Most of Mark Ronson’s partners admit to being sapio-averse

On a recent episode of Good Morning Britain, music producer Mark Ronson came out of the closet as a sapiosexual.  A stunned public applauded the hitmaker for his bravery, and for bringing awareness to a sexual identity relatively unknown to most.  Apparently, sapiosexuality was also unknown to Ronson who learned of it mere moments before his announcement.  

A sapiosexual is a person sexually attracted to intelligence and the human mind.  The sapiosexual will often prefer intellect over other characteristics like gender or physical beauty.  Fortunately for Ronson, the brains he desires often come wrapped in the bodies of French models or other gorgeous women.  

Most of Ronson’s former partners admit to being a bit shocked by the announcement.  “I like to think I have pretty good sapio-radar,” said one former girlfriend, “but I never would have guessed Mark is sapio.  Although, I did once catch him pleasuring himself to a Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics.”

The attraction wasn’t entirely mutual for many of Ronson’s former lovers.  “When it comes to Mark, I have to admit to being a bit sapio-averse. I mean, come on, the music isn’t exactly Bach or Beethoven.  He has a good ear for pop songs, but beyond that he’s a bit dense.”

The Big Lewandowski

Citing absolute immunity, President Trump held back former aides Rob Porter and Rick Dearborn from testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.  As legal scholars have noted, no person or spiritual entity in heaven or on earth can compel congressional testimony from a witness granted absolute immunity by the President.  

The White House did, however, permit former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to mix it up with Jerry Nadler and friends.  A combative Lewandowski came out swinging, telling the committee that he would refuse to answer questions about his conversations with President Trump.

Committee members soon became frustrated over the witness’s unwillingness to cooperate.

“Lewandowski, you are like a fish being cleaned with a spoon – very hard to get a clean answer from you,” charged Rep. Hank Johnson.

Anyone who has ever tried to clean a fish knows it’s impossible to get a straight answer out of one.  Sensing he’d been pinned to the cutting board, Lewandowski launched into another evasive tactic.    

“Let me explain something to you, I am not Lewandowski, I’m The Lewd.  So that’s what you call me, you know, that or His Lewdness or El Lewderino, if you’re not into the whole brevity thing.” 

At one point during the hearing, to avoid direct answers to member’s questions, Lewandowski began reading directly from the Mueller report. 

“You are not going to stonewall me and my questions,” said Rep. David Cicilline, growing visibly irritated.  “Now, Lewandowski, if you don’t mind…”  

“I do mind. The Lewd minds,” Lewandowski snapped back.  “This will not stand, you know. This aggression will not stand, man.” 

Later on Twitter, President Trump called Lewandowski’s performance “beautiful.”  Also, he tweeted video highlights of the testimony under the caption, “The bums won.”

Chappelle causes wokest of woke media to go wokeshit crazy

If I hadn’t known better, I might have thought Dave Chappelle penned a controversial op-ed in the New York Times on Monday, or maybe he appeared on CNN where he launched into a misogyny laden, transphobic rant to the horror of panelists and viewers at home.  Nope, he released a Netflix comedy special Monday, and while the special was generally well received by the public and most media outlets, predictably, the wokest of woke media went wokeshit.    

Vice tried to get out ahead of the special by confidently announcing, “You Can Definitely Skip Dave Chappelle’s New Netflix Special ‘Sticks & Stones.’”  If Vice thought their “nothing to see here, folks, move along” review was going to limit viewership, my guess is they’re sorely disappointed. It would be interesting to know the ratio of people who heeded Vice’s warning versus those who tuned in because of it.  You can definitely put me in the latter camp.

For the woke millennial crowd who may never have heard of comedy, or who aren’t all that familiar with comedy or Dave Chappelle, Vox weighs in with its explainer piece, delivering fact-checks and unimportant backstory to many of Chappelle’s bits.  “Dave Chappelle’s Netflix special targets Michael Jackson’s accusers, #MeToo, and cancel culture” by Aja Romano reads like a critique of some author or intellect who’s on tour promoting a serious work of social commentary. Referring to Chappelle’s bits about Michael Jackson, R. Kelly and Kevin Hart, Romano says, “whether he framed those events fairly or not in order to mine them for comedy has become a contentious talking point.”  Why is Chappelle expected to frame events fairly for a stand-up comedy routine? Why does Romano take Chappelle’s hour-long monologue so literally and so seriously? People who enjoy comedy don’t care if the work has been thoroughly fact-checked, and don’t expect to get the comedians true convictions and most deeply held beliefs. Comedians talk shit, they embellish and they make shit up. That’s what makes it funny. Who gives a fuck if Chappelle’s account of his interactions with the director of Surviving R. Kelly differ slightly from hers?  A humorless writer for Vox, I guess. 

The consistent criticism levelled by the Vox piece and pieces in Slate and Buzzfeed is that Chappelle is punching down.  Okay, so I’ve never read the stand-up comedy handbook. I don’t know what the rules are when it comes to putting together a stand-up routine.  All I can go by are my decades of watching stand-up comedians, starting with George Carlin, Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy and moving through to the present.  If there is a rule against punching down in stand-up, this is the first I’m hearing of it. I thought comedians could punch whatever the hell direction they wanted.  Sure, comedians often go after celebrities, politicians and the rich and powerful because we’re all familiar with these folks, so they make good targets. But comedians also caricature ordinary people: a pimp, a drug dealer, a strict father, a strict grandmother, a sweet grandmother, bratty children, a classmate, a redneck, a convenience store clerk, a taxi driver, a co-worker, a person in line at Starbucks, a stoner, a fitness freak, a church lady, security guards…  There is almost no limit to the number and kind of individuals who have been caricatured over the years in sketch comedies, movies and stand-up routines.       

In Tomi Obaro’s piece for Buzzfeed entitled “Dave Chappelle Doesn’t Need To Punch Down,” the author takes particular offense at Chappelle’s characterization of “the alphabet people.”  Frustrated at Chappelle’s lack of thoughtfulness, the author at one point suggests, “It’s enough to make you want to tie Chappelle to a chair and force him to binge-watch episodes of Pose.”  Whatever that might accomplish, I seriously doubt it would improve Chappelle’s comedy, at least not in the way Obaro thinks it would. Towards the end of the piece, Obaro complains about Chappelle’s lack of maturity and asks, “why not strive to be more interesting, more original, more thoughtful?”  It should go without saying that Chappelle is not submitting an essay on LGBTQ culture for publication in The New Yorker. That Chappelle is “not a little boy. He’s a grown-ass man.” is true enough. However, my understanding of comedy is that many comedians, to a degree, suffer from a form of permanent adolescence.  It’s kind of what makes them funny. Comedians say the things many in society are thinking, but don’t say, because they’re too busy being respectful and acting like mature adults. Which isn’t to say everyone is privately a bigot and a phobe, it’s to say that we are all flawed and we like to laugh at how ignorant and irrational and immature we can all be sometimes.  And no one should get a pass. Because the minute we start handing out Comedy Exemptions is the minute we start taking ourselves way too seriously and cease to be able to joke about anything at all.

DeepMind scientists: “Creating artificial general intelligence is really fucking hard, maybe we should just dumb down our world.”

Scientists for DeepMind, the AI project owned by Google parent company Alphabet, seem to have run into some roadblocks recently regarding its projects development.  According to a piece written by Gary Marcus for Wired, “DeepMind’s Losses and the Future of Artificial Intelligence,” DeepMind lost $572 million last year for its deep pocketed parent company and has accrued over a billion dollars in debt.  While those kinds of figures are enough to make the average parent feel much better about their child’s education dollars, the folks at Alphabet are starting to wonder if researchers are taking the right approach to DeepMind’s education.

So what’s the problem with DeepMind?  Well, for one thing, news of DeepMind’s jaw-dropping video game achievements have been greatly exaggerated.  For instance, in StarCraft it can kick ass when trained to play on a single map with a single character. But according to Marcus, “To switch characters, you need to retrain the system from scratch.”  That doesn’t sound promising when you’re trying to develop artificial general intelligence. Also, to learn it needs to acquire huge amounts of data, requiring it to play a game millions of times before mastery, far in excess of what a human would require.  Additionally, according to Marcus, the energy it required to learn to play Go was similar “to the energy consumed by 12,760 human brains running continuously for three days without sleep.” That’s a lot of human brains, presumably fueled by pizza and methamphetamine if they’re powered on for three days without sleep. 

A lot of DeepMind’s difficulties stem from the way it learns.  Deep reinforcement learning involves recognizing patterns and being rewarded for success.  It works well for learning how to play specific video games. Throw a little wrinkle at it, however, and performance breaks down.  Marcus writes: “In some ways, deep reinforcement learning is a kind of turbocharged memorization; systems that use it are capable of awesome feats, but they have only a shallow understanding of what they are doing. As a consequence, current systems lack flexibility, and thus are unable to compensate if the world changes, sometimes even in tiny ways.”

All of this has led researchers to question whether deep reinforcement learning is the correct approach to developing AI general intelligence.  “We are discovering that the world is a really fucking complex place,” says Yuri Testicov, DeepMind’s Assistant Director of Senior Applications.  “I mean, it’s one thing to sit in a lab and become really great at a handful of video games, it’s totally another to try to diagnose medical problems or discover clean energy solutions.” 

Testicov and his fellow researchers are discovering that the solution to DeepMind’s woes may not come from a new approach to learning, but instead, the public may need to lower the bar on expectations.  “We’re calling on the people of earth to simplify and dumb down,” adds Testicov. “Instead of expecting DeepMind to come along and grab the world by the tail, maybe we just need to make the world a little easier for it to understand.  I mean, you try going to the supermarket and buying a bag of tortilla chips. Not the restaurant kind but the round ones. Not the regular but the lime. Make sure they’re low sodium and don’t get the blue corn. That requires a lot of complex awareness and decision making.  So, instead of expecting perfection, if we send a robot to the supermarket and it comes back with something we can eat, we say we’re cool with that.”  

Testicov has some additional advice for managers thinking about incorporating AI into the workplace.  “If you’re an employer and you’re looking to bring AI on board, don’t be afraid to make accommodations for it, try not to be overly critical of job performance, and make sure you reward good work through positive feedback and praise,” says Testicov.  “Oh sorry, that’s our protocol for managing millennials. Never mind.”

Trump contemplates hostile takeover of Greenland

Despite the insistence of Greenland’s government that the semi-autonomous Danish territory is not for sale, President Donald Trump is pushing ahead with efforts to purchase Greenland with or without its approval.

Describing the acquisition as “essentially a large real estate deal,” President Trump has not ruled out a hostile takeover of the island.  “It’s hurting Denmark very badly because they’re losing almost $700 million a year carrying it,” said the president.

Administration sources reveal President Trump and his advisors believe they can turn Greenland around and make it profitable in less than 18 months.  “We’re looking at writing off some of its foreign debt, bringing in some undocumented workers and selling off some assets,” said an anonymous source close to the prospective deal.

According to President Trump, Greenland isn’t the only acquisition the administration is contemplating.  “We’re also looking at buying Denmark and Poland while possibly letting go of Puerto Rico and Michigan’s upper peninsula.  We’re still in the negotiating stages. These deals take time.”

News of a possible deal caused the stock market to close early on Friday as investors had no clue what to do with their money.  “We’re kind of in uncharted territory here,” said one investor. “What the fuck is the president even talking about?”

Air Force to treat Storm Area 51 visitors to dazzling air show

If you’re one of the 1.3 million to RSVP the Storm Area 51 Facebook event planned for this September, the Air Force would like you to know they have some special surprises in store.  A first of its kind air show awaits all visitors who “access the area,” according to an Air Force spokesperson.

“The Air Force has planned a truly interactive experience for anyone trying to come into the area where we train American armed forces,” says Laura McAndrews, spokesperson for the United States Air Force.  “A dazzling array of military hardware will engulf the visitor with sound and fury, and members of our own armed forces will be on hand to make sure your visit to Area 51 is truly memorable.”

“Come, experience the thrill of being strafed by one of our supersonic fighter jets, or take a wild ride in a military transport vehicle.  Bring the whole family as you experience the ‘shock and awe’ of an Air Force fireworks display igniting the desert sky into a hellish mosaic of flickering light and flames.

“You’ll enjoy deluxe accommodations as we put you up in the same hotel where we keep our extra-terrestrial guests,” McAndrews continued.  “And no stay at Area 51 would be complete without a visit to our relaxing spa. Here you can enjoy an ‘out of this world’ massage, but don’t be surprised if you find yourself poked, prodded or anally probed.”

Reservations for the September 20th event are still available on Facebook.  Attendees will meet up at the Area 51 Alien Center where shuttle buses will provide transportation to the site.

Blue Bell Licker sentenced to 30 days of licking public toilets

After pleading guilty to a single count of food tampering, The Blue Bell Ice Cream Licker was sentenced to 30 days of cleaning public toilets with her tongue.  Upon hearing the sentence, The Licker was reported to have violently vomited all over defense counsel’s table. 

Judge Hamilton Gray rebuked the defendant and delivered a strong warning to any other would be lickers:  “Some may find the punishment harsh, but I have no choice other than to make an example of you. Let it be known that violating the public’s trust by licking, spitting, breathing, poking, or any other manner of contaminating edible supermarket items will not be tolerated and will be dealt with swiftly and severely.  You can begin your sentence right away by cleaning up this mess you made. Go on, start licking.” 

Human rights organizations immediately criticized the sentence, citing it as cruel and unusual punishment.  Prosecutors, however, praised the Judge’s decision, claiming that the current licking epidemic has the potential to spur a complete breakdown of societal standards of trust and decency.  Victims groups expressed mixed feelings, pointing out that the defendant will simply go from contaminating grocery items to contaminating public restrooms.  

As they left the courtroom, reporters overheard The Licker berating her defense team.  “This is barbaric! You said I’d probably only get 20 years!” The Licker shouted.

Blue Bell Licker Caught!

Americans can scoop their ice cream without fear tonight after news that the Blue Bell Licker has been apprehended.  Not since Son of Sam paralyzed New York City in the 1970s has a nation been so gripped with terror. 

The Licker, as authorities have come to refer to the individual, was apprehended outside a Lufkin, Texas motel where the suspect had been hiding out for the past few days.  Authorities are not releasing the identity of the individual at this time.

The arrest marks the end of a crime-spree that began at a Wal-Mart in Lufkin when The Licker was filmed removing a carton of Blue Bell Tin Roof ice cream from a freezer and licking its contents before placing it back on the shelf.  A shocked America watched with horror and disbelief as the suspect and her accomplice brazenly laughed off the incident. 

Panic seized the nation as Licker sightings were reported from as far away as Bangor, Maine and Spokane, Washington.  Separate witness accounts even had the Licker performing her despicable germ spreading violence in multiple locations at once, only adding to the fear and confusion.

The manhunt began to focus in on the tiny roadside motel in Lufkin when authorities received a tip regarding an individual acting suspicious near the frozen foods section of a nearby convenience store.  Detectives followed the suspect back to the motel where they began a stakeout.  

“One thing we know about this suspect, they can only go a certain amount of time before they must go out and lick again.  We are dealing with a sick individual who will not stop until their lust for frozen dairy is satisfied,” said Detective Patty Starling, an officer with the investigation team. 

Their hunch paid off when less than 24 hours later, the suspect was on the move again.  Police cornered the suspect in the parking lot and an arrest was made without incident. 

As authorities escorted the suspect into police headquarters, a defiant Licker responded to reporter’s questions only by smiling and wagging her tongue.

New York Times reporter fact-checks milkshakes

In an extraordinary feat of journalism, New York Times reporter, Mike Baker, fact-checked the origins of each and every milkshake thrown at an anti-fascist rally held in Portland over the weekend.  Thought to be the first of its kind reporting, the scrappy journalist verified the ingredients and provenance of the numerous creamy milkshakes flying around Saturday’s event. 

The revelation that may end up winning the ground-breaking reporter a Pulitzer, though, is the news that all of the milkshakes hurled at a journalist covering the event were vegan in origin.  “I thought it was important that we get that information out there as soon as possible,” says Baker. “I didn’t know if the attacked journalist was vegan or not, but I thought it would be important to let him know that the milkshakes that drenched him did not contain animal products.  I felt perhaps that might take some of the sting out of the pummeling he took.”

What makes Baker’s work even more extraordinary is that he’s changing the way we talk about ‘milkshaking’.  “Early on, my editor and I made a decision not to use ‘milkshake’ as a verb. I am fully aware of the tradition and the higher standard we have to uphold here at The New York Times.  That is why instead of using ‘milkshake’ as a verb, which is still relatively new and untested, we decided to go with ‘slimed’. ‘Slimed’ has a bit more history and seemed a more appropriate choice for the pages of The Times,” says Baker.          

Mike’s editor maintains the pair don’t deserve any special credit for their work.  “It’s just good old-fashioned reporting,” says Mike’s editor. “It’s making phone calls, running down leads, and developing sources.  I mean, at the end of the day, we fact-checked the shit out of those milkshakes.”

New York Times runs Antifa PR piece

In case anyone has been operating under the misconception that a journalist was violently assaulted by Antifa protesters in Portland on Saturday, the New York Times’ Mike Baker is here to set the record straight.  Or, rather, he’s here to fill your head with enough extraneous nonsense to give those in denial about left-wing extremism and violence any number of paths to continue believing there is no problem here. His piece in Monday’s edition, “In Portland, a Punch and a Milkshake Rumor Feed a Fresh Round of Police Criticism,” reads like a release from Antifa’s public relations department.  In it he essentially asserts that the journalist assaulted basically had it coming, that the incident is only of interest to conservative politicians and media outlets, that the Portland Police are in cahoots with right-wing groups, and left-wing protesters were really only interested in having a milkshake dance party.

What are we to make of protesters who show up for a demonstration clad in makeshift riot gear?  That these are individuals who were just sitting at home one Saturday and decided to head downtown to protest the fascists.  They’re not an organized group itching for a fight or anything. Everybody has black helmets and body armor hanging in their closet.  Give credit to the NYT for running the photo of the anti-fascist fascists, but their caption reads “Multiple groups demonstrated in downtown Portland, Ore., on Saturday.”  Not only does the NYT not identify these demonstrators as Antifa, but not once does Baker mention the group’s name in the entire piece. The only time they are identified is in a quote of Andy Ngo’s attorney. 

Baker does concede that Ngo was struck by a black-clad activist, going beyond what a lot of mainstream outlets reported.  Many MSM reports preferred to let it seem like the journalist was just heavily milkshaked. Amazing that the word “milkshake” is now a verb and accepted by many on the mainstream left as a perfectly acceptable thing to do to someone.  Baker, however, avoids using “milkshake” as a verb in his article and instead writes that Ngo was “slimed” with “vegan coconut milkshakes”. Very considerate of him to point out that the milkshakes were vegan, in case Ngo happens to be vegan himself.  It takes a little bit of the sting out of being milkshaked when you know that the projectile doesn’t contain any animal products. Although, one wonders how Baker knew that the specific milkshakes that struck Ngo were vegan coconut. Did the New York Times thoroughly fact check all those milkshakes?

Baker does seem pretty confident, however, in claiming that the milkshakes did not contain quick drying concrete.  He describes as “questionable” the Portland Police warning that the milkshakes contained cement, and that this claim fueled “conservative alarm” and “dramatically fueled the furor”.  Nothing to see here folks, Baker seems to be reassuring NYT readers. This is just a bunch of conservatives getting their panties all in a bunch.  

Baker goes on to question Ngo’s work as a journalist, dropping hints that he and the publications he works for produce racist content.  Also, he spends a couple paragraphs making the case that the Portland Police have a history of colluding with right-wing extremists. At this point, if I’m a leftist frequent reader of the New York Times even the slightest bit concerned about groups and elements at the extreme of my political ideology, I’m beginning to drift back into my comfort zone.  I’m thinking, okay, this is all a manufactured crisis and Ngo is just getting what’s coming to him. After all, as Baker writes, “He (Ngo) has a history of battling with anti-fascist groups” and “has built a prominent presence in part by going into situations where there may be conflict and then publicizing the results.”  

Okay, so he’s not really a journalist, he’s a right wing provocateur.  Well, that explains it. Because that’s what they said about Jamal Kashoggi, right?  He had a history of battling with the Saudi Royal family. And that’s what they say about correspondents in conflict zones.  They’re just publicity hounds, right?

After trashing a journalist and totally discrediting the police, Mr. Baker would like Times readers to know that anti-fascist activists are just a bunch of fun-loving, peaceful party people who want to drink milkshakes and dance.  While reserving a healthy amount of skepticism for the police account of the incident, Baker seems to accept on faith information gathered from the Rose City Antifa affiliated group, PopMob.  According to one member of the group, they were simply “having an entertaining counterprotest building off Pride month.”  And those milkshakes: “they were vegan milkshakes made not of cement, but of coconut ice cream, cashew milk and some sprinkles.”  A credulous Baker barely even addresses the glaring reality that milkshakes are currently the preferred method of humiliating conservatives and right-wingers. They were clearly dispensed with the intent of hurling them at their opponents, including Mr. Ngo who was targeted with a barrage of them.

It is one thing to write a piece that avoids leaping to conclusions and reporting unverified facts.  It is quite another to omit facts, engage in irrelevant personal and professional attacks, and deliberately mislead.  Is Baker really so beholden to ideology and obligated to protect the left and readers of the NYT that it extends all the way to doing public relations for a group of violent thugs?  Perhaps, or maybe he just wants to stay on Antifa’s good side. Hmm, wonder why?