« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »
Everyone loves a good office. My office isn't big, but in this essay, I will demonstrate that my office is nice.
First, I can sit in it and think, and eat strawberries. I have a Quick Draw McGraw lunchbox! I have palm trees outside my window, and I like that, too!
Secondly, I have a seashell lamp!
And lastly, I like it because I have books in it that people give me. I don't read these books, but I have them!
And I like my seashell lamp!
The latest 24 re-enactments are up on my dumb myspace page.
They're pretty awesome. I couldn't squeeze in EVERY little detail, like oh, say, attempted assassinations of the president -- that sort of thing -- but the rest of it is all in there.
As I say on the air, it's just like "24", but "it's family friendly, because we have 90% less torture."
The people who pretend to be other people gave themselves some awards last night!
And let me tell you something: The people who pretend REALLY like Al Gore! The people who pretend said Al Gore is pretty awesome! :)
The people who pretend are pretty upset about the whole world getting too hot, and we're all going to die :-0
They weren't happy about that. Our lives of consumption are catching up to us, they said :(
One lady had a pair of shoes that cost a million dollars with diamonds! I hope you saw those! I did! ;)
But the people who pretend were happy that their award show was "going green"! :) I thought their limos were super-neat!!!
A guy named Leo DiCaprio, who pretended he was pretending to be "the King of the World!" once, said he also thinks Al Gore is super-double-DUPER neat!
I like how all the pretending people believe the exact same thing!
In the interest of offering diverse viewpoints on wide-ranging issues, Kamp Krusty presents a "Point-Counterpoint", with differing views on this question:
Does this season's "President" character on 24 need to die?
a
a
a
Soebeck Song, B.A., Preaching, Lincoln Christian College
I think President Palmer should die. He should not pass "Go", he should not collect $200, he should simply die. A quick death, one preferably wherein he does not speak, in order to spare America from this unbelievable role. Perhaps the producers could start with the standard, "Previously on 24..." and simply include a scene of the President slipping off a cliff while chasing a running bird.
THAT would get the water-cooler talk going. "Did I miss an episode...?"
I mean, c'mon: You all know you want him gone. First off, the guy is 23 years old. I mean, he looks younger than I do, and I'm a ripe old 29. They would have been better off choosing Emmanuel Lewis for the part. At least everyone knows he's really like 50. Seriously, I think that anyone -- Carrot Top included -- could be a more convincing President.
Yep. He needs to die. Pure and simple.
Thank you, Brant, for the space to offer my opinion. What say you?
Brant Hansen, B.S., Journalism, University of Illinois
I completely disagree with my colleague, Soebeck Song. With due respect: It should not be a quick death, it should feature lengthy and painful questioning. Perhaps the first 30 minutes of tonight's "hour" could be the President's flight to some city -- I don't know, oh...Los Angeles? -- and the second half-hour spent with harsh, even rude, questioning from Jack.
This "President" should die, yes, because no one, for even a second, buys him as the President of the U.S. But I'd like to see Jack whisper at him, then yell, then whisper again. And then I'd like to see Jack tell everybody to "get down!" periodically during the questioning. And only then should the President die. With some kind of cool catapult-thing.
This President makes suspension of disbelief impossible. Dude is 23 years old, bald, with a goatee, and built like T.O. He must perish, and he must perish tonight. But slowly. With a catapult-thing.
So, in sum and with respect, Soebeck: I disagree. But I will defend, with every fiber of my being, your right to say what you said up there in that thing you wrote about that.
My alma mater got rid of its mascot of 80 years, Chief Illiniwek. You likely don't care about this. This story was eclipsed by breaking international news (Anna Nicole Smith's embalming) so I thought I'd explain, just to make this simple.
I'm pretty well qualified to do this, as someone who debated this numerous hours at the talk radio station that serves as the university sports flagship.
I also sat at the scorers table and served as an on-floor emcee for Illinois basketball. (One highlight: Being personally booed by 17,000 people at once. This paved the way to blogging.)
To explain:
The NCAA told the U of I to get rid of its mascot, or it wouldn't be able to host post-season stuff.
Pro-Chief people say the Chief is really not a sports "mascot", he's a Symbol of the University -- a respected symbol that happens to be a white guy, dressed up like an Indian, dancing only during halftime on the basketball court or the football field, and nowhere else. This Symbol, not mascot, was named by the football coach.
Anti-chief people say he propagates racist stereotypes. They cite the real-life chief of the Peoria Tribe, considered descended from one of the tribes, who objects to the "stereotypical" use of Native American symbolism. By the way, the Peoria tribe, (which has a rockin' casino) sells some cool stuff with their arrows-n-feathers logo: novelty license plates, dish towels, and medicine wheels, for around $10.
Pro-chief people say his dance is a tribute to Native Americans, who, in a fairly recent poll, approve of the Chief with an 81% majority.
Native Americans, who aren't actually native to America, also participated in another poll: This one showed they disapprove of the Chief to the tune of an 81% majority.
Pro-Chief people tout the fascinating historical accuracy of the Illiniwek outfit, which is actually a Sioux outfit. This tribe which had nothing to do with the Illiniwek, but did donate the outfit to the university for the Chief, before they were offended that the university was using it for the Chief.
Some anti-Chief groups and writers object, also, to the team name, "Fighting Illini", and "Illini", because the names themselves are insulting. One newspaper objecting to the use of "Illini" was, and is still, named, The Daily Illini.
Pro-Chief people point out the authenticity of his dance, which dates way back into the 20th century, and features such tradition-grounded moves as the mid-air splits.
Various Native Americans have objected to the use of the Chief as a mascot, because it could wreak real harm on those it was intended to honor. Among those are, say, the Iroquois, who may have wreaked some degree of harm on the Illiniwek by, among other things, actually killing them.
The Chief is an example of "goodness, strength, bravery, truthfulness, courage, and dignity," say pro-Chiefers. This is apparently demonstrated by mid-air splits during basketball games.
The University could have pursued an FSU-style payoff arrangement with the honored tribe, except Illini Indians have the unfortunate circumstance of not actually existing.
The NCAA says the Chief has created a "hostile" educational atmosphere, and it's frequently cited that only .2% of the student population is American Indian. This is a clear injustice, as the state's population as a whole is also .2% American Indian.
Pro-Chiefers love the Chief because they love to promote diversity. Some demonstrated this humanitarianism by calling a vocally anti-Chief professor and threatening his life.
In sum, anti-Chief forces prevailed. The end of this all marks a tragedy of epic proportions, for talk radio hosts.
The last halftime dance was Wednesday. Native Americans are now better off. Just kidding.
So I was wondering: What makes us guys so hilarious?
Seriously. Why are we so stinking funny, when we're sitting around, cutting-up?
No offense to ladies. Some of you can be a riot. But we -- us guys -- we're killin' ourselves. Check out the top comedians of all-time: Bill Cosby. Steve Martin. That one other guy. Gallagher. All those guys? They're guys.
Humor is simple. It's merely taking two frames of reference, ostensibly incompatible, and overlapping them.* Frankly, the more intelligent a person is, the more subtle this can be. But it's the same thing with a little human audience. You'll get uproarious laughter when you 1) take a cat puppet, and 2) make him say "woof". I'm telling you, with the right audience, this is solid material.
So why is it us guys are so hilarious? I have a couple theories, one high-mindedly anthropological, and the other probably right.
1) It's all about status. Ultimately, humor connotes intelligence, and intelligence connotes "survivability". And survivability, for women, is a turn-on. Humor works like tight abs, and rubber chickens are cheaper than those big dumb exercise balls.
Couple it with character that fairly screams, "I'll never leave you," and you won't even need an awesome car. Even guys reward other guys for being funny, because they recognize the status this confers from the babes.
2) We guys just practice more. It occurred to me the other day, and this is so WEIRD, that I can't even fathom it: You ladies, when you're gathered around each other, don't just sit there, thinking, "Okay, what's something funny I can say, right here?"
I'm telling you -- and you may have never realized this -- that's what we guys do. We're listening -- kinda -- but our minds are going 200 mph in search of something amusing to say.
I asked females about this on my radio show, and while some said they can be pretty funny, they actually acknowledged this difference. One said, "Why would we waste time with that when there's so much else to talk about?"
Okay, but don't expect to produce comedic geniuses. You give us Oprah, but we produce Carrot Top. I think we know who wins THAT one. Mwa-ha-ha.
* -- Caution: There's nothing quite so unfunny as disassembling the component parts of humor. This is why this post is not funny.
This wraps 'er up. I rest my case.
I've written about some insipid stuff: Silly video games, dolls, and even Jesus-shaped hot-air balloons. I've noted that they take the transcendent and reduce it the point that SNL can't even lampoon it.
But you -- oh, you! -- have valiantly objected. You have argued, "If just one person is touched...", and so forth. And, sure, while I might think the spectre of watching a giant Jesus deflate on an open field is unappealing, someone, "Might -- just MIGHT -- be led to truth," by...a giant...deflating...Jesus.
Yep.
So, I give you...Cross Pops. And -- warning here -- to explain this product, I'm about to write a sentence I've likely never written:
You see, you dip the cross in popping candy and then you suck on the cross.
Please -- I can't wait! -- please defend this. Please. Oh please oh please oh please oh please.
(You: "Make me." Me: "I don't make trash, I burn it." You: "That why your face is all burnt." Me: "Exactly. . .yeah. That's why my...face is...burnt...?")
I don't think Cross Pops are defensible, but who knows? If the ol' "If just one person..." approach fits once, as an all-justifying narrative, why not all the time?
(By the way, I *do* understand the whole Bunnies and Candy Crosses Set. That? Yeah -- I get that. But not "Cross Pops". Bunnies-n-Crosses -- sure. But you don't dip them in stuff. That's where it crosses the line.)
Sometimes I regret that we don't take up an offering when our church peeps get together. If we did, we could snag us one of these things.
These things would give our church a "competitive advantage", it says on their website. An awesome competitive advantage!
I got the website from Church Business magazine, published for pastors. A friend gave me a copy of Church Business magazine, because he really, really loves me and he really, really, wants to see me finally lose it.
A big soft-play, Christian-themed park would give our church, or ekklesia -- our gathering of those "called out" by God -- a competitive advantage over other ekklesia, other gatherings of people "called out" by God. According to the ad for pastors, it will do precisely what we are called out to do:
1. "Attract children and families" to our facility.
2. "Increase the value of services" that we offer. Before, we offered a reason to live. Now? A reason to live -- like gerbils.
3. "Enhance the image of (our) facility." -- in accordance with scripture.
Like I say, I want one. I, Brant Hansen, want to enhance our ministry image with nothing less than the 0501c, with BatBox(TM), Elbow Tube, Kidrgy TeeterTodderTube with interactive Teeter Motion and...NO WAY do I offer this ministry without the optional Dumpty Humpty (TM) ball room with xtra Softee Balls.
I heard the church down the street didn't opt for the Dumpty Humpty. Chumps. Helloooo, new congregants, right this way...
This church does a lot of good, because it gave a lot of money -- $3 million! -- to "charitable causes and evangelism" last year!*
Pretty awesome!**
* -- Out of total gross revenues of $34 million "tithed" to run the place. But overhead can be kind of expensive. In this case, that overhead includes a salary that allows The Pastor multiple homes in Florida, a lease on his plane, his "ministry tool" -- a Porsche -- and $1.9 million in loans for himself. Plus, neat expensive clothes because it helps him "preach better." Still, $3 million can do a lot of good, out of the $34 million given the church.
** -- If you don't think about it.
Recent Comments