pardon the spelling
A bee bit me today. I was laying in the backyard on the grass reading a book and smoking one of my hand rolled cigaretes (3 parts tobacco, one part home-dried mint. YUMMERS!) I got up and went upstairs to piss, then came back and dove onto the grass. Imagine my feelings when I felt a burning on my stomach. First, I thought I had left a cigaretter burning in the grass and layed on top of it, but then I got up and looked: it wa a motherfucking bee. I swept him out and started looking for the ouchie on my stomach. The stinger was sticking out, so I pulled it out of my skin. Ouchie. It hurt, a large chunk of my belly turned red, with a white bump. It really sucked, so I don't think I will any longer feel bad about those bees splattered all over the grille (though I usually drive 100+ mph so all the splats are really streaky and smooshed.)
However, hitting an animal with your car doesn't work as well for other cats. For example when I pulled into the yard on my dad's car, I saw a cat looking at me through the windshield of my car. She went in there through an open window and was chillin in my car, though apparently didn't shit anywhere, and didn't even eat my chinese fortune cookies. I scared the cat out of the car, and then watered it with the hose. I figured it's ok to just water up the cat and teach it to stay out of our yard rather than running it over.
And just when I thought my animal troubles were done for the day, a skunk came over and started eating the lawn. Hitting him with the car was out of the question, and since it was getting dark I decided to shine a flashlight on him to make him go away. He didn't react. Then I thought about sneaking up behind him and yelling BOO! really loud. But I figured that cats and skunks were generally related, so I thought watering him would make him go to the neighbors yard. You'd think so, but no. He didn't even go away at all, he wasn't even scared (I know that cuz he didn't do the stinky.) Well he left at some point, and hopefully won't come back.
I don't mind bunnies, birds, and chipmunks, and squirels (though the later are fun to throw little apples at when they are sitting on the branch eating apples. Sometimes they sit up on their ass and hold the apple in their front paws, so if you whack him just right with your apple, he will lose his balance and get tossed off the branch. Comedy! But it's hard to hit a squirel with an apple. I should probably water them next time too.
I went a bit off topic here, didn't I? The point is, splat as many bees with yer car as you can. And of yea, when you whack a firefly with a ping pong paddle (it would be inhumane if you went out and got the paddle just to kill the bugs with. But if you're playing ping pong anyway, it's OK to smack the firefly with it and watch it light up. Just make sure the other dude doesn't serve until you're done paying attention to the bug.
"Phony e-mail coupons for free Creme Frappuccino's (ordinarily valued at US$2.65) circulated around the Washington, D.C. area and caused a shortage of the blended drink at most locations.
Because it could only happen in America. Even in a big city like DC, people will still trust you enough to give you a product in exchange for a piece of paper they haven't seen in their lives, and that obviously came out of your printer.
Yes, they got burnt, and yes, they should have known better - but the fact that this worked speaks volumes about the kind of society we are. Hell, chalk it up to willing to err on the side of the customer if you want. This would never happen in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else.
Ralph Nader lambasts 'corporate socialism,' which he defines as 'the privatization of profit and the socialization of risks and misconduct.' Going down the list of characteristics capitalism is supposed to have, Nader claims that our current business climate has drifted drastically from the principles on which it was established
This is, essentially verbatim, from just about any book by Chomsky. It's also absolutely obvious, and 100% true. I can admit that, even though I have minimum respect for the Big C, and none at all for Ralphy.
What Nader apparently doesn't give credit to (while Chomsky does) is that our system was ALWAYS like this. The government has always acted for the benefit of business (examples are infinite, from taking posession of Hawaii to the 9/11 corporate bailouts,) placing the risk/expense on the public, and letting business reap the rewards.
This sounds bad - we're a hypocritical society where helping welfare mothers feed their kids and pay the rent is highly debated, while propping up big companies is absolutely unquestioned) but is it going to be our doom? Far from it. The reason we've done well economically is that the government has been eager to help the business with its military and legal assets. What Nader is talking about is as old (and, probably, older) than the US itself.
Well, what happened to capitalism and the free market, then?
Uhh that's something we made up to plunder the resources of the third world.
How do you know how things would be different Maybe the economy would be in better shape if it weren't for corporate welfare?
Tis true. However, (again, this is according to Chomsky - who is not Gospel to me but I agree with him on this matter) this government-helps-business-at-expense-of-the-public goes back way before corporate welfare as we know it. You may very well be right about corporate welfare(although it's very hard to imagine our economy sans the military-industrial sector) but that's just part of the phenomenon.
For example, (again, according to Chomsky) there's a government - autoindustry "conspiracy" (my term) to keep Americans buying cars. Done by:
1. Encouraging suburban sprawl
2. Keeping public transportation non-existant.
3. Building tons of highways (in the 50's the Highway Authority was chaired by the CEO of General Motors.)
Neither one of those three things is directly corporate welfare, and yet (if Chomsky doesn't confuse cause and effect) it's an example of the government keeping business afloat through its actions, and at the expense of the public (tax dollars for roads, people having worse environment due to emissions.) But it's hard to argue that this policy doesn't help to drive the economy.
Who knows, actual welfare for the poor might have stimulated the economy even more, and raised education and productivity levels? Seems that giving a little bit of money to millions of people, is more stimulating to the economy than giving large sums to a few fat companies
I wasn't arguing to the contrary, and I do think it's absolutely ridiculous that we evoke the capitalist mantra of "everyone fend for yourself" while not expecting our biggest businesses to survive without being propped up. Though in purely economic sense, I doubt it would help much. We have plenty of educated people to run the economy's upper stratas.