Is "disgraced pastor" Ted Haggard getting more sex than you are?  It's come to light that he was getting way more than anyone would've thought.  In fact the vestry of New Life Church under Haggard sounds like a slightly seedier version of the Back Room at Ramrod on Rubber/Vinyl/Latex/Plastic Night. 

According to the AP...

the church "received reports of a number of incidents of inappropriate behavior" after Haggard's fall. ...[The church] said the "inappropriate behavior" referred to the man who was the volunteer involved with Haggard. After Haggard's fall, another church staff member resigned after admitting to what was described as "sexual misconduct."

This, in addition to the prostitute and a young member of the church who has come forward with lurid details of what the church characterized as an "inappropriate, consensual sexual relationship" that "went on for a long period of time."  But The Hag (as he's known in drag circles) says he's not gay.  In fact, the AP reports "Haggard described his sexuality as complex and something that can't be put into 'stereotypical boxes'."

Great pick-up line, Ted.  What's the follow-up? — "But spot me some crank and you can tie me up and put me in one!"

Like I've said before, when Senator Larry Craig vehemently denied being gay as if it were the worst thing in the world: you're right, Haggard.  You're not gay.  You're just a garden-variety crank-smoking, cock-sucking punk bitch. 

Haggard's in the news again because of the premiere of an HBO documentary about his "time in exile."  I'm not sure if that 'd be his time in the church or out of it, but it's sure to be entertaining either way.  He's lined up appearances on Larry King and Oprah, of course.  Pray God there's no sex tape.

Just as the world can do without the Ted Haggard Sex Tapes I think it's fair to say we can do without flying cars, another just-because-you-can-doesn't-mean-you-should technology from some of those whiz kids at MIT, who announced this week that they'd start delivering the hybrids next year. 

According to Discover.com, not only has new technology made flying cars "practical and affordable" (at around two hundred grand a pop), but "an easing of government regulations on private aircraft and pilot licensing" has paved the way for people who should probably not even be on the roads to take to the skies above them. 

Sometimes — especially in these trying, belt-tightening times — we really do need to ask, "can I do without it?"  Not surprisingly, most of the time the answer is "yes." 

Making do is the order of the day.  But even that can be taken to extremes.  A friend of mine sent me a link to a book he thought might come in handy, so to speak, now that making your own meals on the cheap with home-grown ingredients is the in thing again...

Brings to mind a little nightmare promotional synergy scenario:  Ted Haggard's Natural Harvest — weeknights on the Food Network.  Haggard's Deluxe Two-Slut High-Protein Non-Fat Felch Frappe anyone?

We could do with more of this guy, that's for sure.  In my experience dealing with public displays of aggression, it does not surprise me that nobody on the orange line train did anything the other day when some punk punched a passenger in the face and took off with his ipod — nobody, that is, but a LEGALLY BLIND, HEARING IMPAIRED 53 YEAR OLD, who realized something was up when he "noticed a rush of passengers" — away from the scene of violence, of course — and went after the perp himself.

Just so you know, this is what you have to look forward to if someone on a crowded subway train decides to do violence to you:  Your fellow passengers will leap up, not to your aid, but to flee to the far end of the car, leaving you isolated and alone with your attacker, who will then proceed to hit, stab, shoot, and/or rob you, and depart the car unobstructed. 

Unless, that is, a Frank Sullivan happens to be riding in your car, which probably he won't be, given that there's only one of him and he can't be everywhere at once.  If he hadn't been on that orange line train the other day we never would've heard about the assault and theft of the ipod, because there would 've been nothing unusual about someone doing something like that and nobody doing anything to stop him. 

I was actually pretty surprised to see that in the comments on the story at boston.com there were none chastising Sullivan for "using excessive force" on the punk.  If it had been a red line train on the other side of the Charles, I'm sure the reaction would have been shock at using physical restraint on a violent perpetrator. 

Couldn't someone simply have asked the fellow he was punching to stop making him punch him by donating his ipod to him?  But if you're going to humiliate him by making him beat you up for it instead of handing it over civilly, why make it worse by then chasing after him, jumping him, and snatching it back?  Who's mugging whom now?  

Cambridgeside, Sullivan's heroics would have sparked a lively debate about what charges should be filed against him.  Against Sullivan, I mean.  Although I might be wrong in this case.  I think there's an exception clause in the Liberal Guilt Charter for ipods and other Apple products.  Take my wallet, take my watch, take my wife — but mess with my iphone, I'ma cutchu.

I just bought a little pay-as-you-go cell phone for a trip abroad I'm about to take.  It's one of those old-school candy bar cell phones.  It looks totally retro, even though it's really only been four or five years since they were the latest in gotta-have-it gadgetry.  It got me to thinking if I'd ever actually upgrade to an iphone.  I'm supposed to be ashamed of my antiquated flip-phone, which looks like a discarded Star Trek prop.  I'll probably upgrade just as soon as iphones are obsolete.

It's actually very liberating to know that you have nothing on you you deserve to be punched in the face by someone less fortunate than you for.  Of course a pretty face can be provocation enough. 

Which leads us back to our original question: can I do without it—or in this case, them?  Eyebrows, that is.  Recent research on face recognition suggests that "eyebrows may be as important as eyes when it comes to recognition."

 "Put on glasses with thick lenses or strange frames, and people will still recognize you," said MIT's Pawan Sinha, whose lab explores how the mind recognizes objects and scenes. "But shaving eyebrows is acutely disruptive to recognition."

Eyes are nice, but they're like diamonds in the rough.  It's the lashes and brows that provide a setting for them.  I have to admit that I find a nice set of eyebrows an enormous turn-on.  It's one of the sexiest things on a man.  And if you doubt the power of a sumptuous set of brows, have a look at someone who owes his fame and fortune to his without 'em on...


Freak. 

Of course there are other things about Colin Farrell — not least the near-perfect symmetry of his features  — that make him easy enough on the eyes, but without those eyebrows of his...


I mean, please.  He wouldn't even have to show up on the first date.  Just send the eyebrows.  I mean, look at those fuckers.  They could totally double as a stache, too...


I could go on (merkin anyone?), but I've got a pie in the oven it's taken me the last five weeks to whip up the meringue for, and my ex will be here any minute for dinner.  Godda run!