Football Is Gay. The Super Bowl Is Super Gay.

OK, let me just make this perfectly clear. I'm pretty libertarian about most things and I have absolutely no problem with two (or more) consenting adults engaging in any sort of sexual activity they care to. Nor do I look askance at anyone, male or female, who engages in consensual homosexual activity (one time or a thousand times), alternates between heterosexual and homosexual activity, can't decide, decides they want both, or whatever. So, when I use the phrase "gay" in this post, I am not using that term as a pejorative. (For previous and subsequent posts I make no such guarantee.)

But let me just as clear on this point as well: Football is nothing but a mass manifestation of latent male homosexual urges. Don't believe me? Here's Time Magazine from 1978: Is football some kind of mass men's room solicitation of the national psyche? Not at all, says [U.C.-Berkley Prof. Alan] Dundes. It is merely a sanctioned form of theater where players and fans can safely discharge their homoerotic impulses. Coaches who ask players to refrain from sex before a game intuitively understand that football is a temporary substitute for heterosexuality, just as "football widows" understand that their husbands are "dead to them sexually" while football is on TV. "Football is a healthy outlet for male-to-male affections," says Dundes, "just as spin the bottle and post office are healthy outlets for adolescent heterosexual needs."

Male bonding? Emotions running high? Hearts racing? Building and building excitement capped by a moment of exhiliration? Mmmmhmm.

(Props to Last Kiss Comics for the illustration.)

1989 Time Magazine Blurb on G.W. Bush: "Less Than Overwhelming"

In going through some files, I found some notes for a paper my brother did in college on Jerry Brown. I have them because about 12 years ago (?) he wrapped them up and gave them to me for Christmas. Don't ask -- that's just how we do things. In any event, at the bottom of page 20 of the February 27, 1989 Time Magazine, I came across this interesting little nugget:

Time Magazine Jumps the Shark

This is the retardedest thing I've seen all day! (True, I've only been up for an hour and a half, but during that time I've seen the cat try to eat the Christmas tree. Also, it's the retardest thing I anticipate seeing for the balance of the day.) Now I am all about the lower-case-"d" democratization of the spread of ideas, information, and consumer options made possible through recent technological advances, but my hope is that is a permanent change. Does that mean that next year's TMMPotY will be the same thing?

BTW, this means that G.W. Bush has had this distinction bestowed upon himself four times now: In 2000, in 2004, in 1966 for being part of "The Generation 25 and Under," and now for being himself.

A better choice, if they were going with this theme of de-centralization, would have been "nobody," or maybe anthropomorphized ones and zeroes. Why did they have to Dr.-Philicize their selection in this manner? (I guess the cover is supposed to reflect your face when you look at it. Reminds me of when they used to have these guys at the carnival who would take your picture and then you'd come back in an hour and they'd have you as TMMotY or some similar honor from Sports Illustrated, Playboy, Fortune, or whatever.)

I still think that if they were able to select Hitler, Stalin, and the Assaholla Khomeini in years past, that they should have had the balls to pick Osama for the 2001 version.

Cover gallery here, Wikipedia here.

Update: Chrysler is the exclusive sponsor of this issue. Hahahahahaha!!