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

The Stupidest Thing of 2012 So Far

Wow. It is only January 2nd and I have already read the stupidest thing I've read all year. And it's quite possible that it's going to win out as the stupidest thing that I read all year. The thing is that I really can't tell where the stupidity arises from. I don't know if it's from the person who wrote the article (please note my omission of the word 'journalist) or if the article was written in such a way as to appeal to the sort of soft headed moron that might be reading it. Whatever it is, there is so much wrong with it that it's hard to know where to begin. But let's see what I can do.

According to the huffy folks over yonder at The Huffington Post, President Barry has signed the defense bill "despite serious reservations". Now while that may sound idiotic, I'm guessing that the reason that he ended up signing the thing is because, like all other bills, there was a whole bunch of crap in there that had nothing to do with defense that needed to be pushed through. And actually, that part of how bills are drawn up in Washington is completely asinine. Why there is stuff in a defense bill that has to do with unemployment benefits is beyond me. But as ridiculous as all of this is, that's not the stupidest part yet.

No, that honor goes to this part of the article: "Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it."

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

You have GOT to be kidding me. President Barry just signed a bill that allows for the government to detain American citizens as long as they want to for whatever reason they want (or don't want) to have and I'm supposed to feel better because he said that he isn't going to do that?! Please, someone, anyone, tell me that the last part was not actually uttered and included in his justification for signing this thing as a way to make anyone feel better. Do these people realize that Barack Obama is not our king? Do they realize that eventually, whether it be this year or four years from now, someone else will be President of the United States? Do they realize that any and all future Presidents can use that authority regardless as to whether President Barry says that he will or will not? Do they realize that if that law is on the books (and it is) that someone will one day use it?! Why am I the only one flipping out over this?!

See, this isn't one of those things where the brain dead argument of "If I'm not doing anything wrong then I don't have anything to worry about" doesn't come into play at all. That's the exact problem with this law! You don't have to be doing anything wrong to have something to worry about. All you need to have is some overzealous a-hole in a position to detain you and that's it. You're screwed. You're indefinitely screwed. If that doesn't chill you to your very core then might I suggest moving somewhere a bit more oppressive than the United States? North Korea, perhaps? You'll love it there.

I cannot believe that President Barry went ahead and signed that bill with that new law in it. What good is our Constitution if there can be federal laws enacted that will essentially strip away all of our rights that are guaranteed to us under said Constitution? And while I'm mad at President Barry, I'm absolutely appalled at Congress, as voted something like 94-6 in favor of this provision. All of those people who voted for this need to be thrown out of their office on their ass as soon as possible. For God's sake, please do not vote in November to re-elect any of these jokers that are currently in office and making decisions like this. Lord only knows what they'll come up with next time.

moreless

A Bunch Of Hot Air

Oh-so-enlightened Europe. Please. Please show us the way to the promised land. What's that? You say that it involves the banning of children from blowing up balloons? They can't blow whistles either? Even at parties? Oh. Especially at parties. OK, then. Yeah, never mind.

According to our friends across the pond at The Telegraph, "The EU toy safety directive, agreed and implemented by Government, states that balloons must not be blown up by unsupervised children under the age of eight, in case they accidentally swallow them and choke." In case they choke? From blowing up a balloon? How would that happen...exactly? And what is up with the age of eight cutoff? What happens after eight that makes you no longer vulnerable to that little piece of latex?

And all of those rhetorical technicalities aside, here's the real question: Were so many children, apparently under the age of eight, choking and dying as a result of unsupervised balloon inflation that there needed to be a law enacted? Of course not! But there could be. And according to some member of the EU (who probably wanted to remain anonymous because even he/she knows how asinine this is) These safety standards have been agreed by...in order to prevent every parent's worst nightmare." Oh, for cryin' out loud.

You can't ban everything that might result in "every parent's worst nightmare" because if you did, you'd have to ban everything! That's why they're called "accidents". They will happen in one form or another. Not blowing up balloons is not the issue! But the EU seems to think that it is the balloons AND other things that are an issue. For instance, they have also done the following:

Imposed "...restrictions on how noisy toys, including rattles or musical instruments, are allowed to be."

"All teddie bears meant for children under the age of three will now have to be fully washable because EU regulators are concerned that dirty cuddly toys could spread disease and infection."

And...

"Whistle blowers, that scroll out into a a long coloured paper tongue when sounded...are now classed as unsafe for all children under 14."

AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!


And there is clearly no reasoning with these people, as one EU official (again, not being named for fear of being tarred and feathered by angry villagers) was quoted as saying, "You might say that small children have been blowing up balloons for generations, but not anymore and they will be safer for it." What does he mean I "might say" that children have been blowing up balloons for generations? Yes, of course I would say that...because they have! And are they really going to be "safer" because of this asinine law? I doubt it. According to the CPSC (The US Consumer Product Safety Commission), since 1973, 110 children have died as a result of suffocation involving an uninflated balloon or a piece of a balloon. That's 38 years. That's barely 3 kids per year. I'm pretty sure that anything with that low of an incident rate is nothing that you're going to be able to fix with a law. If there were scores of children dying from uninflated balloons, perhaps I could see the need. But this is nothing more than just crappy luck. And as hard as they try, they can't regulate good luck. Thus, I'd really appreciate it if they'd stop acting like they can.

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 Weiner Proposal

For those of you who don't have the "pleasure" of living in or nearby San Francisco, the land of fruits and nuts, let me just warn you about something. If you go to San Francisco, the chances are greater than average (as compared to other cities of the same size) that you're going to see a penis. That's because walking around naked in San Francisco is still legal. But all that's about to change! Oh, of course they're not going to make you put pants (or a shirt) on. But they are contemplating making you have to put something between yourself and any sort of receptacle that you sit on so that other people who sit there aren't sitting where your bare ass just was.

Now, when I tell you that this law is being proposed by a Scott Weiner, please refrain from any chuckling and/or guffawing that may arise (pun probably intended). According to the stupidvisor supervisor (and the Daily Mail), "...the legislation would ensure that public health standards are met by requiring nudists to put a towel or similar item between their body and a public seat." And while I think that I appreciate that, I think that would I would appreciate more is requiring people to at least wear pants.

I guess I find it difficult to believe that "public health standards" are met if someone is naked in public. That doesn't seem like they'd be met at all. And while San Francisco likes to bill itself as a liberal and tolerant city, I think that they're doing themselves more harm than good with this one. Letting people walk around naked is eventually going to hinder your city, especially if you're counting on tourism to bring the bucks into the city. I just don't want to be on any public street where there is at LEAST a 50/50 chance (and probably more like 75/25) that I'm going to see an unfamiliar wang. (Unfamiliar Wang. Not a bad name for a band.) And I still don't understand what the disservice would be done if the city were to require people to wear clothes in public. At the very least, a loincloth. Because in general, the types of people who are going to be walking around in public naked are not going to be those with a spectacular dingus. (Spectacular Dingus. Another good name for a band. Maybe they could open for Unfamiliar Wang.) Put some damn clothes on!

moreless

I Don't Want TWO Babysitters!

Well, as California's budget woes continue on, at least the legislators are paying attention to the really important matters that will save the state from fiscal insolvency. Oh, wait. No, they're not. They're busy passing bills that, if enacted into law, will provide "protections" for babysitters. I s*** you not.

According to something called The Union, Assembly Bill 889, which is the brainchild of Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-umbass, San Francisco, will "...provide workers' compensation benefits, rest and meal breaks and paid vacation time" for babysitters, nannies, housekeepers and caregivers. Wait. What now?! "Under AB 889, household “employers” (aka “parents”) who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers' compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck."



Could someone please explain to me HOW this is supposed to work?! Let's say that I hire a babysitter for my fictional children (who are adorable angels, by the way). Let's say that I am going to be gone for six hours. It doesn't matter what I'm doing. (I don't do a lot normally, so really, I'm just glad to be out for a while.) Does that mean that I am going to have to hire TWO babysitters? One for the regular babysitting and one to man the fort while the other regular babysitter gets to "rest" and have a "meal break"? Has the person who authored this bill have any idea what babysitting actually entails?! There's not a lot of room for things OTHER than rest and eating. Especially after my adorable fictional children go to bed! They're sleeping! And they never get up for water or anything like that. The babysitter doesn't need to REST! And what is this about workers' comp? How does that work? Do I have to take it out of their pay? What do I do with it afterward? Who do they file a claim with (if they dare)? Then what?! Have I mentioned that they're a freaking babysitter?! I have? GOOD!





This is one of the more asinine things that I have heard recently. And believe me, there's stupidity flying around this state like you would not believe. And of course, the bill has already flown straight through the Assembly and is working its way through the state Senate. (I should mention that the bill has made it as far as it has without ANY support from ANY Republicans. That's the problem with having a state with only one party in power. They get to do all of the stupid crap that they want to and there isn't anything to other party can do about it because there aren't enough of them.) It's only a matter of time before it ends up on Governor Moonbeam's desk for his signature to enact it into law. And then I'm sure that someone will already be hard at work on the next asinine thing that they think needs to be monitored and controlled by the state. Just wait for it. It will come. Sooner than I'd like.

moreless

IH8THIS

So, the other day we discussed how the lovely state of California is currently trying to pass a law which will dictate what sort of sheets that hotels will be able to use. Thus, it should come as no shock to you that there are at least TEN people (all collecting a government salary with government benefits) and up to TWENTY people (depending on if there is an appeal) who are involved in determining who gets the personalized license plate that they've requested and who does not get the personalized license plate that they've requested. TEN people. Let's see what their day involves. I guarantee you that it will likely be absolutely nothing like the sort of days that you and I have.

According to NBC Bay Area, there is a four person team that reviews between 200-500 submissions for vanity plates every day. Between 20 and 40 of those plates are up for review by a separate 6-person team. Their decision as to whether or not the vanity plate is acceptable hinges on one question: "Would you find it offensive?" Oh, for cryin' out loud!



What is the point of this? I have no idea. And there are at least ten people who are being paid to participate in this nonsense. Look, I'm probably against any outright profanities on license plates. Probably. I'm not real sure how I feel about it because regardless of what is allowed on license plates, it just seems kind of futile to me considering that you can stick a bumper sticker on your car (right next to the license plate if you'd like!) that says damn near anything and no one can stop you. That's why I'm kind of on the fence about whether or not to allow profanities. I still think I'm against it, but I don't know why.



Back to their rules. There are certain things that they simply don't allow on vanity plates. These are things that I had no idea about and I can't imagine that a lot of other people know anything about either. Like did you know "A few numbers are off limits for plates, such as 13, for its gang association." Thirteen has a gang association? Not just bad luck? How in the world would I know that unless I'm in a gang? And if I am in a gang, is that what I'm going to do? Go get a "13" on my license plate? Because all gangbangers make sure that their vehicle is properly registered and licensed with the state of California? Uh-huh. What else, you ask? Well, "Fourteen and 88 are banned for their connection to white supremacists." What connection is that? 14 and 88 and the KKK? I had no idea. Wait. Now that I know, am I supposed to be offended? 'Cause I'm not. I don't think that anyone is.



But wait. It gets better. They will let you explain yourself if there is a logical explanation. See, "'Ice' can be used for cocaine...So if you're an ice machine repair man, you can send in pictures of your truck with the name of the company." Right. Because if you're dealing coke, the best thing to do to help your business is to advertise it on your license plate! Seriously? What if I just happen to like Vanilla Ice, then what? Do I send them a picture of Robert Matthew Van Winkle with a heart drawn around his head? That just sounds silly.



And in that article over there at NBC, they have a list of 100 banned California vanity plates. I don't even get a lot of them. Like these:

• OQOOQOO Why is that bad? Are the Q's something bad? What is it?

• MERKTR I don't get that one. Merkin trader? No, that'd be weird. Hmmm...

• ETAMPON I don't really want to know what that is, but I would like to meet any pansy ass who would be offended by it.

• WTF HAXX I don't know what the HAXX stands for, but I'm OK with the WTF. I'd rather see that than the f-word wrote out. (And can everyone please just stop acting as if they never say the f-word. It's not some sort of a mortal sin to say 'wtf'. It's actually kind of polite if you think about it.)

I'm dying to know if the salaries of the at least ten people is easily surpassed by the amount of revenue that is brought in from having vanity plates. I'm hoping that it is. But I'm still guessing that you don't need ten (up to twenty) people to do that job. How could you?

moreless

Bed Sheet Insanity

California is in dire straits. The budget is completely out of control. It's going straight down an s-hole, if you will. And with things so freaking bad, what does the state legislature do? They debate whether or not to make it a law that hotels must use fitted sheets. I kid you not. Read on!



According to the lovely LA Times, the law proposal "is intended to address back injuries sustained by hotel housekeepers" And they think they're going to do that by only using fitted sheets in hotel rooms? Clearly, whoever wrote this bill (Kevin De Leon (D-umbass-Los Angeles), I'm talking to you) has never made a bed. Even with a fitted sheet, you still have to lift up the mattress to tuck that little corner thing underneath. So what in the hell good is it going to do to only have fitted sheets?! On top of that, you need to have at least one flat sheet on a bed, don't you?! I'm not going to sleep with a fitted sheet on top of me. That just won't work!


But this is seriously going on. The state of California wants to make it a law that you have to use a certain kind of a sheet if you're a hotel. What happened to "Land of the Free"? You can't possibly tell me that this is it?! I don't think that there needs to be a freaking law that defines the type of bed sheet that a private business uses! The government is going to tell a privately owned business just exactly how to do its business? If that doesn't chill you to your core (AND annoy the holy crap out of you), then you, my friend, need a helmet. We're so doomed.

moreless

Way To Go, Georgia!

Way to go, Georgia! (The US State, not that place in Russia.) According to the Huffington Post, you guys have a new immigration law! Nice job! From what I can tell, HB 87 (other wise known as either "common sense" or "it's about damn time")"...many businesses will have to check an employee’s ability to work, and it is a felony to falsify documents to try to get around the system." All right then. Well, considering that they're not supposed to be in this country in the first place and their having a job is technically taking that job away from someone who is a legal citizen, that seems reasonable. To me. Do you think it sounds reasonable to everyone who is currently breaking the law by being in this country illegally? Of course not. Let's hear some of the ludicrous arguments that some people are putting forth as some sort of twisted gospel.

There's a one 13-year old Jessica Bamaca. Apparently, Jessica was born here and because we have some outdated law (that was originally intended to apply to slaves) on the matter, she gets to be a citizen even though her "mother and sister are from Guatamala". Hmm. No word on where the father is. Oh, let me guess. Not in the picture? The article doesn't say (because the media sucks), but I'm going to go with that. Jessica is afraid her mom and sister will be deported. She said, "I would be here by myself." Now, listen. I don't know about you, but if I have a 13-year old kid and I get deported back to Guatemala, guess what? My kid's coming with me! Who are these people that act like they'd leave their kid(s) behind if they got booted back to where they came from? I don't get that.

You know what else I don't get? People like the executive director of the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, a one Adelina Nicholls. She says, "We need immigration reform, and no HB87 is going to stop us. We have earned the right to be here." Umm...wait. Are you here illegally? If so, then no. You haven't "earned" the right to be here. Had you gone through the process legally and done all of that and actually BECAME a citizen, then yes. Then you would have "earned" the right to be here. But just showing up one day? Yeah, that doesn't count. (Wow. With such flawed logic like that, I'm really glad that Ms. Nicholls was able to find work. There's not a lot of employment opportunity out there for the delusional.)

Speaking of delusional, let's hear from a one Azadeh Shahshahani (pronounce that however you'd like) of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia. She said, "I think it's going to have an impact...Unfortunately, the damage has already been done as far as people of color having second thoughts about moving to Georgia." Finally. Someone who speaks fifty percent of the truth. I think it's going to have an impact as well, so she got that right. As far as "people of color having second thoughts about moving to Georgia"? I don't think that's true. Illegal people of color might think twice about it. In fact, I hope that they do. But I don't think that people of color in general are going to be contemplating this. This isn't a racist thing, Ms. Unpronounceable! Stop using terms like "people of color" as if this has something to do with race. It. Does. Not.

No other country in the world lets people just walk right on in and freaking live there and reap all of the benefits of being in that country. And the other countries don't need individual laws to enforce that mindset, either. No, they're smart enough to understand what not having a comprehensive and enforced immigration policy will do to a nation in the long run. AND that matters to them. Do I need to remind you of that Gallup Poll from a couple of weeks ago that found out that NINETY THREE percent of people polled thought that something needed to be done about illegal immigration?! You can't get ninety three percent of people to agree on anything. But folks sure came together against illegal immigration, didn't they? They sure did. Way to go, Georgia! Keep it up!

moreless

Congress Can't DO That

I really don't know what to say about this one. Seriously. First of all, I didn't know that this was even possible. Second of all, how come no one is making a bigger deal of this? Just wait. I'm getting there.

I was reading this article over at the NY Times and it started off innocently enough. Here we go: "The Senate on Wednesday rejected efforts to block the Environmental Protection Agency's program to regulate greenhouse gases, defeating four bills that would have limited the agency’s attempts to address global warming." Interesting. I wonder what the House was doing while the Senate was doing that? Well...

"The Senate voted as the House was debating a measure that would also halt the regulations by repealing the agency’s scientific finding that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are endangering human health and the environment. That bill is expected to pass the House on Thursday." Wait. They're what?

How do you REPEAL science?! It's a scientific finding! It's right there in the name! Scientific! It's also right there in the rest of the name. Finding! It's a SCIENTIFIC FINDING! You cannot repeal a scientific finding simply because you're in Congress! My head hurts. I'm done for the day. But just to quickly review: Congress is taking way too many liberties with whatever power they think that they have. Way. Too. Many.

moreless

Governmental Light Bulb Clean Up

Basically, the government has decided that it knows what light bulbs are best for the public to use. Therefore, the regular light bulbs that we've all grown to know and love since the days of Thomas Edison are out and those damn curly, swirly CFL bulbs are in. That's right. Sometime in 2012, you will no longer be able to choose which light bulb you want to use. This in the "Land of the Free". I understand that the new ones will save you a minimal amount of money over the course of the bulb. I also understand that I am the one who pays my electric bill. And as long as I pay for it, why does the government get to tell me which bulb to use? Besides, I hate the light that comes off of those swirly things. It's too fluorescent for me. It's a very harsh light. I'm a rather delicate flower in some areas and the light in my home that I bathe myself in is just one of those areas.

Another thing that you're going to say goodbye to? Cleaning up a broken light bulb without having to follow a series of directions that spans over four pages and requires just about everything except a Hazmat suit (and I'm sure that one would actually be preferred). I'm not kidding. What we have here is a document that appears to be put out by the Connecticut Department of Public Health and is entitled: Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs What To Do If A Bulb Breaks Wait. What now?

I would have thought that the answer would have simply been "Sweep it up". Oh, no. No, no, no. That's the old way of doing things. The new way is much different. And of course, different is better. And since this is the ONLY choice for a light bulb that you're going to have pretty soon, I suggest you pay attention. You're going to need the following:

• Disposable gloves
• Flashlight
• Duct tape or other sticky tape
• 2 index cards or stiff pieces of paper
• Zip-lock bags
• Damp paper towels or rags
• Portable window fan (optional)

That's right. Six items. Or seven if you're going to utilize the option of breaking out your portable window fan. But don't worry. Considering that you're supposed to leave the area that the bulb is broken in for at least fifteen minutes, you'll have plenty of time to gather your supplies. And before you do any of that, make sure that you "Turn off forced hot air heat, central air conditioners, and fans." And "Open windows to allow fresh air in." Oh, but don't do any of this if you're pregnant. If you're pregnant, you are specifically instructed to not do it and to find someone else to do it for you. You're also supposed to keep infants, small children, women who are pregnant and pets out of the room...if you've broken a light bulb.

In cleaning up of the shattered bulb, you are not allowed to vacuum or sweep and for heaven's sake, don't use a metal dust pan. (They don't give any reason for not using the metal dust pan, but I suspect that spontaneous combustion is involved.) No, you're supposed to pick up the big pieces with your gloved hands and then use the index cards to sort of scoop the other pieces into piles and then you use the sticky tape to pick up those pieces. Shove all of that into a ziploc bag when you're done and seal the crap outta that sucker, lest you succumb to...something.

Once you're done with that, you're supposed to pat the area down with the damp paper towels or rags and then seal those and the gloves in another ziploc bag and put them both "...in an outdoor trashcan immediately" as "Getting the waste out of the house right away is an important safety step." And even though you've been all safe up to this point, it's also imperative that you "Wash your hands and face after the waste has been removed from the house." Also, Continue to ventilate the room for as long as possible (at least several hours)." That's right. Hours. (Hey, it helps exhaust the "dirty air' out of the building!) I don't know about where you are, but winter gets a little chilly around here. I'm not so sure that I want to ventilate my room for several hours in the middle of winter. Sooooo, try to only break bulbs during the warm weather months.

That's just the cleanup for hard surfaces. For rugs or area rugs, there is a whole different set of instructions which span a couple of pages. And one of the things that they mention is that if you break one of these CFL bulbs on an area rug is to consider disposing of the entire rug! Oh, and after all of this is cleaned up and you've changed out of your Hazmat suit, remember that "...pregnant women and young children should stay out of a room where a CFL has broken until several days after the clean-up." Several DAYS?! What in the world is IN these things?! I'm really not thrilled about having this toxic item in my home when my regular bulbs (the ones that I pay for and that I pay for the energy that they use) work just FINE! I am going on a regular light bulb shopping expedition in the coming days as I stock up on enough regular bulbs to last me for the rest of my life. Which, if they keep coming up with asinine restrictions on items that I can and cannot use in my own home, is going to be in the very near future.

moreless

A Penis With Personality

You know what will happen when a bunch of city supervisors over at your local City Hall enact a law which completely takes away your freedom of choice under the apparent guise of them knowing better than you? That's right. People near and far are going to want to enact another one which limits your freedom to choose even more. I'm not talking things like abortion and guns here, but that's only because I'm talking about San Francisco. No, when you factor San Francisco into the mix, you have to include wacky things like Happy Meals and the male foreskin. Wait. What now?

Yeah, there's a sentence that I never thought I'd type. At least, I never thought that I'd have the opportunity to include both 'Happy Meal' and 'foreskin' in the same sentence and have them both be relevant. But thanks to San Francisco, such a sentence AND such a concept is now possible. Try not to hang yourself until you finish reading. (I know how tough that will be. I had to resist the urge to hang myself until I finished typing.)

As you may or may blissfully not be aware, last week, San Francisco passed a law that forbids fast food outlets from giving out a toy with a meal that is not deemed "healthy". Personally, I think the easiest way around that law, rather than succumb to what San Francisco thinks that you should do and/or eat, would be to sell the toy and include the meal for free. There's no law against that. Yet. But I digress. Now, there might be a measure on the ballot next year "...that would make it a “misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the…genitals” of a person under 18." So sayeth CBS San Francisco. Good Lord, people.

I'm all for the not being able to mutilate genitals. Don't get me wrong, as that sounds like a fairly reasonable provision. However, to need a separate law for it would be, you guessed it, completely ridiculous. That's because you typically don't define a medical procedure as 'mutilation'. But back to the foreskin. (Again, a sentence I never thought I'd type.) The author of this asinine bill is a one Lloyd Schofield who claims that the circumcision IS genital mutilation. Uh-huh. OK, then. What else?

He seems to be going on the belief that circumcision is a religious practice. And yes, it has been for many years and still is in some instances I would assume. But I would be surprised if the majority of circumcisions that are being performed today are being done so because of a religious belief. I would also be surprised if the majority of people thought of circumcision as a religious rite as opposed to seeing it as a medical procedure. I checked with the CDC (at their website) and they don't have any guidelines on whether or not a circumcision should be performed for health reasons. According to the CBS article "Scientists with the Centers for Disease Control are still studying whether circumcisions are healthier, and have promised recommendations to the public." Oh, good. A foreskin promise. That's something to look forward to.

Haven't we always been told (or taught) that circumcision cuts down (pun probably not intended, but completely inevitable) on diseases and is just cleaner or easier to clean? I don't know the specifics, not ever having had a foreskin, I'm just going on what I've learned in various health/anatomy classes. I'm also going to go with what was on Seinfeld when Elaine asked Jerry if he had ever seen one that wasn't circumcised. He said he hadn't and she went on to tell him that it wasn't good. "No, had no face, no personality, very dull. It was like a martian. But hey, that's me." Do you want a weenie with no personality ? I don't think you do.

The point here (surprisingly enough) isn't about the penis. It isn't even about the foreskin. It's about the government trying to ooch its way into every aspect of the life of a private citizen and the decision that they should be making ON THEIR OWN. You don't need to the government to tell you what kind of food you can buy for your child. You're supposed to be responsible enough to make that decision on your own. Yes, yes. I realize that we are surrounded by morons. And I also realize that we are surrounded by morons with children. But we can't let the freedoms of the capable be taken away by the moronic. Technically, the moronic are supposed to suffer as a result of their poor choices. I realize that consequences are practically non-existent in a socialist society, but we're not totally there yet, so there's still hope.

I'm semi-interested in whether or not the author of this bill has had his snipped off. I don't know why I'm semi-interested in that, but I just am. Regardless, it doesn't mean that he gets to try to dictate (again, no pun intended, but pretty funny none the less) what others do with theirs. Why are people not up in arms about the very thought of this happening? I'm not exactly sure, but that alone frightens me more than the possible ban on circumcision does.

moreless

But He Got His Burrito!

How fitting that on the 20th anniversary of the oft-abused Americans With Disabilities Act, some jackass wins a lawsuit against Chipotle because he was (wait for it) deprived of the full Chipotle experience. We're just doomed. So incredibly doomed.

Here's the scoop: According to the San Francisco Chronicle (which is so liberal it probably wets itself every time one of these rulings gets handed down) "...the law entitles wheelchair users at a restaurant to the same view as everyone else at the food that awaits them - in this case, burritos, tacos and the rest of the fare at Chipotle Mexican Grill." Does it now? Does it really?

KGTV-10 in San Diego says that "...the wall at the counter was too tall for people in wheelchairs to see over, to pick out their ingredients and to see their food being prepared." OK, look...I'm not trying to be a callous hard ass here, but are they serious? And when I say "they" I'm referring to a one Maurizio Antoninetti and his attorney, a one Amy Vandeveld. There are other names that come to mind, but that's what I'm going with.

Do you really need to see your food being prepared? Plenty of other restaurants feed you God only knows what without you witnessing the preparation of said food incarnation. Those restaurants are probably just fine for folks in wheelchairs. And again, don't get me wrong, as I'm not dismissing those in wheelchairs as people who are not entitled to the same rights as others. That's not it. I know people in wheelchairs and I know that it sucks. But the people who I know that are in wheelchairs realize the inherent limitations of society in general. Not seeing what goes into your burrito as it is going in there would seem to be one of those inherent limitations.

By the way, it isn't like Chipotle didn't try to accommodate these folks. In fact, "...a trial court had ruled against Antoninetti, saying Chipotle's policy of showing samples to people in wheelchairs was enough." See? They weren't ruthless about it. They were what? Accommodating, that is correct. But unfortunately, this case ended up before (and I'll use the words of Dr. Michael Savage) the 9th Jerkit Court of Shlemeals, who disagreed and overturned that verdict. Of course they did. Apparently, it is very important to see your burrito being made. I don't know why that's important, but to some, it is.

According to KGTV, "I just wanted Chipotle to understand it cannot treat people in a wheelchair in a different way than everybody else," he (Antoninetti) told 10News from Italy." From ITALY?! Well, good to know that he's using his settlement money wisely. But the point here is that they weren't treating people in a wheelchair differently. They were doing what society must (and should) do for folks with disabilities. They were accommodating them. Why is it that the businesses have to be accommodating, but the folks with the disabilities don't? Why is it that the businesses are supposed to recognize the limitations of those with the disabilities, but the disabled folks are not supposed to recognize the limitations of the businesses? I don't get it.

I suppose that the Americans With Disabilities Act was a good thing. I know that only the best intentions went into drafting and enacting that law. And it's something that I am totally in favor of. But can you seriously say that it's a good thing that this Chipotle case dragged on for five years, ended up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and making a couple of lawyers rich? I'm not so sure that would be considered "good". And by the way, according to Chipotle, "We respectfully disagree with the court's ruling. However, the matter is largely moot because several years ago, independent of this lawsuit, we retrofitted all our California restaurants with a new counter design that eliminates concern regarding wheelchair accessibility." And yet the lawsuit continued. Are we really to believe that it was all about the alleged "equality" for Mr. Antoninetti? I'm not so sure that it was.

If you click on the link above for KGTV, there is a video that accompanies this story. In the video, you will see Chipotle employees holding up samples for the person in the wheelchair to view, carrying the man's food to his table, making sure that he has everything that he needs, etc. He received excellent attention despite not being able to see his burrito being made. He appeared to be able to get around just fine inside the restaurant. He appeared to be in most hospitable atmosphere that one could hope for. And yet that wasn't enough for him. Or for his attorney. So they sued. Nice. I'm kind of surprised that Chipotle was willing to lower their counters and didn't just opt for the having no one be able to see their burrito being made so that this ONE guy wouldn't flip out. That would have solved the problem, too. All or nothing. Sounds like a really good way to ruin a perfectly good society. Way to go, sir. You jackass.

moreless