for 31 May 2001. Updated every WEEKDAY.
Hit & Run 05.24.01
What an odd juxtaposition of stories, first about a woman who doesn't exist who has leukemia, but did not lose her life savings in high tech stocks, and a supposed real man with cancer (but not leukemia?) who did lose his life savings.
I unfortunately do exits, fully expect to die but appear healthy at the moment, and only lost a little money that I never really had in the first place.
While the story of Kaycee is intriguing for it's implications with marketing, it is also equally compelling for it's implications with cultism. If the plot had not been exposed, she could have risen from the dead and we could all reset our calanders. Truely this shows how sad that P.T. Barnum was born so far ahead of his time.
Before you blithely invoke P.T. Barnum as America's Bamboozler In Chief, take a look at this story in Reason, which makes a pretty good case that a) Barnum was actually an unusually scrupulous businessman within his particular field, and b) he never actually said, "There's a sucker born every minute."
See? You truly do learn something new every day!
I'm sure if you had the power to give people cancer then you would certainly have the power to give all the disgruintled Web workers their jobs and Aeron chairs back so that they would shut the hell up.
Thanks, fp37tk. Suck's powers for good are too rarely appreciated.
Boy, oh, boy. Did H&R 5.24.01 bring back a wonderful memory.
It was back in '96, near the time that I was first introduced to the wonders of suck.com by my wonderful boss at Turner Online (sic), Marian English. We shared our office space with a sister on-line organization called "spiv.com", which was one of those "sxxx.com" cool-site wannabe bastard babies that inspired much of your earlier satire.
"spiv" ran an ongoing column about a pretty, college-age Asian-American girl named "Zooey", who posted her daily musings in a web-based diary. "She" (who embodied, among others, a big, fat, gay black man named Andy whose PC speakers incessantly blared out the soundtrack to Evita) would answer e-mail messages from admiring fans who more often than not tried to secure her phone number.
I once inquired with those charged with the site maintenance about the feature, and was informed that it was a complete fabrication, complete with fake photos, ad nauseum. Needless to say, attempts to relate concepts of ethical behavior to a bunch of mid-twenties GenXers proved completely fruitless. I walked away with the impression that their collective IQs divided by any real number would be undefined.
Your "Kaycee Nicole" article successfully predicted the past. :)
I think I'm going to go home and watch Chayefsky's "Network" again....
-- Doug Powers
Oh stifle yourself with this business about the whippersnappers and journalistic ethics. Any paper that doesn't have at least one fabricated story per issue isn't worth reading. For years people have been waxing wise about the eternal verities of, well, verity and coming up with papers like the Chronicle and scripts like Network (Sorry, but for golden age Lumet, give me Dog Day Afternoon any day!). Meanwhile, the real journalists have always understood the importance of faking it.
Wheels Within Wheels
I am stunned by how good your Mariology piece is. I have to go home now.
p.s. But how come you didn't mention that accused spy Thomas Hanssen is said to be an Opus Dei member? Isn't there a Marian angle there?
Thanks for your support of an article that many readers mark as the beginning of Suck's decline and fall. If you check the expiration date on that one, you'll see that it was published before Hanssen's arrest, and at that time we didn't want to reveal too much of what we knew in order to protect our KGB sources. But rest assured that in a followup Hit & Run and daily, we have kept track of Opus Dei's mortification rituals and its connection with the Mother of all commie fighters. One thing is certain when the eternal struggle between right and left flares up, the BVM is never far behind.
I am a faithful reader of Suck.com. I try to waste time every day reading it. Last week, I read the *review* of Startup.com...Then, for whatever reason, I forgot that I read it. It happens to me sometimes. So then Friday night, I went to see the film...It was only being shown at this one tiny little theater in 'culture-meets-wealth-meets- homoeroticesque-meets-trendy-meets-yuck' area of town. The back seat of my ford probe has more leg room than this place. Not that I'm a theater snob (note, I didn't even spell it "theatre"), but I enjoy comfort whenever possible. Now I've begun to ramble.
This little letter is not so much about the theatre (doh!- I guess I am a snob), as it is about the movie. Because I forgot that I had read the Suck.com piece and b/c I hadn't read about the movie anywhere else, I thought the damn thing was fake. For me, being under that assumption made the movie tremendously funny. I'm a bit cynical (go figure a cynical reader of Suck.com) and have very little sympathy for the victims of dotcomania. But then I found out the movie was real. Now I'm sad. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because I sort of got attached to those *actors* and thought they all had promising Hollywood careers...especially Kaleil's first girlfriend...I mean, c'mon, the scene where she professed her desire to have Kaleil buy her a dog that was magical! I almost went out and bought her a dog! But I didn't b/c I was still under the delusion of fiction.
I'm not so sure where this letter is going. I guess I'm just a bit pissed off at all those fakeumentaries...they have blurred my vision of reality. I mean now I'm not even sure if it was really just John Voight in the wheel chair all crippled up playing FDR in Pearl Harbor, or if there really was an old friend of FDR's hangin out in the White House with a camera back in 41! The worst part is I'm now so tainted that I can't possibly bring up movies when talking to a girl at a bar too much risk in speaking of a movie I think is fake that is real that is fake!!!!!!!
God help us all.
You should know better than to forget a Suck review, Casey. It would spare you many wasted trips to the movies. But I must thank you for bringing up Kaleil's girlfriend. Am I the only one who hopes they'll do a Pets Or Meat-style followup about Kaleil's girlfriend? When she was in the movie I wanted to stand up and point at the screen and say "Hey look, it's a human!"
Toughlove for the Sucksters
terrible, simplistic, no reason to give up my nihilism. there are people on the bus and there are drivers, I hope you'll be the latter again one day.
Like, ouch, TM! Stern words, but they needed to be said! For too long we've been playing in the sandbox. Time to put away childish things! Start acting like real journalists. Next week Suck will be in the driver's seat with nothing but real news: A chilling look inside Osama Bin Laden's terror network! What the Bush tax cut means for your family! Go behind the scenes of the Hollywood blockbuster Pearl Harbor!
Tiny Little Penis 5.21.2001
You may not be 38 or live with your mother, but it's clear that you feel powerless in your interactions with women. You think of women as possessing something precious that they selfishly refuse to share with you, out of raw stubbornness or ill intent. You see women as menacing and cruel.
could you explain why he is wrong in thinking this? i mean, could you explain to me why, in the context of your flamboyantly secular belief system, why there is ever any good reason *not* to respond to another person's sexual attentions?
for a female who has no moral center, the only basis on which they could "choose" not to have sex would have to be frigidity or vanity. if a man points out to such a woman that she IS a slut, and then concludes that she's being selfish or stubborn (hey don't stop there: or a lesbian, or frigid, or diseased) by not having sex with him, the worst you could accuse him of is boorish behavior, in the sense that telling the truth to the elaborately self-delusional is considered "impolite".
from my point of view, a slatternly woman *deserves* to be punished for her behavior, because it is morally, socially, and self- destructive. but from the high-fucking horse of militant reflexive feminism that you and most of your ilk have been diligently internalizing for the past serveral hundred years, it doesn't really have any moral weight to accuse a woman of doing *anything* wrong in her relations with the opposite sex, does it?
if you read the poor fellow's letter insightfully, you'd see that the overall intent of his "humour" is to mock loose women, the kind who "go on dates" and have sex in cars. he's obviously NOT cut from the mold that is going to allow him to "score" anytime soon and from the P.O.V. of the degenerate culture he lives in he would appear to be quite woefully inexperienced and undesirable. but what do you do? you ignore all that, that whole side to the equation, and reflexively zero-in on his guilt-by-biology insofar as no healthy man could hope not to instinctively relish the humourously posited notion of molesting and degrading some girl.
I'm not sure you noticed that I was working with the assumption that whoever wrote that letter made it up. I was picking apart the problems of the person who made up the fake letter, not assaulting some poor hapless make-believe man looking for helpful tips on how to get a woman's clothes off.
You see, Demmy, you can tell a lot about a person from how they "pretend" and from how they engage in a heated debate, for that matter! Sometimes a person's emotional damage is far more apparent in these cases than it would be if you asked them to talk about themselves and their problems directly.
Given the magnitude of your emotional issues, I think it's safe to say that it would be morally, socially, and self-destructive for me to attempt to address your utterly unglued logic.
But let's work backwords instead, and create a fun little quiz out of your letter! Shall we?
1. I often have sex with other men, but I choose not to have sex with you. This is because I am:
But you forgot one answer:
f. physically repulsed by the mere thought of you
Tiny Little Penis
I'm guessing from your competent, level-headed and well-thought out advice that there's no possible way you could be a man. Does "Tiny Little Penis" actually refer to the clitoris?
I'm a penis, damn it! A tiny, little penis! A cute, cuddly, dear little penis!
I'm here, I'm dear, get used to it!
Furthermore, I am not level-headed. My head has a lovely dome-like shape.
Tiny Little Penis
Ack! I'm royally screwed, as I am still young enough to naively believe that there would be a woman who would be fascinated by all the minor details of my life and would only not want to hear them because she wanted to sexually satisfy me. Now I guess I'm going to have to settle for someone who would actually feign interest in my mediocre life and who feels that I warrant the occasional sympathy screw. How reassuring. Better take advantage of the ideal college dating scene while I still can.
But I suppose that debunking the notion of "The One" has its purpose. By getting rid of this ideal, we will finally have no reason to fear commitment with the realistic One because we know that there is nothing better out there. In short, this Mr. Flinchy will cease to be flinchy because now I know that my flinchiness is based on unrealistic assumptions, hopes, and dreams.
Well, you know, things are a little more black and white in cartoons than they are in real life. They're not really that funny otherwise. I mean, just look at how unfunny real life is.
No one is really quite fascinated enough, frankly, but that doesn't mean they all melt down to sympathy screws. You men get so confused about sexuality. No subtley at all everything boils down to whether or not someone really wants to fuck you.
But hey, far be it from me to criticize reductive thought. Besides, I'm not here to give advice. Go ask the penis.
"Go tell it to the penis!" (To the tune of "Go tell it on the mountain!")
Helpful as ever,