Sadly, No!’s official leader of the peanut gallery Frederick opens up a can of whoop ass on the management for its failure to cover Amber Pawlik’s nipple discussions, which have already been discussed by the international woman of mystery in charge of World O’Crap. Amber, as our readers know, is an expert on all matters of human sexuality, having previously written on The Vagina Monologues and Exposure to cock as a source of homosexuality in women, a review of the non-empirical evidence (American Journal of Medicine.)

Amber, as Frederick and WOC point out, is upset. (Anger is a common theme in the Pawlik philosophy.) Anger wasn’t upset that Janet Jackson showed one of her boobs during the Super Bowl’s halftime show however — she’s upset that she can’t provide her friends with a picture so that they can wank off to the material:

“Janet Jackson showed her breast during halftime,” I told him. He offered that in exchange for doing the dishes that I would try to find the image online.

How hard could it be? [No, not Amber’s friend, finding the picture.] Well, really, really hard. [Right, again.]

I looked and looked. Superbowl.com had recent pictures of the halftime show, but no picture of Janet?s exposed breast. Finally I asked myself, “What site would have up-to-the-minute, latebreaking, racy, gossipy news?

Did Amber think of checking out www.sadlyno.com? Sadly, No!

Ladies and gentleman, I found it. The only site that had this latebreaking story within, literally minutes: The Drudge Report.

This inspired me to discuss something that is distinctly absent from our culture: investigative reporting.

It may well be that Amber is confusing “investigative reporting” with “soft core porn” or “material deemed inappropriate by the FCC.” Because after the Super Bowl the problem wasn’t that people didn’t know about the nipple. But Amber has tit on the brain and this leads to an Amber specialty: the rant that manages to be both short and incoherent, combining several unrelated topics to make the point that, uh, well, something we guess. To wit:

Although not mainstream, the newspaper at Penn State University, The Collegian, was a complete and total liberal rag-mag, good for nothing except maybe as toilet paper. But even then it?s probably a little scratchy. Not only did they promote every single liberal/socialist agenda, everything the University wanted to push, they endorsed. The University can raise tuition by percentages well over the inflation rate, and instead of doing any kind of investigative work on university waste spending; those at the Collegian boast”?The university really needed the extra money!” My one friend put it best: if the Collegian had as much brains as it had tits, we?d have a dynamic paper.

Before you laugh dear readers consider this: if you had just finished a degree at Penn State and this was the best you could come up with, you’d think you had gotten cheated out of a proper education too. Do you read the newspapers dear readers? Did you ever notice this?

Just about every story from the New York Times paints the US or the US military as corrupt, oppressive tyrants. These newspapers serve one purpose: to spread propaganda.

Did you not notice? Are you retarded, or, even worse, liberal? Shame, shame, shame. 🙁

I want to see people who care, who get the cutting edge information, who challenge the system, who tell me something new that no one else know yet before anyone else does.

Like what, that Janet Jackson has nice tits? But that is so 1980s!

To summarize: “The fact that the big liberal papers didn’t print pictures of Janet Jackson’s exposed breast proves that they are only interested in left-wing propaganda.”

Someone, anyone, please ask Penn State for a refund on behalf of Amber. Much of the time we find Amber quite funny. Sometimes she seems amazingly stupid. And other times, she manages to be both at the same time. How very, very sad.