(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?
Read more!
Monday, July 28, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Plastic Bag Bans
This has got to be one of the most horrid trends contributing to the combined laziness and incompetent nature of our current legal system: a ban on plastic bags. That's right, ever since Hippie Central (AKA San Francisco) decided in 2007 to place a ban on the use of plastic bags by supermarkets and chain pharmacies, other locations have been balancing their brains between the notion that it might be an environmentally-friendly idea and the warnings of sane people that it's a moronic idea and following suit would be sheer lunacy.
This week, the Los Angeles City Council teetered over the precipice of lunacy and has voted to ban all plastic bags in the city's supermarkets and stores by 2010.
I'll start this off by actually agreeing that some of the bleeding-heart liberals almost have a valid point when they talk about the evils of the plastic bags. They normally take between 100 and 1,000 years to biodegrade. (More on that later.) And yes, they tend to get caught in trees because of their lightweight nature and they wind up in streams and such and marine animals can eat them and die. While it's easy to say that "the kid who swallows too many marbles shouldn't grow up to have kids of his own" - I'll agree that it's a stretch to apply that logic to the turtles. I don't know how easy it is for a turtle to tell the difference between a fish and a freakin' plastic bag, but let's just pretend that somehow they look the same and it's not very nice to be killing off those poor confused sea creatures. And perhaps we use too many of them - we produce an estimated 500 billion of them a year, worldwide.
Okay, back to calling San Francisco and Los Angeles a bunch of idiots for imposing such ridiculous laws.
First of all, plastic bags were what we'd like to call a scientific and technological breakthrough. The ability to mass-produce a strong yet lightweight product that allows consumers to carry their items while also letting producers/manufacturers package their items was a proud day, in my opinion. Paper bags are often ineffective and unreliable, not to mention bulky and THEY CUT DOWN TREES. That was like one of the best reasons to make an alternative to paper bags in the first place! Doesn't anyone recall that little tree-hugging mantra? I mean there's no reason in arguing over the plastic bags that don't decompose fast enough to create mulch so new trees can grow and prosper is the alternative is just destroying the trees in the first place, right? The only alternative alternative is reusable material bags, which are costly, even bulkier, and require too much forethought to be effective. The likelihood of someone saying "it's time to make a grocery run - I'd better collect up my reusable bags so that I may use them once more at the grocery store" is minimal when compared to "oh dang I need milk right now and I'm passing by a store with milk so let me go and get milk and oh darn I don't have my reusable bag with me so just gimme something for free to carry it in so I'm not paying for another reusable bag that I'll never remember to use."
Secondly, we need to stop creating laws to claim things as obsolete. Remember when cassette tapes were popular and it was the most advanced way to listen to your favorite songs before this new-fangled "compact disc" came into existence? Well once we created the CD, it's not like we decided to ban the use/production of cassette tapes because we have better things now and cassettes are flooding the landfills and don't biodegrade and we need to pass laws to hold the recording industry responsible for this garbage and ban their production of cassettes! If you want to really call the plastic bag obsolete, you need to create something BETTER to REPLACE it. Once we came out with the CD and they were priced competitively and made available in mass amounts - we stopped using cassettes (for the most part). Just like the creation of cheap and effective plastic bags made the paper ones practically obsolete (there were very few paper-bag-choosers during the heyday of plastic baggery), if you want the plastic bag to be gone - a better choice has to come out. It has to fill the SAME NICHE (lightweight, strong, disposable, cheap) though. Reusable bags aren't meant to be cheap or disposable, so it's not a replacement. It's merely an alternative.
Thirdly, this is a freakin' non-issue! Remember how we mentioned that plastic bags normally take between 100 and 1,000 years to biodegrade? Well the point is that they DO BIODEGRADE. There must exist living organisms that can biodegrade plastic bags into compost. Ergo, there must be a way to identify those living organisms and culture them and use them to speed up the process by increasing the amount of those organisms and figuring out optimum conditions necessary to speed the process up exponentially. Oh wait, some 16-year-old kid in Canada already figured that out!
Do you understand how messed up this is now? That instead of pumping a minimal amount of money into a research grant to allow REAL scientists to build upon what some Canadian kid managed to accomplish, thereby creating efficient ways to completely biodegrade TONS of plastic bag material in LITTLE TIME - California cities are working to abolish plastic bags? That doesn't solve the PROBLEM, morons! The PROBLEM is millions of tons of plastic bags that we'd like to biodegrade, not the flow of the plastic bags!
That's as ridiculous as people becoming vegetarians because cows producing methane are causing global warming. The problem is the COWS and the METHANE, not people EATING the cows! If you convince everyone to stop eating cows, then the cows get ignored and continue to screw up the planet with global warming flatulence and WE ALL DIE.
Eat a Steak - Save the World! Remember?
In conclusion, it's just plain and simple stupidity to ban something that's completely legal to purchase or sell. It was insane when Chicago banned foie gras and luckily that's over now. If the following scenario is true, then something has gone horribly wrong and needs to be fixed:
In 2010, you can walk into a Los Angeles supermarket and purchase a container of plastic bags, but you can't have that container of plastic bags put into a plastic bag because that would be against the law.
This is horribly wrong and it needs to be fixed.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree that scientists and entrepreneurs should be investing in the process that we know exists to speed up the biodegrading process of plastic bags? Or would you rather ban a legal product in an effort to ignore the real problem and boast that "at least WE'RE not making the problem worse" rather than work to solve the problem?
(Again, the article about the Canadian teenager who's apparently smarter than the Los Angeles City Council)
(The article about San Francisco being the first in the idiot-city parade)
(The article about Los Angeles joining the idiot-city parade)
Please Digg this article and spread the word that we need science and not insane laws!
Read more!
This week, the Los Angeles City Council teetered over the precipice of lunacy and has voted to ban all plastic bags in the city's supermarkets and stores by 2010.
I'll start this off by actually agreeing that some of the bleeding-heart liberals almost have a valid point when they talk about the evils of the plastic bags. They normally take between 100 and 1,000 years to biodegrade. (More on that later.) And yes, they tend to get caught in trees because of their lightweight nature and they wind up in streams and such and marine animals can eat them and die. While it's easy to say that "the kid who swallows too many marbles shouldn't grow up to have kids of his own" - I'll agree that it's a stretch to apply that logic to the turtles. I don't know how easy it is for a turtle to tell the difference between a fish and a freakin' plastic bag, but let's just pretend that somehow they look the same and it's not very nice to be killing off those poor confused sea creatures. And perhaps we use too many of them - we produce an estimated 500 billion of them a year, worldwide.
Okay, back to calling San Francisco and Los Angeles a bunch of idiots for imposing such ridiculous laws.
First of all, plastic bags were what we'd like to call a scientific and technological breakthrough. The ability to mass-produce a strong yet lightweight product that allows consumers to carry their items while also letting producers/manufacturers package their items was a proud day, in my opinion. Paper bags are often ineffective and unreliable, not to mention bulky and THEY CUT DOWN TREES. That was like one of the best reasons to make an alternative to paper bags in the first place! Doesn't anyone recall that little tree-hugging mantra? I mean there's no reason in arguing over the plastic bags that don't decompose fast enough to create mulch so new trees can grow and prosper is the alternative is just destroying the trees in the first place, right? The only alternative alternative is reusable material bags, which are costly, even bulkier, and require too much forethought to be effective. The likelihood of someone saying "it's time to make a grocery run - I'd better collect up my reusable bags so that I may use them once more at the grocery store" is minimal when compared to "oh dang I need milk right now and I'm passing by a store with milk so let me go and get milk and oh darn I don't have my reusable bag with me so just gimme something for free to carry it in so I'm not paying for another reusable bag that I'll never remember to use."
Secondly, we need to stop creating laws to claim things as obsolete. Remember when cassette tapes were popular and it was the most advanced way to listen to your favorite songs before this new-fangled "compact disc" came into existence? Well once we created the CD, it's not like we decided to ban the use/production of cassette tapes because we have better things now and cassettes are flooding the landfills and don't biodegrade and we need to pass laws to hold the recording industry responsible for this garbage and ban their production of cassettes! If you want to really call the plastic bag obsolete, you need to create something BETTER to REPLACE it. Once we came out with the CD and they were priced competitively and made available in mass amounts - we stopped using cassettes (for the most part). Just like the creation of cheap and effective plastic bags made the paper ones practically obsolete (there were very few paper-bag-choosers during the heyday of plastic baggery), if you want the plastic bag to be gone - a better choice has to come out. It has to fill the SAME NICHE (lightweight, strong, disposable, cheap) though. Reusable bags aren't meant to be cheap or disposable, so it's not a replacement. It's merely an alternative.
Thirdly, this is a freakin' non-issue! Remember how we mentioned that plastic bags normally take between 100 and 1,000 years to biodegrade? Well the point is that they DO BIODEGRADE. There must exist living organisms that can biodegrade plastic bags into compost. Ergo, there must be a way to identify those living organisms and culture them and use them to speed up the process by increasing the amount of those organisms and figuring out optimum conditions necessary to speed the process up exponentially. Oh wait, some 16-year-old kid in Canada already figured that out!
Do you understand how messed up this is now? That instead of pumping a minimal amount of money into a research grant to allow REAL scientists to build upon what some Canadian kid managed to accomplish, thereby creating efficient ways to completely biodegrade TONS of plastic bag material in LITTLE TIME - California cities are working to abolish plastic bags? That doesn't solve the PROBLEM, morons! The PROBLEM is millions of tons of plastic bags that we'd like to biodegrade, not the flow of the plastic bags!
That's as ridiculous as people becoming vegetarians because cows producing methane are causing global warming. The problem is the COWS and the METHANE, not people EATING the cows! If you convince everyone to stop eating cows, then the cows get ignored and continue to screw up the planet with global warming flatulence and WE ALL DIE.
Eat a Steak - Save the World! Remember?
In conclusion, it's just plain and simple stupidity to ban something that's completely legal to purchase or sell. It was insane when Chicago banned foie gras and luckily that's over now. If the following scenario is true, then something has gone horribly wrong and needs to be fixed:
In 2010, you can walk into a Los Angeles supermarket and purchase a container of plastic bags, but you can't have that container of plastic bags put into a plastic bag because that would be against the law.
This is horribly wrong and it needs to be fixed.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree that scientists and entrepreneurs should be investing in the process that we know exists to speed up the biodegrading process of plastic bags? Or would you rather ban a legal product in an effort to ignore the real problem and boast that "at least WE'RE not making the problem worse" rather than work to solve the problem?
(Again, the article about the Canadian teenager who's apparently smarter than the Los Angeles City Council)
(The article about San Francisco being the first in the idiot-city parade)
(The article about Los Angeles joining the idiot-city parade)
Please Digg this article and spread the word that we need science and not insane laws!
Read more!
Friday, July 04, 2008
4th of July Letter to my Neighborhood
Dear Neighborhood,
I realize that this is the beginning of a 3-day-weekend celebrating the Fourth of July and our nation's glorious independance from a tyrannical oppressive country who is now actually being referred to by many borderline-journalists as the "Nanny State". I realize that this is the metaphorical equivelant of leaving Mommy's nest and celebrating by throwing a huge party that serves no purpose other than "let's break all the rules that have brought us down, regardless of the fact that some of those rules may have been put in place to keep us alive and/or healthy." I realize that this weekend is also another reason to grill hamburgers and/or drink beer for the simple reason of "it's nice enough to grill hamburgers and/or I enjoy drinking beer." I realize all of those things and despite my acknowledgement, something still needs to be said:
For fuck's sake - stop it with your half-assed fireworks.
For those of you who are not familiar with the concept of "fireworks", let me start off by saying that there are basically two kinds of fireworks in the world: real fireworks and fake fireworks.
Technically, the government sees more than two kinds, but all of their classifications still manage to separate these two groups of explosives from each other. Oftentimes I look to Wikipedia for help in these matters, and it certainly has not let me down today.
The U.S. government now uses the United Nations explosives shipping classification system. This new system is based on hazard in shipping only, vs. the old USA system of both shipping and use hazards. The BATF and most states performed a direct substitution of Shipping Class 1.3 for Class B, and Shipping Class 1.4 for Class C. This allows some hazardous items that would have previously been classified as Class B and regulated to be classified as Shipping Class 1.4 due to some packaging method that confines any explosion to the package. Being Shipping Class 1.4, they can now be sold to the general public and are unregulated by the BATF.
So what are these two categories (other than my previous description of real and fake)?
Class 1.3G (Fire, Minor Blast:Pyrotechnics) UN0335 Fireworks (Most Display Fireworks) Current federal law states that (without appropriate ATF license/permit) the possession or sale of any display/professional fireworks is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Although some large firecraker items may be called "M-80's", "M-1000's", "Cherry bombs" or "Silver Salutes" by the manufacturer, they must contain less than 50-milligrams of flash or other explosive powder in order to be legally sold to consumers in the United States.
* any ground salute device with over 50 milligrams of explosive composition
* torpedoes (except for railroad signaling use)
* multi-tube devices containing over 500 grams of pyrotechnic composition and without 1/2" space between each tube
* any multiple tube fountains with over 500 grams of pyrotechnic composition and without 1/2" space between each tube
* any reloadable aerial shells over 1.75" diameter
* display shells
* any single-shot or reloadable aerial shell/mine/comet/tube with over 60 grams of pyrotechnic composition
* any Roman candle or rocket with over 20 grams of pyrotechnic composition
* any aerial salute with over 130 milligrams of explosive composition
Class 1.4G (Minor Explosion Hazard Confined To Package:Pyrotechnics) UN0336 Fireworks (Consumer or Common Fireworks) Most popular consumer fireworks sold in the US.
* reloadable aerial shells 1.75" or less sold in a box with not more than 12 shells and one launching tube
* single-shot aerial tubes
* bottle rockets
* skyrockets and missiles
* ground spinners, pinwheels and helicopters
* flares & fountains
* Roman candles
* smoke and novelty items
* multi-shot aerial devices, or "cakes"
* firecracker packs
* sparklers
* Catherine wheel
* black snakes and strobes
Do you see the difference? DO YOU??
Your goddamned little bottle rockets and novelty crap do not deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as REAL fireworks than actually DO STUFF. When I hear the obnoxious sounds of *peeeeeewwwwww* *pop*, I do not go rushing outside so that I don't miss the grand finale of your performance. Because you haven't lit a REAL FIREWORK. Which means you're performing noise pollution and also seemingly dropping the IQ and property value of a 50-yard radius by about 5%.
Actually, there's one category of "fake fireworks" that I will allow as a substitute "real firework" as a token of good faith - SPARKLERS.
While some of you may misconstrue that as my admittance to being a "nansy-pansy" or other disrespectful made-up word, it is not. I am simply recognizing the sparkler as the best commercially-available substitute for a real firework for one main reason:
It looks pretty.
It you took your family to the park to watch a real fireworks show, the real reason you'd be watching it is because it's something to WATCH. The Japanese word for firework - hanabi - translates to "fire flower" because fireworks are as pretty as a flower and also made of fire. While occasionally there is an audible aspect to the fireworks show, like the sizzling crackle of a time-rain firework, it's not what makes the firework great. If you were deaf, you could still enjoy the fireworks show for what it is.
If you were deaf and in my neighborhood, all you would see is a bunch of people rushing around something and then there's some smoke. Occasionally you'd see a roman candle and a little ball of fire or two. Maybe someone went the extra mile and got a pinwheel that sparks around - if you were within 5 meters to see it during the 10 seconds it was spinning. But you'd still be able to enjoy a sparkler - a miniature barely-harmful version of the massive real fireworks.
Oh, and one more thing I'd like to say to you, my neighborhood:
IT'S NOT EVEN 3PM!!!
You know why nobody has fireworks shows in the daytime? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THEM!!! So why in the name of all that is good and holy and chocolate-covered would you waste your purchases at this ungodly hour (unless you are a sun-worshipper, in which case it could be considered a godly hour) when nobody can see your barely-visible fake firework??
It's not even late enough in the afternoon for those of us who enjoy beer to have a buzz moderate enough to find your antics enjoyable!
So please, do the world (and especially the neighborhood) a favor and go the fuck inside and watch something on TV instead of annoying your neighbors and whatever that quip was that I made about lowering IQs and property values. The least you can do is wait until the sun gets the hell out of here (sorry, sun-worshippers) and then there might be a modicum of enjoyment in whatever it is you're pitifully making explode.
Plus, there's the added benefit that maybe it'll be dark enough for you to misjudge something and hurt yourself in the process. Darwin and future generations would applaud it.
Now let me get back to my burgers and beer.
Yours Truly,
Your pissed-off neighbor
P.S.: This is my open invitation of comments in agreeance, as well as an open forum for those of you who think firecrackers are the cat's pajamas to defend your inalienable right to make an ass of yourself by waking up your neighbors who finally had one day to sleep in.
(Thanks, Wikipedia!) Read more!
I realize that this is the beginning of a 3-day-weekend celebrating the Fourth of July and our nation's glorious independance from a tyrannical oppressive country who is now actually being referred to by many borderline-journalists as the "Nanny State". I realize that this is the metaphorical equivelant of leaving Mommy's nest and celebrating by throwing a huge party that serves no purpose other than "let's break all the rules that have brought us down, regardless of the fact that some of those rules may have been put in place to keep us alive and/or healthy." I realize that this weekend is also another reason to grill hamburgers and/or drink beer for the simple reason of "it's nice enough to grill hamburgers and/or I enjoy drinking beer." I realize all of those things and despite my acknowledgement, something still needs to be said:
For fuck's sake - stop it with your half-assed fireworks.
For those of you who are not familiar with the concept of "fireworks", let me start off by saying that there are basically two kinds of fireworks in the world: real fireworks and fake fireworks.
Technically, the government sees more than two kinds, but all of their classifications still manage to separate these two groups of explosives from each other. Oftentimes I look to Wikipedia for help in these matters, and it certainly has not let me down today.
The U.S. government now uses the United Nations explosives shipping classification system. This new system is based on hazard in shipping only, vs. the old USA system of both shipping and use hazards. The BATF and most states performed a direct substitution of Shipping Class 1.3 for Class B, and Shipping Class 1.4 for Class C. This allows some hazardous items that would have previously been classified as Class B and regulated to be classified as Shipping Class 1.4 due to some packaging method that confines any explosion to the package. Being Shipping Class 1.4, they can now be sold to the general public and are unregulated by the BATF.
So what are these two categories (other than my previous description of real and fake)?
Class 1.3G (Fire, Minor Blast:Pyrotechnics) UN0335 Fireworks (Most Display Fireworks) Current federal law states that (without appropriate ATF license/permit) the possession or sale of any display/professional fireworks is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Although some large firecraker items may be called "M-80's", "M-1000's", "Cherry bombs" or "Silver Salutes" by the manufacturer, they must contain less than 50-milligrams of flash or other explosive powder in order to be legally sold to consumers in the United States.
* any ground salute device with over 50 milligrams of explosive composition
* torpedoes (except for railroad signaling use)
* multi-tube devices containing over 500 grams of pyrotechnic composition and without 1/2" space between each tube
* any multiple tube fountains with over 500 grams of pyrotechnic composition and without 1/2" space between each tube
* any reloadable aerial shells over 1.75" diameter
* display shells
* any single-shot or reloadable aerial shell/mine/comet/tube with over 60 grams of pyrotechnic composition
* any Roman candle or rocket with over 20 grams of pyrotechnic composition
* any aerial salute with over 130 milligrams of explosive composition
Class 1.4G (Minor Explosion Hazard Confined To Package:Pyrotechnics) UN0336 Fireworks (Consumer or Common Fireworks) Most popular consumer fireworks sold in the US.
* reloadable aerial shells 1.75" or less sold in a box with not more than 12 shells and one launching tube
* single-shot aerial tubes
* bottle rockets
* skyrockets and missiles
* ground spinners, pinwheels and helicopters
* flares & fountains
* Roman candles
* smoke and novelty items
* multi-shot aerial devices, or "cakes"
* firecracker packs
* sparklers
* Catherine wheel
* black snakes and strobes
Do you see the difference? DO YOU??
Your goddamned little bottle rockets and novelty crap do not deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as REAL fireworks than actually DO STUFF. When I hear the obnoxious sounds of *peeeeeewwwwww* *pop*, I do not go rushing outside so that I don't miss the grand finale of your performance. Because you haven't lit a REAL FIREWORK. Which means you're performing noise pollution and also seemingly dropping the IQ and property value of a 50-yard radius by about 5%.
Actually, there's one category of "fake fireworks" that I will allow as a substitute "real firework" as a token of good faith - SPARKLERS.
While some of you may misconstrue that as my admittance to being a "nansy-pansy" or other disrespectful made-up word, it is not. I am simply recognizing the sparkler as the best commercially-available substitute for a real firework for one main reason:
It looks pretty.
It you took your family to the park to watch a real fireworks show, the real reason you'd be watching it is because it's something to WATCH. The Japanese word for firework - hanabi - translates to "fire flower" because fireworks are as pretty as a flower and also made of fire. While occasionally there is an audible aspect to the fireworks show, like the sizzling crackle of a time-rain firework, it's not what makes the firework great. If you were deaf, you could still enjoy the fireworks show for what it is.
If you were deaf and in my neighborhood, all you would see is a bunch of people rushing around something and then there's some smoke. Occasionally you'd see a roman candle and a little ball of fire or two. Maybe someone went the extra mile and got a pinwheel that sparks around - if you were within 5 meters to see it during the 10 seconds it was spinning. But you'd still be able to enjoy a sparkler - a miniature barely-harmful version of the massive real fireworks.
Oh, and one more thing I'd like to say to you, my neighborhood:
IT'S NOT EVEN 3PM!!!
You know why nobody has fireworks shows in the daytime? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THEM!!! So why in the name of all that is good and holy and chocolate-covered would you waste your purchases at this ungodly hour (unless you are a sun-worshipper, in which case it could be considered a godly hour) when nobody can see your barely-visible fake firework??
It's not even late enough in the afternoon for those of us who enjoy beer to have a buzz moderate enough to find your antics enjoyable!
So please, do the world (and especially the neighborhood) a favor and go the fuck inside and watch something on TV instead of annoying your neighbors and whatever that quip was that I made about lowering IQs and property values. The least you can do is wait until the sun gets the hell out of here (sorry, sun-worshippers) and then there might be a modicum of enjoyment in whatever it is you're pitifully making explode.
Plus, there's the added benefit that maybe it'll be dark enough for you to misjudge something and hurt yourself in the process. Darwin and future generations would applaud it.
Now let me get back to my burgers and beer.
Yours Truly,
Your pissed-off neighbor
P.S.: This is my open invitation of comments in agreeance, as well as an open forum for those of you who think firecrackers are the cat's pajamas to defend your inalienable right to make an ass of yourself by waking up your neighbors who finally had one day to sleep in.
(Thanks, Wikipedia!) Read more!
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Prepregnancy
(This is in homage to George Carlin. This article was originally posted on November 29, 2006 and is being moved to this weblog.)
George Carlin had it right:
"That's another complaint of mine, too much use of this prefix pre.... It's all over the language now. pre this, pre that..... place the turkey in a preheated oven.... it's ridiculous... there are only two states an oven can possibly exist in, heated or unheated.... preheated is a meaningless fucking term... that's like pre-recorded, this program was pre-recorded, well of course it was pre-recorded, when else you gonna record it, afterwards? That’s the whole purpose of recording, to do it beforehand! Otherwise it doesn't really work does it? Pre-existing, pre-planning, pre-screening, you know what I tell these people? PRE-SUCK MY GENITAL SITUATION!"
The newest annoyance in the "Land of Pre-"? PREPREGNANCY.
While surfing through articles, I happened onto this one regarding the notion of prepregnancy and ways that women can take care of their prepregnant selves.
Just like the heated status of an oven, pregnancy is one of those boolean, dichotomous black-and-white situations: You can either be "pregnant" or "not pregnant". You don't get to be prepregnant and develop a whole new concept to scare the crap out of women.
The article itself tried to bring us some valid points, but then wound up going overboard and screwing everything up, like doing a backflip and making a midair bowel movement, completely covering itself in feces. For example, it tried to make a valid point by mentioning that by the time most women find out that they ARE pregnant - they've already done things that affect the fetus and the damage is already done. That's a completely fair point and worry, that by the time the pregnancy is discovered, it may already be too late.
And then it prepares for the backflip of going overboard by creating this new term, "prepregnancy", which apparently stands for every moment in a woman's life between menarche and menopause while the woman is not ACTUALLY pregnant. So now that we've got a loaded and vague term as the backflip, the article lets the feces fly as it gives some guidelines to follow to ensure a healthy prepregnancy, which supposedly means all throughout life while ovulating and not yet pregnant:
- "prepregnancy checkups that include screening for diabetes, H.I.V. and obesity; managing chronic medical conditions; reviewing medications that may harm a fetus; and making sure vaccinations are up to date"
- "they should abstain from smoking, alcohol and drugs"
So, their advice to the "prepregnant" is to not smoke, drink or do drugs - and to try to avoid diabetes, H.I.V. and obesity?
Yes, and it gets worse.
"It’s not like we have an injection we can give someone" to prepare her for pregnancy, said Dr. Hani Atrash, associate director for program development at the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the disease centers. "Some of the interventions, like weight management, need time to happen. You cannot quit smoking in one day."
You mean there's no instant fix for smoking or an instant way to lose weight? HOW CAN THIS BE? By the way, I think Dr. Hani Atrash should change her title to "associate director for common-sense development at the National Center of the Blatantly Obvious".
In an attempt to wipe off the feces that the article decided to spray all over itself, it tries to bring up another valid point that indeed half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned. Teengers especially, but many others are sexually active and do not PLAN to get pregnant. Mostly because they don't WANT to be pregnant. Which means that when a not-100% protection method winds up proving its not-100% quality - the pregnancy is considered to be "unplanned".
The article then stretches out to get ready for another backflip, and takes to the air as it suggests that EVERY young person create a "reproductive life plan". Well, apparently "don't get her pregnant" and "don't get pregnant" aren't acceptable plans now. So what kind of plan did the article have in mind? Well, it goes on and says: "rising obesity rates and the tendency to postpone motherhood mean far more women are overweight when they become pregnant and thus are more likely to have high blood pressure, diabetes or prediabetes, which complicate pregnancy."
Their plan suggestion involves "not being overweight".
So now, women not only have the regular superficial worries about being overweight to worry about, but let's tack on an extra helping of worry with "but what happens if I get pregnant" to go with it. As if the worries of pregnancy, childbirth and parents weren't enough regarding the whole thing - now there's a bonus for being overweight all by itself.
Oh, and for those women who bother to take prepregnancy seriously from a medical standpoint, the article goes on to state: "While doctors have been recommending preconception care for many years, it has never really caught on. Only one in six health care providers said they had provided preconception care to patients, one study found, and most health plans do not cover it. Medicaid, the government health plan for the poor, often only covers women after they are pregnant."
WOMAN: "Hello, Mr. HMO Agent, I'd like to have more medical care and tests and doctor visits plase."
HMO AGENT: "Why are you requesting these additional services?"
WOMAN: "Well, I'm prepregnant. I could be pregnant sometime and I need to make sure to stay healthy while prepregnant."
HMO AGENT: "Wait, so you're not pregnant?"
WOMAN: "No, I'm prepregnant, but pregnancy could happen someday and I need extra medical attention before that happens."
*insert maniacal laughter and rejection from HMO AGENT*
Wow, who didn't see that one coming? Where's that doctor from the National Center of the Blatantly Obvious? Oh, apparently she's on a panel of experts, judging by my last feces-conjuring quote I plan on using from the article. It's regarding the role of men in the whole prepregnancy "reproductive life plan":
"(Men should be wary of exposures to toxins that cause birth defects and should avoid sexually transmitted diseases, experts say.)"
Wait, I'm NOT supposed to expose myself to toxins? I'm supposed to AVOID sexually-transmitted diseases?? WHY DIDN'T THE EXPERTS TELL ME SOONER???
"Waiter! I'd like to cancel my order of Lead Paint Chip and Syphillis Chow Mein! The experts say I shouldn't be eating that!"
Reading this article kind of made my day, giving me some laughs at the idiocy and about the sheer stupidity of humanity as a whole. I also shed many tears while reading this article - some out of afforementioned laughter, but just as many out of weeping for both the English language with another unplanned bastard "pre-" baby as well as the poor excuse for scare-tactics that seems to be targeting sexually-active dumbasses who possibly somehow don't know any better.
It's a sad day when such blatant common-sense can actually pass as a "new study" and "newsworthy findings". Humans must really suck if THESE are the kinds of warnings we need flying around in an attempt to EDUCATE people who somehow DON'T know this stuff already.
What do you think? Read more!
George Carlin had it right:
"That's another complaint of mine, too much use of this prefix pre.... It's all over the language now. pre this, pre that..... place the turkey in a preheated oven.... it's ridiculous... there are only two states an oven can possibly exist in, heated or unheated.... preheated is a meaningless fucking term... that's like pre-recorded, this program was pre-recorded, well of course it was pre-recorded, when else you gonna record it, afterwards? That’s the whole purpose of recording, to do it beforehand! Otherwise it doesn't really work does it? Pre-existing, pre-planning, pre-screening, you know what I tell these people? PRE-SUCK MY GENITAL SITUATION!"
The newest annoyance in the "Land of Pre-"? PREPREGNANCY.
While surfing through articles, I happened onto this one regarding the notion of prepregnancy and ways that women can take care of their prepregnant selves.
Just like the heated status of an oven, pregnancy is one of those boolean, dichotomous black-and-white situations: You can either be "pregnant" or "not pregnant". You don't get to be prepregnant and develop a whole new concept to scare the crap out of women.
The article itself tried to bring us some valid points, but then wound up going overboard and screwing everything up, like doing a backflip and making a midair bowel movement, completely covering itself in feces. For example, it tried to make a valid point by mentioning that by the time most women find out that they ARE pregnant - they've already done things that affect the fetus and the damage is already done. That's a completely fair point and worry, that by the time the pregnancy is discovered, it may already be too late.
And then it prepares for the backflip of going overboard by creating this new term, "prepregnancy", which apparently stands for every moment in a woman's life between menarche and menopause while the woman is not ACTUALLY pregnant. So now that we've got a loaded and vague term as the backflip, the article lets the feces fly as it gives some guidelines to follow to ensure a healthy prepregnancy, which supposedly means all throughout life while ovulating and not yet pregnant:
- "prepregnancy checkups that include screening for diabetes, H.I.V. and obesity; managing chronic medical conditions; reviewing medications that may harm a fetus; and making sure vaccinations are up to date"
- "they should abstain from smoking, alcohol and drugs"
So, their advice to the "prepregnant" is to not smoke, drink or do drugs - and to try to avoid diabetes, H.I.V. and obesity?
Yes, and it gets worse.
"It’s not like we have an injection we can give someone" to prepare her for pregnancy, said Dr. Hani Atrash, associate director for program development at the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the disease centers. "Some of the interventions, like weight management, need time to happen. You cannot quit smoking in one day."
You mean there's no instant fix for smoking or an instant way to lose weight? HOW CAN THIS BE? By the way, I think Dr. Hani Atrash should change her title to "associate director for common-sense development at the National Center of the Blatantly Obvious".
In an attempt to wipe off the feces that the article decided to spray all over itself, it tries to bring up another valid point that indeed half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned. Teengers especially, but many others are sexually active and do not PLAN to get pregnant. Mostly because they don't WANT to be pregnant. Which means that when a not-100% protection method winds up proving its not-100% quality - the pregnancy is considered to be "unplanned".
The article then stretches out to get ready for another backflip, and takes to the air as it suggests that EVERY young person create a "reproductive life plan". Well, apparently "don't get her pregnant" and "don't get pregnant" aren't acceptable plans now. So what kind of plan did the article have in mind? Well, it goes on and says: "rising obesity rates and the tendency to postpone motherhood mean far more women are overweight when they become pregnant and thus are more likely to have high blood pressure, diabetes or prediabetes, which complicate pregnancy."
Their plan suggestion involves "not being overweight".
So now, women not only have the regular superficial worries about being overweight to worry about, but let's tack on an extra helping of worry with "but what happens if I get pregnant" to go with it. As if the worries of pregnancy, childbirth and parents weren't enough regarding the whole thing - now there's a bonus for being overweight all by itself.
Oh, and for those women who bother to take prepregnancy seriously from a medical standpoint, the article goes on to state: "While doctors have been recommending preconception care for many years, it has never really caught on. Only one in six health care providers said they had provided preconception care to patients, one study found, and most health plans do not cover it. Medicaid, the government health plan for the poor, often only covers women after they are pregnant."
WOMAN: "Hello, Mr. HMO Agent, I'd like to have more medical care and tests and doctor visits plase."
HMO AGENT: "Why are you requesting these additional services?"
WOMAN: "Well, I'm prepregnant. I could be pregnant sometime and I need to make sure to stay healthy while prepregnant."
HMO AGENT: "Wait, so you're not pregnant?"
WOMAN: "No, I'm prepregnant, but pregnancy could happen someday and I need extra medical attention before that happens."
*insert maniacal laughter and rejection from HMO AGENT*
Wow, who didn't see that one coming? Where's that doctor from the National Center of the Blatantly Obvious? Oh, apparently she's on a panel of experts, judging by my last feces-conjuring quote I plan on using from the article. It's regarding the role of men in the whole prepregnancy "reproductive life plan":
"(Men should be wary of exposures to toxins that cause birth defects and should avoid sexually transmitted diseases, experts say.)"
Wait, I'm NOT supposed to expose myself to toxins? I'm supposed to AVOID sexually-transmitted diseases?? WHY DIDN'T THE EXPERTS TELL ME SOONER???
"Waiter! I'd like to cancel my order of Lead Paint Chip and Syphillis Chow Mein! The experts say I shouldn't be eating that!"
Reading this article kind of made my day, giving me some laughs at the idiocy and about the sheer stupidity of humanity as a whole. I also shed many tears while reading this article - some out of afforementioned laughter, but just as many out of weeping for both the English language with another unplanned bastard "pre-" baby as well as the poor excuse for scare-tactics that seems to be targeting sexually-active dumbasses who possibly somehow don't know any better.
It's a sad day when such blatant common-sense can actually pass as a "new study" and "newsworthy findings". Humans must really suck if THESE are the kinds of warnings we need flying around in an attempt to EDUCATE people who somehow DON'T know this stuff already.
What do you think? Read more!
Monday, June 30, 2008
PETA vs The Lobster Zone
Strangely enough, this has nothing to do with my previous article about PETA and Lobsters. A new "monster" has appeared before PETA and has once again yielded outrage from the organization. What demonic insult to animalkind is PETA rallying against this time?
Imagine putting money in a carnival claw game, except instead of a chance to win a fuzzy stuffed animal, it was a chance to win a delicious live lobster that would be cooked up for you if you won.
Congratulations, you're now thinking of "The Lobster Zone" - a game that actually exists in many fisheries and sports bars and restaurants and the machines are actually manufactured by a domestic company.
PETA is obviously not pleased. And yet, I think they should at least consider it better than the alternative.
"JD's Lobster Zone machine turns torture and death into a game, pure and simple," says PETA vice president Tracy Reiman. "Incarcerating lobsters in filthy tanks inside a boisterous club, making an abusive game out of their capture, and finally boiling them to death is every bit as reprehensible as tormenting cats, dogs, or any other animal."
PETA didn't even know that this one sports bar's machine was actually one of many machines that have been produced by The Lobster Zone and are available in more than 300 locations nationwide.
First off, I'd like to point out that dogs and cats aren't currently being bred/caught for eating here in the USA, despite my arguments that they might as well be. You can't compare lobsters with cats and dogs because we aren't eating cats and dogs. Also, cats and dogs have brains capable of feeling pain, and science can't even prove or disprove the same thing about lobsters.
Secondly, I have absolutely no clue why PETA is against this. Okay, I have SOME clue (mostly their gratuitous usage of the word "torture"). But when you think about it, isn't this game literally giving the lobsters a second chance?? I mean, they already had one shot at not being boiled alive - and they screwed it up by walking right into a lobster trap. At this point, we'd normally say "game over" and they get put into a tank, and patrons of the restaurant could point at one and say "feed me THAT one" and out it goes into the boiling water and served with a garlic butter sauce.
Now, we've given lobsters a second chance. A patron can point a claw at the lobster and say "feed me THAT one", but unless they're lucky or skilled, the lobster can get away! True, there's no REAL escape since they're trapped in a tank, but isn't giving them a chance to NOT be killed and eaten a step in the right direction? If this expanded, and every time you wanted a hamburger from McDonald's, you had to slip some coin in a machine and try and grab your cow with a backhoe-type claw contraption, wouldn't that mean less cow death?
I don't understand why PETA is so adamantly against this machine - their own logic should at least count this as progress in their favor.
The machine itself was developed with the help of a marine biologist and have been around for more than a decade. A competitor lobster-game-machine company (because The Lobster Zone doesn't hold a monopoly) even boasts that its machines can net $10,000 a year to a company. Of course, the machines themselves cost $15,950 - and I'm guessing it doesn't come with lobsters - but that's still an eventual profit.
The Lobster Zone's owner, Ernie Pappas, said that his games don't generate many complaints. "If a restaurant does 8,000 (customers) a week, we might get one person every other week who complains."
PETA's website, LobsterLib 'surprisingly' argues that since there's no humane way to kill lobsters (even though it's not scientifically agreed upon that they even feel pain) - they shouldn't be eaten. Oh, and also we should all be vegetarians as well. Too bad nobody told that to the lobsters; a lobster's favorite food is lobster.
The best part of this story is that despite PETA's letter and campaigning, the sports bar's owner still has his game up and running and we will probably keep it.
"I just hate like hell for somebody to tell me how to run my business," he said.
Denver restaurant consultant and vegetarian John Imbergamo said he doubts any controversy that PETA generates will turn people away from J.D.'s Bait Shop.
"It's not exactly a place that's sprout- and tofu-friendly," he said.
If anything, the kind of people who would be curious about this game might hear the publicity and go there, Imbergamo said.
Do you hear that, PETA? Humans are not yours to push around, and when you start spewing your propaganda and telling business owners what they should do, you make more enemies than friends and they will push even harder just to spite you.
You could have at least tried to claim a small victory in that lobsters could defend themselves from being boiled alive and eaten by escaping the crane - but instead you chose to stumble over your own two feet. Not only do you look like idiots (bigger ones than you were before this incident), you're rooted the owner further into disobeying your orders and probably given him and his bar and the game itself more publicity.
And after all, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Frankly, there's an even better argument against PETA's chastizing of these games. True, if a bar patron played and won, they could eat the lobster. But I'm willing to bet that if a PETA member played and won, they'd let the PETA member take the lobster with them and the lobster could be saved! PETA - they just gave you a chance to save the lobsters, on TOP of a chance for the lobsters to save themselves! Go grab your quarters and get to rescuin'!
(The Denver Post article)
(PETA's tirade and letter to the bar owner)
Read more!
Imagine putting money in a carnival claw game, except instead of a chance to win a fuzzy stuffed animal, it was a chance to win a delicious live lobster that would be cooked up for you if you won.
Congratulations, you're now thinking of "The Lobster Zone" - a game that actually exists in many fisheries and sports bars and restaurants and the machines are actually manufactured by a domestic company.
PETA is obviously not pleased. And yet, I think they should at least consider it better than the alternative.
"JD's Lobster Zone machine turns torture and death into a game, pure and simple," says PETA vice president Tracy Reiman. "Incarcerating lobsters in filthy tanks inside a boisterous club, making an abusive game out of their capture, and finally boiling them to death is every bit as reprehensible as tormenting cats, dogs, or any other animal."
PETA didn't even know that this one sports bar's machine was actually one of many machines that have been produced by The Lobster Zone and are available in more than 300 locations nationwide.
First off, I'd like to point out that dogs and cats aren't currently being bred/caught for eating here in the USA, despite my arguments that they might as well be. You can't compare lobsters with cats and dogs because we aren't eating cats and dogs. Also, cats and dogs have brains capable of feeling pain, and science can't even prove or disprove the same thing about lobsters.
Secondly, I have absolutely no clue why PETA is against this. Okay, I have SOME clue (mostly their gratuitous usage of the word "torture"). But when you think about it, isn't this game literally giving the lobsters a second chance?? I mean, they already had one shot at not being boiled alive - and they screwed it up by walking right into a lobster trap. At this point, we'd normally say "game over" and they get put into a tank, and patrons of the restaurant could point at one and say "feed me THAT one" and out it goes into the boiling water and served with a garlic butter sauce.
Now, we've given lobsters a second chance. A patron can point a claw at the lobster and say "feed me THAT one", but unless they're lucky or skilled, the lobster can get away! True, there's no REAL escape since they're trapped in a tank, but isn't giving them a chance to NOT be killed and eaten a step in the right direction? If this expanded, and every time you wanted a hamburger from McDonald's, you had to slip some coin in a machine and try and grab your cow with a backhoe-type claw contraption, wouldn't that mean less cow death?
I don't understand why PETA is so adamantly against this machine - their own logic should at least count this as progress in their favor.
The machine itself was developed with the help of a marine biologist and have been around for more than a decade. A competitor lobster-game-machine company (because The Lobster Zone doesn't hold a monopoly) even boasts that its machines can net $10,000 a year to a company. Of course, the machines themselves cost $15,950 - and I'm guessing it doesn't come with lobsters - but that's still an eventual profit.
The Lobster Zone's owner, Ernie Pappas, said that his games don't generate many complaints. "If a restaurant does 8,000 (customers) a week, we might get one person every other week who complains."
PETA's website, LobsterLib 'surprisingly' argues that since there's no humane way to kill lobsters (even though it's not scientifically agreed upon that they even feel pain) - they shouldn't be eaten. Oh, and also we should all be vegetarians as well. Too bad nobody told that to the lobsters; a lobster's favorite food is lobster.
The best part of this story is that despite PETA's letter and campaigning, the sports bar's owner still has his game up and running and we will probably keep it.
"I just hate like hell for somebody to tell me how to run my business," he said.
Denver restaurant consultant and vegetarian John Imbergamo said he doubts any controversy that PETA generates will turn people away from J.D.'s Bait Shop.
"It's not exactly a place that's sprout- and tofu-friendly," he said.
If anything, the kind of people who would be curious about this game might hear the publicity and go there, Imbergamo said.
Do you hear that, PETA? Humans are not yours to push around, and when you start spewing your propaganda and telling business owners what they should do, you make more enemies than friends and they will push even harder just to spite you.
You could have at least tried to claim a small victory in that lobsters could defend themselves from being boiled alive and eaten by escaping the crane - but instead you chose to stumble over your own two feet. Not only do you look like idiots (bigger ones than you were before this incident), you're rooted the owner further into disobeying your orders and probably given him and his bar and the game itself more publicity.
And after all, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Frankly, there's an even better argument against PETA's chastizing of these games. True, if a bar patron played and won, they could eat the lobster. But I'm willing to bet that if a PETA member played and won, they'd let the PETA member take the lobster with them and the lobster could be saved! PETA - they just gave you a chance to save the lobsters, on TOP of a chance for the lobsters to save themselves! Go grab your quarters and get to rescuin'!
(The Denver Post article)
(PETA's tirade and letter to the bar owner)
Read more!
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Horrible Games
Summer is (sadly) finally here, resulting in widespread usage of smaller sleeves, shorter pants, and a general increase in skin-flesh being brought to the general public's attention. As a result, I've actually wound up listening to my iPod less than usual in order to maintain the voice-in-my-head narration at full uninterrupted volume.
What is the narration apparently going on inside my head?
Horrible games.
For example, at times, the voice in my head is the narration of a type of game show called "The Pregnancy Game". Combining the first paragraph of this sentence with the fact that I am male - that should already worry you about the horrible-ness factor of this game.
Basically, it's making a guess about every bulging female stomach (and living in Chicago, there's more than enough to keep this game going at all times) and guessing which category the bulges fit into:
- Doesn't look pregnant and probably isn't (this is the easiest, due to the jiggliness of smaller guts that scream "cellulose" and not "fetus")
- Looks pregnant but probably isn't (difficult category, requires a lot of judgement of stomach size related to other body parts and focusing on nuances and gestures to suggest that this mound of jutting flesh is not a temporary setback for the woman)
- Looks pregnant and probably is (slightly easier than the last one, gestures give it away and extreme body-part size differences are key elements to this category)
- Doesn't look pregnant but probably is (virtually impossible to identify, unless I had x-ray vision - in which case this category would become "doesn't look pregnant but certainly was and sorry about what my x-ray vision did")
The rules to the game are very simple. Upon sight of a potential victim, you have 5 seconds to make a guess of which category she falls in. Then you have to keep track of her for at least 30 more seconds. If at any time, you notice things that make you second-guess your category choice for even a second, no points for the round. If your guess seems true, score one point.
You lose all your points if you get confronted by any victim (or any male who is with her).
My personal high score is like 15 during one lunch break.
Try to beat it - if you dare.
Just try not to get arrested . . . or beaten up. Read more!
What is the narration apparently going on inside my head?
Horrible games.
For example, at times, the voice in my head is the narration of a type of game show called "The Pregnancy Game". Combining the first paragraph of this sentence with the fact that I am male - that should already worry you about the horrible-ness factor of this game.
Basically, it's making a guess about every bulging female stomach (and living in Chicago, there's more than enough to keep this game going at all times) and guessing which category the bulges fit into:
- Doesn't look pregnant and probably isn't (this is the easiest, due to the jiggliness of smaller guts that scream "cellulose" and not "fetus")
- Looks pregnant but probably isn't (difficult category, requires a lot of judgement of stomach size related to other body parts and focusing on nuances and gestures to suggest that this mound of jutting flesh is not a temporary setback for the woman)
- Looks pregnant and probably is (slightly easier than the last one, gestures give it away and extreme body-part size differences are key elements to this category)
- Doesn't look pregnant but probably is (virtually impossible to identify, unless I had x-ray vision - in which case this category would become "doesn't look pregnant but certainly was and sorry about what my x-ray vision did")
The rules to the game are very simple. Upon sight of a potential victim, you have 5 seconds to make a guess of which category she falls in. Then you have to keep track of her for at least 30 more seconds. If at any time, you notice things that make you second-guess your category choice for even a second, no points for the round. If your guess seems true, score one point.
You lose all your points if you get confronted by any victim (or any male who is with her).
My personal high score is like 15 during one lunch break.
Try to beat it - if you dare.
Just try not to get arrested . . . or beaten up. Read more!
Monday, June 23, 2008
George Carlin Has Died
There are no words to describe this grief, even though he's constantly suggested at least seven of them...
http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/06/62841/index.html
ET breaks the news that comedian George Carlin has died from heart failure. The man who made famous the "seven words you can never say on television" passed away at 5:55 p.m. Sunday at Saint John's Hospital in Santa Monica, his longtime publicist said. He was 71.
Carlin, who has had several heart attacks and a history of cardiac issues, went into the hospital this afternoon after complaining of heart problems.
Carlin has more than 20 comedy albums, 14 HBO specials, numerous TV and movie roles, and three best-selling books to his credit. Last year, he celebrated his 50th year in show business, and he had just finished his last HBO special in March, "It's Bad for Ya."
"Our Father who art in heaven, and to the republic for which it stands. Thy kingdom come, one nation indivisible as it is in heaven. Give us this day as we forgive those who so proudly we hail. Crown thy good into temptation, but deliver us from the twilight. Amen."
"Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck."
We'll miss you, George. Read more!
http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/06/62841/index.html
ET breaks the news that comedian George Carlin has died from heart failure. The man who made famous the "seven words you can never say on television" passed away at 5:55 p.m. Sunday at Saint John's Hospital in Santa Monica, his longtime publicist said. He was 71.
Carlin, who has had several heart attacks and a history of cardiac issues, went into the hospital this afternoon after complaining of heart problems.
Carlin has more than 20 comedy albums, 14 HBO specials, numerous TV and movie roles, and three best-selling books to his credit. Last year, he celebrated his 50th year in show business, and he had just finished his last HBO special in March, "It's Bad for Ya."
"Our Father who art in heaven, and to the republic for which it stands. Thy kingdom come, one nation indivisible as it is in heaven. Give us this day as we forgive those who so proudly we hail. Crown thy good into temptation, but deliver us from the twilight. Amen."
"Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck."
We'll miss you, George. Read more!
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
My Favorite Online Sweepstakes
Of course, I need a separate post just to detail some of the better sweepstakes out there.
Namely, the sweepstakes that let you earn extra entries by mentioning their sweepstakes in your blog. They usually have the contest on THEIR blog, so it's like a nice kind of social networking?
Anyway, the first to make the list is Table for Five and their sweepstakes: Win a box of Personalized Stationery from Paperlicious.
(This sweepstakes ends June 19th, 2008.)
Keep this page bookmarked, as I intend to promote several more sweepstakes, the blogs they are on, my chances of winning increasing, and maybe get a few more readers in the process! Read more!
Namely, the sweepstakes that let you earn extra entries by mentioning their sweepstakes in your blog. They usually have the contest on THEIR blog, so it's like a nice kind of social networking?
Anyway, the first to make the list is Table for Five and their sweepstakes: Win a box of Personalized Stationery from Paperlicious.
(This sweepstakes ends June 19th, 2008.)
Keep this page bookmarked, as I intend to promote several more sweepstakes, the blogs they are on, my chances of winning increasing, and maybe get a few more readers in the process! Read more!
Butts and the Homeless
Apparently today's RedEye decided to spend an entire page of print regarding the problem of too many cigarette butts littering the beaches and streets of Chicago. Because with gas prices and a war and failing public transportation - it's the perfect time to rub more salt into the wounds of smokers who have been chastized out of every building and shunned a distance of 15 feet from building entrances.
They apparently followed around some environmental organization member and watched her pick up cigarette butts on the North Avenue Beach and she collected "137 butts in a few minutes."
The city is now going to start issuing $500 fines this summer to "anyone caught puffing or tossing a cigarette scrap within 15 feet of a beach."
So on one page, there's an article about this woman picking up butts and complaining about smokers - next to that is a blurb about how deadly and toxic and non-biodegradable the components of cigarette filters are - and under it all is a statistic-laden indictment of how few butts make it to trash cans and how dirty the city really is. There's also the burning question calling for feedback:
"Are cigarette butts blighting the beach, or should non-smokers lighten up?"
Well, here's my reply I plan on sending:
If the city drives all the smokers from indoors (where there are lots of garbage cans) to the outdoors (where garbage cans are scarce), the inevitable fact is that the outdoors becomes littered with cigarette butts. Smokers may be to blame for their garbage, but more to blame are the people who drove them away from the bounty of indoor trash bins.
As for the solution, local businesses should be able to enroll in a city program where they can issue plastic bags to the homeless and pay them $5 for collecting a full bag with cigarette butts. The homeless do honest work and get paid (rather than harrassing passers-by for money), the city gets cleaner and maybe the businesses get some reward for participating in the program. Win-win-win.
--Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
Do you think it's a crazy idea? I know, it's different from my usual method of dealing with the homeless (read: ignoring them), but anything that gets them off my case can't be a bad thing.
Update: They sent back an e-mail saying:
Thanks again Aaron.
Best,
RedEye staff
Which I think is their way of saying "we appreciate the response, but we won't be printing it." Oh well, at least that's what I have a blog for! Read more!
They apparently followed around some environmental organization member and watched her pick up cigarette butts on the North Avenue Beach and she collected "137 butts in a few minutes."
The city is now going to start issuing $500 fines this summer to "anyone caught puffing or tossing a cigarette scrap within 15 feet of a beach."
So on one page, there's an article about this woman picking up butts and complaining about smokers - next to that is a blurb about how deadly and toxic and non-biodegradable the components of cigarette filters are - and under it all is a statistic-laden indictment of how few butts make it to trash cans and how dirty the city really is. There's also the burning question calling for feedback:
"Are cigarette butts blighting the beach, or should non-smokers lighten up?"
Well, here's my reply I plan on sending:
If the city drives all the smokers from indoors (where there are lots of garbage cans) to the outdoors (where garbage cans are scarce), the inevitable fact is that the outdoors becomes littered with cigarette butts. Smokers may be to blame for their garbage, but more to blame are the people who drove them away from the bounty of indoor trash bins.
As for the solution, local businesses should be able to enroll in a city program where they can issue plastic bags to the homeless and pay them $5 for collecting a full bag with cigarette butts. The homeless do honest work and get paid (rather than harrassing passers-by for money), the city gets cleaner and maybe the businesses get some reward for participating in the program. Win-win-win.
--Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
Do you think it's a crazy idea? I know, it's different from my usual method of dealing with the homeless (read: ignoring them), but anything that gets them off my case can't be a bad thing.
Update: They sent back an e-mail saying:
Thanks again Aaron.
Best,
RedEye staff
Which I think is their way of saying "we appreciate the response, but we won't be printing it." Oh well, at least that's what I have a blog for! Read more!
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Idiotic Product: Centerpiece Gourmet
So I'm starting up the ‘Idiotic Product’ catchphrase on this new blog. I’m also starting the use of the ‘Buyer Beware’ tag so I can group together all of my collective "don't buy this product because if you do you're either an idiot or have evolved so far ahead of mankind that you can actually find a GOOD reason to purchase it and please let me know if this is the case" articles.
Anyway, my choice for today is the Centerpiece Gourmet, a product that turns foods into flowery centerpieces that can be eaten.
Quite the Idiotic Product!
Okay, before we start this - I'll admit that the concept seems like a good one. Straight out of an episode of Martha Stewart, it's a presentation of food that's appealing to the eyes as well. However, Martha has the brainpower to know that you can get the same result from just properly making food and presenting it on a platter where people will want to eat from it - not done with the methods used to make these edible monstrocities that will never look anything like they do on the box.
Because the pictures on the box aren't made with real food!
Just like the picture menu at a fast-food joint, that's not real food they're presenting to you. There's an entire industry out there responsible for making those photographical edibles that wind up on a menu. That's why the lettuce looks so green and crisp, the tomatoes ripe and juicy, and the meat so thick and bun so fresh and springy. They're NOT FOOD, and they also weren't handled by the 17-year-old fry cook or Javier at the grill, haphazardly getting your mediocre food to you at a better-than-mediocre pace. Following that path of logic, even if the food on the box were real, you're not Martha Stewart. You're (more than likely) the culinary equivalent of those fast-food employees, especially if you were dumb enough to buy the Centerpiece Gourmet. If you weren’t, you wouldn’t need a kit in order to make these things, right?
Now let's investigate how you make these "edible masterpieces".
According to the advertisement, the kit basically comes with things a competent chef might already have in the kitchen, like several knives, and a few rarer items that require a few skill levels in cooking, like a melon baller. Oh, and a wicker basket. Also, you get a bunch of special cookie-cutters. Not "special" in the sense that they do anything more than a normal cookie cutter, namely “cut things”, but in the sense that they're flower-shaped and you might not have those around, unless you've tried making these centerpieces yourself without the kit and you got so frustrated you shelled out the $25 and just got the kit as well.
Oh, and you get 100 wooden skewers.
So the theory behind it is that you take foods, use the cookie cutters to make flowery things and leaves and whatnot, then run them on skewers and arrange them in the wicker basket until it looks pretty and your guests can enjoy AND eat!
Well, let's start with the fact that while you may have bought this under the guide of "anyone can make these fantabulous things", you've got to have enough skill with a knife to slice fruits, vegetables and meats (whatever foods you're Centerpiece Gourmet-ing) thin enough to make the cookie-cutter shapes appear like they do on the box. I'm a beginner chef, so I am admittedly not too awesome with the thin-slicing, especially of hard meats and veggies. Knife accidents are very commonplace in the kitchen. So let's say that you're skilled enough to slice into that apple and cookie-cut a nice flower chunk from it, and arrange it on the skewer. Unless that kit’s instructions have bothered to mention to let the slice soak in lemon juice or lime juice - you've got a lovely browning flower that's growing more icky-looking by the minute. Cutting most fruit triggers an enzyme that, when exposed to air, turns the flesh that icky brown color, and an acid bath shuts down that enzymatic process.
Yes, it will get browner by the MINUTE. Unless you're at ninja-level with this system, the centerpieces they've got on the advertisement look like they took at LEAST an hour to accomplish, especially if you want it to look presentable. (Unless you’re combining the Japanese art of flower-arranging with edible centerpiece creation, you’ll likely need more than one solitary food-flower.) That's an hour that your food is not only out of the refrigerator, but being cut and perforated, skewered, and left to lazy about in open air. And with juicier fruits like watermelon and cantaloupe (which it looks like they used, if they had been real food), that's precious juice dripping out, not only out of the fruit and making them drier, but dripping onto the OTHER foods... Two of the worst pitfalls in the cooking business are “the danger zone” (temperatures where bacteria love to breed) and “cross-contamination” (foods getting into other foods).
Okay, so let's imagine that you're at ninja level and managed to prepare food that's NOT been left out in the open for more than an hour and have NOT been dripping or contaminating the other skewered foods. You've miraculously taken an assortment of fruits, veggies, meats and cheeses and actually managed to complete the unlikely masterpiece from the kit as depicted in pictures on the box/advertisements.
They're just going to eat it!
That's right. After all that work – there’s only two ways this goes down. They EAT the food and your masterpiece is ruined - or they DON'T eat the food because it "looks too good to eat" or "can't even tell it's not flowers" (because their noses have been lopped off and can't smell open-air cheese/meat) and all that food goes to WASTE.
And now that I've pretty much warned you of most of the flaws in the product itself, let me enlighten you on the advertisement's blatant disrespect for your intelligence.
You know how on some infomercials, they'll give you a bonus "extra tube" or "other extra device" or even an “entire extra set/system” and claim its value that you're getting FREE? Well on THIS product, they do claim you're getting something extra for free. The item you're getting extra is a "Professional Leaf Design Tool". That's right, if it weren't for their generous extra gift, your Centerpiece Gourmet with its skewers and cookie cutters would NOT have come with the LEAF-SHAPED cookie cutter! Have fun making flowery centerpieces of food without a leaf shape! Thank goodness we're giving you this bonus cookie cutter for FREE when you order our product! And be thankful we're giving it to you for free, because a leaf-shaped cookie cutter is apparently AN OVER $50 VALUE! It's just like the ones the PROFESSIONALS use!
In conclusion, don't be an idiot who bought this IDIOTIC PRODUCT.
Stick to cubes of food with toothpicks and a real centerpiece that nobody will eat. Your guests will thank you.
(Or be an idiot and buy this IDIOTIC PRODUCT for $24.99)
This post is also available at ThisIsBy.Us Read more!
Anyway, my choice for today is the Centerpiece Gourmet, a product that turns foods into flowery centerpieces that can be eaten.
Quite the Idiotic Product!
Okay, before we start this - I'll admit that the concept seems like a good one. Straight out of an episode of Martha Stewart, it's a presentation of food that's appealing to the eyes as well. However, Martha has the brainpower to know that you can get the same result from just properly making food and presenting it on a platter where people will want to eat from it - not done with the methods used to make these edible monstrocities that will never look anything like they do on the box.
Because the pictures on the box aren't made with real food!
Just like the picture menu at a fast-food joint, that's not real food they're presenting to you. There's an entire industry out there responsible for making those photographical edibles that wind up on a menu. That's why the lettuce looks so green and crisp, the tomatoes ripe and juicy, and the meat so thick and bun so fresh and springy. They're NOT FOOD, and they also weren't handled by the 17-year-old fry cook or Javier at the grill, haphazardly getting your mediocre food to you at a better-than-mediocre pace. Following that path of logic, even if the food on the box were real, you're not Martha Stewart. You're (more than likely) the culinary equivalent of those fast-food employees, especially if you were dumb enough to buy the Centerpiece Gourmet. If you weren’t, you wouldn’t need a kit in order to make these things, right?
Now let's investigate how you make these "edible masterpieces".
According to the advertisement, the kit basically comes with things a competent chef might already have in the kitchen, like several knives, and a few rarer items that require a few skill levels in cooking, like a melon baller. Oh, and a wicker basket. Also, you get a bunch of special cookie-cutters. Not "special" in the sense that they do anything more than a normal cookie cutter, namely “cut things”, but in the sense that they're flower-shaped and you might not have those around, unless you've tried making these centerpieces yourself without the kit and you got so frustrated you shelled out the $25 and just got the kit as well.
Oh, and you get 100 wooden skewers.
So the theory behind it is that you take foods, use the cookie cutters to make flowery things and leaves and whatnot, then run them on skewers and arrange them in the wicker basket until it looks pretty and your guests can enjoy AND eat!
Well, let's start with the fact that while you may have bought this under the guide of "anyone can make these fantabulous things", you've got to have enough skill with a knife to slice fruits, vegetables and meats (whatever foods you're Centerpiece Gourmet-ing) thin enough to make the cookie-cutter shapes appear like they do on the box. I'm a beginner chef, so I am admittedly not too awesome with the thin-slicing, especially of hard meats and veggies. Knife accidents are very commonplace in the kitchen. So let's say that you're skilled enough to slice into that apple and cookie-cut a nice flower chunk from it, and arrange it on the skewer. Unless that kit’s instructions have bothered to mention to let the slice soak in lemon juice or lime juice - you've got a lovely browning flower that's growing more icky-looking by the minute. Cutting most fruit triggers an enzyme that, when exposed to air, turns the flesh that icky brown color, and an acid bath shuts down that enzymatic process.
Yes, it will get browner by the MINUTE. Unless you're at ninja-level with this system, the centerpieces they've got on the advertisement look like they took at LEAST an hour to accomplish, especially if you want it to look presentable. (Unless you’re combining the Japanese art of flower-arranging with edible centerpiece creation, you’ll likely need more than one solitary food-flower.) That's an hour that your food is not only out of the refrigerator, but being cut and perforated, skewered, and left to lazy about in open air. And with juicier fruits like watermelon and cantaloupe (which it looks like they used, if they had been real food), that's precious juice dripping out, not only out of the fruit and making them drier, but dripping onto the OTHER foods... Two of the worst pitfalls in the cooking business are “the danger zone” (temperatures where bacteria love to breed) and “cross-contamination” (foods getting into other foods).
Okay, so let's imagine that you're at ninja level and managed to prepare food that's NOT been left out in the open for more than an hour and have NOT been dripping or contaminating the other skewered foods. You've miraculously taken an assortment of fruits, veggies, meats and cheeses and actually managed to complete the unlikely masterpiece from the kit as depicted in pictures on the box/advertisements.
They're just going to eat it!
That's right. After all that work – there’s only two ways this goes down. They EAT the food and your masterpiece is ruined - or they DON'T eat the food because it "looks too good to eat" or "can't even tell it's not flowers" (because their noses have been lopped off and can't smell open-air cheese/meat) and all that food goes to WASTE.
And now that I've pretty much warned you of most of the flaws in the product itself, let me enlighten you on the advertisement's blatant disrespect for your intelligence.
You know how on some infomercials, they'll give you a bonus "extra tube" or "other extra device" or even an “entire extra set/system” and claim its value that you're getting FREE? Well on THIS product, they do claim you're getting something extra for free. The item you're getting extra is a "Professional Leaf Design Tool". That's right, if it weren't for their generous extra gift, your Centerpiece Gourmet with its skewers and cookie cutters would NOT have come with the LEAF-SHAPED cookie cutter! Have fun making flowery centerpieces of food without a leaf shape! Thank goodness we're giving you this bonus cookie cutter for FREE when you order our product! And be thankful we're giving it to you for free, because a leaf-shaped cookie cutter is apparently AN OVER $50 VALUE! It's just like the ones the PROFESSIONALS use!
In conclusion, don't be an idiot who bought this IDIOTIC PRODUCT.
Stick to cubes of food with toothpicks and a real centerpiece that nobody will eat. Your guests will thank you.
(Or be an idiot and buy this IDIOTIC PRODUCT for $24.99)
This post is also available at ThisIsBy.Us Read more!
Monday, June 09, 2008
School Allergies
When it comes to allergies, it seems that very few people are unaffected. We all at the very least know SOMEONE with an allergy if we ourselves fall into the rare category of "no known allergies" (since it's impossible to be 100% sure). More often than not, these victims of allergies are children - with the list of allergens growing larger and larger as more and more children are having reactions.
But where do we draw the line? Who is supposed to have the freedoms?
I speak, of course, regarding the widespread "allergy bans" going on in schools today. With the number of children needing to carry epinephrine just in case of a reaction during the school day, at what point does the matter become one for the schools themselves or even the government to make a ruling to force the schools to take action?
Frankly, I'm asking you.
This isn't one of my usual musings followed by my opinion that certainly leads in one direction and mocks anyone going the other direction. At best, I can attempt to mock both directions, since I don't know which side of the fence I'm leaning.
On the one hand, there are now millions of children who are deathly allergic to common items. In fact, eight foods account for 90% of all allergic reactions — peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, soy and wheat. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition says food allergies lead to 150 deaths, 30,000 emergency room visits and 2,000 hospitalizations each year.
One can find it easy to argue in favor of "children who could die" - we as a society apparently feel the worst when a child dies, prefering to take the optimistic route of the endless potential for good that has been shattered by ending that life too soon rather than a pessimistic approach of "that baby could have grown up to be a mass-murderer, so nice work there, tree nuts." We don't like the imagery of sending a child into a potential death zone, full of products that could have been made in a factory that may contain peanut dust, hoping each day that it isn't her last.
But at what point do we bother to stand up for the kids who enjoy products made in peanut-dust-offender factories?
On that other hand, researchers are suggesting that the cause of the dramatic increase in childhood allergies is that parents are simply overprotecting their precious snowflakes, leading their immune system to become the equivelant of an ignorant hillbilly bigot (I'm not saying that all hillbillies are bigots or ignorant, or that all bigots are hillbillies, but that these immune systems are all three), too dumb to discern friendly peanut bits from infectious bacteria and takes a sawed-off shotgun to the whole danged lot of 'em and requires a lot of medication to get them to calm the hell down.
That in mind, when does the bad parenting spread from the above lack of building their child's immune system to demanding that other children and parents bend to their whims to protect their precious snowflake from the evil peanut dust? When does a school have the right to yield to their ear-splitting wails and deprive the other precious snowflakes their right to eat a PB&J? We already mess with the school lunch system enough, but now we have to tack on regulations about what outside food is brought in via a child's homemade lunch? The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act may do just that - regulating all food contents allowed to be present inside the school.
Frankly, just upon writing what I thought would be an unbiased look at both sides of the argument, it seems I've stumbled upon the side I lean towards.
I don't think the government should interfere. I don't think the schools should have to regulate this. I think precious snowflakes belong in "precious snowflake schools" that have volunteered to mandate these things, rather than being forced to.
First of all, we should be paying a little more attention to students bringing GUNS, KNIVES, WEAPONS, DRUGS and other illegal things to school first and foremost. I mean the REAL dangerous stuff. I knew a kid in my high school class who got suspended for having a HAMMER in his LOCKER. Kid you not. I also know a kid in my high school class who got expelled for having alcohol in his prom limo (and being drunk), one who got suspended for smoking pot within 30 yards of the school, and two who were expelled for making a fake bomb threat (though in their defense, it got us out of attending that stupid rally, even if it did get moved to later date). These are the things our school officials should be caring about rather than the potential threat of a Reese's peanut butter cup.
I guess this is where I descend into my usual hate-filled tirades, or at least making statements that offend people.
I'm hoping that the writer of this article was intending to rally sympathy for this child when the following was written:
Danielle is terrified to attend school on the days following big candy holidays like Halloween and Easter because students bring peanut butter cups and other goodies with them.
Her nut allergy is so severe that she can go into shock if a child across a table or a school bus aisle eats peanut butter candy. She takes four allergy medications every morning and carries two pens of self-injectable epinephrine, a form of adrenaline, everywhere she goes in case she starts to have a reaction.
"Having peanuts in my face is like having a loaded gun held to your head," said Danielle, who estimates that during the past school year she suffered 20 reactions that landed her in the emergency room or a clinic for breathing treatments.
Call me an asshole if you will (go ahead, it wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last), but this just sounds to me like someone who wasn't meant to live with the rest of us. Like Mother Nature (or Darwin) is trying to finish the job that these overprotective parents neglected to start. The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't get to grow up and breed. The kid who can't look at a peanut without exploding probably shouldn't, either. I don't want to jump straight to "put this child out of her misery" or "let's kill all these allergy kids" - but when you're faced with that kind of story, doesn't that pop into your mind for like AT LEAST A SECOND?
I'm willing to jump straight to "give them their own schools", though. Rather than detract from everyone ELSE'S learning with the constant jabbing of epi-pens and time delays over reminders against tree nuts or searching lunches for deadly peanut dust - assign one school (or have one volunteer) to be peanut-free. Bam, move those kids there. You can't argue that it's financially-mean to these parents to have to send their kid to a farther-away school or something, because I'm sure that the cost of 20 E.R. visits during one school year is way more costly.
The real conclusion is that this whole situation is one more reason why I don't want to have kids right now. And why I probably don't like YOUR kids. And why I'm glad my parents let me eat things that fell on the floor or were JUST past their expiration dates.
What do you think? Should schools get to decide? Should the government? Should they just be sent to their own allergy-free schools? Should they just be put out of their misery because almost dying 20 times hasn't gotten the message across yet?
(The article that sparked this rant) Read more!
But where do we draw the line? Who is supposed to have the freedoms?
I speak, of course, regarding the widespread "allergy bans" going on in schools today. With the number of children needing to carry epinephrine just in case of a reaction during the school day, at what point does the matter become one for the schools themselves or even the government to make a ruling to force the schools to take action?
Frankly, I'm asking you.
This isn't one of my usual musings followed by my opinion that certainly leads in one direction and mocks anyone going the other direction. At best, I can attempt to mock both directions, since I don't know which side of the fence I'm leaning.
On the one hand, there are now millions of children who are deathly allergic to common items. In fact, eight foods account for 90% of all allergic reactions — peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, soy and wheat. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition says food allergies lead to 150 deaths, 30,000 emergency room visits and 2,000 hospitalizations each year.
One can find it easy to argue in favor of "children who could die" - we as a society apparently feel the worst when a child dies, prefering to take the optimistic route of the endless potential for good that has been shattered by ending that life too soon rather than a pessimistic approach of "that baby could have grown up to be a mass-murderer, so nice work there, tree nuts." We don't like the imagery of sending a child into a potential death zone, full of products that could have been made in a factory that may contain peanut dust, hoping each day that it isn't her last.
But at what point do we bother to stand up for the kids who enjoy products made in peanut-dust-offender factories?
On that other hand, researchers are suggesting that the cause of the dramatic increase in childhood allergies is that parents are simply overprotecting their precious snowflakes, leading their immune system to become the equivelant of an ignorant hillbilly bigot (I'm not saying that all hillbillies are bigots or ignorant, or that all bigots are hillbillies, but that these immune systems are all three), too dumb to discern friendly peanut bits from infectious bacteria and takes a sawed-off shotgun to the whole danged lot of 'em and requires a lot of medication to get them to calm the hell down.
That in mind, when does the bad parenting spread from the above lack of building their child's immune system to demanding that other children and parents bend to their whims to protect their precious snowflake from the evil peanut dust? When does a school have the right to yield to their ear-splitting wails and deprive the other precious snowflakes their right to eat a PB&J? We already mess with the school lunch system enough, but now we have to tack on regulations about what outside food is brought in via a child's homemade lunch? The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act may do just that - regulating all food contents allowed to be present inside the school.
Frankly, just upon writing what I thought would be an unbiased look at both sides of the argument, it seems I've stumbled upon the side I lean towards.
I don't think the government should interfere. I don't think the schools should have to regulate this. I think precious snowflakes belong in "precious snowflake schools" that have volunteered to mandate these things, rather than being forced to.
First of all, we should be paying a little more attention to students bringing GUNS, KNIVES, WEAPONS, DRUGS and other illegal things to school first and foremost. I mean the REAL dangerous stuff. I knew a kid in my high school class who got suspended for having a HAMMER in his LOCKER. Kid you not. I also know a kid in my high school class who got expelled for having alcohol in his prom limo (and being drunk), one who got suspended for smoking pot within 30 yards of the school, and two who were expelled for making a fake bomb threat (though in their defense, it got us out of attending that stupid rally, even if it did get moved to later date). These are the things our school officials should be caring about rather than the potential threat of a Reese's peanut butter cup.
I guess this is where I descend into my usual hate-filled tirades, or at least making statements that offend people.
I'm hoping that the writer of this article was intending to rally sympathy for this child when the following was written:
Danielle is terrified to attend school on the days following big candy holidays like Halloween and Easter because students bring peanut butter cups and other goodies with them.
Her nut allergy is so severe that she can go into shock if a child across a table or a school bus aisle eats peanut butter candy. She takes four allergy medications every morning and carries two pens of self-injectable epinephrine, a form of adrenaline, everywhere she goes in case she starts to have a reaction.
"Having peanuts in my face is like having a loaded gun held to your head," said Danielle, who estimates that during the past school year she suffered 20 reactions that landed her in the emergency room or a clinic for breathing treatments.
Call me an asshole if you will (go ahead, it wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last), but this just sounds to me like someone who wasn't meant to live with the rest of us. Like Mother Nature (or Darwin) is trying to finish the job that these overprotective parents neglected to start. The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't get to grow up and breed. The kid who can't look at a peanut without exploding probably shouldn't, either. I don't want to jump straight to "put this child out of her misery" or "let's kill all these allergy kids" - but when you're faced with that kind of story, doesn't that pop into your mind for like AT LEAST A SECOND?
I'm willing to jump straight to "give them their own schools", though. Rather than detract from everyone ELSE'S learning with the constant jabbing of epi-pens and time delays over reminders against tree nuts or searching lunches for deadly peanut dust - assign one school (or have one volunteer) to be peanut-free. Bam, move those kids there. You can't argue that it's financially-mean to these parents to have to send their kid to a farther-away school or something, because I'm sure that the cost of 20 E.R. visits during one school year is way more costly.
The real conclusion is that this whole situation is one more reason why I don't want to have kids right now. And why I probably don't like YOUR kids. And why I'm glad my parents let me eat things that fell on the floor or were JUST past their expiration dates.
What do you think? Should schools get to decide? Should the government? Should they just be sent to their own allergy-free schools? Should they just be put out of their misery because almost dying 20 times hasn't gotten the message across yet?
(The article that sparked this rant) Read more!
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
PETA and Lobsters
PETA is just one step closer to complete insanity, judging by this latest little publicity stunt that will never take off.
The situation starts off with Skowhegan, Maine - a county that is currently building a new jail and is trying to sell off their outdated jail. That sounds sensible enough. And then PETA gets in the act. PETA has sent a proposal to the Somerset County commissioners to LEASE their jail to PETA so they can turn it into a "Lobster Empathy Center" (that's what they're calling it). The realtor handling the jail's sale has identified the proposal as "likely a publicity stunt."
Judge for yourself with this excerpt from the letter sent by PETA to the commissioners:
"A prison is the perfect setting to demonstrate how lobsters suffer when they are caught in traps or confined to cramped, filthy supermarket tanks. The center will teach visitors to have compassion for these interesting, sensitive animals while also commemorating the millions of lobsters who are ripped from their homes in the ocean off the coast of Maine each year before being boiled alive."
Luckily, unlike the Chicago City Council who were all taken in by PETA shock video and banned the sale of foie gras two years ago (and recently realized their mistake and repealed it), Commissioner Chairman Phil Roy isn't buying it and is willing to point out the many many issues regarding this letter.
1. Skowhegan isn't even part of coastal Maine.
This whole shenanigan is to make the public aware of the lobster catching going on at the coast of Maine. Stupidly, they chose a town about 53 MILES away from the coast of Maine (namely Rockland, home of the Maine Lobster Festival) to launch their futile efforts.
2. PETA complains about lobster jail, but never lifted a finger about the humans kept in those conditions.
Even this commissioner will point out that humans are animals too, and PETA couldn't care less about the humans who have to suffer with "objectionable" conditions - but if an animal has to go through something even remotely similar to those conditions? That's the only time PETA pretends to care and sends out these insane letters.
3. PETA wants to use the space for propaganda that lobsters feel pain.
Studies have frankly been done for a number of years with no factual conclusion on the subject. One famous study, however, sides with the "it is unlikely that they can feel pain" camp. Biologists have said for years that the lobster's primitive nervous system and underdeveloped brain are akin to an insect, and while lobsters react to stimuli (like boiling water), the reactions are escape mechanisms and NOT a conscious response or an indication of pain, they say.
"It's a semantic thing: No brain, no pain."
4. PETA wants to trap visitors and put rubber bands on their fingers.
That's just ridiculous. While I can understand that there's a parallel between rubber bands on claws - those rubber bands are there for the protection of those handling the lobsters, not to torture or be "mean" to the lobsters. If a vicious dog was threatening to bite people, you'd put a muzzle on it. If your cat is scratching the furniture or people - you get it declawed. It's a safety precaution and exploiting it under the guise of torturing a defenseless creature is insane. It's because the creature ISN'T defenseless! Plus, the whole notion of human-sized lobster traps and cramming people into a giant replica lobster tank with filthy glass walls? That's going a little too far. The place was going to be set in a JAIL and you're going further out of your way to remind people that they don't like being confined in dirty small spaces? Waste of time and bigger waste of props.
This whole thing is crazy from square one.
Nonetheless, even if it's (obviously) a publicity stunt, it's being forwarded to the realtor along with all other offers. The realty company has expressed that all offers would be considered, but admitted that the county has no interest in leasing the jail. The property needs to be sold, and the use of the property is the bigger issue being looked at. The county wants to provide jobs and "get the property back on the tax rolls." There are currently 22 leads already, including one proposal to purchase the jail for "a gristmill, artists colony, bakery and other cultural uses."
I'm hoping that seems like an infinitely better idea than leasing the building to a terrorist organization like PETA for the purpose of turning it into a "Lobster Empathy Center".
What do you think? Isn't lobster delicious? "No brain, no pain?"
(The article about PETA's indecent proposal)
(The study showing lobsters probably don't feel pain in the first place) Read more!
The situation starts off with Skowhegan, Maine - a county that is currently building a new jail and is trying to sell off their outdated jail. That sounds sensible enough. And then PETA gets in the act. PETA has sent a proposal to the Somerset County commissioners to LEASE their jail to PETA so they can turn it into a "Lobster Empathy Center" (that's what they're calling it). The realtor handling the jail's sale has identified the proposal as "likely a publicity stunt."
Judge for yourself with this excerpt from the letter sent by PETA to the commissioners:
"A prison is the perfect setting to demonstrate how lobsters suffer when they are caught in traps or confined to cramped, filthy supermarket tanks. The center will teach visitors to have compassion for these interesting, sensitive animals while also commemorating the millions of lobsters who are ripped from their homes in the ocean off the coast of Maine each year before being boiled alive."
Luckily, unlike the Chicago City Council who were all taken in by PETA shock video and banned the sale of foie gras two years ago (and recently realized their mistake and repealed it), Commissioner Chairman Phil Roy isn't buying it and is willing to point out the many many issues regarding this letter.
1. Skowhegan isn't even part of coastal Maine.
This whole shenanigan is to make the public aware of the lobster catching going on at the coast of Maine. Stupidly, they chose a town about 53 MILES away from the coast of Maine (namely Rockland, home of the Maine Lobster Festival) to launch their futile efforts.
2. PETA complains about lobster jail, but never lifted a finger about the humans kept in those conditions.
Even this commissioner will point out that humans are animals too, and PETA couldn't care less about the humans who have to suffer with "objectionable" conditions - but if an animal has to go through something even remotely similar to those conditions? That's the only time PETA pretends to care and sends out these insane letters.
3. PETA wants to use the space for propaganda that lobsters feel pain.
Studies have frankly been done for a number of years with no factual conclusion on the subject. One famous study, however, sides with the "it is unlikely that they can feel pain" camp. Biologists have said for years that the lobster's primitive nervous system and underdeveloped brain are akin to an insect, and while lobsters react to stimuli (like boiling water), the reactions are escape mechanisms and NOT a conscious response or an indication of pain, they say.
"It's a semantic thing: No brain, no pain."
4. PETA wants to trap visitors and put rubber bands on their fingers.
That's just ridiculous. While I can understand that there's a parallel between rubber bands on claws - those rubber bands are there for the protection of those handling the lobsters, not to torture or be "mean" to the lobsters. If a vicious dog was threatening to bite people, you'd put a muzzle on it. If your cat is scratching the furniture or people - you get it declawed. It's a safety precaution and exploiting it under the guise of torturing a defenseless creature is insane. It's because the creature ISN'T defenseless! Plus, the whole notion of human-sized lobster traps and cramming people into a giant replica lobster tank with filthy glass walls? That's going a little too far. The place was going to be set in a JAIL and you're going further out of your way to remind people that they don't like being confined in dirty small spaces? Waste of time and bigger waste of props.
This whole thing is crazy from square one.
Nonetheless, even if it's (obviously) a publicity stunt, it's being forwarded to the realtor along with all other offers. The realty company has expressed that all offers would be considered, but admitted that the county has no interest in leasing the jail. The property needs to be sold, and the use of the property is the bigger issue being looked at. The county wants to provide jobs and "get the property back on the tax rolls." There are currently 22 leads already, including one proposal to purchase the jail for "a gristmill, artists colony, bakery and other cultural uses."
I'm hoping that seems like an infinitely better idea than leasing the building to a terrorist organization like PETA for the purpose of turning it into a "Lobster Empathy Center".
What do you think? Isn't lobster delicious? "No brain, no pain?"
(The article about PETA's indecent proposal)
(The study showing lobsters probably don't feel pain in the first place) Read more!
Monday, June 02, 2008
Sharon Stone vs. China
Normally, I wouldn't be upset with Sharon Stone. She's got a long history of being on PETA's bad side, which usually put her on my good side. While I'm not a fan of wearing fur (it's too hot for my tastes), Sharon Stone truly is - and PETA has been verbal against her and her outfits many times. She even wore a brooch that contained a RAT FOOT, which those animal-rights hippies were severely opposed to.
But alas, nobody is perfect, and Sharon Stone decided to voice her opinion regarding the recent earthquake in China - and is pretty much accusing them of deserving it through karma because of their treatment of Tibet.
First off, I don't think we should ever pay attention to the opinions of actors/actresses. They're paid to look pretty and do/say what they're told through the use of scripts and directors. Just like the notion of a "trophy wife" whose job is to shut up and look pretty, I wouldn't want to trust the opinion of someone who's just supposed to look good - depending on the opinion's relevance. If the person were famous for winning the Nobel Prize in Physics, I'd trust their opinion on physics-related matters; likewise I WOULD trust an actress's opinion on movie-business affairs or getting good representation.
When it comes to earthquakes, politics and international affairs, though? Shut the hell up and look pretty, damn it!
Secondly, if you're Earl Hickey or his brother Randy (AKA "fictional characters on a TV show"), I can understand you attributing things to karma. Unfortunately, you're NOT those people, which means you don't attribute EVERYTHING to karma and pick and choose what is "karma" and what isn't based on your own selfish opinions. I know for a fact that China experienced major earthquakes in 1976, 1975, 1974, 1970, 1969, 1933, 1932, 1927 and 1556 was one of their worst if you're judging by the death toll.
Which is more likely? That some supernatural force judged a country and magically caused this wrath to befall them - or that China is part of the Pacific Rim and is located on top of numerous fault lines where earthquakes naturally occur over time and it occurred again a few weeks ago?
Thirdly, if you were really crazy enough to take the "China is bad and deserved it" approach, why would you choose this earthquake to be the pinnacle point of karmic justice? I mean, China's been repressing Tibet for quite some time. Wouldn't you really want to attribute this disaster to the more recent and more-widely-publicized LEAD PAINT and TAINTED PRODUCT fiascos? I'm just saying, if you're going to argue that being mean to other people yields a natural disaster, it's hard to back that up with further evidence. I don't recall any natural disasters occurring during Hitler-era Germany or even in genocide-filled African/Middle-Eastern countries (unless you consider "living in those countries" as disaster enough, in which case I'm sure there were many countries in those regions NOT performing genocide).
Far worse things have been committed to deserve karmic punishment. I've also never heard of GOOD karma befalling countries, whether they deserved it or not.
So what was China's response to this accusation of being quake-worthy in the eyes of karma?
The founder of one of China's biggest cinema chains said that his company will no longer show Sharon Stone's movies.
While I'm not entirely sure that I agree that this is really much of a retaliation in the first place, it's a symbolic gesture that at least is backed up by an idea that I CAN agree with:
Ng See-Yuen, founder of the UME Cineplex chain and the chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Filmmakers, called Stone's comments "inappropriate," adding that actors should not bring personal politics to comments about a natural disaster that has left five million Chinese homeless, according to the Reporter.
That's kind of what I've been saying all along, but with an added oomph at the end. Actors aren't supposed to be spouting their opinions about things - especially about things that have had such a devastating effect on mostly-innocent people. You can keep your own opinions about China's governmental policies regarding the Tibet region and people, but saying that some 2-year-old Chinese girl deserved to have her home and worldly possessions destroyed by a natural disaster because she happens to live in a country with a not-perfect record of civil rights?
That is certainly "inappropriate" and it's absurd to even mention it in the first place.
Actors and actresses should just shut up and look pretty because that's what we pay them to do.
Do you agree with Ng that Sharon's comment was inappropriate? Do you agree with Sharon that Ng's people randomly deserved a natural disaster because their government does some naughty things? Or do you just agree with me that you should trust an entertainer's political statements as much as the advice of a blind optometrist?
(The article mentioned here) Read more!
But alas, nobody is perfect, and Sharon Stone decided to voice her opinion regarding the recent earthquake in China - and is pretty much accusing them of deserving it through karma because of their treatment of Tibet.
First off, I don't think we should ever pay attention to the opinions of actors/actresses. They're paid to look pretty and do/say what they're told through the use of scripts and directors. Just like the notion of a "trophy wife" whose job is to shut up and look pretty, I wouldn't want to trust the opinion of someone who's just supposed to look good - depending on the opinion's relevance. If the person were famous for winning the Nobel Prize in Physics, I'd trust their opinion on physics-related matters; likewise I WOULD trust an actress's opinion on movie-business affairs or getting good representation.
When it comes to earthquakes, politics and international affairs, though? Shut the hell up and look pretty, damn it!
Secondly, if you're Earl Hickey or his brother Randy (AKA "fictional characters on a TV show"), I can understand you attributing things to karma. Unfortunately, you're NOT those people, which means you don't attribute EVERYTHING to karma and pick and choose what is "karma" and what isn't based on your own selfish opinions. I know for a fact that China experienced major earthquakes in 1976, 1975, 1974, 1970, 1969, 1933, 1932, 1927 and 1556 was one of their worst if you're judging by the death toll.
Which is more likely? That some supernatural force judged a country and magically caused this wrath to befall them - or that China is part of the Pacific Rim and is located on top of numerous fault lines where earthquakes naturally occur over time and it occurred again a few weeks ago?
Thirdly, if you were really crazy enough to take the "China is bad and deserved it" approach, why would you choose this earthquake to be the pinnacle point of karmic justice? I mean, China's been repressing Tibet for quite some time. Wouldn't you really want to attribute this disaster to the more recent and more-widely-publicized LEAD PAINT and TAINTED PRODUCT fiascos? I'm just saying, if you're going to argue that being mean to other people yields a natural disaster, it's hard to back that up with further evidence. I don't recall any natural disasters occurring during Hitler-era Germany or even in genocide-filled African/Middle-Eastern countries (unless you consider "living in those countries" as disaster enough, in which case I'm sure there were many countries in those regions NOT performing genocide).
Far worse things have been committed to deserve karmic punishment. I've also never heard of GOOD karma befalling countries, whether they deserved it or not.
So what was China's response to this accusation of being quake-worthy in the eyes of karma?
The founder of one of China's biggest cinema chains said that his company will no longer show Sharon Stone's movies.
While I'm not entirely sure that I agree that this is really much of a retaliation in the first place, it's a symbolic gesture that at least is backed up by an idea that I CAN agree with:
Ng See-Yuen, founder of the UME Cineplex chain and the chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Filmmakers, called Stone's comments "inappropriate," adding that actors should not bring personal politics to comments about a natural disaster that has left five million Chinese homeless, according to the Reporter.
That's kind of what I've been saying all along, but with an added oomph at the end. Actors aren't supposed to be spouting their opinions about things - especially about things that have had such a devastating effect on mostly-innocent people. You can keep your own opinions about China's governmental policies regarding the Tibet region and people, but saying that some 2-year-old Chinese girl deserved to have her home and worldly possessions destroyed by a natural disaster because she happens to live in a country with a not-perfect record of civil rights?
That is certainly "inappropriate" and it's absurd to even mention it in the first place.
Actors and actresses should just shut up and look pretty because that's what we pay them to do.
Do you agree with Ng that Sharon's comment was inappropriate? Do you agree with Sharon that Ng's people randomly deserved a natural disaster because their government does some naughty things? Or do you just agree with me that you should trust an entertainer's political statements as much as the advice of a blind optometrist?
(The article mentioned here) Read more!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Printed in the RedEye Again!
Chicagoans - pick up a copy of the RedEye today (May 29th) if you're interested in seeing my name printed in the paper. I usually try and let you all know when I get printed by posting here when I SEND the letters to the editor, but this time was a little different.
To be honest, it was more of a personal response and I decided I wouldn't post here until they actually printed it.
I submitted the letter on Thursday, May 15th upon reading the article about people in relationships parting ways and "wanting to stay friends". They replied later that day with:
Thanks for writing Aaron. Will publish your letter in Friday's RedEye
Friday, nothing. Saturday, nothing. This continues for a while. On Monday, May 26th, they replied again with:
Thanks for writing Aaron,
We'd like to publish your letter in RedEye. Please email back to confirm that the following info is correct. Thanks
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
I replied that it was correct. Nothing on Tuesday, Wednesday, and finally today - they printed it. Obviously not in its entirety, so I'm going to do my usual. Italics is what they didn't print, and boldface is what they did print.
One of my ex-girlfriends and I did not actually end things with those five little words of "I want to stay friends," but circumstances led to that happening anyway. After we did what we were supposed to do and broke up, moved on, and ceased communication - she wound up dating one of my friends and the two have been in a relationship for a while now. This led to a bit of awkwardness at parties when we were both invited by mutual friends, especially when those friends changed their tune from a post-breakup "we've got your back" to "you have to accept this and get along," which is what we did. I wouldn't say we're friends now, but we've agreed to be amicable acquaintances.
Of course, my other ex-girlfriend and I did end things with those five little words - and after several years without communication (I guess we weren't THAT good of friends), we found each other again after a random series of events and we've been together again for five months. She's actually moving in with me this weekend, and I couldn't be happier.
--Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport Read more!
To be honest, it was more of a personal response and I decided I wouldn't post here until they actually printed it.
I submitted the letter on Thursday, May 15th upon reading the article about people in relationships parting ways and "wanting to stay friends". They replied later that day with:
Thanks for writing Aaron. Will publish your letter in Friday's RedEye
Friday, nothing. Saturday, nothing. This continues for a while. On Monday, May 26th, they replied again with:
Thanks for writing Aaron,
We'd like to publish your letter in RedEye. Please email back to confirm that the following info is correct. Thanks
Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport
I replied that it was correct. Nothing on Tuesday, Wednesday, and finally today - they printed it. Obviously not in its entirety, so I'm going to do my usual. Italics is what they didn't print, and boldface is what they did print.
One of my ex-girlfriends and I did not actually end things with those five little words of "I want to stay friends," but circumstances led to that happening anyway. After we did what we were supposed to do and broke up, moved on, and ceased communication - she wound up dating one of my friends and the two have been in a relationship for a while now. This led to a bit of awkwardness at parties when we were both invited by mutual friends, especially when those friends changed their tune from a post-breakup "we've got your back" to "you have to accept this and get along," which is what we did. I wouldn't say we're friends now, but we've agreed to be amicable acquaintances.
Of course, my other ex-girlfriend and I did end things with those five little words - and after several years without communication (I guess we weren't THAT good of friends), we found each other again after a random series of events and we've been together again for five months. She's actually moving in with me this weekend, and I couldn't be happier.
--Aaron Samuels, 24, Bridgeport Read more!
Monday, May 19, 2008
Sexpresso
It doesn't take a Master's degree from an upper-class business school to know the simple fact that sex sells. It's practically an age-old mantra of "if you make it sexy, they will come" - usually referring to females on the sexy side and males as the prospective clients trying to be driven in. And it's not just about selling products; some groups try to use sex to sell their ideology. PETA, for example, has been exploiting this tactic by having females wear very little or going fully nude during protests in order to lure in new followers (and new donors).
In Snohomish County, Washington, you'll find a large number of drive-through espresso/coffee stands. But if you see a coffee stand featuring scantily-clad baristas, you might be at Grab 'N' Go Espresso on Highway 99. Owner Bill Wheeler decided to bring a little bit of Las Vegas to his Washington company last year, and business has been booming for him. He plans on expanding to a dozen stands in Washington as well as Nevada, including one location hiring male baristas in Speedos and bowties, possibly imitating the fashion of the famous Chippendale's dancers.
Of course, for every sexy action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Among the complainers is Kimberly Gainza, who says, "I'm not against people making money. What I'm against is how they're going about doing it. It's not right -- on a road where everybody can see."
The law of the land says that as long as nipples and genitals are covered, there are no public indecency laws being broken. Health officials and state Labor and Industries officials say there are no clothing requirements for baristas, so there's no argument there either. Of course, this means that the complaining parties are trying to take these issues to the government in attempts to further regulate the industry and shut down the sexy espresso-pushers.
Obviously, another group of nay-sayers is comprised of rival coffee businesses. Tina Taylor, who has owned Giddy Up 'N' Go Espresso for eight years, says that her traffic to her business is clearly dipping. While at times her stand doesn't see a single customer in over a hour's time, rival sexy-stands always have cars lined up and ready for business. Ruth Oliver, who has owned R & R Espresso in Bothell for 17 years, said that she'd rather close her business down than turn it into a "strip club" just because of the popular trend.
(To be fair, at strip clubs you have to wait until they remove clothing - at these places, what you see upon entry is all you're going to get.)
And of course, just as these businesses are using sex to sell more coffee, other businesses are trying to profit from the clash without resorting to those tactics. They are using signs like "We Make it Hot with our Tops On," "R-rated Coffee; PG-rated Girls" and "Known 4 Coffee Not Cleavage!" to lure customers their way.
Others are just snippy. Sara Barnfather, 22, a barista with Stars and Stripes Espresso, says she's "proud to be classy, not trashy. If you like nipples and third-degree burns, go for it. But it's not my cup of tea."
And not surprisingly, a lot of male customers DO like nipples. A barista at one of these sexy-espresso stands claims that after working there for three months, she's been making twice the tips that she used to make at another coffee chain store. Baristas at these sexy espresso stands say they consistently fetch more than $100 a day in tips.
Meanwhile, the other coffee stands are slowly understanding that in this particular market and location, there's a real "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" type of atmosphere.
John Ferguson, who owns an espresso stand in Edmonds, said the combination of corporate outlets and bikini stands along the Highway 99 corridor forced him three months to adopt a "sexy espresso" theme or go out of business.
"We saw our male clientele dwindle to next to nothing," he said.
Carrie Smith, owner of the Mocha Boat in Lynnwood, said she switched themes six months ago after a competing stand hired young women to stand on the corner with pasties and tight shorts.
Business tripled after her employees started wearing more revealing outfits, she said.
"We had to close the stand or roll with it," Smith said.
While there have been a few reports of inappropriate comments made to the girls working the sexy espresso stands, the baristas agree that this can happen anywhere and it's not much more often than working elsewhere.
From the chain that probably started the trend as a whole, Hooters, there has been clear evidence that business has been thriving in spite of any critics who seem to take offense.
Frankly, I don't drink coffee. But I bet they'd make a mean cup of hot cocoa all the same, and I'm probably not the only guy out there who'll admit that it's okay to sacrifice a little bit of quality if it's being served by a team of scantily-clad female baristas.
After all, sex sells.
What do you think? Is this a trend of sexiness that's just expanding to new markets? Do you side with the businesses who are raking in the profits, or the businesses that refuse to "exploit" their employees and thereby are NOT raking in the profits? Would you buy a "sexpresso"?
(The 'sexpresso' article)
Read more!
In Snohomish County, Washington, you'll find a large number of drive-through espresso/coffee stands. But if you see a coffee stand featuring scantily-clad baristas, you might be at Grab 'N' Go Espresso on Highway 99. Owner Bill Wheeler decided to bring a little bit of Las Vegas to his Washington company last year, and business has been booming for him. He plans on expanding to a dozen stands in Washington as well as Nevada, including one location hiring male baristas in Speedos and bowties, possibly imitating the fashion of the famous Chippendale's dancers.
Of course, for every sexy action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Among the complainers is Kimberly Gainza, who says, "I'm not against people making money. What I'm against is how they're going about doing it. It's not right -- on a road where everybody can see."
The law of the land says that as long as nipples and genitals are covered, there are no public indecency laws being broken. Health officials and state Labor and Industries officials say there are no clothing requirements for baristas, so there's no argument there either. Of course, this means that the complaining parties are trying to take these issues to the government in attempts to further regulate the industry and shut down the sexy espresso-pushers.
Obviously, another group of nay-sayers is comprised of rival coffee businesses. Tina Taylor, who has owned Giddy Up 'N' Go Espresso for eight years, says that her traffic to her business is clearly dipping. While at times her stand doesn't see a single customer in over a hour's time, rival sexy-stands always have cars lined up and ready for business. Ruth Oliver, who has owned R & R Espresso in Bothell for 17 years, said that she'd rather close her business down than turn it into a "strip club" just because of the popular trend.
(To be fair, at strip clubs you have to wait until they remove clothing - at these places, what you see upon entry is all you're going to get.)
And of course, just as these businesses are using sex to sell more coffee, other businesses are trying to profit from the clash without resorting to those tactics. They are using signs like "We Make it Hot with our Tops On," "R-rated Coffee; PG-rated Girls" and "Known 4 Coffee Not Cleavage!" to lure customers their way.
Others are just snippy. Sara Barnfather, 22, a barista with Stars and Stripes Espresso, says she's "proud to be classy, not trashy. If you like nipples and third-degree burns, go for it. But it's not my cup of tea."
And not surprisingly, a lot of male customers DO like nipples. A barista at one of these sexy-espresso stands claims that after working there for three months, she's been making twice the tips that she used to make at another coffee chain store. Baristas at these sexy espresso stands say they consistently fetch more than $100 a day in tips.
Meanwhile, the other coffee stands are slowly understanding that in this particular market and location, there's a real "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" type of atmosphere.
John Ferguson, who owns an espresso stand in Edmonds, said the combination of corporate outlets and bikini stands along the Highway 99 corridor forced him three months to adopt a "sexy espresso" theme or go out of business.
"We saw our male clientele dwindle to next to nothing," he said.
Carrie Smith, owner of the Mocha Boat in Lynnwood, said she switched themes six months ago after a competing stand hired young women to stand on the corner with pasties and tight shorts.
Business tripled after her employees started wearing more revealing outfits, she said.
"We had to close the stand or roll with it," Smith said.
While there have been a few reports of inappropriate comments made to the girls working the sexy espresso stands, the baristas agree that this can happen anywhere and it's not much more often than working elsewhere.
From the chain that probably started the trend as a whole, Hooters, there has been clear evidence that business has been thriving in spite of any critics who seem to take offense.
Frankly, I don't drink coffee. But I bet they'd make a mean cup of hot cocoa all the same, and I'm probably not the only guy out there who'll admit that it's okay to sacrifice a little bit of quality if it's being served by a team of scantily-clad female baristas.
After all, sex sells.
What do you think? Is this a trend of sexiness that's just expanding to new markets? Do you side with the businesses who are raking in the profits, or the businesses that refuse to "exploit" their employees and thereby are NOT raking in the profits? Would you buy a "sexpresso"?
(The 'sexpresso' article)
Read more!
No Illegal Immigrants in NC Community Colleges
(You can also view this post at Associated Content!)
A 1982 Supreme Court ruling says that illegal immigrant children are entitled to an education in the public U.S. system through high school. Somehow people got it in their minds that this automatically meant that illegal immigrants are welcome in public community colleges and state universities as well.
In North Carolina, the state attorney general has passed down new guidelines to all 58 of the state's community colleges barring the enrollment of illegal immigrants. The new rules go into effect on Tuesday. Students who are illegally in the United States and will be graduating from high school this month (after leeching from the public school system for numerous years) will no longer be admitted into North Carolina community colleges.
These guidelines do not effect the 16 public universities located in North Carolina, so those are still legal options for the illegal immigrants - for now.
Of course, Hispanic advocacy groups are up in arms and outraged. This is the first decision of its kind, which means that it will likely be challenged in court after the inevitable parade of protests and petitions.
As for those who are undocumented but have received their acceptance letters before the cutoff date of Tuesday, they will still be allowed to attend the community college. The summer session will be starting in just a few short weeks.
As for the 16 public universities that will still accept illegal immigrants, many undocumented prospective students are complaining that they can't afford the out-of-state tuition bills (since they obviously don't have legal residence in the state or the United States in general) and are not eligible for state or federal financial aid (since they obviously don't deserve to leech any more of the government's money after so many years of federally-allowed public school attendance).
So, why don't undocumented students apply for citizenship? Some say its a lengthy and expensive process.
You know what else is supposed to be a lengthy and expensive process? COLLEGE! If you can't hack the tedium and annoyance and price of going through the process to be a legal citizen, why should you deserve the right to attend the tedium and annoyance and price of higher education?
(1) Anti-illegal-immigration groups argue that illegal immigrants are stealing U.S. jobs from legal American citizens.
(2) Pro-illegal-immigration groups argue that most illegal immigrants are doing jobs that most Americans don't want to do in the first place, like picking fruit and janitorial services and menial tasks.
If (2) is true, then why would illegal immigrants need higher education? The only reason for getting higher education (other than "bettering yourself") is to get a better job that is higher up on the corporate ladder - jobs that legal American citizens are already struggling to fight for in the marketplace today.
This just proves that (2) is false and (1) is true.
I just don't see any possible other explanation. It's probably because I'm biased against illegal immigration, but look at the logic. The ONLY reason why you go to college or basically any higher education than high school - is to get a better job with better pay. And the definition of "better job" is almost certainly the subset of jobs that are NOT these "degrading" jobs to which American citizens would supposedly turn up their noses. Which means that illegal immigrants want to take away jobs from American citizens.
Q.E.D.!
I think that it's frankly a brilliant idea on North Carolina's part, and that it needs to take effect in the public universities as well and then spread to the other states. They are totally allowed to do so, given that the Supreme Court only mandates allowing criminal illegal immigrants into our public schools until high school.
I want to see the looks on protesters' faces when their tirades against such laws are faced against this plain and simple argument. And for those of you who, like me, are attacked with the "they're only taking away jobs Americans don't want to do" argument over and over, now you have this bit of weaponry in your arsenal.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(The article about the decision)
Read more!
A 1982 Supreme Court ruling says that illegal immigrant children are entitled to an education in the public U.S. system through high school. Somehow people got it in their minds that this automatically meant that illegal immigrants are welcome in public community colleges and state universities as well.
In North Carolina, the state attorney general has passed down new guidelines to all 58 of the state's community colleges barring the enrollment of illegal immigrants. The new rules go into effect on Tuesday. Students who are illegally in the United States and will be graduating from high school this month (after leeching from the public school system for numerous years) will no longer be admitted into North Carolina community colleges.
These guidelines do not effect the 16 public universities located in North Carolina, so those are still legal options for the illegal immigrants - for now.
Of course, Hispanic advocacy groups are up in arms and outraged. This is the first decision of its kind, which means that it will likely be challenged in court after the inevitable parade of protests and petitions.
As for those who are undocumented but have received their acceptance letters before the cutoff date of Tuesday, they will still be allowed to attend the community college. The summer session will be starting in just a few short weeks.
As for the 16 public universities that will still accept illegal immigrants, many undocumented prospective students are complaining that they can't afford the out-of-state tuition bills (since they obviously don't have legal residence in the state or the United States in general) and are not eligible for state or federal financial aid (since they obviously don't deserve to leech any more of the government's money after so many years of federally-allowed public school attendance).
So, why don't undocumented students apply for citizenship? Some say its a lengthy and expensive process.
You know what else is supposed to be a lengthy and expensive process? COLLEGE! If you can't hack the tedium and annoyance and price of going through the process to be a legal citizen, why should you deserve the right to attend the tedium and annoyance and price of higher education?
(1) Anti-illegal-immigration groups argue that illegal immigrants are stealing U.S. jobs from legal American citizens.
(2) Pro-illegal-immigration groups argue that most illegal immigrants are doing jobs that most Americans don't want to do in the first place, like picking fruit and janitorial services and menial tasks.
If (2) is true, then why would illegal immigrants need higher education? The only reason for getting higher education (other than "bettering yourself") is to get a better job that is higher up on the corporate ladder - jobs that legal American citizens are already struggling to fight for in the marketplace today.
This just proves that (2) is false and (1) is true.
I just don't see any possible other explanation. It's probably because I'm biased against illegal immigration, but look at the logic. The ONLY reason why you go to college or basically any higher education than high school - is to get a better job with better pay. And the definition of "better job" is almost certainly the subset of jobs that are NOT these "degrading" jobs to which American citizens would supposedly turn up their noses. Which means that illegal immigrants want to take away jobs from American citizens.
Q.E.D.!
I think that it's frankly a brilliant idea on North Carolina's part, and that it needs to take effect in the public universities as well and then spread to the other states. They are totally allowed to do so, given that the Supreme Court only mandates allowing criminal illegal immigrants into our public schools until high school.
I want to see the looks on protesters' faces when their tirades against such laws are faced against this plain and simple argument. And for those of you who, like me, are attacked with the "they're only taking away jobs Americans don't want to do" argument over and over, now you have this bit of weaponry in your arsenal.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(The article about the decision)
Read more!
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Chicago vs. PETA: Chicago Wins!
Before reading this, you might want to catch up by reading the previous parts of this Chicago vs. PETA series:
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
PART 6: Chicago vs. PETA: A Step In The Right Direction?
PART 7: Chicago vs. PETA: Offenders on the Offense!
And join us in the eighth and hopefully final installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In the fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor decided to reconsider his stance on the issue. Part seven revisits the restaurants, several months after the ban went into effect. In part eight, the ban has finally been repealed!
With Mayor Richard Daley running the vote, the Chicago City Council repealed its controversial ban on foie gras today, May 14th, 2008.
It's been a grueling two years that Chicago has been a laughingstock for enacting the "silliest law" (according to Mayor Daley) that banned the sale of foie gras here in Chicago. The council used a parliamentary procedure to call to vote a repeal of the ban.
Alderman Joe Moore was strongly against the vote, having sponsored the ban in the first place. The call to vote was started by Alderman Thomas Tunney, who actually owns a restaurant.
The vote was a clear 37-6 in favor of repealing the ban, more than enough to officially make it so.
(The official article from the Chicago Tribune who was on the scene of today's City Council meeting)
Hopefully this is the last of the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate.
Read more!
PART 1: Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame
PART 2: Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!
PART 3: Chicago vs. PETA: The Lawsuit!
PART 4: Chicago vs. PETA: The Uprising!
PART 5: Chicago vs. PETA: The First Offense!
PART 6: Chicago vs. PETA: A Step In The Right Direction?
PART 7: Chicago vs. PETA: Offenders on the Offense!
And join us in the eighth and hopefully final installment of a series of posts that (in the opinion of the writer) should never have come to be. And PETA is to blame; they shock-videoed the Chicago City Council into agreeing to sign a law banning foie gras from the city. In the second part, I discussed the studies and FACTS proving that the reasons BEHIND the law are unfounded and not based on any facts at all. In the third part I got to speak of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA) who believes so strongly in this cause that it's practically paying for both sides of the legal battle, based on the fact that it's unconstitutional to make a city law overturning something the federal government approves, let alone deciding what people can/cannot eat. In the fourth part I got to talk about the restaurants fighting back and how more were serving foie gras than ever once the law took effect. In the fifth part, we learned about the first victim of the law and how little the city even cared, other than the media. In part six, the mayor decided to reconsider his stance on the issue. Part seven revisits the restaurants, several months after the ban went into effect. In part eight, the ban has finally been repealed!
With Mayor Richard Daley running the vote, the Chicago City Council repealed its controversial ban on foie gras today, May 14th, 2008.
It's been a grueling two years that Chicago has been a laughingstock for enacting the "silliest law" (according to Mayor Daley) that banned the sale of foie gras here in Chicago. The council used a parliamentary procedure to call to vote a repeal of the ban.
Alderman Joe Moore was strongly against the vote, having sponsored the ban in the first place. The call to vote was started by Alderman Thomas Tunney, who actually owns a restaurant.
The vote was a clear 37-6 in favor of repealing the ban, more than enough to officially make it so.
(The official article from the Chicago Tribune who was on the scene of today's City Council meeting)
Hopefully this is the last of the Chicago vs. PETA series - a series we wouldn't have had in the first place if it weren't for PETA sticking its nose in YOUR dinner plate.
Read more!
Pro-Gay T-Shirts
Maybe it's just me, but I read this article and had to stop what I was doing (other than reading the article) just so I could pause and reflect and shout (in my head), "Am I the only one who can see what's going on?!?"
In Holmes County, Florida, a high school student is suing the School Board for suppressing her right to express in-school support for gays. U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak may return soon with a decision as to whether she has that right or not.
Heather Gillman, a 17-year-old junior at Ponce DeLeon High School, wants the right to wear T-shirts to school that have gay pride symbols and/or slogans supporting gay rights. She claims that last year, she wore a T-shirt to school with a pro-gay message and no administrators asked her to remove the shirt, nor did she get into any trouble. This year, between September 21 and 24, several students were suspended for wearing similar T-shirts. Gillman claims that her wearing of the T-shirts was not just about the message, but that she specifically did it to oppose the principal's suspension of the 10 students.
Gillmann was instructed through a School Board letter that shirts with messages on them are not acceptable. Now she fears that she will be suspended too if she continues to wear them, claiming that it is a suppression of her right to free speech.
The School Board contends that it does have the right to suppress free speech if it could lead to disruptions in learning.
Judge Smoak decided that this needed to be settled in a trial - including whether or not the messages Gillman wants to convey are appropriate for the age of the students that would be exposed to them, as well as whether of not they would be deemed "vulgar". Also, Smoak wants to see if there is a clear connection between the slogans and disruptions in school activities. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that free speech in schools cannot be suppressed unless it causes disruptions in the learning process.
Am I the only one who notices the disruption?
The student is in court, rather than in school! The principal is in court, rather than at the school! Members of the School Board are probably in the courtroom, rather than presiding over School Board issues!
Clearly this is a disruption! The argument can be made that this disruption wouldn't have occurred if there hadn't been an argument over whether or not the T-shirt slogans caused disruptions in the first place - but one can just as easily make the argument that the T-shirt slogans caused disruptions in the first place because the student did follow the School Board's advice in the first place and stop wearing them.
Frankly, I'm still a little perturbed that students can even wear T-shirts at school - but that's a result of attending a private high school with dress codes including rules that all shirts must have collars and must be solid color and cannot contain writing/logos larger than a standard business card and must also be tucked in at all times. That's right - we could get suspended just for having untucked shirts too many times - and she's fighting to wear pro-gay slogan T-shirts?
I side with the school, and encourage them to set up stricter and more-regulated dress codes. The blurrier and less clear the lines are drawn, the more problems like these are going to arise. I still like the notion of uniforms for all schools - students should be worrying less about what they are going to wear and more about LEARNING. Maybe if we had fewer students trying to challenge "the man" with lawsuits and freedom of speech, our test scores wouldn't be in the toilet and we'd have high school seniors who could actually READ and DO MATH.
Seriously, open up a newspaper any day of the week and you're likely to find at least one news article about our failing education system and graduating students who can't even read well enough to get by or do the simple math that would allow them to be a functional cashier at a fast-food restaurant.
I'm not anti-gay. I'm not anti-freedoms. I just think that there's a time and place for it all, and a high school classroom is not the place for it. I would have the same opinion if the slogans were on either side of the gay rights agenda, political candidates, or even illegal immigration. If this were about a student arguing the right to wear a T-shirt saying "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL", I'd still favor the School Board telling that student to take the shirt off, sit their ass down in the classroom and fucking LEARN things.
Do you agree? Or are you going to call me an anti-gay hatemonger for trying to argue that school is for learning and arguments over what is distracting are just as distracting as the items that are being argued about?
(The actual article, if I didn't paraphrase it well enough here)
Read more!
In Holmes County, Florida, a high school student is suing the School Board for suppressing her right to express in-school support for gays. U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak may return soon with a decision as to whether she has that right or not.
Heather Gillman, a 17-year-old junior at Ponce DeLeon High School, wants the right to wear T-shirts to school that have gay pride symbols and/or slogans supporting gay rights. She claims that last year, she wore a T-shirt to school with a pro-gay message and no administrators asked her to remove the shirt, nor did she get into any trouble. This year, between September 21 and 24, several students were suspended for wearing similar T-shirts. Gillman claims that her wearing of the T-shirts was not just about the message, but that she specifically did it to oppose the principal's suspension of the 10 students.
Gillmann was instructed through a School Board letter that shirts with messages on them are not acceptable. Now she fears that she will be suspended too if she continues to wear them, claiming that it is a suppression of her right to free speech.
The School Board contends that it does have the right to suppress free speech if it could lead to disruptions in learning.
Judge Smoak decided that this needed to be settled in a trial - including whether or not the messages Gillman wants to convey are appropriate for the age of the students that would be exposed to them, as well as whether of not they would be deemed "vulgar". Also, Smoak wants to see if there is a clear connection between the slogans and disruptions in school activities. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that free speech in schools cannot be suppressed unless it causes disruptions in the learning process.
Am I the only one who notices the disruption?
The student is in court, rather than in school! The principal is in court, rather than at the school! Members of the School Board are probably in the courtroom, rather than presiding over School Board issues!
Clearly this is a disruption! The argument can be made that this disruption wouldn't have occurred if there hadn't been an argument over whether or not the T-shirt slogans caused disruptions in the first place - but one can just as easily make the argument that the T-shirt slogans caused disruptions in the first place because the student did follow the School Board's advice in the first place and stop wearing them.
Frankly, I'm still a little perturbed that students can even wear T-shirts at school - but that's a result of attending a private high school with dress codes including rules that all shirts must have collars and must be solid color and cannot contain writing/logos larger than a standard business card and must also be tucked in at all times. That's right - we could get suspended just for having untucked shirts too many times - and she's fighting to wear pro-gay slogan T-shirts?
I side with the school, and encourage them to set up stricter and more-regulated dress codes. The blurrier and less clear the lines are drawn, the more problems like these are going to arise. I still like the notion of uniforms for all schools - students should be worrying less about what they are going to wear and more about LEARNING. Maybe if we had fewer students trying to challenge "the man" with lawsuits and freedom of speech, our test scores wouldn't be in the toilet and we'd have high school seniors who could actually READ and DO MATH.
Seriously, open up a newspaper any day of the week and you're likely to find at least one news article about our failing education system and graduating students who can't even read well enough to get by or do the simple math that would allow them to be a functional cashier at a fast-food restaurant.
I'm not anti-gay. I'm not anti-freedoms. I just think that there's a time and place for it all, and a high school classroom is not the place for it. I would have the same opinion if the slogans were on either side of the gay rights agenda, political candidates, or even illegal immigration. If this were about a student arguing the right to wear a T-shirt saying "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL", I'd still favor the School Board telling that student to take the shirt off, sit their ass down in the classroom and fucking LEARN things.
Do you agree? Or are you going to call me an anti-gay hatemonger for trying to argue that school is for learning and arguments over what is distracting are just as distracting as the items that are being argued about?
(The actual article, if I didn't paraphrase it well enough here)
Read more!
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
New Show Idea!
I'm always trying to come with horrible new TV shows, in hopes of one day landing one with a TV exec and getting paid a decent amount of money (not "retirement" money, but "living comfortably while keeping my job" money) and getting to appear in the credits or something. You know, a legacy. And more bad TV!
In the past, most of my efforts have gone to a FOX-style TV show called "V.D. Island" which would have honestly fit in perfectly with the FOX steaming pile of reality crap television. It's basically "The Mole" meets "Tempation Island", in which you basically have 10 males and 10 females all with clean bills of health except for one who secretly has a venerial disease. I'm thinking it would be best to do this show with an STD that can be fought with antibiotics, but it's up to the producers. It's basically a show where contestants have to have sex with someone at least once a week and try not to get the disease. The real fun comes in when people realize they've GOT the disease and since nobody's booted off the island, they get to trick other people into having sex with them just to screw them out of the prize. Would it come down to rape? Who knows! It's FOX programming at it's finest, no?
The real FOX-style twist would be when on the final episode, as the host is announcing the winner who does not have the VD that everyone else has...
...the host stabs the winner in the arm with a syringe and screams "YOU'VE GOT VD!" and hope on a helicopter as all of the signs flip-change to read an extra "ESCAPE FROM" over the "V.D. ISLAND"! Now it's a NEW reality show where 20 people with V.D. have six weeks to escape from V.D. Island! Plus, as an incentive, for every week they DON'T escape, they airdrop in a ravenous lion - who also has V.D.! The show would only obviously last two seasons (or whenever they get cancelled due to death-related lawsuits), but I think that's enough to get the ratings and merchandising enough to turn a profit.
I'm off the toppic - I have a NEW show idea. It's certainly not good enough for FOX (and by that, I mean "not profitable or horrendous enough") but it would do well on a network like maybe Food Network, given the nature of it.
I'm still working on a title.
Here's the premise:
A crew goes to a fast-food place, somewhere that has those deceptive-looking pictures of menu items (I've found them mostly at Chinese places, but most fast food locations would work just as well) and you basically tell the cashier that you will pay $100 if they can produce in ten minutes the equivelant food item that is represented in the picture. The footage would show the crew scrambling to adjust things or maybe make something fresh for a change just to try and piece together all of the elements of the picture in order to satisfy the judge. The end result would be a photo match showing the picture and the item, and if it comes close enough they get the money to be split among the crew, otherwise they get paid the regular value of the item.
Since the ten minutes of time they need to make the item is obviously not long enough for one full half-hour episode (I doubt that even with minimal editing, there isn't even going to be ten full minutes of footage that's airworthy), Food Network might have the classier programming to maybe take a few minutes to do some background on the location, or air the letter or video send in requesting that their team tackle this location. I can't wait to see angry patrons showing video of the picture on the menu and the pathetic excuses for food that are served, demanding this kind of satisfaction to be televised. Maybe as a bonus, they have that patron who sent the request actually show up at the location to eat the end results and maybe give a food rating or just a statement of gratitude.
Maybe as a show-off, they could have a moderately-famous chef as the host and after the ten-minute judging, the chef would get behind the counter and use their ingredients to try and out-do them in making the visual masterpiece? The possibilities are quite extensive. I think it would make for great bad-TV, something you flip to and wonder what it is long enough to stay tuned, like a car accident that piques your interest.
What do you think? Would you watch this kind of show? Should I create a real pitch for it? Do you have restaurants screwing you over with inaccurate visual representations of their food? Should I just stick to "V.D. Island"-type shows?
(Fact: My dad used to order burgers from Carl's Jr. with the phrase "extra messy" because he wanted them to accurately represent the sloppy claims made in the TV advertisements. For those of you not familiar with one of Carl's Jr. or their slogans, "If it doesn't get all over the place - it doesn't belong in your face.") Read more!
In the past, most of my efforts have gone to a FOX-style TV show called "V.D. Island" which would have honestly fit in perfectly with the FOX steaming pile of reality crap television. It's basically "The Mole" meets "Tempation Island", in which you basically have 10 males and 10 females all with clean bills of health except for one who secretly has a venerial disease. I'm thinking it would be best to do this show with an STD that can be fought with antibiotics, but it's up to the producers. It's basically a show where contestants have to have sex with someone at least once a week and try not to get the disease. The real fun comes in when people realize they've GOT the disease and since nobody's booted off the island, they get to trick other people into having sex with them just to screw them out of the prize. Would it come down to rape? Who knows! It's FOX programming at it's finest, no?
The real FOX-style twist would be when on the final episode, as the host is announcing the winner who does not have the VD that everyone else has...
...the host stabs the winner in the arm with a syringe and screams "YOU'VE GOT VD!" and hope on a helicopter as all of the signs flip-change to read an extra "ESCAPE FROM" over the "V.D. ISLAND"! Now it's a NEW reality show where 20 people with V.D. have six weeks to escape from V.D. Island! Plus, as an incentive, for every week they DON'T escape, they airdrop in a ravenous lion - who also has V.D.! The show would only obviously last two seasons (or whenever they get cancelled due to death-related lawsuits), but I think that's enough to get the ratings and merchandising enough to turn a profit.
I'm off the toppic - I have a NEW show idea. It's certainly not good enough for FOX (and by that, I mean "not profitable or horrendous enough") but it would do well on a network like maybe Food Network, given the nature of it.
I'm still working on a title.
Here's the premise:
A crew goes to a fast-food place, somewhere that has those deceptive-looking pictures of menu items (I've found them mostly at Chinese places, but most fast food locations would work just as well) and you basically tell the cashier that you will pay $100 if they can produce in ten minutes the equivelant food item that is represented in the picture. The footage would show the crew scrambling to adjust things or maybe make something fresh for a change just to try and piece together all of the elements of the picture in order to satisfy the judge. The end result would be a photo match showing the picture and the item, and if it comes close enough they get the money to be split among the crew, otherwise they get paid the regular value of the item.
Since the ten minutes of time they need to make the item is obviously not long enough for one full half-hour episode (I doubt that even with minimal editing, there isn't even going to be ten full minutes of footage that's airworthy), Food Network might have the classier programming to maybe take a few minutes to do some background on the location, or air the letter or video send in requesting that their team tackle this location. I can't wait to see angry patrons showing video of the picture on the menu and the pathetic excuses for food that are served, demanding this kind of satisfaction to be televised. Maybe as a bonus, they have that patron who sent the request actually show up at the location to eat the end results and maybe give a food rating or just a statement of gratitude.
Maybe as a show-off, they could have a moderately-famous chef as the host and after the ten-minute judging, the chef would get behind the counter and use their ingredients to try and out-do them in making the visual masterpiece? The possibilities are quite extensive. I think it would make for great bad-TV, something you flip to and wonder what it is long enough to stay tuned, like a car accident that piques your interest.
What do you think? Would you watch this kind of show? Should I create a real pitch for it? Do you have restaurants screwing you over with inaccurate visual representations of their food? Should I just stick to "V.D. Island"-type shows?
(Fact: My dad used to order burgers from Carl's Jr. with the phrase "extra messy" because he wanted them to accurately represent the sloppy claims made in the TV advertisements. For those of you not familiar with one of Carl's Jr. or their slogans, "If it doesn't get all over the place - it doesn't belong in your face.") Read more!
Monday, May 12, 2008
Ethical Meat: Squirrel?
Maybe I'm "ahead of the times", but I recall spending many an hour on the APPLE II at school playing Oregon Trail and testing my hunting skills by shooting every moving critter - including the squirrels. Sure, it wasted some bullets, and sure, it only netted me 1 or 2 pounds of meat with each kill, but I knew that squirrel meat must have tasted yummy, and I like to think it led to my family staving off the cholera and dysentery until I slammed the wagon into a rock on the last river just to be a jerk. Then again, I'm he type of jerk who would name their family members after the various health problems just to see messages like "Cholera has a broken leg" and "Broken Leg has cholera" flashing on the screen.
I digress. As it turns out, squirrel meat isn't just a hilarious appetizer on an old-school computer game. It's turning up as a delicacy in England. That's right, I've been able to bring you stories of dogmeat in Korea, Aussies eating feral cats, rat buffets in China and now of Grey Squirrel Pasties in merry ol' England!
Once again, I have to state: I've always advocated the notion that things made of meat (other than humans) can be eaten. I will admittedly draw the line when it comes to humans - not out of any ethical or moral reasoning, but because that would mean that I could be eaten and that doesn't benefit me in the least. I'm also not that hugely in favor of eating things that could become extinct. However, I do believe that those animals should be bred in captivity like you would on any farm, just to keep the numbers up and set aside a nice fat percentage for consumption.
The grey squirrel - not to be confused with the red squirrel, an endangered British creature - is apparently low in fat and high in flavor. Since they're free-range and have low "food miles" (which I believe is a term describing the distance between the kill and the store), grey squirrel is being declared an "ethical meat". Butchers can't keep them on the shelves, either.
"We put it on the shelf and it sells. It can be a dozen squirrels a day - and they all go," said David Simpson, the director of Kingsley Village shopping centre in Fraddon, Cornwall, whose game counter began selling grey squirrel meat two months ago.
There's no disagreement on whether or not the meat should be sold and consumed - since customers have been gobbling them up ever since they appeared in the shops - but there is some disagreement on the taste. Some say it's a taste like wild boar. Others would liken it to duck or lamb. All in all, everyone agrees that it's tasty - possibly because the squirrel's diet consists of nuts and berries which leave the meat tasting sweet and moist.
Butchers are even selling them as patriotism, that for every grey squirrel being killed and eaten, that's food and shelter that is now available for the endangered red squirrels. The motto is, of course, "'Eat a grey and save a red." Of course, it's pretty obvious that most British squirrel-buyers aren't really doing it to "be green" or patriotic or anything like that. It's probably purely the novelty of eating squirrel meat. And even though it's a niche market in the meat world, there's plenty of room to expand. After all, there's about five million grey squirrels in England and they've been selling at 3.50 Euro (about $5.25 USD) apiece.
The meat itself is akin to rabbit, with most of the meat coming from the rear legs. So far, the meat has been used to popularize recipes such as Southern-fried squirrel, tandoori-style squirrel and fricasseed squirrel with Cornish cream and walnuts. The most popular seems to be Cornish squirrel pasties. Thanks to Kevin Viner, former chef-proprietor of Pennypots who now runs Viners bar and restaurant at Summercourt, we have a recipe for this squirrely dish:
Squirrel Pasties
Ingredients:
140g squirrel meat cut into 1cm cubes;
100g sliced potato; 100g sliced swede; 50g diced onion; 30g smoked bacon;
15g chopped hazelnuts; 75g butter;
5g chopped parsley; a good pinch of salt and pepper
Method:
· Egg wash edges of pastry circles.
· Place the potato, swede, hazelnuts, parsley and seasoning on to each circle followed by the bacon, squirrel meat and, finally, the onion.
· Place butter in each pasty, then fold over the pastry and crimp the edges.
· Put the pasties on to a greaseproof baking tray, egg wash both pasties well, place in a pre-heated oven at 180C or gas mark 5.
· Bake for 45-50 minutes. The juices should start to boil and the pasties should be able to move on the tray with ease.
So we've now got yet another country willing to eat meat from animals that we in America still shun the idea of consuming.
When are we going to be able to eat horse, dog, cat, squirrel and rat meat? It's working in other countries! They're not riddled with such a huge hunger problem because they have all of these viable options for meat! Maybe it's because other countries don't have our problem of huge uprisings of uppity PETA members getting in our faces and shoving their noses on our dinner plates!
What do you think? Is it finally time for the U.S. to stop turning up our noses at the thought of other edible critters on our plate? Don't you just hate PETA?
(The squirrelly-tasty article from the UK)
Read more!
I digress. As it turns out, squirrel meat isn't just a hilarious appetizer on an old-school computer game. It's turning up as a delicacy in England. That's right, I've been able to bring you stories of dogmeat in Korea, Aussies eating feral cats, rat buffets in China and now of Grey Squirrel Pasties in merry ol' England!
Once again, I have to state: I've always advocated the notion that things made of meat (other than humans) can be eaten. I will admittedly draw the line when it comes to humans - not out of any ethical or moral reasoning, but because that would mean that I could be eaten and that doesn't benefit me in the least. I'm also not that hugely in favor of eating things that could become extinct. However, I do believe that those animals should be bred in captivity like you would on any farm, just to keep the numbers up and set aside a nice fat percentage for consumption.
The grey squirrel - not to be confused with the red squirrel, an endangered British creature - is apparently low in fat and high in flavor. Since they're free-range and have low "food miles" (which I believe is a term describing the distance between the kill and the store), grey squirrel is being declared an "ethical meat". Butchers can't keep them on the shelves, either.
"We put it on the shelf and it sells. It can be a dozen squirrels a day - and they all go," said David Simpson, the director of Kingsley Village shopping centre in Fraddon, Cornwall, whose game counter began selling grey squirrel meat two months ago.
There's no disagreement on whether or not the meat should be sold and consumed - since customers have been gobbling them up ever since they appeared in the shops - but there is some disagreement on the taste. Some say it's a taste like wild boar. Others would liken it to duck or lamb. All in all, everyone agrees that it's tasty - possibly because the squirrel's diet consists of nuts and berries which leave the meat tasting sweet and moist.
Butchers are even selling them as patriotism, that for every grey squirrel being killed and eaten, that's food and shelter that is now available for the endangered red squirrels. The motto is, of course, "'Eat a grey and save a red." Of course, it's pretty obvious that most British squirrel-buyers aren't really doing it to "be green" or patriotic or anything like that. It's probably purely the novelty of eating squirrel meat. And even though it's a niche market in the meat world, there's plenty of room to expand. After all, there's about five million grey squirrels in England and they've been selling at 3.50 Euro (about $5.25 USD) apiece.
The meat itself is akin to rabbit, with most of the meat coming from the rear legs. So far, the meat has been used to popularize recipes such as Southern-fried squirrel, tandoori-style squirrel and fricasseed squirrel with Cornish cream and walnuts. The most popular seems to be Cornish squirrel pasties. Thanks to Kevin Viner, former chef-proprietor of Pennypots who now runs Viners bar and restaurant at Summercourt, we have a recipe for this squirrely dish:
Squirrel Pasties
Ingredients:
140g squirrel meat cut into 1cm cubes;
100g sliced potato; 100g sliced swede; 50g diced onion; 30g smoked bacon;
15g chopped hazelnuts; 75g butter;
5g chopped parsley; a good pinch of salt and pepper
Method:
· Egg wash edges of pastry circles.
· Place the potato, swede, hazelnuts, parsley and seasoning on to each circle followed by the bacon, squirrel meat and, finally, the onion.
· Place butter in each pasty, then fold over the pastry and crimp the edges.
· Put the pasties on to a greaseproof baking tray, egg wash both pasties well, place in a pre-heated oven at 180C or gas mark 5.
· Bake for 45-50 minutes. The juices should start to boil and the pasties should be able to move on the tray with ease.
So we've now got yet another country willing to eat meat from animals that we in America still shun the idea of consuming.
When are we going to be able to eat horse, dog, cat, squirrel and rat meat? It's working in other countries! They're not riddled with such a huge hunger problem because they have all of these viable options for meat! Maybe it's because other countries don't have our problem of huge uprisings of uppity PETA members getting in our faces and shoving their noses on our dinner plates!
What do you think? Is it finally time for the U.S. to stop turning up our noses at the thought of other edible critters on our plate? Don't you just hate PETA?
(The squirrelly-tasty article from the UK)
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
