Snarky Behavior

Entries tagged as ‘comedy’

Some Folks Will Never Lose a Toe…

November 25, 2007 · Leave a Comment

and then again some folks’ll…

Here’s a joke that was told to me, the “fancy New Yorker,” while in Iowa over Thanksgiving break:

A big-city New York lawyer went duck hunting in rural Iowa He shot and dropped a bird, but it fell into a farmer’s field on the other side of a fence. As the lawyer climbed over the fence, an elderly farmer drove up on his tractor and asked him what he was doing.

The attorney responded, “I shot a duck and it fell in this field, and now I’m going in to retrieve it.”

The old farmer replied, “This is my property, and you are not coming over here. ”

The indignant lawyer said, “I am one of the best trial attorneys in the U. S. ; and, if you don’t let me get that duck, I’ll sue you and take everything you own. ”

The old farmer smiled and said, “Apparently, you don’t know how we do things in Iowa. We settle small disagreements like this with the Iowa Three-Kick Rule.”

The lawyer asked, “What is this three-kick Rule? ”

The farmer replied, “Well, first I kick you three times and then you kick me three times, and so on, back and forth, until someone gives up. ”

The attorney quickly thought about the proposed contest and decided that he could easily take the old codger. He agreed to abide by the local custom.

The old farmer slowly climbed down from the tractor and walked up to the city feller. His first kick planted the toe of his heavy work boot into the lawyer’s groin and dropped him to his knees. His second kick nearly wiped the man’s nose off his face. The barrister was flat on his belly when the farmer’s third kick to a kidney nearly caused him to give up.

The lawyer summoned every bit of his will and managed to get to his feet and said, “Okay, you old coot, now it’s my turn. ”

The old farmer smiled and said, “Naw, I give up. You can have the duck. ”

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , ,

Unregistered Student or Illegal Alien?

November 19, 2007 · Leave a Comment

[Blitzer]:  Senator Obama, it seems the nature of the question lends itself to a yes or no answer:  “Would you extend student identification privileges to an undocumented student?”

[Obama]:  Now, this is a red herring argument.  These people aren’t coming to this University to get discounted movie tickets.  They’re coming here to enroll in classes.  What we need is comprehensive reform of our registration policies, so that we don’t have instances where we have these undocumented students.  We need to have a registration system that works, that doesn’t lock out people who are on the path to becoming legal students.  One that perhaps has the course listings, degree requirements, course descriptions, prerequisites, course approval requirements, and availability all in the same place, so we don’t have instances where students are falling through the cracks.

[Blitzer]:  An evasive answer to a simple question.  Let me pose this to the floor.  Congressman Kucinich:  where do you stand on this issue of illegal students?

[Kucinich]:  I take offense to the term “illegal.”  These are human beings, they’re just living their lives.  They’re undocumented, yes, but that’s because we make the path to documentation so utterly convoluted that we end up with situation at hand.

[Blitzer]:  Let’s hear from someone who’s not a hippie Keebler elf.  Senator Clinton, what is your take on this issue?

[Clinton]:  Well, as a carpetbagging New Yorker, this is an issue that’s very dear to my heart.  A lot of my constituents are dealing with these illegal students.  What if they have a seizure on campus?  How would we know where to send the medical bills?  Look: the fact is, in today’s global economy, our students are going to need to have the skills to navigate through a poorly constructed bureaucratic online system.  I say: give them their identification cards, and let them figure out the rest.

[Edwards]:  If I’m not mistaken, Senator Clinton just gave two different answers [confused eyebrow look].  That was a lot of words!

[Clinton]:  I don’t appreciate the mud-slinging from Senator Edwards.

[Edwards]:  With all due respect Senator Clinton, I’m from North Carolina… I sling tar.

[Clinton]:  [abruptly spastic laughter]

[Blitzer]:  Let’s get a Republican take on this issue.  Mr. Giuliani, as a New Yorker yourself, how do you feel about Columbia’s registration policies?

[Giuliani]:  Well first of all, this is an international school we’re talking about.  60% of the students are foreign born.  In a post 9/11 environment, we cannot afford to have undocumented students running around our universities, thinking that they’re registered for the following semester, when in reality they’ve neglected to enroll in the accompanying discussion sections, which have since been blocked out, or get departmental approval.  This is a security issue.  What if someone from India or Pakistan, with proficient IT skills, hacks our system and replaces it with one that’s fully functional and meets the needs of the students enrolling?  I think we can agree, this is an unacceptable risk we can’t afford to take.

[Blitzer]:  So what is your proposed solution?

[Giuliani]:  Well, first of all, we need to firewall the system.  Lock the students out if they’ve been inactive for longer than 3 minutes.

[Blitzer]:  I believe that’s already the case…

[Giuliani]:  Well, on a related issue, the Democrats seem to be flirting with this idea of amnesty: of letting students into impacted classes after they’ve missed their registration appointments, or because they improperly registered, or because they’ve failed to get instructor approval.  This is preposterous.  We need to identify those students who have improperly registered and give them “guest student” status, whereupon they can still pay full tuition to take classes they have no interest in, or otherwise don’t help their degree requirements or field of concentration, until the following semester.

I could keep going with this for hours on end.  Hey Columbia, your enrollment procedures suck.  See: UCLA Registrar for guidance.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , ,

Yao and Yi

November 17, 2007 · Leave a Comment

Yao and Yi

If I had more readers, I’d hold a caption contest. Oh what the hell… Caption Contest! I’ll start:

In China, due to the one child policy and a heavy male bias, boys are taught from a young age both to lead and follow the tango.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , , ,

Reading Between the Lines: Deconstructing Soulja Boy

November 15, 2007 · 3 Comments

Last week marked the end of Soulja Boy’s “Crank Dat” seven-week reign on top of the Billboard 100 charts. Before Mr. Boy follows the Italian marble-with-gold-inlay-brick road into bankrupcy and obscurity, we should take a moment to interpret the significance of his words in the historical context in which they were written.

Soulja boy off in this ho
Watch me crank it
Watch me roll
Watch me crank dat soulja boy
Then super man dat ho!

The 16-year old’s adoption of the name “Soulja Boy” in a post 9/11 environment, at a time when our country is fighting a two-front war, is somewhat of a departure from the crunk/dumb/hyphy movement that has most recently dominated the hip-hop movement, and a revisionist regression to the thug-life style that preceded it.

Consistent with the necessities of self-promotion in any introductory single, “Crank Dat (Soulja Boy)” is particularly interesting in its establishment of a hyper-masculine self-identity vis-a-vis several distinct social signifiers:

Soulja Boy’s postulations of masculinity are reinforced by affiliations with an institutional terminology endemic to the military establishment, which both propagate and legitimize said identity. However, it is important to note that the term “Soldier” is not incorporated whole-sale, but piece meal: whereas a soldier is a conformed, replaceable part submersed within a larger operation, a “Soulja” emphasizes his unique identity through self-referential dandyism (”watch me crank it, watch me roll”), highlighting his individual talents, namely sexual.

Soulja Boy’s claims are confirmed by the refrain “then super man dat ho.” According to, to “superman a ho” is to “have sex with a woman from behind, after climax pull out, and [ejaculate] on her back. When she tells the guy to wipe it off, he pretends too, and when she wakes up, she has the bed sheets stuck to her back like superman’s cape.”

Nope…didnt make that up. This was the #1 song on the airwaves for seven weeks… as Dave Chappelle says about the term “skeet skeet skeet”… “White people don’t know what it means yet!”

Hip-hop has forever been charged with blatant misogyny, but codifying a degrading sexual act in otherwise innocuously mainstream terminology seems more humorous than it does derogatory. In the same sense that “dead baby jokes” evoke a dark humor with escalating levels of grotesqueness, so it seems audacious sexual acts (or claims thereof) are increasingly self-satisfying to the extent by which they cleverly embarrass and degrade the female sexual partner. Implicit to this relationship is the understanding that only complicit women would tolerate such abuse, which is in turn further reinforcement of a masculine identity that asserts its undeniable will on the opposite sex.

The term “superman” therefore seems somewhat appropriate in the Nietzschian sense– an assertion of will, a rejection of behavioral consciousness as constrained by societal norms (yes Carlo, fast and loose here, I apologize). However, let us not forget the alternate identity to Superman: the anxious and uncomfortable Clark Kent, who is utterly impotent and uncomfortable with his ego. Kent must couch himself in a cape and uniform to assume the unfaltering male characteristics of strength, bravery and chivalry.

Not to say there is anything chivalrous about clandestinely using semen as slow drying cement, but certainly there is underlying anxiety that motivates a 16-year old to so emphatically posit himself as a “Soulja Boy” who cranks dat.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , ,

Turn Around and Say it Again!

October 29, 2007 · Leave a Comment

Can’t explain why, but I find this hilarious:

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , ,

If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life…

October 3, 2007 · 2 Comments

… never make a pretty woman your wife.

This post will be long, but wah-woo-wee-woo worth it!

The following was posted on Craigslist in the “Women-Seeking-Men” section:

Okay, I’m tired of beating around the bush. I’m a beautiful (spectacularly
beautiful) 25 year old girl. I’m articulate and classy. I’m not from New York.
I’m looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I
know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in
New York City, so I don’t think I’m overreaching at all.Are there any guys who
make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips? I dated
a business man who makes average around 200 – 250. But that’s where I seem to
hit a roadblock. 250,000 won’t get me to central park west.

I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and
lives in Tribeca, and she’s not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So
what is she doing right? How do I get to her level?Here are my questions
specifically:- Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars,
restaurants, gyms-What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won’t
hurt my feelings-Is there an age range I should be targeting (I’m 25)?-

Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east side
so plain? I’ve seen really ‘plain jane’ boring types who have nothing to offer
married to incredibly wealthy guys. I’ve seen drop dead gorgeous girls in
singles bars in the east village. What’s the story there?- Jobs I should look
out for? Everyone knows – lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those
guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang
out?- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for MARRIAGE
ONLYPlease hold your insults – I’m putting myself out there in an honest way.
Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I’m being up front about it. I
wouldn’t be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn’t able to match them – in
looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth.


Dear Pers-431649184:

I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about
your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament. Firstly, I’m
not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make
more than $500K per year. That said here’s how I see it.
Your offer, from
the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a crappy business deal.

Here’s why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple
trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But
here’s the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into
perpetuity…in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an
absolute certainty that you won’t be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning
asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let
me explain, you’re 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years,
but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in

So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy
and hold…hence the rub…marriage. It doesn’t make good business sense to “buy
you” (which is what you’re asking) so I’d rather lease. In case you think I’m
being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were to go away, so would
you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It’s as simple as that. So a deal
that makes sense is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I
wonder why a girl as “articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful” as you has
been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if you are
as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn’t found you, if not only for
a tryout.

By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we
wouldn’t need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you’re going about it the right way. Classic
“pump and dump.” I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort
of lease, let me know.

My take:
1) Seeing how I float from class to class only dealing with numbers (economics, statistics and accounting), I can’t help but evaluate this exchange with a utility/efficiency lens. From that angle, the respondent hit this e-mail out of the park. $50,000 bonus for you.

2) The orginal poster states that she can’t understand why she’s “seen really ‘plain jane’ boring types who have nothing to offer, married to incredibly wealthy guys.” I think this highlights the central confusion in the male/female (Venus/Mars) dynamic, at least from the women’s perspective: women confuse men’s short term interests with their long term goals. They then market themselves to match men’s short term interests, and are angry and upset when this does not yield their desired expectation (marriage).

3) Men take the opposite approach: they recognize that wealth is a conduit to power, and power to sex (the Scarface Theory– “first you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women!”)

All things being equal (in college, when self-generated wealth does not factor into play), lacking striking physical attractiveness, men can either capitalize on their self-projected potential for wealth-generation (i.e. “the douchebag factor,” which women frequently misconstrue as “confidence”), or they can forgo sex altogether, invest in themselves completely, and become wildly successful in five to ten years… having sacrificed their sexual prime, waistline, and hairline.

By such a time (the accelerated mid-life crisis) men are looking to settle pragmatically, not cash in on a trophy wife based on a relationship that is completely disingenous and will undoubtedly result in the divestment of half of his earnings via the inevitable divorce settlement. He worked hard for that money, sacrificed a lot, and intends to keep it.

Meanwhile, the douchebags (like the respondent) are, in the early stages of their careers, only looking for bigger and better, to flip women like a real-estate investor might flip condos. The end-goal of such a venture isn’t a ritzy-apartment overlooking Central Park West (the hot chick), although it certainly might be desirable to have that on the side, if you can afford it (and get away with it). The end-goal is a secure mansion that you can lock up with your worldly possessions and off-spring (the “plain jane”), providing him with safety, security and an anxiety-free life-style where he can kick up his feet and read the paper.

4) I don’t have the necessary analytical tools to give this e-mail exchange a proper feminist critique (or quite possible it’s what I possess that makes such an interpretation unrealistic), but this e-mail exchange REALLY highlights the assymetrical dynamic of the sexes, does it not? Maybe it is because women are on a clock, and are the first to cave into the constrained institution of marriage, that they are more responsive to the demands of men’s preferences than men are to women?

In any event, many women (such as the above poster) continue to see their best avenue to wealth, happiness and security as elbow decoration to a wealthy, happy and successful man. This is despite the fact that women are entering professional careers and obtaining degrees of higher education at a higher rate (and number!) than are men. I’m too lazy to link, but the New York Times just ran an article about how wealthy women in the city find it difficult to date men who are not as wealthy as them. Simply put: men aren’t as proportionally attracted to wealth in women, as women are to wealth in men.

5) All of this discussion really highlights why you should marry for the right reasons instead of the wrong reasons. And I’m not necessarily saying the right reason is “true love”… that is the lazy, default answer. You are delusional and unreasonable if you believe that “true love” will substantiate your existence… if you rely on “true love” to guarantee your life’s happiness, the only gurantee you’ll get in dissatisfaction, except in very rare instances.

No, the “right” reasons to marry are: trust, responsibility, mutual respect, companionship, love (as a component, not as the only component)… maybe even dual income, caretaking considerations, etc. So unless these were the “matching things” the original poster was referring to in her original post, then the respondent’s evaluation of the offer as “crappy” — seems appropriate.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , ,

I Will be Wearing this Shirt for the Next 2 Years:

September 30, 2007 · 1 Comment

Get your own here! (Jackie, I fully expect you to buy this).

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , ,

Trapped in the Closet is the best…

September 24, 2007 · Leave a Comment

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , ,

Can’t We All Just Get A Schlong?

September 20, 2007 · 1 Comment

This is the kind of debate that goes on in the stalls of a prestigious school for International Relations.

This debate, by the way, was settled in Sharpie: “Why don’t you just use the extra skin and get a sex change???”

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , ,

Do My Tears Surprise You Sir? Strong Men Also Cry…

September 5, 2007 · 2 Comments

I’m always quietly amused whenever I check my Yahoo! account (strictly for fantasy football purposes) and the homepage is some news story (in the loosest definition of that term) that gives just enough information to pique the interest of a readership which is only two rungs higher on the evolutionary ladder than that of the New York Post.

Yesterday the headline was so utterly hilarious that I admit I rubbernecked into a click-through… “Bush Tells Biographer: ‘I Do Tears’”.

Here’s exactly how this “biography” came to pass:

[Advisor]: Sir, you have historically low approval ratings, lower than any president in history.
[Bush]: Wapner.
[Advisor]: Sir, we’re going to have to do some intense public relations to make you a more sympathetic person, without having to reveal your dimensia.
[Bush]: (Wookie noise)

The ridiculously transparent and pathetic nature of this public image makeover attempt got me thinking: where does this rate on the “Ridiculously Transparent and Pathetic Public Image Makeover” scale???

The Ridiculously Transparent and Pathetic Public Image Makeover Scale

(Note: Ratings are from 1 to 10, 1 being “understandable and necessary” and 10 being “you’re making me uncomfortable and embarrassed just watching you trying to sell yourself in a new light.”)

1. Ellen Degeneres buys Converse, wears bed head pomade and white dress-suits with pants to reenter public sphere as “spunky funny lesbian” and not “emo Melissa Etheridge lesbian.”

2. Isiaah Washington goes on Larry King to say “I HAD A FREAKING GAG ORDER AND THEY STILL FIRED ME,” which he can’t actually say, because ABC would sue him.

3. Jason Giambi “apologizes” to the New York media, without actually saying what he was apologizing for. You know, just that he was sorry. For the wink wink nudge nudge. And the flick flick poke plunge lift recover pick your bacne.
4. Kobe apologizing for getting caught… er, cheating on his wife.
5. Vanilla Ice goes on “The Surreal Life,” because his “agent” (i.e. his boy Lil’ Dookey) told him the best way to stop people from making fun of him for being a wigger idiot 15 years ago is to establish his relative sanity in an environment of washed and boozed up D-list celebrities (on camera).

6. Paula Abdul launches a reality TV show so that the world can see the “real” her… only to discover that the “real” her is just as we all expected… a rich crack-whore on valium, 24/7.

7. Dave Chappelle goes on “Inside the Actors Studio” and “Oprah” to try to explain how he gets really, really high so much that he thinks crazy thoughts that nobody else could possibly relate to, and while we all think it’s hilarious, he is racked with inexplicable guilt and self-doubt.

8. Bush admits to crying, abandoning his tough cowboy demeanor as a pre-emptive application of vaseline for the wide loaded girth historians will leave behind while discussing his “legacy” for the next 18 months.

9. Clint Eastwood REALLY cries in “Million Dollar Baby,” instantly losing 7 decades’ worth of respect and admiration, so that he could win an Oscar. End of Western genre is officially demarcated shortly thereafter with the release of “Brokeback Mountain.”

10. Tom Cruise jumps up and down on Oprah’s couch, yelling “I’m in love!” If you could see beyond his widely set grin and squinting eyes, you’d find a self-loathing homosexual alien-robot.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , ,