You Know What Really Grinds My Gears ...

the following terms which have now become part of our everyday, pop culture lexicon.

(1) "Chalk" - If you watched any coverage of the NCAA basketball tourney this past March, you will have heard many commentators and "experts" using the term chalk. In essence, chalk means that the favorites win and commentators were often heard saying there is a lot of chalk in this tournament. Why does this word exist? Who invented it? If the favorites are winning, it is because there are no upsets, not because of chalk. Chalk is that thing that your elementary school teachers used to write on, get this, a chalkboard. Yes, that is chalk. What would they call it if all the underdogs won? Pencil? Pen? Magic Marker? Sharpie? Let's hope next year we see a tournament that demonstrates a lot of sharpie!

(2) "X is the next Y" - LeBron is the next MJ. Oden is the next Ewing. Random 6'10" European player with no inside game is the next Nowitski. ENOUGH!! Why can't these guys be the first whatever their name is? Why do we need to compare people from different eras? Why can we only compare white people to white people and international players with international players, etc.? Not every white guy is the next Larry Bird. There is only one Bird, just like there is only one MJ, Magic, Kareem, Barkley, LeBron, Duncan, Olajuwon. Yes, a player may have similar abilities, but no two athletes are alike. Could you imagine an analyst on CNN or Fox News saying that Fred Thompson is the next Ronald Reagan because they were both actors or saying that Mitt Romney is the next Michael Dukakis because they were both governor of Massachusetts before entering the presidential race in which they had no chance to win? I mean, seriously, do sportscasters think they smart because they say that player x is the next player y because they came from the same neighborhood and play a similar position? It is shotty journalism at the very least. This is, of course, not being told to us but being screamed at us on our television sets or on the radio and even on annoying videos that autoplay on a certain website at volumes unacceptable to listen to.

(3) "________ Porn" - I have now seen the term porn used to describe certain genres of movies. For example, Hostel II is part of the Torture Porn genre, along with its predecessor, the Saw franchise, and many other horror films where it has less to do with a Freddy Krueger or Michael Myers type slasher, but instead shows us people being tortured. The definition of porn is, according to dictionary.com, "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire." When I last checked, people watch scary movies to be scared, not to be turned on (we call those people who get turned on by seeing people killed and tortured either freaks or psychopaths or mentally deranged). What's worse is that I have now heard the new movie Transformers being part of the "Toy Porn" genre. WTF??? Will it be a 2 hour toy commercial? I will let you know after I see it tomorrow morning, but the answer is probably yes. And you know what? Who cares. Transformers were beloved toys that most people in my age group played with. And if Mattel or Hasbro (I can't remember who produced them) make a few million off kids buying their new toy transformers, more power to them. We use to call this type of movie an action movie, now apparently it is a form of pornography. Basically, these numbskulls crediting these porn names to movie genres are basically calling the Disney Store a sex shop because they sell toys that were based on movies and using Transformers as an example of Toy Porn, Walt Disney was nothing more than a smut peddler and I just refuse to believe this.