What do you enjoy reading the most here on my blog?

Search My Blog

Friday, December 15, 2006

PETA vs Basketball

If you hadn't been aware of it (much like myself prior to these articles) - the NBA last season changed to a new synthetic basketball that contained no leather. I, not being a sports fan in the least, had no idea of the switch until I came across the news that they would soon be switching back. I'm not sure WHY they changed the ball in the first place, but my suspicion is that it had more to do with animal rights activists than "the goodness of their hearts for the sake of cows the world over". I'm betting most basketball players love a good steak and certainly have the cash to purchase it on a whim.

The news article speaks of the many many complaints that came in all last season about the switch to the new synthetic ball and the damage it was causing. They even went so far as to mention that they ONLY positive feedback about getting rid of the leather basketballs came from (you guessed it) PETA.

NBA 1, PETA 0. Nothin' but net.

Among the complaints about the new ball, many were sensibly about the damage done to the players' hands. Some complained of paper-cut types of injuries from the rougher surface. Some complained that it roughened the skin and required frequent application of lotions to counteract the effect. Some said it was too slick - some said it was too sticky. A few even said it bounced funny. It also did damage to fingernails of some players.

In the game of basketball - hands are apparently a valuable item.

So David Stern, commissioner of the NBA said that as of January 1st, leather balls will be making a comeback. And while presumably every NBA player who has to USE the basketballs is cheering in celebration - the ONLY complaints we're hearing are coming from (you guesses it again) PETA.

This time - they're snippy!

Seriously. I'm an evil human being (according to some people I know) and even I wouldn't go as far in the "catty bitch" department of insults that PETA is throwing around. I read the "open letter" that PETA addressed to the NBA. While news sources are only reporting on the facade of "olive branchery" regarding the supposed deal that PETA is making - I can see it for what it truly is.

The news reports say that in the letter, PETA bargains that if the NBA stay with the synthetic basketballs instead of going back to leather, they will offer a lifetime supply of hand-lotion to all the NBA players.

While that IS the gist of the "deal" - if you look at the letter itself, you'll notice that PETA is more or less goading the NBA players with hurtful remarks and insults. Seriously, if they weren't doing this just for some nansy-pansy "save the cows" bullsh*t - I'd almost respect their evil bitterness exuded in this letter.

Here's a smattering of the language and jibes used in the open letter:

"As excruciating as these “injuries” must be for a world-class athlete, thousands of cows stand to suffer far worse" - making fun of the pain that the synthetic basketballs caused to players

"PETA would like to offer a lifetime supply of cruelty-free hand cream to any NBA siss … excuse me, superstar who’d be willing to give the composite ball another shot." - the point I was making earlier. You can't (IN THE SAME BREATH) make an offer or compromise AND insult the people you're making the offer/compromise to! "Wanna split a cab, assface?" "Could I borrow your pen, sh*t-for-brains?"

"we understand that the delicate hands of pampered NBA superstars are far more sensitive than those of your average Joe who actually has to work for a living." - if that's not a catty-bitch comment then I don't know what is.

"The hand cream comes in a variety of scents, including “Filthy Rich Organic” (perfect for any overpaid millionaire)" - again, another jibe, making me wonder if such a scent even exists and making me MORE doubtful they'd make this "deal" in the first place.

"Shaq . . . since you’ve only played four games all season, surely you have time to work a moisturizing routine into your schedule." - I don't follow sports so I don't know why he didn't play many games. This jab was mean and funny, but again - if it's favoring PETA then I'm still against it.

"Or LeBron, maybe you’re interested. The NCAA has used the composite ball for years—so it’s not only an education that you missed out on." - okay, now THAT's just rude! Insulting a person's education choice is just grasping at straws like an ignorant fool. We can't ALL go to college, you pompous f*cktards!

"judging by the reaction of some players, it seems like balls are in pretty short supply around the NBA these days."

For any newsperson who DARES to say that PETA's letter to the NBA is an "olive branch", "compromise" or anything alluding to a fair or honest deal - I challenge them to actually READ the letter. These kinds of jokes are okay if you're a comedian on a cable TV show or in private company telling them to friends or colleagues. This is NOT the kind of thing a person/organization should be making public.

I only hope that the holier-than-thou attitude POURING from this rude and offensive "open letter" draws even MORE people to my side of the cause, striving to chastize, put down and someday put a stop to PETA as a whole.

If you ever thought that PETA was a group of caring individuals, or that any of the things I say about them are a lie - why don't you read the letter for yourself and verify the offenses committed by PETA by writing it, associating with it and presenting it to the public.

It makes an anti-sports person like me want to go out and BUY a leather basketball - in hopes of one day bouncing it against a PETA member's smug face.

Read more!

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

NEWS FLASH: Burritos are not sandwiches!

It was hard to decide a category in which to place this news flash. I first thought about the Legal section, since it was all about the lawsuit over the burrito's status as a sandwich or not a sandwich - but then I thought about the heart of the matter: food logic.

The whole debate about burritos and sandwiches all started when a Panera store (of a huge franchise based in St. Louis with stores across the nation) in the White City Shopping Center added a clause in its lease with the shopping center that there would not be another sandwich shop allowed to rent space while Panera is there. Then along came the Qdoba Mexican Grill, which led to Panera invoking that clause to prevent the new store from opening, and challenging its right to even rent space in the shopping center.

And they went to court, hearing testimony from Webster's Dictionary, a chef and a former high-ranking federal agriculture official.

Verdict: Burritos are not sandwiches.

The court heard a lot of testimony on the subject. Panera claimed that a flour tortilla is a bread, and a food product with bread and filling is a sandwich. The judge wound up ruling that "a sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans." Well, the actual ruling took up eight pages, but that was the bread and butter of the decision.

Bread and butter: Sandwich or No Sandwich?

In fact, the whole difference between Panera's self-serving broad definition of a sandwich being any bread/grain product and a filling, versus the court's ruling about sandwiches following more of the dictionary definition of two individual pieces of leavened bread and usually containing meat, cheese or another savory mixture - it raises a few other questions.

Let's think of things Panera would think are sandwiches that a court (and probably a nutritional anthropologist) would disagree with!

Calzone - one slab of pizza dough, folded over, and containing pizza sauce, cheese, and sometimes meats.
Pizza Puff - the same, but usually fried rather than baked.
Burrito - the reigning champion of "Not a Sandwich"
Taco - also only one tortilla, folded over
Quesadilla - questionable, as more traditional methods say one tortilla folded over, but I have cooked several times with two tortillas. This could be a sandwich, unless leavening comes into play, in which case my tortilla might still be safe from sandwichdom.
Ravioli - A bread product with a meat/cheese filling, but uses only one piece of dough.
Eggroll - also only one piece of dough.
Pierogi - also only one piece of dough.
Gyro - one piece of flatbread, which isn't really that flat

Now let's take on a few questionable items, and I'll let you help decide as you pretend to be a high-powered Superior Court judge who is stuck handling cases of "What is a Sandwich?"

"Sandwich" or "No Sandwich"?

S'mores - two pieces of bread-type food, filling that is usually not meaty or cheesy.

Chicago-Style Stuffed Pizza - a pizza that has both a bottom crust and a top crust, obviously with a pizza filling in the middle.

Ritz Bits Sandwiches (with cheese or peanut butter) - two separate crackers, filling of cheesy/savory nature. Is the term "sandwich" in the title an admission of guilt? Does this affect the law itself?

Nachos - another Mexican dish, comprised of MORE THAN ONE piece of bread-product, with cheese in-between as a "filling". Could Panera cry "sandwich" over this culinary treat after its relative, the burrito, has walked away clean?

Lasagna - the meaty cheesy filling is placed between separate layers of noodles. Does a sandwich have to be something hand-held, as it was supposedly originally created by the Earl of Sandwich to hold meaty food in his hand while playing cards?

Oreos - Two cookies, including a filling. While Oreos are the brand-name misnomer given to lots of non-Oreo cookies (like Band-aids are misnomered for adhesive bandages and Kleenex are for tissues), the category of cookie is known as "sandwich cookies" by the industry. Admission of guilt or simple racial profiling and stereotyping as Sandwich?

Pie - a classic two-breaded filled food item! While meat pies are not as common as the fruity variety, and more and more cream-based pies have no top shell - classic pie chefs are aware that the standard pie would make an excellent example of a possible Sandwich candidate.

You decide. You rule.

Sandwich? No Sandwich?

Have fun being judge and jury, and feel free to bring any other food items to the courtroom to be judged as you see fit!

(You know, this might be a stupidly-funny skit for SNL or MadTV of something. A gameshow/courtshow titled "Sandwich or No Sandwich?" and featuring a really fat judge who "knows about sandwiches". Hell, if "Extreme Akim" could be a judge on that outrageous debacle of a court show, "Eye for an Eye", and have a disclaimer in the credits to let viewers know that "Extreme Akim is not a judge. Rulings are not final or legally binding." - why couldn't THIS show fly?)

This is my claim on the whole idea. Patent Pending! Copyright Pending! Trademark Pending! Bwaaarg!!!

What foods would you bring to "Sandwich or No Sandwich"? Leave a comment and let me know!

And then Digg this article!

Read more!

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Chicago vs. PETA: A Step In The Right Direction?

Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:

PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!

And join us in the sixth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In this fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor has decided to reconsider his stance on the issue.

In fact, if all goes well, Mayor Richard M. Daley may have just put into motion the proposal to rid his fine city of this unsightly legal blemish once and for all.

Heck, the man even finally admitted that the city council's initial decision led to "the funniest law they ever passed". And while he didn't veto it outright (like he should have) when the law passed his desk, he's now agreeing with the masses that it's a horribly stupid idea in general and has taken steps to correct his mistake in letting it slide.

Chicago Mayor Daley signed on to a repeal proposal introduced by two city aldermen, according to his spokeswoman. This went into effect on Thursday. The original ban angered some restaurant owners and gourmets (as well as a few bloggers like myself), who argued that the city was going too far by restricting what residents could eat. Daley criticized it also as a waste of the city council's time, but he didn't veto it.

This change of heart MAY have something to do with the fact that the city was almost caught up in yet ANOTHER storm of disapproval as the city of Chicago's councilmen decided to downgrade their new attack on trans fats. They had previously been considering a NEW ban on restaurants using trans fats to cook food, but after the outrage of their previous "food ban" idea, they downgraded it to a "negotiation" and possible "compromise" with the Illinois Restarant Association.

Going from a ban on "animal cruelty" food to a ban purely based on nothing but "wanting to be healthier" - I don't know what the result would have been, but I'm assuming protests and fires might have been possible outcomes.

We have the right to eat unhealthy foods. No ban is going to stop that. No law ever should.

So a possible step in the right direction is taking place on the foie gras issue. The council's Health Committee will vote on the issue and decide if it should be brought before the city council. Who might finally come to their senses and NOT be swayed by PETA and other animals rights "boo-hoo" criers who prey on the ignorant like themselves - people who don't bother to learn the facts and forget that people are animals too.

Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!

Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:

PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!

And join us in the fifth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In this fifth part, we'll learn about the first victim of the law.

The first known offender of the foie gras ban has been reported. His warning letter will be in the mail eventually.

The offense was anonymously reported on Friday night as someone called the 311 non-emergency system and complained that foie gras was being served at Block 44, a Lincoln Square restaurant. The chef, Rick Spiros, acknowledged that he had indeed served about 8 orders of foie gras that night - even though he knew that the ban was in place and it was illegal to do so. his reasoning was that he wasn't trying to be one of the uprising restaurants or anything, he was simply trying to avoid wasting the very expensive food. And the very BEST way to do that - is to sell it to hungry restaurant patrons.

Says Rick Spiros, "I had a couple pieces left over, and I just got rid of it. I just did it. I'm a bad chef, I guess. People loved it. People bought it. One person complained? I'll take the slap on the wrist. I'm not in fourth grade. I had the decision to make, and I served it."

He claims this was a one-time thing and now that his foie gras has been sold and enjoyably eaten, he doesn't plan on buying anymore and continuing to violate the new law. Even so, he certainly doesn't SUPPORT the law. "There are so many other things to worry about...there's graffiti on my door, no one cares about that. We all live here." He also added that "It's ridiculous. There's far too many things going on in this town to worry about a duck liver. I don't know what the person's problem was in the first place with the whole thing, but I do know black and white. There are things far more important to be dealing with in the city, the Health Department and in the restaurant business. Foie gras is the lowest on the totem pole."

Tim Hadac, who you all remember from the other parts of this series is a spokesman for the City Health Department, said that this complaint means that they will be sending a letter to Block 44 to remind them of the law and let them know they expect compliance with it. "If we get a second complaint, we'll be out there, ticket book in hand. If we find a violation if and when we inspect, we'll write 'em a ticket for $250," he said.

Yea. We'll be waiting. We're certainly shaking in our hypothetical boots as it is.

Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!

Friday, August 25, 2006

College is Killing the Birth Rate; Grade 13?

Chicago mayor Daley says that college is pretty much ruining the birth rate here in America. It's causing fewer babies to be born, and threatens to stagnate both knowledge and knowledge-based economy. And while the mayor starts making accusations and offering "plans", it will wind up in the lap of whoever wins the race for governor. Education funding will be a hot issue for both candidates, especially with some of the ideas that mayor Daley is throwing around.

For example, a "Grade 13" - a fifth year of high school.

While his accusations of what college are doing to America make some sense, his plans/ideas may not hold as much water. College tuitions are indeed costly, and can range anywhere from $40,000 to $70,000 to probably much higher than that if it's a private school. And while scholarships and financial aid can help, their help is limited and the brunt of the expense winds up on both the student and the family as a whole.

It's basically coming down to a family unit deciding to stop at a certain number of children simply out of the fear of what college expenses will be. And mayor Daley doesn't want parents to stop having children for that reason, especially when it means that children simply can't afford higher education at all.

Daley adds, "If we’re a land of opportunity and we want to be a knowledge-based society and we want to compete against India and China, we had better educate our children." The fact is that the senior year of high school is spent more on trying to find a college and find ways to PAY for that college than really learning the material needed to get INTO the college. The added stress really gums up the works as well.

So maybe this fifth year of high school isn't such a bad idea.

After all, it would mean that 4th-year students can do the work they're supposed to be doing. And by the 4th year of high school, many students are taking classes that will either give them credits for college or AP exams that do the same. Imagine if there were a fifth year to get MORE of those credits so your stay in college would be shortened all that much, plus have an easier college-like schedule to provide the free time needed to apply and work out financial situations as well. Daley thinks that all children should have the opportunity to go to college, learn the knowledge and skills one can reap there, and keep America on top of that knowledge-based economy.

As for me, I'm not sure if all high school students really SHOULD go to college. Of course, this is mostly based on my theory that we can work on getting rid of illegal immigrants and open the work force up to provide jobs to the many who can't afford or survive college. That could ease up on the unemployment rate and maybe then employers wouldn't need to make all of the good jobs so competitive and requiring college degrees to make sure they're picking the "cream of the crop" who DID afford and survive college.

I've encountered way too many low-budget low-quality jobs that you simply need to be totally overqualified to handle. Employers apparently think that anything involving a computer should require a degree (often in a field that has nothing to do with computers). Welcome to the year 2000, folks. We know computers. We've hit a generation where high school diplomas mean a LOT more skills than were previously available to non-collegiate applicants, you know?

Or maybe those diplomas will mean that much more with an extra year of high-school knowledge crammed into the brains of our youths? What do you think about Grade 13 and mayor Daley's accusations of college killing the birth rate?

The original article Read more!

Illegal Immigrants: RIGHT OVER THERE!

It's official: illegal immigrants simply have more rights than regular US citizens. And I'll tell you why: BECAUSE THEY'RE ILLEGAL. They are, by definition, breaking the law by being in this country without legal citizenship, documentation, et cetera. And with this rise of town ordinances that LOOK like they'll finally be making a difference by banning/punishing those who HIRE or RENT LIVING SPACE to illegal immigrants - it's just becoming more and more clear that while the CITIZENS care, the POLICE don't.

Because in all the photos of the protests, the police are in view to "keep the peace", but the law-breakers are RIGHT OVER THERE!

Let's try an analogy. Let's say that the solidarity isn't for illegal immigrants, it's for another group of law-breakers. Let's say the "Car Stereo Stealing Coalition" was having a march, trying to protest a law increasing the penalty for stealing car stereos. Which means there's about 300 people who have STOLEN CAR STEREOS and are practically CONFESSING to the crime. And the police are there to make sure nobody HURTS the thieves while they march, holding high their stolen car stereos to prove they are members of the CSSC.

How about the "Cuban Cigar Connoseurs"? Marching in a puff of smoke from illegally-purchased cigars down the street, possibly wearing Castro beards. Blowing their illegal smoke right in a police officer's face. Possibly asking them for a light! Just please don't let those other protestors throw water on my beautiful Cubano, eh?

This law makes sense, if you think about it a LITTLE. Okay, rent to a family of illegal immigrants, and you get penalized. Try thinking about it harder, because there's nothing about DEPORTING THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS there. If you're illegal, your landlord gets slapped and punished, and your biggest worry is trying to find ANOTHER PLACE to rent and get THAT landlord punished. And the same thing with the jobs. Imagine if your boss of ten employees hires one illegal. And then your BOSS gets arrested. Sure, the illegal has to leave, but don't you think YOUR job is in danger with your boss in prison or something?

And if you're one of those bleeding-heart liberals who's all "why you being so mean to the poor illegals?" then I have another analogy for you. It's not that great, but maybe it'll shed some light on the animosity that the issue creates:

You're back in the third grade. And you're in line to get some yummy cookies. And you've finally made it after minutes of waiting to the next 10 kids to get cookies. And some mean kid in front of you lets 5 of his friends get "cuts". It not only delays YOUR cookie enjoyment, but THEY get to enjoy cookies BEFORE you and WITHOUT waiting all those precious snacktime minutes that YOU waited. And you complain to the teacher, who just tells you "you're still going to get cookies, so please stop the complaining".

Well instead of cookies, maybe it's healthcare. Or a job.
And instead of minutes, it's hours or even days or longer.
And instead of a teacher, it's the police.

Who does NOTHING about the "cutting". Except tells YOU to stop arguing about it, while not punishing the offenders.

Welcome to our world, liberals.

Maybe there's not enough cookies, like JOBS, and they get them but you don't, because their "cut" in line was because they'll work for less than you.

What we need in this country are police officers and the Department of Immigration to get off their butts and DO SOMETHING about the problem. Building a wall along Mexico is great for keeping them out, but we have to acknowledge the vast number who are already here. In Riverside, NJ where this protest happened, the town has 8,000 and it's estimated that 3,500 of them are illegal immigrants.

And if 200-500 of them get together and protest, how about getting the fucking Department of Immigration over there and deporting some of the fucking illegals??

Don't like our ordinance that chastises you for breaking the law and entering our country illegally?


Get the hell out and the law won't bother you anymore.

The article about the protest

AaronBSam's Blog Read more!

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!

Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:

PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!

And join us in the fourth installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. This fourth installment is about the first day of the ban, and what the IRA is doing to fight it.

Because foie gras hasn't gone away - it's being served in more places than EVER!

In a form of civil disobedience straight out of the heart of America, Chicago restaurants are creating an uprising against the city ordinance banning the sale of foie gras by selling it EVERYWHERE! (Oh, when I say "heart of America", I mean making a point AND turning a profit.) Acting out against the unfair banning of a food item that the federal government has no problem with grading, testing and selling all across the country. There are a few other cities that have passed such an ordinance about the non-vegetarian delicacy, but Chicago is the first one to be hit by it, and Chicagoans and their restaurant owners are more than willing to hit back.

The famous Harry Caray's has never before sold foie gras in its restaurant. But to spite this ban that took effect yesterday, the owners were proud to add a few new items to the menu: a pan-seared foie gras and scallops appetizer ($14.95) and a Vesuvio-style entree pairing foie gras and tenderloin ($33.95). Why would a restaurant that was not previously in violation of the ordinance decide to add these violation-items on the day the ordinance takes effect?

Says owner Grant DePorter, "This ban is embarrassing Chicago. We really don't think the City Council should decide what Chicagoans eat. What's next? Some other city outlaws brussels sprouts? Another outlaws chicken? Another, green beans?"

So with all of these restaurants not subtly but BLATANTLY defying the unfair city ordinance AND profiting from it, what is the city going to do to them?

So far - nothing.

Tim Hadac, a spokesman for the Chicago Department of Public Health that should be enforcing this ban, said that although the law went into effect yesterday, on Tuesday the 22nd, the city would start enforcing it today. He went on to later say what the enforcement WOULD be, and the answer is practically "very little". City officials will respond to citizen complaints, said Hadac, first sending a warning letter to restaurants, then demanding a fine - from $250 to $500 - for second offenses. Joe Moore, the guy who proposed the unconstitutional ban in the first place, added that "The city gave them a day of fun, but tomorrow we'll see what happens."

Yes. We certainly will. And I'll keep on posting about it to try and raise awareness of this unjust law that you and PETA brought into this city like a pestilence until things have been made right again. And frankly, going back to my orignal comment at the start of this article about the "heart of America" - at the prices that Harry Caray's is selling the foie gras dishes alone, don't you think it's laughable to have the SECOND slap (after all the time it takes to mail letters nowadays) fine be $250-$500? I can just see DePorter saying "Uh-oh, another $500 fine! Let's sell 20 more foie gras entrees, turn a profit, and STICK IT TO 'EM!" and possibly adding a Harry Caray tribute of "HOLY COW!"

Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!

Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:

PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!

And join us in the third installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. And now, as I predicted, the lawsuit is on.

The Illinois Restaurant Association vs. the City of Chicago

The Illinois Restaurant Association, also known as "Chicago Chefs for Choice", have started the ball rolling with a few obvious legal issues being brought up. First and foremost, "the argument is that this [ban] violates interstate commerce and the city is usurping the federal government's power by banning a product that's federally approved for shipment across state lines." This is the foundation for the legal battle at-hand, but there are many not-so-legal and yet totally-common-sense arguments to be made.

In the words of the Illinois Restaurant Association's president, Colleen McShane, "We believe the City Council does not have a right to tell people what to have for dinner."

It goes back to that little thing we Americans have, called 'freedom' - a thing we used to be able to flaunt and brag about to other countries, rather than take away from our citizens and have the whole world laughing at us for doing so.

As for the legal issue stated above, what right does Chicago have to ban something that's already approved by the United States Department of Agriculture? If the USDA says it's okay, why would one city in particular get to say that it's not? And frankly, you KNOW that these Chicago restaurant owners, American farmers, lovers of foie gras and lovers of freedom in general are SERIOUS about the issue because of where the money to have these legal battles is going to come from: their own pockets.

Chicago citizens suing Chicago: those court fees have to come from somewhere. And not only are the Chicago citizens going to be paying their OWN court fees, the City of Chicago's court fees are paid by the taxpayers! And if you're willing to pay for both sides of the court fees, you must be strongly steadfast in your views and arguments to make that kind of sacrifice.

Stay tuned for more in the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate. Read more!

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!

In the last installment of this debate, it sure as heck seemed like we were seeing the end of the story. If you read my post back then, Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame, you'd remember that PETA used some dirty underhanded tricks to scare the politicians into signing the bill that effectively bans the sale/production/consumption of foie gras in Chicago.

You might have also noticed the tactics they DIDN'T use in their argument - THE FACTS.

Well, Chicago restaurants, business owners, and citizens who remember that this is still AMERICA and that PETA and that law do NOT have the power to take away our rights - they've made a petition to repeal the ban and the debate is underway in the weeks before the ban takes place.

So since I obviously side on the anti-PETA and pro-America end of the debate, I'm going to present you with the FACTS that those tree-hugging tofu-fartin' hippies were just going to hide under the hemp carpet and pray nobody ever found. Their main argument is that the foie gras method is cruel and painful. Their only evidence is that video showing a farmer forcefully over-feeding a duck, possibly playing some sappy or bone-chilling music for added effect.

Now then, for the defense - I've got a bunch of evidence to the CONTRARY of what PETA wants you to believe. First off, we'll tackle the easy matter of them being kept in cages as being "cruel". Well, the FACTS tell us that for the first 12-14 weeks, the ducks and geese are neither force-fed nor are they in cages at all. They roam free in lovely grassy areas. It's only the last 2-4 weeks that they are put in cages - which is ONLY done for the feedings - and then allowed to go back out and roam free. Possibly as free as the wind blows and/or the grass grows.

So now we get to the "painful" force-feeding done to fatten up those tasty livers before harvest time. I pose to YOU this question: If YOU had to undergo a painful process every day that was possibly "traumatic", what would you do? I'll answer for you, and hopefully you'll agree with at least ONE of the answers. I'm guessing that if this happened to you, you would:

1) Not like it. Sadomasochism aside, you would indeed feel pain or trauma.

2) Not want to get back in that cage where the traumatic pain happened.

3) Not want to go near the man that did this trauma to you.

4) Not do this act TO YOURSELF, since you obviously don't like it when someone else does it to you.

In exemplum, if a bully beat you up afterschool in the parking lot, you would cry because you got beaten up, avoid both the bully and that parking lot, and not beat yourself up because you obviously don't like getting beaten up.


Scientists did a study. You know, scientists with the numbers and data and logical reasoning that don't involve sappy videos to "make a point". REAL evidence and facts backed up with proof. The kind you'd hope to see in a real debate.

1) Not liking it; feeling pain. When the brain undergoes stress and/or pain, it shoots out corticosterone. And when they tested the corticosterone levels of these roaming-free ducks and geese during their FIRST force-feeding in the cages and two MORE force-feedings, there was NO significant increase in corticosterone. They also made sure that they were testing right and the ducks were able to make it by putting them in nets for 15 minutes, and sure enough there was corticosterone and obvious stress. Nets are bad for ducks and they get stressed by being in them. Force-feeding? Not really.

2) Avoidance of force-feeding cages. When ducks and geese were studied after the initial force-feeding, ducks only showed a little bit of avoidance and geese showed no signs of avoidance at all. And over time, the avoidance measured in the ducks became shorter with time.

3) Avoidance of feeder. When presented with a complete stranger rather than the usual caregiver, there was more aversion than with the caregiver - and both decreased greatly over time. So whether done by a stranger or familiar person, by the third feeding there was very little avoidance of the force-feedings. But we come to the final phase now, which I find to be the most damning against PETA...

4) Wouldn't do it to yourself. Guess what? Ducks and geese OVERFEED THEMSELVES! Geese spontaneously overeat grass and carrots by themselves at levels of over 3kg a day if left to their own devices. Ducks are not as large, but still undergo spontaneous hyperphagia (overeating) and can consume up to 750g when they do so. These are (shockingly) about the levels of overfeeding that the farmers force-feed them. So they're feeding them what they'd NORMALLY be eating when they overeat - they're just making SURE that they do it.

And no offense, but am I the only one who thinks of the farmer as "mommy" and the ducks/geese as "babies" and the phrase "Here comes the AIRPLANE!" coming into play with a funnel and feed instead of a spoon with mashed peas?

So ducks and geese regularly overfeed themselves. When farmers make sure they do it, they neither become afraid of the farmers, nor the cages where it happens, nor do they show significant signs of pain or stress when it happens!

The defense rests, your honor.

Time for you, the jury, to deliberate. PETA presented you with scary and mean-spirited video footage of a farmer force-feeding ducks. And while it may look painful to YOU, remember the FACT that it isn't painful to THEM. PETA plays on your emotions. Science plays on the facts. And while you may not LIKE the methods used in spite of the facts saying it's okay, you admittedly have the right to NOT eat/buy/cook foie gras. And guess what? If you have the right to NOT eat it, isn't it only natural that other people have the right TO eat it?

This is America. And if you can let PETA win and trick laws into effect that ban one kind of food, who's to say they won't get away with outlawing veal, or beef, or meat in general?

You have the right to eat meat. You have the right to eat whatever the hell you want. Fight for that right. Read more!

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Baby Names: Asia Cracks Down on Horrible Parents

Technorati Profile

This is a special post, dedicated to all of the parents out there who give their children godawful names that will lead to ridicule and shame for the entirety of that poor child's life. A child is not a pet that should be given a cute and unique name that sounds humorous or inspiring (like "Humorous Smith" or "Inspiring Jones") - not that pets should be named thusly, either (see: How to Own a Pet (Part 1) for more info). In Asia, countries are finally setting forth on a mission to stop this aspect of horrible parenting once and for all - with quite an awesome method of doing so:

Malaysian parents will no longer be allowed to give their children names deemed unsuitable by authorities.

Malaysia and China are two countries listed that have adopted the practice of banning names - adding them to lists that the National Registration Department will not allow to be given to children. While currently their lists are small, hopefully this sentiment can spread to America, where we exaggerate and overemphasize everything, and maybe finally put an end to OUR horrible parents and their victimized children.

Department spokesperson Jainisah Mohd Noor was quoted as saying the list was compiled following input from various religious and cultural groups. The names being banned in Malaysia include Zani (which means 'male adulterer') and Woti ('sexual intercourse'), in India we find Karrupan ('black fellow') as well as Sivappi and Vellayan (which denote 'fair skin') being banned, and banned in China are names like Chow Tow ('smelly head') and Sum Seng ('gangster').

The main list luckily goes farther than just racial slurs and inappropriate acts. The National Registration Department will also not allow parents to name their babies after colors, animals, insects, fruits or vegetables.

While in these countries, the NRD will allow parents usage of these names "if they are insistent even after knowing they are unsuitable", in the land of lawyers known as America, maybe we can start fines and/or jail time for offenders. The warning of a jail sentence might certainly open the eyes of bad parents and convince them to change their children's poor names on the spot as well as remind them to never again do such a foolish (and now illegal) thing.

And the first to be put on trial in America for such an offense?

Gwyneth Paltrow, for her now-illegally-named child, Apple.


AaronBSam's Blog

AaronBSam's Blog
As of 8/11/06:
My Over-300 Club:
Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame - 315 Reads
My Over-200 Club:
"Jesus Christ Superstar" Moved From Nazi Camp Locale - 272 Reads
My Over-100 Club:
You Can't Spell 'Sweden' Without 'W' - 182 Reads
Too Skinny To Be Australian - 141 Reads
PETA says: "Wearing Dogs is like Wearing Fur" - 135 Reads
PETA and Their Seal-Clubbing Propaganda - 130 Reads
Pepper Spray Used On Little Girl - 124 Reads
Wonder Why DVDs Cost $20? - 123 Reads
Steve Jobs Made Little Girl Cry - 116 Reads
Nintendo Uses A Bad Word - 111 Reads
Bob Saget + Alcohol + Tampons = Comedy - 110 Reads
The Video Game Diet - 104 Reads
Why I'm Anti-Diet - 102 Reads Read more!

Heterosexual Hate Crimes?

The "gay marriage debate" presses on, especially in Massachusetts. The state was the first to legalize gay marriages, and now the big hubbub is about state legislation that might ban gay marriage. But there's another side of things - one that you might not expect. With everyone paying attention to hate crimes against homosexuals who don't want to feel attacked or belittled or "made to feel uncomfortable", who's going to pay attention when stones are thrown in the opposite direction?

Don't heterosexuals have the right to not want to feel attacked or belittled or "made to feel uncomfortable"?

Since it's hard for many people to see heterosexuality as "under attack" (verbally, if not otherwise), I'll make reference to an article that caught my attention. It appears that the homosexual community has started slinging hateful terms at heterosexuals, including the popular term "breeder". For all of the plethora of hateful terms used to refer to homosexuals, it seems natural that terms would arise to insult and berate the originators. And white racial slurs now exist for just about every race under the sun, so will slurs against sexualities.

"Breeders", the new slur against heterosexuals (and possibly any couple/person with a child) should be treated just as severely as any other hateful word thrown about, shouldn't it? Shouldn't a homosexual verbally attacking a heterosexual be just as offensive as the other way around?

But it doesn't stop there. In Massachusetts, a gay man confronted a woman because she was circulating (and had signed) a petition to ban same-sex marriage in the state. The altercation lasted less than a minute, and the man later admitted regret that he "exploded" about the incident, but he could still be charged with disorderly conduct. The incident itself has sparked some debate (more than usual, I suppose) about what constitutes a "hate incident".

People siding with the gay man say that the woman committed a "hate incident" merely by SIGNING the petition. The Anti-Defamation League "considers the distribution and circulation of hate propaganda and information a hate incident when the action seeks to make a group of people feel uncomfortable". And yet there's a group of Catholics in the area who argue that by that logic, that is what's happening to THEM - being made to feel uncomfortable due to the approval of the same-sex marriages (and homosexuality in general) based on their faith and its disapproval of it all.

So what will come of this? Frankly, it seems we are at an impasse based on the terminology everyone is using. Since when did "feeling comfortable" become a right? Since when did being made to feel uncomfortable mean that liberties have been attacked and the incident is hateful? Well if that's how we're going to play the game, then I want to sue the article itself, because I feel uncomfortable with the whole gay marriage debate in general - and printing articles about the gay marriage debate would be considered "the distribution and circulation of hate propaganda and information", wouldn't it?

We all need to relax and be adults. It is NOT our right to feel comfortable. Anyone who's flown on an airplane certainly knows that. Skins need to be thickened, opinions need to be handled with a little more tact and diplomacy, and we need to stop hating as much as we currently do (and accuse others of doing). I'll leave the last thought to a quote in the article made by Provincetown, Massachusetts board of selectmen chairwoman Cheryl Andrews:

"I don’t know anyone who hates heterosexuals. We wouldn’t be here without them."


AaronBSam's Blog
As of 8/11/06:
My Over-300 Club:
Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame - 315 Reads
My Over-200 Club:
"Jesus Christ Superstar" Moved From Nazi Camp Locale - 272 Reads
My Over-100 Club:
You Can't Spell 'Sweden' Without 'W' - 182 Reads
Too Skinny To Be Australian - 141 Reads
PETA says: "Wearing Dogs is like Wearing Fur" - 135 Reads
PETA and Their Seal-Clubbing Propaganda - 130 Reads
Pepper Spray Used On Little Girl - 124 Reads
Wonder Why DVDs Cost $20? - 123 Reads
Steve Jobs Made Little Girl Cry - 116 Reads
Nintendo Uses A Bad Word - 111 Reads
Bob Saget + Alcohol + Tampons = Comedy - 110 Reads
The Video Game Diet - 104 Reads
Why I'm Anti-Diet - 102 Reads Read more!

Friday, June 16, 2006

Britney Spears and Namibia

Britney Spears is currently considering giving birth to her second baby in Namibia. Don't feel bad if you don't know that Namibia used to be known as "South-West Africa" - or that its major export is minerals (5th largest supplier of uranium in the world, not to mention the diamond mines) - or that its President is currently Hifikepunye Pohamba. Heck, you might not even know that the capital of Namibia is Windhoek, but don't feel too bad...

Britney Spears probably couldn't locate it on a map...

One can only speculate as to WHY she would want to give birth in a place so far from home. One would naturally guess that if she gives birth in Namibia - what the hell kind of paparazzi is going to want to hang around in Namibia waiting for a possible photo opportunity? (Even though we're all aware that the answer would be "several"...) One could also guess that the female "pop star" would want to make it a mission of goodwill, or some other hokey way of saying it's a form of charity or spreading peace or something saintly. After all, that's the reason most people who have been in the spotlight travel to such places - publicity in the face of "being a good role model" and "spreading cheer/money/peace to the less-fortunate".

Since when did celebrities decide they had to be role models?

Is anyone else as sick and tired as I am with pop stars and movie stars trying to be all "holier than thou" with their donations to things and goodwill missions to places that we don't want to be in? The only reason they try to pretend to be role models is because they have the cash to put up such a front in the first place.

Given the options, I don't really blame them. A rich "pop star" with $50 million who DOESN'T donate or fly to poor countries looks like a spoiled bitch. And a rich "pop star" with $50 million who donates to charities and does benefit concerts for peace in the Middle East looks like a self-righteous bitch.

It doesn't change the fact that we're all jealous of your fucking $50 million.

So since we already see you as a money-grubbing whore who takes in our hard-earned cash because there are people who actually enjoy listening to the things that come out of your sing-hole, why don't you just stick with that?

Don't pretend to be something you're not, and don't try to convince us that you're not what we say you are. Just open up your sing-hole and keep singing. Be glad you found something you're almost good at and can make a living by doing.

Just keep fucking dancing, monkey. Dance, monkey, dance.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/16/people.spears.namibia.ap/ Read more!

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Pepper Spray Used On Little Girl

Police in Western Australia are being criticised by the Aboriginal Legal Service (ALS) for actions they took against a little girl earlier this week. The police were called to a school with the report of a girl on the campus in possession of a brick and a pair of scissors. Upon encountering the girl, she was described as "behaving in a violent and threatening manner" with her brick and/or scissors.

So the police used pepper spray on the 10-year-old girl.

Now I am partially in agreement with the ALS criticising the Western Australian police over the use of pepper spray on a 10-year-old girl. (Oh, by the way, this was a very short new article, so the rest is merely speculation and opinion - sorry!) Even so, I am also feeling downright okay with criticising that little girl in the same breath.

"Who the hell brings a brick to school?"

Wasn't it just a decade or two prior that the worst things kids brought to school were porno mags and frogs? You know, slip a frog into Penny's backpack, shuffle of to the science lab, and watch the hilarity unfold - then shuffle back to the boys' locker room and celebrate finding your dad's porno collection with the guys!

And let me just say that the kids today have no idea how difficult we had it back then. Porn wasn't a mouse-click and of-age lie away, dagnabbit! We had to walk two miles in the snow to lie about our age and fake-ID our way to a Playboy bonanza - uphill both ways! And let's be honest - pre-1980 women had apparently never heard of shaving the pubic region. I think that most heart attacks we've had in the past few years are the result of old-timers who lived with the old-timey Playboys take one glance at the new pornography and die of pure shock.

Back to attacking little girls; if you are a ten-year-old girl and have a brick and pair of scissors and are USING THEM to the point that the fucking police are called in to "take you down" - pepper spray should be WELCOMED. In fact, I hope you get taken down with a bean-bag shotgun. Maybe even tasered! Obviously your parents haven't taught you well enough to NOT wield bricks and/or scissors in a "violent and threatening manner" around police officers - and maybe 10,000 volts will be a better teacher of the lesson.

You wanna wield a weapon like a big girl? Then be prepared to be taken down (to Chinatown) like one.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/story/abc/20060614/18/domestic/1663144.inp Read more!

How To Own A Pet (As Told By Idiots I've Encountered)

How To Own A Pet

(As Told By Idiots I've Encountered)

So you have a pet, eh? Good thing very few people will fight to let you own a pet, because you apparently don't need to know ANYTHING about pets, animals in general, or even have common sense in order to obtain one. It's only a little harder to obtain a pet than it is to obtain a baby. (Insert Penis [A] into Vagina [B] and repeat until you have Baby [C]) So for those of you who do not YET own a pet, or as a refresher course for those of you who already DO - let's review some helpful rules of pet ownership.

Rules of Pet Ownership #1:
Give your pet a ridiculous name.

Most people simply choose to name their pet something that falls into one (or more) of the following categories:

Stupid-Sounding - If you cannot shout the name of your pet on a local street without feeling like hiding your face entirely, you've got yourself a pet name.

Long-Winded - Humans are usually limited to a first, middle and last name. Some gain bonus names by hyphenating after a marriage/divorce or legally changing it and adding more on. Your pet won't get to do either, so bulk up on names at the beginning, and consider writing it down if it goes beyond seven. Your pet may also need a larger collar for all the engraving to be done.

Ironic - Everyone loves a death machine named "Fluffy", a tiny bug named "T-Rex", and an idiotic shit-machine with "Professor" in its nomenclature.

Redundant - Make things easy for your child and name a cat "Cat" or "Kitty". It'll be easy to remember. In fact, hopefully you named your baby "Baby" so you won't forget that, either.

Anecdotal - Random words as names for pets create hilarious conversation with strangers as they involve a 10-minute story on how your pet got that name. Most people choose a sappy and droning tale about their first night of pet ownership, including a frantic search for the lost pet who was terrified of its new surroundings until finally it was located in a closet huddled inside your deceased grandfather's vintage luggage containers. Hence, it was named "Samsonite".

Spelled Poorly - Like a teenager suffering from a mid-puberty crisis, pet owners will embellish the simplest names with unthinkable spelling. Not only will you meet a cat named "Kitty" - but you can't leave out "Kittie", "Kitti", "Kittee", "Kittey", "Kittiy", "Kit-E", "Kittty", and "Kitti" (with a heart dotting the 'i'). And those are just the OBVIOUS alternatives! Heck, why not spell it "Kit3ty" and tell people the '3' is silent? People will certainly find that cute and will not at all want to vomit in horror and rage at what you've done.

Sex-Related - Oh, don't gross out on me now, pet-lovers! I'm referring to the fact that many pet-owners will name their pets after humans they know and/or love. Nothing beats naming a female dog after an ex-girlfriend and laughing at endless "bitch" jokes. All you have to do is keep in mind that naming a pet after someone you have either HAD sex with or would LIKE to have sex with - makes for interesting dinner conversation with friends. Nothing beats a dinnertime story about a steamy reminiscent encounter with an ex-lover and having your pet bound in at the sound of its name!

So, now that you've named your pet, you can start to enjoy pet ownership and all of its intricacies.

Don't miss out on our next installment of:

"How To Own A Pet
(As Told By Idiots I've Encountered)"
Read more!

"Emo" Warning Signs

Contrary to popular belief, "emo" is not going away. It's still in full-fucking-force, right here on our doorsteps, and the problem just isn't going away like we'd hoped. I learned this from conversing with a friend of mine, we'll call her "Krystle", a few days ago as she overheard me joking about someone wearing all-black and decided to share with me... For the sake of this conversation, I'll be in the guise of one of my many nicknames: "Maaron".

I hope this helps you identify those suffering from "emo" in your circles, and how to deal with them:

Maaron - I'm pretty sure that all-black clothes don't make you "goth", doofus. There's usually some extra part about worshipping the devil or something?
Krystle - Heh, that was pretty funny about the all-black thing. I know my friend who wears black all the time isn't a "goth". That's what she tells me.
Maaron - So wait, your friend just dresses in black all the time?
Krystle - Yea, I think it's just a phase for her or something, but it's been like a year.
Maaron - Oh geez. Tell me, does she write a lot of poetry nowadays?
Krystle - No, she's not a poet or anything.
Maaron - I didn't say "Is she good at writing poems", I asked you if she writes a lot of poems. And odds are they're quite lousy, yes?
Krystle - Yea, she does write a lot of bad poetry... It sucks...
Maaron - Oh crap, it looks like we may have a case of "emo" on our hands... Okay tell me, do more than half of her poems contain the words "sadness", "darkness", "lonely/loneliness" or "sorrow"? Are there a lot of "-less" words like "endless", "hopeless" or "helpless"?
Krystle - Oh my god! How did you know that?
Maaron - Because contrary to popular belief, some stereotypes hold true, especially in cases like "emo" where the victim tries everything to conform to the stereotype while mumbling about trying to "be unique".
Krystle - She does always whine about trying to be unique!
Maaron - Shit, then this problem may be worse that I thought. Does she play music - and of course by that I mean does she poorly play some musical instrument or sing and thinks that she's talented when she's not?
Krystle - Yea, I think she tries playing guitar and wants to make a band. Are you sure you haven't met her and this is some joke?
Maaron - I wish this were a joke, Krystle. Oh, how I wish it weren't true. But the sad fact is that we've got us a full-blown case of "emo" with Stage-3 musical tendencies. If she's not stopped soon, she might even get past the depressive and procrastination barriers and actually form that Class-4 band. And there's nothing more deadly than an actual emo-band - with their crappy songs that nobody enjoys except for that band. And if they hit the "indie" scene, that Class-5 disaster will bring this whole neighborhood down faster than the testosterone and sanity levels at a reading of "The Vagina Monologues".
Krystle - Okay, that part's not funny.
Maaron - No, there's nothing funny about the female genetalia - that's the point. The OTHER point is that your friend must be stopped before the situation gets any worse. And to my knowledge, the best cure known to man is electroshock therapy - though if you don't have a car battery lying around, a standard-issue baseball bat is just as acceptable. Repeated blows may be necessary, especially to the head and torso areas. If possible, take out the preferred hand before all else - so as to avoid poetry and/or songs to be written should you fail. Hopefully within minutes, your friend will completely stop being "emo" - or breathing. Either way, she will have been cured, and the world will be a safer place.
Krystle - Yea, she deserves it. Stupid-ass poems...

I hope this conversation has been helpful to you.

For those who didn't pay attention, "Emo" seems to have distinct levels of severity, each having increasingly-disastrous consequences:

Stage 1: Black Clothing.
While harming nothing but the eyes of the fashion-wary and possibly the parents' credit cards, this stage is the most peaceful and easy to handle. Just slap the victim if s/he utters anything remotely morbid WITHOUT being funny. Funny morbid jokes are acceptable and help the victim re-join society.

Stage 2: Bad Poetry.
The negative side-effects of poetry are a paradoxical rise and fall in self-esteem. The victim thinks more poorly of him/herself in order to be constantly in the mood to write more bad poetry, but can also think more highly of him/herself should other Stage-1 emo victims become interested and donate praise and pity for the poetry. Avoid local coffeeshops or anywhere containing the phrase "Open Mic Night", and burn any copy of his/her poetry to fight off a Stage-2 attack.

Stage 3: Bad Music.
Like a disease, most cases of "emo" will progress from the delusion of being able to write poetry to the delusion that the victim can sing and/or play an instrument. More exaggerated effects similar to those of Stage 2 may be present. Have the victim avoid anything music-related, with the exception of children's songs - the promoting of sharing, caring and good hygiene may ease the degenerative effects of "emo". Remove or destroy the instrument used (or smash larynx in case of singing) and again burn all copies of lyrics to avoid a relapse. Also (AND THIS IS IMPORTANT) have the victim avoid other Stage-3 victims at all costs! The result could be a progression to Stage 4.

Stage 4: Band.
At this point, the disease is terminal. In the sense that each victim must be terminated. Rare cases have shown a recovery from Stage-4 "emo", mostly contributing their success to "God" or some other mythical creature like "Hermes" or "the mailman". In most other cases, the surest success for curing the disease was death. A slowdown or prevention to Stage 5 chaos would be to locate the houses of each member of the known band and burn down the garage. The filling of basements with cement may also be necessary if the region is known for having (sound-proof or not) basements. By eliminating a place for the disease to breed and fester by allowing extra "band time", you may be lucky and have the band break up. If you can manage to pull off any of these cures, you may not have to live through Stage 5.

Stage 5: "Indie" Notariety.
If your victim's "emo" band hits the independant media, you are doomed. With a horde of mindless emo followers, all hope is lost. Your best chance for survival is to flee the location and move. Failing that, just duck under a desk in emergency position and pray for a natural disaster or nuclear holocaust. Nothing short of a mass murder and/or killing spree can stop the pain and torture of more innocent lives. You have failed.

So please, if you have a friend experiencing "emo" at any of these stages - contact the local authorities of one of our "emo" helplines. Together we can fight this disease - one broken skull at a time.

Stages 1-3: 1-900-STOP-EMO
Stages 4-5: 1-900-FUCK-EMO

Together we can make a difference.

Paid for by the Administration to Stop Suffering and Help Obliterate Living Emo (A.S.S.H.O.L.E.) Read more!

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

A Ringtone YOU Can't Hear!

It started as the technology of a Welsh security company - an annoying tone that teenagers and dogs could hear, but adults could not. Stores would play the tone, with a product called "Mosquito", and keep loitering teens (and dogs) away from stores leaving adults to shop in peace and quiet. It's geared on the fact that after the age of 20 or so, a human starts developing hearing loss. So there are tones that teens can hear and adults simply cannot, for the most part. And those spunky teenagers took that technology and turned it into a weapon against the very people it was designed to protect:

They turned it into a ringtone for cellphones.

Why, you may ask, would teenagers WILLINGLY listen to such an annoying tone that used to drive them away from Welsh-secured storefronts? Because these teenagers are American. And devious. They've taken a ringtone that only other teenagers can hear, preventing adults from being able to pick up on phone conversations and text-messages being passed around the room. That's right...

...they're using this ringtone in class.

While most teenagers would simply leave a phone on vibrate to silently and deviously accept phonecalls and text-message alerts, this new technology is making them rambunctiously flaunting their gift. Why bother with silence, when their ringtone is just as inaudible to a teacher's ears? Teachers who are aware of this technological breakthrough are trying desperately to plot against the students in various ways.

One teacher said, "About every five minutes I’m going to say…’Hey, I heard that. Turn that phone off,' even if it’s playing or not." Which will be effective maybe once, if he's lucky. Fact is, it just gives students even more opportunity to laugh at their teacher - even more so than by simply answering a phone call behind the teacher's back in the first place.

My idea is to plant a student mole in the classroom. You know, someone who's already designated as a "teacher's pet" - and have that student somehow alert the professor of the ringtone's presence. Maybe with a cough or page-turn of a textbook...? Teachers accusing the ringtone of being present would be a lot more intimidating if they actually had an idea of when it really was present.

What else can you do to combat the scourge, if you're a teacher? Well for starters, see for yourself if you can even hear the tone. The website at the bottom of this article linking to the news-site has a downloadable sound clip of the tone, so you can test it for yourself. Other than that, I'm fresh out of ideas. And for good reason.

I don't have to care, since I'm certainly not in/teaching high school.

And I can still hear the tone.

Good luck to the rest of you.

http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_163203429.html Read more!

Preventing Cancer With Beer??

So apparently in Oregon, a study has shown that there is a chemical in the hops used to make beer that helps prevent prostate cancer in men. The chemical, xanthohumol, affects cells on the surface of the prostate gland and prevents a protein on those cells from turning on and producing cancer. So you think you can drink your way to health? Well, there's a bit of bad news:

It would take 17 beers a day to have potential benefit.

Now, I know what you're thinking (at least if you're like a few of the fraternity guys I used to live with): "17 beers a day? No problem, dude! I'm drinkin' my way to healthiness!" Well, I'd be a fool to not remind you that 17 beers a day would cause severe alcoholism and/or cirrhosis of the liver. But I would also admit that it might be fun trying... So as long as we're on the subject of tiny amounts of chemicals that help prevent prostate cancer, it's worth mentioning that lycopene, a chemical found in tomatoes, it also noted for helping prevent prostate cancer.

So how many pizzas a day would equal the tomatoes needed for the preventative powers of lycopene to take effect?

Four large pizzas a day.

So sadly the whole four-pizzas-a-day plan for preventing prostate cancer would probably give you an obesity problem before you could NOT get prostate cancer, not to mention the other probable health problems (like several heart attacks) it might cause along the prostate-cancer-free path. Also, that amount of cheese would probably do some major havoc on the digestive system... What good is preventing prostate cancer if you can't have a bowel movement for a few months?

So in the end, I guess there's no quick fix for men to prevent prostate cancer - at least NOT YET. With this newfound information, hopefully these chemicals can one day be turned into pills and whatnot to more effectively utilize their preventative natures. Even if there's no fun of getting drunk or pepperoni involved.

But at least there's one more reason to get the guys together, get some pizza and beers, and maybe watch a sporting event.

And if your significant other wants to pester you about the pizza and beer?

"Honey, let me enjoy my treatment! You don't want me to get prostate cancer, do you??"

http://wtopnews.com/?nid=456&sid=818452 Read more!

Goodbye, "Biggie".

Another one bites the dust: a bite that's made to look smaller and nore health-friendly. But a mouthful of dirt is still a mouthful of dirt, no matter how you label it. And Wendy's (the #3 fast-food chain in the US) will no longer be using "Biggie" to label any of their foods.

Because it's the "Biggie" notation making people fat - not the fries and shakes.

The term "Biggie" was a Wendy's trademark since the early 1990's, and now it's gone forever. This is just another step forward on the PC-Police Gestapo's agenda, after having taken down "Supersize" from McDonald's with its independent movie propaganda a while back. I shudder to think what's next on the agenda and what their scare tactics will take down next.

I'm well aware that the PC-Police technically had nothing to do with Wendy's decision. The corporation is trying to move into a more "health-conscious" modus operandi to welcome back patrons who HAVE been scared off by the PC-Police. "They" keep saying that fast food makes you fat, so fast food chains keep trying to make themselves look healthier and better for humanity.

At the cost of value and taste.

I grew up on McDonald's. At least three times a week, because my parents were busy people and fast food was just that - fast and convenient and FOOD. I lived in a generation where "combo meals" became "Extra Value Meals", because you could do the math and see that you were getting more food for less money. And back then, it tasted great, too! Nobody shouting about unhealthy cooking oils and "too much food" or chastising the usage of the term "super-size". Back then it meant that the size of your food was super-value and super-tasty.

Anyone else remember a time when saying something was "super" meant that it was "great"? Should we ridicule Superman for being "too much man"?

So here's my opinion. If you can trust a fat person's opinion on fast food. It is NOT the culprit. The way you look and the amount you weigh is more dependant on your genetic code than the food you eat. Yes, I ate fast food at least three nights a week all throughout my childhood. But my parents are both overweight, and obesity runs in my family - we're all the same body-shape and that's just how things work out.

You want a healthier America? Keep healthy food out of our fast-food places and quit trying to HIDE the fact that we're a civilization willing to eat it. More people gain weight due to stress and guilt and depression than simply eating bad food in the first place. If you're at McDonald's and you have a choice between an overpriced crappy salad and a Big Mac - and you're guilted into the salad because it's "healthier"... odds are you'll be back for the good food, and then you'll have eaten both. And that's not going to make you any thinner. So you go home and eat some ice cream... And the cycle continues.

Instead of making us feel BAD that we're fat, why not embrace it and accept us as NORMAL people? Heck, we're almost a majority of the population anyway!

That means:
- Giving us seats we can sit in and not feel uncomfortable.
- Making clothing stores actually produce clothing in our size (Abercromie, glaring harshly at you).
- Stop bombarding us with low-fat alternatives that are higher-costing and poorer-tasting (if we want the ice cream, we'll eat the fucking regular ice cream and not some half-assed "lowfat" version).

Don't make the Whopper into a Whimper.
Don't make a Big Mac just a Mac. In fact, bring back the Monster Mac (four patties)!
Don't make the Grande into a Pequeño.

Bring back our "Biggie", our "Supersize", and the freedom to choose what goes into our bodies without scaring or guilting us in a different direction.

That's what's great about us fat people: MOMENTUM!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060609/bs_nm/leisure_wendys_dc_1 Read more!

Suffrage for the Dead

Suffrage has seen a lot of action over the past century or so, based on a very vague Constitution regarding voting policy. It used to refer to white, Christian, male land-owners - and slowly but surely it has spread to all walks of life, all races, and all genders. But there's one place still unspecified that is being debated on and may cause suffrage to rear its head again.

The Constitution doesn't say a voter has to be alive. And in West Virginia, they're taking away the dead's right to vote.

The Secretary of State in West Virginia, Republican Betty Ireland, has been purging more than 6,000 names from the voting polls since she started her first term. And those 6,000 names are all people who are dead. And odds are that the rumors are true, and they're mostly dead Democrats.

So why is this happening? Since when are we stopping the right of the dead to vote in elections? Haven't they more or less BEEN doing so in elections past - and we didn't seem to have too huge of a problem with it back then. Heck, back in 2002, some politician in South Dakota added like 2,000 names of deceased Native Americans to the voting poll - almost a form of honoring the dead, right?

Frankly, in a society like the one we have today with its political correctness gestapo and levels of idiocy enough to permit people like John Edwards to continue "communicating with the dead", why shouldn't dead people have the right to vote? If we're going to foolishly believe as a society that so many idiots (oh, I mean "psychics") can actually communicate with the dead, shouldn't those political views communicated by the dead be honored and respected as a vote cast in their name? As the PC-police would say, we should be tolerant of the views of all people, even the dead. And if great-grandpappy wants you to cast his vote for "the man what ain't a Jew" - who are we to deny him his right to have that opinion and have it count in the polls?

And if we stop there, with eliminating the right for the dead to vote, what will we do about the UNdead? Should the living-dead zombies and vampires be left out of elections just because of their status as living-impaired? And if they can't vote, even though they're dead but MOBILE, what happens to the living, yet immobile? Should coma patients not be allowed to vote?

Does a lack of brain activity mean that you shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Insert your own joke about George W. Bush here. I don't feel like making it, but you have every right to do so if you wish.

The point is, voting is never an easy subject. Frankly, I agree with the author of this article I picked the story up from: "I also want the [state's voting polls] purged of felons, illegal aliens and people who have moved to some other state."

Because frankly, if we can't even manage to do that, what's the harm in leaving some dead people on the polls on top of that?

http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2006/06/dead-lose-their-right-to-vote-in-west.html Read more!

Cellphone Guns

Let's face it - airport security has gotten out of hand. And you don't need to be a hilarious stand-up comedian to realize it. The horrific lines to go through a metal detector, the fact that most now require you to remove your shoes to do so, and the random searches of luggage and person to ensure utmost safety when going into and airport and/or onto a plane. So why go through all this trouble, and keep up this charade, and what's the next level of insanity we'll see?

Cellphones that are actually guns.

I caught wind up it in the most unseemly of places - an article about spy equipment. I got a laugh and giggle at very tiny cameras, and pens that scan documents, and a nifty telephone with a motion sensor that will call you and let you listen in when someone trips it. And then I saw the #1 item in their Top Ten of gadgetry: The cellphone gun.

The cellphone gun, or Cell Gunphone, has a mechanism that you can twist and the top half slides over so you can load up to 4 .22-calibur bullets into it. You slide the half back over, and it resumes looking exactly like a regular cellphone. Well, I shouldn't say "regular", as most cellphones I encounter are full of their own gadgetry and sleek designs not capable of holding 4 regular-sized bullets - but the fact remains that it looks like an "outdated" cellphone by size and structure.

While it doesn't actually make calls, pushing one of four buttons will obviously fire one of its four bullets. Which truly bumps up the deadly capabilities of what seems like a harmless phone to onlookers. But it's not the innocent bystanders who need to be aware of the phone's capabilities - it's the law enforcement and security personnel. While it's normally been policy at many airports to demand that cellphones be turned on at security to verify the fact that it is a phone and not for SMUGGLING - now additional measures may need to be taken to ensure it also won't shoot the personnel.

While an argument can be made that these devices were first discovered in Amsterdam and no cases have yet been reported of them in the US - authorities say it's "only a matter of time". If you build it, Americans will abuse it. (Especially if it starts in Amsterdam.) One can really only hope that newer models aren't made to look like more high-tech phones. The last thing you want is a cameraphone lens that's more of a targeting device than a memory-maker. So US authorities are already on the lookout, and just as overly freaked as ever.

So what's the bottom line?

Expect an increase in police shootings. America is already well-known for its police officers that can mistake reaching for a cellphone the same thing as reaching for a gun. Now combine that with the fact that HOLDING A CELLPHONE could be confused with the possibility of HOLDING A GUN. Instant recipe for disaster.

My advice: When near the police, just let the fucking voicemail get it!

http://cellular.co.za/phones/gunphone/gun-phone.htm Read more!

It's Illegal to Be Humane

An elderly man was having a problem with grey squirrels nesting on his property and attacking the birds. So instead of just killing them, he bought a humane cage trap and caught squirrels one-by-one. He covered the cages with a sheet to calm the squirrels as he drove them out to a woodland area away from his home, and released them safely. He rescued/saved/transplanted more than twenty squirrels until he was finally caught.

What he did was illegal. He should have simply shot them.

Now for those of you that read my anti-PETA posts, this has nothing to do with them or my opinion right now. The fact of the matter is that this man lives in England, where the British version of the ASPCA - the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) - says that "it is against the Wildlife and Country Act 1981 to release non-native species into the wild because there are problems they may cause to British wildlife such as red squirrels. Even the RSPCA could not re-release a grey squirrel." In fact, the RSPCA has absolutely no problem with killing the squirrels, and it's perfectly legal (as long as it's done "humanely").

This elderly man was forced to sign a statement acknowledging the law, and was warned that if he did it again, he could be prosecuted. It's not against the law to capture them, but it's against the law to release them once captured. One member of the RSPCA even suggested to him that he could buy and air rifle and shoot them, rather than break the law and release them. What makes matters worse is that the cage was already in the greenhouse and had caught yet another squirrel.

The cage used to humanely capture squirrels so they could be released and NOT have to die - is being manipulated by humans and being turned into the deathtrap it simply was not designed to be.

And if that's what we humans can do, maybe humane traps really are just glorified death-traps.

When you think about the crap we humans pull, it really makes you want to stop throwing the word "humane" around like it's a good thing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=389976&in_page_id=1770 Read more!

The Price Of Death - Too Much?

There's a new trend in town. Amid the facts that funerals are getting more and more costly, even cremation is a large expense, and the money to put a loved one to rest just keeps getting higher and higher as funeral parlors feed more and more on the grieving - there's sadly one thing to can do to avoid it all. For most, the easy answer is to simply stop death itself, though our fun-gineers are still tinkering with that process. The harder answer comes with an even harder price, non-monetary as it may be:

Many people are abandoning their deceased loved ones.

The easiest way to not pay for a funeral is to simply not have one. The bodies are left at the coronor's if nobody comes to claim them and handle funeral arrangements. Funerals alone can cost upwards of $6,000 and cremation is still rather expensive, though less so than the alternative. Well, the alternative that doesn't involve leaving a loved one in the morgue and letting the city handle it.

Yes, the city foots the bill for unclaimed bodies. Most are cremated (to make things simple) and they usually wind up in a local cemetary in a small city-owned plot. It's not ritzy, but the city tries to handle the situations with the grace and dignity that loved ones wouldn't offer.

In fact, sometimes it's not the "can't afford it" speech. Many families choose to use insurance money and inheritances for things other than the funeral and forego it entirely. One woman reported that she planned on using the life insurance money to remodel her kitchen, rather than give a burial to her mother-in-law.

Odds are she got to use the "It's what she would have wanted" line, too.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UNCLAIMED_DEAD?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US Read more!

Monday, June 12, 2006

T.P. Chic?

If you want luxury and indulgence, America is certainly the place to find it. "First-class", "superior quality", and "ultra-comfort" are labels you'd find on products you never thought possible. And now, we've gone one step further. If you saw the labels "elegant", "sophisticated" and "avant-garde" being used to describe the color black - you might think the product was a dress or food item or maybe stretching it as far as underwear. And you'd be wrong. Because Renova doesn't make dresses, food, or underwear.

Renova Black is a toilet paper.

In fact, here's how the website for the toilet paper chooses to describe it: Renova Black is an elegant 3-ply, fragrance bath tissue paper that has been tested under dermatological and gynecological control. It is a biodegradable, non-toxic, soothing tissue and does not bleed any color when wet.

Is this really what America has been needing? A luxury so decadent, you wipe your butt with it and flush it down the toilet? Now I'll admit that I'm no slouch when it comes to my personal buttocks. When at the store, I would never go for a toilet paper that is one-ply or feels "like sandpaper", opting for a cost-effective 2-ply roll that delivers value and quantity. No need for fragrances, cutesy patterns and designs, or a different COLOR. We have an understanding: I remember that it's a butt and what comes out of it, and it remembers that it's not the Queen of France. I get it the 2-ply cost-effective stuff, and it doesn't complain at the amount of computer chair it has to look at during an average day.

So who out there thinks that their butt deserves this caviar of the toilet-paper world? This Rolls-Royce of the bathroom industry? Are you afraid your guests will be so unimpressed at your marble sculptures and 6-man hot-tub and Oriental ruggery that a full convincing might require black luxury toilet paper?

"Well, I thought the Monet in the sitting room was quite bourgeois, and their taste in caviar was deplorable - but this toilet paper convinces me that my hosts/hostesses truly are GODS!"

Seriously, enough is enough. The fact that the fashionistas have brought elegance and chic design all the way to the level of toilet paper is at best an ironic twist of fate. For years, there have been a group of Americans who would agree that "modern design" and "fashion standards" have been so useless they would prefer wipe their butts with them than celebrate/wear them. And now, those people finally can.

Elegance so high and mighty, you can't help but wipe your butt with it and flush it away...

http://www.wellbeingworldusa.com/ Read more!

Friday, April 28, 2006

Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame

In a city like Chicago, one would think that there are enough people around to STOP things like this from happening. But PETA and their propaganda went too far, and nobody was smart enough to see through it - because they took it straight to the government this time. Had their propaganda not been shown to a room of the 49 members of the Chicago City Council - the vote would never have been so skewed. The vote was 48 to 1, and Chicago is now outlawing the sale of foie gras.

At least ONE person saw through the propaganda. But now we all have to pay. We just can't pay for foie gras.

The way they went about this should be illegal. It should be considered entrapment, brainwashing, or something that exudes just how "wrong" their game plan was. They took a room of 49 council members, showed them a propagandized video about the cruelty of foie gras production, and then let them vote right afterwards.

A SEVEN-YEAR-OLD could tell you that's "wrong".

That's like making a room full of senators watch a gruesome movie about a plane crash and then asking them to vote on some kind of airplane regulation bill. Or like asking a person to watch a Michael Moore movie and then ask them to NOT want to strangle him with his own disemboweled intestinal tract. It's wrong! I will admit that the movie PETA came up with is cruel. Like ALL their videos.

It's okay for PETA to be against "sending lambs to the slaughter", but it's okay to "lead city council members to a vote" in the same fashion.

Which brings me to the major problem itself with PETA - they overgeneralize.

(Okay, and they forget that "Humans Are Animals Too". That's another biggie.)

In the 70's, they had footage of one guy cruelly clubbing a baby seal. Which meant that "ALL SEAL HUNTS ARE WRONG". No, that GUY was wrong and should be punished - not punishing the seal hunt itself. PETA loves to show footage of a circus trainer being cruel to an elephant. Which meant that "ALL CIRCUSES ARE WRONG". No, the trainer should have been fired and maybe punished legally - not punishing Ringling Brothers Circus on the whole. So now there's footage of a bad way to harvest foie gras - by funneling food into a waterfowl's throat so its liver grows to 10 times its normal size. That does not mean "ALL FOIE GRAS IS WRONG". It's a cruel act, so punish the farmers who do it - not the food itself or the people who enjoy eating it.

Know how to PROPERLY get people to stop eating foie gras?

Make it more expensive. Crack down on the farmers, so they can't make livers so big. With regular-sized livers, the price of foie gras has to go up. And if it's too expensive, fewer people will buy it. Profits stay nearly the same - less ducks and geese die as less liver balances with fewer buyers at higher prices.

Less death, no abuse, less foie gras, and the economy doesn't get ruined and people aren't treated like idiots.

PETA - stop treating humans the way humans treat animals. Don't put blinders on our lawmakers so they don't see the machines you're using to coerce them as you propagandize them like A Clockwork Orange.

"Animals are not Ours to Eat?" I say "Humans are not Yours to Manipulate".

Mac Dre is wrong - don't hate the game, hate the player.


UPDATE: For those of you who do not know of "foie gras", how it is made, and question whether it gets done "humanely" - here's an exerpt straight from Wikipedia:

"Production Methods:

Ducks and geese are omnivorous, and like many birds, have very elastic throats which expand and allow them to store whole food in the esophagus while awaiting digestion in the stomach. In the wild this dilation allows them to swallow large items, such as a whole fish, for a long digestive process. A wild duck may double its weight in the autumn, storing fat throughout much of its body and especially on the liver. This weight gain is entirely reversible both in the wild and with farmed fowl used in foie gras production.

The geese or ducks used in foie gras production are initially free range, feeding on grasses that toughen the esophagus. While still free roaming they are gradually introduced to a high starch diet that by itself leads to about half of the enlarged liver's size. The next feeding phase, which the French call finition d'engraissement, or "completing the fattening process", involves forced daily ingestion of feed for 12 to 15 days with ducks and for 15 to 18 days with geese. During this phase ducks are usually fed twice daily while geese are usually fed 3 times daily. The feed is administered using a funnel fitted with a large tube (20 to 30 cm long) which forces the feed into the animal's esophagus. If using an auger system to drive the feed, the procedure takes about 45 to 60 seconds. If using a pneumatic system, the process takes only about 2 to 3 seconds. Care is taken during the feeding process to ensure no damage to the esophagus occurs, which could cause injury or death in the animal.

Force feeding exploits a natural process through which geese and ducks store fat in their livers in preparation for winter migration. The feed, usually corn which is boiled with fat to facilitate ingestion, causes large amounts of fat to deposit in the liver producing the buttery consistency." Read more!

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Motorcycle Envy (E.N.V.)

I, being a city dweller, cannot count the number of times that I have been woken from a sound sleep from the sound of a motorcycle. Whether starting up, revving up, or merely passing by - these blaring vehicles are loud enough to wake the dead. Or at least those who sleep like the dead...

So what would you say if there were a new motorcycle out there that not only is SILENT, but runs on HYDROGEN POWER?

You obviously haven't heard of the ENV (Envy).

ENV, standing for Emissions Neutral Vehicle, is a new breed of motorcycle that runs on a fuel cell of hydrogen that lets it run for about 4 hours (or 100 miles, whichever comes first) and because of this, it's silent.

Nothing that can wake the neighbors, aside from a pompous rider who must proclaim about his purchase because he wants to hear some envy since nobody can hear his ENV. And it's emissions neutral. So what's wrong with this picture?

Motorcycles go "vroom".

(Or in the case of Harley-Davidson, they almost go "potato-potato".)

This doesn't do either. It just runs. At a top speed of 50mph. And it doesn't have gears to shift, so it runs a little like a moped (or as we GTA-ers would say, a "Faggio"). Is it just me, or are they trying to destroy the name of motorcycles everywhere?

Motorcycles are death machines. Because that's what we intended them to be. You hear that "vroom" sound, sometimes it's loud enough to kill you. And bikers have built up an image of being just as deadly as the choppers they ride. Evel Knievel made a living defying death with his.

So why are we going to change it?

Bring back the noise, and bring back the gunk. If there's something we should be neutralizing to the point of uselessness, let's make it something less cool than motorcycles. We need those vehicles of death to keep us on our toes from excitement, fear and anger. Heck, if it weren't for the motorcycles outside my apartment - I might sometimes sleep in too late!

How about some hydrogen-powered golf carts instead?

http://www.boston.com/cars/news/articles/2006/04/09/is_it_still_a_motorcycle_if_its_silent/ Read more!