In case you’ve been living under a rock, I will gladly update you on the biggest offseason story from the NFL thus far. Fortunately, this story takes place in Wisconsin, so even Milwaukee is up to speed, which makes my job easier.

Famed comedic actor and occasional quarterback Brett Favre finally gave the sports media their collective ejaculation last week after a “no means no” response to their incessant retirement questions for the past 5 or so years. It has been dubbed by many as the “Saddest Day in Wisconsin”, which effectively illustrates the depressing nature of Wisconsin. Number Four held a press conference on Thursday to announce his decision, and the NFL’s Ironman turned on the waterworks for the first time I can recall, at a venue appropriate for such an emotional response.

I’m no expert on physical pain, and as a robot I have successfully avoided emotional distress, but it would compute that voluntarily walking away from a profession that has returned to you as much as you have given make invoke some deep feelings, even in a man who started 253 consecutive games with a target on his weak side. It’s not unreasonable to believe that these feelings of sadness, remorse and gratitude could lead to a salty optical discharge (not to be confused with the salty discharge I produce that leads to feelings of sadness, remorse, guilt and embarrassment).

Apparently, not everyone shares my belief that even great quarterbacks with perma-stubble deserve a one time display of weakness. Fox News “sports commentator” Laura Ingraham had the following to say:

“Even these big, hulky strong impressive men today are in a situation where they just break down blubbering for like 20 minutes at a retirement press conference. And women, overwhelmingly, calling into my show, said we really like Brett Favre, we think he’s amazing, but enough with the waterworks. … I mean, the sobs, they just never stopped.”

Ok, so maybe that wasn’t so much her calling out Mr. Mississippi State as her female callers. Callers who, mind you, only knew Favre as “that cute Southern guy who really filled out the yellow spandex.” However, Ingraham couldn’t leave lame enough alone, according to Fanhouse. On her radio show, Ingraham informed both her listeners that she “didn’t know there was a woman quarterback in the NFL.”

“Brett Favre…we’re watching this in the studio, obviously retiring from the NFL, great quarterback, handsome 38-year-old man, he gets up there and he does this press conference that was frankly one of the most embarrassing things I have ever seen.”

“That’s a great message for young boys. ‘Get up there and act like a girl and start blubbering like a baby.”

It would seem the Milwaukee radio station that carries her show is urging her to apologize. I’ve never been one to come to the defense of utter morons, but there’s no reason for Ingraham to apologize. Her comments were obviously uttered for pure shock value, and the only thing she accomplished was to display her ignorance of the love of the game for players and fans alike. Stating opinions that are baseless and wholly inaccurate is not reason enough to apologize. If it was, Chris Mathews would spend the second half of every Hardball episode wearing an “I know, I’m sorry” v-neck. Ingraham should have the right to state her case and back up her thoughts. She’s not going to realize the err of her ways through an empty apology, but rather through trying to defend herself against a bevy of callers who are true football fans with an appreciation for the great things accomplished by the King Cheesehead.

The simple fact that her disagreement with Brett’s (lack of) composure is not the norm doesn’t mean she is not permitted to think it aloud. I’m not sure when this trend of constant agreement became the norm, but argument and going against the grain is what makes life fun. Last I checked, this is not Communist Russia, so you’re allowed to say whatever you like and, if spoken effectively, attempt to make a living off those words. If not spoken effectively, you end up writing a blog nobody reads and talking to yourself in the elevator several times a day at your shitty desk job. I mean, if that’s what you’re into. Yeah.

I’ve about had it with the deeply religious demographic that constitutes a substantial percentage of the political party I wholeheartedly support. Granted, I will admit to anyone that I am moderate or even a little to the left on certain social issues (many due to apathy), but for the most part I’m firmly entrenched in Republicanland.

Now, I understand the religious right’s pro-life stance and, while I don’t fully agree with it, I get where they’re coming from. It’s these other menial, nonsensical protests they make against shit that isn’t of any importance that drives me up a wall. This week, after the announcement by J.K. Rowling that the Harry Potter character Dumbledore is a homosexual, St. Joseph’s School in Massachusetts has banned all Harry Potter books from their curriculum. Really, Catholic Crazies? Are you that naïve to think that the appearance of a gay character in the most popular children’s book series is enough to drive impressionable youth to the supposed “dark side”?

A woman who wished to remain anonymous, informed the Boston Globe that St. Joseph’s Rev. Ron Barker thought, “most children were strong enough to resist the temptation”, but that “it’s his job to protect the weak and the strong.” Protect them from what, thinly controversial fiction? While Barker claims the banning was due to the themes of witchcraft and sorcery that he deemed inappropriate for his Catholic School, it carries an obvious homophobic undertone given recent events.

When you consider that this group of secondary school children is at least the second generation that would prefer the likes of MySpace to Mark Twain and Grey’s Anatomy to the Great Gatsby, educators should be (and some are) wildly grateful to Rowling for getting kids to read anything not from Seventeen Magazine or TMZ.com. Granted I’m guilty myself of avoiding non-required reading between the ages of 18 and 23, but I’ve come to the realization that the knowledge, insight and creativity that can be acquired from setting aside some regular reading time is not available on MTV or VH1.

Isn’t our education system in enough trouble without cutting harmless literature off at the knees? This kind of censorship is akin to discrimination, as hateful action towards creative works different from “the norm”. Maybe if we actually broadened the creative spectrum that we offered to our children, they might … wait for it … grow as individuals and find an outlet for their own creativity, namely not an outlet that includes finding the sharpest object to draw the most abstract lines in their forearms.
Handcuffing children to only classic or mundane “approved” reading because you’re afraid they’ll develop an interest in sorcery is about as asinine as the me theorizing that screening Passion of the Christ to grade-schoolers will motivate them to nail the unpopular kids to the monkey bars. For that matter, PETA really needs to propose renaming “monkey bars”, as the term is offensive to primates. But I suppose that’s a different post for a different day.

I saw the report on Drudge the other day that Don Imus would be making his comeback sooner than expected, with an eight-figure deal and debuting on the country’s most popular talk station. Even with as little as I could care for Imus’ programming, this is a major statement for free speech in this country, a concept foreign even to our elected representatives. About a month ago, the Rutgers Women’s Basketball player I referenced who was suing The Don came to her senses and withdrew her ludicrous defamation lawsuit.

I’m not sure why the past six months has been the scene for increasing attacks on talk radio, but it’s gotten to the point where you can’t creatively insult anyone these days without being subject to the wrath of the Al Sharpton’s of the world. It’s the public figures who refuse to recognize their potential for mistakes that should be put under a microscope, but by their listener/fan base and not the federal government.

One of my favorite quotes comes from Rush Limbaugh, another talk radio host to come under recent fire for comments pulled out of context (this quote is not among those comments): “We need to ban political correctness. It causes paralysis. It causes fear. It prevents people from being who they truly are.” Blatant established hate speech aside, what actual damage have snide comments and colorful language ever actually had on the individual? The only results I’ve seen personally is the estrangement of a few of my thin-skinned, fake friends, which is a risk I’m willing to take in trade for speaking my mind whenever I choose.

A fascinating book I bought in recent weeks is Radical Honesty by Brad Blanton. In it, Blanton theorizes that most if not all of our stress is self-induced through feeling a need to lie all the time. Is it feasible to be brutally honest 100% of the time? Blanton thinks so, but even I am not so brave to put all of my professional and personal relationships at risk. Perhaps that’s a selfish behavior, but I’m unable to see fault in the occasionally self-serving approach to living.

More problems arise from perpetuating this idea of our world as a fairy tale than any of the material deemed risqué by the self-proclaimed content police. At the risk of donning the guise of one Captain Obvious, not everyone is going to get along with everyone else. In fact, it is controversy that is the catalyst for discussion, which at least has the potential for spurring competition, the very backbone of our great American society. The “Shock Jock” types in various forms of media are wealthy and famous for the exact reason that they put you on the defensive. Without the Bill Maher’s, Ann Coulter’s and Howard Stern’s of the world, our existence would be a bland and lackluster one to put it lightly.

To some people, Christmas, with the blanketing snow, family gatherings and Nat King Cole music, is the most magical holiday each year. Other people prefer the Thanksgiving feast and football, while self-serving co-dependent types cherish Valentine’s Day. You even have the couple potentially institution candidates out there who actually celebrate Flag Day or Arbor Day. For me, though, Halloween takes the proverbial cake and is head and shoulders above other holidays on my care-o-meter. In the United States, at least, All Hallows Eve has that dark tone to it while still planting nightmares of diabetic comas in the heads of parents nationwide.

There is one major aspect of Halloween that gives it a significant edge over St. Patty’s Day as the most fun holiday: Promiscuous women in tiny costumes (Sexy Sexy!). At 25 I am still relatively young, and dedicated alcohol abuse has effectively clouded most of my childhood memories, so I can’t be sure how prevalent the scantily clad costume movement was earlier than, say, 10 years ago. However, I fully embrace the trend and wish that Halloween was at least 200 days a year, if not year round.

Just from a sociological point of view, the week of Halloween gives everyone license to throw caution to the wind and dress to whatever extreme their personal limits will allow, without any great repercussions. For women (of unfortunately all shapes and sizes), this limit often includes no more than wearing as little clothing as publicly allowed in the theme of some normally respectable profession. In warmer climates like here in North Florida, the couple weeks leading up to Halloween are reminiscent of those preceding Spring Break, as scores of women hit the Stairmaster to ensure they’ll fit into a generic, mass-produced Size 2 “Sexy Cop” costume. The main thing it represents is an unbridled embracing of their sexuality, amplifying the human desire to garner the most attention possible at various bars, costume parties and gangbangs.

This phenomenon is wasted by only being acceptable one time each year, when I am positive that implementing it a minimum of once a week would not result in it getting old. If there’s anything that the Feminist Movement has taught me, it’s that the fairer sex is deserving of the same open level of sexual expression as men. I believe that is the underlying message, and nobody will convince me otherwise. Of course, this is coming from someone who is a vocal proponent for allowing women to be equally topless as men in warm. I know, I know. I’m a pioneer. You’re welcome.

I know what you’re thinking, too. I’m only justifying the objectification of women who are confident enough to flaunt it a little. While that may be wholly accurate, I fail to see exactly what’s wrong with that train of thought. It would seem that one must fear recognizing physical beauty in these times for several ridiculous reasons. My personal favorite is the woman who complains that she is not taken seriously because she is physically attractive. It is the minority of men in a professional setting who cannot recognize a valid skill set in any coworker, regardless of their peer’s gender. While your canned chauvinists who can’t see past your cup size are certainly out there, they should be treated with no less indifference than other small-minded people we all encounter on a regular basis.

The more pressing issue, rather, is a competitive nature between female peers and the hatred of the perceived unfair advantage awarded to attractive women that stifles any celebration or even recognition of sexuality. Even in settings where this advantage exists, the “disadvantaged” should only be that much more motivated to excel. The perpetuation of the belief that life is not but should be entirely fair accomplishes nothing but inciting self-pity, the most useless emotion available.

It is a cruel double-edged sword that women are able to use sexuality to help obtain a wide array of things in their lives, but they must mask it with such discretion and innocence that it carries a sort of corrupt stigma with it, which is unfair to both genders; Those women who have a soul have to carry the baggage of guilt with them for using what they work hard at for personal gain, while unsuspecting men fall prey to the wiles of an attractive female faking genuine interest. If we could all thicken up our skin a little and realize that things like physical presentation do make a difference in making impressions and maintaining all types of relationships, the increase in transparency of our intentions would make the pill of life a little bit easier to swallow.

To the best of my knowledge, it all started with the McDonald’s hot coffee incident. While the fast food restaurant had been warned repeatedly to lower the temperature at which they kept their coffee, the lesson learned by the general public was this: You can sue anyone for anything. Hell, apparently you can even sue the pants off someone over losing your pants (I’m aware he lost, but this thing still went to court). This disturbing trend of people wanting to reap rewards disproportionate to the supposed pain, agony, suffering and other inaccurate descriptions of their harrowing experiences was birthed with the McDonald’s incident and is perpetuated by greedy civil lawyers. Wait, “greedy civil lawyer” is redundant. My apologies. Please don’t sue me.

The latest attempt by a virtual unknown to exploit money from a known upper-class entity is a lawsuit filed by the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball starting center against Don Imus with defamation of character claims. There’s a reason I did not refer to her by name: Nobody outside the female hoops circle has a clue who she is, and I would have challenged any random person on the street prior to Tuesday to name her without looking it up. Kia Vaughn — thanks, Google — claims that Imus, his co-host and CBS Radio are legally responsible for the slander perpetrated by Imus that has ruined her reputation. Her attorney Richard Ancowitz claims that “She would do anything to return to her life as a student and respected basketball player—a more simple life before Imus opened his mouth on April 4.” A more appropriate quote would be “She would do anything to make sure she’s financially set for life, at the expense of a shock jock radio host and his former employer.”

If you legitimately believe that comments made by Don Imus are going to be taken into consideration when a first impression is being made, you’re a damn fool. A goddamn fool. Let me set the scene for you. 3 years from now, Kia Vaughn is all set for an interview for an entry-level position at a New York City law firm. Ten minutes in, the following exchange takes place:

Interviewer: Well Miss Vaughn, your resume is impressive. You have a stellar GPA, competent references and an exceptional amount of involvement in the community, as evidenced by your work with Boys and Girls Town and Habitat for Humanity. Unfortunately, we have an upstanding reputation to keep here at Segregate, Bigot and Tom, and I worry that your lack of respect for your own appearance might be a detriment were you to become a part of our family.

Vaughn: I’m not sure I understa…

Interviewer: … It’s pretty common knowledge that you are nappy-headed. If you had been more aware of your surroundings and had seen the 37 pieces of Don Imus memorabilia peppering my office, including the signed caricature of him with me on his lap, you would realize that the man’s word is gospel. We have a strict business-casual dress code here, and I can’t allow my employees to show up to work with their hair an unkempt mess.

Vaughn: But sir what Imus said is just not true…

Interviewer: …I wasn’t finished. Please don’t interrupt me, especially not with such blasphemous claims against The Imus. We also highly frown on inappropriate sexual behavior between coworkers, as it promotes an uncomfortable work environment for those involved as well as those around you. Your morally casual attitude as a “ho” would be an obvious violation of these policies. I’m deeply regretful that we will never be able to offer you a position, and I have personally blacklisted you from all other major agencies.

Vaughn (leaving, dejected): Ummm… Thank you for your time?

Interviewer: Have a lovely day. *salutes* Truth be to Imus!

Frightening, isn’t it? The horror this poor girl is going to have to endure the rest of her life surely entitles her to a few million. Back in April on the Oprah Winfrey show, the pinnacle of exploitation and victimization, Vaughn said, “Our moment was stolen from us. Instead of us coming here to enjoy what we accomplished and how far we came, we had to sit back and look at media asking questions about what he said.” Did you ever think about striking back at the media, who blows anything and everything out of proportion just to bleed out a few stories, dipshit? Perhaps if you’d spent more time using your own college-educated intellect rather than listening to the attorneys and publicists who are all after their own cut, you’d realize that your new buddy Oprah wouldn’t have been quite as inclined to call you for an appearance simply based on your athletic achievements, no matter how impressive. Then again, who am I kidding aside from myself? Every one of the people who have been affected by this tragedy, from coaches and players to Al Sharpton, is relishing in every single second of increased notoriety it has brought.

I think I’ve found my new calling in life. Leave me a message if you’d be interested in funding a consulting company that trains people on how to convincingly act offended by passing comments in preparation for capitalizing on this newfound emotional scarring for big bucks. I’ll call it “Sticks and Stones” and it will be huge. If these morons can sell their souls to make it rich, why not me?

Typically, Libs across the country are constantly accusing right-wing conservatives of trying to live in the past and being opposed to modernizing the laws of our great nation. There is a glaring irony, then, that Democrats in Congress are now pushing to revive a concept originally introduced in the 1940s. It’s known as the “Fairness Doctrine” which, like the titles of all legislative actions in Washington, is a complete contradiction to what it actually proposes.

Those in favor of the Fairness Doctrine are focusing only on talk radio, which should be a clear indication of how ridiculous and agenda-driven the bill is. According to Democrats, the radio airwaves are dominated by Conservative talk programs, and this lack of balance is apparently a great danger to the country (read: danger to the Democratic Party). They propose that radio networks be forced to provide airtime for opposing points of view, “forced” being the keyword. Never mind the fact that programming in all of our media outlets are prime examples of the successes and failures of a free market, or that ratings and advertising rates are an established gauge for what the American people do and do not want to read, watch and listen to. Never mind the fact that dozens of Liberal talk show programs have aired and bombed throughout the years after failing to meet the expectations set forth by ratings and advertisers.

Any Conservative radio host would welcome any capable Democratic personality to take a stab at the marketplace of freely-consumed radio and attempt to become a national success. Hell, if that were to actually happen, Biden and the rest of his cronies would be able to move along and resume convincing women, immigrants and small business owners of their victim status.

The best way to convey the absurdity of the Fairness Doctrine is to consult the Constitution itself, particularly the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This attempt to censor the only mainstream media format without a leftist agenda can only be described as oppressive, fascist and juvenile. Those who would argue that other forms of media are fairly balanced only needed to glance at the front page of Yahoo! News this morning, where under the Political News section there was an AP opinion piece entitled “Thompson strong on style, not substance”. When I am browsing news sources, I prefer not to be bombarded with political pretentiousness.

If this was actually about Fairness, then the proponents of the bill would push for equal representation across all media formats. If anyone thinks that Chris Matthews would volunteer 15 minutes of Hardball to a Conservative host without interruption, I would like to meet that person and confiscate his crazy pills.