M is really for Misleading Debating Tactics, Part Two

Here it is, part two in the ever-expanding and always awesome series concerning misleading debating tactics.

Issue number two: SOCIALISM.

The history lesson will come a little later in the post- first off, let's discuss context. According to Republicans and others, the Democrats are mislabeled. In an effort to combat this, a lot of them have started calling them the Democrat Socialist Party. Think about that- this isn't just some cutesy nickname they gave them, this is what they use in their official literature. Apparently, the combination of opinion about a certain party+party name=true colors. Now, why don't the Democrats pick up on this? Their claims that the GOP is too exclusive could totally take a whole new angle if their party literature started using the term Republican Bigot Party or something. Why let Republicans have a monopoly on defining their party's public image? It would also produce some juicy irony/drama considering the GOP's long and vaunted history of trust-busting and its more recent history of enabling a private health care monopoly, but that's just beside the point.

My real point is that the term "Democrat Socialist Party" is silly for a couple reasons. First, there's already a Socialist Party in America. Why don't the Republicans ask them how they feel about all this? Chances are the real Socialists won't approve. Second, they seem to think that "socialism" is either intrinsically evil or a label that can be used interchangeably with things like "fascism", "communism", "Marxism" and so on. Well, guess what, guys- it's time for a history lesson! Well, etymology too*.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Looking at this definition, I find it hard to believe that America is a socialist country, or even that it's on the road to becoming one. In the context of the health care debate, it makes even less sense, since a government-sponsored health insurance option is hardly a mean of production. Sure, I'd like to be informed if Obama collectivizes all private property- I like my iPod a lot- and I'd appreciate a phone call or something when this happens. Until then, quit throwing "socialism" around like it's some kind of Frisbee.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Communism

1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

This is more specific than socialism, making claims of an imminent communist America even more dubious. Again, I kind of have a vested interest in non-collectivized economic systems- because I think personal property is awesome- and would certainly be worried if Democratic stormtroopers showed up at my door demanding my cell phone and coin collection for the good of the State; however, I'm not counting on that occurring. Of course, I could say that about any party, since not only is there a real Communist Party here, but claims of communistic leanings get bandied about by every party at every other party. The identity of the party wouldn't really be that important, as they would singularly control all means of production and things would suck regardless.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marxism
: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society

I understand Marx's angle; you don't have to look hard to see exploitation of workers by the wealthy elite. I mean, have sweatshops really gone away, despite American Apparel's claims to the contrary? No, and they probably won't ever, at least not until machines supplant human beings as a labor force. Of course, we all saw how well that went over on BSG, so no need to go there now. Even though I get where he's coming from, that doesn't mean I agree with him about, well, anything else. Sure, his dialectical class struggle model seems to fit pretty well, and yeah, exploitation sucks, but as it is, I'm kinda sitting in the middle of the same white-collar world he wanted to eliminate in a violent, proletarian uprising. Ouch. Also, who has the time to read Das Kapital? Definitely tl;dr. Plus, the Manifesto has all the juicy parts about the workers of the world uniting, massacring the bourgeoisie (you have no idea how hard it is to spell that word without the Firefox dictionary) and living in Utopian forest communes, so I'd just suggest you pick that up first.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fascism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Oh noes, Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod doesn't like FOX News! Well, it shouldn't really surprise anyone, much less FOX and their viewers. By and large, I'd say that the only people who like FOX are the people who watch it. Of course, this doesn't imply that only those who watch FOX like it, because I watch it occasionally just to stare in utter amazement as Glenn Beck shoves not only his foot down his throat, but his head through his rectal sphincter. It's quite fascinating, really, but that's a different post. Anyways, the White House has apparently "declared war" on FOX because they present opposition. Two things: explain Shepard Smith and "The Daily Show". "You mean Jon Stewart, a liberal, makes fun of and/or critiques the Obama administration? But he's a liberal!" Yes, I do and yes, he does. Why should this shock anyone? Because he made fun of Bush? Everyone made fun of Bush. Anyways, let me know when the Black Shirts come marching down your street and I'll agree that there's some pretty fascistic stuff going down. Until then, I fail to see how verbal scoldings of FOX News can be called "forcible suppression of opposition" or how this could even be considered a step towards such a thing. If anything, I saw more fascistic tendencies demonstrated by the home-school parents and youth pastors in "Jesus Camp" (the kids pledging allegiance to the Christian flag, fawning all over a cut-out of George Bush and general hyper-zealousness) than in the Obama administration.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stalinism

: the political, economic, and social principles and policies associated with Stalin; especially : the theory and practice of communism developed by Stalin from Marxism-Leninism and marked especially by rigid authoritarianism, widespread use of terror, and often emphasis on Russian nationalism

This is basically the biggest, baddest socio-economic system out there. I mean, you can't beat Stalinism as far as scariness goes, hence the heavy Stalinist critiques in a little book called 1984. Unfortunately, Stalinist-era technology hadn't advanced to the point where Yakov Smirnoff could truthfully say "In Soviet Russia, television watches you!" As a matter of fact, the Stalinist-era Yakov Smirnoff didn't even exist, since he was born in 1961, but I digress. So it's basically communism, but with jingoism, state-as-god policies and personality cults added for extra flavor. As examples, just look at the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Cuba (to some extent) and- according to some deleted scenes from "A New Hope" I found on YouTube- the Galactic Empire.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a side note, I think now's the time to mention my absolute hatred of the aphorism that trying the same thing expecting a different result is a definition of insanity. I don't hate it because it's used against me, but because everyone uses it all the time. Literally. If someone mentioned this phrase in a political context to a room full of mixed ideologies, the Republicans would take it to mean "the Democrats keep trying to implement socialistic policies and they fail every time hurr durr" and the Democrats would take it to mean "Bush got elected twice and he was dumb hurr durr". It's stupid. Seriously- I don't care if you have to wait twenty years to hear this phrase again, but look around next time you hear it and watch literally everyone's face light up because they just applied the phrase to their political opponents. Works every time.


Well, I hope you learned about some definitions. Now you can call BS on people who throw the above terms around too much. I know I will.

*All definitions copied in entire from Merriam-Webster.

W is for White Nationalists

If you've read any of my other posts, you've probably noticed that I tend to argue using logic and (hopefully) reason, steering away from fallacies and ad hominems. Well, at least I try.

Naturally, your first assumption on coming to a post entitled "W is for White Supremacists Nationalists" would be that I'd apply the same principles to this post that I've applied to all the others. Maybe I'd dazzle you with my knowledge of morphology to denounce the belief that race is an indicator of humanity! Or perhaps I'd detail the efforts of modern anthropologists to disprove phrenological assertions that some races are smarter because their skulls are bigger! I could even go to great lengths to argue that race is nothing more than differences regarding melanin and facial structure with some minor body type differences!

If you assume that, you'd be wrong. Here's why:

There's no arguing with them. To quote Rep. Barney Frank, "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table," the word "you" here meaning White Nationalists. They think they already have the proof and even if they lack proof, they can just call anyone who opposes them a racist or any racial slur they can think of, meaning just about every racial slur invented. In fact, if you ask nicely, I'm sure they'll make one up for you.

In light of this fact, I think I'll skip the traditional debating parlance and get right to the ad hominem attacks.


I despise every single one of you.
I have nothing but contempt for you.
Your leaders are impotent and their followers are intellectual children.
"White pride" is nothing more meaningful than a facade for white supremacists looking to survive in a world that hates them.
There is not a thing that your movement can do to help this world or improve the life of a single person in it.

And finally,


I hope for your sakes that Hell looks like Auschwitz, because then it will be a lot harder for you to doubt Auschwitz' existence.





That was fun, wasn't it?

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/19/barney-frank-confronts-wo_n_262682.html.

B is for Blog Action Day

So, I literally found out that Blog Action Day was on the exact same subject as my "A is for Activism" post like three hours after that post was posted. As such, I may have preempted the actual Day, but I still think you'll find my post to be both enjoyable and rather pertinent.

M is really for Misleading Debating Tactics, Part One

Debating is awesome. I love it almost too much to be a part of a coherent society. Some (my parents, for instance) could say that my study of logical fallacies, winning tactics, applications of philosophy and the opposing views of a lot of different issues has probably consumed an inordinate amount of my time, but I could argue that it hasn't. See? I'm debating already and I haven't even written more than four sentences. All I'm basically saying is that debating is awesome. Why? Because it is. It's hard to quantify or describe fully, because not everyone likes it and not everyone who likes it is good at it. In fact, some people are really bad, and that's what this post is all about. Let's proceed, shall we?

Issue number one: GAY MARRIAGE

I wish I could make music play when people read the above title, because that would be awesome. However, just assume that there is a song playing: if you oppose gay marriage, it's "Toccata and Fugue in D minor" by Bach and if you support gay marriage, it's "It's Raining Men" by Pauls Jabara and Shaffer.

Propositions 8 and 102 passed, though not without controversy. This is understandable, but the extremes of the debate were not. I mean, check out this commercial here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI

For those of you not willing to go the extra mile and click the link, it's the National Organization For Marriage's "Gathering Storm" commercial. You know, the one where those "average people" are standing in front of a green screen making vague references to storms and clouds and stuff. Well, they also make some passing mentions that legalizing gay marriage will take away "average people"s' rights and generally lead to the downfall of Western Civilization and/or Judgment Day, but you can just ignore a statement that unverifiable, right? Like heck, you can. Or at least, like heck, I can. Well, you can too, but I'm writing right now. BACK ON TOPIC. Normally, a responsible citizen/viewer of a commercial such as this would request some data that would prove beyond all doubt that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to the above. I'm sure plenty of people actually did this, so if you did, let me know how that turned out. Anyway, if you haven't done so yet, let me tell you what'll happen- nothing. NOM won't give you this data because none exists. Their debate is an entirely moral argument based mostly on speculation and- it could be argued for some, though certainly not all- personal prejudice. That's right, I said it, prejudice. OOGITY BOOGITY. Not the P-word! Yes, the P-word.

Now let's talk about the P-word. It exists. I don't discount that, and anyone who does is deluding themselves. However, it shouldn't be the go-to rebuttal every time an opponent presents a contradictory argument. Otherwise, we spend too much time looking at maybe-bigots when we could be worrying about actual-bigots. Just like it doesn't help the debate for opponents to say "You're taking away my rights!" (they aren't), it doesn't help the debate for proponents to say "You don't want gay marriage because you hate me and all I love!" (they don't). Both sides are making moral arguments, which is pretty much the only argument you can make about this kind of thing. Yes, opponents, the proponents have morals. They may not be a carbon-copy of yours, but calling them "amoral" or "godless" won't get you anywhere. They probably aren't, because only Alex Delarge is amoral and if you wanna get technical about it, no one's godless, but that's a different post altogether.

Since both arguments are moral and both sides believe that, in fact, there really is no argument because they are, in fact, right, you'd think reconciliation would be impossible or at least impossible. That's what both sides tell me, so it must be true, right? HAHAHAHAHAHA no. That's where I come in!

See, I'm Mormon. That should get gay marriage proponents excited, right? Well, it turns out the Church leadership didn't donate that money, the members did. I didn't, because I've read the Constitution and about 75% or so of the Bible. Numbers and parts of Leviticus are really boring, which probably accounts for most of the 25% I didn't read. Also, for anyone who says Isaiah's boring or confusing, you must've been sleeping in high school English class, because Shakespeare's about as hard as Isaiah and Shakespeare's not that tough. It makes sense if you think about it, since they both use the same English. However, this isn't a literature post, it's a debate post. Anyway, I have counterarguments prepared for anyone who would like to engage me concerning my justifications of the following Opinion, so feel free to leave your thoughts in the Comments section. Here goes:

The problems are that gay people want to get married, claiming marriage as a Constitutionally-recognized civil right, and most religious people think gay people caused Sodom and Gomorrah and say "no". The matter is complicated by the fact that civil unions and gay marriage aren't recognized everywhere, civil unions are kind of a cop-out and both sides think that they're right.

Constitutionally, the proponents are right; ever since the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law and made bans on mixed-race marriages unconstitutional, marriage has been a civil right. Based on this assessment, the only recourse is to legalize it everywhere. But this is a compromise, remember? There has to be a caveat in a compromise, so here it is: gay marriage would be legal, but no church would be forced to perform or authorize them against the will of their leadership. But wait! That defeats the point, right? NO, for three reasons: there are churches that want gay marriage legalized, Justices of the Peace, ship captains and Elvis impersonators will still be able to perform legally binding marriages, and the separation of church and state would dictate the government not force any church to perform a marriage it doesn't want to perform. Yeah, I said "separation of church and state", what about it? Doesn't feel too awesome when it's used against you, does it, secular humanists? Take that! Ahem... Back on topic.

"Separation of church and state" works both ways: churches don't try and enact undue influence on the government, and the government doesn't tell churches what to do. Therefore, any religious organization that objects to gay marriage doesn't have to do them, since the marriage could just be performed elsewhere and be just as legal.

Anyway, that's my Opinion. I think it's rad, but I'm biased in its favor, so what do you expect? Feel free to express your Opinions below so I may tell you how wrong they are.

m iz 4 mean ppl >:C

srsly y do ppl hav 2 b so mean??? if every1 wuz nice than we wouldnt have war or dizeeses an stuff thatd b awesum bcuz than noone wood hafta cry or anything... i was listening 2 this song bie the black eyed pees the other day and it talked about how we shood all jsut get along and i thougth "wow thats amazing!!! why hasnt any1 else thought of that b4?" if ppl were nice to mee @ skool than maybee i wud b nice back but noooo all they do iz judg meee :((( its like that scripture that says "be exellent to each other and party on doods" right? i jus wish they wouldnt judge mee jus becuz i wear clothes from kohls and pay attention in class... their so racist!!! sometimes i just wanna go right songs on piano about how suckie my leif iz an put them on myspace cuz u no thats were all the cool kids hang out... man i wish i was cool like those ppl that shop at american apparell and have iphones cuz than my phone could play songz and take pics at the same tiem

anyway dont b mean to other ppl or ill hit u in the face til u die from it!!!!!111!!!llololololololllolol

jk that would b mean an im not mean so i wont (unless u make me!!!) :D

A is for Activism

High school is a time for self invention. Our brains are developed enough, we think, to allow us the freedom to cast aside the silly notions of our parent's generation and craft a new tomorrow, unfettered by the moral restraints of yesterday! The fact that every generation since the dawn of sentience has believed this same thing to be true doesn't occur to us, but that's a good thing; it would only retard inevitable Progress!

Progress, schmogress. All high school is a time for is people taking on causes to look ttly awesum d00d! How many people in all the cause clubs even give a crap about the club beyond some generic platitude like "I support literacy" or "World peace would be cool"? Not everyone is like this; some people care, and that's awesome. More people should care about stuff like Chechan independence or the ineffectiveness of the UN, but that stuff isn't popular right now. Remember when every other celebrity was talking about Darfur? I sure do, and I thought, "Great, let's help the Sudanese get a working and non-repressive government together." Instead, all that happened was a bunch of celebrities and e-activists got together, had a big group hug, sent some money to the Sudan and then nothing happened. Hopefully, the money they sent got used more efficiently than the Oil For Food money (look it up), but who knows? More accurately, who gives a crap now (except maybe Anderson Cooper) about Darfur, since all the celebrities stopped talking about it?

The best cause currently is, of course, global warming or climate change or whatever increasingly generic name they give it now. While I agree with science (which shows that climates are changing, causing deadlier storms and harming ecosystems the world over), I don't like the movement that surrounds it. It all started with An Inconvenient Truth and Al Gore's Magical Graphs About Carbon Monoxide Emissions and Stuff... I guess I missed the part of the movie where he reconciled his love of science with his summary dismissal of scientific principles by using graphs without labels and scalar units. Oops! Must've been a deleted scene.

Currently, the target of my RAGE over global warming/climate change is the new music video by every celebrity I'm apparently supposed to care about but don't where they do a cover of "Beds Are Burning" by Midnight Oil. Midnight Oil is an awesome band (just like Peter Garrett is an awesome dancer) and to see this song get High School Musical'd by this bunch of losers stirs unspeakable thoughts deep within my psyche. If this was Minority Report, Tom Cruise would be all over me like celebrities on, well, an unnecessary, pretentious and trashy cover of an amazing song. The best part is, by rewriting the lyrics to make them more "applicable" (read: twisted) to their cause, they're completely negating the message of the original lyrics. These people wouldn't know Aboriginal rights if it bit them on the face. Amazingly, this is even worse than all the musicians on iTunes who covered "After the Gold Rush" as an environmentalist anthem by singing "Look at Mother Nature on the run / in the twenty-first century." Not only does it sound forced in context, but it completely contradicts the overall themes of the song (war, space travel, drug use, general melancholy and the continuing importance of french horn solos in popular music).

As far as environmentalism goes, I'm a traditionalist. Teddy Roosevelt liked the outdoors and so do I. Notwithstanding, he'd probably use his oft-quoted "big stick" (HUH HUH HUH) to beat the crap out of environmentalist groups like Earth First!, the Sea Shepherds and the Earth Liberation Front. Hey, Earth First! You think the optimum human population of the Earth should be under a million people? Well, an hero and make it happen faster. How the Sea Shepherds got a show on Animal Planet, I'll never know. Pretty much every country except the Netherlands has labeled them a terrorist organization, which if you do some research on their exploits, is pretty well corroborated. Also, the ELF tried to protest SUV's by burning a bunch of them at some dealerships in California a while back. Think about that- to protest cars which pollute a lot, they lit a bunch of them on fire, petrochemicals and all. Seriously. Like a hundred of them. Counterintuitive, much?

Don't get me wrong, there are goods causes as well. Music Rising, for instance, is good. It has a specific goal- raising money to buy instruments for musicians who lost theirs because of Hurricane Katrina- with a clearly outlined plan as to how they'll get the money. I don't mind that they sell merchandise, because that's how they fund their goal. However, (Product) RED and the generic "Darfur" cause are the worst offenders I can think of. Now, I normally think Bono's activism is alright; he's supported and campaigned for pretty much the same organizations his entire career. However, (Product) RED has devolved into a fashion statement rather than an awareness statement. Like "Oh, look, I got the new (Product) RED iPod!" or "How do you like my new (Product) RED Armani watch?" How about some (Product) RED duct tape so I don't have to listen to you go on and on about something you don't care about above a non-specific statement made through trendy fashion accessories? "But I don't like AIDS, tuberculosis or malaria!" Surprise! No one does. Well, unless you happen to believe that AIDS- or GRID (Gay-Related Immunodeficiency Disorder) if you're up on your 80's lingo- was created by the Reagan administration to rid the world of black people and gays, because then you'd likely believe that Reagan liked AIDS. However, there really isn't any evidence for this hypothesis to be found on anything more reputable than a conspiracy website, so it's a silly hypothesis at best. Just for laughs, check out the ratio of advertising funds by participating (Product) RED corporations to the amount donated per item or purchase of applicable products. Oh, Starbucks! Look how silly you are, telling me you care about AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria while only donating $0.05 per sale from only three limited-run beverages! It's almost like you're inspiring me to maybe semi-care. Check these guys out to see what organizations you can donate to without having to shell out a couple thousand bucks for some Armani sunglasses or having to wonder why the sale of a $1200 Dell PC only contributes around $80 to the Global Fund.

H is for Hummers

Now, you might think I'm getting on the Hummer hater bandwagon a little late, but as far as I'm concerned, it's never too late as long as people are buying them. Now, I'm not talking about the Army Hummers, 'cause those things are legit. Granted, they're almost obsolete, but still. No, I'm talking about the H2, the H2 truck or whatever it is and the grandly unnecessary H3. Surprise! No one really cares about Hummers, except people who want one for some strange reason (I'll get to that later) or people who already have one.

This is old news, but worth reiterating- the only people who want or own Hummers are insecure and (likely) impotent. It doesn't get much more complicated than that. The thought processes can go a little something like this:

"How do I tell people/women that I'm a man without having to say or do anything physical? Oh, I know! I'll buy a freaking HUEG car that's typically used by the military! Then they'll know I'm so tough, because my car's so tough. Plus, not only will I look a whole lot manlier, I'll have an expensive car, which I know all women love! Who needs some wussy exotic roadster when my car is made of enough plastic and fiberglass to make like 700 pairs of skis, and it's HUEG enough to crush every other car in its path?"

I wish I had a billion dollars for every time I saw a Hummer on the road and RAGED, 'cause then I'd have 75 quadrillion dollars. I'd then use that money to pay off the national debt, fund a revitalized space exploration effort, build lots of rockets, buy every H2, H2 truck and H3 in existence, load them all onto said rockets and fire them into the Sun, just like at the end of Battlestar Galactica. OK, OK, the Hummer hadn't been invented yet in the BSG continuum, but the concept is still there. As a side note, if I had 75 quadrillion dollars, you bet I'd build myself a fully-functioning Battlestar. That was never really a question.


P.S. I'd also build some Cylons, 'cause Cylons are kickin' rad and my new Battlestar would need something for target practice (other than cargo ships filled with Hummers, that is). Positions for Executive Officer and Commander of Air Groups are opening soon, so send in those applications!

E is for Ex Post Facto Michael Jackson Fans

Where were you people when he was alive?! My money says you were either in elementary school dancing to crappy boy bands (all of which owe Michael Jackson their entire livelihood) or were to busy not giving enough of a crap to go out and buy a copy of "Thriller" or something. Yes, he'd dead. Yes, he was good. No, the impulsive purchase of a hastily thrown-together compilation album at Target does not constitute life-long fanhood.

Discovering new music is great; everyone should do it all the time. But the whole "OMG hes dead i gotta go buy a cd nao cuz im sad and everyone else iz doin it :(((" attitude just gets on my nerves. You either liked him before he died or you didn't. There is no middle ground, and no, I'm not a Sith. I was usually neutral when I played KOTOR, but that's beside the point.

The day after he died, I was in Target for an eye appointment or something, I don't remember exactly. I got bored and went over to electronics to make sure they had an adequate supply of Radiohead and Frank Zappa- you know, the basics- and while I was there, I found not one, but TWO(!) Michael Jackson compilations. They were the last in the store. I could be awesome and leave them for that guy, or be awesome and buy them both, laughing all the way home. However, I chose to not care about greatest hits albums and just went over to check out the vidya games- mostly to see if the Orange Box was finally cheap, which it was- and saw this thirtysomething couple standing in the middle of the big aisle between the books and the make-up. The wife was panicking about how there weren't any Michael Jackson CD's left in the whole store and the husband was assuring her that somehow, some way, they'd pull through this tragedy of not having a CD to buy. I thought to myself about the CD's I'd seen. Should I tell them? Or should I go back and snipe them? Finally, after two or three minutes of not really doing anything but checking prices on "Empire at War: Forces of Corruption" and the first Halo, I heard a bizarre squealing sound off to my right. I looked over to see that same couple going nuts; they'd found the Michael Jackson CD! Their lives were complete! This was, in fact, the best of all possible worlds after all!

Of course, now I laugh my head off every time I go to any electronics section anywhere, because the Michael Jackson compilation fad has come to an end. I was in Wal-Mart the other day and they had like 5000 copies of "Essential Michael Jackson" sitting unwanted on the shelves. Actually, it was kinda sad, since they had a 25 square foot area of shelving set aside as the Michael Jackson section and no one was even looking at it. Even death is a fad, and even memories can oversaturate the market. Oh, well. At least "Thriller" was a good video.

D is for Denny's

Tuesday, February 3, 2009 at 8:41am

As many of you know, today was nationally-advertised Free Grand Slam Breakfast Day at your local neighborhood Denny's. Immediately, I was totally pumped, and who wouldn't be? Free breakfast is free breakfast. Plus, anyone who was in Dr. Glockhamer's class for senior English can automatically recall the movie "Smoke Signals" and the infamous "Your dad took me to Denny's" story. Man, who doesn't love Thomas-Builds-the-Fire? So, with all this on my mind at 11:00 Sunday night, I knew that I had to embark on a quest of epic nature and uncertain consequences- I would go to Denny's. My sister and I already had our plans laid out: go to sleep early (early, as in asleep by Tuesday morning), wake up at 5:00 and book it down to Denny's to go eat free breakfast and ironically quote goofy movie lines. Little did we know that untold horrors awaited us...

Not being one to enjoy the earlier parts of the morning, i.e. the buttcrack of dawn (that's a technical term for "really freaking early"), I woke up at five and went back to bed for another ten seconds, only to find out that ten seconds here meant half an hour. So, at 5:30 in the morning, my dad unceremoniously opens my door and asks me if, in fact, I intended to go to Denny's this morning. I'm not sure how I managed to answer coherently, but I did. I'd waited long enough, I thought, to get that free breakfast, so I was going. However, after a freezing ride down to the Denny's by the mall in our piece of crap Volvo, the realization came that my sister and I were in for tortures of the mind and body unlike anything we'd before put up with for free food.

It's a proven fact that old people love three things more than anything else: waking up when it's dark, coffee and grumbling about anything. Well, guess what Denny's serves up as side dishes with their complimentary Super Bowl Grand Slams. Oh yeah- everything that old people like, including but not limited to: early, dark mornings, coffee and things to grumble about. Sounds like a recipe for success, right? Well, all I can say to that is "hahahahahahahahahahaha" and "no". Ask yourself this quick question: what's the greatest amount of old people you've seen ever in your life? 'Cause let me tell you, there were at least 400 of them at Denny's this morning, and that's just in the lobby. You know, that front part of the restaurant that only has like two benches for you sit on and a claw machine full of stuffed animals? Yeah. There were 400 old people in there, and that's discounting the rest of the people there- the one's that didn't grow up listening to Churchill speeches on the radio and the ones who can remember when you could get a car in any color you wanted, as long as that color was black. In all, there must have been 600 people, all waiting for a seat in place that can only legally hold around 240 customers without violating the fire and building codes.

Being packed in a tiny, smelly room with the dead and dying for about an hour can wear on anyone's nerves, so maybe it's understandable that some people got tired of waiting for a seat and got a rain check instead. However, nothing can justify the unholy rage of Stinky Beardman, one of the guys I had the pleasure to stand next to for an hour. When he and his buddies weren't snarking about the economic commentaries a scenario such as this one could make (if they knew anything about economics, then they'd know that it doesn't matter how good or bad the economy is, people will still show up in droves for free food), they were whining about how the Man- in this case, a short, fifty-ish Hispanic woman with long, braided hair- was keeping them down. If you've ever seen Alan Ginsberg, then you've seen this guy. If you've ever smelled a bushel full of hobos, then you've smelled this guy. So, let's just carry on with that image in our heads, shall we?

After about an hour of waiting in a standing-room only lobby full of octogenarians, we finally got a table. There, we wondered what could make our little tour of pain any worse, and it was there that we got our answer, for, in accordance with my general bad luck, I scored a booth that was not only within smelling distance of Stinky Beardman and his hobo posse, he was the only thing I could see when I looked up from my food. Naturally, this did not make keeping said food down an easy task, but I persevered. I'd gone this far already, so I was gonna see it through. Granted, it would've been easier to persevere if the restaurant had been any warmer than the outside air, which was a balmy "freaking cold", but there wasn't anything I could do about that except clutch my jacket even tighter and pour about half a gallon of Tabasco on my double portion of scrambled eggs, rendering them not entirely unlike napalm. However, my attempts at normalcy would be in vain, which is ironic, because "vain" is a homonym of "vein", which is the bodily structure that STINKY BEARDMAN STUCK A HYPODERMIC NEEDLE FULL OF UNIDENTIFIABLE LIQUID INTO WHILE SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RESTAURANT. Reread that last sentence a couple of times to let it sink in. All done? Now do it again and realize that your horror at this concept pales in comparison to mine and my fellow diners because we saw it happen. I mean, this guy could've one to the bathroom to administer his insulin/morphine/rhino tranquilizer, but instead, he figured "Nope, the middle of this crowded dining room is fine!" Fantastic. Just fantastic. Watching a hobo shoot up right in front of me while I was eating my pancakes was like a nightcap of disgusting on my morning of stupid. Oh, yeah- and I forgot to leave a tip on my $5.08 bill (constituted by two, count 'em, TWO glasses of juice), so guess who got to zip on down to Denny's again to leave a tip with the hostess for a waitress that I couldn't even identify by name? That's right, me. Hoo boy, that was fun.

In closing, if you're ever thinking about going down to Denny's, ordering a Grand Slam Breakfast, quoting Sherman Alexie movies and generally having a good time, don't.

M is for Michael Bay

Dear Michael Bay- I hate you. A lot. I realized that this is because while I think science is a wonderful thing, you made a little movie called "Armageddon". Plus, your movies cost millions of dollars and still give me cerebral hemorrhages. Really bad ones, too. Money can't buy quality, apparently. I'm fairly certain I could make a better movie than you could using only Transformers 2's script printing budget. Let me know when you cut the check and trust me, you won't miss the money. You've got enough, ten thousand times over. It's not me, really, so much as it's you. I almost said sorry there, but didn't because that would be a lie. Just thought you'd like to know.

Sincerely,

Me

F is for Fine Dining

I like eating out. I'm sure lots of other people do too, otherwise I wouldn't have a job. See, I bus tables at a steakhouse, and am therefore highly dependent on the good graces and wallets of others to make a semblance of a living. Hourly wages being what they are (minuscule), I basically rely on tips. Not as much as the waiters, whose paychecks basically break even after taxes, but still.

Now, there are rules to eating out that extend past what your mom told you about manners, even past Emily Post. Come to think of it, these things are so simple that Emily Post probably didn't even think of them, as she spent most of her time dealing with shrimp forks and the proper table placement of foreign dignitaries and such.

Food service is just that; a service industry. However, that doesn't mean that restaurant staff are servants in the medieval sense- mostly, they just bring you food, clean up and adjust the thermostat. That being said, there are certain things that every customer must remember to stay in the staff's good graces, and trust me- you don't want anybody at a restaurant hating you.

1. When tipping, give at least 15%, even if the service and/or the food sucks. Seriously. The service was probably bad because your server was having a crappy night, so unless you want them to snap on a busboy (which, believe me, is not a happy thing) help 'em out with a nice tip. They make their living by being almost inhumanely subservient, so acknowledge it with some cash. If you really want us to love you, tip on top of the gratuity. If you really want us to hate you, tip like it's 1945 or something. We do not forget, and we likely will not forgive. If you leave a bad tip, either don't come back ever or don't expect good service on your next visit.
2. Remember when your mom and/or elementary school had a "clean plate rule"? Well, it still applies in some respects. If you order too much food, you have two options: you can eat it all, or box it up and take it home. This is a big one for bussers, because we scrape all the plates. I can count on 75 hands how many 3/4 plates of chicken marsala, nibbled-on 16 oz prime ribs and half-eaten racks of ribs I've had to throw away because someone wasn't hungry or tactful enough clean their plate. I'm serious when I say that food safety laws and health codes are almost not enough to keep me from picking over an untouched plate of steak fries. However, I wouldn't do it, because people are gross. Come on, people. We have boxes and doggy bags for a reason. Also, you know how in "The Inferno" the final circle of Hell is reserved for traitors like Cassius and Judas Iscariot to be chewed on by Satan himself? Well, what they don't tell you is that there's another circle below that one (it's in one of the deleted scenes, if I remember correctly), and it's reserved for people like this guy we had at work tonight. He got the full rack of ribs, 'cause he's a man's man or some crap. So he eats all of his ribs but 10, and just to make sure the wait staff (who doesn't get to eat honey-prickly-pear-glazed baby back ribs, because we live on restaurant wages) doesn't eat his leftovers, he chews the top part of the ribs off. You know- that part where it curves and the skin is really thin and crunchy? Yeah. He nibbled it off like a little bug or some crap because he thought we would eat it if he didn't. Death is too good for him.
3. If you're the last customers to eat there, tip like you're the best customers all night. The place I work at closes at 9, and the last seating is at 8:30. Only on special occasions do we seat past then, and if that happens to you, count yourself lucky. We want to go home by 8, most of the time. Well, if one of the servers has a hangover, they want to go home an hour before they clocked in, but that's beside the point. Regardless, toward the end of the night, we're all finished with our closing work and we want to go sleep/party/convalesce from a night of dealing with bad tippers and non-clean-plate people (see tips 1 and 2). If you're seated last, be awesome and leave a big tip. You'll make all of us happy, and when you come back, we'll likely remember you as "the nice people" and treat you like the God Emperor of the Known Universe.
4. Little kids- where to start? Some of them are all right, in that they don't act like little kids, but others... Well, I'd go on, but I'd likely be called a supporter of extra-late term abortion or something. The bottom line is, don't bring your kids unless or until they can act decently in public. If they can handle the experience emotionally, they'll like it; they'll get to eat grown-up food, sit at a grown-up table and drink lemon water from a grown-up glass. Fun will be had by all! But if your kids are nightmares to you, they'll be nightmares to your server, who'll then have to try very hard to make it through the evening without an attempt on their own life. It's not pretty. Plus, if they die, I get tipped out less, which makes me sad, and no one wants to see me cry, right? RIGHT? :(
   
5. Just because we have to pick up after you doesn't mean you have free reign to destroy your seating area. Don't leave napkins and detritus strewn all under your table, or else we'll probably remember you as dirty and give you bad service next time. Seriously. There have been waaaay too many times where I've wished for a power sander or something instead of my flimsy rag because some slob smeared barbecue glaze all over half their table. Not to mention the rice from their rice pilaf that's all scattered in the sauce, and the broccoli and crap all over the floor... Ew. Granted, that's not as nasty as picking up a napkin and finding a spilled cup of french dressing under it, which then gets all over both my hand and the table, then drips off the napkin and all on the floor (this happened tonight, actually), but it's pretty close.
6. If you have a complaint, save it for the proper person and make sure it's about the proper subject. For instance, if your food isn't cooked right, don't chew out your server. They don't want to hear it, and they shouldn't have to. Just send it back and they'll fix it. If your food is slow, it's probably because we're really busy, which isn't our fault either, which brings me to another example of people who would- if this fine dining establishment were a movie theater- would get a spit corn. We were really busy this one night. I mean, we were totally packed, every table was full and we had a line up front. Busy. Anyway, this guy who's there with two of his friends gets a steak. Nothing crazy so far, since we have really good steak. However, the trouble starts when their server drops said steak on the ground- the whole plate just slides off the tray as it's being carried out to the table and expires in full view of the eating public amongst a mess of carpet fuzz and rice pilaf. "It's joined the restaurant invisible, it is an ex-sirloin" and so on. The server explains the situation to the guy, expressing heartfelt sorrow for dropping his dinner and promises a new (and better!) steak in 15 minutes. The guy's mad, but that could be understandable, if he had high blood pressure, was bipolar, had some severe social disorder or was incapable of sympathetic thought. So like 3 minutes later, the guy's new steak comes out, and the server explains that the cooks already had one coming, so they delayed someone else's order to please this guy. In a thus-far-unparalleled leap of rational thought, Mr. Steak Guy's logic train jumps from the "my steak was late, but now it's early!" track to the track labeled "my steak is earlier than predicted, therefore this new steak is the same steak that fell on the ground". Naturally, he proceeds to devise new swear words to use on his humbled waiter, who then defers to the manager. My manager can be very diplomatic, though this was apparently not one of those occasions; he took Steak Guy's abuse with a grin that said "I despise you and wish you'd die in a fire, and as a matter of fact, I have a couple fires going in the back right now, if you'd kindly follow me". Steak Guy caught onto this, so he just yelled louder until his stupid friends decided to get in on the fun as well. This continued for about 10 minutes until they left, probably without paying. Is hoping for a series of traffic accidents to claim the lives of former customers bad, or just not nice? I'm hoping for the latter.
7. If you have a special request to make, remember that "special" is the key word. We try to have a good selection of beverages, desserts and meat products, and will probably make you anything you ask for as long as we have the right ingredients and can name the price. However, don't go overboard, like a man I shall refer to as Filtered Water Guy. The first sign that he was trouble was that he brought a water bottle into a Michelin-starred establishment, as if our water was unfit for his person, but I just brushed this off as some strange personal affectation that I didn't need to ask and/or worry about. Spoiler alert! The water in your glass is tap water. No fancy filters or artisan springs, just recycling processes and fluoridation. If you think fluoridation is a commie plot, you can't fool me; I've seen Dr. Strangelove too many times to be fooled by that nonsense. Come to think of it, if you believe in that stuff, shouldn't you be wearing a tinfoil hat when outdoors so the government can't use the HAARP installation to read and manipulate your brain waves? Anyway, Filtered Water Guy received this moniker because, upon receiving his customary glass of lemon water and basket of warm, fluffy rolls, asked me straight out to describe the filtration process his water went through. This is what I like to call "weird". I told him, perhaps unwisely, that it wasn't put through special filters, which he answered with a nice little diatribe about the "insufficiency of carbon filters" and other such nonsense. Since I still had some faith left in humanity at this point, I decided to rectify the situation and bring him different water from a reverse-osmosis system. This was, evidently, not good enough for him either, and he also rebuffed the waitress' attempts to get him some San Pellegrino or Fiji water, claiming that we'd already ruined his water experience beyond repair. All this could've been averted, however, if he'd just not worried about our water and just DRANK OUT OF THE BOTTLE HE CARRIED IN WITH HIM. But noooo, this was just too much for him. Long story short, he ended up forgetting his bottle and his car keys on the table, which I summarily recovered. A lesser busboy would've contemplated revenge, but I thought I'd just turn the other cheek and wait for him to come back and be grateful that I didn't hide his stuff or something. When he did come back, though, he was still mad and ran off to do Filtered Water Guy things. Surprisingly, he ate there a couple more times, bringing with him and his bottle a different woman every time and a big stack of anarchistic literature. Huh.

If you read all that, congratulations! You now possess all the knowledge necessary to be an awesome restaurant customer!

If you skipped to the end, that's really too bad, since all my jokes were up there in the body. Oh well.

Either way, the point is that people at restaurants want to make you happy, if that includes giving you discounts, free dessert, up-selling booze or just generally being nice. Make our job easier by being nice back, even if you're having a bad night. It won't be a struggle to put on a facade of happiness for an hour just to please your server, because chances are, your server is putting on a facade of happiness for 6 or 7 hours to please you and everyone else in the whole building.