I'd scrap #'s 2 and 3 -- they aren't a credit to him. The first and last ideas are worth exploring (though I wouldn't repeat a joke at a eulogy -- just make the point and move on). Not meaning to sound crass, but talking about community service can eat up a minute or two. Maybe there's a particular memory you have in which he actually managed to come through in some way -- as a protector, or a decent companion on a trip. You say he mellowed prior to the strokes -- that could be a time to focus on.

I don't know whether you're contemplating delivering the eulogy, or just writing it for someone else. In any case, good luck.

To be clear, I'm all for sharing funny stories as part of a eulogy. I just don't think that attempting to repeat a joke is a great approach, that's all. Jokes aren't funny, anyway.

There's nothing wrong with thinking ahead. I delivered the eulogy for my grandmother at a memorial we had about a month after she died (the timing was per her wishes). The extra time allowed me to gather stories from others, and I would turn the radio off in my car so I could think about what to say. The end result was much better than anything I could have come up with in a day or two.

Also, it's ridiculous to say that most people who deliver eulogies do so out of some sense of self-aggrandizement. They usually do it because they're asked to do so by the closest relative to the deceased. That's why a cousin, or grandchild, or even a close family friend is often the choice -- they'll be able to stand up and speak.

"This didn't air, but he [Marcel] had to make this dish about lust and I told him that he's never lusted after a woman, all he does is go home and jerk off thinking about Joël Robuchon. And the only thing he could think of as a comeback was, 'I don't jerk off to Joël Robuchon.' That was it."

Talk about an anecdote saying more about the teller than the subject. Smug, repressed Ilan, bizarrely infatuated by Marcel's sexuality, repeatedly made such comments that DID air during the season. Obviously, he felt the above was the coup de grace, and was upset that nobody got to hear it. So he told it again, and now Heather repeats it and misses the point entirely. Who SAYS crap like that?

For some reason I'm moved at this moment to recall the greatest piece of first-person sportswriting in history, Herman Jacobs' 2000 reminiscence for the Onion, "In My Day, Ballplayers Were for Shit."

I was rendered useless by this line:

"The slowest of them all was Harry "Three-Toed" Vaughan, a first baseman with the Washington Senators. Legend had it, he could turn off a lightswitch in his bedroom and be in bed 35 seconds later."

isn't that special?

...and the fact that Donohue is a slavering mouth-breather doesn't change that. "Selecting a target and making a fuss" is not a tactic peculiar to the right-wing noise machine -- that's a willfully ignorant point to make. The writer's Duke lacrosse statements are exactly, precisely, "selecting a target and making a fuss".

The writer's claim that the passages in question were satire does not hold water. You can't float in and out of the conceit of pretending to identify with those you wish to skewer, and still call it satire. And you can't describe a (presumed, by her, at the time) act of rape AS an act of rape and still call it satire.

No, what Ms. Marcotte indulged in was merely sarcasm. Many aspire to satire, and some even claim it. But precious few can really pull it off.

This isn't about freedom of speech. The power of the state is not being invoked to silence Ms. Marcotte. She's as free as she ever was to say whatever she wants.

Her original thoughts were speech. What Donohue said was speech. Then a lot more speech went flying around. The Edwards campaign listened to all the speech and made a business decision (then unmade it, but whatever).

You are entitled to say what you want. Your employer has no obligation to keep you on the job if what you say is offensive or damaging to them. This is the way it's always been.

Political Correctness could be the way you defined it King, but I define as a paternalistic ideological movement about symbolic gestures of censorship

There are certainly examples of this, but the Illini mascot isn't one. The power of the state was not, in the end, brought to bear to prohibit the mascot. The university had, and continues to have, every legal right to employ the mascot as is. Just like other institutions have the right to determine the nature of their relationship with the university.

The Chief is speech. The NCAA's decision is a consequence.

Whether it's having been pregnant or tearing oneself away from the banquet of Hollywood narcissicm to actually go eat a meal, it's always a welcome relief to see women with natural curves actually allow those curves to be. To this man's eyes, Gail Simmons from Top Chef is currently the sexiest woman on television, and her next dinner of a carrot and a Diet Coke will be her first.

It's not what the movie is about, but how it's about it. The images pique my curiosity, that's for sure. Not necessarily in a prurient way (though not necessarily not, either). I want to know how these two characters find themselves in this situation, and what they end up doing about it. The interview heightened my anticipation.

OK, back to the squabbling about blah blah blah.