so i love taco bell. seriously, if it were legally
possible i would marry the entity known as, "Taco Bell".
i would take good care of our children, "chili-cheese
burrito, cheesy-gordita crunch jr., and jimmy the soft
taco", by quickly devouring them all.
you see today i was there and it actually took them more
than 5 seconds to give it to me. sadly (or nicely)
enough, just about everyone there knows me by now. this
time the manager gave me my food personally and
said, "hey, sorry it took so long this time buddy". you
see that apology is completely unneccesary, as they could
have a 300 lb. gorilla ass-rape me while i eat my food and
i'd still come back. plus there's this really nice girl
there, tiffany who's aalways really friendly to me, and
that's always nice when you come somewhere. and then
there's mary who is the sweet 80 yr. old lady who does
more work at her age than most of the sorry asswipes
around this town.
anyhow i'm sitting there eating my food as i hear some of
the hippies on the other table talking (shock!) politics.
see lately there has been an outcry in the school
newspaper for a reformation of the capitalist system.
essentially a march for "the equal distribution of wealth"
has been undertaken.....only in the literary form, cos
it's too cold for hippies to actually go outside. anyhow
they're always griping about shit, and then they start
talking about how stupid bush is which always pisses me
off. i just hate it when some good-for-nothings go on and
criticize everyone around them.....sure, sure, i know, i
know, it's the inalienable right of our sweet country to
whine about every damn thing without actually offering a
decisive plan of action, but i mean come on.
see i don't mind so much if they'd criticize what he's
done, but all they do is criticize the person! what's
that shit? "he's dumb, he can't even complete an english
sentence, how can we have a 'leader' who can't even
speak?" ........ that's all i ever hear about bush, his
inability to speak, which of course is ironic as these two
imbeciles go on to say how they think it's unfair that
politics is a popularity contest and only the
most "eloquent" win, whereas the practicality of their
left-wing doctrine is left in the shades of "not enough
air-time". of course they don't even stop to think that
they base their own accusations on the "appearance" of the
anyhow just so that i don't fall into the hypocritical
state, i'd just wish to state something of my own. people
always say how wealth and corporate greed should
be "dispersed", but there are atleast two very big
problems for this theory. first of all, redistribution of
anything is always a tricky as it has to always be
controlled by someone. moreover, why take the means of
production from those most capable, just to give it to
those that may/or may not be able to do it better? sure
that sounds greedy and capitalistic, but i just always
wonder when people bitch about bill gates. so what if
he's rich? he fucking earned it and i'll be the first one
to admit it. secondly, i think that government
involvement in any corporate matters should be limited but
ever-present. i mean i think it's great that we have anti-
trust cases, but at the same time i think a re-possesion
is absolutely flawed. giving a government the omnipotent
power of the political and industrial realm is always
bound to fail. power corrupts (as can be seen by anything
from the catholic church to the roman empire to individual
corporations to governments), my idea on this is not to
punish people for their means of achieving power but to
keep it seperated.
sure enron was an abomination and hurt a lot of people,
i'll grant that to nader, and the unscrupulous acts of
many other ceos are just as bad, however, i believe it is
better that they are in and of themselves their own
entity, which can be brought down by the government.
thinking that this corruption would be alleviated by some
new egalitarian means of wealth distribution, or means of
production is an absolutely unwarranted and idealistic
the unitarian manner in which corporations are run is (in
my opinion) the most efficient manner for an entity in
which production is it's main goal. however, in terms of
government, i believe that efficiency is a fallacy.
governments are never and have never been meant to be
efficient, they are here solely for the purpose of
constantly deliberating the inequities of our society be
means that don't dictate a clear and concise resolution.
democracy in all it's problems is ironically the
most "effective" form of government.
consider for example a dictatorship....shit happens damn
quickly (just take for example hitler's executive decision
law), no more parliament to bicker.
efficient.....effective? hardly. efficiency is not
desireable in a government. we always bitch and moan
about how there is so much partisanship in every little
matter and how little lobbyists from special interest
groups tie up litigation. take this as your biggest
that's why i always like to listen to hippies talk. they
make me (oddly enough) thankful that i can still hear out
of one ear, if not the other.