In other news, Nathan Deal smells a fluffy

Larry Peterson in the Savannah Morning News reports:

Nathan Deal calls On Obama to produce birth certificate proving he's eligible for presidency

In other news, Deal just blew his shot at the Georgia G.O.P. gubernatorial nomination, though I thought he was running for governor rather than gubernator (Goobernator, perhaps? Or, did Jimmy Carter already take that title in the '70's?). Gubernatorial is one of those great words journalists like to use to make everyone think they are smart.

Every story featuring Deal will now also be accompanied by this "Wow, who let one?" photograph. Priceless!

And that's today's edition of "Unbelievable Endings Of Political Careers." I'm Red Whenexcited. This has been a Blue Network Production.

Happy 100th Mr. Mercer!

You Need Quotas? I Gots Quotas!

"A new study finds a lack of diversity in the key leadership positions at Football Bowl Subdivision schools and conferences", reports the Associated Press:

The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida released the report Tuesday. It found that for the 362 campus leadership positions studied, more than 91 percent of the officials were white.

The report examined positions such as conference commissioners, school presidents, athletic directors, faculty athletics representatives and head football coaches. It found that white men made up 77.5 percent of presidents and 82.5 percent of athletic directors.

Institute director Richard Lapchick says "the numbers simply do not reflect the diversity of our student-athletes.

So as not to be accused of complaining about something without offering a solution, I now offer my remedy for what clearly is a serious problem of Caucasian overrun. My guess is that Dick Lapchick would agree with me that the only way to tackle this is to institute strict hiring quotas for athletic directors, college presidents, head football coaches, etc. After all, it is absolutely vital that the folks in charge of our students and student-athletes should reflect, in Mr. Lapchick's words, "the diversity of our student-athletes." To accomplish this, my quota system would ensure that a certain percentage of many important groups of student-athletes would be hired for all college coaching and athletic administrative positions:

36% Functional illiterates

10% Cum Laude graduates or higher

77.3% Users of Performance Enhancing Drugs

15% Armed Robbers

4.8% Samoan warriors

18.9% Like butter and salt on their grits (92.3% for hires in the S.E.C.)

7.6% Foreign-born tennis and soccer players who don't speak English

22% Those who fathered a child before college

4.7% Rapists

1.2% Virgin Quarterbacks

9% Lied on a resume (like Central Florida coach George O'Leary)

5.5% Have been arrested for getting nekkid and showering in a car wash

0.5% Defecate in closets of female students after breaking into their dorm

In the haste to publish, I probably missed a few important groups, and for that I apologize. However, this plan should be implemented immediately to start us on the path to a much happier, much more fair and most importantly, a more diverse world of college presidents, coaches, and athletic directors. Sure, the universities may look a little more like "Animal House", but who better to handle the football player who rapes another student than an athletic director who is a fellow rapist, someone who can properly "feel their pain"? In the name of diversity, we must......act.......now.

Zacky G Wins the Cy: Baseball Writers Actually Get Something Right

Zack Greinke (spelled G-R-E-I-N-K-E, but pronounced Throat Wobbler Mangvove*) wins the American League Cy Young Award. Even though he won only 16 games, voters gave him the trophy because he has such a cute butt.

Actually, Zack deserved the award, as he was by far the best pitcher in the majors. That and the "cute butt" vote already went to Derek Jeter for his fourth (undeserved) Gold Glove. So we give a rare kudos to the Baseball Writers Ass. of America for actually getting one right. That means they are doing pretty well so far, with okay choices for Rookies of the Year (Florida's Chris Coghlan in the N.L. and Oakland closer Andrew Bailey in the A.L.) plus the clear-cut choice of Greinke.

Well except the one voter who gave a first-place Cy Young vote to the Tigers' Justin Verlander. He should have his voting rights taken away and be waterboarded on the comfy chair.

Just so there is no confusion, baseball's managers and coaches vote for the Gold Gloves, and once again they mangled all but about three or four of them this year. Apparently they are swayed by the pretty posterior as opposed to actually being able to field your position. Now you know why managers slap people on the butt all the time.


* - RIP Graham Chapman

Pollsters Wish Gay Marriage Was Legal, and that Pete Carroll Was Available

Boosters at the University of Southern California (henceforth USC, the REAL USC regardless of what you hear from the South Carolina folks) must be having a tough time during the recession. A downturn in the economy must mean lower payments to football prospects, which means more of those prospects end up elsewhere, or perhaps they don't put out as much on the field as they do off the field when the bills are of the Andrew Jackson variety rather than the Benjamins they are used to seeing. As I search the halls of ludicrousness (if the previous scenario is actually ludicrous) for the reason USC won't win the Pac-10 for the first time since W. was still a new president, one thing has become abundantly clear. The folks who cast votes in the college football polls continue to suckle at the teet of SC head coach Pete Carroll, because they still haven't figured out that the Trojans are just another mediocre football team this season.

USC is ranked number 22 in the Associated Press writers poll this week, number 21 in the baloney-filled USA Today coaches' poll, and an amazing 18 in the BCS standings, helped out by a number 14 computer ranking. Regardless of what computers say (and I will diffuse that portion of the equation in a bit), let's examine just how the humans who cast votes could come to the conclusion that the Trojans are rated higher than other teams with three losses, and even a number of teams with two losses.

You may have already heard my previous arguments as to why the Trojans are annually rated higher than they probably should be, so I won't revisit my theory that pollsters lust after Pete Carroll because he seems to be a cool, hip, California dude, the closest the hot dog eaters of the polling world will ever come to hanging with Tom Cruise, well, without the jumping on the couch, spousal mind-control, and hangin' in the closet with R. Kelly on South Park. Theories on poll inflation aren't needed when empirical evidence shows that a number of teams should be ranked ahead of USC, even amongst the supposedly more fair world of computers.

USC has three losses this season, so let's examine them versus teams ranked below them (or not ranked at all) who have three or fewer losses. Two of the Trojans losses have been to higher-ranked teams, at least they are higher ranked now; Oregon and Stanford. Those two losses were whoppers, by a combined 61 points, and the loss to Stanford was on SC's home field while the Cardinal were NOT ranked. The Trojans other defeat may be the worst loss by a ranked team this season, to 3-7 Washington. Despite this, the pollsters absolutely insist that SC is one of the 21 or 22 best football teams in the country.

Ranked just below the Trojans in both polls are a pair of teams with two losses, Houston and Utah. Houston's two losses were to an okay Central Florida team (6-4) and to a not-so-okay UTEP (3-7), which may rival SC's loss to the Huskies. The Utes, on the other hand, have a pair of legitimate defeats, at Oregon (by a touchdown versus USC's 27) and a blowout loss to unbeaten TCU. So why are the Trojans ahead of Utah? Because the hot dog eaters can't get snockered on 3.5-percent beer in Utah, and they'd much rather get a rubdown with the head coach in sunny SoCal rather than snowy Salt Lake City. Perhaps if Utah coach Kyle Whittingham recruited some of those ladies that helped sway the International Olympic Committee a few years ago, he'd have better luck with the poll voters.

Other teams who either could or should be ranked ahead of SC include 7-3 Clemson (a bad loss to 2-8 Maryland, but other losses to TCU and 10-1 Georgia Tech by a combined seven points), 7-3 Nebraska (all losses to teams with winning records, Virginia Tech, Texas Tech, and Iowa State), 7-2 Rutgers (losses only to unbeaten Cincinnati and one-loss Pittsburgh), 7-3 Ole Miss (losses to winning-record teams South Carolina, Alabama, and Auburn), not to mention 8-3 Navy and 8-2 Central Michigan and Temple (TEMPLE for crying out loud!).

"But USC has some better wins than those teams. I mean, they won at Ohio State, Ray. AT OHIO STATE. And AT NOTRE DAME. Top that, Schmucky Steele!" Well, if you insist. Sure, Ohio State is the Big 10 champion, which once again means they might as well be the champion of the Big Two. Any conference that allows a mediocre Iowa team only two losses in a year isn't a very good conference. That Ohio State win is also the reason SC is rated so high by the computers, as there is no good explanation as to why the 9-2 Buckeyes, with a loss to 4-7 Purdue, are ranked higher than 9-1 Pittsburgh. Well, there is no good explanation other than the hot dog eaters enjoy sweater-vest shopping with Jim Tressell (code name: BCS Title Game Loser) almost as much as hot tubbing with Pete Carroll.

Notre Dame? Once again, coach Charlie Weis has a quarterback and a giant collection of Lucky Charms marshmallows, and it took a last-minute goal line stand for SC to beat them. The Trojans only truly good win was at home over a solid Oregon State team, and most of the teams mentioned above have wins at least as good.

Yes, this is a losing battle. Despite the avalanche of evidence against ranking them now, it would probably take a losing record to get the Trojans out of the top 25, and even then there would be one or two sucklers in the media making the argument as to why a seven-loss SC team still belongs in the BCS. Even if they stunk or if all of their best players landed in jail now rather than later, the lure of seeing Coach C minus the shirt is just too tough for a pollster and a blank top-25 list. Is that your poll writing pen in your pocket, or are you just.........oh, never mind.

Thank You, Veterans!

Mr. Dan Gillespie is now 87, and fortunately for me is now a dear friend. He also just happened to help build the "Fat Man" atomic bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, August 9, 1945. I didn't do much that was truly worthwhile on the old radio show, but this interview from Veterans Day two years ago is one of my most valued treasures, among the best radio moments of my life.

Thank you, Mr. Gillespie, for your service that helped save the world, and thanks to all of our Veterans who are the reason we are all free.

Dancing Nekkid ain't for me, and it dang sure ain't for my daughters

As the father of two young daughters, I want both to be enormously successful when they grow up. Both of my girls also like to dance. I should say they LOVE to dance, and that's an understatement. Playing pin the tail on the donkey after a six-pack of Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA is easier than feeding a child who loves to dance. There's nothing wrong with dancing, though once one becomes an adult it only provides a steady living for a select few. So, if my daughters are thinking about dance as a career, I am seriously thinking about finding a few places for them to observe, perhaps serve an apprenticeship in a few years, places where they will see women earning good money while dancing. I'm thinking the Pink Pony in Atlanta, Thee Southern Belle in Raleigh, Uncle Harry's right here at home, or next time we're in Alabama the Platinum Club (if it is still around).

Or, I could just enroll the girls in what appears to be your typical dance school, as there are times when they and the aforementioned strip joints...errr, "classy" nightclubs are indistinguishable.

To be sure, I love dancing about as much as a straight man can. While there is certainly nothing wrong with watching 12 consecutive hours of college football, my family would tell you with a sigh the size of Hurricane Hugo that I would be just as happy watching a marathon of Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire movies. I even stop everything I'm doing when I come across "Breakin" or especially "Breakin' 2, Electric Bugaloo" on the tube. However, when I first saw those movies first in my youth, I never imagined that one of the reasons I would continue to enjoy them many years later was that Shabba-Doo and Shrimp didn't engage in a nekkid breakdance-off with Popin' Pete and Popin' Taco.

My sister, eight years my junior, was an avid clogger and baton twirler in her youth. I am pretty sure she had to wear some makeup during her performances, even though she was between seven and nine years old at the time. I am also absolutely positive that she was never made to dance in apparel you are more likely to see on Spring Break at Tybee with makeup caked on so thick that it would take Rodin three weeks to chisel it off. Lil' sister also never was asked to "perform" some of the "dance moves" that apprarently are so popular among local dance troups today.

A few months ago, driving to my Summer gig as Public Address Announcer for the Savannah Sand Gnats, my car was stopped at a red light on 37th Street in front of a dance school. On the sidewalk in front of the school, an instructor was showing a group of girls who couldn't have been older than eight how to properly, hmmm...how to say this, shake their doodlies. The practice of this maneuver continued the entire time I was stopped at the traffic signal, a good 30 seconds or so, and perhaps continued after I moved on. Aside from the obvious question of the purpose of eight-year-old girls shakin' their thangs when they don't have thangs to shake, even if you are older and are doodly-endowed, would it not require lots of chiropractic care (not to mention a cast iron brassiere) to shake them for such a long period of time?

This past weekend, the family was "treated" to performances by another dance team at a local festival, complete with dancers sporting two coats of makeup applied by a van load of Mexican painters and showing more skin than the docs at the Georgia Institute of Plastic Surgery typically see. The dancers, and especially their proud mommies, beamed through their Tammy Faye pancake, rouge, and lipstick as they performed 20 routines involving the only two songs apparently allowed at this particular dance school, the "Cha Cha Slide" and "Soulja Boy." "Ain't they so purty?", one momma observed.

So is it too harsh to compare our petite, purty doodly-shakers to strippers? The only differences I see are their ages and their wallets. The older gals seem to bring in a lot of coin, as I imagine they get a certain number of dollars per doodly-quiver. A few years ago, when my brother-in-law got married, the best friend of the bride paid for the entire reception out of her pocket....from the money she made spinning around on a pole. This was astonishing to me considering that, if the girl had 30 dollars in her wallet, she would have about 16 more dollars than she had teeth. Since I have never been to a strip joint in my life (yes, really!), perhaps that is the norm.

I know. I have grown up to be an intolerant prude, but if that's the case, so be it. If my daughters want to learn to dance, for the sake of decency I will learn to dance and teach them myself. Since I don't plan on growing doodlies, my instruction will probably be limited to Gene Kelly-style ballet-influenced tap. If I had ever had five-grand to burn, I would bet you that the girls and I replicating a number from "Singin' In The Rain" would tear down the house. But by the time that happens, there will probably be a full-fledged and barely-thonged mini-whoooooooore spinning on a portable pole on the fall festival program. I can already hear the girl's proud momma and momma's sixth husband both exclaiming "Ain't she so purty?"