—–

The Only Difference Between You and an Expert Is Four Appearances on a Cable News Show

When I take public transportation, people come up to me and ask me the same question over and over again: “Why are you staring at me?” And also: “How come you don’t have experts on your television show?” The answer? It’s a glass eye, and experts are phonies. The easiest way to pawn yourself off as an expert is to tell people you’re an expert. Then appear on a talk show. Sex experts, steroid experts, latte experts—they’re all shams.

Here’s why: With a thousand TV channels and countless talking heads needed to fill time, no one really performs background checks. Yeah, they’ll Google your name, but that’s about it. I have, after all, pawned myself off on a number of shows as a relationship expert. God, if you only knew how my exes feel about that! Thankfully, they would never admit to dating me. 

Silly Theories Kill More People Than Guns

I saw it in the New York Times , so it’s got to be true: Research has suggested that violence is an infection, something you catch like hepatitis or Janeane Garofalo. It made me so sick to my stomach, I wanted to stab a shopkeeper in the neck. The writer focused only on gang crime, as opposed to other types, like shoplifting or houseboy dismemberment, suggesting that if gang murder spreads like an infectious disease, then it should be treated like one.

If only there was a word that describes this idea. Oh yeah. Batshitcrazy.

Sorry, that’s two words. Or maybe three.

See, I wonder—if the crime were white collar or corporate in nature, would the Times call it a disease? Or would it just be another example of the perils of small government? After all, many feel that corporations like Enron are just as evil as the Crips. But the Times would never call that a disease because such a pronouncement would excuse its perpetrators, who are rich white men. And the Times would never do such a thing.

But the Times can’t blame gang members for gang crime, for in its eyes, personal responsibility only applies to whites. Implying that gang members are victims of a disease means it’s no longer their fault. They are simply helpless victims, like people with AIDS or malaria. Violent behavior is just a virus that makes you shoot people while wearing really baggy pants. If only we had universal health care, we could cure this!

As much as I hate this kind of thinking, I do believe the paper is on to something. There is a disease, but it afflicts writers at the Times . It renders them incapable of recognizing evil when it presents itself, whether it’s terror or street criminals. The disease causes its victims instead to fiddle around looking for root causes and silly theories. That disease is called self-loathing-moral-relativism syndrome. It first began to appear in the States in the 1960s, I believe.

Maybe Mick Jagger brought it over.

—–

Garry Trudeau Is an Untalented Sack of Poop 

If Doonesbury did not relentlessly spout knee-jerk liberal tripe in every panel, it would not exist. It’s the only cartoon given tenure—in that the media cut Garry Trudeau slack because they all believe his heart is in the right place, even though his stuff sucks harder than something that really sucks. 

But in our hearts, we all know the truth: The strip is neither amusing nor interesting. Worse, the dude can’t draw for shit. Essentially, Trudeau has been a recipient of comic strip welfare his entire career. No one has had the guts to cut him off. It’s too bad, because Funky Winkerbean really deserves his spot. 

Reporters Are Always Fearless in Movies Made About Reporters

I remember a few years back, a polling company measured public perceptions of twenty-three professions, and journalists ended up ranked at the bottom. Just 13 percent of eleven hundred U.S. adults said the occupation of journalist had “very great prestige,” while 16 percent said it had “hardly any at all.” Meanwhile, 61 percent said the most prestigious job was firefighter, noting that they were also great strippers at bachelorette parties. 

And yet, Hollywood has spent the last seventy years glorifying the role of journalists, while it’s made only one Backdraft (possibly two, I can’t remember). Robert Redford can play a journalist on the big screen, but we all know that in real life, journalists look more like me—pudgy, pasty drunks with moderate to unhealthy obsessions with unicorn porn (or uniporn, for short). Aside from those brave souls who really put themselves in harm’s way in war-torn countries—for the rest of us hacks—journalism is about as heroic as dentistry. And dentists have cooler instruments. And nitrous. 

I know this, for I used to be a print journalist, it’s true. But I spent my time doing what all good journalists should do: trying to find my pants. If I could have cloned myself and created a press corps entirely of Gregs, I would have, but until then I refuse to learn how to read and urge you to do the same.

“What a pro-active way to be able to help the economy and change the culture in this country around animals,” Robert Davi, a veteran actor (“The Goonies,” “Die Hard,” “License to Kill”) who was a main force behind the bill’s introduction, told ABCNews.com in a telephone interview. 

“This money goes back into the economy, and it encourages people to understand the social responsibilities we have toward animals,” Davi said. …

***

A bill making the rounds on Capitol Hill marries two feel-good propositions — tax cuts and pet ownership — to generate a novel idea: A tax break of up to $3,500 per person for pet care expenses.

The measure is a legislative long shot. But it’s been championed by a veteran Hollywood tough guy and by a conservative Michigan congressman [Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich], and has drawn the enthusiastic support of animal rights groups eager to promote pet ownership during economic down times. …

***

The tax break would apply to more exotic pets as well, so long as they’re being owned within the bounds of the law. Any “legally owned, domesticated, live animal” would qualify, under the terms of the bill.

According to the ASPCA, a cat costs about $670 a year on average to take care of, while dogs are about $200 a year more expensive. The tax break would be capped at $3,500 per person, regardless of how many animals a taxpayer owned.

Davi, the owner of four dogs and a cat, said the concept of using the tax code to promote pet ownership occurred to him a few months ago, in thinking about the stimulus package passed by Democrats in Congress — a package, he said, that he opposed.

Davi’s cousin runs a prominent California animal rescue foundation, D.E.L.T.A. Rescue, and is always looking for ideas that would get more pets adopted, he said. Why not let people deduct expenses like pet food and veterinarian bills from their taxes, like child care expenses or mortgage interest can help reduce your tax burden?

Read the full article here.

Also see Robert Davi’s Big Hollywood articles:

Leo Grillo Defines What Makes America Great

Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act