They're Not The Same

Some cruise ship ran aground in Italy. And it is because of that unfortunate incident that we have to be subjected to the opinions of people which will ultimately make us realize how out of touch people are with reality. It's really in the aftermath of an accident where we learn that we are surrounded by morons who equate two things to be identical based on any sort of a remote similarity. This is exactly why I'm rethinking democracy. I can't trust these people to vote on stuff. I just can't. Nor do I want to. And you might be joining me after this little story.

We go over to ABC News to learn a little bit more about what occurred. Basically, it's what I just said above. A cruise ship ran aground fairly close to shore in Italy. Here's a picture of how close to the shore it actually was. (This is relevant for the points that I will be making shortly.) Behold!


Yeah, that's bad. Ships shouldn't look like that. It's unsafe and not very inviting. Let's look at the ship from a different angle. Behold!

Good thing that it's pretty close to the land, huh? And it certainly didn't just topple over like that all of a sudden. Here's a picture of it when it was starting to go that way. Behold!

And just one more to illustrate the distance from the shoreline and the not-so-deep depth of the water there (hence all of the running aground, don't you know?). Behold!


But the fact that it's not totally submerged and that land is so close and the waters are so shallow is definitely something to take into consideration when determining how to think about this accident. Well, those are things that a reasonable person would take into consideration. Let's look at some of the perspectives that other people had on this event. Take this one woman who had been aboard the ship when this happened who said, "Have you seen 'Titanic'? That's exactly what it was." Now, I'm not sure what part she's unclear on here. What actually happened in Titanic, what actually happened aboard the actual Titanic, or what the definition of 'exactly' is. But she seems confused about at least one of those three because I can tell you right now that this was not 'exactly' like what happened to the Titanic.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that poor woman wasn't scared to death and I'm not saying that the situation wasn't dangerous and life-threatening. What I'm saying is that it was not exactly like Titanic. Sure, they both involved a large ship, but for me, the similarities end there. One was right off the coast of Italy, the other was in the middle of the ocean in the middle of freaking nowhere and in freezing cold water with icebergs all around. Those two scenarios are not 'exactly' the same. Again, I'm sorry that this woman was involved in this accident and I am glad that she's OK. But I am tired of everything needing to be elevated to an artificial level of tragedy that just doesn't exist. Things don't have to be super-duper bad in order for them to be 'bad enough'. Bad is bad. Why make it worse with inaccurate hyperbole?

ABC News asked some people who were visiting something called "Titanic the Experience" ("a tour through recovered artifacts and replicas of the famed ship in Orlando.) what they thought. I have no idea why they thought to do that, but they did. I guess that ABC News must have thought that the Titanic sinking in the middle of the ocean and killing over 1,500 people in the freezing water is the same as a boat slowly tipping over because it ran aground on the coast of Italy. Other than the fact that they're both boats, I'm not seeing a lot of similarities. But I guess I'm the only one because one guy said, "When I saw the Concordia on the news this morning, this is what I thought about." Huh. So this guy saw (I'm assuming) something similar to the picture that I included here and his first thought was "It's just like Titanic"? How is that possible? My first thought was "Oh, good. It's pretty close to shore and it's in fairly shallow water. Did anyone die?" I did not think about the Titanic. Good Lord.

Seriously, is this what our society hath wrought? Any sort of misdoing involving a large ship and people automatically equate it to the Titanic disaster? Have the critical thinking skills in this country sank so low that people can't differentiate between two different boats, not to mention completely different circumstances, one hundred years apart? Even ABC News delves into the similarities between the two incidents. (Then again, on the ABC News website, they also tell us: "Authorities investigate whether ship's captain sailed too close to rocks." The ship is currently sideways! I'm guessing the captain was, in fact, too close to the rocks! They need an 'investigation' to determine this?! The boat is sideways, for the love of God!) Just because they're both boats that had problems doesn't mean that they're the same! AT ALL! I'm trying to think of a ridiculous example that I could use as a comparison to this, but the actual story itself is so ridiculous that I don't think I can come up with a comparison. They're both boats, but they're not the SAME! Think, people! Think! It's our only hope!

moreless

No Wonder They're Closing

Apparently Sears is going to be closing a bunch of stores due to poor holiday sales. This according to the Glendale News-Press. Now, the article goes into minor details about the aforementioned poor holidays sales and how that would affect an undetermined number of stores and jobs. Then the article includes a picture. Behold!

What in the world is going on there?! No wonder the stores are closing. They have a Brinks armored car plowed into the side of the building and some other random vehicle that has been smashed all to hell up on the sidewalk! I don't know about you, but I tend to avoid shopping at establishments with vehicular mayhem on the sidewalks. Call me crazy, but I like to know that the chances for my getting flattened by a Brinks truck or sideswiped on the sidewalk by an Audi are slim to none. At the very least, I like to shop places where there are not pictures in the paper of those sorts of things happening.


I only came across this article through the help of my friend Kelly, who ever so graciously passed along this little gem to me. Thanks, Kelly!

moreless

The De-Nogginizer

You didn't think that the 4th of July was going to come and go without at least ONE fireworks accident story, did you? That would be impossible. It was just that there were so many to choose from. Did I want to go over a guy that lost some fingers or someone who (inevitably) lost an eye? Sure, those both sound just great, but I was looking for something a little bit more than that. And then, in Fargo, North Dakota, I found what I was looking for.According to something called the Winnipeg Free Press, a one 41-year old Jesse William Burley was de-nogginized while celebrating the Fourth of July with fireworks. OK, I paraphrased there with the term "de-nogginized", but that's exactly what happened. The guy lost his melon.

According to a one Chris Hanson (no relation to the Chris Hansen guy on the television that catches all of the perverts), Mr. Burley was at the trailer park where the two neighbors resided (no shock that this has a trailer park setting) and he being Mr. Burley was "...getting ready to set off a second round of what Hanson said he believed was either a homemade or illegal artillery shell firework." Now, I don't know what an artillery shell firework is, but if it is what it sounds like (that being a firework made out of some sort of an artillery shell), I'm going to guess that it's probably dangerous as hell.

Judging from how the events turned out, that was the case either way. Hanson recalls, "He went over into the middle of the street, and within 10 seconds of us talking to him, he lit it and all we saw was a cloud of smoke, a bang." Presto! (By the way, this story is much better if you imagine the voices with some sort of a Fargo accent. Or Sarah Palin. They both work well here.) Do you see what's coming next? Of course you to. Hanson continued with, "When I walked up to his body, it was nothing but his shoulders down." Holy. Crap. Yeah, that's one way to put it. Well, we heard all the time when we were growing up that it's all fun and games until someone loses a skull, a head an eye! And technically, he did lose an eye. And another eye. Oh, and his skull.

That must have been something to see. Holy crap. I will say this about Mr. Hanson. He's definitely an optimistic fellow in this sort of situation. I mean, I'm a glass is half empty/head is missing sort of a person. He's a glass is half full/body is still there kind of a guy. He's not missing a head. He has a body! That what I love about those plucky North Dakotans. Always looking on the bright side. Always seeing the silver lining!

Now, Hanson said that earlier that fateful evening, Burley had shown him "...fireworks that contained a warning that read, "If found please report to the U.S. government." OK, first of all, what the hell kind of fireworks have that label? Second of all, what PART of the U.S. government deals with this sort of thing? Where exactly does one call when one's neighbor has been decapitated by said firework? And is that really the most appropriate label to have one those? How about "If found, you could lose your entire dome if you light one of these, you idiot."

More words of wisdom from Mr. Hanson include gems such as "The accident should be used as an example of how dangerous fireworks can be" and "I’m never going to light a firecracker off again in my life." Right. Listen. The guy was lighting an artillery shell. What in the world did you think was going to happen? Do you really need to swear of ALL fireworks because some doofus lit something that was likely supposed to go off in the air in his hands and de-domed himself? Really? I understand that he still might be in a little bit of shock from having witnessed the event, but come on now. I don't think one of those little angry ground flowers is going to have the same effect should it go even a little bit awry. But if I have to explain this to you, then you're probably right. You probably should never light off a firework again in your life.

Here's my favorite part of this tragedy: "Burley’s body was sent to Bismarck for an autopsy." Um, OK? Do you really need an autopsy? They can't noodle this through on their own? "What do we think happened here? Heart disease? Hard to say. Could be cancer." What goes on at that sort of an autopsy anyway? "Well, he lit off the firework and it hit him in the head and now his head isn't there any more. Soooo....let's cut him open and weigh his pancreas and see if we can figure out what got him!" Why do you need an autopsy?! He's been de-headified! Case closed!

moreless

Dunn For

When I'm finally done on this planet (and some days, that could not come soon enough), I'd like to be remembered for some of the good stuff that I've done. (Hey! I've done plenty of good things! Don't judge! What have YOU done?) I mostly try to keep the stupid things that I've done completely under wraps. And I'm hoping that when I do finally go, it isn't due to one of my stupid things.

Do you know who Ryan Dunn is? He is apparently one of the chaps that participated in MTV's Jackass movies. You remember those movies. They're the ones where a group of guys spend the entire movie just doing really stupid and really dangerous feats. Turns out, he doesn't just do stupid things when he's making a movie or a TV show. He does them in real life, too. Well, he DID them in real life. And the last one that he did, according to NBC Philadelphia, was to drink a whole bunch (that's him on the left in the picture above that he tweeted before the wreck) and then get into his Porsche and drive it at ridiculous speeds until he flipped over a guard rail, causing the car to burst into flames and kill Ryan and his passenger. Smart, eh? Yeah, not so much. Here's a picture of his car after the wreck. How they figured out it was a Porsche to begin with is beyond me.

But here comes the part about remembering. See, I was vaguely aware of the Jackass franchise, but I never spent any time watching it. And quite frankly, I had never even heard of Ryan until this happened. So everything that I learned about his life, I learned from reading about it on the Innerwebs. I read one particular highlight repeatedly. And according to TMZ (and a bunch of other sites), "34-year-old Dunn appeared in all of the "Jackass" movies -- famously shoving a toy car into his rectum in the first flick back in 2002." Um, what now?

THAT is how he is going to be remembered? As the guy who shoved a toy car up his arse?! Good Lord, man. Does anyone really want to be remembered for shoving anything up them? (If you're thinking about a Richard Gere joke right about now, just stop. That's most likely not even totally true.) Maybe he was a really good guy when he wasn't sending Hot Wheels to the land of no return. I have no idea. I'm sure that his family and friends will miss him. (I'd like them to be a little bit angry at him while they miss him since he would most likely be alive had he not decided to get "over-served" and then drive a Porsche at unthinkable speeds along a winding road at 2:30am.) Choose your actions wisely. (ie, Don't purposely insert die-cast vehicle into your rectum.) You never know. One of them might be the thing that people are talking about after you're gone.

moreless

How Not To Move A Mattress

Today, we have a case of an event gone awry. But not just any event. It's an event which you wonder why it ever took place to begin with. It's an event which more than one person needed to concur that it was a good idea. It's an event in which both of those things seem completely impossible. They're definitely hard to explain.

Take the case of a one Timothy Lee Walker, 48-years old (and old enough to know better) and a one 42-year old Stella Thomas (also old enough to know better). According to MSNBC, one or both of these dimwits bought a mattress and were taking it home themselves. Naturally, they had neither the vehicle, nor the equipment with which to transport a mattress from one place to another. (Why is it that nine times out of ten, if someone is moving a mattress, they do not have a truck? I've never understood that. It's like some weird unwritten law of nature that if you don't have a truck, you're going to have to move your mattress. It's practically guaranteed.)

Now, most people, when transporting a large object that they have to put on top of their vehicle, tend to use some sort of tethering utilities to secure said object to said vehicle. Those can range anywhere from rope and twine to nylon cords and bungee cords. And that's just to name a few. You know what is noticeably absent from my list? That's right. The human body. See, Mr. Walker decided that a good idea for keeping the mattress on top of the vehicle was for him to lie down on top of the 1996 Ford Explorer while Ms. Thomas drove the moron and the mattress to their destination. You want to guess how that turned out? Poorly, that is correct.

Surprisingly, Mr. Walker "...fell from the vehicle when...Stella Thomas, 42, rounded a curve, causing the mattresses to slide off the roof". I don't know how they thought that was ever going to work. Mr. Walker's condition was such that he "...was taken by helicopter to a hospital". At the writing of the scant article (which is probably about as extensive as Mr. Walker's problem solving skills) "His latest medical condition wasn't known". Well, while his latest medical condition wasn't known, I'm guessing that his latest mental condition could probably be guessed at with a great degree of accuracy. What a maroon. I wonder how she ended up getting the mattress home after he went to the hospital?

moreless

That's NOT How You Got Pregnant

There was a headline over at The Huffington Post today that I just loved. And when I say "just loved" I mean "just made me want to stab my myself". The headline read "Man Loses iPod, Accidentally Impregnates Wife". Uh-huh. I'm going to need to know more about this, even though I'm guessing that it will increase the urge to stab.

The headline is referring to an iPhone Touch. But the guy in question (lots of questions), a one Doug Wilson, also has an iPhone 4 which he carries around in his hand all of the time. Literally. The guy doesn't put it in his pocket because, according to what he told those at the fledgling CNN, that "...would be too risky, he said, because he might miss a photo opportunity -- like that crazy "rat tail" hairdo he saw at a fast-food spot recently. ("I was like, 'I've GOT to take a picture of this!')" Um, yeah. OK. Wouldn't want to miss that! All rightee, then. Where does the pregnancy come in?

Well, somehow, this guy managed to find himself a wife at some point, a one probably lovely Ashlee. I'm guessing it was before he started carrying around his iPhone 4 with him whenever he is awake. Just a hunch. Anyway, he claims that it was Ashlee whom he "...accidentally impregnated one evening after forgetting to look at an iPod app that explains the details of the rhythm method." Wait a minute. What now?

Correct. He told CNN "That's how we got pregnant...because I lost my [iPod Touch]." If you'll excuse me for a moment, I need to find a wall upon which I'm going to bang my head for a few seconds.

OK, I'm back. Ow. Where was I? Oh, that's right. I was about to bellow "THAT'S NOT HOW YOUR WIFE GOT PREGNANT!" Your wife got pregnant because you had SEX. It's all of the SEX that gets one pregnant, NOT the app! I'm sure that it won't surprise you to learn that this man, who believes that his iPod has the power of spermatozoa, is from Arkansas. I kind of figured that something like that was in play when he got so excited about the guy with the rat tail hair.

The story doesn't conclude with Doug saying that he has now learned what the rhythm method entails or that he's invested heavily in a nice, large supply of condoms or, most importantly, that his iPod had NOTHING to do with his wife getting pregnant. Nope. None of those. It concludes with Doug asserting that "...the slip-up was yet another reminder that his phone should be turned on, in his hand, ready to accept alerts -- all the time." Good Lord. Really? It wasn't even your PHONE that had the damned app on it! (In other news, there's an app that details the rhythm method for you. According to iphoneapples.com "There are currently 180 apps available in the App Store that help women calculate their time of the month." Huh. So, 180 calendar apps are available. Good to know. Morons.)

While I am glad that they are thrilled about the impending birth of their little girl, I'm a bit afraid for that child. Granted, things were a little stacked against her in the first place, what with the Arkansas locale and all. But this whole "I got my wife knocked up because I couldn't find my iPod" is a bit troubling. I wonder if there's an app that will help one reduce the dependence upon apps? A bit ironic, sure. But in this case, probably warranted.

moreless

That Was A Close Shave

Flori-duh. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Florida continues to keep it's deathgrip on the title of America's wackiest state. And it's awesome. I couldn't make this stuff up, nor would I even dare to hope for stuff this good. And seriously, this one? Oh, this one is good, all right. When I say things like "most people probably shouldn't vote", these folks are who I'm talking about.

We're going down to the Florida Keys where keysnews.com reports on a two car accident that was caused, in part, by the inattention of one of the drivers. Now, if you're thinking "texting while driving", you'd be wrong. Good guess, but far from the case in this instance. You're going to need to think of something a whole heck of a lot less normal than texting while driving in order to fully grasp what it was which had this driver's attention and played a key role in the crash. You know what? Go ahead and think of something really wacky and so not normal that you're going to have a hard time figuring out how it was occurring, much less why it was occurring, all right? All rightee then.

It would seem that a one 37-year old (and old enough to know better) Megan Mariah Barnes was driving "...her 1995 Thunderbird at 11 a.m. when they slammed into the back of a 2006 Chevrolet pickup." At the time of the accident, while Ms. Barnes was in the driver's seat, she did not exactly have control over the vehicle. That is because (brace yourselves) she was having her ex-husband (who was sitting in the passenger's seat) steer the car for her. You see, she was preoccupied with other things. Things such as shaving her privates. Wait. What now?

Correct. Ms. Barnes was in the middle of shaving her genital area whilst her car hurtled 40mph+ down the road as her ex-husband steered it (and steered it poorly, from what I can gather). Now, wait! Before you go getting all judgmental here or anything, let me explain why. Oh, that's right. There's a reason that she was doing this. See, she "...was meeting her boyfriend in Key West and wanted to be ready for the visit." She was what now?

Actually, let's just hold on for just a minute here. Let's take a look at what Ms. Barnes looks like in her mugshot, shall we? I've gotta say that she looks pretty much like I would have figured. She just has that "I was shaving my cootchie on the way to the Keys" look about her for some reason. Behold!

See? About what you pictured? I told you. Anyway, let's move on. So, she has her ex-husband in the car with her on the way to meet her boyfriend. Her ex-husband is assisting her in this odd, odd little endeavor from over there in the passenger seat? Really? There aren't a whole lot of things that I'd do for any of my exes, but of the things that I would actually consider doing, this would never even come close to being one of them. ("Honey? Will you take the wheel for a moment? I need to shave my private area so that my new boyfriend will be pleased with the state of my genitalia?" "You want me to drive while you shave your privates? Sure. No problem. Can I lather you up?" Yeah, that's a conversation I can guarantee that I'm never having with anyone. Ex or current!)

The article goes on to say that Ms. Barnes "...was not supposed to be driving and her 1995 Ford Thunderbird was not supposed to be on the road." It would appear that only the day before this ridiculous incident Ms. Barnes "...was convicted...of DUI with a prior and driving with a suspended license." She was then "...ordered to impound her car, and her driver's license was revoked for five years, after which time she must have a Breathalyzer ignition interlock device on any vehicle she drives." On top of that, she "...was sentenced to nine months' probation." OK, then. This woman should never be behind the wheel. She definitely shouldn't be behind the wheel with a razor, but then again, neither should anyone!

Here's another bit of amusement from this vat of weirdness: After the collision, the woman continued to drive for about another half mile. That's when, since she didn't have a valid license and all, she switched seats with her ex-husband, a one Charles Judy. And before I continue, I just want to question this relationship. I don't know how it is that she has such a hold on this guy that she could get him to steer for her while she shaves her genitals on her way to meet her boyfriend, and then to switch seats with her so that he could be at fault for the accident and leaving the scene?! I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that he grow a pair. Mind you, I'm not going to suggest that he shave them while he drive, but I am going to suggest the growing of said pair. Now, where was I? Oh, right. The trooper.

Now, according to the trooper, a one Trooper Gary Dunick, "She jumps in the back seat and he moves over. It was like the old comedy bit, 'Who's on first?' " Um, excuse me? Sir, I've heard the old comedy bit "Who's on first?" It was NOTHING like that. Nothing at all! I'm pretty sure that neither Abbott, NOR Costello, ever shaved themselves during that bit. Pretty sure of that. It's been a while since I've heard it, but I'm fairly comfortable with asserting that there was no shaving going on. None. Not even a little. Not even any Nair. (Wait. Did Abbott wax from time to time? Never mind. I digress.) That bit was simply wordplay, sir. No switching places ever occurred. ::: sigh :::
Ms. Barnes went to jail and was charged with a number of things, none of which was stupidity, unfortunately. Mr. Judy, however, was not charged with anything including stupidity. And while I know that stupid isn't a crime, I'm wishing they could have charged him or at least locked him up for six months solely on principle. That principle is the one that you're a guy who helps his ex-wife shave her genitals while she drives so that her private areas are all nice and clean for her new man! Laws based upon general principles dictated by specific situations. Hmmmm. I like the idea. It would never fly with all of those like the aforementioned Mr. Judy, but I really like the idea.

moreless

Don't Be Poutine the Blame on KFC

Today we're venturing to a KFC located up north in Canada, America's Hat. Even though chain restaurants, especially fast food restaurants, have essentially the same menu no matter where you are (which makes it simply wonderful that you can get Chicken McNuggets when you're in Paris), there are variations on each menu that reflect each culture. Today's alleged culprit is something called poutine.

I, being a Yankee American, had absolutely no idea what poutine is, though from what I have read, it appears to be French fries topped with cheese curd and gravy. (It also appears to be pronounced poo-TIN. I figured I should throw that in there just in case you got a hankerin' for some and didn't want to sound like a fool trying to order some...somewhere.) So...gravy laden cheese fries, eh? I have to tell you that I can't decide if that is ruining a perfectly good plate of cheese fries or if it is creating a heaven on earth sort of delicacy. It's a toss up.

Now, the KFCs up there in America's Hat offer poutine on their menu. And up there at a KFC in Acton, Ontario, a one 15-year old Kendell Lakin had decided to partake in said poutine. So far, so good, right? Right. But then things went slightly awry.

According to the good folks over there at canoe.ca, Ms. Lakin was enjoying her piping hot poutine when she suffered an epileptic seizure and did somewhat of a faceplant in said dish. As a result "...her chin started to blister and her neck appeared red and burned. She went to the hospital and was treated for second-degree burns. Her chin and bottom lip have several large blisters." Wow. That sounds brutal. I'm glad that she's recovering from that incident. Wouldn't it be great if my sad little tale of woe ended here? Sure it would. But you know it doesn't, right? Right.

See, here's the problem: Ms. Lakin's father, a one Lee Lakin, is upset. He's upset at (wait for it) KFC. Why? Well, because they serve their poutine hot, of course. Wait. What now?

Correct. He is angry because the poutine is hot. He claims that "...he’s not after a multi-million dollar lawsuit, he just wants to speak out to warn others and perhaps get the Colonel to turn the temperature down on the cheese and gravy."

Now, below is a close up of the poutine at a KFC as shown to us by the folks over at the I Love Food Blog (picture used without permission, but without malice either). I'm really not thinking that this looks disgusting, but if it were cold, I'd think exactly that. Poutine is clearly made to be eaten hot. It's a hot dish. How do I know this? I know this because French fries are meant to be eaten hot. Gravy is meant to be eaten hot. Melted cheese needs to be hot in order to get that melted quality that makes the melted cheese what it is (that being melted). There's a plethora of heat that is needed to make this dish. That is obvious. What is not obvious is what in the world is wrong with Mr. Lakin.

Perhaps this quote from the aforementioned Mr. Lakin will help us figure it out. He said, "I’m not looking for $10 million. ’m looking for someone to stand up and say, ‘We’re sorry Mr. Lakin, we’re sorry Kendell. We want to make this right and hey everybody this food is hot.’" Hmmm. No. No, that didn't help me sort through this at all.

"Hey everybody this food is hot"? That's what he wants? He didn't know that there was hot food at a KFC?! I'm going to take umbrage at that statement (basically because it's rare that I get to take any umbrage at all anymore, so when I see a chance for umbrage, I jump at it). He knew there was hot food at the KFC. His daughter knew there was hot food at the KFC. The only thing that no one could have possibly known at that KFC was that his daughter was going to have a seizure. And I've got news for Mr. Lakin. There's no way that one can predict when a seizure is going to happen. It's going to happen whenever it wants to regardless as to the temperature of the food in front of the person having the seizure.

Mr. Lakin took his concerns to that particular KFC. He states: "One comment the manager said to me was, ‘The poutine comes in frozen so we really have to heat it up.' KFC needs to figure out how to make this poutine without burning people." KFC already HAS figured out how to make the poutine without burning people! They put it in a cup! They give folks a spork if they want one! (And who doesn't want a spork?) They don't ladle it, piping hot, into the bare hands of the restaurant's patrons! They don't force patrons to eat it out of the cup like a sow at a trough! They've got that one covered, Mr. Lakin!

Immediately following the inexplicable statement above, Mr. Lakin said, "You’ve got hot gravy and hot cheese, two really hot elements in there.” YES! Yes you DO! (Whew! For a minute there, I thought this guy was a complete moron. Oh, wait a minute. He's still blaming the hot poutine for burning his daughter when she had a seizure. Never mind. I'd like to retract that part about him not being a complete moron. Thanks.) You have two really hot elements that are going to burn anyone who touches their mortal flesh to them! That's why you see all of those folks blowing on food at virtually every restaurant establishment that serves food that isn't cold! It's to avoid the burns! We know that! We know about the "two really hot elements"!

What if she hadn't dove into the poutine? What if instead she ended up falling down and hitting her head on the concrete floor? Are you going to go around warning people that concrete is a very solid material and that people should be aware that if you fall and hit your head on the floor that it's going to hurt and is possibly going to injure you? I don't think that you are and do you know why I think that? Because it would be asinine, that's why! And acting like it was the fault of either the KFC or the poutine itself that your daughter got burned is just laughable.

Must I really state the obvious and say that it is not the fault of the KFC that Mr. Lakin's daughter was burned after she went face first in the poutine during an unpredictable epileptic seizure?! Really? The nature of hot food is that it's hot! The nature of a seizure is that it's a seizure! Let's try and put this in a different context (and let's also try not to sound like a complete ass while doing so). but if Mr. Lakin's daughter is prone to seizures, why isn't it her responsibility to only eat food that is cold in case this sort of incident happens again? Because that would be what? Ridiculous, that is correct. But if it weren't so ridiculous, wouldn't the argument be that eating only foods that were cold would be her way of taking responsibility for herself and her condition? Where is the responsibility of the individual in this story?! Oh, that's right. It's missing. Morons.

Wait! Just one more angle! Let's say that this moron is correct and that there should be a label or a sign or a talking dog (which would be kind of cool, really) that says that the hot food is, in fact, hot. Explain to me what effect that is going to have when someone has a seizure and goes face first into the hot food? The hot food that they knew was hot? (You know, because of the talking dog and all.) That's right! It's not going to have any effect. AT ALL!

Come on, sir! Just because something bad and/or unfortunate happens to someone, that doesn't necessarily mean that someone has to be blamed. It doesn't necessarily mean that someone is at fault. That's why some occurrences are called (wait for it) accidents! Sir, if you want to go around spouting some sort of message, how about you make it what to do in case you're around someone who has a seizure? At least that might do some good! But going around telling everyone that hot food is actually hot? Well, that seems like a waste of time on many levels. Stick to seizure awareness. People will hate you less.

moreless