Three Stupid Cardinals Superstitions (and why I'll be following them)

"Very superstitious, wash your face and hands.  Rid me of the problem, do all that you can."--Stevie Wonder

Stevie Wonder, in this lyric, seems to be opposed to superstitious behavior--he believes that superstition "ain't the way" and it's just silly.  I, on the other hand, have a different life approach.  It's probably a vision thing.

But anyway, enough with taking cheap shots at Stevie Wonder--he's a musical genius who has more talent in even his benign eyes than I do in my entire body.  The point is, the St. Louis Cardinals made the motherfucking playoffs.  For me, the last week has been more exciting than the 2006 World Series--for whatever reason it seemed anti-climactic, particularly at the end of the series when the series was obviously going to be won by the Cardinals/I had the ACT the next morning.  But anyway, somehow that happened and in spite of excruciatingly long odds, the Cardinals surpassed the Braves as NL Wild Card.  I can't figure out how it happened, but I do know what factors have changed and, whether by correlation or causation, were followed by a tremendous surge by El Birdos.

Basically, I treat these superstitions as kind of like generally nonreligious people who still classify themselves as believers because they figure if there's a 0.00001% chance of a God, they'd rather be safe than sorry.  So in this case, I recognize these superstitionsprobably aren't the reason the Cardinals are doing well, but I'm not going to take that risk by abandoning them.

Step One: Be a Cynical Bastard About the Cardinals
Basically, on a good day, I am to being a Cardinals fan what Ron Paul is to being a Republican--nominally speaking I am one, and it could be argued that my approach is more in line with what my dogma is all about than the mainstream alternative, but by and large my style just scares the other people of the group.  I am a Cardinal fan who holds specific grudges against players, managers, staff, and ownership.  I consider Jim Edmonds to be deplorably arrogant, Scott Rolen to be an all-time under-appreciated Cardinal, the current closer situation to be a symbol of underlying racism within the Cardinals fanbase, Matt Holliday to be a pampered and overpraised hick, and the movement to retire Willie McGee's number a dark cloud over the collective intelligence of a generally informed fanbase.  I dislike Tony LaRussa though consider him to be less of a problem than Bill DeWitt, who I consider to be one of the worst owners in professional sports.

Yes, I consider myself a Cardinals fan.

And when the Cardinals were nearly ten back early in September, nobody was more insistent that the season was over than I was.  Yes, Albert Pujols was getting back into his MVP-caliber rhythm and yes, the Braves were losing Jair Jurrjens and Tommy Hanson.  But ten games?  I realistically figured the Cardinals could close the gap a little bit, but make the playoffs?  Please.  So I started telling overzealous fans I know that they needed to give up or they'd be in for a major league disappointment.

Now, I got a little bit weak when the deficit got to two games or so.  Like, on Wednesday, when the race was tied and we had Carp going to the mound against the Lastros, it was hard not to feel good about it.  But for the sake of St. Louis, I maintained my cynicism.  I didn't just tell people the season was over--I tried my best to truly, truly believe that making the playoffs would be impossible.

Step Two: Playoff Beard
The last day that I fully shaved my face was September 2nd.  On that day, I was to go to a Cardinals game against the Reds in which Chris Carpenter was facing Johnny Cueto.  And they got killed.  For no real rhyme or reason I grew tired of constantly shaving and decided to try going back to facial hair, as I have done several times presumably because of a subliminal desire for attention.  And the Cardinals got better.  Now, this seems like a ridiculous correlation, but playoff beards have existed FOR YEARS.  Largely in hockey, but occasionally in sports that non-racist Americans care about, such as baseball.  While it's not a true playoff beard--I do shave my lower neck to avoid irritation, there is a certain Wolfman effect going on.  The beard may be here to stay--it will certainly last at least as long as the Cardinals in the playoffs.

Step Three: Stick to My Lucky CD
On Sunday, before the baseball games started, the Cardinals were two games back in the Wild Card race.  By Wednesday, they were one game up.  What changed for me in that brief period?  I put a CD in my car that I really can't recall ever playing in the car before--Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers's Greatest Hits.  And, well, things turned good.  I guess there's some logic to this--I've always considered Tom Petty to be a good time kind of artist--he's kind of like Springsteen but his music doesn't generally make me want to drown myself in Hudson Bay.  It's good time in the visceral sort of way, not Poison's contrived "Nothin But a Good Time" kind of crap.

So, barring a total Breakdown by the Cardinals as they're Running Down a Dream, I'll be Waiting for Astros Refugee Lance Berkman to contribute to the Phillies Free Fallin' out into nothing.  Hopefully they'll Stop Draggin My Heart Around as Pujols's moon shots will be Learning To Fly Into the Great Wide Open.  Despite my pessimism, I Won't Back Down from watching the Cardinals, but I Need To Know score updates every once in a while.  Hopefully ESPN text alerts Don't Do Me Like That.  But Cardinals fans, don't forget: You Got Lucky that strong season endings Don't Come Around Here No More for the Braves.  Because Even The Losers should be able to entertain all the American Girls pulling for them--they just need to Listen To Her Heart.  Sidenote: There's no logical way to insert "Here Comes My Girl" or "Mary Jane's Last Dance" into this massacre of a paragraph.

But don't let this come off as optimism.  Because we're completely and totally fucked and don't you ever think I believe otherwise.

Three Reasons Anheuser-Busch is the Worst Thing in the World

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thepourfool/2011/09/14/why-i-dont-drink-budweiser-and-why-im-not-alone/

Before I start, credit must be given to this article, which inspired me to write this similar but hopefully not identical diatribe.



Okay, now that credit has been given, Anheuser-Busch is awful.  Just the absolute worst.  Anheuser-Busch is a company which does not have redeeming qualities.  The fact that I'm listing only three negative qualities about A-B may seem narrow and pedantic but let it be known that I kept these three as general as I possibly could.  The full list of my grievances with Anheuser-Busch could fill a library.  But here are the big three.  It's not in a particular order--like ranking Hitler and Stalin, it seems arbitrary and borderline offensive to act as that one form of evil is somehow more justified than another.

1. Anheuser-Busch Has Retarded Advertising
In fairness, this grievance really applies roughly equally to Anheuser-Busch, Miller, and Coors.  They're all pretty damn terrible at this factor.  The point is that Anheuser-Busch is one of the most advertised companies in the world--they advertise like crazy during the Super Bowl of Advertising (the Super Bowl), they have naming rights all throughout sports, they're the official everything of everything, and they even had a goddamned NASCAR series named after them for years.  But in this marketing plan is a horrible, evil, despicable method.  Essentially, the success of A-B advertising is contingent upon you being an idiot.

Their best commercials are essentially nonsequiturs, such as the Whassup ads or Real American Heroes (also known by complete fucking sellouts as "Real Men of Genius" post-9/11). Now, these ads didn't really have anything whatsoever to do with the taste or quality of the beer being advertised--they basically just were there to be mildly entertaining for the audience and hopefully improve public relations with A-B.  It actually takes a while to even recall that Whassup or Real American Heroes is associated with Anheuser-Busch, which is unusual since they're the biggest goddamned advertiser in the stratosphere.  But they're cute so I'll give them something of a pass.  Especially compared to most of their ads.

The mediocre level comes from the sort of absurd high-concept commercials that became popular shortly after the previously mentioned ones.  Take, for instance, the Super Bowl ad where a skydiving instructor jumps out of a plane in pursuit of a six-pack of Bud Light.  Now, this is obviously hyperbole, but it begs the question of why this hyperbole was deemed necessary.  Nobody that I know of is dumb enough to see that commercial and suddenly believe, "Wow, this Bud Light shit must be excellent, if somebody is willing to endanger their employment and lives in order to get some of it."  But it elevates Bud Light and Bud products to an insane plateau of necessity.  But does even the most ardent fan of Bud Light believe that it is that great? I don't consider any product on Earth that great.

The worst level, and the one which seems to be increasingly permeating throughout American macrobreweries, is the "If you don't buy our product you're a pussy" style.  Miller admittedly is worse at this type than Anheuser-Busch, what with their man card, man law, and various other commercials designed to show that real men eat barbecue, objectify women, and drink terrible beer.  But A-B continues to imply that only real men drink their beers.  The worst commercials combine the following elements: An unrelated to beer yet still completely moronic concept, excruciatingly lowbrow humor, and exploitation of women.  And that commercial is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th0Z97l3Zfg

And just to take another shot at retarded ideas by large American beer companies, this simple yet brilliant attack of Coors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeJPJDpq3-Y.  And sure, this knock from the same folks regarding Miller: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tks1RxUJbUo&NR=1.

2. Anheuser-Busch unbearably suppresses its competition:
I'm going to use a comparison of Anheuser-Busch to Coca-Cola, as both are the leaders in the clubhouse of their specialties, A-B with American Pale Lager and Coca-Cola with highly carbonated and sugary colas.  Now, Coca-Cola does a ton of advertising and a decent share of it involves comparing it favorably to Pepsi.  This is unsurprising, since Pepsi is the biggest competitor that Coca-Cola has, but it should also be noted that a vast majority of the time Coke compares itself to Pepsi, it's based on taste.  Which is completely fair.  Now, I personally believe Coca-Cola tastes (marginally) better than Pepsi, but it's really just a matter of opinion so it would be difficult to argue with the premise.  A-B doesn't really argue on taste that much when competing with competitors that aren't Miller or Coors.

Anheuser-Busch bases a large amount of advertising based on being the (italics for emphasis) Great American Lager.  They even released Budweiser in stars and stripes cans which made it look, to paraphrase Stewie Griffin, like it was the beer of the Statue of Liberty's pimp.  An advertising campaign not too long ago that still appears every once in a while was based on the premise that when soldiers return from Iraq and Afghanistan, there's nothing they would rather do than invite their boys to a party in a barn (since, given the disproportionate number of African-Americans, Hispanics, and other racial minorities in the military, is obviously an accurate reflection on the cultural tendencies of the armed forces).  But I digress.  The point is that Anheuser-Busch, far moreso than even its macro competition, positions itself as the beer of America.

For an obvious comparison, let's go with the second biggest beer brand associated with St. Louis--Schlafly.  Schlafly doesn't do a ton of advertising, but when it does (usually through billboards or signs and not through television), the focus is on the actual product.  They have a few billboards on highways with the slogan "Witness a Beeracle" and showing an appealing looking glass of Schlafly Pale Ale.  Simple and elegant.  When I see those ads, I think "Huh, Schlafly looks like it must taste good or something."  But then if I tried Schlafly and hated it, I probably wouldn't go back to it.  Their advertising is meant to get your foot in the door, not to sell you on becoming a lifelong Schlafly fan from the moment you see scantily dressed bikini models cavorting around while sipping from a bottle of Kolsch while having vacuous conversation with who are essentially the cast of Jersey Shore but WASPier.

Anheuser-Busch advertising, on the hand, is a motherfucking trap.  It's brainwashing.  The concept they push isn't "Here is a tremendous tasting, robust product that we believe you will consider above and beyond other beers you've had"; it's "If you don't drink Budweiser, the terrorists win."  It also brilliantly ignores that fact, to keep it on a Missouri level, that buying Schlafly or Boulevard is FAR more beneficial to the economies and regional identities of St. Louis or Kansas City than buying A-B.

3. Anheuser-Busch products are fucking terrible:
All of the previously mentioned digressions are forgivable, they truly are, if it wasn't for the simple fact that not only does Anheuser-Busch produce excruciatingly awful products, but it doesn't seem to bother them in the least that they're doing so.

The lowest tier offering A-B produces, one which is consumed almost exclusively by frat boys and my dad, is Natural Light.  Natural Light is hard to top in terms of cheapness--only Big Flats (the Walgreens brand), Milwaukee's Best Light (which I've never had but what I'm told is essentially Natty from Milwaukee), Keystone Light (keep everything I said about MBL except replace Milwaukee with Denver), and Pabst Blue Ribbon (which is by far the best tasting of the ultra-cheap beers, though it would feel dirty to drink PBR without wearing an ironic mustache and listening to Pavement) are in the same class.  There are two important things to note about "Natty"--it tastes like complete shit, and while it is cheaper than high-end beer, it's still more expensive than water, soda, or a large compliment of beverages which are infinitely preferable to drink in every regard than Natural Light.

Next up the evolutionary chain comes the three main brands of A-B: Budweiser, Bud Light, and Bud Select.  Now, first I want to point out that Bud Select is something of a misnomer--while it is arguably slightly better than the other brands listed in that group, it's still essentially watered down crap compared to more carefully crafted fare.  Also, Budweiser and Bud Select are something of misnomers compared to Bud Light because, the truth is, all three beers are pretty damn light.  Even compared to the pale and summer ales of bigger microbrewers such as Sam Adams or Sierra Nevada, the main Bud products are quite low in ABV and caloric content.  But the thing is, most beers really don't have that many calories.  If you only drink one or two, it won't make a significant dent in your diet.  But how many people do you honestly know that drink Bud Light responsibly?  Or, even more hilariously, Natty?  You ever seen somebody grab a can of Natural Light, slowly pour it down the side of a slightly tilted glass, savor its rich aroma, and slowly sip it as a dinner beer?  Or do you see people drink it in order to either become intoxicated or maintain intoxication?

The "highest" tier of A-B products would be products like Bud Light Lime, Michelob Ultra, and Shock Top.  Bud Light Lime basically combines the mediocre beer taste of Bud Light with the mediocre fruit taste of lime.  Michelob Ultra is a low-carb beer, which means if you're on the Atkins diet (under which you will probably lose weight but also lose the ability to have blood flow properly through your veins, defeating the purpose of dieting for the sake of health), you can slam a few.  Shock Top is easily the best offering under the A-B banner, presumably because it is virtually autonomous from the Budweiser producing end.  Though I don't want you to think that Shock Top is necessarily all that good--it's so so--it just is brilliantly crafted by comparison.  It was also created as a direct reaction to Blue Moon, a better product which is created by Coors (my if-you-put-a-gun-to-my-head-and-made-me-choose macrobrewer of choice).

Basically, Anheuser-Busch is to beer what Green Day is to punk rock.  Both, in the loosest sense of the word, meet the description which they are given.  And both diminish the term by producing it for idiotic masses.  Green Day, as a "punk" act, has sold far more albums than The Sex Pistols, The Clash, and The Ramones combined.  Just like Anheuser-Busch sells more beer than Schlafly, New Belgium, and Sierra Nevada combined.  This doesn't mean the bigger entity is better--it just means it's more popular with an often retarded public.  To use a more offensive example--Anheuser-Busch is to beer what Al Qaeda is to Islam.  Al Qaeda does really bad things (namely blowing up shit and killing innocent people) while the larger group upon which they are associated has done some really good things (namely inventing algebra and being really progressive in terms of women's suffrage and rights--look it up).  In the same sense, Anheuser-Busch may give the impression that beer must be bland, it must be dumb, and it must be consumed for the purpose of making one's self dumber.  This doesn't make it so.  Because of this, Anheuser-Busch must be condemned.

The Ten Greatest Songs in the History of the Universe

I'm just going to go ahead and admit it--this is a fairly terrible subject for an entry.  First of all, there have been millions of songs written in the history of the universe that I have never heard.  Second, it's entirely subjective.  Third, every damn song on my list is from the 1960s or later, which implies that of the millions (or, for creationists, thousands) of years of humanity, pretty much all the really good songs ever made were written in the last fifty years.  So basically what I'm saying is don't take this list seriously because I'm mostly talking out of my ass.  I'm a guy who listens to a decent amount of music who is ranking his favorite songs.  But I guess I should give you my criteria.

• I do not give a shit how influential a song is: Just save yourself the effort of complaining how I snubbed Robert Johnson or somebody like that who supposedly influenced Eric Clapton or Keith Richards because I do not care.  This is a list of the best songs, as in the songs that I, in the year 2011, would most desire to listen to.  It's the same reason that when people list their favorite books they usually don't list The Canterbury Tales--they don't care enough to learn Olde English to learn how to read it. By the same token I'm not going to become a pretentious dweeb who pretends to care about bluesmen who died when my grandparents were kids.
• Good lyrics don't hurt but they really aren't essential.  Songs aren't literary works--their essential purpose is to make you feel a certain way, not to make you think a certain way.  So I guess I'll apologize to those who think Bob Dylan, The Doors, or Rush belong on the list because they ain't (these acts are mediocre at best with lyrics, but that story is for another day).
• It's not just about making complex songs.  So save me your complaints about the lack of Eddie Van Halen guitar anthems or (gasp) Yngwie Malmsteen 15-minute guitar solos that bore the hell out of even his hermit fans.  A song can be fun and utterly simple and be a great song--Clerks was budgeted for under thirty grand and is a classic movie, while Pearl Harbor cost $140 million and may have been the biggest catastrophe since the actual attack on Pearl Harbor (it's called hyperbole, folks; spare me your letters).

Well, here goes.

10. Need You Tonight--INXS: It's just about the catchiest song in the history of the universe.  It was an enormous hit when it came out in 1988 but some people will insist that it doesn't really stand the test of time.  It sounds from the 80s but in the best possible ways--it has an excellent funky rock guitar riff.  But for being essentially a 1980s dance track (or "new wave", if you prefer) it's actually quite simple--pretty straightforward drumming, bassline, and alterations on the guitar riff depending on whether it's in the chorus or verse.  Also, I'm confident enough in my heterosexuality to admit that Michael Hutchence is straight up gorgeous in the video.

9. Columbia--Oasis: There's a ton of Oasis songs that are worthy of being called their best, but for my money it's the first song that ever got them any attention whatsoever (it was a demo and when it was released on their debut album it wasn't even a single, but whatever).  It's not really influential in any sort of way but as far as intensely layered, guitar heavy hard rock anthems, Columbia is tough to beat.  When the guitar riff finally kicks in about a minute into the song, it feels like a jet taking off.  The closing guitar solo which takes up almost half of the song is the best guitar solo of Noel Gallagher's career.  But the thing about the song that really sends chills up my spine is the chorus.  The combination of Liam Gallagher, the lead vocalist who has a famously narrow range, and Noel Gallagher, whose vocals are less endearing but are generally more diverse, singing the chorus is absolutely perfect on the studio recording.  The live versions are good, too, but never quite capture the harmony of the brilliant album version.

8. Hey Hey My My--Neil Young: According to people who care about this sort of thing, this song is the most important contribution that The Godfather Of Grunge gave to the genre.  But, as I said before, screw influence.  If I was just listing influential songs I'd say Marty McFly's classic "Johnny B. Goode" and move on.  But Hey Hey My My is a great song regardless of influence.  The guitar work is quintessential Neil Young--he basically just plays one note throughout but it's just the absolute perfect note.  The vocals are technically average but evoke the anger of the song--the song is essentially Neil writing about how he's not just going to be a shadow of his old self because it's better to burn out cuz rust never sleeps.  Note that I said Hey Hey My My and not his acoustic version, titled My My Hey Hey.  This cannot be overstated.

7. Good Times Bad Times--Led Zeppelin: It's their first single and still their best song.  The four geniuses of the band are all in top form on this song--I'm not a Jimmy Page or John Bonham worshiper like many others, and I prefer when the whole band is doing their thing.  Robert Plant evokes his signature scream when he yells "I know what it means to be alone", Jimmy Page rips off an insane guitar solo in the middle of the song, John Paul Jones contributes a bassline that makes the song border on funk, but most importantly, Bonzo gives one of the all-time great drum performances by just pounding the shit out of his drum kit throughout the song.  The song is pure energy; I'll take this song over Stairway any day of the week.

6. I Wanna Be Your Dog--The Stooges: For clarification, this song is by The Stooges.  It's not by Iggy Pop or Iggy and the Stooges or Iggy Pop and the Stooges.  This song is all to the credit of the entire band, and it's a damn good one.  The song has some of the most underrated guitar playing I've ever heard--besides being an excellent riff and having a strong guitar solo and having a legendarily insane beginning, the guitar also stops in just the right places.  These stops allow Iggy to throw in his nonchalant little lines to purely wonderful effect.  Depending on who you ask the song is either an indictment of Vietnam or just a purely sexual song.  Doesn't really matter.  It's a perfect example of protopunk at its finest.

5. Holidays in the Sun--The Sex Pistols: Fine, Johnny Rotten can't sing.  Fine, Sid Vicious is such an awful bassist that Steve Jones, not himself a virtuoso, had to overdub the bass parts on this and most Sex Pistols songs.  Who gives a damn if the Sex Pistols were musically talentless?  They made good songs!  Would you rather listen to a Sex Pistols concert or an Emerson Lake and Palmer concert?  Thought so.  This is their best song because it has one of the best intros I've ever heard, it includes the perfect Steve Jones guitar solo (it doesn't deviate too terribly much from the main riff, but the main riff is fucking awesome so this is okay), and Johnny Rotten gets to yell to his fullest effect.  It's also one of the better Pistols songs lyrically--rather than just being a blind attack at everything (which there is nothing wrong with), it's a direct attack at rich snobs who viewed East Germany as a vacation hotspot rather than an oppressed area.  Kind of like the Dead Kennedys did a few years later with Holiday in Cambodia, but way more fun.

4. My Generation--The Who: It's still the best goddamned song they ever made.  Not that their later epic ballads aren't also good, but the first punk song ever written was The Who at their best--rebellious, yet still full of immense talent.  It's a well written song by Pete Townsend, the best bass solo in the history of the universe by John Entwistle, charismatic and enthusiastic as always drumming from Keith Moon, but the real start of the song is Roger Daltrey.  It may not have the epic grandeur of his singing in, say, See Me Feel Me or Love Reign O'er Me, but the stutter vocals were an essential step in the evolution of rock and roll.  Rock singers don't have to be fucking Sinatra up there--they aren't crooners.  They're there to excite and to entice.

3. Sympathy for the Devil--The Rolling Stones: This is the point where songs become effing perfect.  I really can't justify this song being behind numbers one and two, but it's hard to rank them.  Sympathy for the Devil, though, is about as perfect as a song can get.  Keith Richards has never played guitar better than on this song,  with his weird and scattershot guitar riffs and solos.  Charlie Watts, possibly the most underrated drummer in the history of rock, gets quite the task on this song but he lives up to it.  Mick Jagger, not a great vocalist most of the time, is as good as it gets for this one brilliant song.  This song is also one of the most quotable rock songs ever--for a band who mostly writes about how they can't get no satisfaction and how they were born in a crossfire hurricane and how if you start them up they'll never stop, the lyrics on this song are unbelievable.  It's a rare rock song that actually is enhanced immensely by lyrics.  "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste."  "I shouted out who killed the Kennedys when after all, it was you and me."  "Just as every cop is a criminal and all the sinners saints, as heads is tails just call me Lucifer cuz I'm in need of some restraint."  God these lyrics are great.  Allegedly they're from a book I never read.  I don't care.

2. Tomorrow Never Knows--The Beatles: It's really, really hard for me to describe how much I love this song without mentioning influence.  So fuck it, I'm going to anyway.  This song was written in 1966.  If it was released in 2011, it would still sound ultra-modern.  The song has been covered a decent number of times given that it's not really in the upper tier of Beatles songs in terms of popularity and yet none of the covers have even come close to the insanity of the original.  The song sounds like a remix of some kind of John Lennon folk song.  But enough about this song's timelessness--it's also a damn great song in its own right.  The distorted Lennon vocals are changed up just right, the off-kilter drumming and backwards guitar loops add to the insanity of the song, and the lyrics may not be very direct poetry but they add to the insanity of the song.  I can't even imagine being around when this song came out--I can virtually guarantee that if I was fourteen or older in 1966 I'd have bought Revolver and lost my shit when I heard this as the album closer.  To give you some perspective, the biggest hit of the year before was fucking Unchained Melody.  This song's a tad bit heavier than that one.

1. Girls and Boys--Blur: I have never seen this song listed as an all-time great song.  Pitchfork, a terrible source, put it on their list of the best songs of the 1990s but nobody wants to say that Girls and Boys is an all-time great song.  But it is!  It is simultaneously hard rock and electro-dancepop, a gay anthem and a sexually conservative putdown, a stadium-worthy anthem and an indie ditty.  Girls and Boys is, in one song, everything.  Damon Albarn goes with his full British accent getup, Graham Coxon doesn't play as much guitar as he's used to but the riff is efficient, Alex James has the best bassline of the decade, and Dave Rowntree exists on drums (I kid, his drumming is proper for the song--a pretty basic disco type four on the floor beat).  The song's video is one of the most intentionally moronic things ever--it's just a bunch of hedonistic partiers who look like tremendous tools dancing around and enjoying being young and rich.  The cheesiness works to grand effect.  Why I've never heard this song at a dance or party or something seems insane based on how fun musically it is--maybe its underlying anger is too much for some people to handle.

The First Step of the Aging Process

"Old man, take a look at my life.  I'm a lot like you."--Neil Young

Let me just point out that I don't feel particularly old in the grand scheme of things.  But right now, I'm twenty-two years old and I'm starting to feel what I figure is going to be a lifelong process of feeling old.

I'm sure that if five people read this, at least one of them thought, "What the hell, John?  You're fucking 22 years old and you feel old?  How do you think I feel?"  My answer would be, probably old.  It's not to say that you are old; it's just to say that you feel old.  And it's the negative form of old that I'm feeling.  Not like being a senior in high school and feeling like because of your relatively advanced age (compared to the rest of your school), you're the shit.  But feeling like you're no longer the hottest thing out there.

For instance, when I was seventeen years old, a senior in high school, and able to actually drive rather than depending on mommy for rides, I felt cool.  This isn't to say that I was cool--at least the people I went to school with would probably disagree.  This isn't some kind of moaning about high school session--like 95% of people in high school, I had some friends and therefore couldn't logically be cast as a social underling but I also wasn't friends with every single person in my graduating class and therefore wasn't really trying to be the king of the castle.  But what's important is that I felt cool.  Seventeen year old me wasn't that radically different from twenty-two year old me: Slightly less chubby, a decent bit more shy, but not overwhelmingly different on the grand scale.  The thing that made me not feel old wasn't merely being five years younger--it was experiencing the unknown.

The first time I ever drove a car without somebody in the passenger's seat was the day after I got my driver's license in July of 2006--I drove my mom's van up to my school to work on some stuff for the school newspaper.  Now, by any reasonably standard, driving a van to school during the summer to work on a freaking school newspaper is not "cool", but it was the first time I'd done it.  Hell, I felt that same sense of exhilaration in August when I drove to my first day of my first full time job.  It wasn't because I was particularly excited to be on the road at six in the morning or because I really wanted to do the job--it was because I was turning a new page.  A couple of weeks ago, I drove my 2002 Mercury Cougar--both the first stick shift I've ever driven and the first car I've ever actually fully purchased on my own--and I felt completely and totally alive.  It didn't matter that most of the time I was stuck in a traffic jam and it wouldn't have mattered if I'd killed it a couple of times--it was new.

I started to feel old earlier today when waiting in line at Taco Bell (normally I'd go drive thru, but a combination of wanting to thoroughly research the menu and not being crazy about drive-thrus in a stick shift yet brought me inside).  The guys after me in line didn't seem considerably different in age than I was, but I noticed that they were wearing Class of 2012 high school t-shirts.  So it dawned on me, I'm five years older than these guys.  When they began high school I was a fucking college sophomore.  I can vividly remember back in 1996 when the St. Louis Blues traded for Wayne Gretzky.  Granted I was pretty young at the time and fully realize it.  But they were two years old.


So all of a sudden I felt old.  I figured I wouldn't feel that way until at least my thirties, and I'm sure I will feel that way in eight years, but I felt it to some degree today.  So I started thinking about music, because it's the entertainment medium that I consider the most reliant on being "cool."  Now, to me, and I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, there are three definitive albums I consider to be on a different level than pretty much every other album in my collection--Prince's Purple Rain, The Sex Pistols's Never Mind the Bollocks Here's the Sex Pistols, and Oasis's Definitely Maybe.  For the latter two albums, the vocalists (John Lydon and Liam Gallagher, respectively) were twenty-one years old when the albums were released.  Prince was the old man of the group.  He turned twenty-six earlier that month.

Now I realize this is a somewhat insane comparison--I'm not a rock musician nor do I intend to become one. But I do consider these to be gold standards of cool.  But then I thought, why do I consider these three frontmen to be "cool"?  It's really pretty simple reasons.  Prince is cool because he's overwhelmingly talented--he's a tremendous singer, guitarist, songwriter, and stage presence.  John Lydon is cool because of his persona--he's rock's most beloved smartass and even though he can't carry a tune, he became a rock star because of the intense respect of his blunt honesty.  Liam Gallagher is cool because he approaches the microphone with unbelievable swagger--he's a somewhat mediocre vocal talent but when you walk in and sing like you fucking own the room, it rubs off and makes you cool.

The traits that make Prince cool, as you may have noticed, are completely different than the traits that make Lydon and Gallagher cool.  And if you look at these three men today--respectively aged 53, 55, and 38--it's hard to deny who is the coolest today.  John Lydon, while still an entertaining interview, spends most of his time publicly trolling and reuniting with the Sex Pistols when he wants to make a quick buck.  Liam Gallagher fronts the adequate band Beady Eye while being mocked the world over for being a guy born in 1972 who wears his hair like he graduated high school in 1973 (and also that said man is currently living in 1975).  Prince, however, while utterly reclusive compared to the other two, remains cool.  Because style, while cool, doesn't last.  Looks don't last.  Talent, passion, and heart does last.  And those things are cool.

I kind of realized after thinking about it that I don't have a lot to worry about.  First of all, I'm probably not cool (and if I am not, I don't really give enough of a shit to try to become cool).  And second of all, the traits that I imagine would make me considered cool (all of which I imagine are based on personality, since I look pretty damn ordinary) are intangible.  The people who have to worry about aging are the vacuous morons I knew in high school whose entire life motivation was looking good, drinking, driving a fancy car, and looking good.  As for me, I'll just sit back and say fuck it.  Bring it on, old age.  I won't be giving enough of a shit to notice.

5 Reasons Saving Silverman is Better than Citizen Kane

Before I start, two things that need to be clarified.

1. I'm not saying Saving Silverman is a good movie with any of these arguments--I'm merely saying it's better than Citizen Kane

2. I'm not concluding that Saving Silverman actually is better than Citizen Kane--these are just five arguments which I feel utterly true which present a side most people would not agree with: that a semi-popular immature comedy from 2001 is better than a movie widely considered the greatest film in history.

Here's the reasons:

5. Color--Now, I'm not saying that black and white movies are inherently worse than color movies; I will go ahead and say Raging Bull and Casablanca are better than The Hottie and the Nottie.  But color generally helps. Unless you're gonna do like a Schindler's List kind of thing where you go out of your way to make the black and white work, color is preferable.  Why?  Especially in the case of Citizen Kane, which is an attempt at a gritty film which evokes the world in which it was made, color means realism.  I'm not going to say Saving Silverman has great cinematography by any means, but it does feel like 2001 if you were a slacker moron.  It may not evoke the most exciting or glamorous part of the world, but it's still a part which exists.

4. R. Lee Ermey--Citizen Kane has the ever-expanding Orson Welles, the mom from Bewitched, and pretty much nobody else you've ever heard of.  Just by having Jack Black you could argue that Silverman has a casting edge (no, seriously, have you considered Welles's filmography beyond Citizen Kane?).  But the real key to Saving Silverman is the presence of the greatest character actor of the last twenty-five years: R. Lee Ermey.  Now, Ermey's character is always a drill sergeant type--he's most famous for playing the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket and for hosting shows in a drill sergeant guise on History Channel.  Now, Ermey doesn't exactly have the most range in the world, but for the one character he plays, he's really damn good.  The guy probably deserved an Oscar nomination for Full Metal Jacket--he's the king of his field.

3. Not Being a Troll--I say this with the full knowledge that a major plot element of Saving Silverman is that two dumbasses are convincing a nun to leave the convent in order to hook up with their friend, but Citizen Kane is the bigger troll of a movie.  The reason that Kane got so much buzz before it had time to become deemed the definitive cinematic classic of all-time is because it was allegedly an expose about the life of William Randolph Hearst, known today for being the grandfather of a terrorist but known in the 1940s as a news magnate.  Yet, is there anything about Citizen Kane that's really that necessarily specific to Citizen Kane?  Even in 1941 it wasn't exactly original to have a movie about a guy who gets rich and feels unhappy.  He didn't have to be a newspaper publisher--it was done because it stirred shit.  Saving Silverman stays in its own element--the only tied-in celebrity, Neil Diamond, makes a cameo and is therefore not a trolling.

2. Relatability--Are you a multi-millionaire?  Maybe you are, in which case I'd like to point out that I could blog a lot more on this non-commercial site with donations from readers like you.  Well, I'm not (yet).  And as such, the ability to relate personally to Citizen Kane is low at best--I guess I've striven for something, gotten it, and then ultimately felt hollow, but it wasn't due to my failed mayoral campaign.  Saving Silverman, on the other hand, I can relate to.  I suspect most men and some women know the feeling of having a good friend being driven away from you by his lady friend.  And even when she evokes the homoerotic subtext of your need to be with this guy, what you're doing makes complete sense to you.  I've always thought that Saving Silverman could have a terrible sequel in which the would-be nun turns out to be a total bitch to Jason Biggs and in turn, Zahn and Black reflect about how they really don't want Jason Biggs to spend his time with a less controlling woman--they want him to spend time with them!  See that?  That was analyzing of a movie with a 15% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  It can be done if you put your freaking mind to it.

1. Lack of a Major Plot Hole--Now, the plot to Saving Silverman is simply retarded.  The point of the movie is that they kidnap a woman and hold her in a basement until she escapes and then Neil Diamond  gets involved and for some godforsaken reason Jack Black and R. Lee Ermey hook up.  The plot doesn't really make a lot of sense and it's incredibly implausible that it would happen.  But it's not impossible.  Citizen Kane, on the other hand, in spite of its guise as a realistic and gritty movie, has an unforgivable plot hole.  Kane's last word is Rosebud--we know this, but the news reporters don't.  They go throughout the movie finding out what he said and what it meant and it turns out it was his goddamned sled (this isn't the plot hole, but it's still stupid).  But anyway, how do they know?  Kane died alone.  Yet they find out.  Was there some kind of espionage?  Would it have killed Orson Welles to break down and put in the horrible cliche of a bedside last word with his nearest relatives nearby?  I guess that would ruin the point of "capitalism leads to loneliness", but at least it would make sense.

10 Musical Acts Closest to Being "The Next Beatles"

The Beatles are the biggest band in the history of the universe.  Their total sales are over a billion, which sounds impressive in and of itself, but here's a fact to consider--enough Beatles albums have been sold in the United States that it averages out so that if every Beatles album ever sold was still in existence (I know this isn't the case, but given that my parents have every stupid Hall and Oates vinyl album in our basement, my guess is most are still intact somewhere), it would average out so that almost every single American fifteen years or older would own one.  And this is for a British band.  Americans like buying American music, but the Beatles seem to be as American as steak and kidney pie.

But anyway, for the last forty years since the dissolution of the Fab Four, many musical acts have been touted as the next Beatles.  Some more legitimately than others (perhaps one of the most famous cases of such hype, The Knack, fell well short of inclusion on this list).  Here's a rundown of the musical artists that came the closest to earning the title of The Next Beatles.

10. Led Zeppelin--Now, Zeppelin existed a couple years before the breakup of the Beatles, which hurts its stock.  Also hurting the stock is that the styles are generally considered quite different.  But once you look past the surface, the bands are similar.  Besides the superficial similarities of both being British and both being extremely popular bands capable of selling out football stadiums on both sides of the Atlantic, Led Zeppelin were extremely noteworthy among the early "heavy metal" (I dispute using this term on Zep, but others don't) acts by utilizing many different styles.  In the same way that the initially very pop Beatles ventured into folk or hard rock territory, the initially hard-edged blues rockers Led Zeppelin went folk (Going to California), funk (Trampled Under Foot), and world music (Kashmir).  Few bands can be true innovators and insanely popular--The Beatles and Led Zeppelin are among them.

9. Blur--Of the British bands since 1980, I'd argue that Blur is the one whose sound most resembles that of The Beatles.  Their run as a band lasted about as long as The Beatles and they followed a similar trajectory of musical evolution (beginning with an already-popular style and then doing their own thing).  Like The Beatles, Blur had an extremely charismatic frontman who went on to tremendous success outside of the band (Damon Albarn went on to make some solo music, but most notably is the frontman for the animated band Gorillaz).  But, not to be America-centric, Blur wasn't nearly popular enough in the United States to make them The Beatles.  The Beatles are defined by having a global impact, and Blur was basically a pretty popular (think the popularity of, say, Pearl Jam or RHCP in the 90s) British band who had one American hit (Song 2, a song you know whether you know it or not, and which has absolutely no resemblance to a majority of the band's work).  To be the Beatles, you can't just be popular with relatively small pockets of people, no matter how good you are.

8. Radiohead--Argument's basically the same as Blur.  Both are really popular in Britain, and while Radiohead is bigger in the states than Blur, they aren't in the same freaking stratosphere as The Beatles.  Radiohead arguably comes closer to the Beatles pattern of becoming popular in the existing style and then gaining the artistic freedom to do whatever the hell they pleased.  Radiohead is also the polar opposite of The Beatles when it comes to personability.  A bit part of the Beatles appeal was that they all seem like likable fellows--Thom Yorke, on the other hand, is considered an obnoxious prick even by Radiohead fans.

7. David Bowie--He began just before the breakup of The Beatles, but he really didn't become a musical trailblazer until just after.  Perhaps no musical act ever, including the Fab Four, is more known for musical diversity; in 1975 he was recording straight funk albums and by 1977 he was in Berlin recording krautrock.  His fans absolutely adore him for his weirdness.  The one thing, however, which keeps him out of the Beatles league is that a lot of people detest Bowie.  I myself will admit to not being an enormous Bowie fan.  The Beatles, however, are loved by everybody.  Let's put it this way--if somebody tells me they prefer Lynyrd Skynyrd to David Bowie, I will nod my head and acknowledge the merits to the argument.  If they say they prefer Skynyrd to The Beatles, I ask them where they're holding their slaves.

6. ABBA--Now, ABBA is not a rock band.  But in terms of being a band that became a worldwide phenomenon, it's pretty damn hard to beat ABBA.  For a band you probably can't name any members of, it's hard to imagine a band could reach #1 in ten different countries, as ABBA did with Dancing Queen.  Of course, The Beatles were also a damn good band, and ABBA isn't.  I'm not trying to sound like some kind of condescending metalhead who can't appreciate lighter music, because I'm not, but what's ABBA's best song?  S.O.S?  Waterloo?  Can these songs really be compared to even mediocre Beatles songs?

5. Nirvana--They have a John Lennon equivalent in Kurt Cobain, they have a Yoko Ono equivalent in Courtney Love, they defined fashion for a generation and they made really good pop music under their own little umbrella.  But for as much attention as Nirvana gets as the biggest band of the era (which is true, but this era was really only about two and a half years), do non-rock fans know their music?  I could name a dozen Nirvana songs off the top of my head as a relatively casual fan of theirs, but if I asked every single person on my Facebook friends list, which consists primarily of people within a few years of my age, to name as many Nirvana songs as they could, I'm predicting that at least 90% come up with one or fewer.  They're arguably more known for Next Beatles hype than for Next Beatles credentials.

4. The Rolling Stones--I know what you're thinking.  Well, I have a decent idea.  And yes, the Stones were a well-established band who had made most of their classic hits before The Beatles broke up.  But the fact is, The Rolling Stones were heirs to the throne and they held it as the most popular rock band in the world for quite some time.  Let's keep it fair and limit it to iconic rock songs that everybody and their mother knows that have been released since 1970 (the year the Beatles broke up)--Brown Sugar.  Wild Horses.  Angie.  Miss You.  Beast of Burden.  Start Me Up.  And a bunch of other songs that you merely probably know.  They might be peers of the Beatles, but they are also worthy successors.

3. Oasis--I'll be honest: As a die-hard Oasis fan, I never saw the Beatles comparisons.  Wonderwall and Don't Look Back in Anger, relatively weak songs by Oasis standards--sure.  But overall, the reason Oasis to The Beatles comparisons are valid outweigh the fact that Oasis is more of a hard rock band akin to Led Zeppelin 80% of the time.  Oasis is an insanely popular band--their popularity in the United States never really exceeded "able to perform in arenas as a co-headliner" (as they did with The Black Crowes), but I think most Americans under the age of 30 are at least aware that Oasis exists.  And in most of the world they were a stadium band until they broke up.  They also covered The Beatles more than any other act I'm aware of other than Joe Cocker (note: Oasis covers of Beatles songs generally sound quite different from the originals, notably I Am The Walrus and Within You Without You).

2. Queen--Freddie Mercury is one of the few rock stars whose status as an icon can be compared with the individual members of The Beatles.  They made a bunch of great rock songs that everyone knows and are absurdly popular throughout the world.  The one thing that keeps Queen from being Modern Beatles is diversity--other than possibly Crazy Little Thing Called Love, basically all of their hits fall into the stadium rock vernacular--unless I'm really missing something, Brian May never polished off a steel pedal guitar or picked up a fiddle.  Queen merely has to settle for being a really good band.

1. U2--Popular across the world, check.  Iconic frontman/frontmen, check.  Musical diversity, check.  Inspired by The Beatles, check.  Good, check.  So is U2 the modern Beatles?  No.  Nobody is.  There also isn't a modern Jimi Hendrix or a modern Pink Floyd for that matter.  It's over, guys.  There will never be another Beatles, nor should there be.  People like to ask hypotheticals like "Would Hey Jude have the same impact if released today?"  The answer is pretty damn simple--no, because it was already released in 1968.  We don't need a bunch of carbon copies walking around--thanks to relatively arcane technology, we all can listen to Beatles songs today.  This ain't Mozart--all the music of the rock and roll era is right there at our fingertips.  So let's enjoy the ride.

The Ten Greatest Fast Food Locations

For reasons unknown to me, "fast food" has become a taboo term.  The idea has been built in people's minds that fast food is inherently bad.  But to me, fast food is something which ought to be truly and sincerely appreciated.

You may ask why I feel this way.  It's pretty simple--I'm not a wealthy person and I like to eat food other than a hastily assembled ham sandwich.  Fast food acts as entertainment, as well--for those of us who can't afford to eat out at a nice restaurant, going to get some fast food with friends is a relatively cheap way to spend time and bond.  And here's my list of the ten greatest fast food locations.  But before I go, here's my criteria.

Defining Fast Food: Fast food is a chain restaurant.  It's that simple as far as I'm concerned.  Some people don't count sit-down restaurants with waiters and waitresses as fast food, but as long as it's a chain I'm willing to count it (though if it's pricey, which they usually are, it'll be considered).

Price isn't everything, but it's something: The average person doesn't want to spend twenty bucks on a fast food meal.  And I'm no exception.  With that said, I don't want to spend three bucks on a meal that tastes awful and leaves me hungry an hour later (looking at you, White Castle).

Quality is relative: This list doesn't mean that in every circumstance, I side with #1 over #2, #2 over #3, etc.  The way I ranked this list is according to the level of satisfaction that I feel I get from the fast food locations.

Anyway, here's the actual list.

#10

Denny's

Advantages: For a sit down place, it's in roughly the Steak and Shake league of price-effectiveness.  It's ostensibly a breakfast place, though Denny's has a relatively strong dinner menu.

Disadvantages: Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever confused Denny's with fine cuisine.  In addition, unlike several places, it would be virtually impossible to get out of Denny's full for three bucks.

Synopsis: Denny's is a fine breakfast place every once in a while, but it's not necessarily somewhere I'd want to go every day.  It has an unnecessarily bad reputation, but it serves its purpose.

Ideal Choice: The Grand Slam breakfast.  Simple, and they have a $4 variant on their 2/4/6/8 menu.

#9

Hardee's

Advantages: Hardee's, known as Carl's Jr. in other parts of the country, has some of the strongest fast food burgers around--the so-titled Thickburgers are restaurant quality.  The regular fries are okay, but the curly fry option makes Hardee's work.

Disadvantages: No dollar menu.  In fact, no real budget options whatsoever.  Unless you just get fries, you're paying at least five bucks.  It's not wildly expensive, but as a fast food option it falls quite short in the price regard.

Synopsis: Hardee's every day will assure that you die very young, but every once in a while, it can make for one hell of a lunch or dinner (I will confess that I've never wished for congestive heart failure early enough to get Hardee's breakfast).

Ideal Choice: Frisco Thickburger with curly fries.  Is this a health option?  No.  Do I get it all the time?  No. When I eat Hardee's am I even pretending to give a shit about my physical appearance or health?  Nope.

#8

Burger King

Advantages: BK has a standard, diverse menu of fast food essentials.  It also has a range of prices ranging from Hardee's level (the BK Steakhouse burgers) to the bargain bin (a dollar menu).

Disadvantages: BK essentially acts as a lagging pseudo-alternative to McDonald's with a less worthwhile dollar menu.  While BK once sold Whopper Jr.'s (decent) and Buck Doubles (awesome), they've now been reduced to a BK Single Stacker (contradiction in terms).  The burgers aren't special enough to justify much shortcoming in price-efficiency.

Synopsis: You've had BK before.  You've paid for BK before.  Nothing I say is going to affect your opinion.

Ideal Choice: BK Single Stacker, Spicy Chick'n Crisp, Value Fry.  Three bucks.  Reasonably filling.

#7

Ruby Tuesday

Advantages: First of all, it's named after a fucking Rolling Stones song.  Even if it's not one of their best, that's an awesome fact (I'm still waiting for the explosion in popularity of Brown Sugar Bakery).  Second, the menu is extremely diverse and extremely delicious.  You also get worthwhile biscuits for free with any order.

Disadvantages: While Ruby Tuesday is pretty good about mailing out coupons, the price is the major obstacle.  Basically, one's opinion of Ruby's is based upon how much money they have.  It's either a fancy restaurant for the poor or a throwaway fast food place for the wealthy.

Synopsis: Ruby Tuesday is a great place to eat...every once in a while.  Last October I ate at Ruby's three times in four days and it drove me up a wall.  Even with menu diversity, it can get tedious.

Ideal Choice: Ruby's Classic Burger.  The single cheapest item on the menu is a 1/3 pound burger which comes with unlimited fries.  Yep, it's that magical of a place.

#6

Buffalo Wild Wings

Advantages: Isn't the slogan "Wings, Beer, Sports, all the essentials"?  That pretty much sums it up.  B-Dubs has a phenomenal environment (probably the best of the places listed) and a great variety of wing flavors and non-wing foods.  In addition, they have more beers on tap than most bars.

Disadvantages: Similar to Ruby's, price is the main obstacle.  It's not that the prices are irrational, per se--it's just that chicken wings are inherently expensive, which is weird given that before someone decided to put sauce on them wings were considered the unwanted redheaded stepchildren of the chicken corpse.

Synopsis: B-Dubs is really more of a social thing than a food thing; the food is good, but if they had an expansive to-go program, it'd be rarely used.  It's a great place to go if a game's going on and you're with friends but if one of those two criteria is not met, it would be a poor experience.

Ideal Choice: Several different flavors when boneless wings are on sale for 40-50 cents per wing.  Variety is the spice of life--some hot are good, but it's ideal to get some garlic or honey BBQ or something like that as well.  Also, spring for the soda because if you get hot wings, you'll drink a lot.  This cannot be overstated.

#5

Cici's Pizza

Advantages: It's a buffet, so unless you're dumb as a box of rocks, you're going to leave full.  And the buffet is for five dollars, so you'll probably get pretty damn close to your money's worth.  An unusually good variety (many different pizza types, good desserts, breadsticks, and salad).

Disadvantages: The food quantity is great, but the quality isn't great.  You may want to spring for the soda just to wash it down better.

Synopsis: It is what it is--just don't expect amazing results.

Ideal Choice: Whatever's up.  The best pizza flavor is buffalo chicken, but just get whatever.  I mean, who cares?  It's a goddamned buffet.

#4

McDonald's

Advantages: It has the steadiest menu in the world.  All the food is pretty cheap, but especially with the dollar menu there is wonderful value.  It also has fast food's cheapest soda (a dollar for a 32 ounce, with free refills).

Disadvantages: The same qualities which make McDonald's consistent make it somewhat unspecial.  I'm not a McDonald's hater (I do have it #4 after all), but there really isn't one amazing standout item, and if there is one it's an Angus burger or chicken sandwich combo for over six bucks.

Synopsis: You've been.  You've made up your mind.  So whatever.

Ideal Choice: For breakfast, get a couple Sausage McMuffins and a Large Soda for 3 bucks.  For lunch/dinner, get a McDouble, McChicken, Small Fries and a Large Soda for 4 bucks.  Very filling and tasty. Also, get the buffalo sauce for fries.  Trust me--I worked at McDonald's forever.

#3

Little Caesar's

Advantages: It's a goddamned five dollar large one topping pizza.  It's also not a significant step down from the pizza quality of, say, Dominos.

Disadvantages: It's not a significant step down, but it is a step down.  Also, non-pizza items such as Crazy Bread aren't a particularly great deal.

Synopsis: Little Caesar's is essentially the Natty Light of pizza--it's the cheapest by a lot and it's the worst.  But unlike Natty, which is utter garbage, Little Caesar's is still good and can't best be substituted with water.

Ideal Choice: Large pepperoni pizza.  Five bucks.  Split it with a friend or have some leftovers or be really effing full.  All options are wonderful.

#2

Jack in the Box

Advantages: The dollar menu, which can be ordered from all day.  Most famously you can get two tacos for a buck, but you can also get a Junior Bacon Cheeseburger or Chicken Sandwich for a buck.

Disadvantages: Other than the dollar menu, there are some expensive choices.  If you're tempted by the high end burgers or the more exotic items, it'll cost you a pretty penny.

Synopsis: If you stay within your sane boundaries, you're going to be fine.

Ideal Choice: 2 regular tacos (which, for the unconverted, are quite greasy but also tasty when you consider it's 50 cents), a Junior Bacon Cheeseburger, and a Chicken Sandwich for three bucks.

#1

Taco Bell

Advantages: It's great food that's really cheap.  If you're hungry but not absolutely starving, it's actually possible to escape for a dollar.

Disadvantages: A very flexible menu.  Things increase or decrease in price at the drop of a hat.

Synopsis: Nectar of the gods.  There is no reasonable comparison.

Ideal Choice: It changes due to the menu changes, but the last time I went, I got a chicken flatbread sandwich and a beefy 5-layer burrito.  Quite filling.  Two bucks.  This is considered victory.