They've Banned Reading Texts

With every new year comes the hundreds, actually thousands of new laws that go into effect. The majority of them could not be any more ridiculous unless they actually tried. And even then I'm not so sure that the various legislatures around the country would be able to top themselves. California, I'm looking at you!

It has been illegal in California for a couple of years now to send a text message while you are driving. That seems like a reasonable law, as I don't think that it's a good idea that anyone be using the equivalent of a typewriter when they are behind the wheel and whizzing down the freeway at 65mph. But they have now expanded that law into a realm that I find rather inexplicable. Yes, it now illegal to read a text message when you're driving in California.

Are the people who wrote and enacted this ridiculous law aware of the fact that there are an awful lot of things that all drivers read every single time that they get behind the wheel? I don't think that they are. And, in that case, I think that they're going to be really surprised when I tell them about billboards. See, billboards are these massive, hulking signs which line the sides of major roadways across this fine land of ours. Some of them are even electronic and change their displays within seconds of every message. I'm pretty sure that the way that they work is that the drivers who whiz by them are supposed to pay attention to them and read them. Huh. And yet, they haven't outlawed billboards because, well, because that would be stupid.

As long as I'm on the subject of how ridiculous I think that this not reading text messages is, how about if I go over a hypothetical situation? Let's say that I have a GPS in my car and I am looking at it while I drive in order to obtain directions to my destination. How in the world is that any different than, say, if I was headed to a friend's house and instead of looking at my GPS, my friend texted me the directions to his house and I looked at that instead? Oh, that's right. It's NOT different. In fact, it's pretty much the freaking same!

I'm all for not having distracted drivers out there on the road, but let's just get real about what is going to help and what is not going to help. Banning the reading of text messages is NOT going to help. If they want to do something to cut down on the number of distracted drivers, how about they ban eating in the car? At the very least, ban any sort of Mexican-themed fast food fare from those behind the wheel. There is nothing more distracting than trying to drive and eat a crunchy taco without making a mess. It's a heck of a lot more dangerous than glancing at a text message on your phone, I'll tell you that. But no one ever addresses these asinine, yet necessary, hypothetical situations that really call into question the legitimacy of the stupid law to begin with. Maybe I'll start.

moreless

Governor Jerry Brown To The Rescue!

Brace yourselves! I think that we might have had a moment of sanity in California! I KNOW! Can you believe it?! I, for one, can not. Seriously. The state was on its way to having a few more nanny laws in place and the next thing you know, BAM! Governor Jerry Brown vetoes them and gives an awesome explanation as to why.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Governor Brown spent Wednesday, "...vetoing bills that would require that kids wear helmets when on ski slopes and increase fines for people who talk on cell phones or text while driving." I find that to be fabulous and here's why: One, the hand-free cell phone law here is inane because it is just as dangerous to drive and talk on the phone using a hands-free device as it is to hold the phone up to your head. It's not the phone, it's the conversation. (And really, as much as I hate to admit it, I think that we all know that it isn't the safest thing to do. Phone or headset, it just distracts you.) And on top of that, the fine is already close to $300 once all of the "fees" are added. It's quite outrageous.

And two, I'm not all that big of a fan of helmet laws. Yes, even for kids. If you want your kid to wear a helmet, have your kid wear a helmet. Do we need a law for this? I don't think that we do. (And really, I and everyone else that I know grew up without wearing helmets and we're just fine. The number of kids that I personally knew that met their demise because they weren't wearing a helmet is exactly zero.)

But wait. I'm not even at the best part! Here it is: This is what Governor Jerry had to say when he vetoed the bills: "While I appreciate the value of wearing a ski helmet, I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state. Not every human problem deserves a law." Oh. My. God. Release the pigeons. Sanity has prevailed.

Not every human problem deserves a law. NO! It does not! Why is that concept so hard for so many to understand?! Especially those whores in the legislature who want to nanny law us to death?! What's wrong with a barrage of public service announcements to make people aware of things? That seems to me like it would at least still leave the decision in the hands of the individual (as opposed to the government), but it would give them something to think about. And really, I'm not so sure that I think that being given something to think about is all that necessary either. But I like it a heck of a lot better than a bunch of laws that are designed to swaddle the population. You go, Governor Jerry!

moreless

The Money Shot

So Anthony Weiner sent the money shot. That's right. He sent a relatively unobscured photo of his genitalia to some chick via his cellular telephone. That's right. It's a telephone that also takes pictures. And it sends those pictures to other people whether they want them or not! What a great time to be alive! Or not. I'm kind of starting to think that it's the latter.

He kind of has to resign now, doesn't he? I mean, now that it has come out that he has been sending pictures of his naked manhood to college girls that he met online via Twitter (of all things), can he really still be a member of Congress? I think that's really the question. And it bothers me that I don't have a freaking answer.

On the one hand, he's obviously a total perv. But what if he is a perv who gets the job that he was elected to do done? Should it matter than he's a total perv? I don't really know if it should, but I know that it does. Shouldn't there be some sort of moral standard for our elected officials? And I don't think I'm being all that radical by suggesting that one of those standards be NOT taking pictures of your junk and texting it to people. No, wait. Let me revise that. I don't think that I'm being all that radical by suggesting that one of those standards be to NOT GET CAUGHT doing whatever it is that you do with your various body parts.

Private lives are supposed to be private, just the same way that private parts are supposed to be private. Look, what you do with your weiner in your own time is your own business. Take as many pictures of it as you want. Put different little hats on it or dress it up for special occasions. I really don't care. But I sure don't want to know about it! The day I get a picture on my phone of some guy's wang with a little bowler hat and a necktie on it (where the tie would go if it HAD a neck) is the day when that person is forever after declared a perv and and idiot. He could have avoided both labels by just not getting caught OR by simply not doing something so freaking weird.

If you're interested in the money shot, you can click here and it will take you there. But remember, it's a shot of an erect penis. Do I really need to shout that it is NSFW? It's not safe for work. It's not safe for home. It's not safe for anywhere! (How did he get that angle? Is there a timer on the camera on his phone? I'm so confused.)

moreless

You Coulda Told Us

Hey! Guess what?! You could be slowly killing yourself! No, not with all that crap that you eat. No, not with your extreme lack of exercise. And I'm guessing that your drinking isn't really a problem, per se. And I'll be honest, the smoking really isn't helping anything, but that's not what I'm going at here. Yeah, I'm talking about an article I read over at ABC which informed me that "An international panel of experts says cellphones are possibly carcinogenic to humans after reviewing details from dozens of published studies." Oh, you have GOT to be kidding me!

Now?? They're just getting around to figuring this stuff out NOW?! Let me get this straight. Practically every man, woman and child in the civilized parts of the globe (ie, damn near everyone, as the article say that "According to a survey last year, the number of cellphone subscribers worldwide has hit 5 billion, or nearly three-quarters of the global population." ), has a freaking cellphone and NOW you're telling us that they MAY be carcinogenic?! Great! I'm trying to think of when this information could have been more useful. Oh, I know! BEFORE we all got in the habit of holding a damn cell phone up to our noggin all the live long day.

Maybe I shouldn't panic. Let's see...what other things are they comparing the cell phone usage to? Um...oh, here it is. "The group classified cellphones in category 2B, meaning they are possibly carcinogenic to humans. Other substances in that category include the pesticide DDT and gasoline engine exhaust." Hmmm. We've been told for quite some time that DDT and vehicle emissions are bad for us. We seem to have accepted that. I mean, DDT is not in use anymore because of how bad it's supposed to be. And now we have cell phones in that same category. All right then. We're all going to die.

What they're concerned about are people developing brain tumors. While they say that it's hard to pinpoint if the cellphones cause the cancer, a lot of people with these tumors use cell phones. Then again, since 75% of the world uses cell phones, that isn't exactly a damning factor. But there is a group called Cancer Research U.K. and they recommend that "...children under 16 only use cellphones for essential calls because their brains and nervous systems are still developing." I see. Soooo, if they can alter a brain that is still developing, I'm going to guess that they can alter a brain, period.

While I'm not exactly surprised by this finding, I am a little annoyed that it's taken this long to get to this point. Seriously, why can't this sort of stuff be thought about when things are being developed? Hey, you're going to make a little device that people will hold up to their head for elongated periods of time? What say you find out if all of that electromagnetic radiation is going to turn my melon into a cauliflower BEFORE sell it to us? Just a thought. I don't get it. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go figure out where the speakerphone is on my super awesome EVO 4G. After that, I'm going to hope that someone calls me so that I can save myself.

moreless

Um, Yes, I'm Calling About The Couch?

OK, so there is so much wrong with this story it's hard to know where to begin. I'll start out by saying that it took place in Flori-duh. That should give you some indication of how this whole thing is going to go.

According to MSNBC, "A nine-year-old got a pornographic photo sent to his cell phone of a woman performing a sex act on a man." Good Lord. First of all, who are you people who send pictures of yourself either naked or engaged in various sexual activities? What makes you think that's a good idea? Ever! I just don't get that. What? You're sitting around one day and you suddenly think, "I know. I think I'm going to send a picture of my junk to this li'l lady that I know. That should seal the deal!" And then not only do you think it, you go ahead and do it. Very odd behavior indeed.

Second, why does a nine year old have a cell phone that can receive picture texts? I'm torn as to whether or not a nine year old needs a cell phone to begin with. I know, I know, it's so the parents can keep in touch with their kid. My question for that "reasoning" is, "Or if they don't, what's going to happen?" I can't imagine much. But let's say that they DO need a phone. Why does it have to be capable of being anything but a phone? Why can't it be one of those Jitterbugs for the oldsters? A nine year old doesn't need a fancy cell phone.

But I digress, as this story is really more about what led up to some dimwit sending a picture of a couple engaged in sexual gratification anyone other than the intended recipient. Now, the boy who received the text is a lad named Ty'Ge Moore. (I have no idea how to pronounce that, nor do I have any idea what happened to the rest of the vowels in his first name. Don't even get me started on the apostrophe.) He gets the photo and immediately goes to show his mom. So, kudos for the kid for not showing it to everyone at school first, even though I'm kind of surprised that he didn't. He sounds like a good kid. This certainly isn't about him.

Needless to say, his mother was none to happy about the situation. Neither was his grandmother. In fact, the grandmother seemed so upset by the situation that, according to her recollection, she was only able to utter something to the effect of: "I am like let me see that text and I am like wow." Um....huh. Look, I know it's Flori-duh and all, but is his grandmother sixteen? Why is she talking like that? "I am like wow." No, lady. Lemme tell you, I am like wow. Wow. Moving on...

After the grandmother was like wow, she took the cell phone and called the number and when she spoke to the individual on the other end she said that she threatened to call the sheriff. To which the asshat that sent the picture in the first place replied just as you would have expected him to when he said, "...do what you got to do." All right then. While that might have seemed like a good response to him at the time, he quickly realized that it was probably the wrong response and he called the number back. What he said, will shock you. Or not. "They say the man called back later and told them he was trying to sell the couch in the sexually explicit picture."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

What the what?! Said he was trying to sell the couch?! How much of the couch could you actually see? I'm guessing not a whole lot, as the majority of the image was probably taken up with all of the oral sex going on! Seriously, dude, that's the best you can come up with? For reals?! I guess that means that all of the porn that is available out there is simply just a whole bunch of informercials for the furniture in such productions! Trying to sell the couch. Uh-huh. Tell me, does it come with the guy and the whore? No? Aww, that's too bad. Yeah, that's kind of a deal breaker for me. But good luck with that!

According to the article, "The Lee County Sheriff's Office is investigating and the boy's cell phone was turned over to deputies on the case." The grandmother summed up the incident by saying: "Some people make mistakes. I don't think this was a mistake after he text you and told you he was nine-years-old." For cryin' out loud, forget about the phone and take some English classes! He'll get over it! You, on the other hand, need to learn how to speak better. I mean, like, when I hear you say "after he text you", I am like wow. I am like, wow, she needs like, a refresher course or like, two on like, properly spoken English that like, doesn't make you like, sound like you just fell off of a turnip truck. (I'm really not sure what turnips have to do with intelligence, but it's hard to sneak that phrase into conversation these days.)

And is she really contemplating whether or not the guy was really trying to sell his couch? I think she might be! So while I'm pretty sure that the kid is going to recover from receiving such a raunchy text, I am a bit concerned about him growing up around someone who is trying to discern the plausibility of the "I was trying to get a good picture of my couch so I could sell it, but when I went to take pictures, there were these two people doing it on the couch and so I just took the picture anyway and used that" excuse. Please.

moreless