And now, a bit of humor
(posted by jackson)
I saw this one over at Rodger Cadenhead’s weblog. It might be a stretch to think this belongs on Art Of The Possible, but the fellow helps me out by mentioning the Constitution and complaining about Social Security. I’m reminded of the humor of Steve Buscemi’s performance in the opening restaurant scene of Reservoir Dogs, when he refuses to leave a tip for the waitress. Cadenhead posts this one under the title “This One’s for the Ladies”, a title I can not compete with.
kevincollins said:
Well, as a lifelong bachelor for 37 years, I’d say I stopped going into restaurants where you tip a waiter or waitress about 10 years ago. I’ve always averred that it’s woefully wasteful. Why the hell should I pay extra just for someone to bring my food to the table? I’m perfectly capable of doing that myself. And the way I see it, food is just something I need to survive. That’s why I either get 99-cent items at Burger King, Jack in the Box, or McDonalds or buy 99-cent microwavable items from the grocery store — I don’t need overpriced baby-back ribs from Chili’s and the like. It’s just frigging food any way you slice it. What really cracks me up are elderly people who go to overpriced cafeterias for food they’re perfectly capable of fixing at home, because they’re the ones who gripe that Social Security isn’t enough income yet blow crucial dollars of their income for eating out. Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that they’re entitled the money to eat out, nor is it written that a family of 4 is equally entitled to eat at Appleby’s and T.G.I. Fridays and the like every weekend like so many families robotically do as if they’re all pod people. So bravo to fast-food places that are getting improved business nowadays. They offer nondescript food at good prices that may not be as tasty as meat at Outback Steakhouse but are perfectly fine nevertheless.
If there is a serious point here, it is the idea that people receiving money from the government should eat the lowest quality, cheapest food they can find. I’d disagree with that regardless of the government program in question, but it is especially odd to see the issue raised in the context of Social Security, a program people pay into their whole working lives.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I’m glad he’s focusing on the largest recipients of money from the welfare state (the elderly) rather than those usually pointed out (the poor).
April 19th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
It’s interesting he dismisses the whole idea of enjoying one’s food as irrelevant, so long as it serves its only important function: providing calories. Some people actually view life as something to be enjoyed. Taking things to their logical conclusion, he might argue that we could metabolize glucose and exhale CO2 just as well in a persistent vegetative state.