Winslet in January 2009:

“You have to work at a marriage. The best things always involve some effort.

“We aim to have two date nights a week, but always end up doing one.

“I don’t dress up or anything, we just have a nice meal somewhere, share a bottle of wine and talk.

“Sometimes it’s just about getting out of the house. We do loads of lovely meals with the kids, but every now and again you need to get out of the house together, go and be a couple, have a laugh.”

Mendes in January 2009:

“I think that with any interesting art there is always some kind of identification to be had. We are very happy, but obviously there is a cathartic aspect of making a movie about a bad marriage. Put it this way: the last thing you want to do when making a fight film is to go home and have a fight. So here is the opportunity for getting it out without having to live it. I would say that aspect of the production was actually very healthy.”

Winslet and Mendes in March 2010 after seven years of marriage:

“Kate and Sam are saddened to announce that they separated earlier this year,” their lawyers say in a statement. “The split is entirely amicable and is by mutual agreement. Both parties are fully committed to the future joint parenting of their children.”

Oops. Well at least now they’re both qualified to appear on The Marriage Ref.

That being said, this just isn’t going to work for me.

Fox News reports:

A cell phone application that will help illegal immigrants find water and key landmarks as they cross into the United States is an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds and an irresponsible use of technology, critics say.

The Transborder Immigrant Tool (TBT), the brainchild of three faculty members at the University of California-San Diego and a colleague at the University of Michigan, is a software application that can be installed into a GPS-enabled cell phone. In addition to helping immigrants locate water and landmarks, it also could alert them to Border Patrol checkpoints. And to make the trek a little less arduous, it also plays recorded poetry.

Now, I get that there are a lot of fun ways to waste taxpayer dollars. And with the stimulus bill freeing up even more cash for crazies, this kind of thing was probably inevitable. But while I can’t really see the point in doing studies on the effects of cocaine on monkeys, or even squirrel sex, I can at least say with some degree of confidence that the U.S. government isn’t currently waging any large-scale battles to prevent monkeys from using cocaine or squirrels from having sex.

This little TBT app on the other hand? This has to rank up there amongst the all time worst uses of government money — ever. Call me naive if you like, but I sure would like to think that there is someone on the “who should we give government grant money to” committee that would be looking out for, oh I don’t know, people using taxpayer dollars to develop a way to waste even more taxpayer dollars. But maybe that’s just me.

In 2005, a study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimated that illegal immigrants cost Californians a whopping $10.5 billion per year. And by helping illegals find safe routes, shelter, food, water, and friendly sympathizers, this little app is bound to cost the good citizens of the Golden State a great deal more than whatever UCSD is paying Ricardo Dominguez, the TBT’s creator.

Now, I don’t like to think of myself as a heartless person. Clearly I don’t like the idea of innocent men, women, and children meeting an untimely end in the bleak landscape of the Sonoran Desert. But do we really need to go out of our way to make it easier for people to illegally cross the border? I mean, with somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants already living in the U.S., it hardly seems like they need assistance getting in here.

That being said,  I love that they threw in the recorded poetry. I mean, can you come up with a better symbol for liberal waste than a cell phone app that helps illegal immigrants make it safely across the border while singing “Kumbaya”? I thought not. Seriously, it’s just freakin’ beautiful.

But it does beg the question of just whose poetry they’ve got in there. (Forgive the English major’s curiosity.) Do you think they chose an “open road” theme courtesy of Whitman?

AFOOT and light-hearted I take to the open road,
Healthy, free, the world before me,
The long brown path before me leading wherever I choose.

Or perhaps a desert theme, courtesy of Stephen Crane?

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said, “Is it good, friend?”
“It is bitter – bitter”, he answered,
“But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart.”

‘Cause that would be awesome.

Equating the two is like comparing apples to oranges, dogs to cats, horses to, uh, donkeys. Wait, those two things are kind of similar. Oops!

On Fox News Sunday, Romney told host Chris Wallace that the difference between his plan and Obama’s is like:

. . . the difference between a racehorse and a donkey, if you will, so — they both have four legs, but one works pretty well and the other’s not working and would not work at all.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that this analogy is totally bass-ackwards (so to speak) — since, last time I checked, donkeys are far better suited to working than their speedy, spindly-legged cousins — the two things being compared are really not all that dissimilar. Kind of like Romneycare and Obamacare. Huh, imagine that.

But according to Romney, the two plans are really (he swears) totally different because one is a state plan, and the other is federal. As Romney explained to Wallace:

A big difference — a state plan versus a federal plan. No new taxes, unlike his plan. No cut in Medicare, unlike his plan. And no controls over insurance premiums, price controls, cost controls like his plan. So very, very different in that regard.

Let me explain a little something about our government here, Mittens. Governors work at the state level, and presidents at the federal level. So yeah, that would be one big difference between the two plans. A ridiculously obvious one, but a difference nevertheless.

Of course, Obama could just leave it up to the states to handle their own business (after all, as Romney points out in the interview, “this is a federalist nation”). And he could also make them finance their own health care reforms instead of giving them access to federal funds. But that might, you know, make it harder for governors to claim that they single-handedly “fixed” heath care without having to raise taxes or cut Medicare.

Again, from Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: The libertarian, and certainly the somewhat conservative, Cato Institute says that your plan in Massachusetts is a mirror — a mirror plan of “Obama- care.” They say it’s quite right you didn’t raise taxes, but they say, in fact, you got millions of dollars from the federal government to finance your plan.

ROMNEY: Well, what we have is a plan which is paid for half by the state and half by the federal government. The cost is about 1.5 percent of the state budget.

And the federal dollars we received were federal dollars that we were entitled to through a program called DISH, the disproportionate share program. Federal funds had been applied to Massachusetts, just like to other states, for the care of those that were uninsured.

We said, “Let’s take that money that’s been going to hospitals that are caring for the uninsured and instead help people buy their own private insurance.” No government insurance. No government option, if you will.

WALLACE: Well, there’s no…

ROMNEY: Private health insurance.

WALLACE: … government option in the Obama plan anymore, either.

ROMNEY: No, that’s right. That’s right. And so what we did was entirely different than what President Obama is proposing on the bases that I’m taking you through.

So, let me get this straight. Aside from the individual and employer mandates, the subsidies for people who can’t afford to buy insurance, and the minimum standards for coverage, Romney’s plan was completely different from Obama’s because

1. it didn’t involve new taxes (thanks to millions of federal dollars), and
2. it didn’t put any limits or price controls on insurance premiums (which would explain why, according to the Wall Street Journal, average Massachusetts health care premiums are now the highest in the nation).

Yeeah. Is it just me, or would those also qualify, in retrospect, as two ways Romney’s reform failed?

While the Massachusetts plan has succeeded in insuring nearly everyone in the state, health care now costs more than it did pre-reform — in fact, the amount the state spent on health care has increased 42% since 2006. And, as I mentioned before, thanks to a lack of insurance price controls, it now costs more to be insured in Massachusetts than in any other state in the union. Are these really things to brag about?

Now, I understand why it would be a good move for Romney to distance himself from the wildly unpopular and equally flawed reform bill the Prez keeps trying to cram down Congress’s (and the American public’s) throat — especially if he’s going to make a bid for the presidency in 2012. So I get it.

But claiming that the two plans have absolutely nothing in common? Sorry, Mitt, but that horse (or was that donkey?) won’t run.

In 2006, when D.C. banned smoking in bars and restaurants, Evans lent his voice and his vote in support of the measure. “D.C. is one step closer to becoming smoke free,” he published in his weekly newsletter at the time.

Yet on St. Patrick’s Day 2010, he’s trying to give his buddies a chance to smoke cigars at two charity events near and dear to Evans’s wallet heart:

Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) has asked his council colleagues to keep tradition alive for the all-male Society of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick and another organization, Fight for Children, which hosts an annual smoke-filled professional boxing fundraiser.

Evans, who is a member of the Irish organization, said the measure was narrowly crafted, making an exception for only two nights a year and protecting workers by allowing venue employees to opt out of working the events.

But the rules are the rules, entirely because people like Evans voted to make them law. How do you like them apples?

H/T: Jacob Grier

In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama supported changes to the PATRIOT Act that would have put telecommunications companies in the line of fire. Mainly, he railed against the whole wiretapping thing. In a speech before the The Woodrow Wilson Center On Terrorism in August 2007, Obama said:

That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens … no more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are, and it’s not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists.

Anyway, wiretapping tapped a nerve in the American people. Some loved Obama’s guts and panache. The anthrax-killer loved it too.  Remember the white-powder-will-never-mean-the-same-thing-again guy?

According to The Smoking Gun:

After the Department of Justice last month formally closed its probe of the 2001 anthrax attacks, the FBI released the first batch of documents detailing the years-long investigation that ended with officials concluding that Bruce Ivins, a government scientist who committed suicide in July 2008, was responsible for the mailings that killed five victims.[...]In a July 2008 e-mail, Ivins wrote that “Dick Cheney scares me. The Patriot Act is so unconstitutional it’s not even funny.” He added, “I’m voting for Obama!”

And yet Obama signed a one-year extension of the PATRIOT Act last week, leaving in key provisions he had earlier opposed. Guess which ones?If you said “wiretapping,” give yourself a big wet, sloppy kiss. So the PATRIOT Act still empowers our dear leaders to:

–Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones [and]

–Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Lone Wolves.  I guess the message is  that if you need your white powder, don’t talk about it on the phone ‘cuz you-know-who will be listening in. And the takeaway from Obama’s newfound affection for the grand art of espionage? It’s mighty convenient that the Republicans did all the heavy lifting and Dick Cheney took all that flack. All Barry had to do was “extend” it.

Image courtesy of millions of people who find those who wear the shirt irresistible. And The Mountain Corporation.

Well yesterday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Patricia M. Schnegg had nothing but good things to say about Mr. Brown because as she put it…

(Brown) hasn’t missed a session of domestic violence counseling and completed 32 days of community labor in Virginia.

Wow!  What a guy. And imagine going to work and finding out some judge is punishing a celebrity by making them do your job. That kinda sucks.

“It looks like you’re doing really, really well,” Schnegg said. “That’s always good to see.”

“Thank you,”  said the master wordsmith Brown, who was sentenced last year to five years of probation and six months of community labor after pleading guilty to felony assault. The judge also said Brown can travel out of the country for concerts in May, and June. A big Watch Out! To the ladies of Uruguay!

The singer has to be back in court May 11th. Quoth Judge (Punch &) Judy:

“By the time you come back, you’ll be way over halfway there”

Do judges in California have to go through some kind of “life affirming classes” or something?

“Who’s a good boy?! Almost there! Widdle Browny won’t punchy punchy anymore!!” Yech.

Well….Good luck Mr. Brown, Just keep your hands in your pockets for the next two years, and everything will work out fine.

From the Miami Herald:

For Haiti, the Red Cross has raised more than $250 million and has plans for some $80 million of that so far, said Red Cross spokesman Jonathan Aiken.

This prompted some well-deserved attention from the San Francisco Chronicle blog, and my man, Philip DeFranco, who gave this blog a shout-out last month.

Yes, what is going to happen with the other $175 million? Is this going be a Humane Society of the United States kind of thing where like NONE of the money goes to actually helping local animal shelters?

The Red Cross, a celebrity in its own right, really shouldn’t have to think that hard about where the money is going. It should go to that place with that earthquake thingy, remember? Haiti?

The Croix-Rouge screwed stuff up pretty darn bad after 9-11. Its president and CEO was forced out, you know, for unrelated causes. In 2005, the Los Angeles Times finally went public about their past scandals, even bringing up how the 1989 San Francisco Bay earthquake disaster received only a fraction of the millions donated.

Aside from the fact that we all should take a good hard look at charities, the New York Times recently discussed the concept of pooling money collected in a crisis among organizations and then redistributing based on a judicious process. It’s how disaster relief works in the U.K. and other places around the world. In the wake of the Haiti crisis, a large group of religious relief organizations, including Food for the Hungry and World Vision, openly told donors that a gift to one was a gift to all — and held daily teleconferences to divvy it out.  Apparently religion and national identity will help people work together. Human suffering in Haiti? Not so much.

Yet some organizations insist on being either “redundant” or arguably dangerous — using a disaster, real or created, to solidify their own position as the premier nonprofit in a crisis.

The Gray Lady explains why the Red Cross is being so weird:

“The Red Cross, as the largest single fund-raiser after any major disaster in the past decade, stands to lose the most. Suzy DeFrancis, a spokeswoman for the organization, said the Red Cross was not categorically opposed to a pooled fund but had many concerns. She said the organization had incurred minimal expenses to raise money for Haiti. “If you add another layer between the donor and the people who need the aid, does that eat up time? Does it add cost?” Ms. DeFrancis said. “Those are the concerns we would have because we want to get aid there as fast as possible.”

Here’s the deal: The Red Cross is the one actually adding extra layers. See:

Before the earthquake, the American Red Cross had 15 people in Haiti working on projects like malaria prevention and measles vaccines. Partners in Health, a charity based in Boston, had more than 700 doctors and nurses among a staff of almost 5,000 operating a hospital and multiple clinics in the country. Yet the Red Cross has raised nearly $200 million for its relief operations in Haiti, and Partners in Health about $40 million. [...]

“I don’t mean that I don’t think the Red Cross has a purpose — it does,” said Bill Mitchell, who advises donor organizations about giving and supports exploring alternatives to the current system. “But the Red Cross’s reputation in the last eight years has been really checkered. Can they effectively use all of this money that they are raising?”

I don’t want to understate the good work of the Red Cross. But when a group was founded on Good Samaritan principles … well, they just might find themselves blogged about on Deceiver.

As it turns out, having to cancel the Brittany Murphy Foundation’s launch party “due to an illness in the family” (read: the public outcry surrounding the $1,000 and $10,000 donations required to attend) was just a speedbump on the road to solving her husband’s financial woes making Brittany’s charitable dreams a reality.

TMZ broke the story over the weekend noting that, despite its high-falutin’ title:

The Brittany Murphy Foundation is a foundation in name alone — because according to state and federal records, it does not exist.

The foundation — launched by Brittany’s widower Simon Monjack and her mom Sharon Murphy — has been touted as a charity dedicated to arts education for children, and has been soliciting funds through a website since last month.

[ . . . ]

By law, any foundation soliciting money has to disclose the fact that it is not registered as a nonprofit.

On Friday afternoon, the Brittany Murphy foundation website did not have any such disclosure. The site was taken “down for maintenance” one hour after TMZ called the foundation for comment.

On Sunday the website was relaunched with a message stating that it would hold off accepting any more donations “until we have our non-profit status approved before proceeding to insure [sic] that we can truly honor Brittany’s charitable desires.”

Or, you know, stay out of jail. Potato, potahto . . .

So today there’s reason to celebrate: Biggest Loser trainer Jillian Michaels is getting her toned butt sued over those dangerous diet pills she’s been shilling at GNC since last year.

TMZ has the scoop:

According to documents filed in L.A. County Superior Court, the Jillian Michaels Maximum Strength Calorie Control dietary supplement is “worthless.”

The lawyer who filed the suit, Melissa Harnett, tells TMZ, “Telling people you take two magic pills and then eat chocolate cake all day is a deception.”

The suit alleges, “Sadly, Michaels has decided to exploit her fame and goodwill by collaborating with Thin Care and Basic Research to promote a weight loss supplement that purportedly will cause weight loss by itself, without any additional effort on the part of the consumer.”

I could have told you that. Oh wait, I already did. I wonder how many calories I can burn by patting myself on the back?

Hey! Guess who’s got a new movie coming out that you won’t see? Roman “Pants” Polanski, that’s who.

“The Ghost Writer” is just like his own real-life prison drama, because I guess it was set, and then filmed  in a luxury chalet in Switzerland filled with the best liquor, drugs, and Scandinavian prostitutes that money can buy. It stars Ewan McGregor and Pierce Bronson.

Someone must’ve asked the crappiest James Bond ever what he thought of “Roofies” directorial style, because  Pierce Brosnan replied:

His energy is ferocious, he rules the set, keeps everyone on their toes,” said former James Bond actor Brosnan at a news conference. [Ed: yeah no sh-t, especially if you're a 13 year old girl]

“He has an alchemy with the camera … He’s a taskmaster. You have to know your onions.”

You have to know your onions? ONIONS?

I’ve heard it described as lots of things: “ass-pear,” “like a radish,” and other things I may have overheard while I was on my way to teach bible class to the elderly.

Maybe that’s not what he was talking about. What was I supposed to think? Come on–”Polanski” is actually a Polish word meaning “Want a drink, baby?”

Polanski, who’s released some of the most overrated movies in history (Rosemary’s Baby? Please.),  evidently finished this opus under the torturous conditions he faced in prison awaiting extradition for his  conviction of the 1977 rape of a 13 year old girl.

Neither actor would respond when asked about this tiny indiscretion, but Robert Harris, “The Ghost” writer on which the movie is based  said, “I never discussed it with him. It was never relevant.”

After which he scooped up his 11 year old niece and ran for the exit. [Ed: Dramatization. May not have really happened.]

“He has a command over the whole set I’ve never seen before. (Ed: Like he’s holding it down? Maybe?) He is like a maestro, he pushes the cast and crew hard,” said McGregor. “We shot 22 hours straight and he’s like 76.”

The Irish-born Brosnan said he became a US citizen during “the atrocity of the Bush years” to help his American wife and children “endure the hypocrisy and stupidity of the man’s power.” Wait … Shouldn’t they have moved to Ireland then?

Or maybe Brosnan and McGregor could bring their daughters next time they stay over at Polanski’s. ‘Cause he’s such a great visionary all all … Think that’ll happen?