Round Two's officially underway over at Blog Madness. Once again, I'm matched against an interesting, thoughtful and personal entry, this time via The Inn. Read 'em and vote for your favorite. Heck, read all the posts; I've found some fun new blogs via Pete and Manny's little experiment.

"Dog cleanup rules favored by Yellowstone County Commissioners," the headline in today's Billings Gazette says. It's a story about a proposal to make dog owners clean up after their dogs when visiting city parks. "Not so much as a yelp of opposition was heard during a public hearing Tuesday," the story continues, allowing a Gazette staff reporter to work in a witty dog-related quip. "Commissioners approved the ordinance on first reading and will consider it for a second time in two weeks."

I, for one, am glad our County Commissioners are taking bold stands, and showing a strong front of unanimity on this contentious topic. Think about it: can you believe no one spoke in favor of making city parks open rest areas for our canine friends? Evidently, the powerful Dog Excrement Lobby has little influence on the steely resolve of our county commissioners.

Let's say you live in the fair burg of Cumming, Georgia. Let's say you are on staff at the First United Methodist Church there, and have been charged with securing a domain name for your church.

Of course, you'd want a domain that's easy to remember: something that reinforces the church's name in the minds of visitors, yet still suggests piety and decorum.

Hmmm. How about cummingfirst.com?

A tip of the hat to aldahlia.net for the link.

The 2003 Blog Madness Tournament has officially launched, a "best blog post" competition in a March Madness-inspired double elimination format. No Dick Vitale, alas, but it promises to be a lot of fun--and Pete and Manny deserve a visit or two just for putting together those byzantine tournament brackets.

Am I going to pimp my own entry? You bet your bippy: I'm in the "Love" bracket, and here's my first-round matchup, in which an introspective, heart-felt and cogent post from Mama Musings goes up against my post about ... um ... a porn shop. Looks like I have to hope nonsensical blather beats genuine content here, folks, so don't just think of this as a vote for my post; think of it as a vote for snarky inanity in general. Join this worthy cause and vote now, won't you?

While I'm in a pimping mood, may I draw some attention to other Montana bloggers in the competition? Sarpy Sam at "Thoughts from the Middle of Nowhere" is also in the "Love" bracket, with an entry entitled Insulted. Like Mama Musing's post, it's one of those genuine entries that's something rare and wonderful in the blogosphere. (Back on the snarky side: I'm willing to bet Sam is the only cattle rancher in the tournament.)

Meanwhile, Dave at "Better Living Through Blogging" is in the "Work" bracket with an entry (A Matter of Taste) that questions the epicurean judgment of reality television (and perhaps his wife?).

So please join us for some Blog Madness. It's a lot more fun than that Excel spreadsheet you're supposed to be working on right now.

Whilst searching for CNN transcripts, I stumbled across this old press release from the Lycos Top 50 search site. Hmmm. Look at the list: 13 of the top 20 searches (and seven of the top ten) were women, including top ten finishers Katie Couric, Paula Zahn, Greta Van Susteren, Ashley Banfield, Laurie Dhue, Suze Orman and Rudi Bakhtiar. The press release tells us:

Laurie Dhue, a young anchor for FOX News, has been getting web searches ever since September 11, when she was the breakout news star of the post-attack coverage. Even more surprising are the searches for Rudi Bakhtiar of CNN Headline News--a lot of curious Web searchers seem to feel she breaks out of the anonymous Headline News mold. Both of these women get more searches than Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer, or Connie Chung. Robin Meade from CNN Headline News, while not as popular as Bakthiar, also gets more searches than many better-known hosts.

Okay, maybe Lycos was surprised, but I'm certainly not: I'm betting a fair number of those searches have absolutely nothing to do with news. Instead, they're from men who not only think Ms. Bakhtiar "breaks out of the anonymous Headline News mold," but also fervently hope she's broken out of those anonymous Headline News clothes in a drunken "News Girls Gone Wild" moment.

Of course, I don't know this for sure. But I can tell you it's nearly impossible to find authentic photos of Paula Zahn posing in lingerie.

According to a CNN story, Lieutenant General James Helmly says the Army needs to change its attitude toward Reservists, or it will see a mass exodus of reserve soldiers: "(The) Army Reserve needs to get the message across to reserve soldiers that 'we value your service and we're not going to run this like a doggone flesh farm.'"

Maybe I'm wrong, but the term "flesh farm" obviously means something different to me than it does to the Lieutenant General. At least, I think it does.

If it doesn't, I'm signing up for the Army Reserve tomorrow.

On the right side of the cable news aisle, we have the folks at Fox News, who trumpet their ’Äúfair and balanced’Äù coverage. On the left side, we have CNN, preferred by people who are likely to refer to Fox News as ’ÄúFaux News.’Äù

Is reporting on CNN too liberal? Is reporting on Fox News too conservative? Well, let’Äôs put it to the test, using last night’Äôs coverage of John Kerry’Äôs win in the Iowa caucuses as an example.

On CNN, Judy Woodruff and other correspondents discussed the caucus results immediately after Kerry’Äôs speech to supporters:

JUDY WOORUFF: ... I should say, how much the personal story of John Kerry has come into play in this campaign in the last few weeks. Jeff just talked about it. He has talked about his experience in Vietnam. We've met not one but two men whose lives John Kerry saved during the war in Vietnam. This, and the fact that he's so much more comfortable now talking about his experiences in Vietnam, his life, all of that, I think, has helped bring a shape, a human, and obviously a successful shape to this campaign...
BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: ... John Kerry is a very formidable debater. He had a series of debates with Bill Weld when he faced reelection for the Senate. It was one of the great series of debates in American history. You just wait until George Bush gets into a debate with John Kerry, if John Kerry's the nominee.

Translation: Kerry is pure gold, baby, and a hell of a lot smarter than that idiot Bush from Texas.

At this point, I flipped the channel to Fox News (I have to paraphrase this, because I've yet to find a transcript):

FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (I’Äôm not certain who to attribute this to): Kerry’Äôs campaign was in real trouble. In fact, many people in the New England states were coming out against him after strong early support, so he had to go to Iowa and hope for something to happen. Tonight’Äôs results may show Kerry isn’Äôt as bad as they thought.

Translation: Kerry is a big loser whose campaign was on its last legs, but this Iowa campaign means he’Äôs not a TOTAL loser. Yet.

Show me which of these stories is ’Äúunfair,’Äù and I’Äôll show you where you are on the political spectrum.

In my view, both convey something true and newsworthy, even though both also have an obvious slant. And here’Äôs my real question: what’Äôs wrong with that? I like to see the news sifted through two opposing filters. Sorry to say, but ALL news is subject to the biases--conscious or unconscious--of the people writing and delivering said stories. And you know what? I wouldn’Äôt have it any other way, because watching a dry recitation of headlines would be as boring as watching John Kerry’Äôs ’ÄúThank You’Äù speech on television last night.

Whoops. Guess my bias slipped out there.

Via The Ministry of Minor Perfidy and Rocket Jones comes this tidbit about... um... a horse lover right here in Montana. It seems a Bigfork horse owner recently visited the stable to check on his trusty steed, only to find a nude man in a compromising position with said horse. (Note to riding novices: this is not what we mean when we talk about "mounting a horse.") The naked man promptly fled. Flathead County Sheriff Jim Dupont's comment: "He left his boots and a bottle of hand lotion behind." Great. On top of everything else, the poor guy now has to deal with chapped hands.

Not so very long ago, I posted a rant about celebrities who constantly put their political views where their mouths are. You know the kind: they start a press junket devoted to their latest film/album/book/comeback/rehabilitation, and instead decide they'd like to regale everyone with their views on the Middle East or homeland security. Because they're experts on that kind of thing.

Since then, I've had a revelation or two. First, I've had to admit this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. After all, we, as bloggers, love to stand on our soapboxes and shout out our views to all who might hear. And don't we want people to notice? Don't we want them to say, "Dammit, you're right?" Don't we want every last person in the universe to realize we have all possible solutions to all possible problems? Such is the conceit, like it or not, of blogging: just like many celebrities out there, we're vain enough to think we have all the answers. So how can I, in good conscience, begrudge celebrities for doing the same thing?

I return to the same answer: because I'm a blogger. If you've read any number of blogs out there, you've seen that balanced coverage of all views isn't usually a high priority. So there you go: my blog is my fiefdom, and in my fiefdom, celebrities must adhere to a different code of conduct than I do. Because I'm an expert on that kind of thing.

My second revelation? I've discovered similar posts on other blogs, and--brace yourself--found a celebrity view I admired. Suddenly, I find myself wishing this celebrity would speak out more often, as his eloquent thoughts and views need to be heard by more people. So there it is again: I'm willing to take a stand against celebrities who espouse views different from my own, but quite lenient with celebrities who have a similar outlook. And again, in my fiefdom, this is perfectly acceptable.

I do, however, want to note these instances on other blogs and let you judge for yourself (just as long as your judgment agrees with mine). First, a post at The Spoons Experience cites an interview with Wallace Shawn (he of The Princess Bride and My Dinner With Andre fame, among others), in which it seems he finds everything from Broadway Theater to life in America terrifying. Mr. Shawn's shrill comments are exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about, and further solidify my view that all celebrities I disagree with should be muzzled. Second, a post at Astonished Head compares recent interviews given by Viggo Mortenson and Jonathan Rhys-Davies, in which Rhys-Davies comes off as considerably more articulate. May I draw special attention to the Rhys-Davies interview? When I read this, I found myself quite moved by what he said; mayhapst a tiny tear even formed in the corner of my eye. So yes, dammit, I happen to agree with his views on the subject, but I don't think that's the only difference in his interview. (I'm trying to give myself some wiggle room here, mind you.)

Mr. Mortenson arrived for his Charlie Rose interview wearing a "No Blood for Oil" tee shirt; he might as well have written "Ask me my views on the Iraq War" on his forehead with a magic marker. Mr. Rhys-Davies, on the other hand, was specifically asked by the interviewer if Tolkien's Catholic themes resonated with him. In other words, Rhys-Davies' answer was actually solicited by the interview; up to that point, he hadn't made any bold political statements. Nor did he show up for the interview wearing a shirt proclaiming, "Up with Judeo-Christian values."

Do you see the difference? I do. And remember, I'm a blogger.

Here's a contest anyone can enter: the J-Walk Blog is holding its first annual Spam Poem contest. (Would that be a "Spoem?") Rules are simple: compose a poem using the subject line of spam email you've received. The contest ends Friday, so pull out your spam and your iambic pentameter.
[Thanks to Ed Kemmick for the J-Walk Blog link]

Aside from the usual managerie of penis/breast/credential enlargement spams, yesterday's inbox at yahoo held a surprise for me: a request to verify account information on my Citibank credit card.

The main reason this was a surprise was because I don't actually have a Citibank credit card, but I've never let such trivial facts stop me before. So I opened the email:

Dear Citibank Cleint:

This email was ssent by the Citicards server to veerify your email address. You must clpetome this psocres by clicking on the link below and enteering in the litle window your Citi Debit full Card nummber and PIN that you use on Atm machine.

Obviously, this hard-hitting bit of persuasive copy (to see a screen shot of the whole email, click the image) was written by some guy in mainland China who speaks English as a second language and is too poor to afford a dictionary. Maybe that's why he needs my credit card and PIN number.

I laughed at first, then immediately pictured a poor little old lady who only gets government checks receiving this email and not reading it carefully. Why should that idiot speller in mainland China get her money? I called Citibank's support number and told them I'd received a fake email. The guy on the line asked, "Is it the one with the really bad spelling?" I said it was. He told me to report the email on their web site, then offhandedly said, "If they can figure out how to put together a scam for stealing card and PIN numbers, you'd think they could figure out how to do a spell check."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'll admit it: I've been to see a counselor/therapist/shrink before. And while the whole process was interesting, about the juiciest bit of gossip on my counselor was that he suffered from slight astigmatism.

So why do other people get to see Constance Reynolds, a therapist who, if charges are correct, has adulterous lesbian affairs with clients? A recent report in the Billings Gazette said, "[T]he embattled psychologist’Äôs disciplinary hearing began to resemble an afternoon talk show. There had been testimony of implanted memories, of a daughter having an affair with her mother’Äôs girlfriend and confrontations between scantily clad women in Reynolds’Äô bedroom."

I can almost hear my first session with Ms. Reynolds now:

Constance: Tell me about your mother.
Me: I don't think she's your type.
Constance: No, really. We're here to talk about what's on your mind.
Me: Currently, that would be thoughts of you, your special friend, and a couple cans of Reddi-Wip.
Constance: That's totally inappropriate.
Me: Don't be so sure; after all, their tagline is "Share a fun moment with Reddi-Wip."

The big ol' blogging universe out there has successful residents who go by monikers such as Insta Pundit, Vodka Pundit, Daily Pundit, Cal Pundit, Patio Pundit, Presto Pundit, Shi'a Pundit and Allah Pundit.

Hmmm. Henceforth I shall be known as "Chocolatey Goodness Pundit." So let it be written.

Yes, Survivor auditions have finally come to Montana; yesterday, producers of the popular un-reality program screened cast wannabees in Butte and Helena. The producers held auditions at Nickels Casinos, obviously feeling anyone who could handle the thick clouds of cigarette smoke, incessant bleeps and bloops of electronic machines, and total absence of any natural light would already be a survivor of sorts.

Alas, based on interviews with candidates in the Helena Independent Record, I'm a bit doubtful the next iteration of Survivor will feature its first Montana cast member. Marlo Conrady showed up with a Survivor tee shirt, a Survivor tattoo, and a torch. "I'm not only going to out-wit, out-play and out-last the competition," she told producers, "I'm going to open up a can of whoop-ass!" Marlo, you have all the subtlety of a flying mallet. Were I a producer, I'd open up a can of nyet.

Next: Marc Montgomery, who offered a bit of outdoors advice: "Elk droppings are edible," he said on camera. "You can live on them, but they taste like crap." Hey, give Marc a bonus point for the rapier wit, but subtract five for his culinary acumen.

Lessee, who else was there? Ms. Donna Davidson recounted her interview with producers: "I told them about a club I started called the Born-Again Virgins." Hmmm. Okay, that's kind of interesting and different. "And, that I can light fires by doing the bump-and-grind." Somehow, those two tidbits of information don't seem to go together. "I'll stand out," she concludes. Yes, Donna. Lighting yourself on fire (perhaps with the aid of Ms. Conrady's torch) would also help you stand out, but I'm not sure it would get you on the show. Wait, strike that: it probably would help.

POSTSCRIPT: Thanks to Dave at Better Living Through Blogging, I found out auditions were also held in Great Falls. A memorable quote from the GF Tribune, as related on Dave's site, comes from Cleve Loney: "I've survived everything else...I've done rodeo for 29 years. I've been through all of Montana's weather, and I made it through a real bad divorce."

In today's Billings Gazette, we are introduced to the charming adventures of Jach Pursel, his cohorts Peny Lake (his former wife) and Michaell Prestini, and a "nonphysical entity" named Lazaris. Laziris has "channeled" his wit and wisdom through Jach Pursel since 1974, allowing Jach Pursel to channel millions of dollars from people who should know better.

This article was thought-provoking on many levels. The first thought it provoked was: boy, these people are terrible spellers. Jach should be Jack, Peny should be Penny, Michaell should be Michael and, hey, wasn't this "Lazaris" spirit smart enough to figure out his name is more properly spelled as "Lazarus?" The article goes on to explain these people are numerologists, which is why they changed the spelling of their names (presumably, Lazaris the Friendly Ghost is a numerologist as well). Hey, groovy. But if they're really numerologists, why didn't they change their names to 18963, 78302, and 23976? Heck, Lazaris could have a catchy name like 007. Or, ooh, how about we go for the naughty factor with 666? Or, if we feel our core fans will be devotees of forgotten 80s pop songs, I'd suggest 867-5309.

So, I have a proposal for Lazaris: channel through me. This Jach Pursel's all washed up; he doesn't have 21st-century marketing ideas. We'll blog, we'll launch a couple of viral marketing ideas, heck, maybe we'll even be able to get on the next installment of "American Idol," where we can perform old songs by Tommy Tutone. I can't sing worth spit, but I hear you have a nice French accent.

Inspired in part by a recent post from Randy at Secular Franciscans, as well as an article on President Bush's twin daughters, I've been thinking about officially declaring myself a victim.

A victim of what? Well, I have so many choices. For instance, why chide myself for eating too much and exercising too little? It's really the fault of the fat gene, which predisposes me toward weight gain. And let's not forget the dastardly marketing practices of the fast food industry, brainwashing me into thinking that King Sizing for an additional 39 cents is healthy. See? Between the genetics of my own body and the marketing of megacorporations, I have no personal accountability. I'm a victim. Maybe I should go have another brownie.

The beauty of victimhood is: it's an equal opportunity copout. Have you murdered someone? Not to worry; you might be a victim of any number of maladies that forced you to this sad state. Perhaps you were abused as a child. Or you suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. Or you had a "gay panic" attack. Or, hey, here's the gene thing again. But whatever you do, please don't give any thought to personal responsibility, or agree to accept the consequences of your own decisions.

It's just not the American way.