Ant Problem

Every once in a while our house is invaded by those annoying little black ants that are so common in Southern California. The common name of these species is the Argentine Ant, named after their country of origin.

I hate walking into the kitchen and discovering that these creatures have discovered some source of food and are now going to and fro on their trail, from food to their nest. No matter what I do, I can't get rid of them because they keep coming back.

I smashed as many as I could but there are too many to smash; plus I can't wait around all day for them to come into the kitchen. I tried spraying but soon that wears off and they return. If I try to catch all of them and throw them outside, they'll just find their way back into my house. Sometimes I think about building a big wall around the house but I doubt that this will deter them.

It seems that their numbers steadily increase, too. I tell you, if my food weren't properly stored, soon they would devour it all and eat me out of house and home. One thing I thought of was that instead of throwing old or unwanted food into the garbage, maybe I could leave it out for the ants and let them eat the stuff that no one else wants. But I'd have to be careful because soon they'd be looking around for more and would start taking away the food that I want to eat.

What is going to keep these ants away??? No matter how I try to prevent them from coming into the house, they come. Why? Because they're looking for food, that's why. Oh, wait a minute.. duh, if I had no food in my house, maybe they would stay away. That's right - take away the reason for them coming, and then they won't come any more. Why didn't I think of that sooner?

Anyway, sorry to digress. I was going to discuss the current mess with immigration reform that is taking place in this country but I don't really feel like writing any more right now. I wrote too much about those black ants that keep invading my house.

Grilled Cheese and Manicotti

This is actually last week's news, but I've been too busy to write in here for the past several days. So apparently some man dining in a restaurant says he saw the image of Jesus in his manicotti. He also claims that after he ate the manicotti, a chronic stomach ailment that plagued him disappeared. Now my question is why wouldn't he preserve this manicotti image and sell it on E-Bay, same as what happened with that grilled cheese sandwich that supposedly bore the likeness of the Virgin Mary?

I must say that while I consider myself a God-fearing Christian, I think Jesus and Mother Mary sightings in foodstuffs and other things are ridiculous. First of all, no one really knows what Jesus or His mother looked like; all we have to go by are artists renderings, none of whom really had any more to go by than you or me when it came to painting an accurate picture. So for all we know, that pattern formed as you pour syrup on your pancake might resemble them more closely than the grilled cheese sandwich that sold for an outrageous amount online.

And what could possibly be the purpose for Jesus to appear in your manicotti? Or the Virgin Mary to appear on a piece of grilled cheese sandwich? Considering that someone made an obscense profit on the sale of this sandwich, I fail to see any holy purpose to making an appearance like this. Maybe this invites the creation of a whole new category of holy men or women, those who are more adept at conjuring up images of Biblical characters in food that is given to them and thus are holier than thy neighbor. A whole new line of products could be marketed, those that give the buyer a higher chance of seeing a holy image in the food that is prepared with these products (such as spaghetti sauces, seasoning packets, pasta in various shapes, combo pizzas, etc.).

I do believe that God speaks to us in His way but I just find it difficult to believe He would speak to us by appearing in a serving of manicotti or that Mother Mary would be immortalized on a grilled cheese sandwich. Not even the ones they serve at Campanile on Thursday nights.

Soda - The New Tobacco

So during the drive home from work today I was doing my usual routine, listening to John and Ken on KFI 640. They were interviewing some doctor or professor or whatever from North Carolina who was advocating a tax on sodas, similar to the tax that is placed on cigarettes. According to him, people are getting too fat off of drinking soda and this tax not only would inhibit purchases but would also be used to fund research and programs to educate people and get them to have a healthier diet.

Now where does all of this stop? Are we going to be paying extra taxes at McDonalds because the stuff they serve over there is so fattening? Maybe a different tax rate if you order a Big Mac versus if you order a salad (but extra tax if you get dressing with it). As a side note, have you actually ordered a salad over there? Next time take a look at the lettuce and see it is turning brown; I suspect that's because most of the salads are just sitting around for a lengthy time waiting for someone to order them. Who the heck goes to McDonalds to eat a salad, anyway? But back to the subject of this post, where does all this taxation end?

Personally, I am glad there are hefty taxes on cigarettes. I hate it when people smoke and the more they weaken their financial condition because of it, that's fine with me. But there's a difference between consuming soda versus smoking a cigarette; I don't ingest calories when the person next to me is drinking a soda. I don't ingest calories or fat or sodium if the person next to me is eating a large order of french fries. Now if I choose to eat that stuff, then that's my decision. Just because it is unhealthy I resent someone trying to tax me because of it.

This is just another case of taking responsibility away from where it belongs: the person doing the action. Are people really that stupid to not get the connection between eating too much food and getting fat? Why do some people feel they have to hold everyone's hand instead of letting them be responsible for what they do? It's the same stupidity as that fatso that sued McDonalds saying it caused them to become overweight. We're becoming a nation of finger-pointers, of people who feel that the blame is somewhere else besides ourselves, and the buck stops elsewhere.

As an aside, something I think is really funny is to watch people order a pastrami dip, a large order of fries or onion rings or both, and then a diet coke to wash it down. Har har! Of course, I do that, too. But that's my choice. I know I'm only fooling myself. I don't need anyone laying extra taxes on me because of my stupidity.

Let's see... tax on sodas for excess sugar. We should tax Campbell's chunky soups for having excess sodium. Put a 'fat tax' on bacon. Maybe we should tax some books for having excess words because that causes a strain on your eyes and you know that ain't good. But make blogs exempt.

Yes But Is It Art?

Well my laugh of the day came as I was driving home listening to the news. Apparently some 12 year old visitor to the Detroit Institute of the Arts stuck a wad of gum on an abstract painting worth $2 million. Appropriately he was suspended from school. Now when I got home I did some checking on the web and according to USA Today, the work was entitled "The Bay" by Helen Frankenthaler and was valued not at $2 million as I heard on the radio, but only $1.5 million.

I am probably betraying my uncouth, unsophisticated nature but to me, sticking a wad of gum on abstract art can only be an improvement. Had no one saw the kid do this, I bet no one would have noticed anything unusual about the painting and in fact, the gum probably would have elicited comments about how the gum was the "defining detail" of this marvelous work.

$1.5 million for an abstract art piece? People working for minimum wage doing something useful and vital for society? Give me a break; something's out of tune.