No One Cares!

I'll be honest with you.  When I heard about President Barry's newly evolved thoughts on gay marriage the other day, I cringed.  It wasn't because I disagree with his re-newly formed stance. (This is the third time that he's changed his mind of the issue.  Not that you would know that because the media sucks so bad.)  No, it was because I knew that once he waded into the issue that it would be all I'd have to hear about for days on end.  Non-stop talk about gay marriage and how "evolved" the President is.  Are you kidding me?!  No one took the time to look at how gay marriage is really perceived in this country.  (That would be that every single state that has voted on gay marriage has voted against it.  That would also be that there are 30 states that ban gay marriage.)  No, all it ended up being was a bunch of feel-good crap that makes everyone involved feel like they're so enlightened on the issue.  You want some enlightenment?  I'm here for you! 

How's this for enlightening?  Gallup did a poll over April 9-12 of this year.  The question was "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?"  Now, if you went strictly by how the news cycle has been reporting things over the past 48 hours, you would swear that gay marriage was at the top of the list.  At the very least, you would have to assume that it was in the top ten, right?  Here are the top ten non-economic (even though gay marriage, and more so, gay divorce court, would do wonders for the economy, it isn't really considered an economic issue) responses from people as gathered by Gallup: 

Dissatisfaction with government.  Healthcare.  Education.  Ethics/Moral/Religious decline.  Foreign aid.  Immigration.  (Have I said gay marriage yet?  I haven't?!  Then I shall continue.)  Energy.  Lack of respect for each other.  Judicial system.  War.  (That's ten.  Not yet?  I'll keep going.)  Poverty.  Care for the elderly.  Crime.  National security.  Abortion.   Lack of military defense.  Race issues/racism.  (Bet you thought that racism would be a little higher up too, wouldn't you?  Nope.  It clocks in at number seventeen.  Huh.  Thanks, media.)  Situation in Iraq.  Welfare.  Environment.  (Environment is at number twenty.  Again, thanks to the reporting of the weak, weak media, you'd have thought that all anyone ever thinks about is global warming.)  Social security.  Situation in Afghanistan. (I'm starting to get tired.  I hope it shows up soon!) Unifying the country.  (I don't even know what this one means.  The Civil War IS over, right?)   International issues. (How this doesn't include the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not quite sure.)  Elections.  Terrorism.  War.  (See previous war comments.)  Drugs.  Gay rights issues.  There it is!  I found it!  Coming in in twenty ninth place, gay rights issues!  Just barely eeking out The way children are raised, Overpopulation, Guns/gun control, The media, and The advancement of computers/technology.

I should also take this time to point out the the gay rights issues received less than 0.5% of the responses in the most recent polling of this question.  It got 1% back in February, but that was the only time this year that it ranked above 0.5%.   But would you get that from everything you read in the media?  Hell no, you wouldn't!  No, instead you'd be left with the impression that everyone wants gay people to be able to get married and that issue is first and foremost on the minds of all Americans!  Not only is it not first, it's damn near DFL (Dead Effing Last).  But that's all I'm hearing about.  Non-stop.  It will stop one day, though, right?  Please?  Why can't we have a President who has affairs again.  At least that was interesting.  (OK, it was still mis-reported, which probably explains why so many people still think that Bill Clinton was impeached for having an affair, but at least it had some substance!  I'll take Presidential blow jobs over gay marriage any day of the week, starting NOW.)

Sphere: Related Content

It Has Nothing To Do With Fate

Well.  I came across some disturbing poll results today.  The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy did a little polling and if their results are even a little bit indicative of what is going on out there, they really have their work cut out for them.  Before I get to the part that will have you wanting to jump out of a high window, I want to mention that while this organization may sound like they're all about the teenagers, it doesn't seem like that's all too accurate.  The people that they polled were grown-ass adults, ranging in age from 18-29.  And actually, that makes the results even more frightening. 

Participants in this survey were asked if they agreed with this statement:  “It doesn’t matter whether you use contraception or not; when it is your time to get pregnant, it will happen."  I would like to take this opportunity to point out that these questions were asked recently and this isn't archival data from the 1700s.  This was done in 2011 and again, with grown-ass adults.  That's why it scares the bejeezus out of me that four in ten actually agreed with that statement.  Wait.  Wait.  WAIT! 

Were these people not privy to the ol' very basic sex education classes that I sat through in high school?  Just the beginning part of that question "It doesn't matter whether you use contraception or not" makes me cringe.  Of course it matters!  That's why it exists!  It's contraception!  It's purpose it to be used and then to subsequently prevent pregnancy after you have all the sex!  But four out of ten morons believe that it's just fate?!  Doesn't matter what you do.  If it's going to happen, it's going to happen?!  Uhhh, I honestly don't know what to say about that.  Forty percent is a little too close to half for my liking.  Fate.  OK, then.  Moving on...

Here's another one:  "Thinking about your life right now, how important is it to you to avoid getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant?"  This was asked of unmarried young adults aged 18-29.  Again, grown-ass people.  72% said that it was very important.  That's good.  You know what's not good?  The other people who answered.  Only 12% said that it was "somewhat important".  How is that even a choice when you're talking about getting pregnant or not?  16% had some sort of a variation of it not being important to them.  The parameters of the survey do not outline whether or not it was a requirement that participants in the survey be sexually active, but I can't imagine why they would want people who are not having sex to be a part of this survey.  If you're not having sex, the problem of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy has nothing to do with you.  So if I am to assume that those 16% that don't give a crap are currently sexually active, then I'm a little more than just concerned that they don't give a crap.  Those are the kind of people that I want studied at great lengths. 

Explain this to me:   "Fully 94% of unmarried young adults 18-29 say they have all the information they need to avoid having or causing an unplanned pregnancy."  BUT "11% say they know “little or nothing” about condoms, 42% say they know “little or nothing” about birth control pills, and 73% say they know “little or nothing” about IUDs."  HOW are you between the ages of 18 and 29 and know "little or nothing" about condoms?!  I can kind of understand the IUD thing, but only because it's not talked about or mentioned as much as the other two.  But condoms?  What sort of grown-ass adult knows nothing about a condom?!  I wish that they broke that answer down by age.  Then again, maybe I don't.  If I found out that it was mostly 29-year olds that answered the question that way, I'd have to start walling off my walled off compound again.  I cannot be part of a society where people who are almost thirty know nothing about condoms.  I just can't! 

Then there's this:  19% of the people surveyed answered 'Yes' to this:  “There is so much negative stuff said about birth control that it makes me feel I’m better off/my partner is better off just not using it.”  Negative stuff?  More negative than having a child that you're not ready for (and apparently have no idea how it came to be either)?!  What exactly are they referring to that is so "negative"?  Because the way I look at it, it's all of the getting pregnant that's the negative part of having sex.  Regardless, even if there are "negative" things about birth control, it's disturbing to me that one in five of these softheads thinks that no birth control is the way to go instead.  Twenty percent.  That's about twenty percent too high for me.  What is wrong with you people?! 

So you have all of that stuff going on, but then you have questions like "I have all the information I need to avoid having/causing an unplanned pregnancy."  Somehow, 94% of these folks answered 'Yes' to that question.  But these are the same people who forty percent of them think that it's just fate if you get pregnant regardless of your contraceptive usage!  Clearly, they do NOT have all the information that they need.  No, the information that they have is a bit outdated.  Medieval even.  Perhaps someone should inform them that science has made great strides since the days of leaving everything up to fate. 

This is all not good.  It's all very bad, actually.  The fate question really threw me for a loop.  If you'd like to see this data so that you can cry over it yourself, it's available here.

Sphere: Related Content

The South Will Not Rise Again

We have a problem. Actually, we have two problems. They are, in no particular order, Mississippi and Alabama. Let the jokes about people in the South begin! Oh, what? You don't like that? Too "stereotypical" for you? Let me take this opportunity to point out (once again) that all stereotypes come from somewhere and the South isn't doing much to make sure that doesn't happen. And really, it's embarrassing. The rest of the country weeps for you, Mississippi and Alabama. Jesus...

According to the Huffington Post, there is a group called Public Policy Polling (PPP for short. Catchy, no?). They have released information based upon a poll that they did of "likely GOP primary voters". They surveyed 600 such folks in Alabama and 656 such folks in Mississippi. (Now, in all fairness, I don't know if that is an adequate enough survey sample to make these results statistically valid. I do know that it's a fair number of people polled. If it had been only one hundred or two hundred, I wouldn't even bother with the results. But at least six hundred seems to be a fair number.) Among the questions these rubes folks were asked was "Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or are you not sure?" The results are not encouraging.

In Alabama, 45% of the people who could figure out how to press the buttons on their phone said that President Barry was a Muslim. 45%! And another 41% were "not sure". So, over there in Alabama, 86% of the folks surveyed either think he's a Muslim or just don't know! And eighty-six percent is getting really close to the number where you can say things like "Dang near everyone thinks this." Eighty-six percent. Now, I will also point out that when asked "Do you believe in evolution?", sixty percent answered that they did not believe in evolution. (And after reading some of these poll results, I'm actually questioning how far along the evolutionary process has actually gotten in Alabama.) 13% were "not sure" of evolution. So more people either believe President Barry is or could be a Muslim than they do believe in evolution. I think I'm going to cry.

Things aren't much better over yonder in Mississippi, either. When they were asked if President Barry was a Muslim, 52% of those mouth breathers said that they believed he was. And 36% said that they were "not sure". That's eighty-eight percent for those of you keeping track. Eighty-eight percent either think he's a secret Muslim or don't know if he is or not. Eighty-eight. As you can imagine, evolution isn't faring too well in that part of the country either. Sixty-six percent of Mississippians (Mississippites?) don't believe in evolution. Two-thirds. Didn't happen. Eleven percent were "not sure". Seventy-seven percent don't believe in or are not sure of evolution, but eighty-eight percent are leaning toward a secret Muslim in the White House. Oh, how I wish that I could prove a direct correlation between the two schools of thought. (Don't get me wrong. I think we both know the correlation is there. I was just saying that I wished we could prove it.)

This is not good. This is not good at all. And I'm not actually sure which one appalls me more, the secret Muslim part or the evolution part. It doesn't seem to be something that correlates with race, as 54% of the softheads in Mississippi and 67% of the ones in Alabama think that interracial marriage is OK. (Barely over half, Mississippi? You should be ashamed of yourself. What are you afraid of? It's 2012!) I guess the only correlation is the deep south. Well, that and that most of the people that answered these questions said that they were somewhat to very conservative. That's really giving conservative folk a bad name! I'm going to say this again and I know it won't be the last time that I need to say it. President Barry is not a secret Muslim. He's a socialist. I repeat, a socialist. Now if only the southern states can pull their heads out of their collective arses long enough to hear and understand that message, then things can start getting back to normal around here. (And by the way, evolution happened. It did. If you need proof, it's called science. Now knock it off and start answering poll questions that are based in fact correctly.)

Sphere: Related Content

Nine Percent And Dropping

The approval rating of Congress is at an all time low. And I mean low. According to something called the Inquisitr, the people that approve of the job that Congress is doing is at a whopping nine percent. Nine. My only question at this time is who are those nine people and what, exactly, are their standards? I'm guessing that they have relatives in Congress or they're lobbyists. Because I can't think of any other reason why their approval rating would be as high as nine percent.

And what have people approved of more than Congress? Plenty of things. And a lot of them might surprise you. For example, apparently, a Rasmussen poll in 2011 had an 11% approval rating of the United States going Communist. Now, I don't think that being a Communist nation is all that great of an idea, but more people thought it was a better idea than approved of Congress.



Remember the atrocious BP oil spill? Right in the middle of that, 16% of people approved of BP. That was a complete disaster and yet more people approved of that than they did of Congress.



Even Richard Nixon amidst Watergate had better numbers than Congress does now. 24% of people approved of Nixon when it became obvious that he was a liar (and contrary to what he said, probably a crook). That's over two and a half times as many people (as a percentage) than those who currently approve of Congress.



Banks in 2011 are not exactly on anyone's Christmas card list. But for some reason, 23% of people approve of those. So banks are on a par with Richard Nixon and both were rated over twice as high as Congress. If you haven't caught on by now that people really think that Congress sucks, I don't think that there's much I can do for you at this point.

And for some reason, 40% of people approved of the IRS in 2009. I don't know why that's so high, but when you compare it to the 9% approval rating that Congress received, it's astronomically high. No one likes the IRS. How did they get 40% of folks to approve of them? Maybe they could give Congress some tips.


And here's the most amazing part of all of this: Even with a 9% approval rating, it seems that whenever elections roll around, the majority of these bozos end up getting re-elected. I'm not sure if that means that polls like these are meaningless or if the average American voter is a dumbass. What I'm afraid of is that it means both. In which case, we're totally scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Really? Al Qaeda?

So, here's an annoying, not to mention rather depressing, poll that was taken by New York Magazine. They surveyed 100 participants of the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York. And I don't think that a sampling of only 100 people is necessarily completely indicative of all the people that are protesting, but just that it's indicative of those 100 people is rather disturbing. Let's see what the magazine learned.

Let's start off with what would seem to be a very simple question to answer. Male or female? OK, 66% answered "Male". 30% answered "Female". And 4% answered "Other". Other?! WTF? There can't be "Other" in a gender question! Jesus. No wonder these protests have gone on for so long (and in venues where I really don't think that a lot of things are going to change). If they can't even figure out their gender, how are they going to figure out what they're doing.

Next, these dimwits (even the super clueless 4%) were posed with the open-ended question: "The country with the best government in the world is …" Now, they didn't provide the percentages of how many people answered what I'm going to assume are the top three answers. But here is what they came up with:

"Canada. It’s most like the U.S. but more the way I want.”
“Denmark.”
“I don’t accept the premises of this question."

Oh, God. Hey, for all of you that really like Canada, do you know what you can do about that? Go to Canada, that is correct. It's right there. Just head north. You'll eventually bump into it. And please hurry. The sooner that you go, the better.

This is probably the most telling response. When asked "Did you vote in the 2010 midterm elections?" 39% said yes, 55% said no and 5% said no, but only because they weren't 18 yet. So over half of the people that are out there pooping in the streets didn't even bother to vote last time. And yet for some reason, the feel disempowered. Huh. Go figure. What happened to not complaining if you weren't a part of the process? That's not in effect any more? Hmm. It doesn't appear to be. And that is unfortunate.

When posed with the query "Explain how you would fix Wall Street", the (I'm guessing) top three responses were: “A maximum-wage law", “President Elizabeth Warren" and “Burn it down.” Really? Elizabeth Warren? I find it amazing that all someone has to do is just have one thought or premise that resonates with a particular movement and the next thing you know, that movement is acting as if that person is qualified to run the country. And even if she did run for President, with 55% of these morons not voting, exactly how were they hoping that her winning an election would take place?

But here's my favorite. They asked these folks to rank themselves on this "Scale of Liberalism" that the magazine came up with. The results will shock you. Here we go...

Not liberal at all: 6%
Liberal but fairly mainstream (i.e., Barack Obama): 3%
Strongly liberal (i.e., Paul Krugman): 12%
Fed up with Democrats, believe country needs overhaul (i.e., Ralph Nader): 41%
Convinced the U.S. government is no better than, say, Al Qaeda (i.e., Noam Chomsky): 34%

Wait. What? Thirty four percent of those folks are convinced that the US government is no better than Al Qaeda?! Al Qaeda?! Good Lord. Those people have really come off the rails And does that mean that they're liberal or not liberal? I'm not sure where Al Qaeda is on that scale. They're rather extreme. I do know that. Who thinks these questions up, anyway? I only ask that because I want them to go to a real polling organization and have them do their thing with whack-a-do questions involving Al Qaeda and then I want to see those results. I realize that it could be even more frightening than this, but I have to know. And then I have the feeling that I need to move Australia. (I was going to pick Canada, but I'm afraid all of the morons here who love it there so much might show up.)

Sphere: Related Content

It's Almost Everyone, So Fix It!

I ran across a fascinating Gallup poll the other day. Why more politicians aren't talking about this poll is beyond me. Why more regular people aren't talking about this poll is also beyond me. Even if you disregard the poll topic, the sheer fact that almost EVERYONE in the poll agreed on one thing is astonishing. You can't get almost everyone to agree on anything. Why isn't that news? Because the media sucks, that's why. I mean, based on the results of this poll, certain things should be reported in completely different ways. But alas, they are not. I can only assume it is because they're morons.

Here's the question: "How important is it to you that the government take steps this year to deal with controlling U.S. borders to halt flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S." Your choices are: Extremely important, very important, moderately important or not that important. To me, extremely and very are pretty close in meaning. I wish they'd go with things like Super-Duper vs. Very or something like that. I am pleased to not see "hella important" as a choice, however. Ready for how people answered? The result will shock you. (No, they won't. They won't shock anyone who is intellectually honest AND who has a pulse. It has to be two out of two or else it doesn't count.)

"53% say the need for government action this year to halt the flow of illegal immigrants at the borders is "extremely important". Huh. Over half. Not much over half, but over half none the less. That's something. But wait! There's more! Those who thought that it was "very important" (which, essentially, sounds pretty much the same) totaled 29 percent. Huh. 29 percent. That's almost a third. But there's still more! Those who thought that it was "moderately important"? That would be 12 percent. Only seven percent said that it is "not that important". There's no telling what's wrong with those seven percent.



But back to the other percentages. So, with 59 percent in the "extremely important" camp, 29 percent are going with "very important" (both of which sound awfully similar, probably because they are) and another 12 percent bringing up the still important category of "moderately important". I'll do the math for you and tell you that adds up to a whopping ninety three percent. You do realize that's damn near everyone, don't you? Yeah, it is.

Ninety three percent think that it is some degree of important to stop the flow of illegal immigrants at the border. Ninety three percent! You can't get ninety three percent of people to agree on anything. I think that even the percentage people dislike syphilis only clocks in at only ninety percent. This is ninety three! It blows syphilis out of the water. (Which might be how they got that in the first place.)

So if almost everyone feels this way, why is there so much tip-toeing around it in the media? Why are these permanent visitors to our fine land referred to as "immigrants" or "undocumented workers" or other pansy ass terms that leave out the term "illegal"? Seriously, the next person who says to me that a person can't be illegal? Yeah, they're going to get stabbed. The next person who says to me that we're all immigrants or that we're a nation of immigrants? Yeah, that's a stabbin', too. Clearly, by the results of this poll, we are all perfectly OK with calling this what it is AND, more importantly, with some politician standing up and saying something and doing something about it! What are they afraid of? With ninety three percent of people behind the idea, it's not like it's going to be a political downfall to endorse something like this!

Then again, maybe it will be. I have to hand it to that seven percent with their head up their arse. For only being seven percent, they sure have been able to manipulate the media into only covering their point of view and also getting the media to portray this issue from their angle of "it's not important". I mean, if you're part of the 93 percent (and if you're reading this blog, I have no reason to believe that you would not be), are you going to be entirely comfortable using the terminology "illegal alien" (which is the correct term, by the way) or "illegal immigrant" or simply just "illegal"? Heck no, you're not. That's because the only point of view that seems to get any (hot) air time is that of the seven percent. And they try to make their point by calling the other ninety three percent racist if they bring it up. It's ridiculous.

Now that we know that ninety three percent of Americans think that something needs to be done about this ridiculous illegal flow of people largely from a specific foreign land, I wonder how long it will be before a politician grows a pair big enough to do something about it. Even if they just mentioned this poll and put their support behind the issue of trying to do something about illegal immigration, that would be good enough for me. (Yes, I intentionally set the bar quite low in instances like these. I'm tired of being disappointed by setting a reasonable bar.) But considering that the results of this poll were released six days ago and I haven't heard word one about it, I'm not holding my breath.

Sphere: Related Content

Stop Meaningless Polling!

I don't ask much of you guys. In turn, I usually get about what I asked for. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a request. If you or anyone you know has any pull or sway at any news or media institution, could you please see what could be done about ceasing any talk of Presidential polling numbers this early in the game? Please. Because the numbers at this point are pointless. You can't ask people if Barack Obama is going to be re-elected when you don't even know who he is running against! Make it stop!

It troubles me that no news organization has caught onto this yet. No, they just keep churning out poll numbers that are meaningless, only they do it as if they have meaning. It's not exactly like trying to tell non-addle-brained adults that the Easter bunny is real, but it's vaguely similar. The real difference in that fairly poor example is that the non-addle-brained adults can figure out that (SPOILER ALERT) the Easter bunny isn't real. In the case of the insignificant Presidential poll results, I'm afraid that people might actually be paying attention and thinking that it matters. Let me be clear: It does not matter. AT ALL.

I went back to January of 2008 and looked at the poll results for Presidential "candidates" at the time. According to the research done and compiled by American Research Group, as far as the Democratic candidates went, Hillary Clinton had a commanding lead over then-Senator Barry. They even had her at a fairly commanding lead over then-Senator Barry in December of 2007. Both of those results came at a time that was closer to the election that we are now! And the last time I checked, Hillary wasn't our President. (And the last time I checked, she was just getting over being bitter than she lost the nomination. I'm still not sure that she's over it.) And over on the Republican candidate front, in December of 2007, Rudy Giuliani was miles ahead of old man McCain. But by January of 2008, just one month later? Giuliani was nowhere to be found and it was a virtual toss up between old man McCain and pretty catcher's Mitt Romney.

So please, please remember that asking people if Barack Obama can be re-elected at this point and time is absolutely futile. Why doesn't the media understand that? Why don't they realize that they're wasting everyone's time with pointless polls this early on? Oh. Right. Because the media sucks. Yeah. All right. Back to you.

Sphere: Related Content

More Depressing Poll Results

Well, yesterday I posted what I thought were the most depressing poll results ever. Today, I have equally depressing poll results to share with you. The only good news that I have is that these poll results came from the exact same place that yesterday's poll results came from. Thus, we can hold out a sliver of hope that it's just asshats that read the NY Daily News that feel this way. But really, I'm hoping that what Scott said yesterday was true and that Skynet thing becomes self aware and kills us all.

Back to the NY Daily News where we learn about how New York is making all sorts of new regulations for summer camps. You remember summer camp, don't you? If you're like me, you probably look back on summer camp much more fondly than you did when you were actually in attendance. Oh, don't get me wrong, camp was OK. But it certainly wasn't the best thing that ever happened to me. (I'm still waiting for the best thing to ever happen to me to finally freaking happen. I hope it's not much longer. I don't know how much more I have left in me after reading stories like this one.) The point is that there were lots of games at summer camp. And since New York is now regulating summer camp, those games will be no more. Why? Because they're too dangerous, of course.

What sort of games were they offering that put children's lives in peril? Why, games such as (brace yourself) freeze tag, Wiffle Ball, kickball, dodgeball, Capture the Flag, Steal the Bacon and Red Rover are "...deemed dangerous in new state regulations for day camps." Freeze tag is dangerous?! They do know that no one actually gets frozen, right? This isn't some sort of cryogenic camp. Who is doing this and why? According to the article it is the Health Department. "The Health Department created a list of supposedly risky recreational activities - which also includes more perilous pursuits like archery, scuba and horseback riding - in response to a state law passed in 2009." Umm, wait. What summer camp offers scuba diving? And archery is ONLY dangerous if you stand in front of the target. (And if you are standing in front of the target, I'm kind of thinking that you deserve to get shot with an arrow. I guarantee you that it would only happen once.)

It would appear that "The state Camp Directors Association backed the 2009 law, and Health Department spokeswoman Diane Mathis said the list of risky activities was crafted with help from camp groups." Risky activities. That would be fine if they actually included risky activities in their list. Wiffle ball isn't risky! Oh, and if you're wondering what they don't think is risky, that would include Frisbee, tug of war and sack races. Sack races?! There's a risky activity! Trying to hop around in a burlap sack? That never ends well. How did sack races make the list but Red Rover has to go? Because people are morons, that's how.

Now, they did interview two fairly reasonable people who agreed that banning these activities was ludicrous. But, they also interviewed one softheaded individual, a one Kim Wainwright (whose head, I'm assuming, is softer than melted butter), who has a 5-year old and who said, "Kids these days are kinda brutal so I can see those games being dangerous...I agree with it." No mention of teaching kids not to be "kinda brutal". No mention of the games not being dangerous in the first place! Just don't let them do it. Don't try to help them have fun. Don't try to teach them that getting hurt is a part of life. Just don't let them do it. Good Lord....

And my frustration doesn't end with just her. No, I did something that I shouldn't have. Why couldn't I have just learned from my experience yesterday and not taken the poll? Why? I don't know either, but I did. I took the poll. Here is the question: "Do you agree with the Health Department that Wiffle Ball, kickball and Red Rover are dangerous?" Here are your choices (even though you know how it's going to turn out):

Yes, kids could get seriously hurt playing them.

No, they're childhood classics that every kid can enjoy.

I'm too stupid to make a rational decision on this issue. (Again, I made that up and the real choice was "I don't know"."

I hope you're sitting down because eighty seven percent answered "Yes, kids could get seriously hurt playing them." Eighty-seven percent. Eighty-seven percent think that kids shouldn't play kickball or dodgeball or freeze tag because they might get hurt. Eighty-seven percent. We're scroomed. So completely scroomed.

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

Stay Classy, Mississippi

Something called Public Policy Polling did a poll the other day (shocking, I know) of the fine folks of Mississippi. According to their data, they polled "...400 usual Mississippi Republican primary voters from March 24th to 27th". I don't know what a "usual" Mississippi voter would be. Nor do I know how they differ from the "unusual" Mississippi voters. Judging from one of the results, however, I am now afraid of the "usual" Mississippi voter and I'm not really thinking that they should be voting at all.

They asked a bunch of questions about how the usual Mississippi Republican primary voters felt about a variety of potential candidates for a variety of potential politician positions. Things like Senator, President, Governor. You know. The usual choices for people that will end up doing a sub-par job at whatever they're elected to do. But then they decided to ask them a question that doesn't seem to have anything to do with politics at all. They asked if the respondents "...believe interracial marriage should be illegal". I didn't even know that something like that needed to be a question anymore. But apparently, when you're in Mississippi, it most certainly does, as 46% of respondents believe that it should be illegal. What. The. Hell.

Forty-six percent. Really, Mississippi? Almost half of you guys think that interracial marriage should be illegal? Are you dry shaving me?! And don't think that means that more than half of those polled think that it should be legal, as only forty percent answered that it should be. What is wrong with the other fourteen percent of you? You don't know? You can't figure that one out? You don't have an opinion? How can you not have an opinion on something so insane?! Wow. Wow. Wow. Oh, but wait a minute! I just noticed that the margin of error on this poll is +/- 4.9%. That means that it could be as high as over half of Mississippi thinks that interracial marriage should be illegal. Wow. Did I say wow? Yeah, wow.

I don't really know what to say about this. I'm a little stunned. I mean, sure, there are always jokes about Mississippi and how fat and backwards they are, but I hoped that they were just jokes. Clearly, they are not. Clearly, stereotypes are based on at least a sliver of reality. And in this case, they're based on at least 46% of reality. Stay classy, Mississippi. And stay there. Please. Stay there.

Sphere: Related Content