Saturday, August 31, 2002
Look at this here, I done went out and
started drawing again.
Figure I might as well announce it now
so I don't blindside you all later in
the week: XQUZYPHYR & Overboard
returns to the Washington Square News
with a new comic this Wednesday, September
4. All comics shall, as always, be
posted online roughly around the times
of printing. Plans are iffy as to a comic
the week of 9/11, but regardless, the
standard weekly run will commence Wednesday,
September 18. Somewhere along the line,
there'll be a site redesign. I hope.
As you were.
God to determine whether or not he
Today, on the sunny paintball fields
of Joliet, Illinois, loyal believers in
the Federation shall take to the field
to defend their territory against the
Klingon armies led by the devilish radio
As the article explains, as part of this
charity event, a mass
paintball game will be held with a
goofy Star Trek theme, complete with an
appearance by William Shatner himself,
as the de facto leader of the Federation
players. And "Mancow" Muller, otherwise
know as the world's slimiest piece of
shit, will be heading the Klingon players.
In other words, several hundred people
tomorrow will, albeit with paintballs,
have the means, motive, and opportunity.
to shoot Mancow repeatedly.
I will repeat that, just to make sure
everyone else claps their hands along
Mancow might get shot tomorrow. Repeatedly.
With high-speed balls of paint. In the
face. And genitals.
God, who as we all know by now is an
avid reader of this website, hence why
I am now both legally blind and permanently
impotent, has officially decided to declare
to the world whether or not he exists
in this plane of reality in the only appropriate
way he can.
So tomorrow, listen on the news so hear
if a massive ice storm erupts over the
wind-swept paintball fields of Joliet.
Because if there is a God, and he truly
does love us, then we shall hear on the
news of this glorious day when the winds
shift and the temperature drops just long
enough to somehow freeze paintballs- not
enough, mind you, to reach terminal velocity-
but just enough to rupture a scrotum through
a protective cup.
Someone here really, really needs
Friday, August 30, 2002
Well, gosh, that only took 13 years.
In a rare move today for a Stay of Execution
request, the three most left-leaning Supreme
Court Justices publicly
stated their opposition to executing teenagers
who committed murder earlier than the
age of 18.
In Wednesday's public dissent, Stevens
said he opposed executions of minor killers
when the court last considered the question
in 1989, and would do so again. Ginsburg
and Breyer did not go as far. They said
only that the court should revisit the
question considering the June decision
on retarded killers.
The dissents follow the court's landmark
ruling this year abolishing executions
of the mentally retarded. The court said
it is unconstitutionally cruel to execute
those who may be mentally incapable of
fully understanding their situation or
unable to help their lawyers.
Death penalty opponents predicted
the same reasoning could be applied to
the execution of those too young to fully
understand their crimes, and Stevens himself
has predicted that the question will be
the next death penalty issue the court
It is impossible to know when that
reconsideration might come. In the meantime,
there is nothing to stop executions such
as Patterson's unless state legislatures
or governors step in, lawyers said.
The statement on retardation was the
most significant among several rulings
in the court's most recent term that re-examined
the mechanics of capital punishment without
addressing the constitutionality of the
practice as a whole.
''The U.S. Supreme Court is now taking
a hard second look at capital punishment,
which is not to say at the end of the
day the court is going to abolish it,''
said Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School
professor specializing in the death penalty.
Thursday, August 29, 2002
Third Update: Given its own post
beacuse it's big enough to merit. Tamsen
Schwartz has thoughtfuly provided
a link to Fortune
Brands, the conglomerate who owns
Jim Beam along with Master Lock, Cobra,
Swingline Staplers Inc., Titleist, and
several other product lines so ridiculously
unconnected to one another it boggles
the mind as to what the CEO of this company
is thinking, as if he's collecting companies
like Monopoly properties hoping to have
as many different colors as possible to
trade later for an actually useful set
of something. I mean, Jesus. They make
padlocks, golf balls, staplers, and bourbon.
What the fuck?
Anthony J. Diaz and Clarkson Hine are
the VPs of Investor Relations and Corporate
Communications, respectively. Contact
info is as follows:
Fortune Brands, Inc.
300 Tower Parkway
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
phone: (847) 484-4400
As is the case of all protests, recommendations
and suggestions can not and will not be
made as to the content of your complaints.
However, please note that in most cases,
postal mail and phone calls are much more
effective than e-mail, and a rational
tone indicating a boycott of the product
is much more beneficial than wanton verbal
assaults on the switchboard operators.
Please do your best to avoid getting me
arrested for promoting urinary terrorism.
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
of oppressive labor.
And here I was complaining about my problems.
an actual horrendous labor conflict,
in which the Jim Bean manufacturing plant
is now menacingly (and, according to labor
regulators, illegally) preventing employees
from using the bathroom on their own free
will. Highlights of the article:
Under a policy implemented in October,
line workers at the Jim Beam Brands Co.
plant may use the restroom only during
lunch and two other scheduled daily breaks,
one before lunch and one after. They also
are allowed one unscheduled toilet break
per day, and can be disciplined for taking
more, starting with a warning and escalating
to dismissal after six incidents.
The union said 45 workers have been
disciplined, some workers have begun
wearing protective undergarments and others
have urinated on themselves because
they were afraid to leave the line.
Jo Anne Kelley, the union local's
president, has worked at the Jim Beam
plant for 34 years. She said that the
policy is degrading and that company officials
have told some workers that they should
''practice'' going to the bathroom every
two hours at home on the weekends
to put themselves on a schedule.
Well, isn't that nice.
I gave this my usual thirty seconds of
analysis and came up with this suggestion
for the workers, and I think I should
share it with all you readers, because
if you buy Jim Bean it reflects on you
too. You all work in a manufacturing plant,
So. I'm going to assume you're on the
bottling lines as well? And you need to
You heard me. Jim Bean won't let you
piss? Piss in the bottles. Stat sending
an inappropriate quantity of very skunky
beers down the assembly line, and I think
Jim Bean will have a helluva lot more
to worry about than the "laziness" of
their workers. Call it urban terrorism,
call it civil disobedience, call it whatever
you want. I call it "fuck you Jim Bean,
we're all gonna urinate into your product
until we don't have to wear diapers to
the job anymore.
Now, some of you, primarily those who
drink Jim Bean, and may be worried that
this idea might lead you into. say. drinking
another person's urine, to this I say
two things: first, how would you know?
Have you ever really drank piss
before? And two: They're making employees
wear diapers. DIAPERS! And
you think drinking urine is dehumanizing?
These people are going to be wearing
So I say, Jim Bean bottlers, go for it.
And if you work at a separate bottling
plant, fuck 'em. Piss in the bottles there
too. Let 'em know that the customers are
gonna get pissed on unless the employees
stop getting shit on.
Update: Yes, thank you to all
who pointed out I've misspelled the name
of Jim Beam in the post more times than
I care to go back and correct. So let's
just leave it at "you all know what I'm
Second Update: At the request
of readers not wanting to support Jim
Beam (or potentially drink urine) can
find a list of major bourbon brands and
I can't find the contact info so you can
yell at Jim Beam directly, but if anyone
has that send it to me and I'll post it.
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
Work, work, work, work, work
I'm going to apologize again for the
lack of posting as compared to the frequency
you found over the summer. The difference
being, of course, that this summer I had
this slight case of "not being able to
find a job and therefore having nothing
to do but sit at the computer and write
about stuff eight or nine hours a day."
umm. -itis, or something.
Now, being only two days into back at
NYU, I'm overwhelmed. A week from tomorrow
I have to have finished and presented
for my first Animation Production class
the storyboards for a film that I have
to like enough to enjoy spending the next
eight months drawing and animating entirely
on my own. In addition, starting in about
two weeks the comics come back, which,
don't get me wrong, the idea of drawing
again making me squeal with glee, but
also with fright over how busy I'm gonna
be this semester.
Couple that with the fact that
I'll be pulling two 9-to-5s a week at
the Viacom building in Times Square all
this semester for my Web Design internship
with Nickelodeon, along with my hopes
of getting a course-grader job to earn
a little bit of cash on the side (since
the Nick.com gig is an unpaid internship)
and you can how I've suddenly discovered
there's not as many hours in the day as
there were when, oh say, I didn't have
to get up until 10 AM to make Stove Top
Stuffing for breakfast and watch CNN in
my underwear while my mom, who was gracious
enough to feed me, clothe me, give me
a roof over my head for the summer and
oh yeah, I guess spring me from her loins
too, went to work. If it wasn't for my
18-year old brother actually having been
even less productive than me over
the summer, I might have actually looked
Oh, and yes, along with the upcoming
redesign to the site, I'll add all the
stuff I mentioned earlier into the archives,
and as the year progresses I'll try to
keep you all informed about said Animation
Production film as well. I'm not going
to describe anything that isn't definitive
yet, but I can say that there's a 90%
chance it will involve monkeys.
Monday, August 26, 2002
Stars and bars
This is completely goddamned ridiculous.
Turns out the
United States has over 6.6 million people
in prision, an average of one out of every
32 Americans, more than any other
nation, with an increase of over two million
people since 1990. That's right. In twelve
years, we've put an extra two million
people in prison.
And now, a few passages of blatant obviousness:
Experts noted the recent trend of
arrests declined for murder, rape and
other violent crimes. Many of those on
probation were convicted of using illegal
drugs or driving while intoxicated, the
Texas had more adults under correctional
supervision than any other state, 755,100.
California was second with 704,900. Texas
also had the most adults on probation,
443,684, followed by California at 350,768.
Whites accounted for 55 percent of
those on probation, while blacks made
up 31 percent, statistics show. On the
other hand, 46 percent of those incarcerated
were black and 36 percent were white.
I think we can all guess the handful
of conclusions this entails. More as it
develops from the land of the (96%) free.
Friday, August 23, 2002
Ah, so it was four hundred people drag
racing. Of course.
No, really Mom, I'm packing. I swear.
Just checked in to repost an informative
e-mail from Stephen
Bates, who whall now provide us all
with an update on the mass
K-Mart arrests we discussed earlier
The Houston Chronicle on 8/20 revised
the number to "only" 278 arrested... oh,
well, that's completely different; that
makes it OK, right? The story about the
10-year-old apparently is genuine; she
was separated from her father in the melee.
So, apparently, are the stories of the
kids who had receipts from Kmart; they
and their receipts appeared prominently
on the local news.
Much good it will do them: as of the
last I heard, they all still have to go
to court. A lot of people pled guilty
just to avoid spending another night or
a dozen or a hundred nights in jail awaiting
some sort of court action... Houston makes
it notoriously difficult to assert one's
innocence. The rest have arranged or will
arrange bail, a couple hundred bucks minimum.
A lot of cars were towed, another couple
hundred bucks more in towing and storage
fees for the owners.
The local debate is about whether
this is an isolated incident... one bad
cop mistakenly put in charge of a drag
racing bust that found no one drag racing,
but decided to arrest a bunch of people
anyway... or a systemic problem needing
better civilian oversight of police. Having
seen a few things in my 54 years here,
I tend to believe the latter: there are
far worse police departments than HPD,
but HPD needs a good looking at. In fairness,
a lot of cops are genuinely horrified
by the whole business.
There's another issue no one seems
to be addressing: the response in letters
to the editor at the Chronicle. About
1/3 to 1/2 of the people who wrote seem
to think it's just great these kids were
rounded up and taken downtown. I know
that kind of person is more likely than
most to write a letter, but it's still
I am an ACLU member, and every passing
day reinforces my need to support civil
liberties organizations. With that disclosure,
I'd like to ask... can you give me one
good reason the kids and their parents
should NOT sue the assets of the City
of Houston, and maybe a couple of individual
cops as well? Those arrested are victims,
and the Constitution gives us a right
to petition for a redress of grievances.
These people should be made whole for
all the money they spent getting themselves
out of jail, their cars out of storage
and their charges dropped by the courts.
Expensive for the City of Houston, and
hence for me? Yep. What of it? It's more
important that the right thing is done.
By the way... for any who say to themselves,
"only in Texas," they need to take a good
long look at the ACLU
Thursday, August 22, 2002
A. Johnson's Big Move
As always, I'm aware that I always seem
to start writing more as soon as I say
this, but nevertheless:
Posts have a 60-75% chance of being rather
light for the next few days as packing
and preparation begins for the Sunday
trip back to NYU for the Fall 2002 semester.
Updates will soon follow in regards to
the exact date that (OH SWEET LORD YES,
he hopes them to say) comics will resume
publication, and you might even, if you're
really good, start to notice the occasional,
oh I don't know, annual site redesign.
I also, as a combo obligation to myself
and my school paper, have to start putting
time aside to write an article about the
upcoming anniversary. Yeah, that
one. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, August 21, 2002
Tuesday, August 20, 2002
Monday, August 19, 2002
Impromptu ACLU and civil lawyer's convention
to commence... right now.
According to this article in the Houston
Chronicle, Houston police decided
to arrest 425 people for trespassing at
a local 24-hour K-mart and SOnic Burger.
In addition to the towing of cars, police
arrests and detainments included high
school students, parents, and a 10-year
old girl. In addition, those arrested
and incarcerated (in the case of the 10-year
old, seperated from her father who she
was with at the time and place in Juvinile
Detention- go ahead, read that again)
filed multiple claims of abuse from over-tight
handcuffs and refusal to accept any logical
excuses, including, as the articel points
out, the arrest for "tresspassing" of
a student with a reciept of the K-Mart
he had just exited.
I'd like to rephrase this, because I
think the situation bears it.
Four hundred and twenty-five people,
as young as ten years old, were arrested
for tresspassing- in the parking lot
of a store that was still open at the
time of the arrests- some of whom
were in fact dining at the adjacent restaurant
and/or bearing legal proof that they were
in fact using the store to which the parking
lot was attributed, and had their cars
towed and wrists injured from incompetent
Look, I'm not all excited and wet about
the idea of the legal system being brought
to another slowdown because of the massive
level of lawsuits this story will likely
contain in the final chapter, whenever
that's written- but I would love to hear
anyone try to give me a spin about this
story that doesn't condone an influx of
civil lawyers to the area at such a high
rate that the region actually gains another
Congressman. I think the Houston Chronicle
is aware of this as well... I mean, how
often do you see a news story with a detailed
roadmap of how to get to the area?
Forbidden love in a place of unwanted
...[I]n a packed, smoky nightclub
on the edge of Jerusalem's ultra-Orthodox
Mea Shearim district, the gay communities
from both sides still bridge the growing
divide, breaking down racial and political
barriers as Jews and Arabs defy traditional
stereotypes and threats of suicide bombers.
Laila's remains the only nightclub
where Israeli Jews clap enthusiastically
side by side with Palestinian Arabs. Does
the fact that these revelers are gay,
lesbian or bisexual have anything to do
with their mutual tolerance? Absolutely.
The rest of the story is here,
and I suggest you all read it to reflect
on how utterly absurd the Middle East
conflict is that people from both sides
of the most ultra-conservative religious
and violent bastions of zealotry are coming
together in bars that represent a lifestyle
that in various sectors of the Islamic
religon can get you shunned, if not outright
executed... to relax.
Saturday, August 17, 2002
Hillary Rosen needs to, Chuck Jones-style,
be tied to a chair and force-fed a large
stick of lit dynamite
Not that I'm going to suddenly jump on
the whiny broke college student oh-look-at-us-we're-revolutionaries-because-we-steal-music-online
bandwagon, but this
latest move by the RIAA is completely
...[F]or a final assault on human
dignity, the Recording Industry Ass. of
America has sued for the right to determine
which Web sites you and I will be permitted
Taking a page from the book of totalitarian
regimes, the media industry is suing major
ISPs, demanding that the foundations of
a Chinese-style Great Firewall be laid
to protect their precious copyrights,
At issue is the Listen4ever site,
which the RIAA whinges is beyond their
influence. According to the wire service,
the industry hasn't been able to figure
out who owns the offending site, and is
stymied in its efforts to take action
It is therefore necessary for the
thieving, rotten little people of the
United States to have their Internet access
In other words, the RIAA is pushing a
lawsuit that, if and when it likely succeeds,
would essentially create a precedent for
any major company to order the international
censorship of websites that it determines
as a legal threat. We can all sit here
and enjoy thinking of numerous doomsday
scenarios about what this can lead to:
perhaps Kraft can sue to have me blocked
for making disparaging
comments about Kool-Whip on the grounds
that I'm unfairly removing potential sales
of their highly radiactive space-age polymer
ice cream topping-slash-insect repellant.
Again, I'm not saying the opposition
is the most brilliant strategy (though
I will mention something in the next paragraph)
but the idea that any company can activate
some kind of NAFTA Chapter 11-style attack
on a web site to remove it from existing
because they legally disapprove of it
is beyond ridiculous, it's downright obscene.
That said, just as a random thought:
there's this whole thing called "fair-use,"
right? So technically, one can't put up
an entire song on theri website that's
owned by the RIAA, but they can put up,
oh, say a 30-second clip. So why not make
a whole bunch of sites that each archive
various 30-second clips of different songs,
then someone just design a program to
connect all the different clips together?
If any readers actually know of this idea
being implemented, or attempted to be
implemented, let me know. It's just sort
of a random thought I'm having. This,
of course, in no way means I endorse it.
Nope. No siree.
Friday, August 16, 2002
Now that's some good... that's a horrible
line and I'm not going to finish it.
The older articles from 2-3 years ago
long gone, few know of the recurring gag
XQUZYPHYR used to have about his spontaneous
urges to run out and hug, for no reason,
and of all people, veteran Washington
Post columnist Richard Cohen. There was
really no explanation- it's not like I
found every single one of his articles
of the utmost quality, though I did find
most of them that way. Somewhere in the
Midwest a 50-something grandfather is
thinking about the concept of a random
desire to hug Richard Cohen and laughing
his ass off. For all you young 'uns, I
guess you're as confused about this as
I am. I have, for the record, no control
over the psychological urges of my own
cartoons characters. Really.
But I digress. There's something about
this specific man writing a scathing
attack on Ann Coulter. It's like watching
someone's grandpa beat the shit out of
a guy in a bar with a broken bottle. Or
that scene in Happy Gilmore where
Bob Barker just mops the floor with Adam
Sandler's ass. Richard Cohen, a man who
you can't even imagine ever uttered a
swear word in his life, in a calm and
elder statesmanly tone rips the little
skank a new one. If I may:
What explains their [conservatives']
rage and, while I am asking questions,
could you think of another commentator
-- especially one on the left -- who could
have written what Coulter did about Muslims
and go on to bestsellerdom? Being conservative
is like being criminally insane: You can't
be held accountable.
Oh. Oh, yes. Feel it, bitch. Feel the
burn from someone who knows how to
fucking write political commentary.
I don't know what the hell is wrong with
me today. I'm going to lie down for a
while, perhaps the rest of the weekend.
Dick, if you're ever in Jersey, stop by
Teaneck for a much-desired hug from a
few psychopaths in black masks and trenchcoats.
God, Hollywood just chews you up and
spits you out, doesn't it
The nation mourns as the announcement
is made official from the man himself:
Wil Wheaton to be cut from the next "Star
Yes, it's a travesty. And yes, for some
reason I can't say his name without saying
"TV's Wil Wheaton." It just... it just
sounds so right.
Wednesday, August 14, 2002
And now, a short visit to Blatantly
Fucking Obvious, Wisconsin
Nearly half of the young girls surveyed
in Wisconsin said they would quit going
to Planned Parenthood if their parents
had to be told they wanted prescribed
contraceptives, according to a study.
The study suggested that parental
notification could lead to more teen pregnancies,
abortions and the spread of sexually transmitted
Congress and 10 states, including
Wisconsin, have considered legislation
requiring that parents be informed if
their children are seeking prescribed
contraceptives, the study noted.
The study found 47 percent said they
would stop using all sexual health care
services at Planned Parenthood if their
parents were notified they were seeking
birth control pills or devices.
Ninety-nine percent of the girls
said they would have unprotected sex or
use condoms if they couldn't get prescribed
contraceptives, the study found.
did everyone read that? Have we all
decided we really don't need to keep screaming
this louder? Attention stupid parents:
it's called talking to your children.
It actually can be done, and it makes
them a lot more receptive to sharing their
feelings with you than legally mandating
their informing you of all their actions.
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this,
Mader and Pader, but your daughter? She
wants to have sex. And as this study is
showing, she's going to try to do it,
and she's going to be interested in doing
it, whether or not you approve, and- get
this- whether or not you try to put guard
towers at the Women's Clinic.
Am I saying it's great that, as the article
states, girls as young as 12 are having
sex behind their parents' backs? Of course
not, with a good combination of "I think
it's too young" and "who the hell am I
to say anyone's too young to do anything,"
but I am downright thrilled to
hear that girls as young as 12 are actually
on their own decision without the influence
of their parents actually realizing that
Planned Parenthood is a smart idea. And
not that the survey says this or anything,
but one would believe that most young
girls getting birth control behind their
parents' backs are girls that have parents
who would forbid them somehow from going...
and to me all that means is 47 percent
of the girls in Wisconsin are a hell of
a lot smarter than their parents.
A bit of discord in the Ministry of
A sample of two "updated" posters from
site, in which the author (and I think
some contributors) have painstakenly altered
the text of classic World War II-era propoganda
signs. I know this isn't an original concept,
but frankly it's worth pointing out due
to the level of brilliance, not to mention
high quality in the posters. I swear,
if these things looked any more real I'd
be sking them where I could order one.
Update: Rendering unto Ceaser's
that which is Ceaser's, I should point
out that the poster site is the work of
Ian Wright, artist, writer, children's
animator, and admirer of Olmec heads.
Seriously. Go play on his happy happy
fun fun site.
Tuesday, August 13, 2002
Preparing the wallpaper for that special
place in hell
former Enron Corp. insiders who earned
a combined $25 million in the year before
the company crashed are asking
for millions more in severance pay.
The list of executives includes the
wife of former chief executive Jeff Skilling,
Rebecca Carter, and former vice chairman
Mark Frevert, who has asked for more than
$6 million in severance pay. Carter, who
was Enron's corporate secretary before
marrying Skilling in March, wants another
Frevert, who was made vice chairman
after Skilling's shock departure on Aug.
14, 2001, was paid $17.3 million in the
year before Enron crashed. He claims that
he is owed $6.6 million in severance,
a calculation that was based in part on
his performance bonus, court records show.
Carter earned $477,500 in the year
before the crash. John Sherriff, the former
head of Enron Europe, earned $4.3 million
in the same period and has asked for $1.6
I'd like to point out that yes, I am
aware that a man who made $17.3 million
the year before his company spiraled into
the worst bankrupcy ever is now claiming
he deserves... let me check that again...
six and a half million dollars. Based
on... that's right... his performance.
In his job.
Which he destroyed.
Frevert could not be reached for comment
at the time of this posting, as his entire
face had mysteriously melted in a slow
claymation dissolve effect much like that
scene in Radiers of the Lost Ark.
Monday, August 12, 2002
Umm... run that one by me again?
a New Mexico NBC affiliate:
State GOP chairman John Dendahl wooed
the Green Party with an offer of potential
"six-figure" political support from an
unidentified source if the Greens ran
candidates in two congressional races.
He says he was asked by someone in
Washington, DC, to offer the campaign
contributions, but Dendahl declined to
identify that individual -- other than
to say he can't say the source had no
Republican connection. But Dendahl does
say he doesn't regard it as a Republican
deal or GOP money.
Well, I'm glad he doesn't call it that.
It's funny, because I and almost anyone
I know would call an attempt to give someone
over a hundred thousand dollars to do
something that would, if made public,
be deemed unquestionably immoral a
Nevertheless, this is sort of a philosophical
question: will sites like MWO
use a story like this to attack the Greens
or to attack the GOP? The story refutes
a direct link to the Republican Party
in regards to the bribe, yet the story
itself is about the Greens refuting the
belief that they allow the GOP to aid
them in defeating Democrats. I myself
am a Democrat, but even I can realize
that this is one of those great little
events where the rabid pro-DNC groups
just cannot have it both ways.
And now for something completely agreeable.
Monty Python's Terry Jones on
the War on TerrorismT:
It is well known that the best way
of picking out terrorists is to fly 30,000ft
above the capital city of any state that
harbours them and drop bombs - preferably
cluster bombs. It is conceivable that
the bombing of Dublin might have provoked
some sort of protest, even if just from
James Joyce fans, and there is at least
some likelihood of increased anti-British
sentiment in what remained of the city
and thus a rise in the numbers of potential
terrorists. But this, in itself, would
have justified the tactic of bombing them
in the first place. We would have nipped
them in the bud, so to speak. I hope you
follow the argument.
Having bombed Dublin and, perhaps,
a few IRA training bogs in Tipperary,
we could not have afforded to be complacent.
We would have had to turn our attention
to those states which had supported and
funded the IRA terrorists through all
these years. The main provider of funds
was, of course, the USA, and this would
have posed us with a bit of a problem.
Where to bomb in America? It's a big place
and it's by no means certain that a small
country like the UK could afford enough
bombs to do the whole job.
The full article here.
And this is how we'll all start the
brown cloud of death threatens millions
in Asia. Really.
A two-mile-thick cloud of pollution
shrouding southern Asia is threatening
the lives of millions of people in the
region and could have an impact much further
afield, according to a U.N.-sponsored
It said the cloud, a toxic cocktail
of ash, acids, aerosols and other particles,
was damaging agriculture and changing
rainfall patterns across the region which
stretches from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka.
The report [made on the effects] calculated
that the cloud -- 80 percent of which
was man-made -- could cut rainfall over
northwest Pakistan, Afghanistan, western
China and western central Asia by up to
Apart from drastically altering rainfall
patterns, the cloud was also making the
rain acid, damaging crops and trees, and
threatening hundreds of thousands of people
with respiratory disease.
I'm going back to bed now. Thank you.
Saturday, August 10, 2002
Flame me if you want, just as long
as there's no smoke with it
I took a little bit of time to decide
whether or not I agreed with this before
coming to my final decision, but after
hearing the voice of the opposition I
had no choice but to declare my ultimate
position on this matter:
It's about damned time.
I'll go on more about this, and I'm sure
I'm going to get both positive
and negative feedback about an issue
so volatile that it actually has it's
own Nazi anaolgy, but for now I just came
home from hanging out with my friends,
and I have to get up early in the morning
to, among other things, wash the stink
of cigarettes out of the clothing I wore
Thursday, August 08, 2002
Bad. Bad asshole. Stop it. Stop being
an asshole. Bad.
Rush Limbagh proposed on his show today
that, okay, just a moment, let me get
this right: that "the upcoming memorial
for 9/11 in New York City would send the
wrong message - one of weakness and vulnerability."
Therefore, he suggests, the proper way
to mark the anniversary of the September
11 attacks would be to... of course- bomb
Iraq into the ground.
Actual quotes from the Limbaugh show,
according to an article from World
"I think it would be fabulous ...
I think a 9-11 act on Saddam ... you talk
about getting this country up!"
"Wouldn't it be a great thing if people
of New York are going through their candlelight
vigils and reading the names and so forth
and all that stuff and we are 'pow!' piling
into Saddam? And on the way over we accidentally
drop a couple bombs by mistake in the
sand deserts of Saudi Arabia?"
"All this talk about Iraq is gonna
culminate in [military] action, I think
you should know it is gonna happen, it's
just a question of when; 9-11 would be
a good date."
"Everybody and their uncle is begging
us not to go into Iraq - the little Europeans,
the little West Germans, the Saudis ...
While everybody wants regime change, they
don't have the guts to do it. So if it's
gonna happen, we're gonna have to be the
ones to do it."
Oh my holy lord. This is the most horrible
man alive. Yes, I know, I'm not actually
all suprised like I've never heard Limbaugh
before, but... Jesus Christ on a Segway,
that's just obscene. It's like a dog who
just shit on your carpet, you just want
to rub his face in the shit and say "No!
(Oh, yeah: thanks to A
Small Victory for the story link)
I'd like to drop loads and loads of
napalm on Florida
The election, insane Cubans, rampant
handgun abuse, and Jeb. With the obvious
exception of my
Junior Year roommate, there pretty
much doesn't seem to be any reason for
me to want to prevent anyone from setting
off a large set of explosives that somehow
magically break most of Florida off from
the mainland of the U.S. and let it somehow
sail away down south, or perhaps just
a few hundred feet until it sinks, stupid
lawmakers and all screaming as they ask
God what have they done to bring such
wrath while he says "oh, sorry, I can't
hear you, I'm watching these god-damned
hysterical clay people and I'm so fucking
high right now! Buddha! Pass me the
Apparently, once again the state legislature
has come up with this miraculous conclusion
that women, by being able to generate
another living being from within the depths
of their own body- an act that if anything
should be considered women's unflinching
and indisputable proof that they have
complete supreme power over anything with
a penis- actually have less rights than
anyone else because of that power. Awwww.
Am I acting bitter? Yes, because as mentioned
umpteen times before, there is nothing
in this world that pisses me off more
than the government deciding that they
have the right to pitch fences and guard
towers inside a woman's uterus. And yet
Florida has, all on it's own, declared
that it is vitally important women
are legally required to declare in the
local newspaper that they're giving a
child up for adoption.
Adoption is an institution which was
originally created for the purpose of
allowing mothers who don't want to (or
can't) abort their fetuses, and who don't
want to leave the baby in a dumpster,
to give the children they feel they can't
take care of to a place that can guarantee
they will be brought up safe and healthy
(theoretically, but adoption agencies
themselves are a different rant altogether.)
Amidst all the differences in procedure,
there was one that I had always thought
was crucial: the anonymity of the mother.
The right for the child to have new, adoptive
parents that would care for it, and the
right of the birth mother to privately
and securely go on with her life without
the possible pain and anguish of having
to deal with it thirty years down the
line. Essentially, Florida is making a
law that requires the adoption to not
only be declared public to the entire
circulation of the local paper, but completely
eliminates the entire concept of anonymity.
It doesn't seem to be hard for a child
to know what their birthday is. What's
the purpose of sealed adoption records
when this law means any adoptee can simply
run through the local papers of their
birth date and do process of elimination?
Even beyond the brutal attacks on privacy
this law is beyond stupid. Much as how
fanatical right-wing religious psychos
try to videotape and photograph women
entering abortion clinics to dissuade
them from abortions, the public revealing
of adoption procedures will dissuade women
from putting their babies up for adoption.
And what then? Does the state of Florida
really think emotionally forcing a girl
to keep her unwanted baby will magically
make her love it more? Preposterous. I
am not even angry, but downright frightened,
at the worst-case scenarios here. We're
not talking anymore about girls fearful
of having abortions or not. We're talking
about already-born babies with mothers
suddenly realizing they're scared for
their lives to publicize their desire
to get rid of the baby. Do you want me
to LIST possible ways someone could snap
and come up with other ways to get rid
of one? I sure as hell don't.
This is a law that will increase the
demand for abortion, complicate the concepts
of adoption, and scar mothers for their
entire lives with the fear that an adoption
is made public, and that down the road
their abandoned children will come looking
for them. I understand that many adopted
people want to find their birth parents
some day; I also know for a fact that
many parents who gave their children up
for adoption don't. And I know that's
another complicated issue in itself, but
I've always seen it as this: you don't
have the right to potentially emotionally
scar another person because you think
it might heal your own emotional scar.
And the openness of this law makes that
scenario a lot more possible.
So here's the only suggestion I can give
the people who want to oppose this modern-day
Scarlet Letter while the lawsuits
against it are still pending: shut the
system down. I don't see how it costs
that much to fill out an ad in your local
paper. Start a fund, collect some money,
and start taking out notices. Loads of
them. Enough to fill two or three pages.
That's right. Make up tons and tons of
false adoption notices. A unique combination
of fake notices that sound logically real
mixed with ones that are blatantly fake
but grippingly nasty ("father unknown;
likely local Florida politician who was
really horny that night after passing
a ridiculous law stripping women of their
privacy rights") should be enough to start
a plan that kills laws in the second-easiest
way: rendering it completely irrelevant.
Oh dear God. Seriously.
back. All hail the upcoming rise in
Christian Evangilism. And, of course,
Wednesday, August 07, 2002
Barr accidentally misfires gun, almost
kills self. Yes, it's goddamned hilarious
because it's Bob Barr.
An antique .38-caliber pistol accidentally
discharged as it was being handled by
Rep. Bob Barr during a reception in his
honor. The bullet hit a glass door, and
no one was hurt.
Widener said "one of us hit the trigger"
just as he gave Barr the gun during Friday's
reception at Widener's home.
"Nobody was in any danger. We were
handling it safely, except that it was
loaded," said Widener, an independent
lobbyist. (Ed. Note: What?!?)
"I am thankful Bob was careful to always
keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction."
Through a spokesman, Barr said: "This
accident only underscores the importance
of proven gun safety measures, especially
when owning and handling antique firearms."
Right Bob, right. That's what
this incident underscores.
Just wondering if that Frappucino tastes
like shit in your mouth yet
Nearly two years ago, in October 2000,
Samantha Buck of Astoria, Oregon bought
a small coffee shop in downtown Astoria
and named it Sam Buck's- after herself.
One year later, Starbucks Coffee®
opened a Starbucks store inside Fred Meyers,
five miles away. Starbucks® lawyers then
served Samantha Buck with a cease and
desist order: she must stop using her
own name on her store, because they claimed
it was causing confusion for Starbucks
customers who might be led to believe
they were patronizing a Starbucks® store
when in fact, they were going into Sam
Bucks. They offered her $500 for the expense
of removing her name from her store.
Sam said no thank you, and soon thereafter,
Starbucks filed a lawsuit. She must rename
her store or an injunction will be filed,
and assuming a properly corporate-friendly
judge, will likely be issued and enforced.
If Sam Buck continues to use her name
on her store, she can be found in contempt
of court, and can be jailed.
Starbucks® of course, is under the
impression that they own not only the
name Starbucks®-which they plagiarized
from Herman Melville's Moby Dick without
attribution- but also anything that sounds
vaguely like Starbucks.
You read that right. Starbucks is suing
another coffee shop that existed over
a year before their local store did on
the grounds that there might be name confusion.
Now, I'm no legal expert, but it seems
to me that if a store is already in place,
and a year later a new store arives with
a similar name, wouldn't it be the new
store that's violating the name recognition
of the other one?
The full story is here,
and just to clarify: statistically, the
odds of the little guy winning in a situation
like this isn't dependent on really how
much money is involved, but mostly how
much media coverage it gets. So my advice,
as I have given in similar format on many
occasions, applies to Ms. Buck as well:
get on the phone and talk to any reporter
who is willing to talk to you about this.
Tuesday, August 06, 2002
"Gentlemen. This lawsuit could seriously
affect our ability to make people suffer
at an even greater pace!"
The U.S. has moved to block a lawsuit
against Exxon Mobil Corp. for alleged
human-rights abuses at its Indonesian
natural-gas operations, claiming the court
action could hurt relations with Jakarta
and undermine the war on terrorism.
The State Department said the action
alleging the oil company knew of human-
rights abuses by the Indonesian military
guarding its facilities in Aceh province
"could impair cooperation with the U.S.
across the full spectrum of diplomatic
initiatives, including counterterrorism."
The International Labor Rights Fund
filed the suit with the U.S. district
court in Washington last year on behalf
of 11 villagers from Aceh who contend
that they were victims of murder, torture,
kidnapping and rape by the military unit
guarding Exxon Mobil's gas field. Exxon
Mobil has denied any involvement with
In a letter to the district court,
which was published on the plaintiff's
Web Site, the State Department said the
lawsuit would "risk a seriously adverse
impact on significant interests of the
United States, including interests related
directly to the ongoing struggle against
As both the passage above and the full
article it's from will point out,
you'll notice that at no point has the
U.S. actually stated their desire to block
the lawsuit on the grounds that the allegations
stated in it are in any way false. Only
Exxon made that claim, which of course
being the opposite of the allegations
fits the definition of a civil lawsuit.
So, in other words, the U.S. officially
has no concern whatsoever for the potential
violation of human rights in the world...
after all, a lawsuit that reveals them
might disturb the delicate steps the U.S.
is taking to make the war on terrorism
legal- of which its components at various
points included suspension of Habeus Corpus,
military tribunals, disruption of free
speech rights, loss of multiple privacy
rights, and the ability to torture people
to gather information.
Wait, run that plan by me again.
According to the latest Washington
Post story, there is a rising of open
debate about just how nice and friendly
Saudi Arabia is to us in the first place.
"Saudi Arabia supports our enemies
and attacks our allies," said the briefing
prepared by Laurent Murawiec, a Rand Corp.
analyst. A talking point attached to the
last of 24 briefing slides went even further,
describing Saudi Arabia as "the kernel
of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous
opponent" in the Middle East.
Now, as many have discussed before, this
is an argument that does nothing but raise
the question as to why it hasn't been
addressed widely earlier on in the War
on TerrorismT, let alone discussed in
regards to just how obvious this allegation
is. I mean, here we are starving and impoverishing
Iraq for twelve years or so while the
Saudis refuse to provide some of the most
basic pieces of information we demand
Saddam provides lest we bomb his civilians
into the ground.
But what interested me was this little
quote a bit later in the article:
The report concludes by linking regime
change in Iraq to altering Saudi behavior.
This view, popular among some neoconservative
thinkers, is that once a U.S. invasion
has removed Hussein from power, a friendly
successor regime would become a major
exporter of oil to the West. That oil
would diminish U.S. dependence on Saudi
energy exports, and so -- in this view
-- permit the U.S. government finally
to confront the House of Saud for supporting
"The road to the entire Middle East
goes through Baghdad," said the administration
official, who is hawkish on Iraq. "Once
you have a democratic regime in Iraq,
like the ones we helped establish in Germany
and Japan after World War II, there are
a lot of possibilities."
Now, I'm not the smartest of individuals,
I mean, I go to one of them fancy East-coast
Liberal Universities and all, but does
that sound slightly curious to anyone
"Once a U.S. invasion has removed Hussein
from power." wait. That means accorsing
to the views of many conservative anti-terror
hawks, Iraq is the apparent staging point
for taking over even more nations. The
translated statement you just read is
basically "once we take over Iraq and
install leaders who are more inclined
to give us cheap oil, we don't need to
pretend we like Saudi Arabia any more.
Golly! Now we can invade everyone else
and take their oil too! Yee-haw!"
Now, granted the board of the organization
that released this suggestive report includes
both Newt Gingrich and Dan Quayle, two
men who basically destroy the credibility
of any feasible political movement just
by association with it, but frankly I
can't avoid pointing out anything that
actually says something like "linking
regime change in Iraq to altering Saudi
behavior" without mentioning how unbelievably
frightening a concept like that sounds.
Update: Yes, I'm aware that Tom
and I actually wrote almost the same idea
about the same article using the exact
same passages, within 15 minutes of each
other. I'm honored to know I think like
him. Now if only I could draw as well.
Monday, August 05, 2002
Well, this is cute
Apparently the new 'net trend is going
to be web sites pushing fake services
that are just believable enough to make
Americans doubt the actual intelligence
of their own consumer nation. And hey,
I think I'm fine with making people think
Hot on the heels of that site that tries
to convince you the government has a record
of every driver's license photo ever made,
the site that promises payments of over
several hundred dollars for having a corporate
logo inked onto your body.
Past the fact that, without even flinching,
one can tell this is obviously fake- (case
in point, a web site promoting advances
corporate sponsorship without once mentioning
any companies involved, posing as a company
that uses a "personal" web domain, a lack
of example photos, no explanation of how
they can verify you had a tattoo put on
you, and of course, to a lesser degree,
end their site is a sham. Okay, that's
an easy one-) yet I think it does serve
it's purpose of asking how much longer
it will be until something like this actually
happens. I mean, right now, as cartoonist
Keith Knight once brilliantly pointed
out, we're forced to pay Nike and
Tommy Hilfiger to wear advertisements
for their products... how soon until some
movie or music star with "coolness factor"
brand logo worship just decided to take
the next step and carve it into their
Update: Thanks to all who pointed
out that this has all pretty much happened
already. Several readers have given me
different links to people on eBay who
are trying to sell
their heads as advertising space.
In addition, thanks to the reader IDed
only as "Dark Angel" for the fun fact
that the Nike logo is, depressingly, the
world's most-requested tattoo design.
If by any chance the reader is (or at
least looks like) Jessica Alba, please
repond with your home address so I can
come over and thank you personally.
Friday, August 02, 2002
This is officially the most awesome
Monkeys rescued an orphaned member
of their troop from an Indian police station
after its mother was shot dead.
The man was arrested by police for
shooting a protected species, but the
baby wouldn't let go of its dead mother.
Police took the body to their station,
where the baby continued to suckle its
Officers allowed it to stay the night,
but around 30 monkeys laid siege to
the station - gathering outside and
on the roof.
Officers were surprised when some
monkeys managed to sneak into the station
and quietly take the baby away with
Later hundreds of local people carried
the body of the monkey in a procession,
chanting the name of Hindu monkey god
Hanuman, before burying it on the
banks of a river.
The link to entire story is here,
but I think that just about covers it.
There's so much awesome in one story that
I can't even handle it. For god's sake,
people, monkeys. Breaking into
police stations. To rescue
This just gets better and better
An update on the
crazy antics of Katherine Harris,
the woman who would do no good for the
people during the 2000 election. It now
seems that Harris mistakenly forgot
to resign as part of the Florida law requirements
to run for Congress, an act that would
of course disqualify one's eligibility
to run but I'm sure we can all guess that's
just not going to happen.
Is anyone else staggered at how quickly
she's decided to change her mind about
strict election laws? Does anyone else
think it's wrong that I want to drag her
from a car and beat the shit out of her?
Update: Yes I corrected the typo now
stop writing me about it you all know
what I meant.
What's that? You thought we lived in
a decent intelligent society? What are
you, some goddamn fucking retard?
Say, here's a quick question. Say you
lived in a neighborhood where three girls
were sitting on a set of stairs outside
their apartment building when all of a
sudden a speeding van skipped the curb
and crashed into them.
As you saw the van pinning the girls
against the wreckage, what of the following
actions would you and, for this example,
let's say about four of your friends,
do in this situation:
- Immediately run to the nearest phone
and dial 911
- Urge your friends to help you try
to pull back the wreckage to help the
the driver and passenger of the van
out from their vehicle and beat them
Well, as you can probably guess by which
choice has a link in it, one of these
actually happened. And it's yet again
one of those heartwarming little common-folk
stories that reminds all of us that we
are a fucking pathetic excuse for an example
of a term we have obviously bastardized
in "civilized society."
That's right. As a result of an accidental
albeit stupid incident that led to the
injury of three girls, the two men who
caused the accident were simply put forth
to the bloodthirsty mob. As of this writing,
no evidence has yet been weighed if the
men tried to flee the scene, if they were
driving drunk, if they were distracted.
According to the article, as they pleaded
for their lives, a group of men, cheering
the violence on, smashed in the two drivers'
heads with bricks until they died.
And as the article is also already pointing
out, investigations are being made into
the drivers' prior arrest record, because
as we all know, that's relevant.
I am very sorry that this accident occurs,
and my sympathy goes out to the three
girls (who as of this writing are all
alive and in stable condition) and their
families. But this isn't a case about
them anymore. The fact is, any case that
could have involved them related to the
two drivers, and they're both dead now.
So with all due respect to the girls,
the local police resources should be devoted
not to filing accident reports, but finding
and arresting a group of men who are all
guilty of homicide.
And if you think this story is the finest
example of how sad this country is, we
haven't even gotten to the irony of what
the legal outcome will be. Odds are not
everyone in the group will be caught;
odds are they'll plead temporary insanity
and get at most a few meager years for
killing two people with blunt weapons.
And whenever the trial is over and they
leave the courtroom with the trademarked
"what's wrong, why are we even here, it's
not like we did anything normal Americans
wouldn't do" faces, odds are they won't
even reflect that even if not guilty,
they were just given the basic human decency
of a trial that they decided someone else
didn't need, even for a senseless accident.
Thursday, August 01, 2002
"In the way they're kind of writing
it right now out of the Senate Finance
Committee, some people could spend their
entire five years on welfare - there's
a five-year work requirement - going to
college. Now, that's not my view of helping
people become independent, and it's certainly
not my view of understanding the importance
of work and helping people achieve the
dignity necessary so they can live a free
life, free from government control."
-George Bush, education president and
husband of a teacher and librarian
More on how pound-you-head-into-the-table
this is here.
Yes! Of course it should!
As expected, the brilliant Mark Morford
at the San Francisco Gate addresses the
recent story about the actions against
the "big four" fast-food chains with his
latest piece "Should
America Sue McDonald's?"
And yet, the other part of you is
probably rather embarrassed, I mean really,
years and years of eating such garbage
and when, really, does common sense kick
in? And how dumb to you have to be? And
whatever happened to personal responsibility?
And what, these people are living in a
cave without TV or newspapers? And has
it really come to this?
The fast food titans, to be sure,
are guilty as sin, depraved as Jenna Bush
at a Sigma Pi party, the GOP-inbred cattle
factories and industrial dairy and poultry
farms and even the potato/French Fry industries
all culpable and complicit and snickering
at all the heart disease and epidemic
obesity and rapidly declining quality
of life of its duped customers. Hey, that's
why they market so aggressively to children.
As meanwhile they cripple the USDA
and kill every new attempt to regulate
their business practices and oversee their
nauseating farming and slaughterhouse
conditions, working incredibly hard to
positively spin all that negative PR that
says their food is dangerous and can be
In other words, the elitist route
is to argue that the Caesar Barbers of
the world are just litigious idiots because
no one's exactly holding a gun to his
head to make him eat all those Whoppers,
and he should know better because everyone
knows fast food is pure fatty crap, when
in fact the chains spend billions to dupe
the working-class masses into believing
I've addressed the same issue before,
because as I said then, this idea is the
doomsday excuse of every Dennis Miller/Howard
Stern/Bill O'Reilly -style "Oh look at
how funny I am because I've found the
simplest answer to any problem" public
figure when the previous tobacco lawsuits
came up for the same reason.
Is it ridiculous that someone is suing
tobacco companies for getting cancer?
Is it ridiculous that someone is suing
McDonald's for getting fat? Of course
it is! No one's going to argue against
that! When did some magical book somewhere
say that every lawsuit filed, every complaint
publicized, had to make perfect sense?
The world doesn't make perfect
sense. That's why massive corporations
can market food products that are deliberately
high in calories and saturated fat and
shrug it off as stupidity of the consumers
they hype it to. That's why the people
who make Kool-Aid and cheese spread also
make the most deadly and poisonous chemicals
in the world, while drugs nowhere near
as dangerous or addictive are banned as
"gateway drugs." As George Carlin once
said, "We live in a nation where nation
where alcohol and tobacco kills hundreds
of thousands of people a year, so we make
a ban on artificial sweeteners because
a rat died." As famously repeated from
MAD Magazine, "we live in a nation where
lemonade is made from artificial ingredients
and furniture polish is made from real
So is the lawsuit ridiculous? Yes. That
doesn't mean it's without merit. The O.J.
Simpson trial was beyond ridiculous, that
doesn't mean a guy wasn't on trial for
murder. Likewise, aware or not, McDonald's
is hurting millions of people a year.
The irony, of course, is just like the
tobacco suit: the reason they're being
sued isn't because of the plaintiff's
case, it's because of the defense. McDonald's
is being sued for the defense we already
knew they would give, and would rally
the "average American" around: that this
is a stupid fat man who should have known
So, let's just get this perfectly clear.
It's only the individual American's responsibility
to not be an idiot. It's never the corporation's.
That's what actually passes as a defense
in these lawsuits. And the government's
worried about what we're all smoking.
I have arguments over again with friends
about drug laws: some are libertarians,
and some, as I'll admit what with being
a college student and all, just really
want to do lots of drugs. Despite what
my very liberal leanings might imply,
I have never argued for full legalization
of drugs. I think that yes, in a perfect
world all drugs should be legal, and prostitution
should be legal (to give better health
access, and frankly better wages, for
sex workers) and that people should have
the legal right to do whatever they want
to do to themselves and so on.
But the truth is that isn't going to
work. at least not yet. Americans have
not yet adapted to the most important
aspect of the good society. There is a
principle that can be found in philosophical
writing as far back as Dewey and Emerson,
though obviously not in this exact form.
But for modern day purposes, here's a
As a member of a society which succeeds
only by community values, it is the
obligation of every individual to not
be a goddamned idiot.
And that basically sums it up. We have
laws making drugs illegal because, honestly,
people are goddamned idiots. And when
they get together and form corporations,
they become exponentially stupider. If
cocaine was made legal tomorrow, then
next week it would be sold on the store
shelves and marketed to kids. Would we
argue then that it's the consumer's fault?
Or is the thought already in your mind
about how outrageous and irresponsible
it would be for a company to say "hey,
great business concept, guys. Let's convince
kids. to smoke crack!"
In a perfect world, we wouldn't nee drug
laws. But in a perfect world we wouldn't
need safety regulations, or OSHA, or the
FDA, or the ATF, or any number of other
regulatory agencies. But we do, and we
have countless corporations like McDonald's
and KFC and Big Tobacco doing everything
in their power to render these agencies
useless without actually rendering the
need for them useless. That's why they're
at fault, and that's why they deserve
to be taken for every penny they have.
It's Marlboro's fault and McDonalds'
fault that they allowed this to go on
so long, raising the stakes, subduing
the evidence, over and over again, until
the prospect of a lawsuit made the mouths
of your typical ambulance-chaser lawyer's
mouth water more than their own products
ever could. If they spent a fraction of
their funds trying to teach Americans
to be more responsible instead of feeding
off the inherent irresponsibility of today's
American, then I'd have a lot more sympathy.
The food would probably be a hell of a
lot healthier too.