Poor Darwin

So, Fort Lee, New Jersey has gone ahead and banned texting whilst walking.  That's right.  While walking.  In the 'Land of the Free', you are no longer allowed to text while you're walking in Fort Lee, lest you end up with a $54 ticket.  It's actually technically when you're jaywalking, but that's a separate ticket in and of itself, so I'm not quite sure why they felt the need to add texting to it.  Then again, the entire idea is so completely asinine that it's probably pointless for me to try to make any sense of it at all.

According to MSNBC, "...Fort Lee saw three fatalities and more than 20 pedestrian accidents since the beginning of the year".  And that statement alone is enough for me to pose the question "Won't this thing eventually work itself out on its own?"  See, because I'm going to guess that the 20 pedestrians who were involved in an "accident" (whatever that means) aren't going to do it again if they were injured enough.  Stupid should hurt.  And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that those three people that were killed certainly won't be doing it again.  Why does the government need to be involved?  Why can't the "fine", instead of being $54, simply be a head injury when one walks into a pole because they weren't paying attention to where they were going?


What's that you say?  It's being done in the name of safety?  If that were actually true, there would be a lot less potentially dangerous things around us.  If people are so worried about safety, why isn't there a ban on backyard pools yet?  Those things are a death trap!  We should ban those in the name of safety.  What about exposure to the sun?  That's potentially dangerous, what with the skin cancer and all.  Why don't we have a law that you are required to use sunscreen before you go outdoors?  All in the name of safety!  We've gotta have that law, right?  What about when the temperature outside goes above ninety degrees?  Isn't there more of a potential for heat stroke at higher temperatures?  Shouldn't we have a law saying that you must stay inside in order to protect yourself when it's really hot?  All in the name of safety!  While we're at it, since we already have a seat belt law, why don't we add to that having drivers be required to wear helmets when driving.  I know that those would potentially spare dozens of lives that would otherwise be lost if the vehicle operator what helmetless.  Seriously, where in the hell does it stop? 

I can't believe that law even passed at all.  Maybe this Fort Lee, New Jersey just isn't a particularly bright town.  Three fatalities related to texting since January?  It's only May, for cryin' out loud.  And while I can find plenty Google search results about this law, I have yet to find any evidence that the people in Fort Lee are really so stupid that they end up getting killed due to texting while strolling about.  I did find this article, which does mention pedestrian deaths, but in no way alludes to them being related to texting.  Now, I'm not saying that the people who passed this law were being disingenuous in the name of safety.  I'm just saying that I can find no mention of it even occurring before this law passed.  Oh, well.  I guess if we're all going to be safer as a result, the reason shouldn't matter right?  God, we're so doomed.  

Sphere: Related Content

Most Depressing Poll Results Ever

I know that we're doomed. I know that we're scroomed. And I've seen it coming for a while now. I just didn't realize (or didn't want to realize) how bad the doomnation has become. Today, I realized it's farther along than I thought. People are more like sheeple more than ever now. And do I have a story for you to illustrate that point.

Let's refer to the article that the fine folks over at the NYDailyNews.com put together and learn about an instance in which a 6-year old boy from Oregon stole the family minivan and went out for a drive in search of some sort of snack because he was allegedly hungry. He never did get those snacks because he ended up plowing into several mailboxes before running into a truck. Oh, and in order to pay for the snacks that he was in search of, he took some "rolls of pennies". Well, at least he wasn't going to show up empty handed. And he took it upon himself to take care of his basic needs. Seems like a real go-getter, that boy. But that's not what has me concerned.

Like a lot of news stories online, there was a little poll next to the article. And, like a lot of polls next to news stories online, this poll seemed asinine to me. Here is the question: Should cars have more safety precautions to prevent kids from taking joyrides? Uhh...what? Like what sort of safety precautions? I really can't even imagine because it's a ridiculous question. How about you try to teach your kid not to drive the car when they're six, all right? OK, then. But let's look at the choices anyway, shall we?

You may choose from one of the following answers:

Yes! Kids are getting too smart these days thanks to technology. Keys are not that hard to figure out.

No. Parents should be responsible enough to keep car keys out of kids’ hands.

I'm too stupid to decide. (OK, I this one up. The real choice was "I'm not sure".)

Am I the only one who found the first choice to be not only ridiculous, but contradictory as well? Technology is making kids too smart, yet keys are not that hard to figure out. Well, if the keys are not that hard to figure out, then what does technology have to do with it? And I'm not so sure that I buy that technology is making kids too smart. It's definitely not making adults too smart, I'll tell you that. But, then again, I digress. Just to see what the percentages were, I went ahead and participated in the poll. I clicked on "No. Parents should be responsible enough to keep car keys out of kids' hands." Then I clicked "Vote" so that I could see the results. I wish I hadn't. I wish I had just walked away in my blissful ignorance and kept thinking that more people would think that people should be responsible enough to keep their car keys out of the hands of their small children. But I didn't walk away.

No, instead I looked at the results and almost totally lost it when I read that ninety four percent of the people that took the poll thought that cars should have more safety precautions to prevent kids from taking joyrides because technology is making kids too smart and that keys are not that hard to figure out! Ninety four percent thought that. Ninety four percent did not think that parents should be responsible enough to keep car keys out of kids' hands. Ninety four percent. What in the world is wrong with those people?

I want those people studied. More importantly, I want them sterilized. Now. If they can't do anything to prevent their underage kids from taking their vehicles because keys are not that hard to figure out, then it's over. We're done. There is nothing left to do but to continue to take up residence in my walled off compound and hope for sweet, sweet victory of death to overtake me. Ninety four percent of people believe that there is nothing that they can do to change or mold their children's behavior. Ninety four percent. We're scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Soda-Free Idiocy Hits San Francisco

In their apparent quest to make sure that no one has to think for themselves, San Francisco has edged a little bit closer to a non-sustainable, faux utopia now that the mayor, pretty, pretty Gavin Newsom, has signed an executive order that "...bars calorically sweetened beverages from vending machines on city property." So says the folks across the bay at SF Gate.

Of course, this nanny state directive was fueled in part by a study which found that "...adults who drink at least one soft drink a day are 27 percent more likely to be obese than those who don't". Uh-huh. And? I kept reading the article hoping that it would explain to me how it is the soda that is at fault and not the people who are drinking the soda, but it never did. I guess that sort of explained why Gavin Newsom didn't just ban those who are dim and, in this case, overindulgent.

If only there was something that might indicate that it isn't the soda that is the problem as much as it is a lifestyle choice of those that are choosing to drink the sodas. I mean, after all, diet sodas are readily available. And don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not implying that any soda, including diet soda, is going to be good for you. None of them are going to be great for you, but some are going to be not as bad as others. Oh, I know they taste like crap at first, but you get used to the crap taste. After a short while, you grow so accustomed to the crap taste that you forget what a decent tasting soda tastes like. That's when the overindulging can really begin...when it won't hurt you! But yet folks still indulge in the sugar laden sodas. Yep. That definitely sounds like it's the sodas fault.

The article also mentions that the study "...also found that 41 percent of children and 62 percent of teens drink at least one soda daily." Hmm. And of course, those children and those teens get their sodas from the machines that are on city property. Oh, wait a minute. No, they don't! You moron, Gavin. Could you explain this ridiculous decision?

Well, he couldn't but one of his spokesholes could. A one Tony Winnicker said that "There's a direct link between what people eat and drink and the obesity and health care crises in this country." Really? A direct link between what people EAT and OBESITY? Fascinating, sir! Absolutely fascinating. Do you have more words of wisdom for the sheeple? Of course he does. He said, "It's entirely appropriate and not at all intrusive for city government to take steps to discourage the sale of sugary sodas on city property." Hmm.

You're telling me that for a city government to step in and tell a private citizen what the best choices for him or her are is perfectly OK? Because the government knows best? What happened to the land of the free? Free to make choices, right? That doesn't say that we're free to make only the best choices. We're just free to make choices. But only choices that the government deems to be appropriate. Yeah, I have a problem with that.

Good luck with your utopia, Mr. and Mrs. San Francisco. Let me know how it works out for you when the city starts deciding that other things are bad for you and starts banning those as well. It starts with the sodas. What's next? Chips? Fries? White bread? Red meat? Gravy? Next thing you know, you're only going to be able to get raw vegan fare within city limits because that has been deemed by the government to be the best choice because the people are too inept to make their own choices. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. But you let me know how that turns out. You know where to find me. I'll be inside of my walled off compound protecting myself from the likes of Gavin Newsom.

Sphere: Related Content

Rewarding The Sheeple

Goodbye, sweet America. Goodbye! I feel as if I hardly knew ye. But you're leaving now, if you haven't already left. I bid you a very tearful adieu.


The cause for my grief? According to an article over at the still very reputable New York Times, "One-third to one-half of all patients do not take medication as prescribed, and up to one-quarter never fill prescriptions at all." That's terrible. What a tragedy. Oh, but wait. That's not the cause for my foreseeing doom for this once great and noble country. No, no. See, an "...effort to tackle the problem is gaining ground: paying people money to take medicine or to comply with prescribed treatment." Wait a minute. What now? Or, as Liz Lemon would say, WUCK?

Correct. There are folks out there who think that it is a good idea to PAY people to take their medications. For some reason, a payment is more of an incentive than good and/or better health. It gets better! They've turned it into a little game in some areas! For example "In a Philadelphia program people prescribed warfarin, an anti-blood-clot medication, can win $10 or $100 each day they take the drug — a kind of lottery using a computerized pillbox to record if they took the medicine and whether they won that day." Whether they won that day? Isn't feeling better a "win" in and of itself? What is wrong with these people?

Listen, I take Prilosec every freaking day. Do you know WHY I take it every freaking day? It's not because I'm getting PAID to take it. I take it because if I don't, I am in incredible pain. I prefer no pain to pain, thus I take the Prilosec. When I forget to take the Prilosec (hey, it happens and you know it does), what do you think my consequence is? That's right! Pain! When I'm not in pain, do you think I'm walking around thinking what a rip off my no pain is and how I wish I was getting paid to not be in pain? Uh, no. Because that would be what? Completely asinine, that is correct.

The article talks about a one 25-year old Chiquita Parker. Ms. Parker is (how did I guess) a single mother who is unfortunately afflicted with lupus. According to the article, she is "...too ill to continue her job with special needs children." That's unfortunate, but I fail to see how that relates to this topic. Fortunately, they do throw in some relevant facts such as that she "...repeatedly made medication mistakes, although she knows she depends on warfarin to prevent clots than can cause strokes, paralysis, or death." Let me get this straight. Without the medication, she's looking at dying. With the medication, she's not looking at dying. AND she has at least one child who is dependent upon her. THAT isn't incentive enough to take your medication?! What sort of "medication mistakes" are we talking about here? It's not that hard to not make mistakes with medication. There ARE directions right there on the side of the bottle!

Apparently that's not the only thing that isn't an incentive. She said “I would forget to take it,” and feel “like I couldn’t breathe.” Huh. Breathing is one of my favorite activities. I like it so much that I do it all day, every day! I'd pretty much do whatever I had to do in order to continue breathing. But I guess that is just one of the many differences between myself and banana Chiquita. She needed more of an incentive than oxygen. "...in the six-month lottery program, she pocketed about $300. “You got something for taking it,” Ms. Parker said. Suddenly, she said, “I was taking it regularly, I was doing so good.” Uh, wait. Isn't breathing getting something for taking it? Apparently, not in her world.

Her life as the mother of a small child is apparently only worth fifty bucks a month to her. Look, I understand that there are folks out there who really need that fifty bucks. I get that. But I don't get why my money should go toward giving them an "incentive" to take medication! What in the world do I care whether they take it or not?! That's not my problem! Give me back my money!

Honest to God, I don't care if someone is going to die because they're too moronic to see the benefit in taking their medication. I don't. I care one iota. I care more about the fact that they don't care rather than that they're not taking their medication. That's my concern; the idiocy that is prevalent in this scenario. Has anyone ever thought of looking into why improved health is not an incentive for these people? That's my question. Why don't they care? What's in it for them to not care? There has to be something. I have no idea what it could possibly be, since being sick or ailing is not a fun state to be in. This program just makes me angry. Good job enabling folks who are unwilling to take care of themselves. Good job taking away every single facet of personal responsibility. Oh, and good job making sure that there is always a reward for doing things that you are expected to do! It's a really nice society of sheep we're breeding here. Good Lord, people.

Seriously, I need to have it explained to me why having the doctor tell someone: "IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THIS PILL EVERY SINGLE DAY, YOU WILL DIE" is not incentive enough for them to do so. I don't get it. If you can't remember to take care of yourself every day by taking your medication, Ms. Parker, should I really be entrusting you to take care of and raise that child? What if you forget to feed him? How do we know she isn't going to forget to feed him? She can't remember to take a pill that enables her to breathe, remember?! How can we assume that she is a capable parent? I don't think we can. I just don't think that we can.

What's next? Paying people to finish high school? (Oh, we kind of do. It's called "a better chance at prosperity".) Paying people to not get arrested? (Oh, we kind of do. It's called "not going to jail".) Paying people to not get pregnant? (Oh, we kind of do. It's called "not getting pregnant"!) Do the people who are adovcating this program not understand that there needs to be an inner motivation to do certain things? If there is always the expectation of a reward, how is the stuff that isn't all that fun going to ever get done? And please, for the love of God, please, someone explain to me why HEALTH isn't a reward?!

Won't you join me in a heartfelt goodbye to the country once known as America? Once known far and wide as the United States of America, we will soon become the SSA, the Socialist States of America. I could probably make a small fortune renting out space on my stead upon which my walled-off (and heavily moated) compound sits. I know it sounds a little well-organized militia-y, but if this isn't the sound of doom knocking at our front door, I don't know what is. But I do know that it scares the hell out of me.

Sphere: Related Content

There's More Where That Came From

If you were a sheep and you were in Australia and you'd been thinking about what would go with those nice plastic trousers you had heard that you were getting, I hate to disappoint you but you're not getting any pants. What? That's right. No pants. No pants for the sheep. The sheep will not wear pants. Now, that's really supposed to be more of a 'rule' and less of an 'announcement', but in this case, semi-sadly, it's an announcement. And it's straight from those Australian scientists who have abandoned plastic plants for sheep in favor of gas masks. Wait. What?

I do believe I'm a bit ahead of myself here. Allow me to retreat just a tad. See, if you believe a whole lot of scientists (and Al Gore) the Earth is gradually getting hotter. The globe, it is a-warmin'. Hence the term "global warming". (Have you seen Al Gore lately? He's undergone a bit of global expansion since his Veep days. He's packing enough insulation these days to keep his globe plenty warm.) Global warming is bad. Scientists (except the mad ones) are good. We're still not sure what Al Gore is. But the point is, the good scientists are trying to figure out what we can do about global warming and how to slow it down or stop it. In order to do so, they first have to look to the sources of what warms the earth. (Sources other than Al Gorge Gore.)

Greenhouse gases (presumedly the gases that turn the earth warmer and make it like a "greenhouse") are bad for the environment. Methane is a greenhouse gas. Methane is bad for the environment. Sheep emit methane from both ends. The question is how much methane do sheep release from their woolly little bodies? That will help determine if there is a particular breed of sheep that emits more methane than other breeds. It will also help determine if a sheep's diet influences their methane production. (See, I don't get that part. The sheep's diet is whatever is in the field. It's field food. They're field food feeders. Isn't grass just grass no matter how you chew it? It would be a lot easier if you knew which sheep were the ones going out for Indian food every other night, wouldn't it? I'm sure that would narrow down the culprits to a conspicuous group.)

Well since methane is a gas, you have to capture it. You can't just put it in your pocket and walk home with it (thank God). It needs a container. What scientists had been doing (because they're so scientific-y and all) it putting plastic plants on the sheep and measuring the exit emissions that way. Turns out however, "that only about 2 per cent of sheep methane emissions came from their rear." That according to a one Professor James Rowe as quoted by our mates down under at news.com.au. So instead they're just going to put a mask over the sheep's face and measure the methane that way (of course they are.) because, according to Professor Rowe, "Putting plastic trousers on sheep is much more difficult than holding a mask there for a minute or so." Yes. I should think so. Actually, putting ANY kind of clothing on a sheep, aside from being just plain wrong, would in fact be quite difficult.

You may or may not remember the poor cows who were having their methane measured and were being forced to sport these fancy tanks for a while there. Behold! Tank Cow!

Well, ain't that sporty? Naturally, after seeing the cow with his butt backpack there, I had visions of the poor sheep looking something like...Behold! My twisted vision of sheep having their methane measured:

(Yes, I know it's frightening. Just try being in my head for a little while. It's not always that pleasant!) But fortunately, the scientists are a little more balanced than I am (there's a sentence I never thought I'd say) and they had a better way of capturing that methane-y sheep breath in a way so that "The animal is not in any distress ... they don't really object to it." I'll be the judge of that...Behold!

Huh. Maybe he's right. That doesn't look too bad. (The sheep has a much better deal than the poor cow did.) It kind of looks like a breathalyzer for sheep. (I wonder if they'll have them walk a straight line when they're done.) The thing is that down in Australia, they have a lot of sheep and they have a lot of kangaroos. Turns out that kangaroos don't emit very much methane at all regardless of diet. Now, some schools of thought down there say that if people would just eat more kangaroo and less sheep, that they could reduce the number of sheep needed and increase the number of kangaroos needed. (I know how they would do one of those, but I'm not sure about the other. Kangaroo orgy, perhaps? I don't even want to think about it. All of those sexed up marsupials...hopping all over the place on top of each other....it would be madness!) The thing is, people don't want to eat kangaroo. The kangaroo meat that is available now? Yeah, most people that buy it feed it to their pets. Oh, yum! That'd be like if George W. told the US, "Less McDonald's, more ALPO!"

But if they can figure out how to cut the sheep's methane emissions, then it's a win-win all the way around. The earth is helped, kangaroo meat doesn't become dinnertime sustenance and the people can eat the sheep again. (Hmmm. OK, I guess it's not win-win for the sheep. They seem to kind of be getting screwed in the end here, but even if that's true, at least there won't be a lot of methane when it's happening!) And that's why the scientists are giving all of the sheep these little methane breathalyzer tests. It's probably a good thing, too. Professor Rowe doesn't seem to think that breeding kangaroos to take the place of sheep is all that feasible of an idea. "Have you tried to muster kangaroos?" he asked. I have not. However, judging from his tone, it wouldn't be a scenario all that far from the one that I described above. Not far all at.

I have no idea how they measure their Flask o' Flatulence when they've collected their sample, nor do I don't know what they do with it when they're done. I can only assume (and really, really hope) that both processes do not take place near an open flame.

Sphere: Related Content

Calling Bo Peep!

If you know Bo Peep, if you ARE Bo Peep, or if you would just like some sheep, North Dakota is the place for you, my friend!

In order to bolster the next generation of shepherds ,

(No! Not THOSE shepherds! THIS kind of shepherd):

I'm starting over. In order to bolster the next generation of shepherds, the Lamb and Wool Producers of North Dakota (LAWPOND) are giving away sheep as part of their "perpetual starter flock program" for teens. WTF? (Of course, you know that stands for "What the flock"?)

If you are one of the lucky teens selected for this program, you will receive ten ewes. Ewwww? No, no, no! An "ewe" is a female sheep. (Too many homophones in the sheep business.)

Now, once you have your ewes, if you expect your flock to grow, you're going to need some Rams. No, not the football team. The sheep rams. But don't worry. The LAWP will hook you up with some rams as well. And they will provide you with their rams free of charge! (If you were just a regular shepherd and needed a ram or two, they will provide rentals for between $300 and $400. Sort of like an ovine gigolo service.)

See, now, they say that they're "giving away" these ewes and these rams, but they're not totally "giving them away". The program has to keep going and if they give away the farm (or all of the livestock on the farm) they're not going to have a program from which to give stuff away much longer. So, the lucky sheep recipients will pay back 60 percent of the ewes' cost. Relax, they don't have to do it all at once. They have like a sheep payment plan where they only have to pay back 20 percent of the cost of the sheep for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th years. That's right. They only have to pay back 60 percent of the TSC (Total Sheep Cost).

But wait! There's more! (Boy, these folks over there in North Dakota sure do drive a good sheep bargain. They're going to have people just knocking down the doors to the barn if they keep adding stuff to this!) The participants will also be mentored by member of the LAWPOND in case they need help with production issues or if they have any questions (ie, "Why am I doing this?").

I guess the mentor would be the guy who would school you on the finer points or shepherding. Like which flocks would require the shepherd to have a sheepdog. I find it odd that there is no mention of a sheepdog in any of the tantalizing literature about this program. Don't you need a sheepdog? I seem to remember Wile E. Coyote having to deal with a sheepdog during his early days at Looney Tunes (before he was Wile E., he was Ralph. Or Sam. One of those. He never did get the sheep. That must have been why he switched over to chasing the Road Runner. Yeah, that was a much easier gig.) That's another thing. What about the predators? Is there sheep predator training? You'd want that, especially if it's just you and your crook against the coyote.You're definitely going to want to learn how to use that thing in case of an emergency.

And they have to make the offer lucrative because the sheep industry is declining. (Yes, shocking, I know.) According to the USDA, sheep and lambs ranked 21st among the agricultural commodities in North Dakota in 2006. In Minnesota, sheep and lambs ranked 18th among Minnesota agricultural commodities in cash receipts in 2006. (Wait. The sheep and lamb business is a "cash only" industry? Lots of problem with bouncing checks for sheep, are there?) And if they don't offer some pretty good perks, we're going to run out of sheep and lambs (which is bad, I'm sure, but I'm not sure how bad. Now, if it were pigs I'd see the issue because bacon comes from pigs. And who doesn't love bacon? Mmmm...bacon.)

The requirements for this program are, well, they're not overly restrictive, that's for sure. Here are the requirements. If you qualify, sheep herding in North Dakota may be for you!

• Be between 10 and 18 years of age. (TEN? I had to feed the dog when I was ten, but I don't know if I could have been a shepherd.)
  
  
• Join the association as a senior or junior member. (There are no, repeat, NO weird initiation rituals. No farmyard hazing to worry about.)
  
  
• Attend the association convention the year they receive the sheep and again the following year to give a progress report. (How I spent my summer vacation: With sheep.)
  
  
• Have the support and endorsement of a parent or legal guardian, as well as two letters of recommendation from people other than family members. (Does not specify that they must have any knowledge what so ever of shepherding, sheep or any combination of the two.)
  
  
• As a practical matter, participants will need to live on a farm or in the country and have access to the necessary facilities. ("Necessary facilities"? I thought "outdoors" was the only "necessary facility" needed for shepherding.)
  
  
• Young people living in the city potentially could participate by making arrangements with a farmer, although some opportunities likely would be rare. (Yes, I would imagine they would be extremely rare.
  

Sphere: Related Content