Who Nose?

As if the Michael Jackson tale couldn't get any stranger, now we have this fairly questionable, definitely, shameful, headline in the New York Post and accompanying story which will be first reported in Rolling Stone: JACKO'S FAKE NOSE 'MISSING'

Good Lord. Is this one of the signs of the apocalypse? It must be. Are you kidding me? Nose? Fake? And missing?! Holy cats, that's a bad day right there. The reporting on this is not much better. Then again, we're talking about a dead guy with a fake nose that is currently AWOF (Absent With Out Face).

From the NY Post: "Michael Jackson wore a prosthetic nose...and it was missing from his surgically mangled face as he lay in an LA morgue." Now, as odd as that may seem, the guy was a HUGE fan of plastic surgery. If there was a Facebook Fan Page for 'Plastic Surgery' (and I have no reason to believe that there is not), he would have checked "Am A Fan" in a second. And while it says that the nose was "missing from his...face", that account appears to have been relayed to Rolling Stone (apparently) by "witnesses who saw the King of Pop's body on the autopsy table." Witnesses. Wait. Witnesses?

You mean "those who are witnessing"? THOSE kind of witnesses? Um, would it be too much trouble for someone to explain WHY the LA morgue is allowing witnesses in it's, uh, um, cold rooms for dead people? I'm kind of under the impression that MOST morgues, aside from employees, tend to be witness-free. And if you could only pick ONE morgue in the entire country that would not be able to have witnesses roaming about, I'm thinking you'd pick the LA one! What with celebrities dropping dead all of the time? You don't need a bunch of witnesses coming in and out of the place, as they'd probably bring the paparazzi with them.

From the Rolling Stone via the NY Post: "Left behind was a small, dark hole surrounded by bits of cartilage." Wow. So descriptive. Those witnesses really must be telling the truth! They gave details and everything. Hey. Wait a minute. That's what MY face would look like if you removed MY nose! That's what EVERYONE'S face would look like if you removed their nose! There would be a hole! Most likely "small" and "dark"! Are you sure his HEAD wasn't a prosthetic as well? Maybe there's a description of him without his head that would solidify the credibility of such a claim. "We saw a neck. It was stump like without a noggin attached. It appeared to be made of human flesh." Sold!

Continuing with the theme of Bad Tabloid Reporting, "Jackson, who was notoriously shy about his appearance, wore the prosthetic to mask the effects of decades of plastic surgery, according to the magazine, due to hit newsstands today (July 24, 2009)." I'm not so sure that he wore the fake nose to "mask the effects of decades of plastic surgery", nor am I convinced it was because he was "notoriously shy". No, I'm thinking we wore the fake nose because, as the term "fake nose" would imply, he DIDN'T HAVE ONE! I'd be "notoriously shy" about MY noseless appearance ALSO!

I'd never even heard of the possibility that one could have a fake nose until I read this highly questionable account of Jacko's nose. We've all seen pictures of Jackson de-masked, sans mask, without a mask. While odd looking, I don't detect that his nose is fake. You'd be doing nothing other than applying make-up to keep it concealed. Your face moves around A LOT during the day. You'd have to glue on an entire face shield that was one solid piece so that there wouldn't be any detectable lines indicating where you screwed your schnozz on that morning. How long would that take? To glue on a new face every day? I'm thinking a while. How many of those glue sticks would that require? I guess cost wasn't really an issue for Jacko, but these are the sorts of things I think about. And then I write them here.

But really, if you were going to have a prosthetic nose, would you seriously choose any of the ones that he HAS had?! I don't think you would! Choose. You're telling me you'd CHOOSE that? You'd OPT for a nose that looked like a ski jump? No you wouldn't! And you wouldn't choose this one either! Behold!

Or this!
Or this!


Certainly not this!

This guy is like Mr. Potato Head - The Olfactory Edition

Here's the main reason I'm not so sure that I buy this account from the alleged witnesses. The body would go to the morgue after it had croaked at the hospital. If you're not just a witness, but also an employee of said morgue, and if you had perhaps overheard on that day that the rumor was that Michael Jackson had died, would you NOT be taking your cell phone camera to work with you? They don't allow cell phones in that area of the morgue? Wouldn't you take a minute to think about how much money a photo like that would be worth? And then wouldn't you immediately be online, scouring Google and trying to find out where is the closest place that you can buy the smallest hidden camera possible and then scurry off to work with it? I'm thinking, unless you're one of those folks who WANTS to work in a morgue for the rest of their life, there'd be no reason for you to not take that course of action. There certainly wouldn't be much of an explicable reason as to why you'd NOT take a picture of something like that, but you WOULD chat with Rolling Stone for a bit and have them just write it up in their magazine. Did I mention that US Magazine paid $500,000 for that picture of Jacko in the ambulance? The one that they had on their cover? Yep. $500k. See my point? Screw Rolling Stone. Exactly.

I don't know that we'll ever really know the answer to this one, and I certainly don't think that we necessarily need to. But I'm betting at least a couple of noses that this is all a bunch of crap and isn't true. Fun to speculate, but likely untrue. We can only hopel.

Sphere: Related Content

Nice Job, Budget Hole

Wow. The California Legislature just does not get it. They just don't. This whole budget debacle has the state on the brink of insolvency and their solutions involve accounting and paperwork tricks, piracy and/or thievery of local governments, borrowing with an interest rate that has increased because the state has almost earned itself junk bond status, and making residents pay an accelerated income tax which results in another 10% being deducted from worker's paychecks. And the best part of this whole dealio? They ("they" being the legislature) act like this is something that has been done TO them. Rather, they've spent the last several years spending money like drunken sailors on leave in a whorehouse. (Sorry drunken sailors. Really, thanks for your service to our country!) They were warned/notified/slapped upside the head time and time again by not just fiscal conservatives, but by regular people who knew that the level of spending that California was doing was simply out of control and was going to result in financial doom. It did. But don't let that stop the Representatives from continuing to blame everything and everyone but themselves. They are awfully proud of their own act, I'll tell you what.

The budget was supposed to have been done sometime back in February, I think. Definitely by May. June 30th at the latest. Here it is the 24th of July and still no budget. But they claim to be close! In fact, theyu were so sure that they were close that there were pictures accompanying all of the news articles about this and they just showed the "Big 5" (which, while also the name of an awesome sporting goods store, really has nothing to do with sports and is just a newly made up term to refer to the top 5 honchos in the Legislature.) standing there just beaming with pride. And The Governator was just gushing about how they had done such a good job with this "difficult problem". Um, perhaps you self-important folks have forgotten this, but, uh, let's see...how do I put this? Oh, right! That's YOUR JOB!! That whole balancing the budget thing? YOUR JOB! Why are you so proud of yourself for doing YOUR JOB? And please don't forget that the only reason that you're having to "struggle" through this in the first place is because of YOUR reckless and irresponsible spending! It's YOUR fault and now YOU'RE fixing it and you act like you've just learned how to levitate! Don't like it? How about you try not forking out so much cash in the future there, Spendy McInsolvent-State.

Here's how they're going to save $1.2 billion (by the way, the amount of the government created deficit is $26.3 billion. I know! Didn't know they had it in them, did you? Yeah, try living here for a while. Nothing will surprise you. Nothing much.): Instead of paying state employees on June 30, they're going to pay them one day later on July 1. July 1 is the start of the new fiscal year. Thus, if you don't pay them on the last day of the old fiscal year, it won't be deducted from that year's budget! Isn't that ingenious of them?! It's such a brillia.....wait. What now?

That's the stupidest solution that they might have come up with yet. Are you kidding me? That's like if you can't figure out how you're going to make your car payment AND your house payment one month. You look at all of your expenses and finally you exclaim, "Honey! I've got it! We just won't pay our car payment this month and that will make it so we have enough money! I'm SO smart!" No. If you think like that, you're not smart, you're an idiot. You still have to PAY for it. Thus, in this example, next month you'll have to pay your car payment for that month AND you'll have to come up with the payment for the month before that you skipped. Er, I'm sorry, I mean "put off". For the payment that you "put off". It's not like they're not going to have to come up with another $1.2 billion EVENTUALLY. Or are they just planning on making this a regular occurence every year? They probably are. Consider it done.

They also always seem to want to borrow money from the lottery fund as well as tax the hell out of cigarettes, tobacco and alcohol. Now, while it might seem fiscally responsible to bank your state's budget on the lottery and cigarettes, it's a ridiculous tax in those instances. Sure, I understand that the theory/justification for taxing those products is because they have adverse effects to those who use them and the extra money collected as a tax goes toward things that are supposed to...I guess either warn people of the evils that await them should they indulge in those sinister produts or to help people after their lives have been ruined by that one wine cooler on a hot afternoon. And I'll concede that smoking is incredibly bad for you and will not end well. The jury is still out on whether any alcohol at all is fine and dandy, but overall, as long as used in moderation, alcohol hasn't nearly earned the scourge that has been attached to it. But here's where that argument falters: If it's the adverse effects of using these products, does that mean that there's going to be a bacon tax in the future? An ice cream tax? A pie tax? (Mmmm. Pie.) Obesity is a huge problem (no pun intended) in this country and it's due to the abuse of the fatty foods. But do you hear anyone screaming for the Hostess Police? Only if they've stolen your Twinkies. Ouch.

One of the other highlights in their pathetic proposition is to cut funding for state parks by $8 million. The Governator had originally wanted that budget cut by $70 million. Both rather small pittances considering that the state budget is about $26.3 billion in the hole. Nice job, budget hole. Here's the thing, though: For each dollar that is used to operate state parks, $2.35 is generated in return, for a 135% profit margin. It's MAKING money. Want it to make more? Try raising the fees by a dollar or two. Nothing major. A couple of bucks tops. But they're going to cut one of the more effective sources of revenue instead. Good idea! Sure. Any more bright ideas, budget hole?

Of course there are! But how about the things that they WON'T talk about? They act like making cuts is a bad thing. The state is spending too much money, you morons, you! Yes, I'm sure that at some point, those programs or whatever were a fine idea. Then again, you folks want to turn California into some sort of Shangri-La utopian society. Please remember that the guy in the book that found Shangri-La, he went crazy by the end of the book! What does that tell you about "paradise"? It ain't all it's cracked up to be, that is correct.

Look, almost one third of the California prison population is illegal immigrants. Who's up for a mass deportation project?! Anyone? Hands? Wait. What? What's the problem? There has to be a problem because NO ONE talks about illegal immigration. It is costing the state a gazillion dollars for services for folks who are not even supposed to BE here! Over $7 billion alone just for what it costs to fund education and to make provisions for the vast number of kids in schools that are illegal and, shocking, do not speak English. Yeah, it's hard to get a good education when you have no idea what the crap the teacher is talking about. Really tough that way.

And the waste. My God, the waste! Do you think even one of those Reps has suggested any sort of audit? Anything to account for...well, anything? The waste is insane. Fortunately however, we have The Governator who is willing to do whatever it takes. Not only that, he'll Tweet about it also! WTF? Behold!

Oh what the hell was that? What's with the big knife there, Arnie? And could someone please explain to me that watch he's wearing that is the size of a pie plate. Nearsighted much, Arnold? Sell off some of the state cars! Now that's a brilliant idea. Of course, it WOULD help things if you knew just how many cars the state had. Last time they checked, they couldn't nail down the total amount, but they guessed it was between 70,000 and 78,000. Ah, I forgot that it wouldn't matter what the total is anyway. That time when they counted? Yeah, they couldn't account for almost 20,000 of the vehicles. Hard to say what's up with that.


But hey, if you want to sell what we've got, Arnold, you go right ahead! How about selling some of those legislature seats while you're at it? What's that? Oh, yeah. I forgot. The legislature has already been bought.

Sphere: Related Content

Would You Like A Felony With That?

If recent news stories are any indication, there would appear to be a bit of confusion regarding the protocol at fast food eating establishments. Lots of people seem to be incredibly unclear on the concept of what is and what is not OK. Therefore, in an attempt to minimize any more future missteps, I'm going to try to explain this whole thing in the best way that I can. Now, while not an incredibly complicated item to learn it can get tricky for some folks. But interestingly enough, it can also be quickly mastered if you just apply yourself! So fret not little softheads who are probably having someone else read this to them, fret not.

Here we go. Feel free to take notes if you'd like.

In general, 911 services and/or law enforcement should almost never be used in regard to your order at a fast food restaurant. In fact, I'd conservatively estimate that 99.995% of the time you should have absolutely no need for the police in regard to your order. I know, I know! It seems like there are SO many things that can go wrong with ones order. (How many times do they get it right on the first try? They can't really hear very well when you're shouting into that clown thing in the drive-thru.) It would seem almost (but not quite!) logical to wonder how law enforcement can NOT get involved when dealing with fast food fare. Oh, and if you're IN law enforcement, don't think that this doesn't apply to you, because it does! I'm here to tell you it most certainly DOES apply to you as well. It's just unfortunate that a one 29-year old Derrick Curtis Saunders with the Aurora Police Department in Colorado wasn't aware of this before he brandished his weapon because his order was taking too long.

What now?

Correct. From the folks over at CBS-4 in Denver we learn that the District Attorney in Arapahoe County will be charging Saunders with a host of offenses after he allegedly pointed his gun through the window at a McDonald's employee because he felt that it was taking too long for him to get his order. It was apparently around 3am and if you've ever been at a fast food drive-thru at 3am, you know that they're not exactly known for their speed and attentiveness. Granted, I've never seen inattentiveness that has warranted brandishing a firearm at someone, so I'm not condoning this sort of behavior. I'm just saying, I understand. To a degree.

And while Saunders is a cop, we have to remember that his assignment is the overnight shift at the airport. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm merely saying that there might be a specific reason why someone in particular is assigned to the overnight shift at the airport, a place where there aren't very many people that one would have to interact with.

There isn't much to the story, other than a guy with incredibly poor judgment. Saunders and another officer had placed their order in the drive-thru and then when they drove up to the first or second window (because you can never tell which one they mean and it's almost always the wrong one that you end up at while your food is at the other) and then had to wait for an amount of time that is unspecified, but clearly too long for our hero. That's when "...one of the officer's flashed his police badge and pointed a pistol through the drive through window in a threatening manner, before driving off without paying."

Tell me, what would it look like to point your pistol through the drive-thru window in a "non-threatening manner"? Of COURSE it was in a threatening manner! It's a GUN! The very essence of a gun IS supposed to be threatening! Who is that for?

Oh, all right! That's enough! Where was I?

The odd part of this story (aside from all of the gun pointing) which is not explained in the multitude of accounts is that this example of excellence in idiocy took place on May 21, 2009, but they're just now filing charges against Saunders. Why so long? Maybe they were just trying to ascertain that he wasn't the Hamburglar. Or perhaps the badge had the employees confused at first and they thought they had been threatened by Officer Big Mac. I don't know what the delay was and God forbid if someone "reporting" this story actually answered that question. Sadly, there isn't a mugshot or booking photo of this genius yet. But all in due time, I'm sure.

The DA will be charging Saunders with something called felony menacing. He'll also be charged with "prohibited use of a weapon, reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct", that according to the The Denver Post. Felony menacing appears to be a Colorado law in which someone "knowingly places someone else in fear of imminent serious bodily injury." Basically if you try "to make someone believe they are going to get seriously hurt (at that moment and) not at some future date" then you're a felony menacer. Ironic that the menacing has to imply something is going to happen right at that moment, and yet it's two months after the fact before the charges were filed. And just in case you were thinking that he could say that alcohol was involved, being drunk is no excuse for felony menacing and you can't even TRY to use that as a rationale as to why you felt that the best way to speed up the drive-thru workers at Mickey D's at 3am was to point your gun at them.

So to recap, please don't involve or include any form of law enforcement or emergency services in conjunction with your lending your patronage to a fast food eatery. I don't care if you got an apple pie and you had ordered a cherry pie. I don't care if your fries are warm and limp instead of hot and crisp. I don't care if you have to wait for your food at 3am. Leave the police AND all guns OUT of it. Especially since you're just setting yourself up for trouble simply by just using the drive-thru because in the words of Joe Pesci from Lethal Weapon 2 "They f*** you at the drive-thru." Eat at your own risk.

Sphere: Related Content

Is it Because of All the Fat?

I guess I didn't really envision the United states as a country that would be overly concerned about who the Surgeon General is going to be. Then again, I didn't really envision the United States as a country that would, in 1994, practically run an acting Surgeon General out of town simply because she stated that PERHAPS masturbation should be taught as something that is an ALTERNATIVE to having sex. But if you'll fast forward to 2009 you'll find the same sort of folks who were up in arms about Joycelyn Elders are gearing up their fake outrage for President Barry's nomination for Surgeon General, a one Dr. Regina Benjamin. Behold!


She seems to be ridiculously qualified for the position. Then again, what I know about the requirements for being Surgeon General is just a little bit more than what I know about being either a surgeon OR a general, which is to say "very little". I do know that she wasn't President Barry's first choice however. No, he had originally gone with Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN. Not sure why Dr. Gupta decided to turn down that position, though I speculate it might have something to do with the guy from Harold and Kumar go to White Castle getting placed in a position as the liaison to the Asian American community right around the same time that Dr. Gupta was tapped by President Barry.

So what's the problem? What's the fake outrage? The fakerage. Well, if you ask those over there at ABC News you'll see by their headline that "Critics Slam Overweight Surgeon General Pick, Regina Benjamin". Below that it reads "Leading Experts Say Dr. Benjamin, Though Stellar Nominee, Gives Wrong Message". Why do I have the feeling that the story from ABC News is going to give the wrong message? Oh, that's right. Because it does!

Dr. Benjamin is not a svelte woman. That being said, she is not an obese woman either. When I first saw a photo of her, the one thing that I did not think was, "Oh, my God! She's HUGE! How can SHE be Surgeon General with all of that girth to lug around?!" Her weight never entered my mind. I was too busy being impressed by her credentials and how she rebuilt her southern Alabama health clinic after it was flattened by Hurricane Katrina. But apparently people are thinking that she shouldn't be Surgeon General because of her weight. Um, what?

For some reason, the story seems to center around the opinions of, yes, you guessed it, BLOGGERS! WHY on earth ABC News is turning to the opinion of a random blogger is beyond me. (And if you think about it, another word for "blogger" would be "human". So random humans don't like this woman potentially being the next Surgeon General. Yawn.) Not even just RANDOM bloggers, but random AND anonymous bloggers that ABC News feels the need to cite as if they are the "leading experts" that we read about at the beginning. They actually have this as part of their story: "The job of surgeon general is to make health care and policy decisions for the country -- not to look hot in a pair of skinny jeans," said one blogger on Frisky.com. "Perhaps her size could actually be an advantage -- she's in a better position to understand obesity and contemplate out-of-the-box ways to roll back ever-expanding American waistlines." Good Lord.

I realize that we'd dropped a notch or two as far as our dignity as a nation overall goes, but I had no idea we'd slipped to this level. Quoting anonymous bloggers from Frisky.com. (What is that? Pet food?) But the Frisky bloggers weren't the only ones typing anonymously about this subject. The bloggers at Salon.com were going at it as well. They weren't quite a subtle as I would have liked, with a one Francis Kissling writing "From her photos, it appears that Dr. Benjamin will need a generous size 18 military uniform." I'd really wish that, instead of discussing what this woman weighs, if they need to discuss the inane, could explain to me why the Surgeon General is a General at all? Do they really need a military uniform? Aren't they just a "general" in the same way that Cap'n Crunch is a "captain" (or cap'n)?

As far as those "leading experts" go, they talked with a one Dr. Marcia Angell who is a lecturer at Harvard, and she said, "I think it is an issue, but then the president is said to still smoke cigarettes. It tends to undermine her credibility." I noticed that she didn't say that smoking cigarettes undermines President Barry's credibility. Maybe because in both cases, it doesn't! What else lady? "We don't know how much she weighs and just looking at her I would not say she is grotesquely obese or even overweight enough to affect her health, but I do think at a time when a lot of public health concern is about the national epidemic of obesity, having a surgeon general who is noticeably overweight raises questions in people's minds." What?!

No, we don't know how much she weighs and we don't need to! And of course she's not grotesquely obese! Did you think that President Barry had appointed Manuel Uribe, the world's fattest man, to be the Surgeon General? OK, THAT I could see some outrage over! But THIS? Come on! Besides, if the public was really concerned about the "national epidemic of obesity", don't you think that there wouldn't BE a national epidemic of obesity? The obese are not the ones who are concerned, that's why they're obese!

This insulting article went on to quote the next "leading expert" that they could find. This time it was a one Lillie Shockney, the administrative director of the Johns Hopkins Avon Foundation Breast Center. She sounded off with, "When a teenager listens to this person I want them to listen and respond in a positive way. Not say ho-hum and then drive to a fast food place." Oh, boy. OH, no. Allow ME to take care of this one!

First of all, if this woman is thinking that the teenager today would say "ho-hum", that shows you her level of being in touch with things. Next, how many teenagers are going to be listening to the Surgeon General? Just wondering. Because I don't think it's going to be all that many or at least enough that would make it an issue for someone in that position.

So now we're deciding whether or not someone should hold a certain position of employment based upon their weight? Aside from it most likely being discriminatory to not select a qualified individual for a position based solely on how much they weigh, are we doing this with everything else too? So if you're a large individual, you shouldn't work in a grocery store because you'll give the impression that food makes you fat? If you're a large individual, you shouldn't be a psychologist or mental health counselor because you can't even control your own eating, how are you possibly going to be able to get other people to control their own lives? You probably also shouldn't be working at a clothing store (unless it's for the big and the tall), a sporting goods store, a book store (all of that reading when you should clearly be exercising, that sets a bad example), and a host of other places as well, right? NO. Of course not.

But what I find completely amazing about all of this is that I haven't seen ONE person mention or question as to whether or not Dr. Benjamin's extra poundage is a result of the eating happenings more than the exercising or whether it's some sort of a genetic condition. You know, like Oprah and her thyroid (or whatever she blamed her latest sweet potato pie binge that lasted four months on). All of these people are just assuming that she's overeating. Nice. I'm glad this is being looked at so reasonably and rationally by folks. What a bunch of morons. Nice job, "leading experts". Couldn't at least ONE of you have brought that up?

After reading some of the comments over there at Salon.com I became pretty discouraged (yet again) about society in general. Reasonable people, like you, like me, can see the weakness in this even being an issue for people. But when I read comments like this one below from commenter Edward Noodleburg is when I realize what we're really up against. Behold! Idiocy!

"In a nation plagued by overweight-related health problems, the last thing we should do is have an overweight person as Surgeon General!

"This reminds me of the outrageousness of Michael J. Fox advocating for research towards a cure for Parkinson's disease! When he himself perpetrates that very disease by having it! What a hypocrite!" Oh. My. God.

That's it. We're doomed. People are actually engaging in discussion as to whether or not someone should be Surgeon General if they are overweight and not one person can see how such an action or decision would be discriminatory. None of them paid any attention to whether or not this was a genetic issue or something else. And not only do they not see the discrimination, they advocate for those very actions! And then we have the comment from Mr. Noodlehead up there that equates the argument to that of Michael J. Fox perpetuating Parkinson's Disease. Good Lord. Just shoot me now.

Naturally, we can't see pictures of any of these people, but I'd have to guess that a fair amount would fit into that "grotesquely obese" category (if there were any room). She's going to be Surgeon General, so I would suggest that everyone who is expressing their fakerage over it just start getting used to the idea. But don't despair. Maybe she'll talk about masturbation and then you guys can run her out of town just like the other one.

Sphere: Related Content

Useless Lists Five Years Later

Not only do I have yet another example of craptastic reporting, but this time it's accompanied by additional craptastic reporting which only serves to EXPAND on the original report of crap. And I'm a little surprised by this one. I can't quite figure out the appeal which caused multiple news outlet sources to run with it. Maybe because it's quirky. (Actually, it doesn't matter what it is because it's crap. Quirky, quirky crap.)

The story starts out like this: "Generic website (because they made me take down their link because their story sucks) has compiled a list of the 10 most dangerous foods to eat while driving. The site notes that eating distracts you from driving and that distracted drivers are one of the leading causes of accidents." First of all, what am I? Four? Eating distracts you. Distracted drivers crash. Therefore, eating is a distraction. You will crash. Morons.

But here's the odd part:  That list was originally posted in 2004! What the hell? FIVE years later and someone finally reads it and thinks, "Hey! Eating is a distraction. I should let everyone know this. But I won't let them know that it was written five years ago!" I'm so confused.

The article even cites a 2001 study that Exxon did. I don't know about you, but I prefer any study that has to do with human behavior to be relatively recent. Eight years ago is not relatively recent. Do I behave the same way that I did eight years ago? Not so much. (I'm a little more shout-y these days.) Anything that is citing 8 year old research I'm going to question. But that's just because I'm not a member of the mainstream media, which sort of explains why they didn't question anything.

Seriously.

US News and World Report, UPI.com (with their "100 years of journalistic excellence". An interesting claim for a dot-com.), the Chicago Tribune, and the list goes on and on. Not ONE of them mentions that the list was compiled FIVE years ago. Nope. They're all just churning it out like it's brand new.
And almost every article on this particular five year old topic (including the original one over at Insurance.com!) misstates the findings of some study that was done. The study says that "80 percent of...rear-end crashes...and 42% of near-crashes" are due to distracted driving. Eating while driving is considered a distraction. Therefore, the conclusion that these morons came to is that 80 percent of crashes are due to eating while driving. In fact, over at the New York Daily News, they went with the headline "Eating while driving causes 80% of all car accidents, study shows". Good Lord, you'd have to be an English language learner on your first day over there at the News in order to come up with that headline.

Now while the Insurance.com article doesn't come right out and state that incorrect conclusion, the whole article is centered around food and eating while driving, leading one to assume that's the connection. Why the need to lead folks astray for this particular issue, I have no idea. I can't even fathom one. Well, I can't even fathom one OTHER THAN idiocy. But as long as I'm on the subject of the 10 Most Dangerous Foods to Eat While Driving, let's look at their list of those 10 foods that will kill you in your car.

Number one is coffee. You know, because it's hot and it can spill and burn your grundle. No one likes a burnt grundle on their morning commute. Or anytime, really. But coffee? VERY dangerous to drive with. Then the list starts to get a little wacky.

Hot soup. What the hell? Who is eating soup whilst they're driving? Are we talking broth here? If we are, then let me amend that to: Who is drinking broth whilst they're driving? Chicken Soup for the Distracted Driver's Soul? I don't get it. (What if they mean udon noodle soup? Folks with a steaming hot bowl and a pair of chopsticks just barreling down the freeway at 80mph. That's not distracted driving, that's asinine.)

Tacos. Insurance.com says that "Any food that can disassemble itself will leave your car looking like a salad bar." I'll concur.

Chili Dogs and burgers. Anything with the greasy, slop factor can be a distraction. One bite and everything just ends up coming out the other end (which is actually the case anatomically with a lot of fast food).

Barbecued food. This has been altered in other articles to read "Ribs and wings". Who is driving along with a rack of ribs on the dash? But here's their rationale: "The sauce may be great, but if you have to lick your fingers, the sauce will end up on whatever you touch – and that wheel will be tough to grip." Yeah, you know what else makes the wheel tough to grip? Eating ribs! Usually those take TWO hands!

Fried chicken. Really? You folks just can't wait until you get that bucket from the Kentucky Colonel home,eh? You have to dive right in while you're stopped at that light? When do you squeeze in the corn on the cob and the baked beans? Metering ramps? Toll plazas?

Jelly donuts. Sure, I suppose the center could squirt out, but only if you were eating a jelly donut that wasn't one of the crappy ones that are being sold everywhere lately. There's barely a spit of goo in the middle of them and they're FAR from messy. I'm not saying it's OK to eat one while you're driving, I'm just saying that it's not like eating those ribs or anything.

Soft drinks. They say that they can spill (true) and that sometimes the carbonated fizz can go in our noses. Wow. These folks must try to anticipate every aspect of every potential disaster out there and then over-prepare for it. Me? I'm OK with the "fizz risk". I'll chance it. I'm crazy like that.

Chocolate. Because it's melt-y.

WHO is eating this stuff in their car? Coffee and soda are about the only legitimate ones on there. Well, the dogs, burgers and tacos are definitely all items that are eaten in the car by many drivers. But give me a break with the soup and the ribs! Those are not vehicle fare! If they're going to include those, then there's definitely a few that they left off of their list. Allow me..

Spaghetti and meatballs! Garlic bread on the side, optional.

Cracked crab/lobster. You'll have to crack it yourself, but you could probably just put it underneath the gas pedal and then step on it to crack them open. Use your drink holder as a container for melted butter and then dunk it in there.

Peel and eat shrimp. Use another cup holder for the cocktail sauce. Arrange the lemon wedges on top of your steering wheel for easy access.

Freshly sliced watermelon. Don't slice this ahead of time. Slice it in your car, on the dashboard. If you're doing this while stopped at a light, be friendly and offer some to the drivers in the lanes next to you.

Fondue! A nice big boiling pot of cheese or hot oil, various skewers with which to spear the cubed bread and assorted meats and you've got yourself a disaster that's just waiting in the wings. Fondue while driving WILL distract you.

Well? Five years after the fact, do you feel safer now? I can't really say that I do. I'm a little bit more irritated, I'm slightly more amused, but safer? Not so much.

Sphere: Related Content