I honestly believe I killed every bug in South Carolina last night on my way home from Thanksgiving dinner:
|
| Read
» |
|
|
For quite a while now I've felt a certain disdain for news anchors, radio "personalities," and sportscasters. These people are paid to run their mouth constantly so as to alleviate the typical American's fear of silence (which apparently is called sedatephobia, I've just learned), so naturally, since there's really not that much interesting to say on any subject for hours on end, they can become quite annoying in a short amount of time. Radio personalities are just useless, especially the ones who come in twos and go by their first names (bonus points if their names make them sound like dumb rednecks); these guys tend to sing songs about flatulence and the like and usually clog up your local record store's comedy section with albums named after female genitalia. News anchors probably bother me the least, but they definitely annoy me when they break character and start straying from the teleprompter; nothing's worse than seeing a news anchor try to tell a lame joke about a green puppy, then segue into a story about suicide bombers. Or so I thought. Tonight while football was on my TV (I hesitate to say I was watching it, since I had been reading a book during the game), a sportscaster made the same fatal mistake of telling a joke. Unlike the news anchor, however, the problem wasn't that the joke was unfunny, but rather this sportscaster's overestimation of the intellect of his fellow sportscasters who then attempted to expound on that joke with an even funnier one. Here's how it went down:
Sportscaster 1: "I'm going to make a guess here. You could count on less than one hand the number of balls the Steelers are going to throw..."
giggling ensues
Sportscaster 2: "You could probably count them on less than one finger!"
Now there's no better way to kill a joke than by trying to explain it, but I figured this one's already rigor mortis by now anyway so no harm done. You see, the first sportscaster was trying to say that the number of balls the Steelers would throw was zero, hence the ability to count them on less than one hand, or no hands if you will. However, apparently the second sportscaster was thinking of the type of no hand that has at least one finger, so he felt it best to correct the first sportscaster by saying one could count on less than one finger the number of balls thrown, which would eliminate all doubt that the number was zero. And the comedic genius that is the sportscaster strikes again.
|
| Read
» |
|
|
 Sorry, Dover, Pennsylvania. You're screwed. Pat Robertson decreed today that because of your refusal to teach that the world began with a talking snake and a woman made out of a guy's rib as scientific fact, God has turned His back on you. And don't bother crawling back to the Lord during the next natural disaster, either; after all, "you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there." On the other hand, Kansas, you have decided to let God into your science classes, and for that, you're off the hook. The next time one of your cities is leveled by one of God's tornadoes, which should be next Tuesday if my research is correct, feel free to pray away. God knows you need it.
|
| Read
» |
|
|
|
I was quite dismayed yesterday to find out about the new film Chapter 27 which is currently in production. The film portrays the jerk of all jerks in the days leading up to John Lennon's assassination. The title alludes to the 26-chapter novel Catcher in the Rye (ironically one of my favorite novels) which Lennon's killer used to explain his motivations for the murder (with the 27th chapter being the final, unwritten chapter sealed by the killer's actions). Typically the outrage over the event of John Lennon's murder runs so deep that his fans almost always refrain from even mentioning his murderer's name (as I have done in this article), especially because of the killer's desire for fame, so I'm sure the making of this film will cause some controversy among those who care the most about Lennon's life and career. While it's true that we can never deny the senseless murder of John Lennon, is it too much to ask that filmmakers at least refrain from putting his killer in the spotlight?
|
| Read
» |
|
|