Hi, my name is D and this is my writings on subjects. I'm no rapscallion or anything at all. If you want to you can read my writings on subjects if you have free time. If you want to argue with me or call me names then please comment. Negative feedback is very welcome...I love dat shit. Me? I'm not even a noun, I'm a fucking verb, dude.

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Re-Visiting The Economy: A Riveting Tale of Buzz-Words and Unkillable Myths

Macro Economics
The biggest surge/spike of hits that this blog ever received was in September of the Year 2011 when I wrote on the subject of Economy.

Here: My Mind on Economy and Economy on My Mind

It's a very silly article which sort of pokes fun at the absurdity of today's human world by attempting to create humor by using examples from a very old video game. The conclusion attempts to compare the concept of "Economy" to the concept of a giant dinosaur.

I'm not trying to offend when I poke fun at things, you know. I just don't think any topic should have a sacredness surrounding it. I don't think religion should, I don't think nationalism should...and I don't think a concept as presently in-style as "economy" should have any sacredness devoted to it either.

The concept of Economy is becoming the new religion of the times. It will or already has become the flavor of the week in our ever-transgressing human timeline. The results of elections in most countries are decided by how a politician talks about the Economy. Re-wind to 500 years ago, rulers and rule-makers were decided by how a person talked about Religion.

Now, we look back at the way things worked in the 1400s and laugh. We think, "wow they really trusted some king because he said he was sent down from heaven by some whacky god? Haha." Or we think, "holy crap, they really honestly believed that someone lived in the sky and watched over the earth? What a bunch of dorks."

Fast-Forward to 500 years from now and people will be saying the same thing about us. They might say, "Wow, those morons created a currency system based on shiny metals and then let the whole system take over and control their lives? Wow, that's stupid." Or maybe people in 2513 will say something like, "Holy crap, they used to elect their rulers by which ones used the cutest buzz-words to describe their currency system? What a bunch of dweebs"

Similar to Religion and similar to Nationalism...the notion of "Economy" has to be routinely subjected to satirical jabs or barbs to ensure that people never take it too serious or extreme.

Economy as Religion / Economy as Nation

The land of Economy is as much make believe as the lands in our minds that exist when we attempt to conceptualize Religion or Nation.

In the magical land of economy a great benevolent force known simply as "the Market" watches over us and makes sure we never come to harm. The Market will solve all problems, it will cure your aches and pains, it will make your penis 3 inches larger (or your breasts on cup size larger). The Market will never hurt you...it's your friend. You can pray to the Market...you can even ritually sacrifice small creatures to it.

Hey, if you were Ronnie Reagan you could hire an astrological see-er and have her cast astrological projections on the mysterious Market (100% true occurrence). If you live in the Asia, you can read the Book of Changes and throw sticks on the ground to try and figure out the future of the Market.

The funny thing is, just like the deities in all Religions and the heroes of all Nations...there never was and never will be a divine force known as The Market. A "free market" is literally people doing whatever they want...and you can tell by how many white collar rules and laws exist that no one can do whatever they want.

The "Market" is rigidly chained together by texts, books, sheets, and copy books of LAWS. The businesses who talk about how "free" the "market" is are the same businesses who spend billions of dollars to lobby the governments of the world to change laws to customize the playing field in their favor.

Lawyers are CEOs best friends. Don't believe me? How come mp3s and other formats are so easy to share online within seconds...yet it is 100% illegal to put an mp3 on the internet for others to save to their computer terminals? Because someone lobbied to the government of your country to make a law which disallows you from doing that. The simplest way for human A to share a song he/she likes with a human B is just to send the mp3 to their computer....but that's 100% illegal. When the simplest way of doing what you want to do becomes illegal then you know something is up.

Yo, fucking Apple has paid lawyers to patent EVERYTHING. Another company can barely even offer a service using the alphabet without being attacked by Apple's lawyers. They paid billions of dollars to get the patent on things you wouldn't even believe could be patented.

In this blueprint, Apple applies to patent "turning a phone 45 degrees."

Apple is not a huge success because of how "free" some made-up buzz-word is. Fact is, it (and many other businesses) have meticulously carved away the laws it doesn't like through litigation, lobbied to customize the rules to conform to their strategies, and purchased through bribery the patents on concepts that cannot be patented by any sane judge.

Buzz Words

Certain words, even simple and obvious words like "market," take on a new aura of ridiculousness in order to surround a concept in a multi-colored smoke.

Lingo, terminology, language. Whatever you want to call it.  Words that develop some sort of hidden character behind them are very important in large scale doctrines.

For a taste of full-on business man lingo try some of these random bull shit generator sites:
(just hit the button on the sites and be filled with business wisdom)


Corporate Jargon: http://www.changedesigns.net/public/other/leadership-jargon.html

The one that always bugged me in these retarded "meetings" and/or "evaluations" with so-called "super-visors" was the term "you gotta think outside the box!" This term has become so over-used in the last decade that society might want to think about officially retiring it. A standard business meeting with your super visor at work probably goes something like this:

Team Leader: Hey Team! The higher ups just told me our productivity is way down this quarter!

Team: Oh.

Team Leader: Ya! It's really bad you guyz! This quarter we're trying to work directly with the customers to facilitate theirs and the movements of the stakeholders so that we can change the way we project and transform accounts so the innovations are maximized! But, it seems you guyz are slipping and we can't achieve our mid-year goal. Any suggestions on how we can remedy this?

Team: No....but something tells me you have one.

Team Leader: Ya! I do! Get ready for my trouble-shootin', problem solvin' solution of the century you guyz!!!!

Team: Okay...

Team Leader: This coming quarter....we just have to start THINKING OUTSIDE DA BOX!

Team: Sigh.

That's the truest definition of a buzz word. It doesn't solve anything, it doesn't help anything, and it ultimately doesn't mean anything to anyone. It's easy to talk like this and the sad thing is people will actually think you're smart.

To truly be a fire-brand preacher in the religion of giving the business...you need to watch that Gordon Gecko movie a few times, buy a nice three piece suit, and fill your brain with enough buzz words to last you through the next decade (don't worry they never age or go out-of-use or obsolete because they never meant anything in the first damned place).

How 'bout we Make some New Buzz Words?

Look, I honestly believe one thing that will strengthen any economy is raising the minimum wage. If you look at common stats that economists look at like Consumption, Savings, and others you will quickly realize that no matter what country you live in...

...Consumer Spending is at least 2/3 of your country's gosh darned economy.

No joke. No matter how many times you're told otherwise by some lobby group or your government...your county's GDP is over 60% internal consumer spending.

Knowing that, what do you think wrinkly old guys like Allan Greenspan or Ben Bernacke (or the equivalent wrinkly old dudes in your country) do when they notice a drop in consumer spending (i.e. the consumption of consumer goods in a nation)?

Do they,

A) Increase minimum wage to increase the spending cap of millions of their citizens to create an influx of consumption.


B) Lower interest rates to almost 0% so everyone can BORROW money and go into DEBT to buy the food and items they want/need in order to artificially create an influx of consumer consumption.

The answer in real life is, of course, (B) they lower interest rates so people borrow money to buy the homes, vehicles, and other items. The down side to this of course is the average debt of the average consumer in your nation synergetically rises in reaction to this.

While if they went the course of (A) and increased Wages to create an increase in Spending...it would not have been an artificial increase but a tangible increase.

It seems quite logical, yet anyone who speaks about increasing minimum wage in any nation is met with scorns of "yer a commie" or shit like that...even though it makes pretty ligit and economically structural formulaic sense.

Thus, we need to create a buzz word...I guess. Arguing to raise minimum wage in a nation should not be referred to in those terms any longer. It should be referred to as Maximizing Consumer Consumptional Power.

You think I'm joking? I'm not joking. Hey, if you go around town going "hey let's raise minimum wage!" you're gonna be called an ingrate, a commie, a bum, and a hundred other things. Yet, if you walk around town going "hey you guyz! I suggest our nation think outside the box here and attempt to Maximize it's Consumer Consumptional Power!!" you probably wouldn't even get one angry look.

Business buzz words are so ingrained in today's society that you might even be met with awe and wonder when you phrase it like that.


A large central core of humans abide by the religion of economy in today's dog-eat-rat world of worlds, and word on the street is...

...you gotta learn the language of business no matter how dumb and absurdly retarded it is.

Raise Consumptional POWER.

Monday, December 16, 2013

Great Moments in Literature: The Evolution of "Bob Backlund"

From Howdy-Doody to Criminally Insane to Loved and Accepted, the wonderful character development of Bob Backlund is one of literature's greatest moments.

Glossary of Terms to be Used in Article:

Howdy-Doody: This was a puppet that appeared on NBC in various forms from the 1940s to the 1960s. It was "a freckle-faced boy marionette with 49 freckles, one for each state of the union" who represented polite All-American boys around the great nation of the U.S. of A.

Criminally Insane: To display behavior so anti-social and violent that the only recourse is to either jail, hospitalize, or exile the individual from society.

Love and Acceptance: The concept of an individual being welcomed and appreciated in a group of multiple individuals of varying quantity.

The Cross-Faced Chicken-Wing: An unstoppable, unbreakable, and ultimately undefendable arm-lock submission hold that if you refuse to tap-out will leave you with a fractured limb.

Bob Backlund

Who's Bob Backlund? The Double B was a pro-wrestler who was famous from 1973-1984 and then made a reemergence and was doubly famous from 1994-1997. As everyone knows pro-wrestling is a shtick and not a competition of athletics. It is governed by a rule structure referred to in the business as "kayfabe" which replaces athletic skill competition with over-the-top choreographed drama. Most of the time this "drama" is fantastically and laughably retarded but in some cases it manages to create some interesting characters and satire.

One of the earliest precepts of "kayfabe" was to maximize drama by pitting "heroes" against "villains." The terms were refered to as "baby faces" versus "heels" where a babyface is a well-liked good looking person who the crowd relates to and the heels were foreign people with strange customs who the viewing audience could not relate to. Examples of "baby faces" are Hulk Hogan whilst examples of heels are guys like Nikolai Volkoff and the Iron Sheik.

In Backlund's first incarnation he was the aforementioned baby face character. Baby faces, naturally, are relative and dependent on their environment, meaning if the audience was Japanese then the baby face would be someone like Rikidozan and the heel would be someone like the Classy Freddie Blassie. In the case of Bob Backlund, he was operating in 1970s America and to pull off this role in that environment it required being a clean cut white "boy" who was constantly draped with American flags.

American flag jacket, American flag undies, American flag singlet. That's what you needed to be the "All American Boy." They should have gave him 49 freckles on his ass to symbolize the 49 states in the union then he'd be perfect.

Many probably know that America went through a cultural revolution of sorts during the 1960s and 1970s featuring all sorts of movements from civil rights to women's rights to aboriginal rights and many others. This "All American Boy" persona did not sell as well as it used to as Americans were becoming less religious, less nationalistic and thus more adults than "boys" so to speak.
click to enlarge

This was the case in other sports as well. A famous case in baseball was in the Yankees organization where Mickey Mantle was regarded as the "All American Boy." You probably don't know that Mickey didn't exactly like being known as a "boy" and he didn't like the howdy-doody persona one bit. In a famous 1973 letter (shown to the left) when asked to speak about his favorite Yankee moment, Mantle responded that it was that one time he got head from some chick in the bullpen in right field, and he sarcastically signed the letter as "The All American Boy."

Wrestling noticed a drop in sales due to their "All American Boy" champion not drawing the crowd's support as it once did. Backlund was made to lose the belt to the Iron Sheik (who in turn lost it to the body building hollywood rockstar 80s babyface Hulk Hogan) and by the year 1984 Backlund faded out of wrestling, into obscurity, into the the no-man's land of "has-beens."

The Hokey Dokies and Howdy Doodies time in the sun was over. These rinky-dinks weren't entertaining anyone and were quickly being regarded as ultra-lame by the society they were meant to be accepted by.

Reemergence and Total Character 180

Backlund was out of wrestling for a full decade before making this appearance in the squared circle in 1994,

I was about 11 years old in 1994 and I saw this bit as some kind of boring little tribute to some old dinosaurs from when wrestling was super boring and stupid. Then Backlund comes out and goes on some angry vicious diatribe culminating with him putting the poor old Arnold Skaaland in the dreaded chicken wing arm-lock! What the fuck is he doing!?

The All American Boy had lost his marbles. This wasn't a one time isolated appearance either, he went on a nation wide chicken-wing RAMPAGE in which he put announcers, managers, wrestlers, fans, old dudes, and just about everyone under the sun in the divine unbreakable arm-lock. No one was safe from this mentally unstable kook and his patented chicken wing.

All-American Bow-Tie?
He wore these silly bathrobes that looked like they were made in the 1930s...he looked like a relic from a past age that was dug up by an archeologist. He still wore the American flag on his person...but as a bow tie.

The bow tie is like the encapsulation of lame, no one can look tough or bad ass in a bow tie. Yes, Bob Backlund still represented America but now he was an encapsulation of everything that was wrong with it. He was a status-quo conservative backlash that wanted to place all of society in a cross-faced chicken-wing and caste it in place so it would never change. He basically wanted to put all of America into 1930s bathrobes and force them to read the dictionary 24 hours a day.

He displayed ultra-conservative views of morality and preached that society was a mess that needed intervention. He was like a fire-brand preacher spraying ludicrous invective on anyone who would approach him, observe:

Bob is now the ugly side of America...he's a living embodiment of the John Birch Society. Hold up though, did you notice something in that clip above? That he's got the belt? Yeah, in 1994 Bob was once again the Champion. Yup, the megalomaniac chicken-wing madman was now the most popular wrestler on the circuit. I'll say this right now, Bob Backlund was my favorite wrestler in that era, hands down. He was entertaining as hell.

He's a criminally insane old man...but he's so darned likeable. It was so weird to watch him look at his hands (sorta like Ren used to on Ren and Stimpy) after the aftermath of a chicken wing atrocity just took place.



Fast forward to 2012,

Look who rises up from the ashes to challenge today's heroes...it's a relic from the past. A beloved relic from the past who the fans cheer for and chant his name. Bob Backlund is an icon, maybe even a folk hero.

Is he an icon for being the rinky dinkin' howdy doodin' All America Boy? No. He's an icon for portraying a criminally insane status-quo obsessed homogenized pasteurized marauding psychopath who wants to put today's society into a permanent cross faced chicken wing.

In Conclusion

Not through patriotism did Backlund achieve love and acceptance from society...he achieved his L&A through good old fashioned satirical kookery.

So next time you see an old bastard in a bathrobe, slicking his hair back with Wild Root Cream Oil, kicking cats around, speaking in tongues, and putting random passersby into vintage submission holds...don't hate on him, just see him as a window into the past...a chilling past where everyone was crazy.

Friday, December 13, 2013

Montréal Expos Revival Taking Shape as The Cro Continues to Let 'Em Know

The Great Legend of Baseball Warren Cromartie and the president of the Chambre de Commerce du Montréal (Montreal Board of Trade) Michel Leblanc have just released the results of the Ernst and Young feasibility study commissioned by the Cro. 

The 62 page Document (this word is always capitilazed within the Document and it should be because it's a pretty slick Document) is available for the public to peruse at their leisure:


It's 10 pm eastern standard time, and I seem to have some leisure time right about now...so I'm going to do some perusing. Why not? In this following article we shall be highlighting key components within the Document in an attempt to convince nay-sayers of the return of the Expos that...Yes, Major League Baseball in Montréal is 100% viable.

Summary of the "Document"

The Ernst and Young study is broken down into sections. The main conclusion of the report is for Montréal to adopt the methods of the Minnesota region and what they did with the Twins.

"The centrally located, open-air stadium (in a similar climate) was essential to retaining the Twins in Minneapolis, and the stadium has been a success for the MLB, for the fans and for the city’s development."

The comparison of Minnesota and Montréal is a good comparison because the cities are fairly similar in many data metrics. The populations are fairly similar, the weather conditions are very similar, the average income per household is fairly similar, etc. They also cite the similarities between the cities extend to baseball as well. The Twins and Expos were both slated to be contracted in 2002 by Major League Baseball and both cities played in huge dome style stadiums with astro-turf.

The Twins, however, solved their stadium woes and became viable again by contesting contraction in all levels of court led by the Heroic Governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura (I like this guy, it was cool to see his name in the Document). Eventually they built a nice, new, baseball-style, non-cavern stadium and have been doing well ever since.

The statistics they provided for the construction and financing of Target Field in Minnesota are the following:

Construction start date: August 30, 2007

Date opened: January 4, 2010

Architect: Populous/Hammel, Green and Abrahamson

Capacity: 39,021

54 suites, 2 mega suites

Funding: Combination of Minnesota Ballpark Authority
(64%) and Minnesota Twins (36%)

Ballpark construction cost: $390M

City infrastructure cost: $155M

It states that the Minnesota stadium was linked to the downtown core in order to be a very accessible and chill area. They "constructed a large plaza in the outfield to connect the stadium to the downtown core" in order to syngergize the stadium with other local business (i.e. restaurants, pubs, boutiques, etc.).

When they talk about accessibility they are referring to how how easy it is to get to and out of the stadium. Target Field has 2 major freeways connecting to it, 20 busses passing by it, 7,000 parking spots, and hundreds of bike racks.

If you remember, Montréal's original stadium incarnation was buried way out of the downtown core at Pie-IX metro. They are suggesting to build a festive and accessible hub in the downtown core that will lure locals and tourists to the area which is a great idea.

They cite in a Minnesota based economic study,

"According to an independent economic impact analysis, Target Field also generated at least $169.3 million in economic activity in its first year of operation"

That's not baseball related, that's due to the area surrounding the stadium becoming prime real estate for opening enterprises and drawing investors to open businesses in the area.

The study found that the ideal division for the Montréal 2.0 team to play in is the AL East citing that,

"The new franchise should ideally play in the American League East – the team would have natural rivalries with several cities including Toronto, Boston and New York. The presence of these teams in Montreal would enhance the business case as well as the local television broadcasting rights deal – playing against more popular teams results in a larger television audience"

I hate the Designating Hitter rule, but hey, beggars can't be choosers, eh? I have to 100% agree with this assessment. Just like Canadiens vs. Bruins or Canadiens vs. Leafs...this set-up will maximize rivalry multipliers and get fans all rabid. Nothing works me up more than losing to Toronto at something. If we were in the same division, forget it, it will be mass hysteria bro...I'm talking mass hysteria, dude.

The Document covers data from a poll of a sample size of Montréal citizens and business leaders and the data is used to from projections (or you could call them prognostications too). These projections are pretty meaty numbers and would make quite of few entrepreneurs mouth water while reading them. Taking into account the demand and the average income per household they create a maximization algorithm for ticket pricing and the numbers look very good.

The study has a great section on economic impact for the region which has some pretty meaty figures in it too. Synergizing the construction phase, the operation of the club, and the tourism attracted to the city... it shows the positive economic impact of the return of baseball would be immediately noticeable. They provide figures for GDP generated and the jobs created by this venture. They conclude on this matter,
"In total, the new ballpark would support approximately 1,500 jobs annually in Quebec during the construction phase with the impact on GDP being approximately $130M annually – two thirds of this effect would be in Montreal

Operation of a new ballpark would support (annually) 825 direct jobs, plus 600 indirect and induced jobs, with an approximate contribution of $96M to Quebec GDP"

This Document is a pretty good read, if you're interested in data and baseball and things like that (like me) then you should probably peruse it.

Common Rebuttals to Nay-Sayers

Some of the most frequent statements by nay-sayers countering the viability of Montréal will likely be of the following nature. One common point that will be brought up is something along the lines of,

"It's cold in Montréal...how can they play in an open air stadium without a roof?"

It is stated that Minnesota has a very similar climate to Montréal and the study presents these factoids on the matter,

Average Montreal Temperature during Baseball Season: 15.5 C
Average Minnesota Temperature during Baseball Season: 16.2 C

Look, it's pretty hot here in the summer during baseball season. Yeah in April and October it's going to be cold but less than one degree celcigrade isn't going to be the end of anyone's world.

The Document insists that roofed or retractable-roofed stadium is not needed. The production costs are almost cut by a third by using an open-air model as opposed to a roofed model and the drawbacks to being open air (even in a colder climate) seem to be little if not none.

Nextly, the BIGGEST issue from nay-sayers is going to be that that study suggests the provincial government put up 300 million for building the stadium. Everyone's gonna be all,

"But the bridges are broken! How can you even think of putting money into a ball park!?"

First of all bridges fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government of Canada. It's federal tax dollars that are used to alter infrastructure or to repair bridges. Bridges are not the jurisdiction of the provincial government.

Secondly, look, this is a pretty big business and businesses are taxed by the government. This enterprise will generate quite a lot of tax revenue. How much? The Document projects the following data,

"The government’s share of costs would be recouped through direct tax payments generated in the construction phase ($55.6M) and during each year of operation ($23M annually), as well as by dedicating sales taxes generated annually by stadium activities ($18M) and income tax on part of players’ salaries ($10M)"

The minimum tax they can collect off this in a construction year is 55.6 Million and during an operational year they would get a minimum of 51 Million per year. You don't need to be a genius or a Master Cross Multiplier to figure out how quickly they will recoup the money on their investment. Three hundred divided by and average of 53 million is about six years. Following the sixth year all the 50+ million in tax revenue becomes 100% profit for the government.

The Document even lists measures in the case the provincial government refuses to put in any money (even though they will benefit over 50 million per year from this venture) and also lists several faster methods for the government to recoup its initial investment in the case that it makes a huge deal about making the capital investment back faster than six years. They have all their bases covered ok? These guys are pros.


Mr. Cromartie concluded the press conference today stating that,

"Baseball is a game of history and numbers. Montréal has the history and now Montréal has the numbers."

I made an amateurish projection piece in this blog once (Speculation/Prognostications), but this data in the Ernst and Young report is not speculations...this is HARD DATA. Montréal has legit numbers now that should make both the business community here and MLB take notice.

Mr. Cromartie proceeded to call out to the business community and implored for a "champion" to step up to the plate and make history. Hopefully somebody or a combination of sombodies heeds the call.

Montréal? We got the history, we got the numbers...hey, we got the food, we got the ladies, we got the fresh beats, we got the jams, we got the style....hey, we got it all....we GOT THE TOOLS AND WE GOT THE TALENT!!!!

Friday, November 29, 2013

Rock the Hall 3

When the snow starts falling that means the Hall of Fame voting season is about to get under way. It's becoming sort of a winter tradition to promote Timmy Raines for the Hall of Fame.

2011 piece) The Hall of Fame is Incomplete without Tim Raines in it

2012 piece) On Tim Raines and the Hall of Fame (again) 

This year we're going to focus on some "what if" projections to showcase some flashy numbers. I love projecting using statistics ever since I first learned about it. You know that cross-multiplying business? I love that...I really honestly enjoy cross-multiplying. I cross multiply like a mad man sometimes. I cross multiply like a bat outta hell and don't even think twice about it. I like taking data of past trends to project future trends...it's really really fun. You can use it to quantify and project all kinds of stuff too not just baseball statistics.

Cross Multiplication

Alrighty, so in this year's traditional Tim Raines for Hall of Fame article, we shall take it simple and take two events from the past and apply cross multiplication to produce "what-if" scenarios.

First off, let's take a nice past event, like the 1981 season, which for Expos fans is like THE season of seasons. Here's Rock's stat line from the 1981 campaign:

Plate Appearances: 363
Hits: 95
Walks: 45
Stolen Bases: 71
Caught Stealin': 11

As many of you know, the 1981 Major League baseball campaign was a strike shortened due to labor disputes and it was not a standard 162 game season. In a standard season players, and in this case a leadoff batter, can get up to 700+ plate appearances. You know where I'm going with this right? If he stole 71 bases in 363 plate appearances...then how many would he have stole if the season was a standard 162 game season instead of a shortened one?

Enter now my homie...Mr. Cross Multiplication,

71 over 363...over a nice round number such as 700 would give us...137.

If he continued at that pace, the Rock would have stole 137 bases in 1981. That's 7 more than the 130 Rickey Henderson stole in 1982 which is the most all time. If the strike never happened Rock could have been the single season stolen base champion, it is very conceivable and highly plausible.

The second data set we shall take is the 1987 MLB campaign. The Rock's plate appearances were hindered in this season due to the collusion against free agents conspired against the players by the owners (see: 1987 collusion). He missed a full month of games due to the collusion and produced these numbers in that time:

Games: 139
Plate Appearances: 627
Runs: 123
Hits: 175
Walks: 90
Homers: 18
Steals: 50
Catched Stealin': 5

Okay let's get some numbers to work with...

1. 162 (games in standard season) - 139 =  23
2. Cross multiply PA with G and add 23 games worth would give us...103 extra PA to total 730.

Okay...so what would these numbers have been in a 730 PA season? Once again using our best friend cross multiplication, the hypothetical results are:

Games: 162
Plate Appearances: 730
Runs: 143
Hits: 203
Walks:  104
Homers: 21
Steals: 58
Catched Stealin': 5

Yeah...143 runs scored.

Without the collusion, Raines could have conceivably and very plausibly scored more than 140 runs in 1987...which is quite a lot. To me runs are what wins games, it doesn't matter to me if a player crossed the plate from a homerun or because he was wicked fast at getting around the bases. I know to most fans homeruns are the coolest thing ever and all but a run is a run and someone who can score that many runs in a year is pretty amazing.

For people or voters who think homeruns are the only important thing in baseball this projection also shows that Raines could have surpassed the arbitrary mark of 20 homers in a season as well. He had decent power too if that's what you want.


Just a short and brief Raines for Hall of Fame article this year. If you're a Hall of Fame voter some of these projection stats may stand out to you though. Without the strike of 1981 or the collusion of 1987 some pretty impressive stats may have landed in the columns of Tim Raines' baseball card.

137 Stolen Bases in 1981
143 Runs Scored  in 1987

Pretty intense if you ask me.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

A Small Retraction Concerning Statements about Ernest

In regards to my short dissertation on Ernest the other day, I would like to make a glaring and sweeping retraction.

Article in Question: The Greatest Debate Still Rages On...

I concluded by suggesting that the Ernest character should be revived. Yet, after looking at wannabe Ernests attempt to emulate and employ the Ernest on the internet...I cannot honorably stand beside that conclusion any longer.

Example of a Pseudo-Ernest:

Ok, No. No, no, no, no, no. This man is not Ernest. This is an obvious disgrace.

I've come to the realization that there Can Only be One....Jim Varney is the only Ernest...I hereby retract my conclusion in the previous article, for it was wrong.

I admit, I was not correct, not in the least with that assessment. I feel a great deal of shame over the failure of my analytic abilities.

My new stance on the question is as so...

Let Sleeping Ernests Lie.

Friday, November 15, 2013

The Greatest Debate Still Rages on...

So much in the news these days. So much to think about and have opinions on. I think as a society we must settle old debates before venturing into new ones. We must tie up these loose ends before biting off new and more difficult debates.

First on the docket is one debate which remains open and has never been resolved, this debate in question, of course, is the Joel vs. Mike debate. It is a question as old as time itself. Weighing all of the options, the correct conclusion to this question is:


Case dismissed. Moving right along, the next item on humanity's docket of unresolved dilemmas is what many refer to as "The Greatest Debate" and I must say I agree with the designation of this query being regarded as such. The Greatest Debate which has raged on for many years is... 

...what was the Greatest Ernest film ever made?

Now unlike the Joel vs. Mike debate which is easily decided with little thought or after-thought, the case of what was the Greatest Ernest film in the history of Ernest is a whole different can of worms, Vern.

Who Was Ernest?

Before we get knee-deep into this burning question on all of our minds, let's look into the phenomenon that was Ernest for those of you who may have either been living under a rock or not born yet in the era in which Ernest was Ernesting.

Ernest was a veritable amalgamation of heavily versatile yet good-hearted stupidity portrayed by the iconoclastic actor Jim Varney.

Jim Varney was an accomplished actor of the theater (seriously), and his first big television appearance was on Fernwood 2 Night hosted by Martin Mull (side-windered by Fred Willard),

Above, he's doing some variation of a "redneck" character. I know these sort of "redneck" characters are popular now a days with the likes of Jeff Foxworthy and that Fat Boy the Cable Fat Idiot...but there's a huge difference between the likes of Jim Varney and those talentless hacks. The key being that Varney's character(s) are funny whilst todays so-called "Blue Collar Comedians" lead by Jeff Hacksworthy are not. 

Varney first developed the character we know as Ernest for commercials for various southern United States companies (ads for milk, tape, meller yellers, etc., etc.).

At some point someone realized that his character was testing very well with children viewers and the Ernest phenomenon grew wings and took shape. Much in the vein of old time 1950s acts that kids loved such as Johnny Jelly Bean or Soupy Sales, the program Hey Vern! It's Ernest was one of the big three whacky kids shows which came about in the late 1980s era (the other two being Pee Wee Herman's and briefly Al Yankovic's Saturday morning programs).

The Ernestial Explosion was in full gear. Soon, Ernest had his own special, vhs tapes, tv show, and finally MOVIES! That Ernest made a slew of exciting and efficacious Ernest films. For example (but not limited to):

Ernest Goes to Vegas
Ernest Learns Karate
Ernest in Africa
Ernest at the Theme Park
Ernest Saves Christmas
Ernest gets Motivated
Hey Vern! Ernest just Joined the Navy!
Ernest Scared Stupid
Ernest Goes to Jail
Ernest at the Improv
Ernest in Funny Munny
Hey Vern, Win $10,000...Or Just Count On Having Fun!
Ernest Goes to Camp
Ernest Rides Again
Ernest Goes to School
Slam Dunk Ernest
Ernest in the Army
Hey Vern! How 'bout that Ernest!?
Quitting Smoking with Ernest
Ernest Goes to the Park

Yet Only One Ernest Movie May Reign Supreme

Look, I understand that a lot of people "don't get" Ernest...but those people are dumb. I'll go as far (and on record) as saying that anyone who doesn't like Ernest is a Bad Person.

Ok so, for us regular normal Good Persons, I would like now to present to whoever wishes to know of it, my opinion on this long raging debate. Which was the best Ernest film?

I will only focus on five Ernest films (in the interest of time) and those Ernest films are in no particular order:

Ernest Saves Christmas
Ernest Goes to Camp
Ernest Goes to Jail
Ernest Scared Stupid

and last but least (well maybe),

Ernest Rides Again

1. Ernest Saves Christmas

Synopsis: Ernest is working as a cab driver to make ends meet this Holiday Season and picks up a man claiming to be Santa Claus in his cab. The purported Santa must find a successor to carry on the Santa torch before nightfall or Christmas will be ruined. Will Santa find a successor in time?

My Opinion: This film is not very Ernest heavy. The story focuses on other characters (Santa, the successor, and the runaway tween girl) more so than it does on Ernest. Ernest is almost a supporting actor in this film and it's a gross miscarriage of intelligence when that is the case. Making an Ernest movie which is light on the Ernest is not the right way to go.

Would you make a Yogi Bear episode without much Yogi in it? Would you make an A-Team movie without Mr. T in it (come on, why did they do that?)? Would you make an Evil Dead movie without Bruce Campbell in it (seriously why did they do this?)? It's like making a peanut butter sandwich but forgetting to put on the peanut butter is what it is and it's fairly unfathomable to operate like that, I must say.

2. Ernest Goes to Camp:

Synopsis: Ernest finally fulfills his life-long dream of becoming a camp counselor after working as a maintenance man at the camp for years. Sadly, he was only promoted because the other counselors didn't want to deal with a troublesome group of youths sent from the juvenile hall for rehabilitation. Ernest gets stuck with these inner city toughs yet he and the youths really develop an understanding and respect each other.

A villainous natural resource developer played by the always impeccable John Vernon attempts to force the venerable Chief Saint Cloud (portrayed by Iron Eyes Cody) to give him his land.

Faced with the under-handed tactics of the treacherous Krader Company...Chief Saint Cloud is left with no choice but to train Ernest and his gang of inner-city youths and instill unto them the ways of the Warrior. Can Ernest and his rag-tag troupe of diamond-in-the-rough youths act as the front-line defense against Krader, repel the intruders, and save Kamp Kikakee? Or will all be lost?

My Opinion: This movie came out around the time where I would go to Camp Jackson Dodds every summer and have zany adventures and a ton of laughs of my own. The whole camp atmosphere of the film was something I could really relate to as a youth.

The themes touched on within this film, such as Native American issues with the establishment and the difficulty under-privileged kids face in comparison to privileged kids, were a little deeper than the themes in standard Ernest films. It's a pretty deep movie, it has loads of character. Man, this movie is Punk Rock, it really is.

3. Ernest Goes to Jail:

Synopsis: Ernest is an up and coming janitor in a bank who's dream is to one day become a bank teller. He has eyes for his co-worker, the beautiful and charming Charlotte Sparrow and truth be told she has eyes for him as well.

Misfortune befalls our loveable hero when he gets called for jury duty for the trial of one Felix Nash, a dead ringer for Ernest, one might even say his doppelganger. In a flurry of confusion on a visit to the prison Nash pulls the old switcheroo on our best bud Ernest and assumes his place...while Ernest goes to jail.

What will Nash do while living as Ernest on the outside? How will Ernest cope with the harsh realities of prison life?

My Opinion: This movie is shakespearean in nature. People will tell you that the rawness of a play like Othello, with all the emotions flying everywhere, as the lead character feels fear, betrayal, jealousy and anger, amounts to an emotional roller coaster for the audience...yet Othello is not a very good play in comparison to Ernest Goes to Jail.

The emotions in this film are very raw. Rawer than Othello. Take for example when the evil Felix Nash lures Ernest's girlfriend to his nest of deceit and tries to convince her to commit the heinous act of adultery under the most unrighteous of pretenses. Jim Varney's portrayal of both the hero and villain displays his versatility as an theater actor. Many might scorn my comparison of Ernest Goes to Jail to Shakespeare but I honestly believe this to be true in all seriousness. Jim Varney is an unstoppable force of acting in this film.

4. Ernest Scared Stupid

Synopsis: Years in the past, an evil troll roamed around Briarville, Mississippi turning young children into wooden dolls and absorbing their energy. Ernest's ancient ancestor, the great Phineas Worrell, devised a method to seal the evil troll into a big ole oak tree.

Fast forward to the present and poor bumbling Ernest P. Worrell unwittingly releases the seal of the oak tree and unleashes the troll once again. The dastardly troll recommences turning defenseless children into wooden dolls and after he absorbs the spirits of 5 children the troll can unleash his army of lesser demon trolls to begin a reign of terror. The only thing that stands in his way...is Ernest and a wise Haitian woman.

My Opinion: A standard spooky monster movie, but the threat to the kids is made to feel real to the viewer. The troll is very successful at turning innocent children into lifeless wood carvings of their former selves. It's a movie that despite Ernest's antics would genuinely scare a very young child and give them some cool-ass fever-dream nightmares too. Ernest does a lot of heroic mano-y-mano fighting in this film and pulls off a sort of Buffoon Bad Ass character...once again displaying his immense range with the Ernest acting style.

5. Ernest Rides Again

Synopsis: The crown jewels of the Royal Family of England get stolen and transported in a cannon and Ernest and some geek have to do something about it.

My Opinion: My family had this cool Zenith converter cable box when this movie was out that let me see pay-per-view all the time...and I must have watched this movie like 100 times...and it sucks. I don't know why I watched it so much but I guess there was never anything else on.

The geeky doctor was played by a guy named Ron James, who's a popular Canadian comedian now. He speaks normally in this film though which is odd because in his present day act he talks like how a retarded Canadian guy would talk.

This movie is proof that the voice Ron James uses in his act is not his own voice and he's trying to "hose-it-up" so to speak to appeal to Canadian audiences. I think Ron James is going Full Hoser though and it's kind of an over-done act. I understand that Canadians have to hose-it-up to sell (even the brilliant Canadian director Christian Kole made a hoser movie once) but Ron James shouldn't go Full Hoser, and if he wants to he should put on a tuque, drink some stubbies, and send Bob and Doug a royalty cheque.

All in all, Ernest Rides Again isn't an Elite Ernest picture.

The Greatest Ernest Movie of All Time is...

Ernest Goes to Camp.

La crème de la crème of Ernest is the one where he goes to camp. There's no doubt about it.

Gee I'm glad it's rainin'
There's always something to be thankful for.
I'm awfully glad it's raining
Cause no one sees your tear drops when it pours.

And no one knows the thunder
Is your heartbreak in disguise,
They think the rainy nights
What put that sad look in your eyes.

Sure am glad it's rainin'.
The gentle rythmn soothes the pain inside.
I'm glad the stars aren't shining.
A wounded warrior needs a place to hide.

I thought I had found someone
I could count on til the end.
What they wanted was a hero,
All I needed was a friend

Gee I'm glad it's rainin'.
I hope the morning sun won't come up soon.
As long as it keeps raining,
No one knows my heart broke right in two.

I thought I had found someone
I could count on til the end.
What they wanted was a hero,
All I needed was a friend

Sure am glad it's rainin'.
I'm awfully glad it's rainin'

Passing the Torch

For those of you living blissfully unaware lives, Ernest died in 2000 of cancer. Yeah, on February 12th of the year 2000...the earth stood still for a moment as Ernest had to say goodbye to us.

People may not have realized it yet, but Ernest's passing has left a hole. The universe is incomplete without Ernest. We need Ernest.

I'm calling out to everyone in Hollywood to listen up. I'm calling out to every artist, stand up, and preformer to put down what they are doing and listen.

Someone out there has to become Ernest. Someone has to step up and accept the torch. Someone has to put on the grey t-shirt, dawn the jean-vest, and adorn themselves with the grey cap. It's not a joke anymore...Universe needs Ernest.

Now I'm not talking like when Hollywood re-booted The Three Stooges with three horrible lame-wads. That 2012 Three Stooges Movie is a punishable crime, it's almost blasphemous in terms of its mockery of comedy. Taking something as good as the Three Stooges and turning it into shit is the absolute worst thing that could to be done to bring Ernest back.

No, I'm not talking about a money-making horrible reboot. I'm talking about someone becoming Ernest. I'm talking about someone accepting the responsibility of being The Ernest. Putting the three holy vestments of The Ernest on some unfunny bozo and releasing a movie with the Ernest name is not the plan.

The Plan is to do it right. The plan is for the New Ernest to dawn the vestments and be proud of them...to put on the Ernest uniform and WANT to make COMEDY proud. I'm talkin' to you.

You, YEAH YOU! Step up! Put it on! Become ERNEST...

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Satire Wars: Refutation of Statements by One Chris Hedges in Defense of One Jon Stewart

I'm a regular dude just like you and everyone you know. I do the same stuff you do, you know...I get together with my friends over tea at times and discuss the heroes of the age. We talk about who's the Master Tacticians (i.e. Earl Weaver) of the age but we also discuss who are the Master Satirists (i.e. Sacha Baron Cohen) of our era.

When we discuss the Master Satirists of the Age, should names like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert be considered? I believe so, yes I most surely do. It doesn't seem one pulitzer prize winner named Chris Hedges would agree with that though:


In this video, while he and a colleague discuss (not over tea) the Master Satirists of the Age, Hedges absolutely blasts Stewart and Colbert:

"Satire becomes destroyed in essence in the hands of figures like Colbert, John Stewart and others,” Hedges asserts. “They will attack the excesses or the foibles of the system, but they are never going to expose the system itself because they are all millionaires, they are commercially supported. You have very few people (George Carlin was one) who will stand up and do it. If you do that, it is tough to make a living. Carlin maybe being the exception. But if you really use Satire the way Swift used Satire, to expose the English barbarity in Ireland because culture, like everything else in the society has been completely corporatized."

I disagree with this assertion. I really do.


First off, who is this Hedges character? The first time I ever heard of this guy was when he had some sort of altercation on TV with a CBC analyst.

I agree with a lot of what Hedges says, but I don't respect his ability to handle trolls. The interviewer is a talking-head in Canada who makes a Tiger of Money formula show and who's shtick is the "bad mean judge" character (a la Simon Cowell). I don't respect how Hedges gets all offended and says he'll never ever come back.

Look, I've been fucking around on the internet since Usenet, man. I've been trolled, got trolled, done the troll, re-trolled, counter-trolled, de-trolled, un-trolled, front trolled, and even back trolled. I've employed the swift-kick ,the ego-stitch, and the body-snatch and have had all those things done to me. I'm a dymaxion troll, I can handle trollin' from all angles whilst trollin' and counter trollin' at the same time.

In this argument between O'Leary and Hedges, the obvious troll is obvious...yet O'Leary still manages to get Hedges' goat. It's actually kind of sad.

What about my homeboys Stewart and Colbert? How do they deal with these types of characters? Do they let the name calling and invective get under their skin or do they enter dymaxion-mode?

Here's Colbert's character exchanging blows with one Bill O'Reilly and his media character:

This is more in the style of the internet "debating" that I'm used to. In this match-up we have two characters, with two goats (one each)...yet only one man will leave with his goat. My man Colbert is as cool as a cucumber throughout the entire match and maintains his goat through the early stages. O'Reilly ups the invective by about 200% and begins literally yelling at Colbert...yet he keeps his goat. When it's all said and done Mr. O'Reilly seems flustered and jealous that Colbert is "more popular than him."

Even on O'Reilly's home turf Colbert managed to leave this veritable Thunderdome...with TWO goats. Why? Because he's a bad ass fucking man, that's why.

Yet way before Colbert was coming on this types of "spin" shows and doing battle, Mr. Jon Stewart had already conquered that circuit:

This video is up to 6.1 million views now and it deserves them. Is Jon Stewart responding to the heat by whining, crying, and gettin' flustered like that Chris Hedges? No, because Jon Stewart is a bad ass motherfucking guy.

This is a two-on-one situation and old Jon is the one shorthanded...YET...he is still guiding the tempo of the debate, keeping his shit and bein' cool.

Man, to keep your cool in that 2-on-1 and be witty is pretty bad ass. If I was being fucked with by some bitch in a bow-tie...I would have mauled that fucking dude.

Anyways, the issue I'm trying to raise here is that Chris Hedges is kind of a weiner.


I like Jon Stewart, he can be pretty cool sometimes. The first time I ever saw him on TV, he was playing with toys. He had an action figure of Screech off of Saved by The Bell and he was fooling around talking in a high voice for the action figure (kind of like the act they do on Robot Chicken). I remember thinking to myself...this guy's goin' places.

Out of those three vids above, Jon's has by far the most hits. He's popular, in fact he's so popular that countries with far more oppressive governments are using his Satire Model and character template.

Here's a video of Jon in Egypt:

Bassem Youssef's version of Stewart's show is not something that part of the world is used to.

I wrote a few months back about how making fun of your government or military in some countries is the ultimate crime. That Baba Jukwa in Zimbabwe that I wrote about, there's still a man hunt out for him and people have died under the suspicion of being Baba. Making a joke is not a joke in some places...it's serious business. Satire is even taking hold in Zimbabwe nowadays (anyone ever check out Nyoka and Kunyepa?).

In the case of Bassem Youssef, take this recent article:


The Egyptian government is investigating Mr. Youssef just for making fun of "nationalist sentiments". That's pretty fucked up.

Jon Stewart also ran a bit on his show which caused major controversy in the Oldest Country in the Vorld...The Iran. The Daily Show visited Iran and interviewed everyday people to try and show they are actually very very similar to you and me. It's harder to want to go to war and bomb people when you see how human they are. This bit was pretty good.

See: "Behind the Veil"

One of the men interviewed in that segment was later accused by the Iranian government of being a spy for doing this interview. Don't fret though, everything has cooled down and the man, Maziar Bahari, and Jon are currently making a film together.


Look, when your satire template is being used by people in a Muslim country to make fun of their government...you know you're on to something with your shtick. Okay?

So, back to my main point. When me and my friends gather over tea and discuss the Master Satirists of the Age, the names Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert do tend to come up, and we discuss their merits at length.

Do you know which name never ever comes up?

Chris Hedges.

Monday, October 14, 2013

Edge-Pushing Cartoons: Cartoons with No Bounds or Bars

Certain comedy cartoons which are not aimed at the little child target market have developed massive popularity over the last thirty years or so. These certain cases of cartoons achieving mass appeal has categorically been due to the program's satirical qualities and its ability to make fun of the real universe in its cartoon meta-universe.

The world of Omni-popular cartoons aimed at everyone except little babies is a small historical sample size to work with. We shall be looking into the four cartoons which have garnered mass appeal over the last few decades (shows which have generated huge audience, movie deals, etc.).

We shall give these shows a final tally and rating based on....um....I dunno.

You can rate stuff with numbers, obviously, but it's not an all encompassing variables rating system by any stretch. You can assign something a 5 or a 77 or even a 88.125 but what does that really tell anyone? It's just a dumb number.

You can use letters and assign something an A+ or a C- or a D, but again, they are just dumb old letters. Some people try and use "stars" like gold ones because they look cool, and some folks use "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" but that is only a two-variable system which leaves no room for any details. You either have a gold star or a upward thumb or you don't...pretty shoddy system.

I believe I shall use a geometric rating system. Yes, the shows shall be rated using standard geometric shapes. Each component of the cartoon show which improves it will be shown with a face/vertex/frequency/side. Whilst each bad component of the show shall materialize itself within the shape as well.

So, yeah. Our rating system for this review shall be geometric in nature. The final grade shall indeed be a shape.

The Simpsons

Everyone is familiar with this show, it does not matter whether you live in Kathmandu, Podunk or North Haverbrook. This is the first show which exploded into an all encompassing target market behemoth which rained down comedy on the masses. An instant success.

I was in the first grade (age 6.5) when the Simpsons came on the scene and its culture bomb invaded my elementary school in a decisive wave of popularity. Every kid had Bart Simpson shit...t-shirts, lunch boxes, stickers. Yo, one time I was standing in line in like grade 3 and this girl wanted to look at my Bart Simpson t-shirt where Bart is dressed as a Ninja Turtle (combined marketing appeal) and I couldn't turn to show her. I felt really sick that day and she was getting mad at me for not turning to show it to her....and then I puked. Everywhere. It was the only time I ever puked at school. I puked a lot though and the teacher gave me a blue rectangular container to puke in. It sucked and was embarrassing but when I think about it now...I laugh. I remember it pretty good for something that happened like 22 years ago.

Anyway, the Simpsons was very well written when it first came out. The creator Matt Groening was the mind behind Life in Hell and ran the Simpsons as a short on the Tracy Ullman show before hitting it big. The early shows were heart felt and down-to-earth and very likeable. They were the most loveable dysfunctional unit of humans on T.V. and they weren't even real people. Shows about how they got their dog or how Lisa coped with her obtuse opinions were very well received with audiences.

As tame as the 90s Simpsons is by today's standards....it was hated by parents/teachers/church/etc back in the day. Early Simpsons did indeed push the edge, it made fun of our society by exaggeratingly mirroring it in their yellow tinted universe. The good part about old Simpsons episodes can be summed up with one word...subtlety. The satire and rebellious nature wasn't as in your face as the shows that came after it but it was always there.

Take a look at the authority figures in the Simpsons for example. None of them are presented as being competent or regarded as upright citizens. The Mayor is a crook, the chief of police is a pig-faced moron, the owner of the nuclear power plant (the richest man in town) is down right evil and sadistic. There's nothing wholesome or heroic about these people....these aren't your Leave it to Beaver friendly people in your neighborhood types. Yet they are more realistic that's for sure. It was not common in programs watched by young people in this era to find authority figures being presented in this realistic fashion.

The Simpsons was the original Edge-Pusher and it broke ground subtly, left a huge mark, and was the trail blazer for future Edge-Pusher cartoons. Sadly, the Simpsons got really horrible at some point and never regained composure.

I've been trying to pinpoint where it officially jumped the shark, and I think I have the answer.


Where exacty did the Simpsons jump on water-skies and attempt to publish a show to the airwaves so unforgivably retarded that they crossed shark infested waters and had no way of ever getting back to where they once were?

For me personally, I remember when it happened, and I remember well. In Season 9 they ran a show so pointless and convoluted for no apparent reason other than that they had literally NO ideas left. The show in question is where Seymour Skinner reveals that he is not Seymour Skinner but is actually...Armin Tanzarian.

Never has a story line been so pointless, never has a cliff hanger been so stupid, never has an idea been so convoluted and inherently pointless as the Armin Tanzarian episode. I remember sitting there after the show was over and having an inner dialogue with my stupid ol' self that was like...

"Wait, that was really bad..."

"But, the Simpsons is cool...how can something cool be bad? It's a fallacy"

"No, but this was shit. This episode was total shit. Why did they go with this idea?"

"You're crazy. The Simpsons rules and it always will!"

"You're wrong self. The Simpsons sucks. It's terrible. It's the WORST EPISODE EVER"

"...but, if the Simpsons sucks, what else is cool that actually sucks?"

"I dunno bro...probably EVERYTHING EVER"

(Me, inner monologue, circa 1997)
The idea that "The Simpsons Sucks" smashed my rosy-colored view of the world and left me feeling very cynical. Next thing I know...everything sucked. Like, I watched an episode of Saturday Night Live (which the previous week was ok)...but after Armin Tanzarian water-skied over a sea of venomous sharks...SNL started to look like total shit too. I couldn't even watch it, I wanted to jump into the screen and tell Kris Kattan to stop making a mockery of comedy and find something better to do. I haven't watched either of these shows in 15 years.

So to whoever wrote that episode of the Simpsons back in 1997 (Ken Keeler), way to go man. Thanks for ruining the Simpsons dude.

Rating: Thanks to nine good seasons (1989-1997) The Simpsons has some good depth to its shape. Nine sturdy lines, nine healthy and witty vertexes. Yet thanks to 16 horrible seasons to its name the shape is represented differently. It's nine-sided nonogonic nucleus of sturdy good qualities is overshadowed by an entwining 16-sided uncomfortably cumbersome hexakaidecagon. The final tally of the result of its rating is:

Nonogonal Nucleiic Hexakaidecagon

As you can see the nine-sided nucleus is well connected and sturdy...yet the additional 16 sides of the polygon are cumbersome and unnecessary. The only logical geometric rating to give The Simpsons is the Nonogonal Nucleiic Hexakaidecagon, obviously and undoubtedly

If making some cartoons is like building a house...then who would want to build a house shaped like a Nonogonal Nucleiic Hexakaidecagon? Probably Ken Keeler.

Beavis and Butthead
Okey-doke, so naturally moving along chronologically in our compendium of cartoons we arrive at the hit 1993 cartoon show...Beavis and Butthead.

I've written before about my enjoyment derived from watching this program so the rating may be a tad biased but it's just a stupid blog about my opinions so that's all you're gonna get. You're gonna get heavily biased views. Thank you very much.

This show had a million times more controversy than the Simpsons ever generated. From Senators denouncing it on the house floor, to Carl Sagan denouncing it in Demon Haunted World. This show got up everybody's trouser legs and just like the Simpsons it took a great deal of subtle (well not so subtle) satire up there with it.

 Now who is dis here Beevo and Buffcoats what-have-ya?

Previous entries on Beavis and Butthead: 

Rating: Beavis and Butthead had 1+6+1 seasons. Yet the first season was of notoriously poor quality and offered no subtly (straight out shock 'til you drop style). So in essence it is 6 core seasons + 1 notoriously bad one (1993) + 1 late-addition REALLY GOOD add-on (2011). It is in essence a hexagonal base structure yet it's core has so much depth that the lines are not flat. In fact it is a six faced structure...a cube to be more precise. 

The first season acts as a rough nucleus of non-concentric circle wavelengths radiating at the core of the six-faced core-cube. The first season acting as the most offensive season thus a radio-wave catalyst and driving force...yet still very unrefined. The 8th and final season in 2011 acts as a second wavelength of concentric circles which merges with the non-concentric circle wavelengths to create Pi (π)  and smooth out the core into a smooth sphere. Yes, Beavis and Butthead's most accurate rating variable in regards to this review is the Sphere-Nucleus Cube.

 Sphere-Nucleus Cube

South Park 
Our next sequential entry is the take-no-prisoners tour-de-force known as "South Park." Its first episode aired in 1997 and I remember it well. 

A station in my region bought the original 6 shows in 1997 and aired one...then waited for the complaints and ensuing damage-control needed before airing any others. Meanwhilst, in 1997 the internet was going strong and I had already figured out how to stream videos and watch whatever the fuck I wanted.

So, lo and behold...all the kids at my high school were talking about how funny that ONE episode of South Park was and I dropped a bombshell when I stated that I had already seen six shows. Naturally no one believed me so I took the time to storyboard out the shows at lunch period and said to the naysayers...

"Ye who doubt that I have seen 6 episodes of South Park lest only watch when the other 5 finally air and ye shall see that all my divine prophecies ring true. For in the next installment, Kathie Lee Gifford is parodied and Cartman gets very very fat!" 

Obviously when the station in question did finally air the second episode my prediction rang true and all the two or maybe three people I told it to thought I was pretty friggin' cool and everything.

As far as controversy goes...honestly it didn't get as much as Beavis and Butthead because Mike Judge had kinda plowed a good deal of chillness (in regards to cartoons) into society by this juncture. 

Though South Park had to always do more and more and more to push the bar so low that not even fucking James Cameron could fish it out of the abyss. Yet through all the bar lowering the show stills has an acerbic deadly wit behind it. It's shock and awe, all the time, but when you burrow underneath the surface there's a lot of really intelligent stuff going on with this show.

Even after SEVENTEEN FUCKING YEARS the new season is looking strong. The tour-de-force has never lost its drive and there's even still potential in this show. Unlike the Simpsons which jumped the shark and died soon after...South Park has managed to find a way to be shark proof.

  As Shark Proof as The Batman

Maybe it was in Season 2 where they depicted Fonzie jumping over a shark...and then the shark caught and devoured Fonzie that broke the curse for them. Maybe they've been shark proof and free and at ease since 1998. Either way, alls I knows is, South Park is still good after 17 years.

Rating: It's a clean 17-sided Heptadecagon, no doubt about it. Each point of the Heptadecagon intersects geodesically with each other point at roughly 60 degree angles. Yes, South Park is undoubtedly a 60-degree intersecting well-made Heptadecagon. 

 60-Degree Intersecting Heptadecagon

Yes, yes it is. Oh and, since South Park has had 17 good seasons and The Simpsons has only had 9...

17 - 9 = 8

South Park is 8 units better than The Simpson mathematically. South Park is thus quantifiably Octahedronically better than The Simpsons.

Family Guy

It's becoming hip to rag on poor old Family Guy, but I want the record to show that I've never really been huge on this show and I'm not one of these band-wagonning anti-Family Guy genres of people. I believe Family Guy jumped the shark and began being pretty crappy at this juncture...

Yeah, Okay, he hurt his knee. What a cute joke. Okay, okay...good for fucking him. These types of jokes are the core of the show which is shrouded in an impenetrable wall of stolen bits. That basically is what Family Guy is. It was bad from the first season, right from the get-go, and will always be bad. There's no blips in the wavelength of shit...just shit...forever and ever.

Its geodesic shape is that of actual inertia. A straight line of never-ending/never-altering crap.

"Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its motion (including a change in direction). In other words, it is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant linear velocity, or to keep still." (wiki) 
Family Guy is a straight unchangeable line. What's more is they gave this show TWO clones of itself...American Dad and Cleveland. Meaning this straight line has two identical clones of it in its universe.

Rating: What do three straight identical measuring and angled lines give us?

Equilateral Triangle

Family Guy (and Family Guy ' and Family Guy '') are an equilateral triangle....of crap. Okay, it's not that bad, it can be funny sometimes but I think this rating variable really fits snug-like-a-glove in this case.


We have successfully concluded our geometric ranking of Edge/Boundary Pushing Cartoon shows and I believe it went well. Maybe I should go back to rating things with numbers or letters though.

I wanted to include good shows like Futurama and Ren and Stimpy (I think Ren and Stimpy has a big place in history honestly)...but these two are not omni-popular like the Big 4 Edge-Pushers are. Only 4 cartoons have had massive appeal.

Thank you and good night.