Friday, September 3, 2010

Worst customer service ever!

I had the worst customer service ever at Sri Lukshmi Naarasimhan Restaurant, 438 Serangoon Road, Singapore 218133.

My wife and I visited this restaurant for an evening dinner. We had visited this restaurant once before, but we simply had something and left. However, today is the second time, and probably the last time I will ever set foot into this restaurant.

We went there because my wife had tried the Hot & Spicy Andhra Cheese Dosai, a special item which is not available in any other restaurant (that I had visited so far). She recommended that I should try it too. Hence we ordered a plate of the Andhra Cheese Dosai and another plate of Andhra Masala Dosai. It wasn't very spectacular, but something new and likable, but the overly inflated price of $5.90 makes it too expensive for a budget-conscious customer.

We also ordered a cup of Bournvita and a cup of Tea. This is where things get ugly. As we were finishing our Dosai's, the drinks were served. The Bournvita didn't taste like Bournvita, but tasted something like Horlicks concoction mixed with Milo. Still it was bearable.

But the Tea was actually a "Masala Tea." At first I thought it was "Elaichi Tea" due to the cardamom taste in it. Whether it is Masala Tea or Elaichi Tea, this is not what I expected when I ordered Tea. The menu card clearly states the name of the item as "TEA". That's right: "TEA". It doesn't state anything beyond that. What would a new customer walking in, conclude from this? That the tea would be normal.

So I called the waiter and asked him why I'm served with this kind of weird tea, when I ordered Tea. He went to the kitchen, came back and told me "This is the only tea here." So I asked him, "You go to a restaurant outside and order tea, do you want them to serve you masala tea or normal tea?" He didn't even apologize or say anything but simply removed the tea from the table and struck the order off the order slip (as I later discovered).

Later, when paying for everything except the tea, I discussed with the cashier (a man, who seemed to be the boss or manager), showing him the menu card and asking him "How is the customer supposed to know whether this is normal tea or some masala tea?" Instead of apologizing, he shows me a different lunch menu, which has an item called Special Tea and claims that it is a printing mistake in the evening menu.

He was trying to hint that the customer is supposed to know, without being told, that Tea means Special Tea. In response I told him that if there is such a printing mistake, then it is the waiter's responsibility to inform the customer of such error, and make it known to the customer what exactly he will be served when he orders such and such items in the menu. Again, he refused to apologize and even simply ignored my conversation, proudly quoting the bill price instead. (An expensive $13.80!)

At this point, I was already getting very angry at this unworthy attitude of the staff in this restaurant. Even the old lady clad in saree did not care to apologize for the mistake, but simply stood behind silently, backing the cashier/manager. I simply paid getting ready to leave. I left the restaurant with my wife, but not before telling him a final word: "You have to ensure that you're providing quality service and inform the customers of mistakes and changes. How is the customer supposed to know what is what without proper menus? If you are not going to provide quality service, customers will not want to come back to your restaurant (implying that I don't wish to come back)."

With this, we just left the restaurant. I vowed to never step into this restaurant again due to such irresponsible customer service and uncaring and prideful attitude of the staff. They never seem to respect the golden rule of business: "Customer is always right."

Friday, July 2, 2010

I enjoy my life.

It's been a while since I blogged. Seems like blogging is going out of fashion though, on the face of facebook. The following is something I wrote on a forum in response to the question "Can atheists enjoy life?". I thought I'll share it here as well.

I definitely know that atheists and the irreligious enjoy life unless they choose not to. I certainly do enjoy mine. In fact, I was only able to enjoy life after I said goodbye to religion. I was brought up in a home that was very rarely religious, with emphasis on schooling and knowledge, rather than belief. I didn't understand the value of such upbringing until I tried my hand at christianity for 7 long years from the age of about 14.

It all started when I changed schools to a christian school in a town far away from my home. The schools I have been to before were very much secular and didn't have any religious elements. However, this new school had a small daily prayer gathering in the hostel, led by students. Out of curiosity I asked my friend who attended it and he invited me. I went, and in the room I just followed what everyone does. I got a small new testament bible and became a regular at the meeting.

Soon I learnt that they also go to church on Sundays, and apparently the church is led by our correspondent (highest authority and owner of my school). I joined that too, and once even witnessed an immersion-based baptism (or something like that). There was also a larger weekly gathering in school which I attended, which gave us opportunities to "confess sins and repent".

Anyway I stayed in that school for 3 years, being as firm a christian as I can for a good part of the time. Then I shifted to another city. The hostel here was more religious as everyone staying, regardless of personal beliefs, have to attend church. My atheistic roommates and friends scorned how they had to put up with what they called "nonsense". I on the other hand was wondering how I can "save" them by the grace of "my lord jesus christ" since I was a quiet person and was afraid to talk to people who don't agree with me.

Recalling, I had been one of the top performers in the secular schools I studied. But once I changed my education to christian schools, my performance began to drop slowly. I'm still better than the average, but not the top. Apparently the atheistic friends I had would perform better than I ever could imagine myself performing.

Anyway 2 years in the school, I continued trying to be strong in my faith. Then about a year I stayed at home before going to a different country for further education. Problems were caused at home when I revealed my belief in jesus, as my mom is atheist and my dad pretty much is too (with occasional bursts of hindu faith). I desperately wanted them to see how much my faith meant to me and to see them accepting jesus as well. (How foolish I was back then).

After going to a different country, my faith began to get its knocks as I thought about how it's affecting my life. At first I found a church and attended it. I tried to pray whenever I can remember. Then I realised slowly that it's not worth being a christian. It's like being in chains.

Being a christian is like being in chains. The bible and the church is telling you that we are all sinners, committing sins everyday, so we must pray and ask jesus to cleanse our sins from our souls. I felt guilty of sin for almost everything. It's very usual for girls to wear revealing clothing in this country, but I would feel so guilty and ashamed to set my eyes on them even without intention, that I wish I was blind. Didn't jesus say that if you look at a woman with eyes of desire, you have already committed adultery with her?

I had the guilt of not doing things also. I would hate myself for not being a good christian, not doing daily prayers, not reading bible. I would scold myself that I can't talk to my friends about jesus and save them from hell. Though I had never physically hurt myself out of guilt of sin, I had been mentally torturing myself.

Slowly I realised that I'm in pain for the sake of my religion. I want to break free of the chains. So I decided to drop everything, to stop believing in jesus, in sin, in hell and all the christian stuff. I really felt free and able to enjoy my life. I read books that helped me better understand certain aspects of human psychology. I no longer felt guilty to look at girls dressed sexily. They do so because they want me to look! As long as I don't attempt anything wrong upon the girls, I'm not guilty of anything. (The girl example is just one of the several things I became free to do).

I didn't immediately let go of the belief that there is a god. It took me a while to go from theism to pantheism to agnosticism to atheism. But I don't call myself atheist. Buddhists are atheists too. I call myself irreligious because I refuse to subscribe to any religion or belief system. I only accept what reality really is. I have learnt that I could be wrong, and I should be ready to be corrected. I have learnt that science while it may not have all the answers, those that it provides is based on the observable reality around us and not on the words of a book.

Now I enjoy my life very much, a lot more than a religious person can ever imagine to. I am not restricted by anything except the law. Besides it, I set my own rules, but it doesn't mean I do whatever I want to do. An irreligious moral system is to be guided by consequences. I learnt that consequences are a better moral compass than a holy book. My actions have consequences, and I determine what I do with regards to the consequences it will bring. That's why I enjoy life.

Update (6-Sep-2011, 6:02 am): It has been more than a year since I originally wrote this post. While most of it continues to hold true, I now call myself an atheist and I'm not ashamed to be one. Being an atheist simply means to not have any belief in any form of "god" or gods. In that sense, I am an atheist, and denying that is not going to help me in any way. I continue to stand by my view that an irreligious or atheistic moral system is guided by the consequences and implications of my actions. An eternal reward/punishment system is not necessary to motivate me to be good, as I choose to be good for goodness' sake and to selflessly serve others.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Folding Paper in Thirds without Guessing or using Ruler

Update: New method added: "Folding any rectangular (or square) sheet of paper in thirds"

I've been thinking about this lately. How to fold a paper in thirds? I found two separate methods. One works for the A series of papers (most popular of which is the A4 size paper). The other works for any size.

Folding an A series paper (A0, A4, etc.)
  1. Fold the sheet of paper diagonally using two opposing corners (Let us call these A and B).
  2. Orient the paper in such a way that the two other corners (Call these C and D) are at the bottom and a W shape is formed.
  3. Fold the left flap of the W shape over such that the previous fold line is perfectly aligned on itself, and the new fold passes through one of the corners, C or D, whichever is nearer to the flap.
  4. Unfold, and the do the same procedure with the right flap. The new fold must pass through the other one of the corners C and D.
  5. Unfold this new fold, and also the diagonal. Now you must notice that there are two intersection points on the paper. Fold the paper into thirds by folding it through these two points.
Tips and notes:
  • You may want to avoid performing this procedure on your original paper as it leaves unwanted fold lines or creases on the paper. Instead you may do it on a rough sheet of paper of the exact same size, then transfer the final folds (the thirds) onto your original. Or you may follow procedure below.
  • A series paper has the unique property that two sheets of paper of a particular number in the series (e.g. A4) joined together would create a paper that is the same size as the previous number (A3). A sheet of paper of a particular number (e.g. A4) when folded or cut in equal halves across the width would give two sheets of paper of the next number (A5). Mathematically, the ratio of length to breadth is 1:√2.
  • The ability to fold the paper in thirds by the above procedure is a side effect of this property.
  • Theoretically this should perfectly fold the paper in thirds, however due to practical limitations in ensuring accurate paper size, the folds may not be perfect.
  • I figured this out on my own. I didn't find anything similar on the web.
Folding any sheet of paper (with straight edge on the side that should be folded in thirds, such as Letter or Legal)
  1. Take another sheet of paper where the width (breadth) is at least 0.662 times the length. In the case of an A series paper, another sheet of paper of the same number in the series is sufficient.
  2. Fold this other sheet in fourths. (First fold in half, then fold the two halves each in half.)
  3. Unfold the paper. You will find three crease lines on the paper.
  4. Now take the original sheet of paper and place it on top of the folded paper, while following the next step.
  5. Place the end corners of the side you want to fold such that one corner coincides exactly with a corner of the folded sheet of paper.
  6. The other corner of the original sheet's side must coincide exactly with a point on the third fold line away from the corner that coincided in step 5. When the papers are flat on a flat surface, there is only one such point.
  7. You will notice that the two other folds of the folded paper divide the side of the original paper in thirds. Simply use these intersections to fold the paper in thirds.
Tips and notes:
  • The folded sheet of paper is simply a tool to fold the original in thirds. You can use other tools that maybe more readily available such as four parallel lines in which the distance between any two consecutive lines is always equal. You can place the corners of the side such that they coincide with line 1 and line 4.
  • I found this procedure on the internet, but the website I found only talked about square paper. However it is true for all sizes of paper as long as you can make a tool long enough (and short enough) to accommodate the length of the side to be folded.
Folding any rectangular (or square) sheet of paper in thirds
  1. Fold (and crease) the paper into two equal halves. Unfold it.
  2. Fold a diagonal between two opposing corners. You may optionally fold back to equal halves after this.
  3. Fold a diagonal between two opposing corners of one half of the paper such that this diagonal intersects the original diagonal from step 2. (Only one of the two possible diagonals can intersect the original diagonal).
  4. Unfold everything. The intersection point divides the length and the breadth of the paper into one-thirds and two-thirds.
  5. You can continue to fold a similar diagonal on the other half of the paper, or you can simply fold through the intersection point to divide the sheet into one-thirds and two-thirds. The two-thirds part can then be folded in half, and the paper is folded in thirds.
Tips and notes
  • As with the first method, you may want to fold a rough paper of same size and transfer the final folds to your target paper.
  • This method gives better accuracy than the first, and also helps you avoid the hassle (in the second method) of aligning and coinciding corners and fold lines of two sheets of paper.
  • This method is universal for rectangular sheets of paper (including squares). However the previous method is universal for sheets of paper of any shape, as long as a straight edge of full length can be created, perpendicular to the desired folds.
  • This too, I found online. However the web page was only talking about square paper. But when I checked, the method works for any size of paper as long as it is rectangular. I checked with A4 and a random sized rectangular paper.
    A visual interpretation may be posted when I have the time.

    Saturday, March 20, 2010

    Is religion a prerequisite for morality?

    John Allen Paulos think otherwise. He observes that while morality need not come from religion, religion has damaged a human's ability to behave morally without basing his reasons to do so on it. It means that once you have learnt a religion's version of moral behaviour, it becomes difficult for you to behave morally when you leave the religion for another religion or irreligion.

    Here is an excerpt from his book "Irreligion: A mathematician explains why the arguments for God just don't add up." (Undeline emphasis is mine.)

    Page 135:
    [A] problem associated with assigning ][ disproportionate payoffs to God's existence and the eternal happiness to be derived from obeying Him is that this assignment itself can serve to rationalize the most hateful of actions. Contrary to Dostoyevsky's warning that "if God doesn't exist, everything is allowed," we have the fanatical believer'S threat that "if God does exist, everything is allowed." Killing thousands or even millions of people might be justified in some devout believers' eyes if in doing so they violate only mundane human laws and incur only mundane human penalties while upholding higher divine laws and earning higher divine approbation.
    Page 139-141:
    I would like to counter ][ the claim regularly made by religious people that atheists and agnostics are somehow less moral or law-abiding than they [are]. There is absolutely no evidence for this, and I suspect whatever average difference there is along the nebulous dimension of morality has the opposite algebraic sign.

    [S]tudies on crime rates (and other measures of social dysfunction) showing that nonbelievers in the United States are extremely underrepresented in prison[,] suggest as much. So does Japan, one of the world's least crime-ridden countries, only a minority of whose citizens reportedly believe in God. And so, too, do those ][ monomaniacal true believers whose smiling surety often harbors a toxic intolerance. (Recall the physicist Steven Weinberg's happy quip "With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil, but for good people to do evil, that takes religion.") Also worthy of mention are the garden-variety religious scoundrels, hypocrites, and charlatans in public life. Not quite evil, but also far from admirable, is the social opportunism that no doubt is the reason for many expressions of religious humbug. Like feigning an interest in golf to get ahead in business, mouthing the right pieties can often improve one's prospects in politics.

    An atheist or agnostic who acts morally simply because it is the right thing to do is, in a sense, more moral than someone who is trying to avoid everlasting torment or, as is the case with martyrs, to achieve eternal bliss. He or she is making the moral choice without benefit of Pascal's divine bribe. This choice is all the more impressive when an atheist or agnostic sacrifices his or her life, for example, to rescue a drowning child, aware that there'll be no heavenly reward for this lifesaving valor. The contrast with acts motivated by calculated expected value or uncalculated unexpected fear (or, worse, fearlessness) is stark.

    Still, people do often vigorously insist that religious beliefs are necessary to ensure moral behavior. Though the claim is quite clearly false of people in general, there is a sense in which it might be true if one has been brought up in a very religious environment. A classic experiment on the so-called overjustification effect by the psychologists David Greene, Betty Sternberg, and Mark Lepper is relevant. They exposed fourth- and fifth-grade students to a variety of intriguing mathematical games and measured the time the children played them. They found that the children seemed to possess a good deal of intrinsic interest in the games. The games were fun. After a few days, however, the psychologists began to reward the children for playing; those playing them more had a better chance of winning the prizes offered. The prizes did increase the time the children played the games, but when the prizes were stopped, the children lost almost all interest in the games and rarely played them. The extrinsic rewards had undercut the children's intrinsic interest. Likewise, religious injunctions and rewards promised to children for being good might, if repudiated in later life, drastically reduce the time people spend playing the "being good" game. This is another reason not to base ethics on religious teachings.

    Wednesday, March 10, 2010

    God's existence depends on your belief

    Update: See below (after the Legend table).
    1. p → q (means, if p then q)
    2. ¬ q
    3. ¬ q → ¬ p (contrapositive of 1)
    4. ∴ ¬ p
    Mathematicians here will agree that this propositional argument is valid.

    Let p denote the proposition "God exists"
    Let q denote the proposition "I believe in God"
    1. If God exists, then I believe in God. (means, "God exists" implies "I believe in God")
    2. I do not believe in God.
    3. If I do not believe in God, then God does not exist. (contrapositive of 1)
    4. Therefore, God does not exist.
    Legend for non-mathematicians:
    implies
    p → q p implies q
    meaning, if p is true, then q is true.
    if p is false, the truth of q is unknown.
    ¬ not
    ¬ p not p
    negative of p
    meaning, p is false.
    in other words, the negative of p is true.
    therefore

    Update: For anyone who may misunderstand what I'm trying to show you here, let me give you an explanation.

    When I say that "If God exists, then I believe in God." I am talking about myself. It is true that if I happen to have irrefutable proof that God exists, then I would happily believe in God. Currently, it is also true that I do not believe in God. By contrapositive in propositional logic, you (as a logic mathematician, not a linguistic scholar*) can derive that if I don't believe in God, then God doesn't exist. And since it is true that I don't believe in God, it implies that it is also true that God does not exist.
    * Alas, propositional logic often creates confusion when it is attempted to be expressed in the language I'm trying to explain (which is English). Hence you may misunderstand.
    By the way, the above argument is a thought I had since I studied propositional logic and read "Irreligion" by John Allen Paulos, in which he uses propositional logic as well.

    A religious person can easily rewrite it this way (conforming to propositional logic rules):
    1. q → p --- If I believe in God, then God exists.
    2. q --- I believe in God.
    3. ∴ p --- Therefore, God exists.
    Both ways, you can easily see that God's existence depends your belief. In the case of non-believer like me, since I don't believe in God, my absence of belief causes God to not exist (within my realm of belief*). In the case of a believer, since he believes in God, he claims that God exists (within his realm of belief).
    * Belief is after all a personal thing, isn't it?
    Supernatural beings' existence depends on your belief in them. A believer has no doubt that the supernatural entity (including imaginary friends) exists. But the moment he doubts, the existence of the supernatural entity is undermined. The more he doubts, the more it ceases to exist. Basically, God exists to and only to those who believe in him.

    This is unlike natural entities and scientific concepts. Take the example of evolution. Not one scientist has claimed that you have to believe in evolution. Even Darwin did not. What scientists do is to prove or disprove theories. Evolution maybe a theory, but there's a substantial amount of proof supporting this theory, with more being discovered. However, the existence of evolution is not jeopardized by creationists not believing in it. This is because evolution depends on proofs and discoveries (such as fossils), not on the scientists' belief in it.*

    In fact, a scientist can believe very religiously in a theory he has created, but unless he can show proof, the theory remains a unproven theory. And if he discovers or someone else shows him something that contradicts his theory, it becomes a disproven theory. In other words, no matter how much a scientist believes in the theory he formulated, it will not become true by virtue of his belief.
    * The same can be said of natural entities such as celestial bodies, human beings, supercomputers, to name a few. No matter how strongly you believe a human being exists in the empty corner of your room, one doesn't suddenly begin to exist there. And I am yet to know of a murder case where a man killed another simply by disbelieving in his existence.

    Monday, February 1, 2010

    Orphaned, Raped and Ignored

    Think about this. When earthquake strikes, everyone is quick to pour in money and manpower to help those affected. But oppression and suppression of human rights can go on for centuries and even millenia, and still go totally unnoticed. Even when people from the inside are finding ways to cry out for help from the free world. Why do those who talk so much about human rights simply turn a blind eye towards political and religious suppression of human rights in the name of political correctness?

    Orphaned, Raped and Ignored
    By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
    Published: January 30, 2010
    KALEHE, Congo


    Sometimes I wish eastern Congo could suffer an earthquake or a tsunami, so that it might finally get the attention it needs. The barbaric civil war being waged here is the most lethal conflict since World War II and has claimed at least 30 times as many lives as the Haiti earthquake.

    Yet no humanitarian crisis generates so little attention per million corpses, or such a pathetic international response.

    That’s why I’m here in the lovely, lush and threatening hills west of Lake Kivu, where militias rape, mutilate and kill civilians with a savagery that is almost incomprehensible. I’m talking to a 9-year-old girl, Chance Tombola, an orphan whose eyes are luminous with fear.

    For Chance, the war arrived one evening last May when armed soldiers from an extremist Hutu militia — remnants of those who committed the Rwandan genocide — burst into her home. They killed her parents in front of her. Chance ran away, but the soldiers seized her two sisters, ages 6 and 12, and carried them away into the forest, presumably to be turned into “wives” of soldiers. No one has seen Chance’s sisters since.

    Read more and watch video...

    Wednesday, January 13, 2010

    So it's okay to offend the Chinese

    Update: McDonald's Singapore subsequently posted a "We're sorry, and we're grateful" (grateful for what?) notice in all its restaurants, and introduced an online poll for customers to indicate interest in a pig doraemon. The notice says that the pig toy is scheduled for production and will be made available in April (that's two long months after CNY!) for those aspiring to complete their collection. But... the damage has already been done, especially for those who decided not to continue collecting once they learnt the pig to be missing!

    I guess it's not a problem to offend the Chinese by rewriting their culture, but you must be very careful not to offend the Muslims by being insensitive to their culture. Why the big difference? Can anyone tell me?

    McDonald’s pulls pig toy

    Instead of a pig, a Cupid (third from right) completes the line-up of 12 soft toys in the McDonald's Doraemon collection for Chinese New Year. -- ST PHOTO: ALPHONSUS CHERN

    SINGAPORE, Jan 9 — Fast-food giant McDonald’s has stirred up a controversy in Singapore by omitting pig characters from its latest toy promotions.

    The pig soft toy was expected to have been part of a 12-character Doraemon set depicting the animals of the Chinese zodiac calendar. Customers wanting the toy would have to pay US$2 (RM4.8) on top of making a food purchase.

    But McDonald’s decided not to include the pig toy to avoid offending Muslim customers, and had a Doraemon Cupid toy in its place instead.

    The move has upset Chinese customers keen on collecting all 12 toys in the series. One of them, staff nurse Daphne Koh, 26, said: “I was born in the Year of the Pig and would have collected the whole set. But without the pig, it makes no sense for me to do so.

    Retiree May Liaw, 55, who had wanted to buy a set to decorate her home for Chinese New Year, said: “It is strange to have Cupid in place of the pig. The set is incomplete and I am not interested in individual pieces.”

    Various online forums are also abuzz with discussions on whether the fast-food chain has overreacted.

    When contacted, McDonald’s Restaurants communications director Linda Ming said the chain excluded the pig toy out of sensitivity for its Muslim customers.

    It chose Cupid instead to commemorate Valentine’s Day, which coincides with the first day of the Chinese New Year this year, on Feb 14.

    Said Ming: “We seek our customers’ understanding that it has never been our intention to be disrespectful towards any religion or culture.”

    She added that the restaurant would continue to sell the Doraemon collectibles which she said have been otherwise well received.

    Experts contacted said the decision by McDonald’s showed a lack of cross-cultural understanding.

    Sociologist Daniel Goh said that if McDonald’s did not consult Muslim opinions before making the decision to exclude the pig toy, the company had then presumed Muslim sensibilities. He added that it amounted to a form of self-censorship.

    Indeed, Muslim teachers and scholars said they saw nothing wrong with a halal restaurant giving out pig toys.

    Said religious teacher Mohammed Suhaimi Fauzi: “For Muslims who mind the pig doll, they can choose not to buy it. But even if they buy it for their children to play with or to learn about animals, there is no problem.”

    Dr Mohamad Maznah, a visiting senior research fellow with the Asia Research Institute at the National University of Singapore (NUS), said she felt the restaurant was just being cautious, although she doubted the Muslim community here would have been upset if the pig toy had been included.

    Dr Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, an assistant professor of Malay Studies at NUS, said: “Pigs and dogs are not non- halal, except when they are consumed.”

    The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore, Muis, declined comment when contacted.

    Muslim patrons of the restaurant also said they did not see the pig toys as a problem.

    Curator Ithnine Atan, 42, said: “The pig is quite important to the whole collection. Even if they put a big picture of a pig there, as long as they comply with the proper halal regulations, it’s okay.”

    Administrative assistant Masturah Salim, 26, added: “I think McDonald’s just wanted to consider the Muslim population. Personally, I am fine with the inclusion of the pig because I won’t be buying a set of the Chinese zodiac signs anyway.

    “It is understandable for the Chinese to be upset about the pig being excluded from the set if they want to collect all 12 animals.” — Straits Times

    Sources:
    The Malaysian Insider - McDonald’s pulls pig toy
    The Straits Times - McDonalds takes the charm out of Doraemon series
    The Straits Times - McDonalds pulls pig toy

    Reactions:
    Plush pig toy pulled from McDonald’s happy meal in Singapore
    McDonalds Singapore remove pig from the Chinese zodiac
    Mc Donalds Singapore replaces Pig with Cupid in Chinese Zodiac sign

    Tuesday, January 5, 2010

    Jingle Bombs



    [With Jeff Dunham]

    Dashing through the sand
    With a bomb strapped to my back
    I have a nasty plan
    For Christmas in Iraq

    I got through checkpoint A
    But not through checkpoint B
    That's when I got shot in the ass by the U.S. military

    It's not funny!

    Ooo, Jingle bombs, jingle bombs mine blew up you see
    Where are all the virgins that Bin Laden promised me
    Jingle bombs, jingle bombs your soldiers shot me dead
    The only thing that I have left is this towel upon my head

    I used to be a man, but every time I cough
    Thanks to uncle Sam my nuts keep falling off
    My bombing days are done, I need to find some work
    Perhaps it would be much safer as a convenient store night clerk,
    Ooo, Jingle bombs, jingle bombs I think I got screwed
    Don't laugh at me because I'm dead or I kill you

    I kill you