Out on Limbs

10 Annoying People at the Movie Theaters

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Fri, 04 May 2012 22:54:00 +0000

Going to the movies is one of my favorite things in the world to do, if not THE favorite pastime of mine. How amazing is it when you sit in that dark auditorium and suspend your disbelief long enough that you get sucked into a film and forget you're watching it? The environment greatly helps the spectacle in many ways. Comedies are usually funnier if you're around more people who are laughing. Action films pump you up more if the adrenaline floats around the room. The popcorn is hot and buttery, the screen is huge, the sound is deafening, and a fun time is had by all (unless the movie sucks). That being said, there are some really annoying people you can interact with at a movie theatre that I figured we'd poke some fun at and examine.

Keep in mind, as indicated here, I just went through the 12+hour Ultimate Marvel Movie Marathon, so I came across a few of these just yesterday.

1. The Tall Guy
Enough said, right? Seeing the movie screen is vital to the whole experience. In fact, it's the most vital ingredient to it.

2. The Short Person Complaining About the Tall Guy
Ever sit next to the short person behind the tall guy? They fidget and grunt and groan the entire time, even afterward. It's insensitive to say so, but hey...I can see the movie fine. Stop ruining it for me. Sit on your coat or purse or something.

3. The Person Who Keeps Going to the Bathroom
You couldn't have peed before the movie started or before you got here? Or is it that you just have a really small bladder and can't sit 120 minutes without a draining? Maybe you shouldn't be drinking that giant soda if that's a problem. Oh God, why are you going for refills!

4. The Talker
Shut up! A quick 3 words to the person next to you whispered quietly is ok, but don't legitimately have a conversation or just speak as though you're NOT in a movie theater. This goes double for children. A variant of this is the cell phone user that has their bright screen out the entire time, texting people and having it buzz really loudly - because the buzzing is silent mode and we don't hear that, right?

5. Whomever is Responsible for the Sticky Floor
We're talking about normal movie theaters here, not the ones where the sticky substance is most likely not popcorn, candy, or soda.

6. The Backseat Kicker
An accidental bump here and there when you're shifting in your chair is perfectly fine, specifically if it's a light tap. If it's anything more, whisper "sorry" and we're cool, just don't do it again. But have you ever sat in front of someone that legitimately was just kicking your seat out of boredom? How rude is that?

7. Giggly Teenage Girls / Crying Babies
OMG like that guy is TOTALLY hot. Let's laugh over the stupidest shit and get out our cell phones and text each other about what we just saw happen in the movie. I lump this together with crying kids because they're both potentially ear-shattering with a high pitched squeal.

8. The Late Entrant
This is the guy that shows up at the last second before the movie starts, when the lights have gone down and you're all psyched up for it, then you notice him and you're suddenly right back to remembering that you're in a movie theater. Extra bonus points if they also sit in front of you after you sat through all the previews thinking that you had an empty slot.

9. The Early Leaver
The credits haven't even come on and these people are already standing up and leaving. Some of them will stand at the back of the auditorium and watch the rest of it, hoping that they'll be able to pop through those doors and out to the parking lot before everyone else. Gotta beat that traffic! Others might not even bother watching the rest of it. I have zero idea how they can do that and just miss the end of a movie they paid to watch and invested all that time in. I personally stay until the credits are over with unless I'm in a big rush (and really, if I'm in a big rush, why did I have time to go to the movies?) but I can understand why others don't. Not every film has a credit cookie. However, if I know ahead of time that there's supposed to be one, I try to help out the other people sitting in the theater along with me and tell them that there's a post-credits scene.

10. The Person Who Doesn't Understand the Movie
You both just sat through the whole thing, beginning to end, and yet they need to ask you a thousand questions about it as if they've never seen it. Did you pay any attention or are you just stupid?

So do you have any funny/interesting stories to tell about your experiences at the movies? Let us know in the comments below!

Being Too Proud of Your Race or Ethnicity to Annoying Levels

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:47:00 +0000

I know, I know, the title's got you pissed off already. Before everyone jumps to conclusions, let me clear up a few things that I'll point you back to if you start getting confused:

1. This article is in no way saying any race is better or worse than any other. They aren't. Equality means equality.

2. This article is in no way saying that you shouldn't be proud of who you are - so long as you've got something to be proud of. By that, I mean if you've done nothing but bad things, you shouldn't be proud, and if you've done something positive, you should. Don't brag because you're associated with someone who did something good that you had no part in, just as much as you shouldn't be ashamed that someone you're associated with did something bad that you had no part in. Example, I shouldn't get an ego boost if my friend wins the lottery (because I didn't do anything) and I shouldn't get ashamed of myself if the state of New Jersey has low standardized test scores (because I'm smart and I tested well on those).

Now that the fire's been dampened before it raged out of control, let's continue.

Are you like me where you get really irked when someone acts as if they're trying desperately to draw attention to the fact that they're a certain race and that they want you to know, beyond anything else, that they have that in their genes and they're proud of it?

For instance, why is it that people who grew up in the United States their entire lives still sometimes say things like "Mother Africa"? You've got to be kidding me. That's like a child having gone through foster families their entire lives giving endearing nicknames to their biological grandparents that they've never met. Even if you've made that grand trip on a vacation over to the country that you have a connection to, you're still being pretentious about it. You don't grow up in Chicago or Detroit or something and start acting like you're straight from a cannibalistic tribe civilization - unless of course, you're one of the people this post is talking about.

Many people that do this take it upon themselves to go out of their way to do things that are stereotypical of their background so as to seem more authentic. Have you ever come across someone that acted as if they were straight off the boat from Italy, speaking with a heavy accent? They start pronouncing things in a horrifically pretentious pseudo-mocking Italian accent (this becomes very prominent when talking about food like mozzarella...it's not "MOOTZ-a-DELL!!!!"). They're also likely to pretend like they're a member of the mafia just because their name ends in a vowel. Oh I'm sure you know a family member that TOTALLY has connections. You're hardcore. You must be a made man, right? By the way, unless it's specifically made from meat, it's just spaghetti sauce, not gravy. Just because you threw some meatballs in there to finish cooking with your other ingredients doesn't mean it's gravy, no matter how much your family will tell you otherwise. [And before anyone says I'm not ripping on things that I am in this post, I'm part Italian.]

Have you ever noticed that these people are always so willing to embrace the positives of their races but they neglect the negatives? You're an Irish person and you can hold your liquor like no other! You're a black person and you're hung like a horse! The only time they bring it up is if they're looking for sympathy or charity, which in turn makes it a positive for them. Just because you're 1/16th Japanese doesn't mean I should feel sorry for you because a tsunami hit Japan in 2011. You know who I feel sorry for? The Japanese citizens and their families. Unless you live there, have lived there, or know people that live there, you're not a part of this at all. This all boils down to an ego thing and when you mix ego with race you end up with the stupidest thing of all: discrimination on races. That is an underlying issue here and it works both ways. Just because you're of a certain ethnic background does not mean that you are by default a worse person than any other race out there - but at the same time, logic dictates that that means you also aren't BETTER either. If you're a teenager, you're not entitled to slave reparations because you didn't suffer like the true slaves did. Just because you're part Native American (or "Injin" if you're an idiot that can't pronounce words correctly) doesn't mean that you're one with your animal spirit guide and you're more connected to nature. Just because you're part Roman doesn't mean you yourself are some badass gladiator - and even if you're Russell Crowe, you're still overrated.

Pictured: Every Roman/Greek/whatever descendent ever, according to these idiots

What this boils down to is a simple concept that people over-complicate due to their own likes and dislikes and pride. Every ethnicity is different in both good and bad ways. They all have rich backgrounds filled with interesting things to learn about as well as boring, uninteresting things that have happened. Every ethnicity has achievements under their belt and embarrassments they'd like to forget about. Unless you actually have a direct hand in any of these things, though, it's obnoxious of you to think that any of your culture's history reflects upon you in any way, positive or negative. Be proud of what YOU'VE done and be embarrassed about what YOU'VE done - not what came before you that you just so happen to have a familial and biological connection to.

Questions and Answers Survey

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:40:00 +0000

I was tagged by Karen of Drawing Room Days for this Q&A blog chain, so without further ado, here are my answers to her questions:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1Q: Did you hear about the swimmer that interrupted The Boat Race in England? Do you think it is right to conduct a protest in such a manner or is there a better way of getting your point across?
1A: I don't know too much about the situation, but in general, I don't condone that type of a protest. People will just be laughing at the guy and they'll forget about it in no time, so whatever issue you're protesting about receives nothing from that and you just receive imprisonment and/or fines, and that time and money could have been spent trying to protest in a different, more effective way.

2Q: What is the one thing you wish your teacher had taught you in school?
2A: I've always thought that school should be formatted differently wherein everybody learns the majority of things you need to learn in life out of the basics but then they can choose their electives to pursue other interests they have in more detail. I went over this a bit in my High School Revamped post, but short answer, I wish I didn't waste time on subjects I had no interest or use for in the future (like anything beyond the basics of Chemistry, absolutely everything in Trigonometry, etc) and learned more basic life lessons like little "do it yourself" machinations. I've found out dozens of use of vinegar that have been more helpful to me in life than anything I learned in Advanced Biology because it's more likely I'm going to clean up a stain than that I'll be needed to identify the digestive tract of a grasshopper.

3Q: Which 2 people would you most want to tag and why?
3A: My future self from when I'm middle aged and my future self from when I'm a senior citizen, just to see how different my answers would be - and to contact myself from the past and give myself warnings about things to change...despite the time paradox potential.

4Q: If you give money to a charity, which one and why do you do it?
4A: I don't give money to charities for three reasons. First off, I simply don't have the money to. I lend money to people all the time that have more money to me because they're bad with their money, but the key word there is that I 'lend' it to them. If I were rich, trust me, I'd be the type of person that would give someone $20 out in public just because I saw them do something nice for no reward like hold a door open for an old person. Second, I don't give to charities because I don't trust them to be worth anything, generally speaking. The amount of Blah Blah Fund organizations we have out there for the same causes is ridiculous considering how much money they have to spend for advertising and such. If there were just one for each charitable cause, there'd be less overhead. Plus, how many times do we hear about people skimming from the donations? And in the grand scheme of things, charities for a cause like Cancer or "awareness" of something don't make a difference. The only ones that do are the ones that directly buy things for people that need them and such. Thirdly, some charities are argumentative and pushy and I don't want to give them the impression that that will work. I hate it so much when I get a phone call from some place asking for a donation where they tell me "I'll just put you down for $25". No, you won't, and if you start arguing with me on it, I'm even less likely to give you anything in the future. ASK me for a donation, don't TELL me you're putting me down for a donation.

5Q: Why do you blog?
5A: A few reasons. Naturally, I want to make money, but I also want to get my opinions out and entertain and help people if I can. Out on Limbs for instance is a way to achieve all those things. I try to make my posts interesting to read (entertaining) but not just a cheap thrill. They should be insightful in some way, even if someone could disagree with my point of view (which I always encourage friendly debate about). I can use these sites to market myself as well as get my frustrations out when it comes to whatever topic I'm referring to.

6Q: Do you think it is important for the youth to go to University after school or is it better to get experience through trade colleges and apprenticeships?
6A: It depends on the person and their future job. If you're someone that doesn't know what they want to do with their lives, college is the best option for you. The same for if you know for sure what you want to do and you're working towards a degree in that field. However, if you're someone that works a menial job and you're content with it, don't waste your time. This may sound rude, but it's the truth, and that's what Out on Limbs is about - but if you're someone that does nothing but work at Walmart and you have no true passion for something else but you just want to go to a college and take classes for a business degree or what have you, stop lying to yourself and save your money. You won't be opening up a business - you'd be better utilizing your time if you worked towards becoming a manager at the place you currently work and then maybe a district manager if that all works out. It's an unpopular belief but I don't think college is there for us to just fuck each other like bunnies and experiment with drugs and alcohol. College is about schooling, not partying. The partying is the immature rebellious side of you getting out because you have more freedom now than before and you can't handle it - and you eventually realize that later on in life when you're more mature about things. I'll never say people shouldn't get more schooling, so if people DO want to go to college and take classes and learn more, I'm all for it for everybody, but realistically, some people are just better served honing their craft outside of a normal college. A highly skilled carpenter will make a good living being a highly skilled carpenter - he doesn't need to get a useless Communications degree. I'll be hiring you based on your work, not your potential for other work. I'll take a professional chef that trained at a culinary institute over a burger flipper that has a highly advanced legal degree from Harvard...when it comes to cooking my food.

7Q: What is your most vivid memory from when you were a child (say under 12)?
7A: So many. One of them is a distinct recollection that when I was around 10 years old, I opted out of a game of Wall Ball (goes by many names, we also called it Suicide - it's when you throw a tennis ball at a wall, if you lose, you stand up to it and other people throw the tennis ball at you) because that day I just felt like it would be a bad idea, despite how I never got hurt badly in any previous games (just "ouch, that hurt" from being pegged if I dropped it - rules are rules). I was off to the side, talking to a few people, and lo and behold a wayward ball from someone's throw bounces off the wall and directly blasts me right in the eye, giving me my first black eye and catching me totally off guard, hurting like a son of a bitch. Universe just wanted me to get hit that day and opting out of the game wasn't a good enough way around it, haha.

8Q: What is your number one item on your bucket list?
8A: I don't have a top of the bucket list. I just have way too many things in my head that I'd put on it that I'd never be able to organize it. I'm positive I'll die with a thousand things still on it, not just because of an inability to do some of them, but because I'm never satisfied with accomplishing something. I always want to have accomplished more of it and quicker so I could move on to the next thing. I recently just updated the layout of this website and immediately after looking at it and saying "I really like what I just did", I started making a mental note of what else to change soon.

9Q: When writing, do you find you have a particular word (or a few words) that you tend to overuse? If so, which ones?
9A: A few words and phrases I use quite often are "random/randomly", "thus", "therefore", "however", "henceforth", "etc", "so on and so forth", and breaking things down into a list of 3-5 things (like 4A up above).

10Q: Do you have an alter ego?
10A: I don't, but Tony does. He's just not here right now ;)

11Q: How do you really feel when people offer you their constructive criticism?
11A: Constructive criticism is more than welcome, but people need to know the difference between true constructive criticism and just pointing out flaws or putting someone/something down. I'm always up for people trying to help me out in any way if they have the credibility to help, but I can't stand it when someone just says I need to stop doing something that they disagree with. Why?

Tell me your responses to those in the comments. Now it's time for me to tag some others I know and give them some questions to answer in response. You guys can comment on here with your answers to these questions as well. All questions are open to all readers.

TAG - YOU'RE IT: Michael Burhan | Liz | Verbal Fireworks | Doodie Pants | My Life, Yours Too

YOUR QUESTIONS TO ANSWER:

1. What is something you have trouble admitting to yourself?
2. Who is someone other than a celebrity or family member that you respect highly, and why?
3. You're on national TV and the world is watching. You can do or say anything. What happens?
4. Name a celebrity you think you could legitimately be with in a relationship as opposed to someone you just find attractive.
5. What is your biggest pet peeve and why do you think it bothers you so much?
6. You're given a choice of one super power to have - what do you pick?
7. If you could only eat one food for the rest of your life, what would it be?
8. What political party/parties do you tend to support and why do you agree with their opinions?
9. What do you want to accomplish but haven't been able to, and why?
10. What are you ashamed about that makes you happy?

Have fun everyone, and remember, if you want me to do more Q&A segments, just send in your questions via the contact form.

5 Stupid Baby Names for Kids, Annoying Unique Names

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:38:00 +0000

I'm not a big fan of kids in general, particularly when it comes to babies. In fact, I've been sitting on a list of reasons why I don't like your kids that I haven't written yet (but will soon, trust me, particularly if this post is popular). But one aspect I wanted to go over about children that annoys me is something that isn't their fault at all - it's their parents' fault - and that is the process of naming your kid.

Now, any sensible person would do a bunch of research of names, write down what they like, discuss it with people, and figure out what works best for what you like and what will not screw over your child in the future. Still, people end up falling into traps of some pretty dumb ways to name their kids.

Before we get into it, let me preface this by saying that a general rule of thumb to apply here is never to name your child something that could get them made fun of or discriminated against in any way. You might not want to admit it, but it's a sheer fact that people judge other people by their names and certain things are detrimental. Would you name your kid Anita if your surname was Cox, or would you have the sensibility not to? Keep that in mind.

Without further ado, here are FIVE annoying types of names for people and why I think they're retarded.

I could have used so many names on this, but people like butt jokes, so, yeah

1. THE CO-GENDER NAME
Some people think it's very cute to take a girl and name her something that's primarily a boy's name or vice versa. I don't, at all. Yeah, I see what you're doing there, naming your daughter Charlie or your son Courtney. I know, you're trying to be different at any means necessary (a common theme on this list), but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Different isn't always good. Answer me this question: if you read the name Thomas, does that make you think of a boy or a girl? If you answered a boy, congratulations, you're sane, and now you know why you shouldn't ever name your kid something that the opposite gender is normally named. When I read the name Dylan, I imagine a boy, so if Dylan Gunderson or whatever is actually a girl, God forbid she ends up looking like a tomboy because for entire life people are going to be saying "oh, I expected you to be a boy". There are some unisex names, sure, and as long as they've been firmly established as having years upon years of both names (and that means more than a decade) then they're ok. Most of them, by the way, are nicknames. For example, Lex could be a nickname for a boy (Alexander) or a girl (Alexis/Alexandra/etc). Sam could be short for both Samantha as well as Samuel. The problem comes in naming your son Samantha or your daughter Samuel. If you don't want everyone that your child interacts with for their whole lives getting their gender wrong, avoid this at all costs.

2. CHANGING THE SPELLING/PRONUNCIATION OF A NAME
This whole article was brought about from a story I was told of someone talking about naming their child Keefe instead of Keith and being angry that people kept getting them confused. Uh, excuse me, I think the problem is that YOU got them confused, idiot. Some names have multiple types of spelling that are very standardized, so again, they've become exceptions to this rule. For instance, some people are named Derek, some are Derrick. Some people are Jon, some are John (John's the right one in my mind, though). But if you're taking a name that already has an established version of it and twisting letters around for the sake of being different, go fuck yourself. "Maxwell" is not spelled "Mackswel". "Chloe" is not "Kloey". And for God's sake, nobody thinks you're being clever because you switched a Y and an I, you're just setting your kid up for people spelling their name incorrectly and them having to explain it all the time. Is it really worth it for you to be SO hip that your daughter isn't "Sylvia", she's "Silvya"? The same goes for pronunciation. If I see the name "Harvey", I'm pronouncing it "HAR-vee", not "Har-VAY" and if your name is spelled "Eliza", I'm saying "e-LI-za", not "ah-LEE-za". Do you pronounce other things wrong while you're at it and say things like cho-co-LATE and com-PUTT-er?

3. SOMETHING THAT ISN'T A NAME
This applies to tons of things. It can be an item, this could be an animal, etc. Two popular ideas are to name your kid a state or a city, like Dakota, Montana, Dallas, etc. While yes, these are names of the places, I'll give you that one. However, it's rare to find people that like the name and don't more primarily like the connection to a place or the idea that they're naming their kid something weird. If you named your child Gwen and there just happens to be a town called Gwen out there, that's a much different story than naming your kid Poughkeepsie. Another really popular thing to do is name your kid some concept or idea, like Cherish, Hope, Destiny, Karma. Please. Those are stripper names and just because you name your kid some kind of adjective doesn't mean they'll be that quality. Naming your daughter Beautiful doesn't mean she won't necessarily turn out hideous (and before you pull that "beauty on the inside" crap let me just forewarn you that a post is coming about that later on as well...also, shut up, stop being argumentatively PC, grow a pair). Extra points go to someone who tries to name their kid a word backwards. Oh, wow, you went with Nevaeh because that's 'heaven' backwards, awesome, here's a cross, you can stick it up your ass if it's not already filled by your own nose. [That was not an anti-religion thing]. Trust me from experience (Mango) that having something as a name that isn't necessarily a name can sometimes get VERY annoying - particularly if you don't have a sense of humor about it like I do.

4. AN OBSCURE NAME FOR THE SAKE OF HOMAGE/OBSCURITY
Do I even need to explain why people shouldn't name their kids things like Batman or Obi-Wan or Indiana Jones? If you want to name your kid something in reference to something you're a big fan of, do it in a more subtle way. For Batman, why not name your son Bruce with the middle name of Wayne? Instead of Obi-Wan, why not Ben? Instead of Indiana Jones, why not Henry Jones? Two examples I use quite often for things I wouldn't mind naming my children, if I was going to reference things I liked, would be from the Terminator series - Jonathan Connor and Kyle Reese. Those are normal names, unlike if I named my kids T-800 and Cyberdyne. Maybe you're a big fan of 2001: A Space Odyssey and you can name your kid Hal (not HAL 9000) or Heywood Floyd. Maybe you like Harry Potter and you have the sensibility not to name your kid Severus, but you go with Ron. Far too many people that are a fan of something just go ahead and name their kid a reference to it without thinking that maybe their kid might not be a fan of it as well. If that's the case and you've opted for a normal sounding name, your kid doesn't need to be locked into it their whole lives, but if you pick something that clearly points to it, then there's no choice. Your kid is not going to go unnoticed with the name of Elvis, and if they hate Elvis, then too bad? That's not being a good parent. And please don't get me started on just random shit like Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette or Apple Paltrow...good lord.

5. FOLLOWING THE LEADER OF POPULAR/TRENDY NAMES
The previous four have all been about doing something different to stand out, but another major problem is doing the complete opposite - trying desperately to fit in and name your child whatever is currently a trendy thing to name them. How many people nowadays do you know that are naming their kids something along the lines of Hayden, Aidan, Jayden, Cayden, etc? It's equally as bad to try desperately to stand out as it is to try desperately to fit in - in everything in life for the most part (other than success), like when people change their clothes to blend with the crowd or to go against the crowd rather than being themselves. If you legitimately just happen to like a name that's popular right now, go for it, but think about how your kid's going to have a lot of people around them with the same name. That in itself could be annoying. I never usually had to differentiate between myself and another Anthony in class, or if I did, it was just Anthony and Tony (me), but I would go by Tony anyway, so no problem there, however I used to always have classes where there were more than one Daniel or more than one Matthew or Amanda or something. You should never do anything just because it's the thing to do as mankind has shown numerous times that a popular idea isn't necessarily a good one. Look at the Holocaust - lots of people went along with that, and I'm sure the big supporters named their kids Adolf and from then on in, those kids had to deal with that shit. Thanks, Mom and Dad, for living in the zeitgeist.

All in all, keep in mind that if your child is going to have to explain their name to people frequently then you're picking the wrong name and you should reconsider. Put the well-being of your children before your intense lust for standing out and 'originality' (even though 99% of the time, you think you're being original but you're not).

George Costanza: Seven's got cachet, baby! It's got cachet up the yin yang!

US Postal Service Obsolete - Faces Extinction & Bankruptcy

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:38:00 +0000

I just saw a commercial for the United States Postal Service trying to convince people to stop using technology and go back to their way of doing things. In what's being called "the refrigerator commercial", they say the following – "a refrigerator has never been hacked" (I beg to differ), "an online virus has never attacked a corkboard", and that there's extra security with snail mail. It won't get lost in thin air or disappear with a click. They then, naturally, tell you that if you want to know more about "safe ways to stay connected" with them, visit their website at www.usps.com/mail for God's sake.

See, stuff like this bothers me. It's a necessity to promote your business and I understand the idea behind it, but just because I understand the "why" doesn't mean I support the "what" or think the "how" was done properly. All commercials are annoying because of how much they have to lie to give off the impression that their product or service is better than what it actually is. If they told you the truth, you wouldn't be interested. The cheeseburger at Wendy's doesn't look nearly as good in real life as it does on a television ad where they brushed it with oil, stacked up the ingredients, filmed it with the proper lighting, etc. In this case, how many mail carriers do you see walking around with bright smiles on their faces, greeting people like they're Jimmy Stewart after his epiphany in It's A Wonderful Life? The people take their mail and then fart out some rainbows themselves. It's so awesome to wait 10 days for something that could have been sent directly to my computer instantaneously! Whether rain or sleet or snow – or in this case, the sunniest day in the most perfect neighborhood in Fantasyville. In reality, we have situations like if you park your car just a little bit too close to your own mailbox, you get a note on it from the mailman telling you you're a dick. We get the stereotype of the disgruntled mailman that dogs hate "going postal" and shooting up his office. [Before everyone complains to me and says I'm saying everyone that works at the USPS is a horrible human being or inept or anything, I'm not saying that. There, saved you some effort and now you don't need to comment about how much you hate me because your cousin once delivered mail.]

Whether rain or sprinklers, we'll be there.

Just like nearly everything else nowadays, they focus on the scare tactics rather than presenting facts to you, because if you look into the pros and cons, your product pretty much sucks in comparison. Let's tell the people that if they use an alternative, bad things will happen, so ignore the benefits. What are those benefits? Well for one, as I mentioned above, there's the time frame. They don't call this form "snail mail" because it's a cute little slug with a backpack handing you your birthday card – they do it because it takes longer than anything else. When you send someone an email and it doesn't go through, you usually get a message right afterward that says it didn't send. You then can easily just resend it. What happens when you send mail through the US Postal Service and it gets lost? You might not EVER find out that it didn't get sent. How about the time it takes to get a paycheck, drive it to the bank, deposit it, drive home, write a check out, and then have it delivered in the mail versus automatic deposit and bill payment through the computer? No contest. You want to talk about computer viruses and hacking, what about mail fraud? When have you seen it cost more money to email someone as opposed to how they keep raising the price of stamps? All I get with my normal mail anymore is junk ads that I throw out like credit card companies begging me for their service, hoping I'm irrational with my spending so I can owe them my life with interest or the occasional pamphlet about how there's yet another pizza place that opened up in the area. The last thing I received through a non-electronic method? I can't remember the last package that was sent to me through something other than FedEx or UPS.

New slogan for Pizza Hut: "We Deliver Pizza To You". No shit you do.

You want to save the US Postal Service? Here's what you do. First off, stop raising your prices. Everyone seems to think that if you're hurting for money, up your cost and it'll make up for it. Instead, people just say "bullshit, I'm not spending even more" and they stop using you entirely. Ask nearly every business that has tried this how it worked out. Also, you're hurting from email? Put some effort into trying to create the best mail service possible through the internet. How did the USPS never fully get invested in the "electronic mail" concept? Losing money because FedEx and UPS are stealing customers away? Look into charging less for your shipping so people use you as an alternative. If you offer a better deal for the same or better service, people will use you. What's this I'm hearing about how you might stop delivering mail on more than Sundays now? You win by offering more for less, not less for more. I'm not spending more money on your company for you to give me less – ask Comcast, who tries to up my bill every year and remove channels.

I don't WANT the United States Postal Service to go under and die out, but the way they're refusing to adapt and survive, it looks like that just might happen.

Get with the times, adapt. It worked for the toothbrush.

2012 Oscars / 84th Academy Awards Results & Predictions of Winners

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:00:00 +0000

Every year, I like to do my best to predict the winners of the Academy Awards. The following are the nominees, my predictions, and eventually the results as well as my review on the results.

NOTE: Normally I make some blind predictions, then watch all of the movies, then make a more informed decision. This year, however, I just can't find myself able to do it. Why? Because the films listed below are SO pretentious and I find them just completely uninteresting to watch to a ridiculous level. Thus, my predictions will remain virtually as a shot in the dark from what I know about the movies that I haven't seen and in comparison to the few I have.

BEST PICTURE
NOMINEES: The Artist, The Descendants, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Help, Hugo, Midnight in Paris, Moneyball, The Tree of Life, War Horse

BLIND PREDICTION: The Artist - considering how douchey this year is, this is the douchiest.

RESULT: The Artist

BEST ACTOR
NOMINEES: Demian Bichir (A Better Life), George Clooney (The Descendants), Jean Dujardin (The Artist), Gary Oldman (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy), Brad Pitt (Moneyball)

BLIND PREDICTION: George Clooney. I did enjoy his performance.

RESULT: Jean Dujardin

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
NOMINEES: Kenneth Branagh (My Week with Marilyn), Jonah Hill (Moneyball), Nick Nolte (Warrior), Christopher Plummer (Beginners), Max von Sydow (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close)

BLIND PREDICTION: Christopher Plummer. Why? I don't know. He won the Golden Globe, that's about it.

RESULT: Christopher Plummer

BEST ACTRESS
NOMINEES: Glenn Close (Albert Nobbs), Viola Davis (The Help), Rooney Mara (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), Meryl Streep (The Iron Lady), Michelle Williams (My Week with Marilyn)

BLIND PREDICTION: Michelle Williams - people are obsessed with Monroe for some reason.

RESULT: Meryl Streep

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
NOMINEES: Berenice Bejo (The Artist), Jessica Chastain (The Help), Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids), Janet McTeer (Albert Nobbs), Octavia Spencer (The Help)

BLIND PREDICTION: Octavia Spencer - biggest buzz.

RESULT: Octavia Spencer

BEST ANIMATED FILM
NOMINEES: A Cat in Paris, Chico and Rita, Kung Fu Panda 2, Puss in Boots, Rango

BLIND PREDICTION: Rango.

RESULT: Rango

BEST ART DIRECTION
NOMINEES: The Artist, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, Hugo, Midnight in Paris, War Horse

BLIND PREDICTION: This is a toss-up as they never follow a format here. I'll say Hugo, but no matter what, I'm sure I'll be wrong and they'll pick the Artist, or if I pick the Artist, they'll pick Hugo. I'll go with Hugo, though.

RESULT: Hugo

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
NOMINEES: The Artist, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Hugo, The Tree of Life, War Horse

BLIND PREDICTION: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - just to give it something.

RESULT: Hugo

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
NOMINEES: Anonymous, The Artist, Hugo, Jane Eyre, W.E

BLIND PREDICTION: The Artist - typically, one film wins a lot of these things and the Artist is nominated for a lot.

RESULT: The Artist

BEST DIRECTOR
NOMINEES: Woody Allen (Midnight in Paris), Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist), Terrence Malick (The Tree of Life), Alexander Payne (The Descendants), Martin Scorsese (Hugo)

BLIND PREDICTION: Martin Scorsese - I can see this being the reason why Hugo is nominated for so much but wouldn't win Best Picture.

RESULT: Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist)

BEST DOCUMENTARY
NOMINEES: Hell and Back Again, If a Tree Falls: A Short Story of the Earth Liberation Front, Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory, Pina, Undefeated

BLIND PREDICTION: I don't make predictions on this category because I never watch them.

RESULT: Undefeated

BEST DOCUMENTARY (SHORT)
NOMINEES: The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement, God is the Bigger Elvis, Incident in New Baghdad, Saving Face, The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom

BLIND PREDICTION: I don't make predictions on this category because I never watch them.

RESULT: Saving Face

BEST FILM EDITING
NOMINEES: The Artist, The Descendants, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Hugo, Moneyball

BLIND PREDICTION: The Artist.

RESULT: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
NOMINEES: Bullhead, Footnote, In Darkness, Monsieur Lazhar, A Separation

BLIND PREDICTION: I have to go with A Separation. Normally I don't predict this category, but if they gave this a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay as well, I'd be foolish not to pick it as their future choice.

RESULT: A Separation

BEST MAKEUP
NOMINEES: Albert Nobbs, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, The Iron Lady

BLIND PREDICTION: Albert Nobbs - no reason.

RESULT: The Iron Lady

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
NOMINEES: The Adventures of Tintin (John Williams), The Artist (Ludovic Bource), Hugo (Howard Shore), Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Alberto Iglesias), War Horse (John Williams)

BLIND PREDICTION: The Adventures of Tintin - no real reason.

RESULT: The Artist

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
NOMINEES: "Man or Muppet" by Bret McKenzie (The Muppets) or "Real in Rio" by Sergio Mendes, Carlinhos Brown, and Siedah Garrett (Rio)

BLIND PREDICTION: Extremely surprised that there's only two nominations this year. That seems crazy. Let's go with the Muppets on this one...what the hell, right?

RESULT: "Man or Muppet" from The Muppets

BEST ANIMATED SHORT
NOMINEES: Dimanche, The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore, La Luna, A Morning Stroll, Wild Life

BLIND PREDICTION: I don't make predictions on this category because I never watch them.

RESULT: The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore

BEST SHORT FILM
NOMINEES: Pentecost, Raju, The Shore, Time Freak, Tuba Atlantic

BLIND PREDICTION: I don't make predictions on this category because I never watch them.

RESULT: The Shore

BEST SOUND EDITING
NOMINEES: Drive, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Hugo, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, War Horse

BLIND PREDICTION: Hugo.

RESULT: Hugo

BEST SOUND MIXING
NOMINEES: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Hugo, Moneyball, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, War Horse

BLIND PREDICTION: Hugo.

RESULT: Hugo

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
NOMINEES: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, Hugo, Real Steel, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Transformers: Dark of the Moon

BLIND PREDICTION: Rise of the Planet of the Apes - to help appease the Andy Serkis debate.

RESULT: Hugo

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
NOMINEES: The Artist, Bridesmaids, Margin Call, Midnight in Paris, A Separation

BLIND PREDICTION: The Artist.

RESULT: Midnight in Paris

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
NOMINEES: The Descendants, Hugo, The Ides of March, Moneyball, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

BLIND PREDICTION: Moneyball - though I'm about 90% sure they'll just give it to Descendants or something instead now that I've predicted it to be Moneyball.

RESULT: The Descendants

THOUGHTS: I was unable to watch nearly every movie nominated because I just couldn't get interested in them. This year was a boring show to me itself due to that factor, as it's hard to get invested in an award show if you don't care about any films nominated for any category. I'm very surprised a lot of things weren't nominated for a lot of categories. The highlight of the show in my mind was Emma Stone's presentation. My predictions score was 10 wrong, 10 right. For a blind guess, I guess you can't expect much better than a 50/50 split considering how it wasn't a 50/50 guess between 5 nominees - but I guarantee I would have done better if I had been interested in the films and watched them.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?

Respecting Someone's Beliefs & That's Your Opinion

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:00:00 +0000

Oftentimes, I find myself in arguments where people use the typical phrase of "that's your opinion" - even if sometimes, I'm stating a fact and they're too stupid to realize it - as if that suddenly means there's no room for discussion and an opinion can't be right or wrong. This ties into another phrase, "I respect your beliefs".

The problem I have with these two sayings is that they're meant to be an 'out' for an argument but they rarely are used in the proper context. Something people tend not to understand is that there's a difference between respecting someone's right to believe in something you disagree with and respecting someone's beliefs themselves. I wholeheartedly respect the notion that someone can disagree with me and form a belief that I don't condone or subscribe to. They're entitled to do that, considering how I'm not infallible or all-knowing (yet). However, that does not mean I have to respect whatever their point of view is and put ANY kind of credibility into it whatsoever.

Not all beliefs that contradict each other are of equal value. Some things that are believed out there by people are just flat out wrong and absolutely stupid, completely out of the realm of plausibility. Sure, you can disagree with me saying that I think The Shawshank Redemption and The Godfather are the two best films of all time. Fine, I can live with that, and we can agree to disagree. What I can't be fine with, however, is if you tell me you think Jimmy Stewart played Michael Corleone. You are wrong. He didn't. End of story. I don't need to "respect your opinion", you're a fucking moron.

"Well, that's your opinion" you might be thinking. Yes, it is, and any educated person would agree with me. An opinion is not a legitimate fact in black and white so generally speaking, it's up in the air whether or not an opinion can be right or wrong. Back in the past, if your opinion was that the world was flat, it turns out you were wrong, but if your opinion is that I Can't Believe It's Not Butter tastes the same as regular butter, power to you. If we're talking facts, you can't throw this "that's your opinion" line at me to try to end the discussion - nor can you tell me I have to respect you blindly and not explain why you're so dumb.

Respect is thrown around way too much nowadays as some word that has been bastardized into meaning "you shouldn't disagree with me and you should always support what I want" and it's incredibly abused by hypocrites, primarily. Ever heard someone in an argument say to the other person "I respect you, but..." and follow that up with an insult? Pointless for you to say the respect thing first because it clearly isn't true. Here's a scenario that we've all experienced in the past: an old person does something wrong, you call them out on it, they say you're not respecting your elders. This isn't an issue of respect, this is an issue of right and wrong. They have no legs to stand on about doing something negative so they try to hide behind this protective shield. Just because you're old doesn't grant you immunity from responsibility and fault.

Many people reading this right now might get the wrong impression, that I'm saying there's no inherent respect. Not true. Respect needs to be earned through character and actions, not age or wealth or anything other than behavior. HOWEVER - and here's the most important concept in this whole article - every stranger needs to be treated with the baseline respect of "you're potentially a decent average human being that deserves not to be treated worse than average until you prove me otherwise". Some people are better than average. Lots of people are much, much worse. You adjust the respect accordingly.

And if you disagree with me on this, I respect your entitlement to disagree with me - but HOW you disagree with me might both be disrespectful and absurd, and yes, that would be my opinion ;)

The Major Flaw of Christmas Movies

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:00:00 +0000

Christmas movies are a staple of the film industry. Every year, we see a few new ones try desperately to shove themselves into the pop culture consciousness, with only the rare examples actually becoming noteworthy enough for people to remember. Despite a bad track record, the thing that bothers me the most about Christmas movies isn't that they're just generally piss poor to watch, but that they all have one big glaring problem nobody seems to ever acknowledge...

SANTA.

Wait a second, Tony, how can Santa be the problem of a genre of film dedicated to the fictional character? That would be like saying the reason Ghost Rider sucked wasn't because of it's bad script or the cheesy jokes or the bad acting or the lackluster action or the (ok you get the point, Ghost Rider sucked), but because the Ghost Rider character was in it. Not exactly. The problem comes in when you look not at the essence of Santa Claus but the purpose of Santa Claus.

Backstory for those that may not know it: Santa Claus flies around the world in one night's time, sneaks into your house, gives you gifts if you've been good and coal if you've been bad, and that's about it, we don't need to get bogged down in the details. The character is of course a whimsical fantasy that only kids and severely damaged adults believe in, and this transitions to the films as well. Frequently, a Christmas movie will tackle the subject that adults need to be more childlike and stop working at their office job because their ties are strangling them and what we really need in the world is the innocence of youth and to cherish family (and blah blah blah), and it'll do this through a war of beliefs in Santa Claus. Someone doesn't believe, others try to convince them, we find out that Santa was real all along (despite how, you know, he isn't).

The problem comes into play when you look at the time frame before the film starts. Let's say our protagonist is Phil and he doesn't believe in Santa but his stepson (or his biological son that he shares custody with, there's usually some divorce angle thrown in there) does and he's trying to convince him that he's real. The kid's got all the excuses in the world - he's a kid. Kids are dumb. You could tell a young enough kid that if lemonade is made from lemons, orangeade from oranges, and limeade from limes, that Gatorade is made from squeezing the juice out of alligators, and they'll probably believe you. The kid doesn't know that Phil's been buying the gifts all the time.

But what about Phil? What the fuck does Phil think when his kid suddenly has gifts all these years that he never bought and never placed under the tree? Did Phil, every single year, just think to himself that he must have completely forgotten buying all those toys, wrapping them, putting them out there when he was decorating, and so forth? What about every other person in the world? All of those people have been getting gifts from Santa for years and it isn't common knowledge that Santa exists? EVERYBODY either thinks they've got amnesia and they never bring it up to anybody else they know, or they do and Phil has just been utterly oblivious to this fact of life for a few decades? That's beyond living under a rock.

The only way that this proof of Santa's existence doesn't become common knowledge is if there are no gifts every year that confuse the parents. If the parents never see any gifts that they didn't buy, then of course they would think Santa doesn't exist - because Santa never gives people any gifts to show any bit of existence. That's even more clear cut than the God/miracle thing as those are open to interpretation but you damn well know whether or not you had an extra physical item you unwrapped. Thus, if Santa isn't giving out any of these gifts, to anybody, ever...well, Santa's kind of a pointless douche, now isn't he? That would by default mean either everyone in the world was naughty and Santa figured "fuck it, no coal, that's too much work for negative reinforcement" or Santa just decided to be lazy and ignore all the good people.

Which one is it - do all of the parents in the entire world always neglect and turn a blind eye to these magical gifts that continually show up every year in Santa Claus fashion that they then deny fitting the Santa Claus description, or is Santa not doing his job and therefore, these kids shouldn't be so excited about him existing in the first place because he's a dick?

See...this is why I watch Home Alone every year instead.

Not pictured: Tim Allen

10 Types of People I Hate Bumping Into in Public

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 14:15:00 +0000

The holidays are upon us and that means a lot of us will be spending much more time out in stores. While thinking about this, I was thinking about all the types of people that are going to be increasingly difficult to avoid within the next few months...

1. The Talkative Co-Shopper

You're going through the aisles at a store, looking for the items on your list, and this person is next to you. Etiquette should be as simple as not smacking your carts into each other, but this person feels they need to go the extra mile. Apparently, we're buddies simply because we both want cereal. You're getting some Corn Pops too?! Hello new best friend! Look at us, we're two peas - we both wear shirts, we both shop at a place that sells shirts, and we're both doing it right now! We certainly have a lot in common! This person just strikes up a conversation right in the middle of it, as if we've been chit-chatting for the whole afternoon. It's never anything interesting, either. It's always some stupid line about how they've been looking for something that they couldn't find until right now (problem solved, why are you telling me?) or how their kid or husband or friend loves [insert product here]. Extra points are awarded to the old people that feel the need to inform you about their medical problems just because you're buying some cough drops. I'm someone that doesn't mind striking up a conversation with a stranger - but only in certain circumstances. If we're both in line to see the same movie, I might strike up a conversation with you asking what your expectations are for it. If you see me buy something that you're inquisitive about (such as "have you ever tried that before, is it good?"), then by all means, ask away. But just because we're both in the chips aisle and standing next to each other doesn't mean I came over to be your friend...I came over because I want some Cheetos.

2. The Oblivious Mom

I get it, your kids are a pain in the ass and if there wasn't a stigma attached to it, you'd probably dump them in a heartbeat. They're still your responsibility and no one else's. These mothers walk aimlessly around while their attention-starved delinquents run, stomp, make noise, and start screwing things up for the rest of us. Still, the mother doesn't budge. It's as if she doesn't even notice her kids are doing this. Sometimes, that's because she actually doesn't - it's become commonplace and it no longer registers in her mind as something but the norm. Sometimes, she just doesn't give a shit and it's easier to let the kids busy themselves and annoy you than for the kids to annoy Mom. It's a bit similar to when a fat person reaches that tipping point where they stop kidding themselves and they just start buying big, stretchy clothing. Sure, you're taking up more space, making it more likely you'll ruin any furniture you sit on (and trust me, you'll be sitting a lot), and you're an eyesore, but meh, you're more comfortable just accepting your burdens. These mothers have hit the point where they feel they're no longer responsible for parenting their kids. Instead, they're just chaperones to hellions that have to stick around them and all they need to do is make sure they don't get killed. Basically, they're like those levels in video games where you have to protect some pathetic AI character from being shot.

3. The Overly Pushy Helper

I appreciate you asking if I need help, even though I know the chances that you legitimately care if I need help or not is really slim. More than likely, your boss has just told you that you need to ask every customer you see if they need help, but that's moot. Either way, once I tell you that I'm fine on my own, you should take the hint and leave. Don't start riddling me with questions about why I need what I'm buying or if I know what I'm purchasing. If I required some assistance, I wouldn't have kindly told you to buzz off, right? If I do need some help later on, I know where to find you - or any of your other coworkers. In the mean time, I'd like you to stop following me around and let me shop in peace. For a commission job, it goes with the territory as you know these guys clearly just want to hang around you and get your sale - which is understandable and has to be done - but nothing is more bothersome than someone who is up your ass the whole time you're trying to make a decision. Sometimes, I'd rather walk around and think in my own head instead of having you spit a bunch of numbers out at me that mean nothing. It irks me to know that you're just looking at me as a big paycheck. I'm more likely to want to give that sale to someone who wasn't trying to pressure me into buying something simply because they had the decency to follow my suggestion of not needing any help instead of trying to convince me that I was too dumb to do it on my own and MUST be in need of some assistance.

4. The Casual Acquaintance

Yes, I know you, and we may talk at a party for a few minutes here or there, but I'm not that interested in catching up while I'm in the middle of doing something. I came here for a purpose and it wasn't to scout for old classmates to reminisce with. Sure, it's nice to see you (probably), but if we're dedicated to figuring out what we're both up to these days, let's get together and have lunch or something instead and show some real intention and motivation. Everything is awkward about this situation. How long do you spend talking without being rude? What do you talk about? Do you have to bother saying that you'll get together sometime knowing full well that it sure as hell won't happen? Do you acknowledge that if both of you really gave a shit about each other, you would see each other often enough to not have to do this in the first place? Chances are, you're just going to tell me what school you're going to and what job you're working at, and I highly doubt that I care about that small talk. This situation is even worse if you don't exactly remember who the person is, but they clearly remember you. Now, you have to somehow get out of the conversation while dancing around specifics (including their name, hence the "hey man, what's up pal, see you later guy" wording) and do it all in a way that doesn't seem rude. Way too much work in comparison to just ignoring that I saw you.

5. The Advertiser

I don't want your flyer - if you give it to me, I'm just going to end up throwing it away. I don't want to take a survey - I have shit to do. Please don't try to guilt trip me into paying donations to something that I have never heard of before - particularly if your organization skims money off the top (and believe me, if I had the money, I'd be donating to charities, my issue isn't with the idea of charity itself). No, I don't want your fucking overpriced candy and cookies - I'm in the process of going to the store to buy some much cheaper versions of your same product which taste exactly the same, if not better, and come more to a pack. I'm not interested in watching a presentation about your new product that I'm not here to buy. Mall kiosks are horrible for this sort of thing, especially if they're trying to shill some sort of hand lotion or perfume or something. I'm a guy - you're not going to convince me to buy some fingernail exfoliating thing. I bite my nails, I don't put nail polish on them, and no matter how desperate you seem to be to convince me that it'll do wonders that you're literally pleading with me to listen, I still won't care. Go target the people that might actually listen, not the 20-something straight guy.

6. Pretty Much Anybody in Line

If you're in front of me and taking too long, that's annoying. If you're behind me and bitching about how the people in front of us are taking too long, that's annoying. Hell, if you're ringing me up and you're going through the mandatory crap you're required to say (like asking me to sign up for a credit card I don't need), that's annoying. I don't even want to be in this line to give you my money in the first place, but I need to own this stuff and you won't let me leave without paying.

7. The Dawdler

This is more so people I'm with as opposed to people I bump into. If I'm going to a store, I'm going with intent to buy something in particular - not just to shop around for the experience of shopping. I don't find it fun to try on clothes that I'm not going to buy or look at electronics that I don't have the money for. Some people find this activity enthralling and want to just spend as much time out window shopping and looking at useless crap they have no plan on purchasing for as long as possible. I, on the other hand, would much rather someone else deliver it to me for free and not have to waste my time once I know what I want. Figure out what you need, go to the store that sells it, go to that department, grab the item, go to the line, pay for it, leave. The end. I don't want to look in aisles that don't apply to me. If you don't have a pet, why are you looking in pet supplies? Interesting deal, they've got cat food 10% off...who gives a shit if you don't have a cat? An extension of this is when I'm stuck behind someone walking in an aisle that is moving as slowly as they possibly could be without coming to a full stop. You might not be in a hurry, but do you really need to block everyone else who might be?

8. The Parking Lot Patrons

Nearly everyone in a parking lot is a complete idiot and I'm pretty sure that I myself have fallen into this category multiple times as well. There's the guy that doesn't know if he's coming or going, so he'll just sit there with his lights on for 2 minutes while you camp out for his spot doing nothing. There's the woman who camps out for those spots for 5 minutes and will refuse to just move on in search for a new spot, even if there are multiple ones open that aren't too much further away. There's the oblivious people that walk right in front of your car and then look at you as if you came out of nowhere and they were just lucky enough to dodge your attempted vehicular manslaughter. What about the people that leave a shopping cart inside of a parking spot, so you have to get out to move it before you can pull in? Or that jerk that parks just far enough over the line that you can't park in that perfect spot?

9. The Person I Keep Passing By

By the third time I walk by the same person, I start to feel awkward. Are these people following me? Do they think I'm following them? Why are we coincidentally both looking for Ritz crackers, earphones, and belts? While I never feel awkward enough to become one of those people that feels the need to talk to them just because of this (see #1), it does get weird and it seems like something needs to be done. Extra points if you then do that thing where you're facing each other, walking down the aisle, and you both try to step around the other person but go the same way and nearly smack into each other. From then on in, you've both become near-collision buddies to the other person and you certainly are wary of how they keep popping up near you.

10. The Beggar

Thankfully, I live in an area that doesn't have homeless people hanging out in front of stores or walking around the mall. For those areas that do, I'm sure you know much more than I would about how annoying this could get. There's the issue of wanting to help but not being able to, and feeling like no matter how you could put it, you'd just look like an insensitive jerk in the process by turning them down, or there's just the cutoff where you don't give a shit and don't want to help but they still would be approaching you anyway. Instead of the homeless issue, the other ones are the situations I come across more often. For instance, my friend and I used to be complete mallrats when we were teenagers and we were asked more than you'd think to just give people money. This was in an era where cell phones weren't anywhere near as common as they are now (back in the old early 2000s, my my how time flies) so people would ask for change for the pay phones usually. Some people just thought they were entitled to get money from you. These people usually looked like they were the type that weren't smart enough to count their money properly in the first place. The Beggar also includes the person that asks you to bum a cigarette or if you have a light. This has been particularly confusing for me as I don't smoke, never have, never will, and yet I've still been told by people that I'm lying and that I have cigarettes that I'm just not willing to give to them for free (again, as if they're entitled to it). The only type of 'beggar' scenario I can think of that I find perfectly acceptable is if you're asking me if I have the time. Granted, in 2011, you pretty much should have a phone or a watch, or be able to find one of the thousand of other clocks all over the place as nearly everything is also a clock and an mp3 player now, but I still wouldn't mind someone asking me that.

So who am I forgetting about? Leave your comments below.

5 Reasons Why I Don't Like Thanksgiving

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:30:00 +0000

Thanksgiving is one of my least favorites of the major holidays. Why is that, exactly?

1. The Meal
I know, you might be thinking I'm crazy, as it's so popular. However, I'm not a fan of it. I'd rather have chicken than turkey, I'd rather have a baked potato than mashed potatoes, I don't like sweet potatoes/yams, nor do I like cranberry sauce. Most people are such avid fans of it that they look forward even to the leftovers. I, on the other hand, would much rather order a pizza. I like to see other people enjoying the meal - and if you like the food, you LOVE Thanksgiving - but when the holiday pretty much revolves around this as the focal point, if you're not a fan of it, the holiday just tanks.

2. Pilgrims & Indians
I could not care less about this portion of history. Sure, it's important. I'm not arguing against that. I just find it incredibly uninteresting and I always have, even as a kid. Both pilgrims and Indians look like fools. Plus, it isn't as if the story ever changes. It's just the same thing: bunch of people got together, ate some shit out of a horn, then systematically turned on each other and basically made the Native Americans an endangered race and the pilgrims eventually went on to do nonsense like the Salem Witch Trials. Nice job, idiots. Maybe you'd be able to think more clearly if you didn't have goddamn belt buckles on your heads.

3. Transitional Holiday
Thanksgiving is basically overshadowed. People are just getting off from Halloween and so much of the decoration has the same kind of feel to it, plus the weather hasn't quite changed yet, so it's almost as if it's just an extension. Thanksgiving becomes the "other half" of Halloween that you don't see. Since Halloween has no built-in dinner with family and Thanksgiving has no fun activities, they're about 50/50 (except Halloween has the ceremonial eating of candy). But even more so, Thanksgiving is overshadowed by Christmas. Very soon after Halloween, stores are removing their costumes and decorations and replacing them with Christmas gear. They're also playing Christmas music on the radio. Within hours after Thanksgiving has ended, people are doing Christmas shopping with Black Friday. Basically, Thanksgiving doesn't have enough to stand on its own. It's just a stepping stone between two better holidays.

4. The Message
I previously wrote in an older entry about how hypocritical the holiday message is. Give thanks for what you have, then after you say grace, stuff your face like a glutton.

5. The Hand-Turkey Drawings

Pitiful. Now go eat your mascot.

Memorandom: Yelling at the TV Screen

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:30:00 +0000

Here's a hint: when you yell at the television screen, the people inside of it can't hear you.

They're not interacting live with everyone's living room.

Sports teams will not hear your advice.

"Watch out!" will fall on deaf ears while watching a horror film.

Do you yell at books when you're reading them too?

You're stupid.

Why Should I Be Tipping 15-20%? Percent Over Service?

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:56:00 +0000

I have never understood the reasoning behind tipping a percentage based on the bill. It makes no sense in my mind.

Before we get started, let me clarify one thing that people are automatically thinking. No, I'm not against tipping in general. We all know that if a server is being paid less than minimum wage because of some predetermined estimation of their tips, then they need tips to survive on. I'm perfectly fine with that...even though I think it makes more sense to just make it a minimum wage job standardized and not have to bother with the tips.

What confuses me, though, is this concept that I should automatically tip you a percentage of the bill that I have, as opposed to tipping for your service. Your job is to take my order, check if I need anything, and give me my food, correct? Thus, I'm paying you for that service, not for the quality of the food, the cooking of the food, or anything in relation to that. If you do shit service, why should you be compensated as if you did an average job just because I have a bigger bill? Equally, if you do really good service, why should you be penalized just because I have a smaller bill?

Say I order a steak for $20 and a waiter brings out one plate. Another person, sitting at another table, orders a complicated but cheap breakfast for $10 that has 5 plates to it. Why should my waiter be paid more money than the other one for doing less work, just because my meal was more expensive? Would you pay a mechanic more money for labor if he spent 30 minutes installing a $2000 car part than if he spent 3 hours working on the car to fix something that only costs you $50? No!

I've never once gone out to eat at a restaurant and skipped out on tipping the waiter/waitress...even the ones that were complete assholes and didn't deserve anything. The lowest I've personally given was a dollar, and frankly, she didn't deserve that, considering she received a dollar from each person in my large group and treated us like a bitch the entire time. How does someone get offended when you order orange juice at 8 in the morning on a week day by saying "I'll have a large orange juice"? This same waitress flipped out at a friend of mine for asking if she needed any help with the distribution of the plates (of which there were many). The last thing she deserved was to get rewarded for my big breakfast.

So really, I'd like to hear a good argument for why I should pay more to a bad server just because I ordered a more expensive meal, and why I should pay less to a good server just because I ordered a glass of free water.

Violins are for the birds

5 Reasons I Suck At Gambling

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:21:00 +0000

I'm the first person to admit that when I have zero skill in something. Thus, here's an examination of one of the things I'm terrible at: gambling.

1. I'm a money-saver
For as long as I can remember, I've never been someone to really spend my money. Sure, if someone dropped a million dollars on my lap right now and told me it was mine, I already have a game plan set up for just exactly what I'd buy (and trust me, it's complicated and well thought out). However, since that has never happened to me, I save my money and I'm very frugal. When it comes to gambling, the first hump I'd have to get over would be spending the money in the first place. It's essential. You have to spend money in order to make it. To be fair, though, I disagree completely with Ben Franklin's "a penny saved is a penny earned" phrase. I don't see any extra $20 bills in my wallet from the ones I haven't spent. [You could argue that you earn through interest with banks, but the rates are so low it only really applies to people with a lot of money, and they can afford not to pay attention to those interest rates. Fuck you Ben Franklin.]

2. I overthink and second-guess myself
Remember how in the above part I said that I have a plan just in case someone gave me a million dollars? This is detrimental to my gambling abilities because I don't like to just trust my instincts on things. Once you figure out what you think is the right answer, you can't keep thinking of the alternatives. It's just like me to bet on red for 12 turns, see it come up black all 12 times, and consider switching to black instead of keeping it on red for probability's sake. That little doozy has hurt me in more ways than I can remember when it comes to gambling.

3. I'm too cautious
For many people, the sheer act of gambling is worth the money you're gambling with in the first place. In fact, I'd say most of the people I've asked in my life have said that if they went to a casino and lost all of the money they had gone there with, as long as they had fun, it was worth it. I, on the other hand, don't feel that way. I'm not a risk taker. I like to plot my moves out ahead of time and prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and expect something somewhere in the middle. To me, if I were to go to a casino with $100 in my wallet, gamble the entire night, and walk out with $110, I won, but if I walk out with $90, I lost and now I have to figure out where I'm going to make that 10 bucks back. It's a thrill ride when you put your money in a slot machine and you wait to see if you've hit the jackpot, but while for most people the thrill is of anticipation of the win, my mindset is more of an anxiety hoping that my coin lands heads-up.

4. I take losing very hard
I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm a sore loser, but I know full well that I'm not someone who can take a punch and then go about my day. If something bad happens, I dwell on it for a long time. If I say or do something stupid, I beat myself up about it and I haunt myself with it. Some other people are able to eat a loss, grit their teeth, and then brush it off and move on. If you're gambling and you lose a couple hands of blackjack, you might think to yourself that it sucks but "the next hand, I'm going to make it all back". I typically run to the thought of hating the fact that I lost those previous hands and trying to figure out what went wrong, how I can correct it in the future (overthinking again) and then my day is ruined.

5. I'm too nice
It may seem otherwise, but I'm actually a really nice guy. This is a huge downfall when it comes to a game like poker where you're looking out for yourself and screwing everyone else over. If you were to ask me what I'd rather do, be the sole winner out of a poker table and be able to gloat about it or make it so everyone wins the same amount of money, I'd rather everyone win. Now, of course, it's a different story if you're asking if I'd like to split the money I've won on my own with other people. Sorry, not going to happen. But I don't like to haggle with salesmen because I know that, even though I want to get the lowest price possible, I also don't want to screw them out of their commission that they worked for. I'm not saying you need to be MEAN to gamble, nor am I saying that nice people can't win money (especially since slot machines and roulette wheels are, you know, inanimate objects and you can't hurt their feelings - unless they're in a Disney movie and anthropomorphic...I digress) but if you're worrying about the person next to you and whether they look like they deserve to win some money as opposed to whether they have a better hand of cards than you do, there goes your poker face. Please insert your Lady Gaga joke here.

So there you have it, an explanation of why I'm terrible at gambling. If you can avoid these pitfalls and you have a lot of help from Lady Luck on your side, then by all means, hit up http://hu.partypoker.com/ and go for it. If you find yourself in the same position that I'm in, on the losing side, maybe we can start a club together...but you're paying.

Nobody Sings the National Anthem Properly

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:00:00 +0000

Considering the date, I had a bit of a dilemma. How do I write something about September 11th and/or America that isn't patronizing and lame but also doesn't cross the line into rude and offensive? The last thing I would want to do is write some trite "remember 9/11" thing like everyone seems to do just because it's the popular thing as opposed to actually feeling something about it. On the other hand, despite how some people think otherwise, the purpose of Out on Limbs is NOT to piss you off - it's to make you think - so I wouldn't want to put something out there that would seem as if I'm making light of the attacks or that I'm insensitive to the lives that were lost. If I can't even write a post about how I'm not a fan of Elvis without people going psycho on me, I certainly can't talk about the struggling American spirit without people wrongly thinking I'm anti-USA. Eventually, a topic came to my mind that I think can work...

Why is it that nobody sings the National Anthem properly anymore?

Now, you might be able to argue that since each version of it is a cover, and you could technically do anything with YOUR cover of a song, that there’s no “proper” way to sing the National Anthem (or any song for that matter). I beg to differ, though, on the principle that with other songs, if you alter the lyrics, it’s acceptable, but if you were to change the lyrics of the Star Spangled Banner, I’m sure there would be an outrage.

What bothers me is how everyone goes crazy with their rendition as if just to draw attention to themselves. The most important thing isn't that YOU are singing it, it's that you are singing the National Anthem, is it not? Otherwise, if the purpose was to get that specific singer and nothing else, then why would they always sing the National Anthem instead of just any kind of a song? I understand that if you're a singer, you want to show off your skills, but that in itself is questionable in my mind. Is it really showing off talent if you're doing those ridiculous trills and you sound like some wannabe diva that is trying too hard? Having a singer twist it all around for the sake of showing off is selfish and it removes integrity from the song because it means that they think it's more important for themselves to seem flamboyant than to present the song in its best way. You're not singing at an American Idol competition. [Sidebar: When is that fucking show going to end already?]

Some songs just are what they are, and if you do too much vibrato or screw with the tempo or anything, it just ruins it. If I want to hear Bohemian Rhapsody, I want to hear Bohemian Rhapsody, not a song that has a bunch of filler mumbling just to seem fancy. That's one of my criticisms of a lot of hip hop and rap music - that they add nonsense words and phrases into it for no reason. Can Pitbull go a full song without saying "dali"? Can someone sing the National Anthem where they just sing it as its written as opposed to throwing in a lot of pauses and trying their best to SHOUT the lyrics?

Agree or disagree? Are you a fan of all the extra stuff people throw into singing the Star Spangled Banner, or do you side with me in thinking they should stick to the formula?

The original lyrics as written by Francis Scott Key

Naked & Shy with Underwear vs Bikini Swimsuits

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:30:00 +0000

Why is it that people are shy when it comes to someone seeing them in their underwear yet they have no problem with people seeing them in their bathing suit? This is yet another example of something that people do that makes NO sense to me.

Take note that I'm not talking about the people that are embarrassed about their bodies and don't want people to see them in either...that makes sense. I'm also not talking about see-through lingerie (but you clearly did buy that for someone else to look at anyway), nor am I talking about you having holes or stains or just flat out ugly attire that you don't want people to see. What I am talking about is situations like this:

Thank you, Google Image Search, in more ways than one ;)

Is she wearing a bikini or is that a bra and a pair of panties? Does it fucking matter? It's the same thing!

If you're showing off the same amount of skin, why is one considered not a big deal but the other one is shameful and you have reservations about it?

This goes for guys too. Some guys would be apprehensive to let someone see them in their boxers/briefs/whatever but have no qualms about walking around in broad daylight in their bathing suit trunks. Again, you're showing off the same amount of skin, so what's the problem? Then there's the speedo, in which case you're covering LESS, so that throws everything out the window.

I'll tell you why people do this: people have convinced themselves that underwear is "secretive" and thus, needs to be concealed, and if someone can see them in their underwear, they're "exposed". They don't think rationally that they're just as equally exposed when they go swimming.

There are situations where you'd be embarrassed to have someone even see you in a bathing suit, so you'd equally be embarrassed about the underwear scenario. For instance, nobody bats an eye if you're in a bikini at the beach. Those same people would be confused as hell if you were in a bikini at a funeral or giving a conference speech. If you're frequently finding yourself in these environments with either your bathing suit OR just your underwear on, then you've got far bigger problems than just feeling naked!

If you're the type of person that thinks this way, please, leave a comment below and explain to me how two identical types of clothing that show the same amount of skin aren't equal in terms of nudity.

You Died from Drugs, Not Demons

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:47:00 +0000

With the recent death of Amy Winehouse people are constantly repeating a phrase that irks me: that someone who died from drug abuse was "haunted by demons".

I'm so sick of people trying to lessen the blow of people that overdose or otherwise die from drug abuse. You knew exactly what you were getting into as you were told time and time again for years about how drugs are bad, yet you made the choice to do them anyway. No, you can't blame a hard life leading you to drugs as that doesn't fix anything and that means that you were just too weak and stupid and decided to make your life worse. You had all the information you needed to make the choice and yet you decided to take the risk and now you're dead. The only reason you're dead is because you fucked up and did something that you knew was wrong and you died because of it, just the same as if I were to jump out of an airplane without a parachute and die on impact.

But for some reason, this politically correct overly sensitive world we live in gets so butt-hurt when it comes to issues like this and everyone starts trying to twist things to sound better. One of these ridiculous things people have decided to do is say that someone who died from drugs didn't "die like they knew they were taking the risk of doing", no, they "lost their battle with their demons". Excuse me? Succumbed to fucking DEMONS?

Look, I know you're trying to be metaphorical and try to make it out like it's something that it isn't just so you feel better about yourselves but that's not the way to go about things. People go to drugs because of problems, yes, but give me a fucking break. You people make this out to be like these drug addicts were possessed and mind-controlled into doing drugs without their choice and they simply lost some valiant battle that they struggled with, as if they're some fucking superhero that died trying to save a burning building filled with children and puppies. These people are messed up for whatever reason and decided that instead of seeking help, they'd just turn to an option that they knew 100% was not healthy and could potentially lead to death. Then they weren't lucky enough to scoot by and be overlooked by the statistics and they died - because of the deadly shit they were putting in their bodies. THAT'S IT. You might say that they were "out of control" because they didn't have the mental fortitude to NOT fall into drugs, but you're just enabling the other people out there. Unless you live under a rock, you know drugs are bad and not to get into them in the first place and even if you're stupid enough to go "meh, it won't hurt me", you know that there are rehab facilities and other methods of treatment that you shouldn't be ignoring. After that, you're on your own buddy.

So you want to argue that if someone doesn't have the right state of mind to have the willpower and intelligence to stay away from drugs or accept treatment, that they're falling victim to some "demons" that control them? Then think of it the following way: If someone's told for 15 years that you could potentially be killed if you shoot yourself in the head or at the very least, nothing positive can come from it, and then that person goes ahead and does it and they die, are you going to say that that person just "fell victim to some demons that controlled their mind and prevented them from knowing better" or are you going to say "Jesus Christ, that person was a fucking idiot that knew the risk and they got exactly what they should have known was coming"?

Drugs are bad. You know this. Everyone knows this. Everyone has known this since they were in elementary school. Yet if you still decide to ignore all that information and go ahead and do it, then it doesn't matter what your excuse is, you got what you deserved. This is exactly the same as the person who has no right to complain about gaining weight when they eat nothing but unhealthy fatty foods and don't exercise. This is exactly the same as the person who is allergic to cats and decides to own a cat and now bitches and complains about their allergies bothering them. Mental disorders are tough to kick, I understand that, but there's a difference between trying to diagnose whether or not you need help for depression or schizophrenia and whether or not you need help with drugs - the drugs are something you can flat out see and you know for a fact you're doing, and if you're using ANY drugs, you've got some sort of issues you need help with. If you choose to get into that mess in the first place and then you choose to ignore any kind of help, then you no longer have a chemical imbalance in your brain to blame it all on. Take responsibility, because it is YOUR fault, and you've gone from a person with emotional problems to just someone who is being foolish and careless.

They tried to make her go to rehab but she said no, no no...and now she's dead, because that's what fucking happens.

If you or someone you know is in need of help, there are numerous drug detox program options available to you that can put you on the right track. And in case you're wondering, none of them require an exorcism.

Big Brother 13 Cast First Impressions

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 03:30:00 +0000

Even though this blog isn't primarily an entertainment industry kind of site, it IS an opinion one. Seeing as how I try to incorporate reviews (opinions) and social commentary (opinions), Big Brother is the type of show I love to watch (seeing as how it's a big social experiment). Plus, since I've done this before on this site, I might as well do it again, so here are my first impressions for the 13th season of Big Brother.

First off...goddamn, 13 seasons?

So let's take a look at the twists. First off, there's the duos. I'm not exactly as shocked about that as some other people are, considering we've seen people compete as a team in a previous season. The same goes for bringing back former house guests. Now, what does interest me is their new eviction rules with this "golden key" scenario. What happens if someone wins POV? Can they take their whole duo down or just one person? If so, then what happens?

Time to rundown the house guests. WARNING: My opinions generally change for 75% of the people after the first week or so, so don't hold me to these as if they're my only viewpoints that will remain immobile. That's part of the fun, though, getting to know these people over the summer and finding out that some jerks are decent and some seemingly cool people are total assholes.

THE NEW:

Adam
Adam seems okay to me. I wouldn't peg him as a real threat in the game quite yet but he might have some potential.
GAME FORECAST: He'll be eliminated as a casualty when they're targeting someone else that week.

Cassi
Cassi is hot. I'll be paying quite a bit of attention to her ;) Thankfully she doesn't seem like a typical "sexy bimbo" combination, so I might not end up hating her, as I can't tolerate those types of people. If she stays the way she's been in this first episode, I hope she stays a long time.
GAME FORECAST: Cassi will get into an argument with someone that will throw her for a loop and cause her to lose control of her game and it will unravel because of that. What do I have to back this theory up? Nothing, just a random guess.

Dominic
No problems with Dominic, though he might get a little too cocky. His best bet is to strike an alliance with some women as he'll definitely be sought after by the guys, so he can have both sides in his pocket.
GAME FORECAST: Dominic could be the "strong physical competitor" target throughout the game and that's something that will be difficult to shake off.

Kalia
Kalia is annoying me. She seems to think of herself as the life of the party and someone that deserves a ton of attention but I can't see why as it doesn't seem like she's entitled to it. I hope she proves me wrong, or gets knocked out soon.
GAME FORECAST: Kalia will definitely get into arguments and develop a bitchy attitude towards certain people that she'll target above all others. She'll be so focused that she'll paint a huge target on her back and everyone she's aligned with well be more than welcome to let her take all the heat.

Keith
Poor Keith. Poor, poor Keith. You're going to get eaten alive by the women in this house. You're going to think with your penis, try too hard to flirt and value that over anything else, and in the end it will bite you in the ass. You'll try to play it smooth and it won't work.
GAME FORECAST: No chance.

Lawon
Lawon hasn't shown much in terms of competition but he could easily be someone that is flamboyant enough for people to notice, but not threatening enough to stay under the radar and then come out swinging. He could be someone to watch out for.
GAME FORECAST: Fight with Kalia is eventual. Team up with Jordan may happen.

Porsche
The time I won't be inspecting Cassi, I'll be checking out Porsche. What can I say, I'm a guy, and she's hot too. Porsche is going to be much better on her own than with a partner I think, and I can definitely see her getting into an alliance with someone like Cassi but then stabbing her in the back.
GAME FORECAST: Eliminated around the 60% point of the season.

Shelly
I hope Shelly doesn't take it easy and fall back on the "frail old woman can't win challenges so let's keep her around" strategy that others have done in the past. Shelly doesn't seem annoying, though, so I wouldn't mind her sticking around and actually giving it a good fight.
GAME FORECAST: Shelly will probably last a while through the typical pity of bad in challenges and accompanied alliances with the women that view her as a motherly figure.

THE OLD:

Jeff & Jordan
I don't know why everyone was so in love with these two. I wasn't. Therefore, I won't mind to see them leave.
GAME FORECAST: Jordan will probably stay around a long time again due to how bad she is at competitions and how she isn't a threat, and Jeff will have a target on his back.

Dick & Daniele
Dick is one of my 3 favorite players of all time, so I'm incredibly excited to see him again and naturally, I'm rooting for him to win. He doesn't need it, but hell, he's cool. Daniele I'm not as fond of so I won't mind to see her go but not before some others. Here's hoping Dick stays until the finals, if not just for some more episodes of the Dick At Night Show.
GAME FORECAST: They'll get screwed over and Dick will be eliminated as he's the bigger threat. Daniele will make it until about the 75% point and get knocked out.

Brendon & Rachel
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Goddamn, I swear, Rachel is my least favorite person ever in the history of this show and I could not stand these two. That isn't in a "I love to hate them" way. That's in a "I guess I'm not watching as often" way. I seriously find her irritating beyond belief. Even worse, the fact that she won the first HOH means I need to definitely withstand 2 weeks of her. This will not do. I can only hope that she's gone very, very fast....like the second week....or else I'll conveniently have other things to do instead of watching as often. Brendon is much more tolerable but I want to see him gone too.
GAME FORECAST: Unfortunately I won't get my wish and they'll both probably stay here as long as possible, which will irk the fuck out of me.

Why couldn't there have been Will and Boogie, or Dan and Memphis, or Eric and America, or shit, ANYBODY but Brendon and Rachel? Damn you, Big Brother!

WINNER PREDICTION: It's a real shot in the dark, but I'm going to pick Dominic. I think he'll be able to forge alliances with people and keep himself off the block with POV wins and then earn the votes by being the one who competed more.

Jackass Star Ryan Dunn Dies in Car Crash

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:36:00 +0000

Apparently, Ryan Dunn, star of the TV and film series Jackass has been killed in a car crash along with his passenger.

My first comment is that that sucks, as I'm a fan of the show and I never had a reason to dislike Ryan Dunn personally (especially since I've never met the guy). Any time someone dies, on top of if they've done work that you enjoy, it's always a bummer.

Then, of course, comes the other part. Knowing the show, you've got to assume it wasn't some random chance thing. These guys are stuntmen and risk takers that have cheated death dozens upon dozens of times and owe more than a little to pure blind luck. It wouldn't be shocking at all to me to hear that Dunn was speeding and trying to play daredevil when it happened. This next piece of information didn't shock me at all, either:

Sources say that he was heavily drinking before the accident and tweeted this picture, leading to the assumption that this is all the byproduct of drunk driving.

In such a situation, all my pity is drained from Dunn himself. For the passenger and for Dunn's family and friends, my condolences go out to them, of course, as losing someone is difficult. However, for Ryan Dunn, if he was indeed killed as a result of his own drunk driving, the pity train stops before picking him up. Anybody who has read my previous entries knows that I'm against drugs and alcohol and if you have any negative consequences that come out of it, you knew what you were getting yourself into when you signed up, as they're not only easily avoidable and COMPLETELY a choice but they're a choice that you're told has no positive outcome since you're a child, so you can't even use the excuse nowadays that they had back decades ago where they can say that they didn't know how harmful the substances were. A drug addict overdoses - they shouldn't have taken the first hit of the drug in the first place. An alcoholic dies from alcohol poisoning - they didn't need to drink to begin with. Ryan Dunn, if he in fact did die as a result of drunk driving, knew exactly what he was getting into both when he was drinking and when he decided to drive afterward. It's just a shame that he had to make that mistake, particularly when it comes to what happened to the passenger.

Now, if this is not true, and Dunn was killed in some other fashion and was not inebriated in some way, then by proxy I don't blame him. Hell, there's even people claiming that this is all yet another Jackass stunt - though to be fair, I don't really buy into that and I'll believe it when I see it. I'd love for that to be the real story here in that they'd pull off something like that and the joke would be on us, not only because it would mean that two people didn't die from a car accident but also that they pushed the boundaries of celebrity news reporting, but I wouldn't hold out hope for that to be true.

Anything new I hear about this that is noteworthy I'll update this post with.

Remember, if you or anyone you know is in need of help for drug/alcohol/whatever addiction, there are resources you can go to and check out that get things sorted out for you. The staff of a drug and alcohol treatment center can try its best to help people who seem bent on following a self-destructive path. Listen to the warnings before Jackass - don't try this stuff on your own...or, well, you see what happens.

Did You Survive the May 21, 2011 Apocalypse?

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Sat, 21 May 2011 22:43:00 +0000

Of course you did.

The problem here is blind devotion. It doesn't JUST happen with religion, but religion seems to be the biggest mass attractor to this type of following. Step one, some guy named Harold Camping interprets the Bible in a way that makes him think that May 21, 2011 is the Rapture. He already has no proof that the Bible is definitive, but believes in it. [Note: I'm not trying to say that the Bible is 100% wrong...just that without proof, you shouldn't believe in it 100%, just as you shouldn't completely count it out if you haven't disproved it yet] He then believes, without proof, that his interpretation is correct. We all fuck up when interpreting shit. I used to think for YEARS that the lyrics of "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" were "Papa's Got a Brand New Back". I was wrong. But Harry there believes in his interpretation and lets everyone know. Admirable in the sense that if he were right, he at least warned us. I'm not knocking him there. But I am knocking the people that went "OMG, some dude thinks the world is going to end....AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!"

The International Business Times is reporting that Camping might have even gone into hiding out of embarrassment from this, because, well, you know...falsely predicting the apocalypse is bad business. Why not man-up and admit that you were wrong? Everyone already knows it. You're not hiding anything. It reminds me of elementary school when you would see that a kid pissed himself and he'd try to blame it on the toilet water splashing up and soaking his pants - something none of us have ever seen yet it apparently happened this one poor kid like once a month and conveniently only ever wet his pants and nothing else. When you put yourself out there and it's obvious that you're wrong, just admit it. You're not saving face by lying. In fact, you're losing your credibility even more so, cause now not only are you WRONG but you are also a liar on top of it. Camping hiding isn't the same as lying, but we'll see what happens when it comes to that, especially considering how I've come across articles recently that said some believers of this apocalypse would stick to the date no matter what, even if it passed. "So, Harold, remember that apocalypse yesterday that didn't happen?" / "Yes it did. You just blinked."

Believe in whatever religion you want, or DON'T believe in whatever religion you want, but just be smart enough to realize that you should never dive into anything without testing the waters. Countless numbers of people have tried to predict the End of Days in the past and the track record isn't exactly good for them, so what made you think that this would be any different? Could it have been? Sure. But do you also panic every time you take a bite of food because you could potentially choke on it? You can't live your life like that - otherwise, there's no life to be taken away if/when the apocalypse would happen.

Aw, since this seems a little too sincere at the end there, I need to balance it with something rude:

Wait wait wait, that isn't funny enough. Here we go:

It is the dawning of the Age of Apocalypse!

Thor Movie Reviewpoint

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Fri, 06 May 2011 07:35:00 +0000

I've been a Comic Con type of guy my whole life, so I feel a sense of devotion to see the films and television shows associated with the products I'm aware and a fan of. Thor has always been one of those things that I considered a bit of a burden. Give me Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Superman, and many many others before you give me Thor. When they announced the whole Avengers concept, I was looking forward to it and despite my history of not being the biggest supporter of Thor, I obviously was hoping the character would be in it. When the movie was announced, I knew I'd see it no matter what, but figured I would have to just bite the bullet and spend 10 dollars on crap.

Thankfully, this was better than I expected. Once Kenneth Branagh was involved, I thought "this is going to be the best possible Thor movie...but it'll still suck" and ended up leaving with the thought that "that was probably the best possible Thor movie...and that was pretty good".

WARNING: SOME SPOILERS AHEAD.

STORY: Thor kind of lays between a Shakespearean play and a comic book film. You have your typical action sequences and such, but the core is predominantly about sibling rivalries, trying to please your parents, and growing up. You can basically remake this movie without the special effects and turn it into a drama about two immature teenagers and a family business. I think Branagh understood that and turned the volume up, giving it much more than just a "smash'em fiasco" that some superhero stories turn out to be. Nice job.

ACTING: I was surprised to see so many big (or relatively big) names attached to this film until it dawned upon me that they were all doing it for the chance to work with Branagh. Natalie Portman basically said that on repeat when asked why she did the film. It wasn't the idea of being in a comic book movie or that people loved the Thor character that drew them in, it was Branagh. It pays off as you can get quality actors that help promote the film and give it the sense of importance that it needs to stay relevant and pull it all off. Chris Hemsworth in my mind played Thor to a T (no pun intended but if you appreciate it, good for you) and I really have nothing bad to say about any other performances as well. Tom Hiddleston nails Loki. Anthony Hopkins nails Odin. Clark Gregg is once again charming as Agent Coulson. The reality of it may be that there are no Oscar performances, but everyone does their job well. One thing I found particularly interesting was just how little of Rene Russo we got to see, considering how many big name stars end up pushing for more scenes for themselves at the expense of the film. That would have been needless and they avoided doing that, so her role is very limited, but serves the purpose.

MUSIC: Even though I tried several times to take notice of the music, I honestly couldn't find anything that stood out. To me, this was one of the weak points of the film. There's no Thor Theme stuck in my head at the moment.

VISUALS: Visually speaking, I don't think you can really ask for more. The costumes, while elaborate and a bit silly looking at times, are from a different civilization and you get the feel that there's continuity amongst that (ie, everyone wears similar attire but different enough that you can see they all have their personal touches and that it would come from Asgardian culture). The special effects don't look cheap or unrealistic either. If I had one gripe about the visuals it would be that mostly all of the 3D elements were pointless. I don't see the need to have characters pop out in 3D effect unless it's something that would be exciting - not just two people having a conversation.

ENTERTAINMENT: Superhero films are almost always entertaining without fail. This is definitely a summer popcorn flick that kept me entertained the whole way through. It will probably get some criticism from people saying that there isn't enough action, but for me, it had enough to satisfy my needs and not overdo it.

NITPICKING/APPLAUDING:

1. I enjoyed the Donald Blake references.

2. No Enchantress?

3. Hawkeye....meh. Look, it's better to have Hawkeye than just Guard #3, but to me, there was nothing to get excited about. He was just Guard #3 with a bow.

4. Thank GOD they chose the more modern Thor outfit instead of the bright blue and whatnot.

REVIEWPOINT: HIT. It's no Batman Begins, or Spider-Man, or even Iron Man in my mind, but it exceeded my expectations and I don't feel as though the money I spent on the ticket was a waste. I may not ever buy it, but I'm very glad to have watched it.

Donald Trump & President Obama's Birth Certificate

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 19:21:00 +0000

President Obama called it a distraction and that's exactly what it is. First off, this whole 'Donald Trump running for office' thing is nothing but a publicity angle and if you don't see that, you should probably stop reading this article right now because you're more than likely too stupid to understand the big words I'm using like "nonsense". This whole Trump campaign is just orchestrated to get people talking about him in a higher sense so in the future, everyone can refer to him as being a potential candidate for the highest office in the country. Also, think about this: if you don't like the guy at all and you don't like anything he does (which it seems like most people are willing to admit) why would you buy into this and give him what he wants?

On top of that, the whole "birther movement" is beyond ridiculous. The same people that think the government is this damn near infallible Big Brother-esque power machine also think that Barack Obama was able to make it up to the fucking PRESIDENCY without proof of having been born here???? Jesus Christ, people, you have to pick one thing or the other. If you're willing to believe that you could get that deep into our country's infrastructure with fake records, you have to admit that our country is so incredibly inept that there's no chance at rebuilding our prestige and economy. Why? Because anybody that goes out for college grant money knows that the FAFSA isn't the only thing you need and it takes absolutely forever to go through all the paperwork and documentary proofs just to get a few bucks off your books each semester, and that's absolutely nothing in comparison to becoming President of the United States. If the colleges that don't know what they're doing are better at this than the fact-checkers for the Senate and so forth, we're doomed as a country. I bet many of you could be transported back in time to watch the birth and still not be convinced.

*On another note, yes, I voted for Obama and I supported his positions, but that doesn't make me a blind suck-up to him.

*And on another note, anybody that is bitching right now that the economy isn't fixed and thinks they wasted their vote on Obama in the first place must have been stupid enough to think that Obama's election process was enough to cure all the problems in a year or so instead of being realistic. Bush was the driver in the car, Obama is the passenger, and Bush drove it into oncoming traffic and jumped out at the last second, leaving Obama with the responsibility of jumping into the driver's seat and trying to navigate safely out of the interstate. Don't blame the problems that come with the job on the guy that just got the job - blame it on the guy who caused the problems in the first place.

Ina Garten Doesn't Make-A-Wish

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 23:39:00 +0000

Take Food Network celebrity chef Ina Garten, mix her with the Make-A-Wish Foundation, and add a little bad publicity and you have a recipe for disaster. I'll give you a second to digest that awesome pun...and this one.

Here's an easy question you should all know the answer to: you're the star of a cooking show and a terminally ill kid uses his Make-A-Wish opportunity to ask if he can meet you and have a cooking lesson...do you accept or decline?

Naturally, you accept....unless you're Ina Garten, of course. I'm not a fan of the Food Network as I'm not a fan of cooking, I'm a picky eater, and I don't find the shows to be particularly entertaining, especially when the star involved looks more like Roseanne Barr and isn't one of those hot ones like that Giada De Laurentiis or Rachel Ray or whatever. I have, however, seen one episode of this woman's show. I found it boring like the rest, but hey, some people like that, and I couldn't really criticize the woman herself because literally her whole persona was nothing but "I enjoy cooking and eating and it makes me happy". Well, now I can criticize her, as it's fucked up to turn down a Make-A-Wish offer.

She turns it down, then realizes it's a bad PR move, says she'll do it, and good for the family, they reject her and let everyone know about it. Obviously, that doesn't help the kid's health problems, but it does make sure that Garten doesn't get away with snubbing him. Unless there's some weird misunderstanding that happened (like she said she couldn't do a specific day and her manager said "she can't do that" and they took it as "no"), then it clearly is a case where she didn't want to do it, realized after the fact that it would look bad for her career, and then agreed to do it merely to try to save face, and that's one of the big issues here. Make-A-Wish and other charities aren't supposed to be about you granting the wish, they're supposed to be about the people getting it. Sure, you can donate money to charity and write it off for your taxes, which is good (and the absolute best motivator for people to do it) but the primary focus should always be on the cause itself. That's the reason the charity exists. If it were just a money laundering firm for rich people or simply an organization devoted to making celebrities look like nicer people then we wouldn't be talking about it, would we?

Look, it's a complicated relationship between fans and celebrities and sometimes, it gets a little confusing. I've always been of the opinion that both sides need to compromise for the opposite. For instance, if you're a celebrity and someone asks you for an autograph, if you're not busy, you should sign it. You won't remember that one person, but for the rest of their life, that person will remember meeting you and it could mean a lot. However, a fan shouldn't pester you if you're busy, and they should understand that sometimes, you're in a bad mood, sometimes you really DO have no time to sign autographs, and you really do want to just sit and eat your meal at a restaurant without being bothered. Celebrities naturally have to understand that they're in the public spotlight, but at the same time, the paparazzi is way too invasive to a ridiculous level. When it comes to issues like fame, things get tricky because you're dealing with always being "on" and not slipping up because you have to maintain a positive image (or, you know, start your whole career with a negative image like a sex tape and gaining fame through being a slut). It's stupid that celebrities can't be themselves and if they say one little controversial thing, suddenly they have to apologize for it even if they don't mean it, do a bunch of PR work and image enhancement training and pretend to go to rehab for anger issues or whatever. HOWEVER...a situation like this is really odd. Forgive the stereotyping here, but a little boy typically would be more interested in meeting a sports figure or an actor or something, generally speaking. If you were to ask most little boys what their celebrity wish meeting would be, they'd probably say something like Lebron James or Megan Fox or something, not a TV chef. Then, when you couple in the fact that the kid most likely only has a short amount of time to live and they chose this one thing to be that big event in their life that they get as compensation for a short time on the earth...PR shouldn't even really be an issue. It should be a no-brainer to go along with it just out of being a decent human being. If an old person fell down, you'd help them up even if you weren't in the public eye and had an image to maintain, correct?

Normally, this blog is about me being the asshole and pointing out stuff that people might not necessarily be willing to say on their own - or me just being an asshole to be funny - but I thought it would be a nice change of pace to point out things from a more optimistic point of view, especially when it helps get the story out that someone was acting like the type of person that screws this world up.

Movie Piracy and Why It Makes Sense

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:39:00 +0000

Let me set the scene: I watch dozens upon dozens of movies a year. I've been a member of the AMC MovieWatcher program for as long as I've had a wallet. Imagine how often it would come in handy for both of us, when I would get a coupon for a free popcorn and decide to take advantage of it by going to the theater. You get a few bucks of my money for the ticket, some more for a drink and other candy, and then the same for people I'm with that don't have that coupon. Eventually, I'd get a free movie ticket. This of course would result in me paying for my concession stand stuff and the people that I'm seeing the movie with, again, paying for everything full price. Sweet deal, win/win.

Today, I get a notice in the mail saying that they're ending that program and replacing it with something new: something they claim will offer me MORE rewards. Awesome! Oh wait a second...the MovieWatcher thing used to be totally free, and now they're charging me $12? Wait, that's not a reward. Oh, and now, it takes $100 spent to get $10 back in rewards? Seriously? That means you have to spend $200 in a year at the theater just to see a grand saving of...you guessed it, 8 dollars. Holy shit, what an awesome reward!

This is the type of thing that is hilarious to me. We're in a crippling economy where literally the only trend is that people have less money so they're spending less and looking for bargains, and these companies think they can make up for it by UPPING their prices. And yes, that's on a regular basis, too. A few years ago, AMC used to charge $5 a ticket. Then it was $5.50. Now it's $10. What does that mean? That means now, I don't go see movies out anymore.

A note to all businesses that are struggling right now: if people aren't buying your product because they already think it costs too much to justify, charging MORE is going to result in LESS customers. What's better, selling 1 ticket for ten bucks or selling 2 tickets for 8? Or selling 3 tickets for 7? Or what about getting a family of 4 for 5 dollars a piece so you're getting $20 out of them just for the tickets alone, plus each person wanting popcorn and candy and drinks?

This is why people use the internet to pirate movies and music. There's no justification to spend that much money when you have an alternative which, albeit illegal, is totally free. You want to build up a better customer service relationship and get me to come back and spend more money at your place? Show that you give a shit about my business and not that you're trying to screw me over because you think I'm an idiot that can't count. If all you see is dollar signs and you care nothing about the customer satisfaction and just want them to empty their wallets, then the response is going to be the customers doing the same. They'll start looking at you through their own dollar signs and how you're taking it away from them. Fair is fair. If I'm nothing but a money plus to you, then you're nothing but a money minus to me. What's the only thing better than a boycott when you're upset with someone? Getting the product without paying for it - which is exactly what people are doing when it comes to intangible purchases like this. In one fell swoop, AMC went from being my favorite of the chain theatres to being one I completely have lost respect for. You know what else they've lost? My ten bucks the next time I want to see a movie.

Justin Timberlake & Jessica Biel Split Up - Who Cares?

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 05:10:00 +0000

So I click on over to Google News to see if there's anything worth talking about today and of course, all I really see is about the tsunami - which I'm not knocking at all. That's some heavy news and it deserves the focus. There's just nothing for me to talk about on this site in regards to something like that. So I scroll to one of the other headlines and apparently, the second biggest story going on right now is that Justin Timberlake and Jessica Biel have split up.

Why is this important?

I've never understood why there's this fascination when it comes to celebrities where people want to know every little thing about them. They're just people...and I guarantee, the average celebrity would like to be treated (on a regular basis) as if they're just a normal person. Sure, they like the extravagance. Who wouldn't? But it takes a certain type of person to want to divulge everything about themselves and be in the public eye 24/7, and I doubt that most of them feel that way.

Speculation afoot: why did they break up? Did someone cheat? Blah blah blah. It's none of our business! And why do you give a shit anyway? In what possible realm does a celebrity breaking up with another celebrity have any effect on your life?

It doesn't. Now stop worrying about what shoes Lady Gaga just purchased or seeing pictures of some new celebrity baby with a retarded name (Apple Paltrow? Suri Mapother?) and all that other bullshit and go about the rest of your day.

P.S.: Jessica, if you're looking for a rebound, contact form's up above ;)

Skinny Pepsi Can Causes Poor Self-Esteem

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Mango) — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 04:10:00 +0000

So apparently, Pepsi's new "skinny can" is pissing people off. They're advertising it as a "taller, sassier" version that celebrates "beautiful, confident women"...yet people are bitching and complaining, saying Pepsi is promoting poor body image ideals.

Come the fuck on, people. Dangerous stereotypes of body image, just for saying SKINNY? You do realize that being overweight is a bad thing, right? And it isn't "the anorexic can", it's the skinny can. If Pepsi started using the tagline "If you're over 90 pounds, you're ugly", then I could see people getting upset, but seriously, everyone needs to knock it off with this hyper-sensitivity when it comes to supporting people that aren't fat. We've gotten into this stupid rut of people latching onto the phrase that "real women" aren't skinny, as if being physically fit is something unattainable and alien to us and should be shunned upon rather than sought after. It's so much easier to just bitch that it's someone else's fault for making you feel bad that you're fat rather than admit that you are the reason you're fat, and then go out and lose the weight, isn't it? Now we're blaming Pepsi? Here's a hint: if you're too fat, STOP DRINKING SO MUCH FUCKING SODA IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Now, I'll criticize Pepsi itself for one thing here, and it isn't the idea of "skinny = outrageous expectations = Pepsi is the devil for not telling me it's ok to eat another pie" because I'm not a goddamn moron, it's the idea of this promotion existing in the first place. Jill Beraud, the chief marketing officer for PepsiCo (aka, "big pay check person") said: "Our slim, attractive new can is the perfect complement to today's most stylish looks, and we're excited to throw its coming-out party during the biggest celebration of innovative design in the world", New York's Fashion Week. My problem here is simple: IT'S A FUCKING SODA CAN. Why is it being mentioned for a fashion show? And who decided that the can itself needed sex appeal in the first place? Does your product suck so bad that you need to try to get people to look at the can and want to fuck it after they're done drinking it? If so...you've got one weird ass marketing team....and some weird ass clientele if they follow the formula and comply with that methodology. Right now I've got a bottle of Gatorade next to me and nope, it doesn't make me feel any skinnier, fatter, or God forbid, hornier.

What's next? Is McDonalds going to come under fire from the fat asses that super-size everything because they feel sad that some people are ordering a "small" fry? If your self-esteem is so shot about your weight that the idea of a thinner soda can has you upset, maybe you should have one of those cans sitting next to you the next time you're scarfing down a bucket of fried chicken. Everyone needs their motivators.