Offensive Food?

First off, your editor apologizes for the recent lack of posts. I have been quite busy with, how you say, life, and I just haven't had time to formulate my formal rantings. Until now.

What inspired me for this post is an article I read about a right wing group that is protesting the new flavor of ice cream from Ben and Jerry's. The new flavor is called "Scweddy Balls", after the not-so-recent Saturday Night Live skit with Ana Gasteyer, Molly Shannon and Alec Baldwin. If you are not familiar with the skit, it is an NPR parody of an interview with Pete Sweddy who makes and sells all kinds of edible balls. Balls is the key word here as there are plenty of ball-mouth puns and relating hilarity.

In any case, apparently 'balls' has been deemed by these right wing lunatics as being 'offensive', 'vulgar', and 'repulsive'. Really people? You are so puritanical that the word 'balls' makes you feel weird inside? They give the argument that it is 'not exactly what you want a child asking for at the supermarket'. Yes, heavens forbid your child says the word 'balls' in front of you. But also please make sure they dont ask for any Cocoa Puffs, Oscar Meyer Weiners or any type of salted nuts, lest the be the total embarrassment of your day and immediately turn into a demoralized monster. Honestly, I bet that same kid makes jokes about balls and pee pee more than you realize and they will still grow up to be fine upstanding citizens.

I find it appallingly sad that people like this have nothing better to do than to tell others what they don't find to their liking. It is just another example of "if I don't like it, no one should be able to like it" type of thinking. It is also an example of people putting so much emphasis on being offended that they cannot think of anything beyond it. Is this ice cream that detrimental to your everyday life that you must organize a boycott to make it go away? Are these people haunted in their dreams by scheddy balls dancing in their heads (actually, with this level of sexual repression, it just might be the case)?

Just to be clear, the ice cream is a limited batch, so it will not be around forever. It is a funny little idea that supposedly cannot just be taken for what it is, but rather interpreted as an attack on morality. IT'S STUPID ICE CREAM WITH MALT BALLS IN IT. It is not 'Sweaty Testicle' ice cream. It's a pun. It's a joke. Your kid will survive to live another repressed day if he eats it and tells his friends about it. Lighten up. Have some ice cream.

Here's the link: http://wonkette.com/453431/american-family-association-freaks-out-over-ice-cream-named-after-testicles
I put the wonkette link because of all the great comments.

Technology Reactology

If there was an emergency, how would you contact the person or entity you need? Most likely, that answer is by cell phone, text message or email. Along with those common answers, there are fancier ones such as video chat, tweets, GPS coordinates or social media postings (maybe even blog posts). These are all very convenient and easy ways of modern day communication. Now, think back 10 or 20 years. How would you contact those same people? I would say it would require a big yellow and white tome known as a 'phone book' and that corded piece of machinery that was attached to your kitchen wall. Some may even use the postal system to correspond via hand-written medium. These old methods were not nearly as fast or convenient as our current offerings, but things still got done and emergencies and problems were still handled.

What we have now is an ever increasing importance on not just the end product and solution, but the time it takes to get that communication and response. If we want an answer, it is as simple as a click or two on a computer. We no longer have to involve people for references or devote much effort into research or trials. We can talk to a person on the other side of the globe and even watch the same movie with them at the same time if we wanted to. The time barrier of space and location has been evaporated into the limits of the speed of light; data traveling in a constant flow around the world (and through space) and we can just hook in and enjoy the ride.

Granted, these technological advances have no doubt helped all of us be more productive and (hopefully) better educated about ourselves and the world around us. My concern is less with the information available to us at all times and more with the new social norm of time expected to obtain that information. I often find myself at the fault of impatience when something I search for on the internet does not show up on the first result page or if I do not get an email response soon after I send mine. Can the availability of instantaneous response and communication actually be a hindrance? Sure, there is the satisfaction of knowing information is always at your fingertips, but along with that comes the anxiety and stress of keeping up with those results and those calls; making sure you yourself are tied into the network of people that are moving at the speed of light, in fear of being left out or left behind.

Ever heard of Phantom Vibration Syndrome? Does your job require you to have a phone or Blackberry always by your side? Do you get angry when you get an answering machine instead of reaching the person? Do you immediately worry if someone doesn't call you back or if someone doesn't contact you when they said they would? These are just some of the possible downsides to our constant connectivity. They are not horrible downsides, but as someone who sees stress as the enemy, instantaneous communication certainly compounds the effort to be stress free. The need to be 'tied in' and available for those potential emergencies can be as much a burden as they are an aid.

Fortunately, there are always alternatives. The postal system is lovingly referred to as 'snail mail' as it is far too slow and old fashioned to keep up with today's velocity. Yes, the postal system is hurting in terms of use and relevancy, but it is still around. People still have phones in their kitchens and begrudgingly still get phone books dropped on their doorsteps. The old ways of communication are still available and still used. I am not alone in my recognition of technology's ubiquity and its potential harm, as there are sweeping movements acknowledging the benefits of 'unplugging' and leaving the smart phones and tablets alone for a while. The point I am trying to make is that yes, new technology makes life simpler and easier, but we must be cognizant of what that simplicity is replacing and what new consequences may come of it. We may get that information faster or contact that person in the blink of an eye, but it comes as a result of being part of a technological world that never sleeps; and I know I for one can get pretty grumpy without my sleep.

Political Prognostications

Living in the DC area, I keep up with happenings in politics and government news; it just comes with the territory. The latest headline concerns what to do about America's debt ceiling. As can be expected, Democrats and Republicans in Congress can't agree about how to solve the problem. Democrats want more taxes, Republicans want spending cuts. Neither really want to compromise. Each side has their reasons for backing what they want, be it special interests, political positioning or really just thinking that's the best way. In all of this though, from each side you get what seems to be an acceptable reasoning for any given argument: what I like to call political prognostications.

What I mean by this is simple; a legislator or public figure will give a reason for doing something purely on the basis of what they believe would be the result or consequence in the future. Surely this is based on logic and past results, but evidence of such is often neglected to be included in the argument. Instead, the predictions of a present action becomes more aligned with the ideologies that person is trying to push instead of favoring statistical and evidential accuracy. For example, one of the Republican arguments is that raising taxes will cost jobs by making employers pay more money, leaving less for hiring. This could compute logically, but I feel like it could just as easily go in another direction, such as those paying extra taxes need to hire more people to make more money to pay those taxes; ergo creating jobs. But instead of exploring these alternatives and options, all I hear are blanket statements that become foundations of go-nowhere arguments.

A similar example is the social security argument; some claim it won't last 5 years, other saying it will work for another 20, plus many other predictions, but all these claims are based on projections. In any case, basing policy on projections instead of what is actually happening in the present can only cause more problems later on in that projected future. Shit, half the reason I pay $4 a gallon for gas is because of projected value of oil and its supply. It certainly doesn't cost $4 a gallon to produce, it's just the going rate. By allowing policy to be based on a future timetable, current problems can be pushed down the line, even ignored until they become too complex to fix. It is unfortunate that this has become an acceptable means of not only solving current problems but it also has become a basis for making arguments on how to decide on a current issue.

Of course it would be foolish not to consider the future ramifications of current action, but decisions made should still be put in the context of the present and not just in the context of what could be in the future. If things are not working now, try something new to start getting it to work now. There are so many variables in our complex world that the conditions for that predicted future may not even exist by the time that date in the future rolls around.

This whole act of predicting the future and safeguarding against it seems futile and irresponsible. To me, it becomes more of an excuse for inaction than a reason for action and change. All I request is that the next time you hear a member of government or a politician make some sort of claim to the future, just ask yourself how he got to that conclusion and what are his motivations for making that claim. As far as I know, no one can see into the future, so I am wary of anyone who claims to know what will happen next. There is enough shit to sift through in the present, we don't need any more, especially the kind that technically doesn't even exist yet.

No Shame, No Gain

I believe that character is an integral part of societal existence. The way we act and interact with others reflects our own self-worth and attitude toward life. What I have been noticing is that there are two things that can make that effort to keep one's character intact go right down the drain. These two things are the ever-tempting and ever-corrupting fame and money.

In a constantly growing world, it becomes harder and harder to stand out in the crowd. Many people have found a way to successfully get their name recognized and do good in the world. Then there are those who have found fame through infamy. People who have done things you would never consider doing in your life become just as recognizable as the people you wish you could be. This could be interpreted as a hero/villain dichotomy where one will know the good along with the bad, but it seems to be that more and more people are happy to play the part of the villain. What's worse is that this choice is often handsomely rewarded.

A direct culprit of this situation is our constant consumption of media. We are always looking for the next thing; bigger, better, more outlandish, the next step up (or down). Our insistent craving for new content produces gaps where there just isn't enough good things to fill. Instead, it gets filled with the exact opposite of what we all respect and appreciate; shocking stories of drama or tragedy, stories of taboo or immorality that are more fit for gossip and small-minded entertainment. And because of this constant stream of information, we can take in one outrageous story and move on to the next without much consequence. We don't have to think about what it is like to be that person in the story beyond that given day, our life moves on while that person has to deal with their circumstance for the rest of their life. What bothers me is that is seems like a lot of people actually strive to be that person in the story; the one who becomes known for that absurd thing they did or said, simply because it puts them in the limelight and potentially gets them paid. I seriously doubt they realize the totality of the consequences of their actions.

I could list plenty of examples from our current entertainment world that fit this description: Tiger Wood's mistresses (or any mistress/affair for that matter), anyone on MTV or E! (pregnant teens, drunk reality contestants, sex tape 'stars'), dating show contestants, anyone labeled 'housewife' on tv, anyone involved in a political scandal, etc, etc. There are just so many opportunities to exploit. Just check your news or web browser if you need to see more. And it's not as if these people were forced into the spotlight to be held accountable; they chose and continue to choose to be in the public eye, fully aware that their actions and words will be spread across the world for all to see and hear. Where there should be at least a speck of shame, there seems to be a sense of pride. The fame and money from these amoral deeds compensate for being despised and detested by the public.

I suppose an argument for these people is that they don't really see anything wrong with what they are doing or don't consider or value what other people think. Good for them, they live on a mental island and can wear blinders made of dollar bills to keep them happy. Fortunately enough, most of the stuff these people are famous for are just things a normal person would be embarrassed or ashamed about. They haven't killed anyone or destroyed anything, just did embarrassing things. Embarrassing things that all the world now knows about.

I mean, am I being too puritanical in thinking that I would never want shameful deeds of mine broadcast around for the world to see? Am I in the minority in thinking that no amount of money can make up for a negative stigma associated with who I am? Perhaps these fame whores really are just a minority and the rest of us do prefer to keep our character intact. Nonetheless, it seems incredibly easy to become notorious in our society and actually benefit from it. Maybe I just need to chalk it up to the fact that out of the millions of people in our country and the millions of millions in the rest of the world, there has to be a couple hundred buffoons that play the role of the despised, if not just to make the rest of us feel better about ourselves. That's the positive spin. The negative spin is that the rest of us like watching people do horrible things since we can't do them ourselves and we are willing to pay to see it done. In either case, I can't help but feel sad for these people. I just wonder if they feel bad about themselves. But maybe rolling in piles of money helps those feelings go away.

Words Worth

I must admit, I do a lot of surfing on the ol' interwebs. I consume information as fast as I can click, as I enjoy keeping up with everything going on in the world. From news conglomerators to lists of links (MCPdailylinks.blogspot.com for example) to mainstream sites full of articles, I peruse them all. I enjoy a quick read, sometimes a lengthier one, but it is all based on my eye scanning timing and ability.

Most sites keep my need for quick info sated, but there is a new trend in content that is disrupting my rhythm. This is the choice to put that information in video format.

Video definitely serves its purpose when trying to relate a certain happening or visual experience. You can only really experience a guy getting hit by an ice cream truck while doing the dougie through video form. But for most everything else, a written article will suffice. I do not need a talking head explaining a news situation when a 150 word paragraph would accomplish the same task. Putting items in video format only slows down the absorption rate. Loading times, ads and gratuitous graphics only get in the way of me obtaining whatever tidbit I am curious about and moving on. I get so frustrated waiting for a video to buffer and load when the information in plain text would load almost instantaneously. I could have potentially read and moved on to something new by the time a video is ready to play. The hassle is just unnecessary.

Well, unnecessary from my point of view. I understand that using video is an easy way for webpages to force an advertisement on the viewer. Many sites will put a short video ad before the actual content, but this is merely a speedbump in the process. Crafty surfers will know to load the video up, switch tabs to something else while it runs, then switch back and scroll to the point of interest on the video timeline. The ads just become an annoyance than a dealbreaker. The only thing that really bothers me concerning ads is when they ad is longer in duration that the actual content of the video itself. That is unnecessary.

What I feel is sad is that the dominance of video in relating content to the audience is a recognition of the preference of passive learning and, to put it bluntly, the stupidity of what is seen as the average consumer. By putting information in video through a talking head or designed graphic, the observer need not employ any reading, language or imagination, just look at the pictures and listen to what is being said. It is basically the same argument your teacher made to you in that you should read To Kill a Mockingbird, not watch the movie. My point is not to be preachy about reading v television, but it definitely relates to why video is impeding on my surfing experience.

Fortunately, I think many sites are catching on to this complaint and are starting to provide written summaries or passages that accompany the video content at the top of the page. Thanks to this, I can scan and read the info I want to know, then if my interest is piqued enough to warrant the video routine, I can choose to do so. This is how it should be. The text is the entree while the pictures and video are the side dishes that make the entree more enjoyable and complete the meal. Albeit, a very fast meal that I may take two bites of and then move on to the next dish.

In Defense of the Compact Disc

I am a child of the 90s. That decade shaped my adolescence and prepped me for an adult life in the new century. Like any adolescent, music was an important participant in the shaping of who I am today. I heard music through the radio and television, but the main format of my music consumption was the compact disc. I had a few cassette tapes in my earlier years, but the CD became the storage medium of choice for all my music needs. Trips to the music store were a weekly event, borrowing and copying CDs from friends were even more common, and yes, I even belonged to Columbia House to get 12 CDs for the price of one. Multiple CD cases were filled and were constantly being updated with new music. Furniture was bought for the sole purpose of CD storage. Obtaining a CD burner threw out limitations. It was a good time.

Towards the end of the decade, computer-based music and downloads were starting up and I fully took advantage of the high-speed internet in college to create a new library of music. But even with this, I never gave up on my CDs. There was something that these digital downloads could not replace. To me, it was something about the experience of the album as a whole. Each song meant something to the songs before and after it. I would be able to sing the first notes of the next song as soon as one song ended; you just knew the order. There is just something special about listening to the whole album, not just a single here and there.

Yes, I am well aware that digital players and media libraries have album-playing capabilities and you can experience the music just the same as if from a CD. But for me, there is a difference. I don't know if it is just having something tangible with you or if disc artwork makes a stronger impression, but I enjoy having a collection of CDs at hand. It becomes a more important decision when cycling through pages of CDs and their covers as opposed to scrolling through lines of text or hitting 'random'. It is a slower process, but it can also be more satisfying.

So even today, I still have soft cases of CDs in my car for my car's CD player. I could update to a digital based system, sure, but I like my discs. I like paging through the cases and picking out that CD that fits the mood I am in at the time. I don't mind that it sometimes takes some creative reaching and poor driving choices to get that certain CD out and in the player. Yes, the occasional CD skipping is an annoyance, but it makes me think of just how many times I may have listened to that album and maybe I need to do some backing-up, repurchasing or re-burning.

I think I am chalking this opinion up to pure stubbornness on my part; something in me that is holding on to those years in the 90s that molded my ears into the custom music receptors they are today. I experienced music in album format, off a plastic disc. I liked what resulted. I will continue to listen to those discs and experience those 80 minute journeys one at a time. Efficiency and durability may have improved with the adoption of newer formats, but CDs still provide me with a feeling that the new ways cannot. It may take a bit more care and maintenance, but I will stay loyal and stick with my spinning plastic discs that have always treated me well.

Haters gotta Hate

A few days ago, President Obama made a televised statement in the middle of the night declaring that the man behind the 9/11 attacks and sworn enemy of the United States, Osama Bin Laden had been found and killed. This man had been in hiding for 10 years, eluding our military in the search for justice. This man caused insurmountable tragedy here in the US killing thousands and affecting millions, so surely his death would be a welcomed announcement. Well, you would think so.

Unfortunately, this was not the case. There was immediate political response making claims about the President's timing and the questioning the legitimacy of the deed. Fear mongers immediately worried about potential backlash. Diplomats wanted to know about Pakistan's involvement. Conspirators want to see physical proof, not believing 'buried at sea', or the whole event for that matter. Peacelovers claimed murder is never the answer after hearing the President made the order to kill the guy. Even Native Americans got into the mix by being offended at the terrorist's code name of "Geronimo".

I understand having differing view points and sticking to your morals and ethics, but how is this event not a good thing for all Americans? Why must there be instantaneous pessimism and insolence? Sure the talking heads on TV need something to argue about, but if you scour the internet or newspaper, there are reactions all over the charts, bringing up other subjects and trying to relate them to this event and why they are allowed to hate. It's just sad.

The worst of all is the people who claim that Obama did nothing and should deserve no gratitude or respect. It doesn't matter if he sat in a recliner while the whole thing went down or if he was the one who actually pulled the trigger. He is the presiding President, the Commander in Chief and he was in office when this happened. It got done. Period. This condescending viewpoint is often linked to claims that former President Bush should be given more credit; him being the initial hunter of this terrorist, without whom the current President would not have succeeded. I find it depressing that people cannot just be happy that an evil person is now gone from this earth. People are not satisfied with being relieved of wondering if this man would strike again. Instead, the event gets twisted into some sort of political power play including new conspiracy theories to befuddle the interested.

The events following the announcement only solidify my opinion that no matter what good things may be done, there are enough people now that there will always be someone against it or finding fault with it. People are so different and so numerous that pleasing all of them is impossible, no matter the action. If you take this all in and think it matters that people get along, the only remedy for this realization is apathy and ignorance. The alternative is agitation, arguments, vitriol and hate. I will choose to knowingly ignore the hostility, reducing it to an easy cliche that I am comfortable lumping all of these people in: haters gotta hate.

Intervention Intervention

Millions of people play the lottery. It's a chance to live the dream of the rich life for the cost of a few dollars. In my opinion though, you might as well just toss those dollars into the garbage. You are actually more likely to die that day then win the lottery. But the fact that winning is incredibly rare is known (not really understood), so the argument is not new.

What is new, however, is an ad campaign by the geniuses at the DC lottery. The District of Columbia has come up with a great new slogan to boost lottery ticket sales that speaks to all the addicts and non-thinkers looking for a quick solution to their problems. These people need a lottery intervention! This intervention is not the you've-gone-too-far-and-need-help type (which it could actually feed into), but rather, you've had a shitty day, why not fix it with a lottery ticket?

I honestly cannot figure out how marketers thought this was a legit ad campaign. The key term in that sentence is 'honestly'. Really, I do know how they got away with it: they don't mind lying directly to their consumers. The ad makes the claim that, hey-you've had a rough day, why not spend a dollar and win some money-therefore making you happier and putting those horrible memories behind you. Of course what they don't show in the ads is practically every one who actually buys a ticket realizing it is a loser, having their hopes instantaneously crushed and hating the fact that they wasted another dollar. This does not turn that crappy day around.

I would hope people would be aware of these facts just by hearing the word 'lottery', but that's assuming people think. Yes, a fool and his money are soon parted, but I feel that these ads are so blatantly misleading that it becomes unjust to make such claims. Sure, people may get a little happiness out of that feeling of hope and potential, but how long does that last and is it even worth it? I could get just as much happiness thinking a large bag of money will fall out of the sky and land on my lap.

I suppose it all boils down to the joys of gambling and the DC guys are putting that forth straight ahead. Had a bad day? Try gambling. Stepped in some dog doo? Gamble a few dollars and see if your attitude improves. Still, selling the short thrill seems wrong when put in the context of day-to-day life. I feel like if people are having that bad a day to warrant a 'lottery intervention', maybe gambling with the chance you may make your day even worse may not be the best idea.

If you really want an intervention, as lame as this sounds, take that dollar and give it to someone who needs it. The act of helping others may actually put you in a better mood by making you realize things aren't as bad for you as you thought. Yes, lottery proceeds often go to school programs or other beneficial civic programs, but the horrible marketing of it taints the whole process. Instead, be an intervention for someone else or hell, just buy a candy bar. Just don't rely on a piece of paper and astronomical odds to turn your day around, no matter what that TV tells you.

I got Courted

A week or so ago, I opted to go into my local courthouse to contest a ticket I had received a few weeks prior. The ticket was for making a right-hand turn onto a one-way street at a time prohibited by a sign hanging above the intersection. It is my understanding that this sign exists to keep commuters from using these smaller streets as cut-throughs to get to the highway and to prevent any gridlock from forming at the intersections. Well, I had parked on that very street and was not cutting through, just traveling the most efficient way possible for me. So, I approached the intersection, saw that the way was clear and made the turn. The sign reads no right turn from 3 pm -6 pm, M-F. It was 330 pm on a Wednesday.

Sure enough, as I turned that corner, 2 police officers on motorcycles were on the side of the road just waiting for any sign ignorers. As soon as I straightened the car out, the officer walked into the street and waved me over. It was a typical trap, the officer barely had to move 5 feet. I pulled over, undoubtedly pissed off at the setup. The officer was polite as he wrote my ticket and listened to my explanation. He said it didn't matter if I had parked on that street, the law is the law. He said if I really wanted to use this street to get to the highway, I should go a block in the other direction and make two more rights to get on the street a ways up, where there is no sign. Basically what I heard was this sign is only here to make money for the city, not to really do much of anything to control traffic. I took my ticket and was astounded to see a $91 price tag associated with my offense. I was given the option to pre-pay or contest it in court. You better believe I would go to court. $91 dollars for a right turn? Really? Well, I would soon find out why the price was that high.

Back to me and my court appearance. I arrive at 930 in the morning to a court room full of traffic offenders (and a few more serious ones). The judge is a very agreeable, if not enthusiastic woman who is listening to every case and being very lenient. Most every offender there pleads guilty -with an explanation. The judge listens to each one and offers reduced fines or the opportunity to take traffic school to avoid points. My case was one of the last ones heard, so I had time to think about what I was to say. I got up and laid out my argument (guilty with an explanation was also my plea). The judge understood and since I had such a decent driving record, I opted not to do driving school and just pay the fine. She was okay with that and reduced the fine to $15. I immediately thought I did the right thing by showing up that morning. I was told 'just see the clerk to pay the fine and court costs'. Sure, no problem.

I walk out of the courtroom and over to the clerk's office. There is a line and I am noticing a trend of disgruntled faces as they walk away. This seems odd, because most everyone got a decent deal. Finally, it was my turn to pay. I approach and give my name. "That will be $76". What? The judge said $15. "That is correct, but you also must pay the $61 court fee for being in court today". Absolute garbage. I have to pay 2/3 of my original ticket just for stepping foot in the courtroom. That, and the $15 reduced fine. I have no alternative, so I reluctantly hand over my credit card. I can't help but think what a huge rip off the whole system is. Then, I realize why the judge was so happy to dole out the reduced fines: they were going to get almost as much money from us suckers anyway. I mean, at least I didn't have to pay the whole $91 and the court cost, but come on, this is just robbery. Furthermore, I realize the ticket costs themselves are originally so high because you are starting at a $61 base price for all these offenses.

The point I am trying to make is that it is no wonder that people have such an abhorrence for our legal system. First, you can get fined for doing things that a small piece of metal tells you not to, then you are given false hope that you can right this wrong only to be shaken down once more and made to realize you are powerless to do anything about it. In the end, the money isn't that much of a fine, it's just the associated hassle and headgames that result from these incidents. What really gets me is that the police officers know to just sit there and rake in the fines. I can understand enforcing that spot if the turn is causing gridlock or serious disruptions, but to fine people for the sole reason of 'that's what the sign says' is to me beyond ridiculous. It's like when your parents made you do something 'because I said so'. Those reasons can make kids hate their parents, and again, is why a lot of us hate the legal system: it is authorities abusing their power. Only in this case, if you fight back, you don't get grounded, you go to jail; and I will happily pay a fine to avoid that result. And they know that.

Burgernomics

In an effort to keep up with our national obsession with cheap-n'-shitty fast food, Burger King has just revealed a new deal for their BK Stacker burgers. The new deal is elementary in concept: $1 for a single stacker, $2 for a double and $3 for a triple. Basically, it's a dollar per patty. But as anyone with eyes and any cognitive ability may perceive, a burger is not just a patty. In this case it is also, bun, cheese and bacon. If you do a little math, you can see some inconsistency in what you're paying for.

On the BK site (BK.com), you can see exactly what you're getting when you order. Your $1 stacker is beef, bacon and cheese. When you go for the double, you not only get an extra patty, but also 1 extra half-strip of bacon (yes, that reads half-strip, apparently whole strips were just too much). When you go for the triple, you get the extra bacon with that third patty, but you also get a second slice of cheese. Quite the deal.

Except for the fact that you can 3 $1 burgers for the same price as the triple.

I am sure the geniuses at Burger King understand the impliations of this, but let me explain. With your $3, you can get (1) burger with 3 patties, 3 bacon (half)strips and 2 slices of cheese (and the accompanying condiments) OR you can get (3) burgers, totaling 3 patties, 6 (half)strips of bacon and 3 slices of cheese. For those who would rather not do math, that's 3 extra half strips of bacon and an extra slice of cheese as well as 2 whole burger buns more you would get if you buy these individually. For the logician, this seems like a grave mix-up for the accountants over at the Home of the Whopper.

The only reason I can think why the higher ups agreed to this is to appeal to the simple, convenience-oriented mind of American consumers. The appeal of 1-2-3 may lure in those burger eaters a bit more than say a marketing ad of 1.25-1.75-2.50 or something similar. It also may just be a way to make more money off their heavier patrons, as there may be more repeat business for the $3 fare if the correlation of fast-food trips to then high-calorie choices is true.

As you may know, I am concerned with the obesity of our fellow Americans and am constantly disappointed in how apathetic people are when it comes to weight. This new offering only continues the trend of cheap, un-nutritional food, available to be handed to you while you drive around in your motorized chair. Adding to the dearth of good choices is that these stackers have some sort of special sauce that I'm pretty sure is even less nutritional than your standard ketchup/mustard toppings. Add this to the fact that I'm pretty sure a normal cheeseburger costs more than a dollar, meaning you can get now more calories and more fat for your money. Gross.

Perhaps this new deal is just a temporary selling point to get people in the doors. Or, these burgers are so damn cheap to produce that it doesn't matter that the math doesn't make sense. If they can still make a profit on the $1 version, then anything else is just money in the bank. For the consumer, it's more weight in the tank and stomach and face. But if you decide you don't care about your health and still want that delicious stacker burger taste (I admit, they are kinda good), at least make the right economic decision. Then at least, you can burn some calories by deconstructing your individual burgers and reassembling the pieces into your own burger monstrosity. You gotta start somewhere.

The Fat of the Land

If you are not aware, the First Lady of the United States is a strong proponent of healthy eating and daily exercise. Called "Let's Move", the idea is to get the youth of America on the right track so they not only live longer but live happier, healthier lives. A big move is the renovation of our schools' cafeterias, as this is a main source of daily nutrition for kids across the country. I feel as this is a great idea and find it hard to argue against being healthier.

Apparently, I am mistaken. After a year of the program, conservative groups and in my opinion, big lazy fat asses, continue to speak out against this program, claiming they don't want the government controlling what they eat. Really? I was unaware of any branch or service of the government is coming to my house and forcing me to eat anything at all. The "Let's Move" program is an initiative; an option. It even says on the main site that they are looking to help kids make healthy choices, not have the decision made for them. I think what bothers me the most is that people actually have a problem with eating and living healthy.

The excuse for not doing so it that 'the government is making me do it'. Bullshit. The 'government' in this case is a concerned group who are trying to improve things. The only reason you would keep to this excuse is A) you hate the government and everything it stands for, meaning that if they recommended breathing to keep living, you would plug your holes up and die on principle or B) you enjoy being a fatass with health problems and just thinking about putting effort into losing weight is causing you to sweat too much. Why else would people argue against healthy living suggestions?

To put this in perspective, I ask, have you been to a Wal-mart lately? You should be able to take in all the reasons why America needs a healthier perspective. I know the common reasons for obesity - cost of food, time to make meals, vegetables taste like shit, etc. Well it is exactly these issues that programs like "Let's Move" look to tackle. They let it be known that it will take work and you may have to give up those daily french fries or candy bars. But even to need to explain that changes require work and that after years of habits, it may take quite a bit of effort to fix them, is just more ridiculous.

I feel the ever-present short-sightedness of today's American prevents them from seeing the larger picture and see the reasons why they should think twice before super-sizing that combo. -When you can order a 12-piece bucket with large sides and a biscuit for 15 bucks and get it in 10 minutes, why bother taking a half-hour at home to cook something up? When whole meals come frozen in bags that are ready to be microwaved and eaten in 5 minutes, why bother taking a few minutes to hand chop some fresh veggies? I can get all of this here and now; my present situation is fine- Sure the present is fine, but did you happen to look at the side of that bag of food? 50% of your daily sodium and 65% of your daily saturated fat will get you to tomorrow, but you'll be lucky to make it 1000 more. I will be fit and enjoying my grandchildren while you are hooked to an oxygen tank on your scooter. I think this may be the most challenging aspect of these get-healthy programs: it is not an immediate result and often the results are in perceivable, therefore they are not popular in our instant-gratification society.

My point is that healthy living programs such as "let's move" are essential to a society who is content with being lazy and apathetic in their physicality. I bet we wouldn't have nearly the same mess of a health care system if people took care of themselves better, starting with how they eat. However, there will never be a requirement or forcing of anything people consume, despite how many times opponents would beg to differ. The only person or institution who is going to make you healthier is yourself, not the government, not your friends. Stop finding excuses and start doing what is right. Let's move is a suggestion, a method to success. Why are people against this? They aren't telling you to stop all your junk food intake, just be aware of what you are eating and how much. Be responsible, be educated. Much easier said than done, but that is kinda the point.

PS - What inspired this post was a quote from Stupid Palin on her horrible TV show. "This is in honor of Michelle Obama who said the other day we should not have dessert." She then proceeded to eat her own weight in S'mores. This is America.

How Things Work

As technology advances, it becomes easier for us to focus on the results of a given task and lose touch with how that result was achieved. This is a general statement, but if you think of your daily life, you can see how this applies. For example, I seriously doubt that the majority of car owners actually know how that engine starts and how the fuel combusts into kinetic energy. I also doubt that owners of cell phones (which is about everyone nowadays) actually know the phone numbers of the majority of their contacts stored on their phone. This can be acknowledged down the line from how that box of cereal was produced to why that computer keeps showing that blue error screen.

I will admit that it is entirely possible to lead a successful life without obtaining the knowledge of all these processes. The trouble arises however when something along the course of your day goes wrong and a fix or amelioration is required. Without understanding the process, we are lost as to why the function failed. The result is confusion and wasted time and usually, the problem then becomes the burden of the people around the problem as well.

I will also like to state that there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for help when the process has escaped you. We should all be happy to learn something new everyday. But for everyday items, especially those as part of your daily routine, I feel you should be familiar with how those things work. If you are constantly downloading music or movies or whatever off the internet, you should well know that there is a constant risk of viruses or malware. If you don't, then you do not know enough about what you are doing, much like driving around town without knowing to yield right of way to the stop sign on the right. You can get by without certain details, but when it comes up, you are going to wish you did.

I guess what this boils down to is my constant desire for efficiency. It seems like there is just always something going wrong or something out of place, any of which could be totally preventable or easily fixed. I feel that a large amount of stress and anxiety could be eliminated just through simple education. If you are familiar with how something works, you can walkthrough the process and step by step, eliminate possible errors. This puts the power back into the individuals hands and things don't grind to a halt while a solution is found.

This post resulted from me running into too many instances of ignorance. I know everyone is already as busy as can be, but if they would just take the time to learn about the whys and hows instead of just the whats and whens, I feel we would be living in a happier place. Plus, it is always a good feeling when you have fixed something yourself. Things will go wrong during the day, so just think of how many opportunities you have to cheer yourself up, not to mention the benefit of not inconveniencing the rest of the world around you because of your incomprehension.

About that 'Church' that does horrible protests...

I'm sure you have heard of this group of people that gather outside of military funerals or churches or events holding signs saying things like, "God hates America" or "Thank God for 9/11". These clowns make national headlines for their outrageous protests and 'rallies', showing their offensive signs just outside sensitive or tragic events. Just recently, these morons picketed the Arizona shooting funerals. I think it can also be said that these people are universally despised for the hate they show. This so-called 'church' is nothing but a hate group in religious disguise.

What is worse is that for some reason, US courts have defended these dolts as a defense of free speech. This is the worst part of it all. Yes, our country is based on the right of free speech and assembly, but that freedom is meant to keep things in check, keep people from being oppressed and keep society moving forward. I can think of no reason to protect this hate speech. It serves no purpose other than to create conflict amongst people. Sure, these 'church'-goers may have strong beliefs about what they feel is right or wrong, but why is it necessary that they be allowed to share that hate in the public realm? It serves no purpose other than to keep to the false belief that all speech is equal and therefore free.

As a functioning society, rights are justified by a function of the greater good. There is no good that comes from allowing these protesters to rally near these sensitive events. These people could go do their protest off by themselves somewhere and no one would care, chalking it up to crazies being crazy. But these fools want their message heard and do it by attending places where they would cause the most damage. It is unbelievable to me that their actions can be defended in the name of freedoms. The only way freedoms work is if there is a general societal respect that can keep them in play. If this respect is perverted, than the freedoms are eroded into a false liberty and actually become a detriment to the whole.

In order to reestablish what is right, I feel like there should be an ability to resist their obvious attempts to offend and hurt. It is just not right that a family attending a funeral has to hear slurs shouted at them because they have a differing mentality of life. Sure, everyone has a right to believe what they wish, but when you impose your beliefs on others and chastise them for not believing what you do, well, that's fascism and nobody likes a fascist. Unfortunately, fascists make for interesting TV stories, and the media can't help themselves when it comes to these incidents. Covering these offenses exhibits the horrible nature of these people, but at the same time brings attention to them and what they do. At this point, it becomes a national problem.

What boggles my mind the most about these cretins are their signs like "God hates America". If America is so bad and full of sin, then why are they still living in America? I'll tell you why: America is the only country that would even allow this type of mess to happen. It's what makes America great, but can also lead to problems when taken advantage of, which is exactly what these people are doing. They wouldn't dare take their church to another country (they are actually banned from the UK), because they just wouldn't put up with that shit.

So besides living in a country you hate, I think the saddest thing is the fact that the church members' kids are being brought up in these extreme ways without knowing better. I mean, when you teach your kid to sing "God hates Fags" and other fantastic ditties, you are irreversibly damaging any chance that kid has for a normal life. These people spend all their time hating and speaking of doom and apocalypse, completely missing out on all the good things in life. I wonder to myself, if these people are so obsessed with what God hates and what is wrong and when God is returning, why don't they hurry up and go talk to him already? Your life is nothing but hate and protests, so why not skip ahead to that big meeting in the sky? No one will miss you and America will be a bit happier and you can all hate from far away. People can counter-protest all they want and try to push back, but zealots like these are so set in their twisted ways that the only real solution is to give them exactly what they want: a personal hate session with their God.

MCP Daily Links

The new blog is now up! May Contain Peanuts has expanded to include a new site of daily links. These links are the ones I post daily on IM, but now there will be an archive to go back to.

There will be 3 links a day, updated each weekday. Here's the link:

http://mcpdailylinks.blogspot.com/

Happy 2011!