Notes From An Inexperienced Chili Tester Named FRANK, who was visiting Texas
from the East Coast: "Recently, I was honored to be selected as a judge at
a chili cook-off. The original person called in sick at the last moment and
I happened to be standing there at the judge's table asking directions to
the beer wagon, when the call came. I was assured by the other two judges
(Native Texans) that the chili wouldn't be all that spicy, and besides, they
told me I could have free beer during the tasting, so I accepted." Here are
the scorecards from the event:
CHILI # 1 MIKE'S MANIAC MOBSTER MONSTER CHILI JUDGE ONE: A little too heavy
on tomato. Amusing kick. JUDGE TWO: Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild.
FRANK: Holy ****, what the hell is this stuff? You could remove dried paint
from your driveway. Took me two beers to put the flames out. I hope that's
the worst one. These Texans are crazy.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 2 ARTHUR'S AFTERBURNER CHILI
JUDGE ONE: Smokey, with a hint of pork. Slight Jalapeno tang. JUDGE TWO:
Exciting BBQ flavor, needs more peppers to be taken seriously. FRANK: Keep
this out of the reach of children I'm not sure what I am supposed to taste
besides pain. I had to wave off two people who wanted to give me the
Heimlich maneuver. They had to rush in more beer when they saw the look on
my face.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 3 FRED'S FAMOUS BURN DOWN THE BARN CHILI JUDGE ONE: Excellent
firehouse chili! Great kick. Needs more beans. JUDGE TWO: A beanless
chili, a bit salty, good use of peppers. FRANK: Call the EPA, I've located
a uranium spill. My nose feels like I have been snorting Drano. Everyone
knows the routine by now get me more beer before I ignite. Barmaid pounded
me on the back; now my backbone is in the front part of my chest. I'm
getting ****-faced from all the beer.
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 4 BUBBA'S BLACK MAGIC JUDGE ONE: Black bean chili with almost no
spice. Disappointing. JUDGE TWO: Hint of lime in the black beans. Good
side dish for fish or other mild foods, not much of a chili. FRANK: I felt
something scraping across my tongue, but was unable to taste it, is it
possible to burnout taste buds? Sally, the barmaid, was standing behind me
with fresh refills; that 300 lb. bitch is starting to look HOT just like
this nuclear waste I'm eating. Is chili an aphrodisiac?
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 5 LINDA'S LEGAL LIP REMOVER JUDGE ONE: Meaty, strong chili. Cayenne
peppers freshly ground, adding considerable kick. Very Impressive. JUDGE
TWO: Chili using shredded beef, could use more tomato. Must admit the
cayenne peppers make a strong statement. FRANK: My ears are ringing, sweat
is pouring off my forehead and I can no longer focus my eyes. I farted and
four people behind me needed paramedics. The contestant seemed offended
when I told her that her chili had given me brain damage, Sally saved my
tongue from bleeding by pouring beer directly on it from a pitcher. I wonder
if I'm burning my lips off? It really ****ed me off that the other judges
asked me to stop screaming. Screw those rednecks!
_______________________________________________
CHILI # 6 VERA'S VERY VEGETARIAN VARIETY JUDGE ONE: Thin yet bold vegetarian
variety chili. Good balance of spice and peppers. JUDGE TWO: The best yet.
Aggressive use of peppers, onions, and garlic. Superb. FRANK: My intestines
are now a straight pipe filled with gaseous, sulfuric flames. I **** myself
when I farted and I'm worried it will eat through the chair. No one seems
inclined to stand behind me except Sally. Can't feel my lips anymore. I
need to wipe my ass with a snow cone!
________________________________________________
CHILI # 7 SUSAN'S SCREAMING SENSATION CHILI JUDGE ONE: A mediocre chili with
too much reliance on canned peppers. JUDGE TWO: Ho Hum, tastes as if the
chef literally threw in a can of chili peppers at the last moment. I should
take note that I am worried about Judge Number 3- He appears to be in a bit
of distress as he is cursing uncontrollably. FRANK: You could put a grenade
in my mouth, pull the pin, and I wouldn't feel a damn thing. I've lost sight
in one eye, and the world sounds like it is made of rushing water. My shirt
is covered with chili, which slid unnoticed out of my mouth. My pants are
full of lava-like **** to match my damn shirt. At least during the autopsy
they'll know what killed me. I've decided to stop breathing, it's too
painful. Screw it, I'm not getting any oxygen anyway. If I need air, I'll
just suck it in through the 4 inch hole in my stomach
"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%
[email protected]...
>
> "Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:29:11 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> > <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:18:29 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> > >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> >news:[email protected]...
> > >>
> > >> >> So view gay marriage as a marriage with one sterile member. How
can
> > >> >> one "detract" from marriage these days? With a 50% divorce rate
it
> > >> >> seems that hetero couples have done a pretty bang up job
detracting
> > >> >> from it on their own. Perhaps gay couples could show us how to
live
> > >> >> together happily for an extended period.
> > >> >>
> > >> >By giving it's benefits civil rights status.
> > >>
> > >> Again, what's wrong with this?
> > >
> > >Marriage isn't about civil rights. If it were, you couldn't
discriminate
> > >amongst those who could lay claim to it on civil rights grounds.
> > >
> > >Marriage is what it is for the benefit is provides to society not for
any
> > >civil right it satisfies.
> >
> > And that benefit is children, right? Which brings us back to couples
> > who can't or don't want to have children. It also leads us to the
> > question of what is better for kids? An unhappy marriage between a
> > man and a woman or a happy relationship between two men or two women?
> > As long as they learn how to love someone else, it doesn't matter the
> > sex of that person.
> > >>
>
> No, the benefit is carrying forward values and blessings from generation
to
> generation. You can try to stir up the stew by throwing in a bunch of
"what
> if"'s about happy, well adjusted, smart, intelligent gay couples and
stupid,
> idiodic, lying, cheating, bank-robbing straight couples. It doesn't
change
> the principles of the argument though.
>
> Changing marriage into a civil right for <fill in the blank> rather than
an
> institution to bless our continued existence over the generations.
>
> > >> And the right wants to limit who gets these benefits, right?
> > >>
> > >No. The right believes in natural rights that are God given.
> >
> > Tough on atheists, isn't it? Every right is granted by the community,
> > not god (which god anyways?).
> >
>
> That isn't the point, and no it isn't tough on Athiests (they should
> thank.... oh never mind). The basis for our entire political system, and
> what made it unique at the time, is the concept that there are certain
> rights that can't be granted by *any* institution or government (or
> community) because they are inalienable. So they were described as
granted
> "by God".
>
> The notion that our rights are granted by the community is un-American.
> Literally. In the monarchies of the past, rights were derived from the
> monarch. They were the gods of their subjects. Communism claims all
rights
> eminate from the government or 'proletariet'.
>
> We all know that he who has the power to grant, also has the power to take
> away.
>
> By the way... are you from Canada? It didn't occur to me that you might
be
> and that maybe Canadians rights aren't recognized as "God given".
>
> > >The left
> > >loves to pile on with new rights all the time. We start out with
rights
> of
> > >life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the bill of rights and
the
> > >libs want to drive it as far as they can with rights to benefits, jobs,
> > >shelter, health care, etc.. All of which would obligate the government
> to
> > >provide them. The right believes that, generally, individuals should
be
> > >responsible for their own welfare and do a better job of it that the
> > >government.
> >
> > If only we could come to a fair balance. The problem now is that as
> > soon as something is suggested by the left the right reflexively
> > dismisses it and the same thing happens to that suggested by the
> > right. *Who* puts forward the idea has become more important than the
> > idea itself.
> >
>
> Well that works both ways (left and right). And it's true for the
politcal
> faces of Democrats and Republicans. But actually, it isn't true. Both
left
> and right have won ideological vitories in the US. There is a huge
> entitlement class in the US thanks to the left. The right is not going to
> change it. The right has built a powerful military that has protected
> freedom and liberty wordwide and has the courage to use it.
>
> > >> Why is this not good? Hell, 50 yrs ago the idea of a woman working
> > >> outside the home was a bad thing. The idea of a woman executive was
> > >> unthinkable, yet here we are today.
> > >>
> > >Because it changes the nature of marriage. It changes it into a union
> whose
> > >purpose is to acquire benefits, most of which are available outside
> > >marriage, and are specific to protecting the dependents of a provider.
> >
> > Women working changed the nature of marriage too. We survived.
> >
>
> We have, but it's caused family problems for double income families with
> children. It hasn't been a good thing. It's tended towards a negative
> effect on families. The idea of women in the work force as a concept
> isolated to itself is not an issue. Just it's effect on the family.
>
> > >BTW, we don't have a completely gender normalized society and it's
> debatable
> > >that it would be beneficial. One could *never* differentiate based on
> > >gender. Is that necessarily good?
> >
> > Why should you differentiate on gender for anything except who your
> > life partner is?
> >
>
> Oh heavens. Anything we do by gender. Public bathrooms and locker rooms,
> public nudity, public discrimination of private organizations that gender
> discriminate (the priesthood, private universities, etc.). There are
> probably better examples, but we wouldn't benefit from a gender normalized
> society. That's not to say that there are some things that should be
gender
> normalized that maybe aren't, just that it's unrealistic and undesirable
to
> normalize *everything* we do and *every* institution by gender. That's
why
> the Equal Rights Amendment lost 30 years ago. Men and women are different
> to a degree that warrants proper discrimination.
>
> > >> What do you consider to be true civil rights?
> > >
> > >I'm sure the list is long, but it includes speech, assemble,
congregate,
> > >vote, property, worship, access to courts, due process, etc., etc.
> > >
> > >The people don't have a absolute rights to everything. The government
> can
> > >regulate many things based on legislation. One of those is who can and
> > >can't marry to the extent that it can stop certain marriages based on a
> > >compelling state interest (polygamy, same-sex, siblings, etc.).
There's
> our
> > >argument. Making marriage a civil right, turns off that filter and we
> can
> > >no longer (or would have a much harder time) stop any type of marriage
> from
> > >occuring. Intellectually, opening the door to same-sex but closing it
to
> > >other possibilities becomes discriminatory in the same fashion. If
it's
> a
> > >reflection of public values, then it will be what the people will
> tolerate.
> > >If it's a matter of civil rights, then it doesn't matter what the
people
> > >will tolerate and the courts will protect whatever individuals choose.
> >
> > The courts *should* protect what individuals choose. It would seem
> > that you're all about freedom until it compromises your ideas about
> > what people should be doing.
>
> Not at all! The courts have no such jurisdiction! They only have power
to
> rule on the law. You seem to have missed the point. If marriage were a
> civil right, then congress could not pass laws regulating it and the
courts
> would enforce it. As long as it isn't a civil right, congress, or
> legislatures, can regulate it in the interest of the public welfare
(that's
> for you Lloyd) as they see fit. Since they are our representatives, they
> represent the public view by how they vote to regulate things. If they
vote
> to allow gay marriage. That's what we'll do. If the court "finds" a
right
> to marriage in the constitution (and only a leftest court would), then
> congress is removed from the picture and thus the desires and opinions of
> the people on the matter are rendered irrelevent (unless we pass a
> constitutional amendment).
>
>
> > --
> > Brandon Sommerville
> > remove ".gov" to e-mail
> >
> > Definition of "Lottery":
> > Millions of stupid people contributing
> > to make one stupid person look smart.
>
>
