Here is Winston:
Cats and string, what a combo! Ho ho, bet you never saw that before! This is more proof that owning a cat is an exciting adventure everyday. Seriously, it's a 24/7 party over here.
(More nonsense that has nothing to do with anything is below.)
Here's a chunk do and don't:
When sporting chunk, do quasi-active things that require bending your midsection, so as to emphasize your junk...
...however, if your posture is naturally hunched (and, really, even if it isn't), DON'T. WEAR. THIS.
Here's my favorite song of the week:
Electroclash survivor and sassmaster Soffy O goes new-jill-swing revivalist. It's cunty, too ("Maybe a dog won't leave you / Maybe a dog would please you / Cuz when you don't treat him right, he'll still be there by your side.") Perfect summer listening!
Here's a rant:
Fucking Snakes on a Plane! Look, I know what it's like to get excited for things. Like, really, really excited (of course, this means that I know what it's like to be let down, as well). I'm not trying to slag off Snakes on a Blog or anything that exists in anticipation of the movie, but I will say that I'm tired of being hit over the head with coverage of it in Entertainment Weekly. It couldn't possibly be that Time Warner owns New Line, which is putting out the film, as well as EW, could it? A quick look at Masterfile Premier (which, if anything, is a low number as it sometimes doesn't catalog every single article) reveals that EW has mentioned Snakes 10 times since its initial story on the movie in the Sept. 23 issue (compare that to the seven or so times Superman Returns was mentioned before its release since the fall or the nine times Pirates of the Caribbean was covered before its release). In other words, SHUT UP ABOUT THE MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES, ALREADY, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY. That Snakes tally, by the way, doesn't include the Aug. 4 cover story (11) or this highly witty bit of self-reference (motherfucking 12!) that ran in last week's issue:
Ho ho ho! Now, then, and forever. Snakes infinity!
What, was something like this too accurate?: