Tuesday, September 30, 2008

New Dr BJ video is up at Funny or Die

Here it is:

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

It's as good as the best episodes of "House".

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Phlip K. Dick on John McCain

In Philip K. Dick's classic novel The Man Who Japed, purity and morality are emphasized through "Morec" ("Moral Reclamation, which actually sounds suspiciously like this "national service" nonsense), in which citizens are policed by themselves, and have to stand at weekly neighborhood meetings and defend themselves against accusations of impurity.

Allen Purcell is the main character in the book- an advertiser and propagandist who's just been offered the job of director of Telemedia ("T-M"), which is the national propaganda/entertainment bureaucracy. Except, he's suffering from a split personality, John Coates, who is a practical joker who has sawed the head off a statue of the beloved hero Major Streiter, apparently in an attempt to foment discord among the Morec-benumbed populace.

From there the book gets weird.

Anyway, at one point Mr. Purcell finds himself accused of drinking wine, and at the neighborhood meeting, someone comes to his defense, and offers up words that could easily have been used by John McCain to describe himself:

"This a mockery is. Mr. Purcell is one of our most distinguished members... Are we supposed to believe that a man involved in the maintenance of society's ethical standards is, himself, morally defective? What does this say about our society in general? This a paradox is. It is just such high-minded men, devoted to public service, who set by their own examples our standards of conduct...

"Some of us seem to imagine the more respectable a person is the more reason to attack him. When we attack Mr. Purcell we attack our better selves. And there's no percentage in that.

"These meetings... operate on the idea that a man is morally responsible to his community. That's a good idea. But his community is also morally responsible to him... It should realize that having a citizen like Mr. Purcell up there is a privilege."

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

An Open Letter To The Jerk Who Used My Credit Card To Buy Gas In Florida

Dear Jerk,

You are a total jerk. Stop using my credit card to buy gas in Florida. Only a jerk would do that. It is my credit card, and my money, so stop using it.

Listen, I know these are tough economic times. I know that Florida is a depressing state to live in. That's two strikes against you, you jerk, and I don't even know who you are. You might also have bad breath or be physically unattractive besides (and I bet you do suffer from those things, you jerk). But guess what? Having a bunch of strikes against you does not give you the right to act like a jerk.

Now that all that's out of the way, I'd like to ask you how you did it. I mean, my card never left my wallet, and I am definitely not in Florida, so how did you get gas with it? That shows a lot of ingenuity, especially considering how big a jerk you are.

Why not use some of this ingenuity to get a productive job, maybe something in government, or at an investment bank? Those are the jobs for jerks like you, you jerk!

Psych! You're a big jerk, and I don't think you should get any job, except being a jerk, which is what you're already an expert at.

So the next time you're thinking of being a jerk, why not stop a few seconds and consider not being a jerk? I realize this might be difficult for you, but the rest of us, the people who are not jerks, will thank you for it.



PS: I hope the gas you bought with my card was the wrong grade for your vehicle, and you get engine knock, you jerk.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate Joe Biden Defines Patriotism

And it's certainly not the same definition that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al had.

Joe Biden is a jackass.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Poodle Bitch Does Not Suffer From Palin Rage

Poodle Bitch is worried for the women who are suffering from Palin Rage. Are their lives so devoid of personal meaning and accomplishment that they are driven to near-insanity by the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as the Republican candidate for vice president of the United States?

They complain that she’s unqualified. But why? Very few people are leveling the same accusation against Barack Obama’s choice for vice president, Joe Biden. Poodle Bitch would like to point out that Biden is a psychopathic scumbag whose achievements as a senator have almost all been detrimental to the country. She would also like to point out that if senator Biden had his way, his running mate would have been thrown in prison for a very long time, and have lost his right to vote, if he’d been caught doing the drugs he’s admitted to “experimenting” with.

(In fairness to Senator Biden, Poodle Bitch would like to commend him for this.)

Poodle Bitch also wonders why they think Barack Obama is so much more qualified than Sarah Palin? She’s in her mid-40’s, was elected to her first major national office a little over a year and a half ago, and is a member of a church whose membership have certain controversial views. You can see the point that Poodle Bitch is making- Palin's experience is comparable to Obama's.

Poodle Bitch thinks Barack Obama is qualified to be president. She feels the same way about Sarah Palin.

Poodle Bitch doesn’t agree with everything Sarah Palin believes. She could spend hours writing about all the things she dislikes about Palin’s politics (although she very much likes this), and if she were a human aged 18 on election day, she would not under any circumstances vote for John McCain. But she doesn’t think that Palin's emergence as a national figure is in any way a threat to feminism. If she really were, that would mean that feminism was very weak indeed.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Get Out the Fetish/Bondage Vote

There is a group calling itself "Declare Yourself"-- apparently some kind of GOTF/BV ("Get Out the Fetish/Bondage Vote") initiative-- which has hired Jessica Alba, Christina Aguilera, et al to appear in a series of erotically-charged photo advertisements encouraging people to sew their mouths shut. Or something.

These edgy ads are intended to remind the youngsters about how important it is to cast their votes for politicians. That's pretty damned edgy. "You should vote." Way to court controversy. As Alba herself says:

She believes the trussed-up image will help drive the point home, reasoning, "People respond to things that are shocking."

I myself respond to things that are shocking. For instance, I'm shocked- shocked!- that Jessica Alba has an opinion about voting. And that she thinks we should do it! That's just- well, it's edgy.

"I think it is important for young people to be aware of the need we have in this country to get them more active politically," says Jessica (via People), who recently hit the Democratic National Convention in Denver. "If you don't register and vote and make a difference, and hopefully change the bad things that are happening in our country, you are essentially just binding and muzzling yourself."

Oh, so the ads are actually, like metaphorical bondage. So it's not a GOTF/BV drive at all? It's just some hot woman all taped up in a way that represents bondage. The bad kind of bondage, that occurs when you don't vote.

"Only you can silence yourself," the ad copy reads. But if that's the message, then why is Alba all taped up like that? Clearly, someone else put those bonds around her. She couldn't have done that to herself. And what is with the tears? Perhaps she's crying because she's afraid she'll lose out on acting gigs when people in Hollywood see this edgy statement she's making.

As much fun as Alba's ad was, it wasn't the most "shocking". That honor belongs to this picture right here:

Because this actually happened to me once, sort of. I was out fishing, and I went to "cast my line," and the line got tangled up and I hooked my cheek. I couldn't sit down for a week!


Sunday, September 14, 2008

Re: Is Porn Adultery?

I was on memeorandum, checking out the new political news, and stumbled on a link to this latest attempt to get John McCain elected president. The Atlantic hired some Democrat to take pics of McCain for their cover, and she apparently pulled one over on the old man and tricked him into posing for some “sinister” pictures. Fine. The Atlantic chose a rather unflattering photo of J McC for its cover- but look at what’s in the upper left hand corner: “Is Porn Adultery?”

There is an article in this magazine with that question as the title. My first thought was a one-word answer: No. My second thought was a slightly longer answer: No, of course not, and what kind of stupid ass question is that? But then I thought, maybe the question applies not to the viewers of porn, but the makers of porn. Maybe this would be an in-depth study of the spouses of people who make pornographic films. That’s actually not an asinine question at all. Assuming there are any spouses of porn stars who aren’t porn stars themselves, do they consider the performance of their jobs- having sex on film- to be cheating? So I found and read the article online.

Turns out, it was premised on the asinine question.

The author, Ross Douthat, seems to believe that looking at pornography is actually a form of adultery, but the essay’s equivocal language sometimes makes it difficult to tell. Why is it that anyone would think that watching two people have sex was the same as engaging in an act of sex yourself? Turns out, what really worries Douthat, as worries so many moral scolds, is new technology and innovation:

”Over the past three decades, the VCR, on-demand cable service, and the Internet have completely overhauled the ways in which people interact with porn. Innovation has piled on innovation, making modern pornography a more immediate, visceral, and personalized experience. Nothing in the long history of erotica compares with the way millions of Americans experience porn today, and our moral intuitions are struggling to catch up.”

Later in the essay, we find that Douthat has a problem with the convenience as well:

“The suburbanite with the hard-core porn hookup is masturbating to real sex, albeit at a DSL-enabled remove. He’s experiencing it in an intimate setting, rather than in a grind house alongside other huddled masturbators in raincoats, and in a form that’s customized to his tastes in a way that mass-market porn like Deep Throat and Debbie Does Dallas never was.”

"Hard-core porn hookup"? Really? Seriously, though, isn’t it reasonable to draw a distinction between the fantasy- thinking about having sex with someone else while watching a video of them having sex- and the reality of actually performing that act with the person or people that you’re watching? I wonder if Douthat thinks that’s a reasonable distinction to draw?

“This seems like a potentially reasonable distinction to draw. But the fantasy-versus-reality, pixels-versus-flesh binary feels more appropriate to the pre-Internet landscape than to one where people spend hours every day in entirely virtual worlds, whether they’re accumulating friends on Facebook, acting out Tolkienesque fantasies in World of Warcraft, or flirting with a sexy avatar in Second Life. And it feels much more appropriate to the tamer sorts of pornography, from the increasingly archaic (dirty playing cards and pinups, smutty books and the Penthouse letters section) to the of-the-moment (the topless photos and sex-scene stills in the more restrained precincts of the online pornosphere), than it does to the harder-core material at the heart of the porn economy.”

You see, each human has “moral intuition,” and that is being threatened, by the internet. The new technology gives viewers a more pleasurable experience, tailored to the tastes of the individual consumer. If you want to see bukkake, you can skip ahead, and you don’t have to sit through fisting to get to it. And these kids today, with their Facebooks and Second Life, have a new way of looking at things that’s so much scarier than what we had when we were kids. (This is just as stupid as those myths about the marijuana these kids smoke today being more potent. Or the video games being worse. Or the violence on TV.) In the meantime, your moral intuition becomes fat and lazy because you’re no longer taking it out for a brisk walk to the grindhouse.

That’s all stupid enough. But what do you call someone who can’t distinguish between reality and fantasy? Who thinks that thinking about something and actually doing it are the same thing? Psychotic? No, you call that person Jesus Christ. As Douthat himself points out:

“The most stringent take on this matter comes, of course, from Jesus of Nazareth: I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

This is the most telling passage, and it should have ended the essay. I’d have a lot more respect for Douthat if he’d stopped here and said something like, “For myself, I do believe that Jesus was right. He’s the lord and savior, after all, and knew what he was talking about.” But Douthat doesn’t stop, he keeps right on going:

“But even among Christians, this teaching tends to be grouped with the Gospel injunctions about turning the other cheek and giving would-be robbers your possessions as a guideline for saintliness, useful to Francis of Assisi and the Desert Fathers but less helpful to ordinary sinners trying to figure out what counts as a breach of marital trust.”

Douthat is saying that Christians are a bunch of hypocrites who only pay attention to those of Jesus’ teachings that they like, or are convenient for them. But in his sermon on the mount (from which the JC quote is pulled) JC doesn’t say, “By the way, all this stuff I’m telling you only applies to you if you’re like really, really good. I’m talking saintly. The rest of you, the average sheep, can just do whatever the hell you want.”

JC’s line about looking on a woman with lust meaning that you’ve committed adultery in your heart is the key line in the Bible. Because it’s not enough to control peoples’ behavior. It’s about controlling their minds. What JC was referring back to was the 10 Commandments. Those things are booby trapped, as Kurt Vonnegut once wrote, and you need only look at them to see what he means: The first three are dictatorial, as god declares that he’s all powerful, you can’t worship anything else, and you can’t take his name “in vain.” Then he tells you that you can’t work on Sundays. Then to honor your parents. Then thou shalt not kill (or murder, depending on the translation- do you see the problem with this?) Don’t commit adultery. Don’t steal. Don’t bear false witness. Don’t covet thy neighbor’s house or wife or etc. The problems with these commandments have been covered pretty thoroughly elsewhere, and the hypocrisy of a god who does the very things that he tells people not to do has also been covered. But I would like to point out that in the Old Testament, the commandment is Thou shalt not commit adultery. It’s not Thou shalt not THINK about committing adultery.


Because everyone in the world, male or female, has adulterous thoughts. It doesn’t matter how long you’ve been in a committed relationship and how long you’ve been monogamous, you are still a HUMAN BEING, and still subject to the stray thoughts that were put in your head by nature (or, if you prefer, “god” [i.e., “Be fruitful and multiply”]), and you’re therefore going to have occasional stray thoughts about boning whenever you see a particularly beguiling checkout girl at the supermarket, or television sports announcer, or as Douthat suggests, “the photo of Gisele Bündchen, bare-assed and beguiling on the cover of GQ.” Everyone has those thoughts, but not everyone acts on them. JC saw this, and said, “Well, I have a way to make those people who don’t commit adultery still feel bad about themselves, and still see themselves as a moral failure. I’m going to tell them that just thinking about sinning is a sin itself.”

And we’re still dealing with the fallout from that. It’s why Douthat even thinks to ask the question. Too many of us have had our “moral intuition” corrupted by religion, and the guilt it tries to instill, in order to control its followers. That is the real problem here.

But Douthat thinks he’s come up with a compelling way to pull this argument out of the religious realm. He’s got this… continuum:

“if you approach infidelity as a continuum of betrayal rather than an either/or proposition, then the Internet era has ratcheted the experience of pornography much closer to adultery than I suspect most porn users would like to admit.”

How can an “era” “ratchet” an “experience”? He’s still on this anti-technology kick, I suppose, but the language is so bizarre that at times it’s hard to tell exactly what he’s arguing. He’s trying to tiptoe around the religion/guilt angle by creating a technology/guilt angle. But the technology has no bearing here, not in any moral sense. It’s not closer to adultery than I suspect most porn users would like to admit. It’s nowhere near adultery, and it doesn’t matter how convenient the technology is. He uses the Eliot Spitzer case for his example:

“Start with the near-universal assumption that what Spitzer did in his hotel room constituted adultery, and then ponder whether Silda Spitzer would have had cause to feel betrayed if the FBI probe had revealed that her husband had paid merely to watch a prostitute perform sexual acts while he folded himself into a hotel armchair to masturbate. My suspicion is that an awful lot of people would say yes not because there isn’t some distinction between the two acts, but because the distinction isn’t morally significant enough to prevent both from belonging to the zone, broadly defined, of cheating on your wife."

One of the sweetest aspects of the Spitzer case was that it exposed a moral scold who used his position as Attorney General of New York to go after prostitutes and johns as someone who was a john himself. He was a giant, raging hypocrite. My suspicion is that people probably wouldn’t have cared nearly as much otherwise- he probably could even have stayed on as governor.

But I haven’t answered Douthat’s stupid thought experiment. That’s because, “broadly defined,” betraying your wife means being dishonest and unfaithful to her. By that I mean that if a man and woman are together, and the man sleeps with another woman without telling his wife, then he’s betraying, or cheating on her. If however the man tells his wife, and she doesn’t mind, then it’s not a betrayal. We don’t know exactly what kind of relationship Spitzer and his wife had, or have. Is it polyamorous? (There’s some evidence that his wife knew that he went to prostitutes and didn’t care or looked the other way.) I don’t mean to be crass, but maybe Spitzer enjoyed a certain sexual position that his wife wasn’t limber enough to perform? Anyway, it’s none of my damned business what they do, and neither is it any of Douthat’s business. The fact that Douthat seems to think that it is his business says a lot about him. Their relationship is their own, and they make their own rules. Every couple does, and Douthat himself comes close to agreeing with me on that point when he says,

“it’s about what sort of people we aspire to be: how we define our ideals, how we draw the lines in our relationships, and how we feel about ourselves if we cross them.”

Personally, I aspire to be the type of person who doesn’t judge other people because they make choices in their lives that I would not have made myself. I aspire to not judge people who are engaged in consensual acts that don’t affect anyone else. I aspire to not be afraid of new technology. And I aspire to not feel guilty about- or try to make others feel guilty about- engaging in any activity that they enjoy.

Bonus video: George Carlin kicks the crap out of the Ten Commandments:

The Greatest Superhero Adventure of All Time!

I am currently hard at work (hardly working) on my latest, and greatest, short animated film, "THE EXAGGERATOR". It is the greatest short film ever made. It is the greatest web series ever made. It is the greatest work of art in the history of art, including tapestries and cave drawings. There is nothing better in the entire genre of superheroing. The EXaggerator is the greatest superhero. He is the greatest hero. His film is the greatest film.

It is so great there is another character in it that you will enjoy, his name is Speedy Comer, and he comes speedily:

First episode appearing soon.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Hairy Itch Is the Affliction of Those Areas With Hair! Here Is How You Can Help!

Hairy Itch Overview
“Hairy Itch,” also known by it scientific name of hirsutis horribilis, is an affliction of persons. When itches afflict the hairiest parts of the skin, this is called “Hairy Itch.” Such areas include:

scalp (most common)
chin (less so)
chest (becoming less so)
back (gross)
(gender specific)
vagina (gender specific)
perineum (unintentional)
legs (weekdays)
feet- tops of feet (gender specific)
feet- soles of feet (gender specific)

Causes of Hairy Itch
Some of the known causes of Hairy Itch include skin irritation and injury, although more serious causes can also occur. Sometimes Hairy Itch can be caused by the feeling of déjà vu, or of being watched by supernatural forces.

Treatment of Hairy Itch
Rubbing upon the afflicted area a soothing poultice is typically all that is required. Ingredients for the poultice include ground up rocks from the Dalai Lama’s driveway, and the urine of an uncooked animal.

Some Famous People With Hairy Itch
Some famous people have had hairy itch, the itching of those areas that are hairy. The famous people were able to lead normal, some might even say extraordinary lives, in spite of their affliction, and they include:

Stopping Hairy Itch Today!
Please contact me for more information on what you can do to use my Hairy Itch stopping formula. Have a major credit card ready when you do so (I accept PayPal).

About the Author
Although not a licensed clinician, Ricky Sprague does have several cats, all of whose glands he regularly expresses. He also has a lot of life experience, and discovered the existence of Hairy Itch one day when he was scratching his head for seemingly no reason. He lives in Upper New Appaloosa with his twelve cats.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Arsole Fantüm, Gentleman Immoralist

I’ve gotten more than a few requests for more information about the obscure writer Joel S Muttoe. There’s really not so much more that I can tell about him that I haven’t already mentioned in previous posts. However, I would like to comment a little on his work as a translator, which took up the bulk of the last four years of his life.

In France, the idea of the gentleman crook captured the hearts and minds of both authors and public alike. Characters like Maurice Leblanc’s Arsene Lupin and Pierre Souvestre’s and Marcel Allain’s Fantomas were arguably the most famous. There was, however, another such character, Arsole Fantüm, Gentleman Immoralist, who created a messy trail of anarchy wherever he went.

The character was the creation of the French writers Marcel Maurice and Pierre Pierre, and he appeared in over 275 novels that the prolific pair of authors produced from 1906-1909. Though described as a “Gentleman Immoralist,” it was difficult to tell just what was so “gentlemanly” about the immoralist, other than the fact that he often wore a top hat and tails during the commission of his unspeakable crimes. Indeed, in the first chapter of the first novel, simply titled, Arsole Fantüm, Gentleman Immoralist, the title character “enemates,” (that is to say, commits murder by enema) three very unlucky characters. And from there, it only gets more bizarre and questionable.

Muttoe, who had fallen on hard times when the first novels started appearing in France, was contracted to translate the first novel into English, owing to the fact that it had an enema theme, and as I’ve already stated, Joel S Muttoe was one of the prime explorers of the art of the erotic enema. Obviously, there’s nothing erotic about the deadly enemas that Arsole Fantüm, Gentleman Immoralist inflicts, but Muttoe was also concerned with other types of enemas.

He turned out to be the perfect choice as translator, since the English versions of the novels sold over 10 million copies in America during the period from 1907-1909. Since that time, all the books have fallen out of print and remain largely forgotten (for instance, I could find no mention of him on wikipedia), although you can occasionally find old copies of the books on eBay and alibris.

My collection is extensive, and one of my proudest possessions. I’m happy to scan the first chapter of the first book here, for posterity/academic/historical purposes. Please enjoy- but be sure to read with the lights on! Arsole Fantüm, Gentleman Immoralist is one of the most terrifying creations in all of literature!

Friday, September 5, 2008

If McCain Were Going to Die, Don't You Think He Would Have Done It By Now?

Not that anyone needs any more reassurance, but just in case, I have it on excellent authority that the McCain campaign is going to counter stupid questions about his mortality- and the fears that an aged McCain might leave an inexperienced Sarah Palin in charge of the presidency- with a new campaign theme, the first poster for which I've been given exclusive access. It is reprinted above. It's basically a big eff you to anyone who thinks John McCain has any chance of dying- if he wanted to do that, he'd have done it by now, you pussies.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Could You Be A Bit More Vague, YouTube?

So YouTube still hasn't gotten back to me about exactly why it was that my masterpiece, "Ricky's Cat," was taken down. The message above is the closest they've come to telling me anything. You see, the content was inappropriate. But what about the content was inappropriate? Was it that you could actually see the act depicted? Suppose I had, as Jeff has suggested, shown the cat slipping under the covers? Would that have been okay?

Why is YouTube so afraid of me? Why are they trying to silence my powerful message? And why won't they tell me why?

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Creepy Classic Album Title of the Day

Al Green is certainly one of the most talented singers of all time, and he probably has only the best of intentions, but I damn well don't want him exploring my mind.

My mind is my own, and he'd better stay out of it.

Seriously, stay the hell out of my mind.

I mean it. Out.

Of my mind.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Why I Love the TV Show Cheaters

Cheaters” is one of the greatest shows on television. In it, average people, usually from the Dallas/Ft Worth area hire the Cheaters Detective Agency to gather data on the spouse, boy-, or girlfriend they suspect of cheating on them. Once the evidence is gathered, the complainant is given the chance to confront the cheaters.

Each episode follows basically the same pattern. During a brief interview, the complainant lays out his or her suspicions, with varying degrees of pathos. The person usually already knows the truth, but can’t bring himself to fully face that truth.

Then we get to see the surveillance footage shot by the Cheaters detectives, who have spent sometimes weeks following the cheater around. The footage is often fairly graphic and leaves absolutely no doubt of what the complainant has long suspected. It’s accompanied by an extremely over-ripe voice over that offers snarky comments on the cheater’s activities (“Suspect leans in for a little more sugar from the companion before going home for the night”). The narrator is a man named Robert Magruder, and I don’t know anything about him, but if he doesn’t make $1 million per episode, he is underpaid.

At this point the complainant is briefed by the host of the show. S/he is shown the footage, which often causes deep distress (as you might expect). To soften the blow, the host, Joey Greco, offers his own commentary and narration which is somewhere between the condescending oiliness of a television host and the condescending empathy of a therapist. He’s got a tough job, playing to both the complainant, whose heart is actually breaking right there before him, and the home audience, who needs to be entertained. He does a fantastic job, in my opinion, and is also worth the $1 million per episode that he should be making.

Now that the complainant is sufficiently riled up, the producers set up a confrontation. Apparently, they follow the cheater and his “companion” to some public place, and descend with cameras, boom mics, and bodyguards to capture the violence and reproaches that follow. The reactions of the cheaters and complainants are always heated, at least at first, but it’s most telling to see how everyone’s behaving after a few minutes. Still fighting? Has the cheater run off? Did the cheater apologize and drive home with the complainant? Did the cheater tell the complainant that s/he has no claim on him/her and drove off with the companion?

Following the confrontation, Robert Magruder comes back to summarize the attitudes of the complainants, cheaters, and companions. All too often the complainants and cheaters get back together, but at least the complainants can no longer claim ignorance.

Why do I love this show so much? First of all, it’s entertaining. It’s just a lot of fun to watch, and why else would you watch anything on television? Second, it’s healthy. Being cheated on is a painful experience, believe me I know. If you feel you have a lot invested in a relationship, you have a compelling interest in not learning or at least accepting the truth. The people on the show are almost always suffering from some form of denial, which is easily diagnosed by anyone with no training whatsoever if you just watch the interviews at the beginning of each episode. The Cheaters Detective Agency provides a service in that they actually discover the truth about the infidelity. But they don’t just give the complainants the information and send them on their way. They actually say, Come with us and we’ll confront the bastard right now, with the companion. Suddenly everything gets flipped, and it’s the person who’s being cheated on who has the power in the situation. They get the satisfaction of being given a relatively safe environment, complete with bodyguards, in which to confront the cheater, who has been caught in the act. There’s no room for denial, from anyone involved (although, absurdly, the cheaters do occasionally deny everything, with statements like, “I was just sitting here and she come and sit down beside me,” to “that ain’t me on the tape”). The complainant also has an advocate in the host of the show, who offers exasperated commentary and questioning of the cheater.

The confrontations are the best part of the show, of course, with the most unpredictability and surprise. For instance, the Cheaters team is often recognized during the confrontation, which leads to commentary from onlookers. Most seem to approve of Cheaters, and of catching the cheater in the act. Sometimes the complainant will get romantic offers from strangers seeking to ease his/her pain. Sometimes the cheater gets the sympathy. People are capable of both cruelty and kindness.

And ultimately that’s what I learn from Cheaters, with each episode. My TiVo never has fewer than two or three episodes waiting to be watched. It’s a good time.

Joey Greco, the host of the show, has been yelled at, shoved, punched, kicked and, sadly, stabbed by disgruntled cheaters, as the above clip shows.

He also got hit by a paintball gun.

One of the stranger confrontations. In order to protect his anonymity, the cheater keeps the mask on throughout.

Joey Greco confronts a man caught with his stepson's girlfriend. The stepfather has little to say in his own defense. However, on the actual episode he mentions that men are biologically predisposed to spread their seed. Now, he's got scientific evidence to back it up.

Long after the fact, participants in Cheaters episodes come back to offer insights into their stories, and anything they might have learned from the experience. (Best line: "If you cheat again I ain't gonna call Cheaters no more, I'm gonna kill you.")

Cheaters further provides a service to its fans by offering a dating website for those who are tired of being cheated on.