Gross, yes I do drive a WRX, but there are a few small differences...
-The WRX gets 24 miles per gallon not 8
(The hummer can go 256 miles on a 32-gallon tank; the WRX could go 768 miles on the same amount of fuel)
-Its not loaded up with absurd options like a 9,000 lb winch
-Yes it does serve a purpose (it gets me somewhere faster than I can walk)
-My family didn't buy it because we wanted to qualm fears of inadequacy
-It costs less than half of a hummer
-It isn't designed to kill the other guy
-It was designed to drive on roads. The hummer was designed for an off road environment in which most people will never drive
I have never made my car the subject of a conversation and have only talked about it when prompted to. I have never done anything with status as my rationale; you have known me long enough to know that.
Paul you are driving a WRX . . . a sportscar. You're car has almost no practicality whatsoever, and it really isn't any better then buying a Hummer.
Yesterday I was pulling into work when I noticed something. The hugest SUV I have ever seen was conveniently taking up 2 of the most prime spots in the lot. I was on time so I had time to find another spot farther away and I only gave it a second thought when I noticed how an old woman was also forced to park in the back of the lot (the handicap spots were full). Then I saw the driver of the monster behemoth, a well-dressed 5'4" tall woman with her two young sons who ironically enough were dressed for soccer practice. Minnesotans in particular have shown a dangerous susceptibility to what I call "need a bigger car than the other guy and use the weather to justify it" syndrome. This highly contagious disease seems to only affect those who are so desperate to qualm their own fears of inadequacy that they buy giant colorfully painted rolling squares to the tune of $49,000 to $56,000. But lets not forget all of the difficult choices. I mean, if you?re going to become the newest bad as* on the block there?s going to be some pain involved.
But seriously, General Motors (the proud parents of the Hummer H2) recognizes your needs and offers the following options...
First do you go with the...
-Base model for $49,270
-The "Lux" series model for $52,070
(about the price of 104,140 cans of Mountain Dew at 50? a can)
-Or my personal favorite the "Adventure" series, perfectly designed for those days when you feel like taking a left-turn in the right-turn only lane, and which any mother who truly cares about the safety of little Jimmy would have no-regrets about spending $51,710 for.
But wait, why not accessorize with options!
After all God forbid you should be caught downtown without the $850 Chrome Appearance Package or be stranded on the trail of life for not paying a miniscule $1400 extra for leather-trimmed seats. (see www.hummer.com for the full list of absurdity)
The marketing program for the H2 has been no less insulting to human dignity. For the woman who is looking to "intimidate men in a whole new way" (as a recent commercial for the H2 proclaimed) why not skip the Mercedes S500 (yours for $125,000) and go American. For men, may I suggest skipping the gold-plated chainsaw as a trophy to your masculinity and instead bring out the animal within by acquiring a "well proportioned" Hummer H2. After all what better way to show the world that you mean business than with a 16 foot long, 4 ton hunk with a 32 gallon fuel tank. You'll be able to proudly pull any lesser man out of a bind with your industrial strength winch (so long as he doesn't exceed your winch's 9,000 lb capacity). Americans have the gift of space and government subsidized gas. If you drove one of these things in Europe you would probably be shot for paying $192 to fill up your tank (gas cost 5 to 6 bucks a gallon there).
It?s time to face the music. Less than 5% of all SUV's will ever see those beautiful off-road paradises you see in the commercials, and judging how Hummers make up less than one percent of SUV?s on the road, I think you've got a pretty good picture of just how badly we need these things. Except for a select few, the most daring drive anyone will take in an H2 will be a midnight run to Cub foods. But hey, if your the concerned parent or insecure suburbanite who really needs one of these things to make sure that in an accident you're safe and the other guy is dead, then for just fifty grand you'll know than when you run a red light and you hear a crunch, little Jimmy in the back seat is going to be just fine.
The copyright laws are a form of control. The record companies try to cram crap down the throat of consumers through radio, MTV, and CDs, all the while taking all the $ for themselves, screwing the artist. What all these old hacks fail to realize is that the internet is a great marketing tool. What they also do not understand is that they cannot destroy the file sharing or the internet. The freedom of information cannot be stopped. If you want to support an artist, go to their concert. That is where they make most of their revenue anyways.
First off, 99 cents a song may be relatively cheep but it is not cheep. In any one month I listen to any where from 30 to 1000 new songs (And if you know me you know I have no source of income). Needless to say there is no way I could spend that much money on music. Second most of the artists I listen to are dead and I don't wish to support there families (they can do that for themselves). Lastly, most of the music I listen to is next to impossible to find or free anyway. I listen to a lot of TMBG and the majority of there stuff is not and will never be on an album the only way to hear most of it is to call in to dial-a-song (this is free) and they play it for you. And if they are giving it away why is it wrong for me to download it? Then there is Laïs. I would buy there albums but you cant buy them in the US so I download. I tend to act strange and feel off is I don't get new music every so often but I just can't afford paying for it.
By now, I am sure you have all seen those seat belt commercials saying, "If you don't clip it expect a ticket" and "because wearing seatbelts are proven to save lives" HOW can they ticket you for taking your life in your own hands? It is not as if you not wearing a seat belt will hurt anyone else? In my opinion, minors should have to wear seat belts because they are stupid and are not capable of making informed decisions, but the day they hit 18, if they want to risk their lives let them. No suing the car company, no medical compensation from the other driver. If someone wants to do something stupid how can you stand in there way? How can anyone find it justified to fine money for not protecting your self??? If there was a common event of people flying out of the windshield, landing on the sidewalk, and exploding sending out shrapnel and killing 15-20 people due to not wearing seatbelts I would see it as justified, but as you and I know this is not a common event.
Yoko was obviously sent by Satin to reek destruction on all that is good. If it wasn't for her, right now we would be grooving to the beatles 20th comeback tour, with all the original members! Yoko is darkness and envelops all light. Have you ever listened to her music? WOW. Only a demonic entity could make sounds like that, and only the anti-Christ would currupt John Lennon with that pure evil. How dare you defend the epicenter of evil in the world Jesse!
How can you like Yoko? She didn't do anything, and was about to divorce John before he died. Then she decides to forget about all that, and live off the royalties from being wife to one of the Beatles. I can't see where she should recieve respect.
Don't Diss Yoko
Hello everyone, and I'd like to say thanks to Jesse for allowing me to rant and rave with complete freedom now as a member of Atimes.
Now, in true anarchist form, I say fullheartedly "screw conforming to the Apple system!" This is basically a concession of failure on their part. They are admitting that they cannot stop the file-sharing online, so they are trying to call on people's consciences to get them to start feeding money back into their greedy hands. Too late. The music labels already are the immoral ones, seeing as a band sees less than $1.00 off of every $18.00 cd sold. Why aren't more bands crying out about the "great injustice"? Because they know people will still pay for their music one way or another. Whether it's for more tours, or clothing and accessories, bands will live on. Bottom line now is music control has gone to the hands of the people, and anything less than free-music will not suffice, or rattle enough people's consciences to make any drastic changes.
This also works, because I don't think family should directly benefit from their dead relative's genius. Especially if that relative was planning to divorce the spouse right before he died (Yoko Ono). Dumb whore
Hans, you should like this. Since bands will now have to rely solely on talent, perhaps more quality music will be made which "explores the emotions" as you put it. No more record labels forcing it on us.
So that took a few tangents, but you get my jist. Down with the norm, up with free music, movies, and love.
