Hill Dwellers

Yesterday I was introduced to this: http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/50Most2006/index1.html

It is the most recent of an annual listing, with pictures, of the 50 hottest people on The Hill. To be a part, someone has to nominate you. You also have to work on Capitol Hill or in its nether regions. I'm usually a huge fan of things like this . . . combining aspects of US Weekly with the Library of Congress . . . only good things can come of that.

Except there are zero hot men. There are some men that I'm sure if I got to know I would be more attracted to, but there are zero bonafide, look-me-in-the-face-and-want-to-do-me-in-the-Senator's-office, hot ones. Meanwhile, the top 50 runneth over with hot women. Some are so hot I swear I saw them at one of Stewie Griffin's sexy parties. So, what the deuce?!

I was going to write a diatribe about how politicians are like cavemen, and cavemen know they can't hang out with Neanderthals for fear of losing their cavewomen to their more evolved brethren. But instead I'm going to cleanse myself of this less-than hot male imagery and renew my faith in the power of the human genome to create beautiful things. Join me.

http://www.commercialcloset.org/cgi-bin/iowa/portrayals.html?record=232

Dangerously Cool

Yesterday, while shopping at the local Puma store, I saw a jacket . . . black, sleek, windbreakerish . . . that had a vertical zipper in the middle of the back of the jacket. If you wore it, anyone walking behind you would wonder what the fuck the 10 inch zipper was for. Perhaps ventilation? According to the store clerk, the jacket doubles as a backpack and/or the zipper on the back opens to a pouch that can be used as a backpack. I didn't really care to know which it was badly enough to listen to this guy try and speak English to me again.

But on the way out of the store, I couldn't help but think that the jacket was actually the perfect terrorist accessory. Who knows how much homemade explosive you could pack in that thing unnoticed. Sad that thought even had to cross my mind.

I remember the days back in the midwest, when the closest I came to being afraid was when I laughed at a talk show radio host for suggesting that the intersection of I-70 and I-35 would make the most sense to blow up if he was a terrorist. His reasoning was based on the idea that those two interstates carried so much commercial traffic across our nation that bringing down the interchange where they intersect would cause such a great interruption in our economy the terrorists would nearly win. Apparently he had never considered the miraculous invention called a "detour".

The Puma jacket just struck me as a bit too convenient a delivery device. If I was a crazy member of the House of Representatives in today's political environment, I might introduce legislation barring the innovation of new clothing with "new" ideas for pockets and pouches. The bill would probably receive the endorsement of groups like Focus on the Family too because we all know that pockets allow for pocket pool, a horrible sin in their book. Vote for the bill = you are tough on terrorism and support conservative family values. Vote against the bill = you are in the back pocket of the fashion industry, which is in bed with Hollywood, which we all know is run by the Gay Mafia.

Fortunately, I'm not a member of the looney bin, so I am left with my power as a citizen. And a good citizen would start a non-profit fundraising organization to buy up all the jackets to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. Or I could just buy one for myself, stick a piece of kevlar in the pouch, and hope I am facing the right direction when Mr. Al Qaeda forgets to take his anti-psychotic

Bad Hair Near-Future

Went to get a haircut today. Needed one badly. Instead of walking a ways to the guy I usually go to I went to a reputable/famous salon a block away from my building. The worst that could happen is that I get a good, but not great, haircut.

Wrong again.

About 2 minutes into the buzz of the trimmers (shouldn't high end salons use scissors, not electric trimmers?!), the gorgeous young lady trimming the sides of my head decided to start right in on the top. I couldn't really say "please don't do that" after she'd taken the first pass.

So the gorgeous, yet now painfully obvious no-talent gave me the equivalent of a shearing. It's dye-my-hair-green-and-it'd-look-like-a-golf-course short. For those who trim down below, it's pube short. Over the next couple weeks I'm sure it will feel great in this hot, humid weather. But the limit of the thanks I gave her was my less than fabulous tip.

Fortunately, I have chosen not to let this experience devastate my life. I can rock the near-skinhead look as well as the next guy. At least I hope so. Might have to call a friend back in Kansas who often did the super-short cut and get a few pointers.

On another note, bought some new shoes today. Super sweet pair. Totally made up for the bad haircut. And what's better than a good excuse to go buy things? A blowjob is of course, but I'm not complaining . . . life is good.

Problem Solved

The middle east conflict is starting to annoy me, in the same way a long movie annoys me when I have to take a piss. Here’s how to end this never ending drama known as the Star of David versus the 77 virgins:

Force someone to win. A “v”, “VS”, or the long hand VERSUS stuck between two entities does not mean a perpetual stalemate. There are few exceptions to this (see the MLB All-Star game as ruined by Bud Selig). The middle east needs to be recognized as being one match that has gone on way too long, and it’s time to take penalty kicks so that we can turn it off.

Peace is the result of a clear winner establishing themselves as such. Unfortunately for the mideast, no clear winner has been established. And the result is the continual bleeding of each side for no reason, no benefit, no advancement of peace; instead people die on such a regular basis we only notice when the number spikes or when Americans' vacations are interrupted.

Soledad O’Brien, co-anchor of CNN’s American Morning, brought up the anthem of the idiots yet again: “If Israel isn't careful not to hurt civilians in Lebanon, it will cause more hatred and anger and therefore cause more terrorism.” Someone needs to remind her that she does not channel the spirit of Solomon every time she opens her mouth. If Soledad had actually done the math, civilian casualties will create less terrorism because a dead civilian cannot be a terrorist. Furthermore, Soledad forgot what the entire hippie generation taught us: it is a lot easier to be steadfast in your dogma when you don’t have to worry about the basics in life. A hippie with a tshirt, a VW van, a joint, and Mom and Dad’s bank account will preach against the man, the jobs he offers, and the possessions his jobs may afford. But that same hippie, when penniless, will turn into who many of us call Mom and Dad – people working for the man. Just like the hippie, it is easy to be a radical when the terrorist organization, Hezbollah, is providing your shelter, water, education, and protection.

But what happens when all of it is bombed into oblivion? You get a bunch of “terrorists” thinking that without shelter, water, and protection they better find some fast. There is no more free time to sing the praises of Iran. The focus turns to the more immediate need of survival. Not every Lebanese citizen is a potential terrorist, Soledad. The Hezbollah are not the every-man in Lebanon. Lebanese citizens are not irrational people. Nor are they a Hezbollah commercial away from shooting roman candles at Israelis. If they aren’t a terrorist now, I’m thinking they aren’t going to be any time soon. It’s the crazies here at home that we should be worried about. The people that have shelter, food, water, and education are the people who have time to ingest what Soledad reports and reach conclusions based on her skewed perspective. Civilians haven't died in Lebanon due to the carelessness of Israel. They died because Hezbollah operated among them. Get it right, Soledad.

To prevent such a perspective from taking root, let’s allow a clear winner to emerge in this conflict and bring about peace the old reliable way. We in the United States are all too aware of how we obtained our peaceful 50 states. Our leaders fought and killed and fought and killed until there was no one left to fight and kill us. Today we take our peaceful land for granted, while out of the other side of our mouths lamenting the oppression we rained upon others in the pursuit of this land. While there were times our nation’s massacre of countless individuals was unnecessary to win a battle or a war, had the United States not established itself as the clear victor, we would have the same backyard terrorism as Israel does today. Lucky for us, the international community didn’t care what we were doing in our backyard.

So why tie Israel’s hands? Has anyone considered letting the diplomatic methods of the past, all failures, stay in the past? Instead of seeing the entire history of the United States as an embarrassment, perhaps we should see it as an overall model of what it takes to solidify a region in peace. Let’s allow Israel to fight Hezbollah until there is no more Hezbollah. And if Iran officially gets involved, let’s allow nuclear capable Israel to fight it out with not-yet-nuclear Iran. We’ll have Soledad O’Brien to make sure that once one side has officially won, there will be no unnecessary massacres . . . but if there are I am sure she will give us all a front row seat, and then blame us for it somehow.

Enough with playing chicken. Meet out on the playground and finally settle who rules the sandbox. No referees calling fouls. My bet is that one side will eventually blink. And the peace we’ve all been looking for will have been found, instead of just being talked about over and over and over again.

Just a non-newsworthy rant

I don't know how many people read CNN.com, but I do. I read it because it has the layout of the old ABCNEWS.com, with easy to read headlines followed by more targeted categorical headlines below. ABCNEWS.com is now a shit hole of a website, so over-burdened with news quips and video links it makes my eyes hurt. Both CNN.com and ABCNEWS.com post headlines that are really links to video broadcasts, which sucks because if you just want to read the story, you can't. However, CNN.com suffers less from this stupid idea to get us all hooked on webcasted news. The whole reason I go online for news is to get away from the celebutants reading from a teleprompter. Thanks, but I can read on my own, without stuttering.

CNN.com and ABCNEWS.com also use the occasional banner bulletin when important breaking news happens. Taking a page from those newspapers of old, when words like WAR and TITANIC SINKS and VICTORY were the only thing above the fold, both sites flash colored banners above the less-important headlines. Props to the intern who thought it up, but boo-hiss to the executive editors at CNN.com who have ruined it already.

The banners on CNN.com are in different colors - sometimes red, sometimes yellow. Why exactly? Is red more important than yellow news? Does a red banner mean the news relates to blood shed? Or is a yellow banner just a ripened form of a red banner, signifying breaking news an hour ago? I remember when CNN made a good living deriding the Homeland Security color-coded alert scheme. At least that scheme was explained to me.

Did you hear yesterday that prosecutors decided not to charge Rush Limbaugh with a violation of his probation for possessing viagra? I heard about it, because it was a fucking red breaking news banner on CNN.com. If that is the kind of thing that makes a banner headline, then who does CNN.com think are its readers? They might as well start putting up banner headlines every hour on the hour that George Bush is still president, because the same group of people who thought the headline about Rush was a huge news-worthy shock and dissapointment will be waiting and willing to suffer the same dissappointment 24 times a day. The entire Rush Limbaugh non-event could have just as easily been a link under the U.S. News or Politics category. The whole thing makes me think that CNN.com has a pre-made purple banner headline with confetti animation for the day that Rush dies.

It's all very sad really . . . when a news organization, or at least the techie in charge of the banner headlines, telegraphs its ridiculous hatred for one individual so blatantly. And don't think for a moment that CNN.com was celebrating the fact that Rush was not going to be prosecuted further. If that was the case, the banner would have read "CNN.com has been purchased by FoxNews".