Wanted: random blog topics!

I’ve gotten more than 10,000 hits today, the bulk of them coming in via last night’s Sullylanche, directly or indirectly. Normally, when I get a big new influx of traffic like this, I make a special effort to live up to my sub-moniker of "hyperactive blogger," posting as much new material as possible, so as to give the new visitors a reason to become regulars. Unfortunately, although I have several new political posts swirling around in my head, my brain has turned to mush this evening and I have no motivation to actually write any of them. (Stay tuned, though, for thoughts on Pennsylvania’s implications, Hillary’s 9/11 exploitations, and my Obama-fatuations!)

Meanwhile, I find myself strangely unable to think of anything non-election-related that I particularly want to blog about. The Pope’s visit to America? Interesting and important, but I haven’t been following it so I don’t really have anything to say about it. Time magazine’s Iwo Jima/global warming cover? Meh. Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me (notwithstanding that my grandfather was a Marine in World War II, and I revere what those guys did… but still, who cares about a stupid magazine cover?). The Yale abortion art project? It’s a fake.* A judge telling J.K. Rowling her books are "gibberish"? What’s to say, other than "Heh"? (Can you tell I get most of my news from Drudge?) And nothing’s really caught my eye in the world of sports, or any of my other pet blog topics. (Although, hey! fUCLA’s Kevin Love is going pro! I’m shocked, shocked.)

So, I’m turning it over to y’all. What non-election-related topics/items should I be blogging about? Serious suggestions are welcome, though I’m thinking especially of frivolous stuff. Like, have you seen any interesting "news of the weird" type stories lately? How about funny YouTube clips? (A sequel to my Captain Vegetable post, perhaps?) Suggest something in comments, and maybe I’ll post it out of sheer desperation! ;)

In the mean time, and in the spirit of utter randomness, here’s yet another Makem & Clancy YouTube clip, of yet another one of my favorite songs to sing to Loyette: "The Mermaid."

(New readers who wonder why I’m posting a video of Liam Clancy and the late great Tommy Makem — or who they are, for that matter — click here, and for more, here.)

*UPDATE: Upon further review, the Yale art/abortion thing may not be fake, after all. Or, it may. The university says she says she didn’t do it. But she says she
never said that, and that she did it, and that the university is lying.
But the university says she told them she’d say that if they said she said
she didn’t do it. (Got all that?) So, who’s lying? My money’s on her. It’s all part of the "art." Regardless, the whole thing is disgusting and pointless.

27 Responses to “Wanted: random blog topics!”

  1. Marty West says:

    NHL Playoffs.

    The former Sabre is lighting it up here in Philadelphia.

  2. Topicana says:

    Two Knight Rider Movies and Two Incredible Hulk Movies.

  3. Brendan Loy says:

    Yeah, what’s the deal with that?? Becky went to see “Superhero Movie” the other weekend (yes, we new parents managed to sneak away for a few hours to watch a movie in the theater, for the first time in months, because we had friends in town who were willing to babysit, and we saw… “Superhero Movie”), and beforehand they showed a preview for “Incredible Hulk,” and we were both like, WTF?? Didn’t they just make that movie??

  4. Lisa says:

    Well, you can’t blog about this one until tomorrow, but the new The Shirt comes out tomorrow. I’ll let you know if I have any more ideas.

  5. PenguinSix says:

    Hitler’s former submarine bunker is up for sale:


    Space Shuttle Buran (the Russian one) is in Germany now, floating on the Rhine


    A US Navy destroyer is making waves with a ship wide blog


    Stuff white people like is funny


    I took some pictures of the Pope


    (took out the http because of your spam filter)

  6. Angrier and Angrier says:

    Maybe you can comment on how the much lauded “Last Lecture” by that terminally ill college professor took more than six months to generate more than 1 million views on YouTube while the gold-digging, nutty British chick’s rant about her soon-to-be ex-husband’s “Viagra and condoms” hit more than 1 million views in just a matter of hours.

  7. biggle says:

    The yale thing isn’t fake, brendan. do your research a little more thoroughly


  8. Brendan Loy says:

    Biggle, that article, which is part of this morning’s paper, hadn’t come out yet when I published this post last night. So while I appreciate the news tip (I always appreciate those), the “do your research a little more thoroughly” comment is unwarranted.

    Moreover, as the article you reference attests, whether it’s “fake” or not remains an entirely unsettled question, so your present statement that it “isn’t fake” is just as incorrect as my earlier statement that it “is fake.”

    In any event, as it happens, I did see this article earlier this morning. I might do a new post on it, though frankly, I’m not sure I want to legitimize this disgusting nonsense with any more attention than it’s already getting. Maybe I’ll add a quick update here.

  9. Brendan Loy says:

    I can’t access Perez Hilton from work.

  10. Joe Mama says:

    Bucknell’s Flannery retires.

  11. Condor says:

    You should post this video of Obama with the title: Obama Sends Secret Message to Hillary

    It’s at 1:23, and looks like Obama give Hillary the finger:


  12. Alasdair says:

    How about this question – that has a legal tie-in …

    If/when the Feds collect DNA from everyone they arrest for their DNA database, how much actual information is stored in that database for each person ?

    I *really* doubt if they store the deciphered genome for each person … (I don’t think they’ve gotten that far) …

    For example, do they have haplogroup information ?

    What are the information/reference points that they collect for DNA identification purposes ?

    Does any of your wide readership know the answer to this ?

    And, should we be concerned ?

  13. Condor says:

    For f*ck’s sake. Fox News picked up on my observation about Obama’s salute to Hillary:


  14. Alasdair says:

    Brendan – another non-election topic is this

    Do we want to go back to 1988 levels ?

  15. Condor says:

    I cannot remember the last time I’ve read such a bad argument. It’s no more true that a return to 1980’s CO2 levels will bring back 1980’s life expectancies, than it is that a return to 1980’s CO2 levels will bring back 1980’s crap rock.

  16. Alasdair says:

    Brendan – another non-election topic is this

    Do we want to go back to 1988 levels ?

  17. Condor says:

    I cannot remember the last time I’ve read such a bad argument. It’s no more true that a return to 1980’s CO2 levels will bring back 1980’s life expectancies, than it is that a return to 1980’s CO2 levels will bring back 1980’s crap rock.

  18. Brendan says:

    Are we in some sort of time loop?

    Are we in some sort of time loop?

  19. Jean-Luc Picard says:


  20. Condor says:

    I cannot remember the last time I’ve read such a bad argument. It’s no more true that a return to 1980’s CO2 levels will bring back 1980’s life expectancies, than it is that a return to 1980’s CO2 levels will bring back 1980’s crap rock.

  21. Alasdair says:

    Copndor – the correlation between plant growth and increased CO2 levels has been well-established for a long time …

    The correlation between CO2 levels and “crap rock” wasn’t asserted, in the stuff that I read …

    The implications at which the article hints are more that, if increased CO2 is causing the planet to warm and be more fertile, do we really want to go back to a situation where we (as a planet) were colder (which is potentially less hospitable to human life) and less fertile ?

  22. Copndor says:

    The argument of the article is that since 1988 life expectancy, per capita income, etc. has risen; as well, since 1988 CO2 levels have risen. Therefore, if CO2 levels go back to 1988 levels, life expectancy, per capita income, etc. levels will go back to 1988 levels. One problem with this argument is that correlation does not imply causation. So, there was bad rock music in the 1980’s and since then CO2 levels have risen, but it doesn’t follow that a decrease in CO2 levels will lead to a return of bad rock music. But even if we suppose a 1988->2008 correlation between CO2 levels and health levels, a 2008->future correlation does not follow. For one, surely there have been advances in medicine between 1988 and 2008, and these advances would not change due to a future reduction of CO2 levels. So, even if the article is right that there is some correlation between CO2 levels and health, it does not follow that this correlation will maintain the same rate in the future as it supposedly did in the past.

  23. copndor says:

    P.S. From now on I will go by my Russian name “copndor” rather than my English name “Condor.”

  24. Suzanne Burrall says:

    Do you know about chemtrails?

    Check youtube video:

    and this site: http://www.nogw.com/aluminum.html

  25. copndor says:

    Holy crap, there needs to be a post on this NYTIMES report on Pentagon organization of news network “military analysts.” I think I feel faint.