Help Out Japan

Hey. Japan is effed up right now. Fortunately, this time it wasn't caused by the US out of retaliation for an ill advised sneak attack at the beginning of a World War. But that's really not much of a consolation when your island country has been struck by an earthquake which has now been measured at a whopping 9.0 on the Richter Scale. And they're still being constantly bombarded with aftershocks that are between 5.0 and 7.0. Those are aftershocks. If an earthquake of that size hit anywhere in the US, it is all that would be talked about on the news. That is a HUGE quake. And the Japanese are experiencing multitudes of those huge quakes almost constantly right now. And as if the earthquake wasn't enough, there was a massive tsunami which only made things a bazillion times worse. I don't get that. It's like pouring salt in the wound. Is it necessary? I guess it is, but it's definitely rude on the part of Mother Nature or whoever is in charge of this sort of thing.

You know what I find interesting about this disaster in particular? The people of Japan have had their lives ruined in the blink of an eye. (Well, two blinks. The first blink was the earthquake and the second blink was the tsunami.) And you know what makes this disaster different from other ones that have happened in recent memory? There's no looting. There's no despicable behavior like that. I'm impressed. It's a sociological phenomenon that should be studied. No looting. Amazing. Way to go, Japan. And as you know, I'm not one for a lot of compassion. That's why, when these disasters strike, as soon as the looting begins, that's when my compassion goes away. If people have the energy to break the glass on store windows and haul out big screen TVs and 57 pairs of Nike shoes, I figure that they can use that energy to help themselves and that I really shouldn't interfere. Not to mention that I lose a lot of respect for anyone like that.

But not in this case. In this case, these people need help and they're deserving of it. (Please don't judge me based on that sentence. You know what I mean.) And it is rare that I ever advocate just giving away your money, but in this case, I'm going to suggest that if you can spare a few bucks, that you donate it to the American Red Cross so that they can get some help out to Japan. If you're not a fan of the American Red Cross (even though I cannot imagine why you wouldn't be), then donate some to an organization that you feel would be of assistance in helping out the people in Japan. Just do something if you can. You'd want someone to help you out, wouldn't you?

Another Useless Study

I know that I'm always saying that we're doomed. It's only because we are. Do you need another example of how I know that to be true? Because I have one. And I'm going to share.

The Post-Gazette.com has an article which goes over a study by some sort of think tank called Rand Corp. Their study found "...that couples who scored well on a short test of math skills accumulated more wealth by middle age than couples who scored poorly." It goes on to say that "...when both spouses correctly answered three math questions, family wealth averaged $1.7 million. That compared with $200,000 for households where neither spouse answered any question correctly." Wow. 200 grand when you don't get anything right? That really doesn't seem like such a horrible consolation prize, does it?

No, not at all. Which is kind of why this study is seeming a) ridiculous, and b) useless. But if there's a shred of reality to it, we're doomed. Even if there isn't a shred of reality to it, just that we're being subjected to it as if it is fact is rather dooming. But at this point of the article, I'm still fairly intrigued and wondering about the type of questions which will determine future wealth. Naturally, I was also wondering how I would fare with the questions. I stopped wondering after I read them and instead began wondering how a dog would fare, as I can't imagine a human being who is capable of earning $200,000 at the very least not being able to answer these questions.

Seriously, if these are the determining factors of wealth, then something has gone seriously wrong in this country. But maybe you should decide. Question One: If the chance of getting a disease is 10 percent, how many people out of 1,000 would be expected to get the disease? Uh, really? That's the sort of question that, if I can noodle it through, is indicative of my ability to earn money? Even more extraordinary is that that's the sort of question that would be indicative of my ability to do math. Come on! What is that? Fourth grade level? Third?

Maybe they get harder as we continue. Let's look at the second question: If five people all have the winning numbers in the lottery, and the prize is $2 million, how much will each of them get? Hmm. No. No, I don't see these getting harder. I sort of see them getting a little easier. And I definitely see myself getting more annoyed with this study. (Seriously, how do I get a job at a think tank? Wait. First let me ask: Is it really a tank? Because I don't know if I'd like that very much. I'd like all of the thinking, but the thought of being in a tank all day is a bit off-putting.)

The last question (did I mention it was a really short quiz?) reads as follows: Let's say you have $200 in a savings account. The account earns 10 percent interest per year. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years? Oh, for cryin' out loud. Are you kidding me?! First of all, what sort of savings account is going to earn 10 percent interest per year? None! There isn't one! Not a single one! I mean, really, the lottery question was pretty far-fetched. I'd have to believe that if I held a winning lottery number, I'd be able to figure out EXACTLY what my share was in a split-second after learning that I had won. That's a no-brainer. But this question is just completely baseless. Why not make it more realistic? I guess because then it might actually be somewhat relevant? Nah, that can't be it. The whole idea of this study having any relevance at all is completely preposterous.

See? We're doomed. Is anyone paying any attention to stuff like this? God, I hope not. What a waste of time. But seriously, how do I get a cush gig with a think tank? Anyone? Anyone?

California Is On Crack

It's official. California is definitely some sort of crack addict who is selling anything and everything that it has so that it can get its next fix. Oh, sure, it will give the state immediate access to some cash that it needs, but that's just the instant gratification part of the deal. In the long run, it will end up costing the state more and probably making things worse for a state that is already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy due to its unwillingness to cut anything at all out of the budget.

Here's the story as reported by the lovely folks over at ABC News and by the ever so diligent reporters over at the LA Times. See, California needs cash because it spends way more than it takes in. I won't even begin to delve into how the extremely large population of folks who are in this country illegally plays into this dilemma, but I will say that there are many areas in which California could trim its budget, yet it chooses not to. Just like a crack addict, California wants what it wants when it wants it.

So, California came up with a way to make a couple of billion dollars. And some of that could even be applied to its debt! California decided to sell 24 of however many buildings that it owns for the whopping total of $2.23 billion. While that sounds like a lot, just keep your pants on (because if California catches you without your pants on, you're going to be in for quite the surprise). Of the $2.23 billion, only $1.2 billion will go into the state general fund. That's because $1.09 billion goes to pay off bonds on the buildings. (I'm not sure what happened to the other .04 billion. Those are the figures that the LA Times gives me.) OK, so problem solved, right? Not so fast.

See, California is still using those buildings. It's not like they were abandoned or anything like that. No, they're fully in use every single day. They sold buildings like the Attorney General Building and the Franchise Tax Board Complex up in Sacramento. Yeah, California still needs those. But that's OK. Now California is just going to pay rent to the people that own them. Wait. What now?

Correct. Whereas before California owned the buildings, now it does not and it must rent them from the new owners. It would be like if you had a car that you owned and, because you needed some crack right that very moment, you sold it to the neighbor. Now you have money, but you have no car. Now you have to take that money that you got and you turn around and lease the car that you just sold your neighbor. How smart does that sound? Not very? Welcome to California.

According to the estimates from the California Legislative Analyst's Office "...It will cost the state $30 million more in the first year to remain in those buildings and that differential will increase to almost $200 million over the course of the 20 year leases." But do it now because you need crack now! What a bunch of morons.

Tell me something. What good is the Legislative Analyst's Office if no one listens to them? This state is already in a financial freefall into the abyss of bankruptcy, what say they trim a little bit off of the budget by eliminating the Legislative Analyst's Office. No one listens to them anyway. They just do what they want because why? They're addicted to crack, that is correct.

We're so doomed. And now we're screwed. We're totally scroomed.

Wash Your Willie!

We don't hear a lot about how all of that stimulus money is being spent, do we? We don't even hear whether it worked or not. Some folks say it did, some folks say it didn't. Since I guess that opinion depends on how your current situation is, it's really hard to say. But if I had to guess, I would say that the stimulus money hasn't done all that it could have done because it has been spent on dumbass things that have absolutely nothing to do with stimulating the economy over here. Hmm. Perhaps 'dumbass' is a bit harsh. I don't know. You tell me. Is it 'dumbass' to spend almost a million dollars "...on a study by a UCLA research team to teach uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex." Wait. What was the question?

The question was just what you read that it was. According to something called CNS News, "The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent $823,200 of economic stimulus funds in 2009" on just such a study. The care and feeding of one's grundle in Africa. Paid for with stimulus funds that were paid for by your tax dollars. Why is this an important study? Well, from what I can tell, it's not. It's not even close to being an important study. It's certainly far from being worth almost a million bucks of dough that was supposed to be injected into the American economy, that is pretty clear to me.

But I could be wrong. Let's go over some specifics. First of all, this is a multi-tiered study and it's only the penis washing part that received stimulus money. (There's a sentence I never thought I'd type.) Second, they decided upon the genitalia cleansing goal because they "...have been unsuccessful in convincing most adult African men to undergo circumcision" so they're going to attempt "...to determine whether researchers can develop an after-sex genitalia-washing regimen that they can then convince uncircumcised African men to follow."

Now, one of the first things that I thought (that was printable) when I heard this was, "Why does anyone give a fat rat's ass whether or not African men can keep their unit clean after all of the sex?" That question is a little hard to answer, as it wasn't made real clear (shocking, I know). The closest that I could find to an answer was in the part of this grant that said: "If we find that men are able to practice consistent washing practices after sex, we will plan to test whether this might protect men from becoming HIV infected in a later study." Wait. What?

Um, don't we know how HIV is spread? Does bathing one's grundle prevent HIV? I'm not so sure that it does. I'm pretty sure that it won't. It sounds kind of like a fairly simple solution to not get HIV. Just wash off the ol' unit after the inadvisable coitus that you just engaged in and go about your way! That's not what we've been taught. Is it? I don't think that it is. But maybe they know something I don't. I, personally, don't own a penis, so I don't know how this might possibly translate into the real world. Do you have a penis? Do you wash it? Do you have HIV? I guess if you answered yes to the first two questions and no to the third, then I can deduce that the practice does work? Good Lord, I hope that's not the conclusion that I come to.

You know what part of this makes me think that this is just a complete waste of time? All of it, that is correct. But do you want to know specifically which part? It's where they explain "If most of the men in the study wash their genitals after sex, are willing to do so after the study ends, and report that their partners accept the regimen, the researchers will develop another study to see if the “penile cleansing procedure” actually works to prevent HIV infections." These are the kind of folks who just do not see the benefit in washing the wang after doing the ol' horizontal watusi. These are the kind of folks whose partners might be unaccepting of a dried-off dingus. What possible benefit were they offering these folks to participate in this study?

What is the water situation over there, anyway? I'm guessing that indoor plumbing is out for most of the folks that would be involved in this sort of practice, yes? How feasible is this anyway? I'm guessing not very. How feasible is it that the stimulus money that was spent on penis polishing practices did not stimulate the US economy? Again, I'm guessing not very. And how feasible is it that this could be justified by the weasel that got the money for this study? Judging from the fact that he did not answer the question (posed by CNS News), "The Census Bureau says the median household income in the United States is $52,000. How would you explain to the average American mom and dad -- who make $52,000 per year -- that taxing them to pay for this grant was justified?” I'm going to stick with my answer of 'not very'.

Too bad they couldn't have used this money to teach some of the People of Wal-Mart how to wash themselves. Or, at the very least, dress themselves. Now that would have been justifiable!

Pedicures By The Pound

Here we have the case of a ridiculously overweight individual who is shocked, simply shocked, when they are treated differently than non-ridiculously overweight individuals. Now, the way that the woman was treated differently seems to be legit, but the way that it was carried out seems to be ridiculous. After all, can you really justify charging someone an extra five bucks for their pedicure because they might break the chair with their enormous arse?

I'm not so sure that you can, but that's what happened. According to WSBTV, a one Michelle Fonville had gone to Natural Nails on Covington Highway in DeKalb County (that's somewhere in Georgia) for a manicure, a pedicure and eyebrow arch. For those services, she was charged $29. Now, when I read the $29 part, I couldn't believe how cheap that was. She had her feet done, her nails done and her eyebrows arched for under thirty bucks? That's a deal in most places.

But at Natural Nails, it's usually even more of a deal, as they usually only charge $24. When Ms. Fonville realized that she had been overcharged by $5, she brought it to the attention of the salon manager, a one Kim Tran. And that's when she got the news that she was just too darned large. See, the justification for the extra $5 was that is was a surcharge that they had imposed "...due to costly repairs of broken chairs by overweight customers. She said the chairs have a weight capacity of 200 pounds and cost $2,500 to fix." Oh. Awkward.

Tran told the reporter from WSBTV "Do you think that’s fair when we take $24 [for manicure and pedicure] and we have to pay $2,500? Is that fair? No.” She forgot about the eyebrow arch. Oh, never mind. Sorry. I digress. Is that fair? Well, those are your prices, right? How DO those places stay in business anyway? I've never been able to figure that out.

Although Ms. Fonville claimed, “I was humiliated. I almost cried. Tears were forming in my eyes”, I'd like to point out that her humiliation did not stop her from running to her local news station and telling them of the tale. Nope. She didn't have any problem doing that. I'd also like to point out that she almost cried. Almost. That's not the same as crying.

Here's the part about this that I really like: "Tran said she refunded the $5 surcharge, and told Fonville to take her business elsewhere." Awesome. But naturally, that was not so awesome if you were asking Ms. Fonville because she said, “The word has to get out there that these people are discriminating against us because of our weight. I mean come on, we’re in America. You can’t do that." I'm not so sure.

I'm not so sure that this is discrimination. I'm not so sure that charging the $5 is such a good idea, but that doesn't necessarily make it discriminatory. If the manufacturer of the chair specifies that it cannot hold more than 200 pounds, then is the salon is technically being negligent if they let people who are clearly over 200 pounds use the chair? They might be. I can just see some obese asshat getting stuck in one of the chairs and the fire department has to come and Free Willy and then the salon ends up getting sued because they let them sit in a chair that wasn't meant to hold the girth of a tractor trailer. It's not like that's unheard of. If this was a case of what the manufacturer recommended, rather than charge the $5, shouldn't the salon just not cater to those over the weight limit? (Do they really need a pedicure? Can they even see their feet? Ohh. I didn't really write that, did I?)

So, I guess the salon should have a sign in the window informing people of larger carriage that they are going to be charged an extra $5? Or should they have something like one of those things at the airport where you check to see if your bag is too big to be a carry on? You know, like if the person can't fit comfortably between the width of some device, then they're too big for the chair? Or do they just eliminate service to the overly rotund all together? If they're only charging an extra $5 and a new chair is $2,500, they're going to need 500 behemoths that want pedicures. Do they have that large (pun totally intended) of clientele from that particular segment of society? Down in Georgia? I'm guessing they most certainly do.

I'm pretty sure that this isn't discriminatory. I think that the salon owner has a legitimate concern, but I don't think that charging an extra $5 is the answer. I think that she just needs to eliminate the problem by posting a weight limit somewhere. That way she doesn't end up with any broken chairs and doesn't need to impose a surcharge. And if Ms. Fonville doesn't like it, perhaps she might consider shedding a few pounds. It's not like she has to be that large, right? (If anyone leaves a comment having anything to do with the thyroid gland or a slow metabolism, so help me, I'll stab my screen.)

Posts That Practically Write Themselves

I swear, some days, this thing practically writes itself. With a headline of "Sexy dancer too old, man tells police", I can practically take the day off. It's one of those rare times when snarky commentary almost isn't needed. Almost.

According to the citrus-y folks over there at the Orange County Register, "A man...called police at about 4 a.m. Monday after a woman he found on Craigslist took money from him without "providing proper services and he feels this is improper". A woman he found on Craigslist? Well, this can be nothing but untoward, can't it?

Correct. According to the article, "The man had contacted a girl from a Craigslist ad with a picture and a phone number. She was to perform a "sexy dance" for $200, money paid up-front". Uh-huh. A sexy dance, was it? For $200, cash money, was it? I see. Soooo, she was a hooker. What else?

Well, this may shock you, but sometimes, those pictures that people post of themselves all over the Internets? Yeah, sometimes, those pictures don't look anything like the actual people themselves! I know! Who'd a thunk it? That kind of seems to be the case here. See, "The girl that arrived was older than the girl in the picture, "causing the informant to reconsider". OK, that part I kind of get. I really wish that I knew "older than what", though. I mean, if he was expecting Rue McClanahan and ended up with Betty White, I think that's about even. But if he was expecting Lindsay Lohan (who seems to be running out of cash and might just find herself in the "sexy dance" category on Craigslist sooner than we might think) and he ended up with Courtney Love (who actually might end up with Lindsay Lohan the way things seem to be going for her lately), well, then I could see the reconsidering. Actually, any one of those four women showing up at my front door would have me heading for the hills. Especially if it were Rue McClanahan, considering she just died a few weeks ago.

But here's the part that I don't really get: "When he told the girl to keep $20 for gas and give him back the rest of his money, the girl refused and left with the entire $200." So, let me get this straight. He's expecting a young woman who is going door-to-door and performing "sexy dances". He gets an old woman who claims to be able to perform a "sexy dance". He PAYS her $200. And then what? Then he opens his eyes?! Why did he pay her at all if she wasn't what he expected? Was there some sort of magic that was promised along with this "sexy dance"? I mean, I could see paying $200 for something that was a little more than just a dance, and magic would be worth it. Changing from an old broad into a hot, young, dancing chick would seem to be worth at least $200. But since there has been no mention of any anticipated magic up to this point, I'm going to have to assume that was not the case.

Strangely, however, "Police said no one was arrested because there is no law against a "sexy dance." Deputies did not make contact with the woman from the ad, and it appears she kept the money". Yes, I realize that there are no laws forbidding the "sexy dance". But she didn't dance! She showed up and took $200 and on top of that, she was old! Very strange indeed.

But wait! There's more! "The man – whose mother was there and was "angry about it as well" – decided not to file a report". Oh. My. God.

How old IS this man, exactly? And why was he ordering a Craigslist sexy dancer when his mother was there? And why was his mother informed of said sexy dancer that he would be paying $200 for? She was angry about it as well? Did she help pick her out? What the hell is going on down there in Orange County? You know what? Never mind. I don't want to know. I'm suddenly on the side of the elderly sexy dancer.

Let me tell you what really happened. The guy hooked up with this chick on Craigslist who was a hooker. I'm going to have to guess that his mother wasn't home at the time. The mom must have come in shortly after the money exchanged hands, but definitely before any swapping of bodily fluids (and most likely chlamydia) took place. The dude came up with the "sexy dance" story because that would be more acceptable to his mother than "I got a hooker". He wanted his money back. The chick knew that he'd never say that she was a hooker because of his mom being there and all, so she just took off. Seems reasonable. Yeah, I'm definitely on her side.

And this, kids, is why you never order women off of the Internets, especially if you're expecting your mother to return home shortly. Back to you.

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.