I sent an email to Simmons begging him to do a mailbag column, because I am a complete and utter fucking box of tools

SIKE, I actually did NOT send such an email, but apparently dozens of mouth-breathers around the world do every day. Bill always makes sure to lead of his mailbags with a few of those emails just so we all know that the people like him, they really like him! To wit:

Q: I'm having a rough patch in my life. I am a broke college student home for the summer and can't find a job. I deposited $6 to my bank account today and the teller literally laughed at me when she saw that my balance was $13. Then I went home and cut my nipple when I was shaving my chest. All I ask for is a mailbag. I need this.

— Jono, St. Louis

Based on the stories he's told about his upbringing, there is no way in hell Bill can relate to the idea of being broke. The nipple thing? Possib-lye.

Q: Which will last longer: The NFL lockout, or the time between Simmons mailbags?
— David C., NYC

Unfortunately the answer was not "the latter, because Simmons has been strapped to a leftover space shuttle launch rocket and shot towards the sun."

Q: Please do a mailbag before Sasha Vujacic marries Maria Sharapova and the world ends.
— John, Omaha, NE

SG: I'll do you one better — how 'bout a mailbag every Friday for the next six weeks?

Yayyyyyy

As always, these are actual e-mails from actual readers.

Some of the questions are so WACKY you'd think they were made up! But nope, turns out there are plenty of people out there who go to Vegas and pretend to have an invisible friend in their midst the whole time, or who think it's hilarious to scream and yell while doing everyday things because that makes you similar to Kevin Garnett or something.

Anyways this mailbag isn't really anything special, relative to the tired and trite crap he usually churns out. In fact, now that he's officially doing it for Grantland, it's about 5% less obnoxious that most of the questions and answers deal with mindless pop culture bullshit rather than sports. (Prominently featured in this edition: how about that Princess Kate? And how about her less attractive sister who is predictably declared to be the hotter sister by prongs like Bill who worship Klosterman and emulate his practice of pointing out secretly super sneaky and counterintuitive stuff that is actually either 1) not sneaky/counterintuitive or 2) just plan wrong? Pretty compelling stuff, no?) Anyways, it's not an excessively horrid mailbag and I don't have a ton of time so there are just a couple things I'd like to bring to your attention.

Q: Grant Wahl thinks we should play the Women's World Cup every two years. You down with that idea?

SG: Absolutely. I couldn't get my 6-year-old daughter to watch the Women's World Cup until the second half of the final game … and by extra time, she was totally hooked.

Absolutely! Have I ever mentioned that I have kids?

She won't watch another meaningful women's soccer game until she's 10. How shortsighted is that?

How do the people in charge of FIFA sleep at night, knowing that they're depriving my not-caring-about-soccer daughter of the opportunity to watch more soccer?

In general, we need to reconfigure these schedules: The Olympics and the World Cup should happen every three years so we could have something this&

Typo alert! Grantland's editors don't hold a candle to the big boys at the parent company. But hey, it's a minor miracle the site is still running at all given the people who are behind it. I'll cut them some slack. Also, I've already talked about how breathtakingly dumb this idea is, but it's been a year. I'm happy to do it again.

2012 (summer): Summer Olympics
2013 (summer): Men's World Cup
2014 (February): Winter Olympics
2014 (summer): Women's World Cup
2015 (summer): Summer Olympics
2016 (summer): Men's World Cup
2017 (February): Winter Olympics
2017 (summer): Women's World Cup

Beyond the entertainment value of having at least one major event every year, did you ever wonder why we decided on the "every four years" thing in the first place?

Because it's a fantastic international spectacle that's difficult to plan, extremely expensive to execute, should have the "specialness" associated with having to wait four years for the next one, and because the ancient olympics took place every four years?

The modern Summer Olympics started in 1896 and settled on a four-year format for one simple reason … it was 1896!

And because the ancient games were on an every four years schedule and the modern organizers wanted to replicate that. AND BECAUSE THEY WERE CONSPIRING TO DEPRIVE BILL'S CHILDREN OF PRECIOUS CHILDHOOD MEMORIES OF SPORTS THEY DIDN'T KNOW EXISTED.

There were no airplanes! Back in 1896, it was really, really, REALLY hard for anyone to get to Athens unless, you know, they lived in Greece. The Games took time to catch on because of travel and the no-television thing; when St. Louis hosted the 1904 Summer Olympics, 580 of the 650 athletes were Americans. In 1921, they decided it was weird to include figure skating and hockey in the Summer Olympics, so they spun those events off into a Winter Olympics (along with new events such as skiing, speed skating, ski jumping, etc.) that launched in 1924 in France with the same every-four-years format because, again, we didn't exactly have United and Virgin around back then.

Look, I can summarize what I read on Wikipedia! And of course, because we CAN do something differently now because of technology, that definitely means that we should. I for one am tired of umpires- let's get an automated strike zone set up ASAP. There is no way that system will have any problems or make baseball less enjoyable.

The Olympics didn't really become THE OLYMPICS until 1936, when Berlin hosted the Summer Games during Hitler's Nazi regime, leading to America's whole "should we boycott?" debate (it didn't), Jesse Owens' laying the smack down (as Hitler watched from the stands) and the Olympics finally reaching its athletic/political/cultural/social potential... only we were stuck with the every-four-years gimmick at that point.

Tommy Craggs thinks you're a fucking dunderhead for pretending that anything at all relevant or interesting happened during the Berlin Olympics.

And it's been that way ever since. Why? Because of the always-dangerous, "That's the way we've always done it!" logic.

No, it's been that way for many other compelling reasons and should not change. But let's get to the apex of the dumbfuckery in this mailbag, presented by Bill Foster Wallace in a footnote to the preceding sentence.

I wrote this in my NBA book when I was trying to blow up the Basketball Hall of Fame: "Few arguments cause more problems than this one: Come on, that's the way we've always done it! When those nine words become the sole reason for keeping something intact, it's a bigger red flag than the one Nikolai Volkoff waved. Change is good. Change leads to hockey masks for goalies,

So having more Olympics because that would be fun for Bill, which means it's a perfect analog to a change that was made to keep guys from being hit in the eye sockets with hockey pucks.

wheels for suitcases,

And a change made because of innovation in the realm of consumer goods

baby seats for little kids

And a change made to prevent people from dying

and seats atop the Green Monster.

SEATS ON THE MONSTAHHHH! BRETT FACKIN' GAHHHHDNAHHHH CAN HEAR US TAUNTING HIM ALL GAME FROM UP THEY-AH BUT HE CAN'T DO SHIT ABOUT IT! This is a change made because it helps the people who made it make more money. In that sense it's almost identical to the idea of having the olympics more often, as long as you replace the word "make" with "lose." (And yes I know the IOC probably has the power to make the games happen every three years if they want, and that the members of the governing body could gain from that. But given what a bunch of greedy twats they are, don't you think they might have already done that if they could get away with it?)

Change leads to iTunes, breast implants, 'Madden' video games, Tommy John surgery, plasma televisions, BlackBerrys, podcasts …"

People who spend money on personal items have the ability to generate change in the markets for those items by demanding certain products and being willing to pay a certain amount for them. So all we need to do is turn the Olympics into a publicly traded company, have the shareholders demand that they happen every three years, and we can expect to see the exact same results that the cell phone and video game markets have seen in the last 20 years! Swell.

Going every three years would be more entertaining, generate more money,

Sound effect goes here

give us a better measure of who mattered the most during a 10-year window,

No one except idiots like you who know nothing about sports think this is important.

and do a better job of capturing athletes as they're peaking.

Oh brother.

Here's a great example: Carl Lewis started peaking in 1982, dominated the 1984 Olympics (when Russia and so many others never showed), then got robbed of his rightful glory in 1988 when Ben Johnson showed up in Seoul with more drugs in his system than every 1999 Home Run Derby contestant combined. By the 1992 Games, Carl Lewis wasn't totally Carl Lewis anymore; from 1983 to 1991, he won six golds in the Olympics and another eight at the World Championships (nailing the 100-meter dash and the 4x100-meter relay every time, and long jump every time except 1991), then two golds in the 1992 Olympics and one gold in 1996. So really, the apex of someone who has to be considered the best sprinter/long jumper ever only coincided with two tainted Olympics and that's that. How was that fair?

And of course, sports should be all about being fair towards athletes. You know, Dan Marino never got to play in a Super Bowl during his prime. Ken Griffey Jr. never got to play in the World Series at all. Every World Cup qualifying period, a top UEFA team chokes away a game or two ends up missing the main draw while some crappy CONCACAF team makes the draw and gets embarrassed in all three of their group stage matches. None of those things seem fair, you know? I think we should change the rules so that none of those injustices can ever happen again. Sorry, Red Sox/Yankees/Rangers- we're putting the Mariners in the World Series this year because if we don't King Felix might never get to play there during his prime. Tough nuts to you guys, you had your chance during the past four seasons. We're all about fairness now.

Every four years gives little flexibility for someone getting screwed over by an injury or accident (Mary Decker), a fluke stinker of a performance (Dan and Dave), a boycott (any of the 1980 Summer Olympians) or even a random attack by a competitor (Nancy Kerrigan). Just watch Without Limits, for God's sake — how was it fun for us as sports fans to watch Steve Prefontaine get boxed in during his gold-medal race in 1972 and settle for fourth, then wait another four years for his redemption (which never came)? If you can come up with a good reason why it shouldn't be every three years, I'm all ears.

So stupid that my mind is boggling as I contemplate even beginning to formulate a specific response. Saying that the Dan O'Brien/Dave Johnson rivalry failure in 1992 means that we should have the Olympics more often is perhaps the worst possible argument you could make in support of this awful position. I'm truly flabbergasted. Dave didn't qualify for the Olympics... which shows that (that year at least) he didn't belong at the damn Olympics. You can't accept a hyped-up advertising campaign as the basis for your position and then reason that because the hype wasn't fulfilled, there is something wrong with the system. The system is not in place to reinforce hype. It's there to make things MORE fair. Holy Jesus on a fucking pogo stick, how fucking clueless is this guy? Probably about as Clueless as Alicia Silverstone! /high fives self

One last point before I go.

Q: You tweeted a link to Kobe's Turkish Airlines ad and asked "'Why does Kobe peek at the chef's ass?' has replaced 'Why does MJ have a Hitler mustache?' as No. 1 weirdest ad subplot." You realize Kobe was actually watching the guy limp away, right? Or do you just hate Kobe so much that you see what you want to see?
--JB, Van Nuys, CA

SG: I just watched the clip 24 straight times. Six of the times, it seemed like he was watching the guy limp away. You might be right, JB. You might be right.

If there is a better example of pathetic trash talk than Bill's BURNTASTIC roasting of Kobe for shooting 25% from the field in a game in which 1) the two teams combined to shoot 35% from the field and score 162 points 2) only one starter on each team shot above 46% from the field 3) Kobe scored 23 points, grabbed 15 rebounds, and 4) also made a bunch of clutch FTs down the stretch as his team clinched a motherfucking title after being down at the half in a game seven, I haven't come across it. It's not just a really sad train wreck of bullet trains full of sour grapes. It's patently unclever. LOL SIX FOR TWENTY FOUR HARF HARF HARF WHY DID HE WIN MVP THAT'S SO DUMM

Kobe can eat a fucking dick and all, but Bill makes me smile a little every time Kobe succeeds.

Bill Simmons: Obnoxiously Writing About a Whole New Sport

Yes, this was published weeks ago. Yes, I will still blog about it. No, World Cup fandom has done nothing to change any of the things that make Bill intolerable. OH BY THE WAY, CAN YOU BELIEVE KOBE GOT NBA FINALS MVP EVEN THOUGH HE SHOT POORLY FROM THE FIELD IN GAME SEVEN? Get ready for references from Bill about that for the next ten years. Anyways-

Am I really posting a 4,500-word soccer column on the same day all hell is breaking loose for the biggest NBA summer ever? You're damn right I am! I'm tired of wondering where LeBron, Wade, Nowitzki and everyone else will land.

And you are in no way responsible for the hype that surrounded that whole scene.

I'm even more tired of people reporting about things that might happen, could happen or seem likely to happen. Just tell me when they happen. Thanks.

So I can update my Book of Basketball (and ridiculous bullshit I pulled out of my ass) accordingly!

In the meantime, let's play 20 Questions with the 2010 World Cup.

Typical obnoxious Simmons article structure- HE will tell YOU what the twenty most important questions regarding the World Cup are.

Question No. 1: What's been the single best thing about the Cup so far?

I love the Cup because it stripped away all the things about professional sports that I've come to despise. No sideline reporters.

That's only a factor if you're watching on TV.

No JumboTron.

That's only a factor if you're at the game, and even then, is pretty easy to avoid.

No TV timeouts. No onslaught of replays after every half-decent play.

I like replays. They let you see what those world class athletes out there on the field (the SOCCER field playing with a SOCCER ball) did.

No gimmicky team names like the "Heat" or the "Thunder." (You know what the announcers call Germany? The Germans. I love this.)

Actually, they're also known as the Mannschaft. And lots of teams have nicknames- the Yanks, the Roja, the Azzurri, the Black Stars, the Elephants, etc. How do we know which ones are gimmicky, like Heat and Thunder, and which ones are not, like Red Sox and Celtics? We just ask Bill.

No announcers breathlessly overhyping everything or saying crazy things to get noticed.

Hello, pot. Meet kettle. (Replace "announcers" with "half-assed columnists" of course.)

We don't have to watch 82 mostly half-assed games to get to the playoffs.

Actually, World Cup qualifying is an incredibly complex and lengthy process. You don't have to watch it, of course, but then again you don't have to watch the NBA's regular season either.

We don't have 10 graphics on the screen at all times.

What is this referring to? Has Bill confused watching sports with playing sports video games? Because yeah- Madden has like 10 little boxes on the screen most of the time. But no live broadcast of a real life event I've ever seen does.

The World Cup just bangs it out: Two cool national anthems, two 45-minute halves, a few minutes of extra time and usually we're done. Everything flies by. Everything means something.

I'm not in this camp, of course, but there's a pretty substantial chunk of the country that considers soccer to be the slowest-moving, most boring, most useless sport of all time. And I'm not sure how "everything means something" applies to a sport where one team can hold a 65%/35% possession advantage, a 12 to 3 corner advantage, a 24 to 8 shot advantage, and still lose. (Spain's group stage loss to Switzerland.)

It's the single best sporting event we have by these four measures: efficiency, significance, historical context and truly meaningful/memorable/exciting moments.

Again, classic obnoxious Bill. Makes an unsupported point; then makes up a rubric of evaluation that shows that the point is obviously correct.

You know … as long as you like soccer.

Gotta unsarcastically credit him for throwing that in there.

Question No. 2: What's the second-best thing?

For me, it's been the schedule. See, my son (aka The CEO) wakes up every morning at 5:30 by opening his bedroom door, stomping out, slamming the door as hard as he can,

"Blah blah blah I have a family." Don't care.

Question No. 3: Why do we wait every four years to have the World Cup?

When I argued recently that the Cup should be every three years, readers flooded me with reasons it couldn't work: It's too expensive (apparently the Cup always loses money for whichever country gets it); they'd have to do too much reconfiguring for smaller tournaments already in place (note: I don't get that argument; that's like saying you can't have the Oscars interfering with the SAG Awards or something); people like having it every four years because it's more meaningful that way (by that logic, you should have sex every four years, too);

It's really not. At all. Good try though.

and most importantly, FIFA never wants to go head-to-head with the Summer Olympics.

My counter for the last argument: Why not? So … we'd have MORE sports on? Wow, that sounds terrible! I'd hate to have all those exciting things to watch.

Classic obnoxious Bill- having a World Cup and the Olympics during the same summer would be awesome for HIM- so why could it possibly be bad for anyone else? Complete failure of comprehension- TV ratings, money, attendance, location bidding issues, etc. But all Bill hears is "Wait- but haven't you considered how AWESOME it would be????" On a similar note, let's play game 7 of the World Series during halftime of the Super Bowl somehow. That'd be swell.

The best every-three-years case for both the Cup and the Olympics: When it's every four years, you might miss an athlete's apex completely. Look at Larry Bird: The Basketball Jesus peaked from November 1984 through April 1988 before his body started to break down. Had he played in the '84 Summer Olympics, he wouldn't have reached his apex yet. Had he played in the '88 Olympics, we would have caught him right after his prime.

Classic obnoxious Bill- he apparently knows the timeframe of an athlete's peak, down to the month. I'd love to find another Celtics fanboy who's 100% sure that Bird peaked from March 1984 through July 1988 and lock him in a room with Bill. Further, how fucking ridiculous is it to say "Larry Bird's peak was (allegedly) only three years and seven months long- therefore, if we continue to have the World Cup only every four years, we could miss an athlete's prime!" Good grief. Get over yourself and your anecdotal analytical abilities, Bill. You know what? Some athletes only peak for a six month stretch- we need to have two World Cups every year! AND NONE OF THEM SHOULD HAVE JUMBOTRONS!

We want the best of the best at their absolute best -- by going four years (and not three), you're taking a chance that a transcendent athlete might have the misfortune of peaking at the wrong time.

Seriously, you're a complete fucking dingbat.

Question No. 4: How many times did you regret not ditching your family, ditching the NBA Finals, ditching the Celtics and flying 20 hours to South Africa for the World Cup?

"Let me tell you about this decision I agonized over!" Don't care.

Question No. 5: Speaking of the vuvuzelas, did you really tell a friend that you have developed Stockholm Syndrome with them?

That's true. I don't mind them any longer. I like the World Cup, so the vuvuzela sound has become Pavlov's dinner bell for me. I hear them and think, "Cool, the World Cup's on!" By the way, you know something is historically annoying when you can compare it to a hostage sympathizing with his or her captors and the comparison actually works.

I unsarcastically agree. I will probably forever associate vuvuzela sounds with the 2010 World Cup. And it's not a bad thing.

Question No. 6: Was it good or bad for the World Cup that Italy and France got bounced in the group stage?

I'm going with "bad."

Shocker that the guy who doesn't pay attention to baseball unless it's Yankees-Red Sox or hockey unless it's Bruins-Canadiens would go with that answer.

I love when two old-school powerhouses battle with an underlying subplot of, "Yeah, it's just soccer right now, but back in the old days, these two countries actually tried to destroy each other." Keeping USA, Spain, Germany, England, Italy and France around as long as possible makes me think about the Boston Tea Party, the War of 1812, Neville Chamberlain, Napoleon getting overthrown, multiple wars, Thomas Jefferson throwing his genitals around France like a boomerang, Benedict Arnold switching sides, all the times France surrendered or withdrew, and basically everything good and bad that's ever happened between those six countries.

History summary fail.

Look, I loved watching France's tournament unravel, and it's always funny when countries live up to their worst possible stereotype. But losing Italy AND France? Too big a double whammy. Maybe it's not as bad as losing Federer and Roddick before the semifinals at Wimbledon, but it's not ideal.

(Let's wait a second for every NBC Sports executive to stop nodding grimly.)

This "it's about the stars, not about the competition" thing is one of the biggest problem with sports these days. Aaaaaand... I'm not going to bother writing about it right now. Maybe someday. If I ever get out of this basement.

Question No. 7: You haven't handled Boston's Game 7 loss to the Lakers very well. What was the snarkiest e-mail or text you sent to a Boston friend after hearing that Kobe was attending the USA-Ghana game?

Guess what? He gives two answers, both of which can be summarized as "BOOO IT'S NAWT FAY-UH KOBE IS NAWT A TRUE MVP!!!"

Question No. 8: After a few legitimately horrendous World Cup officiating moments, as well as FIFA's bizarre refusal to incorporate instant replay haunting the Cup multiple times, do you feel better or worse about officiating and leadership in American professional sports?

Question No. 9: But you'd still love the NBA to incorporate the yellow/red card system for flagrant fouls and technical fouls, correct?

[Legitimate and non-obnoxious responses omitted]

Question No. 10: Who does Lionel Messi look like? It's driving me crazy.

Dustin Hoffman in "All The President's Men."

There must've been a Jersey Shore, Karate Kid, or Victory (Don't know what that movie is? Join the club and don't tell Bill) reference in there somewhere.

Question No. 11: What was the funniest thing you've read about the World Cup this month?

I liked Michael Davies' take on England's demise: "Americans will never completely understand how crap it is, most of the time, to be English. We might have cute accents and be good at cocktail parties. But we are mostly losers." That slayed me.

Who the fuck still uses "slayed?" Especially in the context of "made me laugh" rather than "committed date rape?"

England's fatalistic, self-loathing, S&M-style attitude toward its national team tops Buffalo Bills fans, Minnesota Vikings fans or even Cleveland fans.

Question No. 12: Come on, it can't TOP Cleveland fans -- at least say it's dead even, right?

Good point.

Eh, as a side note, I think they're dealing with the LeBron thing about as well as can be expected. Not saying they're rational or that they all deserve a pat on the back, but... eh. Shrug.

Question No. 13: If you could change anything about soccer, what would it be?

I hate how teams milk leads in the last 15-20 minutes by faking injuries and taking forever to sub players. When that Ghana player had to be carried off on a stretcher at the tail end of the America game, then hopped off like nothing ever happened as soon as the stretcher was out of bounds, I thought that was appalling.

NO ATHLETE OF A TEAM I CHEE-AH FOR WOULD EVAH DO THAT!

Actually, it made me want to go to war with Ghana. I wanted to invade them. I'm not even kidding. That's another great thing about the World Cup: Name another sport in which you genuinely want to invade other countries when you lose.

Hockey? Pretty much any team sport in the Olympics if the stakes are high? Alternate answer: thanks, Bill, for assuming everyone felt the same way about the Ghana loss as you. Personally, I thought Ghana played pretty clean. After the game I was pissed at Bob Bradley and virtually no one else.

Question No. 14: What's been the strangest thing about the 2010 World Cup?

To hear Germany described in such likable, underdoggy tones. Who would have thought these young upstarts would jell this fast? It's like the announcers were talking about the 2008 Tampa Bay Rays or something … if the Tampa Bay Rays had started two world wars and nearly brought down Europe.

And of course, if your knowledge of world sports comes from somewhere other than 80s movies, you know that the German soccer team isn't really a bunch of direct descendants of Hitler.

Question No. 15: Your friend Chuck Klosterman thinks

Question/response involves Klosterman. Don't care.

Question No. 16: Who will win the 2010 Cup?

This was written just before the quarterfinals started.

I picked Argentina, so I'm sticking with them. Second choice: Brazil. Third choice: Germany.

Lost in the quarters, lost in the quarters, lost in the semis.

I never understood why people were discounting Argentina solely because of Diego Maradona.

Pretty much no one was.

How much damage can a soccer coach really do with a stacked team that's always better than anyone it's playing? When Bob Bradley screwed up the Ghana game because of his inexplicable "Screw it, I'm not starting my best 11 guys" strategy, that's a different story: We couldn't beat Ghana unless we played well and avoided any major boners. How can you screw up a team with superstuds like Lionel Messi and Carlos Tevez on it?

Typical obnoxious Bill, trying to pretend like he actually knows shit about this.

Question No. 17: Hold on, you can't let Maradona go that fast. Where does he rank for Unintentional Comedy on a scale of 1 to Ron Artest?

[Legitimate and non-obnoxious response omitted] At least Bill and I agree on one thing: Artest rules.

Question No. 18: After USA's exit in the round of 16, should American soccer fans be disappointed? Proud? Ambivalent? Frustrated but appreciative?

I can't think of anyone in the sports media less qualified to answer this question.

I'd go with the latter.

[Incoherent argument, essentially stating that the US team may be hitting a ceiling for the time being because we don't have the kinds of world-class superstars other teams have, omitted]

Question No. 19: Thanks to last year's Confederations Cup and Donovan's extra-time goal last weekend, do you think soccer is finally taking off in America?

Put it this way …

When I was in the third grade (1978), people thought soccer was taking off in America.

When I was a freshman in college (1988), people thought soccer was taking off in America.

When I was a barely employed wannabe sportswriter in Boston whose life revolved around the O.J. Simpson trial and partying every night (1994), people thought soccer was taking off in America.

When I was living in Boston with my fiancée and writing for ESPN.com (2002), people thought soccer was taking off in America.

I am 40 years old. I live in Los Angeles. My hair is turning silvery white. I have a wife, two kids, a mortgage and that same ESPN column. Guess what? People think soccer is taking off in America. Only this time … I agree with them.

I HAVE LED AN INTERESTING LIFE WHICH YOU CARE ABOUT! I HAVE A FAMILY! IT HAS QUALITIES OF A NARRATIVE!

Also, I can't speak for 1978 or 1988, and I can barely speak for 1994 as I was in grade school then, but I've been a die-hard sports fan with a bunch of friends who are the same since about 1998. No one thought soccer was taking off after the U.S.'s success at the 2002 Cup. I think Freddie Adu's "arrival" on the US Soccer scene a year later generated more hype than the 2002 quarterfinal appearance.

Question No. 20: Wait a second … you agree with them? YOU AGREE WITH THEM???? You sap! They say this every four years and it never happens!!!! Klosterman is right! You are the Manchurian Soccer Candidate!

Hear me out …

Nope. It's an eight paragraph answer that's basically just about Bill and Bill's life and Bill's friends and Bill's text messages/emails and how a younger version of Bill might have reacted to Donovan's goal against Algeria. Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill. Bill is an asshole and I hate him and his writing.

Now please, everyone go leave a comment about how I'm just jealous because I wish I had his job.

Great Headlines Department

Hey folks, this post comes to you live from the tiny town of Tricastela Spain, where everyone here sure has World Cup fever! The game tonight should be exciting, and with any luck Spanish soccer fans are as pyromaniacal as Ohio State fans.

ANYWAYS, I have only one thing to offer. I don´t know if this already made the rounds of internet hilarity, so forgive me if you´ve already seen this one. The actual article is a bunch of stuff about track, so who cares since it´s not the Olympics. So, without further ado, the headline:

Tired Gay succumbs to Dix in 200 meters

Well, that´s all for this post, folks. See you in my next post unless Spain burns down tomorrow and I don´t make it out alive.