what is "it?"

so, first, watch. second, daaaaaaaamn jay-z may have 99 problems but a bitch is NOT one. aaaaaaaaand i was about to finish this next sentence but the gay fish, kanye west, just barged in my room and demanded that i let you know that this music video is one of the best of all time........ ok, he just left, but only after i conceded that he was THE voice of this generation. but now to the matter more pertinent to my post. i refer you to the chorus of beyonce's song that is ironically sung more by middle aged housewives at scrapbooking fairs than any un-married ladies.

Cuz if you liked it then you should have put a ring on it /
If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it /
Don’t be mad once you see that he want it /
If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it

i have been doing mental gymnastics to figure out what in the world "it" is, because no matter which way you slice it, it's mildly if not downright offensive. here of some of my guesses:

1. it = ring finger
naturally, this is where my mind first went. but wait, you just like her ring finger? are we supposed to be gollum? is beyonce's ring the one ring to rule them all and she is just trying to trick us to put it on her finger? will i want to bite her finger off in a volcano?... seems ridiculous but i promise you i have thought of these possibilities. her sasha fierce glove is pretty entrancing and that ring she is shining, $5 million bones. "it" could, in fact, be her fourth phalange.

2. it = her (her being any single lady)
this choice seems the most logical. you would be putting the ring on her as a woman. so far, so good. but wait, beyonce refers to women in general as "its?" whoa whoa whoa, hold on a second, really? picture this, you are dating someone to the point that you are considering marriage (aka "putting a ring on it"). your friend, whom has never met your significant other, asks which girl is the one you are planning on proposing to. you then point to her and say "that's it over there." if she overhears this, there will at the very least be an embargo on imported/exported physicality if not an indefinite period of radio silence between the two of you. in short, there is no situation in which any woman would enjoy being referred to as an it. this falls into the downright offensive category.

3. it = vagina/sexual organs
before you call me perverse, listen, beyonce says if you liked "it." this is the only thing that i could come up with that a man would like on a woman that he would refer to as an "it." try and come up with something else! it's possible to put a ring on this "it" but i'm pretty sure that is not what beyonce meant but that hip shake at 0:53 in the video might suggest otherwise.

it is at this point that i am in a pickle and am beckoning for the help of those who read my idle ramblings. please help me elucidate the riddle of "it."

so, what is "it?"

the who? why?

so super bowl XLIV is over and has been over for a few weeks now. yet, i still believe a sittin-down-talkin-to is in order. hey, if mark schlereth and trey wingo can still be put on the hot/cold seat (depending on whoever is sponsoring it that week) about whether reggie wayne missed his route or if tracy porter jumped it, i can talk about the halftime show. the last halftime show anyone really remembers was "nipple-gate"(seen here -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39F_gVLh4fo, anyone brave enough to click on a link that brings you to a video with the description "nipplegate"?). in the spirit of nicknaming i have colloquially tagged this years' show as well:

geriatri-gate

as in, who the hell decided to put (half of) the who on the biggest stage in american tv history making hordes of toddlers ask their parents why grandpa is singing at the super bowl? there are an unbelievable amount of things obtusely wrong with choosing (half of) the who as the super bowl halftime act and in the spirit of my science background, and because of the sheer quantity of wrongness, the data will be presented in list form:

1. AMERICA!...........?


the who are from london, england. london, ENGLAND. on the whole, maybe some don't like to admit it, the super bowl is THE american cultural tradition. everyone is at least aware of it's existence in the upcoming sunday. approximately 1/3 of the country saw at least a part of the super bowl. whether you get off the football bandwagon by saying "i only watch it for the commercials" or your sipping a few brews out of your beer helment, you are still taking part in americana and (half of) the who are not in the american canon of tradition. same thing goes for the rolling stones in super bowl XL. honestly, it pains me to say it but i would rather see toby keith on the super bowl stage than (half of) the who. at least he would put a boot in someone's ass.

2. cbs subliminal advertising

i work with two women who are not fans of the who. when i came into work on monday, puzzlingly, one of my co-workers mentioned that (half of) the who played all her favorites... csi: miami, csi: las vegas, and csi: new york. i felt slighted. it was horribly done subliminal messaging. it made yvan eht nioj (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMZcz7cvLe8) look convincing. cbs has cheapened three stadium speaker blasting anthems to ditties akin to the brady bunch theme. no cbs, i will not drink the kool-aid that is csi even with your silly cross-marketing campaign. rumor has it that that kool-aid will convince you an entomologist is the most intuitive person on the planet... stay away.

3. stage distraction

everyone i have brought this subject up to usually says something along the lines of "yeah they were bad, but the stage was cool!" UNACCEPTABLE! just another distraction. you know when you ask your friend if a girl is cute and he/she says "yeah, she's nice" you immediately know she is not good looking and borderline crazy because all they could come up with to describe this person is that they are "nice." similarly, the who's stage was their "niceness" but their performance was still as bad as a night with lorena bobbit...... go ahead, look her up.

4. fossils are not dinosaurs

it's a largely accepted pretense that the who's "the kids are alright" film is the best chronicling of the who's best performances. every member is there. daltrey, townshend, entwistle, and moon. both the powerslide and windmill arm-swing were brought to the masses by this movie. it is epic and bombastic... the way the who should be remembered.

instead we get cbs trying to convince us that the two geriatrics on the stage have that same fire. "see, it's the who you love... just 35 years later." roger daltrey's voice sounded like Jack Klompus from Seinfeld ("of course I've driven a cadillac"). they looked so old i was honestly concerned that pete townshend's arm was going to tangentially fly off and knock daltrey unconscious. in fact, that would have been a waaaay better halftime show.

in conclusion, here are some important questions to consider instead of dwelling on the horrible performance. do you think that they got AARP benefits for performing? is it offensive or politically incorrect that two OLD people were performing in Florida? did they go to old country buffet after? is cbs just trying to cement their status as THE senior channel? did the ambulance at the stadium for football accidents have a stretcher ready for (half of) the who?

hopefully cbs learned it's lesson this time but my bet is that we will get fooled again with another shell of a once great musicians. who knows, maybe elvis, buddy holly or benny goodman might be up for the gig.