i am the damn beekeeper!

i am the damn beekeeper!

seriously, tori amos had a new cd out today. it's called the beekeeper and it's the best thing i've heard in years from any 1 so please check it out. i read the review of it in yesterday's new york times and e-mail c.i. of the common ills. i say 'wow 3 years!' what the fuck are you talking about, willis, comes the reply more or less. i explain and c.i. says jon pareles is "estimating.'

let me walk you through because i love it when the new york times gets it wrong on even the minor stuff. in 2002, tori amos put out her brilliant cd scarlet's walk. with me so far? today the beekeeper comes out.

c.i. goes, 'rebecca i want to you picture yourself having a child in october of 2003, okay?' well if i must. 'today is february 22, 2005. how old is your baby?'

ok, i get the point. the new york times, egg on it's face as usual.

what's all this filigree talk in the review, seems kind of snide. ci: 'filigree because she's a woman and because parles can't or won't get off the fence, a characteristic of his reviews that dates back for years' and c.i.'s going back to like i think the fall of 1985, over all these rolling stone reviews that parles has written. and i'm like 'shit, c.i. you should write about this stuff.'

and c.i. explains there are 4 e-mails freaking over the simpsons entry yesterday.

that really pisses me off so if there are any common members coming here who dashed off an e-mail on that to c.i., take a breath kids.

it was about journalism. read the item. there's a guy, conservative org (natch), commenting on the episode and he hasn't seen it. he didn't boycott it which might be a story, he just didn't know about it. and then he didn't watch it. and he's presented for 'balance' when he has nothing to say. it's insta-pundit, just add water. and boil, please bring to a boil.

it was in the news section and you had other members e-mailing in. and the topic of the episode was same-sex marriage. so i don't see how with all the above there's a problem with it.

but let me make another point while i'm on this.

yesterday was presidents day. i took the day off. a number of people did.

c.i. could have and probably should have.

late saturday night we were both helping the groovy kids over at the 3rd estate sunday review and that went on until the wee hours. i think it was 7 o'clock when we were done but it may have been 6 a.m.

c.i.'s got a headache, saying stuff about being sick of blogging, and my advice was to take monday off because it was a holiday or, at the very least, focus on something fun.

guys and gals, i squeeze no more than 1 entry a day in between sex romps and other activities.
'but becky! sex romps are your only activities!' almost.

so please people, chill a little. i was asking jesse and ava (3rd estate) if this was normal talk and they were like 'whenever we're up all night like this, it is.' i'd slept in that morning (sex romp from the night before), had more sex and then a long nap, we got out of bed to grab something to eat, came back listened to some music with a little foreplay, ended up back in the bedroom after some strong living room activity, sex romp and i'd just gone to sleep when the phone rings with 3rd estate on the line.

contrast that with c.i. who was up early saturday morning and ends up pulling 24 hours plus before getting any sleep. so really guys, we all love c.i.'s writing and crave more but cut a little slack. it was a holiday. c.i. focused on answering e-mails and did like 6 or 7 posts. i don't see how that's slacking off.

and have you read the entry today? "The New York Times at its worst: Elisabeth Bumiller, Jodi Wilgoren and Juan Forero make the front page on the same day." i love it. i was laughing so hard this morning, i spit out my coffee at 1 point.

i'm quoted in it and proud to be. reading it, i see i had at least 1 typo but i never fix those and never will. i think that things from january and i really don't see the point in hunting down that entry on jodi wilgoren and fixing the word. the new york times doesn't do that kind of correction. if they did, they'd have many more corrections.

oh 1 more thing i saw in the new york times monday that i asked c.i. about. in the business section (hey sexy gals are interested in the business pages too) i saw something.

here it is, this is from monday when they usually run the weekend box office, page 7 of the business section. 'warner brothers will be watching to see how 'constantine,' keanu reeves' latest film does over presidents' day weekend. the actor's film in the supernatural/science-fiction have tended to start strong and finish very strong. only 'bram stroker's dracula' (1992), which opened with $30.5 million its first weekend, finished out of his top 5 movies.'

the paper then lists (in this order) matrix reloaded, the matrix, matrix revolution, something's gotta give and speed. so it was monday and i was trying to think of light topics to e-mail c.i. about and i e-mail that.

i get back a reply about the stupid idiots at the times. something like 'oh only dracula, is that the story? is that the nonsense the paper's spitting out this morning? well 'supernatural/science fiction? i think that would include devil's advocate and it's out of his top 5. and here's 2 more words: johnny mnuemonic! a walk in the clouds opened with a stronger box office than johnny mnuemonic and it 'finished strong' by grossing more as well!'

see, i read it and nod along too often. i think, well it's in the paper, it's been checked, it must be true. but the truth is, the new york times lies and lies and lies and lies.

maybe they don't mean to. maybe they're just tired or lazy. maybe they missed the crash and burn that was johnny mnuemonic (i love keanu but i'd forgotten about that film). but they take the trouble to inform you of something in their official voice, their 'voice of record' and the fact of the matter is they don't know what they fuck they are talking about.

that should be the slogan of the paper. not 'all the news that's fit to print' but 'we don't know what we are talking about.'

it seems like every day, my eyes are opened to increasing errors in the rag of record. if the guy delivering it monday through friday wasn't so damn sexy . . .

sherry has already e-mailed twice this weekend warning me that when i get back to posting i better dish as promised.

so here's the dealio. (stone temple pilots please come back! velvet revolver has about as much going on as the eighties 'group' the power station. robert deleo was hot!) his name is maurice. he looks a little like the guy in the acer ad that i'm still obsessing over. his cock curves to the right (as jim morrison once sang 'the little girls understand'). he's got a ton of energy so it was the perfect weekend!

if you get the beekeeper, i'd suggest you go for the deluxe version. you get a bonus dvd and cute extras including a package of seeds.

on my way i'm just passing you by
but don't be confused
one day i'll be coming for you
from tori amos's 'the beekeeper'