Is Cheerleading a Dwarf Tossing Loophole?

Last weekend, prior to watching a college basketball game, I watched a cheerleading squad put on an impressive display of balance and acrobatics. Besides the flips, leaps, and dance moves, the cheer squad's choreographed performance included multiple occurrences of people-tossing, where young women were thrown about and thankfully caught by their fellow cheerleaders.

Although most fans cheered the cheerleaders and gave them a round of applause upon completion of their performance, I did not. I was too horrified. Horrified that the thousands in attendance would blatantly allow these young men and women to make a mockery of the Florida legal system.

Way back in the ancient days of 1989, the State of Florida banned dwarf tossing. Despite the legal pursuit of Dave the Dwarf, this law is still in effect. Yet apparently rules enacted for the safety of our nation's vertically challenged population do not apply to those engaged in cheerleading activities.

According to Wikipedia, a dwarf is defined as "a person with an adult height of less than 4 feet 10 inches". The average high school or college cheerleader is barely taller. Yet they are tossed, thrown, and heaved like rag dolls during legally sanctioned cheerleading performances. I find this preposterous.

According to TwistedEdge.com, the rules of dwarf tossing are as follows: "you pick up your selected midget (who will likely be adorning some kind of safety helmet and vest), take a three step run-up and throw the little bugger as far as you possibly can". How is this different from cheerleading?

If anything, dwarf tossing is actually safer than cheerleading. In dwarf tossing contests, dwarves often wear "special padded clothing or Velcro costumes" and "are thrown onto mattresses or at Velcro-coated walls", according to Wikipedia. Cheerleaders, on the other hand, are thrown dozens of feet in the air without padding and with only their teammates to prevent serious, or perhaps even fatal, injury.

(For example, compare the awkward cheerleading falls seen here, here, or here with the dwarf tossing exploits seen here, here, or here. Which is more dangerous? Hint: not the dwarf tossing.)

What if a dwarf dressed him or herself in cheerleading outfit? What if he or she did a cheer before being picked up and tossed on to a padded mat or heaved into a padded wall? Would that still be against the law? If it is legal for the cheerleading team I watched and other cheerleading teams nationwide to endanger the lives of young women by tossing them high into the air with minimal safety precautions, shouldn't the throwing of a similar-sized dwarf be of similar legality? Aren't those who applaud cheerleaders but denounce dwarf tossing blatant hypocrites?

There are only two options available to us that would alleviate this perplexing conundrum. Either we legalize dwarf tossing or we ban cheerleading. It's one or the other. There is no middle ground.

Finally enlightened on Bull Durham

Countless bloggers quote it.

Sports-loving girls live by it.

One of my favorite blogs is gets its name from a quote in it.

Yet 20 years after its release, I had never seen Bull Durham.

Until yesterday.

And I call myself a baseball fan.

Name another popular baseball movie and I bet I've seen it. The Natural? Check. Major League 1, 2, and 3? Check, check, and sadly check. The Scout, The Fan, Pride of the Yankees, The Babe, The Sandlot, etc., etc.

(Side note: check out this extensive and expansive list of baseball movies. Wow. From the famous to the obscure, there have been quite a few movies about baseball.)

I don't know why it took me 20 years to see Bull Durham. If I would have to explain it, I would say that because it came out when I was 10, a movie about sex and baseball just wasn't on my movie list. I was more interested in Major League-type flicks, movies about the game and not the relationships. To be honest, at 10-years old most of the wit and wisdom of Bull Durham would have slipped by me.

Years later however, that excuse went flying out the window like a Nuke LaLoosh fastball. Especially given that I would eventually learn the type of stuff Annie Savoy talks about. All of it. The quantum physics, the Hindu/Buddhism/philosophical babble, etc., etc. Ok, maybe not the breathing through the eyes thing, but you get my point.

It still took me far too long to see Bull Durham.

It wasn't like I didn't want to see it. Not like Titanic or Sex in the City, where I don't care if they the last movies on Earth and I was chained to the chair like Alex in Clockwork Orange, I would rather stab my eyes with pencils than watch. No, I just neglected to ever see Bull Durham.

But now I know what the hoopla is all about. Bull Durham is a pretty good flick. A bit outdated (especially in the handling of Nuke LaLoosh - do bonus-baby pitchers in the minors still throw complete games?), but overall, pretty good. Did it immediately make my top five baseball movies? Probably not.

My top five:

Cobb (1994)
The Sandlot (1993)
The Natural (1984)
Major League (1989)
Soul of the Game (1996)

Somewhere in the top ten: Bull Durham (1988)

Notice something about those movies? They were all made in a 12 year span, from 1984 to 1996. Before steroids, before advanced statistical analysis, and before pitch counts. Before we attached too much emotional value on a player's ability beyond that of a replacement player.

Where are the stories now? Yes, the Rays were a great story last year, but could you tell it without basing the movie on the ownership? How interesting would a movie on Andrew Friedman be? I'll admit, I've met Friedman and he is a nice guy, but not someone whom I would base a movie on, nor would I pay money to see a movie based on him.

Sadly, I don't see another Bull Durham-type of movie being made any time soon. Baseball has become too surgical, too analyzed, and the players have become too damn boring.

Maybe in these poor economic times it's time baseball encouraged the cereal-types to rise back to the top. You know, the flakes, the fruit loops, and the nuts. The kind of players we can base a movie on.

Strippers on Ice and Buying Stock in Smut

Let's talk about ice skating. Wait, just hear me out before you moan and groan. The other day I was flipping the channels and caught one of those ice dancing perfomances, you know, the Brian Boitano-Kristy Yamaguchi-specials, when I had an epiphany.

Strippers on Ice.

Why not put stripper poles on an ice rink? The similarities are there: the dancing, the tight uniforms, the performance routines. All I am advocating is for a little more skin and some pole usage.

Think of the advantages: attendance for ice dancing events goes up, pole dancing becomes something you and your grandmother could watch together, and super-hot women gain respect and credibility as athletes. This is so "win-win".

(Note: apparently Kelly Ripa's husband has seen something like this and there is this blog called "Strippers on Ice" that has posted once ever.)

On a somewhat, kinda, sorta related note, I was thinking of a way to make some additional income during these down times and another idea hit me: why don't I invest in the adult industry? After all, I am a regular consumer. (Kidding, of course.)

So here is my idea. Which, by the way, would require a bunch of people, but I think we may be able to make some quick cash.

Step 1: We, my group of trusting financiers and I, need to buy a few shares of one adult entertainment company.

Step 2: Then we all need to buy some media from this company, be it magazines, a movie, an online service, whatever.

Step 3: Then we all visit our local sperm bank and donate. I know it sounds disgusting, but did you know, according to a sperm donation site, "there are hundreds of thousands of people in the United States (millions worldwide) who want to have children, but cannot"? So we are helping someone out. And making a few bucks doing something we would probably be doing at home for free.

Step 4: We split our donation earnings, buying more adult products from our selected company with part of our money, and purchasing more stock with the rest. The increase in sales should drive up production and make the company more profitable, driving up their stock and our initial investment.

Step 5: Donate, purchase, repeat. Donate, purchase, repeat.

We keep doing this until we, as a group, decide the price has gone high enough. Then we stop investing, but continue purchasing. This will keep production and demand up until we can sell our stock for a massive profit. Then we stop buying porn and unload our collections on Ebay at a discount.

Again, it's a win-win for everyone.

Do I have to think of everything?

My 2009 Super Bowl Financial Favorite

Last year, I looked at the mythical “Super Bowl Indicator” and tried to predict what NFL playoff team’s victory would be best for the stock market. For those who may have forgotten, the Super Bowl Indicator states that "if an old AFL team wins the Super Bowl, the stock market will decline during that calendar year and if an original NFL team wins, the Dow Jones industrial average will rise".

Out of the 12 teams in the 2007 playoffs, the Super Bowl featured the worst for the market (the New England Patriots) and the 3rd best (the New York Giants). Unfortunately, the market failed to react to a Giants’ Super Bowl victory as it had in the past. Whereas the market had previously increased an average of 9.5% following a Giants win, in 2008 the market decreased nearly 34%, according to MarketWatch.com.

The disastrous ride of 2008 stock market does not fare well for the Giants, who are one of five teams making a return appearance from last year’s playoffs. Other teams returning to the playoff from last season include the Indianapolis Colts, San Diego Chargers, Tennessee Titans, and Pittsburgh Steelers. New comers to the playoffs include the Atlanta Falcons, Arizona Cardinals, Baltimore Ravens, Miami Dolphins, Philadelphia Eagles, Minnesota Vikings, and Carolina Panthers.

So assuming the Super Bowl Indicator is still a valid way to pick a winner (despite the 2008 failure, the Indicator is still holds a 78% success rate), which team should be the market’s favorite to win the NFL championship?

Not to be trusted: The teams of the old AFL – current AFC

12. Miami Dolphins – The Dolphins are the absolute worst team for the market to cheer for. Following their Super Bowl victories in Jan 1973 and Jan 1974 the stock market fell a whopping 45%. According to Wikipedia, it was “one of the worst stock market downturns in modern history”. Despite Wikipedia’s reasons that the crash was a result of “the collapse of the Bretton Woods system”, the 'Nixon Shock', the “United States dollar devaluation”, and the “outbreak of the 1973 oil crisis”, the impact of an original AFC victory must not be underestimated.

11. San Diego Chargers – Although the Chargers have never won a Super Bowl, and have never been the cause of a drop in the stock market, they are an original AFL team and hence should not be rooted for.

10. Tennessee Titans (originally Houston Oilers) – The Titans, like the Chargers and Dolphins, are also an original AFC team. Like the Chargers, the Titans have never won a Super Bowl. Unlike the previous two franchises, however, the Titans shed original identity as the Houston Oilers in 1997. As I mentioned last year, this fact puts them slightly ahead of the Chargers. But not by much.

The new AFC team

9. Baltimore Ravens – The Baltimore Ravens provide an interesting case. In 1995, the Cleveland Browns, an original AFC team, moved from Cleveland to Baltimore and became the Ravens. This should mean the Ravens are an original AFC team. However, due to public outrage, the Ravens do not carry the Browns franchise history, making them an “expansion team”. Unfortunately, their detachment from their AFC roots did not preclude them from negatively affecting the stock market after their 2001 Super Bowl win. According to Wikipedia, the NASDAQ dropped 21.05% in 2001 and the Dow lost 5.35% of its value.

The new NFC team

8. Carolina Panthers – As an NFC team (albeit not an original), the Carolina Panthers get the benefit of the doubt. Although they have not won a Super Bowl, they should be rooted for before any of the AFC teams with similar histories.

Current AFC – Former NFC teams (repeated from last year)

7. Indianapolis (originally Baltimore) Colts - Although originally an NFC team, the Colts' affiliation to their current conference does put them in bad company. However, they are provided a respite thanks to recent history. Perhaps their realignment after the AFL-NFL merger can explain why 2007 was such an extremely volatile year in the stock market, with numerous triple-digit gains and losses, mortgage industry problems, rising oil prices, and a downtrodden housing market. Despite the inconsistency, the Dow Jones did conclude the year 6.43% higher.

6. Pittsburgh Steelers - Similar to the Colts, the Steelers are also not an original AFL team, having similarly moved from the NFL to the AFC. The franchise's roots may explain the market's friendliness to Steelers' championships. For example, following Steelers' victories, the market climbed 27% after 1974, 15% after 1975, 4% after 1978, 13% after 1979, and 14% after 2006. Despite these successes and subsequent market performances, as a current AFC team, the Steelers remain a risk.

The original NFL teams

5. New York Giants – As I mentioned, last year the Giants were one of the best teams to root for. The market had increased after their championships in 1986 and 1991. Although two out of three isn’t bad and Giants are an original NFL team, the market’s abysmal 2008 performance brought the Giants overall impact to a negative 14%.

4. Atlanta Falcons – The Falcons enter the 2008 playoffs without a title to their history, even prior to the AFL-NFL merger. Despite their lack of championship pedigree, the Falcons should be rooted for based on their history as an original NFL team.

3. Minnesota Vikings – Like the Falcons, the Vikings have not won an NFL Championship since the 1970 merger. However, they did win their only championship the year before in 1969. Following that season, in 1970, the market increased 5%.

2. Arizona Cardinals – The Arizona Cardinals are also one of a few teams that have not won a Super Bowl. They did however win two championships before the merger, in 1925 and 1947. In the years following Cardinal championships, 1926 and 1948, the market had approximate overall increases.

1. Philadelphia Eagles – Despite zero championships since the AFL-NFL merger, the Philadelphia Eagles won championships in 1948, 1949, and 1960. Following their '48 title, the market increased 11.2%. The following year, after another Eagles championship, the market climbed 15.4%; and after the Eagles won it all in 1960, the market soared 15.7%.

Although I had to scour the record books, dust off some ancient market results, and consider pre-Super Bowl Indicator data, I did what had to be done to find the best team for the market. In these troubled times, we can not be misled by teams with mediocre market impacts. We need a team with a proven record of positive market influence. That is why I am throwing my support behind the Philadelphia Eagles in their quest for 2008 NFL glory.

Go Eagles.

End of 2008 Deep Ponderments: Homeless dogs, multi-wife violence, and foreign flags

Expect to see a few random thoughts as I clear out the brain and my notebook for 2009. Some I may bundle together, but I think most will deem their own post.

First a question:

Why are dogs the pets of choice for the homeless? Why don't homeless people wander the country with cats, lizards, turtles, or fish? Where do homeless people get these dogs? Does the humane society let homeless people have dogs? Or are there that many stray dogs out there that strays and the homeless make a natural match, like peanut butter and chocolate?

Now another question:

Is the rate of spousal abuse lower in polygamist households? Could that be an advantage to polygamy, that perhaps one wife can talk the husband out of assaulting another wife? I would think that if there was someone to diffuse the situation or even come to the physical defense of the assaulted, there would be less violence. Unless of course there is wife-on-wife violence, or one wife convinces the husband to assault another wife, or perhaps the husband assaults all his wives.

A third question:

What is the proper method of disposing of non-U.S. flags in the United States? There is rules and protocol for the destruction of an American flag, but what about flags of other nations? Does the American Legion or VFW take foreign flags? Do these organizations know flag destruction protocol for all 200+ nations? Are there any countries that require the owner to mail the flag to the U.S. embassy in that respective country? What about countries that don't have a U.S. embassy, such as Iran? This is why I don't own any foreign flags.

(About the image: way back in April, someone in Seattle was shooting darts at pigeons. I thought the picture was interesting in a Steve Martin-wild-and-crazy-guy sort of way.)

What happens to breast implants when the implantee dies?

Archeology, Anthropology, and Breast Implants

Something I have always wondered is what happens to breast implants when the implantee dies. Do breast implants follow a person into the crematorium?

According to this website, implants do get cremated. But there might be environmental consequences. That's not good.

But can breast implants be kept by the surviving as a memento?

I hate to sound too materialistic, but there are women who are best known for their breasts. Dolly Pardon, Pamela Anderson, and a wide array of artificially enhanced porn stars comes to mind. What if a husband wants to keep them as a way to remember his wife? Or what if a museum is willing to pay an exorbitant amount to display them? Depending on the amount, that money could help pay for burial services or help the inheritance of future generations.

Can breast implants be buried with the person?

Something about burying people with artificially enhanced body parts just seems weird to me. Not that someone shouldn't be buried with a fake leg or an artificial arm; those are essential body parts. But I would think cosmetic pieces such as fake teeth, fake breasts, or hair extensions should be removed.

Imagine a time 10,000 years from now, a time when the human race has died off due to any one of many catastrophes (war, famine, etc). Imagine a race of aliens comes to Earth and discovers there was at one point a dominant species on our planet. Imagine they start alien archaeological digs to find out who this species was and what their culture was like. Along the way, a few of the graves they open have two silicone orbs among the bones of the deceased. How are they to ever imagine that these orbs were attached to the breast area? What conclusions will they come to on the orbs' place in human culture?

This is the type of stuff that worries me. Not because I have a fascination with death or boobs, but because I care about humankind's image 10,000 years from now. Even after we are all gone, I still think we should put our best foot forward. I wouldn't want an alien race thinking those with breast implants were some sort of royal elite ruling class. That would be weird.

Defending Ebenezer

'Tis the season for cliches. It is the time of year when we spout overused sayings promoting feelings that should permeate year-round. Yet for some reason only around the holidays do we recall stories of the perils of loneliness and claim to make an effort to increase general goodwill.

Or is it all grandstanding?

Do we really believe what we are saying? "Peace on Earth"? "Goodwill towards Man"? "God bless us, everyone"? Unfortunately, I think it's all a bunch of malarkey.

We don't really want peace on Earth, do we? Do you realize how many people would be out of a job if everyone on Earth instantly got along? We wouldn't have threats to our person, to our resources, or to our nation. That means no Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines. No need for a Department of Defense either. Everyone knows war is good for business. Where would these people work if peace broke out tomorrow?

Nothing represents the hypocrisy of the holiday season more than Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. We all know the story: grumpy old loner transforms overnight into celebrated philanthropist. Nice, neat, and packaged for our consumption.

According to the Blogger News Network, last year the Chicago Sun-Times claimed that Dickens' protagonist, Ebenezer Scrooge, was at first some sort of evil early Republican monster. This of course, set off the political blogosphere, with each claiming that the Scrooge of the end of the story represented their point of view. Because for whatever reason no one wants to be associated with the early Scrooge character.

The problem is that Scrooge is misunderstood. In defense of the Chicago Sun-Times, Scrooge was absolutely a social conservative. He worked within the system and succeeded. He saw nothing wrong with the socio-economic system as it was. The system didn't need changing, the people in it needed to change. That's the definition of conservativism.

Early in the book, Dickens portrays Scrooge as a miser, unwilling to put another piece of coal on the fire. But, as we know now, burning coal is bad for the environment. Scrooge was merely ahead of his time in his attempt to minimize the use of unrenewable resources.

Dickens also depicts Scrooge's desire to succeed as a bad thing. Today we would call him a workaholic. In a world where people are pulling Ponzi schemes to get rich quick, is working hard really such a bad thing? What Dickens doesn't mention is that Scrooge was honest. As far we know, he made his own money and never swindled anyone. Yet he is looked down upon.

Third and most importantly, Scrooge stayed within his limits. Since the days of Dickens' England, people have been bombarded with industrialized manufacturing. This uber-production is only now beginning to slow down. In its wake, we have millions owing credit companies and a trillion dollar national debt. My guess is that Scrooge never bought anything on credit, nor did he have outstanding debt. He was recession-proof, which in today's society is quite enviable.

So why shouldn't we emulate Ebenezer Scrooge? Remember, we are told not to be Scrooge-like by the same machine that tells us to buy more cars and eat more casseroles. The same machine that publishes Dickens's works every year and broadcasts his story between commercials on cable TV.

This year, fight the power. Stay real year-round. Embrace your inner Ebenezer and be like Scrooge.

AfroSquad Exclusive: Diaper Maker Celebrates Astronaut Connection

After last week's legal decision to allow personal evidence in the trial of former astronaut Lisa Nowak, the manufacturer of Nowak's diapers has decided to unveil a new campaign highlighting the product's role in the NASA love drama.

According to Claude Beefro, CEO of Globalpu, Inc, producer of the Homies line of diapers, the company couldn't turn down the free press.

"We knew our name would eventually be in the headlines," Beefro said. "We decided to pre-empt the late night jokes and maybe move some product in the process. After all, that's what it's all about, right?"

Besides putting Nowak on the latest line of diapers, Globalpu is also in negotiations to use Nowak in commercials and other public appearances.

"We tried to get her to wear another pair if or when she goes to trail," claims Beefro. "She balked at that. But we will have her signing diapers at the next ComicCon."

Although small, and a minor player in diapers and other products, Globalpu is used to thinking out of the box. Back in 2005, the company attempted to capitalize on the Terry Schiavo case by briefly putting her name on their line of produce.

"We had her promotion angle all lined up before her people pulled the plug, literally" said Beefro. "Who would people trust more about veggies than a vegetable?"

Time will tell if the Homies line will continue to use Nowak's name on the product, or whether a resulting stink could mandate the diapers be changed.

Remembering Dimebag

Four years ago today, Darrell Abbott, better known as Dimebag Darrell, was heinously murdered on stage by a deranged fan. Dimebag's murder was immediately compared to that of prominent jazz musician Lee Morgan, also killed on stage during a performance.

The difference between Dimebag Darrell and Lee Morgan however, was that I never saw Lee Morgan in concert. I did see Dime. Five weeks before his murder, I saw Dimebag play in Tallahassee as a member of Damageplan. Without a doubt, Dimebag was one of the best guitar players I have ever seen.

I still regret not grabbing a shot or two with Dime. That would have been one hell of a memory.

One of the weird things about the Dimebag Darrell murder was how close I was to it, timewise. Following a Rhode Island nightclub fire during a Great White show in 2003, a friend of mine commented that had the show happened in Tallahassee, he and I probably would have been there. The same is true with the killing of Dimebag Darrell. I would have been at that show had I lived in Columbus, Ohio. No doubt about it.

Rest in peace, Dimebag Darrell.

Oh yeah, John Lennon was also murdered on December 8th, in 1980. Dare we call this day the worst in rock'n'roll history?

Did WWE's Sheamus shoot Plaxico Burress?

Most sports fans have heard about the plight of New York Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress. According to the "mainstream media", Burress shot himself in the leg with a firearm last weekend.

Fortunately for those of us who seek the truth, the Weekly World News, the "best damn investigative reporting on the planet", tells us a completely different story. According to the WWN, Burress was actually firing at an Irishman named Seamus O’Shaughnessy.

A quick google search of this mysterious "Seamus O'Shaughnessy" brings us to the web site of a WWE pro wrestler, aptly nicknamed "The Irish Curse". Could this be the man Burress intended to fire at? Was there a tiff between the WWE prospect and the disgruntled Giants star?

According to the NY Daily News, Burress needed the firearm due to his possession of "expensive jewelry". This maybe the missing link.

Perhaps it is too stereotypical, but maybe, just maybe Mr. O'Shaughnessy confronted Mr. Burress over the ownership of a certain piece of gold. According to reports, the WWE was in Albany, NY just days prior to the night of Burress's shooting. Could Burress have taken O'Shaughnessy's Florida Championship Title and brought it back to New York City? Anyone who has seen any of the Leprechaun movies knows the Irish get sensitive when their gold is missing. Especially if the Irish gentleman in question claims to have been involved in conflicts against "Viking tribes of the North, Germanic, Norman and Anglo-Saxon armies from the East, and The Moors and The Romans from The South".

No offense, Mr. Burress, but if the Weekly World News is to be believed, and I don't see why they wouldn't be, stealing from Mr. O'Shaughnessy was not a wise move. Be glad you escaped with only a self-inflicted wound.

Of course, curious readers might question why the Weekly World News did not make the appropriate connections, and why did they claim O'Shaughnessy was a leprechaun? My answer to this is that we should never underestimate the power and influence of WWE Chairman Vince McMahon. Could Plaxico Burress merely be a pawn in a Vince McMahon attempt to finally avenge the failed XFL? Will we see more pro wrestler "hits" on NFL players?

(Note: Brad Curran of Pulsewrestling.com also made the Seamus O'Shaughnessy connection. Unfortunately, he dismisses the Weekly World News investigation.)