No Such Nonsense

A little of this, that and... what was I talking about again? It's TV, sports, pop culture and politics - all the stuff that really matters in life.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Showdown in Dallas

It's Terrell Owens vs.... Jessica Simpson?

Seriously, this is the big feud of the week? After calling Jeff Garcia gay and suggesting that basically any quarterback, especially a white one, would be an improvement over Donovan McNabb, TO has set his sights on the decidedly down-market starlet.

In case you missed it, Jessica is currently desperately fame-whoring her relationship with Dallas quarterback Tony Romo, having been unceremoniously dumped by John Mayer and discovering that Johnny Knoxville will no longer return her phone calls. On Sunday, she showed up in a private box for the Dallas-Philly game, only to watch her new man play the worst game of his professional career, stats-wise and lose the game. (For those interested in Romo's previous worst outing, well that would be when then-girlfriend Carrie Underwood showed up to watch him play).

Joe Buck definitely noticed Jessica was there, in the creepiest 'hey-check-out-the-hot-chick' commentary I've witnessed in a long time, Buck suggested to Troy Aikman that the best thing about being a Dallas quarterback would be the opportunity to nail Jessica Simpson. Aikman didn't seem to agree.

And what does Owens, who had only a handful of balls thrown in his direction on Sunday, several of which ended up in the hands of Eagles defenders, have to say about Simpson, Romo and the Cowboys?

"Right now, Jessica Simpson is not a fan favourite - in this locker-room or in Texas Stadium."

Classy. He went on: "Oh, I got a message for her when we make the playoffs. Just stay tuned."

Way to make it all about TO! Love it.

But not as much as I love this, which was about the funniest thing I read all week:

"FOX has shown Jessica Simpson roughly 217 times in the last five minutes. She's in a luxury box wearing one of those pink jerseys ... the way Romo's playing, he might as well be wearing one, too. If he finds it difficult to perform when she's around, it's going to be a detriment to both the Dallas Cowboys, and to Jessica Simpson's chances at sexual gratification."

All of this really leaves me with one question: Is moving from Carrie Underwood to Jessica Simpson trading up? Or trading down?

Friday, December 14, 2007

Rock on, Hall of Fame, Rock on!

In an election about as suspenseful as Vladimir Putin's last Presidential campaign (or Hazel McCallion's mayoral race for that matter), the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has deemed Madonna worthy of induction. As Madge ranks as the most successful (in terms of sales, influence, notoriety, longevity, you name it) female musician of any era, was there every any doubt? The minute Madonna hit the VMAs stage in a wedding dress to perform Like A Virgin, her legend was established.

Along with Madonna in the shoo-in category was Leonard Cohen (who my friend the2Scoops did not include in his own list of likely inductees way back in October). If influence and coolness matter - and clearly they do - Cohen was a total lock.

Missing out? The Beastie Boys! So, John Mellencamp beats out the boys from Brooklyn? A guy whose entire current career is based on selling pick-up trucks. The poor man's Bruce Springsteen? I mean, I love Jack and Diane as much as the next gal, and I, too, thought Ch-Check it Out was lame - but the Beasties launched new genres of music, made some of the most influential videos of MTV's golden era (thank you Spike Jones) and inspired a generation of kids to Fight for Their Right (to par-tee). Oh, and they spawned Vanilla Ice - so maybe they should be punished after all.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

German Job-sharing

I don't know why, but this story, about F1 legend Michael Schumacher taking the wheel from a starstruck and slow-moving cabbie made me laugh. If you ask me, this is a commercial waiting to happen...

The Eckler Paradox

What makes me go to her site? Why can't I just ignore her? What bizarre compulsion forces me to see just how much she can abuse the English language?

Of course, like all reasonable women of my age, I have a hate on for Rebecca Eckler. Sure, some of it is plain old jealousy. In her mid-20s, she was given the remarkable opportunity (and sizable paycheck) of a regular column in a national newspaper. She was given reign to write about herself, her friends, her life, her generation. Unlike some who snipe that she slept her way into it, I tend to believe that she was just fortunate enough to be in the right place, with the right credentials and experience, at the right time. And great hair. So maybe I do envy her the plum job she held from 2000-2006. But that isn't why I hate her.

I hate her because she took that plum assignment and outright sucked.

Her writing was vapid. Her persona unpleasant and narcissistic. Some of her articles - including the one about her boyfriend leaving little gifts of cash around the house - so offended me as a woman that I was equal parts astonished, embarrassed and angry. This nitwit, the voice of my generation? Say what you want about Blatchford and DiManno, they aren't weak, simpering or dumb. They aren't the Paris Hiltons of journalism - and that is was Eckler was and is.

In 2006, she was dumped from the Post and has spend the last few years writing books, practising yoga, raising her daughter, accusing Judd Apatow of plagiarism and blogging. Her 'mommy blog' is Nine Pound Dictator. And it, too, sucks. The last post was about oh-so-early phone calls. If it had a point I missed it.

But I read it. Maybe it is self-flagellation. But I read it and then head straight here, to read notes from people who hate her a lot more than I do. But despite the hate, they, too, can't help reading her.

I think I need some sort of useless-anti-feminist-grammatically-challenged-writer intervention. Or maybe some yoga. Or maybe Leah MacLaren is free for a coffee later.

Would you Rather... (Freakonmics Edition)

One of my favourite blog-stops is the one from the Freakonomics boys, here. (Haven't read Freakonomics? You should! Go buy it. Right now. I'll wait).

Anyway, one of the best things about the Freakonomics blog is the give-and-take with their readers. Take this post from yesterday: Dubner asks, "So, keeping in mind the two men’s ages, crimes, prison terms, reputational hits, post-prison opportunities, etc., tell us who you’d rather be, Conrad Black or Michael Vick."

That's a damn fine question. But it is the answers that are really interesting. A number of people pick Vick based purely on the fact that he's a lot younger (apparently being old is a fate worse than being a total dumbass). Intriguingly, lots of folks, despite the longer sentence, would rather be Black. The reasoning seems to be around the fact that he remains financially secure for the rest of his life and that his reputation is less damaged than Vick's. I dunno. Michael Vick isn't poor. And when he gets out of prison, someone will pay him a lot of money to play football again - either in the Arena Football League, or maybe even in the NFL. You can't tell me the Dolphins wouldn't take him. He and Ricky Williams could be roommates.

Now for me, I'd rather be Black because, while he is arrogant and obnoxious and massively self-satisfied, he sure isn't dumb. Vick, on the other hand, isn't setting any IQ records. Conrad will be fine. Vick will totally fuck up again. Otherwise, he just wouldn't be Michael Vick.