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

A Blast From The Past

So, holy shishkabob, I had a really busy day. Family birthday party, entertaining guests, you know how it goes. And what do I do to relax when it's finally, finally over? I mean, what did I do to relax after I got done watching a documentary about hot dog joints across America? That's right. I started perusing photos over yonder at The White House Museum online. It's a pretty cool site. Lots of pictures of the White House (as the title might lead you to believe). Some old, some new. It's just a nice leisurely walk through some history. And it's also where I ran across this photo. Behold!

I don't know what it is about this that I find so fascinating. Obviously the fact that it's in color has something to do with the fascination. He appears to be a rather unkempt fellow. Why didn't he comb his hair? His tie looks crooked as well. He also looks exhausted and/or like he could drop dead any minute. (Here's to hoping this wasn't taken before he trotted off to Ford's Theater.) I don't know what about it that makes me just think. Maybe it's because this guy that I know has his whole family in Washington, DC right now and they're touring all of the memorials and remembering how cool it is that we are a (technically) free country. I don't know what it is. I just think it's cool. And I really want a hot dog right now.

Sphere: Related Content

Politically Correct Spring Spheres

The politically correct Nazi task force is at it again. This time, in their idiotic quest to make an issue out of anything that doesn't need to have an issue made out of it, they are attacking Easter. That's right. It's a war on Easter. And if these morons get their way, no longer will there be mention of 'Easter eggs'. No, instead we're going to be calling them 'spring spheres'. Uh, wait. We're what? Correct. Spring spheres. Let's go over to mynorthwest.com and learn about the experience that a sixteen year old girl named Jessica had when she volunteered for a third grade class at a school in the Seattle area.

Apparently, a week before the spring break, the students that are Jessica's age commit to a week long community service project. A fine, fine idea. Jessica decided to volunteer in this particular third grade class. Now, at the end of the week, Jessica said that she "...had an idea to fill little plastic eggs with treats and jelly beans and other candy, but I was kind of unsure how the teacher would feel about that". See, she was unsure because the school has something called "abstract behavior rules." I had not idea what in the world "abstract behavior rules" were, but I came to learn that they were just what they sound like. Stupid and unnecessary. "She said that I could do it as long as I called this treat 'spring spheres.' I couldn't call them Easter eggs." Oh, my God.

Spring spheres?! That is the most ludicrous thing that I have ever heard. First of all, I'm just going to point out that an egg...IS NOT A SPHERE!! A sphere is perfectly round. A ping-pong ball is a freaking sphere! An EGG is NOT a sphere! Second of all, is anyone really going to be offended at the term 'Easter eggs'? OK, let me rephrase that. Is anyone besides asshats going to be offended? No? OK, then. So, why are we doing this?

I have no idea. But if you think this is going to catch on, you're wrong. Thankfully, you're wrong. According to Jessica, "When I took them out of the bag, the teacher said, 'Oh look, spring spheres' and all the kids were like 'Wow, Easter eggs.' So they knew." See?! They're not spheres! They're Easter eggs. Freaking, fracking Easter eggs. Why we even entertain these notions at all is beyond me. People just deal to deal with stuff. No, wait. People just need to stop accommodating people who want to complain that they can't deal with stuff. They're not spring spheres. They're certainly not spheres at all. They're Easter eggs. Deal with it.

Sphere: Related Content

Here's An Explanation

We finally have some clarification on Jon Kyl's statement that wasn't intended to be factual. I would be referring to his ridiculous statement about Planned Parenthood when he said that about 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions. In reality, about 3 percent of the Planned Parenthood agenda is abortions. See, when I do the math, that's a pretty big difference. But when that difference was pointed out to Jon Kyl, it was justified by the simple explanation of "that wasn't intended to be a factual statement". (And at first, I got really excited when I heard that because I thought that a politician was finally admitting that he spews crap on purpose. Yeah, but that wasn't what he meant. He was just a moron.) Well, now we have an explanation for the explanation! Don't get too excited, though. It's still lame.

According to the political folks over there at Politico, when "Asked if he regretted the flap, Kyl said Thursday: "I misspoke when I said what I said on the floor – and I said so." And look, I don't know if he said so or not. What I know is that he said 90 percent when it was 3 percent and then someone else said that it wasn't supposed to be the truth. What I also know is that the difference between 3 percent and 90 percent is a little bit more than just "misspeaking". It's kind of like the difference between one's ass and a hole in the ground. No word on whether or not Senator Kyl has been asked about either one of those. But then he was asked about the explanation that his statement was "...not intended to be a factual statement". His reply? "That was not me - that was my press person." Oh, for cryin' out loud.

I really wish that whoever asked him about that explanation had followed it up with "Is that person still your press person?" Because I don't know about you, but I know about me. And if it were me and if I had a press person who was idiotic enough to tell the press that when I speak, my statements are not intended to be factual?! Yeah, they'd be my ex-press person so fast that it would make their newly unemployed head spin. But I'm just going to guess that he's sticking with them. Probably because he was the one that told them to say that in the first place. I'm merely speculating here, of course. But at least it's me doing the speculating and not my press person.

Sphere: Related Content

Those Aren't Cuts!

Remember that budget deal that all of those weasels in Congress waited until the very last freaking minute to agree upon? Yeah, that's the one. And remember how they were all smiles afterward and acted like they had accomplished something monumental? (I know that whenever they do nothing they think it's monumental, but this time they were really pleased with their own act.) And then after it was all said and done we were told that they managed to cut about $38 billion dollars? Remember? Of course you do! It was only a couple of days ago for cryin' out loud. It turns out that the $38 billion dollars that they claim to be cutting isn't anywhere close to what they actually cut. No, in fact, the amount that they actually cut is so ridiculous that it seems damn near pointless to cut it at all. It really is a "Why bother?" scenario.

This new but not surprising information comes to us from the fine folks over there at The Washington Post. They learned from the Congressional Budget Office that "A federal budget compromise that was hailed as historic for proposing to cut about $38 billion would reduce federal spending by only $352 million this fiscal year, less than 1 percent of the bill’s advertised amount". Now look, I'm not one to be someone to claim "Oh, that's just a drop in the bucket." But, come on! $352 million?! Less than one freaking percent?! How did this happen? I'll tell you how this happened. It happened in part because "...$13 billion to $18 billion of the cuts involve money that existed only on paper and was unlikely to be tapped in the next decade." Oh, good! They're trying to fix our impending fiscal doom with accounting tricks. Next up? Fun house mirrors! And they act so freaking proud of themselves.

Here's the best part. Even though those $352 million in cuts will happen, for some reason, no one felt like factoring in "emergency" money for military action. You know. Like if we end up in Libya or something like that. (Yeah, like that's really going to happen. Wait. Didn't we....? Yeah. We did. Hmm. Disregard that statement.) Now, I don't know why they wouldn't factor those things in. If I'm doing a household budget and I have emergency money that I have spent or am spending, I'm going to have to factor in that it's going to get used. There's no way around that. You can call it whatever you want, but you still have to count it. But I'm guessing that the reason that they didn't want to count it when they were forming the budget out of snake oil is because if they did then "...the overall spending for this fiscal year may actually increase, by more than $3 billion." Oh, for cryin' out loud!

Their little accounting tricks don't end there. "A Washington Post analysis of the 459-page budget revealed at least 98 cases in which Congress took back unused IOUs and called it a cut." HOW is that a cut? Don't answer that. There's more. "When the Capitol Visitor Center was under construction, lawmakers allotted $621 million to pay for it. The project wound up costing less than $600 million. In the compromise budget, lawmakers took back $15 million of the unused budget authority." Well, I should hope that they took it back! They didn't USE IT!

I'm making myself crazy here. This is insane. Instead of saving any money at all, Congress has very well (and probably very likely) passed a budget that is going to be costing the country MORE money. And people wonder why folks get so up in arms about spending! It's because it is out of control. President Barry said the other day that the greatest threat to our national security was our debt. And if he truly believes that and he ends up signing this budget, then we are so scroomed that there's not even any point. If both sides of Congress are going to flat out lie to us, it's over. And both sides, by saying that this budget cuts $38 billion dollars, are lying to us. Thus, it's over. We're scroomed. Goodbye, sweet America.

Sphere: Related Content

ZZZZZzzzzzzz

President Barry gave a speech on the budget yesterday. He started yammering on at 1:05pm EST. Isn't that a weird time to give a speech that people might want to hear? Maybe not if you don't really have anything to say and you don't want a lot of people to hear you say nothing firsthand. Can I take this moment to mention that I'm tired of everything being done on East Coast time? One in the afternoon there was ten in the morning for me. I'm in no mood to listen to any President at ten in the morning. I'm barely awake. And I'm not the only one.

Below we have video of Vice President Joe Biden at President Barry's speech. (If for some reason you can't view the video here, you can check it out over at Real Clear Politics.) Poor ol' Joe can barely keep his eyes open for at least a good thirty seconds there. Look, I know it's boring. It's boring as hell. I get that. But come on, man! You're the Vice President of the freaking United States! Can't you at least pretend to pay attention? He didn't talk for very long. He couldn't have held it together until he was done? Did he have a big lunch or something? It's not like that would excuse it or anything, but I'm just saying. If he tends to fall asleep after a large meal, perhaps only stick to a salad on speech day. I'm trying to be sensible and offer ideas here. For once.

Sphere: Related Content

You Can Wear Your Jersey Anywhere You Want

From the files of "No One Deserves To Be Beaten Within An Inch Of Their Life After A Sporting Event, You Ass", we have a column written by a one John Steigerwald. Mr. Steigerwald seems to think that if a victim of a beating was wearing a jersey from the opposing team then it is somehow that person's fault that they were damn near killed by a couple of idiotic thugs.

Let me bring you up to date. A couple of weeks ago, the San Francisco Giants played the Los Angeles Dodgers at Dodger Stadium. After the game, a couple of thugs wearing Dodger garb blindsided a one 42-year old Giant fan, Bryan Stow, in the parking lot. They sucker punched him and then when he was down on the ground, they repeatedly kicked him in the head before they fled like the cowards that they are. Mr. Stow, a paramedic and father of 2, is still in ICU in a medically induced coma with half of his skull removed because his brain was swelling up too much for it to fit inside of his skull when it was in one piece. He shows signs of brain damage and it's pretty obvious that his life will never be the same. While he was being kicked in the head, the Dodger clad a-holes made it clear that Mr. Stow was targeted because he was wearing a San Francisco Giants jersey. Real nice, LA. Stay classy.

Consider yourself up to date. Enter Mr. Steigerwald and his asinine column that he wrote for the Observer-Reporter.com. The title of his article is "Know when you've outgrown the uniform". The premise of his column seems to be his bewilderment at why Mr. Stow would have been so "stupid" (I'm paraphrasing here) as to wear a jersey from the opposing team to the home team's stadium. In fact, he coldly states "Maybe someone can ask Stow, if he ever comes out of his coma, why he thought it was a good idea to wear Giants' gear to a Dodgers' home opener when there was a history of out-of-control drunkenness and arrests at that event going back several years."

Uhh...wow. Let me give you the answer, Mr. Porn-Star Moustache Guy. He wore his jersey to the game because he wanted to. That was his team that he was cheering on and that's what he wanted to wear. Land of the free, remember? Or maybe he just didn't think that there would be people out there who would pummel someone into a coma simply because they rooted for the opposite team. Or maybe he wasn't worried about anything because stadiums are supposed to provide security. Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. He didn't deserve to get beaten up because he had on a Giants jersey!

Mr. Porn-Star Moustache Guy goes on to ask "Are there really 40-something men who think that wearing the jersey makes them part of the team?" Of course, he states no basis for that question, as there is no indication that Mr. Stow or ANYONE who wears a jersey to a game thinks that. I just bought my best friend a Giants jersey today. I'm pretty sure that she doesn't think that she is a member of the team simply because she's wearing a jersey that says "Lincecum" on the back of it. No, actually, I am positive of it. I, myself, have several sports jerseys which I enjoy wearing. I've never once equated myself to Joe Montana. Never.

His does make the astute observation that "Obviously, not every fan who wears his team's jersey to a game is looking for someone from "the enemy" to beat up." You don't say?! Then why are you acting like he did?! Why are you acting like Mr. Stow did something wrong? Do you believe that women who are scantily dressed deserve to get raped? Wait. Don't answer that. You probably do. You're such an a-hole.

Provocation is a funny thing. I mean, does it even exist if it is being ignored? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. But my point isn't to get all philosophical here. The point is that someone wearing a sports jersey isn't provoking anyone. And the other point is that no one is asking to be beaten up no matter what they are wearing. People are supposed to act like human beings around one another. Bryan Stow did not deserve this and it doesn't matter why he wore his jersey to the Dodger game. Mr. Steigerwald is clearly a huge douchelord. Using his own logic, I wonder why he would write something as inflammatory as he did, knowing full well that there are going to be unstable people out there that read it and might possibly want revenge. Why would you do such a thing, Mr. Porn Star Moustache? Why? Oh, because you want to and because you can? Well, that's why Bryan Stow wore his jersey. Because he wanted to and because he could. Now, stop acting like the biggest a-hole around, Mr. Steigerwald, and donate to a fund to help the man. Do it now.

For the rest of you who aren't column writing a-holes and who would like to help out Mr. Stow's family, please visit http://www.support4bryanstow.com/ There are a variety of fundraisers going on if you're local, but there's also a way to donate if you're not. And please remember that no one deserves to get beaten. Even Mr. Steigerwald. I think.

Sphere: Related Content

Si. Vale.

I have the best best friend in the entire world. Not only is she the most excellent friend anyone could ever want, she is a kick ass mother who has raised two beautiful children. One of those children, the boy, is a surfer and is about to turn 21. The other child, the girl, is 23 and is currently in Spain being a nanny. What's that? Oh, right. Excuuuuse me. An au pare. It's soooo European. Call it what you will, she's there. And now she's blogging about her experiences. Do you see where this is going? Of course you do.

I was so honored to be one of the first three to be instructed to read the aforementioned blog (the other two being her mother and her dog), that I felt the need to mention it here. I gave it a read and she's pretty funny. Granted, there's only one real entry at this point (if you don't count the part where she recounts accidentally calling "fruit" "bitches" in Spanish, as her mastery of the language has not yet peaked), but I anticipate it turning into quite the continuing saga. Give her a read if you feel like it. http://haleyclanton.tumblr.com/

Oh, and I was also instructed to mention that her mom loves her very much. I thought I could squeeze it in somehow above, but that didn't turn out so well. Her mom really loves her and is really super proud of her. So there.

Sphere: Related Content

The School Knows Better Than You Do

Goodbye, sweet America. Can't figure out what to feed your own child? Are you addled brained of a parent that you're going to need someone else to decide what you child should and should not eat? Well, if you answered yes to those two questions AND if you have a child and they are currently attending (or going to attend) Little Village Academy in Chicago, then you are in luck! That's right. That's because the Little Village Academy in Chicago has decided that you have no idea how to feed your kid properly and therefore they have banned "...students from bringing lunches from home altogether."

That's right. It doesn't matter if you want to pack your kid's lunch. If your child attends Little Village Academy, you can't. According to the Chicago Tribune, "...students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria." NOT ALLOWED to pack lunches from home. In the land of the free. All right then. How...how...why is this? Well, because the school knows better than you, silly.

The principal, a one Elsa Carmona, explained that "...her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices." By telling folks how to parent. By telling them that they CANNOT choose what their own child eats. By taking away their freedom to raise their child how they see fit. All right then. This is asinine. Oh, and in case you were wondering what sort of meal they will be providing the children with for their own protection, please see the photo below. It is alleged that it is some sort of "an enchilada dish". Behold!

Oh, man. Kid, I feel for ya. Ms. Carmona claims that she created this policy six years ago. The reasoning? She saw students bringing "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for lunch. Oh, no! Flaming hot chips! Soda?! The madness! She goes on to say that "Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school." Right. Because parents are completely incapable of packing a nutritious lunch for their children to eat. Those poor dumb, dumb parents. She also says that "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception." Wait. She what?

She would make an exception for kids with allergies or some sort of medical issue? You mean, the school doesn't know how to handle things like that better than the parents do? Why not? They seem to know what's best for every other kid out there when it comes to feeding them. Why can't they execute that same sort of care for the ones that really need some help? If you answered because this is an asinine policy to begin with, please come forward and claim your prize.

And in case you were wondering who pays for all of this, let us go to the part of the article that really aggravates me. It explains that "Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch." I see. Soooo...let me get this straight. By doing this, someone actually makes money. By taking away the freedom to choose, someone is profiting off of it. Huh. And the money that someone makes comes from where again? The federal government, was it? Yeah, OK. And that money comes from where again? OH. That's right. ME!

How many times do I have to point out to morons that this stuff happens ALL THE TIME. This isn't a "free" program. It's paid for by the taxpayers! Federal taxpayers! When did it become everyone else's job to feed someone else's kid?! I didn't sign up for that! I can think of about a hundred different ways that I would like my federal tax dollars to be used and not one of them involves feeding school children in Chicago! (And most of them don't include the many, many ways our tax dollars are already being pissed away, but I digress.)

Fortunately, there are some voices of reason with this issue. A one J. Justin Wilson, who is a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry, said "This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility." Do you think?! Oh, sorry about that. He seems to be on my side. Never mind. I meant, yeah! It's an infringement. (I'm going to have to remember that phrase. Fundamental infringement. It sounds a little more responsible than "moronic" or "asinine".) He also asks the sadly rhetorical question of "Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Hard to say, being as how they've banned lunches from home altogether, but I'd still like to know their answer.

Another voice of reason on this topic seems to come from a one Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach who is an "education policy professor" (whatever that is). She commented on the issue of the cost of requiring students to eat a school lunch at the cost of $2.25 a day. "We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk". That lady is awesome. How cool of a mom is she? I want to know what Star Wars ship. I'm guessing the Millennium Falcon. Her son probably doesn't like crusts, so she cuts them off in a cutesy way. I like her. She's fun, she's reasonable and she's right. $2.25 a day for a school lunch? You can definitely bring a lunch from home for considerably less.

And while not all schools in the Chicago area have implemented this policy that you and I pay for (funny, I don't feel like I live in Chicago), others have come up with their own equally ridiculous policies. Take the Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side. Over there you can bring a lunch to school, but the school "officials" will "...confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.)" Right. That makes perfect sense. Because the kid won't eat it after school. Noooo. If you're not eating it at school, it takes all of the fun out of it! But do you know why they do it? If you ask Principal Rebecca Stinson she'll tell you that "...most parents expect that the school will look out for their children."

If that last quote doesn't horrify you to your bones, then I can't help you here. Sure, I expect schools to "look out" for children when the children are there. But when I think of being "looked out" for, I think of the school keeping the children safe...and not safe from a Cheeto! Next thing you know, they're going to want to tell the kids what to wear, what doctor to go to, etc. And what, exactly, happens on the weekends when the school isn't around to guide these completely soft-headed parents in raising their children? What are they going to do? How will they know what to choose? Where is the school when we need it?! Holy crap. I think I made myself sick typing these last few lines. Goodbye, sweet America. With policies like the ones described here, we are not only doomed, we are screwed. We are so scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

What Is This Relic?

I was out and about today and I saw the item pictured below. It looked vaguely familiar, but I just couldn't quite place it. It was like it came from another time and another place. It almost kind of looks like a precursor to my cell phone, but with all of those buttons on there and that long cord-like looking thing, it couldn't be. Well, whatever it is, I found it fascinating.

Sphere: Related Content