Time for your weekly edition of the Deadspin Funbag. Got something on your mind? Email the Funbag. Today, we're covering dogs, douche schools, Coke, and more.
True story: I got a vasectomy on Friday, and while the normal recovery period for a vasectomy is two to three days, mine has taken a bit longer due to a relatively common complication that will, nonetheless, horrify you and make you question the existence of God. But we'll address scrotal blood clots some other time. For now, the Funbag has been … snipped (TA DA!!!) a bit this week. Blame it on my big, swollen balls. Now, your letters:
Do you think we'll ever have another president with facial hair?
As of right now, there are NO viable candidates for the 2016 presidential election that have facial hair: Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley, Mickey Mouse, etc. Every shitty slideshow of every shitty candidate is free of mustaches, goatees, beards, chops, and Van Dykes. The last president to have facial hair was big fat William Howard Taft, who held the job over a century ago. Since then, nothing but a succession of clean-shaven assholes. Sounds problematic to me. This mustachinormative culture cannot stand!
I'm sure this is driven by political consultants. I'm sure that prior to every election cycle, the candidate sits down with a room full of spin doctors and focus-group consultants and the Poochie design team, and they tell him (or her!), "You need to shave every day. We need the female vote, sir. If you grow a handsome beard, they may be terrified by your rugged good looks and panty-wetting lumberjack musk. And if you grow stubble, people will think you are hungover and slept in a hay loft. We need you shaved, sir." And then the candidate does whatever they say, because candidates are fucking puppets.
But it has to change. If you look at a directory of Congress, there are many congressmen who rock a mustache (particularly the African-American congressmen, who look far less creepy with a 'stache than the average white congressman). If we are, collectively, becoming more comfortable with the idea of politicians looking like something other than a bunch of old white dudes (not saying we're ALL comfortable with that yet, but baby steps, America!), then surely someone will come along and break the glass ceiling for facial hair. I bet there's some dude out there with a beard and ear gauges and heavy tats who's making artisanal craft strawberry wine right now but has some pretty neat ideas for how America could become more sustainable under a neoprogresscialist presidential platform. I say it happens within another century.
What do you think is the most tattooed state in the U.S.? I'm not talking about the most tattooed people IN a state but the state used most in tattoo form. I just recently relocated from California to Texas (I know), and I've got to think the Lone Star State is top 5.
That makes sense, since Texans believe that the Earth rotates on an axis with Texas somehow at both poles and the sun revolves around Texas and the stars were put there by God for them to shoot at. No state has a more unjustly inflated sense of pride than Texas. They're like Skins fans. It doesn't hurt that the shape of Texas is unique and recognizable and has been used in so many different marketing campaigns that it's become iconic. It's not like Wyoming, which is just a fucking rectangle. No one would recognize it if you just got a rectangle on your chest.
So Texas is number one, followed by Alaska and Hawaii, because those people are so insecure that they aren't part of the 48 contiguous states and need to get a tat to talk themselves into thinking they belong (they don't). I would put California next, followed by Florida, because Floridians will put anything on their bodies: tats, pudding, gum chewed by other people, etc.
I kind of like Joe Buck as an announcer, but he's got one really annoying tic that no one ever talks about. Every time a quarterback throws the ball, he'll go "Pass is ... (interminable pause, voice trails off) ... caught by Jordy Nelson." Without fail. Phil Simms gets a lot of grief for that hick-ass Kentucky accent, but I think a few heems and Jeems are more tolerable than an announcer calling every play the exact same.
I'm actually fine with Joe Buck, even if I'm a NERDY BLOG NERD who must reflexively hate every announcer calling every game. Buck is cool by me, AND he legitimately worked to improve after people dumped on him for meh-ing his way through the Helmet Catch during the Giants Super Bowl win. If he says "pass is…" on every throw, it's almost more of a signature call, unlike Phil Simms saying JEEM because he literally has no clue how to talk.
Everyone has vocal and writing crutches. Even the president has them (he says "Um" a lot). If you do a three-hour broadcast, you're gonna repeat yourself, and you're gonna say some asinine shit. And at least Buck makes an effort to limit some of that inanity, unlike Berman or some other dipshit who is a running train of inanity, at all times. You have to give these guys SOME leeway for being on live television.
In a sport where coaches are looking to squeeze every last 0.001 percent of performance out of their players, is there a reason football coaches don't force all their players to wear long sleeves during cold-weather games? Does it restrict mobility, or is it a matter of "Derr, we're a team full of tough football players who value the mental edge provided by things like freezing, burying footballs, and not having the distraction of openly gay players on our team." Maybe this is why I'm not a football coach, but I feel like there's a bigger advantage in having more function in your limbs.
I think that pro coaches, in general, are fine with whatever makes their players most comfortable on the field. If you're some steakhead idiot who wants to go out into a blizzard with bare hands and no undershirt, Coach is fine with that. If you need gloves and individually wrapped toes, go for it. Most of the time, that kind of shit is player-driven. The players wants to look tough, because then they FEEL tough. Kids in high school do that shit all the time. They rock shorts out in the cold weather so that everyone can be like, "Look at that gutty young scrapper! Why, he's impervious to the elements, he is!" It gives them a little confidence boost. Plus it wards off any accusations of being a pussy, either from your teammates or your coaches.
I also think there's a cascade effect. You throw on a hat, and then you realize your hands are cold. You throw on gloves, and then you realize your face is cold. You throw on a scarf, and then your realize your EYES are cold. The cold finds your weakness and zeroes in on it, because the cold is a dick. So, in that sense, it's rational to just go out there au naturel and accept that you're gonna be fucking cold all over. One less thing to worry about.
I'm on an email chain with some friends, and we are currently debating who went to the douchiest college. We have Princeton, Columbia, George Washington, and Penn alums, among others. So it's pretty tough competition. What schools harbor the douchiest of the douches?
What about Duke? Don't we all hate Duke? Every Duke alum has to apologize in advance for being a Duke alum. And FSU is really coming on strong in recent years. They're both douchey AND stupid, which is quite a feat. They should easily top any re-ranking of the douchiest football schools. Anyway, given the chance, I would rank the schools like this:
1. Harvard. Still the champ.
2. Princeton. I picture everyone at Princeton walking around in Princeton sweaters. Do they all do that? I bet they do.
4. USC. It's got 20,000 Jaden Smiths.
6. Yale and the rest of the Ivies.
7. Williams. People from Williams are fuckers.
8. Stanford. At some point, we'll have to put Stanford at the top of this list, because they spawn the world's supply of Glassholes and Hooli executives.
10. Notre Dame, although I feel like the worst ND people are the ones who never even went there.
Coca-Cola is usually regarded as the most visible and entrenched brand on Earth. If the company all of a sudden dropped its marketing/advertising budget to zero, but maintained the status quo in all other aspects of operations, how long, if ever, do you think it would take for the company to be completely erased from the memory of the public?
Never. Plenty of #BRANDS have stayed afloat with no advertising of any kind (for a long time Google never bothered to advertise, and there's a whole Rovell orgasm to be had in the story of Pabst Blue Ribbon becoming popular again with no marketing help). If the product still exists and is still sitting on a shelf somewhere, with the name COCA COLA blaring across the front, that alone is its own form of marketing, as is ceasing all advertising. OOOH COKE IS UNDERGROUND NOW MAN SO EDGY.
So no, Coke is at the point now where it can't ever be killed. Even if everyone knows it's fucking poison. It'll stick around, mostly because it's delicious, and Pepsi is horrific. Brands will now last longer than a lot of the physical things we build, which is not good.
Throughout all of the tens of thousands of baseball games that have been played over the 100-plus years the game has existed, do you think there have ever been two games with the same scorecard (runs scored in same innings the same way and all outs recorded the same)? There has to have at least been two games with the same outs recorded in the same order, right?
Exactly the same? No. Every at bat in baseball presents an insane number of possible scenarios: single, double, triple, HR, bunt, HBP, walk, strikeout, flyout to left, flyout to right, flyout ruined by Steve Bartman, etc. Add runners on base to the scenario and the possibilities expand almost limitlessly. And while the number of outs are finite, the number of runs and safe hits are not. And extra innings add MORE outs. So you're talking about a one-in-infinity-to-a-shitload-of-powers's chance for one scorecard's precise order to turn out the way it does. You have better odds of picking an NCAA bracket perfectly than matching a scorecard. It has never happened, and never will. That is the strongest math take I can possibly muster.
If terrorist hijacks your plane, and you're the last option to fly it, would you be able to land the plane? My friend says he can do it, but no way, right?
Without someone in the control tower guiding you down and telling you what buttons to push? No. Everyone dies. Your friend is a moron.
If Hillary Clinton becomes our next president and has an affair in the White House, will the uproar be the same as it was for Bill?
No, because people that support her would be like, "Payback's a bitch!" So no, there would be too many people on her side because her man already did her wrong, so why NOT have a fresh-faced White House page stick a cigar in his ass in front of her?
That doesn't mean it would pass without incident. People that already hate Hillary Clinton would shit all over her anyway. What if she ran for President SPECIFICALLY to get into the White House and cheat on Bill to get even? That is not ladylike. If you can find an excuse to dump on someone you already dislike and formulate wacky conspiracy theories about them, you take it. I know I do!
What if Mark Zuckerberg was caught on camera knocking out his wife? Would we all quit using Facebook?
I think a lot of people would. What better excuse would you have to finally rid yourself of Facebook once and for all? I'd fucking kill to delete my Facebook account. Facebook is the worst.
But I don't think everyone would stop using it. The board can just fire Zuckerberg and tacitly give you permission to keep posting old Buzzfeed listicles on your wall. So Facebook would keep chugging along like the empty webcamp that it already is.
More fun to watch: position players pitching or non-quarterbacks playing quarterback (actually playing QB, not like some wildcat bullshit)?
Position players pitching, because of Jose Canseco pitching and hurting himself.
Still the best thing ever. No one hurts himself like Jose Canseco. But in general, I love any situation where an athlete plays out of position. I react like it's the wackiest thing ever. ZOMG DIRECT SNAP TO WARRICK DUNN! It never stops being cool, except for pitchers batting. That blows.
How much would you have to be paid to lose the ability to read? Like, to be completely illiterate and unable to learn it ever again. I said like 40 million dollars, which is about what I would have to pay someone to read for me all the time and then some.
That's tough, because that includes reading texts and emails and hot internet takes, which is where I derive 90 percent of my joy from. I'd have to actually talk to people. Yuck. But yeah, $40 million seems worth it! You could do audiobooks and have your butler read the menu for you. I would do that. Reading is TOTALLY overrated. Ask Will Smith's children! They have $40 million and pretty much gave it up voluntarily.
In movies, people are always getting tied up by criminals with ropes. Real criminals never do that, right?
No, because they shoot you. Greggggggg hates this story crutch.
Let's say all the humans instantaneously disappeared off the face of the earth except for you and a female. Let's also pretend you had knowledge that this other survivor of the cataclysmic event was an attractive female your age. The catch is, she is located in Athens, Greece.
Would you try and reach this female (you live in the USA), risking life and limb for a chance at having a relationship and possibly furthering the human race another generation? Assume the female is stationary and would be easy to find once you made it to Athens. Or would you say screw it and make your way to Key West to live out your days?
I would definitely try to get to her. The chance to be Adam 2.0 (screenplay idea patented by me right now this instant) would be too much to pass up. And then I would try to sail across the Atlantic and either A) die, or B) give up after five hours at sea. Unless I've managed to commandeer Paul Allen's yacht (and that would be a priority), I'm doomed. But I would TRY, by God. The fate of the human race depends on me and my penis.
Email of the week!
My family just got a puppy from a breeder—-no, we didn't rescue and don't have a bumper sticker that reads, "Who rescued who?" Whenever we are asked about the pup, it's always, oh, you didn't rescue?—- and then the accompanying sour puss look followed by a story of how they flew to Japan and rescued a nuclear-reactor two-legged tsunami dog.
Who is the more terrible person here? Me for buying a puppy, or the proponents of BIG RESCUE for attempting to belittle my shameful, selfish act?
I think it's fine to buy a certain breed if that's what you really want. It's a free country, man. I say let your $5,000 boutique Poodledoodle live.
Drew Magary writes for Deadspin. He's also a correspondent for GQ. Follow him on Twitter @drewmagary and email him at firstname.lastname@example.org. You can also order Drew's book, Someone Could Get Hurt, through his homepage.
Image by Jim Cooke, source photo via Getty.
The Concourse is Deadspin's home for culture/food/whatever coverage. Follow us on Twitter.