Welcome Corner readers. Thanks to Kathryn Lopez for her post correcting her oversight this morning that prompted Milbarge's rant against K-Lo below. No apologies are necessary; fun was had by all.

If you are new to Begging the Question and you are wondering who we are, you can check out our About page. Don't want to click over? Well then, the down-and-dirty version is that Milbarge is a law clerk to a federal appellate judge and Fitz-Hume works as a legislative counsel to a state legislature west of the Mississippi. We borrowed our blogonyms from the wonderful Cold War spoof Spies Like Us which featured Dan Aykroyd as Austin Milbarge and Chevy Chase as Emmett Fitz-Hume. We write about a range of topics, from law to sports to pop culture to politics, and more. For a representative sample of our work, check out our Best of BTQ page where you can enjoy the very best BTQ posts of the last year.

If you have any questions, feel free to email us at btqblog [at] gmail [dot] com (or click here).

Thanks for stopping by.

A few days ago I wrote a little post you can find here. It was my response to criticism on the National Review Online blog The Corner of last week's episode of "E.R." You can read the post for the details, but basically I chided the Corner writers a bit for getting overly worked up about an abortion theme in the show. The two writers were NRO Editor Kathryn Jean Lopez, "affectionately" known as "K-Lo," and Shannen Coffin. At one point, I used the throwaway parenthetical phrase "apparently to K-Lo and Coffin (wouldn't that be a good name for a sitcom: "K-Lo and Coffin!")...."

Well, it seems I'm not the only one who thinks so. This morning, Ms. Lopez published a post which included the following sentence: "I'm ignoring all substance in this blog post and homing in on the important observation: "wouldn't that be a good name for a sitcom: 'K-Lo and Coffin!'" Lopez apparently enjoyed the idea: "The possibilities are endless..." (She ponders one possibility here.)

Why am I going into all this detail to relate a little mention in The Corner? Because there's no link to BTQ there! That's just not cool! Frankly, I think it violates basic blogospehere etiquette. While the general concept of noting potential wacky sitcom names in the style of "Cagney and Lacy" or "Simon and Simon" or "Mork and Mindy" isn't unique to me, I sincerely doubt that the idea of a K-Lo and Coffin sitcom was anyone's but mine. And not only that, she used the exact same language that I did, right down to the colon and exclamation point. And my post was filled with links to The Corner, which the editor would be able to track back to my post. It is simply incredible to think that Lopez got this phrase from anywhere but my earlier post. And yet she doesn't take a couple of seconds to add a link. Perhaps she doesn't read BTQ (although why wouldn't she?!), and someone sent her my post, but wouldn't that email have included a link? And if it didn't, wouldn't the cool thing have been to seek out a link? Someone came to BTQ this morning by searching for "apparently to K-Lo and Coffin." Was that you, Kathryn Lopez?

If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you read us, do you not link? We're hungry for readers' eyeballs ("Yumm, eyeballs") around here, I write a post about The Corner, Kathryn Lopez reads it (or some of it, at least), steals a phrase from it, but doesn't link to it! I don't expect her to agree with the criticisms in my post, or even to respond to them. And given my suppositions about the readership over there, my guess is that most readers she would send here would take her side and try to smack me down in the comments to that post. It's not like there's any downside to linking to this site, and once you're reading the post, the time and effort to do so are negligible. And it's amusing that this comes from a web page that enjoys chiding folks like Stephen Ambrose and "plagarizing princess Doris Kearns Goodwin" (6/12/04; 11:13 a.m. if that link doesn't work). I shouldn't lump all the writers there in the same basket, but one assumes that the editor of the web page would set a standard.

I like reading The Corner, even though I disagree with a lot of what I find there. Should I now worry that the content there is lifted from other places? At least K-Lo signalled she got the sitcom name from another source by using quotation marks (albeit incorrectly in her post; I cleaned them up above). It's not that I'm mad about her using my goofy phrase -- it's not like she scuttled some exclusive deal I was working on with the networks for pilot season. In fact, I'm happy when other bloggers key on something I write. But the cool thing to do is give credit when you do that. We might be fledgling as compared to The Corner, but we're not ham-and-eggers here. When we take content from another blog, we do the right thing and link to the source. That's how people find out about new blogs. We would have been happy to welcome readers that The Corner sent here, and would hope that some of them would become regular visitors. But we can't do that unless The Corner links here. If you're reading this because you were intrepid enough to search for the phrase K-Lo used, thanks for coming by. And K-Lo, if you're reading this, you're welcome for the links.

In light of the emails I've received asking why my comments on tort reform were edited out of Milbarge's post (scroll down the page, I don't have time to add the link), I thought it best to explain to all in a post.

I'm not allowed to comment in public forums, anonymously or otherwise, on issues (tort reform, wild horses, urban sprawl and nuclear waste to name but a few) that come before my clients. Nor may I opine on any issue in such a way that my clients might feel that my opinions could call into question my impartiality as a legal advisor. I can't have bumper stickers on my car, I cannot contribute to political organizations, or even belong to Trout Unlimited. In that same vein, I cannot offer any opinions on any political and legal issues that I may have to address as part of my job. To comply with the workplace rules, I felt it necessary to delete my comments. So much the better, as my comments did little to advance the debate.

Silly? Perhaps. But no great loss to the readers I assure you. Now, if you will excuse me, I'm late for a lunch date.

Luanne: "Uncle Hank, what's a BTU?"
Hank: "British Thermal Unit."
Luanne: "Wow, so there's no bacon in it at all, then."
Hank: "I think you've picked up the wrong book there, Luanne. That one's about propane."
Luanne: "I know! I'm studying to be a propane salesman, just like you used to be, Uncle Hank."
Hank: "That's a neat idea, Luanne. And while you're at it, you can fly around the world in a weather balloon."
Luanne: "I can too get a job selling propane. Buckley said he'd hire me at the Mega Lo Mart."
Hank: "Mega Lo Mart? Why don't you just go to down to Hell and work for the Devil?"

I haven't commented on the steroid issue gurgling through the baseball world yet because I haven't had much to offer and because I'm on record for Pete Rose-ing any players who use steroids. But something caught my eye today. I've never been a Tony La Russa fan, and this cinches it for me: He admits he knew Jose Canseco used steroids when La Russa was managing him on the A's. There's no way La Russa (who holds a law degree) should be allowed to play moral arbiter about whether Mark McGwire's use of andro was okay but Canseco's use of whatever he used wasn't. There's no use trusting someone who blithely rode those chemically-enhanced teams to the World Series, knew about it -- not just turned a blind eye like Sandy Alderson and the rest of baseball did, but knew about it -- and did nothing. Why didn't La Russa go on "60 Minutes" fifteen years ago? Better yet, why didn't he tell Canseco to get clean and do it the right way -- if for no other reason than to keep Jose healthy (Canseco played 17 seasons, but in only one of his last ten did he appear in more than 120 games) and on the off chance that Canseco were busted, to protect his team?

The problem is that Major League Baseball has pretty much lost me (and people like me) as a fan already, and too many of the remaining fans are willing to overlook rampant cheating. Why is this the kind of thing you condemned when it was practiced by the East German Olympic swimming team but accept when you're paying money to watch a baseball game? I'll go to a game in person for an outing, more for the atmosphere than the quality of the competition, but I almost never watch more than an inning or two of a game on television, and I have no real love for the game as played by the major leaguers. So baseball has already passed me by. But as it has done so, it has reached a crossroads. Either baseball cleans house or it takes its place alongside the All Drug Olympics. I know which one Pete Rose would bet on.

Joseph: "Today's the Valentine's Day flower sale. If a girl likes you, she buys you a carnation. It's just a scam perpetrated by the floral-industrial complex -- right, Dad?"
Dale: "That's right, Joseph. But still, you don't want to look like some flowerless loser."

Bill: "Don't feel sorry for me. Being alone isn't all bad. You don't have to dress to impress. That eats up a lot of time, which I fill with sleeping, because being awake is too depressing."

Bobby, watching Bill's wedding video: "My God, what happened to you?"
Bill: "Yeah, I looked pretty good back then, didn't I? 'Course, that was before Lenore started cheating on me. Two weeks before."
Bobby: "But you can meet someone else. Like on the internet. You could use your old picture..."
Bill: "No...what are the odds of me finding another beautiful woman passed out in my lap at a Molly Hatchet concert? "

Dateline: Lincoln. This is an interesting story. A big donor to President Bush's campaigns wanted to be rewarded with an ambassadorship, and got steamed when two years passed without a posting as a thank-you. According to him, Bush's chief fund-raiser promised him a stay at the real embassy suites, but didn't deliver. The donor was eventually named to head SallieMae, which makes me wonder if he could pay off my student loans for me. But what's odd about this is that the donor kept written records of his correspondence. I mean really -- is this the kind of man we want representing our foreign policy around the world? You don't write down kickback offers! Prosecutors say there's not enough evidence of a specific quid pro quo to make a bribery charge, but it's still a little embarrassing.

Dateline: Lansing. My favorite foreign-born governor, Michigan's Jennifer Granholm, has proposed a budget that would eliminate coffee as one of the beverages offered to state prison inmates. They would still be able to buy the instant stuff in the commissary, but the state would save hundreds of thousands of dollars by not providing the bean juice gratis. When you outlaw Folger's crystals, only outlaws will have Folger's crystals.

Dateline: Oklahoma City. First they've got to pay for coffee, and now this. Oklahoma is moving towards requiring all felons to submit DNA samples. To pay for it, the state will impose a $150 fee on felons. Next thing you know, they'll make inmates provide their own shivs.

Dateline: Columbia. A federal judge in South Carolina has upheld a death sentence after an inquiry into juror misconduct. During the trial, the forewoman of the jury called local television stations and newspapers and said how interesting the trial was, and that it deserved more coverage. The judge said that while her actions were improper, she was not exposed to any outside information, and thus it was harmless. Postscript: The woman was convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to perform 120 hours of community service. I wonder if the guy on death row will call the tv news to get them to report about that.

Dateline: Atlanta and Raleigh. Georgia legislators agreed to cap jury awards for pain and suffering at $350,000, meaning, I guess, that you can still bring a frivolous lawsuit there as long as you don't want more than $350K for your troubles. Remember, folks: Doing nothing more than capping damages is both underinclusive and overinclusive if your goal is preventing frivolous lawsuits. If your goal is merely saving money for defendants, regardless of how negligently they operate, however, it works fine. Meanwhile, a study by the North Carolina Bar Association has concluded that medical malpractice litigation isn't a significant problem in that state. Before you cry for John Edwards, note that the bar panel comprised both plaintiffs' and defense lawyers. Not too happy with the results, eight defense lawyers have quit the NCBA. (That's the voluntary group, so it's not like they're handing in their licenses. It's not like they'd give up their jobs for their principles, those principles being that plaintiffs' attorneys shouldn't have jobs.) Okay, turning the snark off now...

Dateline: Phoenix. Arizona lawmakers are considering whether to allow citizens to carry guns into establishments that serve liquor. In case you're worried about drunks with guns, note that anyone with a gun in a bar would be prohibited from drinking. So the designated driver can also be your enforcer. An NRA spokesman said (quoting the story, not the spokesman), "[L]aw-abiding gun owners should be able to dine in restaurants without leaving their weapons at home or in the car, where they are useless for protection." But that's how Robert Blake got in the mess he's in now -- he left his gun in the restaurant instead of the car!

Dateline: Little Rock. Arkansas looks like it's going to ban the execution of juvenile offenders. I wonder if this will get cited in the Supreme Court's Roper opinion.

Dateline: Jefferson City. The Missouri Senate has approved a name change for Southwest Missouri State University, to just plain Missouri State University. Alums from the "flagship," the University of Missouri, opposed the move, and ended up getting concessions that MSU would always be treated like a poor stepchild, no matter how fancy its name is. Is anything really going to be devalued by this? What is the big deal? I remember a similar fuss by UNC folks (Chapel Hillians, that is) when Pembroke State wanted to change its name to the University of North Carolina at Pembroke. Steve Minor no doubt remembers the grumblings from UVA people when tiny Clinch Valley College, a mountain outpost of Wahoo-dom, was looking to change its name to UVA-Wise. (It is located in a town called Wise; it's not suggesting it is the wise version of the college, I think.) UVA alums fought like crazy, but eventually decided they could live with calling it "Clinch Valley College of the University of Virginia." What they didn't realize was that this long moniker was already the school's official name, and it was a nice sign that a publicity-upgrade was in order. I believe the official title is "The University of Virginia's College at Wise," rather than UVA-Wise, but that's what everybody calls it anyway. Anyway, the point is, don't be so snooty, flagshippers. And I'll save the haters the trouble of making the joke: There are no plans afoot at Duke to rename it the University of New Jersey at Durham.

Dateline: Indianapolis. Indiana lawmakers are discussing tinkering not with measly school names, but the very fabric of time itself! Once again, the state is thinking about adopting daylight savings time. Apparently, a hundred years or so was enough for them to decide that the whole thing wasn't a fad cooked up by radical proponents of indoor pumbling and rural electrification. Marcia Oddi of the exemplary Indiana Law Blog has more. I recall my Dad telling me a story about when he was coaching baseball, and one of their regular opponents was in a nearby town across the state line. Back then, one of the counties, I forget which, didn't observe daylight savings time, and he had to leave extremely early and get back extremely late every time they made the short trip. It's like getting jet lag to drive to the next county. Time zones can be weird, but they don't control everything. Fitz lives three hours behind me, but we still get to work at the same time.

Dateline: Richmond. From the nothing-better-to-do-with-our-time department, this item. Virginia legislators are going to pass a ban on showing pornographic movies in vehicles if people outside the car can see them. Actually, the article uses the word "obscene" in quotes, which makes me think that's how the bill is worded. Of course, most pornography doesn't meet the legal definition of obscenity. I'd love to see Ken Lammers get one of these cases and make a First Amendment argument. And in a protest to frivolous state designations of various emblems, the Virginia Senate briefly named the Louisville Slugger the state bat, in response to a House bill honoring the flying kind of bat. Nice. But the senators eventually hit a sacrifice fly and adopted the House measure. But they can always put aside their differences over a refreshing glass of the official State Beverage of Virginia, milk. Insert your own joke about gay marriage and lactose intolerance -- there ought to be something there, but I can't think of it now. Still, I bet Virginia legislators don't have to pay for their own coffee.

Sad-sack Bill, to ladies' man Boomhauer after a woman dumped Boomhauer: "I know how tough it is for you right now, curled up lying in your own emotional vomit. You're in hell now, Boomhauer, and the only way out is through a long dark tunnel. And you're afraid to go in because there's a train coming at you, carrying a boxcar full of heartbreak. Well, let me tell you something: All you can do is let it hit you, and then try to find your legs. I know. I've taken that hit more times than I can remember. Look at me, Boomhauer. I'm fat, and I'm old, and every day I'm just going to wake up fatter and older. Yet somehow I manage to drag this fat old bald bastard out into the alley every day. I'm out there, digging holes, falling into them, climbing out, trying again. And tomorrow I'm going to hang outside at a ladies' prison, and the first thing those lady cons are going to see after twenty years is me. Will I get one? Experience says no. Will I be out there next month? If I'm alive, you'd better believe it. You've got to get up off that canopy bed, slip into a tight t-shirt, wash off some of that cologne, and get yourself out of that tunnel and into some strange woman's bed!"

To the Texas lawyer who has spent the last 180 minutes (and counting) at BTQ, I say thanks. But a word of warning: If I know you've been here for 3 hours, your IT guys know it too.

Thirteen page views. Impressive. I can't stand that much BTQ and I work here.

I had to bring that one back from last year's Valentine post, a personal favorite. For a full-size version of the valentine, click here. And for more in the love theme from that week, another favorite post of mine, the one about the "Social Safeway." Naturally, I've been thinking a lot about the big day lately, since I read Sherry's post about Valentine's Day. I agree with a lot of what she says.

I don't think I've ever done anything special for Valentine's Day. I either wasn't dating anyone, or we weren't in the same place, or we were too poor, or something. Long-time readers will recall that I almost did something on Valentine's Day last year, but that didn't happen, of course. I send a few cards to friends most years, but I've never done anything elaborate, which is in keeping with the way I treat most holidays.

But I would. I don't really have anything against making a fuss on Valentine's Day if I were with someone who wanted a fuss, although I'm not usually attracted to fuss-loving women. My point is just that I know I would be a good boyfriend, and it's frustrating that apparently no one else realizes that. Well, to be fair, I guess my Mom does. I was talking to her tonight and she said I needed to get out and meet more people, by which she meant I need to get a girlfriend. Then she said, "I think I'm ready to be a grandmother." I said, "Well, you could always just get a baby, then." She replied, "No, I think I'll just let it take its course in the usual way." I appreciate her vote of confidence, but I need to figure out if there's a way for her to become a grandmother without me becoming a father.

Speaking of votes of confidence, it's always nice to have friends to help me out. See, for example, the comments to this most wonderful post by The Hot Librarian. Read the post to get the references, but I start out here poking a little fun at THL. She says here , sarcastically, that she can tell the sympathy is emanating from me. My good friend Fitz-Hume helpfully points out that it's "B.O., not sympathy" emanating from me. Nice. Thanks, really. Scott from L^3 sums it up by noting that "[t]here's nothing better than a comment thread where Milbarge says something nice, only to get burned by Fitz." For a close runner-up, check out this post by Soupie at the BBQ & Daycare, titled "Bad News For Milbarge?" and noting the decline in online dating. I commented and asked what all these supposedly sympathetic folks have done to help me out. Always-on-the-spot-Scott asks, understandably, "What exactly are we supposed to be doing for you again?" Larry the Longhorn had the answer, in the form of a rhetorical question: "Keeping all female-like entities at a safe distance?" So maybe that's what's been happening all this time....

Seriously, I'm not mad about comments like these; I have a sense of humor. And I play up the sad-sack loser role myself sometimes. But I was thinking for a few days about doing something different. Maybe I was inspired by the Anonymous Lawyer. I recall a comment here once -- maybe from frequent commenter Col. Rhombus, but I can't swear to that -- to the effect that if I wrote as well as I do about not being in a relationship, he wondered how well I would write about actually being in one. So I thought I would make one up.

My plan was to start off small, with a date or two, and slowly turn it into a full relationship. For material, I could draw on my old girlfriends, or steal from Fitz or other friends, or just make it up. I wasn't going to turn BTQ into a dating blog, but it would just be something else to post about when something came to mind. Basically, it would have been a way for me to opine on relationship issues in the first person. I was going to keep it going until we got engaged, and then reveal the secret (or claim you couldn't meet her because she lives in Canada, or is busy modeling, or something). I was also curious about the reactions I would get, like Tom and Huck watching their own funeral. I was genuinely curious if people would believe me if I said I could get a date and whether they thought I made a good boyfriend based on the stories I'd tell.

Obviously, I decided not to do it. I was mainly worried about hurting the feelings of those of you whom I know would have been supportive of me. It also didn't seem like the kind of thing I wanted BTQ to be about. Fitz pointed out that "the reveal" might cause people to wonder if anything else on the blog has been phony, too. (It hasn't.) I also thought some people might think it was creepy, in a way that making up a fake job apparently isn't, and not be able to distinguish between me having a fake girlfriend in real life (which would be creepy) and me having a fake girlfriend on the blog (which I conceived as an experiment in how I would write about a relationship). To me, it's no odder than an author writing a semi-autobiographical work of fiction but embellishing the love life, which of course happens all the time. Example: Woody Allen.

But, ultimately, this isn't a fictional blog. The Milbarge and Fitz-Hume you get here are about as close to the real thing as you can get and still have a psuedonym, and I didn't want to build a lot of artiface onto that. But I think it would have been good blogging while it lasted. I guess the reason for this post is just that I've been thinking about relationships a lot lately. And it's easier to think about what I would do if I were in one than it is to think about how to get there in the first place. So, Fitz, Soupie, Larry, Scott, THL, et al., thanks for your "support." See what you've driven me to?

I was going to put this in my earlier "clearing the decks" post, but it got kind of long. I'm not really that fired up about it, but it was on the list of possible post topics. I also wasn't sure about getting into this because I didn't want anyone to think I'm obsessed with Kathryn Lopez. Intrigued, maybe, but not obsessed. But it's just so easy to pick at her posts in The Corner. On Friday, she started a little to-do over there by commenting on the previous night's episode of "E.R." If you didn't catch it, Dr. Kerry Weaver's birth mother showed up. Her mother had her when she was 15 and poor in South Carolina, and gave her up, and wanted to see if her life turned out okay. They had a nice little time together until Weaver revealed she's gay. Her mother is a big Christian and got into a bunch of stuff about praying about the "choice" Weaver had made. Kerry didn't want any of that, and the show ended with them parting company because the mother couldn't accept Kerry.

So, K-Lo says: "'ER' can typically draw you in (though to be honest, I've never been a regular viewer, just occasional), but this seemed more must-shove-an-agenda-down-your-throat than must-see-TV. Wouldn't it have been much more dramatic to have them work through it -- build a relationship despite their very different roads in life?" Well, maybe, if you want the show to turn into a religious debate. My throat, for one, felt unshoved-upon. Weaver's mom was presented as a decent woman for whom faith was, in some ways, a life-saver. I think we all knew that Kerry wasn't going to "see the light," but her mother's faith wasn't made to seem anything but genuine. To be fair, though, the use of the hymn "Just As I Am" was a little obvious, and an easy pot-shot. But I've been to a lot of Baptist services that ended with a long rendition of "Just As I Am" during the altar call, so I know it's important in some evangelical traditions.

Next, though, Lopez keyed on a mention of abortion during the show. Funny how she was barely watching yet made sure her abortion-radar was fine-tuned. Anyway, she said, "Dr. Weaver said to her birth mother in their first meeting, 'Abortion was illegal, right?' about when she was in the womb. Who the heck asks that? Like, oh, yeah, I should have been aborted. In a saner world, I would have been aborted. Maybe she is supposed to be that messed up, but I think the reality is the writers were just too focused on making their political points." Again, maybe I'm a Weaver partisan (I've always liked her on the show), but I didn't take it that way at all. Her mother said she was almost fifteen when she got pregnant. At that time, she said, they had homes for girls like her, and she was sent to live with a relative in Indiana. Kerry asks about abortion, but to me it came across more as a simple question about her mother's options, which were of course quite limited. I didn't get the impression that she was pushing for that choice. Note also that Lopez didn't mention the mother's response, that she would never have even considered abortion. So I guess it's still bad to mention abortion even if it's met with strong criticism? Note also the story line from a few seasons ago when the character Jing-Mei gave up her kid for adoption instead of having an abortion -- "E.R" has probably done more shows about not having abortions than anything on tv.

Then Shannen Coffin weighed in, asserting that "It's only when preaching about 'intolerance' that Hollywood reaches the apex of intolerance itself." Well, to me, Weaver was supposed to look intolerant, even if most of the show's viewers sympathized with her. I thought her mother came across as more tolerant, in her own way. She wanted Kerry to be a part of her life, and she ably witnessed her faith to Kerry, inviting Weaver to share it. Weaver said, essentially, Accept me (really, approve of me) like I am or drop dead. But I don't think it escaped anyone that it was Kerry who cut ties when things didn't go according to her ideal scenario. That's the very definition of intolerant. And note that if the producers wanted Kerry's mother to come across worse, they could have made her look like a raving idiot, but they didn't. She seemed very sincere and nice and decent, and she happened to disagree with Kerry on the nature of homosexuality and its compatibility with her faith. Kerry, who said she was raised in the church but rejected it, came across as unwilling to even meet her mother halfway.

Coffin went on to call the show "anti-Christian," a viewpoint Andrew Stuttaford said he might disagree with. I'm curious what it would take to make a television show "pro-Christian." Should the episode have been titled "The Passion of the Crutch"? So a show is anti-Christian if it presents the a Christian's theology as open to debate, or if every character doesn't sign up and get saved? Is it anti-Christian if one of the characters is Hindu? Maybe it's just anti-Christian because a lot of people are having sex outside the bonds of marriage. Does it only escape the label of "anti-Christian" if the Christian character "wins"? Look, just because someone is not Christian doesn't make that person anti-Christian, does it?

What really chafed me about this was the underlying assumption that "E.R" should be something more than a propaganda piece if that's what it wants to be. It doesn't owe us any responsibility to be fair and balanced. "M*A*S*H" was preachy, too -- it happens. Of course, apparently to K-Lo and Coffin (wouldn't that be a good name for a sitcom: "K-Lo and Coffin!"), a tv show is only fair if it agrees with their position. Folks like this complain about the hypersensitivity of the left, and it's true sometimes, but they need to turn their own dials down. Not everybody is out to tear down your worldview. Sometimes it's just a dramatic device on a tv show. Go visit the E.R. and get a prescription for a chill pill.

UPDATE: Hello Corner readers! For an update to this post, please see here, and for a general welcome to BTQ, please see this post. Thanks for dropping by!

Bobby: "Think about it: Why do guys like us keep striking out with the ladies?"
Joseph: "Because I'm weird, and you're chubby and kind of dumb?"
Bobby: "Don't be ridiculous."

Bobby: "What we need is a class full of girls who don't know us very well."
Joseph: "Yeah! We could pretend we're from the future, and we need to experiment on them! Wait, this is why girls don't like me, right?"

I know I've used that title before, but I like it. I'm just clearing the decks of some topics that aren't good enough for their own posts, so bear with me.

1. For everyone coming to BTQ because they're searching for information on Old Crow Medicine Show because they were on "A Prairie Home Companion" this weekend, here is my review of their debut album, "O.C.M.S.," complete with the story of, and links to the lyrics and chords for, the song "Wagon Wheel." That review causes us to show up on a lot of searches for the Medicine Show. And yes, I'm shameless enough to point out that if you buy the album after clicking through from the Barnes & Noble link on the right side of the page, we get a little kickback. Oh, and the PHC broadcast should be available here by Monday morning.


2. Some friends are planning a vacation, and they told me that Universal Studios is having a Mardi Gras celebration every Saturday for a couple of months. So let me get this straight: Mardi Gras is traditionally the last hurrah of fun before the soul-searching, introspective, toned-down period of Lent. But instead of doing that, you're saying that Lent doesn't have to be a downer -- let's just keep Mardi Gras going right through Easter! Now there's a religion I could get on board with! Why make any personal sacrifice to remind oneself of Jesus's sacrifice when the parade is starting?! Oh, and I know it's an occupational hazard, but the phrase "streets full of beads" sounds like a recipe for a personal injury suit. Lastly, it's not really right to advertise having "the biggest bands" when your line-up includes Huey Lewis and the News and the Go-Gos. I guess I can let you slide on Lynyrd Skynyrd, since everyone will be yelling for them anyway. And if you never thought you'd be able to see a concert with both Michael Bolton and Twisted Sister, think again.

UPDATE: Welcome to those of you coming here from the Huey Lewis & The News Forum! I hope you have a good time if you go to their concert. Note that I'm not saying I don't like HLN (or the Go-Gos), but it seems a bit of a stretch to call them one of the "biggest bands" these days. Anyway, welcome to BTQ. Check out this post for a little more info about us, and feel free to come back any time.

(As an aside, this reminds me of one of my favorite "Simpsons" lines, from the great episode where they go to the Itchy & Scratchy Land theme park. As they're helicoptering in, Jurassic Park-style, the pilot reads the spiel: "We're now approaching our final destination, Itchy & Scratchy Land: the amusement park of the future where nothing can possi-blye go wrong...uh, possibly go wrong. Huh, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.")

3. I saw an ad for this new Vin Diesel movie, The Pacifier. Did they really think there was more territory to mine after Kindergarten Cop and Mr. Nanny? I will note, though, that it was written by a couple of the guys from "Reno 911," for whatever that's worth.

4. Eerily accurate: My Onion horoscope this week. Capricorn: You're not fat, but your lack of motivation means that most anecdotes about you end with the phrase "around the house."

5. I watched The Butterfly Effect last night. Apparently the version I saw was the studio-imposed theatrical release, and not the director's cut, which ended much darker. Hmm. Anyway, I thought it was unnecessary to try to frame the whole story as higher-level philosophical theorizing when it would have been just as good if it had not taken itself as seriously and tried to be another Final Destination-style sci-fi yarn about how you shouldn't mess with fate. And, don't be hatin' on Ashton. I know he's a graduate of the Keanu School of Acting, but really, his role was a guy who gets headaches when he tries to read. I think he can pull that off.

6. A couple of thoughts about the Duke-Maryland game last night. First, I know Duke has to be expecting to get every team's best shot. But I've never seen a team take that more seriously than Maryland does. If they could get every team they played to wear a Duke jersey, they'd be undefeated. I saw this Andy Katz story about Ekene Ibekwe of Maryland, the guy who elbowed Duke's Daniel Ewing, but didn't get called for a foul, leading Ewing, who admittedly should have held his tongue, to say something and get a technical, an injustice even to Kentucky fan Pat Forde. Ibekwe had a cracked rib, but vowed to play in the Duke game, because it was Duke. Coach Gary Williams asked why he didn't feel so motivated about the pervious game, but the answer is that Gary and everyone else at Maryland cares more about the Duke game than anything else. (They don't riot after beating anybody else!) I think in the long run it's to their detriment, because they don't care as much about games they could win but don't. Maryland folks wonder why everyone supposedly hypes Duke so much, but they should look in the mirror for a great example of someone who never stops talking about how Duke is more important than any other team.