By Lindsay Toler
By Chad Garrison
By Brett Koshkin
By RFT Staff
By Lindsay Toler
By Riverfront Times
By Danny Wicentowski
By Pete Kotz
On Monday, the Vatican will begin examining all U.S. seminaries for evidence of homosexuality.... St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke and Belleville Bishop Edward Braxton will be among the 117 visitors asking questions of each seminary's faculty, students and alumni.
-- The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 25, 2005
In a midnight meeting at his Central West End home last night, St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke made public for the first time the full list of questions asked of seminarians. The multiple-choice questions, administered orally the previous evening by Burke upon Aquinas seminary's faculty, students and alumni, included the following:
1. How often do you receive the host?
A) Every Sunday.
C) Only after three Kahlúa-and-Creams.
2. Are you fit to wear the priestly robe?
A) Yes. I have received His word and I am prepared to serve the Christian community.
B) Ask me after a few more rolls on the fitness ball.
C) Black is back, girlfren!
A) An Oscar front-runner.
B) If Jakey G was a Nutter Butter I would scarf him right up.
C) You mean Bareback Mountain? Fandango me, ASAP!
4. How would you describe your priestly formation?
A) Thorough and divine.
B) Someone told me it's quite well formed, although he may have been trying to flatter me.
C) Looking back, becoming a eunuch wasn't the brightest idea.
"Emory Owns U.
George Washington is Dead!"
So read a piece of graffiti recently scrawled on Washington University's Forsyth Boulevard underpass. "Wash U Girls Are Ugly!" read another. A group of Emory University students claimed credit for the vandalism, saying they hoped to instigate a rivalry between the two University Athletic Association conference mates.
But thems weren't fighting words for many on the hilltop campus, as evidenced by an editorial in the WU campus rag Student Life: "The girls on our campus are ugly?" it read. "We've already got a handle on that. In fact, recent studies show that the guys aren't that great looking either."
Unreal applauds Student Lifefor addressing the matter, but we strongly suspect the reference to studies amounts to what rhetoricians call hyperbole.
So we decided to put our money where Emory's mouth is and determine whether Wash. U. chicks are, in fact, ugly. For the task we recruited DSly the Style Guy, media fashion consultant and celebrated homosexual arbiter of beauty, and Sean Morgan, a recent Southeast Missouri State University alum, Interfraternity Councilman and bedder of countless corn-fed Cape Girardeau cuties.
Surveying the sisters from the Whispers Café in Olin Library, DSly quickly pronounced them less gross than those of his alma mater, Webster University. "Webster is completely granola, dirty, patchouli oil, all that," said Sly, himself sporting a blue tam and a pink Dolce & Gabbana T. "But looking around here, I'm quite impressed. I don't see a lot of Two-Ton Tillies with back fat hanging over their jeans. Like this little chick over here with the slicked hair. I love the belt. She has kind of a punk feel. Wait...is that a guy?"
Sean had no difficulty differentiating WU XX from XY. "I haven't seen too many modelesque girls, but they are your all-natural, girl-next-door type," he said, adding that he'd observed perhaps a dozen that he'd "do." But that's not saying much.
In the end, the guys came out only mildly impressed. On a scale of Star Jones to Laguna Beachbabe Kristin Cavalleri, they gave WU chicks a...Sara Gilbert. For those readers unfamiliar with the Roseannealum, that's approximately a 6.5, with a margin of error plus or minus Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen.
This Little Piggy
Hollywood tends to paint archaeologists as booty-plundering daredevils. In real life they're academic foot soldiers like Washington University's Professor Erik Trinkaus, whose research on the origins of the shoe was published this summer in the Journal of Archaeological Science.
Looking to get the stink on feet, Unreal tracked down Trinkaus in his Wash. U. lab.
Unreal: You say the shoe came into widespread use between 40,000 and 26,000 years ago. That's a big spread.
Professor Erik Trinkaus: We have a gap in the fossil record. Prior to 40,000 years ago, humans and Neanderthals buried their dead, which helped preserve their bones. For reasons we don't understand, between 40,000 and about 26,000 years ago people stopped burying their dead. We know that during that time period the anatomy of the foot changed.
You also point out the relationship between the popularity of the shoe and the weakening of the "lesser" toes. If we quit wearing shoes, would the pinky toe achieve its full growth potential?
It's not the length, it's the width and strength of the bone. If you become a couch potato, your arms become weaker but they don't get any shorter. Bone mass is related to muscle use.
How about people whose second toe is longer than their big toe?
People have been looking into that for a long time. I don't think anyone has an answer.
What did the earliest shoes look like?
We simply don't know. The oldest discovered shoes come from California. They were a sort of woven sandal made out of plant material -- but they're only 9,000 years old.