1. When a divorcing woman who has been claiming that she was physically abused by her husband is willing to share custody for enough money. I had been giving Heather Mills McCartney the benefit of the doubt and not assuming she was the immoral gold-digging floozy that one keeps hearing she is. But with that divorce settlement, I think the point becomes inarguable.
A. She wasn't really abused and has been telling lies and dragging Paul McCartney's reputation through the mud to get more money out of him.
B. She was telling the truth about the abuse and she's willing to let a physically abusive man who once stabbed her with a broken wine bottle share custody of her kid as long as she gets $56 million and a mansion.
I'm betting that the truth is A, but either way, I don't like her. Were a non-fabulously wealthy woman put into a situation where she had to choose between sole custody and being able to afford to eat, my sympathies would be with her. But presumably, Mills could have said "I don't want your money, I just want to protect my kid" and just settled for being a woman without a mansion.
A bunch of Buddhist monks live in a temple infested with stinging red ants that they can't kill because they don't believe in killing.
The poor monks!
Ah well, I'll go give sleeping another shot.