Most Depressing Poll Results Ever

I know that we're doomed. I know that we're scroomed. And I've seen it coming for a while now. I just didn't realize (or didn't want to realize) how bad the doomnation has become. Today, I realized it's farther along than I thought. People are more like sheeple more than ever now. And do I have a story for you to illustrate that point.

Let's refer to the article that the fine folks over at the NYDailyNews.com put together and learn about an instance in which a 6-year old boy from Oregon stole the family minivan and went out for a drive in search of some sort of snack because he was allegedly hungry. He never did get those snacks because he ended up plowing into several mailboxes before running into a truck. Oh, and in order to pay for the snacks that he was in search of, he took some "rolls of pennies". Well, at least he wasn't going to show up empty handed. And he took it upon himself to take care of his basic needs. Seems like a real go-getter, that boy. But that's not what has me concerned.

Like a lot of news stories online, there was a little poll next to the article. And, like a lot of polls next to news stories online, this poll seemed asinine to me. Here is the question: Should cars have more safety precautions to prevent kids from taking joyrides? Uhh...what? Like what sort of safety precautions? I really can't even imagine because it's a ridiculous question. How about you try to teach your kid not to drive the car when they're six, all right? OK, then. But let's look at the choices anyway, shall we?

You may choose from one of the following answers:

Yes! Kids are getting too smart these days thanks to technology. Keys are not that hard to figure out.

No. Parents should be responsible enough to keep car keys out of kids’ hands.

I'm too stupid to decide. (OK, I this one up. The real choice was "I'm not sure".)

Am I the only one who found the first choice to be not only ridiculous, but contradictory as well? Technology is making kids too smart, yet keys are not that hard to figure out. Well, if the keys are not that hard to figure out, then what does technology have to do with it? And I'm not so sure that I buy that technology is making kids too smart. It's definitely not making adults too smart, I'll tell you that. But, then again, I digress. Just to see what the percentages were, I went ahead and participated in the poll. I clicked on "No. Parents should be responsible enough to keep car keys out of kids' hands." Then I clicked "Vote" so that I could see the results. I wish I hadn't. I wish I had just walked away in my blissful ignorance and kept thinking that more people would think that people should be responsible enough to keep their car keys out of the hands of their small children. But I didn't walk away.

No, instead I looked at the results and almost totally lost it when I read that ninety four percent of the people that took the poll thought that cars should have more safety precautions to prevent kids from taking joyrides because technology is making kids too smart and that keys are not that hard to figure out! Ninety four percent thought that. Ninety four percent did not think that parents should be responsible enough to keep car keys out of kids' hands. Ninety four percent. What in the world is wrong with those people?

I want those people studied. More importantly, I want them sterilized. Now. If they can't do anything to prevent their underage kids from taking their vehicles because keys are not that hard to figure out, then it's over. We're done. There is nothing left to do but to continue to take up residence in my walled off compound and hope for sweet, sweet victory of death to overtake me. Ninety four percent of people believe that there is nothing that they can do to change or mold their children's behavior. Ninety four percent. We're scroomed.

moreless

Soda-Free Idiocy Hits San Francisco

In their apparent quest to make sure that no one has to think for themselves, San Francisco has edged a little bit closer to a non-sustainable, faux utopia now that the mayor, pretty, pretty Gavin Newsom, has signed an executive order that "...bars calorically sweetened beverages from vending machines on city property." So says the folks across the bay at SF Gate.

Of course, this nanny state directive was fueled in part by a study which found that "...adults who drink at least one soft drink a day are 27 percent more likely to be obese than those who don't". Uh-huh. And? I kept reading the article hoping that it would explain to me how it is the soda that is at fault and not the people who are drinking the soda, but it never did. I guess that sort of explained why Gavin Newsom didn't just ban those who are dim and, in this case, overindulgent.

If only there was something that might indicate that it isn't the soda that is the problem as much as it is a lifestyle choice of those that are choosing to drink the sodas. I mean, after all, diet sodas are readily available. And don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not implying that any soda, including diet soda, is going to be good for you. None of them are going to be great for you, but some are going to be not as bad as others. Oh, I know they taste like crap at first, but you get used to the crap taste. After a short while, you grow so accustomed to the crap taste that you forget what a decent tasting soda tastes like. That's when the overindulging can really begin...when it won't hurt you! But yet folks still indulge in the sugar laden sodas. Yep. That definitely sounds like it's the sodas fault.

The article also mentions that the study "...also found that 41 percent of children and 62 percent of teens drink at least one soda daily." Hmm. And of course, those children and those teens get their sodas from the machines that are on city property. Oh, wait a minute. No, they don't! You moron, Gavin. Could you explain this ridiculous decision?

Well, he couldn't but one of his spokesholes could. A one Tony Winnicker said that "There's a direct link between what people eat and drink and the obesity and health care crises in this country." Really? A direct link between what people EAT and OBESITY? Fascinating, sir! Absolutely fascinating. Do you have more words of wisdom for the sheeple? Of course he does. He said, "It's entirely appropriate and not at all intrusive for city government to take steps to discourage the sale of sugary sodas on city property." Hmm.

You're telling me that for a city government to step in and tell a private citizen what the best choices for him or her are is perfectly OK? Because the government knows best? What happened to the land of the free? Free to make choices, right? That doesn't say that we're free to make only the best choices. We're just free to make choices. But only choices that the government deems to be appropriate. Yeah, I have a problem with that.

Good luck with your utopia, Mr. and Mrs. San Francisco. Let me know how it works out for you when the city starts deciding that other things are bad for you and starts banning those as well. It starts with the sodas. What's next? Chips? Fries? White bread? Red meat? Gravy? Next thing you know, you're only going to be able to get raw vegan fare within city limits because that has been deemed by the government to be the best choice because the people are too inept to make their own choices. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. But you let me know how that turns out. You know where to find me. I'll be inside of my walled off compound protecting myself from the likes of Gavin Newsom.

moreless

Rewarding The Sheeple

Goodbye, sweet America. Goodbye! I feel as if I hardly knew ye. But you're leaving now, if you haven't already left. I bid you a very tearful adieu.


The cause for my grief? According to an article over at the still very reputable New York Times, "One-third to one-half of all patients do not take medication as prescribed, and up to one-quarter never fill prescriptions at all." That's terrible. What a tragedy. Oh, but wait. That's not the cause for my foreseeing doom for this once great and noble country. No, no. See, an "...effort to tackle the problem is gaining ground: paying people money to take medicine or to comply with prescribed treatment." Wait a minute. What now? Or, as Liz Lemon would say, WUCK?

Correct. There are folks out there who think that it is a good idea to PAY people to take their medications. For some reason, a payment is more of an incentive than good and/or better health. It gets better! They've turned it into a little game in some areas! For example "In a Philadelphia program people prescribed warfarin, an anti-blood-clot medication, can win $10 or $100 each day they take the drug — a kind of lottery using a computerized pillbox to record if they took the medicine and whether they won that day." Whether they won that day? Isn't feeling better a "win" in and of itself? What is wrong with these people?

Listen, I take Prilosec every freaking day. Do you know WHY I take it every freaking day? It's not because I'm getting PAID to take it. I take it because if I don't, I am in incredible pain. I prefer no pain to pain, thus I take the Prilosec. When I forget to take the Prilosec (hey, it happens and you know it does), what do you think my consequence is? That's right! Pain! When I'm not in pain, do you think I'm walking around thinking what a rip off my no pain is and how I wish I was getting paid to not be in pain? Uh, no. Because that would be what? Completely asinine, that is correct.

The article talks about a one 25-year old Chiquita Parker. Ms. Parker is (how did I guess) a single mother who is unfortunately afflicted with lupus. According to the article, she is "...too ill to continue her job with special needs children." That's unfortunate, but I fail to see how that relates to this topic. Fortunately, they do throw in some relevant facts such as that she "...repeatedly made medication mistakes, although she knows she depends on warfarin to prevent clots than can cause strokes, paralysis, or death." Let me get this straight. Without the medication, she's looking at dying. With the medication, she's not looking at dying. AND she has at least one child who is dependent upon her. THAT isn't incentive enough to take your medication?! What sort of "medication mistakes" are we talking about here? It's not that hard to not make mistakes with medication. There ARE directions right there on the side of the bottle!

Apparently that's not the only thing that isn't an incentive. She said “I would forget to take it,” and feel “like I couldn’t breathe.” Huh. Breathing is one of my favorite activities. I like it so much that I do it all day, every day! I'd pretty much do whatever I had to do in order to continue breathing. But I guess that is just one of the many differences between myself and banana Chiquita. She needed more of an incentive than oxygen. "...in the six-month lottery program, she pocketed about $300. “You got something for taking it,” Ms. Parker said. Suddenly, she said, “I was taking it regularly, I was doing so good.” Uh, wait. Isn't breathing getting something for taking it? Apparently, not in her world.

Her life as the mother of a small child is apparently only worth fifty bucks a month to her. Look, I understand that there are folks out there who really need that fifty bucks. I get that. But I don't get why my money should go toward giving them an "incentive" to take medication! What in the world do I care whether they take it or not?! That's not my problem! Give me back my money!

Honest to God, I don't care if someone is going to die because they're too moronic to see the benefit in taking their medication. I don't. I care one iota. I care more about the fact that they don't care rather than that they're not taking their medication. That's my concern; the idiocy that is prevalent in this scenario. Has anyone ever thought of looking into why improved health is not an incentive for these people? That's my question. Why don't they care? What's in it for them to not care? There has to be something. I have no idea what it could possibly be, since being sick or ailing is not a fun state to be in. This program just makes me angry. Good job enabling folks who are unwilling to take care of themselves. Good job taking away every single facet of personal responsibility. Oh, and good job making sure that there is always a reward for doing things that you are expected to do! It's a really nice society of sheep we're breeding here. Good Lord, people.

Seriously, I need to have it explained to me why having the doctor tell someone: "IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THIS PILL EVERY SINGLE DAY, YOU WILL DIE" is not incentive enough for them to do so. I don't get it. If you can't remember to take care of yourself every day by taking your medication, Ms. Parker, should I really be entrusting you to take care of and raise that child? What if you forget to feed him? How do we know she isn't going to forget to feed him? She can't remember to take a pill that enables her to breathe, remember?! How can we assume that she is a capable parent? I don't think we can. I just don't think that we can.

What's next? Paying people to finish high school? (Oh, we kind of do. It's called "a better chance at prosperity".) Paying people to not get arrested? (Oh, we kind of do. It's called "not going to jail".) Paying people to not get pregnant? (Oh, we kind of do. It's called "not getting pregnant"!) Do the people who are adovcating this program not understand that there needs to be an inner motivation to do certain things? If there is always the expectation of a reward, how is the stuff that isn't all that fun going to ever get done? And please, for the love of God, please, someone explain to me why HEALTH isn't a reward?!

Won't you join me in a heartfelt goodbye to the country once known as America? Once known far and wide as the United States of America, we will soon become the SSA, the Socialist States of America. I could probably make a small fortune renting out space on my stead upon which my walled-off (and heavily moated) compound sits. I know it sounds a little well-organized militia-y, but if this isn't the sound of doom knocking at our front door, I don't know what is. But I do know that it scares the hell out of me.

moreless