Bullshit...or not?

Huh.

Somebody has egg on his face. It's just that nobody knows who.

Gimme an F! Gimme a U!

True: during a women's basketball game this season I asked an athletic department flack why there weren't any university cheerleaders at the game. Not that I give a shit--and, frankly, our cheerleaders veer into downright chubby territory. Yes, I am being an asshole, but you don't understand: them uniforms don't get any bigger just 'cause the women do.

I was told that the cheerleaders, as well as our dance team, which won a national championship in "hip-hop dance," have the option of attending sporting events because they fought for the right to be treated like any other student organization, not like an appendage of the athletic programs.

Interesting.

Though, really, how much agency do you want to give to women and men--listen up, Mr. President!--in tight uniforms whose "organizational" goals consist of bouncing up and down, acting excited, shouting, and gyrating for a captive audience?

A One-Two Punch. In the Nuts.

Quentin Tarantino's latest mashup of all things stupid has hit the theaters, and that sound you hear--the one that resembles two rutting hogs--is fanboys across the nation squealing with glee.

What I don't get, though, is how making an intentionally bad movie (two movies, actually--it's a double feature! Hooray!) about bad movies is worthwhile. Are we really supposed to pay homage to camp and bad acting/writing/production? Sometimes, trash is just trash.

The films Tarantino thinks are pure gold are, in a word, insufferable. Loud, obnoxious, gauche, often vile and dehumanizing. And so he rolled them all into one dull, nonsensical--and because he's serious--unironic film, and now we have "Grindhouse."

He's a thief and a dumb ass; let's go see his movie! We can piss away $10 on something we could have written ourselves!

What the fuck is wrong with some people?

You can spell "disingenuous" L-A-W

Have you ever wondered why the word "suggested" is in front of "retail price" in the phrase denoted by the initials "MSRP"? No? Me, neither.

It turns out that it all goes back to a 1911 ruling by the Supreme Court, in which the court found that manufacturers who tried to set the price retailers charged for their products was a per se violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890.

The ramifications of this are two, I think. One, it's a blanket ruling that covers all manufactured goods--the "per se" part designates as a violation of anti-trust law any attempt by a manufacturer to set retail prices (in effect, selling goods to retailers and then attempting to control resale, as though the retailer was meant to serve the manufacturer and not the customer's or the retailer's financial interest).

The other result of this ruling is that it protects consumers from having to pay through the nose for goods. Retailers' freedom to decide the price of goods means that shopping around can net a better deal--it's the very definition of a free market.

You would think this would be clear to the Supreme Court. You'd be wrong.

Here's a nice rundown of the case in front of the Court this week, having to do with a leathergoods company that makes handbags. Briefly: the handbag maker demanded that all retailers agree never to discount any of its bags because doing so would hurt the brand--in unspecified ways, of course. One boutique dared to put the bags on sale, it got dropped as a distributor by the leathergoods company, and it sued and won a triple-damages award (because it was deemed the leathergoods company tried to violate anti-trust law).

But, observers expect the 2007 Court will overturn the 1911 ruling, on the basis that the original, per se decision was overly general and that the so-called "rule of reason," adopted also in 1911, in the Standard Oil decision, will do a better job of protecting consumers.

That's not very funny. The Court is listening to a specious argument by the leathergoods company that "service" to customers would improve if only those poor, poor manufacturers could force everyone to pay more for goods. Um, what? Does that mean I get a foot rub while you're raping me in the ass?

The challenger in this case has another argument: the original ruling was a restraint on free trade. Again: what? I think manufacturers who are attempting to reach a step ahead in the selling process and trying to force retailers to set prices--what we used to call "price fixing," which is the opposite of "free market" ideals--is, well, a per se violation of anti-trust law. How could it not be?

One could look at this another way, which of course the Court will not do, because this Court, in particular, is fascinated by the "shiny objects" of legal doctrine: seizing on misplaced punctuation, reinterpreting and parsing words, spinning abstract scenarios from mundane complaints. In other words, this group is a bunch of ninnies who can't see the forest for the trees. If there was a grammatical error in the 1911 decision, you can bet Scalia will pounce on it and use it as a justification to line up on the side of colluders and price-fixers. He is, after all, the Justice who said that people convicted of crimes they did not commit cannot use their innocence as a defense--there has to be some error in the trial process to justify setting aside a verdict. Nice one, shithead.

But I digress, and badly. What I was saying is, to look at it another way, the usefulness of the original ruling far outweighs its general nature. What the Court of 1911 did, before it opened the Pandora's Box of the "rule of reason," was to remove manufacturers from the selling of goods. The public--you and me--are the beneficiaries. If we revert to the rule of reason, then the following things happen:

The 1911 precedent is overturned and every consumer good in the United States, from automobiles to food, can be priced at whatever amount the manufacturer, not the retailer, sees fit. You can bet the prices won't go down.

Online companies that make a living discounting products--little tiny companies, like Amazon.com, Half.com, Target.com, and other rinky-dink concerns--will lose massive amounts of money. Comparison shopping will cease to be possible.

A separate suit will have to be brought by consumers against the manufacturers and retailers for every single item that is sold in the United States. And, the oh-so-smart Supreme Court will then have to use the rule of reason to judge each individual case on its "merits" before rendering a decision.

So, since many expect the 1911 case to be overturned this week or next, you have to ask yourself: wouldn't the law be less of a runny cunt if it benefited real people instead of serving at the pleasure of amateur philosophes in gay black robes? Isn't it self-evident that manufacturers aren't supposed to dictate how the market functions? What is this, the dark ages of economics?!

Demographics or culture?

Two new links, at right, shall allow our readers to face off on this meaningless question: which is more definitive of a place, demographics or culture? Assumptions in the query include culture existing not as a product of a mixture of people--that is, demographics--but as a thing apart, with a life of its own; that all American places, large and small, have a culture to speak of; that anyone views demographics as a necessary tool for analysis; that areas outside of the 50 largest cities deserve to live, either in our consciousnesses, or in fact.

Can we learn anything from looking at population data, or is it all just one damn set of numbers after another?

Wrong Place, Wrong "Times"

Great article in the LA Times about the administration's efforts over the past 6 years to use the DOJ to fix elections. It's not an ordinary Op-ed; it's by Joseph D. Rich, who headed DOJ's voting section under the civil rights wing from 1999-2005. So he's hardly speculating.

But, why isn't this in the NY Times?! The LA Times is like a box of cereal: some mixture of fruits, nuts, and flakes. Of the major dailies, it's the least reliable--unless you don't subscribe to the notion that the Chicago Tribune can be read in reverse; that is, whatever the Trib says, just assume the opposite.

As for the article itself: the Bushies have been fixing elections again? By suppressing the minority vote? Color me shoKKKed.

What killed the dinosaurs? Retardation.

Reviewers seem to like the new Disney film, Meet the Robinsons. But this scene sticks out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auJC2anpxdk&mode=related&search=

Where is the deafness lobby on this? The fucking Tyrannosaurus Rex has little chicken arms and nubs on its head for ears.

If you can't view the clip...get a better computer. Jesus Christ, they cost practically nothing these days. Zing!

Really, though, you probably already saw the full promo trailer on TV--what? Disney puts its movie trailers on TV now? Non-stop? For what purpose?

Anyway, there's a Tyrannosaur, and he's chasing a little boy, and the boy runs behind a rock and the dinosaur can't quite get his giant head wedged in there to snatch him.

And when the guy it's working for (don't ask. Plot hole much?) says, "why aren't you seizing the boy?" the Tyrannosaur stands up and shakes its head and says, in a muffled voice that sounds exactly like a deaf person who's speaking while signing, "Because I have this big head, and little arms!" and it then waves its little Thalidomide arms. It's even subtitled, because the sound that comes from the creature's mouth translates to "Be-uss ah ha is bih heh, and li-ul ahms!"

Is it hilarious? Yes. Not $10-movie-ticket-purchase hilarious, but still very funny and very, very mean. Hey, I have this big mouth, and this little, tiny heart, OK?

The reviews are in. And not one person, other than me, thought that was a really funny jab, with a shit-crusted knife, at deaf people.

Thanksgiving: The Stuffening

I have to be honest: it's a movie I've always wanted to make. This is one of the storyboard panels from the pitch to Universal. Still waiting to hear on that.

My wife, Mrs. Too Clever, thinks it sounds like a porno. But, she won't let me hold open tryouts for the role of Princess Poke-a-hot-ass, so I'm getting mixed messages there. Women. Who can figure 'em?

When I Eat Breakfast, the Chex's in the Male

Cereal report: generic Chex are called Corn Pockets and they are a first-rate, second-rate imitation of the brand-name vittles. By that, I mean that Corn Pockets cut the hell out of the roof of the mouth, just like Chex.

After a little research, it turns out that Corn Pockets are America's 3rd-most popular generic cereal, just ahead of Poop Loops and slightly behind Chaff Box. The leader, of course, is Abrasive O's.

Rebirth of an American City

Recently, there was a small to-do regarding Detroit and its miserable condition. The city has lost over 60% of its population in 30 years. Large swaths of it are almost uninhabited, some uninhabitable. Now that the housing finance boom is over--or to be more precise, now that the housing finance SCAM boom is over and shady mortgage lenders are reaping massive windfalls or else foreclosing--Detroit, in particular, appears in its last throes as a metropolis.

But what would it take to bring it back? Detroit is not New Orleans; it isn't a city built on excess and doesn't market itself on tits and alcohol and French architecture. Detroit is where cars used to get made. Now that cars get made in central Ohio and darkest, pastoral South Carolina, Detroit's reason to exist has vanished.

How does one rebuild a crumbling city? It seems that a key element is to attract affluent, energetic people who will actively build up in new and creative ways--warehouse/factory district Pittsburgh and Cincinnati being examples.

The most motivated people I can think of, and who fit within the categories of "affluent," "creative," and "energetic" are conservationists and environmentalists. What if Detroit became America's first large-scale, metropolitan test case for a green city? And what a turnaround, from the Motor City to the Clean City! I admit I have only the sketchiest idea what this would entail...

The infrastructure, at least in basic terms, is there already. Housing is cheap and not many restrictions exist as to what you could do to modify it. Make a green roof on every house. Mandate solar panels on every structure. All vehicles go biodiesel or else solar-charged battery. How great could such a city be? The only limit is imagination.

Clever, You Are Not

What is it with lefty writers and their absolute conviction that they are witty and urbane? If one more person writes a column, article, or blog post about the Gonzales situation that makes a mafia reference, I will personally find them and feed them their balls. Or, if it's a woman, my balls. And then I will tip her and say goodnight. Ba-dum-bum.

Many of the scribblers in question also think it's clever to refer to the VP as "Darth Cheney" and that insight is to be found in random pop culture puns--hopelessly dated, of course, since the cutting-edge of left journalism is twenty years behind the times. Hey, it beats the right-wing journalists. They're still in the fifties, my good man!

But I have just seen the most asinine opinion on the horribly-named Huffington Post, comparing the administration to the Sopranos, and I can't take it anymore. Stop it, just stop it!

--This isn't new or interesting. We ALL have always thought Bush and his cronies were racketeers and Bolsheviks and whatever else.

--Puns and hack analogies add NOTHING to the conversation.

--You are not cool or insightful. You are a boring, old, stupendously unhip person. Do not even start making that fucking Star Trek hand symbol at me while comparing Karl Rove to the Romulans or some shit like that. I will poke your fucking eyes out.

A piece of advice for Wayne Ellington

Dear Wayne,

You're a freshman, and you play at UNC. I know this probably makes you pretty big-headed, but if you like, I'll send you a tape of your performance in this year's NCAA Tournament that you can watch whenever you get a little too big-for-your-britches.

To put it nicely, you sucked ass.

I mean, sure: you scored 12 points in the first round against Eastern Kentucky, and you had 5 assists and only 2 turnovers. But you committed 4 fouls and anyway, that was a blowout victory against a crap school. You really had me worried when you followed that with a 5 point, 1-for-4 shooting effort in over 20 minutes against Michigan State. I mean, what the fuck, Wayne? You were a high school All-American!

This weekend you got off to a truly shittacular start, shooting 6-for-16, with no assists, 1 turnover, and no made-three-pointers in 28 minutes against USC. You rotted so bad they had to burn the floor after you dragged your sorry ass off of it. The team survived, Wayne, no thanks to you.

And then today. Oh, today. Just now, in fact. Wayne, I want you to take this offseason and think about what you did. You have a choice to make, son, and it's between playing the game of basketball the way God, Dr. Naismith, and Dean Smith intended, or transferring to Duke, you three-happy, dumb fuck, couldn't-hit-yourself-much-less-the-basket little dimwit!

Perhaps you were caught up in the drama of the game, with all the CBS-paid referees doing their best to make it thrilling by ceasing to call fouls on Georgetown--a bruising team that took full advantage--but were you aware, Wayne, that your teammate, Tyler Hanbrough, had 26 points in that game and was a perfect 14-14 at the free throw line? That's important, Wayne, because when you had the ball in your hands in the last 10 seconds, with the score tied at 81, Hansbrough was there, ready and capable of getting that one single point the Tar Heels needed to win (see, Wayne: 82 is 1 more than 81).

But instead, you shot a three and missed it. Badly. It was a dumb shot, taken by a player who to that point was a big, fat 1-5 from the field (I hear you missed like 3 more shots in the overtime). You ended up with 5 total points in the game.

My advice to you, Wayne: don't shoot. Think about what it takes to win the game, and then do that in the shortest possible time. And practice not sucking, because next year, you owe millions of North Carolinians. You dumb ass.

**I will now go back to regular posting, and say no more of this accursed NCAA Tournament, its crooked officials, or the boil on my ass, named Wayne Ellington.

An Unnecessarily Extended Nightmare

Alberto Gonzales is a stupid man, and he always has been a stupid, stupid man. He works for--certainly not the American people!--a more stupid man, in an administration full of equally stupid men.

And none of this is a secret. It's been obvious from day 1.

But now, somehow and for some reason unfathomable to logic, Alberto Gonzales is in hot water because he lied. Baldly and shamelessly, he lied to Congress and the American people, and the press. And magically, somebody noticed and cared enough to not let it go, to not give the same free pass the administration has been given thousands of times over 6 years.

Every single word spoken by Bush and his little Bolshevik carnival of monkeys/supporters has been a lie. It wasn't subterfuge, or obfuscation; it required no lengthy explanation to the masses or parsing of words to get at the truth underneath. The malfeasance of the Bushites was on full display for anyone who cared to look, and yet somehow, for years, nobody with a bully pulpit could be bothered.

So now the little minstrel Gonzales did what he has been trained, like a Pavlovian dog, to do: lie his ass off and receive no punishment, but in fact a satisfying reward: the praise of the media and the lucrative adulation of the right. But this time, inexplicably, he's caught. And somehow, he can't stop lying.

The proof of his lies and his criminal activities, along with his bosses' indiscretions, forms a trail so neat and easy to follow that even the media can do it.

The shame of America, however, isn't that this venal little race traitor, this scab, this pus-filled toady, is guilty of harming our nation and our people, but rather that this entire administration has been built upon the laziness and inertia of the public mind and its self-appointed, self-important guardian, the press.

I want the last 6 years of my life back, you fuckers. You could and should have nailed these bastards the first time they opened their mouths. I blame the tyrant for instituting tyranny, but what's to be expected, after all, from someone who proclaims his intention to be a tyrant? I blame far, far more the silly little face-puppets on the evening news who ignore and massage and shallowly reinterpret the tyrant's words for a time, only to be shocked--shocked!--to find tyranny the result.

There is nothing complicated about telling the truth.

Oh, I get it!

All this time, GW Bush has been thinking of himself as an employer! He views his role the same as any manager in a large firm with the power to hire and fire. So, since he can hire federal prosecutors, he can also fire them at any time. That's why the Justice Department, and Bush's cute little chihuahua, Alberto Gonzales ("Claro que si, el Presidente! You speak such good eSpanish! I so proud of you!" "Um, grass-eeyas, Albert! Yo quiero to fire me some attorneys!") inserted a little clause into the Patriot Act bypassing Senate confirmation for all such appointees: so Bush can summarily dismiss them whenever he wants to. You know, like a boss. Or a king. Whatever.

And the associated press thinks this is news. It also thinks Bush's declaration that he doesn't believe in subpoenas is news. Well, I don't believe Bush has a penis or would know what to do to protect this country from another terrorist attack, but it's really not up to me is it? There're facts, and then there are wishes...

Bush is an idiot, and a dangerously ignorant and belligerent one, at that. One more hearty "boooo!" belongs to the AP on this story, since it's on page 1 of many major papers today and all over the internets, and yet it isn't a story at all. The story should have been that Bush said, "I want to keep lying about this, so naturally me and my posse aren't going to swear any oaths." Congress said, "oh yes, you are!" But instead, the story is like this:

Boy tells stuffed animals: Mom doesn't know everything

"Jimmy's Room--Jimmy was sent to his room just now for throwing blocks at his sister and then blaming it on the cat. When his mother told him to stay in his room until he was ready to own up and apologize, Jimmy declared that he, "doesn't have to do what (Mom) say(s)!"

Minutes later, in his room, Jimmy assembled his stuffed animal collection, jury-style, and told them, "Moms don't know everything. And so there!"

That's what the AP story boils down to: "Bush doesn't think he has to do what fartypants Congress, stinkyface laws say." Pulitzer coming!

Black Snake Groan

First things first: I've always had a thing for Christina Ricci. So it should come as no suprise to me that I almost killed myself on the west side of the Gastonia. I remember it like it was yesterday. While driving home after a long day in the cabinet mines in Shelby I saw a billboard and almost found myself in the ditch.

At the top of the hill in Bessemer City I beheld a billboard with her in chains and torn clothes a la I Spit On Your Grave. Holding the smart end of the chain was my man, the greatest black actor since Danny Glover, Samuel L. Jackson. Finally a movie that has created, on the big screen, one of my many fantasies--you know, if I was Samuel L. Jackson.

Then my world came crashing down. I read a review of the movie in question and it turns out that not only do you not see Christina Ricci moan you also do not see Samuel L Jackson's black snake! And we all know that he is packing a cannon. This billboard is misleading. For that I give it a 3. But for giving me a boner that almost ended my life I will give it a 7.

Cumming Soon: TMNT

But why is it $3.75?

From "The Best of Craigslist" ads:

"Couch-Very Uncomfortable, Red: $3.75"

Detroit Is Dead

Second American city dies under Bush's watch (although this has been in the works for decades). This isn't even on the administration's radar. Note the throwaway line in the article about how the auctioneers want to get away from Detroit and move on to California, where they can make more money on foreclosed homes. The middle class is so fucked.

Bad Name, Good Idea

epodunk.com is new to me, but awesome nonetheless. Apparently, if you're a policy researcher and you need census data or anything else relating to thousands of small, American towns, this is your first option. It's really a fascinating site. Here's Matthews, NC. Try it yourself.

Post Office Creates Black Market

Postal rates are going up again, and I, for one, am fully in support. I feel certain that, this time, the Post Office will use the extra cash to recruit only the best, most friendly, and efficient personnel. Unlike that cunt who currently (mis)delivers my mail (rain, sleet, and snow she can deal with; she apparently cannot deliver mail when there's booze to be drunk). Or her friend over at the counter at the actual office, the lady who doesn't speak or respond to customer queries.

It is awfully strange, though, that the rate to mail a letter keeps increasing, since the PO makes so much of its money off of selling shipping supplies and additional services, like insurance, delivery confirmation, etc.

That, and the fact that the PO made over $5 billion in profits from 1995-2000 (then saw a dip in income after 9/11--but hey, nobody's psychic, except all those friends of George HW Bush, who sold their airline stock on 9/10). But last year the USPS put $250 million in escrow and reported a profit of $26 million for the year. Not bad for a corporation built on shitty service!

Now that we have those convenient tubes, the internets, which, barring trucks full of information getting stuck in them, allow us all to pay our bills and communicate via that medium--making the Postal Service superfluous. So I see the need for higher rates, so that poor people--the ones without computers, online checking, credit cards, etc.--will be penalized for their unforgivable refusal to join the affluent society. The food tax really ought to go up, too, just to teach them a lesson...

But, the USPS has opened the door to a new and exciting business opportunity for Americans with a little money and time on their hands. The Post Office hears your teeth-gnashing and clothes-rending in response to the rate hike, and it feels you, dog. So it's going to issue a new "forever" stamp that will always be good for a first-class letter, no matter the going rate for postage.

This, my friends, is an invitation to the black market. Buy $20,000 worth of "forever" stamps at $0.41 apiece (the new postal rate) and sit on them for five years. By that time, the rate will be at least $0.42, which is a profit for you if you sell your stamps at just below the new rate, say for $0.419 apiece, of almost $200.

Not much, granted. But, if the rate goes up any more, you only profit more. Let's say that stamps cost $0.50 in five years--not unlikely, as the internet and, frankly, better delivery companies like UPS eat away at USPS. That's $1,600 profit for you if you sell stamps at $0.49 apiece. It's still more than you'd make with a savings account. Preying on society is awesome.

Dick Vitale is, uh, a dick

He thinks Illinois will beat Virginia Tech because U of I allowed "about 57" points a game this season. Just so you know, Illinois scored "about"--no, shit, exactly 57 points per game in conference play all season. So...they give up 57 and score 57. Yeah, sounds like a real powerhouse. (Barf noise)

1. Va. Tech beat Carolina twice. Carolina won the ACC regular season and the ACC tournament. The ACC is the toughest conference, agreed by all, in the land. Carolina is the #1 seed in the East region. VT has credentials. Illinois beat---durrrrrrr...

ANYway, the so-called Fightin' Illini (not affiliated in any way with Indians or any other offensive image--except maybe the image of flathead midwesterners whose whole lives revolve around crappy college teams because they'll never make it off the prairie) "allow" "about 57" points per game because they play in the very, very shitty Big Ten Conference.

How is the Big Ten worse than, say, the ACC?

"Hi! Is this the Jaguar dealership?"

"Why yes, bloke, it is."

"How fast does the best Jaguar go?"

"Oh, maybe 300 kilometers...uh, I mean, 186 miles per hour."

"Wow."

And then, later:

"Hi! Is this the Ford dealership?"

"Um, you know it is. The sign says..."

"So, how fast can your best car go?"

"Man....damn! I guess, like, 100 miles-per-hour?"

The point is, the Big Ten is Ford and the ACC is some rad, scrote-tickling import car company.

Illinois might beat Virginia Tech (why does a technical school have a basketball team?), but I stand by this extremely superficial, meaningless comparison.

Florida will not repeat

...because Joachim Noah has baby corn teeth. Sheesh.

And then....you lost

Bob Knight: Idiot

He's as dumb as John Madden, but whereas Madden will say harmlessly moronic things like, "if he'd only beaten this guy, and this guy...and that guy, and those two guys, and that guy...and this guy...he'd have scored," Bob Knight is more like "I think you're so fucking dumb that you'll still like me even if I call you a fucking idiot, you fucking idiot."

Boston College will not be a part of the ACC until it beats Duke every year (Maryland just became part of the ACC, by that measure, five years ago), but by beating Texas Tech today they've won a special place in my heart.

Knight once told the fans at Indiana that when he died, he wanted to be buried upside-down "so (his) critics could kiss his ass," and I hope he gets his wish. I will make the pilgrimage, I guess to Texas, since that's the only place in America that an animal like Bob Knight can live outside of a cage, to kick his ass as it protrudes from the ground.

Fine. I Love College Basketball.

I'm a hockey fan. It's a man's game. Teeth knocked out? No prob. Got your ass kicked by a goon? Get up, you pussy.

But here in America, hockey just doesn't get the Irish up. For that, I need college basketball. Without it, there'd be no bar fights. Everybody's pulling for Illinois tomorrow, and it'll be a lucky bar that gets me and my "UNC 75, Illinois 70" t-shirt. I have a dental plan. And a filed-toothbrush shiv.

Here's a funny/stupid article about Duke and how much they suddenly suck. Funny how, when 35% of your 19,456 3-point attempts per game don't go in, all of a sudden you suck mightily. Yes, folks: Duke's run WAS all dumb luck. And now it's over and they're paying the price. They have no hope next year. My only question after the loss to VCU today is, did Josh McRoberts cry? I bet he did.

The guy who wrote that piece clearly is no historian. I was reminded of the paradigm shift (not Kuhnian, but still) of sports earlier today. An article on NHL.com mentioned the Blackhawks hadn't played for the Cup in over 15 years, and as that series (with the damn Penguins! Rot in hell, Lemieux!!) was the origin of my fandom, I felt very old. And, since then, the Hawks have sucked a big, fat dick of futility. No one, in 1991, would have dared speculate that the team with Chelios, Roenick, dirty Dirk Graham, Ed Belfour, Zhamnov, Weinrich, Daze, et al; would implode and suck donkey balls for the next decade-and-a-half (or, the better part of my life).

Duke is going into that good night, says I. "Night"? "Spiral of death," let's say. Welcome to Blackhawks territory, fuckers.

If you don't like college basketball, you may just want to skip my posts for the next 30 days.

What's Up with Jail?

How come nobody just goes to jail anymore?

Some douchehole named "Tank Johnson," who's apparently a lineman for the Bears, violated probation and today he got sent to jail for 4 months. Except, not really.

See, besides the fact that Johnson is like 100-feet tall and weighs somewhere north of a ton, and thus is by default the alpha male in any room, he's getting the VIP treatment from Cook County corrections.

The charges have to do with illegal firearms and the shooting of a friend in a nightclub. Clearly, this man doesn't believe that "laws" are real. He's not someone I want to sit next to on the CTA. Or, in his world, I don't want to sit next to Tank Johnson in my $250,000 Ferrari, either. He's a dickhead.

But in Cook County Jail, he's a dickhead who gets to dictate all other inmates' schedules. See, he gets 2 hours a day in a common room, with a TV and a phone. Because of his "celebrity"--if you can call getting your ass handed to you in the Super Bowl noteworthy--every other inmate has to wait and can only use the common space when sTank Johnson isn't in there.

Send your donated toothbrushes, which can be sharpened on a bed rail to make a first-class shiv, to:

Tank Johnson Ventilation Fund
Cook County Jail
50 W. Washington St.
Chicago, IL 60602

Absolute Garbage

No, I'm not talking about the Carolina Hurricanes, Greg.

Florida State, which beat Duke, Maryland, and Florida--who? Oh, the defending national champions? What's that you say--Florida is a #1 seed in the tournament this year, too? Gee, that seems weird.

Yeah, since FSU didn't even make the tournament! The selection committee should be hung by its collective balls from razor wire.

Florida State, which beats a handful of top teams every fucking year and yet, somehow, never gets into the postseason tournament that counts, just wiped the floor with the historic Michigan program in the NIT.

But Illinois and Arkansas are playing in the big show, for millions of dollars, despite having exactly zero wins, between them, against top programs this year.

FSU would've beaten VCU. You listening, Duke?

This is a fucking joke.

Blog This

There are 88,440,980,654,002 blogs now online in the US alone. Three of them are readable, and one is entertaining. Thanks to my enlistment, the latter two numbers will now rise by one each. (editor's note: what am I chopped liver?)

(Check that earlier estimate: the number of active blogs just went up by 61,430)
I once clicked on the "Next Blog" window and was transported through the first five circles of teenage girl Hell. I heard from -- and learned everything there is to know about -- every girl whose first name ended with an I. My slow naked crawl through the burning lake lasted just a few minutes though, because my head exploded and I had to quit (and clean the blood from my computer screen). (editor's note: you know what's weird? If you leave really foul comments on random blogs, they never respond. What's up with that?)

Of course the tittering masses have moved to My Space now, and the blog regime is left to the intelligensia. Welcome to where the elite meet.
(91,000 new deep thinkers just signed on) (Ahem! www.dumbocracy.blogspot.com. cough! sneeze!)

We are a culture of absolute dissolution. It might even be a mistake to call it a culture anymore, since the name presupposes at least some commonality. We are all alone and atomized -- and proud of it. All is autobiography and self-as-metaphor. The very act of writing this -- or anything like it -- in the context of instantaneous worldwide circulation, is self-serving and more than a little perverse. Our mothers would have been horrified by the arrogance, but we feel perfectly at ease with our self-promotion and pitifully bad manners.

What, you think you're a journalist or something? Are you reporting the news? Are you adding an atom of objective or even usable information to anyone's stash?

Well, no. We're just talking here. But to whom? For what?

Now, it must be said that there is no such thing as journalism either; so suggesting that there is some quantity of socially useful information out there which can be added to, or subtracted from, is nonsense. But that's just the point, isn't it? We did agree on the basis for such judgment at one time. We no longer agree on any of that. Were we all wrong then? Was there ever a basis point for socially "useful" as against "useless" information? Or, maybe the difference is in the term "personal". When did that lose its meaning?

FireJoeMorgan.com is the best blog out there. It's informative. It's hilarious.

The most informative style is always the most entertaining, and that site is perfect.

Of course, it's also personal. It's a few guys talking about baseball -- in public. It's the digital equivalent of the corner in the central square in Havana where all the men gather to argue baseball every day. There is no finer social moment -- no more perfect representation of the polis -- than that square and those men using it for that purpose. But there it is. FireJoeMorgan.com has digitally reproduced the essence of democracy (as did the internet itself). Is it the same, though, when we're yelling at each other while sitting all alone?

The other two blogs (Talking Points Memo and Eschaton) are readable but, alas, run by pussy Democrats. Dicklessness is a fatal character flaw, so we read the news and try to ignore the rest - kind of like TV, come to think of it.

(editor's note, redux: what am I, chopped liver?)

A Failure of Upbringing

Haven't we all been told, time and time again, that gay people are people too? We've heard that they are just like us, which if true, means that there is no "us" and "them" (...and after all we're only ordinary men...) but "us" alone?

Well, it turns out that's simply not true. It would seem that gays, like anti-gays, are perfectly happy to make their difference a basis for remaining outside the mainstream.

For one thing, if sex advice columns written by gay men are any indication, gay men, at least, are sexual fiends. They apparently do it all the damn time, and in any number of new and crunchy ways. Woo hoo for you, fella. But don't try to tell me that we're living the same life, because I can't take 30 minutes a day and devote it to lubey-preparation. Sorry. And, anyway, isn't this exactly what Republicans hate about you? What are you, working for the prosecution now? Perhaps Jews should carry around moneybags with $$ on the side; or all unmarried black mothers should drive Cadillacs and wave welfare checks? Of course not. But fags appear to be actively trying to make an accusation into a reality!

Now, there are some similarities between gay sexual performance and, say the kinds of things straight teenagers are wont to do in public. For example, there was a gay couple on the el a few days ago--and not teenagers--and they were quite demonstrative of their lust. On the train. At rush hour. In a packed car, in front of everyone else. There was no escaping it.

But of course, they wanted to be observed and probably also wanted our disapproval, because that is "hot." Maybe to them. As with teenagers, though, the response is the same: "get a goddamn room!" All of the people on the train were being used, by the gay couple, as fodder for their fantasies about forbidden love. In reality, most people just don't want to see any two people, regardless of gender, going at it in front of their faces. But for gay men to miss the political significance--and consequences--of their "outraaaaaageous!" behavior befuddles me.

The point, and it's not so much devastating but merely true, is that unlike most people who identify themselves through a host of traits and practices, to say nothing of beliefs, homosexual men seem to identify first and foremost with their dicks and where their dicks can go. I am basing this broad generalization on what the self-appointed spokesmen for gay men have publicly said. I am not privy to the inner workings of the culture; I don't doubt the utter humanity of gays, just their public personae and reliance on sexuality alone as a marker.

This is bad. Bad because it's precisely what conservatives have been condemning gay men for identifying with, but somehow gay men can't stop talking about and acting out--in larger-than-life caricature--their sex lives. But bad, also, because it's alienating to liberals who don't understand the need for such consistently obnoxious self-representation.

An example of popular perpetuation of the public image is to be found on message boards across the internets. Find a liberal blog, read the comments, and you will find numerous posts by ostensibly gay men that deal with blatantly inappropriate topics. Say, for example, that someone has posted a brief comment on a movie. You will find responses ranging from "I think the star of the movie is super hott!" (always with the two "t's") to "I didn't pay attention to the film because I was too busy staring at that guy's bulging package!" Another example is a recent post about the NCAA tournament and many of the comments were along the lines of "I turn off the lights and jerk off thinking about sweaty, teenage athletes! I wish they went back to wearing those tight little shorts!" These are amalgams of many, many comments. These are not flukes, or outliers. They are everyday sorts of offhand remarks. And they add up to something more.

Flip those comments around right quick and you'll realize that if someone wrote that they like women's soccer because the bitches have tight asses, or that they see movies to stare at the females' tits, we would rightly rebuke them for being shallow, oversexed twats.

Why should we tolerate this overemphasis on sex, and overly crude and shallow representations of it, from gay men? If everything ultimately boils down to a question of "what do you think it would be like to fuck that guy?" then why do we care about gays at all?

The trap, it seems to me, is inescapable. Gays have claimed their sexuality as their avatar, and unfortunately so have their enemies. Neither side is palatable; both are disgusting in their use of sexuality as the legitimation of their actions. Have gays become so one-dimensional? Or do they just need new spokemen, new branding, less "show me your dick" out-n-proud obnoxiousness?

Or is it me?

Review: Black

Looking for a diversion after taking qualifying exams last fall, I picked up a charming-looking game for the PS2 called "Black," which featured only a pile of shell casings on the cover. "I've heard of this," I thought. "Isn't this the game that's only about shooting things? How stupid."

$19.95 later, and I'm kicking ass, first-person-shooter-style. 10 hours later, and the game is done. Was it worth it? Not really.

To begin with, the computer AI is pretty bad on "Normal" difficulty. Maybe on the highest setting, "Black Ops" (how gay), it's genius, but that seems doubtful.

If you stand behind even the smallest cover, some enemies will not notice you. As Emily Post would tell you, the appropriate thing to do when you walk up and catch an enemy unawares is to clear your throat and say "excuse me" before shooting them in the face, but mostly I just threw grenades and sometimes the enemies wouldn't notice them either. They just stood there and sometimes after a bit one would point at the ground and yell "grenade!" before kindly blowing up.

If you beat the game--all 8 stages (eight! count 'em!)--on "Normal," you unlock...well, the same weapons, with unlimited ammo. And so you can replay the same game with the same weapons with unlimited ammo. That's freakin' gr--no wait, what?!

There is no targeting system to speak of; there's a dot in the middle of the screen, and as you swing your sight line around, the dot moves. Presumably, your gun is attached to your retina, or sewn to your collarbone. It's hard to shoot people, is the point, unless you have the sniper rifle, in which case you can shoot an enemy literally anywhere on his body and he dies. My killpoint of choice is the shin.

Having "sniperriflesuperkillingpowers" is very nice, actually, since all enemies in the game have serious body armor and can absorb better than 80 rounds from any weapon before dying. I am not using hyperbole. You will run out of ammo before some of them die.

This leaves the player with the daunting challenge of shooting everyone in the head--using, as mentioned, the absurd non-targeting targeting system. Or, you can adopt the method I almost certainly invented first, where you run up to your stunned enemy, drop a grenade at his feet, and then run away. Often, many of your enemy's friends will feel jealous that he has a new metal hackey-sack, and will run over to play with it and end up so much more human ground beef. Like I said, the artificial "intelligence" is on the same level as all those Penthouse Letters that you can tell are written by the same paid staffer: it's the same words, the same actions, the same damn story every single time.

The weapons aren't even that fun. You have your pistol, your shotgun (no good outside ten yards), your AK-47 and similar submachine guns. Then you have an Uzi, a rocket launcher (which makes a-nice-a-boom-a but you never get to admire it because it only appears in the game when you are facing other people with rocket launchers, and thus you'd best keep your head down), and finally the ultimate weapon in the game, the M249 or something like that, which is just a big chain gun. The shit part is that it also has no aiming capability and is horribly inaccurate. For a .50 calibre weapon, it does a shitty job of knocking down your enemies, who are just as invulnerable to its effects as they are to all other weapons. Oh, and you can only have 2 guns at a time. Booooo.

So what's fun about the game? This is it, and it's the only fun thing about "Black":

This car?

It blows up.
Yes it do.

Trucks? Naturally:



Fuel tanks and fuel-related objects also 'splode:






Hmm...will this big ass fuel tank blow up if I shoot it with a combat shotgun?

Well, I think that's a big "yes."

What are these harmless-looking barrels up to? No good, I'll bet! Perhaps I should shoot them...
GOOD CALL!

That box is looking at me funny.

Eat it with a 9-mm fork, harmless box!

I wasn't able to get a picture--clearly, I'm low-tech--of it, but at one point just for the hell of it I shot a rusty stove in an abandoned farmhouse. And it blew up. Ditto for a file cabinet I shot. A cable spool. A concrete section of sewer pipe. A locker door. You get it by now.

The pictures are fuzzy because it's hard to balance a camera, the controller, and whack off to all that destruction all at the same time.

Ultimately, however, all that 'splodin' isn't enough to carry a game. Luckily, my brain was mush from the exams, so it was less obviously stupid to me at the time. But you'll hate it, trust me.

Though if you want to try it, I have this copy of "Black" that has been gathering dust for several months...

Unclear on the Concept, chapter XVIICLMXI

Dan Savage's own paper employs a rather dumb dominatrix, whose job, I think, is to educate us normals about kink and perversion in order to, you know, make it not-so-kinky-or-perverse. Like Savage himself, the intended result seems to be to make everything fun and guilt-free and happy. I'm not sure if that's a good thing, but I'll take that up again later.

Here's Madame Whatsis' latest "column." (heh. I said "column")

She has a phone call from some guy who wants to do "forced feminization" and she's not having it. Immediately, I think we can dump on her for objecting to his use of the term "forced feminization," since he didn't just invent it on the spot. Look lady: I don't like the term "lube job," but I still use it when I call Jiffy Lube because it's immediately clear what I mean, and better than "hi, can you re-lubricate the gaskets and joints on my vehicle and also check and top off any fluids, as well as changing the oil? Thanks."

So, he isn't responsible for the discourse. Ass.

Moving on, she tries to "draw him out" so she can find out if he wants to be humiliated or if he would rather just come over, put on some women's clothes, and hang out. You know, for fun and stuff.

I thought you went by the title "dominatrix," lady? Do you not know what that means? You "don't do" humiliation? Jesus, did you pick the wrong line of work!

"Hi, I'm the plumber you called. What's the problem?"

"My toilet's clogged, and..."

"No way! I ain't touching that thing! Do you know how many germs are in there? Later, dude! Jeez...!"

Yeah, that's about right.

The kicker, if you need one, is that she justifies her decision not to play with the guy on the grounds that his fantasy is demeaning to women. Why? Because he thinks it's a "punishment" to be forced to wear women's clothing, and she thinks this reinforces female subordination images in the culture at-large. Or, it could just be a fetish that the guy enjoys, one he would never enact in public, and which isn't indicative of his values or views at all. You know, like a fantasy...? Like your fucking JOB, lady?! Hello, is this thing on??

Is it wrong to think she's having it both ways? First, he's all wrong because he, personally, can be held accountable for a popular term for a sexual fetish, and therefore he's a discourse-creator. Then, he's also wrong because he's internalized popular misogynist views of women and their accoutrements. He's both an enforcer of oppression and a creator of it--precisely the paradox that makes Foucault intolerable to me.

The reasonable way to see this situation is thusly: the guy doesn't know why he likes what he likes. And neither do you. Sex is not therapy--it's recreation, as this woman should know, since she's all happy and shit about it and wants you to be, too. Sex is also not necessarily a political statement, particularly when someone is paying someone else for it. Now, they may want to pay you to psychologically confuse them by altering temporarily--and ineffectively, since they do not actually cease to exist--the social/sexual reality, but that doesn't make it political.

And finally, her last, lame justification, that she won't do this thing because there is no equivalent fetish where women are "humiliated" by being forced to dress up in men's clothes is simply ridiculous and nonsensical. Social arrangements being what they are, it is foolish to deny them. There is a form of social hierarchy based on sex, and no amount of quasi-feminist, shallow wishful thinking changes that reality. And, of course, suggesting that you would do this thing, if only there were a "fair and balanced" fetish for women is patently ludicrous.

Ace Reporting

The White House, including Karl Rove, determined to fire 8 US Attorneys as retribution for their refusal to prosecute cases when and in the manner that the White House wanted. Republicans in the Senate and in Congress pressured some of the attorneys to prosecute Democrats right before the election. Major donors and supporters--in at least one case, while actually meeting with Rove in the White House--demanded that some of the attorneys be fired.

It is entirely unprecedented for any US Attorney to be fired years into a President's term in office. In fact, only 2 cases have been uncovered, both having to do with either corruption or sexual misconduct. Suddenly, there are 8 firings all at once, and all 8 people received positive performance evaluations and the White House/Department of Justice (which is incredibly enough a political arm of the Bush regime) gave absolutely no cause for their termination.

But this crack reporter for the AP has the whole scoop: the Bush team was going to "fire" all 93 US Attorneys when it took over 6 years ago. So, nothing to see here. Just hush now.

Let's just get to it, shall we?

1. It is common practice, dumbass, for incoming administrations to replace all or most of the US Attorneys. They are Presidential appointees, and thus it stands to reason that with a party change in the White House, many such positions will change hands. Clinton, for example, replaced almost all the US Attorneys when he came into office.

That is not a story. Or, if you're going to report it, then you need to note right off the bat that replacing US Attorneys is common at the start of a President's term.

It is unheard of at the 6-year mark, or 2 years after the second election of a President. Don't try to compress time and make all things equivalent. It is common for people to replace the shingles on their roofs when they put a home on the market. It is unheard of for them to put on a new roof 6 years after they've moved out. Sub your own, better analogy here.

2. These attorneys were not "replaced;" they were fired. That simply doesn't happen. Moreover, reporting this story to make it sound like it isn't a story at all is nonsense: the reporter includes information about congressional hearings and a high-level resignation in the Attorney General's office, apparently as a result of this scandal. But, he still concludes, there's nothing here! I said, "move on," goddammit!! What part of "nothing to see here" do you damn thinkers not get?!

3. The attorneys were fired after they were either pressured by Republicans--in a clearly unethical, illegal manner--and/or badmouthed by political donors and supporters of the White House. That is the very definition of "corrupt"! If you give money to the Republican Party, or you speak for a key voting bloc--a minority, by definition, by the way--then you can tell the White House how to run the nation's affairs and whom to prosecute. Cute, huh?

So, media: what's it going to take to get somebody to do his fucking job and report this shit?

Let the experts tell you: Duke sucks

Article here.

All you need to know: it's a list of each team in the NCAA Tournament and any/all possible pro players who could come from each team. And, the guy is being generous, for example:

"Albany (N.Y.): Senior guard Jamar Wilson isn't big (6-1), but the list of things he does well on the basketball court is. A four-year standout here, the former Bronx high school star has a 21-point game against Florida and a 19-point game against Connecticut in his career. "

He's pretty nice, eh?

Duke:

"Sophomore forward Josh McRoberts has had an adequate season, but the Blue Devils needed even more from him."

That's it? He had an "adequate" season, and he's the best pro prospect on the team? What about Gerald Henderson, who obviously could elbow his way to NBA fame like Kobe Bryant is currently doing? Or, I guess, if he really wants to be like Bryant, he can rape some chick in Colorado and buy his way out of it. Rapist.

Anyway, let's compare with another team, chosen off the list at random:

"North Carolina: F Brandan Wright, F Tyler Hansbrough, F Reyshawn Terry, G Ty Lawson, G Wayne Ellington. Talent-wise, this group stands one of the greatest compilations of young players at North Carolina, and that's saying a mouthful. Wright doesn't yet have the body for the NBA, but all the skills are there. Hansbrough is showing his toughness -- as if we didn't know that about him -- and Terry, the only senior in the quintet, is a very sound and athletic player. Lawson is one of the quickest guards in the country, and Ellington can shoot it long, but that isn't all. This team can go far, but the looming question is: Who will return?"

I swear, totally random. Seriously.

But let's just throw in a few more regular teams (read: bad) just for the full flavor of the article:

"Texas A&M-Corpus Christi: Center Chris Daniels is a 7-foot, 265-pound center who is very effective despite not having great athletic ability. The senior has been scouted by NBA teams and more evaluations are still to come."

"Winthrop: Big man Craig Bradshaw, best known in basketball circles as a member of New Zealand's national team, and wing scorer Torrell Martin, best known for his stylish hair statements, can play with the big boys, as they proved in last year's NCAA Tournament, when they nearly upset Tennessee as a 15th seed. Both players have professional basketball in their futures."

"Jackson State: The SWAC doesn't have the history in basketball that it does in football, but the conference has a legitimate NBA prospect this year in smooth-shooting guard Trey Johnson, the second-leading scorer in the nation at 27.1 points a game."

To sum up: Duke has as many decent players (1) as Jackson State (?) and Texas A & M...Corpus Christi. Winthrop has 2 pro-level players. The Eagles must be 100% better than Duke. And, remember, the author didn't even say that the lone Duke player was even good enough to play in the NBA, he just implied it by including him in a list of players in an article about possible NBA talents in the NCAA Tournament this year. That's pretty oblique. The author explicitly stated that Winthrop has 2 NBA-level players, Jackson State has one, and Texas A & M Corpus Christi even has one, who, despite "not having great athletic ability" is still, presumably, better than the best player Duke has to offer.

Also, Josh McRoberts cries everytime he fouls out against North Carolina. And I hear he smells really bad and is a dork on dates.

The Best of Something

This is the best dancing Voltron video anywhere.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6291996402487838065&q=robot+chicken

In a society divorced from considerations like "worthwhile," "useful," and "intelligent," it only matters that this is the "best" (and likely only) manifestation of something. We're all unique and special, you know. So there need be no purpose.

Enjoy!

God Comes Off the Bench

Nobody watched this, because Miami of Ohio vs. Akron? Come again? But there's a priceless article here about the game, which was a championship of some sort--I think the winner gets to get pasted by Kansas in the first round of that other tournament.

Basic facts: time low. wacky shot. referees unsure if game over. melee ensued.

The money line is: ''I wish I could say I called that bank,'' (Doug) Penno said. ''But it was a gift from God.''

No, Doug Penno, you're a gift from God. You make people like me feel so much better about myself because I'm not a retard like you. Of course, you also, simultaneously, make me worry about the future of this country when retards like you can actually profess a belief that God Himself intervened in your crappy small-conference tournament to redirect a bad shot. That was on TV, Doug. Children will think that's true, now.

"Bitches to the left of me..."

The other evening I watched a program on PBS. I was feeling like a bad boy, 'cause I did not pledge this year. Take that Betty White! I think it was called "Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes." I also don't remember the name of the guy that made it. I do remember what it was about; thats right Betty, I stole the info, now leave me alone you old biddy!

Host guy starts off by telling us that he loves hip hop. To which I replied,"Me too." Finally, something cool on PBS. Anyhow, the documentary deals with three subjects very dear to my heart: Guns, Bitches, and Gays. The panel includes such dignitaries as Michael Eric Dyson, Chuck D, Mos Def, Talib Kweli and Kevin Powell.

Wait a second, did you say "Kevin Powell?" Who is he, some super-academic with a brain the size of a triple whopper? Wrong! He was just an angry black guy on the first "Real World" ever, so you know he has street cred.

What the fuck?

However, Chuck D is still the greatest of all time--like the Muhammad Ali of rap.

"Violence rules! Guns are cool..." Well, I forgot the rest of that particular nursery rhyme but you get the idea (**editor's note: wasn't that just a Dead Milkmen song?). Violence is pervasive, and in rap music it's down right insidious. Insidious in the same way as sheetrock dust when you sand your walls. The next thing you know, that shit is everywhere.

So host guy gets down to brass tacks. He asks this fat guy, named "Fat Joe" (oddly enough- his mother must have been clairvoyant), why all the violence and acting hard? The bombshell of the century amounts to "I don't know". Thanks for nothing, fatty.

On to the next rapper. His name is something like "Jadakiss." Never heard of him. Apparently they caught him in the middle of a bowl of marble soup, 'cause you can't understand a fucking word coming out of his mouth. I think Marblemouth's theory is that it's there because it sells. Host guy opted not to jump into the philosophical abyss with this guy (thank the maker).

So basically, rappers act hard 'cause that's what people want. Like bare knuckle boxing and cock fighting, and the stuffed shirts at Clear Channel who wish to push the image of the young black man as a savage. Cool.

"Bitches to the left of me. Bitches to the right. Go get me a beer bitch before I put out your light." That's a lyric from the title track of the new Stinky G and the Olfactory album. That guy loves his bitches. But not so with every hip hop artist. It seems that they really don't love them hos. It also seems that the only people offended by me referring to my tricks as bitches are liberal white guys (read gay). Okay there are a few black "leaders" and academics that raise their voice in protest but guess what; you assholes are still buying the shit! Except for Michael Eric Dyson. He probably listens to James Taylor or some other gay shit. I mean really: you can't learn how to demean women from that fucktard. Carly Simon totally had his bells in a sling.

Finally, the gays. I always knew it would come down to the gays in the end (up the end?). I thought this was one of those stereotypes, like "black people are afraid of dogs," or "they don't like to swim," or are "they're really attracted to fat ugly white chicks." But this one turns out to be true--black dudes do hate the gays! They also love fat ugly white chicks.

Busta Rhymes would not even talk about it. Like talking about it will make his mouth water. Uh oh! I just tripped over a pink elephant. Who put that there? This is the best part of the documentary.

It goes like this: all these rappers and wannabe rappers being uncomfortable talking about gays. Then flash to the cover of a 50 Cent album where he is all greased up like a Dan Savage jungle fever fantasy. But wait, there seems to be a plethora of half naked greased up rappers in videos and on the album covers! I would much rather look at your six-pack abs than look at six pieces of ass.

All in all this program was a lot like this review. Not very informative but slightly entertaining.

All things buggery

Ann Coulter says calling someone a faggot in a keynote speech at a major political conference is an "excellent joke."

Sorry, Ann: but THIS is an excellent joke! ...and you like watersports.

Jesus Fucking Christ

This'll make Letters From Iwo Jima a bit more interesting:

http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fpages%2Flive%2Farticles%2Fnews%2Fnews.html%3Fin_article_id%3D439776%26in_page_id%3D1770

Just read it. It's singularly disturbing.

Review: Latent Homosexuality in Sports

In the interests of full disclosure, I must begin by stating flat-out that I do not know Tom Brady. I have never met Tom Brady, and for all I know you, sir, could very well be Tom Brady. I bear him no ill will, as I think he's not more than an average quarterback playing in a system almost any quarterback could run. He's like Derek Jeter: if not for the heroics of his teammates leading to multiple championships, we'd all be saying (if we ever cared about pro sports), "what a mediocrity! No wonder he's only the backup for the Jets these days!" Or, if it was Jeter, "Even for the Devil Rays that guy sucks at shortstop! No wonder the Yankees dumped him after his third year!"

Anyway, Tom Brady (who if you don't already know is the quarterback for the New England Patriots), recently found out he is the father of his ex-girlfriend's baby. The woman in question is Bridget Moynahan, a model of some kind.

Where's the story: athlete dated model? Call the papers! Or call Fire Joe Morgan, which reads said papers.

I saw a picture of his old squeeze--if you can "squeeze" a 90 lb. human being--and it's been bothering me. Whilst trolling around Chicago on the bus the last few days, it has been a persistent thought that maybe the Brady saga can help get at the least-discussed aspect of athletes in America: they are irredeemably gay. See, they just don't know it. But we can know it, if we use our eyes and brains. Note, please, that there is nothing wrong with latent homosexual tendencies, but this would be a better country, not to mention a funnier one, if we all just 'fessed up to our desires.

Worth a review: Old "girl"friend, Moynahan:

Now, it's not like Brady was dating this beast:

But you will agree Moynahan is a bit on the bony side, not to mention she's quite boyish and obviously hates her boobs, such as they are, because she has them winched down under her armpits. Try wrapping your balls around your knees sometime, fellas. It's tres chic!

So, the question is, whom did Brady leave that hunk o' mannish meat for?

Ahem:

"Yowza" is right! "Honey, is that my bony protruberance digging into my thigh, or yours?" "Testes, testes, one, two...three?" ...and so on.

You can go here and get a rundown of just how manly the "top fashion models" are. A note on that: take a look at Kate Moss. I've never really looked at her before, but she is strikingly similar in appearance to her old early-90's flame, one Johnny Depp. In the spirit of this post, it would seem that, at least presumably, Johnny Depp used to fuck a woman who could be his twin. Tell me that isn't creepy.

Now, is any of this actually helping prove that athletes are all secretly gay? No. You might just as well point out the large number of Republicans in professional sports (including large numbers of minority athletes) and say that makes them gay--since one thing we learned last November is that all Republicans privately like to smoke the piece pipe. But that would be pure speculation, just like reading gayness into Alex Rodriguez's comments last week that he misses having "sleepovers" with Derek Jeter. Or taking pro athlete's obsession with musculature, preening, and semi-nudity and calling it a gay. I mean, "day."

But, in my world, women look like this:
And dudes look like this:

And not like this:

So, to sum up, athletes are gay, they just don't know it. You can bet their "lady" friends know it, though, because to paraphrase the old joke, the best thing about a woman who's built like a 12-year-old girl is that you can flip her over and pretend she's a 12-year-old boy!

Maybe we're all secretly gay. That would be cool. But if we are, then let's just admit it, instead of demanding that all men slavishly read the Swimsuit Issue "to look at the chicks." That's as far from female sexy as you can get, and everybody knows it. You have eyes and a brain, use them.

I give latent homesexuality in sports 10 slightly-cupping pats on the ass out of 10.

2 Things

First, way to be totally boring and spineless, Barack Obama. You are the very definition of "milquetoast." Do you think you are buying future considerations from the McCain camp? This isn't the "West Wing" TV show, moron, and you are digging your own grave.

Second, all I hear today is liberals complaining about the very, very minor report about how Al Gore has a high electric bill. Supposedly this is a new Swiftboat campaign against Mr. Green. I would be upset and object, except that this huge, unfair, totally biased story isn't even on CNN.com's front page, nor has it been on any national news show today. Wow. What a scandal, huh? Maybe the concerned folks on the left could take a page from the GOP manual: ignore the things you don't want people talking about--don't give them free airtime and a ready-made echo chamber.