Tricky, tricky, Mr. America: I've 'scaped your traps so far; but 1 day you'll get me. I show no fear, I feign ignorance; but I know what you're boiling up... Tricky li'l devil, you... I know what you're planning: you won't just smash me with your invisible palm; you'll do it nice & slow... Nice & slow... Like a fine stew. Delicious. Can you taste the spiciness o' my blood, the tanginess o' my gizzards? No... No, you wouldn't, would you... You wouldn't taste nothing at all, wouldn't even notice my stew 'pon your plate. That's the trouble with you: you're always so busy; You never have time to enjoy the screams o' your prey. Now, what kind o' life is that? Get out mo', Mr. America; breathe some fresh air. I like to do that oft, when it won't get me in trouble. There are lots o' things that will get me in trouble. Since you're so free, you never tell me what they are. So I have to guess. Sometimes I guess wrong. But that's OK. I like the mental stimulation. But you, Mr. America: you're 'bove getting in trouble. So, why aren't you happier? I know you won't read this. So many wives & not 'nough time to listen to them. 'Sides, you wouldn't like what they have to say. That's OK. I'd like to say that you'll regret me when I'm gone; but that would not be perfectly accurate. So, please, don't finish that stew I made for you if you don't want it. I did a bad job, anyway. I'm always doing a bad job. I even tried ripping a few pieces o' my flesh & adding them as you like. But I guess it wasn't... No. No, there's no use in laboring the issue. Just shove it to the side. Someone will pick it up eventually. & if not, the flies will surely enjoy it.
Goins Decrees, “Give Me Mediocrity!”
I still think my own mo’-honest philosophy o’ “High-quality is probably better, but I’m both too shoddy & too attention-hungry, so I’ll just throw my shit in your face like a baboon & let you assholes suffer.”
Also, stop asking for comments with your tacky SEO-whoring bold text, you cretins. If people want to comment & see a comments section, they’ll comment.
Mother 4’s Great Web Design
The Earthbound/Mother series is 1 o’ those cult classics that nobody cared ’bout when it came out ’cept a few, those few became fanatics with a fervor rivaling political groups, till it spread so far that now the internet’s full o’ people praising it, including the creators o’ South Park.
I would say that I mentioned my inclusion in this group in my review o’ Earthbound Zero, ’cept I’ve just realized that I failed to publish that article ’cause I’m apparently mo’ lazy ’bout publishing content than actually writing it (still working on that immensely-groundbreaking article analyzing Donkey Kong Country levels, by the way). You could’ve also looked through the sidebar, which includes some Earthbound website, I guess—as well as many websites I haven’t been to in years, since my interests are as fleeting as the seasons.
The Strengths o’ Mother 4’s Web Design
I. The Font’s Readable
Though it could be bigger, it’s much bigger than most websites, which for some reason take microscopic text that’s impossible to read without pressing your face right into the monitor as the apex o’ quality design.
They’re wrong. Letting Grampa Mezun read your text without squinting & raising his monocle is.
Also, Mother 4’s site uses Roboto & I like Roboto. That’s 1 o’ those things you can’t truly ’splain. I mean just look @ that font! How can you not love Roboto?
II. The Color Scheme’s Simple
The site mainly just uses white, dark gray, & red—hardly the most original colors. However, they’re used in a way that still heighten contrast. Usually by trading them back & forth as backgrounds & text colors for different sections.
It also makes rare use o’ subtle texture, such as the faded earth @ the top & the crosshatches for the music section. This is better than a big, colorful background that distracts attention.
Granted, a lot o’ websites go the other way & have just gray & white, which is why the red is necessary, like strawberries dabbled on a vanilla cake.
III. Objects are spaced out well.
A web design fad developing recently that I actually like is the turn toward bigger sites—bigger in that the text is bigger & the content takes up mo’ space, rather than trying to cram a bunch o’ tiny elements into 1 screen. By spacing out content, web designers make it easier for users to parse content & less likely to have to hunt it down, since it’s set down piece by piece.
The only downside is that it creates a greater need for scrolling; but as plenty o’ research has shown, this is hardly a problem—much simpler to scroll straight downward through content than trying to wander all round a screen packed together in many directions.
Ironically, ’nother pattern that’s emerged does the opposite: putting a ton o’ social media & links that stay with the screen as one scrolls. This site only has the slim navigation & small return-to-top button stay on-screen, both o’ which are actually useful.
Other websites put that crap all over the screen, which can oft get in the way o’ the text when one resizes their tiny text ’cause apparently they never thought that one might do that, even though said functionality is in every browser.
The way the top links change based on your position on the page—the links actually go to anchors on the same page, not different pages—& the smoth way it glides up & down are neat.
Actually, that 1st point reminds me o’ something else:
V. Doesn’t cut content into a million pages.
In the 90s ’twas common to see websites all mashed together in 1 huge page. I think those crazy ideology websites like Jesus is Savior & Rense are the most infamous, as well as whatever this site’s s’posed to be.
This has unfortunately led the web in the other direction: splitting content into as many pages as possible. I’m always bewildered when I read a newspaper article & see it split into pages. Why? Do they think I’ll only want to read half o’ it?
The problem is, while putting all content into 1 page is a processing—& thus time—burden ’cause it forces 1 to get all content @ once, splitting it too much can, too, since it forces 1 to load a whole ’nother page & wait ’gain.
I joked to myself when comparing David Wonn’s amazing glitch website that you should definitely read, which hasn’t been updated since 2006, & a newer glitch wiki—whose design can’t be blamed on its creator, since it just uses a Wikidot default. Though the former packs half o’ an entire system’s glitches into single pages, they still load mo’ quickly than going through each individual page for each individual glitch in the wiki.
Consequently, the former’s mo’ enjoyable to read, even if it looks like a book written in neon signs. It may be due to my relatively slow internet, but the wiki’s like reading a book & having to wait minutes before each page. Wouldn’t that be annoying to read?
’Course, Wonn had full control over his site’s design, whereas I doubt the wiki’s creator had any. Furthermo’, I suspect the reason for splitting content so much may have to do with economics—mo’ ad views—than design. But this still confuses me, as there should be a way to have both. After all, couldn’t you make the ad stay on-screen no matter how long an article is? Couldn’t you automatically make the ad change without changing the page? & wouldn’t the ad still steal as much attention as on page load?
The 1 flaw I’d say is the way the blog is a totally different website, lacking the navigation o’ the original, thus making one go back in one’s browser history to go back. Perhaps there was something ’bout Tumblr’s… social whatever? I don’t know. Something ’bout Tumblr that they wanted & couldn’t get from a blog included directly into their website.
O yeah, & I guess the graphics & the music are neat & I remember some gameplay mechanic someone said they were adding that I can’t find info for anymo’ that I thought sounded interesting.
Don’t Fuck It Up
Don't fuck it up. It's okay... Everything'll be fine... But don't fuck it up. Think how exciting it must be! The risks! Throw down the dice & how you don't get snake eyes... You'll shrivel and die... You'll do fine... If you truly want to live, You'll do everything right. The hand knows everything... It knows if you've been bad or good, Knows whether you have or have not been efficient. Would it harm you if you didn't deserve it? How would we know if you didn't? The hand knows. It knows you. You don't know it. You can't even see it. You're nothing to it. So shut up, Calm down, Button-up that jacket, chap, & go to town. Everything'll work out swell. Everything's safe here. Just. Don't. Fuck it up.
Lazy Bloggist Just Posts Links to Other People’s Work
As hippie white liberals love to attach every race for which they may have a drop o’ blood from to themselves so they can think o’ themselves as brave victims o’ oppression, to a lesser degree, bourgeois ditzes love to apply the vapid term “introvert” to themselves even when it doesn’t apply so they can pretend they’re badass loners. ‘Cept: 1, loners aren’t badass; since networking plays such a large part o’ economic success, they’re actually weaker than outgoing people; & 2, most o’ these people writing this nonsense would slit their wrists if they had to stay ‘way from Twitter for mo’ than a day. That “introvert” is part o’ some mindless pseudoscientific faux-psychology bullshit shat out Carl Jung’s mental asshole also helps.
Idealist Careers, a website nice ‘nough to present itself in the kind o’ bright colors demanding to be mocked by curmudgeons like me, does this—that is, after a grayscale photo o’ a man sitting on a bench that’s immensely poetic.
Also, would you assholes stop shoving your shitty pop up ads into my face. No, I don’t want to sign up for your shitty newsletter. Nobody does. They don’t like you, Idealist Careers. Nobody does.
As a natural introvert, I’m sometimes annoyed by the many misconceptions people have about us. We’re not all shy and we don’t necessarily dislike people (I love people!).
“I’m annoyed that us introverts are always assumed to be introverts! We’re just like nonintroverts; we just applied some meaningless term to ourselves to make us look cool & haven’t realized that sane adults grow out o’ this shit after high school.”
The only meaningful difference between introverts and extroverts is from where we draw our energy. Extroverts are energized by their interactions with other people, while introverts replenish their energy with time spent alone.
O, I see: the difference is the Zen that each gets. See, I’m neither: I’m 1 o’ those strange humans who derives energy from sleeping & eating.
Fortunately, it turns out that introversion may not necessarily be the disadvantage that it appears to be in a job hunt.
Well, so long as “introversion” simply means not having the imaginary “energy” mentioned ‘bove. If one is paralyzed by the mere thought o’ shaking an executive’s germy hands,—I am, but not due to introversion; I have secret files that show what executives do in their spare time with those hands o’ theirs—they’re probably not going to get a job.
Consider what personality traits you have that would serve you well in a job search. Are you highly organized, goal-oriented, and self-reflective? Do you have strong analytical and research skills? Each of these are beneficial in your job search, and your task is to maximize these qualities.
Let’s unpack this paragraph so we can understand how nonsensical it is. 1st, most o’ these traits aren’t true things, they’re just words that sound nice. “Goal-oriented”? As opposed to what? Being a vegetable? If someone goes in for a job interview, chances are one has the goal o’ getting a job. The guy who just happens to stumble into an interview room, but decides to sit down & chat, anyway, is surely a rare occurrence. & “self-reflective”? Since most interview advice tells people to lie—they tell them to be honest, but just magically change reality so that they are truly passionate ’bout sticking exec dicks in their mouths, but they truly mean lie, just also be dishonest ’bout the dishonesty—that’s obviously wrong.
& if one already has these skills, how does one “maximize” them? & if one doesn’t have them, shouldn’t one maximize them even mo’?
& now we have tips!
Look for jobs that suit your personality, in organizations that match your mindset.
This is good advice. It took forever to find a company that let me be myself—the Brotherhood o’ the Orange Kool-Aid—but ’twas worth it. I always felt so… discouraged, feeling as if I needed to pretend ‘way my fetish for sticking knives into people. My employers understand & we all do it as our job. Who thought you could get a job that you love?
After telling readers that introverts should avoid jobs that require them to do things they’re uncomfortable with, she goes onto networking. I’d presume the advice would be not to do it, since that’s all that’s consistent, but then since Kane’s very definition o’ introversion vacillated ‘tween authentic shyness & that bullshit ’bout “energy,” I was unsurprised to see advice for how introverts should do they thing that they’re s’posedly uncomfortable with, ‘cept they’re not truly.
Introverts run the risk of coming across as arrogant, misanthropic, or shy, so you’ll want to conserve your energy so you can be at your best!
Ha, ha, ha. That’s not always due to a lack o’ energy.
You can do a lot of networking from the comfort of your own home by sprucing up your Idealist and LinkedIn profiles, sending messages to former colleagues, and spreading the digital word of your job search.
Ha! I love how Kane’s deluded herself that there are people with Idealist profiles. “Surely it’ll be the next LinkedIn!”
Also, I’m still not sure if this “introvert” species is so ‘fraid o’ the true world that they scream @ the sight o’ ‘nother flesh creature or if they’re just like regular executives, ‘cept they also write shitty poetry in their spare time.
Confidence has a certain look to it, and that look includes good posture, a strong handshake, and eye contact. These are things you can practice and perfect before your interview.
The mo’ I learn ’bout the business world, the mo’ intrigued I am by their savage superstitions.
As an introvert, you may be especially good at listening and practicing “silent” leadership. Don’t be afraid to talk about these qualities and how you can use them to help move the organization forward.
Show how much you listen to other people by blabbing ’bout yourself.
‘Gain, if introverts are capable o’ this, why can’t they just act like every other prospective employee? This “introversion” doesn’t seem to be a limit @ all in Kane’s brain.
I ‘specially don’t understand this “don’t be ‘fraid…” nonsense. Do you not understand how fear works? I can imagine all o’ Kane’s introvert readers—none—smacking their foreheads & thinking, You mean I’m not s’posed to be ‘fraid? I thought that was a good thing to have this whole time! Silly me!
Introverts like to think before they speak.
Most people do. I’ve never met an outgoing person who just babbles whatever words comes to his head. They may do shoddy thinking ‘fore speaking, but it’s still thinking.
O, & the introverts are enticed to comment—’cause I’m sure introverts are the type o’ people who spring into conversations.
Shockingly, there’s no comments. Or maybe their website’s broken. I don’t know what “Blog token not found” is s’posed to mean. Probably means I have to sign up for some email-clogging shit to see the comments.
By the way, I fixed this article’s insipid image so that it better fits my mission statement:
God Damn It, Libre Word, I Don’t Want the Lyrics to Your Favorite Screamo Song
I want to also note the conspiracy ‘tween GIMP & Libre Word wherein GIMP tried to sabotage my efforts to mock Libre Word as much as possible by working clunkily.
When Did Forbes Become Insipid Bohemian Bourgeoisie, Too?
Ugh. In “4 Ways To Ace Your Next Networking Event,” Forbes—the same website that wrote a page on the economically-serious subject o’ “Twitch Plays Pokémon”—writes 1 out o’ the billion articles already polluting the internet giving success advice that doesn’t give any concrete advice @ all, as well as checking off almost every checkbox o’ lazy blog-post clichés.
From the 1st paragraph, one can see Ebokosia’s shoddy style: full o’ italics, bolds, & underlines, all o’ which scream @ the reader, treat this text as extra special! I hope this is keeping you up from the drowsiness caused by my unimaginative prose! As for the unimaginative style, it includes an arbitrary metaphor to cooking soup. See, soup has stuff in it, just like networking, & you want both o’ them to not suck, so they’re pretty much the same.
Some o’ her style choices are bewildering: “Let’s Say –It’s the middle of the week and you just received an invite to another networking event.” 1, every other word need not be italicized; it’s annoying. 2, what happened here? Was she starting to say something & then cut herself off to say something else, even though the 2 phrases are connected?
I should focus mo’ on the content, & not the style; but that’s hard, since there’s li’l content. For example, “rule 1” is simply “think ’bout what you do ’fore you do it,” but much less economical. I know the writer would probably defend this with the claim that many people don’t do this; but if that’s so, how can you expect them to do so ’nough to remember this tip? It has the same self-defeating logic as “don’t be stupid”: the essence o’ stupidity is that your cognition isn’t powerful ’nough to grasp intelligent thought. It’s the equivalent o’ telling an illiterate person to just know how to read, damn it, ’stead o’ actually going through the process o’ helping them learn; if this writer is so qualified to give advice on networking, she should actually give that advice ’stead o’ telling them to know the stuff she doesn’t bother to teach. It makes the whole article redundant.
Also, Forbes’ writers’ overuse o’ cliché slang—as if she’s hip with the kids, ’cept she’s much richer & she actually isn’t, ’cause they’re actually too linguistically competent to write or speak so sloppily—grows tiresome quickly. “So what’s the buzz?” This sentence serves no purpose but to make me waste precious nutrients regurgitating my lunch. This also includes the trite “a picture tells a thousand words” & a delineation o’ social media memes, which are truly just slightly newer clichés that require just as li’l creativity.
All right: back to content. O! Guess what rule 2 is! “Research: Be Informed”! ’Gain: know what you’re doing ’fore you do it. Readers don’t need a multi-thousand-word article to insult their intelligence so.
Also, the mo’ specific advice found within this section is rather stalkerish: look up people so you can shallowly pretend to care ’bout them when it comes time to talk with them. Later on, she’ll say you should be authentic; but then ’gain, it wouldn’t be an inane advice blog post without internal contradiction, since the prime goal o’ these is not to be logical or accurate, but to unskeptically regurgitate conventional thinking.
In fairness, her 3rd rule actually gives nonobvious concrete advice, though it’s bizarre: wear weird shit to catch people’s attention. This is intriguing from a sociological aspect, as it demonstrates the way the business world has become hippified as the hippie generation has aged, but without the good qualities & still retaining the smug superiority & authoritarianism o’ businesspeople.
This mild goodwill is squandered in her 4th rule, which is has ’nother obnoxious metaphor & mo’ words that don’t say anything mo’ meaningful than a sentence composed o’ randomized crossword answers. “Treat your business card like a credit card, give by connection not by sight.” My interpretation: don’t get any @ all, ’less you want to waste your money. Actually, in fairness, her advice not to just spew business cards @ everyone is the only useful advice in this section.
“Do the ’Tango’ with your conversations!” Ugh. Mo’ useless advice: don’t fill everyone’s time with just you speaking. That’s obvious. When people do that, it’s not a tactical decision, but a personality problem that’s much harder to rectify.
Then she cribs someone else’s work, probably to make hers look good in comparison:
1: Look at networking as a conversation
It is a conversation. What would I look @ it as? A video game?
2: Be who you are
Here’s a combination o’ unoriginality & meretriciousness—appearing meaningful but containing no meaning whatsoever—that I ’specially despise. You literally are you. That’s what the word means. Even when one pretends to be someone else, pretending to be someone else is who they are, so it’s meaningless. If that makes one shallow, well, then being shallow is who one is.
’Sides, this is contradicted many times in this article, full o’ judgments on how you should act & be: wear certain clothes, have a certain attitude & personality.
3: Don’t feel small
Like right here!
What’s that even mean? Don’t let yourself think you’re inferior to others? If you’re talking to employers, socially, you are, & pretending you’re on the same level as the person who will be telling you what to do & deciding whether you’re hired or not probably wouldn’t be a good idea.
4: It’s okay to ask for something
OK… Whatever that means. Should I have assumed it wasn’t? Perhaps it means that you shouldn’t worry ’bout looking as if you know less than everything? If it’s ’bout job-related facts, like how to create paragraphs in HTML for a web designer, you’d probably not want to ask that & reveal your incompetence in said job you’re trying to get; if it’s ’bout job-related facts, well, it’d be absurd for bosses to expect a prospective employee to already know ’bout a business’s work experience ’fore actually working there—though there is also the risk that the boss will straight-up lie, anyway.
When networking, always be yourself and confidently share who you are with others. People will be impressed with someone who is passionate, and if you stay in contact you never know where the connection may lead.
This single sentence is contradictory, for god’s sake: be yourself, but if you’re not confident, don’t be yourself & be a confident person ’stead, & if you’re not a passionate person, don’t be that person, & be someone else who is. Or are those criteria not part o’ the terribly specific “yourself” category? Can they be altered while leaving the same “yourself” intact?
This is why so many writing guides, like Stunk & White’s famous book, advise the use o’ concrete diction: it can harm writing so direly that it becomes incomprehensible, & fails @ its primary goal. Vague writing like this is not just bad, but useless. For someone authentically looking for intellectual assistance—since there’s no other assistance mere words can grant—will be left with no gain after reading this. In fact, they will lose precious time that could’ve been spent reading an article that actually said something. & that’s what this article’s primary crime is: distracting attention—including that o’ Google’s shallowly-designed search algorithm—from valuable content.
The last paragraph reiterates Ebokosia’s credit card metaphor, in case you missed its brilliance—which is likely, since most readers will likely glaze through most o’ it, if they didn’t already fall asleep.
I will grant Ebokosia 1 form o’ praise: I didn’t see 1 irrelevant picture with some vague, meaningless caption. So perhaps Forbes has some minuscule standards?
EXTRA: Moderate Liberals Known for Pragmatism Utter Failures
After the Democrats were utterly crushed by the Republicans in congress, the senate, & governors seats, the web was full o’ liberal articles trying not to outright lie ’bout how they failed—something that conservatives would surely have no problem with doing if the positions were reversed—but not hinting that this may mean they could be failures, a writing genre that causes much joy for conservatives & bitter anarchists who hate everyone ’cept other bitter anarchists, probably ’cause it helps both groups repress the sheer horror that is our existence without giving our eyeballs to buy alcohol.
Sadly for our entertainment, the Daily Kos wrote ’bout the issue with cynical honesty—as they are wont to do—including well-earned resentment gainst the American public, hilariously pathetic—& yet also awesome, somehow—passive-aggression gainst the Republicans through the revolutionary threat o’ parliamentary gridlock, & depressed acceptance that they will only ever succeed half the time. Apparently nobody told Kos that that’s glorious socialism he’s talking ’bout: power isn’t held completely by 1 tiny club o’ rich elites but is shared by 2 o’ them. Meanwhile, grumpy reactionary Kos wants to take ’way the Republicans “Everyone Wins Sometimes Trophy,” & as a spineless liberal, I don’t approve o’ this white-&-black morality. Can’t we afford any true colors for once? Like purple or magenta or Granny Smith Apple?
The New York Times gave us a balance ’tween some guy rightfully calling Obama an inconsistent hypocrite after spewing some poetic nonsense ’bout the fun o’ standing round for hours so one can write on paper, as opposed to the evils o’ not writing on paper; some robot spewing mindless Republican propaganda without even trying to ’splain his rationale; & the typical whining ’bout negativity & how we should all hold hands, cry, & stick dicks & dildos in each others bums (I prefer to stick dicks in bums without the crying, thank you).
Paul Krugman hasn’t seemed to post anything on his blog yet, so I’ll assume he drowned himself in cheap whiskey.
I checked the Washington Post, but their shit was boring, so fuck them.
Noah Smith doesn’t mention the election; but I just want to point out this grossly incestuous article wherein he handjobs ’nother economist handjobbing economists—the very job he happens to be a part o’, coincidentally ’nough!—for being “priests of the free [sic] market” & tricking Americans into accepting an economic system, even if they lied ’bout its shitty points for propagandist purposes. This is all very true, & we should, indeed, admire economists in their brilliant trickery. Good job, economists!
But don’t worry: Smith also has hope that these same economists will fix the fuck-ups that they caused. The important point is that economists can never fail, ’cause failures are simply opportunities for future success!
Anarchist Writers didn’t write ’bout the election ’cause they’re too cool for it, even if their website looks like somebody just puked its elements straight onto the screen without further arrangement.
Zombie Marx, surprisingly, shows excitement for the Republican victory, primarily ’cause it meant “Death to Slavery” for him, though I don’t know if I should take someone who still uses the word “Negro”—with a capital, the dirty capitalist—to refer to black people as an expert in racial issues.
Admittedly, Marx may truly be excited simply ’cause 1 o’ his socialist mind servants is the Republican foreign minister, which he will surely use to conquer the US from the inside.
I refused to read any o’ The Atlantic’s articles ’cause the style o’ just the titles & sentence-long blurbs made me want to vomit. Also, 1 o’ their “headlines” is just the same “Writers, don’t stop writing, even if you don’t want to, you lazy shits” cliché every writing “guide” under the moon has spewed.
Nobody cares what The Guardian says ’cause they’re dirty Brits, you don’t own us anymo’!
O, all right, I’ll mention 1 article—just 1!—wherein they argued that conservatives won with a mix o’ aiming attention @ how shitty Obama is, hiding the fact that they’re conservatives, & aiming for the majority o’ Americans’ focus on the pettiest o’ nonissues. You can’t fault a good strategy.
Meanwhile, The Nation vacillates ’tween denialist exclamations o’ some puny victories liberals scrounged in the bloodbath—the blood wasn’t the Democrats’, ’course, who still live in luxury, but o’ Yemenese still being droned to death—& whines ’bout how the Republicans cheated, anyway, so there. Strangely, these arguments that the election is rigged in favor o’ the rich—which are, indeed, mo’ likely to be true than not1—doesn’t stop liberals from emphasizing the importance o’ voting in this rigged election. My response would be less, “Man, this bites,” & mo’, “O my god, I just realized that the United States is a tyrannical oligarchy! We’re fucked!”
So you all understand how much better I am than all o’ these people I make fun o’ without being deigned to receive a response, I want you all to know that I consider the election rigged & invalid when both o’ the Republicans & Democrats win. Everyone knows that the only valid elections are those in which the Englesist Magical Socialism party wins2.
The response will likely be the same as has always been: we must work harder to vote Democrat next election in the hopes that this time they won’t lose &/or won’t suck, I can feel it this time. Granted, what else can you do—other than bitch ’bout it during lunch break, which has already been working wonderfully.
I mean, ’course we can always just overthrow the government, blow up the white house, or call government officials mean words that make centrists cry—& making centrists cry is enjoyable—but then you know ’nother’s just going to pop up, & that gets tiring after a while. They’re like those tax-evading churches in SimCity 2000.
Which brings me to the true tragedy o’ this Republican victory: that it came without a victory by Herman Cain & his amazing 9-9-9 tax plan, as well as his mo’ obscure law mandating that “Virtual Village” play whenever a park is built.
Do you think the government’s like those tax-evading churches in SimCity 2000 & never go ’way or do you think the Englesist Magical Socialist revolution will succeed & finally end all poverty, sadness, & that groggy feeling you get after sleeping late into afternoon? Well, fuck off: I don’t care ’bout your opinion.
1 Disregarding Goldman’s incoherent rebuke, which involves mistaking democracy for the meaningless value judgment, “individual freedom,” in opposition to the dangerous populist movements that stand round in parks & do nothing. Said “individual freedom” mo’ oft than not translates mo’ accurately to “the minority controlling the majority, ’cept it’s good that they’re doing it this time, ’cause it benefits my rich buddies.”
2 You may be questioning the contradiction ’tween me claiming to be Englesist here & claiming to be anarchist earlier. We will be coming to silence you promptly.
No need to send us your address; we already know where you live. Awfully polite, though.
I Deserved It
I have no one to blame but myself: Didn't take proper care o' my teeth. & now they've all fallen out. Can't waste the dentist's precious time placing them back in. No, I must have my just desserts. My taste buds crave them. But thanks to me, now I can't eat; & when I can't eat, I get hungry. But you don't see complaints from me; I took my tasty medicine, yes sire! I can take the dose. I must take the dose. If I can't take the dose, I must be beat. I can't take the dose. What am I to do? My stomach, it scratches for sustenance... & all I taste is gum blood. Gum blood doesn't taste too tangy. I break out into the street, Where I meet the man with the sweep. I swallow myself whole. & he-- the polite fellow-- he sweeps 'way the debris. I told you I'd take my medicine. & I did. 'Cause I deserved it.