Here there be monsters (socratic) wrote,
Here there be monsters
socratic

WHERE'S THE SPICE?!

I have started cooking recently. It was something I took up with trepidation and not a lot of skill, but hey, I'd like to be able to say "I can cook" and part of the process of getting to say that is, well, cooking.

That said, I made my first major success yesterday in a batch of chili that was, well fantastic. It's exactly the sort of thing I think of when I think of chili, the archtypical batch of chili, and it's something that you just can't get out of a can. My cooking skills have made it so that I can have this wonderful chili whenever I want, rather than according to the whims of other people or restaurants, and so I am seeing real dividends. That being said there is one flaw in the recipe, which is that it contains absolutely nothing to make the chili hot. Now I liberally added cayenne pepper sauce, but it still produced no more than a mild tingle. I know not everybody likes 5 alarm chili, but 0 alarm chili? Is it really that popular? I must understand the chili tastes of the people!

Poll #747847 Chili!

How do you feel about Chili?

I love basically all Chili that does not contain more than %8 rat droppings
2(11.1%)
I hate chili. I also hate small children and Sir Alexander Fleming for discovering penicillin.
2(11.1%)
I like my Chili mild. My dream is to move to the suburbs, get a job in middle management, and have sex 3 times a month, producing 2.2 children.
1(5.6%)
I like my Chili on the spicy side. Nice shoes, wanna fuck?
8(44.4%)
If it's not hot enough to make me cry and beg for mercy then IT IS NOT CHILI!
5(27.8%)


P.S.

I've been reading the Atlantic and discovered 2 things. A) Even in the most liberal areas there is breathtaking ignorance. For example in the Northeast apparently 40% of people disagree with the statement that "Homosexuals should be accepted by society." How is this even a controversial statement. To me it's like saying "People shouldn't murder other people for no reason." I'd imagine if you said "Homosexuals should be allowed access to all aspects of life including marriage and parenthood" then the number would shoot down. Fuckin' morons*.

B) There's an advertisement for a literary service in the Atlantic. This seems really weird to me. In my opinion there are 4 tiers of magazines. The first tier is those for children or people who hate words. Highlights, 321 Contact (does that still exist?) US Weekly, etc... The second tier are those for people who want light reading. Time, Newsweek, Popular Mechanics etc... The third tier are those with more serious ideas Harpers, Atlantic, etc... The last tier being professional or technical publications Medical journals, Foreign Affairs, etc... (You could argue that really technical stuff like medical journals constitute a fifth tier, but I think that the layman could learn enough to understand medical journals if he really wanted to. This tier constitutes stuff that's intended for a professional audience and not necessarily altered to appeal to laymen. I know Foreign Affairs does have lay appeal, but trust me it's really not that much.)

Why put a literacy advert in a 3rd tier magazine? Who's reading Atlantic who has literacy problems?


*I think most people would agree with "The ideal heterosexual household is a better environment for children than the ideal homosexual household" but this is irrelevant. How many people grew up in the ideal household? In reality it's individuals that matter, and loving homosexual parents are flat out better than disinterested or abusive heterosexual parents. If the whole world were raised by loving committed homosexuals then we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years!
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 8 comments