I heart hoodies.

Yeah, I'm up late again. Watched Evil Dead and Evil Dead II at movie night, drank sangria, and ate brownies. Zombies + caffeine = will never sleep.

In effort to chase the mental images of the movies away, I'm posting this Nike interview. I've always had a thing for hoodies, and this just might be a teeny slice of my heaven.

Giving This a Shot

I really want to talk about this, but I really don't think this is the time. It's late. I've had a few margaritas. But I have had this post on the backburner of ideas for days now, and I need to give it a go.

Roman Polanski v. Michael Vick

I refuse to watch any Roman Polanski movies. I know he's a great director, yada yada yada, but when The Pianist came out a few years ago with its rave reviews, I refused to watch. Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. Ok, it was the 70s. Ok it was champagne and quaaludes, par for the 70s Hollywood course. Ok his wife was murdered by Charles Manson. But dude. He was I'm-not-sure-how-old-but-old-enough-to-know-better.

Then he ran.

Yeah, I get that the victim wants charges dropped and it's been a long time and now he's old and he's artistic and all that. In my mind, though, that's not enough. He never took his medicine. He didn't face his punishment and take it like a man. He ran. And until he sucks it up and goes in front of the judge, I refuse to give him any of my money or time by watching his movies.

When I watched Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, a documentary about the clusterfuck of a situation it was, it did sort of alter my opinion. It really does seem like the judge completely dicked over the prosecutor and the defense attorney and Mr. Polanski. There was an agreement, and it seems the judge did everything in his power to do his own thing, to make a political showcase out of Mr. Polanski and force him to do more jailtime. I mean, I think I remember correctly - Polanski did, in fact, serve some time for this. In fact, I think the judge forced him to do more time than agreed by forbidding the jail to release him, or some such thing, and then was going to give him more time at sentencing before Polanski bolted.

So ok, the judge was an ass. Big fucking deal. I see that shit every damn day. Suck it up Polanski. Just because you're a bigshot Hollywood type (and your wife was killed) doesn't mean you get to peace out without respecting the process. Because that's the thing - there is a process, and you can use the process if you do get fucked to make the situation right. That's why I do what I do. Then again, if you were my client, probably would've turned a blind eye if you mentioned running, too.

Nevertheless, come to court, face the music, maybe then you'll get the outcome you're looking for.

Then there's Michael Vick. His crime, equally heinous. Yeah, it was "just dogs." But he tortured and brutually murdered the hell out of those dogs, displaying an equally, if not more, diabolical mind than Polanski.

Now everyone is up in arms because he's playing pro football again.

Me. . .not so much. I love dogs more than most people. I think what he did was abominable. Yet he cannot be punished forever. Yeah, maybe his punishment should've been worse, but that's not for me to say. It is what it is, and he's doing what they told him to do.

He's also been to therapy, counseling, and classes on humane treatment of animals. He has agreed, as part of his contract, to work with animal shelters in Philadelphia. I mean, the man needs to make a living. His trade is football. It's not his fault he makes an obscene, absurd amount of money doing it. It is what it is.

Why can't he turn this negative into a positive? Why must he be vilified forever? What better way to teach children in poverty, children who will listen to and relate to Vick, than for Vick to tell him how he changed? He could indirectly affect the lives of lots and lots of other animals by becoming an ambassador for how they can be treated.

Whether he will do this or not remains to be seen, but until then, I give him the benefit of the doubt. Polanski, not so much.

Rafa Returns!

Why am I not in Melbourne, Australia right now?  It's sunny, warm, and Rafael Nadal is just beginning the Australian Open.

I know you all have missed my fanatical tennis talk and Rafa discussions.  Fret not, dear friends.  The ATP 2009 season is just getting underway, January 19, 2009 down in Melbourne.

Nadal takes the court on the 20th for his first round match against Christophe Rochus from Belgium, someone I've never heard of and against whom he's never played. . .so I'm just guessing he won't be too much competition (keeping fingers crossed Nadal's injury has healed).

According to Rafa's blog, he will be unveiling a "new look," about which I am very excited, naturally. A preview of his new outfits:

I likes! There's also a turquoise/white/lime green/pink concoction that I would adore if not for the lime green. My only concern is that these new short-sleeved shirts don't show off the biceps as well as the sleeveless ones, but I suppose I'll survive.

Just in case one of my readers has also caught Rafa Fever, s/he can read more in his Australian Open blog for the Melbourne Herald Sun; he also answers some ridiculously stupid fan questions.  I leave you with this one:

Hola Rafa! I've always wanted to know why you pick your wedgie? Is it because it's part of your routine, or is it just a nervous habit? Good Luck, Keep fighting like you always do. Never giveup!  Mukuka 

Hi Mukuka. Well, I would love not to do it but this is the way it is ... I hope you look more at my game.