Latest Sign of the Recession: Little House on the Prairie Trailer Homes

Fox News - Evan and Gabby Coulson have always loved the idea of just living with what you need, and nothing more. The two of them now live at Camp Ondessonk in Illinois, where Evan works. While they already had a very sustainable lifestyle, about a year ago Gabby was inspired by a story about tiny homes she read on Tumbleweed Tiny Homes. The story stuck with her, and she decided that she wanted to downsize dramatically. At about 117 square feet, the home has everything they need — and nothing more. After they finish their home, Evan and Gabby will register it as a custom-built RV. Since it's on wheels and was built to be adaptable to an RV park or even a friend's backyard, it's completely portable.

Let me go on record as saying I think this house is actually pretty awesome, the interior is really cool, and looks like something I'd totally be into...when I was 10 and wanted a clubhouse in my backyard.

Guys, it's looks really nice, but at the end of the day, you made a Ski Chalet of a trailer. A really nice one, will definitely be the best in the trailer park, but its a trailer all the same. It can be pulled on wheels and has no foundation.  No need to sell it to me as anything else. It's not a little house, its a little house on wheels. End of story.

And have you guys fully thought this through? Who gets this when you end up divorced in 6 months? You both spent a lot of time and effort building this, it'll be a shame to see you guys try and split it up...and you will split it up.  I need more than 117 sq feet just to brush my teeth in the morning (I require a lot of elbow room), can't imagine living with someone on top of you 24-7. That's insane.  Just picture the first time you're both trying to cook, she's elbowing you, you just hit her in the head with a cabinet door (by accident *wink)...now extrapolate that to every day for a few months.  Miserable, right? You guys are either ordering out every night or ending in a murder-suicide. 

But hey, great work on the trailer, looks really nice.

TSA to Fire Bouncers, Purchase Millions on New ID Scanning Tools

Man: Don't you want to see my license? Agent: Nope, just drop trow, I'll figure it out down here.

Fox News - The Transportation Security Administration this week announced that it will be testing another new technology that it says will increase security and improve the airline screening process. Called Credential Authentication Technology - Boarding Pass Scanning Systems, or CAT-BPSS the machines will help agents spot fake documents, at a time where fraudulent ids are becoming increasingly sophisticated. TSA will spend $3.2 million on the new system that will be tested at select airports in 2012--although it hasn't been announced exactly where yet. The Washington Post reports that TSA is planning to buy 30 CAT-BPSS scanners from three different vendors, and will eliminate an agent's bouncer- like identification check, where a special light is used on the security features of a person's license or passport. 

Wait, what? 3.2 million on some fancy new ID scanning tools? How is it possible a federally funded security agency can't figure out how to scan a license for less than $1 million dollars when every local Joe Tough Guy police officer can scan the bar code on my license in a matter of seconds? 

What is costing 3.2 million dollars? I've been in liquor stores where they've been able to read the bar code on my ID, what hell are  you guys doing down there at the TSA? It's almost as if you have no law enforcement or security training at all, I just don't get it sometimes.  

Plus, this is something that should have been addressed about years ago, you know, instead of that entry level worker, probably making barely above minimum wage, looking at my ID and eyeballing my face to make sure I am who I say I am, I'm sure he's a trained expert.  No one thought of ID reading tools before? Really?

The TSA: We'll make you take your belt and shoes off, but we still can't figure out how to properly identify people.

The Toppsfield Fair: More Than Just Lucky Rabbits Feet?

Went to the Toppsfield Fair this weekend, expecting all the amusement of an afternoon spent pumpkin picking, and was pleasantly shocked. I went in basing my expectations from memories as a child (the last time I went was probably the 3rd or 4th grade) when we took educational trips to the fair as kids, or as I like to think of them, days when teachers were too lazy to prepare lesson plans so we all got on a bus and went somewhere under the guise of education. 

This means I was expecting Elephant rides, goats, guinea pigs and rabbits as far as the eyes can see, a few prize winning hogs, honey sticks and gigantic horse dongs to amuse my childish friends and I...Don't get me wrong, all that was still there, and I still cracked a couple gigantic horse dick jokes, but there was so much more there that I have no memory of, it makes me feel like my school was concealing all the fun we could have been having, like I was robbed of a part of my childhood in a way.

There were unsafe rides for people to throw up on, cheesy haunted houses where not one person popped out to scare you (legit, we walked through the entire thing, no one popped out once), swindling carnies and their fixed games (which I still think I can beat despite ample knowledge that I can't), hilarious people watching as far as the eyes can see, and a Mike Posner concert that brought out teenage hoochies to this patch of farmland from miles away. Never before would I have imagined I'd see so many underrage girls in bedazzled shirts, skirts way to short, and to top off the fashion statement, a nice pair of uggs. Ladies, you're at a farm that smells like Cow shit, there are horses taking pisses 20 feet behind the stands for the concert, maybe tone it down a bit?

All in all though, it was fun, despite the fact that I didn't remember to buy another lucky rabbits foot.

Note to All Offense Oriented Football Teams: To be a Superbowl Champion, Defense is Necessary

While increasingly undervalued in today's NFL, defense is an essential component of any  Superbowl Winner

            During one of my many browsing sessions through the endless realms of sports related internet content when I stumbled upon this quote from Greg EasterBrook:

The New England coach is nothing if not analytical, and realized -- especially with the past decade of rule changes intended to favor offense -- that defense-oriented teams sometimes win but high-scoring teams almost always win. There are coaches who strategize to come out ahead in a low-scoring defensive struggle. For the past five years, Belichick has been strategizing to spin the scoreboard. The Patriots under Belichick are now 62-3 when scoring at least 30 points. A high-scoring team almost always wins, so Belichick has undergone a religious conversion, from defense to offense

From a purely observational standpoint, I say this is complete and utter bullshit.  Not the bit about Belichick being analytical and adjusting as the situation warrants.  But I do have massive problems with the statement that “Offense always wins.”  That statement should be re-defined to “Offense almost always wins during the regular season, but relying on it entirely will not work in the postseason.” My beloved Patriots, who have enjoyed immense success for the past decade, recently have delved into the realm of post season futility, losing their last three “second season” games.  Underlying theme of those games?  Patriots offensive prowess was limited to 14 points, 14 points, and 21 points in those matchups.  You know why?  Despite the shift towards making sure the offense is a well oiled machine, a good defense, especially when points are so crucial in the playoffs, is absolutely necessary is you want to bring home the Lombardi.  Instead of relying on my potentially biased New England homer opinions, it’s time to bring some validation to my assertions in the form of “Statistics”

Here are the offensive/defensive stats per game during the regular season of the last 10 Super Bowl Winners just to ensure we cover the gamut of this alleged “Offense Wins” era football.

2010 Green Bay Packers

Offense: 9^th overall, 24.2 pts/gm, 358 yds/gm, 3^rd down % -.42, T/O diff. +10

Defense: 5^th overall, 15.0 pts/gm, 309.1 yds/gm, 3^rd down %, 36, Int/Fum rec=24/8, Sacks= 47

2009 New Orleans Saints

Offense: 1^st overall, 31.9 pts/gm, 403.8 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .45, T/O Diff. +11

Defense:25^th overall, 21.3 pts/gm/ 357 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .38, Int/Fum rec. 26/13, Sacks= 35

2008 Pittsburgh Steelers

Offense:  22nd overall, 21.7 pts/gm, 311.9 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .41, T/O Diff. +4

Defense: 1^st overall, 13.9 pts/gm, 237.2 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .31, Int/Fum Rec. 20/9, Sacks=51

2007 New York Giants (Fuck, that is still painful to write)

Offense:  16^th overall, 23.3 pts/gm, 331.4 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .42, T/O Diff. -9

Defense: 7^h overall, 21.9 pts/gm, 305 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .35, Int/Fum Rec. 15/10, Sacks=53

2006 Indianapolis Colts (One of the rare instances a shitty defensive team actually wins it all)

Offense:  3^rd overall, 26.7 pts/gm, 379.4 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .56, T/O Diff. +7

Defense: 21^st overall, 22.5 pts/gm, 332.2 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .47,Int/Fum Rec. 15/11,Sacks=25

2005 Pittsburgh Steelers

Offense:  15^th overall, 24.3 pts/gm, 321.8 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .35, T/O Diff. +7

Defense: 4^th overall, 16.1 pts/gm, 284 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .40, Int/Fum Rec. 15/11, Sacks=47

2004 New England Patriots

Offense:  7^th overall, 27.3 pts/gm, 357.6 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .45, T/O Diff. +9

Defense: 9^th overall, 16.2 pts/gm, 310.8 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .39, Int/Fum Rec. 20/16, Sacks=45

2003 New England Patriots

Offense:  17^th overall, 21.8 pts/gm, 314.9 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .37, T/O Diff. +17

Defense:7^th overall,14.9 pts/gm, 291.6 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .34, Int/Fum Rec. 29/12, Sacks=41

2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Offense: 24^th overall, 21.6 pts/gm, 312.6 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .36, T/O Diff. +17

Defense: 1^st overall, 12.2 pts/gm, 258.2 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .34, Int/Fum Rec. 31/7, Sacks=43

2001 New England Patriots

Offense:  19^th overall, 23.2 pts/gm, 305.1 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .41, T/O Diff. +7

Defense: 24^th overall, 17 pts/gm, 334.5 yds/gm, 3^rd down %= .37, Int/Fum Rec. 22/13, Sacks=41

The trends I noticed? Despite the fact Superbowl winning teams have very good to superior offenses, it was essential to have a defense that EXCELLED in a particular aspect. Those teams that had the entire package (’05 Packers, ’02 Bucs) offset their limited offenses with absolutely insane defensive metrics by forcing a ridiculous number of turnovers and generating consistent pressure on the quarterback with each having 43+ sacks.  With the exception of the 2006 Colts, every single Superbowl Winning team in the “Era of Offense” NFL, has had one or two dimensions to their defense that excelled at what they did.  Maybe they gave up a lot of yards, or weren’t able to get off the field on third down, but the 2007 Giants had a DOMINANT pass rush and the 2009 New Orleans Saints had a very opportunistic, turnover generating defense that gave their dominant offense additional opportunities on the field.

            By no means am I saying having a great offense is something to be ignored or discounted.  What I am saying as that the overemphasis on that side of the ball often leads to massive deficiencies on defense, an ESSENTIAL component if you want your hometeam to bring home the hardware in February.  It may serve a number of teams (This years Patriots, Bills, and Raiders) to note that a reduced focus on your offense in order to shore up your defense, while perhaps forgoing present success, would ultimately serve your franchise well when it comes time to perform in the playoffs. 

Further Evidence of America's Declining Intelligence: Real Steel Tops the Box Office This Weekend

(NewsCore) - "Real Steel" topped the US weekend box office, according to early estimates from Hollywood.com. Touchstone Pictures' sci-fi action film about robot boxers, which stars Hugh Jackman, earned $27.3 million in its opening weekend. "The Ides of March" (Columbia Pictures), a political thriller directed by and starring George Clooney, trailed with $10.4 million.

I honestly don't have much to add to this, I've just been sitting here staring at that paragraph for about 10 minutes in utter shock.

Real Steel? The Rock-Em-Sock-Em Robots ripoff, a cross between Iron Man and The Fighter, won the box office this past weekend. I think it's time we officially just stopped making movies as a country. Just shut down the movie studios for a few years, deport Michael Bay, and let some decent scripts pile up and start from scratch. How can an American ever expect to win an argument on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes ever again? Every message board argument will end the same way, "pfft, what do you know, you're from a country where Real Steel led the box office for a weekend." There's no defense to that.

And it's not even like you can point to some under appreciated movie just opening small. I mean, The Ides of March starring George Clooney? George, I would've seen this if you didn't keep making the same damn movie over and over again. We get it, you're into intelligent, sophisticated politically active movies now, for the love of god, please play a different character next time.  

What's next, A Dolphin Tale? The story of how a once proud Morgan Freeman is apparently so desperate for money that he'll take any Disney like movie about loveable aquatic animals and sell himself out for it? 

This is brutal. You're killing me Hollywood, killing me.

What Do Jesus, Amateur Fireworks, and a Liberal Use of the N-Word Have In Common?

This awesomely hilarious video.

I know it's just a sneak peak trailer but the new Friday After Next looks awesome. Deebo's gonna be pissed when he see's his shrub burnt to the ground.

When this brother sees the burning bush and starts yelling GET THA WATA N*GGA!, I lose it every single time...might be the most rewatchable internet clip I've seen this month. I'd like to live just one day in the 'hood. Not during drive by season, but during one of these block parties where everyone grills up some ribs, tips a 40, and then sets off homemade, bootleg fireworks in the middle of the street with dozens of on-lookers standing a mere feet away. It looks awesome.

PS: Maybe Moses and the burning bush aren't so far fetched? I mean this guy basically summoned Jesus from the dead, it's not so shocking that bush started burning, is it?