Friday, May 27, 2011

Roman Turek Profile In Courage Award

It's Friday, and that means just one thing: Rained out home-openers!

Huh? What? Oh yeah, yeah, you are right. It is also that time of the week when we present the Roman Turek Profile In Courage Award (the RTPIC)!

So, did anything happen this week? Too much, unfortunately. Let's just try and pick three.

Nomination number one for this weeks Roman Turek Profile In Courage Award goes to this cat. Why?Because he uttered the greatest line we have heard all week. Some background: So you are a cute Haitian girl, and you're working at a Christian radio station in Orlando. Life is good, right? Yeah, life is pretty sweet. Anyways, you are on the air, doing your prayer and salvation thang, when boom! the door to your studio bursts open and in comes a Haitian man who seems to have a thing for you. You think he has a thing for you because HE IS NAKED! Uh oh! Looks like someone is going to try and get their rape on!

Relax, the story has a good ending. But we want to just dwell on the naked man for a moment (no homo). He didn't get into the building naked, we hope. No, we suspect he walks right up to the studio door and then starts taking his clothes off. What? Don't you people have windows in your studios? Does nobody notice the man in the hallway stripping to his birthday suit? Are the men in the building too scared to do anything about it? What happened to chivalry?

Anyways, the poor radio host sweet talks the naked man into letting her out of the studio, and she goes down to her car, gets in, locks it, calls the cops. Turns out the man who went to a radio station (while it was broadcasting, mind you) to rape a radio host wasn't that bright. Go figure.

Here is the money line that earned the nomination. The would be rapist, when arrested, had this to say: “I didn't want to rape her, but I was attracted to her.”

Well, ok. In that case...

Our second nominee this week is a Mrs. Wasserman Schultz (D, Dumbassburg). Mrs. Wasserman Schultz is the new head of the DNC (Democratic National Committee). Congratulations. They picked a real winner with this chick, let us tell you. The first thing Mrs. Wasserman Schultz did upon taking her position was to call the members of the GOP 'anti-woman', and accuse the Republicans of a 'war against women'.

Now, this is a stupid comment on a number of levels, but let's just pick at one. Ya'll remember when that left wing lunatic shot Gabby Giffords (and others too, like that six year old girl the psycho killed) in the head? Remember how the Left immediately jumped up and tried to politicize the issue, and blame the murderers actions on 'inflamed rhetoric' from the Right?

Can we all say 'hypocrit'? Like, seriously. The Democrats are so scatter-brained right now they can't even keep their fake outrages straight.

Anyways, good hire.

And speaking of good hires, it appears that Darryl Sutter did indeed find employment after the Flames. How do we know? Well, this little story gave him away (Full disclosure, we miss the cat. Fire him and all that, Kotalik etc., but we still miss him a little). Yes people. Horse herpes. Coming to a rodeo near you!

If you click the link, you will see the rodeo replaced the sick horses with...wait for it...stick horses. Stick horses. Like a broom stick horse. Yeah, the recession is over, alright.

This weeks winner of the Roman Turek Profile In Courage Award is the Leaders Of The New School.

A room of teachers, parents, and preachers / A principal and one kid dressed in sneakers. / Case of brown versus the board / (ORDER ORDER) / yo twelve, verse one is a slaughter.

Word. Should play this shit in the 'Dome, yo.

Wait...wheres the BDP?

For insane flavour, the Leaders Of The New School win this weeks Roman Turek Profile In Courage Award.

Furthermore, I think Peter Loubardias should be fired.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

No Post Today, At Least Not Yet

But hey, this makes us laugh!

This is better than anything we were going to write, anyways.

Actually, let's do this. About once a week, once every other week, we get a request from some intrepid marketer/business owner asking about advertising opportunities on Dome Beers. As you have probably noticed, we are not in the habit of granting those advertising opportunities. The whole 'Art for Arts sake' thang.

Nothing against commercialism. Writers write because they like to write, but they publish because they like to get paid. We are stupid and publish for free. Because we love you, Domebeer-aholics.

So nothing against anyone who 'sells out' and puts ads on their site. Power to you. We just don't, for whatever reason. Ok, because none of the offers have been for six figures. We will sell out, not for money, but for a shit-load of money (Lonestar!). Are you happy know?

Anyways, why are we bringing this up? Well, because last week we got an email from someone connected with this site, and they wanted us to put a link up on the sidebar. They offered us something insulting low to do this, which is why the link is not on the sidebar today.

But then we actually went to, and we saw the cat has autographed boxing gear. Fucking erection inducing. Honestly, check this shit out. Cool, huh?

So the cat is getting, well, we guess this is an advertisement. But we didn't charge the guy for it, so it's more like a shill job. He caught us in a moment of weakness, and he has Joe Frazier gear. Deadly combination.

Alrighty then. We were working on a gag bit (about fucking time, DB) but then we ran out of steam. Either the gag bit later tonight, tomorrow if we don't do an RTPIC, or maybe on Monday if we do.

Keep your sticks on the ice.

Furthermore, I think Peter Loubardias should be fired.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

It's Silly

Has Bruce Dowbiggin been given the treatment yet? Would seem strange if he has not been subjected to it. But we have wrecked our brains with drugs and alcohol; remembering is not our strong suit.

Anyways, Brucey, come on down!

Actually, no FJM or anything like that. The occasion doesn't really call for it. Just some mild poking.

And what are we mildly poking? The latest 'Usual Suspects' column by Mr. Dowbiggin.

Because it is awful. Mr. Dowbiggin has two topics in his column, the first being about the obvious homerism of Jim Hughson, and the second being an attempted shot attempt at every tailors favourite, Don Cherry. And the coloumn is awful because Mr. Dowbiggin manages to get both his takes spectacularly wrong.

First things first, so we will start with the first. Is Jim Hughson a homer?

Do we have to spend any time at all on this subject? Anybody not connected to the media thinks Jim Hughson is a homer, because Jim Hughson is a homer. People connected to the media think they are fooling the rest of us by pretending otherwise, but that is all it is, pretending.

And the media people know it. Dowbiggin spends his entire first half of his column establishing that in fact, Hughson is a homer. Dowbiggin tells us Hughson lives in Vancouver, used to call Vancouver games, hell, how the guy was born and bred in B.C. Dowbiggin even relates to us that he (Dowbiggin) thinks Jim Hughson is biased because he was so harsh on the Sedins in the first round. The harshness betraying Hughson's bias, according to Dowbiggin, because only a fan would talk like that about the twins.

But then, after establishing the fact that Hughson is in fact biased, he goes on to say that Hughson is not biased because...because...

Well, because "That empathy strengthens the broadcast." Huh? What Dowbiggin has done here is pervert the English language. He means to say "That bias strengthens the broadcast" but because he has chosen to stupidly defend the fact that Hughson is not biased in favour of the Canucks, he can't. So he replaces the word 'bias' with 'empathy' and hopes no one will notice. And we think it is stupid.

What Dowbiggin wanted to write was that Hughson's biased homerism made watching the broadcast fun, and there is no harm in it because the Canucks are the only Canadian team left, so let's cut the guy some slack. But because some of these people take their positions so seriously, Dowbiggin can't say that. It would be an insult to Hughsons journalistic integrity if he accused him of bias.

It's such bullshit. If Dowbiggin wants to court Hughson, they should do it in a bathhouse away from public eyes. Because that is basically what is going on here with this 'of course he isn't biased' column.

Anyways, on to the second part. After completely white-washing the charges of bias off of Hughson because Dowbiggin happens to like him, he then takes a completely out of the blue shot at Don Cherry. And, of course, he misses spectacularly.

Dowbiggin, for whatever reason, goes back to cherry pick a quote from Mr. Cherry, for who knows what reason; probably to impugn the reputation of NHLer's. Dowbiggin points to Mr. Cherry saying "We are the cleanest sport in the world”, and then for some strange reason brings up Boogaards death. (Why is nobody even asking if Boogyman killed himself? Gets overdose high all by himself? Seems strange to us.)

These two statements have nothing to do with each other. As Dowbiggin himself points out in his column, Don Cherry was speaking about performance enhancing drugs when he made that statement to Dick Pound. Oxycontin is not a performance enhancing drug. Ask anyone who has ever tried to have sex while high on them pills.

To us, trying to twist Don Cherry's words about hockey players taking steroids and HGH and make them applicable to a hockey player who had a drug problem is pretty low.

There may well be a drug problem in hockey. Our own #14 tried to sniff his nose off, and it was kept pretty quiet by the media. We suspect that isn't unique, and many of the escapades of the hockey players are quietly swept under a rug. But to imply, as Dowbiggin does, that because Probert liked to party, and some NHLer we had never heard of (Brantt Myhres) was a junkie, that the NHL is in fact drug riddled is perhaps the worst type of journalism.

And the Globe and Mail gives Dowbiggin a respected stage to go out and make these unfounded allegations. It's insane. If Dowbiggin has evidence of rampant drug use on behalf of the players, he should come forward with it. If he doesn't, he should stop making baseless accusations. And he should definitely stop twisting Don Cherry's words, because that is just shady, and really unprofessional.

Did ya'll see the Thunder choke it away to the Mavs? If Dirk and the Mavs can get over the hump, there is hope for everyones sports team.

And hey, quickly, someone show Langkow and Sarich what Rafalski just did.

Furthermore, I think Peter Loubardias should be fired.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Stupid Sharks

The Sharks are ruining everyones time.

Danny Heatley is a dog. His shooting percentage in the regular season is always in the double digits (averages 15.2%); in the playoffs, all but one time it has been below, and he even sports a healthy 0 percent shooting in four games with the Senators (he averages 6.6% in the real season).

Whats more, he goes from being historically a plus player in the regular season to a minus player when the playoffs roll around. Which says something, we think.

We went to behindthenet to see if we could peep anything that jumps out in the numbers, and it was pointless. It was pointless because it immediately becomes obvious, from looking at the Vancouver numbers compared to the San Jose numbers, which team is winning this series.

So we switched tracks. The San Jose Sharks are no doubt a good hockey team. They are losing by margins that are, at least in our minds, no way indicative of talent difference between the two teams. The coaching difference, the mental difference, yeah, but not the pure hockey talent difference between the two teams.

The numbers say Vancouver was head and shoulders the best team in the league this year; they scored the most goals and let in the fewest, which is pretty much ideal over a long season. But does anybody look at this team and think 'historically great'? No.

We all look at them and think they can be beat, right? We do. The defence is solid, but it isn't spectacular. It has players on it that can be attacked. The goalie? Roberto Luongo is Roman Cechmanek; we aren't supposed to say anything because he is Canadian, but he is. And does anybody really trust the twins?

What we have been looking at is a real good power play on behalf of Vancouver. Conversely, we are looking at a really stupid and flustered San Jose team.

Anyways, why are we bringing this up? Well, again, look at the Sharks. Winning is hard. The Sharks have been this uber talented team for at least five seasons now. They haven't won the Cup. Maybe it takes more than pure talent.

It looks to us, in San Jose's case, there is a lack of group cohesion. For whatever reason. We are not in that locker room, we don't know. But when we see Thornton praising the play of Ben Eager for losing them a hockey game and suggesting that if only the rest of the team came to play with the same amount of fire they would be in an ok position, it makes one wonder about the cohesiveness of the group. And you all know we chill with Sun Tzu. The cat is big on the concept, if you didn't know. 

If we were to guess, it's that dog Heatley. That is who Thornton was talking about. But whatever, enough of this psychoanalysis at 30,000 feet. The real reason we bring up the Sharks is this: Which team would you rather have, our team, or theirs?

We think that for most of the people who watch this team, the conclusion has been reached that the team lacks talent. This may or may not be correct, as bounces and luck and the favour of the Hockey Gods no doubt play a big role over fate of a team over a season. And the Flames keep missing the playoffs by a couple of points, so the argument can certainly be made that if the puck bounced a different way the Flames may indeed not have missed the playoffs for two straight years.

It's not necessarily a conclusion we endorse because the point of being a team that spends the maximum allowable under the current rules on payroll is to challenge for Stanley Cups, and not scratch and claw for the last available spot. But that's just us.

Anyways, would you rather be a team that is viewed as simply not having the talent to compete, or a team that is viewed as having the talent, but is full of 'no heart bums'?

We would rather be the latter option. The job of a sports team is to sell hope, right? The team with talent has the ability to sell hope. You will sit through a season of bad in game entertainment, and even worse food, if you think the team has a chance to one, win the game you are attending, and two, maybe has a chance to win a Stanley Cup.

But with the Flames? They have not sold us on hope yet. Let's say they do bring back Tanguay, so we would have both Tanguay and Glencross back in the fold. So? That is pretty much the same team we lost with last year, minus the threat of a shot from the point that Badsuck gave the team on the PP. Why, as informed fans, should we be excited about this? What has the team done to improve it's chances of actually winning?

Crickets. Nothing. Maybe we are being too harsh. It is only May. But this organization isn't even dropping hints to the fans about what it might do. There is no bravado, there is no 'don't worry guys, we will create cap space and then bring in some talent'. Instead, there is the trumpeting of the fact that it took the organization to go into full cater mode and get on it's knees to sign Curtis Glencross.

The Calgary Flames are charging pretty much top dollar (relative to other NHL teams) to see a hockey game, and they are in the habit of using duck tape to make repairs to the Saddledome? And you want us to give you like 250 million dollars for a new stadium? Why would we do that? You took shitty care of the last one we gave you.

Furthermore, I think Peter Loubardias should be fired.