Fucking Awesome.


Updated: Oct. 28, 2006
Bulgarian player ordered to get married by clubReuters


SOFIA, Bulgaria -- Bulgarian premier league side Litex Lovech has ordered striker Ivelin Popov to get married in the coming year in the hopes it will curtail his wild living.

"I accept the order and I promise to do it," said Popov, who is a key member of Bulgaria's under-21 squad. "My bosses are right to want such a thing from me because they know my temper."

Popov, a Levski Sofia trainee who turned 19 this week, had an unsuccessful spell at Dutch club Feyenoord before joining Litex last year.

He is known for his countless girlfriends and volatile temper and upset the Litex fans on Friday when he made a gesture toward them after scoring in a 2-1 victory over Rodopa Smolyan.

However, he is promising to curb his volatile temperament and settle down with his current girlfriend.

"She's very nice and very smart. I think this will be the woman of my life, so don't remind me my past, please," he said.

"They want me thinking only about football and the marriage probably will help me to calm down.

"I know I'm a very bad boy and I want to meet my 20th birthday as a married man."

Litex, coached by Ljupko Petrovic, a European Cup with Red Star Belgrade in 1991, is third in the domestic league with 23 points from 11 matches, six behind leader Levski Sofia.

A coworker of mine just sent me an email that said that my choice of lifestyle will lead me to either hit rock bottom or die. I think that Hit Rock Bottom or Die would be a great country song. I think we should write one - if anyone has any lyrical or theme suggestions for Hit Rock Bottom or Die - post em here.

A short time ago, I was flicking around the TV and came across an old favorite of mine, Revenge of the Nerds. This staple film, made in 1984, was the building block of Friday night cinema for most of the people in my brother's generation, and those fortunate enough to have older siblings and parents that didn't really care if their child was watching funny pornography. Needless to say, it shaped the experiences and attitudes that many of us had when we reached our college years. In the film, two things stood out to me.


#1. Betty Childs, girlfriend of Adams College starting quarterback and head-Alpha Stan Gable, was raped by the Nerd co-leader, Louis Skolnick. He pulled off this sexual molestation by donning the Darth Vader-like mask of rival Gable and following Childs into the Fun House. The recently spurned Childs was excited by the apparent change of mind that ‘Gable’ had and lead him by the hand into the Moon Walk. As the two people lay down on the air-filled moon-floor, Childs asked her boyfriend to remove his mask. Skolnick, silent the entire time since entering the Fun House, shook his head to say no. Childs read this as a ‘kinky’ move and proceeded to let Skolnick have sex with her.


The entire encounter, that on the Silver Screen played out as clever and just, was actually the pre-meditated act of a pervert and misogynist. Skolnick overheard Betty Childs remark to her boyfriend that working in the Kissing Booth had made her ‘horny’. She suggested that they slip away together and make love. Stan Gable, always the jock before the man, declined her advances by saying, “Betty... you’re like a goat.” As Childs slipped away, Skolnick devised a plan. He stole Gable’s mask and followed Childs into the Fun House.


In the Fun House, Skolnick, although a physics phenom and wizard with a Roland synthesizer, committed several felonies, including stalking, false imprisonment, criminal trespass, and rape. In the film Revenge of the Nerds, Skolnick is portrayed as a hero, someone to look up to. One would think that these traits would only be found in the lowest of the low, but not in this case.

Now, the movie leads us to believe that Skolnick only engaged in oral sex with Ms. Childs, and that no actual intercourse occured. Even if this was the case, I think it was a rape morally, even if it would not be punishable under law. Most state laws say that if a woman submits under the belief that she is having sex with her husband, and that belief is induced by some form of trickery, then the sex is rape. The only reason that wouldn't apply in "Revenge of the Nerds" is that Betty thought Louis was her boyfriend, not husband. Close enough for moral disapproval, in my book.


#2. Betty Childs, seconds removed from a rapturous love making session, finds out that the true identity of the person who just ravaged her body was not her longtime and trusted boyfriend, Stan Gable, but Nerd-stalker Louis Skolnick. Childs let this new information set in for exactly one second before excusing Skolnick’s obvious act of rape because his love-making style was of a high quality. Apparently, if Skolnick would have done a below average job of bringing sexual pleasure to Ms. Childs, then this horrendous act would have never been allowed to go on unreported. Perhaps Ms. Childs was paralyzed by the negative stigma that rape victims feel, as if the act was her fault. Maybe by not reporting it, Childs may have been attempting to deny the very existence of the rape-act. These are questions that we may never learn the truth about.


The appalling outcome is that Skolnick is rewarded for his unforgivable actions by luring Childs away from a popular and stable relationship with Stan Gable to one built on a foundation of deceit and assault. Clearly suffering from the Florence Nightingale effect, Childs formed a trauma-based attachment to her attacker to mask the pain she felt inside. By committing herself to Skolnick, Childs and her now-crushed self confidence made the false assumption that Skolnick loved her, since he was the only man that she had known that was kind to her. The reality is that rape-shame concealed all positive memories that occurred prior to the molestation, effectively wiping out her connection to Stan Gable. Her tragic transformation from campus princess to sex crime victim was made complete when later on, at the Homecoming football rally, she left Stan by saying, “I’m in love with a nerd.”


Was she really in love, or was Skolnick’s sexual assault so devastating and complete that Childs, or at least the Childs that Gable knew and loved, was dead, and only a spent, physical shell remained for Skolnick to ravage again and again in Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise?


One other parting question that came up about the movie, because I really don't want to get into the pantyraid, because that's just a litany of filth and lawlessness that transcends most XXX movies in terms of misogyny, or the sexual act that occurs between Lewis, Gilbert and a sheep while they were pledging for the frat.


Fredrick W. Palowaski (a.k.a "The Ogre") may have killed two men in the movie. The first he dropped head-first from a second story balcony after seeing the nerds for the first time. He then throws a man through a window from about 8-10 feet up about 15 minutes later. Why wasn't he arrested? Were the Adams football players truly above the law?? If so they must have been one hell of a football team. If guys from Nebraska, Florida State and Miami, traditional football powers, can get arrested, it tells me that Adams football is definitely a powerhouse. Were they a division 1-A school? D-3?? Do you think any of them went pro??

Tell Me When To Cheer And I’ll Do It For A Short While, Then Become Disinterested


Over the years I've attended numerous sporting events, ranging from High School Volleyball to Pro Hockey and I've always found myself very interested in the crowds for these games. Factors like how many are in attendance, how vocal they are, their general knowledge of the game, what they're wearing, etc. have always piqued my interest. I'm generally not a huge fan of thousands of people in the same place at the same time, but the possibilities of the crowd intrigue me.

Growing up a big soccer fan, I've always looked on in envy at their supporters-the chants, the jerseys, the flares, the flags, the booze, etc. They seem like they are really into what's going on. Granted, I've never been to a European or South American soccer match before. It may be quite the same as sporting events are here. Though, when I go to or watch some of the American professional or college games of any sport on TV, I find most all the time that the atmosphere is nothing like when I watch European soccer games on TV. It just seems... lacking. Fans routinely show up late and leave early, are mostly docile - except when "Welcome To The Jungle" comes on - whereupon they cheer wildly because Axl is telling them to do so, then revert back to a low murmur once the music stops, and people always seem to be more interested in the scoreboard, concessions, music or others around them than the actual game they're watching. I always thought that the purpose of playing the loud pump-it-up music was to encourage the crowd to start cheering, and then keep it rollling through the duration of the play. This almost never happens. When the fans miraculously continue to cheer, it's only until the next closing action in whatever sport they're watching (pitch, basket, play, whistle or zone clearance). It just feels so... contrived, or forced, or boring.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just as guilty of doing all of the things I've just mentioned as any other. The difference with me I guess is that I'm not even that into attending live games, except for hockey, which I find to be much better live. I just prefer to watch it at home, or a bar, or anywhere on TV for that matter. I just prefer that to sitting very far away, paying a ton of money for tickets, parking, beer, etc., all to sit in a lifeless stadium (especially the Metrodome) that completely drains the marrow from the event. When I do attend an event, I'll admit I'm not doing my all to contribute to the atmosphere of the event and am a hypocrite for doing so. My only arguments to this are that a) I don't or even really want to attend most games, and b) I'm not as hardcore as most people when it comes to rooting for teams. I like it when the teams I am rooting for do well, but I'm not going to go apeshit about it or paint my face, buy a ton of jerseys, buy season tickets, etc. I do, however, like it when other people do that stuff. I guess this is where I get selfish. I want raucous, enthusiastic, knowledgeable crowds across the country, but I don't really want to be a part of them. I just want them to enhance my experience of the event I'm watching, even if I'm probably only watching it on TV.

I think that College Football and Basketball come the closest to having a solid fan experience. Passionate, intoxicated fans, traditional cheers, chants and bands, historic stadiums, and the players aren't multi-millionaires. Places like Kyle Field, Michigan Stadium, Neyland Stadium, and Tom Osborne Field all seem to have electric atmospheres, along with some basketball venues like Cameron Indoor Stadium and the Allen Fieldhouse in Kansas. (Actually after finding the pictures and reading about some of these places, specifically the football stadiums, I'm not sure why any good football player would want to play at the Metrodome.)

Pro sports seem to be the worst at generating any electricity during games. Twins games are like sitting in a library, T-Wolves games are like sitting in Jimmy Jam's basement studio, Wild fans like to think they're great, but they're pretty quiet during the run of play, and the Xcel is too nice to not want to walk around and drink $9.00 beers. Gopher hockey fans have become detached, quiet and pretty sober. St. Cloud, North Dakota and Wisconsin have better student sections, and that's gross.

I guess I just want to see some crazy fans that can really influence how a team plays, I want to see real home field advantage, and not just travel advantage, I want to hear entire stadiums chanting the same thing. I want people to care. Can you imagine it?? Wouldn't it be great? ...I'll be at home watching.

From this weeks edition of TMQ (ESPN.com). Me likes - what else can this be applied to?
When Researchers Projected Magnetic Fields Into Dick Cheney's Brain, He Became Friendly: Economists call it the Ultimate Game, and have long contended it proves Homo sapiens insufficiently logical. Here's the situation. Two strangers are brought together by a third person who holds $1,000. He tells them the money is theirs to divide on these terms: Stranger A must propose how to split the $1,000, and Stranger B must either accept or reject A's offer. That concludes the game, no second round. Classical economists maintain Stranger A should say, "I propose that I get $999 and you get $1," and Stranger B should immediately respond, "I accept." Pure economic theory says A should maximize his gain by shafting B out of every possible farthing, while B should calculate that since his sole choice is between $1 and nothing, $1 is better. Yet researchers have played this game with volunteers in many nations, and it never works the way theory says. The bare-minimum offer is always rejected. Generally, A must offer at least 30 percent or B says no and both players get nothing. Classical economists have long harrumphed that B's response when the game is played with real money shows human beings are too emotional and insufficiently focused on maximizing outcomes.

This pot was stirred last week when researchers led by Dario Knoch of the University of Zurich reported that using magnets to disrupt the right prefrontal cortex of volunteers playing Stranger B caused them to become much more willing to accept low offers. Now, if someone was using magnetic waves to scramble parts of your brain, your bargaining skills might decline, too. ("Herr Professor Doktor, ve haff discovered zat when ve knock der volunteers unconscious mit ein sledgehammer, zey refuse to aufgeparticipatehaffen* in the experiment.") But I think tests like the University of Zurich study only point to the Ultimate Game being so flawed that it mainly shows us faults of classical economics.

First, the game assumes money is superior to all other forms of possessions, including psychological well-being. But the world doesn't work that way. If I am Stranger B and accept the $1 offer, I have a dollar bill but also feel like a total dupe: And how can being made to feel like a dupe be worth a mere dollar? Any small-percentage offer accepted by B would make B feel unhappy and taken advantage of, while rejecting the small-percentage offer gives B the pleasure of feeling retribution was achieved against A. Once the offer gets up to around 30 percent, then the value of the money might equal whatever unpleasant thoughts B will experience when seeing A cackling and counting a larger pile of loot. Reactions like rejecting very low offers do not, as classical economists maintain, show that B fails to understand economics. They show that B understands money is not everything!

Next, people in the B role might derive long-term benefits from refusing low offers, and these benefits might exceed the value of the money forgone. In his important new book "The Origin of Wealth," Eric Beinhocker speculates that the kind of circumstances in which B refuses a too-low offer are "the cornerstone for social cooperation that is essential for wealth creation." In order for the free market to serve the overall welfare of society, Beinhocker maintains, all must mutually agree not to participate in arrangements that exploit those with weak bargaining positions. Society must be structured such that A would feel ashamed of offering only $1 to B, and would offer a fair sum in order to feel good about the transaction. If parties in strong positions offer fair sums, the result is mutually beneficial trading for everyone, including the strong. (Are you listening, Wal-Mart?) "The Origin of Wealth" is a major new book that ought to be commanding significant attention. Beinhocker, a management consultant for McKinsey & Company, argues persuasively that market economics is not a war of all against all. Market economies do best, Beinhocker says, and the welfare of society rises most, when people voluntarily take each other's interests into account.

Finally, TMQ contends economists misunderstand their own Ultimate Game because the focus of discussion is always on what Stranger B will accept. The key to this puzzle is not B but Stranger A -- who is a total, utter idiot for offering only $1 because this insures A gets nothing! Offers in which A seeks to claim the lion's share are irrational on A's part, because such offers will fail. I would argue there is only one wise offer for A to make: that they each get $500. A 50/50 split is sure to be accepted, thus insuring Stranger A of pocketing $500. A fair-minded person playing the A role would offer a 50/50 split because it is fair; economically this is also the logical move, because it guarantees a successful transaction. By focusing on whether B will accept an inequitable offer, economists skip over how dumb it is for A to make such an offer. By contrast, fairness leads to benefits for both parties, which is the big point of "The Origin of Wealth."

(*Note: Tuesday Morning Quarterback has long contended that any verb can be converted into pseudo-German using the formula aufgeXXXXXhaffen. Thus to jog becomes to aufgejoggenhaffen, etc.)



Think about this in terms of proposing a three way with your girlfriend - with yourself being stranger A - your girlfriend being stranger B - and the third person (in this case a smoking hot chicky) being the $1000. The whole we'll get drunk and I'll do you first while you do her, then I'll do her while she does you - then we'll all do each other scenario from countless movies, mags, and boys imaginations equals the $999 to $1 offer.

What is the three way equivalent of the 50/50?