Wednesday, March 30, 2005


I have recently become aware of a serious problem facing our society today. Hip-hop culture has been generous enough to grace us with a term that we can use to describe women of large posterior: ghetto booty. Now the problem I spoke of isn't the use of this much as the over-use. For years I have stood by the wayside and heard people describe a "big ol' butt" as "ghetto," and that, frankly, is incorrect. So, once and for all, I have decided to clear up this matter.

Several years ago, me and my bro came up with what we called the "booty-line." In essence, it's a scale with which all booties fall into. Most people have simple, three-step scale: lack of an ass, ass, and ghetto booty. Incorrect. There are actually 7 different classifications of booty.

Nosatol - This isn't so much a booty as it is a serious affliction. Hundreds of thousands of women a year suffer from Nosatol (alt. pronunciation "No Ass at All"). These women don't have any ass at all. Instead, they just have a very long back. Serious cases of Nosatol can actually result in ones booty becoming concave.

Lil' Booty - The lil' booty is most commonly found on tiny asian women. Tiny asian women with lil' booties are some of the most beautifully shapen women on the planet. This booty has shape and symmetry, but isn't obtuse. Scrawny women aren't the only ones who sport this booty, but they do sport it best.

Booty - This is the booty that fits the majority of women. Ample, supple, but not disproportionate. Women packin' booty typically have hourglass figures, not pear shapes. When you see a woman and say "hey, she's gotta nice ass," it's generally a booty. Think: Katie Holmes.

Ghetto Booty - This is the section I know you've been waiting for. Now, this is my personal booty of preference. Plump, supple, firm, more than two decent handfuls. These booties are perfect for all sorts of activities ranging from long stays in bleachers at sporting events, to lengthy boat outings. Consider cutting a basketball in half and shovin' it down the back of some chicks jeans -- now, you got a ghetto booty. You've seen these women in all sorts of rap videos. Many latino women carry a ghetto booty, however, I don't want this to get confused with the next classification of booty...

Ghettoooww Booty - To pronounce, simply place the emphasis on the last syllable and drag it out a bit. This is a classification left solely to those women who think they sport a ghetto booty, but are actually way too phat in the ass.
These ghetto booties are too big to be pleasing to the eye. They are awkward, generally misshapen, and difficult to control which can often result in third party injury, typically, on the dance floor. But don't worry ladies, there is still hope for you. Simply invest in Jane Fonda's "Bun's of Steel" and work that ghettoooowwww booty down to a booty-luctable ghetto booty and you will be on your way to music video stardom.

Big Ol' Butt - Here is where we get to the classifications of booty that are simply much too much too large. Rosie O'Donnell has a big ol' butt. I mean, big, really big, but not the kind of big you want to reach out and grab. More like the kind of big that makes you want to dive out of the way. However, it does not make overt attacks on ones personal "bubble." Theirs' are more subtle.

DAMN! - Yes, that's right, the seventh and largest size booty is DAMN. When you see this booty, you will know it. You will look at it and say "DAMN!" These women have a hard time fitting on escalators. It seems almost as if these women walk with their asses. Their ass controls their every movement. Do not come within close proximity to these booties because they WILL knock you down and recent legislation has released them from liability.

Now you know, and knowing's half the booty.

Holla @cha Daego

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Women are so Stupid

Whereas I could follow this awesome title up with a whole hodgepodge of legitimate arguments including, but not limited to, the fact that women make important decisions based on the whims of their ever unstable emotions, the words "logic" and "reason" lie not within their vocabulary, and, as a whole, women score lower than men do on standardized IQ tests (making them, inherently, less intelligent than men), I will instead defer to a reason not so obvious to the general public.

In 1920, women had just won a major victory over chauvinistic men like myself when they finally received the right to vote. Kudos, seriously, they deserve it. I consider "inalienable rights" to encompass all genders, be it male, female, or transgender. However, they were not content to stop there. Once again they allowed emotion to sweep over them without reason.

In the wake of such a phenomenal victory over the forces of oppression and hard-ons everywhere, women were intent on riding this wave all the way in to shore. Upon arrival, however, they would be left stranded as a beached whale upon the surf--scared, confused, and lonely. What was the next step that women wanted to take? Where would their efforts be focused next? I tell you now, women wanted to work!

Now, don't get me wrong, if women want to work, I think they should work. Get out of that kitchen woman! Put down that feather duster! Take off that apron and get down in the dirt with those men that have held you down for so long! Show them you can do it too! Just don't come bitchin' back to me when you find out it's not all it's cracked up to be.

The problem here lies within the customary responsibilities' of men and women and their juxtaposition during the 20th century. For the last, oh, several millenia or so, it has been the man's role to be the primary bread winner in the household. To go out, find work, and perform well enough to keep his family properly nourished, housed, and, hopefully, comfortable. Conversely, it has traditionally been the women's role to stay home, have/raise children, make the abode a comfortable and welcome one for their hubby.

Now, whereas the recipe to raising children and keeping men happy isn't printed in a Betty Crocker cookbook, women had it easy. The stresses of grocery shopping, carpooling, cooking and cleaning maybe great, but I would argue that they are dwarved in comparison to that of having to go out and ensure that your spouse will have the neccesarry means (by means I really mean funds) to perform these duties.

When the leading cause of marital turmoil is finances, one cannot honestly say that the role of women in the early part of the century required the level of responsibility nor the level stress that the man's role played.

Now let's fast forward to the last 15 years. The role of "stay-at-home Dad" has been steadily on the rise. A trend I do not predict to last. Why have men been more and more willing to stay home and raise children, cook, clean etc? I find the answer here to be rather simple. If my leading lady wanted me to stay home and perform these tasks instead of having to go out and face the job market while perpetually being haunted by the fact that my failure as an employee would lead to my failure as a husband/father/man, I would eagerly jump at the oppurtunity. Oh, what a weight to have lifted from one's shoulders! Never again would I have to don the monkey-suit, sit in front of some dried up old prune lying about my overwhelming desire to sit locked away in a high rise cubicle! Never again would I have to wake up at 5 AM to trudge out to some snobbish neighborhood to build some doctor's home! No, not me, I raise children. I have no job. I! PAINT! SUNSETS!

'Twould be glorious...

However, some may argue--but Ryan, there are those who feel women should still perform these duties. And,in response, I say those men are rednecks. And rednecks are stupid,too.

So, women, here's to ya. Congratulations on gettin' out of the kitchen and showing us all that "YOU CAN DO IT!" But I bet if you had it all to to do over, you might just cash out while you were ahead. I sure as hell would've

--Holla @cha Daego

Monday, March 21, 2005

Pigeon-Holing America

Since I intend for this blog to facilitate some form of intelligent discussion, I think I should start out by explaining a bit of my ideology. The foremost question, I anticipate, would be: liberal or conservative? My answer: neither.

I considered following that with Webster's or's definition of the two terms, but you can do that for yourself. From those definitions I could easily determine which term more adequately describes my beliefs. However, I feel that using one of these two terms to describe someone (please pay careful attention here) hurts America. Yea, I said it, it hurts America.

Firstly, the definition for these two terms as layed out by America's leading definographers (sp?) is simple, comprehensible, and generally positive if one were to ascribe them to one's self. However, in our day and age when these two terms are thrown around like poo against a wall, there meanings become cloudy, and stinky. Society has moved to the point that wearing one of these titles will have you shunned by another wearing the opposite. You will be stigmatized (is that a word?) as either a bleeding heart liberal who has nothing better to do but smoke pot and hug trees, or a closed-minded conservative fearful of change and determined to kill as many innocent lives necessary to accomplish your goals.

There was once a time, many many moons ago, when being a conservative or a liberal meant something. Describing yourself as one or the other conveyed a clear and concise message as to, not only your political beliefs, but many of your social, economic, and, potentially, religious beliefs. At some point during the late-mid 1900's these definitions swapped, and since then, no one has been able to get a firm grasp on the exact meaning of either.

Secondly, what happens when we as individuals begin abusively throwing around these terms, we end up generalizing an entire group of people. We become bigoted. We have reached an era where it's unacceptable to be racist, or sexist, but it has become the norm to be an "ideologist," if you will.

Let's say Bob and Joe are friendly co-workers. One day, around the water cooler, Bob says to Joe, "Hey, Joe, can you believe that? Peggy in accounting is gonna have an abortion. Murdering wenchbag." In response, Joe says,"You conservatives are all the same, what if she was raped?" And Bob says, "You liberals just don't get it do you? Murder is murder." And both parties storm away in a huff. Now, both men have been labeled by the other and any conversation heretofore will result in one filtering the words of the other in light of their blatantly obvious political alignments.

However, before today, Bob and Joe have been very similar in many of their beliefs concerning social security, homosexual marriage, gun control, etc. Unfortunately, they have been irreconciably divided due to the fact that one is obviously a liberal and the other, obviously a conservative.

I'm not saying it's always this menial, nor am I saying this is always the case. But, more often than not, we, as a society, become divided over a solitary issue and your stance on it will immediately determine which end of the spectrum you sit.

Thirdly, we have gotten to a point where, as a whole nation, we have allowed the media to wash our ears with these terms without ever asking them to define either. For the last decade + we have heard on the television and read in the papers that this candidate is liberal, or this candidate is conservative, without ever knowing what their actual platforms are. We take this information and we make our decision about the people who will potentially govern our lives and our childrens' lives without ever fully knowing what they intend on doing once elected. Subconsciously we have made up our own definition, we have already predetermined that we don't like individuals of this ideology, or individuals for this issue or against that one. We fail to see the bigger picture, and instead, narrow our eyes down to one meaningless word and go from there.

I challenge you, go out and ask people (both people you consider liberal, and those you consider conservative) to define these terms. Ask them what they mean to them. Compare these answers. There is no uniformity. There is no clear understanding. There is no definition. The majority of the time there answer will be filled with animosity, ignorance, and cliches.

So I beg the question: who are you? Liberal? Conservative? Progressive? Communist? Or just another citizen with an eclectic set of values hoping to find the best of a bad bunch?

Stop pigeon-holing America...

Holla@ cha Daego

As if You Really Care

So, I finally broke down and did the "cool" thing -- got a blog site. I almost want to be ashamed of myself.

Let me begin by saying that I will not site references to anything I ever say, unless, of course, I do. In which case, I do not honestly expect anyone to check them.

Anything I say on this blog is simply my opinion, which is, to be brutally blunt, much better than yours. I welcome all readers to agree, but, preferably, to disagree because it's never any fun when we all just sit around in a circle jerk now is it?

On a final note: I reserve the ultimate right to not care one rat's turd about what you have to say but I whole-heartedly wish that you would say it anyway.

Holla@ cha Daego