Doublemint is Living a Lie

So, I was in the grocery store the other day. As I waited for the cashier to finish counting the coupons of the old lady in front of me, I began to peruse the selection of outrageous shit they have at the counter. Evidently, one of the Olsen twins is a balloon now and some stupid bitch from CSI is leaving her husband (I have my doubts about either of those things being true, but even if they are, as if they're newsworthy?) National Enquirer only remains interesting for so long, and for me, about 5 seconds seems about right. I started checking out the gum, thinking about how many varieties of gum can you possibly have? Myself, I'm more of a classic kinda guy, gimme some Wrigley's any day. When I finally got to the Wrigley's I was checkin' out the spearmint and the Doublemint and the Juicy Fruit and all that shit, when I had a stunning realization. Doublemint is living a lie. Doublemint's not a mint at all. It's even underlined in red because spell check doesn't even recognize it as a real word. Anyways, if you go to Wikipedia (the God ofg all knowledge) and search spearmint, it even has a genus species name, Mentha spicata for those interested,that's how official it is! Wintergreen is a group of plants, but a legit thing nevertheless, whereas, if you were to type in Doublemint into Wikipedia, you'd get "Doublemint is a flavor of chewing gum made by the Wrigley Company. It was launched in the United States in 1914, and has had variable market share since that time." It's been fooling decent, hardworking, American consumers since 1914! I brought it upon myself to expose Doublemint for the liar that it is. It's not a mint at all! It's not even a plant! That being said, I hope this Earth-shattering revelation isn't too heartbreaking for anyone, but I just felt it was important that people know the truth about this fraudulent gum.

Granola With Raisins or Without?

This is not an attack against the granola community. I mean, after all, who doesn't love a little granola in their life? It's more a question of logistics. Now "logistics" and "granola" aren't very often listed in the same sentence or paragraph even really, but it's a question that has literally been plaguing my simpleton mind for at least 3 weeks now. The people in my life have already listened to me lodge this complaint time and time again, so what better outlet to voice my opinion when my friends get sick of me than the internet?
Now for all you Kellogg Granola lovers, you may have noticed the two boxes of granola on the grocery store shelf. One is clearly marked "granola with raisins" whilst the other is labeled "granola without raisins". Now, this may not seem an issue to you, but as just a general loser I can't help but notice, there's no "granola". The granola with raisins is clearly just that, whereas the one sans raisins is obviously "granola without raisins", but why are these two boxes made? Can't the granola without raisins be just called "granola" and then keep the granola with raisins box.
When I voiced this complaint to my friend who's an advertising art major, she said "there's a market for these things. they make the two boxes because people buy the two boxes". While I grimly accept this as a fact, I have a noble concept for the good people of America. If you want raisins, buy the box that says granola with raisins and if it just says granola, just assume that means that there's no raisins in the fucking box! Another concept for all you Kellogg's lovers out there, if you want granola without raisins... look at the picture on the box! If you look at the picture of the "granola without raisins" box you can clearly see that there are no raisins in the bowl! I'm sorry, but ad execs should really stop catering to the dumb asses and encourage a little deductive reasoning of their customers. It doesn't seem like it's asking too much, but hell, what do I know? I'm no advertising art major...

Alarmingly Appropriate Move Titles

In one of my moments of extreme boredom, I was browsing Netflix. I was looking at movies that I'd recently returned ands they have that whole thing where it's like "If you liked this movie, you may like..." Now I will admit in a moment of weakness I had orered the remake of Prom Night on Netflix. I figured "eh, Brittany Snow's cool, what have I got to lose?" The answer is clearly an hour and a half of my life and what self respect remained. Regardless, I was looking at what movies they thought I might like and I came across a little gem called Single White Female 2. Haven't heard of it? Surprise, surprise. It's one of those sequels to a successful movie like 10 or 15 years after the fact. Trying to capitalize on the success of Single White Female may have sounded like a genius idea to the folks at Third Street Pictures, but something seems to be lacking. Well, that's what I used to think until I saw the full title of the film. Single White Female 2: The Psycho. Now I don't know if you've ever seen the first Single White Female and I hate to ruin it, but the whole premise is that the bitch is psycho. We're talkin' about ape shit insane type psycho so one can't help but wonder, who is the addition of a number and a little clarification preceded by a semi-colon gonna get a new audience to watch the movie. However, the fact can't be ignored that movie studios know what they're doing. There's gotta be a market for dumb ass movies that are given dumb ass titles that spell out the film for you. So this is a post for all lovers of the Single White Female 2's of the World... take up knitting or at least something mildly productive.

An Adjustment to Apartment Life

I type this to you by the light of my laptop (or rather my roommate's laptop). Why, you may ask, am I typing only using the light of a laptop? It might have something to do with the lack of overhead lights in my new apartment. Now, mind you, the Western wall is essentially entirely a window so I get plenty of light in the morning, however, if you'll look at the timestamp you'll see that I'm typing this out of sheer boredom going on the 10 o'clock hour. If I had dignity to spare perhaps I'd type this using the light that I have for my closet, but considering that I'd hafta sit in my closet to do that, I think I'll just hold out. Regardless, it strikes me as a little ridiculous that living in this modern apartment that I'm in with no overhead lighting. It just makes me wonder... when did overhead lights become superfluous and where the hell was I? Mind you, before I began typing I seriously considered typing in the closet...
What's more mind blowing is that I'm not the only person plagued by this problem. I don't just mean the other people in my building, but a couple friends of mine who are leasing a townhouse for the year have absolutely no overhead lights in their bedrooms. It's just kinda weird to me, I guess, probably because the move is still pretty new so I haven't had time to go out and buy a floor lamp, but perhaps even more bizarre is what these apartments DO have. Take the oven for instance, complete with 5 stove top burners (because 4 is evidently so passe) and a warming drawer. What, you might ask, is a warming drawer? I honestly couldn't tell you. It sounds self explanatory but I'm convinced there's something more to it. I tried to use it and it just started beeping really angrily at me... I've since decided to give up modern living if it's gonna take that tone with me. But, then again, I don't know what I was expecting considering I still don't how to use the broiler. It's not so much that I don't know HOW it's more I don't know why I would. In my 21 years of existence I've yet to come across something that I needed to broil. I mean, I've been given the option to broil certain foods, but I'm a purist so I like to stick with what I know (stove, microwave, or if I'm feeling ballsy I'll use the oven).
As if the equipment that the apartment comes with standard isns't it enough, my roommate brought her own little arsenal of kitchen equipment. I mean, that's cool and all, I like having pans to cook with as much as the next dude, but there are just some things that seem a little ridiculous to me. For instance, how many varieties of spatulas does one apartment need? I may not be the best source to ask considering for most of my life if I had to flip something as I cooked it, I'd just do it by hand and hope that the grease burns didn't hurt too bad... I respect the fact that she cooks and she likes to have the necessary utensils to do so, but it's bad when you walk into the kitchen and start thinking about breathing into a paper bag because, yeah, it's THAT overwhelming. Then again, it's whatever. We all have our own little idiosyncrasies... some are just a little more daunting than others it would seem.
I mean, I understand that moving into any new place is gonna be an adjustment, and I'm cool with that. I'm sure it'll start to feel homier when I actually have a bed or even lighting to read by at night...

The Habits of your Average Female as Noted by a Gay Man

I've never pretended to understand a lot about women. Honestly, they're as confusing to me as they are to anyone else. However, there's one thing I've picked up on. That my friends, is what I'm hear to tell you about. I'll take you step by step through some of the goofier aspects of the female psyche as understood by a man who has admittedly never been with a woman before...

First there are the basics. You have your loaded questions. I.e. Everyone knows that when a girl says "You think this dress is cute... right?" It's the effective pause and inflection of her saying "right?" that defines your answer. If her inflection slides up towards the end, the obvious answer is yes. If she starts talking softly towards the end of her words, it's almost as if she's asking you to say no. That's the tricky part though. You never simply say "no" or even "I'm not a huge fan" or something like that. You say "It's not my favorite. I personally liked blah blah blah better." You always suggest another possibility, otherwise you may end up like me. Can you believe I've been accused of being an unsympathetic shopper? Yeah... neither can I...

Another thing I've noticed about language may be specific to the women in my life, but I urge you all to investigate for yourselves. Alright, so here's how it goes. You're talkin' about... tapas or some shit. Say this girl really likes tapas... like, "Oh my God! Tapas?" and then when she gets to the critical declaration of her love of tapas, somehow and for some reason, the natural register of her voice lowers. Then she whispers excitedly "I love tapas!". Never does she actually say in her normal voice that she loves tapas, she always whispers it. And it's not limited to tapas either... I've noticed a lotta girls I know always talk at a normal volume and then when they LOVE something, they talk really quietly. It's not even shit they should be ashamed of. For instance, the whispering would be expected if she was talking about her love of Barry Manilow , but no, it's pretty much around the clock.

Finally, the eating habits of these women was drivin' me nuts. let me preface this by saying that I'm for the most part happy with my figure, I love those Dove commercials, and I'm all about natural beauty. Still, these girls make even me feel self conscious. We had people bring in cookies and snacks and stuff for one of my classes (yes, I'm 20 and still have classes where people bring in cookies... I go to art school, lay off!) Anyways, we all go to the middle table to grab some food. None of the girls moved at first, they let the guys go first because evidently guys can't get fat or don't care about it or something, I don't know, I personally don't get the logic. Anyways, that's when the girls go up. They all shuffle around the table a couple times, peeking at the food before returning to their seat. When they sit down, the food is spread out across the plate, but it's not a whole lot but (and this is where it gets weird) every chick has at least 2 cookies. By the end of the class, the cookies are gone, except for one cookie which has a single nibble taken out of it. They throw away almost a full cookie! One girl I asked about this (not one of the girls from my class) and she agreed with me and preceded to explain to me by leaving something on your plate it makes it seem as if you're not fat or whatever. Number one, none of these women in my class are unhealthy by any standards. Two, just because you leave a part of a cookie doesn't mean you didn't have a whole three before it. And third and finally... it makes me feel bad too, okay?!?!? I mean, seriously, I understand the logic of it, but I'm not sure I'll ever get it.

Anyways, just thought I'd share these observations with you all, because, well... sharing is caring.

Steve Buscemi, Hero to Awkward Looking Guys Everywhere

As a film student, you see all different types of people. In each class there's the beefy jock who you're kinda wondering how he ended up here, then there's your average stoner, or one of my personal favorites, inappropriate facial hair guy. However, the fact remains, if I'm already in the practice of summing up people, the lump sum is a bunch of geeks with poor social skills and even worse skin. This isn't to say that they aren't nice guys once you get to know them and get past their own awkward assessments of others. What I find constantly amazes me is how an awkwardness in personality is something tangible, it's something that translates to their facial expressions, their mannerisms, their dress, all of it. As a result, going to my film classes is much like being a little kid and going to the zoo, constantly watching for the monkeys to start flinging poo at each other or whatever. Although, to date, the nerdy guys have never tossed around fecal matter (and that's not to say that it won't happen... I'm expecting any day now) I can't help but observe these nerdy looking guys in their natural habitat.

So far, I think my favorite experience was the day that I walked into class and these 3 guys that always sit together were just sitting back and waiting for class to start. One guy had on a Ghost World t-shirt, another one had a Mr. Pink from Reservoir Dogs shirt, and the last guy had a Big Lebowski t-shirt that read "The Dude Abides." Now, mind you this is in one of my extremely long film classes so from time to time my mind wanders, but for whatever reason, I couldn't stop thinking about those shirts. About halfway through my own pathetic version of six degrees of Kevin bacon (subbing the students in my class with Kevin bacon) I realized what it was. All of those movies featured Steve Buscemi. Don't get me wrong, great actor, but it dawned on me, Steve Buscemi must be like a freaking God to these guys. I mean, here's a dude who, just realistically, is about as goofy looking as humanly possible, but has that stopped him? Hell no it hasn't. And it shouldn't, but it's just insane to see Steve Buscemi get as far as he has when Hollywood is so strongly image based.

Even more impressive is the fact that he's gotten as far as he has not only without a strong reliance on his looks, but without being reduced to taking roles that play on his unconventional looks. I mean, sure, they make references to it in some of his movies but he's never really limited to these roles whereas you have people like Roseanne Barr who are always forced to play fat, bitchy chicks because in all reality, that's probably what she is. Steve Buscemi has played a variety of roles and even if they made reference to his goofiness in all of those movies, he's still making a helluva lot more movies and a lot more different movies than Roseanne.

Another impressive thing about Steve Buscemi is who he's starred with. I mean, maybe Thora Birch isn't every guy's wet dream (although with her pasty skin it's hard to imagine how she's not...) but he keeps tradin' up. I mean, he's gone from hookers in Fargo to Sienna Miller in Interview who looks like one of those top dollar hookers... all's good in the life of Steve.

Now imagine what this means to the common folk. If Steve can do it, so can awkward facial hair guy or lanky dude. While this logic may be flawed, everyone has the right to dream. So for all those geeky and all together awkward guys who are undoubtedly surfing the net right now, continue your dreams of Steve Buscemi stardom. Who knows maybe one day you'll make it with a chick who only dresses like a hooker, but doesn't require you pay her like the average street walker does... And for Steve Buscemi, I applaud you. You are truly an inspiration to all those Star wars memorabilia loving, Dungeons and Dragons playing, grown men everywhere.

Literacy in the Days of Old

Gutenberg (Johannes, not the much loved Steve of Zeus and Roxanne fame) is hailed as the father of the printing press and consequently, the movement towards literacy. Well, to put it quite simply, let's give God a big hand for striking good ol' Johannes dead before he could see what has become of literacy in modern day America. Myself included, words such as "totz" and intentional ebonics such as the ever popular "fo sho" have steadily begun to creep into the vocabulary of everyday Americans. However, this isn't some plea for common decency and the return to traditional English. I'll leave that to the more noble publications. On the contrary, this is a question about the origins of the written word and the evolution of language.

More specifically it is the question of how the hell did they understand anything that was written? I'm being entirely serious. This was a time that was ruled by the upper class and even more so, the clergy. Now, this isn't an attack on religion, but it has clearly been proven that those who instill as much faith as these men, who were basing laws on the scripture, are pretty damn stupid. But let's forget about that for a moment. Let's entertain the notion that those people back then were just as smart as people are nowadays. Even then, I still don't really get how they understood it... I mean, I'm in my 2nd year of college, graduated from my high school with honors, but could I tell you half of what Shakespeare was saying in his plays? Well, yes, I could but only after reading it, like, 3 times or reading it in one of those No Fear Shakespeare books where one page is Shaespearean text and on the other page is the translation. Now, I'm not saying I'm a genius, but if serfs were gettin' it and I need a couple run throughs, that just says something to me, that's all. And serfs were pretty much recognized as the lowest of the low, given no opportunities for education or advancement, but they're getting this stuff? Doesn't quite do wonders for the self esteem...

But what it does do is make one think. If peasants in the Middle Ages are getting this shit, what happened? I mean, are we really as smart as we think? I know that the language used in older texts was closer to how people spoke back then, but assuming written text is an accurate depiction of the language of a time period, it kinda makes one wonder just what the fuck happened to get us to this stage where "z" is an appropriate substitution for the letter "s"? Okay, maybe that's just something that I do, but still... Are we smarter now just because we can graft a baboon's ass onto a woman's face? At least, I think we can do that... although why you'd want to is a whole nother issue. Somewhere alone the timeline, we lost touch. I don't know what it was or when it happened, but if high school graduates still use Spark Notes (the website of course, because the paperback ones still kinda resemble a book) as a substitution for actual reading, something had to have happened to get us off track.

Another definite possibility is that the whole previous paragraph is irrelevant. Maybe we are just as smart as we say we are. I mean, with all the technical and medical advancements (technical being first and foremost as evidenced by Time naming the iPhone the invention of the year, beating out the medical advancement of the discovery of a bacteria that can convert any blood type to type O aka the universal blood type) we've got to be doing something right. The question is, are we doing it for the right reasons? Gutenberg's printing press was such an advancement because it made knowledge accessible to the masses. It came about in a time when people craved knowledge as much as kids craved Furbies in the 90s and people crave iPhones these days. Now, the inventions that receive the most attention are the ones that offer the quickest route to instant gratification. We've already met our needs, gorged ourselves on knowledge, and now seems to be the time to sit back and let the accessories and trivialities take over.

My Beef with Cartoons

I'm not all up in arms about it or anything but there are just some serious problems that have plagued the cartoon industry since day one. Now maybe it's indicative of my lifestyle or my state of boredom that I'm taking the time to write about them, but I legitimately feel that they're worth addressing. However, I am also saying this at 10:30 in the morning on a Friday when I have no class so I'll let you be the judge.

I think my biggest problem is that some can talk and others can't. You have the classic Tom & Jerry's which possibly showed the most consistency with their choice of no dialogue. I think later on they may have started to talk, but that's irrelevant. At least they were consistent in that at the same time Tom & Jerry couldn't talk, both of them couldn't talk. Even when they started talking, BOTH of them started talking. That at least shows some consistency, whereas you have some classics as Chip 'n Dale where Chip, Dale, Monterey Jack, and just about every other character can speak in words and you've got Zipper who can't be understood by the audience, but inexplicably can be understood by the Rescue Rangers. I don't know, maybe I thought too much about my cartoons as a kid, but I don't think it's so difficult to expect a fly to speak some English if the mice can. Especially since they'd just have Chip or Dale rephrase what he said in English kinda like how they did with Lassie. Zipper would squeak for an excruciatingly painful 30 seconds and Chip would say "What's that? Monterey Jack and Dale are in trouble?" Then why not just have him say that rather than make my ears bleed from the squeaking of that damned fly?

I suppose what it boils down to self awareness on an animated scale, which seems kinda like a heavy concept for children, but then again, i doubt they were thinking about it in the first place. Another problem that I had with cartoons as a child which could be chalked up with the acceptance of the idea of self awareness is animated nudity. You have Minnie and Mickey who won't go anywhere without their lame little matching outfits but then you have Pluto who wore no clothes at all. I suppose that might be due to the fact that Pluto was supposed to be Mickey's dog (don't even get me started on how that works) but still even real dogs wear a nice dog sweater every so often. Even more troublesome were characters like Donald Duck. He seemed to be the middle ground for the debate as to whether cartoonists should actually take the time to animate clothes on animals or not. I don't understand how a duck can get out of the shower and wrap a towel around his waist (which he does and I have the YouTube clip to prove it) before taking the time to put on a shirt and walking outside entirely pants-less. He obviously has something to hide because he wore a towel out of the shower... but what he had to hide? A secret Disney took to his grave...

Now back to the whole Pluto being Mickey's dog thing. Forget the fact that any dog would make that mouse his bitch or even the fact that Pluto is inexplicably half the size of a mouse and concentrate on the fact that one animal, the weaker one no less, owns another animal. I don't know about you but I think people had a deal like that once... Oh yeah, it was called slavery. I mean, what the hell man? There have been people bitching and whining about Spongebob indoctrinating their children with the gay agenda (although sponges are by nature asexual and reproduce through regeneration) but no one's up in arms about the fact that we've got animals owning other animals? If the Coalition for Family Values is bitching about a homo sponge, I demand that they get just as offended by Disney's use of slavery in their cartoons. Yeah, I don't really see that happening either... My thing is I can't possibly be the first one to read slavery into that whole thing. I'm not even the most overly political correct person I know. Next thing ya know they're gonna have Mickey takin' a huge bite out of a medium rare steak. I mean, seriously guys, I think cannibalism is probably where we should draw the line...

The Spirit of Competition

It's happened to everyone. You go to the gym and you're doin' your Stairmaster or your treadmill or whatever it is you do in the gym and you simply glance over at the person next to you. Now, whether you know this or not, a locking of the eyes is a sign, much like revving your engine when at a red light, and it says your looking for competition. From there on out there is no such thing as pacing yourself in your workout. You're like two rams with their horns locked, but somebody has to give way before the other.

The weirdest part are the times when it doesn't even start with the eye contact. Maybe it's just me personally (but I doubt it is) but even looking at somebody else's monitor brings out this dormant competitive spirit. What's that, the chick next to me is doing 7.5 miles per hour on a level 8 incline? Well, clearly that means I have to do at least 8 miles on no less than a level 10 incline. I don't know why it's necessary, but a work out is almost more gratifying if you're competing with the person next to you, kinda like how there's gotta be somebody to take last place. I understand that someone has to lose... just as long as its not me.

Then there's the joy of the other person noticing. Now, there are always 2 responses to this. The first, which is a pretty rare response, is that the other person sees what you're doing and doesn't really do anything, doesn't react in anyway, and usually if they take this approach, they kinda give you a weird look, sorta like you're a crazy person. The second response is an escalated one. Usually, the other person takes notice and retaliates. They either increase their speed and raise their level of incline or they take the longevity route where they wait for you to wear yourself down (which is totally the cheap way out but a path taken nonetheless). When the person increases their speed and such, it's a double dare. You have to raise the stakes or you hafta walk away then and there. If you opt to raise the stakes, it tends to get pretty ridiculous. First you starting raising by a full mile per hour, then as you start to get up in the numbers it becomes halves until it eventually becomes elevation so slow that it's hardly even noticeable to the human eye. Unfortunately by this point in the game, any increase is noticeable to you. Water is running low and you're starting to hurt and I don't mean in the "you're pushing yourself but you can make it through" kinda way. I mean in the "a trip to the hospital is imminent" kinda way. That's when the stakes don't even matter anymore and you just want to be able to walk back to your apartment by the end of this.

By the end of this ridiculous and somewhat childish unspoken competition, it never even matters who walks away first. I know, it all started out about winning but usually, you've pushed yourself too hard and the triumph of winning no longer exists. All that's left is the promise of compresses for your aching calves when you get back to your room. So in the end, no one really walks away a winner or a loser. If you're still walking, eh, you're a winner in my book.

Blind Wheel of Fortune

Today's post goes out to the blind readers who ironically and in a cruel twist of fate, probably can't read this, but hopefully they can have some Tuesdays with Morrie type character read it to them or something.

Evidently Pat Sajak is unfamiliar with the word "handicapability" because the show Wheel of Fortune, now its 24th season, seems to be lacking a devout blind fan base. Oh wait, maybe that's because the premise of the show makes it virtually impossible to develop such a following. I mean, think about it. Have you ever seen a blind person playing hangman, which is basically a small scale Wheel of Fortune? Me neither...

Most shows have formatted themselves to allow a blind following (no pun intended). The way they do this is they have a recording that tells the viewer (once again no pun, just a lack of a better term) major things that are central to the plot such as "woman scowls at man". This indicates that the woman is probably ape shit crazy and will probably kill the man later in this episode of Law & Order or rape him with the leg of a table if you're an SVU fan. This expression is central to the plot and television companies have found a way to include the blind demographic instead of leaving them in the dark (okay, that one was intentional and believe me, I know I'm going to hell for it).

Even just about every other game show has the capability to make it friendly to handicap contestants such as Jeopardy which provides a braille listing of all the categories. This allows blind people to prove themselves as smart people too. I mean, c'mon, look at Stephen Hawking. He's basically proved most of the handicapped people in the world are not only smart, but even when handicapped, they can get more tail than you or I (Hawking's is in the process of divorcing his second wife).

Wheel of Fortune can't really equip itself like this or else they'd be changing the braille plates every other turn and by the time it was the blind contestants turn again, they'd have just gotten the freshly printed braille plates and no time to think of their next move. Same goes for those watching (and I use the term loosely) at home. The announcer would have to say "Okay, the category is 'things' and it's seven letters." Now, let's assume the first contestant guessed "s" and there are 3 s's. Then the announcer would have to painstakingly say "Alright, there are three s's and it's now 'blank blank blank s, another s, another blank, and a final s'." By the time, they got done with all the letters and the blanks, the next contestant would have already gone. They'd struggle to catch up and honestly, it'd just suck.

Sadly, it's a lose-lose situation. This post is to request that we end this discriminatory practice of Wheel of Fortune. We could do a letter writing campaign, or boycott the show entirely, but I think the most effective course of action is to deliver Pat Sajak's head to me on a platter. We have to show people we mean business and blind people can fuck people up just as bad as those who have the gift of sight. So don't kill Pat Sajak for me, do it for all the Stevie Wonder's of the world.

My Problem with Mr. Peanut

Mr. Peanut. Before I tell you why I don't like Mr. Peanut, can anyone tell me why they do like him? Because I'm convinced that no one actually likes Mr. Peanut, they just all say that they do because he represents class and sophistication in the nut world, and no one wants to be thought poorly of in the nut world. Well, I for one do not care what cashews nor pecans nor peanuts think of me because I will tell you all about my dislike of him.

First off, he wears a monocle... I mean, seriously, what ass hat wears a monocle? Nobody thinks you're of high breeding just because you were too cheap to spring for two lenses and frames like any normal person would. You don't seem worldly, so why don't you just cut it out?

Come to think of it, most of my beef with him is wardrobe choice and the way he carries himself. For instance, say I was cool with the monocle, didn't mind it one bit, he's still got a top hat and cane. Where ya goin' that you need to be dressed all fancy for Mr. Peanut? Last time I saw ya, you were by the cash register in Walgreen's... not exactly primo location, so why don't ya try wearing some jeans or even cords or how about wearing pants at all instead of focusing on your stupid top hate and cane.

And that's my last thing, the cane, top hat, and monocle are not only kinda douche bag-y, but they're kinda condescending. I don't really understand why a peanut is talking down to me, because in the grand scheme of things, human trumps peanut. I could just eat you ya smug prick. Still, even knowing that I could just eat him, there's something very shameful about being made to think lesser of yourself by a peanut.

In conclusion, I know all the decisions about Mr. Peanut and his dress were made by the corporation, but I still think he's a dick...

Why Inhibitions Are a GOOD Thing

they say drinking lowers your inhibitions. it allows you do the things you've always wanted to do. well, if that's the case, ladies and gentleman, i have my dream career. i like to think small so it's a rather modest one, but here's what it is... first and foremost, i live to drink. then, when sufficiently drunk i aim to come up with a token expression for the night (since i'm already drunk at this point the expressions are strikingly similar, but it's the subtle nuances that allow me to truly express myself). for instance, on an average thursday night my expression will be me looking cross eyed with my tongue hanging out to the left. however, if i'm upset about something or feeling particularly philosophical that night, i go cross eyed and stick my tongue out to the right. don't ask me why, that's pretty much just how i roll. now the final few steps are where you really gotta step up your game. this separates the men from the boys. you hafta find a drunk girl. she can't be wasted so that she can't stand up on her own (i mean, c'mon, you might need her to take the token myspace 'hold the camera and take the picture of yourself and by yourself' and what good is a wasted girl there?) but she has to be drunk enough that she thinks every picture is a good picture. i find most women (or at least the ones i know) have about a 3 or 4 shot warming up period. keep a close eye on the really skinny ones, it usually means less waiting time for the impatient drunkard. now, for the pièce de résistance. the actual picture taking. position yourself strategically so the other people in the picture can't see you, on the off chance that you misjudged them and they nag you for "ruining" their picture when all you were trying to do was accentuate it or make them look better in comparison. now that you've established your look and your audience, you can feel free to tool around the party, ruining various other people's pictures. now, i know what some people might be thinking. "man, thats a sad life goal" or "geez, guy doesn't have much to live for", but ya know what i say to that? i've already achieved my life goal, what have you done with your life asshole?