Possession is 9/10s of the law. The other 1/10 is intent to sell.

Did you know about Lindsayism? I will elaborate:

1. That little flash bit at the top is the perfect use of flash: to augment a website subtly. That little flash bit is also impressively illustrated.

2. She is informed and witty, which is rare in any type of free entertainment and rarer still in bloggers.

3. Maud Newton reads her.

Nuff said.

They may as well cancel NASCAR, because this is the biggest and most horrific car wreck anyone will ever* see on television.

Mr. T and the Muppets* could not be reached for comment.

* – and by ever, I mean never.
** – band name?

(more…)

Czelticgirl and I were discussing the inundation of babies in our workplace, and it sort of struck a chime in my head. Something I didn’t realize I had been contemplating suddenly enchanted my fingers and I ranted away IM-style. The following is a generalization, to be sure, but it is an observational one so please bear with me.

First, I do not understand the obsession with babies. I love children and I want to create and adopt some of my own, but I do not obsess over it. In most women, one can blame hormones. But some women go crazy over every baby they see. Evidence some self-control, you hens. Men have been harnessing their rampaging hormones since age 12. Men are sometimes just as ashamed of women’s fervent baby-cooing as women are of men’s ogling.

People don’t get up in arms when a woman has “baby fever,” but if a man accidentally loses control over his base instincts for a moment and glances down a co-worker’s shirt when she bends in front of him, it’s grounds for a harassment suit. Or if a woman is crabby during her menstrual period, hormones are an acceptable excuse for all kinds of behavior, but if a man loses discipline over his id and whips his head around to look at a woman on the street, he gets tarred with “pig” looks, if not actual confrontation.

Women have hormones that can act on their emotions. So do men. In different but equally understandable ways. Women are often disgusted by men when they catch them looking at their bodies, but why? It seem like a double standard; men must accept graciously that women are sometimes slaves to the biochemistry of their bodies, but men must continually be above that.

I get along with women better than men, but it disgusts me when they turn their nose up because I see a woman on screen or on the street and take even a brief cursory look at her body. I am a man* who ignores the sex of individuals when it comes to respect, but I cannot do so when it comes to bodily urges. I do think that men should control their eyes and minds to a point, but I also think that women should recognize that the man watching them exercise from across the gym (probably) doesn’t intend to do anything more than peruse, cogitate briefly, and move on. Luckily, the vast majority of my female friends, are strongly bisexual and simply drool agreement when my eyes turn without warning.

While I’m ranting, bisexual women and lesbians in my experience are far more lecherous than men. Somehow it is more acceptable when a woman objectifies another woman. Men have to hold their tongues, while the women openly express their admirations for the female form.

I do understand the argument that the adult entertainment industry portrays women as obedient playthings. And there are people who cannot see past these fantasies to realize that this is simply a mindless sexual thrill to appease men’s more unevolved appetites. But, it is the cultural emphasis on men being somehow beyond such “rutting,” that transforms it into a guilty pleasure, instead of simple entertainment. It makes men who want to be sensitive to their female partners nearly afraid of sex, because of its seemingly offensive stigma.

In short, let men see cheesecake! It is natural and healthy and any man worth his salt would rather be with you than with Laetitia Casta**. After all, what would they have to talk about?

* (who will fight for your honour)

** Even if the poor thing’s mouth gets all Pavlov’s dog at the mere mention of her name.

TL: NO! Limos are scary. Like clown limos. *shudder*
SB: Um…bwa? Ok then.
TL: bwa?
SB: Clown limos? bwa?
SB: It’s just the sound, not an acronym.
TL: gotcha.
TL: Brothers With Attitude
TL: Buddha Walking Airedales
SB: Which is one of the new road signs you’ll be seeing.
TL: I wonder what the silhouette would look like.

It would look like this.

Bonus, my boss came over while I was Photoshopping (see? bad grammar to use that as a verb) and did the quick mask for me! I guess that translates in business terms as “slacking approved!”

Linus is slowly working his way into the right hand nav over there. Maybe he’ll secure a spot after I meet him in person, which may be this summer.

Stay tuned.

Do you know Bill Hicks? You really should. You know that comedian that you idolize, whose genius gets you through the cold desert nights? Guess what? I’ll bet he/she thanks Bill Hicks on their album.

Get Rant in E-Minor. You will not be sorry. And say a prayer, read a poem, or yell at a pedestrian in memory of ol’ Bill, eh?

Today my regulars (over there on the right) are littered with incredibly entertaining blog entries, while I have nothing to say but this:

One of the many brilliant things to come out of Boy on a Stick and Slither.

Could you combine the following concepts into an email?

inexplicable seance phd scribners smash higgins dandy razzle supra inward malconduct wearisome grownup exert minerva acidic copperas cyclades asphyxiate fortify coolheaded monkey babe gershwin x thorstein electrify endgame unicorn indicant

If not, I don’t think you should scold Felicity K. Inconsistency as this was only the subject of her email to me. People think of these missives as spam, but the enlightened realize the true message of these mailing list prophets. Open your minds to the possibilities of random genius.

Incidentally, I don’t know if it’s coincidence that the word “monkey” appears so often in these teachings. And, if nothing else, it’s a free and easy way to generate band names.