Wrong On So Many Levels

A beaver encasing a computer

(perfect for a computer with a hard drive full of, well, you can finish the joke in the privacy of your own thoughts)

Stories You Don't Expect To Be Followed In Communist China

Luke Walton denies Britney Spears date rumors

This is really news in Communist China?!?

(and I love Luke's joke about his father that caps the story)

And just to squelch any rumors right now, I'm also NOT dating Britney Spears.

Slightly crazy female artists of recent vintage I would date are as follows

Mariah Carey (since she went crazy, she's been really, really hot)
Fiona Apple (kind of too young, kind of too thin, kind of too intense, but also kind of really compelling)
Meshell NdegeOcello (if she ever swings towards men again, I'd hope to be the guy she swings with)
Kylie Minogue (does liking her music and finding her really sexy make me kind of gay?)
Alanis Morrisette (wouldn't have been on the list if it wasn't for her Humps video)

Less recent vintage female artists, that nevertheless still compel

Sheila E (she can be my "minister" of love, anytime she wants)
Chrissy Hynde (I couldn't handle her, but one can dream)
Paula Abdul (never liked her music, but hey, ex-Laker girl)
Annabella Lwin (My first and strongest fantasy crush, still a sucker for a woman with a mohawk)
Marie Osmond (She's single again, but the whole doll thing scares me)

Word of the Day (Some Things Change In This World, But Not the Word of the Day)

Gobsmacking.

(or more precisely, buttocks thwacking)

Since When Was Whitley A "Man on the Street"

During the last segment from today's ABC World News with Charles Gibson about milk, one of the "Man on the Street" interviewees was Jasmine Guy.

W T F ? ! ?

Since when were famous people allowed to be "man on the street" subjects?

(she's still famous, and still pretty hot, call me Jasmine, or at least drop me an email next time you are in L.A.)

Should the Lakers Play for 8th?

The Lakers, after losing most of their front line for a chunk of the season, find themselves in the bottom half of the playoff draw (with a very real chance of slipping out of the playoffs entirely).

Denver's been on a tear lately (including two victories over the Lakers) and look to be solidly in control of the 6th seed.

The Lakers, should they hold on and make the playoffs, will either start off against Phoenix, or Dallas.

This Laker team can give either of those teams trouble, if they play perfectly together. Most likely, the Lakers lack the depth to give Dallas much trouble. Phoenix also lacks depth, so the Lakers, despite all their problems, are in a similar spot as they were last year. If they get Phoenix again, they might be able to finish them off, unlike what happened last season.

They were 26-15 at the half-way point this season, and were one of the better teams in the league, having racked up victories against all the top teams. But since, they've been awful more often than they've been good.

Should they hold on to 7th and prevail over the Suns, then that means a second round against San Antonio most likely (Denver looks good, but not beating the Spurs good), and that's a rough assignment for the Lakers.

Even though the first round match-up against Dallas would be difficult, and most likely impossible for the Lakers to overcome, if somehow they get 4 perfect games out of their team, then it would be clear sailing to the rest of the way.

By dropping to 8th, that means if they somehow succeed (improbable, but not impossible given they have #24 on their team), they get a much easier 2nd round opponent in either a struggling Utah team, or an uneven Houston team. They can beat either of those teams over a seven game series, so long as all their players remember to play defense for a full 48 minutes (something that hasn't happened in awhile).

Then they only have the survivor of the San Antonio-Phoenix battle on the other side of the draw to contend with.

If they hold on for 7th, they are 'rewarded' by having to face a likely road of Phoenix, San Antonio, and Dallas should they advance past each round.

That's a lot rougher road than a likely path of Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio.

But the Lakers have been too inconsistent this season and deserve to fall completely out of the playoffs with the way they've played down the stretch.

Who knows, maybe they'll have that one lucky lottery ball and pick up the #1 pick while they are at it.

With all their players healthy, and a #1, they'd immediately become a top tier team in the league again next season.

But looking at the probable Western Conference match-ups, it kind of sucks to be the top 3 teams. Dallas, despite having a magical regular season, could face a Clipper team that matches up well against them, or a Laker team that can give them all sorts of troubles, or a Golden State team that went 3-0 against Dallas this year. Kind of a crappy reward for having one of the best stretches in the history of major league sports in North America. Getting bounced in the first round isn't out of the question.

Likewise, Phoenix played well, but are capable of losing to any of the likely 7 seeds.

San Antonio at 3 does not match-up well against a Denver team that is finally figuring out how to intergrate Anthony and Iverson into the same offense.

It would be shocking if all three top seeds lose, but it's not out of the question. The teams in the bottom draw are all very talented, but they've been inconsistent. Whichever teams are 6, 7 and 8 in the West just need to get suddenly consistent during the playoffs to ruin great regular seasons by some good teams.

So what I'm really saying is that as always, I expect a Lakers-Clippers Western Conference Finals, and a Lakers Championship, even though both teams are missing key parts (and it seems unlikely they will both make the playoffs).

Speaking of Lakers-Clippers, it's their last match-up until the Conference Finals and it's on TNT, so watch it already, both teams need this victory to solidify their shot at the playoffs, should be a fun one.

Improving Idol Voting

Idol voting most likely doesn't need improving, but some folks seem to think so.

A simple reform would be to have each contestant have two numbers flashed beneath their name each week.

One number, would be for folks voting FOR the contestant.
A second number, would be for folks voting AGAINST the contestant.

The positive votes would count +2, the negatives would count -1.

A person like Sanjaya, who polarizes fans, would have a higher bar set for continuing on the show, while a contestant who is solid and broadly popular would enjoy more relative success compared to a marginal singer/performer with a small but rabid fan base.

Seems like the eventual winner in a system like this would also be more likely to build a lasting career.

There are plenty of polarizing figures in pop music, though, so even if Sanjaya were to win it all, they could probably build product around him, at least for a little while.

The "vote for the worst" crowd have pulled a bit of a fast one this year. Vocally wise, Sanjaya mostly sucks, but as a performer he has charisma and strong appeal to a key demographic that cares about this kind of crap. The Stern-ites can claim they've influenced the weekly outcomes all they want, but most likely, it's the little girls obsessing about how much they love a sexually ambiguous kid who are pushing his votes.

The history of Idol shows that having a penis that young women feel has a credible possibility of being used is dangerous. Of the guys who've made it far on the show, only Bo Bice could be said to have been broadly sexually enticing/threatening.

First season, Justin gets farthest, and though attractive, his attraction is a very unthreatening kind of attractiveness. Second season was Ruben v Clay, and even though Ruben was a big huge black man, he was an asexual teddy bear, and Clay, well yeah. Season Three no guys made it too far. Season Four, was the exception that proves the rule. Bo Bice not only had a penis, but he seemed certain to be willing to use it. He seemed to be the first male performer to succeed in Idol appealing to sexually mature women more so than appealing to pre-teens. In the run-up to his showdown with Carrie, it was pretty clear that it was the moms pushing the vote on Bo. Last season, Taylor has about all the sexuality of Elmo (the tickle-me variety), his success is utterly inexplicable from a sex appeal standpoint.

This season, Blake has to be one of the favorites, he stradles the line between penis-ful and penis-less appeal. Sanjaya on the other hand is utterly and totally penis-less, and that's why he makes the young girls cry. Phil and Chris aren't sticking around much longer, so no use talking about them.

If Sanjaya somehow wins it all, there will be many folks who'll go crazy, but should that happen, it will be because he has a strong appeal to a rabid fanbase and he'll just be another in a long line of sexually ambiguous/unthreatening male performers who preteen girls find appealing (until they grow up and realize that guys with penises are preferable).

Countercultural?

The Drudge head at the news of the death of Kurt Vonnegut, "Kurt Vonnegut, Writer of Classics of the American Counterculture, Dies at 84... "

Thing is, who amongst us who graduated high school after 1975 hasn't been assigned Slaughterhouse Five in at least one class before their graduation?

I was assigned that book 3 times between 9th and 12th grade.

It's an anti-war, morally relativistic, generally nihilistic portrayal of the human condition. Those are all MAINSTREAM values since the mid-70s.

When it was written, it could be called 'countercultural', but the 'counterculture' is so deeply entrenched (also tired, reactionary, and conservative in the strictest sense of the word), that to still call his works 'countercultural' is to miss the point of what it means to be 'countercultural'.

I liked Kilgore Trout's novel better than any of Funny Guts works, but that's just me.

Word of the Day (It's Always the Same Word)

Gobsmacking.

(but they have every right to do what they are doing, stupid move publicity-wise, but it's their company)

Would You Believe . . .

Don Adams, born 1923
Barbara Feldon, born 1932



Steve Carrell, born 1962
Anne Hathaway, born 1982

Progress? Are we really clamoring for another bad remake of an old TV show? Even one as good as Get Smart was from time to time?

And look at Jessica Biel's career (also born in 1982), in her next two films she has Nic Cage (+18 years), and Adam Sandler (+16 years) as love interests. Seriously? Isn't this trend getting a bit worn out by now? I thought cougars were all the rage now?

What's next, Mackenzie Rosman in a Romantic Comedy/Action Thriller along the lines of Romancing the Stone opposite Ewan MacGregor?

(OK, that might be an awesome film, actually, especially if QT helmed it, does she have cute feet?)

Idle Speculation

The following rests on a set of assumptions that may or may not be false.

The first assumption is that President Bill Clinton, is, was, and ever shall be, a horndog.

The second assumption is that no matter how short (or long) of a leash his dear wife keeps him on, this man has plenty of opportunity to indulge his libidinous desires for non-uxorial nookie.

Having these not entirely unreasonable assumptions in place, why hasn't any of the campaigns in opposition to Senator Clinton sent some indiscreet nookie Bill's way yet?

Is it a matter of timing? Are they waiting for just the right moment to damage her? Is it possible that he's changed his ways and from now on will be faithful, dutiful, and committed to their marriage?

Or do people fear that a Bubba Bimbo Eruption would actually help Hillary? A straying husband could humanizing her, give her a chance to dump Bill for good (even as their marriage falls apart Bill would talk up Hillary's campaign). The sympathy she'd raise might outweigh the credibility she'd lose (and she would lose credibility as the cheated upon who turned a blind eye).

So maybe someone within the Clinton camp is just waiting for the right time, and casting the right indiscreet young woman, to "Free Willie".

Hopefully this time it will be something a little more upscale than a Gap dress that provides the 'evidence'. Also, to help Hill with the African American vote, maybe the lass will be from a good Harlem family (where Bill for some reason keeps his office).

Again, all idle speculation, the Clintons marriage is none of the country's business, if they are happy with each other (or their arrangement), then as long as that arrangement doesn't effect national security (like say, Pres. Kennedy's taste in nookie most probably did), then it's really between them and nobody else.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the campaigns (more likely a Democratic challenger than GOP) might see this as an avenue for an attack.

Thanks For the Advert, Victoria!

Long ago life was clean
Sex was bad and obscene
And the rich were so mean
Stately homes for the lords
Croquet lawns, village greens
Victoria was my queen
Victoria, victoria, victoria, toria

I was born, lucky me
In a land that I love
Though I am poor, I am free
When I grow I shall fight
For this land I shall die
Let her sun never set
Victoria, victoria, victoria, toria
Victoria, victoria, victoria, toria

Land of hope and gloria
Land of my victoria
Land of hope and gloria
Land of my victoria
Victoria, toria
Victoria, victoria, victoria, toria

Canada to india
Australia to cornwall
Singapore to hong kong
From the west to the east
From the rich to the poor
Victoria loved them all
Victoria, victoria, victoria, toria
Victoria, victoria, victoria

Visit Sundries, often. You'd miss out on wonderful posts like this one, or this one, if you don't.

Word of the Day (Will It Ever Be a Different Word?)

Gobsmacking.

(and I was going to link this story for today's smacking of the gob even before I noticed a certain word is quoted within the article)

He Would Have Lived to 110 . . .

. . . if he hadn't been a smoker.

And if you like that sort of thing, the house blends at The Tinder Box are supposed to be good stuff.

(never been a smoker myself, but my father continues to enjoy his pipe tobacco now and again, and has been a Tinder Box customer since before he was legally able to be so)

Don't All Monopoly Games End That Way?

***Sopranos Spoilers Ahead***

You've been warned.

Turn away if you haven't seen Season Seven's premiere.

Many have praised the total awesomeness that was this past Sunday's Sopranos episode. It was all that, and more.

The acting was topnotch, the writing intricate, the direction perfect, and the events built logically from one moment to the next.

It was as perfect as performed drama, in any medium, gets.

However, it wasn't all that entertaining.

That may sound contradictory, but it's not. As a chapter in a whole, it was perfect. As a standalone episode, it would be awful, boring, and inexplicable. The weight of the histories of each character is required to understand each nuance within the episode. This program either doesn't underestimate it's viewers, the Sopranos doesn't assume people won't remember events from a few seasons ago, or won't connect the dots without a visit from "Basil Exposition", that's refreshing, but requires close viewing and a good memory to fully appreciate what's going on (or at least a visit to an active messageboard).

But what I really want to talk about was that game of Monopoly. Monopoly is an evil let loose on this planet by minions of Satan, or possibly Satan himself. No game of Monopoly ever ends well (in the rare instance where a game of Monopoly ends at all). The game punishes skill, rewards luck in a capricious and unfair way, and encourages cheating. It's an object lesson in how folks can convince themselves they are having fun, even while they realize that the activity they mutually engage in is beyond pointless. You might think the sucker punch thrown by Bobby had to do with the insult to his wife, but no, it was purely built from the frustration inherent in submitting oneself to the evils of Monopoly. Had Tony Soprano been thinking more clearly, he would have insisted they play a game less likely to produce a furniture smashing brawl, like say, mumblety peg (though a drunken game of that has it's own potential consequences).

A Woman After My Own Heart

Another famous person has begun reading my blog.

This time it's Camille Paglia who covers territory I've already covered.

Jean Baudrillard recently passed away. Do you have any thoughts or opinions about this influential French thinker. I'm especially interested in your opinion of his idea regarding hyper-reality.
Conor Ryan

I suspect Dante designing his Inferno would have had a very special little hot spot for poststructuralists and postmodernists (see above letter), who distorted language with self-important opacity and who inflated small ideas into giant, groaning bladder-bags.

I never encountered a single sentence by Jean Baudrillard, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan or Michel Foucault that drew or held my interest. As for Baudrillard's dizzy maunderings about mass media, they made no sense whatever to me as a professor of media studies or as an American who grew up on pop and whose vibrant patron saint was Andy Warhol.

Good riddance to that whole crew!

You Go Girl! But, I expressed contempt for Baudrillard before you did (but I disagree about Foucault, of that group, he's the only one with a brain).

Also, she rips Albertus Goracle a new one with incandescent fury and in surprisingly metaphysical terms (plenty of pokes at the Goracle can be found hereabouts, too many to link)

However, I am a skeptic about what is currently called global warming. I have been highly suspicious for years about the political agenda that has slowly accrued around this issue. As a lapsed Catholic, I detest dogma in any area. Too many of my fellow Democrats seem peculiarly credulous at the moment, as if, having ground down organized religion into nonjudgmental, feel-good therapy, they are hungry for visions of apocalypse. From my perspective, virtually all of the major claims about global warming and its causes still remain to be proved.

Climate change, keyed to solar cycles, is built into Earth's system. Cooling and warming will go on forever. Slowly rising sea levels will at some point doubtless flood lower Manhattan and seaside houses everywhere from Cape Cod to Florida -- as happened to Native American encampments on those very shores. Human habitation is always fragile and provisional. People will migrate for the hills, as they have always done.

Who is impious enough to believe that Earth's contours are permanent? Our eyes are simply too slow to see the shift of tectonic plates that has raised the Himalayas and is dangling Los Angeles over an unstable fault. I began "Sexual Personae" (parodying the New Testament): "In the beginning was nature." And nature will survive us all. Man is too weak to permanently affect nature, which includes infinitely more than this tiny globe.

There's much, much more, but I'll trust your interest is piqued enough to head over to Salon on your own.

One of these days someone famous will link me and admit to being 'inspired' by my ideas. Until then, I'll just have to point out the similar strains of thought after the fact.

(and I heard that *cough* delusional *cough*)

Also, I'm fitting in the stereotype of the rightosphere versus the leftosphere in that I'm ignoring the parts of her Salon answers to letters bit where I vehemently disagree with what she has to say.

Always looking for converts.