Childhood Obesity Is Fueled By Toys

We're doomed. Doomed. Once again, leave it to a county in California to be introduced a bill that "If it is passed, this would be the first such legislation in the nation." California: Leading the way to making sure that no one is responsible for themselves anymore. And we're going to be pushed further down that path by making sure that there is not, of all things, a toy in a child's fast food meal. Of course. No, wait. What now?

Correct. According to the fine folks over there at KGO-TV, "A Santa Clara County lawmaker will introduce legislation to stop restaurants from handing out toys with fast food menu items geared toward children." OK, then. Almost all I have to say is that this guy had better not be a SCC lawmaker for very much longer. Are you freaking kidding me?!

Let's hear the lame ass justification for this waste of time and money effort, shall we? According to a one Ken Yeager, the apparent dip ass behind this measure, "One in three kids are overweight or are obese, and we're finding out more and more that if you're obese as a child, you're going to have health problems your entire life." Hmm. I don't disagree with that statement, but I kind of doubt that we're "just finding out" that a fat kid is going to make for an unhealthy adult. That seems to be a stretch. I also highly doubt that the one in three kids that is overweight is in that condition because they received a little plastic R2D2 with their burger. I highly doubt that.

Yeager claims that "Ten out of 12 meals that are associated with the promotional toys are the high-caloric, high-fat, high-sodium meals." First of all, which 12 meals are we talking about here? There aren't 12 meals with toys that are available at just one chain, so what is he talking about? Sadly, due to extremely poor reporting, this question isn't answered.

Also, how many meals that are not associated with a promotional toy (ie, the ones that aren't "for children") are "high-caloric, high-fat, high-sodium" meals? At a fast food place? I'm guessing most of them or at the very least, half of them. It's fast food, for cryin' out loud. But again, sadly, due to poor reporting, this aspect is not further explored.

Supervisor Yeager wants his proposed ordinance to regulate "...fast food restaurants' ability to offer toys or other incentives with kids' meals." Um..."other incentives"? What are "other incentives" when you're buying a sack of toy-laden fast food? What other incentives would their be? NOT being hungry when you're done? That's an incentive, all right, but regulating "an end to hunger" seems odd. What other incentives could he be referring to? Hookers? Can they give out hookers? That'd be an incentive, but probably not for children. Hmm. This is a head scratcher, all right.

Wait! I just came up with one! When I buy Coca-Cola products, there is a little code inside of the 12-pack that will give me My Coke Rewards Points when I enter the codes online. If I save up enough points, I can buy a Coke logo emblazoned yacht or something similar from the Coca-Cola store. I guess those points would be considered an "incentive" to buy Coca-Cola products (that and a really strong desire for the unattainable goal of purchasing a Coke yacht). And since regular sodas are filled with at least one five pound bag of sugar per 12 ounce can (so I've heard from the anti-soda groups), those points are making kids who drink those products obese. Is Mr. Yeager proposing not allowing the sale of any products from various carbonated beverage manufacturers who use promotional gimmicks to sell us their "liquid death"? Of course he isn't. Has he suggested such a measure? Of course he hasn't. You know why? Because it would be idiotic, that is correct. (My words, not his. Given that he wants the "no toy" ban to be in effect, he'll probably consider this scenario next.)

Of course, this must make sense to Mr. Yeager because, as we all know, if a child wants something, it is the duty of the parent to immediately purchase that which the child wants immediately. Thus, if the child wants the high calorie, high fat, high sodium, very tasty meal with a toy in it, well, the parent will have to buy that child the meal, no questions asked! And we also all know that you must take your children to have fast food all of the time when they are little. That must be the case because, if kids are as fat as Mr. Yeager says that they are and that the meals with toys are to blame, then those kids must be eating that stuff morning, noon and night. It's a shame, really. (God, what a moron.)

Let me just briefly summarize what this Yeager fellow thinks is a good idea, OK? He thinks that it's a good idea for the government to tell companies that they cannot put a toy in with a kid's meal. That's right. A toy. He believes this to be the solution to childhood obesity, for some reason. So rather than let parents regulate the food intake of their own children, Mr. Yeager believes it is best if the government takes AWAY choices from people in order to get them to make what the government believes to be the right choice. Sure, that sounds like the America I know.

Mr. Yeager, I'm going to present you with an alternative. How about, instead of taking out the toy, you let the fast food companies leave the toy in. But instead of just handing the food to the child (or the parent, wherever they are in this scenario. From what I can tell, these fast food places are in some sort of Lord of the Flies scenario, as good parenting versus bad parenting doesn't seem to be a factor), how about you have the kid run around the restaurant three times before he can get his food? The parent places the order at the drive-thru speaker, pulls up to the first window and then lets the kids out of the car. The kids then sprint around some sort of Olympic sized track and when they finally make it to the finish line (assuming that they do), they get their meal AND their toy handed to them for them to enjoy. It seems reasonable. They'll have gotten some exercise (which we all know they don't get enough of) and they'll still get fed. It'll balance out. The yin and the yang. I can support installing Olympic sized running tracks around all of the McDonald's in the county. THAT I could support. Banning companies from putting a toy in the meals for kids? You've gotta be dry shavin' me.

That's A Wrap!

Since I was just going on about one of the very many ridiculous bills that California legislators attempt to get passed into law, I might as well keep going and address an article which appeared in the LA Times and informs us that state regulators will be creating an advisory committee because they want to consider increasing the regulation of the porn industry in California. That's right. They want to mandate "....the use of condoms and testing for sexually transmitted diseases." Uh-huh. Wait. Condoms?

That's right. Condoms. They want porn stars to wear condoms. Wow. How hot. Or not. What is wrong with people?!!? Leave porn alone!

Now, the state regulators want to hear from the porn industry on what they think about all of this regulation. According to a one Jonathan Frisch, principal risk manager at PG&E (Wait. PG&E? The utility company?! Why is the risk manager of the power company weighing in on the porn regulation issue? What in the heck is going on over there at PG&E anyway?!), "It's going to be very, very important that we do have them at the table." At the table. In the shower. On the hood of a convertible. In a stable. All very, very important. Yeah, we know.

According to a one former porn participant Darren James, "...who tested HIV-positive during a 2004 outbreak in the San Fernando Valley's porn community (if you picked up on the key phrase there being "porn community" then I think you're a bit more understanding of how there could be an HIV outbreak in 2004) "You think you're safe, but you're not. In between scenes, you don't know what other actors are doing." Do I think about what the other actors are doing between scenes? I never have before. Is he saying that in between all of the filmed fornication that there is more fornication going on? Freelance fornication?! I've heard of taking your work home with you and stuff, but I guess I didn't figure that it included porn folks as well. Huh. Learn something new...

Mr. James was speaking before the board a crowd of about 40 at Costa Mesa City Hall. I'm not sure what the crowd was doing there. Then again, I'm not sure that 40 constitutes a crowd. Whatever it is, at one point, he turned to the 40 folks and said, "I'm living your nightmare every day." He is? My nightmare changes from day to day and I don't think that he's living any of them. It's a nightmare if I don't get my trash cans to the curb on trash day. Is that what he means? It seems awfully different, so I don't think it is. How is an ex-porn star who contracted HIV during the Great Breakout of 2004 living my nightmare?

But here's the apex of all of this insanity. A one Dr. Robert Kim-Farley, of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (and someone who has clearly never had much of an interest in watching porn), recommended "...the board mandate condom use and require the adult film industry to pay for testing." Condom use. In porn. Mandated. Great. Does he not know that people are not a big fan of the condom in general? They're certainly not a fan of the condom in porn. No one wants their porn to have a responsible feel to it. If that was going to be the case, then everyone would finally be able to come out of their darkened basements (or sex dens, dungeons, whatever) and not feel their current shame. Actually, strike that. They should be more ashamed if they're watching porn with condoms. Back to the basements, weirdos!

Dr. Kim-Farley (no relation to Chris Farley from what I can tell) also stated the obvious by saying that "Infection rates for chlamydia and gonorrhea...are seven times higher in the porn industry than in the general population, and as many as a quarter of porn performers are diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease in any given year." Hmmm. I wonder if all of the wild sex that they're having in front of cameras and for a pittance has anything to do with it. OK, the pittance is irrelevant, as is the cameras. Let's just try and focus on the ridiculous amount of sex that they have and why they're having it, shall we? Yeah, it's a wonder some of the guys don't insert Tab A into Slot B and just spontaneously combust.

After the vote, Mr. James voiced his opinion saying that "...he wished more hard-core porn actors had come forward to tell their stories." Trust me. So do some people on that board. He also derided the board for taking so long (something that I thought was a boon in the porn industry) by saying, "They need to do more. They should have done this years ago." Dude, I don't mean to judge (or maybe I do; you don't know), but no one forced you to do porn. You say that they should have done more, but in reality, couldn't you have done less? As in less porn?!

I don't know how much money California already makes from the porn industry, but I'll tell you this much: The state needs every freaking penny that it can scrounge up from wherever it can. However much money the state makes from porn, it needs it. And what will happen if this advisory board makes porn actors in California start wearing condoms? That's right. The porn industry will pack up their unmentionables and go film the unwatchable with all of their unsheathed penises (penii?) in another state. And they'll take the state's revenue with them. A brilliant idea, California. Simply brilliant. As if it isn't hard enough to start or run a business in this state, please, go ahead and make it more difficult for an industry that fueled the development of the Internet! The porn industry makes money hand over fist (pun totally intended) and California needs that money. Please don't make it harder (pun intended again) and force them to pull out early (can't stop myself).

Put This In Your Park And Smoke It

Because the state of California legislature has solved all of the problems with the budget, it's seemingly inevitable bankruptcy, illegal immigration and unemployment, a bill has been introduced to ban smoking at all state parks. Seriously? Maybe when they're done with that, they can get to work on their long awaited book "How to Piss Away Time and Money While Feigning to Serve the Public."

The author of this ridiculousness and waste of everyone's time is a one Sen. Jenny Oropeza (D-umbass), Long Beach. According to what appears to be called The San Diego Daily Transcript Ms. Oropeza explains that "It is very clear that the garbage that is created as a result of smoking on beaches -- butts and wrappers -- are polluting our water. In terms of the state park system, we have a major fire hazard when cigarettes are smoked in parks." Uh-huh.

While I'm not going to disagree that part of garbage on the beaches is composed of cigarette butts and wrappers, I am going to point out that it's hardly the main component of the garbage itself. I'm not justifying anything here or anything like that, but all of that sand in one place (ie, the beach) is just like one of those public ashtrays that you see outside of downtown buildings. Perhaps those dumb enough to be smoking in the first place are merely confused. (And who in their right mind would WANT to be smoking on the beach anyway? It's so freaking beautiful there. And you want to whip out a cigarette and start puffing away? Are you kidding me? Why?)

But back to the state parks. It's not a "major fire hazard when cigarettes are smoked in parks." That makes it sound like people are walking around the state parks with the equivalent of a blazing tiki torch hanging out of their mouth. Sure, if the thing is still lit and it goes flying into some pile of dried debris, there's going be a problem. But how many forest fires in California are actually started by a cigarette? I have no idea because I can't find any data on it. (I did find a reference to a 2002 fire in Lake Tahoe started by a cigarette tossed from a gondola, but that's about it. I'm not saying there aren't more, I'm just saying they're not spreading like wildfire or anything. Pun totally intended.)

According to the article (and obvious to folks who have ever heard anything about the ridiculous legislation that California passes) "The move would not be surprising in a state with a long history of cracking down on smoking as a way to eliminate exposure to second-hand smoke." In a state park?! How much second-hand smoke is there actually exposure to in a state park? Have you visited a state park? Anywhere? They're quite roomy. I think that exposure to second-hand smoke is the least of your concerns. Unless you're a bear, perhaps. Is this for bears?

That same article reminded me that "A California law that took effect in 2008 slaps motorists with a $100 fine if they are smoking in a car that contains a minor under the age of 18." Are you kidding? Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of smoking in a car with children. But I'm also not in favor of smoking in a home with children. I'm kind of guessing that the same folks that smoke in the car with their kids are smoking in their home with their kids. Why aren't we regulating that as well? Because that would be silly, that is correct. Why it's OK to regulate it in the car is beyond me.

Look, I don't smoke. I am thrilled that there is no longer smoking in restaurants and in a lot of public indoor areas. I could not be happier. But we're talking people who are outside here. And they're not going to be around many other people. Yes, there is the danger of wildfires when there is smoking, but that's going to be your argument, you're really going to have to explain to me why campfires would be fine, but cigarette smoking would be a ticket to hell.

But, wait! There's more! "Oropeza said the legislation could save the financially strapped state millions in fighting wildfires started by someone tossing a lit cigarette in a state park." Aww. Look. There's my favorite word when any politician is explaining why their hare-brained idea is legitimate. "Could". It could happen. It could do this. It could do that. (It won't, but it could.) And what else could happen? Monkeys could fly out of my butt, that is correct. (They won't, but they could. Could they?)

However, "Oropeza excluded campsites from the ban to accommodate state park officials, who said prohibiting smoking at campsites would be difficult to enforce." Soooo...let me get this straight. You're not prohibiting smoking in state parks at campsites. That's OK. So the places where people are most likely to be congregated and exposed to second-hand smoke will not be effected by this. Got it. Soooo...it will be enforced where? Right, on the hiking trails, that is correct. Because if there's one thing that is a frequent occurrence everywhere, it's hikers who smoke a lot.

Why isn't this idea covered under the "no littering" provision of whatever law that is under? I can't imagine that it isn't. Then again, for some reason, driving while talking on your cell phone isn't covered under the "distracted driving" provisions and needs its very own, special law. Go figure. We are so over-regulated in this state. And what is this thing going to cost? Well, don't you worry! "Any state park that does not have the money to buy no-smoking signs alerting visitors to the rules also would be exempt." This state has no money! Didn't they just make huge cuts to the parks budget this last time around? I'm pretty sure that they did, but that's only because they made huge cuts everywhere! So if you don't have a sign, you don't have to follow the rule. Brilliant. Simply brilliant.

This is nothing more than a feel good law for softheads. It's a waste of time to even be considering something that, in it's own language, does virtually nothing. Yet state senators continue to waste their time and taxpayer dollars composing bills such as this one that are useless. This state is so screwed. And we're so doomed. That's right. We're scroomed.

No @#$&!?* Cussing?!

There's a whole lot of problems going on in California right now. The unemployment rate for the state is hovering somewhere around 12.7. The budget is far from balanced. The state is going broke. The population of illegal immigrants in this state is sky high. And corruption abounds up there in the State Capitol. So with all of that going on, I'm having a really hard time grasping why it is that the California State Assembly passed a resolution making the first week of March "Cuss Free Week". Wait. What now?

Correct. Cuss Free Week. I swear. Now, if you're asking yourself what the #$*! Cuss Free Week is, well, are you in for a surprise. Granted, just because it was passed by the @#*&$! State Assembly doesn't guarantee that it's going to happen. It still have to be passed by the &*%#@ Senate for it to go into effect. But that's not really the crux of my anger over this stupid #*$&%* idea. My anger stems from BS like this getting passed at all.

Why is this $&*@#& necessary?! Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of everyone not cussing. I am not a fan of the swearing (even though I can do so like a sailor). It makes me insane when people are swearing and there are young children around. They don't need to hear that. No one does, really. But that doesn't mean that I want some sort of stupid ass legislation passed as what will amount to nothing more than a free good measure at best. Let's see how this line of BS got started, shall we?

It would seem that the whole idea was inspired by a one McKay Hatch who founded a No Cussing Club at his middle school two years ago. Apparently the feel good idea took off and now his website, Nocussing.com, boasts that there are over 35,000 members worldwide. That's great, I suppose. I will definitely give kudos to McKay for getting this movement started. I'm sure he's been beaten up more times than I can imagine over this (and numerous other things I'm guessing). But let's be realistic. 35,000 worldwide? Listen, there's a Facebook page called "Can this pickle get more fans than Nickleback?" Do you know how many people are a fan of that pickle? 1,529,277 right now as I'm writing this. Over one and a half million folks are a fan of that particular pickle. That is over 43.5 times the number of people worldwide in the No Cussing Club. I'm not trying to diss the No Cussing Club, I'm just trying to put it in effing perspective is all.

The California bill (which is ACR 112. Remember that because you won't find it in any other article you read about this crap, which is why I had to look it up. Can't the Legislature pass a "No Crappy Media Reporting Week"? My God, at least that might get something done.) was written up by Assembly Members Portantino and Smyth. If you are a California voter, please make note of those two names and vote against them when they are up for re-election. We cannot continue to have them in the Assembly wasting the taxpayers money and time on garbage like this. Portantino and Smyth. Don't forget. Out!

Wait. I just read the final version of the bill. There are other co-authors that have climbed aboard this s**t-train. The other coauthors of this piece of crap are: Assembly Members Jones, Solorio, Adams, Beall, Bradford, Caballero, Chesbro, Coto, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Fong, Furutani, Galgiani, Gilmore, Hayashi, Huffman, Jeffries, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Niello, Nielsen, V. Manuel Perez, Salas, Skinner, Audra Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines, and Yamada. Make a note. Print this out. Vote these folks out of office when that time comes! What a bunch of softheads.

Basically, all the bill does is give you a bunch of flowerly prose on why cussing is bad and how a bunch of people have decided to follow McKay's suggestion and not cuss. It also goes on to say that for the No Cussing Week, that businesses or whatever else you are should have a jar with a label on it available in a public place. That way, if you are guilty of screaming "You stupid M-F-er!!" when the mail clerk mixes up your mail again, you put some monetary amount in the jar. The bill then suggests that at the end of the week, the amount in the jar be donated to a charity. A charity!?

The M-F-ing state is going M-F-ing broke!! And you *!#&^?$#s want to go the money to a bleeping charity?! Why in the world isn't it going back to the M-F-ing bankrupt state?! For cryin' out loud, what is wrong with you a-holes?!

But then I started thinking about it. What if I did want to stop cussing? My BFF has given up cussing for Lent. (It's not going all that great, by the way. Sorry, friend! Heart you!) And she has some spectacular cuss hybrids that she tends spout out when needed. And they are spec-tacular. What is she supposed to use instead? I figured that McKay's website, being as he's so into this being so important and all, would have some suggestions. And I was right. It did have some suggestions. For a price. What the $*?#!@?

That's right. He wants to charge you two bucks to download his e-book which seems to be titled "Oh, Pickles! Sassafras! Barnacles! & other G-rated substitutes for cuss words". I guess you get the three on the cover for free. It claims to have over 100 others inside, but you're going to need to pony up two effing dollars if you want to know those. What a scam.

If you'd like to read this stupid-#$@&^! bill you can find it here. I could go off on a tangent about how something like this could be interpreted as the government trying to censor the people in a land which is ruled by it's First Amendment, that of the right to free speech. I could go off on that tangent. But I'm not going to. That's because I'm way too irate about the Assembly wasting time and money (Good God, how much money is this thing going to cost?!) with something that is feel-good at best. There are REAL PROBLEMS out there to be solved!! Do they need a list?! I'll give them a list and I won't even charge them two bucks for it!!

California Budget Busters

Look, there are a lot of great things about living in the People's Gay-Public of Drugifornia (also known as California), but I've gotta tell you, there are a lot of not so great things about living here. It's really borderline sucky to live here if you're asking me. And I'm doing just fine. The walled off compound protects me from the morons of society quite nicely, thank you. Employment isn't an issue and neither is revenue. But unfortunately, employment and revenue are an issue for the state.

The current unemployment rate in California is hovering somewhere around 12.3% and the state is also expected to be running a deficit which is somewhere right around $15 billion. (Yep, billion. With a B.) And that's "deficit". As in "not enough money". So with that knowledge, what has the California Senate decided to do? Well, according to the SF Gate they "...passed a measure to create a state-run, single-payer health system." Wait. They what now?

Correct. The California Senate voted 22-14 to pass this thing. Only one Democrat had the sanity to vote against this measure. That Democrat would be a one Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana. You can vote for him next time. The rest of the Democrats? Yeah, you're going to want to be NOT voting for them. The Republicans? They can stay. Lou can stay. Everyone else? Out. Out!

Now, this might not sound like such a big deal. I mean, after all, a state-run, single-payer health system sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? Sure it does. And when you get back from Xanadu, let me know how it works there because it certainly isn't a viable option in this utopia that the Senators appear to be trying to create.

Let's just run over the basic basics of the state of California's fiscal issues, shall we? I'll be brief. That will be easy to do because there really isn't a lot to talk about, seeing as how the state is running that deficit of about $15 billion (still with a B). According to the Legislative Analyst's Office (the ol' LAO) California stands to make in revenue somewhere in the neighborhood of $82.5 billion. Sure, that sounds like a lot, but when you consider that it's around $5 billion less than a couple of years ago, you're going to kind of get the idea that revenue, well, it ain't what it used to be.

But here's the kicker: This utopian health care plan "All state residents would be provided health care and people could buy private health care to cover services not offered through the state plan." Um....what?

Everyone gets health care?! Score! Oh, wait. Maybe not. After all, this has just passed through the California Senate. The Governator has vetoed things like this before, so can I take it to mean that he's going to veto this as well? I should certainly hope so because, again according to the SF Gate, "It is anticipated to cost about $200 billion a year."

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

It's going to cost what? $200 billion? A YEAR?! But...but....the state only takes IN about $82 billion a year. See....see....that....that....that's NOT ENOUGH! What in the world is wrong with those morons?!

I want an explanation from every single one of those morons who voted for this. What could their rationale possibly be?! Oh, that it sounds good?! It's because of all of the "sound good" and "feel good" programs that they're constantly passing legislation on that the state is in the fiscal toilet that it swirls around in daily! This isn't news! The state handed out IOUs last summer, for cryin' out loud! They're not kidding! The state is broke!!

You people in the California Senate have a lot of nerve, I'll tell you that. Every single one of you who voted for this garbage clearly have about as many brains as the state has surplus cash. That is to say NONE! Nice waste of time. Nice job wasting everyone's time and money to pass something that the Governator is sure to veto. Nice job accomplishing nothing. You morons.

It's $200 billion dollars! And that's just for this health care fantasy that they passed! It's not like there isn't the rest of the budget to continue to fund! You remember the rest of the budget, don't you? It's that thing that isn't fully funded as it is! Now just tack on another $200 billion to that. Oh, sure. Let me know how that works out, will you? I'll be over here, making the walls on my walled off compound even higher. After this show of stupidity, I'm considering adding a dome. We're so doomed.