Oh No-Han!!

I know it's early, even for Spring Training, but Johan Santana, in his Mets "debut" just gave up a single, a double, a triple, and then a 3-run home run to the recently unearthed Juan friggin' Gonzalez. Yikes.

Nothing quite like going back to the natural state of a Mets fan: pessimistic.

Future employment opportunities for George Bush

In a few months, Our Great Leader George Bush will have to find a new job. Sigh.

With the economy heading into recession, even a resume like his might have trouble landing hits on Monster, so it's vitally important to single out the particular skills and experience he has that a potential employer might desire.

Good news for the prez, though -- a company in Utah seems right up his alley:

A supervisor at a motivational coaching business in Provo is accused of waterboarding an employee in front of his sales team to demonstrate that they should work as hard on sales as the employee had worked to breathe.

Fits. Like. A. Glove.

In a lawsuit filed last month, former Prosper, Inc. salesman Chad Hudgens alleges his managers also allowed the supervisor to draw mustaches on employees' faces, take away their chairs and beat on their desks with a wooden paddle "because it resulted in increased revenues for the company."

Like a former frat boy's wet-dream job.

"At the conclusion of his abusive demonstration, Christopherson told the team that he wanted them to work as hard on making sales as Chad had worked to breathe while he was being waterboarded," the suit alleges.

I used to sell Cutco knives. I was never very good at it, but perhaps I lacked the proper incentives. My bad.

Ellis said no managers have said they saw the activities described in Hudgens' suit, and the employees reported they are "more along the lines of fun."

"It's voluntary, it's humorous, it's team and camaraderie-building," Ellis said.

Upon joining this team, Dubya would probably leap frog the sales associates and immediately find himself in middle management, perhaps developing new motivational stategeries.

I would hate to paint this whole company with such a broad, torture-promoting brush, so I feel obligated to point out that these events may just be the result of "a few bad apples."


Okay, I didn't mean to end on such a downer. So take a look at some poor kid's letter to some girl. I think maybe, juuuust maybe, this kid might've been a nerd.

Somewhat Interesting Constitutional Argument

I say somewhat interesting, because if it actually came to the forefront, I can't imagine them ruling him ineligible, especially if the Republican Supreme Court has the ultimate decision, but there's apparently a bit of conversation regarding John McCain's eligibility to be president.

The issue is that he wasn't born in the United States, but rather in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was stationed in the area by the military. The Constitution has a provision about "natural-born citizens" being the only ones eligible for the presidency. Some believe that means that only people born inside the United States are elegible to be president. Under the strictest interpretation of this provision McCain may not be eligible.

First of all, I don't imagine that anyone would challenge McCain's eligibility, nor, apparently, is it very clear who or how a challenge would be raised. Secondly, McCain has never been anything other than an American citizen, which is enough for me to end the conversation. The provision has never been challenged, though it seems pretty clear that a naturalized American citizen, say the Governator or Madeline Albright as examples, would not be eligible under any interpretation, but I can't imagine that McCain would be deemed to be ineligible.

Still, it's an interesting question. This seems like something that's screaming to be clarified by an amendment to the Constitution, but good luck with that.

People Who Are Thirty

The Notorious LJT is the notorious 3 dash 0 today.

You are old, biotch.

Oh and happy birthday. And don't front like just because you're 30 I don't remember when you used to wear that denim vest every day when we were 8.

Things That Are Overrated: George Carlin

Let's start by saying that George Carlin is pretty funny. With that being said, George Carlin just isn't that funny. Nor are his insights particularly mind-blowing. You're not going to watch one of his routines and then leave with a different outlook on life. You're not going to leave thinking, "good gracious, that was the funniest thing I've ever seen ever in life." I mean...shit I don't even really have words for this...he's just not as fucking great as the people at HBO would have you believe. He has an HBO special like every 2 years and he's essentially just flooding the market with mediocre comedy routines.

I mean he's just a cynical old guy. He thinks that most people are stupid, and he proves it by somehow convincing people that he's smarter or more observant than them. Jerry Seinfeld is infinitely better than George Carlin with the "observational humor" thing. And Seinfeld does it in such a way that he doesn't have to say that 90% of the population are assholes. I just watch George Carlin and I think to myself, "Dude, calm down a little bit. Take your blood pressure medication. Accept that people are selfish and do stupid things."

That 7 words you can't say on TV thing? Why is that funny? I've seen the routine. It's not funny. Nor is it particularly deep or philosophical or any of those things. He's not challenging society. He's not bucking the system. He's the guy who sits on the sidelines a basketball games yelling at the other team. At the end of the day, he didn't help win the game, he just went home with a sore throat.

Shit, this is a bad post. I don't even really have evidence or specific examples (GIVE ME THREE EXAMPLES. THREEEEEEEEEEE!!!!) I just know that whenever I watch George Carlin I end up feeling like I got gypped.

I'm not going to post this right now. I'm going to wait until the end of the day to post this so that beating up 5 year olds thing can get some play. This isn't nearly as good as that.

For some reason, I think LJT's gonna win this one

"Nice tits."

As all my co-writers will attest, in my youth I was occasionally prevented from participating in certain activities due to punishment. I'm speaking, of course, about LJT's annual Fourth of July pool parties. There everyone would be, playing pool-basketball and diving to the bottom in search of a rock or whatever; and there I would be -- sitting on some chair, trying my hardest to act casual as I (pitifully) tried to explain:

SIDE BAR: Open Bar, what're you doing? Get in the pool.

OPEN BAR: Nah, don't feel like swimming.

LJT: You don't feel like swimming? It's like 104 degrees.

OPEN BAR: Really? 'Cause, like, it doesn't feel that hot--

SIDE BAR: Did you beat up your brother again?

OPEN BAR: No. It's nothing. I just--

LJT: Okay, so you're grounded. Again. Don't steal anything from my house.

OPEN BAR: What?! I -- I'm just gonna go play some Nintendo.

And I would leave all the fun, go inside, head to the basement, and drown my sorrows in Pepsi, Super Mario Bros., and cookies (that I stole).

Anyway, the point is that I would sometimes get into some trouble for beating up my little brother. Most of this happened when I was between the ages of 9-12 or so, meaning my bro was about 5-8 years old. It was a dick thing to do, and I look back upon it with shame.

I don't know why I had that violent streak. When I stopped, I stopped cold turkey. No more attacking toddlers. (My parents couldn't have been prouder!)

But there's something I've wondered for quite some time now. I've posed this question numerous times to friends, usually in group-drinking environments, and I've heard so many different responses that I feel somewhat justified in having wondered about it so long. It's not something I've ever considered in a realistic way, more of a fun "What if..." vibe. And it's funny -- some people get it right away (that I'm not posing a serious question, and therefore I won't take your answer literally), while some people are so morally offended at the mere premise that they either refuse to answer or, worse, get all huffy-puffy and hate me.

Apparently, though, I'm not the only one who's thought about this (as I will demonstrate in just a moment). Without further adieu, the question is:

How many 5-year-olds do you think you could take in a fight?

Seriously. Think about it: There is a massive swarm of toddlers coming at you, attacking fearlessly. To give you a few parameters that I've usually included when I ask it:

1. No weapons. (For you or them.)
2. You're in an enclosed area, so running away when you get tired isn't an option.
3. You don't need to kill them; knocking them out is fine.

Again, this is merely an exercise. No one is judging your morals. We're not talking about trying to set up an event next weekend and trying to see if you'd be "cool" with it. Just use your imagination. You know, like you did when you were 5.

(Incidentally, another variation I've used is, rather than 5-year-olds, substitute octogenarians. Is your answer higher or lower?)

Okay, now that you have your guess, I present the actual test. Click on the link below (it's safe for work), and please, allow me to quote Count Rugen: "This is for posterity, so, be honest." (It really is no fun if you cheat.)

How many 5-year-olds could you take in a fight?

And when you finish, please post your scores in the poll!

More Jeopardy fun!

A few months back, we saw the Lord of All He Surveys, Alex Trebek, in a moment of behind-the-scenes brilliance, revealing him to be a total potty-mouthed drunk bastard. It only made me love him more.

Now, here's another little gem from the best game show ever. This kid, who seems like the ULTIMATE Star Wars nerd, somehow misses an insanely obvious question. And his frustration comes to the surface. On live television. (Be sure you have the sound up, you've really got to listen close right before the little slut young lady on the left answers correctly.)



I don't know if you watch much Jeopardy (and you should), but while being able to answer the questions faster than the contestants is all well and good, the biggest challenge during the show happens at the end. I don't mean simply knowing the answer to the Final Jeopardy question, per se, but getting it before the clue is even read. You know how Alex Trebek reads the Final Jeopardy category before the last commercial break? Well, the Holy Grail of Jeopardy answers is to guess it immediately after the category is announced -- before the clue is read. For example:

ALEX TREBEK: Okay, contestants, the Final Jeopardy category is...Inventors. We'll be right back!

OPEN BAR (seated in living room, holding whiskey): Eli Whitney.

DANNY G (that's my roommate, for both of you who didn't know): Thomas Edison.

--COMMERCIAL BREAK--

Now, of course, if that were the actual category, the answer would definitely be Eli Whitney, who invented the cotton gin, because that is always the answer to any question involving inventors or inventing. But the point is, getting the Final Jeopardy question right without even getting the clue makes you boss. Try it at home!

[Thank you, once again, GorillaMask!]

This has nothing to do with anything...

...but I thought it was funny, so here goes. The folks at Google are some of my favorites. If there are still some of you out there who aren't on Gmail, then Why? They also handle Blogger, which allows us to do this thing that we do that you're reading right now. The maps, Google Earth, the books? Oh, and YouTube? Yep.

But Google also keeps track of "Trends," apparently, something which I don't really follow. And yesterday, a particularly interesting trend popped up. Fortunately, there's someone out there who follows this sort of thing, and I guess he found it rather odd. Here's a screen shot:

I've thought back to what I was doing back in January 2006, and though I may or may not have looked one of those things up, I can't remember anything specific that I might have done to provoke this trend.

Oh, and by the way, if you or anyone you know works at the Google office in Manhattan, is there any way I could maybe come by for lunch one day? I've heard the most amazing things about the cafeteria there, and I've made it a life goal to find a way into that place. I am definitely willing to whore myself to achieve this goal, so take that as you will.

(I hope this didn't require an "NSFW" warning.)

(And if that pic is blurry, you can see it more clearly here.)

Big Ups To Science

I'm guessing you've heard about the US government shooting down a spy satellite that malfunctioned and went dead shortly after being launched a couple years ago. But let's take a step back from this for a second. Those motherfuckers shot a missile that I'm gonna guess was like a 5 foot diameter and hit a satellite that was, let's guess for the sake of the argument a 15x15 cube, and it was probably smaller. Furthermore they shot this missile into outer space and even furthermore, the satellite was travelling at 17,000 miles per hour. And on top of all that they were all, "well we'd like to hit the satellite, but even more specifically we'd like to hit the gas tank which is in the lower left corner of the thing kinda towards the back." And they fucking did it.

The combined brain power from Mr. Kirsch's physics class in 11th grade couldn't even begin to plot the trajectory that this missile needed to take in order to nail the satellite square in the gas tank. This is just fucking astounding.

It kinda makes you wonder. I mean, maybe these guys should be pitching for the Mets. Because Oliver Perez can barely throw strikes to a stationary target 60 feet away and these guys are essentially hurling shit into outer space strapped to an exploding gas tank and hitting things travelling at 17,000 mph.

Also, this should be a lesson to people everywhere. Don't fuck with the army. They can blow your shit up anywhere. Even in outer space.

Is This Targeted Marketing? Racism? I Don't Get It.

I think the 10 of you who read this blog were probably in the room at Side Bar's house during the discussion of this IO digital cable commercial, but I still don't get it. Here, watch it:



Who in the world thought of this commercial and what the hell were they smoking? I can just imagine some like 38 year old white dude who went to Cornell sitting in his cubicle on Madison Avenue thinking, "I know. The Latino market is gonna be the next big thing. That reggaeton thing is really popular. Lord knows that me gusta la gasolina. Why don't we make a commercial that speaks directly to the Latinos who are really the ones that want digital cable with free HD."

I just don't get it? Why is this a good idea? I mean, if the purpose of it was just to get people talking about hte commercial and then ultimately thinking about getting digital cable, then I guess it worked. I have had at least 4 or 5 conversations about this commercial. But why the fuck is this a reggaeton song? And why is it addressed to "mi gente", as if latinos are the only ones who can listen or think about getting digital cable with free HD? And why does he say "twenty nine ninety fye" instead of "five"? And why the fuck is that guy dressed like a sea creature about 50 seconds in?

This is just an existential conundrum. I have to know who conceived of this commercial and why? It's almost like the time that Jamie Lynn Sigler put out an album with some of the songs in Spanish because her mother is Cuban, even though she's Jewish and from Long Island. (I'm not trying to rob Jamie Lynn Sigler of her Cuban heritage, but I don't think the term "Latin Explosion" really should have applied to you, Meadow. How about that switch from third to second person?)

The point is, what the fuck is up with this commercial?