Did You Remember To Bring A #2 Pencil?

Paul McCartney should sue Stephen Colbert. Thanks to Colbert's riotous performance at the White House Correspondents' dinner last year, the press corps has done what it does best and put its tail between its legs by inviting Rich Little for this year. I know. I thought Rich Little was dead, too. But he's not, and now he's headlining, for the first time since, like, 1965.

What's this got to do with Sir Paul? Well, surely you remember that Paul McCartney played the Super Bowl half-time show the year after the Great Titty Scandal of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. He was invited because he was "safe" -- the same reason Rich Little was invited to the WHCD. But let us think this through in detail, because this parallelism has serious implications. By which I mean, this development initiates a complex, and potentially cascading, celebrity analogy.

If we map this analogy, it will read: Timberlake : Mcartney as Colbert : Little. I'm sure you remember your SAT prep course, so you know that ":" means "is to". And I'm equally sure you scored very high on your SAT's (that's why you read this blog), which is why you can see the horrifying implications of that analogy. Timberlake and Colbert are obviously parallel, if not exactly equal, terms. Which means that McCartney is LIKE Rich Little; he is a universal manifestation of Rich Littleosity. If I were Paul McCartney, I wouldn't like that. Not one bit.

And it gets worse -- let us do as one does with analogies, and solve for X (I may be blurring my SAT categories, but hear me out). If you were to substitute X for Little in the above analogy, you would have Timberlake : McCartney as Colbert : X. Now, regard the following options for X (for extra credit, show your work):

a) Charlie Chaplin
b) A Stooge -- Moe, Curly, whatever
c) Rich Little
d) Dave Chappelle
e) None of the above

Ok, now first you have to assume that a and b are legit even though they're dead. I'm stipulating that. Chappelle is obviously the way-out-there answer that only idiots choose, thus helping with the complex grading system. Between a and b it's a difficult choice -- but you'd never pick c. Never! C is the only choice lacking the cache of universal fame and a substantial body of work. C is bullshit compared to a or b. C changes the analogy from "youthful up-and-comers as opposed to founding fathers of the whippersnappers' art" to "youthful up-and-comers as opposed to aged, talentless hacks who nobody ever liked, ever and who made so little impression in their field that everybody figured they were dead years ago, and whose sudden return to the realm of the demonstrably living comes as something of a disappointment." It is for this reason that C would never be the analogous match for Sir Paul. Paul McCartney was a fucking Beatle, for the love of Christ. I know there's the Wings thing, and the Heather Mills landmine-charities-can-go-fuck-themselves-now divorce bitterness -- but he was a mother. Fucking. Beatle. He should, as far as I'm concerned, travel in a certain kind of analogous company. And that company should not include Rich Little.

Idiotic press corps, useless White House. First they fail to laugh at the funniest satirical comedy routine of a generation, and now this.