blogging in on a chandelier

anyone ever notice how the dynamic of "seinfeld" (minus elaine) is exactly the same as old disney cartoons with mickey, goofy and donald? mickey/jerry are the straight-men who just kind of sit back and watch the chaos occur while always escaping relatively unscathed. goofy/kramer bring the slapstick element while, good naturedly, wrangling the group into a bigger mess than was previously encountered or anticipated. donald/kramer are the temperamental fall guys who end up coming out of every mess the worser and the butt of every joke. even their physical attributes are nearly identical to their counterparts. mickey/jerry are average, physically neutral. goofy/kramer are tall, lanky and clumsy. donald/george are short, stocky and bald. heck, if you wanted to stretch it even further you could probably compare pete/newman as the big fat, antagonists where the affably innocent goofy/kramer will often assist in their ne'er-do-wellness. and please, don't try to draw comparisons betwixt minnie/elaine because they are completely unfounded and ludicrous. golly, i wish i would've stumbled across this little of nugget o' genius in college so i wouldn't have had to write my thesis on the socio-political-economical comparisons betwixt "b.j and the bear" and the carter administration.

i don't think i ever really want to spend too much time in mexico (heck, i grew up in salinas - ba dum CHHH) but i often lay awake at night pondering the mexican water situation. gringoes always warn "don't drink the water!" but, how would you shower or brush your teeth in mexico? (i refuse to insert obvious joke - racist) seriously though, if the water is unfit to drink wouldn't it also be just as gross wash dishes and do the laundry? (i still refuse to insert obvious joke - racist) and, the water is unfit to drink because the processing plant doesn't quite process the poopoo out, right? why would i want to shower in poopoo water but not drink said poopoo water? god bless america and the mexicans who cross our border to wash our dishes and do our laundry.

i know i ranted about the movie/tv wooing process translating to the real world a few blogs ago but i'm still just as upset. so, i'm reading this book (i know, book isn't tv/movie) and this dude likes this chick, asks out said chick, chick says nay, dude follows her around for weeks (stalks), chick still denies his advances, chick eventually gives in and falls in love with him (however, dude ultimately breaks up with chick only for the chick to murder him but that's irrelevant to my point). so, this is a common occurrence in tv/movies, right? now, i've been rejected by millions of chicks but how am i supposed to know whether i'm supposed to leave it at that or follow them around until they give in? i kinda' did that with my first gf and it worked. heck, even my dad did that in effect to my mom - he asked for her digits at a party, she said "why would i want you calling me?," he got in his car, blocked her car in with his, wouldn't move it until he got the digits and they've been married for like 27 years. so, are we as men, supposed to do that? in the face of rejection are we supposed to swing in on a chandelier, aggressively pursue and figuratively (while i would prefer literally) beat her into submission? if i were guaranteed this would work every time i'd do it but i fear i'd be slapped with a restraining order or, even worse, she would tell all her friends, they'd all laugh at me and i'd be forced to eat ridiculous amounts of food so i could build walls of fat for protection from the cruel world.

how fun is it to say the word "caucus?" it reminds of when i was in hs and my best good friend jeffie would ask about the "black caucus" at least once a week in government class without poor, old mr. connor being the wiser. hahaa, poor old mr. connor would wax poetic on the swingin' black caucus all whilst we were giggling like little faggots. (can you believe myspace's spell check thingy just underlined "faggots" and "myspace?")

ba dum BLOG!!!