Colgate 2-in-1 Liquid Gel

Click here for general site update.

The best part is the packaging

A year ago for Christmas (not as a main gift, mind you) I was presented with a new “breakthrough” in toothpaste technology. While not as exciting as say, a whale watching trip that I didn’t get to go on, or a book about tractors, or a jacket that was too small, it was useful and interesting, and like I said, a small gift relative to others. Colgate 2-in1, Toothpaste and Mouthwash, presented in a small, steamlined plastic bottle, claims to combine the two steps into one easy motion, for all of you who want to both brush and fight GINGAVITIS!, but are too lazy to deal with the pesky two-step process. So with my toothbrush and new tooth”paste” (as it would turn out, the “paste” was actually a liquidy gel, more akin to GoGurt than toothpaste) in hand, I went off to try them out. I’m not too picky about toothpastes, but my teeth are quite sensitive, especially the molars in the back, and so certain intensities will cause me some pain. Of course, with mouthwash mixed in with the toothpaste, the toothpaste is going to be strong, no matter what the flavor, and I was handed my first defeat (for those of you interested, i’m presently using Crest Sensitivity Toothpaste, to help with an exposed nerve on one of my molars, something I was also dealing with then.) I handled the EXTREME BLAST OF ICY FLAVOR, though, thinking, “Meh, it’ll build character“.

With more brushing, however, I realized that this tooth”paste” didn’t do the one thing that most toothpastes do to let you know they’re working. It was impossible to work this very watery gel into a lather in my mouth. There was no foaming action like the diagram, (which actually, kinda looks a little disgusting) shows. I rinsed and spit, my mouth feeling minty but not clean. I’m thinking that maybe they relied on the mouthwash a little too much and didn’t add enough toothpaste, and so hopefully it at least killed the bacteria that cause GINGAVITIS!, but I really wasn’t feeling confident about it.

The next morning when I went to give it a second try, I found something quite curious. Even after rinsing out the brush multiple times over the night before, the bristles on my “Soft Bristle Sensodine” Toothbrush were hard, caked in place and scratchy to the touch. Brushing, it hurt my gums, and obviously was not to nice to the sensitive area. I rinsed it again, this time making sure to do it numerous times, and when done, I tried to spray off the excess water with my finger. Sure enough, the next time I went to brush, the toothbrush was the same as before. I figured that it must be the brush and so I opened an entirely new toothbrush, and after brushing with it once, found that the same thing had happened. The only other proof I needed was that after using my original toothpaste, of which I went out and bought a small tube, on this new brush, the bristles were still caked together, as if I hadn’t done any rinsing at all. So the reaction was permanent, and was caused by the 2-in-1 toothpaste, on multiple occasions. Actually, I doubt the reaction was permanent, I just didn’t have the patience to use a harsh toothbrush over and over with new toothpaste, until I worked it back into shape.


Colgate 2-in-1 Toothpaste receives 1 star for having a harsh chill to it, not leaving my mouth feeling clean, and most greivous of all, ruining two toothbrushes for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, some people who like to use mouthwash more than toothpaste may find it a useful time-saving tool.


A review of the actual day, not the “Post hardcore” band

Thursday is probably the most overlooked day of the week, aside from Sunday. While Sunday is the day of regret followed by wild Saturday nights and the disappointing realization that the weekend is over and tomorrow is Monday, Thursday will forever live sandwiched between the more popular Wednesday and the most popular day of the week, Friday. Thursday is like that last week of school; you have to go, but you’re more anxious because tomorrow is Friday. You don’t really appreciate the day for what it’s worth. When Wednesday is over, you don’t say, “Woot, tomorrow is Thursday!!!11!”; you say, “It’s almost Friday. The week is half over!!1!”

There used to be a time when Thursday had something to show for itself at least. Monday was the dreaded day, Tuesday was kind of a fun throwaway day when DVDs and Music were released, Wednesday signified the coming of the lazy half of the week, and Thursday night signified the early coming of the weekend with NBC’s “Must-See TV” lineup. Of course, by the end of its run “Must-See TV” became as much of an exaggeration as saying that Ryan Leaf was the second coming of Joe Montana. Now, Thursday night TV can’t even offer us anything better than CSI. Seriously, who would be interested in seeing Donald Trump’s toupee fire people?

Because of this lack of Thursday entertainment, the only other thing to do is get a jump of the weekend drinking, or Thisty Thursday as it’s called. Just ignore the fact that we have to get up for class/work the next day, because, like I said before, Friday really doesn’t count, like the last day of school. To me, Thirsty Thursday just seems to be one more step to making it more acceptable to be an alcoholic, but that’s just my opinion.


Thursday gets one and a half stars, as the only thing it brings to the table is the anticipation that Friday is right around the corner, and thus, the weekend is here. Sunday, and Monday, however, would fare worse than this, as one is completely overlooked, and the other is dreaded to the point of having songs written about how much people hate it.

“Beth” by KISS

Caution: This cover contains no less than four lies.

Just a few more hours
and I`ll be right home to you
I think I hear them callin
Oh Beth what can I do
Beth what can I do

“Beth” was KISS’s first and, most likely, only top ten hit; originally a b-side from their 1976 album Destroyer, released on the flip side of “Detroit Rock City”. Written primarily by drummer Peter Criss, “Beth” has the dual distinctions of being the only song other than “Rock and Roll All Night (And Party Ev-er-y Day)” to still get radio airplay on rock formatted stations (seemingly played “Ev-er-y” day by area station WZZO), as well as probably the wussiest rock single ever to be certified gold. While most of segments at KISS concerts involve loud, hard rocking; over-the-top makeup and costumes; seizure-inducing lighting schemes; guitars that shoot flames; blood dripping from Gene Simmons’ eight inch tongue; and most likely legions of women throwing various undergarments in the direction of the band, the staging for “Beth” consists of a single spotlight beaming down on Criss as he bellows from a stool to a prerecorded backing track. You see, despite being written by a drummer, the song contains no percussion. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find any “rock” instruments in it. The accompaniment consists of a heavyhanded string section and a piano, lightly highlighting the melody line.
What makes this song so terrible isn’t just the arrangement of it, though. It’s the arrangement combined with the subject matter. You see, while most of the album’s songs deal with rocking, becoming a god of rocking, living out your dreams by rocking, shouting out loud, dying in a car accident on the way to rocking, or the pleasures of S+M, “Beth”‘s theme is asking permission of your girlfriend/wife to spend the night rocking. That’s right. A guy in a band whose acronym stand for “Knights in Satan’s Service” is on the phone, pleading with his girlfriend to let him stay out a few hours because the band can’t get the song done the way they want. Peter,Peter, Peter, haven’t you learned anything from hanging around with Gene? You’re in effing KISS! You don’t ask permission! You just do it! It’s not even like you’re out partying all night or every day. You’re just playing in your band, singing songs about partying… and maybe shooting some flames out of a guitar. You shouldn’t have to ask permission if you’re on the clock. Especially if you’ve fought– and defeated– the “Phantom of the Park“.
What makes this song laughable though, is its grandiose nature. Criss has taken something truly mundane, and potentially humiliating in the rock community, and treated it with overwrought seriousness, movie score-scope strings, and a deadpan, raspy, wheezing delivery that would make Rod Stewart proud. Come on Peter, be a man!


“Beth” gets two stars for managing to stay around for so long, being the only top ten hit off of twenty-six albums released by the band, and somehow finding a way to make hardcore fans forget about the flames, lights, and fake blood, if only for a brief time. On the other hand, it’s probably the most unwarrantedly dramatic song I’ve ever heard, and would do good to be the anthem for a large population of men who are whipped. I guess that’s why Gene had the demon makeup and Criss was dressed like a cat.

Good Night and Good Luck

“Good Luck” reading all of this review

When Jim Carrey got all dolled up, put on the funny accent, and opened his eyes real wide to play Andy Kaufman way back when, in “Man on the Moon”, everyone was calling it a “revelation”. Nobody believed that somebody could totally embody a role/person as Carrey did. The movie was receiving critical praise from everybody as the rebirth of the “Biopic”. Imagine my suprise when all I saw was a movie that consisted of reenactments of Kaufman’s most famous stunts, with a loose story in between, mostly to bridge the gap from one “happening” to the other. Of course, the inevitable drama in this story eventually came in the prescence of Kaufman’s battle with cancer. Nevertheless, the movie didn’t succeed for me as a whole, because its primary goal wasn’t to give us insight as to what made this person one of the most “enigmatic” performers of his era; it was to remind us of all the cool stuff he did.
That’s exactly how I feel about the new George Clooney movie, “Goodnight and Goodluck”, the story of Edward R. Murrow’s famous on-air battle with Senator Joseph McCarthy. While the movie serves as a timely story about asking tough questions in the face of government/peer pressure to relax and talk about something else, for fear of being labeled unAmerican, it fails to show us any sort of internal confict, any humanizing element of Murrow or his producer Fred Friendly (if that doesn’t sound like a made-up name, I don’t know what does), played by director/co-writer, “Mr.” Clooney, or any emotion at all. Maybe that was a specific choice made by Clooney to amplify Murrow’s stoic and stonefaced nature… to tell the facts like they were and let them speak for themselves, just as Murrow did with McCarthy. This, however, is supposed to be a movie showing us the “epic” battle, shrunk down into an hour and a half. How does the movie accomplish this? Well, considering that nearly all of the confrontation took place on the show, the natural way to show it would be by reenacting it. There’s that word again. I would guess to say that two thirds to three fourths of the screentime is devoted to recreating speeches, television segments, or showing actual file footage of the McCarthy hearings and the Senator’s on-air response to Murrow.
There is very little to the movie other than this. In fact, the bulk of the story outside of these reenactments deals with a husband and wife pair (Robert Downey Jr., and Patricia Clarkson) who work for the show but are keeping their marriage a secret for fear of being let go by the company. The only thing that I could tell that they were there for, as they really didn’t interact with the main two characters at all, was to offer, in a scene in bed, a question as to whether they were doing the right thing in regards to the pieces about McCarthy. I suppose it could be argued that they served to parallel the struggle of in-the-closet Communists, ready to be oppressed at their discovery, but in reality, that’s a stretch. The rest of the staff consists of faceless yesmen who don’t have any objections to doing these pieces, or at least are cowardly enough to have a little fear about their jobs being in jeopardy.
The only other example of conflict/human emotion involved a “troubled” newsanchor (whose “troubled” nature is shown in about 3 scenes total, and again, is only peripherally involved with the story), played by Ray Wise, whose biggest role prior to this was the “troubled” Leland Palmer on “Twin Peaks”… and let’s not forget someone named Randolph Pratt in “The Garbage Picking, Field Goal Kicking Philadelphia Phenomenon” with Tony Danza. He ends up committing suicide because of a single bad newspaper review from a right-wing Hearst newspaper.
I suppose i’m forgetting one other story. The main of these three stories is Murrow’s “Battle” with the network. I tend to forget it as a conflict, because near as I could tell, most of the time it consists of the station chief agreeing with Murrow, and doing all he can to help, even though the sponsors are pulling out. So again, there’s not a ton of conflict there, until the end, when the head honcho expands his show to a full hour but moves it to sunday afternoons, a thing which seems to me to be a fair compromise, but seemed like a defeat and the death of TV to Murrow and Friendly.
So if the story is basically entirely a reenactment of the TV tapes, then why (according to Rotten Tomatoes) did it receive 110 positive reviews and only four negative reviews nationwide?
The acting is brilliant for the most part. By “the most part”, I mean that one person truly dominates the movie and that the rest of the cast are completely serviceable in their minor background roles. David Strathairn, the blind character “Whistler”, from the totally underrated masterpiece “Sneakers”, gives “the performance of a lifetime” as Murrow. Just as Jim Carrey, and Jamie Foxx in “Ray”, and supposedly Joaquin Phoenix in “Walk the Line”, Strathairn completely is enveloped by the character, getting the presence and the speech patterns down to a science.
Clooney’s direction keeps the pace brisk, but the tone somber. His innovative (some may call it “gimmicky”) use of staging and camerawork in his directorial debut, “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind”, kept it from being just another story of one of Los Angeles’ minor celebrities who supposedly became a hitman. In “Goodnight and Good Luck”, he creates a smoky, jazzy mood of complete solemnity by removing all the color, shooting in black and white. A jazz singer serves as a segue between the scenes, while cigarette smoke fills nearly every scene. By using the black and white “gimmick”, the visual drama has to come from the sharp contrast between light and shadow, as well as the different focal lengths of the lenses used to distort what the eye would see. An example of this is the way that Strathairn is shot when on air, with the camera uncomfortably close, dark shadows looming from under his eyebrows, and the focus on his face, but out of focus on his ears. In addition, Clooney creates tension not from the action, but on what the reaction to is going to be. Will it be positive? Only history will tell. Oh, right. Well in any case, we’re there wondering, just like in Titanic.
The last thing that makes this movie work is the fact that the source material is interesting to begin with. If we were treated to a story of “September 11th” with an actor playing Peter Jennings broadcasting for 24 hours straight, it would be gripping. It would probably be more interesting to see a movie about McCarthy, but that’s not the point that Clooney wanted to make, which brings me to my final thought.
I saw Clooney on Oprah today, and he claimed that he wasn’t trying to preach anything with this movie, except maybe journalistic responsibility. I don’t pretend to be blinded by his ruse. This movie is as much a parable about our state of affairs today as “The Crucible” was to the actual McCarthy era. There are blatant lines of dialogue referring to holding people without evidence, trying them without letting them see said evidence, and labeling people “communists” (as much a jingoistic phrase as “terrorist” is today) and traitors. I have no problem with his artistic expression, and I commend him for not discussing his politics on television, but don’t lie about it. Like any great work, it’s open to lots of different interpretations and relevancies, and can incite intelligent dialogue. I would rather have him say, just as Murrow said approximately, “I have presented the facts, and the rest is upto you to decide”. The work will stand on its own however, and we’ll see where it ends up come awards season.


I’m a harsh grader, especially when everyone else loves a movie. “Goodnight and Good Luck”, receives 2.5 stars for being nothing more than a well directed and shot, well acted movie that contained nothing more than reenactments of famous television moments and long stretches of file footage. While it presents interesting ideas, it doesn’t do much to discuss them, and there’s suprisingly little humanity presented for a risk that most people would at least have second thoughts about taking, especially the faceless staff members.

JACKFM and other stations like it

JACK FM, the leader of the new radio movement

You may have read articles about this in a music magazine, or a New York newspaper or two. There’s a new radio station format showing up all over the country. Promising “we play whatever we want” (or something so remarkably similar that the original, JACK FM, has begun litigation), these stations have music libraries of over 1300 songs that they keep in their rotation instead of the supposed 300 that most other formats use. Possibly inspired by iTunes and the shuffle feature (something I personally dislike, as I’m tend to listen to complete albums), these stations play an incredibly eclectic group of songs in no particular order. There could be Madonna followed by Outkast followed by Jimi Hendrix. They also play more music than most stations apparently, upto twice as much in some markets. In fact, as of this week, eight stations, all owned by the same company, are switching over to this format.
So what’s all the fuss about?
Well, first there’s the actual music change. Having the station higher-ups picking the playlists (as opposed to the DJs) is not a new concept. In fact, the “Top 40” station in the area, B104 (a Clearchannel station), plays the singles at the top of the charts at least twice between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. daily, sometimes even more. Surely the DJs, who promise “Hits of the 80s , 90s and now”, would fill the slots between these top singles with any of the incredible amount of “Hits” from the past twenty years. Unfortunately, it seems that even with two and a half decades to pick from, it’s impossible to go a day without hearing “Superfreak”, or “Hotstepper (Word it up!)”. In the time that I’ve listened to them, it seems like they’ve totally forgotten the songs they were playing to death between 1999 and 2003, other than that damn Evanescence song that I used to like when Daredevil came out. If we go even broader, the Rock station (also owned by Clearchannel), has about forty years to work with, as they play “Modern Rock”, (read: Nickelback’s “Photograph” at least once a day), and “Classic Rock”, (read: KISS’s “Beth” at least once a day). They still have the same problem of the small playlist. Expanding your playlist four-fold would open up a whole new world of programming. I know these stations have the songs. The “Rock” station has specifically programmed Wednesday to feature “Songs that you haven’t heard in a while” between the everyday material. What prevents them from playing these more often? Probably the assumption that the audience likes specific (“popular”) songs because they’ve been played by the station already, and because other stations are playing them (the basis of “Radio Charts“). Of course the reason that other stations are playing them is that the record promoters are calling all of the popular stations and telling them to play these songs. The sort of pretzel logic that says that we like something because we have no other real options is why so many reality shows have succeeded on TV.
Second reason it’s such a big deal: This is the first response in programming to the looming threat of satellite radio. More and more people are switching to satellite because there you can be free to listen to stations more focused to the style of music that you are particularly interested in. In addition there are way more stations than you would have access to in a local market, with the exceptions of maybe New York, LA and Chicago. You have access to more music in general than you would have. The JACK/BOB stations are trying to fix this problem as well as the advertising issue. People don’t like to listen to ads, but in “Terrestrial Radio” (a term that’s popping up everywhere, used to describe regular radio. It bugs me that they have to give it an adjective in front of it to discern it from satellite , even though it was there first), ads are the driving monetary force, so in order to up the music amount while keeping the same ad time, in addition to saving money on personnell, the stations have made the following adjustment.
Reason number 3: NO MORE DJs. No longer are we interrupted with annoying voices that tell us what the song was, or who it was by, or what’s coming up, or dumb jokes (Ken Matthews and the “B Morning Crew”, I’m looking in your direction). Each station now has it’s own personality, instead of dozens of them, spoken over recordings between songs and commercial breaks. If you want to find out what song was playing, you can go to the station’s website (the L.A. one has a backlist of every song they’ve ever played, by time, complete with artist, album, cover art, label it was released on, and links to a review of the album and purchasing information, many times cheaper than buying it anywhere else) and find out there. The only problem with this is the gradual phasing out of DJ jobs, replaced by machines, something which I was never incredibly fond of… mostly because I’ve seen Terminator and The Matrix.

The point is these stations are giving us less talking, more music, more diverse music, and with an irreverent feel. The point is that this is the first wave of defense against XM and Sirius. The point is that soon enough our robot workers will rise up and overthrow us, forcing us to feed them with our energy while we’re laying, unconscious, in a tub of goo. In the meantime, enjoy this new format before it becomes old and all the stations change back to the way they were, or file for bankruptcy.


JACK FM and the copycats get four stars for their innovative (at least in the case of JACK) adaptation techniques and the fact that eventually this may lead to me not hearing Kelly Clarkson five times a day (literally), or the same REO Speedwagon song every afternoon.

grilled cheese

\"I\'ll Even the Virgin Mary Love grilled cheese!!!\"
Even the Virgin Mary Loves Grilled Cheese!”

It’s like someone knew exactly what I wanted. They took the two greatest food inventions in history: sandwiches, and frying things, and put them together. And added cheese. Wonderful. Here’s a simple delicious sandwich you can cook in five minutes, and it eats like a meal. Enjoy it with any kind of soup and you’re good to go. It’s got a golden-brown, crisp outside and a gooey inside that complement each other very nicely. And. it’s. fried. What more can you ask for? Maybe if you batter dipped it and deep fried it. Deee-lish.


The grilled cheese sandwich gets 4.5 stars because most of the time it’s made with the disgustingly awful KRAFT cheese food product, and not something like meunster, cheddar, jack, mozzerella, or provalone. Oh, man. This makes me hungry.

Monicaann F. Spade’s Letter to the editor of the Morning Call

Even USA Today wouldn't have letters to the editor this bad.
Even USA Today wouldn’t have letters to the editor this bad.

I know what you’re going to think” that I have some ridiculous obsession with the dictionary. That I spend all my nights thinking about the new word I’m going to learn the next day, and that I have a huge wall-hanging devoted to Webster and Roget. Well I don’t. This entry is entirely coincidental, and should be noted as such.

Some days you wake up and look to the newspaper to find highly (by “highly”, I mean “moderately”) intelligent and informative discussion on world issues. Today, that was not the case. I enjoy reading the letters to the editor, just to see what some idiot is complaining about this time. The thing about letters to the editor that interests me the most is that, in order to actually get a letter published, you have to be so offended by something that you’d actually take the time to sit down and write a whole, long diatribe and then actually send it in to the newspaper. The length of time that this takes is usually what weeds out the people who are just kinda annoyed, from those who are genuine activists. I mean, I think it would usually be a two-day operation, and by the second day, you’d re-read it, say “This isn’t worth complaining about”, rip up the paper, and throw it away. Again, today, that was not the case.

What follows may indeed be the stupidest letter to the editor I’ve EVER read. And I mean EVER. The letter in question refers to an article on the front page (of which the merits will be discussed later) of the Allentown Morning Call’s October 5th edition. The article was in regards to what I’m sure is the gala event of the lexicographical calendar” the unveiling of this year’s new Webster’s Dictionary words. I imagine it to be like a car show, where they lift the sheet off of a big sign with the word on it, and everyone in the audience OOHs and AHHHs. Anyway, seeing as how it’s the dictionary, and it has just about every word imaginable, it’s getting harder to find new words to put in every year. This year, one of the “words” is… I’m not kidding, “Bikini wax”. I guess this is justified, as this phrase has an entirely (by “entirely”, I mean “somewhat”) different meaning than just the sum of the two words.

You wouldn’t think that someone would be offended by a dictionary. But someone was. Monicaann F. Spade of Allentown was bold enough to write the following letter.

“Regarding the Oct. 5 article “Check Latest Dictionary”: Did they have to put in “Bikini wax?” Isn’t anything private anymore? What happened to good, clean dictionary words?”

I’m not exactly sure what Dictionary this person is reading (perhaps the “My First Dictionary”), but in mine, I can find at least ten examples of words that you couldn’t even say on FX at eleven at night. “Good, clean, dictionary words”. Does this man/woman not understand that the purpose of the dictionary isn’t to be selective in what words are chosen to be in it? It’s a damn dictionary. Its job is to include every word and abbreviated phrase in the language so that someone knows what it is.

Imagine you’re a woman and you come from France or somewhere like that. You don’t know English, and you make new friends who decide that before your big trip to Laguna Beach or wherever, you all should go for a bikini wax. Having no idea what they’re saying, and possibly (going solely on the stereotypes here) being against bikini waxes, you go to look it up in the dictionary, except it’s not there. You see bikini: swimsuit, and wax: (probably a scientific description of the makeup of wax). You think “oh, I’m getting a new swimsuit made out of this wonderful waterproof material”. You’re screwed.

Three questions about this person cross my mind. 1) Why would you take offense to this, or even care, especially after the newspaper printed, in gruesome detail, the crimes committed by 22 ex-ministers against children; the article that totally ruined my morning and week for that matter? 2) Why would you feel the actual need to write a letter to a newspaper that can do nothing about the Dictionary’s policies (maybe hoping to spark a protest of something incredibly stupid?), and 3) Why would you ignore the more important issue of “Why the hell is this article on the front page anyway, instead of a more important story which was probably buried in the back of the section?”

Anyway, I think you get my point.


This letter to the editor receives 1 star as it was the most dumb and unwarranted complaint I’ve ever read in the paper, but it provided me with five minutes of laughter and fifteen minutes worth of review fodder.

The Dictionary

Sean Connery suggests reading, but not the dictionary
Sean Connery suggests reading, but not the dictionary.

Finally done. I was told last year, that if i really wanted a challenging book to read that I should pick up this new book called “Dictionary” by Webster. Man, were they right. This book took me five months to finish, and I still don’t get it. It’s like the author decided to take a bunch of big words, and write a giant, avant garde poem about each one, e.e. cummings style. The typeset is all not formal, with two columns down each page, making the reader look all the way down and then back down a second time.

The nearest I can tell, it’s the story of Adj. and his on-again, off-again lover Adv. in a coming of age story that involves all kinds of science related terms that are ten letters or more, “the act of” doing things, and having the reader turn to other pages to “see” other words. This “choose your own adventure” style storytelling may have flown ten years ago, but now it’s just tedious. I haven’t been this annoyed trying to read a book since “House of Leaves”.

To make matters worse, it seems this format has recently been copied by authors such as Roget, and Oxford, going as far as even naming the book the same. I’m sure a lawsuit is impending.

One other note. After the great (and completely dumbfounding) success of this book, the author decided to continue the story in a sequel entitled “Thesaurus”, which I assume involves the two scientists, going back to the age of dinosaurs, in yet another completely incoherent writing style.


The Dictionary receieves 1 star, as it has a completely incoherent story and writing style, much in the same vein as Jane Eyre, or The Scarlett Letter. I’ve also deducted points for the pompousness required to write a sequel.

We’re at it again?

Our website

So I hear we’re starting another project. Wonderful. A wesite is always something I’ve wanted to see if I could help keep afloat, and as I have nothing really better to do in my spare time lately, and I’ve been feeling rather judgmental, I think it’s worth a try. Reviewing things seems to be a nice concept, and allowing it to be an incredibly broad range of things to review is perfectly wonderful, giving me the freedom to review everything from “getting orange oil on your hands when you peel an orange”, to the atrocity that are UGZ boots, which might I add, doesn’t stand for anything, nor is it spelled remotely correct (the correct spellling would be “Ughs”, as in many grunting sounds made by the idiots who wear them while attempting to communicate with people on the streets of L.A…. which is another valid point: why wear HUGE furry, hideously colored suede boots that get dirty very quickly and are supposed to keep you warm, in the WARMEST AND DIRTIEST city west of the Mississippi river?…. where was I?) Oh yes. This website.
It would be nice to think that many people would enjoy reading the rantings and ravings of a few individuals who consider themselves to be a lot funnier than they probably are, and who value their opinions over anyone else’s. I don’t however think that this may be the case. My fear going in to this is that it will end up much like “The Onion”, coming up with continuously funny headlines and topics that follow the same formula, and have articles that drag on past their welcome. My hope for us is that if nobody else reads it, that it will at least keep us entertained, and provide many inside jokes for years to come. My far-reaching hope would be that it wouldn’t get old and that it would catch on with a hipster college student who would then pass it on, or possibly post our link on his facebook account so that all 551 of his friends (most of whom aren’t really his friends, but minor acquantances who are too passive to reject him, even though they think he’s quite the creep) can see it, visit us, and pass us on to their more probable list of 37 friends. Realistically, though, I think reviews of things are too focused of a topic to create a website about that would hopefully last more than 2 months. Hopefully by that time we’ll be able to expand the website into other areas such as eating and sleeping, which we’re quite good at.


The concept of this website gets 3.5 stars out of 5, as it is an incredibly wonderful way to give us something to do and tell you how to live your lives in the process. It has the potential to provide hours of entertainment for readers, and shape their lives for years to come. However, the downside is that it could get old real soon, and provide us with nothing but an excuse not to get real jobs.