Maybe I am just too "cool" to enjoy things for what they are. I'm the type of person who hates when songs that I like become popular. Once that occurs and the song is constantly on the radio or on television, the song is immediately deleted from Itunes and stricken from my memory. Once facebook and myspace took off, it was time for me to delete both. Now that everyone has blackberry messenger, I refuse to use it.
I have the same attitude toward television shows. For instance, I absolutely detest Family Guy. The first 4 seasons are hysterical. However, once FG started going into reruns on 8 different channels and Seth McFarland decided to use the show as a mindless platform for political commentary, gross out humor and hackneyed pop culture references,I decided to boycott the show.It was almost as if once the show reached legendary status, McFarland decided to make the show as predictable, stupid and unfunny as possible. Aqua Teen Hunger Force is or was rather, one of the funniest shows I had ever seen. The first four seasons were absolute perfection. Every single episode was funny and was worthy of watching in reruns over and over again.
Season 5 was not as good as the first four, but it was still pretty good and two thirds of the episodes were on par with the first 4 seasons.
Season 6 was ok-- So-so and for the first time the show went from hysterical without any gimmicks to lots of shock value bullshit and cartoonish violence to compensate for mediocre writing.
Season 7 is absolutely unwatchable. Not even remotely funny at all.
My question is WHY!?!?!
Is there some unwritten rule among the creators of TV shows that once the show is great, it's time to totally destroy it?
I would honestly prefer the show be taken off the air and forced into re-reuns than be dumbed down to the painfully unfunny bs it's putting out now.
Popularity seems to be the death knell for a lot of my favorite shows-- especially the ones on Adult Swim. The Venture Brothers, Sealab, Harvey Birdman and now ATHF have all gone in the toilet following the same formula once they became staples of the Adult Swim lineup.
The drop off between a relatively weak season 6 and a so far almost unwatchable season 7 is extremely pronounced. Season 6 was far from spectacular, but at least some episodes were pretty good and most episodes were decent. This season has been nothing short of painful. I was willing to give it a chance, but I think I am pulling the plug on my fandom with the show.
When I first starting watching ATHF, all my friends thought I had lost my mind. Now, all of my friends check it out when it's on and constantly quote funny lines from our favorite episodes. The show has been on for about eight years now. After almost 100 episodes and a full length movie (which was pretty damn good), I have to say I am impressed with the longevity of the series. I would venture to bet that when the show began the creators didn't think that they could churn out 100 episodes and a movie about a meatball, french fries, a milkshake and their fat neighbor in South Jersey. Maybe they just have run out of ideas.
So far this season, the show has had absolutely no entertainment value outside of an occasionally funny joke, idiotic guest appearances and mindless violence.
The biggest problem with season 7 in my opinion is Shake. I feel like they are over-writing and under thinking his lines on the show. If you compare Shake from the first few seasons to now, he isn't even the same character anymore. The creators have attempted to make him too human and have turned him from a hysterical sociopath into a complete douchebag that is simply not funny. His selfish antics, delusions of grandeur and constant abuse of Meatwad are what made him (next to Carl) the best character on the show. Now he's whiny, emotional, corny and last but not least hella unfunny. Dana Synders talent is being completely wasted in my opinion.
Are the equally unfunny tools from that god awful Tim and Eric show writing for ATHF now?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Quick thought on Obamacare-- (much more to follow)
Convenient Morality
Over the last few days I have casually tuned in to watch the cable news talking heads. Most of them had a member of Congress or the Senate on their program to discuss Obamacare.
One thing I found fascinating was that there were actually some liberal politicians who went on TV and stated unequivocally that healthcare is a "moral" issue, and that being fiscally irresponsible in order to be morally responsible was warranted. These same politicians also made it pretty clear that they didn't care if voting for Obamacare meant they would be voted out of office.
What I find surreal about these statements is that liberals have fought tooth and nail for years to keep "morality" out of every single facet of American life. Hardcore pornography is art, laws regulating birth control and private conduct such as homosexuality are all unconstitutional and so on. Beyond the aforementioned, we should also bare in mind the rabid and often superfluous legal challenges issued by leftists over the separation of church and state. Morality: No! Science: Yes! --
I actually agree with this line of thinking to a large degree. The rule of law in this country has time and time again put forth the mantra that in America you cannot legislate morality.
However, the battle over healthcare seems to have thrown what has become an increasingly predictable philosophy on its head. All of a sudden, the continued proliferation of the biggest Ponzi scheme on the planet—(I.E. US Government Programs and Entitlements) is now an issue of moral concern and legislation should be implemented on a largely opposed public regardless of the cost. I wonder how these politicians that claim healthcare is a moral issue would react to a parallel argument being waged that espoused a similar view with respect to the United States fighting overseas or increasing taxes to inflate the military’s budget in the name of morality. Beyond the apparent contradiction at work here, My question is this—If states go bankrupt, individuals are subject to monetary penalties for not purchasing health insurance and an already anemic economy falls into further disrepair as a result of Obamacare, will the issue still be one of morality? With the state that this country is in today, aren't moral and fiscal responsibility one in the same?
Over the last few days I have casually tuned in to watch the cable news talking heads. Most of them had a member of Congress or the Senate on their program to discuss Obamacare.
One thing I found fascinating was that there were actually some liberal politicians who went on TV and stated unequivocally that healthcare is a "moral" issue, and that being fiscally irresponsible in order to be morally responsible was warranted. These same politicians also made it pretty clear that they didn't care if voting for Obamacare meant they would be voted out of office.
What I find surreal about these statements is that liberals have fought tooth and nail for years to keep "morality" out of every single facet of American life. Hardcore pornography is art, laws regulating birth control and private conduct such as homosexuality are all unconstitutional and so on. Beyond the aforementioned, we should also bare in mind the rabid and often superfluous legal challenges issued by leftists over the separation of church and state. Morality: No! Science: Yes! --
I actually agree with this line of thinking to a large degree. The rule of law in this country has time and time again put forth the mantra that in America you cannot legislate morality.
However, the battle over healthcare seems to have thrown what has become an increasingly predictable philosophy on its head. All of a sudden, the continued proliferation of the biggest Ponzi scheme on the planet—(I.E. US Government Programs and Entitlements) is now an issue of moral concern and legislation should be implemented on a largely opposed public regardless of the cost. I wonder how these politicians that claim healthcare is a moral issue would react to a parallel argument being waged that espoused a similar view with respect to the United States fighting overseas or increasing taxes to inflate the military’s budget in the name of morality. Beyond the apparent contradiction at work here, My question is this—If states go bankrupt, individuals are subject to monetary penalties for not purchasing health insurance and an already anemic economy falls into further disrepair as a result of Obamacare, will the issue still be one of morality? With the state that this country is in today, aren't moral and fiscal responsibility one in the same?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Comical Outrage of the left over the exposure of Al Qaeda attorneys
As I have mentioned on more than one occasion, I think Eric Holder is a smug, slimy ( my sincere apologies to slime for bringing about such an unflattering comparison to Eric Holder), holier than thou con man who represents everything I despise about Washington D.C.
Of course there are numerous reasons why I feel so negatively about Holder-- the least of which was his most recent attempt to railroad my hometown into having a criminal trial for KSM and the other 911 masterminds.
The main reason that I found Holder's defiant attitude particularly disturbing, was that the law firm where Holder was employed prior to his selection as AG was one of the most active law firms in representing Guantanamo detainees. While this development is not exactly earth shattering, it represents another cog in the Obama administrations ideological wheel that once again reveals a partisan agenda that is at odds with the best interests of the American people. KSM was going to plead guilty before military tribunal and was going to be executed. Holder put the kibosh on that plan (as he succinctly stated before Congress) because KSM doesn't get to choose the justice he encounters for his crimes!!!! ( Only Eric Holder gets to choose). And gee golly-- After the public backlash and Obama stating repeatedly that he was going to reconsider the idea, Holder still was insistent that a criminal trial in NYC would occur. Do you think that his behavior has anything to do with his desire to placate his radical leftist pals from his good old 500$ an hour white shoe law firm?
However-- that was nothing. It has now come to light that Holder has appointed many former Al Qaeda lawyers to the justice department, including several in the National Security Division. Now-- I know what you may be thinking. Isn't that a good thing-- Don't we want people on our side that have knowledge of the other side? The best defense attorneys are former prosecutors and vice versa..... Yeah-- under normal circumstances I wouldn't object. However, as the following article outlines, that is simply not the case here. It appears that Holder has put radical ideologues in key positions at the Dept. Of Justice. Whats worse, Holder has bent over backward to withhold as much information as possible about these appointees.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/08/AR2010030801742.html
PS- The phony outrage the left has shown over the exposure of these lawyers makes me want to laugh until I vomit. Does anyone remember the ACLU's active smear campaign to publicly expose CIA interrogators last year-- because (interestingly enough) the Guantanamo detainees had the "right" to confront their accusers? Or-- how about the even more absurd Witch hunt perpetrated by the left to arrest, try and imprison all of the Bush administration cabinet members and lawyers for the enhanced interrogation tactics used by the CIA after 911?
Give me a fucking break.
Of course there are numerous reasons why I feel so negatively about Holder-- the least of which was his most recent attempt to railroad my hometown into having a criminal trial for KSM and the other 911 masterminds.
The main reason that I found Holder's defiant attitude particularly disturbing, was that the law firm where Holder was employed prior to his selection as AG was one of the most active law firms in representing Guantanamo detainees. While this development is not exactly earth shattering, it represents another cog in the Obama administrations ideological wheel that once again reveals a partisan agenda that is at odds with the best interests of the American people. KSM was going to plead guilty before military tribunal and was going to be executed. Holder put the kibosh on that plan (as he succinctly stated before Congress) because KSM doesn't get to choose the justice he encounters for his crimes!!!! ( Only Eric Holder gets to choose). And gee golly-- After the public backlash and Obama stating repeatedly that he was going to reconsider the idea, Holder still was insistent that a criminal trial in NYC would occur. Do you think that his behavior has anything to do with his desire to placate his radical leftist pals from his good old 500$ an hour white shoe law firm?
However-- that was nothing. It has now come to light that Holder has appointed many former Al Qaeda lawyers to the justice department, including several in the National Security Division. Now-- I know what you may be thinking. Isn't that a good thing-- Don't we want people on our side that have knowledge of the other side? The best defense attorneys are former prosecutors and vice versa..... Yeah-- under normal circumstances I wouldn't object. However, as the following article outlines, that is simply not the case here. It appears that Holder has put radical ideologues in key positions at the Dept. Of Justice. Whats worse, Holder has bent over backward to withhold as much information as possible about these appointees.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/08/AR2010030801742.html
PS- The phony outrage the left has shown over the exposure of these lawyers makes me want to laugh until I vomit. Does anyone remember the ACLU's active smear campaign to publicly expose CIA interrogators last year-- because (interestingly enough) the Guantanamo detainees had the "right" to confront their accusers? Or-- how about the even more absurd Witch hunt perpetrated by the left to arrest, try and imprison all of the Bush administration cabinet members and lawyers for the enhanced interrogation tactics used by the CIA after 911?
Give me a fucking break.
Friday, February 26, 2010
How a Killer Whale at SeaWorld is the perfect metaphor for the political climate in America
First of all, I want to apologize for my absence to the tens and tens of you who occasionally check out my blog. February is a boring and miserable month where usually nothing that is particularly interesting happens. This year is no exception. Despite my feverent following of black history month, the championship round of curling in the Winter Olympics and several big name acquisitons by the New York Mets- I couldn't think of much to write about-- until today.
As most of you probably know, a trained killer whale decided to murder (that's right, I said it) it's trainer in the middle of a show before a captive audience (including children) at SeaWorld in Orlando Florida this week. But in spite of the tragedy that unfolded, there is something to be learned from this unfortunate incident.
The Whale suspect, Tilikum has been linked to two previous human deaths-- which makes one wonder why SeaWorld would allow a wild 6 ton animal with a propensity for violence against humans to be used at a show in the first place. Perhaps SeaWorld should conduct more stringent whale background checks.
Certified fringe lunatics at outfits like PETA are going to point to this incident as evidence that animals should not be held in capitivity for show, and that the now departed trainer is partially to blame for the whales behavior-- or at the very least should have known better-- after all, the whale was just fighting for it's freedom. These same individuals also believe that the movie "Free Willy" is a documentary and that Avatar is based on a true story. Of course, claiming that the whale in this case was mistreated, or that the trainer had it coming is utter nonsense. I'm sure that the trainer was very kind and humane to Tilikum.
However, I can't help but compare to this incident to the way politicians treat their consitituents-- at least from a basic and fundamental standpoint. We, the people are whales in capivity. Our elected officials are the trainers and puppet masters directing the action. The company/ organization that controls everything is the government-- (SeaWorld). They toss us some fish, we let them pet us and in the end the audience (the media) makes a judgement call on the climate of the country based on how we behave.
We are trained and conditioned via the political process to react to our elected officials in a particular way. Of course when things are going well and we get the halibut or tuna we like, everything is wonderful. Maybe we are willing to endure more stringent training, longer hours, sharing a tank with the squids, or kids throwing empty soda cans into our tank. So, we are supposed to take the bad with the good. I mean--without the government interjecting itself into our lives and feeding us, making sure that our water doesn't get too cold and monitoring our biological capacities so that we can mate suitably-- we might end up starving or overeating, freezing, screwing ourselves to death (or getting whale chlamidia), or never finding Mr. or Mrs. whale of our dreams. So in terms of the best possible outcome for all of whalekind, what we experience is for our own good.
Elections merely change the whale trainer, but we remain in captivity. Now, short of mauling or drowning our trainers, we can make our displeasure known without engaging in violent/ destructive behavior. The audience can discern how we feel and what we want based on our reaction to the trainers and the overall quality of our performance.
I feel that your hardcore liberal wants to be in captivity under the control of the whale trainer. We can sit around doing nothing, eating fish and don't have to worry about our survival. Your hardcore conservative wants no part of the trainer and would rather die on it's own than have a trainer feed us and pick our mate. As I have said many times, most Americans probably fall somewhere in between those two extremes. For one thing, I would want to live on my own and fend for myself-- but rather than have the trainers control us, I would want SeaWorld ( The government) to prevent people from polluting my home, fishing away my food and hunting me.
When the Republicans have the power, they wield their position as whale trainer from a standpoint that in many respects is easier for Americans to swallow. They seem to have a "father knows best" attitude and exercise control over invisible enimies and foreign influences-- National defense, security, crime prevention etc. These are all things that people can't do themselves and that in reality don't want to do themselves. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want an armed militia patroling the streets of NYC or invading Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. However, when the republicans reach for too much power in these areas, and we the whales buck up-- we are told that we are "biting the hand that protects us".
When the democrats have power, they wield their position as whale trainer from a standpoint that in many respects is very difficult for the public to swallow-- at least from the perspective of the silent majority which is largely comprised of your typical middle class American. The very rich and "educated" whales seem to get it. The indigent whales who are too sickly or stupid to be trained seem to get it because they get free seaweed and scraps from the trainers. The left governs their position as trainer from a "government knows best" attitude and they exert their power over our liviehood and basic necessities-- Taxes, services, what we eat, how we earn a living,where our children go to school, how we take care of ourselves etc. These are all things that people need the government to do, but in strict moderation. Taxes are necessary for basic services such as police, fire, fixing roads-etc. However, taxing the middle class to death in order to prop up corrupt and ineefectual government programs so that the ever expanding beauracracy can maintain its stranglehold over the public ( in the name of helping the less fortunate whales of course) is nothing short of criminal. When (as now) the democrats attempt to grab too much power in these areas and the whales voice their displeasure through grunting at the audience or by refusing to balance herring on it's nose-- we are told that we are "biting the hand that feeds us." ( or that whales are simply not smart enough to think for themselves).
Throughout history and across the globe we have seen the whales revolt against their trainers repeatedly. Most of the time the revolt is temporary and can be calmed by merely switching trainers through elections or by changing the organization that employs the trainers (system of government). However, in several bloody instances the whales have reacted to their trainers the same way Tilikum reacted toward the now deceased Dawn Bancheau.
As the financial meltdown continues and whales across the world become more and more disenchanted with their trainers, the potential for violent backlash is increasingly possible. While I'm sure that PETA would not react favorably to human beings engaging in the violent overthrow of the government (unless it was to save chickens or worms, of the fungi that eminates from sawdust), I am almost positive that the argument they would make on behalf of animals turning against their trainers is that no matter how nice or humane you are to an animal-- an animal will always be an animal and animals are meant to be free.
In my opinion, whales are whales-- and human interference with whales should be kept to a relative minimum. The same is true of human beings and the government. Hopefully as time moves forward, elections will suffice in quieting the discontent of the whales-- I mean people-- ( I forget what we were talking about) and unfortunate incidents like the one that occured in Orlando will be limited to whale/ human interactions as opposed to human/human interactions.
As most of you probably know, a trained killer whale decided to murder (that's right, I said it) it's trainer in the middle of a show before a captive audience (including children) at SeaWorld in Orlando Florida this week. But in spite of the tragedy that unfolded, there is something to be learned from this unfortunate incident.
The Whale suspect, Tilikum has been linked to two previous human deaths-- which makes one wonder why SeaWorld would allow a wild 6 ton animal with a propensity for violence against humans to be used at a show in the first place. Perhaps SeaWorld should conduct more stringent whale background checks.
Certified fringe lunatics at outfits like PETA are going to point to this incident as evidence that animals should not be held in capitivity for show, and that the now departed trainer is partially to blame for the whales behavior-- or at the very least should have known better-- after all, the whale was just fighting for it's freedom. These same individuals also believe that the movie "Free Willy" is a documentary and that Avatar is based on a true story. Of course, claiming that the whale in this case was mistreated, or that the trainer had it coming is utter nonsense. I'm sure that the trainer was very kind and humane to Tilikum.
However, I can't help but compare to this incident to the way politicians treat their consitituents-- at least from a basic and fundamental standpoint. We, the people are whales in capivity. Our elected officials are the trainers and puppet masters directing the action. The company/ organization that controls everything is the government-- (SeaWorld). They toss us some fish, we let them pet us and in the end the audience (the media) makes a judgement call on the climate of the country based on how we behave.
We are trained and conditioned via the political process to react to our elected officials in a particular way. Of course when things are going well and we get the halibut or tuna we like, everything is wonderful. Maybe we are willing to endure more stringent training, longer hours, sharing a tank with the squids, or kids throwing empty soda cans into our tank. So, we are supposed to take the bad with the good. I mean--without the government interjecting itself into our lives and feeding us, making sure that our water doesn't get too cold and monitoring our biological capacities so that we can mate suitably-- we might end up starving or overeating, freezing, screwing ourselves to death (or getting whale chlamidia), or never finding Mr. or Mrs. whale of our dreams. So in terms of the best possible outcome for all of whalekind, what we experience is for our own good.
Elections merely change the whale trainer, but we remain in captivity. Now, short of mauling or drowning our trainers, we can make our displeasure known without engaging in violent/ destructive behavior. The audience can discern how we feel and what we want based on our reaction to the trainers and the overall quality of our performance.
I feel that your hardcore liberal wants to be in captivity under the control of the whale trainer. We can sit around doing nothing, eating fish and don't have to worry about our survival. Your hardcore conservative wants no part of the trainer and would rather die on it's own than have a trainer feed us and pick our mate. As I have said many times, most Americans probably fall somewhere in between those two extremes. For one thing, I would want to live on my own and fend for myself-- but rather than have the trainers control us, I would want SeaWorld ( The government) to prevent people from polluting my home, fishing away my food and hunting me.
When the Republicans have the power, they wield their position as whale trainer from a standpoint that in many respects is easier for Americans to swallow. They seem to have a "father knows best" attitude and exercise control over invisible enimies and foreign influences-- National defense, security, crime prevention etc. These are all things that people can't do themselves and that in reality don't want to do themselves. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want an armed militia patroling the streets of NYC or invading Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. However, when the republicans reach for too much power in these areas, and we the whales buck up-- we are told that we are "biting the hand that protects us".
When the democrats have power, they wield their position as whale trainer from a standpoint that in many respects is very difficult for the public to swallow-- at least from the perspective of the silent majority which is largely comprised of your typical middle class American. The very rich and "educated" whales seem to get it. The indigent whales who are too sickly or stupid to be trained seem to get it because they get free seaweed and scraps from the trainers. The left governs their position as trainer from a "government knows best" attitude and they exert their power over our liviehood and basic necessities-- Taxes, services, what we eat, how we earn a living,where our children go to school, how we take care of ourselves etc. These are all things that people need the government to do, but in strict moderation. Taxes are necessary for basic services such as police, fire, fixing roads-etc. However, taxing the middle class to death in order to prop up corrupt and ineefectual government programs so that the ever expanding beauracracy can maintain its stranglehold over the public ( in the name of helping the less fortunate whales of course) is nothing short of criminal. When (as now) the democrats attempt to grab too much power in these areas and the whales voice their displeasure through grunting at the audience or by refusing to balance herring on it's nose-- we are told that we are "biting the hand that feeds us." ( or that whales are simply not smart enough to think for themselves).
Throughout history and across the globe we have seen the whales revolt against their trainers repeatedly. Most of the time the revolt is temporary and can be calmed by merely switching trainers through elections or by changing the organization that employs the trainers (system of government). However, in several bloody instances the whales have reacted to their trainers the same way Tilikum reacted toward the now deceased Dawn Bancheau.
As the financial meltdown continues and whales across the world become more and more disenchanted with their trainers, the potential for violent backlash is increasingly possible. While I'm sure that PETA would not react favorably to human beings engaging in the violent overthrow of the government (unless it was to save chickens or worms, of the fungi that eminates from sawdust), I am almost positive that the argument they would make on behalf of animals turning against their trainers is that no matter how nice or humane you are to an animal-- an animal will always be an animal and animals are meant to be free.
In my opinion, whales are whales-- and human interference with whales should be kept to a relative minimum. The same is true of human beings and the government. Hopefully as time moves forward, elections will suffice in quieting the discontent of the whales-- I mean people-- ( I forget what we were talking about) and unfortunate incidents like the one that occured in Orlando will be limited to whale/ human interactions as opposed to human/human interactions.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Random Obeservations 2/9/10
On sitting extremely close to strangers on the subway and other bouts of daily discomfort==> Like when your on the subway and a seat opens up that looks like it might be a bit snug—everyone stands around and looks at it and eachother--- today two identical tight squeeze seats appeared directly across from one another---. Seat A was next to a morbidly obese man with brown stained teeth who was dripping sweat from his forehead. Seat B was next to a group of unruly teenagers that were play fighting. Those of us wearily standing between two regrettable positions eyed one another to see what our fellow adversary would do next. For three stops the half dozen or so of us darted glances between the two seats, the stop on the train and each other. Luckily everyone, including the fat guy and the rowdy teenagers got off at the final stop on the train to kill the tension. A truly, monumental showdown was averted.
On cleanlieness and courtesy ( and why I hate dealing with city employees): Frantically spraying hand sanitizer onto her hands, she offers me a seat. She remarks if I’m wondering what the hell is wrong with her. I respond that I assume her use of hand sanitizer is to prevent the spread of germs. “That last guy had a bad cold, I don’t wanna catch his germs.” Half way through the meeting, her phone rang. In the middle of her conversation, she took out a nail clipper and started clipping her disgusting finger nails onto her desk. Very hygienic, I thought to myself. It was definetly one of those Larry David seinfeldesque moments.
On second chances, looks over substance and the stupidity of your typical male: After the attractive young star bucks associate noticed the screwup of my order, she fixed it by dumping chai tea into an already prepared caffe latte and mixing it about before handing it to me. I expected the taste would be less than palatable. Sure enough, it was inedible. It tasted like a cross between a cup of bad expensive coffee that used chai latte flavoring instead of milk or sugar. Fortunately, I was several blocks away when I made this discovery. I suppose that staring at her eyes and breasts had prompted me into the false hope that the obviously bad cup of tea I ordered would somehow be less disgusting.
The next morning I felt she was entitled to a second chance. Luckily there were no other patrons in the starbucks except yours truly. I made the same exact order and I anticipated better results. This time the concoction tasted like burned, steamed milk with a single drop of chai tea that was barely detectable. Every sip began with the expectation of a CHAi latté and ended with a frothy taststeless ride to nowhere. In addition, the ride to nowhere was ice cold after taking 5 extremely disappointing sips.
As I cursed the 5 dollars wasted from the shitty starbucks gift certificate someone gave me for Xmas on tea that I can barely bring myself to drink--I wonder…Is it possible that her pretty face has earned one more opportunity to ruin my hot morning beverage on a cold winter day? Definitely not. Well, maybe. As long as it's on the gift certificate and I'm not paying for it.
On jobs and salary:- What would happen if waiters, waitresses, strippers, bathroom attendants, valet parkers, delivery boys and bartenders worked only a solid base salary and the rest of us worked only on tips? I think that my food would be cold, my drink would be watered down, my car would would be scratched,the lovely young lady on the poll would not even pretend to laugh at my bad jokes and the service at my favorite resteraunt would be awful--- But as far as the rest of the product and service industry goes, American industry would be top notch. Anyone who could afford to be a professional anything would definetly be the very best at what they did. Although I suspect that the edcuational industry and other leeches in academia would promptly open up 4 year colleges offering degrees where B.S. stands for Bachelor of Serving or Bachelor of Stripping and B.A. would stand for Bathroom Attendant.
On cleanlieness and courtesy ( and why I hate dealing with city employees): Frantically spraying hand sanitizer onto her hands, she offers me a seat. She remarks if I’m wondering what the hell is wrong with her. I respond that I assume her use of hand sanitizer is to prevent the spread of germs. “That last guy had a bad cold, I don’t wanna catch his germs.” Half way through the meeting, her phone rang. In the middle of her conversation, she took out a nail clipper and started clipping her disgusting finger nails onto her desk. Very hygienic, I thought to myself. It was definetly one of those Larry David seinfeldesque moments.
On second chances, looks over substance and the stupidity of your typical male: After the attractive young star bucks associate noticed the screwup of my order, she fixed it by dumping chai tea into an already prepared caffe latte and mixing it about before handing it to me. I expected the taste would be less than palatable. Sure enough, it was inedible. It tasted like a cross between a cup of bad expensive coffee that used chai latte flavoring instead of milk or sugar. Fortunately, I was several blocks away when I made this discovery. I suppose that staring at her eyes and breasts had prompted me into the false hope that the obviously bad cup of tea I ordered would somehow be less disgusting.
The next morning I felt she was entitled to a second chance. Luckily there were no other patrons in the starbucks except yours truly. I made the same exact order and I anticipated better results. This time the concoction tasted like burned, steamed milk with a single drop of chai tea that was barely detectable. Every sip began with the expectation of a CHAi latté and ended with a frothy taststeless ride to nowhere. In addition, the ride to nowhere was ice cold after taking 5 extremely disappointing sips.
As I cursed the 5 dollars wasted from the shitty starbucks gift certificate someone gave me for Xmas on tea that I can barely bring myself to drink--I wonder…Is it possible that her pretty face has earned one more opportunity to ruin my hot morning beverage on a cold winter day? Definitely not. Well, maybe. As long as it's on the gift certificate and I'm not paying for it.
On jobs and salary:- What would happen if waiters, waitresses, strippers, bathroom attendants, valet parkers, delivery boys and bartenders worked only a solid base salary and the rest of us worked only on tips? I think that my food would be cold, my drink would be watered down, my car would would be scratched,the lovely young lady on the poll would not even pretend to laugh at my bad jokes and the service at my favorite resteraunt would be awful--- But as far as the rest of the product and service industry goes, American industry would be top notch. Anyone who could afford to be a professional anything would definetly be the very best at what they did. Although I suspect that the edcuational industry and other leeches in academia would promptly open up 4 year colleges offering degrees where B.S. stands for Bachelor of Serving or Bachelor of Stripping and B.A. would stand for Bathroom Attendant.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
DOG IN WET RUST--- Artificial Laws for world filled with trap doors
Random thoughts-->
Note to self: If there was ever any question as to whether law is man made or god made consider this—Getting caught with an illegal gun in NYS is a mandatory 2 year jail term regardless of the situation or circumstance (1st time offender etc.). However, the NYPD has a policy where individuals can go to their local police precinct and receive cash back for their illegal gun on the spot. The sign even says “No Questions Asked”. The NYPD also has gun drives where entire communities can come out to an organized illegal gun buy back with the police. Individuals can get anywhere between 100 and 300 bucks depending on what condition the gun is in. So I ask—What if you are arrested while bringing a gun to your local precinct, or are en route to one of these organized gun buy back events? How can the police with good conscience can put you in jail and comparatively, how can an arrestee realistically convince the cops that they are carrying a concealed fire arm in good faith? The answer—it’s all chance, it’s all luck, it’s all bullshit.
Another scenario to ponder is this—In NYS you must retreat if possible before physically defending yourself, a rule that is not followed by the majority of states.
Now, when considering the aforementioned stringency of NY’s gun laws, imagine a scenario where you are carrying an illegal fire arm. Maybe you live in a bad neighborhood, maybe your on the way to drop the gun off at the precinct, or maybe you’re a local business owner bringing the days take to the bank. The circumstances really don’t matter for all intents and purposes. Say an individual or group of individuals accosts you and pulls out a gun. What do you do? Are you going to turn your back on someone who is threatening you with a gun and run for daylight, all the while praying that the perpetrator has bad aim? Maybe the guy threatening you has a crowbar, or a knife, or a machete—what then?
Some people would cower and pray, others would run, some would try to fight their way to safety. However, if you had a loaded pistol in your possession and feared for your life, why hesitate to use it?
Now, assuming you were justified in your actions, and you kill or injure the other guy—What becomes of the gun that according to NY law you should not have been carrying in the first place? Does the choice become death, or 2 years in jail? Beats the hell out of me.
Note to self: If there was ever any question as to whether law is man made or god made consider this—Getting caught with an illegal gun in NYS is a mandatory 2 year jail term regardless of the situation or circumstance (1st time offender etc.). However, the NYPD has a policy where individuals can go to their local police precinct and receive cash back for their illegal gun on the spot. The sign even says “No Questions Asked”. The NYPD also has gun drives where entire communities can come out to an organized illegal gun buy back with the police. Individuals can get anywhere between 100 and 300 bucks depending on what condition the gun is in. So I ask—What if you are arrested while bringing a gun to your local precinct, or are en route to one of these organized gun buy back events? How can the police with good conscience can put you in jail and comparatively, how can an arrestee realistically convince the cops that they are carrying a concealed fire arm in good faith? The answer—it’s all chance, it’s all luck, it’s all bullshit.
Another scenario to ponder is this—In NYS you must retreat if possible before physically defending yourself, a rule that is not followed by the majority of states.
Now, when considering the aforementioned stringency of NY’s gun laws, imagine a scenario where you are carrying an illegal fire arm. Maybe you live in a bad neighborhood, maybe your on the way to drop the gun off at the precinct, or maybe you’re a local business owner bringing the days take to the bank. The circumstances really don’t matter for all intents and purposes. Say an individual or group of individuals accosts you and pulls out a gun. What do you do? Are you going to turn your back on someone who is threatening you with a gun and run for daylight, all the while praying that the perpetrator has bad aim? Maybe the guy threatening you has a crowbar, or a knife, or a machete—what then?
Some people would cower and pray, others would run, some would try to fight their way to safety. However, if you had a loaded pistol in your possession and feared for your life, why hesitate to use it?
Now, assuming you were justified in your actions, and you kill or injure the other guy—What becomes of the gun that according to NY law you should not have been carrying in the first place? Does the choice become death, or 2 years in jail? Beats the hell out of me.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
