the teamsuperdrag page has been going over its bandwidth due to people trying to download. so if you're looking for an mp3 of superdrag's performance on the conan o show from friday night, you can right click and save this file:
the staggering genius.
september 16. monday.
popcorn is a chick magnet.
( okay, i know it isn't proper to use the word “chick” when describing women, but it’s all for effect. stay with me. )
you see, i think i’ve figured out something that has been plaguing me for ages. down south, we have both wal-mart and target. in fact, in many areas, those stores are fairly close to one another. for those who shop there, wal-mart is a haven for loud boisterous families while target is a quiet den of incredibly good-looking shoppers (and me sometimes – i normally shop at wal-mart) ( yeah, i know i just admitted that i don’t compare looks-wise to the usual target shopper ).
i’ve always kind of wondered, “why does target attract such good-looking shoppers compared to wal-mart?”
i used to think it was just that wal-mart is cheaper and thus may attract more ( for lack of a better term ) "white trash". and that may be the case. but i’ve done some major price checking, and their prices aren't too different.
i used to think that it was due to most wal-marts ( in my comparison tests ) have expansive "grocery departments" compared to the wimpy "food section" that target has. but that’s not always the case as loud boisterous not-very-attractive families don’t always push around grocery carts or are buying food when they are at wal-mart, so that means the grocery sections aren't a factor in many cases. ( yes, i make a point to look at what other people buy when i stand in line. )
so what is it that makes wal-mart the shopping preference of the "less-attractive" and target the shopping preference of the "very attractive"?
popcorn.
yes, you read correctly. i said "popcorn". i know that it sounds lame but that’s my theory. i went to target today to look for something that wal-mart didn’t have, and for the first time, i noticed a buttery scent of popcorn wafted through the parking lot. naturally, as i walked through the sliding glass doors, there were about 2 very good-looking women walking in front of me and another pair of knock-outs leaving the store. ( note: all 4 of them were waaaay out of my league. )
just so i don’t sound like a completely barbaric "horn dog", i must come out and say that i am a single, heterosexual, red-blooded, american male... so it’s not only my genetics, but also may civil duty to pay attention to things like this and report them for the good of the rest of mankind.
and yes, when i entered the target store, i didn’t quite notice the scent as strongly as out in the parking lot, but because i forced myself to smell my surroundings, i did still detect that tempting scent of buttered popcorn. perhaps i was desensitized a bit to the scent due to its stronger concentration outside, but i did notice it, and so i think i’ve found my reason behind the target-shoppers-are-better-looking theory.
stick with me here.
popcorn is sort of an aphrodesiac to women. you may not believe me, but it is somewhat. or at least it can be to women. a lot of my female friends almost always get popcorn at movies ( or at least want popcorn at movies ). why is that? well... it goes back to their dating days.
during the early days back when these women dated, the guys would take them out to the movies. of course, since the guy was paying and doing all he could to get the female to like him, he’d offer if she wanted popcorn or a drink. who can turn down popcorn?
and since the guy was trying to get the female to like him, the movie was usually her choice... which often time was a romance ( or "chick flick" as many may call that type of film )... either way, it was a movie that she wanted to see.
so where does that leave my theory? basically, the popcorn-and-movie experience was imprinted on this female's psyche as a good experience. note, this theory mainly works on women who liked popcorn and had good experiences at theses dates.
so if these two factors were present during the dating years, popcorn therefore becomes strongly tied to a feeling of female empowerment. the female is conditioned to liking popcorn because the scent and taste of the popcorn is strongly tied to her empowered choice of choosing the movie ( often a romantic one ) and also of being "courted" ( which let’s face it has hormonal signals and memory signals written all over it ). the feeling of love is one of the most over-powering and we all can remember our first love as well as many strong memories attached to those days of "young love".
so target is trying to pull people in by the scent of popcorn. down and dirty, that is my somewhat inane ( yet somewhat sensible ) reasoning why female target shoppers being way better looking than female wal-mart shoppers.
if you remember your psych 101 course, pavlov did experiments on conditioning dogs. he found a way to get a dog to salivate when he rang a bell. he accomplished this stimulus-response experiment by pairing the sound of a bell with giving a dog food. in short, here was his experiment: [ note: the >>> symbolizes what results ]
first: give dog food >>> dog salivates
later: give dog food + ring a bell >>> dog salivates (unconsciously pairs the stimuli)
much later: only ring the bell >>> dog salivates (without the food)
and although a bit more unconventionally, this conditioning seems to work with popcorn and women....
first: woman enjoys date / being in control of date >>> woman feels good / empowered
later: woman enjoys date / being in control of date + smells popcorn >>> woman feels good / empowered (unconsciuosly pairs the stimuli)
much later: woman smells popcorn >>> woman feels good / empowered (without the date)
so why is it the "very attractive women" who are more inclined to be seduced by the buttery scent and not men or less-attractive women?
well, the reason the popcorn attracts women over men is that men and women had different experiences at these dates. the man spent his money on the date. the man worked hard and probably had to behave more than he would have normally on those popcorn-inclusive dates. there’s not as strong of a pleasurable attachment for the man who is buying the popcorn and working hard to behave compared to the woman who experiences strong feel-good emotions while being pampered.
so why are female target shoppers usually "very attractive" women, compared to the "less-attractive" women that frequent wal-mart? well, this comes down to economics. the less-attractive women may not have gone out with guys with money and therefore didn't have the popcorn/movie experience imprinted as a positive experience. let’s face it, it’s a sad truth that very attractive women often attract men with money. and popcorn is expensive. so when the less-attractive ( and not so rich ) men took the less-attractive female to the movies, often times those guys may not have offered...or spending $10-12 extra for popcorn and sodas simply wasn’t an option.
or the dates for the less-attractive female didn’t wind up with a happy ending as it may have for the very attractive female. this is just a guess, as harsh as i may sound. i’m looking for an answer here, even if i sometimes sound like a total clod. although i have no scientific data to back up any of my claims, this is my theory, and i’m sticking with it.
so in summary, popcorn at movies is expensive. very attractive women got better dates ( richer and much better-looking guys ). very attractive women probably had popcorn-inclusive dates and therefore had more positive experiences with popcorn than less-attractive women. women overall who got popcorn at movies when they were dating may be conditioned to have popcorn resurface good feelings and emotions when they smell popcorn.
so what does this all mean? i don't know. but i am currently working on my new line of popcorn-scented cologne. if i’m right, i’ll hopefully have my week-ends booked up with dates in no time. ( that's my diabolical plan, and i'm sticking with it. )
september 9. monday.
a pet peeve of mine is when someone sends me a forward which has a million >>> marks on it (meaning it's been forwarded a million times (plus 1, to me) and it's broken up on every line making it a real burden to read. usually i just delete them if the sender didn't think the forward was worthy enough to "clean up" before sending. ( i know, i'm tough that way... )
another pet peeve is when someone sends me a link to something that he/she thinks is really funny...but ends up taking a long time for my slow connection to download...and it's really not funny at all. ( and i end up spending all that time downloading something so disappointing that i end up feeling litigious and wanting to call some of my lawyer friends to help me sue the sender for wasting my time... )
well, i was sent this by joey b today, and it truly is one of the cutest things i've ever been sent. granted, i viewed it at a public library so i didn't get to "hear" the audio that went along with it, which made it even more entertaining as i just sung along in my head. so from a tough cookie, here's a link that i think will be worth your time to check out.
anyway, here it is: punk kittens.
enjoy!! and watch out for stage-diving kitties!
august 20. tuesday.
i've turned into a lame-o. yes, it's true. i have no idea what's going on in the world. i've shoved my nose in the books for too long that i'm clueless about world news and events. i watch re-runs of "friends" and "seinfeld" instead of checking out some of the new shows. (just ask vicky bills!) then again, a bunch of of the new shows are pure crap, so perhaps i'm saving myself a lot of grief until the new season.
but when the new season of tv hits, it will be football season, so there will be a lot of tv time sucked into football oblivion. god bless football season! i do love it so... but let's all take a moment right now, and let's say a prayer in advance for all the football widows out there who will seemingly be husbandless on football saturdays and sundays (as their hubbies will disappear to go off to games or simply just camp in front of the boob tube for the week-end in attempts to ignore as many marital responsibilities as possible).
i've been spending lots of time sitting around in barnes and noble reading their magazines for free. yep, i'm one of the loafers that believes that b&n is merely a coffee-serving library. heck, it's almost 100 degrees outside, yet they reduce the temperature of their store to 65 degrees to sell hot drinks!! i figure if they're going to make me buy a hot drink in the midst of a blazing summer, then i'm going to bring a sweater and do some major reading while i sip on my hot chocolate and hope that the heat from the liquid melts the icicles that have formed on my nose.
in superdrag-related news, i'm almost finished with my questions for my interview by don. i'm just finalizing them. i took a while making up the questions for sam, mic, and john as well... but this is the grand finale in my first series of interviews! woo! hopefully, i'll make it down to k-town on the 29th to get some good solo pics to use instead of re-hashing the ones that i've already used here and there! the interview will be coming soon...
august 14. wednesday.
 as the saying goes, whatever doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. with that said, big thank you to the centimeters for making me a much stronger person on monday night. it's bands like theirs which really helps a guy decide what he likes and what he doesn't like.
july 18. thursday.
it was mentioned on the street team message board, so i thought i'd bring it up here.
i wonder how often don gets told that he and brett favre (of the green bay packers) look quite similar. they do seem to share a resemblance, especially when they both have their "game face" on. and everyone knows that don loves football...
july 15. monday.
lassie. petey. scooby doo. the darn taco bell dog. frank the pug. all of these canines have made a name for themselves and have reached celebrity status. yet none of them can verifiably be called a "rock star".
well, there's one dog who is moving his tail and running through the music field. you may have heard some of his work on last call for vitriol. you may have also seen him in the cd insert polaroids. well, his name is "ike". he shed some of his vocal stylings on the song "way down here without you". ( unfortunately his drum track must not have made the cut. ) either way, he's now a rock star.
so, scoot your curly-tailed butt over, frank, and make some room up there at the top...'cause there's a new dog in town.
[ ike appears on the album courtesy of level 5 (a.k.a. brian jacobus, his owner) ]
july 13. saturday.
it's weird. most people don't like the sound of their own voice when they hear it played back on an audio or a video tape. so why is it that people love to read their own venomous spew on message boards or blogs or silly pages (just like this one)?
listening to ones own voice often inspires introspective thoughts like "do i really sound like that?" or "wow, i really hate my voice". so why is it that when people read the harsh words they've written does it not inspire introspective thoughts like "am i really mean like that?" or "wow, i really do hate". i guess that we may probably never know.
something that i've come to realize is that many people love to comment how much they hate or dislike things much more than they love to praise or like things. perhaps that's just human nature. perhaps it's much easier to "put down" something or "put down" someone else because it takes a little pressure off ourselves to do something well or to examine our own efforts (that is, unless slamming someone else is praise-worthy).
most people absolutely love to critique music. yet most people are crappy (or mediocre) musicians. i know that i can't play guitar worth a hill of green beans, but i'm quite quick to rip on a bad guitar solo when i hear one. i know... i'm a dumbass (just like a lot of other people out there). a lot of people will critique and rip on a musician for making what they consider to be a "bad" album, but if you look at those same critics' worldly efforts, you most likely won't see any albums listed in their resume. (at least not any albums that sell too well outside of their immediate family.)
so, are musicians the only people who are allowed to critique musicians? no. i'm not saying that. i think that i know when a stairway isn't built straight, but i'm not a carpenter. i think i know when a computer doesn't run well, but i'm not an computer technician nor a computer engineer.
i guess what i'm saying is that i can't build a stairway, nor can i build a computer, but i sure as hell know how to critique or rip on someone who can yet whose work and effort doesn't meet my expectations. is it fair? perhaps. and perhaps not.
all i know is that there is a whole helluva lot in this world that we have no idea how to do, but we all know how to complain... a lot.
that was just something i thought about yesterday.
so, what have you done today that's praise-worthy? i don't know about you, but i'm gonna go try and work on something right now...
|
