Yo --
I just finished eating my dinner and, as always, it was delicious. Two volcano tacos, one volcano burrito, and one nacho crunch burrito, all for a very yummy $8. And this came from a place where chefs the world over have given compliments such as:
"Nasty."
Charlie Palmer of Charlie Palmer Steak and Aureole
"Its just plain disgusting."
Nate Appleman of A16 and SPQR
"Its just scary."
Brian Bistrong of Braeburn
"Utter bastardization of one of the finest cuisines in the world. What the fuck is a chalupa?"
Joey Campanaro of The Little Owl
What the Hell? Seriously? I find it appalling that "chefs" who have an attitude of "less is more... so pay more" can stick their nose up at food that is cheap, filling, and tastes pretty damn good too. I dare them to offer anything comparable. Lets see what you can get for $8 at those fine eating establishments:
Braeburn: A poached egg.
The Little Owl: Fries.
A16: Two sides of olives.
SPQR: Your choice of an egg or a pig ear.
Charlie Palmer Steak: Nothing. You cant even get spinach at Charlies place.
Yeah, Ill take my Taco Bell over a poached egg, fries, and a pigs ear ANY day.
Anywho, if you wish to look at other "worst fast food places as compiled by Esquire and voted on by snobby chefs" you can go here: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/worst-fast-food-0909
And if you want a real chef for real people, go here: http://thecookingguy.com
Ciao
-- DBW --
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
The Green Lantern of Oz
Sup yall --
Im a firm believer in the theory that the more you look for something that doesnt exist, the more likely youll be able to find "proof" that it does. And this blog is an exercise in just that.
I was watching The Wizard Of Oz recently and theres a scene where Dorothy and her gang are standing outside the door to the wizards castle and on the door was a design that instantly reminded me of the Green Lantern logo. Click HERE to see the comparison. I thought it was oddly interesting, but I didnt really pay much attention to it.
And right there is where I should have stopped.
So then I started to think of other things that kinda-sorta-maybe could be considered similarities between the two very different works.
- Dorothy travels to Oz while the Green Lanterns travel to Oa
- Dorothy uses her ruby slippers to will herself back home while the Green Lanterns use their emerald rings to will things into existence
- The wizard of Oz lives in the Emerald City and while none of the Lanterns live in "Emerald City" everything about them is emerald.
- Oz has the balding bite sized inhabitants called Munchkins and Oa has the balding bite sized Guardians. Click HERE to see.
- Dorothys arch nemesis is the Wicked Witch who has an elongated face, different colored skin, funky nose, and pointy chin while Green Lanterns arch nemesis is Sinestro who has an elongated face, different colored skin, funky nose, and pointy chin. Again, click HERE to see.
Other things that arent quite "proof" include:
- The dude in the first linked picture is wearing a rip off of Guy Gardners costume. Or is it the other way around?
- The upcoming Green Lantern film is shooting in Australia, whose shortened name is Oz.
Im just starting to read Green Lantern comics, so there could very well be other instances of (forced?) similarities, and I may add them as I come across them, but I think this was a good start to at least initiate a discussion on whether or not theres a legitimate link between The Wizard Of Oz and Green Lantern or not.
So until we meet again...
-- DBW --
Im a firm believer in the theory that the more you look for something that doesnt exist, the more likely youll be able to find "proof" that it does. And this blog is an exercise in just that.
I was watching The Wizard Of Oz recently and theres a scene where Dorothy and her gang are standing outside the door to the wizards castle and on the door was a design that instantly reminded me of the Green Lantern logo. Click HERE to see the comparison. I thought it was oddly interesting, but I didnt really pay much attention to it.
And right there is where I should have stopped.
So then I started to think of other things that kinda-sorta-maybe could be considered similarities between the two very different works.
- Dorothy travels to Oz while the Green Lanterns travel to Oa
- Dorothy uses her ruby slippers to will herself back home while the Green Lanterns use their emerald rings to will things into existence
- The wizard of Oz lives in the Emerald City and while none of the Lanterns live in "Emerald City" everything about them is emerald.
- Oz has the balding bite sized inhabitants called Munchkins and Oa has the balding bite sized Guardians. Click HERE to see.
- Dorothys arch nemesis is the Wicked Witch who has an elongated face, different colored skin, funky nose, and pointy chin while Green Lanterns arch nemesis is Sinestro who has an elongated face, different colored skin, funky nose, and pointy chin. Again, click HERE to see.
Other things that arent quite "proof" include:
- The dude in the first linked picture is wearing a rip off of Guy Gardners costume. Or is it the other way around?
- The upcoming Green Lantern film is shooting in Australia, whose shortened name is Oz.
Im just starting to read Green Lantern comics, so there could very well be other instances of (forced?) similarities, and I may add them as I come across them, but I think this was a good start to at least initiate a discussion on whether or not theres a legitimate link between The Wizard Of Oz and Green Lantern or not.
So until we meet again...
-- DBW --
Friday, November 13, 2009
Sucks to be: Ken Carson
Ken Carson? Who the Hell is Ken Carson? Until today I didnt know he had a last name, all I knew him as was Ken of "Barbie and Ken." But youre him, and on the surface, your life is awesome. Youre a decent looking dude, you dont seem to be tied down to a job, you apparently always hang out at the beach, and youre banging Barbie. You got it made.
Or do you.
In real life, I work at a major retail establishment - the cool one - and the other day at work I saw a toy called "Barbies Fantasy Groom" and I suddenly realized, it must TOTALLY suck to be Ken.
I get that Barbie is the girl equivalent of GI Joe, and shes supposed to make girls feel great about themselves and whatever, but even as a little boy I had female GI Joe figures. Not "Nancy: GI Joes secretary" or "Sue: GI Joes housekeeper" but Scarlett (counter intelligence), Lady Jay (covert ops), Jinx (ninja), and Baroness (bad ass bitch). But with Ken, you just get the token male figure. A poorly defined character whos only apparent reason for existence is to be Barbies boyfriend. Its borderline sexist.
Lets look at careers for example. Did you know that theres a whole page on Wikipedia dedicated to Barbies careers? I didnt either. But if ya wanna look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie's_careers
Anywho, Barbie has been a teacher 12 times, in the military 6 times, dabbled in politics 6 times including becoming President, an astronaut 3 times, a flight attendant 9 times, a NASCAR driver once, plus countless other occupations including artist, Sea World trainer, super hero, and Starfleet officer.
Ken? Well, hes Barbies boyfriend.
So hes pretty much never had a job in his life, and his girlfriend has apparently done every job in the world, so his self esteem is probably kinda low. Then it takes another nose dive when his gal of 45 years dumps him - the day before Valentines Day - for an Australian surfer named Blaine. What... a... bitch!
Seriously, I give the dude props for not going into "Barbies Dream Gun Store" and getting a pistol to blow his brains out.
They would stay apart for two years until Barbie got tired of Blaine and moved on to a new career... I mean boyfriend... and got back with good ol' Ken.
So Ken finally has a job, Barbie has slowed down a bit, theyre married and have two kids. Life is just peachy for the Carsons. Yeah, not so much.
Ken is still collecting unemployment, Barbie cant decide what the Hell she wants to do with her life, theres no ring on her finger, no kids running around the house, and - the genesis of this post - Barbie is fantasizing about a groom thats clearly NOT Ken: http://tinyurl.com/26grgey
But hey, hes Carson, Ken Carson, and lifes not all bad cuz hes Barbies boyfriend and hes giving it to her good! Hes sliding into home every night! Hes putting the biscuit in the basket! The hot dog in the bun! Theyre having hot, wild, plastic toy whoopie. Hes putting his... HUH?! You got to be kidding me!!! Ken has no wee-wee?! Its not small, its non-existent! No wonder the bimbo broke up with him and is dreaming of other guys to marry: Ken Carson is literally built like a Ken doll.
I guess that also explains why he has no kung-fu grip either.
Yes, Ken Carson, it does suck to be you.
-- DBW --
Or do you.
In real life, I work at a major retail establishment - the cool one - and the other day at work I saw a toy called "Barbies Fantasy Groom" and I suddenly realized, it must TOTALLY suck to be Ken.
I get that Barbie is the girl equivalent of GI Joe, and shes supposed to make girls feel great about themselves and whatever, but even as a little boy I had female GI Joe figures. Not "Nancy: GI Joes secretary" or "Sue: GI Joes housekeeper" but Scarlett (counter intelligence), Lady Jay (covert ops), Jinx (ninja), and Baroness (bad ass bitch). But with Ken, you just get the token male figure. A poorly defined character whos only apparent reason for existence is to be Barbies boyfriend. Its borderline sexist.
Lets look at careers for example. Did you know that theres a whole page on Wikipedia dedicated to Barbies careers? I didnt either. But if ya wanna look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie's_careers
Anywho, Barbie has been a teacher 12 times, in the military 6 times, dabbled in politics 6 times including becoming President, an astronaut 3 times, a flight attendant 9 times, a NASCAR driver once, plus countless other occupations including artist, Sea World trainer, super hero, and Starfleet officer.
Ken? Well, hes Barbies boyfriend.
So hes pretty much never had a job in his life, and his girlfriend has apparently done every job in the world, so his self esteem is probably kinda low. Then it takes another nose dive when his gal of 45 years dumps him - the day before Valentines Day - for an Australian surfer named Blaine. What... a... bitch!
Seriously, I give the dude props for not going into "Barbies Dream Gun Store" and getting a pistol to blow his brains out.
They would stay apart for two years until Barbie got tired of Blaine and moved on to a new career... I mean boyfriend... and got back with good ol' Ken.
So Ken finally has a job, Barbie has slowed down a bit, theyre married and have two kids. Life is just peachy for the Carsons. Yeah, not so much.
Ken is still collecting unemployment, Barbie cant decide what the Hell she wants to do with her life, theres no ring on her finger, no kids running around the house, and - the genesis of this post - Barbie is fantasizing about a groom thats clearly NOT Ken: http://tinyurl.com/26grgey
But hey, hes Carson, Ken Carson, and lifes not all bad cuz hes Barbies boyfriend and hes giving it to her good! Hes sliding into home every night! Hes putting the biscuit in the basket! The hot dog in the bun! Theyre having hot, wild, plastic toy whoopie. Hes putting his... HUH?! You got to be kidding me!!! Ken has no wee-wee?! Its not small, its non-existent! No wonder the bimbo broke up with him and is dreaming of other guys to marry: Ken Carson is literally built like a Ken doll.
I guess that also explains why he has no kung-fu grip either.
Yes, Ken Carson, it does suck to be you.
-- DBW --
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Not Necessarily The News
Howdy --
In the recent past Ive written a few politically inspired posts and, at least, the majority of them have come off, probably intentionally, as anti-Republican. Or anti-friends-of-Republicans. This one will be the same since it deals with Fox News. Ahem, excuse me... Fox "News." I feel better now.
Before I do get into that, I feel the need to point out my political affiliation. Do I need to? No. But I choose to because I believe in full disclosure.
Currently, as of today, if I had to put labels on myself, Id probably say Im Liberal and lean towards the Democratic stance.
However, going back a few Presidents, I would have voted for Reagan, Bush #1 once, Clinton twice, Bush #2 once, Gore once, and then Obama. So of the last seven elections I would have voted for a Republican three times. Not bad for a "Democrat-leaning Liberal."
Anywho, lets move on.
As most of you know, theres a war going on right now. No, not the one in Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or Burma. Or Somalia. Or even the epic civil war in Ingushetia. The last one is real too, look it up.
No, what Im talking about is the violent, bloody, war going on between Fox "News" and the White House.
In my opinion, there is a level of bias throughout most news organizations. At least the major ones. There isnt supposed to be, obviously, and news is just supposed to be news, but I suppose its to be expected when you have humans with human emotions writing and reporting on events of the world.
However, what Fox "News" does goes far beyond bias and instead is firmly planted in the territory of misdirection, misquotation, exaggeration, and most evil of all... fabrication. News organizations report on events, not stage them, and yet Fox "News" has done that very thing. And then reported on them as if they naturally occurred.
ANY group or individual would get to the point where they just get tired of all the lies and attacks, and the White House has finally gotten to the point and called Fox "News" out for what they really are: "The reality of it is, Fox News often operates almost as the research arm, or the communications arm, of the Republican Party."
What Fox "News" should have done was say "Yeah, and...?" but instead they got their panties in a bunch and exaggerated that comment to the point where the White House is now (paraphrasing) "A Russian cabal intent on abusing their power to censor Fox News from pumping truth into the homes of the American people." Hilarious.
I always find it funny that the group - or person - yelling the most, throwing the most punches, and otherwise unfairly attacking someone else is ALWAYS the one that complains the loudest when they get punched back. Seriously, Rush devotes blocks of his radio program to his "attackers" while Fox sets aside hours of their "News" programming to theirs. This, despite the fact that their entire existences are to do the very same thing they claim others are unfairly doing to them.
Everyone knows what Fox "News" really is, including Fox "News", and so I wasnt even going to write a word about any of this. Not one. That is, until I saw what Fox "News" Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said: "Its astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming. It seems self serving on their part."
Yes, you read that correctly, the head of Fox "News" CLEARLY said that Fox "News" is... NOT... news! AND he blamed the White House for being too stupid to know this even though Fox calls its programming NEWS, they have the "Fox NEWS" logo on the screen, and the ONLY people you associate with Fox NEWS - "Fox and Friends", Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, Bill O'Reilly - are featured in their "Fair and Balanced" NEWS promos.
So let me get this straight... Foxs producers create stories which they can then have their - admittedly - NOT NEWS people report on, and then when they get called out for it say "Youre too dumb not to see the truth" and then turn around and have their - admittedly - NOT NEWS people cry foul because people are calling them NOT NEWS. How does that make ANY sense at all?! And why does my head suddenly hurt?
Anywho.
This past Thursday I was watching The Daily Show and Jon Stewart pretty much bitch slapped Fox "News" for the very same reason I was writing this post. And, admittedly, they did so using sound bites and video clips and were much funnier, and informative, than anything I could write here.
So even though I had intentions of writing more, and could possibly lay claim that I was going to write it first, anything else I can say would probably be plagiarization, so Ill just link to the clip and let yall watch Jon tell you what I was thinking. Enjoy.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-
Til next time...
-- DBW --
In the recent past Ive written a few politically inspired posts and, at least, the majority of them have come off, probably intentionally, as anti-Republican. Or anti-friends-of-Republicans. This one will be the same since it deals with Fox News. Ahem, excuse me... Fox "News." I feel better now.
Before I do get into that, I feel the need to point out my political affiliation. Do I need to? No. But I choose to because I believe in full disclosure.
Currently, as of today, if I had to put labels on myself, Id probably say Im Liberal and lean towards the Democratic stance.
However, going back a few Presidents, I would have voted for Reagan, Bush #1 once, Clinton twice, Bush #2 once, Gore once, and then Obama. So of the last seven elections I would have voted for a Republican three times. Not bad for a "Democrat-leaning Liberal."
Anywho, lets move on.
As most of you know, theres a war going on right now. No, not the one in Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or Burma. Or Somalia. Or even the epic civil war in Ingushetia. The last one is real too, look it up.
No, what Im talking about is the violent, bloody, war going on between Fox "News" and the White House.
In my opinion, there is a level of bias throughout most news organizations. At least the major ones. There isnt supposed to be, obviously, and news is just supposed to be news, but I suppose its to be expected when you have humans with human emotions writing and reporting on events of the world.
However, what Fox "News" does goes far beyond bias and instead is firmly planted in the territory of misdirection, misquotation, exaggeration, and most evil of all... fabrication. News organizations report on events, not stage them, and yet Fox "News" has done that very thing. And then reported on them as if they naturally occurred.
ANY group or individual would get to the point where they just get tired of all the lies and attacks, and the White House has finally gotten to the point and called Fox "News" out for what they really are: "The reality of it is, Fox News often operates almost as the research arm, or the communications arm, of the Republican Party."
What Fox "News" should have done was say "Yeah, and...?" but instead they got their panties in a bunch and exaggerated that comment to the point where the White House is now (paraphrasing) "A Russian cabal intent on abusing their power to censor Fox News from pumping truth into the homes of the American people." Hilarious.
I always find it funny that the group - or person - yelling the most, throwing the most punches, and otherwise unfairly attacking someone else is ALWAYS the one that complains the loudest when they get punched back. Seriously, Rush devotes blocks of his radio program to his "attackers" while Fox sets aside hours of their "News" programming to theirs. This, despite the fact that their entire existences are to do the very same thing they claim others are unfairly doing to them.
Everyone knows what Fox "News" really is, including Fox "News", and so I wasnt even going to write a word about any of this. Not one. That is, until I saw what Fox "News" Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said: "Its astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming. It seems self serving on their part."
Yes, you read that correctly, the head of Fox "News" CLEARLY said that Fox "News" is... NOT... news! AND he blamed the White House for being too stupid to know this even though Fox calls its programming NEWS, they have the "Fox NEWS" logo on the screen, and the ONLY people you associate with Fox NEWS - "Fox and Friends", Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, Bill O'Reilly - are featured in their "Fair and Balanced" NEWS promos.
So let me get this straight... Foxs producers create stories which they can then have their - admittedly - NOT NEWS people report on, and then when they get called out for it say "Youre too dumb not to see the truth" and then turn around and have their - admittedly - NOT NEWS people cry foul because people are calling them NOT NEWS. How does that make ANY sense at all?! And why does my head suddenly hurt?
Anywho.
This past Thursday I was watching The Daily Show and Jon Stewart pretty much bitch slapped Fox "News" for the very same reason I was writing this post. And, admittedly, they did so using sound bites and video clips and were much funnier, and informative, than anything I could write here.
So even though I had intentions of writing more, and could possibly lay claim that I was going to write it first, anything else I can say would probably be plagiarization, so Ill just link to the clip and let yall watch Jon tell you what I was thinking. Enjoy.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-29-2009/for-fox-sake-
Til next time...
-- DBW --
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)