MORE FINGER-LICKIN' OFFERINGS - THIS TIME FROM APPLEBEES
Hot (or more accurately cold) on the trail of the finger-enhanced bowl of chili from Wendy's, a woman in New Orleans is suing Applebees restaurant for allegedly serving her a salad with a deceased digit plopped on top. As with the Wendy's case, no-one has yet stepped - or screamed - forward to claim their finger back.
May Deal Chambers Johnson is claiming that she suffered physical and psychological harm after finding the offending body part in a take-out salad. The lawsuit includes the accusation that Applebees failed "to prevent the inclusion of a human fingertip in a salad to go."
Now call me stupid, but how on earth can a finger "accidentally" drop into a salad? Do Applebees have a policy of employing lepers? ("Sorry, Boss, I didn't realize it was missing.") Or maybe Hannibal Lecter has recently been employed as a sous-chef. Whatever the reason, you have to think that it is relatively difficult to (a) pop body parts into take-away food and (b) find a spare body part that no-one is missing ("Hey, I just noticed - my weener's been missing for a couple of weeks. Anyone seen it around?")
Coming so soon after the Wendy's episode, you have to think that if this woman is trying to pull some sort of scam - and we can suspend judgment for a couple of weeks at least - then this has to be one of the most untimely scams ever. There's also the whole notion of why anyone should get any money for "distress" because of a finger tip. Granted it may be a little gross, but she's not dead, dying, huddled in a ball and screaming, or starving to death. Looking at the TV news clip recently, she appears to have been able to go out and get her hair done and able to smile for the cameras.
Still, for those of you who have said "I'd give my right arm for a million bucks," all you need do is toss the said appendage into some fast-food value meal and your wish just might come true.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
PETA PROTESTS PISCINE PERSECUTION
PETA's hardline nutballs are out in force to make sure diners at a restaurant in Long Beach, California, don't offend fish. The impious instigator of this action is the Aquarium of the Pacific, and popular SoCal tourist destination. And after a hard afternoon of touring surrounded by plaice, hake, cod, salmon, and many others, what could be more relaxing than to tuck into a tasty fish sandwich.
However, Karen Robinson, who heads up the acronymically impaired Fish Empathy Project for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said that "Serving fish at an aquarium is like serving poodle burgers at a dog show." Except, of course, that poodle burgers need plent of steak sauce added to make them taste good.
Karen went on to say that recent studies suggest fish are surprisingly "intelligent, sensitive and interesting animals" and that the aquarium was contradicting that message by cooking them for lunch. These are the same aquatic geniuses that apparently have a memory span of five seconds, which accounts for why they appear to be happy in a fish bowl ("Oh, look at that sunken ship, how amazing, and now a plant, and now an exciting plastic sea snail ... and oh, look at that sunken ship ... and now that amazing plant ...")
She continued with "It's easy to think of fish as swimming vegetables but of all the places in the country where fish should get a fair shake it's an aquarium." Well, they apparently do get a fair shake - to slough off excess cooking fat. As nutritionist remind us all, fish protein is damned good for you provided you don't overdo the oil.
Aquarium president, Jerry Schubel, was keen to show the establishment's caring side by saying that they only served sustainable and environmentally friendly fish - lightly breaded with a delicate tartar sauce to bring out the flavor.
Perhaps the members of FEPPETA could focus their attention on the sharks in Florida which seem to be suffering at the hands of brutal humans trying to thrust their body parts inside their jaws. The hapless sharks have a hard time getting bits of meat from between their teeth, so the PETA crew could do some on-the-spot flossing.
Of course, should one of them accidentally get eaten ...
PETA's hardline nutballs are out in force to make sure diners at a restaurant in Long Beach, California, don't offend fish. The impious instigator of this action is the Aquarium of the Pacific, and popular SoCal tourist destination. And after a hard afternoon of touring surrounded by plaice, hake, cod, salmon, and many others, what could be more relaxing than to tuck into a tasty fish sandwich.
However, Karen Robinson, who heads up the acronymically impaired Fish Empathy Project for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said that "Serving fish at an aquarium is like serving poodle burgers at a dog show." Except, of course, that poodle burgers need plent of steak sauce added to make them taste good.
Karen went on to say that recent studies suggest fish are surprisingly "intelligent, sensitive and interesting animals" and that the aquarium was contradicting that message by cooking them for lunch. These are the same aquatic geniuses that apparently have a memory span of five seconds, which accounts for why they appear to be happy in a fish bowl ("Oh, look at that sunken ship, how amazing, and now a plant, and now an exciting plastic sea snail ... and oh, look at that sunken ship ... and now that amazing plant ...")
She continued with "It's easy to think of fish as swimming vegetables but of all the places in the country where fish should get a fair shake it's an aquarium." Well, they apparently do get a fair shake - to slough off excess cooking fat. As nutritionist remind us all, fish protein is damned good for you provided you don't overdo the oil.
Aquarium president, Jerry Schubel, was keen to show the establishment's caring side by saying that they only served sustainable and environmentally friendly fish - lightly breaded with a delicate tartar sauce to bring out the flavor.
Perhaps the members of FEPPETA could focus their attention on the sharks in Florida which seem to be suffering at the hands of brutal humans trying to thrust their body parts inside their jaws. The hapless sharks have a hard time getting bits of meat from between their teeth, so the PETA crew could do some on-the-spot flossing.
Of course, should one of them accidentally get eaten ...
Sunday, June 26, 2005
HOW TO BURN A FLAG WITHOUT OFFENDING ANYONE
For most thinking individuals, a flag is a piece of cloth with pretty colors that is supposed to stand for a set of ideals, principles, or whatever the designer of the flag wants. According to Semiotic Theory (and I am simplifying things a little here because I am NOT Umberto Eco nor the reincarnation of Charles Peirce)the flag is a signifier and the ideas represented the signified. The hard-of-thinking might want to take a short nap before reading on.
Unfortunately, as we move into the 21st century, we appear to be leaving behind the Age of Reason and heading tragically into the Second Middle Ages. Here, Reason has to give way to the old forces of Prejudice, Ignorance, Superstition, and Sloth - or PISS for short. Armed with these potent weapons, individuals can undo everything humanity has achieved since dropping out the trees and walking upright - although there are those who think even this is too much to take.
So back to flags. Apparently, there are a large number of people in government who feel that burning a piece of cloth is so dangerous to the moral and social climate - with the natural consequence of The End of Civilization As We Know It - that they are seeking, again, to make it punishable by law. By doing this, it is argued, democracy is made safe and God will bless us all with His bounty. In a neat twist of linguistic legerdemain (if you don't know, that's Ignorance at work - and if you can't be bothered to look it up in a dictionary, that's Sloth kicking in - and if you think I'm being condescending and arrogant, say hello to Prejudice) these folks have now defined "censorship" as a legitimate tool for achieving democracy.
It is, of course, important to be working on passing such laws, which helps protect the millions of people who have no health care from being offended by flag burners, and to show potential terrorists that we're going to keep whittling away at that First Amendment until they realise that we can't be frightened into submission. Why waste millions on trying to track down Osama when the real fight is at home against serious and dangerous people who... er... burn flags.
In a semitoic twist that makes a moebius strip seem simple, the signifier has become the signified: the flag itself - the cloth and coloring - has become the ideals, and burning it is seen as literally destroying the ideals it is only supposed to represent.
Take this hypothetical test and see what you think: if aliens from outer space (and believe me, there are folks in these Second Middle Ages who are OK with that) were to make every flag in the US disappear tomorrow, how would that affect your patriotism? Would you say "Ah well, there goes the US - fun while it lasted but that's it" or would you think exactly what you did yesterday?
And has anyone noticed that the Flag Desecration Amendment (yet another great semiotic trick to pull semantic wool over the eyes of the Ignorant and Prejudiced - "desecration" sounds so much more wicked than "burning") doesn't mention what to do about other forms of "desecration?" The US Flag Code is quite explicit about how the flag should NOT be used when it says "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery" and also "The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard."
Well smack me on the bottom and call me Shirley, but a quick Google search will bring up endless sites with flag-based merchandise that include T-shirts, earrings, ash trays, shot glasses, thongs , bras, boxer shorts, Discover Platinum cards, and others ad nauseam.
Just as semiotics can help us understand why the problem has arisen (the shift of signifier to signified) so can it help in the solution: all we need is to adopt a new signifier for the flag.
Here's my advice to would be flag burners: take a white piece of cloth in the proportions 10:19 and write "US flag" on the front. Then burn it. Simple. The white cloth with the words on it do not conform to any definition of the US flag so you cannot be accused of desecration.
And lest anyone be tempted to drag out that hoary old chestnut "Only someone unpatiotic would agree with flag desecration, so get out of the country," take note that this is called begging the question and owes more to the power of Prejudice and Ignorance than rationale rhetoric. Folks seem to forget that around 200 years ago, a few "unpatriotic" souls began burning Union Jack flags, an action that wasn't banned by the British. Yet no-one calls those revolutionaries unpatriotic.
Sometimes folks forget that freedom doesn't get stolen away for you in one, quick action, but is typically given away piece by insignificant piece until you suddenly turn around and find it's gone. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
For most thinking individuals, a flag is a piece of cloth with pretty colors that is supposed to stand for a set of ideals, principles, or whatever the designer of the flag wants. According to Semiotic Theory (and I am simplifying things a little here because I am NOT Umberto Eco nor the reincarnation of Charles Peirce)the flag is a signifier and the ideas represented the signified. The hard-of-thinking might want to take a short nap before reading on.
Unfortunately, as we move into the 21st century, we appear to be leaving behind the Age of Reason and heading tragically into the Second Middle Ages. Here, Reason has to give way to the old forces of Prejudice, Ignorance, Superstition, and Sloth - or PISS for short. Armed with these potent weapons, individuals can undo everything humanity has achieved since dropping out the trees and walking upright - although there are those who think even this is too much to take.
So back to flags. Apparently, there are a large number of people in government who feel that burning a piece of cloth is so dangerous to the moral and social climate - with the natural consequence of The End of Civilization As We Know It - that they are seeking, again, to make it punishable by law. By doing this, it is argued, democracy is made safe and God will bless us all with His bounty. In a neat twist of linguistic legerdemain (if you don't know, that's Ignorance at work - and if you can't be bothered to look it up in a dictionary, that's Sloth kicking in - and if you think I'm being condescending and arrogant, say hello to Prejudice) these folks have now defined "censorship" as a legitimate tool for achieving democracy.
It is, of course, important to be working on passing such laws, which helps protect the millions of people who have no health care from being offended by flag burners, and to show potential terrorists that we're going to keep whittling away at that First Amendment until they realise that we can't be frightened into submission. Why waste millions on trying to track down Osama when the real fight is at home against serious and dangerous people who... er... burn flags.
In a semitoic twist that makes a moebius strip seem simple, the signifier has become the signified: the flag itself - the cloth and coloring - has become the ideals, and burning it is seen as literally destroying the ideals it is only supposed to represent.
Take this hypothetical test and see what you think: if aliens from outer space (and believe me, there are folks in these Second Middle Ages who are OK with that) were to make every flag in the US disappear tomorrow, how would that affect your patriotism? Would you say "Ah well, there goes the US - fun while it lasted but that's it" or would you think exactly what you did yesterday?
And has anyone noticed that the Flag Desecration Amendment (yet another great semiotic trick to pull semantic wool over the eyes of the Ignorant and Prejudiced - "desecration" sounds so much more wicked than "burning") doesn't mention what to do about other forms of "desecration?" The US Flag Code is quite explicit about how the flag should NOT be used when it says "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery" and also "The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard."
Well smack me on the bottom and call me Shirley, but a quick Google search will bring up endless sites with flag-based merchandise that include T-shirts, earrings, ash trays, shot glasses, thongs , bras, boxer shorts, Discover Platinum cards, and others ad nauseam.
Just as semiotics can help us understand why the problem has arisen (the shift of signifier to signified) so can it help in the solution: all we need is to adopt a new signifier for the flag.
Here's my advice to would be flag burners: take a white piece of cloth in the proportions 10:19 and write "US flag" on the front. Then burn it. Simple. The white cloth with the words on it do not conform to any definition of the US flag so you cannot be accused of desecration.
And lest anyone be tempted to drag out that hoary old chestnut "Only someone unpatiotic would agree with flag desecration, so get out of the country," take note that this is called begging the question and owes more to the power of Prejudice and Ignorance than rationale rhetoric. Folks seem to forget that around 200 years ago, a few "unpatriotic" souls began burning Union Jack flags, an action that wasn't banned by the British. Yet no-one calls those revolutionaries unpatriotic.
Sometimes folks forget that freedom doesn't get stolen away for you in one, quick action, but is typically given away piece by insignificant piece until you suddenly turn around and find it's gone. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Monday, June 20, 2005
HOW TO TELL IF SHE'S FAKING IT
Men are simple creatures. They are motivated by only three factors; sex, food, and money. And the only reason they want money is to get more sex and food. This basic simplicity is also reflected in their sexual physiology - specifically in relation to orgasms. Considering that the only really value of men is to produce sperm (and chase spiders out of bathrooms) Mother Nature has blessed them with an orgasm that is both easily achieved and very very obvious. As far as men are concerned, the only foreplay needed for arousal is the presence of a female within 50 yards; failing that, a picture can evoke the same response. Then, evidence of the orgasm is marked by vigorous twitching and the release of fluids.
This can all take place in the space of one minute or less, proving that when it comes to the reproduction of the species, men are actually very efficient.
Alas, in contrast to the almost pathetic simplicity of the male, females are deep, mysterious, and unpredictable. Any man who claims to understand women is either lying or mentally deranged. It is against the laws of physics to know what a woman is thinking. Einstein spent most of his life working on the theory of relativity simply because he thought it would be much easier than getting a date.
But help is at hand, thanks to the pioneering work of Professor Gert Holstege and his band of merry men at the University of Groningen, or so says the BBC. After many years of failing to successfully hit on women, Gert turned to neuropsychology as his savior.
Bizarrely, Gert managed to get 13 heterosexual couples to take part in a kinky sex game - oh, sorry, I mean controlled experiment. While one member of a couple laid down in a huge brain scanning machine, the other was allowed to diddle with the scannees naughty parts in an effort to promote an orgasm. In truth, most people would probably find that having their genitals stimulated while having their head stuck inside half a ton of metal might find this something of a turn off.
However, members of the test group seemed to be able to adapt to the unusual situation - especially after they had been allowed to keep their socks on (I kid you not). Once a set of baseline orgasm measures had been taken, women were asked to fake orgasms, whereupon it was found that the ersatz orgasm produced a very different scan pattern. Simply put, it is possible to spot a Meg Ryan without recourse to submitting a woman to a lie detector.
Of course, the notion of "simple" needs to be interpreted with caution. Until some engineers develop a brain scan headset that can be worn unobtrusively yet flash when an orgasm is reached, guys are still going to be unable to work out whether they are studs or duds in the bedroom. As it has always been, men will continue to be left guessing.
Men are simple creatures. They are motivated by only three factors; sex, food, and money. And the only reason they want money is to get more sex and food. This basic simplicity is also reflected in their sexual physiology - specifically in relation to orgasms. Considering that the only really value of men is to produce sperm (and chase spiders out of bathrooms) Mother Nature has blessed them with an orgasm that is both easily achieved and very very obvious. As far as men are concerned, the only foreplay needed for arousal is the presence of a female within 50 yards; failing that, a picture can evoke the same response. Then, evidence of the orgasm is marked by vigorous twitching and the release of fluids.
This can all take place in the space of one minute or less, proving that when it comes to the reproduction of the species, men are actually very efficient.
Alas, in contrast to the almost pathetic simplicity of the male, females are deep, mysterious, and unpredictable. Any man who claims to understand women is either lying or mentally deranged. It is against the laws of physics to know what a woman is thinking. Einstein spent most of his life working on the theory of relativity simply because he thought it would be much easier than getting a date.
But help is at hand, thanks to the pioneering work of Professor Gert Holstege and his band of merry men at the University of Groningen, or so says the BBC. After many years of failing to successfully hit on women, Gert turned to neuropsychology as his savior.
Bizarrely, Gert managed to get 13 heterosexual couples to take part in a kinky sex game - oh, sorry, I mean controlled experiment. While one member of a couple laid down in a huge brain scanning machine, the other was allowed to diddle with the scannees naughty parts in an effort to promote an orgasm. In truth, most people would probably find that having their genitals stimulated while having their head stuck inside half a ton of metal might find this something of a turn off.
However, members of the test group seemed to be able to adapt to the unusual situation - especially after they had been allowed to keep their socks on (I kid you not). Once a set of baseline orgasm measures had been taken, women were asked to fake orgasms, whereupon it was found that the ersatz orgasm produced a very different scan pattern. Simply put, it is possible to spot a Meg Ryan without recourse to submitting a woman to a lie detector.
Of course, the notion of "simple" needs to be interpreted with caution. Until some engineers develop a brain scan headset that can be worn unobtrusively yet flash when an orgasm is reached, guys are still going to be unable to work out whether they are studs or duds in the bedroom. As it has always been, men will continue to be left guessing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
