Which is better, the old or the new? Were certain ideas and things superior when they first appeared — when they were made for one purpose and were pure? Or are things better now, after we've gotten all the kinks worked out, made them slick and fancy, with lots of add-on features? That is what I hope to figure out in this battle between the New and the Old! A la cuisine!
Dynamite vs The H-Bomb
This is an explosive battle right off the bat. BWA HA HA HA ha ha ha HA HA gya HA ha ha!!!! I am a wordSMITH! Anyway, the big question is which is better: The first reliable explosive (created by none other than that peace-loving Nobel guy), or the nukular bomb that's 1,000 times more powerful than the Little Boy package dropped on Hiroshima in the Summer of '45? Your first reaction is probably, "Well of COURSE the Hydrogen Bomb, dickless! One makes a 'POP!' like a firecracker, the other annihilates entire cities!"..... but you're probably just an insecure little wanker with a tiny penis who thinks he has to overcompensate for it by driving a Humvee (or if you're a chick you suffer from "cock envy"). Sometimes bigger isn't always better (well, in "penis size" it is, but not in every competition). Let's just judge them both on their own merits, shall we?
Dynamite came about in the 1860s when people needed a safer way to dig mines and tunnel through mountains — a way that didn't involve losing a few fingers or a few lives every time the explosive was detonated. Alfred Nobel was tired of reading the FARK headlines of the day wherein miners and "chinks and the Irish on them there railroads" (their words, not mine) would constantly blow off body parts (or whole bodies) whenever they tried to ignite black powder or raw nitro (and then jump into a waiting ditch) in order to carve a small hole in a the rocky earth. So Nobel came up with a way to roll up nitroglycerin and safely package it within some absorbing material, and he gave it a fuse so that it would only blow the fuck up when one wanted it to, and not in transport (unless one needed to test its potency and shock-absorbancy, and thusly gave it to a monkey with a hammer to play around with [hence the term "Dynamite Monkey"¹]).
Dynamite did its job, but then the monster known as mankind realized that it did OTHER jobs as well... Like killing people in wars and making movie villains seem diabolical for tying the explosive onto a damsel in distress with a super long burning fuse in order to drag out the tension of a given scene. Then Bugs Bunny got a hold of the stuff and proved to us that pure comedy can come out of the dignified charge by just turning people's faces black and giving them big lips and a 'fro. Deplorable racist comedy yes, but comedy nonetheless.
The Hydrogen Bomb though came about when we (as humans) realized that the Atomic Bomb was fun and all, but just couldn't kill enough people in one go for our tastes. So we upped the blast, the heat, the radiation, and the size of the mushroom cloud itself, and then we looked around, looked nervous, and then put our hands in our pockets and quickly slinked away while whistling a little tune. Seriously, was the H-Bomb really fucking necessary? I'm no pacifist nutjob, but this explosive device just reeks of overkill. And I doubt people are even satisfied with it. I'm sure they're working on the practical theories behind a working Black Hole Bomb as I type this.
And now for the final answer. Dynamite is small and precise, but can be bundled together with an unlimited amount of other sticks for a bigger boom. And there's no half life to worry about after it's done its duty and exploded. Dynamite was also created to be helpful to mankind, and to actually save lives. An exploding stick created to save lives. Brilliant! The H-Bomb was created for one purpose and one purpose only: Annihilation. There's no taking a fraction of the Bomb in order to clear a collapsed mine and save the survivors buried in the rubble — Not with a nuclear weapon. So, for all its uses (especially that of cartoon shenanigans) I give Dynamite an "A". And because the Hydrogen Bomb only has one application, and it's hyperly excessive in that, I give it a "C". Dynamite wins.
Medieval Fiefdoms Vs. Modern Democratic (or Federal) Republic Governments
Along time ago people in Europe lived in filth, broke their backs everyday with hard labor, had to join the army when drafted in times of war, and barely kept any of what they reaped, giving the biggest chunk of their goods to the man in charge of everything, a man who sat on a pretty thrown in the castle up on the hill... No, wait. That's the description of life today. Back then everybody had a pony (to work the fields, but a pony nonetheless).
The more I look at them both, the more they each resemble each other. Each culture is set up like a pyramid with one guy at the top who holds all the power and who tells everybody else what to do. But there are differences. Let's explore them! Yes, let's!!!!!
Fiefdoms, according to my chief source of tawdry information, Wikipedia, "often consisted of inheritable lands or revenue-producing property granted by a liege lord, generally to a vassal, in return for a form of allegiance, originally to give him the means to fulfill his military duties when called upon." Amazing, something I learned in high school actually stuck and was actually correct... Unless my sophomore year history teacher was the one who wrote that wiki entry. He had been known to pass on other insights such as "George Washington killed Ben Franklin in a bar room brawl while fighting with broken bottles over the delectable hand of Betsy Ross, but then George had to impersonate Ben from then on out, which is why you never saw the two of them in the same place at the same time," so you never really know.
Anyway, so one used to live on one's fief, toil in the fields all day, throw in one's weight in the armed forces when somebody tried to take a fiefdom of your lord's by force, and you probably died from scurvy or powerful arthritis (or if a woman, birthing your 13th child) by the age of 29. Life was a ton simpler back then, and if your lord was a total asshole, then all you had to do was just wait for a conquering nobleman to come marching in and take him out (while giving little resistance and allowing him to pass right on by if you were ballsy enough). True, you didn't own your own land (as we know land ownership today), but you could pass your fief down to your children (keeping them in the debt of the lord and his family for their entire life as well) so that the circle of the downtrodden continued. But really, what the hell else were your kids going to do with their dirty lives? CEO? Guidance councilor?
Modern Democratic Republics are kind of different. Yeah, they sound the same in theory, but in practice you truly can OWN your own land... But by the time you can afford to do that the neighborhood's probably gone to shit and you want to move anyway. Oh, but modern Democratic Republics allow you to vote for your leaders!.... Kind of. Not directly, but indirectly enough to give one the exaggerated pride that keeps the sheep docile and unarguable. If you don't like what your lord's doing, well tough, 'cause it was your fault for electing him. And you can always wait 4 years to elect a new giant douche to run your lives from up on high. 4 years back in the 9th and 10th century was like half a lifetime, but today, it's not so bad. You can stand 4 years of a really bad president (as long as he doesn't reinstate the draft and you die in war). At least you don't have to do all your own farming today.
And now for the final answer. Honestly, fiefdom-living and modern-times are very similar, except for the filth and the plague. For the most part you don't really have a say who your leader is (one vote in a Democratic Republic like the U.S. really doesn't amount to much, especially when your electors could in theory vote differently than you told them to. Sorry to burst your bubble), but at least you can pretend that you have the power to kick a president out of office in the modern world. You'd be killed if you even THOUGHT about raising a pitchfork or a torch against your lord back in 800AD. For that alone I'd have to say that the modern Democratic Republic gets a "B", but the fiefdom only receives a "C+". I don't think we've even come close to perfection in regards to governing the masses yet, but all in all the Dem. Rep. ain't so bad.
Atari 2600 vs PS3
The first (real) home computer gaming system versus the most technologically powerful (and yes, there was that clunky brown box, pong-like system before the Atari, but you couldn't switch games, and there was no scoring, and it sucked, so it's not part of the equation... And the Odyssey doesn't count for anything other than jack and shit. Goddamn know-it-all retard who doesn't even know it all! Just sit back and read on). I must have been around 4 or 5 when we got our Atari in the late 70s/early 80s, and it was awesome! Just a joystick and a single button on the controller, but that's really all you needed. I will admit though that even way back then I was disappointed by the graphics (having been to the arcade with my older brother on occasion when I whined enough for our mom to make him take me — and seeing how sweet Pac-Man, Frogger, and Donkey Kong looked in those big arcade-cabinets really spoiled me), but despite the 2600's limitations I still loved that fake wooden-paneled piece of shit! Pitfall, Yar's Revenge, Adventure, Defender, Missile Command, Combat (oh man! God bless Combat!), and even Raiders of the Lost Ark (which I was only able to beat thanks to my cousin walking me through it — thanks to its hyperly complicated order of accomplishments that you needed to do things in, and no real help at all from the instruction booklet... Honestly, how the hell did ANYBODY, especially my cousin, know how to beat this game without the internet in all its glory or the actual developers standing right behind them?!)... I may not have been very good at them, but I enjoyed the shit out of them. We had a mountain of games, and I could (and did) spend many a sunny afternoon and weekend holed up with them instead of setting even one foot outside the house (if I could help it).
It's been forgotten to the pages of history, but the Atari was expensive as hell at the time. I recall my parents talking about "that damn $200 machine" that we had hooked up to the good TV which wasn't allowing my father to watch Magnum PI when it came on. According to the Inflation Calculator ™, $200 of 1980 money equals about $531.76 today. Holy goddamn shit! My PS3 was $130 cheaper than that, and it does a bit more than show 4 colors at a time in inch-squared blocks on the low-rez screen. And Atari games back in 1980 were around $30 a piece too. That's around EIGHTY fucking dollars today!... For Q-Bert! A game you can master in 2 minutes. Wow, fun is fun, but I'm surprised as fuck my parents actually perpetuated my expensive addiction like that.
As for the Playstation 3, it's sleek, it's fast, it can play high definition movies and music, it can surf the world wide web, and it can play video games. The games are pretty damn complex, with most having graphics that rival the special effects in Hollywood movies (well, at least Sci-Fi Channel movies, but they're still pretty damn good). And on top of all that I don't know anybody who's beaten a PS3 game in less than 5 minutes of picking up the wireless controller.
Ratchet and Clank, Soul Caliber, Whatever Call of Duty they're up to, Grand Theft Auto 4... You could fit every single Atari 2600 game ever made into any one PS3 game disc and still have enough room to store a good amount of all your digital pornography collection... Well, at least a few dozen Gigs of it... Which would only be a tiny fraction of the whole for me and my friends (a fraction of a fraction for the MegaPlayboy), but you get the idea. Oh, and you can watch hi-def pr0n on your PS3 too!... Though I don't recommend it seeing as porn stars aren't known as much for their beauty (and lack of stretch marks or razor burns) as they are for their willingness to suck off 5 guys at once and ride a horse (and I mean RIDE a horse). I.E. not really things you want to see in crystal clear high definition, but I digress.
And now for the final answer. The Atari 2600 was fun and all at the time, but I would have creamed my young boy pants had I been given access to a PS3 when I was 5. Hands down, the PS3 wins. Really? Did you think the Atari 2600 had a chance? The Atari gets a "B" and the PS3 gets an "A".
Daughters vs Mothers
Rest assured I'm only talking HOT (and legal) daughters and HOT cougar mothers here. Daughters are tighter, less wrinkly, and really love experimenting with new positions and toys (and genders). Mothers are experienced, a bit more forward (they've already learned that coyness doesn't get you nearly as much as grabbing a guy's package to "say hello"), and usually a whooooole lot dirtier. This is going to be a tough one.
Daughters are younger (by definition), sure, but that usually means that they're less knowledgeable in the ways of, well, everything: How to dress sexy (and not skanky), how to entertain and make good company (without flirting with other guys or laughing too loud at men's stupid jokes), and how to NOT scrape their teeth on... You get my painful drift. But because they're young they are more open to pretty much anything, including "The Rear Admiral" and "The Donkey Punch" if they haven't tried them before. Daughters are pretty good sports when it comes to threesomes too. And if you, as a guy, are a complete douchebag, well then daughters are right up your alley. Daughters just LOVE douchebags for some reason.
Mothers on the other hand (and as a whole) are very wise in the ways of the world (and men in general). Mothers have had years of practice figuring out the best way to keep a man happy — both in the sack and out of it (at least until his hot and sexy, younger secretary comes along, serving him two lumps of sugar and a bj with every cup of coffee, but that's neither here nor there). They may not be as experimental as their daughters when it comes to hitching up the two-person swing in the bedroom doorway, more than two people in the sack, or a stuffed buffalo (stuffed for safety's sake) and a nine-iron, but they know how to make you SCREAM in pleasure... The way they know how just a small "twist" or "turn" can mean all the difference, as does the way they've perfected the use of baby oil, and the dirty, dirty things they know to say at all the right moments...... Oh my GOD, Mrs. Pinchot, if you're reading this right now I need you to CALL ME.
I, um. Where was I? Well, I need to wrap this up fast, so now for the final answer. My cop-out final answer is both are equal, and that you should go for both at the same time for maximum pleasure (which I have heard is possible), but my real answer is daughters get an "A" and mothers get an "A+". Don't yell at me unless you've tried both and know what the fuck you're talking about.
What Have We Learned?
So "Old" doesn't always mean "shitty and bad," just as "New" doesn't always get defined as "the best there's ever been." Some things are like the mouse trap: They've been perfected in the past and there's really no reason to try for improvement. Some things are like transportation: A cart hooked up to a donkey beats walking, an automobile beats beasts of burden, and airplanes get you to Amsterdam before the red light district and the pot houses close for the night. My only point has been to look at things more carefully before passing judgment. We have a lot to learn from old things (like grandpa's war stories), just like we have a lot to experience from playing with our nieces and nephews on the swing set (like meeting MILFs who like men who're good with kids). Keep your mind and options open, and never, never tell me that the Atari 2600 is better than the PS3... Or even the original NES for that matter. Jesus, crawl out of the stone age and try something new, you goddamn Geiko caveman sonovabitch.
¹ Jesus! Do you believe everything you read on the Intarwebs?