Sunday, July 04, 2010

Restaurant Foods that Suck (not due to taste)

Yeah, this is a bit random, and a bit different, but it's not like this blog has regular readers anyway because I update it so infrequently.

Here are restaurant foods that I just plain cannot stand, and not because I dislike the way they taste, but rather because of the manner in which they are provided.

#1. Fajitas. So when you order fajitas, invariably the waiter brings out this super hot black frying pan with the fajuta stuff still sizzling away, with lots of onions. Damn it, restaurants have kitchens. Prepare the food in the kitchen, and then bring the damn stuff out. This has to be the most annoying thing for someone else at your table, or even the next table to order. Everything else on this list, it doesn't really matter if someone else at your table orders it. But Fajitas suck for everyone else at the table, not just the person ordering it. I really wish restaurants could finish these things back in the kitchen.

#2. Seafood pasta. Why can't restaurants remove the seafood from the shells before they make it, or after they make it but before they bring it. It makes eating the dish really difficult. You eat some noodles, then you have to get the clams or mussels or whatever out of the shells that are covered in red sauce. I can't eat the shells, I don't want the shells. If you order a seafood salad, it doesn't come with shells. Why seafood pasta?

#3. Open Faced Sandwiches. What the hell are these things anyway? Awful to eat. You can't pick them up, but cutting them and eating them is no picnic. Put an extra piece of bread on top so I can eat a sandwich the way it was intended to be eaten.

#4. Huge Sandwiches. Sort of like the open face sandwich, sandwiches that are way too big to possibly get your mouth around suck. Then you're left with the odd choice of stretching your mouth like some snake, and still have the sandwich fixings fall down your shirt, or you've got to start removing some of the meat in the sandwich so you can get it in your mouth. Or you can try eating it with a knife and fork, which is also really difficult.

#5. Really hard butter patties. So you're at a restaurant and they bring bread or rolls and then butter patties that are hard as rocks. You try spreading the butter on the bread, and it sort of rips the bread apart. So you try cutting slivers of the butter, but that's not really all that successful. Butter isn't mean to be deep frozen, people.

#6. Roasted Red Peppers. They're just slimy. Enough said.

#7, Really hard dinner rolls. So the restaurant brings you rolls. You try breaking one apart to butter it, but the outer crust is so hard that little crumbs go all over the place.

#8 Tightly packed untossed salad. So you order salad, and it comes in a bowl that's too small, so the salad is really packed in. But the salad isn't mixed up, but there's no way for you to mix it up without making a complete mess. This is especially true if you did takeout and got the dressing separately. You can't get the dressing distributed, so you have to pour just a tiny bit onto the salad, eat that part, and then hope to put in the rest of the dressing so you can stir it. Use a bigger bowl, people!

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Hope the Republicans are (slightly) short in November

While I certainly hope the Republicans do well in November, I hope they are a few votes shy of a majority in both chambers. In the Senate, this discussion is probably moot: it's almost mathematically impossible for them to get a majority in the Senate. They'd need to pick up 10 seats. That'd be about as good as they could possible do, and it'd require everything going right for them. Boxer losing, Murray losing, etc.

There are several reasons why being in the minority would be better for the Republicans long-term.

First, let's say they get slight majorities. They won't be able to accomplish much of anything, as Obama will veto any meaningful reforms.

Second, the Republican leadership is not great. I'd really like them put Ryan, Pence, Flake and others in leadership roles.

Third, Obama could go back into campaign mode, rallying his base and some swing voters against congress, who would probably be trying to cut the budget. The end result would be they'd get blamed for cutting various popular programs without actually cutting them. If Democrats held slight majorities, the blame could not easily be shifted onto Republicans.

Fourth, a slight majority in the Senate is no fun. Filibusters and other procedural motions can be used by the minority very effectively. Having a 51-49 Republican majority would mean that every bill would have to meet the approval of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and other liberal Republicans. In other words, it'd mean not being to really put many of your principles forward.

So in any event, I think it would be best if the Republicans had slight minorities in each chamber. If Republicans retake the House, I think it's much harder to get Obama out of office in 2012.