in re:

efficient car plans found on blocks with VIN number scratched off, dead hooker in trunk

in light of the fact that most of the things i blog about are current events, and that, as the stories develop, things might change, or new information may come to light, i am instituting this new little feature i call in re:. this segment will contain blurbs on the matter of (fun fact: in re is latin for in the matter of) some new developments, or information that may affect something i have said in the past.

this first will be on the auto industry.

news on the GM hybrid vehicle front:

all of GMs "mild hybrid" models, which i mentioned in my post dated 06-01-09 (who needs capitalism...) are being killed off. good riddance to bad rubbish, or yet another move by GM that will cost more than it will save, and takes yet another step back to square one on their journey to efficient vehicles?

GM states that this move is in preparation for a new line of vehicles that will use more efficient powertrains that are in neither research nor development stages at the moment, to be available in the future. in the meantime, you want a hybrid GM? suck it long, and suck it hard. not that the hybrids GM was making were in any way efficient (averaging 2 mpg better and $4,000 more expensive than the standard powertrain). due to the intentions of this segment, i won't postulate yet how this move will work out for GM. especially since this is among the first major decisions under their new ownership. however, i would like to point out that this move is in eerie parallel to the move to scrap the EV-1, and seems to be following the same "straight line in reverse" tactics so characteristic of GM in the not so distant past. of course, like ty webb (chevy chase, caddyshack) says, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line in the opposite direction. GM sure knows this. that's how they found their way to chapter 11.

fiat buyout of chrysler is a go. garlic bread king gets burned, deemed "too cheesy"

the supreme court, after a short hiccup, has allowed the fiat buyout of chrysler to go through. the buyout includes the dodge viper brand that was earlier being left out in the cold. this comes as bad news to the garlic bread king of michigan, scott devon (not to be confused with actress devon scott, who is, herself, not to be confused with actor devon sawa). devon's penis enlargement plans, which included creating a supercar called the devon GTX (which would have simply been a dodge viper, renamed the devon GTX), got burned up like so much frozen garlic bread.

in addition, sergio marchionne, whose previous heroics include turning a company that is not so lovingly referred to as Fix It Again, Tony, into a respectable company (sadly, he pretty much did it by buying up a handful of better companies, that he couldn't afford...sound a little bit like an american car company that recently went bankrupt?) has announced plans to turn chrysler's "bigger is better, blocky design means a man drives this" model portfolio into a bunch of cute cars you can park perpendicular to the curb on a busy street. now how will all of us fat americans, who can't see our penises, know we are men? this is going to add a wrinkle to that whole gay marriage thing... (a penis wrinkle?)

IIHS selling wolf tales. does this surprise anyone?

the last bit of news on the auto industry comes as no surprise to anyone who has ever dealt with insurance agents.

the insurance institute for highway safety has claimed that small cars have a tricky little problem that doesn't befall big beefy cars.

let's first break down who the IIHS are. the IIHS is an independent "non profit" organization, funded by insurance providers, to make ludicrous claims about how much it costs to insure your vehicle. the fact that an organization that is funded by insurance companies is non profit is a good hearty laugh to me. but let's get on with this...

the IIHS has claimed that repairs to small cars that are involved in "fender benders" cost a larger portion of the cars total value than repairs on large fender bent cars. no shit. for example, says IIHS, a car in a 6mph collision may cost over $3,000 to fix, but this is around 30% of the initial cost of many "minicars". yeah, and? i've been in fender benders before in big cars and small, and it costs just as much to fix the damage. of course it's a smaller percentage of the initial value of a larger car, larger cars cost more, initially. what they are trying to do is scare you away from buying small cars because small cars cost less to insure, for now anyway. if people do what the IIHS is hoping they will do with this new "info", and freak out about small cars being less safe, then the insurance companies can raise the rates on small cars, which will supplement the money they stand to lose if small cars become more popular with the masses.

let's break down how a fender bender works: i space out and back my car into a pole. my fender is a bit crumpled. as it is a newer car, my fender is made entirely of flimsy plastic around a light bendy frame, so the repairs include a whole new piece of plastic, which needs to be painted, shipped, and installed, and some bending and mending of the cardboard-strong support brace that holds up that plastic. even though the only thing mitsubishi has to provide here is a piece of cheap plastic, they are going to charge way too much for that piece. and even though the only thing the body shop is really doing is bolting that piece of plastic to my car, they are going to charge me somewhere between $75 and $150 dollars an hour, because apparently these people are more talented and important than doctors and lawyers (then why did they install my windshield wiper upside down?). the next move is for my insurance company to raise my rates based on the cost of repairs.

now, the more a car company charges for parts, the more money the company makes, so it behooves them to charge as much as they can possibly get away with, here. especially if it means scaring people away from buying smaller, cheaper cars (doesn't logic dictate that a smaller car is made of smaller pieces of plastic, and smaller pieces are cheaper?) and the body shop guys just get to charge whatever they can get away with, really. it doesn't matter to them, as long as you figure your insurance company is paying for it, and while they're at it, don't a lot of insurance companies have a list of body shops they will allow you to use? even the "better" companies will recommend body shops and mechanics whether you ask them to or not, and if someone is just throwing business at the body shops, don't you think they might be willing to throw a little back in the form of shifting cost of repairs? why might shifting cost of repairs matter to the insurer? because the insurance company raises your rates in proportion to how much the repairs cost. a more expensive fix means that for as long as that fender bender is on your record, they get a lot more money out of you. the difference in repair costs will be more than made up for by your new rape, i mean rate.

follow the money people. the buck never stops.

in conclusion, as an italian american, i would like to invite our newest paisan, chrysler, to the sons of italy. we meet every other monday, at the knights of columbus. you will be issued your framed picture of the pope, a jug of table wine, and the latest edition of speaka d'english for dummies which will teach you to talk way too fast, and make broad, arbitrary gestures with your hands.

benvenuto! le bevande sono laggiù.

pink clouds? face transplants? come on, people, we're trying to have a civilization, here!

when i heard that san francisco district 8 supervisor, bevan dufty (not a stage name) had rehashed the idea of creating a giant pink cloud over the intersection of castro and market streets in san francisco, i went through a range of emotions.

first i thought, enough already. i get it castro. gay people live here. we all get it. can't we all just go about living our lives already? besides which, this just reeks of artistic failure. i couldn't quite imagine a way in which this thing turns out looking good.

but as an artist, i mulled over some concepts in my mind, and started to really think they could pull off something cool with this idea. i thought, well, as a tribute to harvey milk, i suppose they ought to do something in the neighborhood in his memory, and you know, i do really love random public art. the painted hearts around the city, the giant bow and arrow on the embarcadero, the cows in davis, the enormous drafter's eraser in seattle, that freaky, possessed ragdoll statue on california street in palo alto, graffiti in general. and i love art deco stuff way more than any straight man should. so i think that i could actually really enjoy a giant pink cloud erected over a major intersection in san francisco, and this particular intersection is a primo spot for some aesthetic shenanigans.

then i heard, $9,500 feasibility study, and suddenly i was back outside. $9,500 feasibility study? i can tell you the results of that study right now: it's feasible. for pete rose, people, we put a monkey in space, we put a monkey heart in a man, we put a man on the moon, and we put a perpetual motion research and analysis robot on mars. i think we might be able to erect a giant sculpture of a pink cloud.

i'm just imagining the scenario that these people are scared of. some artist in a darkened room sitting at a drafting table, taking belts of whiskey straight from the bottle, a big pile of crumpled up designs and proposals all around him, "pink cloud? pink cloud?! what does that even look like?!!! clouds are white, you stupid government bean counters! i'm just a man! what do you want from me?!"

then, way way down at the end of the article, they got around to the questionably feasible part: they aren't erecting a giant pink art deco cloud sculpture, they are attempting to create a permanent, "natural" pink cloud by erecting steam exhaust pipes that will be lit with pink lights, around a very busy, intersection, in a very windy and foggy city, that is enveloped in daylight approximately half of the day.

first of all, do we really need to be using the money, water, and energy to be creating a giant steam cloud in the castro? think of the hair that will be frizzied, think of the mascara that will run. secondly, that cloud is just going to blow right the fuck down market street, pissing people off and unwrinkling all those hipsters' shirts. third, it's hard enough to drive in the city, let alone down market street, let alone when it's foggy, let alone when there's an additional giant cloud of pink steam obstructing one of the larger intersections. fourth, what about when the novelty wears off, and people just want to walk down the street to work, or to the corner store, or whatever, and all of a sudden, ew gross, hot moist cloud all over your body! if i wanted a warm, slimy memory of harvey milk all over me, there's plenty of ways to get that done in the castro, already, and if i wanted to walk through an obnoxiously painted, gay, tourist neighborhood, engulfed in hot, humid air, i'd move to miami. and fifth, its going to be lit with pink lights, eh? you know, part of the nature of light is that it's kind of hard to see when its being out-shined by larger, more powerful light sources, say for example, that other giant ball of brightly colored gas over the castro, the sun.

i guess i'm not so appalled at the limits of human achievement conjured up by this story, as i am with the limits of common sense (as larry david says, "common sense really isn't that common"). i mean, at first i thought, pink cloud sculpture? hey, we invented aerospace technology, and the internet (well, al gore invented the internet...), i think we can handle a little pink cloud sculpture. but now i'm more on the side of, hey, look, we really screwed things up for that face transplant lady, maybe we should be taking smaller steps toward unnecessarily attempting to recreate nature.

i don't know about you guys, but i really feel like, same as there must be a few city planners out there who are thinking, "pink steam cloud? pull your heads out of your asses!", there have got to be at least a few doctors out there who could have done a better job with face transplant lady. i mean, look at her, how did they get her nose and lips done so well, but manage to screw up her jowls which she didn't really seem to have a problem with in the first place? was it a matter of pride between the organ transplant doctors and the plastic surgeons? because i have got to tell you, i think we let the plastic surgeons have this one. it's not quite the same principle as swapping out a kidney or a heart. you don't just stitch it on and hope for the best. it's as though cosmetic surgery is a rubik's cube that the medical world has been working on for decades, and they just have this one move to make to finish it, one move and cosmetic surgery becomes a legitimate field of medicine. and while trying to make that last move, they instead fumbled the cube off the roof of a forty story building where it plummeted toward the street and hit some lady in the face. then they fucked up her reconstructive surgery. damn it! so close!

such is the castro. for decades it has been a great neighborhood; alive and active with people simultaneously living with purpose and abandon. making a place for an important culture both locally and the world over, all while trying to build a reputation, not of novelty and kitsch, but of respect and regard. now they have this chance to put a little cherry on top, to mark their territory with something that the city is willing to foot the bill for, and support the development of, something that says, we are legit and we are here to stay, and they come up with giant pink steam cloud?

let's just dial it back a bit here, people. when you're one step from the finish line, and two from the edge of the cliff, try to avoid taking any huge leaps forward.

facial reconstructive surgery? sounds plausible. botched face transplant? out of the frying pan, and into the fire. giant cloud statue? i'm in. giant fake steam cloud? sounds like a whole lot of, guess who's never going to the castro again.

12 years in a labor camp? i can't even get a part time job!

i think we've really got to hand it to kim jong il.

i mean, the man must have balls so big, they have their own balls.

yesterday the highest court in north korea sentenced two american journalists to 12 years of hard labor, without possibility of appeal, for unspecified hostile acts against the state, and crossing the border illegally. first of all, if you're going to incarcerate someone for 12 years, i think you had better specify. second, illegally crossing the border gets that kind of punishment? you know, usually when you wander over the border of most countries, the response is either, "hey, my friend! you want smoke marijuana? come to my club. free drinks! sexy ladies!" or "you're not supposed to be here. go home" depending on the economic situation of the country you wandered into, and the one you wandered from.

well, apparently that's not how north korea rolls. north korea's policy seems to be based on that creepy old man who lives next door. you know the guy. every time your frisbee goes over the fence, he runs out and snatches it, "it's mine now you little brats! and you ain't getting it back! i told you to quit fucking around near my fence!"

i guess the upside here is that these ladies got off light. it could have been far worse in a country that invites south korean tourists to stay at fancy resorts, then shoots them twice in the back for walking around the grounds too early in the morning. then again, in the past north korea was known to punish journalists by sending them to "re-education camps". who can speak ill of free schools? and if it's anything like the re-education camp in a clockwork orange...

but what are we surprised about? north korea has been posturing for decades now. and kim jong is clearly having daddy issues with the other world leaders. while we were busy searching for saddam hussein's invisible weapons of mass destruction, and liberating the iraqis from whatever he was doing to them, kim jong il was literally broadcasting to the world that he was developing nuclear weapons and he planned on using them. any one who has ever taken care of a kid, or seen a kid around, or heard of children before, knows that this kind of behavior is unfounded in sound logic. a child who is known to act out will often make threats of bad behavior simply to get attention, but when it illicits no response, often the child will go through with it, or at least see how close he or she is going to be allowed to get before daddy or mommy finally pays some attention.

ok, so north korea isn't a child throwing a tantrum at the supermarket. it's much worse. it's a nuclear power throwing a tantrum in the political sphere. why are we playing the parent who just wants to let them "scream themselves out"? it isn't really a matter of dealing with the embarrassment of being the parent with the unruly child, then taking them home and putting them down for a nap. the UN's best idea so far has been to write resolutions condemning north korea's actions. and when, years later, that doesn't work, they simply write another one, using firmer language. oooooh, so scary. the UN doesn't approve of their behavior? big bad UN is writing a letter to your parents, mister!

this is not kindergarten, people! these are the leaders of the world, and they have serious weapons and militaries (the "good guys" and the "bad guys", both), and economies, and legal power. in fact, they have the most serious all of the above, in the world. the actions taken at this stage don't make or break snack time for a handful of toddlers. they affect the lives of 6.5 billion people, most of whom are innocent bystanders.

why are we screwing off on this issue? this is a man who ignores all UN censure of a nuclear weapon program that has been publicly acknowledged as being in development and testing for years. a man who named a 25 year old kid as his successor, not because of his proven skills or intellect, but because his eldest son embarrassed the family by trying and failing to take a vacation at tokyo disneyland (for god's sake, if clark griswold can do it...), and his second eldest son was deemed too effeminate to be a dictator. too effeminate? i know no less than 6 elderly (most older than kim) women who strike me as more threatening and powerful than kim jong il, based on appearance and behavioral affectations alone (this is a man who was singled out on october 3, 2007, by menwholooklikeoldlesbians.blogspot). a man who has been in a cold war with south korea since the 50's. a man who is still pretending the rest of the world is stuck in the cold war. a man with no allies.

we sent our special forces in to hunt and kill somali pirates so that we could save a cargo ship. we have had our troops in iraq basically straight through since bush senior to keep an eye on, and then remove from power a man who wasn't half the threat kim jong is. we dropped not one, but two atomic bombs on a country that, all indications are, was moments from surrendering anyway (i guess kim jong gets to drop one more before he's a bigger threat to the world than we are), simply because we saw a cold war with the soviet union in the cards, and we ourselves wanted to do some posturing. we went to war in vietnam and the philippines because we were getting a little rusty. yet, for 8 years we ignored a man who regularly broadcast video of himself or his underlings making blatant and explicit threats to our country, and who, in fact, successfully followed through on one very painful threat.

we actually let osama bin laden off the hook long enough for him to walk across europe, learn russian, and start a pub and trading post on a remote siberian highway where he could have wacky adventures with anthropologists and international treasure hunters (did that seem a little complicated? that's how much time we gave him. enough time to get complicated).

we spent so long with our thumbs up our asses looking for iraqi WMDs that weren't there, then making excuses for why we couldn't find them (he musta hided 'em real good. like under his bed er sumthin') but we didn't seem to think it was important to follow up on north korea's nuclear program they were telling us they had.

i could have found north korea's WMDs in about 5 seconds. just follow the sounds of the 100 megaton explosions, you fucktards!

so now here we are. still sitting around the halls of congress, jerking off and trying to figure out what we can rename our army in iraq so nobody will be mad that we aren't going to be pulling them out of there any time this side of 2012. still posing for photo opps and giving pretty, flowery speeches about how we sure are gonna go get that taliban, maybe, possibly, someday in the future, we've been thinking about probably discussing it. talking about two state solutions, and how we really wish we could help out the palestinians, but boy, we sure would look stupid if we voted to create a country that turned out to be a bunch of violent, greedy, bigoted, religious fanatic, war mongers that decades of violence, decades of attempted diplomacy, a people's militia, multiple treaties and summits, and two nobel peace prize winners couldn't bring anywhere near a peaceful coexistence (oops! our bad).

i'm a peaceful man. i don't want to go to war with anyone, and i'm not suggesting violence is the answer to this north korea problem. but i think it might be high time to realize that our organizations and coalitions, and whatnots, are only as important as the people who give a shit about them. a bunch of people signing a treaty, or a constitution, or a declaration, or a censure, or a resolution, or an affidavit, is no more legit than me standing on top of a mountain and declaring myself all-powerful emperor and high priest of the universe. it's not lofty declaration that gets things done, it's action, even if that action is simply to go over there and have this out in person. you don't break up with your girlfriend with a text message, and you don't overthrow a dictatorial regime with a stern letter asking him to please stop, we'd really appreciate it. so why doesn't the UN stop writing letters to kim jong's mommy, and go over there and remove his regime from power? and we don't have to go to war with his country for 12 years to do it (of course we don't. north korea doesn't have oil). this is a government with no allies. this is a government that shares a border with an opponent that happens to be one of the largest, richest, most powerful countries in the world. this is a government that runs a regime that publicly beheads its citizens for petty crimes like having your elbows on the table during the dessert course. i think we might, possibly be able to use this opportunity to practice changing the world for the better using some new, improved tactics that don't involve stealth airplanes with ray guns attached (but perhaps sharks with frickin' laser beams!), or land mine resistant armored vehicles, or innocent human casualties...i mean, uh, negligible collateral damage.

perhaps now is the time to stop acting like kindergartners who are faced with one of two choices: be the bully stealing other kids' lunch money, or be the kid curled up in the fetal position, covering his face and handing over the money so he doesn't get hurt.

perhaps now is the time to stop being passive aggressive (oh, you have nuclear weapons? that's cool, or not, or whatever... due to your weapons of mass destruction that we may or not be able to prove that you may or may not have that you may or may not have explicitly told us that you did or didn't have, and plus some other stuff that we can't remember right now, we are now going to invade, or liberate your country and then occupy, or train and stabilize it for the next decade and a half, because your leader was a tyrannical dictator, or maybe he was just a jerk who wouldn't share his cookies...). perhaps now is the time to walk right in to north korea, and say, listen, this isn't going to work anymore, this is why, and we're going to do something about it right now. do any of the north korean citizens have a problem with this? it's awfully quiet in here. oh, i see. they've all been sentenced to life terms in labor camps for unspecified hostile acts against the state, and walking too briskly (it looks like they have a purpose. this is very threatening to the state).

so it's on you, world leaders. are you going to let this guy push you (but more accurately, the innocent citizens and prisoners of north korea) around? or are you scared your going to go all HULK SMASH! if you try to stand up for yourselves?

let's try this: let's try using our big boy voice, and going over there, and confronting mr kim jong il with our words, like adults. i promise, if you don't get locked up in a labor camp for 12 years, i'll take you out for ice cream, later.

mr T made me a vegetarian in 20 minutes or less, for 3 easy payments of $39.95.

i'm not saying you should stop eating meat. not at all.

go right ahead, eat all you want.

but me? i'm out.

it all started some years back, when i ran into a friend i hadn't seen in a long while and she mentioned that she had since become a vegetarian. i thought to myself, "man, i could never do that". and as is my way, whenever i find myself saying that, well, i have to do it. so for a while i went veg, just to prove i could survive. i did, and i came away with the satisfaction that i was paying a lot more attention to the things i put in my face, and i was learning a lot more about good cooking. it's not often that a restaurant makes it easy and enjoyable to not eat meat. often i find myself in places like one particular establishment in philadelphia that had not one single item on the menu that was sans flesh, besides beverages and desserts. even the salads all had meat in them. so i found i was eating in more often, or bringing the dinner party to me. in addition, i felt all clean and happy inside. i didn't have to sit back, caress my belly, pregnant with food baby, unbutton my pants, and groan like an old man as i digested my way into a food coma.

while i was going in and out of nice long streaks of being an herbivore, it never fully took hold for longer than a year or so. blame it on the devil's nectar. every once in a while, usually when hungover, i would get a hankering for chicken wings, or a greasy burger, or BBQ of some kind. what's more, how can you go to a ballgame without getting a couple of stadium dogs?

but that feeling is usually easy to suppress with thoughts of what actually goes into making chicken wings, or a greasy burger, or BBQ of some kind (and as it turns out, it's not all that hard to get a veggie dog at a ballgame, and believe it or not they taste exactly like regular hot dogs. i guess all that's left do now is prove that there is actually meat in a hotdog in the first place).

best case scenario, meat products are the charred and/or fried, rotting flesh of a dead animal. not to say that it isn't delicious and satisfying decomposing corpse, and i understand anyone's motives behind horking some of it down. i did it for years without a second thought.

it's the worst case scenario that often hurts the ol' blood lust. unfortunately the worst case scenario is basically as far as your imagination will carry you. honestly, imagine the worst it could be. somewhere in the world, something you may purchase for consumption is made that way. think about it: human body parts, band aids, prophylactics, all found in fast food. chickens with more than two legs, hopped up on steroids until they are so deformed with juicy white meat bits that they can't even move. i don't even want to know what hotdogs are, but i'm pretty sure they have parents (or at least were inside an animal in some capacity, at some point...poop). the things they do to veal cows are awful, and the things they do to kobe beef cows are just silly (i'd rather eat a salad while an asian woman massages me with warm sake, and serves me beer. although i suppose there is some pleasure in knowing that when that cow died, it probably had no regrets. that cow sure knew how to live).

nevermind the logical and moral quagmire of animal products. nevermind that sustaining a meat eating culture as large as the western world is an enormous drain on agricultural, labor, water, economic, and energy resources. nevermind that the human body was not designed to hunt, kill, eat, or digest meat (we lack the stamina, agility, and physiology to hunt and kill, our teeth are those of herbivores, and our stomachs work at far too slow a pace to produce healthy results from eating fatty, sinewy foods like meat. in addition we don't work our bodies hard enough to require the complex proteins and rich fats we get from eating flesh). nevermind that vegetarian foods, whether or not that's all you eat, are just as potentially tasty and satisfying as any meat, and tofu is one of the most under-appreciated, inexplicably feared foods on the menu. nevermind that moral objections to eating meat open up a pandora's box of other no-no's. leather, fur, dairy, eggs, and, in the olden days, gelatin-based foods and glue, among other things all fall under the umbrella of animal products.

but my aversion to leather shoes goes far beyond the whole animal skin thing, they just look lame, and they are uncomfortable. why subject ourselves to them if we don't have to? yet, it's hard to play catch with a baseball glove made out of hemp. so leather is a complicated issue. meanwhile, fur is a total waste of time, and cheese is too delicious to give up. no, no. i have no desire, at present, to break down the entire moral dilemma of animal products.

it's the thought of what meat actually is that bothers me, these days. i've never looked at a person and sized up their juicy cuts (look at the briskets on that gal. yum!), but the reason we don't do that is because we allow our emotional attachment to guide our moral decision not to eat each other, smothered in country gravy, with your choice of coleslaw or home fries. so why should it be that i am ok with eating an animal that, given the chance, i would pet gently on the head while i tell it it's such a cutie? i mean, i'll tell you right now, if i'm standing next to a big friendly cow, with its wet, empty, stripper eyes, i really don't have to fight the urge to rip its throat out with my teeth and feast on the soft bloody insides until there's nothing left to do but chew the nutrient rich marrow from the bones. so, really, i have no desire to let someone else bust its head open with a sledgehammer, grind up the soft bloody insides and nutrient rich bones in a loud, scary looking machine, let it sit around for a few days, then serve me the mangled, charred remains with special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun.

yet, regardless of all of the above, in the past, the siren song of the carnivore cried out to me every now and again.

until the day mr T busted the door down.

OH YEAH! i mean, umm, PITY THE FOOL!

i'm no opponent of infomercials. i find them more entertaining than most network television. the magic bullet is one of my favorite programs. the characters are classic: the drunken buffoon of a husband "ewww vegetables!?", the lush wino grandma who smokes in the house "ain't nobody making muffins in my kitchen, that's just a mess waiting to happen!". add the vomit inducing serving suggestions (hard peppermint candy in a milkshake? alfredo sauce in 7 seconds?) and you've got a recipe for entertainment.

so it should come as no surprise when, 2 minutes into the flavorwave infomercial, i'm hooked. all it took was an unassuming woman standing in her "kitchen" telling us about how she's having a special friend over for dinner, that must be him now...

BANG!

a cloud of dust erupts into the room as the kitchen door goes flying across the set (that lady could have been killed, clubber!) and mr T barrels into the room in a juggernaut pose, "where's my dinner, woman!? i don't smell nothin' cookin'".

what's not to love? explosions, mr T, degrading treatment of women (it's the A-team, minus the sweet rapist van)...

what's not to love is the time lapse footage of meat cooking. over and over again, they hit us with fast forward footage of the machine turning meat products from large, frozen bricks, to wrinkled, greasy, twisted up flaps of nastiness.

of course they have to pound that footage into our brains, because the whole point of the flavorwave is that it can cook frozen meat, and fresh vegetables all at once in the same amount of time, to perfect doneness. it better, because mr T is hungry, and he pities the fool who tries to eat this frozen hunk of T bone, especially after he's slammed it against the edge of the counter a few times, flinging frozen shards of cow like IED shrapnel (and i pity the woman who tries to eat his hunk of T bone, especially after he's slammed it against the edge of the counter a few times...). seriously, if mr T doesn't get ahold of himself, he might just kill this woman. luckily he has plenty of flavorwaves around, so in less than 20 minutes her dead body could be reduced to a pile of nondescript, gristly meat flaps with a dental record. at that point it's just a matter of selling it to wendy's.

now, i know not everyone is like me. we are a rare breed who watch infomercials for fun. as are we a rare breed who take the time to actually think over the life story of everything we put in our mouths (we'd all have starved by now), but do consider trying out the veg life, maybe just for a week or two. it doesn't really matter me if it becomes a permanent or even a long term thing, but it will give you a little appreciation for something you may have thought you "could never do".

to both vegetarians and carnivores, i think it's important to note that it's hard to say you've truly had the human experience until you have consumed some meat inclusive culinary delights, so long as they are done right. i think you could easily live without a mcDonald's burger, for example, but a philly cheese from a street vendor in philly? sushi in japan? new zealand lamb? brats in germany? fish and chips in the UK? some things have to be tried.

to the carnivores who ask, "but if i can't eat meat, what do i eat?" and, "how do you get full on vegetables?" strict hindu culture is vegetarian (some branches even cut out certain vegetables, like garlic and mushrooms, because they are believed to interfere with meditation. think that's weird? christians eat the body and blood of jesus, and what the hell is gefilte fish?) and they are as healthy as anyone else. many of them have cut, svelte bodies, and many of them are fat. in fact, hindus come in all shapes and sizes. so trust me, it's plenty possible to get a complete and satisfying diet as a vegetarian (not everyone will end up skinny and gangly, like me).

to those who take up this challenge: carry on my wayward son, there'll be meat when you are done. but if you want to enjoy that meat, don't think too hard about where it came from, and i pity the carnivore who sits through the mr T flavorwave commercial.

i'm not a moron, get me out of here!

what the fuck is a frangela?

if it's not a tiny little orange, or a hazelnut liqueur, NBC's got some 'splainin' to do. they can 'splain it right after they 'splain why this i'm a celebrity show needs to be on 4 NIGHTS A WEEK! and why there aren't any celebrities on it.

turns out a frangela is about a thousand pounds of "ooh child" "go girl" and "no he d'ent" in stereoscope (that's much funnier when you see how i'm bobbing my head and wagging my finger as i type it).

and without the aid of the internet, who the fuck is janice dickensen? now, with the aid of the internet, all together, she's a model, STUPID!

that thing is a model? for what?! footwear? hockey pads? burqas? maybe she was a spokesmodel for dramamine. they would have moved a lot of product that way, cause her face makes me want to barf.

rod blagojevic's ex-wife?

i might as well just stop there.

are you trying to muscle me out of broadcast tv? i mean, it's this kind of crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. if i stick with broadcast tv, all i've got to cling to is conan, jeopardy!, seinfeld reruns, and PBS, and truth be told, there's actually a lot of crap on PBS, as well. if i want to watch a giants game, if i want to watch some decent cartoons, if i want to watch live government feeds, if i want a decent selection of educational programing, i have to pay for cable? denied.

oh, hold on there, mister, you're about to enter a wonderful world of ocular and aural pleasures the likes of which you never dreamed. here comes the digital tv conversion! doo-do-do-dooooo!

first they tell us, "it'll be a much better picture"

i've been living with this "much better picture" for months now, it is in fact far far far worse. audio and video cut out at random times for unpredictable amounts of time, its poppy and pixelated most of the time, the audio just decides on its own what volume it wants to be at, and if there's a slight breeze out, i might as well just leave the tv off and voluntarily slip into an epileptic seizure.

meanwhile, they pushed back the date that the conversion would finally be finished. "they" claimed it was because some tv stations weren't ready to make the conversion yet. funny, when they pushed back the date, all the networks were kind of pissed because they had set up leases on analog broadcast towers that ended on the original cutoff date and had new leases on digital towers that began circa the cutoff date. so who were they really pushing back the date for?

cable providers, of course. them and electronics manufacturers. not enough people actually switched to cable or satellite tv, or ran out and bought new "digital ready" tv sets,  so they thought they'd give us a little time to stew in the craptasticness of the digital broadcast. which brings up another question: why do i need a box to convert an over the air digital broadcast if i already have an antenna that picks up over the air broadcast? they show us all these diagrams of how antenna towers will shut down and all our tv will be piped into our hosues via a series of tubes. i assume the people who thought of this are the same people who think ted stevens is hip to modern technology. when is this happening? i'm still picking up the digital broadcast from a broadcast with an antenna (the same one i've always used) like always. and how do you propose to explain that i now get all these channels in HD when i don't own a tv with hd capabilities? you can broadcast it in hd digital platinum champagnevision on magical rainbows for all i care, i still need the same old antenna on my roof to get the signal and i don't have a tv that can play high def digital, so what is this box on top of my tv doing for me? i can put marshmallows in my gas tank if i want, too. that doesn't mean i have a car that runs on marshmallows, it means i have a useless pile of car parts in my driveway, and a bunch of delicious marshmallows i can't quite reach.

and now that we are down to the wire on the conversion deadline, the commercials are starting to get a bit more honest, aren't they? first it was "the digital conversion is coming. what does that mean? more channels, more hd, and better picture on your regular channels. converting is easy, just pick up a coupon online for a free box, plug it in and follow the instructions on the screen" now it's (and i'm not exaggerating here) "you may not be ready for the dtv switch. if you don't purchase a box or switch to a cable/satellite provider by the cutoff date, you won't be able to enjoy tv. in order to get the signal you must have a working antenna on your roof, you may have to buy additional antennae to supplement the one on your roof, and you may have to place them at odd places in your house in order to get a picture [i find i get the most satisfaction out of my supplemental antenna when its in my toilet and i've recently had a hearty mexican meal, for example]. remember, an antenna needs a clear line of sight to the broadcast tower, unobstructed by trees, buildings [leaves in the breeze, dust, clouds, rain, fog, heavy breathing, car exhaust, spider webs, satin finish house paint, matte finish house paint, houses in general, any other electronic signals including the natural magnetic field of the earth, the suns radiation...] and other tall things. even still, some people may not get all the channels, some people may experience bad or no sound or picture, and some may get no reception at all."

well now you fucking tell me! i mean, i knew all this shit from the beginning. i'm not a rube. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how basic electronic broadcasts work, and how getting it shoved up your ass by big business works. and now i'm on the list of people who don't get all the channels, experience bad or no sound or picture, and sometimes, no reception at all (supplemental antennae actually make the picture and sound worse).

i don't need all the crap on network tv. not any more than a i need a hole in my head adjacent to my frontal lobe to release the pressure of the weight of the world, like that guy in pi. but it's a citizen's right to free access to decent news (to be fair, deutsche welle, russia today, bbc world news, and news hour provide, on network tv, 1,000% better news that any news channel on cable does, aside from c-span and al jazeera, which are crucial to certain people who want to stay up with world news. i.e. me), and educational television should always be a top priority. you know what happens to a population of kids raised on braindead crap (including cable programing)?

exhibits A and B:

non-celebrities heidi and spencer.

someone please kidnap, torture, and eventually kill them.

now that i would pay to watch.