Denmark: The REAL deal

I've been railing on about how ridiculous I think the whole controversy surrounding the cartoons in a Danish newspaper that allegedly depicted the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist and got people up in arms in protest of supposed sacrilege. One of the reasons I am particularly incensed at the whole controversy is the character assassination of a country I've been in love with since 1995.

Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said his country is being unfairly portrayed as being an "intolerant, closed society" and he's dead on. The Danes are about as open and accepting a people as any in the world. They certainly are aces better than many in the United States on certain issues. This is a country in which Rebilt National Park holds the world's only Independence Day celebrations not on U.S. territory. That's the American Independence Day. You read it right. If you're visiting Denmark and you're worried you'll miss the Fourth of July, don't.

He also condemned Sunday's vandalizing of Muslim graves, saying "the Danish government condemns any expression or any action which offends people's religious feelings." The truth of the matter is this: Danes have a sense of humor. They're a friendly lot. If the Danes who published the cartoons were guilty of anything, their worst offence was poor judgment.

The other thing that gets me is the propensity of many in the Muslim world to condemn the United States for what a Danish newspaper did. Of course, the people doing so would condemn the United States for coughing, but there's only so far that they can go before all Hell breaks loose.

Taking things a little too far

In a recent trek to the World Wide Web to do some web surfing, I suffered a momentary lapse of boredom-laced inspiration and began to Google the term "man date." Among the first results was this little beauty of an article in the New York Times. I'll admit I've heard of the term before and actually used the term. But the term only registered as a bemusing moniker until I read that article.

The New York Times piece cast the term in a much thornier light in my mind from the lede graf (journalist slang in case you didn't know). "The delicate posturing began with the phone call." Delicate posturing. Three words in and already I'm thinking about something much less pleasant about a term I thought was going to be the 2006 version of "metrosexual."

Maybe I'm getting old faster than I thought I was. Perhaps I'm just hypersensitive. It's possible that I'm stuck in the wrong era. But I was under the impression that you spent time with someone or "hung out" with someone to use slightly less moldy language, because you liked him. The way the article described food-based outings that weren't wings and beer or sports bars betrayed a form of closeted homophobia on the part of the men who took part in these "man dates."

Going to a museum and taking great lengths to almost avoid each other because you're afraid someone's going to put two and two together and come to a conclusion that isn't true? Sounds like someone has a few issues they need to work on. No, I'm not saying Matthew Speiser or John Putman are homophobic. I'm not even suggesting they have anything in particular against homosexuality. But going to such great lengths to avoid even the suggestion that they're gay just takes things about 10 steps too far.

There's plenty more within the article itself. Take the "rules" against home-cooked meals that weren't grilled steaks or deep-fried foods and paying a bill in any way other than Dutch treat. There's also the strategic empty seat between two men at a movie, which can't be a romantic comedy.

I haven't even touched the subject of "man crushes." It's more than just another invented word that further separates and stigmatizes homosexuals. It comes with its own family tree of definitions, rating anywhere from a depiction of the Ben Affleck-Matt Damon friendship to the positive feelings Texas Longhorn fans have for Vince Young. Admiration for power, idolizing a friend, there's plenty of depictions of what a "man crush" is.

Once upon a time, guys hung out with another male friend without describing it as a "man date" or genuinely liked another man without using a ridiculous term like "man crush." People spent time with each other because they genuinely enjoyed each other's company. Men were able to open up with other men about topics that had nothing to do with box scores or cup sizes. We weren't so emotionally bankrupt that any emotion other than pure rage was stuffed worse than Clinton Portis against the Seahawks.

That's what we need to get back to.

Stick to (American) football

Once again, the all-wise powers that be in the U.S. Senate know more about what's in the best interest of our country than we do. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said he might refer the Terrell Owens case to the Senate antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He called the Eagles' decision to suspend Owens for four games and deactivate him for the rest of the season "vindictive and inappropriate," adding, "It's a restraint of trade for them to do that, and the thought crosses my mind, it might be a violation of antitrust laws."

I beg your pardon? Terrell Owens committed insubordination by mouthing off about his team and his teammates on a radio show, which he's done multiple times in the past in San Francisco when he played for the 49ers. He also got into a physical altercation with former Eagle and current team ambassador Hugh Douglas and challenged several teammates to a fight.

What Terrell Owens did is nothing short of a personnel action that would get him fired from just about any job in the so-called real world. If suspending an employee and then effectively firing him is an anti-trust violation, I can think of thousands of anti-trust violations that don't even get coverage beyond the town gossip. None of which, I might add seemed to interest Mr. Specter in the least. The worst part of this story? Specter himself condemned Owens's actions that led him into this mess to begin with.

"I am madder than hell at what he has done in ruining the Eagles' season," he said. "I think he's in flagrant breach of his contract and I believe the Eagles would be within their rights in not paying him another dime or perhaps even suing him for damages." Sounds like someone's talking out of the other side of his mouth. Considering the party he hails from, that should come as no surprise.

Rhenquist dies of lung cancer, leaving two openings on the Supreme Court

Chief Justice William Rhenquist died of thyroid cancer. That now means two openings on the Supreme Court. I've seen speculation that current Associate Justice nominee John Roberts could have his nomination pulled and transferred to a nomination for Chief Justice. That would then keep Sandra Day O'Connor on temporarily as an Associate Justice.

That would not be a wise move on President Bush's part considering the fact that Roberts would be new to the Court and then possibly be the Chief Justice? I doubt that would go over well. I'd think it'd be more likely that Antonin Scalia could be named Chief Justice than have Roberts join the court and serve as Chief Justice. Though I'd hope for John Paul Stevens to be Chief Justice if you talk about longevity on the Court. But Stevens is in his mid-80s.

Argh.