Dispatches from Lost-Pennsylvania

(Wherein our intrepid hero attempts an adventure not unalike Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark)

 

I lost the pen that my father gave me for my 21st birthday. Naturally, I’m rather unimpressed. Of course, I’m not the sort of person to take this sort of thing lying down. Thus, I proceeded to plaster Newtown with the following poster. (Click on it for a larger version)

 

 

I received some calls as a result, but none from anyone who had found my pen. One caller did claim to have found it; I answered the phone and was greeted by a rather suspect English accent:

 

“I’ve found your pen. Here’s what you’re going to do: you’re going to take $400, put it in a duffel bag, and place it behind the headstone of Alfred Simpson*. Then you’re going to walk away. You will then be contacted with details of where you can retrieve your pen. “

“You know, you might have actually pulled it off if it wasn’t for the dodgy English accent”

[His voice changed slightly] “But I am English!”

[I laughed]

“Are you serious about this? Did you really lose a pen?”

“Of course. Why else would I do it? It’s very sentimentally valuable to me.”

“Does it even have any ink in it?”

“It’s a fountain pen, you can refill it.”

“Oh. Well, we’re all wishing you luck, then.”

“Thanks.”

“Will you put up posters to let us know if you get it back?”

“I suppose I could. Though you should know, your call: I’ve died a little inside now”

“Oh… well, I don’t feel so bad, now.”

“Glad I could be of service”

 

I also went around to the various art and stationery stores where one would be able to buy ink for my pen, and left copies of my poster with them. However, not having received any good news, I have decided to move on to the next stage of my plan; The Omega Protocol. Simply put, I’m writing a chain e-mail.

 

May god have mercy on my soul.

 

 

*I don’t actually remember the name he used, and you may consider the conversation roughly paraphrased, rather than taken verbatim.

Dispatches from the wilds of paranoia

(Wherein our intrepid hero breaks the biggest story never told)

My friends, I write to you to tell you of a grave and terrifying threat to our safety, security and future happiness. The war on terror is in error – it is an unwinnable battle against an unspecified enemy using funds that could well be directed elsewhere, at a far greater threat. According to the U.S. Department of State, (combined with this list on Wikipedia for the more recent statistics), an average of 70 people have died in the U.S. every year from terrorist attacks since 1961. This statistic, whilst sad, pales in comparison to the threat lurking amongst us. For secretly, in the shadows, under our very noses, there lurks a threat which kills fully 125 people every year. That’s almost double. What’s more, this reign of terror stretches back well beyond 1961; indeed, these silent killers have been practising their dark trade since before recorded history. And no, I’m not talking about ninjas – rather, this mass-murderer is none other than the humble peanut. That’s right: an ordinary peanut is twice as deadly as Osama Bin Laden.

It is for this reason that we must immediately redirect our attentions from the war on terror to the war on peanuts. However, the simple naked threat posed by these dangerous entities is, I know, not enough justification for the limp-wristed liberals out there. Therefore, I have compiled a set of further reasons as to why the peanut is the greatest threat the western world currently faces, and why it would be better to go to war with them:

1. January 14, 2002 – Mere months after the September 11 attacks, U.S. president George W. Bush chokes on a pretzel. What does this have to do with peanuts? Simple: peanuts and pretzels are both salty bar snacks. There is a clear and known association between them. It’s a known known. The connection between pretzels and peanuts could not be clearer, and this incident was undeniably an assassination attempt.

2. For the more cynical of you, it’s possible to extract oil from peanuts. It is almost certainly a lot easier than getting it out of the middle east.

3. We know where they are. Hell, you can find them at your local supermarket.

4. It’s an easier fight. You’re not going to need Nuclear Bunker Busters, Daisy Cutters or Laser-Guided Bullets for this one – a couple of combine harvesters and some DDT should do just fine.

5. June 6, 2007 – The cancelled television show Jericho is resurrected when the offices of CBS are inundated with 20 tonnes of peanuts – that’s 8 million of the blighters. The show, which revolves around the nuclear destruction of the United States of America, is quite obviously a hit with terrorists.

6. Every plane that has ever been hijacked, bombed, crashed, delayed, diverted, or had a Julia Roberts film on the in-flight entertainment system has one thing in common: they all had peanuts on board. Coincidence?

And the best part of it is, this isn’t some distant war being fought somewhere you can’t even find on a map; no, you can help fight this war right here, at home. I myself have peanut-butter on toast every morning – and as I bite into the smeared corpses of our greatest enemy, and grind the crisp fragments of their shattered bones between my teeth, I enjoy the fine, delicious flavour of patriotism.

Dispatches from a once-in-a-lifetime event

(Wherein our intrepid hero continues on the long march into extinction)

I am 23 today. 23 on the 23rd. This is (I am reasonably assured) a once-in-a-lifetime event. This is of course true; I shall never again actually turn 23 on the 23rd. I’ll turn 24 on the 23rd, (hopefully) I’ll turn 32 on the 23rd (hopefully… I guess?) but never again 23. Perhaps one day I shall turn 84 (which is the year of my birth) and who knows, maybe one day I’ll be celebrating my 2311th birthday, on 23/11 – in the year 4295. But this specific occurrence, shall never happen again – special, eh? Well… the thing is, technically every moment is a once-in-a-lifetime event. 12:47 on Thursday the 14th of January, 1988 was a moment that will, according to the inescapable laws of physics, never happen again. Oh, there are things that happened then that will happen again – I’m pretty sure, for instance, that I drew breath at that point, but the exact moment itself will never happen again.

So what qualifies one particular moment as notably once-in-a-lifetime? I mean, should I really be getting so excited about a day in which I will spend 8 hours in an office, just because of some numeric coincidence? I went to 5 parties in a row last Saturday, surely that’s a little more notable? The fact is, these distinctions are arbitrary, and, frankly, unhelpful. As I said, every moment of your life is a once-in-a-lifetime event - and they should be treated as such. By acting as though only certain moments are important, we give ourselves the freedom to waste the rest of our time, because “it doesn’t matter”. We waste far too much time in our lives, and tend to leave everything to the last minute; is that really how you want to look back on your life, the same way you look back on that essay that you did the night before it was due because you spent your time sitting on the couch watching re-runs of M*A*S*H? I mean, sure, you passed, but really, don’t you wish you tried a little harder? Are you really happy just shooting for a pass? When I first thought about “23 on the 23rd” I thought “cool, I should throw an especial party!” when really, I should have been thinking “That’s an interesting anecdote that I’ll be able to share at whatever party I end up at tonight, as I’ll naturally not be wasting my time sitting around at home.“

So stop wasting time! You only get one life, and the only way to screw it up is by not even trying!

P.S. – Party at my place! When? Whenever!

Dispatches from the limits of taste

(Wherein our intrepid hero invents a new food-group)

At some point last night, roughly around 9:30, having attended the opening of “Forgot to Remember” at Somedays Gallery, I found myself, (with a few beers ‘neath my belt) debating the merits of a food combination. It was my thesis that like peanut-butter & honey, or strawberries & chocolate, it was an foregone conclusion that the combination of pizza and pancakes would produce a taste sensation hitherto unrivaled in the annals of culinaria. It is safe to say that I have no recollection of how this topic was broached, nor how I came to this conclusion, (though the fact that I most certainly was the one who had the idea in the first place may have had something to do with it) the fact that we were heading to Pancakes on The Rocks meant that I would soon be presented with the opportunity to rigourously test my theorem under exacting laboratory conditions.

On arrival I was disappointed (though not at all surprised) to discover that the fine institution of Pancakes on The Rocks was unwilling to furnish me with a half-pizza, half-pancake meal. As though that would stop me! Thus I found myself ordering both a short stack, AND an Italian Salami pizza – the rigours of science are not for the miserly – nor the faint of stomach. To this I added a strawberry daiquiri. Finally, my meal arrived and, remarking “This enterprise calls for a serious hat“, I donned my marvellous hat and partook of that first fateful forkful. The taste sensation was, naturally, unusual. It is a rare and precious delight, I find, to encounter a truly novel flavour these days. Widespread multiculturalism has ruined most chances of undiscovered delicacies – you should, as a good cosmopolitan, already have encountered them all. Nevertheless, I can happily say that truly, it was delicious. Indeed, my various compatriots were convinced to partake, and agreed that it was, on the whole, “not bad“. – A note, by the way, on the best method of consuming this delicacy: the maple syrup, properly applied, will substantially reduce the structural integrity of the pancake. Thus, support is necessary. Therefore, the best method of consumption is as follows: cut roughly equal portions of pizza and pancake away from the main body of food, keeping in mind that the combined amount should be appropriate for one mouthful. Put a small quantity of the provided ice-cream on top of the pancake, which should have already, of course, been liberally doused in maple syrup. Skewer the piece of pancake with your fork, and then lift it onto the piece of pizza, which you then skewer as well, the fork passing through the pancake into the pizza. The pizza then provides a stable platform to support the fragile pancake on the perilous journey to your mouth. If you have done this correctly, you should have a layered substance, in this order: ice-cream, pancake, pizza – with the pizza on the end of your fork.

Now, it would be folly to have gone to the effort of setting up an experiment merely to determine the deliciousness of a certain combination. Thus I did my best to attain as many useful results as possible, that I might furnish you, gentle readers, with said information. Therefore: on the arrival of my meal, one of my compatriots remarked “there’s no way you’re going to eat that“. What he meant, naturally, was that he speculated that the combination would be abhorrent, and I would find myself unable to complete the meal. Now, I tended to agree that I would struggle to complete the combination, but for very different reasons. I had no doubt that the combination would be delicious, but the problem was that as I was not allowed a bespoke meal, the only way of achieving the combination was by ordering two whole meals. Granted, I got the smallest order of pancakes that I could, but nevertheless, I was faced with a not-insubstantial quantity of food. However, on partaking of the meal, and its notable deliciousness, I found that completing the meal, whilst substantial, would not necessarily be an impossible task. Add to this my resolution to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the combination was workable, and it was clear that the plates would have to be left barren. And so I did. I even washed it down with what was, frankly, a sub-standard margherita. However, it cannot be denied that afterward, the sheer quantity of food consumed weighed heavily on my stomach, prompting my remark “you know you’ve had a good night when your chief concern is getting home without throwing up.” In conclusion, then, it can be said that consuming an entire pizza, a short stack of pancakes, a strawberry daiquiri and a margherita is not, really, a terribly good idea. What I would recommend, however, is sharing said concoction with a friend – a pizza and a regular stack should divide fairly well between two.

Just skip the margheritas.

Dispatches from the wilds of YouTubia

(Wherein our intrepid hero contemplates the primates behind the glass)

When it comes to people writing comments on internet forums, there are two observations that one may feel confident espousing:

1: People that post on internet forums have a prevailing tendency towards stupidity.

2: People that post on YouTube are especially stupid.

In fact, the first observation may be made slightly more detailed. In general, as it progresses, the proportion of stupidity in any given forum discussion increases, until it approaches 1 (that being pure stupidity). Hence the existence of Godwin’s Law. This observation is not especially novel, and I make no pretence of being the first to notice such a phenomenon. Nor do I make any claim to being the first to observe the relative stupidity of YouTube comments compared to those on such weighty topics as Evolution vs. Creationism, American foreign policy, violence in video-games and eco-friendly heated toilet seats. However, as far as I know, no-one has yet attempted to explain this curious phenomenon. (Though I would be surprised, in honesty, to find that this is actually the case – if I were to bother actually looking.) Thus, I present to you my thesis on the relative stupidity of YouTube commentators. First, a quote:

“great video, but ducks actually partake in necrophilia“

- Shorteus

Now, to be fair, if you watch the video, you’ll find that this comment is actually not all that stupid. It does actually relate to the content, and may possibly relate actual factual information, AND manage to do all that without calling anyone a “fag”. That said, it is, when taken out of context, delightfully bizarre. To be honest, it wasn’t actually even the quote I originally had in mind – that quote is actually a better demonstration of what I’m talking about:

“and cane toads have been recorded trying to have sex with roadkill ones. So necrophilia is not a human only thing.“

- Romnipotent

Again it is still, in fairness, relevant and possibly factual, but the lapses in grammar give it that delightful not-quite-right feel (I would like to point out, by the way, that it is not paraphrased, rather, the author chose to begin his statement with “and” for reasons which I find wholly unapparent). Of course, if you haven’t watched the video yet, you must be wondering what the hell I’ve been watching of late. Go ahead and watch it, it’s not bad (or rather, the series overall is good, this particular clip might not be the best, honestly I can’t recall – but it has some great comments…) I don’t mind, really. I’ll wait for you.

Back? great. Now, as I was saying, I was about to present an explanation for why I think YouTube comments are so exceptionally stupid. First, let us consider the normal (if they can be called that) forum user. These are a people who are seeking intelligent intercourse on intellectual matters, such as politics, science, philosophy, society, &c. – now it is true that their standard of intellectual discourse may differ a little from yours or mine, but in principle, this is what they seek. Furthermore, in furtherance of this aim, they are willing to read. Oh, they might not necessarily peruse academic journals, reputable media, novels or Wikipedia articles not concerned with the canonity of certain Doctor Who plot points, but nevertheless, they do read – their fellow forum members’ posts, of course. Well, mostly. Some of them don’t, but they usually read at least the topic of discussion before sallying forth with their opinement. The chief concern of these websites is, indeed, the consumption of written material. YouTube, on the other hand, is not so inclined. The principle medium of YouTube is, of course, video. Consequently, we can appreciate the difference between the these centres of discussion with this simple analogy: YouTube is to forums as television is to print media. The analogy is delightfully apt, I think, because it accounts for the variances that exist across YouTube and internet forums at large. Whilst it’s true that the majority of YouTube content is unmitigated crap, shining islands of intellectual delight occasionally rise from the mire of mediocrity, so it is with television, where Black Books coexists with Big Brother. Similarly, whilst there is a general level of intellect on internet forums, it must be appreciated that whilst some forums are alike The New Yorker, others fall slightly closer towards New Idea, while most, – in view of their speciality and general obsessiveness – are perhaps closest in nature to that most venerable of print institutions that is Cat Fancy.

Thus we can visualise the difference between our participatory audiences and hence the differing quality of their contributions: YouTube being frequented by pungent couch-jockeys whose distended singlet-clad abdomens are graced by a healthy smattering of potato-chip remnants and unclassifiable stains, whilst our regular internet forums are filled with a combination of erudite New-Yorkers who enjoy a cup of tea (or more probably some excessively complicated coffee production) at their local café as they sit cross-legged reading The New Yorker one-handed whilst nimbly munching on a biscotti – so as not to get any fragments on their black turtlenecks – whilst retaining an air of unconcerned disdain, and lonely souls whose lack of companionship has driven them quite mad, resulting in an obsessiveness that borders on dangerous as they wander barefoot around their apartment, surrounded by the 32 cats with whom they regularly converse, and name after famous historical figures, (most notably Napoleon) and who have been removed from society for so long that when they encounter some unfortunate bystander they soon drive them off with their curious and mildly disturbing mannerisms.

Naturally of course, on entering the internet environment, they all take a -10 hit to intelligence.