Note to movie-going parents of young children: I don’t care if your 4-year-old is the next Roger Ebert, or if he’s funnier –in your opinion — than whatever is happening on screen.

I don’t care if you’ve been cooped up indoors with the kiddies for 4 straight weeks and have been saving your nickles and dimes so you can get out of the house before you lose your marbles and become one of “those” parents whose mugshots grace the nightly news.

I don’t care if you don’t have a sitter and think you’ll just die if you can’t see a film on the big screen (trust me, you won’t).

If your kid starts talking, whining, or complaining that he’s crapped in his pants and you can’t get your kid to STFU, then get off your ass, grab your kid and leave the damn theater.

Yes, you might miss some of the film but that’s less potentially harmful to your health than making people like me (who hoped to not just see but also HEAR the movie) have to find an usher to escort you and your crap-pantsed kid out.

Signed,
The Stranger Who Unapologetically Told Your Kid To Hush During “Alice” Today Because You Didn’t

Considering how internet-centric my life is, it may come as a surprise that I’m still a big fan of dead tree media. Magazines? I can’t get enough of them. Though I absolutely adore my Kindle for reading books, using the joystick button to navigate between headlines and sections of magazines or newspapers is a freaking pain in the neck.

Also, many of my most-loved magazines (National Geographic, Natural History, Smithsonian) have rich, delicious photographs that just don’t translate well on the Kindle. Sure, I could read them online but then there’s no satisfying tha-whick! when I flip pages like there is with the real thing (though I suppose I could just make that noise myself).

Point is: I’m not inherently biased against print media. If anything, I’m still a big fan… provided the publication’s print format offers something pleasurable, something that can’t be replicated online. When it comes to newspapers I just can’t think of one that’s not better enjoyed in its digital format. For one thing, reading a paper online means I don’t have to wash my hands when I’m finished. Also, I can sit down to read it whenever I’m ready, without having to first comb my hair, change out of my bunny slippers and grab a jacket to hide the fact that I’m still in pajamas at 11 a.m. as I shuffle to the driveway to hunt for today’s issue where, invariably, one of my neighbors will see me.

Even with all of that hassle to go through to get my paper, I’d stayed a weekend subscriber until this morning. That’s when, confronted with 6 unread papers still soggy in their plastic bags, I realized I’ve just been wasting money because I’m not reading the things. And the truth is, I hadn’t subscribed to actually read them, anyway: I subscribed so I could get the Sunday coupons, the savings from which easily covered the cost of the paper plus another $12 or so per week.

Until my husband took over the grocery shopping again, that is.

Back when that chore was mine I’d spend a couple of hours or so every Sunday combing the coupons, clipping out the relevant ones, cross-referencing them with the sale flyers from our local grocery stores, compiling a store-by-store shopping list based on where coupons and sales would give us maximum savings, and then I’d spend a full afternoon running from one market to another until I’d picked up everything on our master grocery list for the week.

Yes, it was as much of a pain in the ass as it sounds, but at the end of the day I could shake my wad of receipts in my husband’s face and say, “Look how much money I saved!” Of course, I never managed to have a wad of cash equivalent to our savings to show him because a day like that was invariably capped off by a trip to the liquor store where I spent every penny we’d saved… and then some.

So, today I called the newspaper to cancel my subscription. That, too, was a pain in the ass because, like many businesses’ customer service departments these days, our paper doesn’t get the service part… particularly when you’re about to stop being a customer. The conversation went something like this:

VK: “I’d like to cancel my subscription effective as of today.”

Rep: “I’d be happy to help you do that. May I ask why?”

VK: “I don’t read the paper. I’m not interested in reading the paper. I only subscribed for the coupons, and my husband won’t use them. So it’s a waste of my money.”

Rep: “Well, then, you understand you could be saving (some outrageous amount of money) every week with the Sunday coupons, right?”

VK: “No I can’t. See, you’re assuming I’m going to use every single coupon which, even if I still did the grocery shopping wouldn’t be the case.”

Rep: “Okay, maybe not quite that much but, still, you could still be saving money with coupons each week.”

VK: “Except I don’t do the shopping anymore. My husband does, and he won’t use coupons. Period.”

Rep: “Does he know he could be saving money?”

VK: “Yes, though I sometimes suspect he’s not a very smart man that, at least, is something even he can understand. He just won’t use them. So, cancel my subscription, okay?”

Rep: “So why don’t you do the shopping yourself?”

VK: “It’s none of YOUR business why I don’t do the shopping anymore, okay? Cancel my subscription!”

Rep: “I’m just saying that if you did the shopping and used coupons you could save money every week. With this economy it seems like doing the shopping so you could save money with coupons is a small effort that can really pay off.”

VK: “Do you even realize what you’re saying? Basically, you’re trying to convince me to subscribe to weekly delivery of coupons! Not the paper itself — which I’ve noticed you haven’t mentioned at all — but just the coupons. And on TOP of that you want me to rearrange my life and my household routines so we can use those coupons which, obviously, we aren’t that interested in or we’d be using? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?”

Rep: (Pause) “Okay, ma’am. I’ll process this cancellation. Now, would you mind completing a survey about whether you found the coupons in the Sunday paper a good value?”

VK: “AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGH!” (*click*)

What is it about some people who feel the need to sneer at fundraising efforts like last night’s Hope for Haiti Now concert? “A bunch of self-serving celebrities”, they’re saying on Facebook and elsewhere today. “How much did THEY give?”

News flash: celebrities, like the rest of us, probably had other plans for how they were going to spend their Friday night and, being celebrities, they probably made their plans far more in advance than the rest of us. So the very fact they canceled said plans — and whatever money-making was involved — is still more than the average TV viewer, sitting at home on a Friday night shoveling Munch-os into their mouth, did to help Haiti.

Meanwhile, here are a few of the names and the numbers: George Clooney, $1 million. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie matched him with $1 million of their own. Madonna pledged $250,000. Leonardo di Caprio’s giving $1 million, too. Supermodel Gisele Bundchen wrote a check for a cool $1.5 million. And, although there are probably plenty others, perhaps some celebrities just don’t think it’s anyone’s business what amount they give. Kind of like some non-celebrities I know.

But, naturally, the nattering nabobs are now whining that million dollars is a drop in the bank to someone like George Clooney. Then they pat themselves on the back for having taken a break from Facebook to donate $10 by text messaging the word ‘Haiti’ to 90999 on their cell phones. Because, you know, apparently that ten dollars combined with the interruption of their annoying Facebook status updates (“I just ate cereal!” “My kid just sneezed on my monitor!” “It’s cold and rainy here!”) deserves SO much more recognition.

And the worst part — the really, terribly annoying worst freaking possible part — is this grousing about celebrities not donating enough, or that their appearances were self-serving, is coming from REPUBLICANS who have just spent the past several days complaining about DEMOCRATS telling people how to spend their money.

Hypocrites, all.

Channel-surfing just now, I ran across something called “How Do I Look?” What kind of show is this where friends and family spend the first part of it ragging on how embarrassing the subject’s fashion sense (or lack thereof) is, and all the ways they’ve screwed up their lives, but, hey, it’s okay because now they’re wearing new clothes?

Man, I’d come out for my Big Reveal and start throwing punches. Granted, I’d be wearing designer clothes (and shoes!) while doing it, but my friends and family’s next TV appearance would only be suitable for Discovery Health.

I’m not sure which is more confusing: why someone would blow good money on a “diamond and gold mouthpiece” or why a dentist would actually install one? One thing I’m not confused about: the category to file this one under… Idiots Bite.

A Leavenworth woman says she was jumped by several people who forcibly removed a gold mouthpiece that had been cemented to her teeth, according to a police spokesman.

The incident was reported Friday after the 37-year-old woman went to Cushing Hospital, said Maj. Robert Smith, deputy chief of the Leavenworth Police Department.

The woman told police she was attacked after she left a bar at about 1:30 a.m. Friday at Sixth and Cherokee streets. She was approached by five to six women.

“They came up behind her in the alleyway and began hitting her and forced her into a car,” Smith said.

The vehicle was driven away and the attackers continued to hit the woman.

The suspects reportedly began working to remove the victim’s 24-karat gold and diamond mouthpiece. They ended up breaking the woman’s teeth as they were removing the object, according to Smith.

My latest column, Can Starbucks Really Offer “Value” With A Straight Face is up at Pajamas Media.

For those too lazy to click through and read it, the upshot is that Starbucks hopes to lure you away from McDonald’s by offering ‘value meals’ with your tall drip coffee or venti latte. Of course, you’re still going to be shelling out nearly $4 but, hey, it’ll be fun juggling that bowl of overpriced oatmeal while you’re driving!

My latest Pajamas Media column, Who Will Raise The Octuplets’ Mom’s Kids: Taxpayers! is up. An excerpt:

Perhaps there’s a sick genius behind Nadya Suleman’s choice to have her octuplets while unmarried, unemployed, and living in her parents’ basement: that $1.5 to $3 million hospital bill won’t be her responsibility.

Oh, sure, the whack jobs at PETA want us all to fornicate with veggies, but they’re silent when it comes to boid moider.

Then again, what should one expect from an anti-fur organization that handed out fur coats to the homeless at the Inauguration along with hot coffee in cups that said “Thank you for not wearing fur.”