Eat a Steak - Save the World

Yelp Extended Review: Heaven On Seven

2011-12-26T20:52:00.003-06:00

We headed into Heaven On Seven completely excited over the prospect of their "all-you-can-eat" deal being available every day for lunch and dinner. We sat down at the table, ordered our drinks, and took a look at the menu. We found the AYCE section, but were a little dismayed that it only featured fried chicken, fried catfish, gumbo, jambalaya, and a bunch of sides. Yes, you could have as much as you want, but how much of those items would we want, after browsing the very exciting rest of the menu?

And that's when we saw it: "Jimmy, Feed Me!" - the chef's selection of Seven Heavenly Courses. It's basically paying $35 per person to tell the chef, "My meal is in your hands." For us, it was like being a celebrity judge on Iron Chef or any other Food Network judging show. We didn't know what we'd be getting, but we knew there would be seven rounds to see what our chef would be offering today.

Our server informed us it was pretty much "an appetizer round, then a soup round, then pretty much a bunch of smaller-portion entrees. He also made sure our table had no allergies. And while there are foods that we each dislike (I am not a fan of tomatoes; she dislikes sweet potatoes), we decided to throw caution to the wind. After all, if the CHEF thinks it's delicious, maybe our preconceptions could be wrong.

Round 1: Fried Green Tomato with a Warm Remoulade Sauce

Ah, right off the bat, I had to face down the dreaded Tomato. But the presentation was magnificent, and I took my first bite and thought, "Wow - this doesn't even taste like a tomato!" In fact, I likened it to a giant slice of fried zucchini, which meant I rather enjoyed the first course. We had a little bit of bread left in our basket to sop up the exquisite leftover sauce.

Round 2: A Soup Duo - Gumbo and Turtle Soup in little cups, with a Jalapeño Cheddar Corn Muffin on the side (with honey butter)

So we admit to never having turtle soup before. And to make matters more intriguing, the server asks us, "Would you like some sherry on your turtle soup?"

We took that to mean, "This is how you eat turtle soup" - so we accepted. I found it to be very tasty (except for a hidden little bay leaf or something which was not Good Eats), and did not expect I would enjoy eating turtle. But I did. The only way I could have enjoyed it more would be if the server informed us that these particular turtles had just finished their pubescent martial arts training (and genetic reconfiguration) before being added to the soup.

That's a nerdy-as-hell TMNT joke, folks!

The gumbo was good, as far as gumbos go. The corn muffin was a-mah-zing, just a little bit of kick and a little sweetness from the honey butter to make it all perfect.

Round 3: Voodoo Enchilada (with chicken and andouille sausage, melted chihuahua cheese and voodoo sauce)

Our first entree, and technically something that's NOT ON THE MENU.

Buckle up, kiddies - you just entered the Chef's World, and there ain't no goddamned maps to get to this street in Flavortown!

The enchilada was absolutely fantastic - meats perfect inside; gooey cheese and voodoo sauce outside! And it wasn't a pithy portion, either! It was a full enchilada that stretched the entire diameter of a moderate-sized plate! And it was only the FIRST entree!

Round 4: Scallop with Braised Oxtail, served on garlic mashed potatoes

This was a dish that really made me feel like I was an Iron Chef judge. The scallop was HUGE, and - if I know my Food Network - needed to be the perfect doneness in order to be palatable. And let me tell you, it was scallop perfection. The braised oxtail elevated it even higher, flavor-wise - and the mashed potatoes had the perfect amount of garlic to not overpower, but still give it a real oomph and rise above reg'lar ol' mashed puh-taters. (Yet another stop off-menu, too!)

Round 5: Fried Tilapia on rice with a Louisiana Crab Cake

I didn't actually see tilapia anywhere on the menu, so we once again were completely at the chef's mercy for our third entree. The fish was very tasty, and I'm not a big fan of fish so that's a lofty compliment. I really enjoyed the crab cake, since it seemed to be almost 100% crab meat inside of that fried crispy shell. The only downside here was some rather bland rice and insufficient sauce on the plate to make it all worth eating.

Round 6: Grilled Andouille Sausage (with grilled onions) on Sweet Potato Polenta

This actually was on the menu, but as a Starter and not an entree. We figured that Round 6 would likely bringing on a little bit of heat (since this is a restaurant that features a plethora of hot sauce bottle), and I got enough of a kick from the spices in that sausage to qualify this as "the spiciest round". But the real star here was the sweet potato polenta. I want a BUCKET of that stuff. The only negative in my mind was the fact that the outside edge of the plate had something sour/acidic, like a vinegar-based glaze or sauce. It didn't mesh well with the sweet, sweet polenta - so I ate around it (or rather left it around what I was eating).

We finished that plate off, realizing we only had one course left - no doubt it would be a dessert round. So which of the classic desserts would we be served? Maybe some dessert that was off-menu? Wouldn't that be a treat!!

We kept staring at the dessert list up on the wall, wondering as the minutes ticked by what sweet plate would be arriving at our table... After about 5 minutes, our server said, "Oh, it looks like your last course is up! I'll be right back!"

Round 7: Beef Tip with Mashed Potatoes and an Onion Ring

What? You're giving us a 7-course meal and decided not to end with a dessert, but rather with a pretty-large-sized Beef Tip and pile of mashed potatoes? (The onion ring felt like an afterthought - it didn't jump out as anything original, but still was a dern good onion ring, as far as onion rings can go.) Well - if that's the way you're going to play this game, we'll take your Beef and we'll LIKE IT, see??

Actually, expecting a nice little dessert and then getting a hunk o' steer was kind of a mind-screw. I mean it was a perfectly-cooked and tender-as-hell cut of beef. The mashed potatoes didn't have that same pizzazz as the Scallop round somehow. Maybe the garlic got lost in the beefy juices, but they tasted a little bland/salty in the end. Or my tongue was so anticipatory of sweetness that everything else that round tasted salty by comparison. Who knows? (This dish was also non-menu, by the way.)

That was how the chef decided to do the last round, and we finished our fantastic meal and awaited the check so that we could waddle our bloated bodies back down that escalator and figure out how we'd be getting home.

Bonus Round (Dessert): I had Key Lime Ice Box Pie / she had Chocolate Peanut Butter Pie

Wait, that's not our check!?! Our server brought over a dessert menu and said, "It's not actually stated on the menu, but the Jimmy Feed Me comes with a dessert, so let me know which one you each want."

He stepped away and we looked at the dessert menu, flabbergasted. It's like if you made it to the $1,000,000 prize on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and then Regis Philbin says, "Of course, you can also now win TWO MILLION DOLLARS by answering ANOTHER question!!"

Damn you! We weren't prepared for a Bonus Round! But we went for it anyway - I chose the Key Lime Ice Box Pie, and she went with her favorite, the Chocolate Peanut Butter Pie.

As it turns out, I unexpectedly made the wisest decision. The ice box pie, when it came out, was like eating the lightest pie ever. It was practically eating key lime foam, that's how light and airy this pie was. Her, on the other hand, was facing down a dense, thick, gooey slice o' pie - and it did her in. The white flag was raised - please get us a box!

With boxed pie in tow, we did get out check, and eventually did the Waddle Of Shame down State Street to get to our bus stop. It was an amazing meal, and it made us feel like stars. Like the chef wanted to specifically PLEASE US. We weren't choosing something and hoping the chef made it the way we like it - we were engaging the chef to "hit us with your best shot - SEVEN TIMES."

So please - if it's your first time at Heaven On Seven and you know you want SOMETHING cajun-flavored and don't know what on the menu you should go with, just leave it all up to the chef by saying those three magic words:

"JIMMY, FEED ME!"

And, by Jimmy, you will be FED.

Endless Shrimp, Endless Misery

2011-09-10T22:30:00.003-05:00

I see going to Red Lobster as mostly a celebration / special occasion place. The prices are way up there, the portions aren't really that great, but when the ol' anniversary rolls around, I know the little lady is going to want lobster and as long as we're paying for lobster, I might as well do so at a place where they have endless Cheddar Bay Biscuits to keep me happy.

In fact, Red Lobster pretty much has accepted that's all they're good for, since every time you come in, they seat you and flat-out ask you if there's a special occasion you're celebrating. Because they know it's a rare event that someone just says "I'm hungry for dinner - let's just go to Red Lobster."

Well, the special occasion we were celebrating tonight was the seasonal return of the Endless Shrimp promotion. It's one of the only times I'll volunteer making the trip and paying the price to eat here, because it's one of the only times I feel I can finally get some of that lost money back and really make it worth my time. But the past two times we've been to this place for the Endless Shrimp, it's just gotten worse and worse. Today just topped it all with a one-two combination of ineptitude and inattention.

To start, we had a comfort issue situation. The booths are Red Lobster are not fat-person-friendly, and when we were seated at such a table, it took about 20 seconds of wedging and squirming trying to fit my ass and gut in appropriately that as soon as our server came, I asked if it would be possible to get seated at a table with chairs. She was very polite and could see exactly why we were requesting it, and she went to ask the hostess about it. Sure enough, 2 minutes later we were on our way to a table with chairs where I fit much more comfortably (as long as we staggered seating with the other tables so my chair could pull out enough with nobody behind me and they could do the same for our empty chair).

Unfortunately, this table was located in what I am calling the "Inattention Zone". Our new server arrived to take our order, and didn't really do any introductions - just straight to "do you know what you want to order". Not even "can I get you something to drink" or anything like that. So my girlfriend Char picked her first two Endless Shrimp items, went with the baked potato with butter and sour cream, and the salad with bleu cheese dressing. I picked my shrimp items, salad with ranch dressing, and ordered us both Diet Cokes (since she never asked Char what she wanted to drink) and I ordered us an appetizer of onion rings, since those were new on the menu.

5 minutes later, she finally brought our drinks. No biscuits.

Another 5 minutes went by and she asked if the onion rings were a side or an appetizer. I said appetizer, and the confusion was that I forgot to pick my potato side dish. Or rather, she never bothered to ask me for it. So I said I wanted fries for my side, and the onion rings were the appetizer.

She went back to enter that in the computer, I guess. It was another 5 minutes or so before she brought our salads. And we had to ASK her to please bring us our goddamned biscuits. You know, the ones you've brought DIRECTLY OUT to the TWO OTHER tables around us that you've been service since we've been here. She went back out and brought us back a basket of biscuits. Finally.

This was a running theme we were noticing. The other tables in her area, she was visiting way more often than ours. The other tables around us who had a different server - also getting much better attention.

It was about halfway through the salad that she came to us and said "I'm sorry, but the chef has 86ed the onion rings." I decided not to gambit another appetizer, so I said okay and that was the end of that discussion. I was looking forward to trying them, but I guess they somehow ran out at 5:30pm?

It was about the time that we finished our salads when I realized our biscuits were empty and our soda glasses had been empty for a while. We pushed the empty salad plates to the end of the table and just sat there. Waiting. Waiting for our server to notice us.

She didn't appear at all until it was time to bring out the entrees. Char got her two shrimp dishes and baked potato. I got my two shrimp dishes and... a baked potato. Our server stood there and said "Do you need anything else?" when we clearly had an empty biscuit basket and empty drinks and the first thing out of my mouth was "Yes, I ordered fries." She went to go put that in, and before she left I tried to remind her about our soda. No luck.

A manager or two had been through our area, checking up on the tables and mysteriously missing our table while going through the section. Finally caught one and we let him know we were hoping to get refills of our drinks and biscuits. He quickly grabbed up our glasses and basket and headed off. Returned about 2 minutes later with everything we needed.

My fries finally arrived, and less than a minute after they were delivered, my shrimp was empty and I was waiting for the chance to order more. After all, it's Endless Shrimp, right?

While waiting for the chance to order more shrimp, the soda and biscuits were consumed. Which meant we we sitting around, picking at fries, waiting for a refill of... EVERYTHING ELSE. We were practically LOITERING at this point. If a random employee had spotted us and not known the situation, it would have looked like we were waiting for a check or something. We were not. We were still pretty dern hungry and thirsty and hoping to be noticed.

The thing that irritates me the most about the situation is that Red Lobster should TRAIN their employees specifically to handle Endless Shrimp people like me. I mean let's face it - when confronted with a person like me, the goal of the restaurant should be to fill me up as efficiently as possible so they can stay profitable, get more customers seated and served, and keep me happy so I return in the future. And the way you do that is: FILL ME UP ON BISCUITS. If there's anything that keeps Red Lobster's profit margins safe, it's those biscuits. Ingredient-wise, they're the most cost-effective food on the menu. Cheap to make, easy to crank 'em out like a biscuit factory, and doughy and filling enough to waste all that precious stomach room and get me full so that I tap out, pay up, and you can seat someone skinnier at my table and make some damn money off of them, too.

So you can understand my frustration at NOT HAVING biscuits at the ready. I mean if you're going to be freakishly slow with the shrimp refills, the least you can do is let me idly stuff biscuits down my gullet. EVERYONE WINS IF I HAVE BISCUITS. Letting that basket sit empty is a slap in the face to me and a kick in the groin to Red Lobster because now all that room is being reserved for expensive shrimp orders.

Speaking of which, I am QUITE dismayed that the Endless Shrimp promotion has downgraded from letting people order TWO follow-up items at a time to now only ONE at a time. The dismay can be pointed out by the simple situation I was put in when I finally was able to get my FIRST refill, after being practically assaulted by my server for having the audacity to try and order TWO things. I got a plate of breaded shrimp. There were about 10 pieces of shrimp on the plate. They took less than 60 seconds to devour. My server was still in sight, walking away, by the time I was done and wanted to flag her down to place another refill order.

Can you see why this is an inefficient way to serve people food?

I can understand the logic that the longer a person sits around NOT EATING after having eaten something, the more likely they are to wind up feeling full. It's something about the stomach sending signals to the brain to stop signalling hunger - I don't really recall the science around it because I'm more or less immune to it when it comes to small quantities of food. Which is what we have here.

If I ordered an item and got about 20 pieces of shrimp instead of 10 or less, that's twice as full I'd be getting and you'd have me out of your restaurant and paid up twice as fast. But no. You expect me to take 1 minute to eat up a tiny plate of shrimp and then wait 10 minutes to place another order and another 10 minutes to wait for it to be cooked. Oh, and then 1 minute to eat up that batch and repeat the process.

Which brings me to the ineptitude that was running rampant tonight. We were sitting around waiting for our server to take our refill shrimp order, and we were approached by another server carrying some shrimp items and saying:

Server: "Who had the sweet and spicy shrimp and who had the shrimp alfredo?"
Me: "Um, no, we haven't even had the chance to order more shrimp yet."
Server: "Oh, this isn't Ashley's table?"
Me: "I don't think so..."

She moved one table down and those seemed to be the folks who had that order. Apparently Ashley was a more-attentive server and was actually working to get her tables more food. Our server, as it turns out, was named "Sheri". And was not working to get us more food.

This scenario played out at least one other time at our table (someone trying to deliver food we didn't order) and several times at the tables around us. I mean... these tables all have NUMBERS on them, right? You all take tickets for orders based on TABLE NUMBERS, don't you? Isn't that how restaurants work???

It was about at the 90-minute mark when we'd already seen two entire tables get seated, have their food, pay, leave, and seat someone else. We started making friends with people at the tables around us. At least THEY paid attention to us and we began joking about our horrible server and the general bedlam that was going on tonight. We specifically warned the table next to us that Sheri was apparently "new to the job" and would be screwing up their orders on a regular basis, especially when they were seated so close to our "Inattention Zone". We were still waiting for another order to be taken when we overheard those people telling Sheri about the items they were missing and what they had been waiting on. They were just a lot more upfront with her about it.

I frankly can't bring myself to be mean to a server, no matter how inept or inattentive. I tend to be more passive-aggressive. Like when a manager came by and asked us if we needed anything. We easily told him about how lack of refills and how we wanted to order more shrimp. He gladly took our order, took our glasses and basket and refilled them. The one time we got our ACTUAL server to refill our biscuit basket, she took it away with our glasses to get the refill... and then disappeared for 10 minutes.

The only thing worse than having empty glasses and baskets, waiting for a refill - is when they take it all away to refill and leave you with absolutely nothing.

It was around the 2-hour mark that she said "screw it" and the next time someone tried delivering the wrong shrimp item to our table, we took it anyway. I felt bad about technically screwing someone else over who was waiting for this food, but I felt I'd been screwed over enough and the screwing-over needed to be spread around a little more to the others who weren't unfortunate enough to be seated in the "Inattention Zone".

After 140 minutes, I was pretty much done. I wasn't as full or satisfied as I prefer to be after engaging in an all-you-can-eat event, but my stomach just decided it was nevertheless the time or us to go elsewhere. Sure enough, it's about 4 hours later and I'm snacking on things before bedtime because that's how ineffective my all-you-can-eatery performed tonight.

And yet - I know we'll be back. Every time we go, it's never a GREAT experience, but with every pitfall, we learn and develop new techniques to try and make the next time better. The last time we were at Red Lobster, we picked up the technique of sliding our empties to the edge of the table. This was the best signal we could think of to say "THIS IS EMPTY AND WE NEED MORE". Which works quite well - if you have a server with a modicum of attentiveness.

Unfortunately, tonight has taught us that we need to develop better strategy for the especially-shitty servers. Maybe a more-aggressive approach will work. The table next to us, after our warning, got QUITE bitchy and verbal with Sheri about "I NEED THIS AND STILL WAITING ON THAT AND I BELIEVE I'M SUPPOSED TO GET THIS OTHER THING WHEN I ORDER THAT ITEM". It seemed to be working for them to a higher degree than our efforts got us. Perhaps if this happens again, we'll be more proactive with the managers and flag them down to let them know what's going on instead of waiting for them to come around for us to register our complaints.

I really hate the idea of getting someone in trouble, especially because I am SURE that's it's a difficult and stressful job to be a server. I frankly have never done it, would never be good at it, and have no plans in the future to ever attempt it. But if you're not doing a good job, what else can I do but let someone know you're not doing a good job? Even though there is guilt, at a certain point, the guilt means nothing to me if my poor stomach is suffering as a result. My stomach will always win out over the safety of your job when it comes to making these decisions, servers.

Just try not to get my stomach pissed off, and you'll be safe. That's a good tip for ANY server out there.

And again, I know we'll be back. It's Endless Shrimp, for goodness sake.

Just don't forget the goddamned biscuits, Red Lobster.

Remember - everyone wins when I have my Cheddar Bay Biscuits.

What about you? Have you had a similar experience? Any tips for politely dealing with inept/inattentive servers?

Product Review: Mega Marshmallow Munchie

2011-07-02T21:18:00.005-05:00

Disclaimer: This post will be moved to my new official review blog once it has been chosen and launched.

The name kind of says it all - this marshmallow treat is "MEGA".

In fact, it's so rather large that until I picked it up to read that the serving size was 1/2 of the packaged treat, I felt that it was more of a meal than a snack.

You see, I grew up at a time when marshmallow treats seemed to really take rise in the marketplace.

And when I speak of "marshmallow treats", I am of course referring to "puffed rice mixed with butter and marshmallow and cut into bar shapes". Some call them "Rice Krispies Treats", but that's like calling all tissues "Kleenex".

I know that Rice Krispies cereal had been around for a long time before I was even born, and other puffed rice cereals, and that people had been using them with butter and marshmallows to make these treaty bars for quite some time. That's not the point. I was around for the official launching of the pre-made Rice Krispies Treats bars packaged and available in the supermarket. Since then, their popularity seems to have only gone up. Whether it's using a chocolate-y puffed rice cereal, or even a different cereal altogether, there's always something new going on with marshmallow treats.

Which brings me to the Mega Marshmallow Munchie. Which, as I mentioned, deserves the title of "Mega", as referenced here:

My hand may not be considered a large one, but it is still an adult hand, mostly obscured by the treat in question.

As for the taste, let me just say that it offers a very good amount of marshmallow, to the point where you can see the ribbons of sugary goodness when pulling off pieces. And you may likely be pulling off pieces, just because of the sheer size and thickness of the bar. It almost hurt my jaw just trying to get a full bite going. It was also difficult to get that bite due to my salivation at the idea of consuming such a monstrous treat.

I think that the only apt description when it comes to taste is "too much awesome".

Yes, the flavor is quite awesome. This particular treat came equipped with a sprinkling of little mini chocolate chips and rainbow-colored sprinkles on top. They added a nice bit of texture and flavor, but I'm glad they were only on the top and not throughout the entire bar. That way you get bites where the chocolate chips shine through and bites where you're just enjoying a well-made marshmallow treat by itself.

In the end, I do have to include the "too much" phrasing to the description. This is not meant to be a solo endeavor. The nutritional information (which I think is bunk when it comes to non-nutritional things in general) does state that the servings per container is TWO. Of course, the Food and Drug Administration also ridiculously seems to think that a serving of ice cream is 1/2 of a cup, but that's a matter for a different review.

I struggled in a delectable battle and inevitably did win, but even I (a very fat man) felt it was too much to be doing alone. But I would rather overeat than be "that guy" who wrapped up half of his marshmallow treat in plastic wrap to save for later at another appropriate snacking time.

So that's the story of the Mega Marshmallow Munchie. It does come in more flavors, but this is the one I had on hand to review. I'll either add a new review if I get hold of the other flavors, or just edit this one to include them.

Meet Squamous, the Baby Tumor

2011-02-27T18:26:00.004-06:00

If you know me, you also know that I'm moderately crazy when it comes to random discussions and creative trains of thoughts. Now tie in a cripplingly-boring as well as cripplingly-stressful job and you'll find that birds of crazy feathers tend to flock together.

That's why a few co-workers and I have set up a group Skype chat that we use to have random conversations (with a few standard ones thrown in when work gets super-busy and we communicate along any chatline possible to get results).

And then, this happened:

(Names have been changed to protect those who don't want to admit having such ridiculous conversations)

[2/23/2011 9:01:43 AM] [Me]: My nose is fucked up because I
swear I smell Kasha. It's a dish made of bulgar wheat.
[2/23/2011 9:03:24 AM] [GP]: hmm
[2/23/2011 9:03:30 AM] [GP]: maybe you're having a tumor
[2/23/2011 9:04:07 AM] [GP]: i meant to say "have a tumor" or
"having a stroke" but apparently changed my mind in the middle
[2/23/2011 9:04:20 AM] [GP]: having a tumor sounds like it's
just suddenly exploding in your head
[2/23/2011 9:05:00 AM] [Me]: Or giving birth to a lump of
cancerous cells.
[2/23/2011 9:05:31 AM] [Me]: My tumor baby! I shall name him Squamous.

And thus, this little guy was born.

So the rest of the past few days have been all about random conversations and then Squamous throwing in his two cents regarding the situation.

Sometimes there was nothing in the conversation to warrant a drawing...

I believe someone was making a Star Wars reference thanks to someone's Darth Vader ringtone going off when this was created.

This little guy is going to be my wallpaper, eventually.

Sometimes we could all use with a little nap.

[10:46:50 AM] [GP]: anyone need help with anything?
[10:46:59 AM] [GP]: [YL] is pretty free today
[10:47:37 AM] [SF]: I might have something for her. just a sec

[10:58:55 AM] [GP]: I'm thinking it will be difficult. He is a
tumor after all.

[2:29:28 PM] [JL]: hahaha
[2:29:42 PM] [JL]: Face it [SF]. You're a day late and a dollar short.
[2:30:14 PM] [SF]: I have about 20 things I want to say,
but all would just be to much for this
[2:30:21 PM] [SF]: mostly not in good fun
[2:30:23 PM] [SF]: lol
[2:31:02 PM] [JL]: haha
[2:31:05 PM] [JL]: Dont hate
[2:31:13 PM] [Me]: If you have to hate, draw it in MS Paint

At least he's self-aware. That's a good thing, right?

Do you ever really NEED a reason to have a tumor dance party?

Okay, just one more... And possibly my favorite Squamous picture so far...

[4:46:04 PM] [Me]: I made it happen, cap'n.
[4:46:10 PM] [Me]: While I was rappin'
[4:46:26 PM] [Me]: about bear-trappin'
[4:46:32 PM] [GP]: you should stop now
[4:46:37 PM] [SF]: Cause [GP] was to busy flappin
[4:46:42 PM] [Me]: and yappin'
[4:46:43 PM] [GP]: oooooooohhhhhhhh!!!!!!
[4:51:58 PM] [Me]: ...sorry, I was just nappin'
[4:52:23 PM] [SF]: I've just been over here tappin
[4:57:54 PM] [SF]: [GP] just over there mappin how he
can go wappin over the flappin
[4:58:26 PM] [GP]: I'm not sure what that means, but you better
take it back
[5:00:20 PM] [Me]: I challenge "wappin".
[5:00:42 PM] [Me]: NOT A WORD!
[5:01:01 PM] [SF]: I will wap you upside the head... then
you tell me

Guess which 'censored' bar is my favorite??

So that's an introduction to Squamous. He's my tumor baby and perhaps this coming week we'll have all forgotten about him. Or maybe he'll be our new group mascot and share his insights on other random topics of conversation.

We'll just have to wait and see...

What do you think of Squamous and his misadventures thus far? Leave a comment and let me know!

Commercial Insanity

2011-02-07T15:59:00.001-06:00

I am a consumer whore, just like the rest of you. If I see something that I want, I usually buy it - especially if it's on sale. I have rather good brand recognition when it comes to food and certain household products, and admit to a degree of brand loyalty when it comes to some items (unless the sale price warrants the betrayal). So naturally, I must watch commercials.

Lately, there have been a stream of nonsensical commercials that I think need to be brought to attention and called out for the craziness that they represent.

No, I'm not talking about hyperbole (like like the MGD 64 commercials where the guy drinking a beer containing 30 extra calories per serving is on an exercise bike while drinking in order to combat those extra calories) or even logical fallacy (like that drinking a particular brand of beer will make hot chicks fall in love with and/or sex you). For all intents and purposes, most beer commercials do things right.

Hillshire Farms, in this particular commercial, does it wrong.

First of all, we have the main male characters, who I'll refer to as "SweaterVest" and "DenimVest".

"Did your mom pack you a fancy square plate to eat your lunch? My mom just slipped a corndog inside a pocket on my denim vest."

Now SweaterVest clearly has a Hillshire Farms sandwich for lunch. And somehow, he also has a fanciful square plate with which he will be eating said sandwich. No, that's not a napkin. It's a small plate, just the perfect size for a sandwich to rest on. DenimVest then issues the following challenge:

DenimVest: "Jump rope you for that sandwich."
SweaterVest: "Fine!"

And that's where logic really jumps out the window. The "challenge" is just the term "jump rope". Are you supposed to be figuring out who is best as jump roping? Can jump rope the fastest? Are you whipping each other with a jump rope until someone gives up??

Also, the prize for winning this challenge is... the sandwich? SweaterVest, you idiot! You already had a sandwich! If you win, is DenimVest giving YOU a Hillshire Farms sandwich? You've just contractually obligated yourself to participate in an extremely vague competition wherein the only possible positive result for you is keeping your own sandwich, which will clearly be left unguarded while you are performing the challenge!

And thus, the "competition" begins - apparently by hijacking two girls and their jump rope that they were clearly using prior to the DenimVest vs. SweaterVest Challenge was ever issued.

Without a referree or any judge mentioned of any kind, we're subjected to some shots of each challenger performing jump rope acrobatics. Yes, both SweaterVest and DenimVest apparently have mastered the delicate art of competitive jump roping. And then... wait a second... what the heck are you boys doing?

This competition has clearly been downgraded to "playdate" level.

Now you're not even competing! You're just playing jump rope together while a multi-ethnic group of fellow schoolmates watch on, flabbergasted! And the sandwich is clearly vulnerable! Won't somebody think of the sandwich???

Oh yes, the girls have thought of the sandwich. Their sly facial gestures to each other clearly indicate that they are in cahoots and have been planning this ruse for quite some time! Playing jump rope during lunch time, in hopes that some fools will simultaneously abandon their food and fall into their jump-rope-related trap! It's all falling into place, Bertha! I know, Mousey! Initiate Operation Double-Dutch-Delight!

And so, the mighty have fallen. With a series of whipping and jerking motions and twists, somehow the jumprope has MAGICALLY looped itself perfectly MULTIPLE times around the two pitiful boys. The pitiful boys who, despite being nimble enough to perform some complex jump-rope hand-holding "challenges", have managed to stand perfectly still and in the right place for the looping ensnarement that has occurred! Nothing short of witchcraft could have been used in this plan, based on its results. And to the witches go the spoils! The two girls raise their Hillshire Farms sandwich halves high in victory, while waving their winnings in those poor boys' faces.

"If we ever get out of these jump ropes alive, we will fucking BURN YOU AT THE STAKE."

And there's nothing that DenimVest and SweaterVest can do, but watch as these harlots taunt them and prepare to eat the trophy that was so viciously being fought over in a manly competition of jump roping.

Except for the fact that the witches didn't use very strong or good magic. Those ropes are loose as hell, and not even properly binding the two of them! DenimVest is clearly able to move his arm and hand! Their legs are unbound and, if working as well as a team as they were while double-dutching, the two of them could easily move as one unit and strike vicious blows upon the maidens who have violated the sanctity of the Schoolyard Challenge and perloined the trophy! But alas, their minds have apparently been turned to mush. They not only accept defeat that the girls have won (while clearly not having been really defeated at all) and succumb to the powers that be - which are now telling them to celebrate that which has been lost.

Despite being within striking distance of the sandwich-holder and having a hand free and capable of striking, DenimVest decides to let bygones be bygones and celebrate the fact that at least SweaterVest has still lost his sandwich as a result of this endeavor.

Go Meat, indeed. Go directly to hell for making such a ridiculous commercial.

What do you think? Am I crazy for expecting my commercials to make at least a modicum of sense?? Leave a comment and let me know!

And then Digg this article!

Ronald McDonald and the Food Liberation Army

2011-02-06T12:54:00.003-06:00

No, this picture is not a fake. It is, however, a horrible spoof of an Al-Qaeda video - a spoof perpetrated by a Finnish group calling themselves the "Food Liberation Army". They have kidnapped a Ronald McDonald statue and are holding it 'hostage' unless the McDonald's corporation answers certain questions about its manufacturing process.

Questions that specifically include:

1. Why are you not open about the manufacturing processes, raw materials and additives used in your products? what are you afraid of?

2. How many tons of un-recycled waste do you produce each year? Why do you not publish that figure?

They state that if the questions are not answered, Ronald will be 'executed' on Friday the 11th of February at 6:30pm. I believe that's in England's time zone.

These kids need a goddamned Happy Meal, if you ask me. Because they apparently do like the food. Which just makes this thing 3 extra levels of ridiculous.

I found out about this news event from Fark.com, referencing me to this website which was in turn sharing the information from a UK news website. So forgive me for the fact that this is not all that new of news.

The video released by the FLA group goes on to state that "though they are fans of McDonalds burgers and fries, they believe that the food they love is being destroyed."

You. Idiots.

First of all, you're calling yourself the "Food Liberation Army" - yet you haven't liberated any goddamned food, other than into your gullets. How the fuck do you even "liberate" food in the first place? You can't set something free that's already dead, especially after it's been processed into food. All you've done so far is steal a statue and place a hood over its head in a mocking video. It's not food, and you haven't freed it. You want to KILL it. The "sweet release of death" does not count as liberation, especially since it's a fucking statue and not alive or dead at all. In fact, it has clones of itself in every damned restaurant in the franchise!

Is your next plan to rob a McDonald's of all its Chicken McNuggets, and then set them free in a field, where they can live out the rest of their days in peace? where they don't have to suffer under oppressive human rule, awaiting death by consumption, until they are... consumed by wildlife or a passerby hobo?

And how do your random questions being answered make any difference in the grand scheme of things? Un-recycled waste amounts and more detail of the ingredients used in the manufacturing process of McDonald's food? They're a publicly-traded billion-dollar company. This shit is already available information. Try asking the Food and Drug Administration, or the Health Bureau or whatever governmental body in England would have investigated and would know the manufacturing processes after approving them as upholding the health code? Hell, McDonald's spokesperson even said that they are willing to engage in constructive conversations with our customers, stakeholders and the media - which means that if you weren't acting like idiots, you'd get your answers even faster.

This is, all in all, an unnerving trend where groups of idiots think that by giving themselves a ridiculous name and spoofing acts of terrorism, that they are entitled to whatever they want and have the moral high ground.

You are wrong, Food Liberation Army. Your moniker is ridiculous. You have committed an act of theft. You have made insipid demands for information that could easily be attained through various legal channels. You have lampooned the acts of terrorists and deserve to be punished for both making light of actual horrible acts as well as encouraging others to do the same.

I know it comes as no surprise that I would side with McDonald's here, but after such an incredibly-dumb act has been perpetrated by such a group of incredibly-dumb criminals - wouldn't you agree?

What do you think? Should McDonald's negotiate with these "terrorists"? Leave a comment!

And then Digg this article!

Doodle - 01/31/2011

2011-01-31T19:13:00.001-06:00

Doodle_110131, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

It was an interesting weekend, and it's inspired me to draw more. Maybe even try out a ZINE.

So here's all of my idea for today, just the title card. FYI: Moose and Reese are the names of our pet rats.

Unfortunately to most it will look like a knock-off of Two Lumps. Even though that is totally about cats, and mine would totally be about rats. And less funny. And more-poorly drawn.

...Back to the drawing board?

Doodle - 01/27/2011

2011-01-27T16:56:00.002-06:00

Doodle_110127, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

(Now in COLOR!)

I don't know how to put this into context other than provide you with insane ramblings that LED UP to this statement. It just doesn't make the statement make any more real sense...

Me: The space-time continuum works in very mysterious ways. And the result is fortunately always Chicken McNuggets. It's the only reason why they're allowed to exist. The universe demands it.

Coworker: Nuggets feed the time line. Without them, time would collapse in on itself, destroying the universe.

Me: Now we're getting into a philosophical "Which came first: the Chicken McNugget or Time Itself" debate and I unfortunately have other shit to do.

And that's just PART of the conversation. I'm sparing you all the prequel which included who is having sex with whose mothers and the "I am my own grandfather" paradox/conundrum. Maybe another time. Maybe another doodle.

Later! I unfortunately have other shit to do!

Doodle - 01/26/2011

2011-01-26T17:12:00.002-06:00

Doodle_110126, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

Expect a lot of updates in the "Optimistic Pessimism in Action" series of doodles. This is my most favorite example of my particular brand of "optimistic pessimism". Sometimes it's referred to as "double-negative", in a grammatically-correct sort of way.

Basically, in my line of work, despite it being anumber-crunching data-related job, very very little of my job is absolute and hard-fact numbers. This is why I cannot state things are 100% certain. They are just as little uncertain as possible. Et cetera.

Just another doodle done, thanks to a giant project finally being put to bed (for the day) at 4:30pm on a workday.

Doodle - 01/25/2011 (2)

2011-01-25T19:07:00.002-06:00

Doodle_110125b, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

It's the LOVE that makes it taste so special. And the GREASE.

*Nugget Not Drawn To Scale

*Margins of Error Estimated at +/- 2%

*Your Nugget Results May Vary

Doodle - 01/25/2011 (1)

2011-01-25T19:05:00.002-06:00

Doodle_110125a, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

Brother, Can You Spare a Hug?

New Comment Protocol

2011-01-19T17:58:00.002-06:00

Hello, Dear Readers.

I regert to inform you all that commenting on this blog has now been changed so that Anonymous guests cannot leave comments.

Basically this was done for three main reasons:

1. 99% of the comments being left here are spam
2. 99% of those comments are being posted anonymously
3. It increases my depression to know that every day I get 6 to 10 comments, but they are all SPAM.

Maybe my upgrading to this new system of registered users being the only ones allowed to post comments, the spam will stop.

Unfortunately, it is likely that the comments will also stop.

But if I have to choose my specifio reasons for being depressed, I prefer the reason that "I am alone in the world and nobody cares about my opinions" rather than "I am not alone in the world but the only beings who care about my opinions are all spambots".

So please. Leave me a comment. Please??

Attention Commercials: The "Holiday Season" Is OVER.

2011-01-02T22:10:00.000-06:00

I am reminded of a SuperBowl moment from many years past in which a "wardrobe malfunction" led to a series of debates and news stories regarding what constitutes as "offensive television broadcasting" and the fact that the FCC was allowed to fine the television broadcasters a hefty amount because of the damaging/offensive nature of what they allowed to air on their channel.

But which is really more psychologically damaging and deserving of a strict penalty and fine for the broadcaster: a split-second viewing of the nipple of a major celebrity or holiday commercials that are aired outside of the holiday season?

In my opinion, I can think of incredibly few scenarios in which the viewing of Janet Jackson's nipple could put a human being into a homicidal rampage. And yet it seems that way before Thanksgiving and way after New Year's are we all bombarded with Christmas-related commercials - and the urge to kill rises. It's a wonder that you don't see murderers throughout the month of January on film in high-speed chases with the police, then led off in handcuffs sporting a murderous grin while softly humming the particular holiday commercial jingle that finally drove them over the edge.

I present to you two commercials that, if not stopped immediately, will be what you hear humming from behind prison bars in February by convicted killers with icy stares and sinister smiles:

I get it, Hyundai. You found an indie band called "Pomplamoose" consisting of two members who have a certain sound that really belongs on NPR and it's wacky because now you can bring them to the public eye and sell some cars while promoting Christmas.

CHRISTMAS IS OVER. NEW YEAR'S IS OVER. HANNUKAH IS REALLY OVER. You have no right to continue promoting a "Holiday" sale! Cease and desist immediately!

The FCC should fine any television broadcasting station which continues to allow the airing of advertisements related to "winter holidays" after 11:59pm PST on January 1st.

For our sanity. Think of the children!

What do you think? Do you also feel murderous rage when watching holiday commercials after the official holiday season is over? Leave a comment!

And then Digg this article!

Back for the New Year with New Gripes!

2011-01-01T23:11:00.001-06:00

Happy New Year 2011 to everyone!

After long last, I'm updating the blog. I really need to get back into writing things, getting a little frustration out (in the form of scathing reviews or opinionated articles, not necessarily related to the actual items frustrating me - that's what my personal journals/blogs are for!) and getting back into the swing of things.

Also - reaching out to the world again. Tired of hiding here in the apartment with my girl and my pets, especially now that the winter is upon us and there's even less enticement to leave my comfy jammy-jams and into the great wide cold void that is the outside world for the next few months.

Oh, and you can also chalk this up to "New Years Resolutions" that will undoubtedly fail. I hope it won't, but I know I can't keep up with daily updates or anything. Work schedules and girlfriend schedules simply won't allow that. But I can say that I'll give it some effort to keep this blog up.

Maybe in time I'll get comments that aren't spambots.
Maybe in time I can generate some revenue on this blog somehow.
Maybe in time I'll do all those things I've been meaning to do...

Write reviews on Yelp, write about my recent travels to L.A. to visit family and some old familiar places, write about the current state of the world and all of the things that just piss me off in general.

You know, the usual.

SPEAKING OF THINGS THAT PISS ME OFF:

"Truvia" Commercials.

I can't fully explain just why this commercial fills me with such misogynistic rage. Perhaps it's the insipid way that the following words were combined in mind-numbingly-dumb jingle format: "made my butt fat", "self-control down the drain" and "skinny jeans zipped in relief".

That's right - SUGAR is to blame for your lack of self-control and resultant large ass. Not the fact that you're eating DESSERT with your morning coffee instead of even a SEMI-nutritional breakfast. Or that you find comfort in eating due to low self-worth or self-esteem or the myriad of other psychological reasons that make people overeat. Or the fact that you're genetically likely to have a large ass because both of your parents also had large asses.

I'm a fat person, and you know who I blame for it? Me. I don't blame the food for making me fat. I blame me for shoveling that food into my gaping maw. Just like YOU SHOULD, YOU BITCH!! Are you really telling me that the fact that you decided to sprinkle sugar into your coffee in the morning causes you GRIEF? How about NOT sprinkling sugar into your coffee??? DID YOU TRY THAT???

No - you were waiting for science to come up with something magical that gives you all the satisfaction of sugar but without the meager 40 calories or whatever that a normal human likely adds to their morning libation of caffeine.

(They did that a number of years ago. Several times. Like with Sweet 'N Low, Equal, Splenda, and a number of off-brand products made with a variety of calorie-free sugar substitutes.

Oh, but this one comes from a plant. Awesome. Enjoy having plant-based artificial sweetener in your coffee.

I still hate you, Truvia Bitch. At a subliminal, liminal and superliminal level. I loathe you and the marketing company that decided to come up with one of the worst commercials of the year that I would expect has singlehandedly led to a rise in the number of random violent attacks on women, who likely all happened to be using this particular brand of artificial sweetener.

What do you think? Do you also feel something in your subconscious when watching this commercial that fills you with something dark and evil and violent? Leave a comment!

And then Digg this article!

Stupidly Good Prices

2010-09-12T15:45:00.002-05:00

I just got back from a shopping trip, and I need to vent this little gripe of mine.

Before I get started, I need to explain that I am a fat man. Obviously, I enjoy food and drink in mass quantities, so I'm prone to buying in bulk. I'm also a firm believer in the free market and that businesses should be able to run themselves however they see fit. For example, I am completely against the smoking ban in restaurants. If a restaurant owner wants to serve clientele that smoke, that owner should have every right to be a smoking establishment or have a smoking section and a non-smoking section. Certain people would refuse to remain customers, but certain people would become regular customers. The idea is that it's up to the business owner of who should feel ostracized.

But I digress, this is not a smoking rant. This rant is about stupid food prices.

Before I go any further, please keep in mind that I'm not complaining, really. I just find it to be stupid and I need to vent about things that I find to be stupid - whether that stupidity creates benefits or burdens for me.

Now I am a math person, and I rather enjoy working my brain when I'm in a supermarket, comparing prices per unit and figuring out where the best deal would be between brands or between package sizes. I understand the marketing behind the bulk savings, where the more you buy of a product, the lower the price per unit. Get a single unit of yogurt for a dollar, or get a six-pack of that yogurt for four dollars. It's cheaper than buying six individual units, so you have to decide how much yogurt you want and how much you're willing to pay for it without getting screwed over.

And then there are times when I come across some pricing that just makes me want to go crazy.

I will take one example that I find most often: milk. Milk almost always comes in two container sizes: a half-gallon and a full gallon. One is obviously twice the size of the other, so I could understand if the smaller size were $2.69 and the larger size were $2.99 - you only pay 30 cents more and you get double the amount of milk. That's a good deal. That's a sane and rational pricing model to convince people to buy the larger size and sell more product.

But unfortunately, that is NOT the pricing model I often find. I often find them selling the half-gallon size for $2.99 and the full-gallon size for $2.69. And I want to punch someone. After I've grabbed the large container and put it in my cart, of course.

What is the logic? Where is the sane and rational thought in this pricing model?

I stare at the numbers and the following scene plays out in my head.

The customer picks up a half-gallon of milk and says, "I think I'll buy this much milk today."
Then the supermarket attendant rushes up and says, "But why buy only a half-gallon? It's even cheaper to get a full gallon of milk for 30 cents less!"
The customer replies, "But I only want a half-gallon of milk - I don't think I'd be able to drink that much milk before it goes bad."
That's when the supermarket attendant grabs the full gallon of milk and shouts, "Let's make everyone happy then! You want to pay $2.99 for a half-gallon of milk, so I'll pay you 30 cents back and I'll just pour half of this gallon of milk onto my head! Then you get your half-gallon of milk at a lower price and I get a lovely milk shower!"

And then the milk starts getting poured everywhere and eventually I realize I've been staring at the milk case for 10 minutes and I really wish some old lady would pick up one of those half-gallon bottles just so I could see if it would really happen.

But that's basically what the supermarket is doing. They'd rather you pay less money to waste half a gallon of milk. And it's not just milk. My other favorite instance of this faulty logic is at McDonald's. The McDouble sandwich is a burger with two meat patties and one slice of cheese, and it costs one dollar. Guess what costs MORE than a dollar? A cheeseburger! One meat patty and one slice of cheese and it costs on average ten cents MORE than a McDouble. If you want to buy a cheeseburger, McDonald's will pay you back 10 cents to eat an extra burger patty.

This one I HAVE actually acted on. I saw this little old lady ahead of me in line order one cheeseburger. I had to stop her. I leaned in and said, "you know, it's actually cheaper to get the McDouble and it comes with an extra burger patty." She gave me the classic "well I don't know if I'm hungry enough to eat that much" excuse and I flat-out responded that she could throw away that extra patty and she'd still be saving herself money in the end. The cashier looked at me and made this half-shrug, half-smirk as if to say "he's not wrong."

AND SHE DID. She bought a cheaper burger that offered more food and she threw away the extra food. McDonald's paid her 10 cents to throw away a meat patty. Of course, one can also debate that McDonald's standard burger patties aren't even worth 10 cents each, but that's not what I'm getting at.

What I'm getting at is that it's an incredibly stupid thing for a business to do. But that business has every right to do it. And we as customers have every right to take advantage of it.

And now I'm off to enjoy half a gallon of milk that the supermarket paid me 30 cents to purchase.

Because I'm fat and I know a stupidly-good deal when I see one.

Please Digg this article if you also find it weird that it's always little old ladies in these scenarios.

Random Nostalgia - Writings

2010-06-19T13:52:00.003-05:00

I used to be a rather proficient writer. At least in high-school terms, compared to the average high-school student, at my high school. Okay, so maybe I wasn't the best or really anything blose to great in the grand scheme of things, but I felt I was creative and I enjoyed writing, and it continued into college and eventually weblogs.

In fact, I used to write for a website called WritingUp.com before it eventually collapsed and I tried to salvage as much of my writing and readership base that I could. To rather no avail, judging by the number of readers I get over here on my personal weblog. But the fact remains, I was intrigued by writing and I think I was pretty decent at it.

So in going through really old files, I've stumbled across a folder I used to have on my old computer back in high school and reading through some of my old stuff really creeps me out.

I'll let you be the judge of whether it's good or bad. I just want to share some of it with the universe instead of letting it gather virtual dust in a file folder that's survived four separate computer transfers.

First, some poetry. Keep in mind all of this was written many many years before I even lost my virginity, let alone had a real girlfriend (since I don't think "online girlfriend" counts):

Untitled

You are my friend,
Strong and beautiful.
Gentle and loving.
Full of life; not afraid of anything
that may stand in your way.
I have found in you
what I thought I had lost in others.
You have helped me to know that I have a chance to make it.
You not only listen, but hear what I say.
You not only look, but you see me.
I trust you more than I trust myself.
I am thankful I have found you.
I hope you know how much I love you and I hope
you understand how much you truly mean to me.
You are my friend and I care...

I miss...
the late night chats
the questions you ask
the laughter we share
the songs on the radio.

I even miss...
the temper tantrums
the tiny fits of jealousy
the cold shoulders
the uneasy silences.

I miss...
the heartfelt hugs
the warm embraces
the tiny stolen kisses
the long passionate ones.

I truly miss...
you in my arms
holding you at night
watching you sleep
waking up next to you.

Wherever I go and whatever I do
my every thought, my every moment
Is filled with you.
I miss you...

Even though you Don't Know It

How I love you so
I think it all the time
Then I think some more
To tell you in a rhyme

When we lock our eyes
I hope you feel it too
That we are so close
With a love that’s true

Though it seems I’m sad
When I walk away
To you I make this promise
From you I’ll never stray

I swear I’d even wait forever
If that’s how long it took
For both us to be together
Like lovers in a book

And so that you will know
Just exactly how I feel
I’ll swear to you my life
Then secure it with my seal

Often I’ll recall
The day I first met you
I picture you so perfect
And I knew my love was true

But now you’re in my mind
Every day I live
And it is to you
That this poem I give

Untitled

From the first time I laid eyes on you,
I felt something inside, and hoped that you did too.
That night I dreamed about me and you,
Wishing that when I wake, it would all come true.

You have been on my mind,
Ever since I talked to you that first time.
I tried to get you out of my head,
But my heart told me to love you instead.

Being next to you, I feel like I'm in heaven,
Give me a chance and I'll adore you 24-7...
I hope you'll see that we were meant to be.
Please... will you go out with me?

A Wake-Up Call to "The Lovers"

Hark, ye angels! In that
World, some say, above.
Prepare to meet thy rival
In the art of knowing love!
For she alone is strong enough
And alone she understands
The meanings of my diction
And these movements of my hands.
Yet still, I write! To teach
You, that poor multitude,
What you've been missing
By obsessing with pulchritude,
for she alone, with her charm
And wit, and wondrous social graces
In one hour could give a thousand times more joy
Than a hundred pretty faces...
You blasphemers claiming love is found,
Will ne'er comprehend, nor care,
What she and I go through each day
And the torches that we bear!
We alone! The proud, the few!
Unappreciated every day!
We'd rather have a hand-picked tulip
Than a heartless rose bouquet!
And your chocolate boxes, neatly wrapped!
The warmth gives us such a chill...
We'd rather have a scoop of some warm chicken soup
From a friend who sees when we're ill.
You superficial cretins! Materialistic monsters!
Why say "cute" or "pretty" when
We don't care! We'd rather hear a
Well-placed compliment like "witty".
She is the one who truly deserves the best
For being so kind. Her soul and her mind
Like mine! We have so much in common...
Two bodies; One soul, intertwined!

Sharing Days with You

I get to see you every day,
But I know I'm never seen
And every time we chance to talk,
No one knows just what I mean.
Well today's my chance to prove to you
That I don't like being ignored,
Or pushed around, or only used,
Whenever you are bored.
If you could have looked deeper,
You'd see my love is true,
And I could have been so happy,
Sharing days with you...

We'd be walking together, holding hands,
Lying together in the park...
Talking, relating, conversing, and waiting,
Watching the sky grow dark.
And after all was said and done,
We'd end our cozy date,
But that will never happen, girl,
Because you wouldn't cooperate...
Whenever you would talk, I'd listen,
Whenever you want, with me you'd be kissin',
We'd just hold hands while the dewdrops glisten,
Now think of all that you are missin'...
You brush me off, you just don't care,
Because if you really do,
Then I'd be there instead of here,
Sharing days with you...

But I could give you one more chance,
now that you know how I feel...
And maybe we could try again,
And see if love is real...
But you'd have to promise to cherish me,
For I am one of the precious few,
Who love you, girl, and who'd rather be
Sharing days with you...

Oh I know my looks aren't perfect,
And at times, my mind's askew,
But I wish you'd just look past it and let me
Share these days with You...

Untitled Sonnet

I dreamed a dream, of love, of life, of you,
Though you were there, you played a minor role.
I want you in my life if love is true,
Yet just to see if we might share a soul.
I hoped a hope, that firmaments above
Would break apart, and let the angels fly.
So you could 'scape and share with me your love,
For if you don't, I fear that I will die.
I planned a plan, to flee and search you out,
To calm and comfort you; hold you so tight
We'd fuse, form one, and I would never doubt
That anyone for me could be so right.
With dreams, and hopes, and plans, I lived my life,
No motion, action, or you as my wife...

My Friend (Dedicated to Kellen "Flip" Cassidy)

Oh friend, think of me. I know you will surely go far.
Keep dreaming your thoughtful dreams. Keep wishing on that falling star.
Oh friend, wait for me. I'm coming just around the bend.
Together we'll travel, side-by-side, laughing and singing 'til the end.
Oh friend, believe in me, when all of my hope is gone.
You're the only one who keeps me smiling. You keep me going strong.
Oh friend, laugh with me. We'll be joyous all the day.
One smile from you eases my pain and washes my worries away.
Oh friend, talk to me. Tell me what you want to know.
I'll reply to you, and you to me, and together, our minds will grow.
Oh friend, sing with me, with your voice so cheery and bright.
A duet to last the ages, with our songs for day and night.
Oh friend, pray for me, in times when I am ill.
I'll do the same, and we'll remain friends together still.
Oh friend, discuss with me, so I can understand your views.
I'm sure they will inspire me when I'm down with the blues.
Oh friend, stay with me, through good times and through bad.
Together we'll we exuberant, and together we'll be sad.
Oh friend, look at me. Tell me, what do you see?
For maybe, some of the things I see in you, you just might see in me...

Okay, I'm getting a little emotional, so I'll finish this up quickly with something that's not poetry. It's a book I started trying to write. I know, a book? Me? Anyway, my crazy idea for the book was that it would be called "HAVE YOU EVER" and it would be a collection of short writings written by a crazy person with each section starting with the phrase "Have you ever" and going into insanity from there. What follows are the first (and only) two pieces of writing for this book.

1

Have you ever seen yourself?

I don't mean in a mirror, or the metaphorical sense, or your conscience. I'm talking about seeing yourself, standing in front of you. Of course, sometimes you're not standing, you're sitting, or walking, or laying down, or punching the real you in the nose.

I see myself a few times a week...

But it's never a happy time. I don't really like myself now, because the me who I see and talk to isn't very nice. It seems that every single day, the actions I make apparently ruin my life in the future. And the me I see gets to tell me what I've done wrong and how it's going to kill me in the future since the last time he visited. And after every single visit he makes, and tells me what I've done wrong, even when it seemed so far from wrong when I did it, I try my damnedest to fix the problems I caused the days before, and in the process, I screw up even further in the future. So I've come to a conclusion: I'm doomed. Every time I do something good, the effects are somehow devastating in the future, according to the other me. Every time I do something wrong, the effects are worsened tenfold. And if I sit and do nothing and contact no one and go nowhere and say nothing and ignore all stimuli and shut myself off from the world, I've missed a list of possibilities and opportunities that all ruin my life in the future for missing... I'm doomed.

You know, I tried to tell my problems to friends, and I was shrugged off. They told me, "It's called a CONSCIENCE, so deal with it." Now, from all of my previous understanding, as well as the movie "Pinocchio", I understood that a conscience was merely a voice. Also, this voice is supposed to help you, to inform you when you make mistakes, and to help remind you not to make them in the future. He is NOT a voice. He is NOT helpful. And he is NOT my conscience. He exists merely to make my life miserable. And he's not a figment of my imagination, because he knows things. Things that only someone from the future could know... Like who is going to fall down right next to me, or when I'm going to get slapped in the face, or what the essay question is on a pop quiz I haven't taken yet. So this doppleganger me can't be imaginary...

And then people tell me I've got schitzophrenia. I tell them I don't hear voices. I see me. So they say it's a prophecy. I tell them that prophecies are sent from God. This me is not all that holistic, in my opinion. So they tell me to shut up. And I get yelled at by me for not speaking my mind or talking too much. It varies, depending on how the future me wants to torture the real me that day...

And week after week, the cycle continues. Me acting, the other me twisting reality. And then one day, I couldn't take any more of it. I got angry. I don't usually get angry. But I got angry. And the next time I saw me, I walked right up to him, punched him in the cheek, as hard as I could, and told him to just shut up because he says too much and I don't want him saying any more about anything. And then I reached up and felt my cheek... There was a bruise there... And I remember the fake me telling me the exact same thing four days before.....

2

Have you ever seen a cloud?

From the inside? I have. I was there last month, and I don't think I ever really returned. It started innocently enough, and yet not so innocently at all...

It was a rough week. People hated me, I was insulted, I didn't want to carry on... So I went to the top of the grassy hill I visit every now and then, and I just wept. I just shouted, "Isn't there supposed to be a better place than this world?" and I slipped. But I slipped up. I felt my feet fly out from under me, and I awaited the seemingly inevitable "thump" of my back hitting the ground. Instead, I felt the "thump" of my head hitting a tree branch as I was propelled upwards.

And right now, you don't believe me. You shake your head and remind yourself that this book is fictional. But you've never been there, and you wouldn't understand.

I just kept rising, and I saw the cloud. The one cloud in the sky that day. As I approached, it started to grow. Not grow in sight from getting nearer. Growing immensely, and opening up. Now I've been on many an airflight, and I recall flying through clouds. I must not have flown through THIS cloud... As my ascension slowed to a halt, I realized I wasn't standing. I was hovering, floating, wafting, and just simply there. But I can't fly. I couldn't fly... I waved and flapped and huffed and puffed, but I couldn't move. And I so wished I could explore the bright area in front of me. And I moved. Effortlessly, swiftly, and haphazardly. It's hard to move yourself with your mind when you're still wondering why and how you're in a cloud. And then I saw it.

The obelisk.

The glassy figure, shining in what appeared to be the center of this meteorological phenomenon, shone with a brightness that hurt my eyes to look. But I kept staring, absorbing the rays of light it brought forth from its unknown power supply. And I reached for it. Cloud. And I kicked it. Cloud. And I wished with all the strength I could muster up. And the obelisk said, "Cloud." And I believed it. After all, how could a glimmering geometrical figure in the sky ever be wrong? So I asked the obelisk, with as much force I had left after my revelation that a shape just spoke, "Why am I here?"

Cloud.

"Is this the happier place I wanted?"

Cloud.

"Can I ever come back here again?"

And the cloud parted down the middle, and vanished. the obelisk moved closer to me, and touched my forehead, and it felt warm. And when it moved back, I felt my forehead, touching the warmth, feeling it on my fingers. Blood. And I saw the grass. No clouds...

I'll post more later, as I unearth them and decide they're worth sharing with the universe. Back to the pile...

Oh yes, please Digg this article - and spread the word that I used to be a crazy little writer!

Random Nostalgia - "The Otaku Hour"

2010-06-11T17:25:00.002-05:00

"The Otaku Hour" WIIT Poster - 03-10-2004, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

This picture is being posted here as a result of a self-inflicted nostalgia spiral.

I am currently in the process of looking for a piece of fiction co-authored by me and a high school friend, dated 2002. In the process, despite the fact that this is a computer I purchased in 2009, I have somehow managed to transfer very old documents between my computer systems as I have gone through them, dating back to my family computer from my own high school days.

While navigating the labyrinth of old files, I came across old pictures (that I must remember to post to Facebook or Flickr or something) and deep in the recesses of a random folder, I came across this atrocity.

So here's the story.

Back in college, I used to host a radio program. My DJ nickname was "Chibby" as a play on words referring to the "chibi" style of Japanese animation found in many animé series. This is related to the graphic that appears three times in this poster, which was hand-drawn in Santa Monica by a Japanese-style artist that I paid $10 to have done. Ever since, it's been one of my most-commonly-used avatars for myself.

The radio program was called "The Otaku Hour" ('otaku', for those of you not familiar with the term, is a derogatory word for super-nerdy-loser-fanatics in Japan - I know, they see it as an insult and nerdy white Americans are proud to be considered one) and it centered entirely around Japanese music and culture.

I ran the show for 2 years (the 2nd year is when I expanded my timeslot to the 2-hour block shown in the poster) and many episodes were co-hosted by my buddy Erick, who played straightman to my wacky foolishness on the air.

Anyway, the DJs were putting up fliers and posters to promote their show in the new studio, which featured soundproof glass walls so the IIT students could see in (but not hear us, the radio DJs, unless they were at home with their radios and in a 2-mile radius from the campus).

This was my entry.

I think that's all the information you really need. The rest is just trying to understand what the hell I was thinking (and I frankly don't recall most of the logic) and then trying to fight these images out of your head before the nightmares come.

Well, back to the nostalgia...

Snacks and Sweets Expo 2010 - It's No Skittlebrau

2010-05-29T23:59:00.001-05:00

102_1253, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

While the prospects of a real Duff beer may seem like an awesome idea - there is a company that went pretty much the exact opposite route and made a Duff-brand energy drink.

I think that energy drinks would be pretty much the exact opposite of a beer. Beer tends to make you sleepy, mentally-impaired and is technically/chemically a depressant. Energy drinks wake you up, energize your brain and are pretty much a form of stimulant.

So what can be said about the energy drink itself? Well, we were lucky enough to meet a promoter who was kind enough to let us have a nice chilled sample can of Duff (picture proof to come later) and it was quite awesome.

It's actually citrus-flavored, mostly orange but I tasted a little grapefruit in there as well. It was rather sweet, and had no real bitter aftertaste that accompanies most energy drinks.

All in all, a neat little beverage, though its usage of the "Duff" name and Simpsons imagery is more of a marketing gimmick than anything having to do with the product that would sell well on its own merits.

I'd love to see Duffman and the other Duff mascots (Sleazy, Queasy, Surly, Edgy, Tipsy, Dizzy, and Remorseful) trying to promote this product...

"Can't get enough of that wonderful Duff!"

Snacks and Sweets Expo 2010 - A Picture of the End

2010-05-28T23:40:00.002-05:00

102_1259, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

It feels like I'm slowly making my way backwards with pictures and stories from the Expo instead of simply starting at the beginning. So the best I can do right now is pick a picture from the Expo that sums up my feelings right now and just run with it.

What you are seeing here is simply a beautiful representation the end of the Expo: a crumpled mass of empty cardboard.

You see, the exhibitors take a lot of time setting up their displays, showcasing their new products and best products - and then GUARDING THE HELL OUT OF THEM. Tape, signage, stern lectures - anything that keeps the display looking nice so that it will attract business and intrigue about the products. An empty display sells no product.

Then 1pm hits on Thursday afternoon. The exhibitors are tired and there's only an hour left of the convention. Some of them decide to go the whole nine yards and say "these are my products, my supply is limited, I'm packing it up and taking it back with me".

The other 95% say "why waste that time and energy? I don't need this stuff, as it has now completed its purpose - take it off my hands."

Well, of those 95% of vendors, I'd say half of them willingly say it, and the other half are just victims of it. The greed takes over, and the masses want their freebies and souvenirs and bragging rights.

Ferrero Rocher is my prime example - their displays are exquisite pillars of shiny wrapped candies in shiny translucent boxes. And every year, one of the attendants at their large booth finally waves the white flag and says, "You see all those 'DO NOT EAT' stickers and the tape we use to keep our candies safe from you masses? IGNORE THEM."

Bedlam ensues. Within a span of 15 minutes, the displays go from shining examples of a company's pride to . . . well, you can see the picked-clean skeletons of cardboard discarded in the center of the carpeted area, devoid of any signs of life or sugary goodness. Around the hall, you can see the boxes in threes and fours tucked under the arms and poking from the tops of the bags of the victors.

Because to the victors go the spoils of war.

And all that remains on the battlefield are the tiny stains of ground-up chocolate mashed into the carpet as casualties of war and the cardboard graves in memorium to those candies who perished on this glorious day that shall live in infamy.

Until next year, Ferrero Rocher... Until next year...

Snacks and Sweets Expo 2010 - The Initial Post

2010-05-27T17:18:00.003-05:00

This is a post to remind myself to upload some pictures, post them to the Expo's Flickr page (and do a check to see if others posted pics with me in them), maybe give some shout-outs to the social networking and candy people I met at the Expo - and then start up with the reviews!

So much candy, so many snacks and sweets, so many random tales to tell and attempt to recall.

I need to post about the new products coming out from these awesome candy companies, and the giant creepy mascots we encountered (including Garfield, who happened to be hocking coffee products), and some of my highlights of the Expo (oh, Jack Links crane machine, I will miss you). There were wheels to spin, prizes to win, and win we did!

*glances at a 3-foot-long tube of gumballs*

Don't worry, there's pictures.

Speaking of which, one story that I must tell right now because it's freshest in my mind (it happened as we were leaving the Expo center):

I was doing lots of Twitter posting during the Expo. It seemed to be their new thing this year, and the organizers at the NCA sent notifications to everyone attending about Twitter. They had an @SWEETSandSNACKS profile to follow with interesting updates (especially during the showcases and panels), and a hashtag #SSE10 for people to use that would not only show up on a huge TV screen in the Connection Café section of the Expo, but also make you eligible for prizes during the Wednesday Tweetup. Oh yes, there was a Tweetup, and more about that awesomeness (and prizes) later.

Anyway, thanks to Twitter, I was making new network connections, chatting about booths and awesome stuff going on, and taking pictures of interesting people I was meeting.

Fast-forward to the end of the Expo, 2pm Thursday and the mad mob heading out. I make it through security with my giant bag of candy being taken home for Day 3 and I hear people waving towards me and calling for me. I'm taken aback as I recognize the two girls from the Rips booth (where I played Plinko every day trying to win another tin truck like I did last year), and they're calling for me.

They've been following my tweets all week, and told me that they would score some major cool points with the rest of their crew if they could get a photo WITH ME.

That's right - somehow at a convention center full of people who are taking pictures of the exhibitors and their products and mascots, this company's reps wanted to get a photo WITH ME.

I was overjoyed - and as one of them got the shot with the other next to me and my girlfriend, I simply had to thank them and get their Twitter account names (since they'd apparently been using it to follow my tweets). So as soon as I got home, I connected myself to @RipsLicorice and @EiffelBonBons - knowing that they are the company accounts, but if they're really that interested, they'll know where to find me.

And maybe I'll find that picture they took with me - somewhere on the 'net and sometime in the future. So I can have proof that in 3 days at the Sweets and Snacks Expo 2010, I somehow became so awesome that people wanted to get pictures with me.

Come to think of it, there was someone ELSE at a booth who asked to take a photo of me as well - but those were different reasons and another story to tell after some rest and recombobulation after such an exciting time.

Back to the candy sorting and maybe eating some healthier food for dinner!

Fact of the Day - May 5, 2010

2010-05-05T17:35:00.002-05:00

100505, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

Been a while, but I needed a pick-me-up and felt like making fun of jellyfish and doing a crappy drawing after-hours would suffice.

Jellyfish are the worst combination of attributes: deadly, immortal, and not at all tasty.

So be careful in the water - and avoid any smacks of jellyfish you encounter. Stay safe!

Call Your Alderman re: Massage Parlors

2010-04-13T14:36:00.001-05:00

I'm not sure how many of you have heard, but on Monday's committees meeting for City Council, the Zoning Committee has approved an ordinance that would ban massage businesses from opening in residential areas (and neighborhood business strips) and only allow them to open in commercial zone areas.

Why would the Aldermen want to pass such an ordinance/ban on massage parlors?

Because they think it's going to help fight prostitution.

And we need some help calling up the Aldermen to remind them this this is a ridiculous idea and to vote NO in tomorrow's meeting when it's scheduled to be brought up for a vote!

"Okay, Aaron. So what's really going on here? Isn't it possible that they've got a good reason to do this and you just want to rile us up?"

No, loyal reader. This is your standard City Council bullshit looking to do something ridiculous that will not fight the problem that they're looking to solve.

The beginning: Ald. Ray Suarez (31st) went to court to revoke the license of an illegal sex parlor in the 2200 block of North Cicero that he said was masquerading as a massage parlor.

So the underlying problem is that a massage parlor was also selling sexual acts.

Ald. Suarez: "The community is upset, and I don't blame them. There was prostitution going on. More of these places are popping up, and it's hard to get rid of [them]. It's becoming too easy. They're pretending to be something they're not."

Here's where I'm running into my first problems with this scenario: How did the community become upset? What happened that made them upset?

Obviously if there's a massage parlor that is selling sexual acts - it's happening IN the parlor. It's not streetwalkers selling themselves for sex in public view. Which means that unless you were BUYING a sexual act or TOLD that you could buy a sexual act - how did the community find out?

Or did they find out when, during the course of standard policework, it was revealed that there was prostitution going on in the parlor?

In which case this whole hubbub is ridiculous, since the community did NOT have a problem until they FOUND OUT there was prostitution going on!

In the meantime, what would have upsetted them about a massage parlor in their neighborhood that happened to be selling sexual acts without them knowing?

A boom in clientele as a result of the sex-selling that caused parking problems? In that case, one can argue that no popular business should operate in a residential area. And then no business would be able to survive without getting kicked out.

Was there an influx of "people who would be likely to purchase sex acts" and the socioeconomic differences of people in their residential area were upsetting the people? That's rather rude/racist/elitist of them, wouldn't you think? I'm pretty sure you can't ban "creepy-looking people" from a residential zone unless they're doing something creepy in public or where the public can see it.

But I digress. Let's assume that there's a validity to the neighborhood being upset by having a secret sex-selling massage parlor in their neighborhood.

What about the massage parlors NOT selling sex? Why should they have to suffer and be forced to only open in "areas with commercial zoning designations, like car dealers, gas stations and other heavy business uses"?

In a quick side note, I believe prostitution should be legalized. If that were the case, it wouldn't have to be done in secrecy. Sex workers could get health benefits, the industry could be regulated, and having a sex worker licensing program would help to curb underage prostitution.

Anyway, Suarez has support from 26 other aldermen who have co-signed the ordinance that passed, but there are luckily some members of City Council who can see the light.

Unfortunately, they're too afraid to speak out unless it's anonymously...

"He's probably got one place that's a front for a sex operation, and instead of going after it with law enforcement, he's trying to kill a whole industry," said one alderman, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of embarrassing Suarez.

"Just clean up the ones that need to be cleaned up and let the legitimate places operate. I have a large hairdresser that's trying to come to my area. Something like this would kill it."

Yes, and I'd believe more that your anonymity was to protect Suarez's embarrassment - if it weren't for the fact that you then follow it up with a mention of personal gain for your ward if it doesn't pass.

How about gain for society in general and for businesses in general? Isn't THAT enough to be able to speak freely and openly about how stupid of an idea it is to ban an entire industry from being located in certain zones just because random ones happen to be doing something illegal that has nothing to do with their location?

Seriously, do these 26 other aldermen think that if a massage parlor is forced to open someone more commercial where there's better parking and more businesses that are open and catering to additional potential clients that the changes of them selling sexual acts is going to be reduced?

That's like saying that because most shootings at convenience stores happen at night, all convenience stores are banned from being open after sunset and cannot open a new convenience store in a location where other businesses are open at night in order to fight illegal gun violence.

If I were Alderman (and hopefully I will be in 2011), I would be speaking out just like I am now about a dumb ban that should not be passed and I would vote NO.

But since I'm not Alderman, I need your help to make sure the current aldermen in City Council vote NO on this ordinance. Please look up the office information for your City Council representative and tell them to vote no on this ordinance that hurts small business owners who want to sell massages and don't plan on selling the "happy endings".

Maybe with some help, we'll see a real happy ending to this story tomorrow when the City Council does not pass this ordinance.

Digg this article - and spread the word!

The BBQ Pork Bun Off

2010-04-10T23:57:00.005-05:00

Every time I make my way through Chinatown here in Chicago, I try and grab a BBQ pork bun. There are so many places where they can be found at any number of bakeries, both along Chinatown Square and Chinatown on Wentworth. The last few times I've been given a BBQ pork bun by my girlfriend after she's visited, I've instictively asked, "Which bakery did you buy this at?"

Funny thing is, she doesn't always remember. And even when she does, I don't really remember if that place is specifically good or not.

So I've decided to start a comprehensive list and rating system.

And so, let the "BBQ Pork Bun Off" . . . BEGIN!

The rest of this post has been moved to its new official home on the RedEye Royalty page!

BAD TRANSLATOR!

2010-04-06T10:30:00.001-05:00

Okay, this is just a wacky post. Adam Savage (of Mythbusters fame) posted a link on Twitter to this "Bad Translator" website. And it is a bad translator indeed.

It basically takes your English text and can go through either 10, 25, or all 54 different languages listed in Google Translate - translating to that language and back to English, so you can see your text morph, lanugage by language, into the unrecognizable result at the end.

It's like playing a game of Telephone at the United Nations.

So I've set the translations to the MAX, and here is a sampling of hilarity for you to enjoy this April Fool's Day.

(Yes, I initially started this post on April Fool's Day and finally got around to posting it.)

Movie/Music Quotes:
Original text:
Obi-Wan Kenobi: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."
...54 translations later we get:
"Class on Tuesday a mistake."

Original text:
Jon Bon Jovi: "Shot through the heart, and you're to blame. You give love a bad name."
...54 translations later we get:
"My responsibility as heart disease. Is not known"

Famous Quotes:
Original text:
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
...54 translations later we get:
"Do not worry, I am afraid."

Original text:
Amendment 2 of the Constitution: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
...54 translations later we get:
"You can also find a group of military security and freedom."

Original text:
Jean-Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people."
...54 translations later we get:
"Top"

Original text:
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."
...54 translations later we get:
"Violence is good."

Proverbs:
Original Text:
"A stitch in time saves nine."
...54 translations later we get:
"Do."

Original Text:
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
...54 translations later we get:
"Start tour in 1000 in San Francisco."

(There were about 50 more of these, but not at maximum translations and the funniest ones came from a friend as we were exploring this site. I'll post some of those in the comments later.)

Hope you enjoy!

(If you want to follow Mythbuster Adam Savage, his Twitter account is @donttrythis)

Also, leave a comment with some of your own hilarious translation results!

And then Digg this article!

New Reason to Quit Smoking: Pig Blood!

2010-03-31T16:24:00.001-05:00

Before you start freaking out on me:

Yes - this is regarding pig blood in cigarettes.
No - it's not like a bunch of blood was spilled in some factory and now packs may be tainted.

But the truth is somewhere in-between and it's rather disconcerting (and makes me glad I've only had one cigarette in my life).

University of Sydney Professor in Public Health Simon Chapman points to recent Dutch research which identified 185 different industrial uses of a pig - including the use of its haemoglobin in cigarette filters.

So it's not just pig blood - it's a specific part of the blood, and it's serving an industrial purpose. It turns out that pig haemoglobin can make cigarette filters more effective at trapping harmful chemicals before they can enter a smoker's lungs.

And it's not in ALL cigarettes - maybe. The fact is that we don't know and have no way of knowing. Some tobacco companies have voluntarily moved a list of product contents to public websites, but these lists can include undisclosed "processing aids ... that are not significantly present in, and do not functionally affect, the finished product." That means that cigarettes could contain "insignificant" amounts of pig haemoglobins.

Of course, that all depends on your definition of "insignificant" - devout Jews and Muslims, whose core beliefs specifically ban the consumption of pork in all its forms, will undoubtedly find any amount of pig in their cigarettes to be "significant". Likewise with vegetarians, who never would have suspected that behind the leafy safe tobacco filling could be lurking a meaty filter.

According to the article I read this news from, at least one cigarette brand sold in Greece was confirmed as using pig haemoglobin in its processes.

The fact remains - unless your cigarette company is willing to divulge this information, you will have no idea how much your smokes have in common with a smoky side of bacon.

What do you think? Are you a smoker and this knowledge may affect your smoking habits? Are you Jewish/Muslim/vegetarian and a smoker? Leave a comment!

And then Digg this article!

In the RedEye: 5 on 5 - March 23, 2010

2010-03-23T08:47:00.002-05:00

I finally made it back into the RedEye, folks! And this time with a picture and everything!

It all started last Wednesday when I e-mailed my answers to the Sports section's "5 on 5" request. I thought my answers were rather amusing, so I sent it in.

Well, I didn't get in, but the guy said he'd be connecting me to someone who will get back to me and will put me in the Tuesday "5 on 5" instead because he already booked the Thursday one! So I waited patiently and on Sunday night, I got this e-mail:

"Hey Aaron, [Columnist] gave me your contact info so we could get you into 5 on 5s this week. I'm filling in for him while he's on vacation. Thanks for getting in touch with us. The questions are below, and I need your answers by 2 p.m. Monday. Let me know if there are any questions, and definitely send us a picture (a head/shoulders shot will do) if you have not done so already.

1. What else can be solved with a bracket-type tournament?
2. Create a rallying cry for a team in the Sweet 16.
3. With their 10-game skid snapped, what do the Bulls do for an encore?
4. Whom would you like to see announcing March Madness games?
5. What will Ozzie Guillen do when he bores of Twitter?"

So I sent in my responses.

As is customary, I wrote too much and they had to cut it down to make it fit. So here are my responses in full and I'll bold the parts that got kept in.

1. What else can be solved with a bracket-type tournament?

Government bailouts. I don't want my money going to bail out a company that hasn't fought from a Sweet 16 to the Championships. [won a tourney.]

2. Create a rallying cry for a team in the Sweet 16.

"Northern Iowa Panthers: Your Office Probably Hates Us Now!"

3. With their 10-game skid snapped, what do the Bulls do for an encore?

The obvious answer is "an 11-game skid", but I think they could hit 12 or 13 easily. Can't underestimate the Bulls!

4. Whom would you like to see announcing March Madness games?

We need a new insulting, snarky Brit to handle sports like Simon Cowell does for singing and Gordon Ramsay for cooking. And put him courtside with a bullhorn for maximum chance of crying.

5. What will Ozzie Guillen do when he bores of Twitter?

He'll spend his days updating his status message on Facebook and throwing sheep at the managers of other teams.

I also sent in two headshots for them to pick from. One was my famous "sombrero" picture, which I realize didn't have the standard headshot look with shoulders that they tend to use, so I included a backup picture of me in my suit and power tie. And sadly, that's the one they used. Though it's a hilarious contrast from the other pictures in the column.

You can see for yourself in the ONLINE edition if you're not a Chicagoan and have access to the actual paper today.

Well, that's all for now! Maybe someday I'll finally get a gig as a guest columnist for the RedEye!

Hey - Digg this article!

Aaron Samuels for Alderman (Chapter 1: The Tentative Calendar)

2010-03-11T16:20:00.008-06:00

I guess this really begins the story of my 2011 run for Alderman (even though I plan to make a video in the coming months with my official announcement to run as it gets closer to the date).

If you've been following along (seriously not hard since there's only one other post so far) with the story, I was making some estimates based on the e-mail I received yesterday regarding the 2007 Election Calendar and what it might mean for me running in 2011.

Well, I guess my inquiry lit a fire under their butts, because today they e-mailed me the first version of the 2011 Election Calendar and updated their website with it as well!

Dear Voter,

We are sending the attached preliminary 2011 Election Calendar as follow-up to an earlier response we issued to an inquiry related to the upcoming elections. This calendar is available at our Web site at www.chicagoelections.com and will be updated, as needed, if and when new statutes or case laws impact the election schedule or requirements that are listed in the attached Election Calendar. We hope this information is helpful. We thank you for your interest and for the opportunity to be of assistance.

Communications
Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago
69 West Washington Street, Suites 600/800
Chicago, Illinois 60602

So I opened it up and here's a rundown of the actual dates.

For the 2011 Elections:

September 14, 2010: First day to circulate for signature candidate nominating petitions for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman.

December 6, 2010: First day to file candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman with the Board of Election Commissioners.

December 13, 2010: Last day to file candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman with the Board of Election Commissioners.

December 20, 2010: Last day to file objections to candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman for the February 27, 2007 Municipal General Election. File in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners.

February 2, 2011: Last day for candidates for the office of Alderman to withdraw as a candidate. File in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners.

February 22, 2011: MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer for the City of Chicago and for the office of Alderman in all wards of the City of Chicago. Polling places are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

My estimate for the number of signatures I'd need to petition for was only off by 5 - I'm only going to need 193 signatures!

Unfortunately, there's a litany of rules for these petitions and how they have to be signed and handled and presented when filing the official paperwork with the City. Like a very scary amount of rules. And while most of them are "how the heck would they know if this is true or not" kinds of rules, I want to be VERY careful. You have to be when going up against the incumbent, you know?

This also seems like a warning that I really should work on retaining a lawyer, if for nothing else then to help make sure I've dotted all my i's and crossed all my t's when it comes to the official paperwork that includes the "Statement of Economic Interest" and any "forms prescribed by the Board of Ethics". At least the "Loyalty Oath has been declared unconstitutional; hence its filing is optional."

Well, that's all the excitement for now. I'll likely continue with my Alderman Saga in future chapters as the date approaches, or if I get some comments or questions regarding me, my campaign, or anything else related that needs to go beyond the Comments and into a new separate post.

So ask me some questions! Show me support! Just leave a comment!

And then Digg this article!

Aaron Samuels for Alderman (Prologue)

2010-03-10T17:32:00.000-06:00

I may have mentioned it before, but ever since 2006, it's been a dream of mine to run for City Council here in Chicago and be an Alderman. It all started on that fateful day when the Chicago City Council unanimously voted to ban the sale of foie gras after they were shown a shock video by PETA and asked to vote on this law.

The aftermath: Chicago was mocked by other cities, the ban was proved to be useless by restauranteurs, and even the Mayor said it was the "silliest law" until it was finally repealed two years later.

I made up my mind. I would run for Alderman just to make sure that SOMEONE on the Chicago City Council would be the voice of reason whenever PETA rolled around. I expanded my idea by wanting to be a city representative who could see both sides on an issue and be able to play Devil's Advocate - as well as to speak up when any alderman is (in my opinion) completely wrong.

This spread out into even more ideas about being a young member of City Council who could spruce up the webpage for our ward and respond to questions using YouTube and maybe do Ward Podcasts.

And then I found out in 2007 that I missed my chance to run. But I vowed that I would do everything in my power to run in 2011 and get my name on that ballot and - who knows - maybe even win a seat on the City Council of Chicago.

Every now and then since that day in 2007, I've tried to find out how the heck one even runs for public office - let alone run for City Council specifically. I've checked message boards, Googled the question, surfed and rummaged through the Chicago City website - and no definite results.

About a month ago, I started e-mailing. I sent e-mails out to any info e-mail address I could come across, asking the same questions, hoping that someone earning a government paycheck could point me in the right direction so that someday I might earn one as well.

Yesterday, I actually got a response.

Hi:

You will need to direct your email/inquiry to the Chicago Board of Elections. You can visit them on the web and obtain pertinent contact information at the url: http://www.chicagoelections.com

Thank you.
Office of the Chicago City Clerk

So I was getting closer. Somehow my searching hadn't pointed me to this site, probably due to the keywords I was using. So I searched and found nothing to answer my question. But there was yet another e-mail address to query, and query I did.

And that same day, I got a response from someone at the Chicago Elections website.

Dear Voter,
Please note that we will be posting information on the 2011 election cycle on at chicagoelections.com under the "for candidates" section in coming weeks. However, the information that we post and the information below is all subject to change with any new legislation in Springfield or rulings in court cases.
----------
Any potential candidate is advised to consult with the Illinois Compiled Statutes, the Election Code, the Municipal Code as well as an attorney who is well versed in election law and related case law. This is intended to be general information and not a legal opinion, as the Board cannot provide legal advice to candidates or potential candidates for two reasons: (1) the Board determines the legality of candidates' nominating petitions; and (2) state laws are subject to change. With those caveats, the basic qualifications for appearing on the ballot to run for alderman in the City of Chicago are that the candidate: (1) be an elector (registered voter, 18 years or older and a U.S. citizen) who has resided in the ward for at least one year prior to election; (2) be in compliance with all other restrictions/requirements under Illinois law, which include, but are not limited to: having submitted a petition with sufficient valid signatures of qualified electors from that ward; not having been convicted of a felony; ot having any outstanding fines, penalties or debts to the municipality; and having completed other necessary paperwork, such as the petition, statement of candidacy, ethics filings, etc. For more information, prospective campaigns are strongly advised to review all relevant statutes ( http://www.ilga.gov/ ) and strongly advised to consult with an attorney who is versed in the Election Code.
----------------------
State laws may change between now and the filing, and the numbers of signatures needed will be determined, under current law, based on the results in the 2010 election cycle. With those caveats, we have attached the 2007 Election Calendar, which lists documentation rules that were in effect for that 2007 election -- solely for reference purposes. Please note that the Election Board will be updating its web site to include information on the 2011 Municipal Elections in the months after the Primary Election. We hope this information is helpful and thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance.

Communications
Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago
69 West Washington Street, Suites 600/800
Chicago, Illinois 60602

So now I have more of an answer and I can begin preparations. The document had a lot of random information, but there are pieces I can ascertain based on what lies within.

For the 2007 Elections:

September 19, 2006: First day to circulate for signature candidate nominating petitions for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman.

December 11, 2006: First day to file candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman with the Board of Election Commissioners.

December 18, 2006: Last day to file candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman with the Board of Election Commissioners.

December 26, 2006: Last day to file objections to candidate nomination papers for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer and Alderman for the February 27, 2007 Municipal General Election. File in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners.

February 7, 2007: Last day for candidates for the office of Alderman to withdraw as a candidate. File in the office of the Board of Election Commissioners.

February 27, 2007: MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION for the offices of Mayor, Clerk, Treasurer for the City of Chicago and for the office of Alderman in all wards of the City of Chicago. Polling places are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

So there you have it. Sometime in June of 2010 they will be posting this document regarding the February 2011 elections. I'll be able to officially start my campaign to collect signatures in September, and if I hit the right number by December, I'm in (unless the encumbent goes all lawyer on me and objects to me being on the ballot). If I make it on and it causes me such grief that I want to get the hell out of there, I've got over a month afterwards to figure it out. (Unlikely!) And then in February it all goes down!

So how many signatures do I need?

See "Table A: Minimum Signature Required on Aldermanic Nominating Petitions - City of Chicago"

Basically by ward, they tally up the total votes from the previous municipal election (in this case, 2007) and they take 2% of that number (and round up) and that's the number of signatures I'll need to get.

So if in February 2003, my ward had a total of 12,518 votes placed, in order to get on the ballot for February 2007 I would need (2% of 12,518 = 250.36) signatures from 251 registered voters.

I do believe the numbers for the February 2007 elections show my ward having cast 9,861 votes - ergo I should only need to get 198 petition signatures!

This is it, folks. I'm excited!

More to come as I wait for the process to finally begin - or if I get some cool comments/questions to answer that would warrant more Prologue to the story before my campaign even becomes official.

So ask me some questions! Show me support! Just leave a comment!

And then Digg this article!

The Consensus on Cons in the Census

2010-03-08T15:42:00.002-06:00

The 2010 Census is now in progress, with cities trying to tally up every single person at every single address possible in order to maximize the rewards in the end. After all, the states with the most population get the most representation in Washington D.C. and the cities with the most people get the most funding for public services.

So Mayor Rudy Clay of Gary, Indiana brings up an interesting point (by way of proposed legislation, of course) in that he wants the residents of Gary who are incarcerated outside of the city to count on the census for Gary instead of the location of their enprisonment.

Who should get to claim a prisoner on the census - the prison city or the prisoner's non-prison address city?

According to the news story that brought this to my attention, "Some civil rights advocates and municipal leaders argue that the current way inmates are counted gives prison towns an unfair advantage in census counts."

So let's look at it this way - who should be benefitting with the bonus public funds and votes in the Capitol?

The benefactor city would receive funding for:

•Hospitals
I'm pretty sure that prisons have their own hospitals on-suite. I would admit that there are likely situations that require a convict to go to a REAL hospital, but I think they are too few and far-between to say that every inmate should count towards funds for a hospital of which they are not likely going to be a patient.

•Job training centers
Again, prisons do this on-site. For jobs like license-plate-making (although it's not really training if the industry diesn't exist OUTSIDE prison) or maybe librarian? I'm guessing a lot of lawyer training for all those convicts reading law books and making appeals themselves?

•Schools
I don't really see the population of convicted felons having a single thing to do with schools. Maybe their children. Who are not in prison (hopefully), and therefore still residing for the census in their hometown.

•Senior centers
While I'm sure there are prisoners above the age of 65, I doubt they get free reign to visit the senior centers outside of the prison walls.

•Bridges, tunnels and other-public works projects
Let's avoid using prisoners for any kind of "tunnel budget", okay?

•Emergency services
I'm guessing these services include the police and fire departments, who likely are the ones catching the guys who wind up in prison. Having them already in prison doesn't seem like much of a reason to get extra police officers, except for the offchance of an escape. In which case you'd want some extra police officers. And firefighters, if the escapee is an arsonist. And medical personnel in ambulances if the escapee is a violent criminal.

Census information affects the numbers of seats your state occupies in the U.S. House of Representatives
Well, if the argument is "we have more voters, we need their weight to be adequately represented as such in Washington D.C., then it's almost a moot point. Convicted felons don't get to vote at all in like 12 states. True, some states are more lenient (and 2 let convicted felons vote, even while in prison), but again this seems like a strange line to cross.

Census data is also used to advocate for causes, rescue disaster victims, prevent diseases, research markets, locate pools of skilled workers and more
I'm not really sure how the "in jail" population fits into market research or the job market or disaster/disease networks. I'm inclined to lean more towards the prison for the health reasons and the hometown city for the market reasons.

All in all, it seems that for most of the funding benefits, the city of the prison would be getting the lion's share even though a small minority of the census population would be reaping those benefits. On the other hand, there's not much you can say about those services being used "more" by the prisoners in their hometown, either.

I think my solution is that since the census is done every 10 years, every felon with less than 10 years left on their sentence should be counted at home and more than 10 years left should be counted in prison.

That way, prisoners who are released and most likely to wind up back in their hometown before the next census would be counted towards the funds for their hometown during these next 10 years. Those who will be stuck in jail for the next 10 years, they can be counted for the prison's city that will be housing and providing services for them for certain for those 10 years.

That's my idea, anyway. What do you think? Should prisoners be counted towards Hometown or The Big House? Leave a comment and let me know!

And then Digg this article!

The FDA and Misleading Labels

2010-03-04T14:50:00.003-06:00

I eventually plan on writing a long series of FDA-related posts, but for now I will settle with this news article about how the FDA has sent official warnings to 17 different food companies about misleading claims on the labels of their products, including threats to take further action (including product seizure) if they don't correct the labels.

While it's a nice idea to try and "protect the public" from misleading labels, in most cases the public should be able to defend themselves and the corrections can be just as misleading thanks to the FDA's twisted logic.

Of course, this is the governmental organization that thinks the serving size of Fig Newtons is "2 cookies", ice cream is eaten by the "1/2 cup" and a normal person will eat HALF of a ramen packet for a meal and save the other half for later.

I'm partially torn on the issue. On the one hand, people are generally idiots and usually (1) don't care about the nutrition info and just want to buy tasty food, (2) are easily swayed by the label when choosing a product and don't bother with real nutritional info or (3) bother to check the nutritional info but "abuse" the servings and overeat.

Those in Group 2 are the people who the FDA is trying to "protect" with this crackdown on misleading labels by citing their guidelines and the company's failure to adhere to them by improperly using certain words on the label.

Now while I both loathe the coddling of those who deserve what their idiocy brings them as well as the government forcing their rules on the free market and making it less free - I do agree that false advertising is just plain wrong and I applaud the FDA for cracking down on falseties in the advertising on the labels of these food products.

On that other hand, though - the FDA has some pretty frickin' insane rules. Insane that they made the rule in the first place, insane that the rules have so many stipulations, and insane that the stipulations in and of themselves sometimes make the rule pointless.

Just to give you an idea, one of the companies that was targeted for mislabeling was Ken's Foods, Inc. for their salad dressing line called "Ken's Healthy Options™". The crime? The content claim of "healthy". Here's what the FDA requires in order for a company to put the word "healthy" on their product label:

To bear the nutrient content claim "healthy," a food such as a salad dressing: (1) must be "low fat" as defined in 21 CFR 101.62(b)(2) (total fat content of 3 g or less per Reference Amount Customarily Consumed (RACC) and per 50 g of food); (2) must be "low saturated fat" is defined in 21 CFR 101.62(c)(2) (saturated fat content of 1 g or less per RACC and no more than 15 percent of calories from saturated fat); (3) must not exceed the disclosure level for cholesterol set forth in 21 CFR 101.13(h) (60 mg cholesterol per 50 g of food); (4) must contain no more than 480 mg sodium per 50 g of food (21 CFR 101.65(d)(2)(ii)(B)); and (5) must contain at least 10 % of the Daily Value per RACC of one or more of the following nutrients: vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, and fiber (21 CFR 101.65(d)(2)(i)).

Ken's "healthy" salad dressing options apparently exceed the 3 g of fat per 50 g of food maximum in the "low fat" definition and do not not contain 10% of the Daily Value of at least one of thosee nutrients. And that's the definition of "healthy"!

Another letter recipient was Spectrum Organic Products, Inc. for their product called "Organic All Vegetable Shortening". Sadly, the violation was not regarding the "organic" label (which is a hilarious can of worms to open) but the fact that the label says it is "cholesterol free".

The term "cholesterol free" may be used on the label or in the labeling of a food with a Reference Amount Customarily Consumed (RACC) of two (2) tablespoons or less that contains more than 13 g of total fat per 50 g only if the following criteria, set forth in 21 CFR 101.62(d)(1)(ii), are met: (1) the food contains less than 2 mg of cholesterol per RACC and per labeled serving; (2) the food contains no ingredient that is generally understood by consumers to contain cholesterol; (3) the food contains 2 g or less of saturated fatty acids per RACC; and (4) the label or labeling discloses the level of total fat in a serving (as declared on the label) of the food.

The shortening exceeds the maximum 13g of fat per 50g of product and also exceeds the maximum 2g of saturated fatty acids per RACC. But did you notice that a product is cool with the FDA to say they are "cholesterol free" even if it contains 1.9mg of cholesterol per RACC? That's the FDA for you!

In the "totally deserves it" category for the FDA calling out a company's falsehoods - POM Wonderful got a very long letter basically chastizing them for claims made on their website (included on the label).

"The therapeutic claims on your website establish that the product is a drug because it is intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. The marketing of this product with these claims violates [the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]."

Even worse is the fact that in additional to blurring the line between food and drug, the product fails to meet EITHER label, as the letter itemizes how POM Wonderful is misbranded as a food (claiming a high level of a nutrient that doesn't even have a Recommended Daily Intake) AND misbranded as a drug (saying they treat diseases means they are a drug but they don't provide adequate directions for use).

I could go on. These are just 3 of the 17 company letters that were sent out, including one to Gorton's, Inc. for their Gorton's Fish Fillets and to Dreyer's Ice Cream Inc. for some products of theirs for advertising "0 grams trans fat" but not also notifying the consumer to "See nutrition information for fat and saturated fat content". Which apparently is part of the FDA's rule about saying your product contains no trans fat...?

So back to my original point - I'm not sure whether to applaud or boo at the FDA for these letters. Sure, according to the Federal Law, their products were in violation due to improper labels. But what does any of it mean? The Pompeian, Inc. company got hit because of the usage of the word "light" on their bottles of "Pompeian Imported Extra Light Olive Oil" - but Frank Patton, the company's president, said the label should have said "Extra Light Tasting Olive Oil" and that it was a printing error, which he intends to correct when the next labels are printed.

So the FDA only cares about a product using the term "light" as long as it's not followed by the word "tasting"? How does that protect consumer Debbie Dumbass who sees the word "light" and couldn't give a damn what the rest of the label says? Am I allowed to market a line of ice creams that say "Fat-Free Tasting Ice Cream" and rake in the money from people who see the words "fat free" and couldn't be bothered to do the legwork and investigate the nutritional info to see that I use extra lard for that "perfect fat free taste"?

What the hell does "Extra Light" taste like, anyway? It's OLIVE OIL! Are there seriously taste testers guzzling shots of olive oil and checking off the "tastes like 'extra light'" box instead of the "tastes like 'light'" or "tastes like my arteries are clogging" boxes?

(Note to self: "Uncle Aaron's Artery-Cloggin' Tasting Olive Oil" will likely not sell well in today's marketplace.)

In the end, I think I'm still on the fence. I like to think that the free market should decide what is or isn't appropriate marketing for products and that the government should butt out. But I'm also sick and tired of Debbie Dumbass suing large corporations because a nightly cup of their "Extra Light" olive oil still made her fat despite claims of being "Extra Light". In these cases, I'm glad that the FDA can nip these in the bud by having companies adhere to these nonsense laws.

So if I had to choose, I'd be forced to tip my hat to the FDA. Their laws may be nonsensical and outdated, but at least they're helping to curb the frivolous dumbass lawsuit population.

What do you think? Do you approve or disapprove of the FDA and these letters? Leave a comment and let me know!

And then Digg this article!

Fact of the Day - March 3, 2010

2010-03-03T14:54:00.002-06:00

100303, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

Been a while, dear readers!

The fact is back (for today at least) - and sadly I wish more time and effort had gone into picking this one. I literally took 25 seconds to Google "random fact" and chose something multiple pages of results down to ensure I wasn't getting the most over-used facts, and then scribbled the fact down and drew this out during 10 minutes of free time today.

So I apologize if the awesomeness of the fact itself isn't all that much - at least it's a halfway-decent drawing. (Compared to my others, that is.)

Well, the scale is horrible. I don't know exactly how many laws of physics would be broken by this particular scale, but upon reexamination it seems as though it would be very few. The floating 15-inch ruler, on the other hand...

I also don't know why all "weights" tend to look like that in my mind. I blame cartoons. Damn you, Wile E. Coyote!

Anyway, I hope to have more of these for you in the coming days. We'll see how things go between work, packing and moving later this month.

(Backup fact of the day: Snails move an average of 0.03 mph. Perhaps that may be featured another day, with a poorly-drawn cop and/or speedgun.)

Energy Drink Review - Spike Shooter

2010-02-24T12:22:00.000-06:00

So on Sunday, I was roaming the streets of the Loop after working extra hours and was feeling thirsty for an energy drink, so I wound up at some 7-11 to check out their selection and something new caught my eye. Mostly because it had a large warning label.

Spike Shooter
Warning - Do Not Exceed One Can Per Day

So of course I had to buy it.

Well, I'll let ME tell you all about it:

So that was Sunday. Then on Monday, I wound up working more overtime, into the wee hours of the morning. Tuesday 7am found me back at my desk on 3 hours of sleep total and I knew these were the perfect conditions where I'd need a real energy drink (not that my standard daily consumption of Amp, Monster or other energy drinks isn't real or anything - just seemed like "warning label"-level energy drink conditions). At 8:30am I was resolved (and wanted witnesses, as most of the office is in by that point) to try this sucker out.

And no, I wouldn't be starting with a half-can to test my tolerance!

HAAAAAAAAA!!! <-- Manly laugh

I think my face on the video and statement sums it all up:

"This tastes like a bad idea."

Here's what I can recall of my day past that point...

8:45am
Okay, this is no problem. Aside from a bitter taste in my mouth, I'm starting to feel some energy kick in. I think my thoughts are becoming clearer and less-dulled than before the can.

9:00am
Whoa, this is officially too much energy for my brain to handle. If only they made a beverage to give you lucidity instead of just energy. I can feel my muscles twitching already as the initial caffeine surge moves through my bloodstream.

10:00am
Leg-shaking has begun. My heartbeat has definitely increased, though I have no way of verifying this statement. If only I could remember how to properly take my radial pulse! The energy is useless if your brain can't harness the power in a positive manner!

12:00pm
Okay, now I don't need to recall how to properly take a radial pulse because putting a hand on my chest yields a perfect monitor for my heartbeat. It is going STRONG - and now I'm worried that this is due to some increase in blood pressure from consuming this thing. I already have a bit of a high blood pressure issue (more stress-related than anything else, but I won't ignore my horrible diet contributing) and I've determined that if my nose (or anything else) starts spontaneously bleeding, I'm going home for the day.

It is at this point that I realize that any further thirst on my end has mindlessly resulted in sips from my standard-issue energy drink. It gets put in the fridge so it's out of my hand's unconscious reach. The warning label only said I couldn't have more that one can of Spike Shooter in a day, it didn't specifically say I couldn't have any other energy drinks! Still, I need to take a break from energy drinks. I grab a less-caffeinated can of Diet Coke and press onward.

2:00pm
Heartbeat still running fast and strong, and now my stomach is really growling. Perhaps I've burned up some energy and need to refill. Perhaps I've just been awake for 21 of the past 24 hours and in that time only had some spaghetti around 9pm the previous night, meaning I should probably take a lunch today.

Stupidly chose McDonald's. Because Shamrock Shakes are back in effect! Upon consuming the french fries, I recall my previous worries about blood pressure. This is not enough to stop me from eating, but at least I gave it a thought.

The headache is now subsiding a little, and I'm feeling a bit more normalized. My leg still has bouts of twitching and I am in no need of any further energy-laden drink.

4:00pm
Headache gone. Can no longer feel heartbeat as easily through chest. Using sentence fragments.

At the time, I was way too into my usual routine to notice much difference going on. This either means that at the 7-hour mark, the caffeine and whatnot has withdrawn to my usual levels - or I'm just way too busy to notice my own physiology. Zen and the Art of Energy Drinks? I dunno.

7:15pm
Finally able to leave the office. All tremors are gone, but I feel the fatigue settling back in as I hit a cab to take me home. I'm still feeling ALERT, but my response time has only deteriorated since about noon and it's very evident during the cab ride.

9:30pm
Had some dinner. Sleepiness is now teaming up with muscle fatigue and it's bedtime. I highly doubt that had I taken this energy drink 6 hours before bedtime that I would be able to sleep at all (the warning label includes the statement to not consume less than 6 hours before bedtime). Altogether, it's been a wild ride - but it provided me and my co-workers with some entertainment in-between the rants about how crazy/dumb I am for doing such a thing.

But hey - if they make the product, I'm going to want to review it!

What do you think? Am I a fool for doing this? Have you encountered/consumed this product? Leave a comment and let me know!

And then Digg this article!

Fact of the Day - February 16, 2010

2010-02-16T21:26:00.002-06:00

100216, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

Just a quick one for Mardi Gras. Sorry there are no elaborate drawings to make fun of.

Hope you are all having a better Fat Tuesday than me.

Can I give up "working late" for Lent?

Or will that definitely not work since I'm Jewish...?

Oh well - hope you enjoyed some pancakes or paczkis today!

Bacon Buns for Mardi Gras!

2010-02-16T13:14:00.002-06:00

Needed to post something today and unfortunately I was in too groggy/sleepy/grumpy of a mood today to remember that it was Mardi Gras until I was on the bus to work. So the ONE DAY of the year when it's appropriate to wear a fuzzy purple top hat and I miss it!

Anyway, picked up some Munchkin donuts for my coworkers to celebrate and remembered I grabbed my breakfast: a Southside Chicago treat that I can't find anywhere else.

I present to you: The Bacon Bun!

What do you think? Don't Bacon Buns sound delicious? Leave a comment and let me know!

And then Digg this article!

Fact of the Day - February 15, 2010

2010-02-15T21:56:00.002-06:00

100215, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

Sorry for the delay. At first I was having a snow delay due to Tuesday's insane snowstorm. Then Wednesday, our office actually got a Snow Day for the first time I can recall. Thursday was playing catch up from our missed day, and on Friday I just wasn't able to stay and get this one done.

So now it's Monday. And I'm still at the office, but had enough time to finally ink this up and color it and get it posted for you all. Perhaps this week I'll have a tiny bit of downtime to keep this "of the day" thing a DAILY thing.

Oh, and this fact comes from this article that mentions:

Q: How many Lego bricks are produced each year?
A: Approximately 19 billion Lego elements are produced per year. 2.16 million are molded every hour, 36,000 every minute.

Q: Approximately, how many bricks they've ever made since Lego started to produce them?
A: More than 400 billion Lego bricks have been produced since 1958. There are about 62 Lego bricks per person of the Earth’s population.

So there you have it. I'm back. For now.

Fact of the Day - February 8, 2010

2010-02-08T16:46:00.002-06:00

100208, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

It's true. Seriously. Don't believe me? Why don't you take a look at the Trek 'N Eat website that lists this product.

Just heat the can in a water bath, open the lid, and enjoy your delicious cheeseburger!

(And then projectile-vomit for several hours.)

Nah, I'm sure it's totally safe. I trust most things that come in a can - with the exception of Spam. Not that I wouldn't EAT it - I just don't TRUST it. Mostly for the reason that if Spam is "Spiced Ham", then why is there no Spicken or Speef? That's untrustworthy marketing and a little offensive to Jews who enjoy spiced meats but want to keep Kosher.

Kosher in a can...

Thoughts on Copyright and Libel

2010-02-07T12:10:00.003-06:00

I think that since I'm getting this blog back up and active, I need more thought-provoking posts than just my Facts of the Day and whatnot. So while watching some shows on Hulu this morning (one of my only remaining sources of full commercials), I had one of my random thoughts:

It was from watching an ad for Red Bull. Maybe you've had the same thoughts as well.

So as you all likely know, the catchprase for Red Bull is that it "gives you wings". I'm almost certain they've got some kind of copyright or trademark on that catchphrase/slogan by now, judging by how long it's been used by them and how nobody else has used it that I can think of to this day.

So here's the conundrum: if science is improving where it comes to genomes and DNA and radiation therapy - isn't it just a matter of time before we have a product that really affects your genetics enough to catalyze the growth of actual human wings?

Now I'm not saying these will be fully-functional wings that will allow human flight and make ground transportation obsolete or have pedestrians needing to be careful for more than little white blips falling from the sky. I'm just saying they will be grown from the human body and resemble wings. I'm sure we already have the laser technology to have some plastic surgeon modify your eyeballs so they look exactly like a cat's eye - that doesn't mean it would be able to function exactly like the feline eye.

So here's the question: If this product finally comes to the marketplace, will they be allowed to use the slogan "gives you wings" in their advertisements?

I mean the facts are facts - it will give you wings. So technically it's a statement and not necessarily an advertisement. But would Red Bull be able to sue? I mean, when all things are considered, they're legally making false accusations - Red Bull does not actually give you wings. Isn't that false advertisement already? Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but does Red Bull have one of those disclaimers on their advertisements saying "Red Bull does not actually give you wings and you should not jump out of a goddamned window because you drank one and think you have wings now, you braindead moron" somewhere in fine print?

Shouldn't they? Did I miss one of those ridiculous lawsuits that popped up in the mid-to-late-90s of mentally-deficient plaintiffs who sued companies for hot coffee that was served hot, or hair driers that didn't specifically say not to use them while in a running shower? I mean if a Superman costume has to provide a warning to children that it will not actually give them the power to fly (because we know children are dumb enough to try it and likely did and caused a lawsuit), doesn't Red Bull need one of those disclaimers?

I think we need to get some failures of life on this. Grab some Red Bull, power it down, and "gives you wings" your way off the roof and onto the pavement in a lovely tableau that will convince a jury of your peers that Red Bull totally needs to provide some dummy disclaimers or stop telling the masses that it "gives you wings" - until it actually CAN give you wings.

Or maybe we should pool our resources into that first thing - the product that actually will give you wings. I think that's a lot more helpful to society. Although society is full of a lot of guys who're more likely to roof-jump than develop a gene-altering wing-growing product.

So maybe we can do both. I'm just saying there are legal implications here that need addressing.

What do you think? False advertising? Disclaimer needed? Leave a comment and let me know!

And then Digg this article!

Fact of the Day - February 7, 2010

2010-02-07T00:49:00.002-06:00

100207, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

Well technically they're not "banned", but a bill signed by President George W. Bush back in 2008 set energy-efficiency standards to take effect in 2012 and 2014 that our current standard light bulbs just can't stand up to.

So in 2012, our 100W-bulb as we know it will no longer be energy-efficient enough to be allowed for manufacture.

I was reminded of that boring piece of news from this website dated 2008 - just a few weeks after I purchased a bunch of 100-watt bulbs to brighten the hell out of our living room.

I may want to stash one of those 4-packs for profit on the black market when 2012 hits...

Fact of the Day - February 6, 2010

2010-02-06T00:27:00.002-06:00

100206, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

So yea, probably the worst drawing of Gerry Ford ever. But that's what happens when I try to draw my own faces based on random Google Images that I've looked up.

I think it's bad, but it's decent enough that if you see the Gerald Ford above it, you can agree it looks kinda like him. But seeing that drawing by itself would never register President Ford in anyone's mind.

Anyway, this fact came from the Gerald Ford Library website and it goes on to say:

President Gerald R. Ford was born on July 14, 1913 at Omaha, Nebraska and was originally given the name Leslie Lynch King, Jr. His parents, Leslie Lynch King and Dorothy Ayer Gardner, had been married on September 7, 1912 at Harvard, Illinois. Just over two weeks after the birth of their son, Dorothy separated from her husband and took her infant son to her sister's home in Oak Park, Illinois and then to her parents home in Grand Rapids, Michigan. On December 19, 1913 an Omaha court granted her a divorce. In 1917 she married Grand Rapids businessman Gerald R. Ford and they soon began calling her son Gerald R. Ford, Jr., although his name was not legally changed until December 3, 1935.

Ford had the least imaginative mother possible, huh?

Well - enjoy this rare weekend update of the Fact of the Day! Another one coming tomorrow!

I'm a Vlogger!

2010-02-05T07:32:00.004-06:00

Okay, so despite the fact that I have:

1) A very good digital picture camera that has video capabilities
2) A digital videocamera that I bought specifically to do videos with

It took my office providing me with a Blackberry so I can be chained to my e-mail and text messages at all hours of the day and night to finally grab a video, put it on a computer, and put in on the internet.

Okay, so I've technically got tons of random videos from the above two devices on my computer at home, but for some odd reason today was the first time I've felt like grabbing some video and making sure I know how to post it to the blog.

I still want to keep doing my Facts of the Day posts. I also want to start doing some video blogging. But there's a lot of things that I want in life and unfortunately most of them take these things called TIME and EFFORT and my non-work life is in short supply of both. Especially now that we've pretty much decided that we're moving in about a month, which means all free time will be split between:

1) My lovely girlfriend (who I need to mention first and foremost because she does come first)
2) Kingdom of Loathing, the best free online RPG-based hilarious game on the internet (join and befriend AaronBSam and I'll give you some Meat - the game's currency)
3) Aika (a closed beta I got into that I'd like to maybe get in on the ground floor for, but who knows?)
4) TV shows (because if I miss The Office, what's the purpose of life?)
5) BOXING AND CLEANING

Anyway, I gotta get to work, so here's my first vlog - I hope this works!

What do you think? Leave a comment and let me know!

And then Digg this article!

Fact of the Day - February 4, 2010

2010-02-04T18:22:00.002-06:00

100204, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

Worst. Handgun. Ever.

And pay no attention to the candy corn bullets.

But it is true that the federal government gets 10% of all the money from handgun (pistol and revolver) sales and 11% of all the money from all other guns and ammunition sales.

The Tax and Trade Bureau Website

Maybe one day the originals will be worth something. That's why I'm making sure to date and sign them all now.

Well, maybe you'll see another fact tomorrow! Feel free to post things you'd like to see facts about. Like weird laws in your city/state, or maybe an animal you'd like to know more about. Or just let me keep picking things at random - whatever!

Fact of the Day - February 3, 2010

2010-02-03T18:59:00.002-06:00

100203, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

Hooray for salt! This FotD comes from The Salt Institute. That's how awesome today has been.

I just dislike the phrasing of their statistics, because they list the estimated US salt reserve in metric tons and they list the world's annual salt consumption in regular tons. That's about a 2.2 factor of difference!

Oh crud, my analyst tendencies are showing!

Fact of the Day - February 2, 2010

2010-02-02T18:20:00.002-06:00

100202, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

You can thank former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for this little tidbit!

The 26th Alaska State Legislature officially passed Senate Bill 58 on April 18, 2009, making Marmot Day a new holiday to occur on February 2, replacing Groundhog Day.

To be fair, there are no groundhogs in Alaska.

Then again, Groundhog Day was just a way to replace Candlemas Day and create a new gimmick about seeing shadows to state the same Candlemas superstition that:

"If Candlemas be fair and bright
Winter will have another flight
If Candlemas be cloud and rain
Winter will be gone and not come again"

A backup fact for today was going to be something about the famous Punxsutawney Phil's predictions are deemed to have been 37-40% accurate according to National Climatic Data Center. Punxsutawney Phil's handlers, of course, claim that his predictions have been 100% accurate. But then again, these are the same people that claim that every summer, Phil is fed a sip of the mysterious Groundhog Punch, which magically lengthens his life for seven years.

Seriously...

Fact of the Day - February 1, 2010

2010-02-01T17:42:00.002-06:00

100201, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

In 1951, the US Government eliminated the classification "old age" on death certificates.

Don't worry - plenty of death classifications are still out there waiting to show up on your death certificate.

Maybe tomorrow I'll be in a less-morbid state of mind.

At least I can go to bed knowing I can't die of "old age".

Fact of the Day - January 29, 2010

2010-01-29T16:39:00.002-06:00

100129, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

After a long hiatus, I'm temporarily back! This was a fact I'd been toying with for a while. My drawing is horrible, as always. Enjoy!

Farewell 2009

2009-12-31T17:55:00.000-06:00

And thank you, JibJab, for finding such a succinct way of saying it...

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

Here's to 2010!

(Not going to be any Facts of the Day for a while - unless somehow I get the scanner up and running again here at home. Highly unlikely.)

Fact of the Day - December 31, 2009

2009-12-31T04:44:00.003-06:00

091231, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

Last FotD for the year, and I'm actually posting it early! In fact, I'm testing out a way to schedule this to post so I can start making these and setting them up in advance!

Wave of the future!

Fact of the Day - December 30, 2009

2009-12-30T17:48:00.002-06:00

091230, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

I guess it's in case they split their pants or something.

I also don't know why the briefs turned out looking like either panties or a jock strap. Oh well.

Fact of the Day - December 29, 2009

2009-12-29T16:55:00.002-06:00

091229, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

I contemplated giving him an Olde Timey English Moustache to go with the poorly-drawn cane, top hat and monocle - but then decided against it.

I am happiest with the way the knife turned out. I am still horrible at drawing cartoonish characters (or anything with a face, really).

Enjoy!

Fact of the Day - December 28, 2009

2009-12-28T18:22:00.002-06:00

091228, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

Sorry for my absence over the Christmas break - was planning on trying to get in some Festivus facts, but c'est la vie!

Anyway, here's today's fact.

Are these a good idea? I know I got the idea from another website, and most of these facts are going to be "I've seen that somewhere else you copycat" kind of facts - but does that matter to you?

I want to know what my readers think. Let me know if this is a bad idea or if you'd like me to keep doing these.

Thanks!

Fact of the Day - December 23, 2009

2009-12-23T18:24:00.002-06:00

091223, originally uploaded by AaronBSam.

Trying out a new angle - maybe it'll get me to post more. And draw more.

And maybe I'll create a separate blog just for these - if I can keep them up.

Have a Scary Hallowe'en!

2009-10-22T13:18:00.002-05:00

Beware! It's scary!

Don't say I didn't warn you!

Happy Hallowe'en!

Deep-Fried Butter!

2009-09-02T19:21:00.002-05:00

Wouldn't you know it - right after I post a lovely article mentioning the State Fairs and all of the wonderful foods that they manage to deep-fry (and sometimes place on a stick), along comes this news article with the entrants in this year's upcoming Texas State Fair.

And topping the list, Deep Fried Butter.

It starts off by recognizing the top honors from the 2008 Texas State Fair: Chicken Fried Bacon and the Fried Banana Split.

And then comes the parade of new entrants.

My favorite item, and the namesake of this post:

Deep Fried Butter

According to the article, "100 percent pure butter is whipped 'til light and fluffy, then specially sweetened with a choice of several flavors." It is then surrounded by a "special dough" and quick-fried.

Is there anything more delicious-sounding than this? I mean cooking shows have already taught me that fat = flavor, so taking a mass of solid flavor, then cooking it in a flavor-based medium should equal doubly-flavorful flavor. If only there were a way to get rid of that pesky dough!!

Sweet Jalapeno Corn Dog Shrimp comes in as my #2 choice because it's so simple as a basic remake of another traditional fairground treat.

"Shrimp on a stick is coated with a sweet and spicy corn meal batter, then deep-fried to a golden brown and served with a spicy glaze."

It's got everything I love about corndogs (the corn batter and deep-frying) and then they replace those nasty hot dogs with something wonderful like shrimp! My only worry is that the shrimp being used is not of a high-enough size rating, which would yield tiny treats more resembling fried shrimp gone wrong than corn dogs gone horrifically wonderful.

While I'm not much a fan of pork, my next choice has to be Country Fried Pork Chips because it's about damned time that we spread the tradition of "country-fried" to other meats (though I love steak nonetheless).

...seasoned, thin-sliced pork loin "surrounded by a tasty corn meal batter and deep-fried."

All I know is that it had better come with country gravy.

Back into the dessert region for Fried Peanut Butter Cup Macaroon - which seems to be more intriguing regarding the peanut butter cup being crossed with a macaroon than it is about being deep-fried.

It is, of course, "dusted with powdered sugar" after the oil drains. And you probably wouldn't want to get it without the available scoop of Blue Bell ice cream, would you?

I'm not sure how well peanut butter and coconut go together. But I'm sure a few quarts of liquid fat will help them get along better than if they were left to their own non-fried devices.

Getting back to simpler dessert fair options, we have Texas Fried Pecan Pie, which I'm sure delivers exactly what it promises - pecan pie and deep-frying.

It is served with caramel sauce "then topped with whipping cream and chopped, candied pecans."

Me, I'm not so much a fan of pecans, let alone a pie consisting primarily of them - but when at a Texas State Fair, do as the Texans do (and deep-fry it), right?

Ahh, and now we venture into the "healthy" side of deep-frying with Fernie's Deep Fried Peaches & Cream.

...ingredients include "a delicious batter of cinnamon, ginger, coconut, graham cracker crumbs, eggs and milk." It is then (natch) deep-fried and served on a plate, drizzled with raspberry sauce, sprinkled with streusel and topped with whipped cream. Wait — there is vanilla buttercream icing provided on the side.

Fruit? But where's the chocolate and sugar and candy bars and such? Oh - it's been deep fried? Then I think we'll manage. At least it's got buttercream icing to flavor it up a few extra points, right?

Lastly, we come to Twisted Yam on a Stick - offering nothing but nutrition, which must be taught a lesson with some deep-frying justice!

"a delicious, towering, spiral-cut sweet potato on a 13-inch skewer." After being plunked in the fryer, it is then "gently rolled in butter" and dusted with sugar and cinnamon.

You can add all the sugar and cinnamon you want, it's not going to hide a big giant skewer full of yam.

So that's what will be going down at the Texas State Fair this year - at least all of the deep-fried awesomeness I've been able to find so far. I really need to buy tickets and take a vacation out there or something!

Or at least locate a recipe for that deep-fried butter!

What do you think? Are you disgusted by the amounts of calories and saturated fats being discussed in this article - or are you drooling with anticipation as you imagine all of these greasy delights? Leave a comment and let me know!

And then Digg this article!

Top 5 New Food Tricks

2009-09-01T12:27:00.002-05:00

I love food.

Not only do I love food, but I love unique combinations of food and new ways to prepare food. I'm the kind of guy who was intrigued enough by the thought of bacon-infused vodka to pick up the ingredients and trying the process out. (I'm too scared to taste the results, though, but the trip itself was quite amazing.) If there's a new way to enjoy some of my favorite foods, I want to know about it and be on the cutting edge of the technology.

I even managed to score tickets to the ALL CANDY EXPO the past two years and got to find out about all the new products and flavors before they hit the market.

So I've done a little rummaging around the 'net and here are the Top 5 new food tricks that have really got me interested and I either loved or would love to try:

Honorable Mention: 50 New Things + Deep-Fried + A Stick = State Fair Deliciousness

I'm always hearing about the new food that is now available (mostly at state fairs) that is being deep-fried and often put on a stick for easy eating. In recent times, this has included Oreos, Twinkees, Snickers bars, Coca-Cola (an intriguing one) and cheesecake. I believe there's even a deep-fried ice cream that someone made available.

We've certainly come a long way from the corndog, haven't we?

5. Donuts + Bacon Cheeseburger = Krispy Kreme Cheeseburger

I have to admit, this isn't exactly a new trend. In fact, I believe I read about it back in 2006 when a minor league baseball team's stadium just outside St. Louis (the Gateway Grizzlies) decided to slice up some Krispy Kreme donuts and slap a burger, bacon and cheese in-between and the Krispy Kreme Cheeseburger was officially born. And yes, that link has photos and video of the 1,000-calorie delight.

But donut burgers have spread, and as recently as last year they are still being created, even turning up at a Google cafeteria. That Slashfood article even has a gallery of pictures of the Krispy Kreme Burger from around the world. Disgustingly enough, picture #3 is a "Veggie Krispy Kreme Burger" - for the "health-conscious" donut-burger lover?

What I'm noticing in the pictures is that there's a clear line on the donut-burger battlefield:

Glazed side up or glazed side down?

I'm on the fence, frankly. It just makes more sense to do it glazed side down if you're trying to get some nice grill marks on the dough side, and it makes for a less-messy burger as you don't have to get glazed sugar all over your fingers. But on the other hand, that layer of sugar is separating donut from meat - by doing it glazed side up, the juices from your bacon and meat patty can meld with the sweet donut dough and while it's a messier endeavor, I suspect there's oodles more flavor if you venture down that path.

Where do you stand?

4. Bacon + Chocolate = Mo's Bacon Bar

I've never been a huge fan of the salty+sweet combination attack. Kettle corn's flavor actually confuses my taste buds sometimes. Chocolate-covered pretzels, I devour them by licking off all the chocolate and then having my way with the salty piece all on its own. Yea, that's even how I tackle the Peanut M&M. But when it comes to bacon, I had to give it a try and I did actually purchase and consume the Mo's Bacon Bar made by Vosges Chocolate a few months ago. I'll let Vosges try to explain itself first:

Breathe…engage your five senses, close your eyes and inhale deeply. Be in the present moment, notice the color of the chocolate, the glossy shine. Rub your thumb over the chocolate bar to release the aromas of smoked applewood bacon flirting with deep milk chocolate. Snap off just a tiny piece and place it in your mouth, let the lust of salt and sweet coat your tongue.

So I tried it (the bar, not the touchy-feely instructions that told me to close my eyes but also to notice the color of the chocolate) and despite a semi-loathing of salty-sweet treats, I enjoyed it. I was a little disappointed to find that the bar was something like 85% chocolate and maybe 15% bacon at best - and that they used tiny bacon bits, which seemed to be getting confused in my mouth with the added Alder wood smoked salt that was supposed to compliment the applewood smoked bacon. I found it to almost overpower the bacon, of which I could find very little taste without only tasting salt. (It could have been the salty bacon, could have been the pure salt.)

I was hoping for something more like this chocolate-covered strip of bacon on a stick, which I'm certain would taste more of bacon while still not overpowering its chocolate coating in the flavor department.

(Luckily, there's several recipes online, which do actually consist of more than "dip bacon in chocolate, ya big dummy!")

3. Booze + Potatoes = Beer Chips and Intoxi-Tators

This is a discovery I got to make at the 2008 All Candy Expo here in Chicago with my girlfriend, as we found ourselves at a booth marked "Beer Chips" with several bowls of potato-y treats for us to sample. Sure, there was the original Beer Chip, made with beer (and maybe what seems to be a malt powder to give it that extra beer taste, though BEER is listed in the ingredients). It's not going to get you drunk or anything, though. But it also comes in additional flavors, like Chip Shots (margarita with salt flavor) and Hot Potatoes (spicy bloody mary flavor) and all three were delicious. I spread the word to my friends and they were very much shocked when a few months later the amber-colored bags were available in our local grocery stores.

And then a year went by, and 2009 All Candy Expo was here. We went searching frantically to find the Beer Chip booth to thank them for an awesome product, but instead we found a different alcohol/potato pairing booth: Intoxi-Tators. They were also sporting a beer-flavored chip as well as the margarita and bloody mary flavors. (Aren't there any other salty alcoholic beverages that would mesh well with potato chips?) Anyway, they also had a fourth offering in the form of Designated Driver, in case you wanted the thrill of the Intoxi-Tator brand without the thrill of chips tasting of alcoholic drink flavorants.

It seems that the Intoxi-Tators website lists some future flavors in development: Mimosa, Pomegranate Mojito and Ale.

2. Bacon + Chicken Sandwich + Chicken Sandwich - Buns = KFC's Double Down

So this one's really on the cutting edge of food technology. Well, food technology that's actually endorsed by the food providers themselves. (While we've all been tempted to make our own Big MacChicken with chicken patties for buns on a Big Mac, McDonald's isn't endorsing it on their menu or advertising it or likely condoning it in any way.) KFC, on the other hand, has selected test markets to try out possibly the first chain-approved burger that uses meat patties instead of buns.

The KFC Double Down - two KFC fried chicken patties as buns sandwiching in some bacon, two slices of cheese and "Colonel's sauce".

It's gaining notoriety on the interwebs as footage from the commercials and poster advertisements and in-store advertisements are being posted to internet forums and being discussed and debated by both food connoisseurs and the general troll population. Is this going to be a new trend? Will it take off and expand outside the test market areas? Will heart-attack lawsuits be pending?

Only time will tell, but my mouth is salivating and my brain is cursing the fact that I am not located in one of these test market areas.

Am I crazy for thinking this is worth a road trip?

1. Beef Jerky + Energy Drink = Perky Jerky

The story starts out so innocently: two buddies on a ski trip who drunkenly left both a bag of beef jerky and an energy drink open inside their backpack. Lo and behold, the next morning the jerky has retained its flavor, become more tender from the energy drink, and has absorbed some of the energy-laden chemicals providing a boost of energy during their ski trip.

And thus, Perky Jerky was born - a combination of meat and caffeine that can probably only be topped by some coffee-rubbed Kobe beef or something.

Sadly, I have not yet been able to get my hands on some of this seemingly-splendid snack food - but will likely be making a purchase order in the very near future (unless some Perky Jerky sales exec stumbles across this blog and would like to contact me for an address where a sample for product review can be sent).

Doesn't this seem like an excellent pairing? Some claim that some of the scientific elements of meat (beef in particular) can cause one to become logey or drowsy - so combining beef jerky with caffeinated guarana seems like the perfect counterpoint to produce a snack that satisfies your taste buds and keeps you on your toes!

What do you think? Do you have better food combinations that you've discovered recently that top some of these food-based math formulas? Do you think we've gone too far and are officially through the looking glass when it comes to foods? Is there something new you'd like to see deep-fried and put on a stick? Leave a comment and let me know your thoughts!

And then Digg this article!

PETA Wants A Lighthouse

2009-08-27T13:48:00.001-05:00

Okay, so if you're an avid reader of my blog, you already know that when PETA is in the title, something stupid is going on and it usually involves a dumb media stunt by PETA or is making fun of a PETA press release. And this post is no different. Today's article is about PETA and their next attempt at obtaining a public landmark to convert into an insipid "activity center" to "raise awareness" of some "travesty" that is befalling the animals.

PETA is applying through a federal program to take over Grand Haven's Lake Michigan lighthouses and turn them into their anti-fishing headquarters where they will set up "education centers" for visitors to learn all about fish.

I'm personally shocked that nowhere in this PETA/fish article was it brought up that PETA prefers to call them "sea kittens".

It's been a while since PETA tried to pull off a "let's take over a building and come up with a crazy way of 'educating' the people about our cause" maneuver. The last was covered in "PETA and Lobsters" - detailing PETA attempting to take over an old prison and educating the masses in Maine (over 50 miles from the coast) about the plight of the lobsters, including putting rubberbands on visitors' fingers. So their latest attempt is to basically, well...

I'll let this quote from the article try and explain the plan:

"We want to renovate the Grand Haven lights as a memorial to the billions of fish killed annually by sport fishermen, as well as for their flesh (commercial fishing industry)," said Lindsey Rajt, manager of PETA's campaigns department. "We also want to make it a fun and educational place."

Tentative PETA plans call for an education center, where visitors would learn about fish. There also would be a cafe, offering vegetarian fare including "faux fish."

Signs would likely announce the lighthouse as home of PETA's Fish Empathy Center.

Okay - right off the bat I'd like to point out that "billions of fish" relates MORE to the commercial fishing industry (AKA: feeding humans) than the sport fishing aspect. And yes, we eat fish. But here's a logic puzzle for PETA:

Humans are animals, and anglers catch fish so they can eat.

Fish are animals, and anglerfish catch fish so they can eat.

Why is one animal angling fish for food acceptable, but not the other? Do we need to set up an undersea education station for anglerfish so they can learn that fish are people too and don't deserve to be eaten?

But PETA's never really understood the concept of "humans are animals" and refuses to comprehend that the things they say we should not allowed to do are things they say the other animals should remain allowed to do. Let's move on.

So PETA, you'd like the lighthouse to be:
1. A memorial to the billions of deceased fish.
2. A fun place to visit.

Error: does not compute. You wouldn't expect us to be okay with a "Hiroshima Waterpark" or "Auschwitz Activity Center" or "Six Flags over Darfur", right? So why should you be allowed to think for a second that death can also be fun? That would make you no better than the sport fisherman you're rallying against, who have fun thanks to dead fish.

I need to make one more point regarding the conflicting ideals PETA has regarding "fake options".

PETA is against fake fur because it perpetuates fur as a popular STYLE and therefore seems to condone wearing fur in general.

PETA is in favor of fake meat products ("faux fish", tofu, Unturkey, etc.) even though it perpetuates meat as a popular TASTE and therefore condones the eating of meat in general.

PETA - you don't make any goddamned sense in anything you do.

I wish that this article were able to poke as much fun at PETA as I get to do, but I do give them credit for a choice quote and running with it in the article.

Locals are dumbfounded by the proposal.

"It doesn't make any sense to me at all," Capt. Dan Tebo said Tuesday, a mile offshore in his Grand Haven-based fishing charter boat the D'Ann Marie. "We fish here for the fish. That's what God gave them to us for."

What do you think? Are you as dumbfounded as these people? Don't you agree that PETA is a collective of lunatics always trying to one-up itself in the insanity department? Leave a comment and let me know your thoughts!

And then Digg this article!

Tweet to RedEye: Paula and Idol

2009-08-06T07:32:00.001-05:00

Okay, just a quick update. It's been a very long time since I've had anything of mine posted in the RedEye - especially since it's been six months since I've done much writing/blogging/anything other than my normal rut. Well, thanks to Twitter (or actually, thanks to the Gmail app that added Twitter to my Gmail inbox) I've at least been able to do some Tweeting in response to the RedEye's Tweets and well...

redeyechicago: Paula Abdul is not coming back to Idol. Wow. Will you miss her? http://su.pr/1cYuHX

@AaronBSam: Not like they're killing her off - the show will manage and if ratings really drop, they'll beg to get her back. No biggie.

And it got printed in today's RedEye!

I'm making my way back, baby! 140 characters at a time!

IDIOTIC PRODUCT: Dissolving Bikini

2009-08-04T16:46:00.001-05:00

Stop right there - I know exactly what you're thinking. "But Aaron, how can a bikini that dissolves in water, leaving that gal nekkid and wet and nekkid possibly in any universe be considered an idiotic product??" I initially thought so too, as I saw the headline on Fark.com and instantly clicked to find out what was this awesome thing and is this a joke or a real product - but as I read the article and logic started to sink in, I eventually had to admit that there's no foreseeable way to actually enjoy this product as the creators intended, nor can I think of a logical reason to purchase it at all...

The only thing going for this product is how much it riles up feminists - but if these ladies bothered to go through the same thought processes I did, they'd stop clamoring and recognize the Dissolving Bikini as the idiotic product that it is.

Let's start it off with the intended purpose listed in the article written by Spike.com as the "Ultimate Revenge Gift":

So the article assumes that somehow you actually managed to land yourself a girlfriend (even though you have a brain that would conceive this as being a good idea for "revenge") but now she's your ex-girlfriend (big surprise) and you want to get back at her (so obviously she dumped you). Here's all that the article can manage to suggest:

"A German company has invented a marvelous new bikini that disappears once a girl puts it on and takes a swim. The sexy swimsuit disappears by dissolving in water, leaving a woman completely nude and embarrassed. The sexy black swimsuit looks like a real bikini, feels like a real bikini and fits like a real bikini. The only difference is it’s made from a material that completely melts away after a few seconds in water."

So, what's the plan here? How is it that you're going to:

1. Get your ex-girlfriend to wear this bikini? I mean let's face it - it's not like you're going to have this product shipped in its original container, bearing the large "GET NAKED BIKINI" label. She might pick up on the fact that it's going to dissolve. Which means you've got to purchase it and remove it from the packaging and possibly repackage it. But is your ex really going to accept a bikini as a present from you? "Hey, I know you dumped me in a horrible fashion that left me bloodthirsty for revenge, but I bought you this skimpy bathing suit to show you there's no hard feelings." Okay, so maybe you can try the "oh, I'm just returning your stuff you left at my place so here's your skimpy bikini back" ploy. Odds are probably 75% that she doesn't actually own a bikini that looks like that one, and 99% that she wouldn't have left it at your place. But, on the off-chance that your ex-girlfriend really did own a black bikini like that AND she left it at your place, does she really think it's clean enough to just put on? Which brings us to the next challenge of how are you going to:

2. Get your ex-girlfriend to not wash it before wearing? Even the moderately unhygienic of females would not trust a pre-worn or pre-owned bikini bottom to be clean enough to just put on. Especially if it was in the hands of an ex-boyfriend. There's always the possibility that someone else was wearing it (your new girlfriend, or even YOU). And of course, once she decides to wash the dissolving bikini, the only satisfaction you'll get out of the equation is knowing that she'll be very confused on laundry day when her new/used bikini has gone missing. Which isn't much of "revenge", is it? Speaking of which:

3. How do you get to enjoy this?? Okay, so let's assume that you've managed to slip this awesome bikini trap past your ex-girlfriend and she's somehow decided to wear it without washing it. Where does that leave you? What kind of break-up did you have that you're pissed off enough to want to exact revenge on her, but still on good enough terms that she accepts the gift and will WEAR IT AROUND YOU?

Is there a pool party that you were both invited to before the breakup? If so, isn't it going to be pretty obvious what's happened when the plan comes to fruition and after the three glorious seconds between the bikini dissolving and her realization that she's now naked - now you're left with a confused woman who won't take long to piece together the fact that YOU gave her that bikini and YOU are the cause of the embarrassment. She may not have any clue how/why the situation occurred, but she knows you're to blame and odds are that violence will ensue shortly.

So your alternative is to make the transaction and then HIDE somewhere, spying on her until that moment when it all comes together and she's wearing it and you're out of sight and you get to watch the embarrassment and confusion! (This is based on the notion that you haven't been arrested in that timeframe for stalking or being a Peeping Tom.) Even so, you're once again counting on the bikini-clad situation involving a setting that would embarrass her upon being naked. Jacuzzi time with her new beau could wind up as a sexy surprise for both of them and backfire on you completely, wouldn't it?

In the end, your only real alternative is to use it with different motives.

I mean, you could use them to have fun with your current girlfriend. She might be trusting enough to accept a bikini as a gift and be convinced to not wash it beforehand. But even then, you have to be at a certain point in the relationship where she's not going to leave you as a result of the nudity-inducing prank. And if that's the case and she's that comfortable being naked around you, then why are you bothering with the bikini at all? That's wasted time, money and effort!

You could be a random jackass and switch real bikinis in stores with the dissolving brand and pray that nobody can tell the difference and you haven't been spotted by security cameras when the lawsuits start coming in - but where's the fun in that?

No, any way you look at it - there's no use for this seemingly-hilarious product without getting sued, arrested, injured or missing out on the fun.

And that proves that the Dissolving Bikini is an IDIOTIC PRODUCT.

What do you think? Have I missed a scenario where this product becomes non-idiotic? Do you agree with the article that this product "demeans women"? Leave a comment and join the debate!!

And then Digg this article!

Aaron Samuels, Inc.

2009-01-15T15:33:00.004-06:00

Welcome to Aaron Samuels, Inc.!

We specialize in the import of candy, snacks and other confections in general!

We expect to be creating a fully-functional website very soon!

We look forward to your business.

Aaron Samuels
CEO/President
Aaron Samuels, Inc.

Sorry if this post confuses anyone - I posted it just in case there were issues with getting my tickets to the All Candy Expo 2009.

Fewer Illegal Immigrants - Hooray?

2008-12-29T21:35:00.002-06:00

I'm really not sure whether the news has me feeling happy or depressed. "The number of people caught trying to sneak into the USA from Mexico is at its lowest level since the mid-1970s". So since the fiscal year of 2008 saw only 705,000 arrests of attempted illegal immigration along the US-Mexico border, can we really say we're making a difference in the fight against illegal immigration? Or is it that our country isn't as appealing as it once was? Or maybe our border patrols just aren't doing that great of a job and we're simply seeing less results because of it?

Without proof either way, it's hard to tell if we should be celebrating or worrying.

We could take their word for it, I suppose.

Officials say these are signs of tougher enforcement and a weaker U.S. economy.

Chertoff cited a weaker U.S. economy and "tough enforcement," including the addition of 6,000 Border Patrol agents since 2006 and the construction of 526 miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border since 2007. About 97% of illegal border crossers enter through Mexico, and about 90% are Mexican, Border Patrol figures show.

Josiah Heyman, a border expert at the University of Texas-El Paso, said that "economic conditions of the U.S. affect migration. Word gets back to Mexico really fast what the job opportunities are or are not," Heyman said. "It's possible we've crossed some threshold where it's risky and expensive to try to get to the U.S. (illegally) so it's beginning to discourage people." Illegal migrants often pay a smuggler about $2,000, Heyman said.

Okay, so it's not as easy to make the claim that the guys "aren't doing their jobs" when you take into account the added fencing and added patrol units. And of course, with the economy slipping downward here in the U.S., I can see that many potential illegal immigrants aren't willing to make the financial risk to cross just to be stuck with the risk of not having employment.

A second article I found is attributing the lowered number of illegal immigrants to the unemployment rate.

A recent report by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, found that the proportion of Latino immigrants employed or seeking work in the US fell for the first time since 2003. It declined from 72.4 percent in the last quarter of 2007 to 71.3 percent in the last quarter of 2008.

The report also found that the unemployment rate for all Latinos was 7.9 percent in the third quarter of 2008, compared with 5.7 percent during last year's third quarter. The unemployment rate for the total US workforce is 6.1 percent.

It's not clear whether immigrant workers who have dropped out of the labor force are returning home or have just temporarily given up looking for jobs.

So fewer of them are crossing the border (based on fewer arrests and an assumed constant percentage of arrests), and fewer of them are getting jobs here in the U.S. - so what other numbers can we use to suggest we're "winning" in this war?

The number of illegal aliens removed or returned home this year rose 20 percent compared with a year ago, according to a Department of Homeland Security statement. There was also a 27 percent increase in arrests made while raiding workplaces by the US Immigration and Customs.

See, now THOSE are numbers I'm happy to see. There's no need to make assumptions about how well the border patrol is working or how illegal immigrants are taking to unemployment - we're deporting more of them and arresting more of them once they're here.

I just really can't buy into the whole notion that the economy itself in the past few months is really to blame (or deserves the credit) for these patterns, since we weren't even really made AWARE of economic problems until just a few months ago, and most of these statistics are from a period of time that ended pretty much right before all of the shit started hitting the proverbial fan. That just means that MORE of the credit can be given to our measures that have VERY slowly been taking place.

More ICE officers. More Border Patrol agents. More crackdowns and raids of American workplaces. More progress on the border fence. More laws being put into effect with harsher penalties for renting to or hiring illegal immigrants.

We just need to keep it up.

Unfortunately, with Barack Obama heading to the Oval Office soon, one can only furrow a brow and mutter a prayer that the "Change Train" isn't planning to derail the progress that has been made and has finally been able to prove some effectiveness. How long will it be before these liberals in power wind up shouting "Yes We Can" to illegal immigration amnesty and give these criminals the green cards they certainly do not deserve?

No, I don't care about the millions of illegal immigrants who work fervently at manual labor jobs for years without committing ADDITIONAL crimes. You can boo-hoo about the families that get torn apart when illegal immigrant parents get deported - it won't phase me. They are criminals who have committed a crime by entering the United States illegally.

I think, in the end, I can be happy with the knowledge that fewer of them were caught crossing the border this past year. I have enough reason to believe that it IS because fewer attempts are being made. And when that is paired with the increases in arrests and deportations - I think the tides may be slowly turning back in favor of U.S. citizens.

And I shall choose to enjoy it as long as possible . . . before it all gets fucked up by the incoming administration.

Kyoto Protocol Failures

2008-11-16T17:45:00.007-06:00

I remember a slew of jokes that were circulated at least half a decade ago about how the U.S. was refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol. The thing has existed since 1997, and about 180 countries have signed and ratified the Protocol. Well, the first joke is that the U.S. did in fact sign the Kyoto Protocol. There's just no way in hell we're choosing to ratify it, which means that all of the objectives and consequences of the protocol are non-binding to the U.S. and the signature was merely symbolic.

And you know what? It's a damned good thing we didn't ratify it. Because most of the countries who did ratify it are failing and it's going to cost them over $46 billion as penalties.

Twenty nations including Japan, Italy and Australia are likely failing to meet the goals/restrictions on greenhouse-gas pollution set for their countries. The problem is that because they ratified the Kyoto Protocol and are likely going to fail to meet their requirements, the nations are required to buy permits for every excess ton of the heat-trapping gas released between 2008 and 2012.

For just those twenty nations, a London-based research group named New Carbon Finance estimates that the damage will be about 2.3 billion excess tons of greenhouse-gas emission, resulting in their forced purchase of as many permits.

Given the going rate of these permits right now, the estimated financial damage for these twenty nations will be 36 billion euros ($46 billion).

Add to that the fact that out of those 130-odd nations that signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, only 37 are on track to meet their pledges. And while the other failing nations aren't as large as the twenty that will result in the $46 billion penalties, the fact that there's more than 70 other countries who are failing and will be paying for their failure to meet these expectations simply does not bode well for the environmental movement at all.

In fact, a few countries are out-and-out admitting that these goals are rather impossible.

In Italy's case, ``It's obvious the goals are not possible,'' Corrado Clini said today at an energy conference today in Rome. Italy will need 421 million permits over the five-year period, and Spain, 405 million, the research firm said. That would cost each country more than 6 billion euros, using the current price of CERs, though both governments have said they may share the costs with local industry.

Point Carbon, an Oslo-based emissions-market analysis company, estimates Italy will need 325 million permits and Spain 395 million.

Italian government and corporate officials are increasingly criticizing the Mediterranean nation's looming emissions costs. Kyoto is ``pure folly,'' Paolo Scaroni, chief executive of Eni SpA, the nation's largest oil company, said Nov. 10 on an Il Sole 24 Ore Radiocor report.

Italy is among countries that may go the Canadian route of choosing not to buy the permits they need to meet their targets, said Steven Knell, a London-based energy analyst at the economic consulting and research firm Global Insight Inc.

``It is unlikely that Italy would formally drop out of the Kyoto, however non-compliance is a distinct possibility,'' Knell said. ``The cases of non-compliance may well pile up as many states are well off the mark.''

Italy's Clini said the government and industry would purchase the permits together and not withdraw from the treaty. ``We won't pull out of Kyoto,'' Clini said. ``At this point, we're in it.''

Australia, which only ratified Kyoto in 2007, will need credits to cover 20.6 million tons a year, at an estimated annual cost of 325 million euros, based on the CER price. Japan, which New Carbon Finance predicts will need 587 million credits, says new energy-efficiency policies will help the nation meet its target.

To add insult to the environmentalists' injury, one only needs to speculate about the planned conference in Copenhagen scheduled for next year to discuss what can only be described as "the next phase" and making even more-ambitious promises to reduce greenhouse-gas pollution in these countries.

Plain and simple, if they couldn't manage THESE unattainable goals - the prospect of meeting to negotiate even MORE-unattainable goals is laugh-out-loud preposterous.

So the next time one of your friends makes a joke about the Kyoto Protocol and the arrogance of the United States - remind them that if we HAD gone along with it, we'd likely be also paying an assload of money for our inevitable failures.

And then get some new friends.

Pre-Election Scams and Shoutouts

2008-11-03T17:00:00.002-06:00

Well, tomorrow is the big day when America once again votes for a giant douche or turd sandwich to rule the country (or at least partially-rule it, if that whole checks-and-balances thing still exists). Just like with all elections past, you can rifle through a list of groups/demographics/minorities and for each one, find a litany of propaganda or ads or outright lies meant to rouse them in a direction to vote at the polls or even the direction of whether they vote in the polls.

Take the youth of America - which would be the college-aged youth (the ones who are allowed to vote). You can either scare their vote one way or another with fears of the future with your opponent in charge (youth fear the future the most because they have to suffer through it the longest), or you can work the angle of getting them to vote or to not vote. Youth are hard to scare away from voting itself - because they've never done it before and don't realize how much insanity goes on once they're in the game. They tend to vote Democratic, which is why you'll find both candidates trying to appeal to the youngsters, but usually only the Democrats "____ing the Vote" to encourage these political fledglings to flap their wings rather than stay in the nest and die when winter comes.

The elderly are probably the easiest to scare (but the least afraid of the future since they never know how much of it they'll have to sit through in-between Matlock reruns), other than war-hardened veterans. Hence, they tend to vote Republican, because those are the values they grew up with and the familiar is always preferable to change.

I could go on, but I don't need to. I'll let these stories of assholes affecting voters take care of that for me, as you sit back and read about it all. (Don't worry, there's a reward at the end! Freebies!) Try to realize both that these ploys and scams are horrible things to do to the average voter, but also that the average voter is also dumb enough to sometimes fall for them - so who's really the worse side of the equation?

You Will Be Arrested

Complaints have surfaced in predominantly African-American neighborhoods of Philadelphia where fliers have circulated, warning voters they could be arrested at the polls if they had unpaid parking tickets or if they had criminal convictions.

Ah yes, the old standby to scare people away of "you might be arrested" - which not surprisingly is being pushed towards African-American neighborhoods. I find it funny that what I've heard about in the past of "you'll be arrested if you have outstanding warrants" is now at the level of "unpaid parking tickets". The scary thing is that they're using this brand of lie outside the realm of "black people" and spreading it into the more-culturally-diverse group of "college students", even if they're doing it wrong.

Other reports of intimidation efforts in the hotly contested state of Pennsylvania include leaflets taped to picnic benches at Drexel University, warning students that police would be at the polls on Tuesday to arrest would-be voters with prior criminal offenses.

See, it's one thing to say "you'll get arrested if you show up to vote and have unpaid parking tickets" because the number of people who that could apply to is a large number. But shrinking that number down to the subset of those with a criminal record and young enough to still be in college is kind of a dumb move.

In New Mexico, two Hispanic women filed a lawsuit last week claiming they were harassed by a private investigator working for a Republican lawyer who came to their homes and threatened to call immigration authorities, even though they are U.S. citizens.

"He was questioning her status, saying that he needed to see her papers and documents to show that she was a U.S. citizen and was a legitimate voter," said Guadalupe Bojorquez, speaking on behalf of her mother, Dora Escobedo, a 67-year-old Albuquerque resident who speaks only Spanish. "He totally, totally scared the heck out of her."

Now we move on to the Hispanic population and the fears of being deported. Frankly, the one has so little to do with the other! Illegal immigrants do in fact have a history of using fraud or just plain lying in order to be able to register to vote or participate in elections - but I'm not sure if the number is so huge that it's worth alienating the demographic just to prevent extra votes for their demographic in the form of illegal immigrant voters. Of course, the ones who'd have a problem with illegal immigrants voting would be the Republicans (who suck LESS in the battle over illegal immigration) and since Hispanics tend to vote Democratic anyway, maybe they should keep on alienatin'!

Feel free to insert a quip of mine regarding the fact that the woman plans on voting but speaks only Spanish.

My Opponent Is Pure Evil

So if you can't scare the voters into thinking they could be arrested, there are worse fates that could arise given how you vote and which grotesque destroyer of all things good and holy you let slither its way into the Oval Office on Election Day. Sure, the word of the year is "terrorism" when it comes to your opponent being a hateful pile of malevolence. It's impossible to forget which candidate's middle name is "Hussein" - although judging by an incredibly-annoying Facebook application, it seems to be a common one (or that all Facebook Democrats want to convert to Islam and terrorism). It's hard to ignore the words "domestic terrorist" regarding a man who may or may not be a friend of one candidate and worked for a certain organization that may or may not have been supported by a candidate.

But why stop there? There were once far worse things than terrorists...

In Pennsylvania, e-mails appeared linking Democrat Barack Obama to the Holocaust. "Jewish Americans cannot afford to make the wrong decision on Tuesday, Nov. 4," said the electronic message, paid for by an entity calling itself the Republican Federal Committee. "Many of our ancestors ignored the warning signs in the 1930s and 1940s and made a tragic mistake."

In his Jewish neighborhood, Stalberg said, fliers were recently left claiming Obama was more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israel, and showed a photograph of him speaking in Germany.

I'm really not sure how one can make the leap from Barack Obama to Holocaust, especially since I haven't seen this e-mail. Let me check my mudslinging records. Well, aside from the fact that he DID speak in Germany . . . Barack Obama has been called a Socialist many times, and "Nazi" did stand for the "National Socialist Party", so I guess it's not too far of a jump from that to the murder of millions of Jews... Though I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure the McCain-Palin team has proved to me that Obama lacks the EXECUTIVE experiences necessary to really pull off a Final Solution. But does saying Obama would fail to even be a Hitler put him in a good light or bad light? I mean, Hitler did manage to rule a country, even if he did drive it into the ground and make it a laughingstock. I forget the point.

Scheduling Conflict

Hey, sorry voters, but it turns out there's just too many of you who want to vote, so there's no need to show up all on one day - we'll spread this voting thing out so come back tomorrow to cast your vote! Sounds stupid? Well someone tried it anyway...

Over the weekend in Virginia, bogus fliers with an authentic-looking commonwealth seal said fears of high voter turnout had prompted election officials to hold two elections — one on Tuesday for Republicans and another on Wednesday for Democrats.

They're actually hunting down the people responsible for this one and I think they'll be prosecuting. It is illegal to intentionally mislead voters about where an election is being held or when voting polls are open. So far these were just little attack ads or misleading voters about the SITUATION where the election will be held - not about the location itself or hours of voting. This one steps it up to a scary degree - scary because (of course) some people were BELIEVING IT. And Virginia isn't the only place where the misleading has reached illegal proportions...

In Nevada, for example, Latino voters said they had received calls from people describing themselves as Obama volunteers, urging them to cast their ballot over the phone.

The issue is that nobody really does anything about it, because it's mostly done during the 11th hour and there's just such a history of it.

This has gotten a bit long, so I'll head out and prepare myself for both the process of voting tomorrow and the process of getting assaulted all day by other voters who want to know who I voted for. And then the insanity of getting the hell out of downtown tomorrow evening before everything goes to hell with the Obama Party being held here in Chicago.

Don't forget to go out and vote tomorrow. Unless you're voting for the other guy. Then you should probably stay home.

Freebies!

Here are a list of places giving away freebies to people who vote tomorrow:

Starbucks: free tall coffee

Krispy Kreme: free donut

Ben & Jerry's: free small ice cream

More to come as I hunt them down!

Comment Feedback from "Vegan Shoes?"

2008-08-30T22:37:00.002-05:00

I dunno, comments lately (on my BlogSpot) have been getting weird.

I'm used to the "you're a hateful douchebag" comments, but sometimes I just don't get people...

So here are some comments I've gotten on my last post, "Vegan Shoes?":

"Most vegan shoe sites take care to mention that they're either fair trade or made in the USA and that very fact alone shows that people who adopt veganism have a much wider reaching awareness about their own personal impact on people, animals and the rest of the world outside of themselves.

I can understand resistance to accept that leather and sweatshops cause suffering and that there's simple alternatives to that way of living. As Americans we're brought up to be at least marginally isolationist and blind to social problems, especially when it's linked to eating habits or capitalism. What I don't understand though, is dullwitted humor directed at people who are intelligent enough to accept this and want to do something about it."

Okay, I really wasn't trying to make fun of VEGAN SHOE STORES, for the most part. I was making fun of PETA and the fact that a majority of their "best vegan shoe stores" weren't actually vegan. And the few that were, I barely made fun of. Oh, this one has a stupid name. And this one goes a little over-the-top with veganness. And one of them embraces pleather at a level no sane entity should.

But expanding my little diatribe to American isolationism?

Fact is, you just don't need to call them "vegan shoes". 90% of the time, you can just call them "shoes". A very small minority of shoes are not animal-friendly and contain leather. If you're worried enough to consider the veganness of your shoes, then you're wearing FAKE leather and want the fashion sense of leather without the guilt of killing animals.

And hey - you can call my humor "obscene", "evil", "dark" or even "ignorant" - but "dullwitted" just won't fly. Being evil doesn't make me dumb. And just because you don't agree with the punchline doesn't make me stupid for telling the joke. It sometimes makes YOU stupid for not getting it.

"live in the darkness and torture that all those animals go through

Well, at least you admitted what factory farming really is.

Too bad you're too ridiculous to have a normal human reaction to the suffering you're completely aware of though."

"Admitted what factory farming is"? Is there a human left on the planet who doesn't know that animals destined to be food or clothes don't tend to lead happy and fulfilling lives in the great outdoors? I was talking about how emo vegans empathize with the animals rather than just sympathize. And I believe I DID have a "normal human reaction"; I didn't fucking care. We're humans and we're better than the rest of the animals. Do you know why we're better than cows who get turned into leather to make some bitchin' shoes? Because WE WEAR SHOES. Do you know why we're better than the animals we slaughter to feast upon for supper? Because we have carnivore teeth in our mouths. That's right - we have some of the same teeth that wolves have and are specialized for tearing up the meaty goodness. If wolves have the ability to round up tasty deer and breed them in captivity instead of hunting for them and chasing them down, don't you think they would?

Well we do that. Because we're that good. We're better than those animals, so we get to eat them like we're supposed to.

"If I had as much time as you clearly have on your hands and I chose to spend it ranting about vegetarians, I'd probably shoot myself, because my life really would be THAT empty."

followed by

"Great Comment! That is precisely how I feel about this poster! I only read it to see how much more stupid he is getting."

What makes this hilarious to me is that I wouldn't have to write this crap if PETA didn't have the time on their hands to write about it in the first place. If PETA seriously thinks that the best way to obtain their objectives is to create a nonsensical list of the best places to buy vegan shoes and Target is on the list, which is in NO way a vegan-friendly place with their leather, meat, cheese and industrial meat-based kitchen tools - then SOMEONE should take the time to fight back against THEIR idiocy.

PETA is in the wrong. PETA is where you'll find the true stupidity. My making fun of them and pointing out these idiocies does not make me stupid and does not make my life empty.

And I'd single people out, but for SOME reason, every one of those four comments was posted by Anonymous. At least I have the courage to write this stuff and put my name on it.

Vegan Shoes?

2008-08-29T15:25:00.003-05:00

In my constant search of things about which I can rant, one of my bookmarked sites is the PETA media page. It's fun to see what crazy letters they're sending to celebrities, which cities are hosting the circus (which means PETA urges them to ban bullhooks, cattle prods and also the circus), and where they plan to parade out their "Lettuce Ladies" who pander to men who are manly enough to enjoy ogling hot chicks in bikinis but pansy enough to enjoy that the bikinis are lettuce leaves and care about whatever message PETA paraded them out to send (this week it's Canadian KFCs to promote the fake-chicken sammiches). Today I stumbled upon a media center bulletin titled "PETA Names the 10 Best Stores for Vegan Shoes" and thought:

"I didn't know they made shoes that eat meat and dairy!"

Aside from that obvious joke, I really don't understand what "vegan shoes" really are, other than the subset of shoes NOT made out of an animal. Or made of dairy products or eggs? Do they really make shoes out of eggs or butter somewhere? Can you get a pair of extra sharp cheddar stilettos? Man - this really is just a nonsensical topic that brings out all sorts of jokes and ridicule, isn't it?

So my first thought is that these stores are all places where they only sell those kinds of non-animal-based shoes and don't test their shoes on animals and don't also sell cheeseburgers as well as shoes. That would kind of make sense; find 10 stores that don't sell leather shoes and call it a day, right?

Well apparently such is NOT the case. Because the first store on the list is:

Zappos.com: Now PETA seems to be flaunting this website for the fact that it carries "Stella McCartney's line of vegan shoes for Adidas", which I guess isn't sold everywhere? The problem is that Zappos.com is a freaking HUGE website. You know what else you can get at Zappos.com? BRUNO MAGLI Raggoso Alligator Loafers. Suck it, PETA!

Bourgeois Bohème: Okay, this site ONLY sells shoes and accessories that are "free from animal ingredients" and vegan-friendly. However, this site DOES sell faux-leather products - which I thought PETA was supposed to be against. After all, the activist group is known for throwing paint on ALL fur, whether it's real or fake, because even if it's fake it still PROMOTES the real stuff. That's why I haven't been able to figure much out with PETA lately. I can understand that fake-meat products are designed to satisfy a "meat craving" as you wean yourself off meat products or if you want to enjoy meat products because that's what your body naturally wants and you're an idiot and feel too guilty so you have to grab some fauxburger instead. But wearing fake leather? That's an IMAGE thing you're craving. You WANT people to think your shoes are made from 100% dead animal because that's what leather is and that's what you want it to look like (even if it's not). The real scariness about this company is this excerpt from their FAQ asking about the company really being vegan:

"We are a vegan owned and run company and make sure that everything we sell and use (including our office cookies and cakes!) are vegan and 100% cruelty free."

It must really suck to work there if you're a normal meat-and-cheese-eating human being.

Moo Shoes: I seriously don't understand the name of this company. I saw "Moo Shoes" on the list and all my brain could muster was COW + SHOE = LEATHER SHOES. I don't know how you can have the word 'Moo' in the title and not have any cow in the product list. If I were searching for a real authentic leather boot, I'd expect to find one at Moo Shoes. And I would be sorely mistaken and possibly homicidal with rage at the blatantly-false advertising. The website claims it's the the first cruelty-free store of its kind in New York City, but I'm guessing that if you walked in with a turkey leg in one hand and a "Fake Leather is for Fake People" sign in the other, you'd experience some cruelty from the high-strung vegan salespeople.

Payless Shoe Source: There's not much to say about Payless that I haven't already said about Zappos.com in the sense that "yes, they sell shoes not made from animal hides, but they also sell shoes that ARE made from animal hides." The proof is in the pudding, as I really ONLY buy my shoes from Payless and they happen to be these awesome leather ones that I'm wearing right now. Okay, I also buy a snazzy Velcro pair every now and then because my laziness knows no bounds. Well, it knows the specific bound of "not having to tie shoes" - but at least it's consistent!

Target: Yet another large store that HAPPENS to sell shoes that don't have leather (which makes PETA happy), yet also definitely sells many shoes that ARE made of leather (and possibly makes PETA cry). The bonus for me is that this isn't just a clothing/shoes store (despite it being on PETA's vegan shoes list) and you can also buy tasty non-vegan food items like an anti-vegan basket of Hickory Farms meat and cheese or something that promotes the meaty lifestyle, like a freakin' MEAT GRINDER! If you happen to buy some vegan shoes here because of PETA's awesome list, you should definitely thank them with a Hickory Farms gift basket.

Chinese Laundry: Okay, I'm not sure if this even is a shoe store based on name alone. It's only by daring to click the link provided by PETA that I found out that yes, they do sell vegan shoes. They have their own little category for all of them. Of course, since they want to be a REAL company, they also will sell you non-vegan shoes, like this leather shoe with an added snake skin print twist. I was afraid this would be another stupidly-named all-vegan company like Moo Shoes up there, but they reserved all their stupidity for their non-shoe-related borderline-racist name of Chinese Laundry and left out the all-vegan part.

Life Stride: Okay, so based on PETA's description, I thought I'd be in for another challenge here. They describe Life Stride by saying that their "nearly 100 percent vegan line of business and casual shoes" can be bought at many major blah blah blah... Did you see the word NEARLY printed in there? I did. And sure enough, you can find, oh, at least 172 kinds of leather shoes on their website. I'm still starting to think that a "vegan shoe store" in PETA's eyes means that they don't ENTIRELY sell leather shoes. If you can find ONE pair of plastic shoes there, it can count as a vegan-friendly shoe store. Which is like saying that an all-beef hot dog stand is vegetarian friendly because they'll sell you an empty bun.

AlternativeOutfitters.com: Okay, I have to give this company credit - they're another 100% vegan-friendly store and all my efforts to find leather and fur and beef jerky have come up empty. However, there's a disgusting amount of usage of "PLEATHER" at this store. I can stand seeing the words "fake leather" or "faux-leather" or something that sounds sensible. But if you say the word "pleather" out loud, don't you get this nasty taste in your mouth and the irresistable urge to punch something to make the sadness go away? I know I do! So since I can't ridicule this site by pointing out any not-purely-veganness and I've already poked fun at crazy vegan company info and I can't claim the company's name is something stupid... I'll just have to point out that you can buy an IRREGULAR Tan Vegan Belt with "Rhinestone and Turquoise" Buckle. If you look at that product and would ever consider purchasing it - do humanity a favor and kill yourself.

T.U.K.: This website kind of looks like it was built by a gloomy 14-year-old gothic kid from MySpace. The link they give you takes you to a selection of vegan-leather heels all in pink and black "retro" styles. But don't worry. Just because you want to live in the darkness and torture that all those animals go through, doesn't mean you can't wear their tanned and flayed flesh on your feet - as is evident in the BLACK STUDDED LEATHER CREEPER SNEAKER WITH BONDAGE STRAP. I kind of giggled - and were it not for the fact that they cost $50 (+S&H), I'd consider getting them because they look so faux-awesome instead of being faux-leather.

Journeys: Just your run-of-the-mill store that happens to sell some fake-leather products (PETA's link takes you to the Girls section rather than a vegan section for some reason) but sells a lot of products with real leather. My favorite product that I randomly clicked on when I searched for "leather" is this belt buckle shaped like a pair of blue sunglasses. How would they show up in my search for leather? Description: To be used with leather belts only. I honestly don't know what kind of belt buckle can ONLY be used with leather, but I like to think that it would sit at the "cool buckle table" at the metaphorical belt buckle high school cafeteria.

So there you have it - a scathing endictment of PETA's 10 Best Stores for Vegan Shoes.

Let the comments commence!!

(Sorry for such a link-heavy post today.)

Feel free to Digg it anyway!

RedEye Criticism

2008-08-26T08:13:00.002-05:00

I'm getting a little tired of the constant stream on nonsense being paraded around on the covers of the RedEye newspaper every day. At least once or twice a week, it's a fluff story about some trend in Chicago (or in the U.S., or in life in general) with an accompanying picture of some Chicagoan who falls into the trend. It's got little, if anything, to do with real news - and is accompanied by half a page of statistics about the trend and sometimes a SECOND story wedged in the margin about how the trend relates to ACTUAL news, like maybe a news story where this trend played a role.

Today was no different, as is evident in the two-page spread about some guy who had a vasectomy at age 27 and how many men have vasectomies.

Okay, I'll give them credit that they at least do their research on the trend, providing a doctor's or professional's commentary to supplement the opinion and story of the random person they chose in Chicago who graces the cover and another picture in the article.

In today's case, they supplement the "guy who just never wants to have a kid" opinion with an actual doctor who has an anecdote about some 18-year-old who wanted a vasectomy and the doctor said he was too young and to wait a year and then he came back a year later and the doctor did the procedure. It further goes on to describe the "extreme counseling" that these doctors have to take their prospective clients through before agreeing to do the procedure.

I enjoyed the fact that they mentioned that vasectomies take 15 minutes and cost $1,000 - but that vasectomy reversals take 3-4 hours and cost $10,000 to $25,000 and don't always work. Oh, and a lot of guys who have vasectomies early on tend to wind up getting reversals after a divorce, because most women out there are turned off by the idea of never getting to have kids.

But I digress. My real beef here isn't with the vasectomy article - it's that it's taking up two entire pages in my RedEye today!

I just don't understand how the RedEye decides to go with these stories. Do they work backwards, stumbling upon some new numbers from the U.S. Census or a research study that shows this is the new trend in employment or lifestyles - and THEN create the fluff story around it by tracking down someone picturesque who is a victim/supporter of the trend? Or do they stumble upon some weirdo and jot a couple of notes down and then do the research to find out that person isn't alone and then they go back for the photo shoot and a couple more readable quotations?

I'm half-inclined to just send them my contact information and say "hey, let me know when you plan to do a fluff piece on any of the following things: people who like anime, men who have beards, fat people in Chicago, people in Bridgeport, people who hate PETA, or the idea that we should eat away our pet overpopulation instead of spaying/neutering them."

I can see it now - a dorky photo of me, possibly stroking my beard - with an article about how beards are making a comeback. And they can have statistics like "only 1 in 100 men today are sporting a beard or mustache, but only .005% of the male population can be described as having a 'kick-ass neckbeard'." And they'll take up the entire margin with celebrities who have beards. And they can pose the question, "Are beards in or out? Send us your comments!"

What do you think? Are beards in or out? Do you hate fluff pieces as much as I do? Oh wait, is THIS a fluff piece? Leave us your comments!

Families Flying with Small Children

2008-08-25T15:58:00.000-05:00

We're in the middle of an era where airline travel is now a matter of dollars and cents and what they'll charge you for and what they won't. We're livid with the new ways they're trying to save money because their biggest methods involve charging us more, cutting off services and using practices that in most people's minds should be illegal. (That's right, I'm talking about "overbooking" and selling more tickets than there are seats on the plane as insurance against cancellations - which I'm sure makes sense to the airlines but it sounds like purely illegal activity in MY book.) Anyway, with all the rage regarding the possibility of being treated as nothing more than sacks of meat freight and paying tickets based on our weight - we seem to have overlooked an interesting trend that this blogger sees as a potentially good idea and a potentially bad one.

More airlines have stopped letting families with small children board before the general public, including Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines.

There are, of course, two schools of thought regarding this course of action.

1) This is a great idea, because it's more efficient and those not travelling with small children that get seated faster.

The numbers don't lie. It's primarily an efficiency thing. So before you accuse any of the airlines of being anti-parent, anti-children, anti-family or anti-caring-about-those-travelling-with-small-children, please bear in mind that test after test proves that it's an inefficient way to board a plane. Just ask Delta, the leading airline in service experiments:

"If you're bringing on people who need assistance — younger kids — all at once, you potentially create a bottleneck on the front end, as opposed to randomly dispersing them based on where people are sitting in the aircraft," explained Delta spokesman Anthony Black. "The best process is to board the aircraft normally."

And doing so, he said, saves an average of 10 to 12 minutes over allowing families to preboard.

You know, it's hard to argue with 10 to 12 solid minutes of difference between a plane being ready for takeoff and a plane still stuck on the tarmac with flight attendants telling you to stow things completely under the seat in front of you.

Meanwhile, the parents in the family units travelling with small children generally need extra time to deal with their extra baggage (both the luggage and the human varieties) and the fact that they have limited hands/arms with which to deal with it all. But does it make more sense to let them take that extra time BEFORE allowing the rest of the passengers to have THEIR time dealing with baggage and settling in? Or should they be stuck managing things when the rest of the passengers are - taking the same amount of extra time, but at the SAME time as other people?

Normally, I'd say good riddance to the families-board-first initiative - but I'm also aware of the lesser-talked-about second school of thought regarding this issue.

2) This is a horrible idea, because children could wind up ANYWHERE.

Speaking as a non-travelling-with-small-children passenger, there's one benefit I've found to having to wait those extra minutes while the breeders on my flight get to take their sweet time buckling in Junior. That benefit is that when it's time for ME to board, I have a visual of all potential child-endangered seating. If you don't want a brat kicking your chair or be in a onw-row vicinity of a screaming baby - the best strategy is to let them on first and then pick the spot that's clear of their threats. I work to identify all snot-nosed kiddies in those 30 seconds of travelling down the claustrophobic aisleway so I can pick a window seat as close to the front but as far as possible from the broodlings.

Without this system - if you let all general passengers start boarding in one group - my seat's perimeter could be invaded by Children of the Corn in a later boarding group! While no parent is really going to raise an eyebrow to someone passing up their row to find other available seating, getting up to get the hell out of there once they have arrived is probably going to be a confrontational issue. Especially if it's interrupting their several-minute procedure of getting settled in. Which means you're either stuck being a jerk or stuck with the little ones the entire flight.

Now please don't think of me as some ogre who's against children and thinks that they're all a bunch of snot-nosed poopy-pantsed screaming bundles of pure evil and annoyance. I've personally had very few flights that have been affected by young people - and those that were involved babies with colic who frankly disturbed the ENTIRE plane, no matter where you were located. But then again, I've made it a point to take these proactive measures to ensure that I DON'T have a lot of flights being affected by your little ones.

Don't take it from me, though. Try asking AirFareWatchDog.com and their poll about how the flying public feel about those travelling with their little children. There was a news story about it as well, citing that regarding the question of "Should airlines have a section of the plane reserved for parents with babies and younger children?" 58% of pollsters responded that "Yes, they should have done this long ago." 27% said "Yes, but they never will and it'll never work." and the remaining 15% went with "No. This is a bad idea."

85% of people think that child-carrying clans should sit in a separate section of the plane, even though a third of them think it'll never happen. I frankly don't think it'll work, either, but that's from a logistics standpoint. I'm not thinking about the business situation of their "overbooking" and whether it's okay to fill up cancelled Family Zone seats with standby Adult Zone passengers - I'm just thinking about the fact that most people want to stow children away somewhere they can't be HEARD. You can't soundproof a section of an airplane. It'll prevent the kicking and reduce the risk of germ infestation and being nagged or stared at by the unsupervised toddlers you'll occasionally encounter. But it won't reduce the overall noise they generate in a variety of ways.

So here's my idea.

If you're an airline lucky enough to still have TICKETED SEATING, meaning you purchase a ticket and it's got your seat row and number on it - then to hell with those and their small children, because there's no reason to have them waste those 10 to 12 minutes. You know where you're sitting, as does everyone, and you board by groups from the rear of the plane to the front as it's the most efficient method, and that's that.

If you're an airline like so many nowadays with GROUP SEATING, meaning you purchase a ticket and it's got your boarding group on it - then for the sake of those who don't want to be around your little ones, we have to let you on first so we know where NOT to sit. We hate the thought of losing another ten minutes to standing around with an A-Group boarding pass while we wait for the endless stream of priority seating passengers to settle in, but at least we have a chance to save ourselves from being bothered DURING them flight - provided we spent the time and effort to get an A-Group boarding pass and show up early enough to have a pick of seating in the child-free zones.

So that's my idea for how to solve the problem. Of course, my opinion really doesn't matter, since I'm an extra-large sack of meat freight who'll be flying as little as possible to avoid being charged per-pound just to visit family.

Do you have ideas about this issue (other than calling me names or treating me like an ogre)? Leave a comment and join the debate!

And then Digg this article!

College Presidents Want Drinking Age Lowered to 18

2008-08-19T11:57:00.000-05:00

There's a huge debate right now with college presidents from over 100 colleges calling on lawmakers to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18 in an effort to curb binge-drinking. Obviously, this had riled the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who argue that lowering the drinking age would therefore increase the number of drunk drivers and risk of drunk driving, which is pretty much the thing that they are against (being mothers and all).

There are several pros and cons to the debate - so here's my two cents.

Right off the bat, I'd like to make it clear that whatever the risks and consequences, I believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. I'm not entirely in favor of eliminating the drinking age limit completely, mostly because there are other age limits that need to be removed first. The pessimist in me says that "if teenagers at 14 are stupid enough to be having sex (with each other or older people), then they should be considered stupid enough to be allowed to ruin their lives in all other ways, like marriage, drinking, smoking and anything else that would shame your family and hopefully lead to an early death." The optimist in me says that "the maturity and intelligence curves with today's youth are so much different than they were even when I was a teenager that it makes sense to let them experience other aspects of adulthood at an earlier age."

And believe me, it's difficult for the optimist in me to come up with such a coherent thought when the pessimist in me is peeing on his shoes and laughing maniacally.

My problem with this story and the debate points made within is that the logic simply isn't there for most of it. Shocking, I know, but when you have crazy people fervently arguing their side of the argument as pure gospel - something's going to be wrong with the logic at some point. Don't worry, I'll try and poke fun of BOTH sides of the crazy line, despite the fact that I am biased towards one hopeful result.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. Now, this is logic I can actually agree with. If you increase the legality of something, you increase the chances that someone will do it, and therefore increase the chances that someone will do it and then drive a car. Or while driving a car. Which tends to lead to more results like "fatal car crashes". Point goes to MADD.

Richard Brodhead, president of Duke said that the current law "pushes drinking into hiding, heightening its risks, including risks from drunken driving, and it prevents us from addressing drinking with students as an issue of responsible choice." This is logic I can mostly agree with. Universities really can't teach students under 21 about RESPONSIBLE drinking because they're not old enough to drink (even though everyone admits that they do). I agree that when something is illegal, it has to go into hiding in order to stay alive, and that the less oversight there is, the more risky it becomes. If bungee-jumping were suddenly outlawed, there'd still be people doing it but it would be much harder to enforce safety and responsibility and it's likely that more bungee-jumping-related deaths would be a result. Point goes to the university presidents.

Meanwhile, MADD urges parents to think carefully about safety at colleges whose presidents have signed on. "It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses." Okay, this logic I completely disagree with. MADD makes it sound like the presidents of universities who are in favor of this would somehow stop caring about the effects of alcohol on students and would be throwing keggers to get a point across. Duke released a statement from the president that alcohol is still illegal if you're under 21 and the university is obliged to uphold the law - but think about it. Wouldn't you think they'd crack down HARDER? Every time they document a case of underage binge drinking, they get to rack up another point on the "told ya so" meter that proves their point - wouldn't that logically mean they'd be busting people left and right to raise those numbers?? No point for MADD.

A lower drinking age could lead to less binge drinking, experts say, since 18- to 20-year-olds won't have to imbibe surreptitiously. This, I just don't wholeheartedly believe. You have to take into account the various situations that lead to "binge-drinking" and it's just not all underground. Most instances I can think of are parties. Some are underground parties, yes, but binge drinking happens just as much at the public parties. It's a little bit more secretive at the public parties, but it happens there. Even if the party hosts are doing a full ID check, marking off hands and having bartenders ACTUALLY check hands before issuing drinks - binge drinking will still occur with underaged partiers. The hosts are not equipped to check validity of IDs. The partier may alter the hand mark. The partier can get a supply of booze from a legal-age friend (which is how most booze gets to the underaged). The fact is - if you WANT to binge-drink, you're GOING to binge-drink. Removing the obstacles isn't likely to convince people to NOT binge-drink; it would only deter those who SPECIFICALLY binge-drink because it's illegal and they like breaking the law or something. No point for the university presidents.

What it all boils down to is that lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 won't solve the binge-drinking problem on its own. What it WILL do is open the doors for the universities to counsel students about responsible drinking and hopefully reduce binge-drinking in that manner. However, this also means the university can regulate drinking at parties with more scrutiny. Odds are that this change would create a rise in the number of parties, which will create a demand by the universities to limit the number of allowed parties, which will drive the partying underground instead of the alcohol.

Again, people binge on alcohol because they have a reason to. The reasons are probably stupid or something that a therapist should be handling instead of Captain Morgan, but the list of reasons probably has nothing to do with it being legal or not. The binge-drinkers that would be counseled out of the binge-drinking habit would probably be offset by the number of binge-drinkers who always wanted to be binge-drinkers but had that specific obstacle of illegality in the way all this time and never had the means to bypass it before it became legal.

Even so, the U.S. has the oldest drinking age in the world. Most countries allow drinking at 18. Some at 16. Some don't even have a limit at all! We've already admitted that at age 18, you can sign up for the military (to get shipped off to a country where to don't have to be 21 to drink), vote in general elections (to vote to make the drinking age 18), enter into a legally-binding contract (which often has the stipulation of making sure you're not drunk before you sign) and get married (probably the #1 reason why married men drink, if they're 21). It makes sense that the drinking age should be 18, if not lower.

What really irks me about this whole thing is that the university presidents are the ones rallying to lower the drinking age to 18 - not the general public or anything. They're doing it for the expressed purpose of reducing binge-drinking in their universities. Frankly, the number of 18-to-20-year-olds in college is such a small fraction of the 18-to-20-year-old population in general in the United States. It's NICE that we have some seemingly-responsible adults backing up the arguments to lower the drinking age, but that's not going to win the war.

The final point of the match has to go to the university presidents, because part of their campaign is supposedly going to be newspaper ads in the "public phase" - which is exactly what needs to happen if we want to make this law actually change.

What do you think? Are you picking a side in the debate? Do you think my points were awarded fairly? Does your wife make you want to drink heavily? Leave a comment and join the debate!!

And then Digg this article!

Letter to RedEye: Manly Hair

2008-08-18T12:05:00.006-05:00

In response to a horrendous article about several men who remove their body hair for various reasons and detailing the numerous ways that men can remove their body hair and posing the question, "Should men be removing their body hair?" or something like that:

I think it's time for hairy men to be proud of who they are. I remember a time when there were huge uproars over supermodels and their effect on women and teenage girls who were destroying themselves with diets and plastic surgery. So why is it that nobody is batting an eyelash when men are being just as vain with diets and fashion and "manscaping" just to look like the Abercrombie & Fitch catalog models? It's a double-standard!

There are only two situations in which it should be socially acceptable to remove your manly hair:
1) You are a model or actor or another profession in which the absence of hair naturally accents toned muscle mass and that's how you make your livelihood/paychecks.
2) It is a hazard for you to have this hair for aerodynamic or flammability reasons.

Aside from those, manly hair is manly and should never be looked down upon. What should be looked down upon is the continued persistance of "metrosexuality" and other effeminate trends. For the love of beer and steaks - they even have pantyhose for men now! I may not know a thing about pantyhose (being a manly man and all), but I'm guessing if you fall into the "man leggings" category, you've already shorn off your leg hair.

I find it depressing that most screen time that male body hair can get is when it's the butt of a joke (see: 40-Year-Old Virgin). I'd like to think that maybe Hollywood can grow up and let men be men and that includes having body hair. Hopefully the recent trend of beards coming back into popularity may suggest an eventual turn AWAY from smooth and back TOWARDS the roughness. I love having a beard and I get compliments for it, too.

I feel confident that your reader response has turned up a majority of females who like the body hair on their partners. That's how our brains are programmed. Plus, I didn't spend several years of puberty waiting for a bumper crop of manly hair to sprout just to wax it all away!

Oh, and sorry, ladies - this hunk o' man meat is spoken for.

Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport

(As always, I'll bold anything if this gets posted. I even got to send a picture with it because they're trying to lure in more reader response with the promise of posting your picture if they print your "mini-article" reader response.)

Do you agree about men and body hair being manly and not something to remove?

UPDATE!

"Hi Aaron,

Thanks for your letter. We appreciate the feedback!"

(Maybe they'll post it?)

PETA vs Illegal Immigration??

2008-08-12T15:08:00.000-05:00

Every now and then, life likes to throw these little puzzles at me. I am anti-PETA. I am also anti-illegal-immigration. So when the two seem to be doing battle, it's really hard for me to choose a side. Unfortunately it doesn't really matter what I think, since the battle seems to be prematurely drawing to a close. It turns out that idiocy and propaganda are no match for criminals. I wouldn't say I'm giving a tip of my hat to PETA for their attempt to stop some illegal immigration, but I will admit that in this battle, my finger is wagging less furiously at them than it's waving at illegal immigrants. So what is this situation I'm referring to?

PETA attempted to rent billboard space on the border fence to post warnings to potential illegal immigrants that there's more to fear than the Border Patrol - they could also become obese by eating our meat and should go with veganism in Mexico.

I can't make this up.

The billboards, in English and Spanish, would offer the caution: "If the Border Patrol Doesn't Get You, the Chicken and Burgers Will — Go Vegan."

"We think that Mexicans and other immigrants should be warned if they cross into the U.S. they are putting their health at risk by leaving behind a healthier, staple diet of corn tortillas, beans, rice, fruits and vegetables," said Lindsay Rajt, assistant manager of PETA's vegan campaigns.

I'm just so confused by the sheer idiocy of this "campaign" that I don't know where to begin.

First of all, they're trying to say that meat is as bad for illegal immigrants as the BORDER PATROL is bad for them? That makes as much sense as telling a robber holding you at gunpoint for your wallet, "You know, if the police don't catch you - old age certainly will." Because people WANT to grow old. Just like how Mexicans crossing the border WANT the luxurious lifestyle that Americans have and cheap meat is certainly one of those luxuries.

And wait a second - are they trying to insinuate that a Mexican diet is naturally a vegan one and that by abandoning their motherland, they'll be tempted into the seedy underbelly that is the meat-eating population? I haven't lived in Mexico or anything, but I'm pretty damned sure that just about all of their signature regional dishes tend to have meat and cheese in them along with the "staple diet of corn tortillas, beans, rice" and so on.

In fact, a comedian said it best that just about all Mexican dishes are a combination of tortillas, meat, cheese and some vegetables. In a taco, the meat and cheese goes on the tortilla and you fold it over (or fry the tortilla and put the meat and cheese inside). In a burrito, you put the meat and cheese on the tortilla and then roll it up. In taquitos/flautas, you put the meat and cheese on the tortilla, roll it up and then fry it. In enchiladas, you put the meat and cheese on the tortilla, roll it up and then put sauce on top. In quesadillas, you put the meat and cheese on the tortilla and then cover it with another tortilla. In tostadas, you fry the tortillas, then put meat and cheese on the fried tortilla and cover it with another fried tortilla. Hell, in nachos, you fry up the tortilla, break it into pieces, then add meat and cheese on top!

DO YOU GET THE POINT? THEY EAT TONS OF MEAT AND CHEESE, YOU IDIOTS!

At least when you're bitching at Americans to become vegans, you're speaking to a group of people who have absorbed so many different cuisines - they can hopefully find enough non-meat and non-dairy dishes in all of them to possibly sustain themselves.

If you tried to convince a Mexican that "arroz" is just as good as "arroz con pollo" - I doubt you're going to make any headway.

I'm also questioning why the proposed billboards from PETA were going to display Spanish and English. What illegal immigrant is going to pay attention to the English side if you're giving them the Spanish? Are there really that many non-Spanish-speaking illegal immigrants from Mexico who would need the English version to read the propaganda? Or are they suggesting there's a huge American tourist population near the border fences who can't read the Spanish?

Either way, I don't really give a shit how this turns out. I'm glad that PETA is trying to piss off a group of people who are not ME. I'm glad that PETA is making a very feeble, yet not-even-visible effort to fight illegal immigration. I'm glad that in the offchance that their ploy works, it means less illegal immigrants taking America's jobs and eating America's meat (leaving more for me to enjoy). It's more likely that they will still cross but maybe will only take America's jobs and eat less of America's meat.

Of course, the thing is really a moot point because a government spokesperson in Washington said the request will be denied because it would limit visibility through the fence - the way that Border Patrol agents can see illegals approaching.

What do you think? Are you on PETA's side or the side of illegal immigrants? Does your brain hurt trying to ponder that as well?

Please Digg this article!

Random Thought: Olympics

2008-08-11T11:32:00.004-05:00

Just a random thought.

If the original Olympic Games celebrated by the ancient Greeks were initially competitions of just young men who all happened to be nude . . .

. . . then aren't the Olympic Games just the pinnacle of dick-waving competitions?

Isn't the entire thing just an "Our country has a bigger dick than your country" competition?

I mean some of the competitions would be about the fastest dicks, or the most agile... It's a very muddled analogy once you remember that women participate now.

I mean, the Olympic Motto is "Citius, Altius, Fortius," a Latin phrase meaning "Swifter, Higher, Stronger." If that's not the motto of a penis competition - I don't know what is.

And the whole thing gets hilarious when you throw the penis competition analogy into the Olympic Creed:

"The most important thing . . . is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well."

My mind is in the gutter today - it's my defense against the insane piles of work I'm responsible for today...

Pole vaulting: It's not always about bringing home the gold - sometimes it's just about sticking your pole in there and enjoying the thrill of just being there and seeing how far you can go. And the home-court advantage can make all the difference.

Fast-Food Moratorium in South L.A. (Part 2)

2008-08-07T13:45:00.002-05:00

For those of you just joining, I highly recommend a visit to Part 1 of this article just to catch up: Fast-Food Moratorium in South L.A. (Part 1)

In this piece, I want to break down the law's language in traditional George Carlin format, pointing out that this law pretty much would ban ALL new restaurants and not just fast-food restaurants - except for a few choice words and I'll explain how any fast-food franchise can easily duck under the law because of them.

Just as a reminder, here what the law considers to be fast-food restaurants:

"any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."

Well, let's start at the beginning...

"which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises": Those are the only two places you CAN consume food! AT the place and NOT AT the place! I mean ANY food location nowadays, no matter how fancy and sit-down or greasy and take-it-and-leave, gives you the option to place an order for take-out. They understand you might not have the time to eat it THERE. Or you may just prefer to eat it NOT THERE, like at HOME. Also, you might as well just say "which dispenses food" - since food is generally dispensed for consumption. That's the general idea of food - that you consume it. I suppose this means a business that dispenses food for you to WEAR would be allowed to move in? So far, this ban applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except the food-as-clothing industry).

"and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu": ALL MENUS ARE LIMITED! You're not allowed to walk into a Burger King or a P.F. Chang's or a Fogo De Chao and order up a yak salad with ostrich chutney garnish. All menus are finite, limited by the abilities of the chef, the availability of ingredients, and the personal desire of the restaurant. They don't want to include endangered animals for you to eat - that's their prerogative. The McDonald's fry cook isn't skilled enough to POACH your eggs that go on your McMuffin - tough luck, pal. It's illegal to obtain and cook human flesh for consumption - don't expect to see the phone book as an addendum to your table's menu. So far, this ban still applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except for hypothetical hypno-restaurants that can put patrons in hypnotic trances and convince them they've eaten anything on an unlimited menu while serving them Kraft Mac & Cheese).

"items prepared in advance": Well of course they're prepared in advance - when did you plan on preparing it? In the guy's stomach? All restaurants have to prepare food before they serve it to you. If you wanted to add the stipulation "prepared in advance of ordering", there's still prep work. Any good restaurant has to save time by pre-assembling items, or even marinating meats in anticipation that someone will order it that night, or using bread that has already been baked or pre-mixed dough even. I'm incredibly skeptical that there exists a single restaurant that can make every item on its menu FROM SCRATCH and not until the order is placed and it can still be served fast enough that the customer doesn't leave, possibly mumbling, "if I wanted incredibly slow food made from scratch, I'd be at home with my wife instead of at a fancy restaurant with my mistress..." Fact of the matter is, this ban still applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (unless all they do is raw, uncooked, unprocessed food, and at that point you might as well be foraging in the woods for sustenance and saving yourself $20 per person).

"prepared or heated quickly": I don't think there's much to say about this. If you're not preparing or heating your food at a decent pace, you shouldn't qualify as a business. It's called "the danger zone" and it's a temperature range at which bacteria can grow and multiply and infect your food. The longer food goes from storage to preparation to your mouth, the more likely you are to get sick and sue for food poisoning. ALL FOOD BUSINESSES know that and do those things in a timely fashion. Also, "quickly" is too subjective of a term - any cooking that takes shorter time to cook than "leaving it in the sun, possibly on a metal pan" can be deemed to have been cooked "quickly" by the Amish. This ban still applies to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except Brother Jebediah's Sun-Cooked Meat Emporium)

Now, we finally come to "no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers", which technically seem to separate the actual restaurants from the "fast-food joints" that the law is trying to stop from opening new locations. But don't worry, McDonald's and Burger Kings, they're both easy to step around.

"no table orders": Okay, so you have to be able to take orders at a table in order to qualify as a true "restaurant"? Note that the law doesn't even say anyone has to be SITTING at a table. The table area is just the place where all orders have to be taken in order to qualify. Rather, at least ONE order has to be taken from a table to simply NOT fall into the category of "no table orders". So how do you side-step this one?

Put a table over the counters. It doesn't matter if there's one long table placed over the entire counter, or a cheap IKEA table draped right on top of each counter segment with the cash register placed on top and your McJob cashier/waitstaff standing at the "table". You can even place a small table in front of the drive-thru speaker and one in front of the pay window and pick-up window. "Thank you, please drive to the next TABLE." Voila - you're taking table orders and you can move right in with a new location!

"food served in disposable wrapping or containers": Okay, I have to start off with the obvious jab that everything used to serve food is disposable (in the definition that everything is "able to be disposed of"). A restaurant can give you your burger on a plate, but a plate is just as disposable as a paper lining you'd find wrapped around a McDonald's cheeseburger. For the sake of argument, I will admit that one definition of "disposable" means "INTENDED to be disposed of". I guess McDonald's could just print pictures on all wrappers and containers and call them "collectible" and you can complete the set - that would insinuate that they should NOT be disposed of, but rather collected for some reason. You'd think that the real clencher here is that McDonald's food is wrapped or put into containers (while a restaurant will not wrap food it's serving to you), which means it's just fast-food that this clause affects. To be fair, any legit restaurant will let you place a to-go order and all of that food will be in disposable wrapping or containers! It doesn't say that food is ONLY served in disposable wrapping/containers, right? Which means that any restaurant willing to place a to-go order or let you take food home in a doggy-bag is going to be banned. Once more, this clause of the ban would apply to ALL FOOD BUSINESSES (except those snooty enough to deny you eating their food anywhere other than their restaurant).

So really, all it comes down to is whether or not you'll ever take a food order from a table. All other pieces of this "law" boil down to no food businesses at all being allowed to set up shop in South L.A. (other than those wacky/insane exceptions). Any fast-food place would be able to open up shop as long as they stick a table somewhere and let someone order from it, as I've suggested above. Frankly, the law suggests that you must hit ALL of those marks to qualify not being able to open a new location - which means that once you miss the mark on ANY (like taking orders from a table), you've got free reign in South L.A.!

Take that, Los Angeles City Council! Your law is useless and a waste of taxpayer money for all the debate and insanity that must have transpired before you foolishly signed this moratorium into effect.

Don't you agree? Have I missed anything? Can you understand how each piece of this law is vague and moronic? Was my homage to George Carlin acceptable?

Please Digg this article and join me in mocking the L.A. City Council!

Don't Talk to the Police!

2008-08-06T08:28:00.001-05:00

I found this website while cruising Fark yesterday morning and started watching the first video. I was just so intrigued by it! I mean I've never been in a courtroom or arrested (came close once) or really talked to any lawyers for extended periods of time about this subject, but to watch these videos - it was a true eye-opener.

After watching these videos, you will never want to talk to the police. At all. Ever.

The first video is the law professor, James Duane, of the Regent University School of Law. He basically outlines all of the main reasons why you should never talk to a police officer about anything, in any capacity, when you are a suspect in a crime or accused of a crime or arrested for some crime. He also does this WITHOUT malice towards the police. It's not the police officer's fault, because it's YOUR fault for being an idiot and talking to them.

I think the most enlightening piece of this video is when Prof. Duane explains that anything you say to the police can be used AGAINST you in a court of law; it CANNOT be used FOR you. If you say something to the police that helps your case as a defendant, and your lawyer asks the police officer to corroborate it, it is inadmissable because it's hearsay.

There are a lot more compelling reasons, and I have to warn you that it is a 27-minute video. And it's just Part 1.

That's right - just the first part. Because the guy wants to be "fair" - he invited a POLICE OFFICER to take half of his hour's time to either agree or disagree and present whatever he wants to say on the subject of never talking to the police. So Officer George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department gets 21 minutes to have his say. And he says that Duane is basically right. He just gets up there and admits the many ways that people are stupid and admit things to the police because they were stupid enough to talk to them in the first place.

He also gets to clarify certain nuances of his job and admits to several tricks he gets to use in order to get the confession he needs. The one that stood out most in my mind was something I already knew, but was illustrated brilliantly as Bruch was detailing how he fools people. He has a tiny little tape recorder in the interrogation room. He lulls people into false security by asking them if he can use the tape recorder to record the interview because he has poor handwriting or can't write fast or something. (Asking is a courtesy, since he can do whatever he wants and they have no right to say no to him taping the interview, and gives them false power.) Then if he's not getting what he wants, he reaches over, stops the tape recorder, and says, "Let's talk - off the record."

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "OFF THE RECORD". The interrogation room is always miked and always recorded and anything you tell a police officer at ANY TIME can be used against you. He also lists convincing people to write "apology letters" - which are of course handwritten confessions - and the fact that only one person on a phone conversation needs to know it's being recorded for it to be legal. Just him, the police officer.

The most enlightening piece of his segment for me was probably when he stated that he reads people their Miranda Warning - it's NOT a RIGHT - as well as the constant reminder that the police can LIE to you as much as they want during an interview.

To finish, the ACLU has a downloadable PDF 'bust card' with information on your rights when dealing with a police officer.

A brief rundown:
- If you are ever detained, the police can ask you for your name and in some states you CAN be arrested for not providing it. You CAN plead the right to remain silent if you think your name alone will incriminate you, which may be a defense in case you do get arrested in the end.
- If you're stopped in your car, you must show driver's licence and registration. Other than that (and your name), you don't have to answer a thing.
- You don't have to consent to any search of yourself, your car or your house. The limit is a "pat-down" of your clothing if they suspect a concealed weapon, and you can make it clear that you to not consent to any further search.
- You do not have to give consent for an officer to search your car if they have probable cause, but you should make it clear that you do not consent to a search. You cannot be arrested for simply refusing to consent to a search.
- You do not have to give consent for an officer to enter your house if they hear someone screaming for help or if they are chasing someone. If you are arrested in a building, you do not have to give consent for the police to search "close by", which is limited to the room you were in. Other than this, you do not have to let the police in unless they have a warrant signed by a judge - and always ask to see it if they claim they have such a warrant.
- If you refuse to consent to a blood/urine/breath test while being suspected of a DWI, your license can be suspended.
- You have the right to ask if you are being arrested. If you are, you have the right to know why you are being arrested. If you are arrested, the only information you have to give to the police is your name and address. Beyond that, you have the right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer.

I'm pretty sure all of that information is correct. Meanwhile, be aware that it's not just anything you SAY that can be held against you. Don't be difficult, don't be rude, and for the love of all that is good and holy - don't interfere or resist or be violent in any way.

You have the right to remain silent, but you also have the right to be stupid. It's your choice.

Please Digg this article and spread the word about the Fifth Amendment!

Fast-Food Moratorium in South L.A. (Part 1)

2008-08-01T12:10:00.004-05:00

If you were to ask me to provide an honest answer regarding the question of our youth (and our populous in general) getting obese - I'd completely agree. The data doesn't lie, and neither do my eyeballs. People are getting fatter - and more people are getting fat. I would never, though, say it was an "epidemic", since that's supposed to be a word meaning a rapidly-spreading disease. Despite some crappy article I read once about how if you have several obese friends then you're more likely to become obese, weight problems are not a disease (social or otherwise). You can't "catch obesity" - not even from toilet seats.

But it's our right to be fat.

It's our freedom of choice to choose sedentary lifestyles or picking up a bucket of KFC instead of lifting weights or even ordering too much healthy food which in turn isn't healthy. You can't blame the gyms for being too expensive (though they are expensive indeed). You can't blame the video game industry for getting you addicted to sitting and button-mashing (thanks to DDR and WiiFit "games"). You can't blame the food places for letting you order too much (I mourn the loss of the "Supersize"). You can't blame the fast food industry for "being there" (unless you're a moron).

So the Los Angeles City Council must therefore be a bunch of morons.

They voted unanimously to approve a law banning new fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles for at least a year.

Why in the name of all that is good and holy and deep-fried would they do such an idiotic thing?

Because 30% of the kids in South L.A. are obese, compared to the L.A. average of 25% of obesity in children.

That's it. A 5% difference - one extra kid out of twenty happens to be obese in South Los Angeles, so let's ban all new fast-food locations from opening. That sixth kid to tip the scales in every 20-child South L.A. classroom best get ready for an ass-kicking from the other five obese kids for crushing their dream of a new place to gorge on greasy delights! Oh, and by the way, THIS DOES NOTHING! At best, you're forcing people to waddle a little further to get their fix rather than letting a closer location get built. At worst, you're raping the sanctity of the free market. This little charade doesn't change the goddamned MARKET OPPORTUNITY!

Do you know why fast-food locations are doing well in that area and more want to open up? Because that's what the market demands. We just had a Dunkin Donuts / Baskin Robbins open in our building a month ago - even though one exists less than one block southeast from our building. And a few weeks ago, yet another one opened a block northeast of our building. Do you know WHY they're opening up three Dunkin Donuts locations within a block of each other?

BECAUSE THEY CAN. BECAUSE THEY STILL MAKE MONEY. BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT MORE LOCATIONS TO GET CHEAP DONUTS AND COFFEE.

I would never expect our city to decide "the downtown area is overcaffeinated and obese and caffeine is a drug and donuts are fattening, so let's ban new donut/coffee locations so that other businesses can move in." Okay, Chicago is the Nanny City, so I might expect it - but it's still a ridiculous idea. If the people wanted a new sit-down food location with healthy choices, then one of those businesses would move in and would prosper. FORCING one of those to open up INSTEAD of what the market wants will result in poor sales and the inevitable closing and moving out of that business. In my neighborhood, we mostly have greasy spoons and take-out Chinese and Mexican places. And some Italian-esque fancy/expensive bistro tried opening up. And nobody came. So they've closed. Twice. Maybe if another burger joint moved in there, business would be booming for them. It's called the FREE MARKET.

Councilwoman Jan Perry, who has pushed for a moratorium for six years, said the initiative would give the city time to craft measures to lure sit-down restaurants serving healthier food to a part of the city that desperately wants more of them.

"I believe this is a victory for the people of South and southeast Los Angeles, for them to have greater food options," she said.

You moron! If that part of the city "desperately" wanted more sit-down healthy restaurants, then one would be opening in one of the available spaces. You can't just BAN certain types of businesses from renting that space just because you're "holding out" for one you like. If a business moves in and you don't like it and don't want it, you don't go. And if enough people do that, it goes out of business and closes and some other business can try it out. And if NOT enough people refuse to go - that means that people DO want that service/product and YOU'RE the idiot for thinking that YOUR opinion represents your entire area's opinion.

That's how it's supposed to work - and you shouldn't be allowed to pass an idiotic law to tell people what they supposedly want but obviously don't.

The law defines fast-food restaurants as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."

My full rant on this law's language will be found in Part 2... In traditional George Carlin format...

Please Digg this article and join the debate regarding this bill!

Illegal Texting in Illinois?

2008-07-29T16:02:00.002-05:00

For those of you who keep your thumbs to your "crackberries" while walking around the city of Chicago, Illinois lawmakers may be preparing to slap you on the wrist with a misdemeanor and $25 fine, if their new law gets passed. That's right, texting and walking will possibly be considered illegal.

Illinois state officials, including Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, have spoken out in support of a new bill that would ban using a wireless device while crossing streets.

Now before you flip out, this about this law need to be explained.

When I initially read the article, I had the same ranting flip-out session about "how dare they try and ban WALKING and TEXTING at the same time" and so forth. To tell the truth, I was all ready to type a huge tirade about how Illinois needs to let Darwin take the reigns for a while and get rid of those humans who haven't evolved to the point of either being able to text message and perform the simple act of walking at the same time - or being able to recognize that they aren't capable of this maneuver and deciding to not attempt it. We'll get back to the whole "passive eugenics" notion later.

For now, we all need to take a step back and analyze the TRUE LANGUAGE of this stupid bill before we can all agree it's stupid and should never become law.

Since the article's author has decided to shirk any journalistic responsibilities, I will say that the language does not say that "Illinois residents would get slapped with a misdemeanor and a $25 fine if caught using a cell phone or other wireless device while traversing streets".

Here's the ACTUAL bill, in its entirety:

HB4520 LRB095 16261 LCT 42281 b

1 AN ACT concerning transportation.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by adding
5 Section 11-1011.5 as follows:

6 (625 ILCS 5/11-1011.5 new)
7 Sec. 11-1011.5. Pedestrian use of wireless telephone.
8 (a) A pedestrian shall not use a wireless telephone while
9 crossing a roadway.
10 (b) As used in this Section, "wireless telephone" means a
11 device that is capable of transmitting or receiving telephonic
12 communications without a wire connecting the device to the
13 telephone network.
14 (c) A violation of this Section is a petty offense for
15 which a fine not to exceed $25 may be imposed.

Now what this DOES mean is that THIS language can allow for a couple of scary things. For example, they could ticket you not only for texting while crossing the street, but for BEING ON YOUR PHONE while crossing the street. I'm also pretty sure that this language could actually entitle the police to issue you a ticket for listening to an MP3 on your iPhone while crossing the street, since you would be considered to be "using a device that is capable of transmitting or receiving telephonic communications without a wire connecting the device to the telephone network while crossing a roadway".

I'm sure they WOULDN'T, but the fact that they COULD is unsettling enough, isn't it? And wouldn't this open the door for ANY device that requires minute focus to be banned from use while crossing the street? And when will they decide that just as much harm can befall you from lack of attention while walking on the sidewalk as can befall you while crossing the street?

Frankly, Illinois (Chicago specifically) is becoming the new Nanny State and keeps attempting to trade our LIBERTIES away in order to protect us from ourselves. There was an actual study done to look at how the 35 most-populous cities in the United States balance individual freedom with government paternalism - Chicago came in DEAD LAST. "And it wasn't even close," says the author.

"We ranked the cities on how much freedom they afford their residents to indulge in alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex, gambling and food. And, for good measure, we also looked at the cities' gun laws, use of traffic and surveillance cameras, and tossed in an "other" category to catch weird laws such as New York's ban on unlicensed dancing, or Chicago's tax on bottled water.

Chicago reigns supreme when it comes to treating its citizens like children (Las Vegas topped our rankings as America's freest city). Chicagoans pay the second-highest cigarette tax in the country, and the sixth-highest tax on alcohol. Chicago has more traffic-light cameras than any city in America (despite studies questioning their effectiveness), restricts cell phone use while driving, and it's quickly moving toward a creepy public surveillance system similar to London's.

Chicago isn't alone, of course. Many of America's big cities are moving toward a suffocating sort of paternalism. Chicago is just the worst."

America needs to wake up and stop coddling our citizens and let them make their own mistakes. There's a difference between putting up a new stop sign because of lethal traffic accidents and stopping pedestrians from using their legally-owned devices while crossing from one side of the street to the other. I don't care that officials will undoubtedly say "well it's the law and we're going to enforce it, but we're not going to be patrolling specifically for this" - the same way they shrug off all of Chicago's moronic laws that shouldn't exist. When the foie gras ban was in effect, they told us similar things - that they wouldn't be hunting for it but would respond to tattle-tales complaining about it happening in restaurants.

We need to put a stop to pointless laws the protect us from ourselves and focus a bit more on laws that protect us from OTHER PEOPLE.

We shouldn't be ticketed for driving without a seatbelt, or riding a bicycle/motorcycle without a helmet. We definitely shouldn't be ticketed for doing something potentially distracting while doing something that requires an iota of focus. It makes no sense that we could get a ticket and a fine for using the hands-free function of a cellphone while walking a street, but not for doing the same thing while barbecuing or changing a tire or doing our taxes. All three of those things could destroy you if you screw up slightly by losing focus - but it's OUR CHOICE. We have the right to potentially screw up our own lives. We just don't have the right to potentially screw up the lives of others. I have no arguments about arresting for drunken driving. I have a few qualms about ticketing for cellphone-using while driving. I have more qualms about arresting for public drunkenness.

All in all, it's a matter of who has the potential to be hurt the most and who's most likely to get hurt, and if it's the person DOING the action, then it shouldn't be illegal.

People should be learning to keep their wits about them and making the right decisions on their own. Meanwhile, we as a society should start praying that our feeble human brains can start evolving at least a FRACTION as fast as our technology is evolving. It's the gap in-between that keeps causing these problems, which in turn keep causing these horrible attempts at solutions.

Do you agree? Are you in favor of taking away people's rights to risk getting hit by cars? Do you agree that we're losing too many of our rights? Shouldn't the stupid be allowed to die off in hilarious ways and make room for the smart? Leave a comment!

Please Digg this article and join the debate regarding this bill!

Free Starbucks Smoothies

2008-07-29T08:03:00.001-05:00

Just wanted to throw out this public service announcement to you all:

If you have either a gym membership card or a Starbucks card, you can get a free Vivanno smoothie (Orange Mango Banana or Banana Chocolate). Of course, you have to time it right.

Between 2pm and 4pm, on Tuesdays July 29th, August 5th and August 12th

Frankly, I've got a plethora of Starbucks locations at my disposal, so I'm almost tempted to see how many I can hit in one lunch hour. I've got the one in the Sears Tower, the one in the building right next door, the one a block east, and those are just off the top of my head. I don't even GO to Starbucks and I know of three locations within one block of me.

If I do manage this maneuver and do acquire both smoothies today, I'll post my reviews of the beverages.

Until then, whip out those cards and get your FREE on!

Please Digg this article and spread the word that these things are free!

Idiotic Product: Eye Jewelry

2008-07-28T11:25:00.001-05:00

Okay, this is the first Idiotic Product I've reviewed that is almost too horrible to even LOOK AT. I consider myself to have a high level of intestinal fortitude for gross things, and rarely get "the willies" even while watching someone chew glass or lie on a bed of nails or anything like that. But this is just a product that has made me cringe from the first second I had to look at it.

It's Eye Jewelry.

Once you're done vomiting with rage or disgust from the picture on that website, we'll continue.

Okay, for those of you who were smart enough to NOT click on that link, it's got a couple of pictures describing this new fashion of contact lenses. Imagine a pretty little dangly earring, perched on someone's earlobe and containing a couple of shiny stones. And you might think "that's a lovely earring and it matches her evening gown so well" - because that's a normal occurrence and an accepted fashion statement. But now let's assume that the pretty dangling earrings are not connected to this woman's earlobe - they're connected to her CONTACT LENSES.

Yes, it's that bad.

I can think of very few borderline-sane reasons why a person would subject themselves to this ocular torture (torture for your own eyes and the eyes of anyone who has to see you wearing these monstrocities):

1. You have something horrible elsewhere on your face. Aside from the cheek region, I can agree that jewelry dangling from your goddamned eyes would be distracting enough to draw attention from anything like a giant mole on your chin to a disfiguring scar on your ear to a freakin' horn growing out of your forehead. One look at shiny stones dangling from your eyeballs will make sure we don't notice your grotesque facial feature because we'll frankly never want to glance at your face again.

2. There is seriously no other facial real estate from which things can dangle. You've perforated your ears worse than spiral notebook paper, your nose looks like you've never heard of the word "tissue" in your entire life, and your lips make it look like you're incessantly drooling gobs of jewels and metal. The only place left from which something shiny can dangle is your eyes. At this point, your face is either so numb from every other piercing and bejeweling that you'll never even notice. Your face is officially as tattered and torn as (one can assume) your self-worth/self-esteem or maybe you've damaged your own ego to the point where it constantly screams "LOOK AT ME! I SPARKLE!"

3. You never plan to hold a child, ever. Anyone who's ever held a child under the age of 18 months and also had ANY item or accessory on their face will know that children GRAB ANYTHING THEY CAN. I don't care if it's your glasses, your earrings or your hat, if it's within reach of their pudgy little arms, they will grab it without consideration and without mercy. Hell, it doesn't even have to be something removable - as those who have beards, mustaches or just low-hanging hair will attest. So I highly doubt that a baby will consider the fashion consequences of grabbing hold of your shiny contact-lens-dangle and ripping the hell out of it and possibly your cornea at the same time.

4. You have no nerve endings in your eye. You know, I'm a glasses person and would never consider contacts. I've heard the nightmare tales from my contact-lens-wearing friends and how a single errant eyelash will wreak havoc on their sight and sanity until it is located and extracted. One can only imagine the sheer terror and anguish that would result from a normal person having a string constantly dangling from their contact lens, with a WEIGHT. I also can't fathom the trippiness of having this attached sparkling cluster of jewels impede my vision every time I bent over and it hovers into view due to gravity, possibly infringing on my eyelashes' right to move freely once the angle of the string is not "straight down" but rather "straight out, causing a tugging sensation every time you blink."

Okay, it's seriously getting difficult to continue writing this when I'm cringing and rubbing my eyes every few minutes to remind myself that this will NEVER HAPPEN TO ME because I do not fall into any of those above categories, nor would I ever consider this fashion trend in the first place.

All in all, it's an idiotic product. Beyond that, it's an ocular atrocity.

Do you agree? Were you able to even look at it without shivering? Or would you buy into the trend because you fall into one of the above categories? Can you think of any other reasons why someone would do something so stupid? If you do, plase share!

Please Digg this article and spread the word that these things are creepy and dangerous!

Idiotic Product: Car Piercings

2008-07-28T07:59:00.004-05:00

(Originally posted on October 2, 2006)

You've seen them on the street - "punks" and "rebels" and their faces that make you wish there were an important metal detector nearby to buzz incessantly at their facial accessories. The lobes, the cartilage, the eyebrow, the lip, the nostril, the bridge, the septum, the labret - and these are just SOME of the piercings available for the FACE. Let's not even get into the piercings unseen, okay? So for the "punk" who's simply run out of ROOM on the face, or for the "rebel" without the constitution for bloody hole-punching on their own body, there's a new fad hitting the streets. The actual STREETS...

Piercings for your CAR.

At this point, it seems like that should just be the end of this article.

Piercings. For your car. 'Nuff said. End of discussion.

Cue the "IDIOTIC PRODUCT" catchphrase. Roll credits.

But instead, let's try and evaluate this a little further and try and speculate WHY someone would possibly DO this to their car. Also, should these things be considered detriments to your car and other cars just by existing?

If you take a look at the pictures, you'll see that these "piercings" are large rings affixed primarily to the front bumper area of the car (the "face" of it, if you will) - they stick out, but not dangerously far or anything. They stand out, but not so well that they'd help you locate it at the Disneyland parking lot. So what purpose can they serve, other than being "extreme"? I mean, most things we do to our cars we do to either improve our lives, make things easier, or possibly to simply draw attention to the car. I'm reminded of ugly fins, tails, and flame appliques.

So is this what we've come to? That our personal cries for help by punching needles in our skin and filling the new void with metallic hoops and bars just isn't enough? We must expand these pleas for attention to every driver on the road with a large metal hoop affixed to your front bumper with an interesting logo? It's a little scary - if you think about it...

"I'm in my car so you probably can't see MY piercings, but I want you to know that I'm totally into piercings, so I PIERCED MY CAR so you can SEE!"

So now that we've rationalized WHY you'd affix one of these car piercings - let's discuss the repercussions of the deed. Does punching a hole or welding a ring onto the bumper area qualify as an act that affects insurance? If you get into an accident and they see this extra piece of car shrapnel that you voluntarily tacked on managed to do some EXTRA damage, say to a radiator, would insurance still pay for it? Does the bluebook value of a car go down significantly after you've added a West Coast Chopper ring to its face? And on top of this entire loss of value and risk of higher payments - you have to pay for this car piercing.

I've seen prices that average at about $100.

And on that note, I feel that car piercings are officially an IDIOTIC PRODUCT.

What's next? "Car cutting", where you key your own car to relieve the pressures of driving and handle road rage?