the blog with two backs

aside from the los angeles lakers, the utah jazz has got to be the most ridiculous name for any professional sports team. of course, both of these franchises moved from cities where their respective nicknames were more apropo (the lakers of minneapolis and the jazz of new orleans). in la, at least there's silverlake but utah, or salt lake city, has to be the least jazziest place in the country. in terms of misnomers, the utah jazz would be the equivalent to the richmond yankees, the phoenix canadiens and/or, the negro leagues very own, real life oxymoronical team of the atlanta black crackers (that's a whole 'nother blog unto itself!). perhaps, on an even more tangential note, the most misleading team name has to be the university of connecticut huskies which, of course, is better known colloquially as the uconn huskies. as a youth, i always believed this was a canadian school and team because of my childhood allusions to the adventures of "sergeant preston and yukon king." anywho, back to the utah jazz... the n'awlins jazz moved to utah for the 1979-1981 nba season where they decided not only to keep the nickname but the team colours of green, purple and gold which were representative of mardi gras, as well. of course, if you know anything of mardi gras, it is a decidedly un-mormon ceremony. in a perfect world, one would hope for new orleans' current basketball team of the hornets (formerly of charlotte) to take back the jazz moniker. but where would this leave utah after losing jazz? as it happens, in a serendipitous turn of kismet, utah's nickname is "the beehive state" where the title of hornets would be more than germane and appropriate... that is, if it is in fact, a reference to bees and not the popular women's hairdo of the 1960s and winehouse.

Dont Want To Wait Anymore - The Tubes - The Tubes
ba dum BLOG's!!! first embedded video, ba dum BLOG's!!! first embedded video!!!! what could spur such a momentous occasion? a little known 1981 music video from the san franicisco outfit, "the tubes," of course. now, i have seen various mtv and vh1 clip shows of which would lampoon such outrageous acts of music video decadence and absurdity. however, i have not seen nor am i aware of such lampooning of this particular production and feel it's my duty to make this li'l nugget of whimsy viral. heck, it's so unknown i couldn't even find it on the youtube.com! the song is aptly titled "don't want to wait anymore" and it's nothing more than a pretentious power ballad of some creep, bill "sputnik" spooner (spoon her???), creating a hypothetical scenario where him and his presumably prudish and refusing to putout gal pal are the last two on earth, stranded on a desert isle and are inevitably tasked with starting the world anew in order to survive, through sexual intercourse of which he'll teach her the ways of. with that blogged, this also raises the question of how old this perv's lady is because "putting out" and having to be taught how to make sex noises aren't traditional problems for ladies in bill "sputnik" spooner's (spoon her???) age range. anyway, that's the lyrical aspect of it all. aside from the obvious and dated silliness of the early 80's motif of the video, there are more pointed observations that must be blogged. to begin, this stooge has this ginormous, white electric guitar just hanging from his shoulders, drawing the images of a yoked ox, all of which he barely even strums; his hands are just sort of idling on the edge of the guitar for the majority of the time... UNTIL, he "just can't take it anymore!" and limps up the stairway to nowhere with all the grace and dexterity of quasimodo, only to feebly raise the guitar over his head where he, inexplicably and angstily, tosses it into the ankle deep water below. what does this mean??? and, even more vexing, after the guitar climatically splashes down, two members from the cast of "cats" pounce into the water from either side (i've watched/paused this multiple times and this is the best i could blog up with). so yeah, that's that... if you find this a mere modicum as interesting and entertaining as i do, i more than succeeded in blogging my feelings of mirth and merry.

sorry ladies, but it's okay for us to cheat on you. while, on the other hand, gals aren't allowed to step out on us. before i blog any further, please note that i'm dealing in the most general of generalities where the phrase "most of the time" (about 75%) reigns supreme. yes, that's a double standard and there should be double standards betwixt genders because you're from venus and we're from mars. and, in a more biological sense, as long as we can impregnate infinite women at a time where upon you can only be impregnated by one man at a time, you'll remain sluts while we're hailed as "mack daddies." also, as another caveat, we're blogging about cheating (one night stands, aliases and business trips) and not affairs (prolonged trysts, a toothbrush at her place, the promise of leaving our wife, etc). first of all, chicks can't do it because you're too emotional and sex "means something." or, if sex doesn't mean something to you, you're just an aforementioned slut and we'll want you for nothing more, anyway. as for men, we can make the beast with two backs, not know your name, never want to see you again and never think about you again... unless, of course, we've added you to our solitaire reel. we're just wired differently; we're ramblers. of course this isn't fair but fear not, ladies! you need not worry because men will only be caught/admit to it when/if they want to be caught. see, such known indiscretion will only be used to either make you angry as to push you away from us to the point of you leaving us so we won't have to, or to manipulate the relationship in our favour to let you know, in no uncertain terms, that you best step it up because we gots a bullpen in case we've deemed you ineffective. the good news??? if we never clue you in on or sloppily let you discover said liaisons, that means we're just sowing our proverbial oats and really love you and like you just the way you are and aren't interested in manipulating you or the relationship by dangling the carrot of other women over your pretty little heads. on the other hand, when you step out on us, there'll ALWAYS be an ulterior motive beyond gettin' down because you're a bunch of jezebelles and will ONLY use it as a vehicle of destruction. because... girls... are... DIRTY!!!

ba dum BLOG!!!

editor's note: let it be known that ba dum BLOGger has only had 2 1/2 sexual encounters (1 1/2 of which took place on the internets) so his opines on male/female realtionships are mostly developed through old episodes of "silk stalkings" and "the scarecrow and mrs. king."

blogging, to and fro, in perpetuity

it's a common misconception that the key to comedy is... TIMING!!! au contraire mon fraire, sometimes the most hilarious things in life are such because of the untimely and outdated nature in which they've been broached and/or blogged. for example, randomly blogging about forgettable family features from the years 1998 and 2004, respectively, is much funnier and more interesting than blogging about obvious/relevant moving pictures such as "fast and furious" being faster, more furious but with less "the." okay, enough prologue; check out the two movie posters... how can this happen??? on your top left, you have the 1998 disney movie starring daniel stern called "tourist trap." then, on your bottom right, you have your 2004 robin williams vehicle (pun INTENDED) of "rv." the plots are different but similar enough: nutty, overenthusiastic dad takes reluctant family on vacay in an rv where hilarious hijinx ensue. that's fine; no mainstream movies are original and all can usually be gleaned, cliché plot point by cliché plot point, the second you even lay eyes on the movie poster. AHAAA, THE MOVIE POSTER!!! does this drive (pun INTENDED!) you guys as crazy as it does me??? in fact, i've been driven soooo cRAzY i just drove my motor house to the top of a roadless peak where i'll just let it teeter, to and fro, in perpetuity! how can "rv" just blatantly rip off "tourist trap" like this? columbia pictures produced "rv" and you'd think disney would've sued the pants off them, right? now, i’ve never had the pleasure of seeing either movie but i wouldn’t even be the least bit surprised if this scene never even occurs… I mean, how could it??? seriously.

ba dum BLOG!!!

editor's note: thanks for sticking with us. mo' betta' and mo' frequenta' blogs to come. seriously. really.