CARE OF THE DEVIL IN ME

Good morning, InterSluts.

It’s Monday. You need something to wake you up.

I have just the thing for you, my pets: Elke Sommer. Possessed by the Devil.

If that doesn’t wake you up, consult yr physician immediately. Or possibly a priest.

BTW, if anyone knows why my iPod is chopping off the last five seconds of every song on my playlist, please explain immediately.

This is what the devil does,

This is dF

THE DEVIL’S IN MY CAR

And speaking of women possessed by demons ...



Here comes trouble,

This is dF

THE ART OF THE STEAL

If you’ve ever seen one of these ads on Facebook and other web sites ...



... You probably already figured it was a scam of some kind. For those of you (like me) who are nevertheless interested in details on WHY it’s a scam and how it works, FactCheck has kindly done yr homework for you.

The first part is relatively straightforward – all you get for yr money is a CD-ROM with a list of govt agencies that give grants and how to apply – all of which you could actually find on yr own with Google for nothing.

The real scam, however, is this: you have to give them yr credit card details to cover the costs of the shipping and handling – and then, if you don’t call to cancel within seven (7) days, they bill you a monthly membership fee of $95 using the credit card details you just gave them.

All of this is covered in the T&C fine print. But we all know about the fine print. Right?

Anyway, I’m fascinated by stuff like this. I wonder how many people they’ve ripped off with this. I also like that they secretly run a web site helpfully warning you of “scam” web sites – then recommending safe, dependable web sites that are in reality far more likely to rip you off. Cheeky monkeys.

Thieves and liars,

This is dF

GAYS AND NUNS: A HISTORY

If there’s one thing the Internet doesn’t have nearly enough of, it’s movie reviews. So here’s what I’ve been watching this weekend.

Milk

I’m not a huge fan of biopics (apart from notable exceptions like, say, Ed Wood and The Notorious Bettie Page), and I confess, I went to see this partly to annoy conservatives. That said, I also confess I only had passing knowledge of who Milk was (I remember little of the saga from the TV news, apart from Anita Bryant’s harping, and even at the tender age of 12, I wondered just what her f***ing problem was), so I was curious.

I can’t say if it deserves all the Oscars (if only because I don’t recognize Oscar’s authority), but as an entry-level introduction to gay rights history in the US, it’s pretty good and strikingly accurate. My only real complaint is the script’s damn-near hagiographical take on Milk, which is arguably counterproductive for a film that has a hard enough job selling Milk’s story and importance in this day and age. Then again, no one who backed Prop 8 (and Prop 6 before it in the 1970s) is going to see this film as anything other than Homosexual Agenda™ propaganda, so I guess Dustin Lance Black is entitled.

If nothing else, the liberal use of actual news footage of the surrounding events helps to sell the facts of the story. It’s also striking how little both sides’ arguments have changed since the 1970s. Plenty of the nonsense spouted by the likes of Bryant and John Briggs at the time could be cut/pasted into the average Michele Bachmann speech or Jim Dobson press release without altering a word. So for history-related reasons alone, highly recommended.

Doubt

Which I went to see mainly on the strength of Philip Seymour Hoffman, and I was curious to see where they’d go with a story about a nun trying to get a priest suspected of child abuse removed from his post (in 1964, mind, back when that sort of thing was less widely known about, much less discussed openly). It’s pretty good in the sense that it keeps you in the dark over the priest’s innocence or guilt so that yr not sure who’s the good guy and who’s the villain, and pitting Meryl Streep’s strict orthodoxy against Hoffman’s progressive stance to make the church friendlier.

The chief letdown is the very last scene, which seems contrived. Also, some of the expressed views on homosexuality seem awfully modern for a story set in 1964. Apart from that, it’s got a lot going for it. But considering it’s mostly people talking with very little action onscreen, it probably works better as a stage play.

Send in the nuns,

This is dF