The Real Pat Blair

Presumably because of my occasional musing on the subject, I have received a lot of questions about the topic of relationships, as in the guy-girl (not to be confused with guy-grill) kind: flirting, dating, courting, marriage, loathing, flatulence, divorce, etc. You know, the basic cycle. There were a lot of questions, and I don’t remember all of the details and particulars, and I have to be honest here when I say that I am at least a bit befuddled as to why I am being asked these in the first place; it doesn’t take much more than a cursory glance to see that I am not exactly the stuff that experts are made of. However, lack of knowledge or experience has never stopped me from forcing my opinion on people in the past, so I don’t see any reason to change anything now. And this seems like a good enough time. Also, as an advanced warning, I’m tackling this from the perspective of a Christian, so if you have a different worldview, this may seem absolutely ridiculous. That’s OK - it is your opinion and you are entitled to it, just so long as you realize that you’re wrong.
Let me start out by alienating the vast majority of people and saying that dating is a waste of time, and, all in all, a pretty bad plan. By dating I mean a sort of casual “going out” with someone without a real purpose. As much as I hate to bow to trends and self-anointed gurus, I think that courting is the way to go. Don’t misunderstand: the difference isn’t one of semantics, it’s one of purpose. There is a basic set of requirements that need to be met, in my opinion: the parties should be seriously considering marriage, and it should be in the very near future (to throw out a completely baseless absolute, let’s say within a year, at most). If you’re not there yet, then stop worrying about dating and, instead, enjoy being single. You only get to do it once, right?
Along those lines, a good rule of thumb is: don’t freak. There’s always concerns about the goober effect and whatnot, but there is an element of faith involved here. God will provide the right person at the right time, regardless of whether or not that fits with your plans. Some other things to keep in mind: consider relationships selflessly (apparently being selfish doesn’t work to well). How will choosing to enter (or to not enter) a relationship affect the other things going on in your life? I’m assuming you have other things going on in your life - if not, we should probably tackle that one first. How will it affect other people in your life? How will it affect your allocation of time and resources? There is probably a lot more than this, which I am not remembering at all. That’s OK, because there are plenty of resources out there.
Keep in mind that I am relying on more than my own completely unfounded opinions for this. This is kind of a combination of things I’ve accumulated over the years (decades?) from pastors, parents, and other people who tend to be older and wiser than I am. I’ve also read bits and pieces of Josh McDowell’s books, and hated them thoroughly, which means that they’re probably right on the money, so they tend to be a good source too.
Hopefully this helps provide some guidance for people. With any luck, it’s even good guidance. I am going to be out of the office, both literally and figuratively, for the next week, give or take a few days, so, barring any catastrophic world events or funny stories, this is it for awhile. That’s OK, I figure, given my history, this will generate enough discussion to keep everyone, myself included, involved via the comments for quite awhile. Thanks to everyone for reading and contributing - Merry Christmas and happy New Years!

***

Addendum: I was at a rehearsal dinner last night for a good friend of mine. I’ve known both he and his bride/wife (depending on when you read this) for about 10 years, now, and they’ve been dating for 6. Thus the whole marriage process was not really that big of a deal since I’ve seen it coming for about 4 years, and also because I have been living in a different state than they have for the last 4 or so (the state of complete sanity, ha-ha!). Anyway, last night, the groom closed with an analogy, which is funny because he is both a law student and a dork. But I digress.
He compared picking a spouse to picking a school (every analogy breaks down, mind you). He visited six different colleges, and spent a lot of time and effort researching them. But in the end, when people asked him why he chose the school he did, he says it’s because he knew; it just felt right. He didn’t mention that flunking out of marriage was a bigger deal than college, and also that college only lasts 4-8 years (depending on who you are), and that you can always transfer, but the analogy was a good one. At least I’m assuming so. I have no feelings, but, for the rest of you, that should be reassuring.

“Being grown up isn’t half as fun as growing up
These are the best days of our lives
The only thing that matters is just following your heart
And eventually you’ll finally get it right”
In This Diary - The Ataris

For some reason these lyrics have popped into my head this morning as I am sitting at work… at my desk… with nothing to do… bored out of my mind… again… still. I’m not entirely sure why I’m being subjected to them. Maybe it’s because I am at work when most of my friends are home on break. Perhaps it’s because I am annoyed by having to go to bed before halftime of Monday Night Football, much less the end of the game, because I have to get up early to go work. It could be the responsibilities that I’ve assumed such as paying rent, utility bills, and insurance and maintenance for my car. Or maybe it’s because, since my car is getting serviced, I drove to work today in a “loaner” car with a giant dealership logo plastered on both sides, and I feel ridiculous. Or, most likely, it’s just that I am slowly going completely insane. That would explain why I am humming this absurd song. Allow me to digress for a moment about what this piece of art (read: poo) means to me.
It means nothing! There are three clichés - that don’t really even rhyme - thrown together in a seemingly random order to achieve a generically inspiring (read: insipid) pop-punk ditty. Being grown up isn’t all that appealing, but, if my memory hasn’t completely failed in my old age, I seem to remember that growing up wasn’t exactly a walk in the park, either. Maybe the geniuses in the Ataris didn’t have those phases (read: middle school), but I think it’s fairly safe to say that the rest of us don’t recall them in a particularly fond manner. And, by the way, if “these” are the best days of your lives, guys, that means that once you’ve hit 25 it only gets worse. I hope you enjoy the next 2 weeks of moderate fame and success, because it’s all downhill from here (Budweiser, the king of beers… HEY! I can write pop tunes, too - and mine even rhyme, some of the time).
Since I’m on a roll here, can someone define for me what it means to follow your heart? Does that mean we’re supposed to convulse around 72 times per minute? And couldn’t one make a case that Lee Malvo was just following his heart? It’s the only thing that matters, right? Maybe the problem wasn’t that he was following John Muhammad, after all. And how did the heart get the “elevated organ” status? I probably won’t be following my pancreas any time soon, but I think that the colon might matter just as much. What’s wrong with following your colon? Too many syllables, I guess. I think the Ataris should listen to more Matchbox Twenty, though: “Everybody’s trusting in their heart like their heart don’t lie.” Grammar: -20. Accuracy: +57. Maybe if the Atari-boy-wonders would read more often - and spew mindless drivel less often - they would eventually finally get it right and stop being so redundant redundant.
What does this all mean? Absolutely nothing. That’s OK, though, it takes less for some people to get a record contract, and no one reads this over break anyway.

I’m not going to apologize for today’s subject matter, though I will say, in my defense, that this is a topic that continues to be in the news. It’s not like I’m trying really hard to keep bringing it up, it’s just out there. And I can’t help it if all of our political figures have potty mouths. With that said, I would like to point your attention to two particular snippets. The first, I wrote on December 16th; the second is taken from from an AP article reprinted in the Boston Globe, which appeared just 5 days later, on the 21st:

“California Representative Doug Ose (yes, even Californians think this is stupid) has introduced a bill making it clearly illegal to use 8 specific words on either television or radio… If nothing else, it should be a quality debate: I really do hope that someone is forced to read the text of the bill on the floor of the House or Senate - THAT would make for some quality C-Span…”

“Moments after praising his opponents in the Democratic presidential race as worthy running mates, Wesley Clark said, in no uncertain terms, how he would respond if they or anyone else criticized his patriotism or military record.
“I’ll beat the s- out of them,” Clark told a questioner as he walked through the crowd after a town hall meeting Saturday. “I hope that’s not on television,” he added.
It was, live, on C-SPAN.”

I could do a social commentary about this, but, to quote the Barenaked Ladies, it’s all been done before (for example, here and here and here, and many other places as well). I just wanted to point out that, with a surprising (and possibly eerie) degree of accuracy, I predicted the future. It just goes to show how much can be learned from paying attention to someone, even if they have come under particular scrutiny for addressing a particular topic way too much. This person, after all, may know what they are doing. This is why they pay me - er, this person - the big bucks: I am, once again, ahead of the curve.
Speaking of which, Georgetown University recently removed an individual protesting the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas decision. Forcibly. From a “free speech” zone. Todd Olson, the University’s interim veep of student affairs, justified the removal by saying that even though the group was in a free speech zone, “the messages this group was espousing were, in our view, grossly offensive and inflammatory and thus not protected in any case.” This should sound vaguely familiar in several ways. Could it be that all speech is free, but some speech is freer than others? Furthermore, what feeble-minded bureaucrat decided to name the free-speech zone Red Square? Does irony know no bounds?
I wish I couldn’t say that I told you so about this one, but the facts speak for themselves. As we head into the Holiday - excuse me, CHRISTMAS - season, be aware of what people are doing in the name of freedom, diversity, and tolerance.

Second-Tier Candidates Continue to Fight
Rest of world yawns

Voters Could Be Swayed in 2004 Election
Which is amazing, given that we’ve now banned political speech. Otherwise this one would be from the “No Kidding?” files.

Dems to Seek Conn. Governor’s Impeachment
So basically they’re trying to overturn the results of an election, violate the will of the people, and waste vast sums of tax-payer money on an issue that may not even rise to the level of an impeachable offense instead of just censuring the Governor? Nope, I don’t see any problems with moral authority on this one.

Dean: America Not Safer After Saddam’s Capture
Yeah, but Iraq sure is. Don’t you care about the Iraqis? Are you a racist, Howard?

Dean Defends War Stance, Dismisses Criticism
Lets play the association game: when reading this headline, what words come to mind? Stubborn, arrogant, ridiculous, ignorant, oblivious…

Bush Gets Boost From Saddam’s Capture
From the “No Kidding?” files…

Musicians Strive to Politically Influence Fans
There’s nothing I hate more than an uninformed musician using their soapbox to force their political opinions on people. Somebody should remind them that there’s a reason that they’re MUSICIANS and not POLITICIANS.

Cops Probe Fight Between Jack White, Jason Stollsteimer
Somebody should tell these guys that that there’s a reason that they’re musicians and not boxers.

France Pledges Gesture on Forgiving Debt
Yeah, I’ve got my own gesture for France.

Originality lacking in female pop stars
From the “No Kidding?” files…

Edwards Would Track Flu to Prevent Relapses
Finally! A presidential candidate that can see the big picture.

Two in China Sentenced to Life for Roles in Japanese Sex Party
Bill Clinton was not implicated in the proceedings.

Jesse Jackson Protests High School Drug Sweep
Yes, God forbid we bust students who bring drugs to school.

Fans Watch All-Day Showing of ‘Rings’ Trilogy
A good day for the Lord of the Rings AND the Lord of the Hemorrhoids.

‘Captured Saddam’ doll debuts
“Action figure available online less than 2 days after news of arrest.” Capitalism works.

Students Prevent Knife Attack on Their Spanish Teacher
Feel good story of the week.

Clark: It’s Time to Find Bin Laden
Personally, I think 10 months from now is time to find Bin Laden, and, quite frankly, I also think that my opinion currently carries more weight in the world right now than Wesley Clark’s.

Albright: Bin Laden Comments Were ‘Tongue-in-Cheek’
I guess it’s alright that my response is ‘boot-in-rear.’

Joey Buttafuoco Arrested for Insurance Fraud
All together, now: Buuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh… ta-fuoco, Butt-a-fuoco, Butt-a-fuoco, fuoco, fuoco….

P. Diddy to Make His Broadway Debut
Another sign of the apocalypse.

Rapper Performs for Kids While Awaiting Trial
“And here’s my new single, ‘Krappy Roll Modull.’”

‘It Is as It Was’ - Mel Gibson’s “The Passion” gets a thumbs-up from the pope.
I don’t know if this endorsement is good, bad, or meaningless, or just interesting. It is what it is.

Quote of the week, from Ahmed Hissein, who lost an eye and an ear under torture courtesy of Saddam Hussein - “Death would not be enough. We should put Saddam in a cage on a main street, and everyone should have two or three hours to do what they want to him.”

Driver’s Test Taker Crashes Into DMV
Someone call AARP and tell them that, even if old people don’t have to take driving tests, irony tests should be a requirement.

Town Says ‘No’ to Nativity Scene, ‘Yes’ to Menorah
God bless the secular humanists.

New Jobless Claims Down Sharply
Job market better, but far from healed
Maybe you’re right, there is no media bias after all.

Court: Gitmo Detainees Should Have Lawyers
Pat: Gitmo Detainees Should Have My Boot in Their Rear

Turkey Arrests Al Qaeda Bombing Suspect
Terrorists Given the Bird

Dean, Kerry Want Clinton to Broker Mideast Peace
Because he did such a great job at it for the first 8 years that he tried. There’s no unrest, no suicide bombings, no terrorists flying planes into buildings… (Winner of the “Style Over Substance” award)

Lawmakers Take Credit Even When It’s Not Due
From the “No Kidding?” files…

9/11 Panel Head Says Can’t Blame Bush, Clinton
In that case, lets just blame the French and call it good.

Kerry Loans Campaign $850,000
It’s nice to see that someone still has faith in him.

Clay Aiken Named ‘Best-Mannered’ Person
I haven’t seen the ‘Worst-Mannered’ winners yet, but I’m sure that, once again, Pat Blair will not be included on the list… scandalous!

Mass circumcision to bring races closer?
Oh… my.

Wal-Mart Sells Songs for 88 Cents
Is there still any doubt that Wal-Mart is good for America?

U.S. court nixes Net music subpoenas
Court: Kazaa Not Liable for Copyright Breaches
Good news! You can now resume downloading without fear of absurd search demands from the RIAA. Just remember: illegal subpoenas are wrong, but so is stealing.

Officials: WMD chief may quit
Screw that, let’s fire him - this guy hasn’t found squat. Talk about not meeting performance objectives!

Courts without law
I am, once again, ahead of the curve (8 days).

In Iowa, Gay Marriage Illegal, Divorce OK

Of course, this is the state where Interstate speed-limits are still 65mph, so logic isn’t really an expectation anymore.

Campaign Commercials Begin to Sound the Same
It’s the sound of hopelessness.

Boston Will Re-Import Drugs From Canada
Say what you will, it’s a better choice than Columbia.

Britney’s Little Sis Nabs Show
T-minus 15 minutes and counting.

Ventura Portrait Leaves Viewers Guessing
Much like the Ventura Governorship.

Jennifer Aniston Has Best Celebrity Hair
Once again, Pat Blair is not included on the list… scandalous!

FCC OKs News Corp. Purchase of DirecTV
Ha-ha! Now Rupert Murdoch’s secret plan to take over the world is nearly complete! Soon, FoxNews will be everywhere! Yes! Oh, wait, that was supposed to be a secret. Everyone who isn’t part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, please forget that I said anything.

Finally… I should have started this a long time ago, but today marks the beginning of the “9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Idiocy Watch.” For those of you who don’t know, this group of judicial activists, based in San Francisco, has probably the worst overall record of being overturned by the Supreme Court. These are the legal geniuses who decided that it was unconstitutional to have the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t actually give citizens the right to own guns. One could go one for quite a while detailing all of the absurdities that come from the 9th Circuit bench, but I’ll just back-date to the beginning of December, and I’ll only point out the big ones, otherwise I may be forced to publish a quarterly novel.

Federal appeals court overturns part of key 1996 anti-terrorism law
9th Circuit Idiocy Watch - Part I

Court: Gitmo suspects need lawyers
9th Circuit Idiocy Watch - Part II

Every once and awhile I see something that really tickles my fancy, and recently, has been dolls (pause for laughter and merciless mockery). These aren’t just any dolls, mind you. They are George W. Bush and Ann Coulter dolls. The advertisements for these have been running on both foxnews.com and washingtontimes.com, and they never fail to crack me up. I would have to say that, together, the might make the perfect Conservative Christmas Combo gift. I don’t particularly want these, mind you, so no there’s no need to get dolls for Pat’s stocking stuffers, I just wanted to share the joy that is absurd marketing campaigns:

Merry Christmas!

French President (and Cheese-Eating Surrender-Monkey) Jacques Chirac is trying to pass a law that bans head-scarves in public school. Also, something many of these articles fail to mention is that the plan would also ban Jewish yarmulkes, or skull caps. I don’t want to be a conspiracy theorist, here, but shouldn’t the Jews at least get some billing along with the Muslims, even if it’s not the top one? Regardless, it’s nice to know that, in addition to undermining our efforts to make the world more peaceful (by SUPPLYING WEAPONS to a TYRANT, who uses them to KILL AMERICANS!!!), they are also concerned with ruining any aspect of religious liberty or free thought in their own country.
Look, I hated the French long before it was cool, but I don’t see the current trend as any reason for me to stop, ESPECIALLY if they’re going to continue to behave this way. These people banned the word “hamburger” so it wouldn’t corrupt their “culture.” They talk of international consensus, but they banned the ever-so-universal term “e-mail.” If you need to be so protective, maybe it means that you actually have no culture in the first place, just a big case of “Florida Envy.” Their economy is in a persistent state of disaster. They are unable to offer up any sort of national defense. They are Godless, smelly, arrogant elitists, and they need to do some serious study of character, courtesy of Neil Cavuto.
The most mind-boggling thing about this all is not the fact that the French are being ridiculous; that’s par for the course. What is amazing is the logic laid forth by the Jacques-hole: “Secularism is one of the great successes of the Republic. It is a crucial element of social peace and national cohesion. We cannot let it weaken.” The BBC provides more of Chirac’s address:
“…the principle of secularism goes to the very heart of our conscience. It concerns our national cohesion, our ability to live together, our ability to unite on what is essential… (It) is a pillar of our constitution. It expresses our wish to live together in respect, dialogue and tolerance. Secularism guarantees the freedom of conscience. It protects the freedom to believe or not to believe…
Generally speaking, I think it would be a good idea for a secularism code to bring together all principles and rules relating to secularism. This code will, for example, be handed over to all state or public sector employees the day when they take up their service.
Moreover, the prime minister will set up, under his tutelage, a secularism monitoring body whose task would be to alert the French and the authorities to the risks of abuses or infringements of this essential principle…”
This is utter drivel, to a level that is frightening. Does Chirac even know what he’s talking about? What makes France great? Well, not much, and maybe that’s the problem, but what about God, culture, freedom and liberty, cooking, or their hard-working citizens? Granted, most of those are false, but they certainly make more sense than claiming secularism, a.k.a. secular humanism. That’s kind of like claiming relativism as an absolute truth. Furthermore - and this is the really, truly frightening part - followers of secular humanism admit that it is a religion. So the President of France, God bless him, is preaching religious intolerance under the guise of inclusiveness, and he is foisting a religion on his people under the banner of freedom of/from religion. He is doing all of this with a straight face, and the media is following suit in its reporting.
I have grown, I guess, to expect such silliness of the elite international buffoonery - I mean community - and elite media, but what really scares me is that I know we can’t be all that far away from this here in the US. In fact, I think I can hear the ACLU planning already… something about banning Bibles in the name of being inclusive and tolerant… nah, it couldn’t be.

Creep: Jim McDermott thinks Saddam’s capture was politically timed. For what, Jim? The big election that’s coming up on Christmas? Mr. McDermott should spend less time defending tyrants and more time reading Mr. Twain: “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Creepy: Has anyone else noticed how much Clay Aiken sounds like the short, fat, geeky, glasses guy from the Barenaked Ladies? Check out the clips… yikes.

I was watching an old episode of South Park the other night. By old, I mean that it first aired on June 20, 2001. In this particular episode, entitled “It Hits the Fan,” citizens of the world decide that, after the “s” word is used on the TV show Cop Drama, that word is now acceptable for regular usage. Hi-jinks ensue. I was particularly struck by the following scene, where teachers at school are explaining to their students the acceptable uses of the word:

“4th Grade Teacher: Alright, children, in lieu of the common usage, I’m supposed to clarify the school’s position on the word, “s-”… You can only use it in the non-literal sense. For instance, [turns and writes on the board] “That’s a s-ty picture of me.” is now fine. However, the literal noun form of [writes] “This is a picture of s-.” is still naughty. [crosses out the sentence] The adjective form is now also acceptable. For example: [writes] “The weather outside is s-ty.” However, the literal adjective is NOT appropriate. For example: [writes] “My bad diarrhea made the inside of the toilet bowl s-ty, and I had to clean it with a rag, which then also became s-ty.” [crosses it out] That’s right out!
Student: [raises his hand] …can we say it in the expletive? Like, “Oh, s-,” or, “s- on a shingle”?
Teacher: Yes, that’s now fine.
. . .
Kindergarten Teacher: And so, children, instead of saying “Hand in your papers,” I may now say “Hand in your s-.” Any questions?
Student: What about, “I have to take a s-”?
Teacher: NO! NO! You can say “I have to poop and s-,” or “Oh, s-, I have to poop,” but NOT “I have to s-.” Are we all clear?
Kindergartners: No.
Teacher: Look, it’s all about context…”

This, you see, is funny. The reason it is funny is because it is ridiculous and absurd, right? Well, it was supposed to be. The following is from the FCC ruling on Bono’s use of the “f” word in prime time television, which I have already discussed - feel free to follow the links back as far as you want - ad nauseam:

“The material aired… does not describe or depict sexual and excretory activities and organs. The word “f-ing” may be crude and offensive, but, in the context presented here, did not describe sexual or excretory organs or activities. Rather, the performer used the word “f-ing” as an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation. Indeed… language used as an insult rather than as a description of sexual or excretory activity or organs is not within the scope of the Commission’s prohibition of indecent program content…
The use of specific words, including expletives or other “four letter words” does not render material obscene. Moreover, the complained-of material does not depict or describe sexual conduct and thus does not meet the obscenity standard under Miller v. California.”

Both the South Park episode and the FCC use the actual words, I cleaned them up for this post out of a sense of obligation to be at least somewhat decent. The FCC report was published on October 3, 2003, over 2 full years after the episode of South Park. Does anybody else see how bizarre this is? Shouldn’t we be worried when our government agencies are imitating intentionally silly authority figures on a cartoon TV show? The only parallel I can come up with would be if DEA agents started acting like Shaggy and Scooby.
Fortunately, somebody else agrees with me, and it’s somebody with a bit more influence (not to mitigate the importance of my blog, of course). California Representative Doug Ose (yes, even Californians think this is stupid) has introduced a bill making it clearly illegal to use 8 specific words on either television or radio. I read the text of the bill and I think it deserves a myriad of awards: shortest, most vulgar, funniest, and, last but certainly not least, most commonsensical piece of legislation ever. Those worried that they will no longer be allowed to curse on the public airwaves shouldn’t lose heart, though. I’m sure that those who are trying to outlaw political speech will see this as a clear violation of the First Amendment. If nothing else, it should be a quality debate: I really do hope that someone is forced to read the text of the bill on the floor of the House or Senate - THAT would make for some quality C-Span (and quality irony, too, since, if the bill passes, it would be illegal to read it on TV).
I realize that, for most of you, this particular horse died several thousand words ago, and I’m sorry, but, whether or not it is, this SHOULD be important to you. My goal is not to be the Great American Mommy, running around with a bar of soap in hand, prepared to wash out the mouths of citizens (though that is a comical mental picture). My concern is that not only will things like this lead to a general coarsening of our culture, it will also lead to a general dumbing down. We’re becoming a bunch of unintelligent, inarticulate vulgarians.
In his obituary of Bob Bartley, David Asman relates the following story. I don’t think I can say it better than this:

“This may be a minor point, but for some reason it stands out in my mind. The only time I ever heard Bob Bartley curse was the day I told him I was leaving my post as op-ed editor to become a Fox News anchor. “S-!” Bob said, turning his head away from me. What shocked me most was not what he said, but my realization that I’d never heard it from him in 14 years of almost daily contact.
Bob didn’t have to curse for emphasis. He could make enemies wince with nothing more than the facts and a pincer-like construction of those facts on paper. He would box his arguments so completely that no one could back out of them without tripping over them.”

If you came here today expecting a missive on the capture of Saddam Hussein, you are going to be disappointed. Sure, it’s huge news, and it’s what everyone is talking about, but no one comes here to read what “everyone else” is talking about: that would be boring. And this blog is nothing else, it’s not boring. Arrogant, long-winded, snotty, self-righteous, and obnoxious, perhaps, but certainly not boring. So what new and exciting topic am I going to expound upon today? Men and women.
As mentioned in Saturday’s Leftovers, a Canadian study recently found that (gasp!) beautiful women make men stupid, eh. There’s a real shocker, don’cha know? The key part of this study, in my opinion, is that it was done in Canada, which means that I can make fun of it without having to worry about my tax dollars being spent on such silliness.
Anyway, a couple of alleged Psychology professors conducted this study by sitting in strip clubs and watching men behave like buffoons. Actually, that’s not true at all, I made it up. What these professors really did was show men pictures of attractive women, which they took from the website “Hot or Not?” This, I did not make up. You tell me which scenario is more legitimate. I’ll be over here while you finish the coin toss. Regardless of the methodology (or just overall general silliness) of the study, the results do seem to make sense. How else do you explain David Guest and Liza Minelli? On second thought, this doesn’t really apply to them, but still, aren’t these findings a gen(d)erally accepted truth?
There are countless jokes - all in poor taste - about the inability of men to think correctly when interacting with the fairer sex. You know what? They’re funny because they’re true. Nearly every bad TV or movie comedy ever made has one scene where the protagonist (geeky male) attempts to converse with the… antagonist, I guess (superfly female), and is unable to even speak his own name. And, because they have witnessed/participated in a similar situation, everyone will generally laugh (I tend to sob uncontrollably, but that is beside the point). Everyone has seen an intelligent, articulate guy turn into a complete goober when faced with a conversation with an attractive woman. It’s like… you know… really… bad.
A more interesting tidbit about the Stupid Study is that the two professors who did it just happen to be married. Part of me kind of wonders if the whole thing is an ego trip on the part of the guy’s wife. “Honey, you’re so stupid sometimes.” “No I’m not… I mean, I am… er, well… I mean, sometimes, but… oh, forget it.” So this large, expensive study was conducted, and the results were that women are smarter than men, and no one is surprised by this in the least.
What this study does tell us, however, is that the fundamentalists have been right all along: men and women are different (again, something you shouldn’t need a study to prove, but there are people that will argue this until they are blue in the face, which is actually quite funny to watch for a myriad of reason, up to and including the fact that there are very clear biological differences obvious to any 3-year-old, and also that the person you’re arguing with has a blue face, and, perhaps, start speaking in absurdly long run-on sentences). It’s not a matter of one gender being superior to the other (as this study indicates); it’s just that we’re different. Which is good. Because it would be no good if I had to marry someone who got dumber whenever they looked at me…

Quotes of the week:
-L. Paul Bremer, U.S. administrator in Iraq: “Ladies and gentlemen, we got him. The tyrant is a prisoner.”
-Jim Engebretson, a good friend of mine: “You had better not kick a tiger in the a- unless you have a plan for dealing with his teeth.”

I would also like to note that (although I have no proof of this) during a discussion on this at church this morning, I commented that this was even more bad news for George W. Bush’s political opponents. “What’s good for America is bad for the Democrats.” Once again, I am ahead of the curve, because that very sentiment is echoed this morning by Rush Limbaugh, who adds, “Prominent National Democrats on Suicide Watch.”
It is indeed a good day for America. To our troops in Iraq, the people of Iraq, the people of the United States, the people of the world, I would like to say: Merry Christmas.