Thursday, March 26, 2026
The Demise of Cinderella
Wednesday, March 25, 2026
Signs of Spring
It's not just an ORF theme any more - it's a filler post!
At 8:05 pm EST tonight in San Francisco, Logan Webb will throw out the first pitch of the 2026 Major League Baseball season. As noted by the sage Marls, it's not Opening Day, at least not for teams that matter - that's tomorrow, when the schedule includes 11 games, but it's a harbinger and a dawn at the same time.
Friday, March 20, 2026
NCAA Tournament Open Thread
Tuesday, March 17, 2026
Special Gheorghasbord: World Cup Edition
Sunday, March 15, 2026
Make America Fuck Again
In case you had any doubt about Sturgill Simpson's intent, the first track on his new record is the title of this post. The album starts strong, dirty, and slinky, and it stays in that pocket.
Simpson told everyone that he wants them to illegal stream it, and lots of someones posted it. Recorded under the name of his alter-ego, Johnny Blue Skies and the Dark Clouds, "Mutiny After Midnight" is funky and gritty, with more than a nod to the 70s, and just a tinge of country. And lots and lots of innuendo. Track four is entitled, "Stay On That D", and while it's about playing in a live band, we see what you're up to, Sturgill.
After it was leaked, it was taken down and now it's hard to find online. But I got to hear the whole thing, and as the kids say, it fucks. Listen to "Situation", which contains the lyric, "Ever since the day we met, wanna make you wet, wanna make you sweat," to my earlier point. And then go find the record in its physical form.
Saturday, March 14, 2026
Gheorghasbord: Bright Spots
Wednesday, March 11, 2026
We're No. 69! Hoosiers Edition
Monday, March 09, 2026
Pig on the Wall
Several years ago, Marls told me I was too dumb to make a podcast. He was probably right, but I proceeded anyway. I made 82 episodes of a rambling, disorganized, sometimes compelling, sometimes tangential show called We Defy Augury.
I'm glad I did it-- but I didn't really know what I was doing, and the audio quality is inconsistent.
I also felt like I had unconsciously duplicated my one complaint about Gheorghe: The Blog . . . I gave my project a name that is challenging to convey.
We all know the drill: by the time you explain George the Magazine, Gheorghe Muresan, and how many "h"s are in the title of this blog, most people's eyes have glazed over. I had the same problem with We Defy Augury-- by the time I explained the Shakespearean context, the meaning of the word "augury," and the connection to my theme, people were either snoring or annoyed with my intellectual pretensions.
So my new project is going to be more organized, purposeful, and focused (but not THAT organized, purposeful, and focused-- let's be real here).
It also has a much simpler name: Pig on the Wall.
I made an introductory episode explaining the meaning of the title and how it connects to my theme.
Essentially, I want to tell the story of great works of art and most excellent human achievements-- and my thesis is that these accomplishments are most often in some way, shape, or form collaborative: the work of many minds from many times. So it is a podcast that celebrates cooperation, influence, human interaction, intellectual borrowing, and-- sometimes-- outright plagiarism,
I'm also really trying to do the audio correctly-- you're supposed to use compression and normalization to get to a certain volume level (Marls could have told me this initially).
Pig on the Wall is going to be less like the typical podcast and more like Andrew Hickey's A History of Rock Music in 500 Songs. The typical podcast features two or three people talking, often intelligently or eloquently, about some topic. Hickey's podcast is painstakingly researched and contains a plethora of musical clips, woven into the narrative. He takes. along time to make each episode. This is the route I'm selecting. There are enough "smart people talking" podcasts out there.
I wanted to start ambitiously, so right now I am in the midst of Shakespeare's Hamlet-- which is an incredibly messy collaboration between Shakespeare and a number of other authors, stretching back to a tenth-century Norse legend. If you're interested in the context and history of the play, listen to the first couple of episodes-- but they do get a bit technical.
But my most recent episode: "Hamlet: Act Three . . . To Be or Not to Be?" is intended for general audiences.
I do some analysis of the most famous monologue in literature, and then present a sample of the many interpretations of both the soliloquy and the following (disastrous) scene.
Hamlet is the most produced dramatic performance in the history of film and theater. It's been enacted countless times, and there are dozens and dozens of films based on the play (including The Lion King).
I collected a slew of my favorite productions, put them all in Logic, and then pulled out the best and most interesting moments.
Friday, March 06, 2026
This Post Has All the Coolest Stuff!
A lawyer, who runs a bar, in OKC, that features tasteful living room areas, where people spin vinyl on vintage hifi equipment and perseverate on liner notes. This video has all the coolest stuff!
Wednesday, March 04, 2026
We're No. 69! Golden Bears Edition
Monday, March 02, 2026
Saturday, February 28, 2026
A Line in the Sand
Wednesday, February 25, 2026
We're No. 69! San Diego State Edition
![]() |
| 2026 Pac 12 Tournament bracket |
![]() |
| Aztec on the left, Buff on the right. They grew up doing gymnastics together. And now a blog post brings them together. Small world. |
Monday, February 23, 2026
Learning Res., Inc. v. Trump is Like a BET Cypher, Alternatively Titled "If you rely on IEEPA I feel bad for you son, it provides 99 delegations but tariffs ain't one"
On Friday, in Learning Res., Inc. v. Trump, the Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The gist of it all is the IEEPA lets the President "regulate imports" which isn't the same thing as taxing or tariffing. Six justices agreed on this outcome, but there were two different rationales and lots of shade thrown across three concurrences and two dissents. It was all very hiphop, as if they were in a Federalist cypher.
The cypher started with Chief Justice Roberts writing for himself and Justices Kagan, Sotomator, Jackson, Barrett and Gorsuch, applying the "major questions doctrine" (some newfangled coproma passed off as conservative jurisprudence) which says that "Congress would not have delegated 'highly consequential power' through ambiguous language. These considerations apply with particular force where, as here, the purported delegation involves the core congressional power of the purse." This means that the party asserting that they were delegated the Congressional power at issue must "point to clear congressional authorization” in the relevant statute. You may recall that six Justices relied on this doctrine to overrule Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan in Biden v. Nebraska.
Justice Kagan then got on the mic to represent herself, Sotomayor and Jackson. They concurred, but they felt there was no need to invoke the major questions doctrine because "the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation amply support [this] result." I am an ordinary tool and I agree with them.
Justice Gorsuch, ever the philodox, took it upon himself to get on the mic and write 46 pages (the main opinion was only 21!) bemuting upon everyone else's analysis except the Chief Justice's. First he essentially accused Justices Kagan and Sotomayor of outcome-based reasoning, picking the winner based on their personal preference rather than a rigorous application of the law. I'll channel the underpants gnomes and go to third, where he also essentially accused Justices Kavanaugh, Alito and Thomas of outcome-based reasoning but in a slightly nicer way (although he does linger a bit to highlight, albeit politely, the preposterousness of Thomas's dissent).
But second, and remarkably, this quibberdick spilled ink across nine pages to desticate over Justice Barrett's application of the major question doctrine in Biden v. Nebraska! He's so irked about an opinion from three years ago that he had to drag it into this one. We all have a guy like this at work.
Justice Barrett did not appreciate having her name on the streets. Naturally, she channeled her inner Mad Cobra and wrote a concurrence directly addressing Gorsuch, saying "I would not treat this evidence as precedent for a judicial flex."
If you were young and alive in northern New Jersey in the summer of 1992 you undoubtedly are familiar with Mad Cobra's song "Flex." It's more likely than not that you spent time in a car with a number of other young, alive people with the windows down and this song playing loudly.
Parenthetically, Wikipedia says "Mad Cobra stated that he was on a flight returning from New York, and was watching an exercise video on the in-flight entertainment system, and the lyrics 'How this lady flex like she want to have sex?' came to him. He wrote the lyrics for the song on an air sickness bag in his plane seat and took them to the studio when he arrived in Jamaica."
Perhaps Justice Barrett wrote the opening draft of her concurrence on an air sickness bag too. Or maybe she's a Rich Homie Quan fan.
The mic then passed to Justice Kagan who explained her reasoning admirably but fumbled a major opportunity to flex (see what I did there?) her New York City credentials. In explaining the various actions delegated by Congress to the President under the IEEPA, she noted there are "9 verbs listed in IEEPA's delegation provision" and "[t]hose verbs are followed by 11 objects, each describing a distinct sort of transaction involving foreign property." She then did some fancy math and concluded "Combine the verbs and objects in all possible ways, and the statute authorizes 99 actions a President can take to address a foreign threat. And exactly none of the other 98 involves raising revenues." This passage clearly screams for the conclusion "If you rely on IEEPA I feel bad for you son, it provides 99 delegations but tariffs ain't one."
Justice Jackson took to the mic to spit eight bars (just four full pages) saying that all this sniping is unnecessary because Congress's intent is clear from the legislative record. Conservatives refuse to look at the legislative record when interpreting statutes, instead favoring dictionaries and other historical references. That's how we wind up with "history and tradition" tests like this bunkum. I would've said something like "Our forefathers wrote IEEPA for foreign property, the Prez can take it in wartime but not impose duties. Come here, young blood, and take a look. Acknowledge your legislative history!"
When SCOTUS finally invites me to one of their cyphers I'll get them straightened out.
Saturday, February 21, 2026
This Poor Fucking Mope
I haven't worked out of an office since the pandemic. That's led to some unexpected consequences. For example, I only put about 5,000 miles a year on my car, which means I'll be able to keep it a lot longer than I originally expected. This does not make Z happy, since he's an enabler/pusher who wants everyone to buy a new exotic vehicle at least yearly.
Grooming has taken on a different priority during my home-bound period, as well. I mean, I still take a shower every morning, brush my teeth twice a day and all that. But I go a lot longer between haircuts than I used to since I often only see one human in person during the workday. At the moment, my hair is quite possibly as long as it's been at any point in my adult life. It's out of control, all bushy and spiky, and wayward.
It could be worse. I could be Frank Illett.
Illett is a 30 year-old Englishman and Manchester United fan. In October 2024, during a fit of pique at the Red Devils' ongoing run of poor play, he vowed to not cut his hair until his heroes won five straight matches.
They really hadn't been close until two weeks ago. And Frank was going through it. His hair has grown an estimated 25cm in the more than 500 days since his last trim, from this:
To this:
Illett's long tonsorial nightmare seemed close to ending on February 10. United fired beleaguered manager Rubin Amorim in January. Interim skipper and club playing legend Michael Carrick took over and immediately led the squad to four wins on the bounce. All that was left for Illett to book an appointment with his barber was a win at relegation-threatened West Ham.
Clippers at the ready, Illett and his pals streamed their viewing of the match. And when it ended in a 1-1 draw, this is how Frank appeared:
That poor lad. At least he's doing some good, using his locks to raise money for charity. And he's got a pretty good chance of working as a Brian May lookalike. Almost makes a fella want to root for Man U.
But not quite.
Thursday, February 19, 2026
The Origins of 10 Band Names: Song Titles
- They Might Be Giants was the name of a movie in the 1970's
- 10,000 Maniacs also came from an old movie, except that it was called 2,000 Maniacs
- Steely Dan was the name of a dildo
- Duran Duran was the bad guy in Barbarella
- Grateful Dead was just something they saw in a dictionary, so said Jerry
- ABBA is the first letter of the band members' names
- Husker Du was a Scandinavian board game
- I told you 'bout Skynyrd
- 10cc and The Lovin' Spoonful are supposedly the measurement of and slang for average ejaculate
- R.E.M. -- another dictionary find!
Wednesday, February 18, 2026
We're No. 69! TCU Edition
Monday, February 16, 2026
What the Kids are Doing
Friday, February 13, 2026
Fashion is... Teejus F'ing Christ, What are these Abominations?
And why must I own them...
Before clicking this link, come up with what you think these cost? Then be prepared to have your mind blown by what they actually cost. What are we doing here people?
Thursday, February 12, 2026
SAGTTP (Should a Gheorghie Take The Piss)?
Gheorgies,
I have a bit of a conundrum. There's a retired guy that is often at my local YMCA. I don't want to dox him, so let's call this fellow Karen.
Karen talks to everybody. I occasionally see him jawing in the weight room, but the locker room is where he prefers to work. In fact I've probably mentioned him before in the comments as the guy who played The Rush Limbaugh Show at high volume on his phone speaker in the locker room (rest in piss, el rushbo). He wears a red hat to the gym sometimes. Yes, the standard issue version.
![]() |
| There are lots of Karens. This is the one I'm referring to. |
I make it a practice to simply ignore Karen when I see him. If I had to break down the percentages for my reasons to ignore him, I'd put it at 69% due to loudcasting his support for toxic politics and 31% not wanting to risk catching a glimpse of Karen's tiny flaccid pecker.
Today, while I was chatting with someone else Karen piped up with a comment about 'topics that set him off'. "Give us a warning of what they are so we can avoid them" I said as I finished getting on my workout clothes. I'm not sure what came next was exactly the warning I'd requested.
Gheorghies, he Karened. "I wanna know how that Ilhan Omar went from having no money to having $30 million! I think we need to throw her in jail for 20 years and then deport her..." I imagine he kept going, but I started walking as soon as he started his diatribe. It did call to mind a revenge fantasy I may or may not have imagined in the past.
![]() |
| Apparently only some politicians are allowed to have money. |
And Gheorghies, that's where you come in. What's a fair comeuppance for this locker room Karen? I'll share my diabolical idea first, and accept suggestions in the comments for other more sensible measures. This is all strictly hypotheical, of course.
Proposal A - Fill small squeeze bottle with urine and keep it stashed in the back of my locker, until I find myself there alone, at which point I discharge the squeeze bottle of piss into one of the vent holes in Karen's locker. A budget version golden shower, if you will.
Surely there are some drawbacks to this plan. I know it's gross. But I'm also ridiculously hydrated most of the time, so I also worry it may not be gross enough.





.jpeg)






















