The Counsel of Worm's

Following his surprisingly successful visit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, former NBA star Dennis Rodman was dispatched on a worldwide "basketball diplomacy" tour.

IRAN--Originally scheduled to meet with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Rodman insisted on meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini.  "I ain't travelin' 8 million miles just to meet no bench player," the Hall of Famer explained during a press conference.  Granted an audience, Rodman ended up meeting with Khameini for nearly seven hours.  The two discussed the effects of ongoing sanctions.  Rodman also offered what he described as a blueprint for future nuclear negotiations with the United States and other nations.

According to Rodman, "It was nothin' official, you understand?  Jus' some thoughts I came up with on the flight over.  I explained to Ali K. that he needed to, like, offer some concessions--confidence-buildin' and shit--otherwise, ain't no way O. [President Obama] gonna stop cappin' on his ass."
After the meeting, Rodman and Khameini enjoyed a meal of lamb shanks and non-alcholic beer and took in a basketball game.  Then Rodman had sex with two of the Grand Ayatollah's wives.

DAVOS, SWITZERLAND--Addressing assembled world leaders and captains of industry, Rodman presented a keynote speech entitled, "The Way Forward: A Keynes-Hayek Dialectic Approach to Stabilizing National Economies."  In the speech, the two-time All-Star explained that "For a nation, addressing structural trade imbalances is like a basketball team improving its defensive rebounding statistics: It's not flashy, yo, but it's what wins championships."

After the speech, Rodman and economics Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz took in a basketball game and attended a "rave" in the neighboring resort town of Klosters.  Stiglitz was arrested for indecent exposure, and Rodman had sex with three Princeton economists.

VATICAN CITY, ROME--Dropping in on the Conclave of Cardinals, Rodman created a bit of a stir due to his choice of wardrobe.  Rodman apologized, explaining that a dress, pointy hat, and ruby slippers simply comprised his typical Thursday afternoon outfit and that he in no way meant to pass himself off as the Pope.  "Still," Rodman quipped, "them Cardinals is my boys, y'know?  And if they wanted me to be Pope, I'd be down with that."

The five-time NBA champion and two-time defensive player of the year told the College of Cardinals that the retirement of Pope Benedict XVI offered the Church an unprecedented opportunity to heal rifts caused by years of scandal and weak leadership.  "Y'all gotta lay off the kids, y'know?  That's just some messed up shit!"  Later, Rodman and the newly retired Benedict took in a basketball game where, during halftime, Rodman participated in a wrestling exhibition and accidentally had sex with his opponent.

Sequester: Day One

As result of inability to reach agreement on ways to reduce deficit, automatic cuts have begun to take effect across country.  No one is unaffected, and we all must do our part.  For blogosphere, sequester has led to mandated cuts, including all articles.  No longer will you see words "   ," "  ," or "  ."  Also, word "      " will remain unavailable until further notice.

Our Long National Nightmare Is Over!

After a couple of days of semi-heavy posts, I am pleased today to be able to bring you some good news: Guido, the missing Italian sausage, is back home!

In case you missed it, about two weeks ago, Guido--one of the famous racing sausage mascots of the Milwaukee Brewers--disappeared after a night of bar-hopping.  This will no doubt come as disappointing news to the other members of Guido's regular 12-step group, including his sponsor, Mr. Met.  Nevertheless, concerns for Guido's sobriety took a back seat to concerns for his very life, as his disappearance extended over days and weeks.  No ransom demands were made; no proof of life was given; even a hefty reward offered by a local mustard company (seriously!) produced no results.

Last night, however, two men--one cleverly disguised in a face-concealing hoodie

"lugged the larger-than-life link into [TJ Ryan's bar in Cedarburg, Wisconsin] just before 8 p.m. Wednesday, plopped him on a bar stool and warned staff, 'You did not see anything,' said bartender Jen Mohney.

'Like I didn't just see two guys plop a sausage on a bar stool,' Mohney said."

Ah, the Wisconsin educational system!  Must be all those overpaid teachers!  But I digress!

Guido did not immediately make himself available for comment.  Stosh, the Milwaukee Brewers' Polish Sausage, reported that Guido was physically fine.  "He's pretty shaken up, though," Stosh explained.  "You've gotta understand.  He's. . . seen things.  Things that no sausage should have to see."

Guido is expected to meet with police over the next few days.  The Brewers will also make a counselor available to help Guido deal with any lingering trauma.

What's a Little Cannibalism Among Friends?

Boy, you go online and engage in a little friendly banter about raping, murdering, and eating your wife and some of her girlfriends, and all of a sudden you're a horrible person!  Or at any rate, you're Gilberto Valle.  Valle, a New York City policeman (!) is currently on trial, charged with conspiracy to commit kidnapping after his conversations on a fetish website were discovered by his wife, Kathleen Mangan-Valle.  While the graphic conversations are certainly disturbing, to say the least, the case raises legal and ethical questions that are potentially even more disturbing.

Let me say immediately that I am obviously not privy to all the details of the case.  I don't know how far Valle's conversations went or to what extent they could be considered active plotting, as opposed to just shared fantasizing.  To me, though, the fact that the conversations took place on a fetish site (instead of, say, private one-to-one discussions) suggests they are more likely the latter.  Does that make the conversations OK?  Debatable.  I'll come back to that.  But it definitely raises questions about what, exactly, Valle is legally culpable of--if indeed he is legally culpable of anything at all.

As far as I know, a person cannot be prosecuted for conversation.  I make a distinction here between conversation and conspiracy.  A conspiracy--by definition--is secret.  Valle posted his fantasies on a website where men (I'm assuming they're mostly men) post their fantasies and share them with others.  It is, in other words, a public forum; anyone with an internet connection and perhaps a credit card can access it.  The essentially public nature of the conversations speaks against charges of conspiracy.

(Again, I do not know all the particulars: If Valle engaged in other, more surreptitious conversations that named, say, times and places or that delved into active planning, then a conspiracy case becomes much stronger.  I am here, though, more concerned with the implications of the case as I have outlined them here.)

Still, when people hear about a man--particularly a policeman--engaging in graphically violent, horrifically disturbing fantasies involving rape, torture, mutilation, etc., they understandably feel that something should be done, that punishment should be administered.  In Valle's case, his wife (potential victim?) has, quite reasonably, left him.  Considering that Valle "wept visibly" during his wife's testimony, I will speculate that he is suffering.  Regardless of the trial's outcome, he may lose his job and/or be required to undergo extensive psychological counseling.  Is this enough?  Should the criminal justice system be involved?

What if, instead of visiting a fetish website, Valle had simply committed his violent fantasies to a journal, a journal that was then discovered by his wife?  Would he be guilty of a crime if the journal described his desire to commit horrendous acts?  What if he had said these things in the privacy of, say, a counseling session?  Yes, therapists may be required to report patients to the authorities if they speak of plans to commit violent acts, but would a patient saying something like, "Sometimes I fantasize about raping and killing women" rise to that level?

The truth is that all of us--all of us--engage or have engaged in dark, disturbing fantasies.  Perhaps they don't rise to such grand guignol levels as those described in the case of Gilberto Valle.  Nevertheless, most people would experience shame unimaginable if even their fantasies of perfectly legal actions--telling off an overbearing boss, spending a steamy weekend with an attractive co-worker--came to light.  The potential shame, of course, is what keeps most of our fantasies safely concealed within our mental lockboxes.  But is it a matter for the courts if our fantasies, legal or otherwise, are revealed?  Personally, I hope not.

(Hm. I guess whimsy will have to wait at least another day.)

Tuesday Toss-off

Oh, that did not sound right.

Sorry, everybody: I've been grading essays all day, getting ready to give my class their first big in-class exam tonight, and yesterday I did over 1,000 words on Seth Freakin' MacFarlane.  I'll be back tomorrow with all manner of wit and whimsy.  Or at least whimsy.

F**k 'Em If They Can't Take a Joke

I am really pissed off about Seth MacFarlane's performance as Oscars host.  To be specific, I am pissed off about the response to Seth MacFarlane's performance, which has put me in the unwanted position of having to defend Seth MacFarlane.

Was MacFarlane crude?  Sure.  Were some of his jokes tasteless?  Yes.  At the same time, though, after reading many critiques of his performance, I can't help but think some people are taking the whole thing way too seriously and ratcheting up their indignation to protestething-too-much levels.

First, what were people expecting?  It's Seth MacFarlane, for God's sake!  The man's major claim to fame is "Family Guy," which--love it or hate it--is one of the most consistently offensive (fans will say "irreverent") shows on television. Indeed, MacFarlane's reputation preceded him to such an extent that, unless he had stepped totally out of character and comported himself as the second coming of Cary Grant, he was all but doomed to receive the very condemnatory reviews he has, in fact, received.  But looking at what actually transpired last night, I have to say that, really, MacFarlane was if anything too well behaved.  Indeed, his major problem may have been self-imposed restraints that did nothing to mollify his critics while having the effect of essentially divesting him of potential sources of jokes.

Let's start at the beginning: One of the, shall we say, memorable moments occured during MacFarlane's opening shtick.  He is visited from the future by none other than Captain Kirk, who warns him that, unless he quickly reconsiders his plans, he will go down in history as the worst Oscars host ever.  What "will" he do that is so bad?  Well, for starters, he will perform an elaborate song and dance number entitled "We Saw Your Boobs," in which he rhapsodizes over all the times major actresses have appeared topless.

Now, much has been made of the fact that, in several of the movies named in the song, the women appear topless during rape scenes; I admit to cringing slightly when he name-checked Jodie Foster in "The Accused."  But the song itself does not mention the context of the toplessness, and the main targets of the joke are not the women but the sort of adolescent simpletons who get all geeked out over seeing boobies.  (Stop looking at me!)  I would also point out that the whole set-up of the bit was that this song was supposed to be outrageously tasteless.  I admit that even if something is intentionally tasteless it is still tasteless, but we should at least acknowledge that part of what makes the joke "work" (to whatever extent it does work) is MacFarlane's attempt at self-deprecation: "I'm such a clueless, immature jerk that I would actually have thought this was a good idea."

A joke he made about Kim Kardashian's facial hair also sparked outrage.  To which I say, Seriously?  People are seriously offended on behalf of Kim Kardashian?  This is a woman who, born with the proverbial silver spoon in her mouth, chose not to do something worthwhile with her life, but to cash in to the tune of several million dollars by releasing a videotape of herself having sex with a semi-famous singer.  She's off-limits?  An attack on Kardashian is not misogyny: It's common sense!

One of the most indignant critiques about MacFarlane's misogynistic performance stated, "MacFarlane loves women! As he said about Salma Hayek, it doesn’t matter if we can’t understand a word the native Spanish-speaking actress is saying — we’re just staring at her sweater puppies anyway."  Except here's the whole joke (paraphrasing):  "We've reached the point in the show where usually Javier Bardem or Penelope Cruz or Salma Hayek comes out and says something that we can't understand a word of, but it doesn't matter because they're just so damn good looking!"  Is that misogynist?  Kinda racist, maybe, but not misogynist.

Then there was the infamous Rihanna joke.  By way of introducing "Django Unchained," MacFarlane quipped, "This is the story of a man fighting to get back his woman, who's been subjected to unthinkable violence. Or as Chris Brown and Rihanna call it, a date movie."  Tasteless?  Well, yes, but from a comedy standpoint, I would argue that the bigger problem is the joke doesn't really make sense.  Better would have been something like this: "This is Quentin Tarantino's movie about a man fighting to get back his woman, who's been subjected to unthinkable violence.  Oh, and Quentin? Chris Brown's lawyers are backstage.  They want to talk to you about unlicensed use of his image."

MacFarlane also drew boos for this one (paraphrasing): "You know, Daniel Day-Lewis is not the first actor to get a nomination for playing Abraham Lincoln.  Raymond Massey was nominated for 'Abe Lincoln in Illinois.' But I think the actor who most successfully got into Lincoln's head was John Wilkes Booth."  Now, I would argue that that is a perfectly well-constructed joke.  Not only that, but any number of comedians have probably made similar jokes and/or could/would have made the joke at last night's ceremony.  You think Robin Williams wouldn't have said that?  Or even the much-venerated Billy Crystal?  If Crystal had made the joke, though, everyone would have called it edgy.

What other sacred cows did MacFarlane attack?  The fact that there are many Jews in Hollywood?  Gasp!  The fact that musical theater has a somewhat "gay" image?  Shocked, shocked!  I recall Neil Patrick Harris doing a whole (hilarious) song and dance number at the Tony's about how Broadway is "not just for gay people anymore!"

And what about the jokes he DIDN'T make?  There was ample material: He had a nine-year-old Best Actress nominee, but the most edgy thing he said about her was that her first name (Quvenzhane) looks like something you'd see on an eye-test; yes, he did say it would be "sixteen years until she's too old for Clooney," but that was at Clooney's expense, not hers.  I don't recall him saying anything remotely tasteless about the other clear target among the leading ladies, Emmanuelle Riva, the oldest nominee ever.  And, come on, if he wanted to go for pure over-the-top crudity, here's a fastball down the middle that he just let sail by: Adele's last name is Atkins?  Guess the diet is named after someone else.

Yeah, same to you!

The bottom line?  Last night's ceremony wasn't a Papal installation. It wasn't a 9/11 memorial service.  It was the freakin' Oscars!  And consider this: Everybody in that theater went absolutely apeshit during a performance from "Les Miserable" when a group of gorgeous millionaires decked out in tuxedos, evening gowns, and probably a million dollars worth of borrowed jewelry, sang a song glorifying the impending revolution of the lower classes.  And people were offended by Seth MacFarlane's boobie jokes?

Check the Crappie's Testicles for Shrinkage

In today's Not-from-The-Onion news, the governing body of the sport of professional ice-fishing (yup) is instituting drug-testing requirements as part of a long-shot campaign to be included in the Olympics.  Think about it: Olympic ice-fishing.  Just when you thought the Olympics had maxed out their capacity for dullness by adding soccer!  (Oh, the majesty of the 0-0 tie!  The thrill of the 1-0 barnburner!)

I don't think this is a great idea--the inclusion of ice-fishing, not the drug-testing.  I mean, curling is bad enough.  Although maybe Olympic officials could combine the two sports: Curlers could slide their teapots (or whatever those things are) along the ice towards the spot where ice-fishers have camped out to await nibbles.  Fishermen earn points by dodging teapots, and curlers earn points by bowling ice-fishers into the frozen lake.  That I would watch.

In all semi-seriousness, though, I think the drug-testing authorities are taking the wrong approach.  I doubt many professional ice-fishers would test positive for performance-enhancing drugs.  After all, steroids, which can increase one's aggression, would seem ill-suited for a "sport" whose key to success is patience and the ability to sit still--on ice--for long periods of time.  On the other hand, since scoring is based on the weight of the fish caught, I would think certain growth hormones could be helpful: My point is, is anyone testing the fish?