The Lonely Blogger

"YOU DA MAN!" TEST

1. In the company of females, intercourse should be referred to as:

A. Lovemaking
B. Screwing
C. Taking the pigskin bus to tuna town.

2. You should make love to a woman for the first time only after you've both shared:

A. Your views about what you expect from a sexual relationship
B. Your blood test results
C. Five tequila slammers

3. You time your orgasm so that:

A. Your partner climaxes first
B. You both climax simultaneously
C. You don't miss SportsCenter

4. Passionate, spontaneous sex on the kitchen floor is:

A. Healthy, creative love-play.
B. Not the sort of thing to which your wife/girlfriend would agree.
C. Not the sort of thing about which your wife/girlfriend need ever to find out.

5. Spending the whole night cuddling a woman with whom you've just had sex is:

A. The best part of the experience.
B. The second best part of the experience.
C. $100 extra.

6. Your wife/girlfriend says she's gained five pounds in the last month. You tell her that it is:

A. No concern to you.
B. Not a problem, she can join your gym.
C. A conservative estimate.

7. You think today's sensitive, caring man is:

A. A myth.
B. An oxymoron.
C. A Moron.

8. Foreplay is to sex as:

A. Appetizer is to entree.
B. Primer is to paint.
C. A long line is to an amusement park ride.

9. Which of the following are you most likely to find yourself saying at the end of a relationship?

A. "I hope we can still be friends."
B. "I'm not in right now, please leave a message at the beep."
C. "Welcome to Dumpsville, population: YOU."

10. A woman who is uncomfortable watching you masturbate:

A. Probably needs a little more time before she can cope with the intimacy.
B. Is uptight and a waste of time.
C. Should never have sat next to you on the bus in the first place.

EVALUATING RESULTS: If you answered "A" more than 7 times, check your pants to make sure you ARE a man!! If you answered "B" more than 7 times, check into therapy, you're a little confused. If you answered "C" more than 7 times, "YOU DA MAN!"

Another God-Awful Movie

Is Evan Almighty a "Christian comedy"? The entertainment media seems to think so. Bob Tourtellotte in his June 26, 2007 Reuters article about Hollywood's diminishing prospects for a record box office in 2007 said that the reason is (among other things) the less than spectacular receipts for Ocean's 13, Spiderman 3 and "Christian comedy Evan Almighty".

Huh? Last I checked Noah and the Ark were in the Old Testament. Nor do I recall the previews indicating any appearance by Jesus, his disciples or apostles. (A quick check of the IMDb movie database confirms that Jesus was not in the movie). And although I didn't actually see the movie (or its predecessor Bruce Almighty, I would bet that neither movie actively (certainly not intentionally) promotes the Christian religion or even Judaism for that matter.

A "religious spoof" perhaps. Much like Monty Python's Life of Brian. But to call either a "Christian comedy" strains credulity.

Witness for the Plaintiff

We just received this police report from Palos Hills, Illinois. The case involves a little girl who was getting an ice cream from an ice cream truck which had its "Stop - Children" sign activated. Unfortunately, a passing motorist didn't heed the sign and struck the child as she crossed the street to a park.

The police arrived and took statements from various witnesses in the area. Note the police officer's note regarding witness number 3. Click on the image for a larger view.

Apparently, the police officer didn't think that blindness prevented the witness from "witnessing" the accident. Sure, a witness has other faculties at his or her disposal. One can testify that the car "sounded like its engine was racing" or "I could feel a strong breeze from the car as it went by". Maybe the blind witness could even testify he or she heard the child "fly into the tree"; however, when it comes to describing the operation of a passing car and giving an exact speed, I would think that vision would be a requirement.

Should be interesting.

The Canadian Mental Cripple-r

Professional wrestler, Chris Benoit, hanged himself Monday, June 25, 2007 after murdering his wife, Nancy Daus-Benoit (left) and their seven year-old son, Daniel, over the weekend. Benoit, professionally known as the "Canadian Crippler" and the "Rabid Wolverine", cancelled a pay-per-view on Friday due to a "family emergency".

The WWE cancelled its Monday Night RAW programming on the 25th replacing it with a tribute to Benoit. I know that in the wrestling industry always wants to pay tribute to its fallen stars like Owen Hart and Eddie Guererro but Benoit deserves no tribute and giving him one before the facts were in showed extremely bad judgment. Owen Hart died in a tragic on-the-job accident and while Eddie Guererro's years of alcohol, drugs and (obvious) steroid use contributed to his heart failure, at least he didn't murder anyone else.

Think it's possible that 'Roid Rage contributed to Benoit's actions? Maybe. But that doesn't avoid his responsibility. Any steroids he took, he took willingly. He was fully responsible for his heinous actions.

While the WWE claims to have cleaned up its act regarding steroids, wrestlers like Triple H keep getting bigger and bigger. I don't even think he could hang himself since he no longer has a neck.

The world need to wash its hands of Chris Benoit. And that's the bottom line, cuz Blog Dog says so.

No Tanks

As much as it pains me to say, the Chicago Bears did something right. After giving defensive tackle Tank Johnson a chance to redeem himself following weapons charges and probation violations and the shooting death of his friend/bodyguard (at a nightclub days after his arrest), the Bears waived him. Reports are that Johnson was arrested June 22, 2007 in Arizona for speeding and suspicion of DUI.

While speeding isn't a horrible offense and whether he was DUI remains to be seen, for whatever reason he was out at 3 a.m. After being released from jail a few weeks ago, Johnson said he was a changed man and would strive to walk the straight and narrow. He claimed he would be the poster child for athletes who got in trouble and turned things around.

That didn't last long. The Bears told Johnson he was under a zero-tolerance plan. It's nice to see them stick to that. Johnson had no business being out at 3 a.m. drunk or otherwise. Yes, he had a legal right to go out but he knew he'd be subject to the professional consequences of doing so.

So, it looks like his 8 game suspension will likely be at least a year. He'll be back in the league after that. Some team (the Cincinnati Bengals?) will take a look at him. But his next contract will probably be for the league minimum and probably will have similar zero-tolerance language. Hopefully, "changed woman", Paris Hilton can do better.

Now, why is Adam "Pac-Man" Jones still on the Tennessee Titans?

Justice Prevails

Washington D.C. Administrative Law Judge, Roy Pearson, lost a lawsuit involving pants that he took to a dry cleaners and subsequently were misplaced. The pants were ultimately found again but that didn't satisfy Pearson. He filed suit against the shop for the misplacement of the pants and for violation of a D.C. consumer protection statute -- the cleaners had a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign on the wall and since the judge wasn't satisfied, the store breached its warranty under the statute. The claim on the lost pants were subsequently dropped. The lawsuit sought damages in excess of $54 million dollars.

$10,000's worth of defense attorney's fees later, the dry cleaner operators prevailed with the judge hearing the claim ruled that the dry cleaners did not owe Pearson anything and that Pearson would have to pay approximately $5,000 in the defendants' court costs. The judge reserved ruling on whether Pearson will have to pay the defendant's attorney's fees.

The American Bar Association is looking into sanctions against Pearson for filing a frivolous lawsuit and action has been instituted directed at removing Pearson from office. As an ALJ, it is unlikely that Pearson was voted into office but he can be removed by those who appointed him. Losing a $100,000 job seems to be worth his vindictive pursuit of this joke of a claim.

For more on this story, click here.