April Guest Blogger -- Eric Duncan

 

Eric Duncan of E-Dunc's World

Hello Followers of The Hot and Bothered Effect:

As has been promised to you, once a month I will have a guest blogger from another blog come and post on The Hot and Bothered Effect so that you can get an appreciation for different writing styles, points of view, and blogs. It will also give other blogs operated by friends of mine a chance to get some more exposure for their blogs. This month's Guest Blogger will be my friend Eric Duncan who operates E-Dunc's World. Much of his blog involves analyzing pop culture and lamenting the utter disaster that is his beloved Buffalo Bills. But there's also some good social commentary to be had. He also has a string of posts that follow the Bills week-to-week known as "E-Dunc Misery Watch". That is what you'll see in this excerpt from E-Dunc's World:

E-Dunc Misery Watch: Day 3,917

One of the most important things in the world to me is the Buffalo Bills. This explains three things about me: where my sense of humor comes from (defense mechanism), why I'm so pessimistic, and why I'm constantly on the verge of a homicidal rampage (joking ... mostly).

Anyway, the Bills made a decision this week that perfectly sums up our front office: we cut our Week 1 starter and our 13th "Quarterback of the Future" Trent Edwards. Now, if you polled Bills fans before the season, roughly 99.9% of them would have ranked Trent's performance last year somewhere between "unbelievably terrible" and "Rob Johnson" (NOTE: for Bills fans, there is no playing worse than Rob Johnson).

Despite all of this evidence the Bills front office decided to give ol' Captain Checkdown one more shot at the start of the year. After two games of dropping back in the pocket, pissing his pants and throwing the ball to the physically closest receiver for a gain of two on 3rd-and-12, the Bills caught up with the rest of Bills fans and benched Trentative in favor of former Bengals-great and Ivy League-standout Ryan Fitzpatrick (who has the third highest Wonderlich score in Combine history, which I think we can all agree has a direct correlation to Super Bowl titles).

Fitzpatrick played well against Belichick and the Cheaters leading the Bills to a less-embarrassing-than-expected loss 38-30 this weekend. The Bills responded by cutting ol' Fraidy Cat loose on Monday because apparently you can go from starter to worthless in a week.

Finally, the Bills can get some
payback against the Jags for Rob Johnson,
seen above in his natural position, sacked.

Edwards was scooped up less than 24 hours after he was cut suggesting that there might have been some sort of trade market for him (which the Bills naturally didn't even explore). Where did he land? Jacksonville. I'm personally hoping they make him their quarterback of the future and we can finally have some karmic retribution for them hoodwinking us into trading for Rob Johnson (granted, the Bills organization isn't exactly difficult to hoodwink).

I'm just excited for by the Bills' current QB depth chart:

Ryan Fitzpatrick: 58.3 PCT, 23 TD, 29 INT, 68.6 RAT
Bryan Brohm: 58.6 PCT, 0 TD, 2 INT, 43.2 RAT
Levi Brown: 7th Round Draft pick out of Troy, cut after Training Camp

Bills Football: Feel the Excitement!

E-Dunc Misery Watch: Day 3,923

Sure, the team is better looking now,
but is it actually better without
Marshawn Lynch?

The Bills got a lot less ugly today. The Brain Trust traded away one of the few Pro Bowlers left on what is still generously being called a "professional football team." Now granted, you cannot have three high caliber running backs on your team. There just aren't enough carries to go around. So at the end of the day, somebody had to go and Lynch made himself the most expendable by his off the field indiscretions (he got caught smoking pot in an SUV he had inexplicably removed the license plates from and got arrested on gun charges).

This of course brings me back to last year's draft. On a team that had no quality offensive tackles, no starting-caliber quarterbacks, and no pass-catching tight end, the Brain Trust took a running back, something that we already had excellent depth at. Spiller is a phenomenal talent and is a big play waiting to happen, but in my opinion his ceiling is Reggie Bush: an exciting contributor who will never be able to carry a team. By trading Marshawn, we are essentially left with Fast Freddy Jackson as our only serious run threat. I hope that Spiller can break a few big runs the rest of the year, but he's shown no indications that he's ready to do that as a running back (he's showed a lot of promise coming out of the slot and on screen passes, not to mention kick returns but has been less than impressive on run plays).

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but the Bills offense is going to be even more terrible down the stretch as we now lack any semblance of a power running game.

A look into the Bills draft room minutes
before the CJ Spiller pick.

"But E-Dunc," you may be saying, "you have to build for the future and I'm sure you got some good draft picks for him!" Good point, although I would hesitate to say a fourth round pick is the solution to our problem (although it's probably the best we could do). It's clear that the Bills have so many needs that we need all draft choices we can get to fill them. The problem is, given how badly the Brain Trust botched last year's draft, I'm terrified what we're going to do with them. I could see us doing something inexplicable like drafting A.J. Green and then having to trade Lee Evans for a fourth round pick (or as I call it, deja vu) while again refusing to take any tackles for the 83rd year in a row (NOTE: number of years may be an exaggeration).

So good luck in Seattle, Marshawn. If you become an All Pro again, I may have to go all Dexter on One Bills Drive.

E-Dunc Misery Watch: Day 3,950

Half way through the season, and I thought I'd give a shot at breaking down the worst season in Bills history. But first, my thoughts on the Shawne Merriman signing.

Is it worth $1.73 million to
make sure Tila Techila doesn't
set foot in Buffalo? I say yes!

Outside of ensuring that Tila Techila will be staying out of Buffalo for at least four months (a HUGE plus), this is a fairly confusing signing. This is Merriman's final year on his contract so essentially, all we are doing is renting him for the rest of the year, something that's normally reserved for teams looking for a playoff push. My guess is this is a move by a general manager to prove to a very disgruntled fan base that the franchise is in fact trying to win games (despite evidence to the contrary). At the end of the day, the Bills were going to win a game either way so this doesn't really accomplish anything unless we somehow manage to sign him to a long-term deal (which I put somewhere between impossible and Sarah Palin becoming president).

Anyway, let's get to the breakdown of the season using the best Western of all time.

The Good


Ryan Fitzpatrick
Now let me be clear. Ryan Fitzpatrick is not good enough to lead a team to a playoff victory. He's just not. He can win you between six and nine games a year but he seems to have a problem coming through with the game on the line (see: the KC game last weekend).

Having said that, I'm excited that it doesn't look like we're going to have to start our rookie QB next year. Fitzpatrick can play Kitna to our rookie's Carson Palmer (side-note, Fitzy has a similar skill set to Andrew Luck so I think he would make a good caddie for him).

2011 NFL Draft
This upcoming draft class seems to be deep at the positions we need (most notably quarterback) so if ever it was a good year to have the #1 overall pick, it's looking like 2011 is that year.

The greatest Bills player of the last 15
years? Our punter! Bills Football: Feel
the Excitement!

Brian Moorman
Moorman continues to be the lone bright spot in the utter darkness of Bills fandom. There are two reasons Bills fans get excited when the punt team is on the field: we don't have to watch our offense any more, and we get to see Brian Moorman's golden right boot kick the ball 90 yards.

The Bad


The Offense
After simply an abismal start, the offense has actually looked pretty decent the last two games. The reason it stays in the "Bad" section is because we simply don't have the horses to run the offense that Gailey wants to run. Spiller is coming along, but just isn't an asset yet (not to say he won't be). Jackson continues to play well but behind this offensive line, Barry Sanders would only look like a Pro Bowl running back instead of an Alltime Great.

The Secondary
The best unit on our defense (note that it's still in the "Bad" section, that should tell you something), the failed-wide-receiver corp still has a problem with catching the ball. Normally not something you worry about from the secondary, but with a defense this bad, you need turnovers to get them off the field as quickly as possible. The problem is, we have so many other dire problems that I don't see this being fixed any time soon.

Guards
Eric Wood and Adam Levitre are both passable NFL guards, which is the best compliment you can pay anyone on the worst offensive line in the NFL. Special kudos to Woods who is in his second year and continues to improve.

The Ugly


Offensive Tackles
There really isn't much to say. They're terrible. Awful. The worst I've ever seen and we've had a ton of bad tackles in Buffalo in the past. Maybe in the future we should steer clear of illegitimate children of NBA Hall of Famers who couldn't win titles in their sport either.

Run Defense
I could be the slowest, least athletic person who has ever attempted to play football. Ok, that might be an exaggeration, but I'm certainly in the bottom five. Anyway, I am confident that I could rush for 20 yards behind an average offensive line against the Bills.

By the way, it took me a while to figure how to adequately describe how terrible this defense is. I went with the ridiculous statement over an unbelievably complicated metaphor based loosely on the plot of Inception.

"What do you think, AJ Green? I
mean, he's an exciting playmaker!
We can't have too many of them,
right?"

Front Office
The team the Brain Trust threw out onto the field at the beginning of the year is nothing short of pathetic. The in-season moves have been just as bad, letting Trent Edwards go for absolutely nothing and allegedly jumping on the first serious offer for Marshawn Lynch without shopping him around. While I'm pumped for all these early draft picks, I'm terrified at what these bozos are going to do with them.

The Lush Life Chronicles - - Volume 8: The Sounding Board

Way back in March I introduced you to a Pillar of The American Dream that I called The Clark. I told you that it was not to be confused with your best friend. I'll tell you the same thing applies here in regards to the person that you call The Sounding Board. However, if The Clark and The Sounding Board are the same person, it might be fair to assume that they are your best friend. Because when a person helps you fulfill two Pillars of The Lush Life...well, that's what best friends are all about. The Sounding Board provides a service that everybody needs and thus people will pay obscene amounts of money in order to obtain it. The services that The Sounding Board provides form the basis for a billion dollar industry. But I don't know if I can stress fervently enough that The Sounding Board cannot be purchased. Attempting to purchase such an item will devalue it of all that makes it a worthy Pillar of the Lush Life. No, The Lush Life mandates that the person who acts as your The Sounding Board does so because they care about you.

Whenever somebody experiences something that is comedic yet traumatic at the same time they are often able to joke about how much their future therapy will cost. Therapy is ridiculously expensive, but it's also a human necessity. Therapy is not a frivolous luxury. The need for humans to talk about their problems is real and necessary. If your rich you can afford to pay a professional with "expertise" to do it. If you're poor you can hope to find people generous enough to help you deal with your issues for free, or you can bottle them up until you pop off a few shots from an upper floor of the book depository. Your mental health depends upon your ability to release your frustrations and anger in a cathartic manner. Other Pillars of The Lush Life including The Bubble, The Hobby, and The Kelli can all help with this, but nothing has been as proven a tried and true method for solving your problems as talking about them with somebody who wants to help you.

I don't have any problem with therapy whatsoever. It helps a lot of people and a lot of people really need it. However, it's not The Sounding Board. The Sounding Board is free by it's very nature. Therapy requires you to schedule an appointment. The Sounding Board should be there for you whenever you need it. You have a professional therapist-patient relationship with your therapist that likely does not get crossed outside of sessions. The Sounding Board requires an extensive level of trust in comfort in companionship that is built out in the real world. And most importantly a therapist wants you to be happy out of the vested interest that you are a client and that your well-being reflects upon them. The Sounding Board wants you to be happy because they care about you on a deeper level and in a way your happiness is there happiness. At it's simplest level The Sounding Board is just somebody that you can talk to and share anything with. They should be a good listener but also capable of giving you honest and constructive feedback. At it's most complex level The Sounding Board is a mentor who challenges you to be the most creative, healthy, productive person you can be.

The Sounding Board doesn't have to be your best friend or a close family member, but it should be somebody who you have confidence in and who you feel comfortable talking to. Oftentimes, this results from a sense of shared personal experiences. Your AA sponsor is somebody that you can share your personal fears and shortcomings with because they have likely had similar issues and can understand things that your friends or family would not. Listening is probably the most important part of the job for The Sounding Board. However, it shouldn't be passive listening. A good The Sounding Board will make the speaker feel like you are engaged, but more importantly that they are not being judged. They have chosen to share something with you because they feel like you are a safe haven. Don't misplace that trust by placing judgment upon that persons choices, feelings, or beliefs. However, this is a two-way street. Don't tell The Sounding Board things that they should reasonably have to pass judgment on.  If you find that you have an insatiable desire to strangle young, blonde prostitutes...don't tell The Sounding Board. Tell your therapist, which you should probably have.

However, The Sounding Board is more than somebody who listens to your problems. They should also want to listen to your successes. The Sounding Board is just a good, comfortable conversationalist. The conversations don't have to be heavy or about problems. They're just somebody that you can talk to about anything. You can tell them about the hot new guy/girl you like, your frustrations with your new job, or request their advice on buying a new car or home. And advice is also a very important dimension of your relationship with The Sounding Board. Sometimes, what you're telling them is just about you needing to vent and all you need for them is to nod and respond with things like "Right on" and "That's understandable". However, sometimes you're confused about a situation or occurrence and you need the recommendation of a person who is sound of mine on what course of action you should take. This is why The Sounding Board should be more than a good listener. They should also be somebody with good sense who can competently impart advice. You don't want a "Yes Man" as your The Sounding Board. It's important that The Sounding Board is willing to offend your delicate sensibilities in order to make sure that you don't do something stupid or reckless.

Sometimes The Sounding Board doesn't even need to speak their piece in order to give you advice. I have a lot of ideas and usually talking them over with people will allow me to gauge their value using only that person's body language. Oftentimes I realize that I have a great idea on my hand's and significantly less often I might realize that my idea is incredibly stupid. However, somebody to talk to who's a good listener and can offer you meaningful feedback is significantly harder to find in today's America. Our attention spans are dropping to near record lows with all of the technological advances that have put whatever we want within our reach whenever we want it. We have also become a more self-concerned society. We are less interested in listening to other people when we could be talking about ourselves. But the biggest obstacle might be that social networking has made it so that friendships are easier to come by and thus require less effort. I'm sure that most of you reading this have a lot of friends. But how much effort do you put into those friendships? And how many friendships do you have where they would work awkwardly if you were the only two people in the room? Too many acquaintanceships require other people or mutual friends to sweeten the pot in order to make conversation flow.

I've stated many times that these Pillars of the Lush Life are something to be "achieved" or "attained". However, achieving a Pillar of the Lush Life isn't like getting 3 stars on a level of Angry Birds. You don't just attain it and then move on. Lush Life Pillars are something that have to be worked on consistently and indefinitely throughout your life to be maintained. There should never be a sense of complacency that you ever have too much success within a certain realm of The Lush Life. However, Pillars are also judged on a spectrum. I might think that I have a Pillar pretty well handled, however, I might not have nearly as firm of a grip on it as a friend of mine. Everybody has some semblance of each of these Pillars, but few people have mastered all 12 of them. I like to think that I have The Sounding Board in my life and to some extent I do. I have friends who are willing to listen to me and who will respond frankly to my problems, ideas, and stories with incites of their own. However, I don't have a single person in my life who I can talk to about anything. There are always things that I will keep to myself in the deep, dark recesses of my heart. And part of this means that I may have not found the right person who I can share anything with. The other part of this means that maybe I have, but I'm just not ready to.

This is because The Sounding Board is also about you and your willingness to open up. You can have the most enthusiastically helpful circle of friends and family ever, but if you are not willing to open up and share what needs to be shared to put yourself at ease then The Sounding Board will never work at full capacity. This might be my biggest issue with attaining The Sounding Board. I have trust issues. My thoughts on keeping secrets is: two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead. I don't know that I am capable, at this stage of my life, of telling a person something that I'm not comfortable with the whole world knowing. And that's no way to live The Lush Life. Luckily for me, I have very few things that I'm not comfortable with the whole world knowing. And this philosophy helps me in a couple of ways. Firstly, I almost never say mean things about people that I wouldn't say to their face and never things that I wouldn't be okay with them finding out that I said. And I think that this makes my world a much kinder place. Secondly, I say a lot of wildly inappropriate things which are less than half of the wildly inappropriate things that I think. Thirdly, I think that I converse better with people who are more excited to talk to me because I don't have a history of saddling them with my problems and personal feelings.

However, having to hold things inside isn't especially healthy. It's socially necessary, but everybody should have that The Sounding Board who they can share anything with. This is the person with whom you don't have to feel any shame for what you think or say. And that person is a very rare person indeed. It's a built in defense function within our society for people to judge you based upon what you say. It makes most people watch what they say so that we're not just spouting ignorant shit all day. Some people (e.g. Charlie Sheen, Sarah Palin, Michael Moore) ignore this function, but that doesn't mean that the function doesn't exist. People are still judging. To have somebody who won't pass judgment on you or think less of you for what you say is a beautiful thing. It means that even when they don't agree with you and your ignorant half-assed logic, they still care enough for the greater aspects of your person that they don't let it taint their opinion of you. Treasure that...for it's a very important step on the road to The Lush Life.

Union Jack-asses: Why Ray dislikes the British

In honor of the Royal Wedding that is coming up at the end of this month...Ray is dedicating two posts to the happy couple. Consider a wedding gift for their blessed union. The first is this post explaining in full Ray's dislike of British people which has been openly stated in multiple podcasts. The second will be a The Ray Way: Weddings edition early next month. However, it's time explain at length my feelings of aversion towards British people as this discussion will never happen in full during a podcast. Every time I bring it up it creates an awkward tension in the room as people start to stare at me for the jingoist bastard that I am being. But I don't particularly see anything wrong with it. Racism is bad. But as long as the people who's culture you don't like are white it's socially acceptable. It's like hating Texans or New Yorkers or Canadians...they aren't marginalized enough for my criticisms to be out of line. So now that we've gotten all of this uncomfortable "Ray is being intolerant" nonsense out of the way...let's start the Brit-bashing.

What's up with their pomp and circumstance?

 I don't think that there exists a culture whose very existence is predicated on fance and shmance quite like the British...and that's saying something because I'm including the French. There entire society is so adorned with bells and whistles that it's hard to see the substance through the frills. They are pretentious and whiny and look down there noses at everybody else. There is no question that the British think that they are the best...but I don't know that I have that big of a problem with that. Thinking that your country is the greatest is only natural. Americans think that way. What is highly unnatural is making sure that everybody in your country gets put into their place. The whole country is just one giant caste system with the Queen on top and some little cockney street-sweeping moppet on the bottom and everybody else is supposed to know their role in between. The sensible in American society find it ridiculous that there are people here in America who expect to be treated differently because they have money or fame. Now imagine a culture where it is a societal norm to pay deference to somebody because they're the descendant of some lord who married his second-cousin and burned some people at the stake for being witches.

What a fuckin' crock...am I right? But yet somehow being born in West Sussex or the like makes you inferior to people born in East Yorkford Hampshire. And let's not even start with University standing. I have to imagine it gets pretty awkward at job interviews for prestige jobs when you didn't attend the upper-crust universities. And everybody has titles. It's hard enough to keep up with the all the titles when we know what they mean like Duke, Earl, Countess, or Viscount. I don't even want to know what It-Girl, diary secretary, or lady-in-waiting is. I had always thought a lady-in-waiting was a girl who was in your bedroom that was preparing to have sex with you, but apparently the British think that it's a female royal consort's personal assistant.

Every culture has certain cornerstones and values which define that culture. It has nothing to do with stereotyping...they are often well-established and actively enforced by society. Some cultures value cooperation while others value competition. Some value tradition while others value innovation. Some value private property rights whereas others value communal sharing. The British value primness, properness, snark, elitist dignity, and representing your country with honor when abroad. And God forbid you violate that last hallmark of British society. When you're within the confines of the United Kingdom you can get shit-faced drunk and go to the most debasing sex clubs because that's your right as a free citizen. However, when the world is watching you had better not take the bronze medal in double sculls rowing behind Australia and Estonia or you risk having your citizenship revoked. British people are put under such immense pressure to represent the UK with class that it just makes them look uptight. The great thing about America is that we know that other countries see us abroad as "The Ugly American" and while we don't necessarily support ignorant behavior while abroad, we don't put undue pressure on our own to avoid it. In short: we mind our own god damn business.

Why does their government make no god damn sense?

Seriously. Just type British Parliament into Wikipedia, start reading, and let me know when you're confused beyond any semblance of understanding. When it is politically advantageous a party can disband Parliament in the middle of a session and call for new elections? What the hell...how can you possibly get anything done with that sort of system? You can't and they don't. Our politicians don't make much headway on policy, but at least they have the common decency to put on a show of it. At the State Opening of Parliament the monarch reads the speech from the Throne which outlines the government's agenda for the year. Now they don't go full-ludicrous and have some old bat who's just a member of the Lucky Sperm Club write it...it is written by her advisers. But that is still too ridiculous. Isn't establishing a government agenda and determining policy what the British people elected Parliament to do? But in defense of these "elected officials"...they might not have really been elected by that much of the population. In America we can only get 50% of the population to vote and we tell them over a year in advance when election day is. I can't imagine what happens to voter turnout when you throw surprise elections at them all the time because you disbanded Parliament for God knows what reason.

Much like America's Congress, the British Parliament also has two houses: the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Alright, this is already starting to hammer home the giant caste system argument that I made earlier. The House of Commons is elected by the people, but the House of Lords is just handed out either to high-ranking officials within the Church or along hereditary lines to heirs of men with proper titles. Unacceptable. Now America isn't perfect in this regard and nepotism still runs wild in politics, but we at least know how to play our cards right. Sure Jay Rockefeller wouldn't be a Senator if he wasn't related to John D. Rockefeller but at least we made him pay gobs and gobs of money to run a campaign to get his Senatorship thus stimulating the West Virginia economy which badly needed it. We didn't just hand the position to him and get nothing out of the deal the way that hundreds of British Parliament seats are handed out every couple of years. I still can't get over the sense of entitlement that the British see with being a member of the Lucky Sperm Club. In America, "Do you know who my father is?" is a line that young spoiled villains say in our movies...in Britain it's the calling card of the upper class douchebag.

Aside from disbanding the government as they see fit, Private Member's Bills, the notion of Royal Assent, and the ridiculous number of purely ceremonial votes that take place which basically allow for something that's going to happen even if they all say "Nay"...there is still another confusing aspect of government in the UK. It comes down to this basic question: "Is Scotland a country?" Answer that question. And then allow me to say: "You are WRONG!" I'll bet you think I don't even know how you answered. Well if you answered "Yes" you're wrong, and if you answered "No" you're wrong, and if you answered "I don't know and neither does anybody else"...well then I'm sorry that I prematurely shouted at you. It won't happen again. But this was a great point of debate between my co-worker Sharon and I and even when we asked the British guy who came in all the time we couldn't get a straight answer. So we eventually looked it up and found out that both of us were right and that neither of us were right. It depends who you ask. According to NATO and the United Nations they are not. However, according to FIFA and the World Cup they are (so they've got that going for them). But to counter that according to the IOC and the Olympics they are not. They have their own flag, but so does Oklahoma. And when you overlap the Scotish flag with the English flag you basically get the Union Jack.  Wikipedia refers to them as a country within a country (BOOM!, Inception!) but when asking Wikipedia to define country they say: "Commonly, the term is used in the sense of both nations and states, with definitions varying." Thanks for nothing, Wikipedia. So I'm going with the true decider of decisions on this matter: Sporcle.com. Therefore, Scotland is not a country. But America doesn't try and confuse people like this with Puerto Rico. We just say "Not a Country" and don't leave any lingering confusion.

What's up with their celebrities and paparazzi? 

Back in November I wrote an extensive expose (read as: rambling rant) on the nature of celebrity and introduced you to the Pyramid of Celebrity. Well, the British just chucked my Pyramid against the wall like British pop singer Adele does with dishes in her new music video. They shattered it. They decided that they would make their own rules regarding what constitutes a celebrity...and then they would put those people in a house together and call it Celebrity Big Brother UK. I have encountered my fair share of "celebrities" in my time and I'm not very easily wonder struck. That doesn't mean that I won't ever be. It's just that I have a different level of expectation than most people when it comes to getting wonder struck. I am not impressed that people know who you are. Meeting Taylor Lautner or any Kardashian or Larry King is not going to impress me in the slightest, because there are two ways that celebrities can intimidate me. The first is for me to think that they are very good at what they do. I would be significantly more impressed by meeting Michael Chiklis or Michelle Branch than I would be by meeting Shia LeBouef or Brittney Spears. And I would only be as impressed as I would be if I were meeting the best carpenter or brain surgeon in the state. I appreciate people who I think perform there craft well and would get generally excited to meet them. The second way to impress me is to be exceedingly physically attractive. Do I think that Kirsten Dunst is that great of an actress or that Ke$ha is a phenominal singer? Not really. They're both pretty good, but if I ever met them I might be a little flabbergasted because inside my head I'm thinking "Hummina Hummina Hummina Hummina". But now that you know what impresses Ray, let's see what impresses the Brits.

 
• Ex-husbands of Page 3 girls. (Example: Alex Reid) I'm not even sure that Page 3 Girls should be considered celebrities, but since I don't want to do anything to discourage glamour models from posing for topless photos...I will allow it. However, why does being related to somebody automatically make you the bee's knees in Britain. Sure Alex may be a mixed-martial artist but seeing as he's lost his last nine fights and never won anything of note he shouldn't be a celebrity.
• Graffiti artists. (Example: Banksy) I'm not saying that he has no talent, but I'm just saying that he uses his mystique to fuel his celebrity. I have to think that if he'd showed his face to the world by now that they would be done with him. And when that's the case I don't know that your celebrity is justified.
• Tabloid columnists. (Example: Carole Malone) Somehow somebody who made a career out of making up shit about celebrities for a living became one. She wrote for a British tabloid and then somehow jumper her way onto UK's Celebrity Fit Club and Celebrity Big Brother. Don't ask me how this happens...ask the British.
• Racist former reality stars. (Example: Jade Goody) I really do hate to speak ill of the dead, but exceptions have to be made. And I'm not alone, in a recent poll she was voted as the 4th Worst Briton on a BBC special and everybody knew that she was dying of cancer at the time. She is in no way talented. She is not pleasant on the eyes. She apparently harbors intense hatred toward people of Southeast Asian descent. And somehow she managed to turn a stint on Big Brother into several other shows for herself and her talentless family.
• Paris Hilton look-alikes. (Example: Chantelle Houghton) Apparently not only can you be famous in Britain for being related to somebody who once did something...you can be famous for looking like somebody who is related to somebody who once did something. The only thing sadder than the fact that she was on a Celebrity Reality show was that she beat Dennis Rodman. The man has 5 NBA Championships and is one of the greatest rebounders to ever play the game of basketball. Respect.
• Rappers named Maggot of unknown age. I don't know what to say. The guy's name is Maggot and apparently people don't know if he's in his mid-20's or his mid-30's.
• Antiques experts. (Example: David Dickinson) He was on the UK Version of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here. Now I just feel bad for the British. Should we stop this post? I mean this is getting pretty bad.
• Scandal makers. (Example: James Hewitt) This is the man who had an affair with Princess Diana. And I see how that would make him big news for a while, perhaps even a name to remember. But Monica Lewinsky sucked off the Leader of the Free World and three to five years later we were more than done with her. This guy has an affair with a royal consort and close to 30 years later (really only about 20 since the scandal broke) and Britain is nowhere near done with him. He's had well over a dozen television reality appearances and counting...not including news and tabloid appearances.
• Former royal butlers. (Example: Paul Burrell) His resume literally consists of two jobs: footman to Queen Elizabeth II and butler to Princess Diana. However, due to the immense fascination that the British have with the royals, he has managed to spin this career into numerous television appearances and promotes Royal Butler wine which retails for six pounds a bottle.

• Nightclub owners. (Example: Fran Cosgrove) The guy owns a night club (or night clubs...I'm really not sure), was the bodyguard for a band called Westlife that nobody in America has ever heard of, and knocked up a singer for Atomic Kitten who nobody in America has ever listened to (we may have gawked at them on the internet). And somehow he took that and made himself a household name in Britain.
• Journalist/Feminist. (Example: Germaine Greer) Those credentials are enough to get you on a British television show who's average draw is about 10% of the nation. That's 30 million in American. So move to Britain and blog about why men suck and you to can have a television cameras on you.
• Sylvester Stallone's astrologist mother. (Shaking head.) Sad. Just sad.
• People with beehives. (Examples: Amy Winehouse and Adele) Alright, so these two actually have fame that translates to America. I'm pretty sure you've never heard of more than one of the dozen people from above. However, these two (one of whom is very talented and the other of whom looks as though God spilled a human being) are trying to bring back a hairdo that I have tried long and hard to banish to the 1940s and The Simpsons where it belongs. But hey Britain is on board so it's here to stay for now.

And I didn't even bother with mentioning all of the ridiculously popular singers and actors who can't even make the slightest blip on the American landscape. But what's ten times as pathetic as all of these non-celebrities that are masquerading as celebrities are the people who go out of their way to stalk down and harass them. I am of course referring to the paparazzi. The American paparazzi is bad. I never judge a celebrity when I hear that they punched a TMZ employee. However, they are but mosquitoes when compared to the rabid wolverine that is the European paparazzi. Those people are downright homicidal in their lack of regard for all human life. And while we're talking about lack of regard for all human life...I think that it would have been best if one of them died at the hand's of an angry fan of Princess Diana's, Jack Ruby-style, just to send a message that there is no impunity for their reckless abandon for a scoop. I'm not going to go as far as to wish for that...but it might make Europe a better place if they were made to be more cautious. They have near unlimited-means in their ability to stalk you. They get leaked flight manifests for Christ's sake. Let's do something about that, whatever the British equivalent of Homeland Security is. And the problem is that everybody in Britain gives them credibility over there. Tabloid or scandal-rag in America means cheap impulse-buy papers that only trashy people and lonely housewives buy. Out there the British make them their equivalent of the New York Times or USA Today. And what bothers me more than famous British people are the anonymous sources that these tabloids use to talk about them. Every quote that I heard from an anonymous source close to the Middletons during this latest wedding coverage was so ridiculous and spiteful that I honestly think that Kate and William should purge every cowardly friend in their life right now and start over.

What's up with the Royal family?

I've grazed upon this issue multiple times above, but there is no question that they deserve their own section for me to bitch about. Britain allows itself to pay deference to a particular family based solely upon the fact that there bloodline used to rule by the divine right of kings. I've asked an English person about this and they seem to think that the British royal family and their celebrity isn't that much different than America. So I asked for an example. I asked what the American equivalent of Prince William was in America. And I shit you not, here was the answer: Brody Jenner. So most people hate Prince William and think that he's a douchebag? They responded by saying "No. He's generally very well liked and respected." This person clearly has no clue what American sentiments are towards Brody Jenner. And I constantly hear that the monarchy is only a figure-head and that the Parliament and the Prime Minister really has all of the legislative power. That's not true...but that's for next paragraph. What's for this paragraph is that you are paying these "alleged figureheads" extravagantly with tax payer dollars. Where did you think the Queen's income is coming from? Photo ops and collector's plates? The British state pays for that extravagant lifestyle? I know that Mr. Middleton is that father of the bride, but I feel fairly confidant that he's not picking up the tab for the wedding of the decade. Tax payers are paying for a wedding that they are all deemed too common to warrant an invitation to. Hey British Taxpayers, what did the monarchy's five fingers say to your face? SLAP, Motherfucker!

Now let's talk about this figure-head status for the monarchy. The monarch has real power. A lot of it. If you read British law, the monarch can do amazing things. She's just expected never to use these powers and to defer to the Prime Minister and the legislature. These powers are just left in ceremonially. Well, I say that you had better take them out because if I know anything about international contract law it's this: If the law says that I can do something, and I do it, it gets done, whether I was supposed to do it or not. The Queen has the power to select the incoming Prime Minister. Now she's allegedly supposed to take the nomination from the outgoing Prime Minister...but what if she doesn't? And even if there is something saying that she has to...she still has meetings with the Prime Minister, at her place, on a regular basis. Tell me that that isn't undue influence on government! If current British Prime Minister David Cameron is the British equivalent of Barack Obama, then I want you to imagine that Barack Obama was made to go once a week to meet with some octogenarian lady at her home. That lady would be pretty damn powerful if you ask me.

I was reading up on the powers of the throne and their relationship just to make sure I had my ducks in a row and that maybe they weren't as ass-backwards as I thought but it turns out that they are more so. This is an official statement in writing taken directly from the official website www.royal.gov.uk: "After a new Prime Minister has been appointed, the Court Circular will record that 'the Prime Minister Kissed Hands on Appointment.' This is not literally the case. In fact, the actual kissing of hands will take place later, in Council." What. The. Fuck. Britain. Don't tell me your Queen is a figurehead. Another piece of hullabaloo that I find interesting is that the aforementioned James Hewitt who had an affair with Princess Di (even though Charles was also letting it soak in other British birds) could have been tried for treason. Really, adultery with a figurehead's consort is treasonous? And this isn't even the monarch's consort, it's the monarch's son's consort. If I were to have an affair with Michelle Obama, I have no doubt that Barack would disappear my ass using his super secret government powers. However, there is no way that they could try me for treason in front of the whole country and give me a good old public hanging.

What's their specialty?

I mentioned earlier that the British look down on every other nation as inferior to them because they are the mighty British. I said that I didn't really have a problem with it because America does the same thing. However, I think that I should have a problem with it because America doing it is justified. America isn't the best at everything...but there are many things that we are the absolute, undisputed best at and nobody from Sweden to China is even going to pretend that we're not. We are a bona-fide world superpower who brings the goods to every gathering of the World and shows what a driven, intelligent, free market society can produce. Sure the Germans might arguably have the World's best beer, the United Arab Emirates might arguably have the World's best architecture, and Belarus might arguably have the World's best pornography...but America does pretty well for itself in several important and diverse endeavors. What does Great Britain do best? Thinking....thinking....nothing? I know that they think that they do a lot of things well but that's typical British arrogance. The Rolls-Royce might be a fine car but Italy does better and when we talk about mass-producing a fine car Britain starts to suck wind. They think that they brew great beer, but just about every country around them (Belgium, Ireland, Germany, etc.) does it even better. But I think that there are two things that Brits will argue to the death that they are the best at and I will debunk those in the next two paragraphs. Those are literature and football.

I was tempted to give the Brits literature. They've been pretty good. Lots of countries have literary masters. Colombia has Gabriel Garcia Marquez. France had Alexander Dumas. The United States had Mark Twain. But Britain has had possibly the granddaddy of them all: Big Poppa Willie Shakespeare. And they've had a ton of other greats: Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Lewis Carroll, J.R.R. Tolkien, H.G. Wells, Mary Shelley, Rudyard Kipling, Robert Louis Stevenson, Bram Stoker, James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, Aldous Huxley, Agatha Christie, Ian Fleming, George Orwell...the list goes on. I think that that list just brought some of my high school literature teachers to orgasm, if my horrendous use of punctuation didn't ruin the mood. The British have done literature pretty damn well. But I didn't ask "What did the British do best?". I was asking "What do the British do best?". And in the last 50 years British literature is predicated almost entirely on the Harry Potter series. And while the tween in you might want to let them keep the title for that alone...I don't know that Harry, Hermione, Dumbledore, and friends are going to cut it. I know, blasphemy, right? But British literature is no longer dominant in the 21st Century with authors like Cormac McCarthy or the United States, Haruki Murakami of Japan, Victor Pelevin of Russia, and Carlos Fuentes of Mexico pounding out numerous masterpieces. You were the best Britain, but we live in a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately world.

The British might put out a collective hit on me for implying that their football (read as: soccer) is inferior on the World stage...but it absolutely is. Their private league, the EPL, is a mighty power on the world stage and along with Spain's La Liga and Italy's Serie A has to be considered one of the three best. However, it's stocked with foreign players and therefore that won't necessarily translate to success on the World Stage. America does not hang it's hat on the soccer hat rack. Basketball, baseball, swimming, gymnastics, track and field, golf, and tennis are all sports that we think we do pretty well on the World stage. England totally hangs their hat on the football hat rack. They think that they own that god damn hat rack. But over the last decade has Britain really done any better than America at soccer. Both have gotten to the quarterfinals of the World Cup but neither has gotten further. We really can't compare continental play because we dominate and inferior confederation (CONCACAF) whereas they have been sufficiently manhandled in a superior one (UEFA)...so which of those is better. They've never done anything in a Euro Cup of note. They haven't even made a final and it's been contested since 1960. They've made the finals of one World Cup and that was back in 1966. Once again, what have you done for me lately? And I don't foresee them going anywhere until possbily 2066 because Spain, Italy, Germany, Brazil, and Argentina all own England in football and the British people browbeat their players in the media until they are cowering broken shells of their former confident selves. And lay off the hooliganism, Britain. Killing people over sporting rivalries doesn't make you any better of fans and it certainly doesn't make your teams any better. It just makes you idiots.

However, I don't want it to be said that I dislike all British people. I just dislike their society as a whole. So I should probably provide some examples of Brits that I do like. 

Ray's list of approved British people:

David Beckham - He's classy, avant-garde, personable and slays the ladies. I respect him and I want to be him.

La Roux - I don't find most British women to be that attractive and Eleanor Kate Jackson of La Roux is no  different. But they rock a good jam and thus are "bullet-proof" in my eyes.

Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje - He played Simon Adebisi on Oz and Mr. Eko on LOST. That equals badass. There is no way that this guy does tea time.

Gordon Ramsey - Sure I have an intrinsic problem with the way he rates food too heavily on presentation as opposed to taste...but I like the way he calls people "donkeys" when they overcook a simple risotto.

James Bond - Ian Fleming wrote the perfect spy to be something that few, if any, Englishmen could live up to. So is it any wonder that only two of the six actors to play James Bond were actually English.

Well, now that they know how I feel about them...best of luck Will and Kate.

Podcast: Reader E-Mails

If you'll remember when I started this blog back in September I promised that I would devote a post to answering e-mails from my readers. Well, here it is...in podcast form! I've brought back some of my favorite podcasters for a good time with e-mails from you, my beloved readers. For convenience purposes, I have cut this two-part, almost two hour podcast into segments based up the questions that we are answering. I'll post the questions that were asked above the videos so you know which ones you'll want to listen to.

Joining me on this podcast are Don't Tell Anna members John Chadwell, Pat Brennan, Luke Giberson, and Lauren Yadlosky. We have a member of each Don't Tell Anna Class from 2008-2012.

Here are the questions:

What is your whore price? By this I mean that everybody has a price for which they would do certain things (e.g. murder somebody, sleep with a guy, etc.). Give us some of yours? - 17:44

There is a proposal before the federal Tax and Trade Bureau currently debating if nutrition labels should be placed on alcoholic beverages. Ray, what is your stance on this issue? (I did not know what type of question you wanted, so since I am at work I thought I would send a nutrition one for you…enjoy!) - 9:44

It was so good to see you over the holidays. I just read your blog and I really like it. My question for your e-mail bag is: Are you still doing theatre and what would your ideal stage role be? - 11:52

[Please note: About 7 seconds of the recording got scrambled...so there is an awkward transition from me saying that I am a terrible actor to John Chadwell talking about a script that I wrote called "The Negotiators".

There are few things that I love more than a good Ray O’Brien get rich quick scheme? Have you had any good ones recently? - 11:02

If storks really brought children to their parents, would hunters be hired as abortificants? What regulatory process would ensure that hunter-abortificants properly target unwanted children? - 7:36

You recently stated in a post that you thought that the Rapture would make life more interesting. Which side of the Rapture do you think that you’ll be on and more importantly which side of the Rapture would you want to be on? - 10:03

While I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts on The Perfect Woman (P.S. What is with the ridiculous six-month break between Part 2 and Part 3?), it seems like you’re definition is very broad and that you will take just about any half-ass were-cunt who stumbles into your life. Rather than spending another epically long post telling us what you want in a woman…why don’t you tell us what you’re deal breakers are. Are there any small flaws that would force you to turn down an attractive babe? - 12:29

It has been my experience that everybody has at least one movie that they have walked out of in their life. What is yours? - 13:58

As long as I’ve known you, Ray, I have to say that you are a pretty brave guy…do you have any fears? Particularly I am interested in any that are highly irrational? - 25:21

Thanks for listening to the Podcast. There will be another one next month.

Semantics Session: Gay? (De)Fine(d) By Me

Hola Party People. This post will tackle an epic quandary that has confounded man for a long time. Is "gay" a sexual orientation or is it a "lifestyle"? For anybody who does not understand the title of this post the picture at the side will show you a "Gay? Fine By Me" T-Shirt the likes of which are taking college campuses and other places of education and understanding by storm. However, I don't think that gay means what most people think it means. Any dictionary definition will tell you that gay may refer to an adjective that is synonymous with homosexuality. This started in the mid-20th century. Before that gay was an adjective meaning "carefree and happy". For instance, the in the film The Gay Divorcee Fred Astaire is not homosexual but rather just carefree. And the Flintstones were not going to have a “homosexual old time” (unless they were and then that is just awesome). However, the word “gay” has become overtly synonymous to pertaining to stereotypes of homosexuality. Kids and teenagers have, for decades, used the word as a pejorative to disparage something as not cool. When somebody commits an uncool act it is described as “so gay”. Furthermore, young adults and older males often refer to actions that are stereotypically homosexual as “so gay”. For example, if I decided that I wanted to go out wearing skinny jeans and guyliner, even though I am a heterosexual, I would be referred to by all parties involved as “so gay”. However, if a female wanted to play sports or wear steel-toed boots little would be said, meaning that gay mainly pertains to stereotypes of male homosexuality. Which means gay isn’t really a word that we are using to describe a sexual orientation anymore. We are using it to describe a lifestyle. Therefore, this is my new definition of gay. Gay means "of or pertaining to characteristics of a lifestyle that is generally associated with male homosexuality". Now let’s run this new definition through a little test. I am going to attempt to see which of my friends is the most “gay” by these new standards. Today’s battle will pit an alleged homosexual, Andrew “Homo Erectus” Thomas Smith (right) against an alleged heterosexual, Nicholas “Dego McWopperson” Anthony Rosati (left). And who would be better to help us determine who is truly living the gay lifestyle but the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy fellows. Let us see what they have to say...

First up is Ted Allen, our resident food and wine connoisseur. He has observed the eating, drinking, and smoking habits of our two test subjects and here our his conclusions:

Andrew Smith enjoys himself some pretty manly drinks. He tends to subsist himself on Jack Daniels, a very manly alcohol, and is a big fan of Jack and Cokes and Captain and Cokes. He has recently switched to Diet Coke which could be considered mildly "gay" but he has managed to justify it as simply being health conscious and we can't really fault him for that. He does smoke which while not gay itself is more gay than not smoking. He will basically smoke whatever he can get his hands on but leans towards Camel Turkish Golds which are just haughty, not gay. Now if he smoked Virginia Slims Menthol Ultra Lights...that would be gay. As far as food is concerned he is a fairly standard meat and potatoes guy. He enjoys the occasional salad, but who doesn't? Overall I'm going to have to give him a Gay Rating of 2.

Nick Rosati has a significantly gayer drink selection. While not as gay as an appletini his drink de jour is the gin and tonic (or a gin rickey). This drink is known for being the drink of middle-aged ladies and tastes of pine needles and old man dick. Nick does not smoke. At least he doesn't smoke cigarettes...the jury is out on other narcotics. His food preferences stray strongly towards Italian food. He enjoys all of the same foods that a well selected sample population would enjoy, he just loves Chef Boyardee more than they do. However, this is not gay. Overall Nick will receive a gay rating of 3.

Neither Andrew nor Nick are excessively gay in the food and drink department but I am going to give my slight edge to Nick Rosati for being a bit of a dandy when he orders at the bar.

Next up is Kyan Douglas, our resident grooming guru. He has observed the grooming, hygiene, and hair and makeup practices of our subjects and here are his conclusions:

Andrew Smith has an overtly heterosexual grooming style. His hair is a short almost buzz cut and before that it was long and stringy in a way that was so unkempt it could not be defined as gay. He also has marginal hygiene in terms of the fact that when sober he will shower and shave as he should but in the far more likely case that he is drunk he will often just wake up and go about his day without washing his own sick off of himself. He does not appear to own any overtly gay hygiene products. Upon initial inspection of his bathroom I see no loofahs or scented bath gels. He also does not work out a lot and appears to be content with a body that is not rippling. Self-satisfaction with a less than perfect physique is going to cost him some gay points. I am going to have to give him a gay rating of a 1.

Nick Rosati also possesses pretty heterosexual hairstyle. He does however, use coconut scented and infused shampoo and conditioner which will score him some definite gay points. Most of his other hygiene products are moderately straight. He doesn't wear guyliner. He does however keep in shape and keep flexible by doing yoga which is obscenely gay. He may claim that he does it for the ladies but I think we all know that this is not the way yoga works. Male yoga is about men pretending to gain spiritual peace, when in fact that are just trying to gain flexibility to perform auto-felacio. Major gay points. His gay rating is a 7.


In terms of grooming and hygiene Andrew is a very non-gay wreck where as Nick scores big points for his questionable bathroom products and yoga dates. Definitely an edge to Nick Rosati.

Next up is Thom Filicia, our resident design doctor. He has observed the living spaces, interior design, and home organization of our subjects and here are his conclusions:

Wow. This is all I can say. I walk into Andrew Smith's bedroom and I wonder why we are even having this competition. My gay detector is blipping like crazy. It is about to overheat. The man has an IKEA ad for a bedroom. Oh...so gay. Looking around his room I see an excess of throw pillows. Gay. I see the Twilight boxed set. Gay. I see a fur mink rug. Gay. And directly over his bed hangs a picture of a nude man with his penis dangling down toward the bed. Gay. Set. Match. This room receives a full gay rating of 10.

Nick Rosati's room does very little to shout gay at you. He does have a love of the color yellow and an unbecoming lust for all things 1980s, which is one of out gayer decades but he allows his roommate to keep the apartment in a shambles which is very not gay. His abode lacks tidiness and therefore that will cost him some gay points. His room earns him a gay rating of 3.

Upon seeing their respective residences I have no choice but to cast my vote to Andrew Smith as the gayer of the two. A definite edge for Andrew Smith.

Moving on we have Carson Kressley, our Fashion Savant. He has observed the clothing and accessories of our subjects and here are his conclusions:

Andrew Smith does not possess nearly enough truly gay clothes. He has some mildly gay clothes but overall nothing that I can point to and say, "Wow. That is gay." He does enjoy bright crocks which are pretty gay but not enough for more than a point or so. There is a total absence of tight shirts or skinny jeans. He doesn't even dress like a metrosexual. He dresses like a trendy, mildly haughty heterosexual. I would give him a gay rating of a 2.

Nick Rosati also doesn't really dress that gay. Mainly he wears jeans and T-shirts. He tends to wear polos when working and on the occasion that he needs to look a little fancier he goes Oxford shirt with no tie. He dresses quite monotonously and he will score no originality points with me but his wardrobe also scores very few gay points. He scores one extra gay point because his favorite color is yellow which is creeping up the gay color pallette a bit but it's no pink or purple. He recieves a gay rating of a 2.





When comparing the two wardrobes I don't see anything that I can really harp and while I feel like I am cheating you by not making a decision I almost feel like I have to call this one a push.

Finally, we have come Jai Rodriquez our expert Culture Vulture. He has observed the pop culture, personal relationships, and social interactions of our subjects and here are his conclusions:

Andrew Smith is a total conundrum. Here is a specimen who absolutely needs to studied further. Starting off in the realm of pop culture we find that he fuses both very masculine, heterosexual tastes with very effeminate, "gay" tastes. For example, in the realm of movies he loves Fight Club (insanely masculine), The Dark Knight (overtly masculine), and Transformers (It's masculinity is only trumped by it's own stupidity). However, his other favorite movies include Moulin Rouge (scores major gay points) and Twilight (gay beyond what words can say). His taste in music is mildly gay but not any more than that of the average man's true tastes. He does however, have Bromance on his TiVo. This means gay points...multiple gay points.

In terms of Andrew's relationships and social interactions we have come to another interesting paradox. However, let us remember that we are defining "gay" not "homosexual" so The Act That Dare Not Speak It's Name Part 2 and other events of Andrew soliciting physical affection from males will not be counted as gay points. Andrew does have a female best friend which is becoming more culturally acceptable despite the teachings of When Harry Met Sally... but it's still going to earn him at least one gay point. He also is a lightweight which earns him some gay points. He gets exceptionally drunk quicker than you would think and has a very large DSR. He does not display overtly gay behavior when sober, however, when drunk he will act marginally gay aside from the fact that he will be hitting on females and possibly attempting to motorboat them. For some of his gayer moments please see the visual proof provided at right. Andrew earns himself a gay score of 6.

Nick Rosati has noticeably gay tastes in pop culture. His favorite music is a who's who of gay music. Favorites include Madonna, Michael Jackson, Prince, Culture Club, Cyndi Lauper, and Alanis Morrisette. He is a huge fan of the 1980s which is the gayest American decade since 1740s. His favorite movies include the collective works of Johnny Depp who he enjoys on the same level and in seemingly the same way as the millions of American women who desire to have sex with Johnny Depp. He also greatly enjoys the movie My Best Friend's wedding. I also have to give him a gay point for being a Tony Romo fan. And I should probably also give him a point for being a fan of ShadowHare.

Nick also has a fairly gay social life. Much like Andrew he has a female best friend which charts on the gay scale. Also like Andrew he is an absolute functional lightweight with a very large DSR. He is a self-proclaimed drunk wanderer and he has been known to wander towards some very gay adventures. He has been known to dance quite effeminately and carry purses in a social setting. For examples of the aforementioned gay dancing and purse carrying please see the photos at right.


As a matter of fact, I think that Nick's Exhibit Gay has definitely pushed him ahead I am going to have to give him a gay score of 8.


I have to say that when setting aside Andrew's romancing of men as homosexual and not gay, Nick actually leads a much gayer social life with gayer pop culture selections. He has to take the edge in this category.

Well, now that all of the Fab Five have weighed in, let us look at the results. Nick garnered three votes while Andrew garnered one with one push. Nick scored 23 gay points while Andrew scored 21 gay points. Therefore we must come to the conclusion that even though Andrew is a straight-homosexual* man and Nick is a homosexual-straight man, Nick is indeed more "gay". If you don't know the difference between straight-homosexual and homosexual-straight, it is kind of like the difference between Crayola's green-yellow and yellow-green. Don't be too confused.

Well...I hope we learned something today. For those of you that didn't, you might be saying to yourself, "Self, I found Ray's blatant stereotyping to be offensive." If such is the case please stay tuned for my forthcoming post on the importance of stereotyping. Until then try to live The Lush Life.

*Andrew's classification as a straight-homosexual is up for debate seeing as a straight-homosexual is popularly defined as a man who likes sports but won't sleep with women. Andrew fits neither of these parameters. His status as a homosexual is also up for debate. As the great Eddie Johnson once stated, "He is not a homosexual...he is to be considered a pansexual being who will lie down next to anything warm until evidence to the contrary is presented."