten Tomatoes. I’m going to see the new Elizabeth Banks movie, The Uninvited tonight. That movie got a 41% fresh rating, which is kind of worrisome, but I haven’t read the reviews, so we’ll see tonight whether I agree!
Tags: Cinema, efilmcritic, Elizabeth Banks, Movies, New in Town, Renee Zellwegger, Rotten Tomatoes, The Uninvited
Amusing, Movie reviews, Movies | Nicole | 
January 30, 2009 8:24 am | 
Comments Off on Ouch
People who never return my emails can just DIAF.
I was talking on the phone with my friend Elizabeth, and was trying to describe to her something that is online, so we both went to our computers. She noticed that I’d sent her a message on Facebook, and that my message ended with a request for her favorite color. I love love love that she is so used to my oddness and non sequiturs that she didn’t think I actually wanted to know the answer. When I asked her again, and she realized that I was serious, she was amused, but answered. There’s a pair of yellow socks in her future…
A lot of ideas and questions enter my mind right before I go to sleep. Sometimes, upon waking, I remember these. Other times, I forget them, and then spend the rest of the next day convinced that I thought of and then discarded the next Slankie or something. And then that thought keeps me up at night as well…sometimes, I just can’t win.
Today, though, I remembered what I was wondering about last night. Have you ever seen those pictures of a seemingly unoccupied nature scene that say something like “There are 17 ninja Navy Seal Secret Service agents in this picture.”? The image on the right is one such ad. I want to know if they’re telling the truth, and there really are elite soldiers in this picture, or if they’re lying to me, and I’m being a big sucker for even wondering. Does anybody else ever think about this?
These Delman shoes are awesome, but I did not buy them! They retail for $195, and were going for $68 (thanks to the always awesome Gilt Group), but I can be honest enough to admit that they were a want, not a need. I’m trying to be strong, but the world is full of lovely things that can be bought! Right now, I’m about to blow over $100 on yarn, but that is always money well spent, and I will definitely use it!
Also, it’s a good thing I finished those booties and gave them to my coworker on Thursday, because his son was born on Friday!
Tags: Budgeting, Delman, Gilt Group, Knitting, Saving, Self-Denial, Shoes, Will Power, Yarn
Fashion, Knitting, Shoes | Nicole | January 24, 2009 2:03 pm | Comments Off on Things I Did Not Buy Today 2
I love corrupting my nephew. He’s been walking around the house singing, “Tacos and mojitos. Cerveza, por favor. ¿Dónde está la biblioteca?”
Love. It!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9NFkB_GUDQ]
I didn’t buy any of the very pretty ToyWatch watches that the Gilt Group had for sale. They were reasonably priced for the brand, but that still meant that every watch I liked cost at least $175.
I did not walk into BCBGMaxMara, even though the sign on the window said that items inside were up to 70% off.
I did not need anything, and I did not buy anything.
It’s a nice feeling.
Subscribe