DESPERATELY SEEKING INTERNET ATTENTION

     I really can't believe that this hasn't been done before but a cursory image search revealed nothing. I keep seeing the various paper towel and toilet paper rackets issuing products with labels like "6 Super Rolls = 11 Regular Rolls!" or "6 Big Rolls = 8 Regular Rolls" and other variations on that kind of torturous math.

     In the Star Trek: TNG episode, "Chain of Command (part 2)", Captain Picard is tortured by a Cardassian named Gul Madred. One of the key points of the interrogator's attempts to break Picard was to ask him how many lights were there behind him shining on Picard.

Indeed.

     And yes, there were four lights. But every time Picard admitted this, he would be made to experience terrible pain. The interrogator insisted that there were in fact five lights in his efforts to break the captain. By the end, Picard was not only ready to admit that he saw five lights but that he believed he actually could see five lights. Instead, another guard came in and told Gul Madred that Picard had to leave. Picard, now knowing he had been rescued, screams at Madred, "THERE. ARE. FOUR. LIGHTS!!!" in a shining moment of awesome for the audience.

     Anyhow, with Charmin, Bounty, Cottonelle, Brawny, etc. all doing this inanity with fewer rolls somehow equalling more rolls (even though the "original" sized rolls no longer seem to be for sale), I had a moment of inspiration for this insipid attempt at a macro that yes, I'm hoping will somehow make the rounds on the internet because I'm desperate for attention and validation from anonymous strangers.

      At least I admit it...

Seriously...Charmin, Cottonelle, Brawny, Bounty, et al. Cut this shit out already...

BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE MAY HAVE FOUND THIS AMERICAN DAD QUOTE FUNNY...

     The B-story of the American Dad episode, "The Adventures of Twill Ongenbone and His Boy Jabari" which originally aired on January 13, 2013 had Steve Smith attempting to do an assignment for his history class of learning about history from interviewing his father, Stan. Stan is not the type to open up on even impersonal matters face-to-face, but at the suggestion of one of Steve's friends, he called his father betting on the idea that if there's a space between him and his dad, he'll be more likely to open up and open up Stan did, revealing his multiple daily internal struggles without any more prodding than a hello.
     Stan first talked his career as a CIA operative, confessing how easy he now finds it to kill people. Whereas his original targets scarred him mentally, he is now able to think about dinner plans while carrying out assassinations.
      The next phone call had Stan revealing that he questions his lovemaking to his wife how it went from once being passionate to now, mechanical. Steve tried to hang up the phone, but was prevented by his friends who tackled and subdued him, leaving them to ask more about Francine and her body, much to Steve's disgust and horror.
      The third call came about when Steve's teacher accused Steve of lying about not doing the project when he claimed his father was uncooperative. He called his teacher out by calling his father in the middle of class and putting him on speaker phone (something Steve announced to his father). He asked Stan who the President was when he was young to which Stan replied with, "I don't know, who cares? I guess I think about killing myself pretty frequently and why not? What's so great about living? You know when I'm happy? For about five seconds in the morning when I first wake up. Before I remember who I am and what my life is all about: Anxiety...disappointment...diarrhea more often than not. (sighs) I don't know if there's an afterlife but who cares? Nothingness couldn't be any worse than this meaningless march through my empty days... (Steve hangs up the phone)"
      Steve turns to his teacher who has now positioned himself by the window exclaiming that Stan is right and that life is meaningless. He declares, "Life dismissed!" and throws himself out the window.

      Yes, the monologue is very depressing, but in context was hilarious. No, I'm not suicidal and I hope you're not either but I also made what Stan said into a handy-dandy Demotivational Poster for easy sharing. The preceding text was all for search engine purposes like printing all the lyrics to the Pillbugs' song "Greeting Committee" because that song, in my opinion, needs to be found.

Without further ado, here's your Demotivational Poster: Life Dismissed

You're welcome.

GOLDEN YEARS...

Not the image I saw originally, but this will do

     One of my Facebook friends reposted an image macro reminding us that ten years ago was no longer the 1990's in an effort to depress us. While I cannot speak for the rest, I can say that it did depress me. That FUUUUUUUUck revelation of time having passed, never to return. It reminds me again how the entirety of my twenties had been wasted...time I will never get back. That endless frustration...
     But it also reminded me of how I arbitrarily look at things.

THIS IS A JOB FOR PHILOSORAPTOR...

con·serv·a·tive/kənˈsərvətiv/ Adjective: Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
Noun: A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.


lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə)rəl/ Adjective: Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
Noun: A person of liberal views.

      See now, I had this likely hackneyed thought yesterday. How is it the candidates proffered by the Republican Party all over the country can go around claiming to be conservatives and continue to claim that the Democratic Party is comprised of liberals? Based on the definitions above, it is the Republicans who are the liberals as they have been proposing changes, some rather radical, to the way things are being done in Washington. Even if they are considered old ideas, those are still not the ideas in current practice. It is the Republican Party which is "open to new behavior or opinions" and they are certainly "willing to discard traditional values" [or at least those traditional values that have now been the norm since the 1960s and in some cases the 1930s and even earlier since Theodore Roosevelt favored breaking up monopolies and the estate tax to prevent plutocracy and Lincoln, the party's first President, favored public education]. The Republicans want to uproot and radically alter things which have been considered normal and even expected of government for at least two generations now and THAT'S considered conservative??? I just don't get it.

       But the Democrats are just as disingenuous. They claim to be supportive of liberal values. And how exactly are they supportive of them? By promoting the status quo...by urging that the system is fine as is and with only minor tweaks and adjustments will continue to serve just fine. The Democratic Party, if anything, is certainly espousing traditional conservative values by remaining cautious and even opposed to changing the system which they (as liberals of yesteryear from both parties) are largely responsible for having set up in the first place. How can you consider yourself open to new ideas and behaviors if the whole role of your party's current incarnation is to preserve the system more-or-less as is?

       If you ask me [and I know you haven't], the Democrats are the true conservatives and for better or for worse, the Republicans are the liberals. I think the sooner both sides can be made to understand this, the better because I'm really sick of the mislabelling.