Governor Jerry Brown To The Rescue!

Brace yourselves! I think that we might have had a moment of sanity in California! I KNOW! Can you believe it?! I, for one, can not. Seriously. The state was on its way to having a few more nanny laws in place and the next thing you know, BAM! Governor Jerry Brown vetoes them and gives an awesome explanation as to why.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Governor Brown spent Wednesday, "...vetoing bills that would require that kids wear helmets when on ski slopes and increase fines for people who talk on cell phones or text while driving." I find that to be fabulous and here's why: One, the hand-free cell phone law here is inane because it is just as dangerous to drive and talk on the phone using a hands-free device as it is to hold the phone up to your head. It's not the phone, it's the conversation. (And really, as much as I hate to admit it, I think that we all know that it isn't the safest thing to do. Phone or headset, it just distracts you.) And on top of that, the fine is already close to $300 once all of the "fees" are added. It's quite outrageous.

And two, I'm not all that big of a fan of helmet laws. Yes, even for kids. If you want your kid to wear a helmet, have your kid wear a helmet. Do we need a law for this? I don't think that we do. (And really, I and everyone else that I know grew up without wearing helmets and we're just fine. The number of kids that I personally knew that met their demise because they weren't wearing a helmet is exactly zero.)

But wait. I'm not even at the best part! Here it is: This is what Governor Jerry had to say when he vetoed the bills: "While I appreciate the value of wearing a ski helmet, I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state. Not every human problem deserves a law." Oh. My. God. Release the pigeons. Sanity has prevailed.

Not every human problem deserves a law. NO! It does not! Why is that concept so hard for so many to understand?! Especially those whores in the legislature who want to nanny law us to death?! What's wrong with a barrage of public service announcements to make people aware of things? That seems to me like it would at least still leave the decision in the hands of the individual (as opposed to the government), but it would give them something to think about. And really, I'm not so sure that I think that being given something to think about is all that necessary either. But I like it a heck of a lot better than a bunch of laws that are designed to swaddle the population. You go, Governor Jerry!

Sphere: Related Content

Darwinism And The Fourth Of July

Happy 4th of July! If you're in America, it's Independence Day. If you're not in America, well, it's still the 4th of July, but that most likely means that it's Monday. And in celebration of our independence and all of the freedoms that being an independent nation allows us, let's see how that turns out for some people. What we have here, according to the Huffington Post, is a one 55-year old Philip A. Contos of Parish, New York. Mr. Parish was "...participating in a protest ride against helmet laws" in New York. When he went to hit the brakes, his motorcycle fishtailed (that means just what it sounds like it means) and Mr. Contos "...flipped over the bike's handlebars and hit his head on the pavement." Naturally, since he was protesting the helmet laws, he wasn't wearing one. Naturally, since he wasn't wearing one, he died.

Now, I don't know if this sounds sad to you, but it does not bother me. That's what being free is all about. You have the choice to make idiotic decisions for yourself and you get to reap the consequences of those idiotic decisions. The thing about being free (and the thing that way too many lawmakers seem to have forgotten) is that it comes with a lot of responsibility. One really doesn't have to do a whole lot of thinking if someone else is going to be making all of the decisions for them. Would it have been better for Mr. Contos if he had been forced to wear a helmet? Well, maybe, but only if you're not him. See, he was perfectly OK with his choice. At 55 years old, I highly doubt that he was unaware of the perils of motorcycle riding without a helmet. He knew what he was getting himself into and, as a free society, he should be allowed to make that choice even if it kills him. Think of it as Darwinism hard at work. OK, maybe not so hard at work. But definitely at work. Darwinism at work.

I'm waiting to hear the retort that usually follows the untimely (and usually unexpected) deaths of people who croaked whilst amidst some sort of hobby. That often heard commentary is usually something to the effect of: "Well, at least he died doing what he loved." I don't think that's ever the case. Eaten by a shark while scuba diving? "He died doing what he loved." Being chomped to death by a sea creature and screaming in pain and unthinkable fear? THAT'S what someone loved? I don't think so. Skydiving and the chute doesn't open and the person plummets to their Wile E. Coyote-esque doom? "He died doing what he loved?" In preparation to become a human pancake? I don't think so? Not doing the sensible (regardless of the laws in place) thing and not wearing a motorcycle helmet and flying over your handlebars at a low speed and cracking your dome open on the pavement? "He died doing what he loved?" Being in defiance of common sense and realizing this lapse in judgment the second before his dome cracked open? Perhaps. But not likely. Not very likely.

Happy Independence Day, America! Try not to screw it up by being a moron. Assume the responsibility that all of this freedom puts upon you and try to emerge from your celebrations in one piece. Or don't. It's a free country.

Sphere: Related Content

Noodle This One Through

You're going to love this guy as much as I do. And when I say "love" I mean "want to slowly strangle until I've seen every shade of blue known to man and hope that I discover a new one". You know. Love. This bloke is apparently in Wisconsin for the protests. He also apparently lives in Wisconsin and is currently (but perhaps not for much longer) employed at something called Noodles. It appears to be a restaurant which serves some sort of pasta. Noodles, if you will.

From the fine folks over at The Blaze we are treated to an interview of this particular Noodles employee. He gives his rationale as to why the economic model of America (the most successful country on the planet in the history of the planet) needs to change. He also spends a fair amount of time pointing out the obvious as if it is some sort of an atrocity. It's as absolutely frustrating as it is absolutely hilarious. I've taken the time to transcribe some of his thoughts below. See what you think.

"You either work for someone else or you work for yourself. And most people work for someone else in a way that they aren’t free. You don’t really get to decide your work. For example, I work at Noodles, a restaurant, and basically it’s a dictatorship there. We’re told exactly what we’re going to cook, how we’re going to cook it, what time we’re going to get there. And basically if they don’t like what we’re doing, they try and tell us what to do. If we don’t listen, they get rid of us. And so we’re not able to actually cooperate in a way that we make decisions together. I try to convince my fellow employees that we should have a union at Noodles so it’s a source of power to start with and then I think in terms of the bigger picture, we need to look at revolutions in a way that you actually get rid of any sort of dictatorship is by having workers take control of the place where they work."

If that seems like a lot to plod through all at once, allow me to help you. Basically, his employment at the Noodles is unbearable or unfair or something because it is essentially a dictatorship (and not a place of business, apparently). It earns the dictatorship label in his own mind because they tell you what to cook, when you have to show up and how long you have to work. And in ultimate dictatorial fashion, if you don't like the rules then you are fired. Clearly, there is no freedom at the Noodles and thus, it is bad. I realize that all of this sounds very similar to a job, but he seems to have it mistaken for a dictatorship. This man needs a helmet. Stat!

Basically, he's saying that he'd like to come and go whenever he likes and cook whatever he feels like at a pace that he deems to be appropriate. Sure. That seems like it would work. Of course. Never mind that he is applying dictatorship to the workplace and that's a completely incorrect application of the theory. His method would be fine because everyone would be doing what they wanted without having anyone tell them what to do. At work.

But wait! There's more. The person shooting this video then asked our little socialist/communist, "Would your plan, your vision for Noodles, would it include the owner?" His response? Pretty much the sort of nonsense that you'd be expecting right about now, having just read his previous load of crap. He said, "If the owner wanted to cooperate with us as an equal and provide his skills that he had, we would definitely cooperate with him. He'd have to abdicate his position as being an owner and controller of us and he would have to recognize that we run Noodles together. And basically, if he doesn't want to cooperate with us, he's against us." Holy crap.

So let me see if I've got this straight. In this jackwagon's world, he would be an equal to the guy who had the initial vision, gathered up the start up money, and built this business (which apparently has 240 locations in 18 different states and employs around 3,000 workers, hopefully not all of which share the same mentality as this dude). That guy, the entrepreneur, is supposed to be an equal with this cook who comes off as having the IQ of a turnip and who may or may not show up for work, depending on how he feels. That sounds like a fabulous business model, son! I can't believe that someone else hasn't made their fortune in that exact same way! Good Lord...

The video of this socialist/communist who doesn't understand economic theory as it applies to the individual workplace very well is below. (And if it loads all funny, you can just click here and watch it on YouTube. The good stuff starts right at the 3:38 mark. Feel free to start there, lest your head explode trying to listen to all of it.) Try listening to him with your eyes closed. When you open them, you'll notice that he looks precisely like he sounds. What is it about that sort of voice and the seeming inability to grow any sort of meaningful facial hair that always seems to be present in these sort of softheads? Is it because they're already like that and that makes them this way? Or do they take on these ridiculous beliefs and then adopt those sort of traits? I don't know which one it is either, but it annoys the crap out of me. Whatever he's protesting against in Wisconsin, I am wholeheartedly in favor of. Sign me up. Just keep him away from me.

Sphere: Related Content

Reasons To Wear A Helmet When Protesting

If you're going to riot and try to overthrow a government, you'd better be prepared. Sure, you get there with a full head of steam and that's a good start. But you've really got to bring your A-game. Er, your A-riot. You also have to bring your rioting stuff. Aka, your gear or your equipment. From what I can tell, over there in Egypt, that would amount to a lot of rocks. After you have your gear, there's a procedure that you must follow. You're going to take your rocks and you're going to throw them. Got it? Good. Now, while you're throwing said rocks amongst the unsaid chaos that is erupting, your goal will be two-fold. Fold One: Try to get your rock to hit whatever the target that you have determined is. Fold Two: Try not to get hit with rocks from other people on the opposing side who are doing the same thing that you're doing, only in reverse. And in order to best accomplish Fold Two, you're going to need a helmet. Good luck finding a real helmet in Egypt. It's not like they sell them at the Camel Feed n' Fuel. You're going to have to improvise. And it just so happens that I found some pictures over there at LIFE that will give you some good idea for said improvisation. It will also give you some ideas of what not do to. Let's begin.

This man has put a large mushroom on his head. That is not going to work at all. On top of that, he looks ridiculous. No one can take a rioter seriously if they look like a moron. I don't even know what he thinks that is going to do for his dome. It's not going to do much, I'll tell you that right now. Is it an Egyptian sombrero? I don't think anyone really knows. Cool shades, though. Those will help. Or not.

This nitwit with the traffic cone on his melon isn't going to fare much better. I will concede that it is better than nothing. But wouldn't you think that wearing a bright orange cone on your head is kind of just asking to be made into a target? If you have to aim for something, aim for the cone. Not a good idea if you're really trying to avoid cranial damage.

Next up, the sauce pot. "Hey, Jim! How big is your head?" "I'm not sure." "Well, do you think you could fit it into a six-quart pot?" "I don't know. Do you have an eight-quart pot?" "I do, but I think that will be too big." "Don't worry. I'll shove some cloth napkins in it so it will fit snugly and then I'll tie it to my melon with a necktie." "Oh, OK. I'm glad you've give this some thought. I'm going to wear the colander." "OK. Now let's get ready to rumble!" (By the way, if anyone can tell me what he has written on his pot, I would be very appreciative. And all of you yay-hoos who are going to tell me it says something like "Bring to a boil before adding pasta" can just save it!)
There might not be a more versatile item than the plastic milk crate. It is milk crates that allowed me to decorate my first few abodes in the style of "Early Dorm Room". They made for great bookshelves and they helped support the planks of wood that would serve as the TV stand. And not only can they be furniture, they can also be protective headwear. Who knew? (And while I also used cinder blocks in place of the milk crates from time to time, they would not have been near as effective as a helmet as the milk crates appear to be.)

The protester below is on the right track with his or her impromptu helmet-izing. The mesh metal front seems like an excellent idea to protect your fact. Whatever there is on the top, however, does not seem adequate at all. It looks to be like a dishtowel and a piece of cardboard. Well, that's not going to do much when a rock lands on you. Nope. Not much at all. But if you're getting rocks thrown directly at you, this seems like it might be of some use. It also has a sort of medieval look to it that I really enjoy.

This person is a moron. What does he think that little piece of cardboard is going to do? Keep the sun out of his eyes? Maybe he has already been hit in the head and that is why he thinks that what he is doing will effectively protect his noggin. News flash: It won't. He'll be knocked unconscious by the first piece of rugged concrete to rain down upon him. He really needs to hook up with milk crate guy or sauce pot head.

This guy isn't going to get much more protection than the corrugated warrior seen above. He appears to have stolen the lid from Oscar the Grouch's trash can and is using it as protection. I fear for him and his cranium. I hope his hand-eye coordination is good. He's going to need it.

At least those guys are trying to protect themselves. Because you know what happens when you don't try to protect yourself and you go wading right out into the middle of a protest? You end up like this guy:

Yipes. That's all for today, kids! And remember, wear a helmet!

Sphere: Related Content

Miracles Without Helmets

I'm feeling somewhat vindicated. Granted, it's at the extreme misfortune of others, but the misfortunes could have been worse, so technically it's not that bad. And since it sort of aids in my self perceived vindication, there's definitely some good that has come out of all of it. What am I rambling about? My dislike of the helmeted child.

Look, I'm all for preventing head injuries. That's a good thing. You need a fully working melon in order to make things a little bit easier. But somewhere along the line, it was decided that children riding bikes (or doing any physical activity, really) needed helmets. I, on the other hand, thought the people that wanted a world in which all children were helmeted were the ones who needed the helmets. If for no other reason than to just let others know what a softhead they were.

Children will fall off their bikes. They will fall when rollerblading. They will fall when skateboarding. They will fall when going down the stairs. They will fall after being pushed down the stairs. That's because they're kids. Kids fall. So do adults, but not as much as kids (so I've heard). And kids have been falling for many, many years and civilization still manages to move forward. I didn't wear a helmet when I rode my bike when I was a kid and I turned out all right. Not great, but I'm functional!

See, it starts with the helmet. Then it progresses to the helmet and the knee pads. After that, you have to wait for the kid to put on the helmet, the knee pads, the shin guards, the elbow pads, the wrist pads, the wrist guards. When the kid is around 5 or 6, with all of that protective gear on, they look somewhat like a mutant ninja turtle. On a bike. And now I have anecdotal evidence to back up my cynical theory that the helmet is unnecessary and needs to go the way of the...um....the...other protective gear that was overprotective. Yeah, that's it!

For instance, let's take a one Barry Hart of Te Horo (that's on the Kapiti Coast of New Zealand's North Island). According to the NZ Herald, Barry was using an angle grinder when a slight mishap occurred. Said mishap resulted in the 22cm blade wedging itself in his forehead after it "cut his face from above his top lip and slashed through his nose and an eye." Sweet mother of God.

If you're not familiar with an angle grinder, it's like a small, handheld power saw. It usually has a steel blade with some sort of diamond powder encrusted on the blades so that it can cut things like tile and stone. Angle grinders can go through stone like butt-ah. Thus, imagine what it's going to do to your head....especially if you weren't wearing the all mighty helmet!

Think again! According to the rescue helicopter pilot, a one Waine Dick , Barry "was in extreme pain and a lot of shock, but was more concerned about his wife Gyllian." Um, what? What was that? "He was coherent and able to make sure his wife was all right, which was very touching. He was in an extremely bad way but asked her not to look." Yeah, you wouldn't have had to "ask" me not to look. Believe me, I would not be looking at my husband with an angle grinder blade lodged in his head. No, I would absolutely NOT be looking at him and instead would be concentrating on how to contain any and all bodily functions that would be wanting to fail me at just such a moment.

They fly him to the hospital with the blade still in his head! They did a little surgery at the hospital and he's in "serious, but stable condition." (Oh, you think?!?) He is expected to recover. Holy crap, how is that possible without a helmet?!

Meanwhile, over in Mississippi in dem dar United States, a one 47-year old Tammy Sexton was shot in the head by her husband. According to The Telegraph, the "bullet from a .38-calibre handgun struck her squarely in the forehead, passed through her skull and exited through the back of her head. " She is expected to make a full recovery. Wait! WHAT?!

Full recovery? People don't make "full recoveries" from being shot in the dome. No, people die from being shot in the dome. Dying is quite the opposite of full recovery. Dying is also quite the opposite of offering to make some tea for the police officers who responded to the shooting. Making tea? She's been shot in the head and she's making tea?!

Yep. Making tea. Tea is very popular in the south. They love it. They drink it all the time. With meals. At sporting events. And even after getting shot in the head, southerners will reach for a glass of tea. (Lipton or Nestea really need to hurry up and jump on this one. It's an advertising gold mine! "After being shot in the head, I like to reach for a glass of my favorite tea!") According to one Sheriff Mike Byrd: "When the officer got there, she was holding a rag on her head and talking. She asked the officer what was going on. She was conscious, but she was confused about what had happened." Yeah, I'd be a little confused as well. In fact, I am confused and I wasn't the one being shot in the head. How does that work?

Well, according to a one Dr Patrick Pritchard, "There is a space in the brain where a missile could pass without doing any major damage." Huh. Good to know. You know what else is good to know? That you don't always need a helmet!

See? Two extreme cases of helmetless-ness and those folks are just fine. Both very polite, both concerned about others in the midst of their injury, both expected to make a full recovery and all of that without a helmet. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be careful and take appropriate precautions with things, I'm just saying that the human body is pretty amazing and can take care of itself a lot better than people give it credit for. And it's not that children shouldn't be wearing protective headgear if they're engaged in an activity that has a high probability of cracking open their noggin. Just spare the non-helmeted child and their parents from the ostracizing looks and comments is all I'm saying. And that sentiment I say to all of the softheads out there as well. Take off your helmet and live a little. You'd be amazed at how much quicker you react when you have to protect yourself from whatever comes your way instead of relying on the over-rated helmet.

Sphere: Related Content

Once Upon A Warning Label

I suppose I can cross Australia off my list of places I can seek refuge if the situation in the US gets any nuttier. Yeah, I won't be heading there anytime soon. I thought that there were too many people in this country who needed to be wearing a helmet at all times (even when they sleep. Yes, that is correct.), but Australia seems to be indicating that they are in dire need of a helmet shipment. That's because teachers in Australia are (and I'll quote from the fine folks down under at news.com.au) " being urged to give children safety messages after reading them fairy tales warning not to copy characters such as Little Red Riding Hood, Goldilocks and Hansel and Gretel."

Oh, f-ing hell. WHAT?

Apparently, this is part of a "new child protection curriculum" (also known, by me, as "Foolproof Ways To Make Children Neurotic") which the Education Department is implementing in the schools and which has been backed by "child development experts". These "experts" also seem to think that the "curriculum" should require the teachers "to refer to children's "sexual parts" and use their correct anatomical names with children as young as three." Um, I'm sorry, I must have missed the part about WHY on earth a teacher would need to be speaking to a child AT ALL, really, about their "sexual parts"? (And just for those that are at or above the mature age of three. Anything younger than three and it's still "Mister Willy".)

The goal of this asinine implementation is to "teach the children early warning signs of being unsafe and recognizing abuse." And while that may seem like a fine idea and a noble gesture (even though it doesn't and it isn't), I have an easier way to accomplish that. It's called "Being A Kid". When you climb on top of the house and look over the edge as you contemplate how you want to jump off the roof and onto the trampoline two stories below, that is when you will learn about "being unsafe". When the other kids beat you up for being such a wuss, that's when you will "recognize abuse". Happens every day, everywhere. Guaranteed. No program necessary. Unless you're in freaking Australia, for cryin' out loud!

The teachers have been trained to beware of stories and books where there are children putting themselves in dangerous situations. Like that clueless Little Red Riding Hood chick who was just traipsing about the forest and talking to the Big Bad Wolf (whom she did not know, thus making him "a stranger"). Or those little troublemakers Hansel and Gretel. The nerve of them, walking into houses when they don't know who lives there and haven't been invited in. Tragedy in the making. Read that to a group of kids and you'll find your town swamped with home invasions as soon as school lets out for the day, right? (Um, no.)

The Education Department consulted with the Emeritus Professor of Child Development at UniSA, Professor Freda Briggs, and she supported the measures, and called for them to be implemented nationwide! How exciting! According to the Professor (who I'm going to call Fred, mainly because if she were ever to read something where she was referred to as "Fred", I think it would highly irritate her), "This is about appropriately empowering the child." Well, it's clearly not, but if it were, I'd say you were doing it wrong. (By the way, that's her over there on the right. About what you expected, isn't she?)

As far as using the correct anatomical names with three year olds, Fred says, "Kids are talking about sex at age five now. It's so in-your-face, I'm afraid that innocence is gone. They are sexualised younger and younger." (Of course, my solution to that is "make them stop". Who are the adults here? No, seriously. I'm getting confused.) Fred continues along those same lines with, "We need to use correct body terms because by giving children silly names or names that only the family understands, you're telling your child that you can't cope with talking about it. How does a child get help if nobody understands?" Come on! Is that really a problem? There have got to be at least a couple of hundred different terms for "penis". At least. And I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that most of us have heard most of them and the ones that we haven't heard of, I'll bet we could figure it out pretty quickly. And even if we couldn't, there's always the universal language of pointing. Rarely does it ever fail, especially when referring to one's own penis.

This is asinine. These are little kids. Can't they just hear a story for fun just because it's a story? Me, personally, I'd rather hear a story than, say, the news. Hands down, I'll take the story every time. And that's because stories are fun. And little kids really like things that are fun. (And fun things, when you're three, do not involve the word "penis", nor the actual item, "the penis".) But now the Aussies are in for Mother Goose with warning labels and Aesop with a penis. Grand.

From coast to coast in Australia, children as young as three will be able to hear the words "penis" AND "vagina" while they're in school learning that if you're walking along through the forest, even if you see a cottage with three steaming bowls of porridge inside, don't go inside! Oh, I'm sure the Australians feel safer already!

Sphere: Related Content