6 results found for “lohan”

Pot Tells Kettle to Be Less Black 

Wednesday, May 29th, 2013

Though I loathe celebrity gossip and news, it does occasionally provide good fodder for this site. So it is again, with Amanda Bynes, who’s apparently in some trouble. That’s probably putting it mildly, in fact. Frankly, when Courtney Love tells you to “pull it together”, things must be really bad.

Amusing Search Terms

Monday, October 4th, 2010

One of the inspirations for One Foot Tsunami is the late/possibly-just-on-an-extremely-extended-hiatus Minor Tweaks. On the site, Tom Bartlett had a running feature wherein he’d peruse and respond to search terms which had led readers to his site. Like the idea of Reviewbombs before it, I’m borrowing this concept from Tom and hopefully making it enough my own to avoid being reviled and/or sued.

So, without further ado, random searches which have led folks to this very site:

‘disgusting tweets’
Finally, proof that this site’s running feature Barvd is providing a useful service!

‘good pin numbers’
Apparently, people really are looking for help on selecting a PIN. Another search which led someone to this helpful guide? ‘ATM PIN 80085’.

‘subconscious files’
This term links to the first post about Lindsay Lohan ever published on One Foot Tsunami. In that post, the word ‘subconscious’ was used as a noun, but this is more fun if you read ‘subconscious’ as an adjective. ‘Subconscious files’ – what the hell are those?

‘major league eating 2010 rookie of the year’
It’s more than a little embarrassing that this post is proving educational for the folks searching for this term.

‘kansas city royals pronunciation guide’
The aforementioned embarrassment is more than offset, however, by the fact that somewhere there is a person insisting to his friends that David DeJesus’ last name is pronounced “Duh-Jeez-Us”. You’re welcome, friends of that idiot!

As excellent as that is, an even greater accomplishment was revealed while perusing search results. Thanks to a much more famous Lohan-based post, when folks search Google for ‘Fudgie the Whale’, One Foot Tsunami is now on the very first page! It seems my childhood ice-cream-cake-mascot-related dreams are finally coming true.

Alright, Once More

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

Look, I don’t want to feed this stupidity. I previously mentioned my disdain for celebrity “news”. But too many people shared recent awful news of Lindsay Lohan to ignore it. I’ll try to cover these two items quickly.

First up, Lohan was in court on Tuesday for a probation hearing. She’d been given three years of probation for multiple DUIs back in 2007, and was facing jail time. Surely the young Ms. Lohan realized the gravity of the situation, and showed deep respect for the court?

Lindsay Lohan's classless message to the court
Ah, yes. Classy.

For the second item, a quick timeline of Lohan’s legal woes may be informative. Lohan was busted on a DUI in 2007 and caught in possession of cocaine. Two months later, she was again charged with driving under the influence, as well as driving with a suspended license, and possession of a controlled substance. A subsequent plea deal near the end of 2007 had her spending one day in jail1, performing 10 days of community service and required her to complete an 18-month drug-treatment program. She was also placed on 36 months’ probation.

At Tuesday’s hearing, after violating her probation and missing 9 of 27 required drug-treatment classes (citing a litany of excuses, including the death of an uncle whose funeral she didn’t attend), Lohan received 90 days in jail.

So, after all this, what did the ridiculous Dina Lohan have to say?

“This is so not fair to do this to my child.”

Riiiiiiight.


Footnotes:

  1. Apparently, she ultimately spent an entire 84 minutes in jail. ↩︎

Carvel Follow-Up

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

Real journalism from a site called One Foot Tsunami? While researching last week’s Don’t Eff with Fudgie the Whale feature, I noticed a slight discrepancy. This is the card shown on Carvel’s response to the incident:

Carvel's sample Black Card

The fine print on this sample card indicates simply that the card must be presented when a purchase is being made. The full fine print reads:

The card must be presented at the time of purchase. Cardholder may receive up to $25 in ice cream products per week. No substitutions. Lost, misplaced or stolen cards are not replaceable. No cash value. www.carvel.com

However, Carvel’s page also shows a second image with different fine print:

The card's fine print
[Click to enlarge]

That fine print reads:

Personal appearance of named cardholder required at time of purchase. Cardholder may receive up to $25 in ice cream products per week. No substitutions. Lost, misplaced or stolen cards are not replaceable. No cash value. www.carvel.com

This second set of fine print is far more damning, as it would require Lindsay or Ali Lohan to be present for all purchases. This makes perfect sense, given the nature of Carvel’s marketing plan. Having celebrities in the stores is useful. Giving away ice cream to the awful and unfamous relatives of celebrities is not. But which fine print was on the Lohans’ card?

To find out, I got in touch with Ashley Swann, PR-Communications Manager for Focus Brands (parent company of Carvel), who authored their response. Here’s what she had to say:

We didn’t want to bring any specific celebrity into this story by posting one of the actual cards, but the fine print [the second set] you see on the site is what appears on those cards. The photo you see of the “Carvel Lover” card is a generic card that’s a little different.

In addition to the fine print that details the restrictions & specifies that the celebrity must be present, the Lohans were also verbally informed of this on numerous occasions when we did honor their card.

We never planned for this to be such a media storm. Our Franchise Partners simply couldn’t have been expected to provide free ice cream to someone who was clearly breaking the rules.

So there it is – the fine print on the cards clearly tells the owner that their presence is required to obtain free treats. Even if it hadn’t, the Lohans were informed of this multiple times, and Carvel is free to do what they like with their promotion. But next time, someone at Carvel might want to spend 5 minutes in Photoshop. They’d avoid any confusion, and also demonstrate what miserable bums the other side are.

Don’t Eff With Fudgie the Whale

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

I hate celebrity “news”. My disdain for it should be obvious from the way I put quotes around the word news right there. But even worse is “celebrity” “news”, coverage of people who’ve never themselves done anything noteworthy. Yet somehow, I couldn’t help but be amused by a particular recent bit of “celebrity” “news”. This story features a relative of the ridiculous Lindsay Lohan, a black card (or at least a knock-off), and Carvel ice cream. Best of all, it’s got arrogance and self-conceit, followed by comeuppance, which is my absolute favorite kind of uppance.

The story starts in 2009, when Carvel Ice Cream was celebrating its 75th anniversary.1 Apparently, as part of this promotion, they issued a Carvel Black Card to 75 celebrities:

Carvel's Black Card

Presumably, the marketing thinking behind this was that such a card would draw the chosen celebrities into Carvel’s stores. With the help of the paparazzi who would be sure to be taking pictures, Carvel would receive nearly free publicity. It seems like a solid enough plan, but it all goes off the rails when your list of chosen celebrities includes Lindsay Lohan (as well as her sister Ali).

This error in judgement was rapidly exposed when Dina Lohan, mother to Lindsay and Ali, repeatedly used the card herself without either of her famous daughters present. According to Carvel:

These cards were issued in the celebrity’s name and require the card holder to be present at the time of use…Unfortunately, the Lohan family has been abusing the card. While the card was issued in Lindsay and Ali’s names only, their extended family has repeatedly used the card without either present.

The matter came to a head June 16th, when Dina Lohan attempted to use the card while picking up an ice cream cake. Upon being asked for ID, and having the card confiscated, the elder Ms. Lohan called the police. There’s a good use of taxpayer dollars.

Ultimately the police returned the card to Ms. Lohan, though they instructed her not to use it again. She did not receive her ice cream cake free of charge, proving there’s some justice in the world, even if it’s just very stupid justice.

Speaking with Radar Online just after the incident, Ms. Lohan promised revenge:

“Just wait until Lindsay and Ali hear about this,” she said. “When Ali gets back, I’m going to bring her in everyday to this store — and you can print that!”

You diabolical she-devil! Why, you’ll eat them right out of business! However will Carvel respond?

At first, we graciously honored their requests while explaining that the Black Card was not a carte blanche for unlimited Carvel Ice Cream for the extended Lohan family and friends. After more than six months of numerous and large orders for ice cream, we finally had to cut off the card and take it back.

Oh. That’s how.

What did the overweening Dina Lohan have to say about the incident?

“It just shows how we [Lohans] get treated so much worse than regular people.”2

Perhaps the problem, Dina, is that you are so much worse than “regular people”.


Footnotes:

  1. According to Carvel’s history, Tom Carvel first began selling ice cream in 1929 (80 years before 2009). The Carvel Corporation was founded in 1936 (73 years before 2009). So what happened 75 years before 2009, in 1934?

    1934
    Nation’s first retail ice cream company starts when Tom Carvel’s vending truck suffers a flat tire in Hartsdale, NY during Memorial Day Weekend, and he begins selling his melting ice cream from his broken down truck

    As far as I can tell, they were celebrating the 75th anniversary of a flat tire. ↩︎

  2. Honestly, “regular people”? You were treated worse than all the people who didn’t receive an exclusive card for a lifetime of free ice cream? ↩︎

Lindsay Lohan’s Subconscious Files a Lawsuit 

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

During the Super Bowl, E-Trade unveiled a new ad. In it, a boy is seen apologizing via video chat for not calling his girlfriend the previous night. The girlfriend is suspicious that he had another baby, a “milkaholic” named Lindsay, over, and sure enough, he did.

Now, Lindsay Lohan is suing E-Trade to get the ad removed from the airwaves. She’s also seeking monetary damages of $50 million in exemplary damages, plus another $50 million in compensatory damages.

Despite their legal claims, no one was talking about the baby being modeled after Lindsay Lohan. Now, in a perfect example of the Streisand Effect, everyone will be. What an idiot.

Lohan’s lawyer, Stephanie Ovadia, said the actress has the same single-name recognition as Oprah or Madonna.

No.