Easy And Bogus Energy Star Certifications

Newly added to my list of things that annoy me would be the EPA and the DOE. That's the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. Both sound like they would be something that would not annoy me. They certainly sound like things that should not annoy me. But when I read over yonder at Fox News that "The federal government has been slapping "energy-efficient" ratings on products that don't even exist" then I get a little annoyed. I get even more annoyed when I read that one of these non-existent products was "...a space heater with a duster and several fly strips attached to it". Wait. What now?

Correct. A space heater with a feather duster and fly strips attached to it. What. The. Hell? According to the article, the Governmental Accountability Office (which is sort of like the Internal Affairs of the federal government) "...wanted to see how easily the feds could be duped". Apparently, the answer to that question is "very". Very easily is how the feds could be duped.

They submitted 20 different products and 15 of those were approved for the "Energy Star" rating. Great. So 75% of the time, they're just certifying crap. Good to know. What else? Well, the reason this happened was because "...Energy Star does not verify energy-savings data reported by manufacturers." So, wait. So you can just tell them whatever the heck you want to about your product, whether it be real or fake, and they're not going to ask you to prove your claims?! Are you kidding me? LOOK at it!!

For cryin' out loud. Now, this wouldn't annoy me all that much except for the fact that a company that makes a product that is Energy Star certified gets humongous tax breaks. Thus, I can see the incentive for any company to claim that anything that they have is energy efficient in order to get that rating and receive their tax breaks. I can see the incentive even more considering that one of the bogus products that the DOE and the EPA approved was a (wait for it) "a "gas-powered alarm clock" that "...was described as a generator-sized clock run on gasoline." Are you kidding me?

How would an alarm clock that runs on GASOLINE be considered "energy efficient"? Granted, it doesn't use any electricity, I'll give it that! But that's about all I can give it! And it says that it's "generator-sized"? That sounds like it's HUGE. Why would anyone even WANT a gasoline powered alarm clock? How would that work? EVER?!

Now of course, after these departments were notified of this little incident (in which a space heater with a feather duster attached to it was certified as being energy efficient), they responded "...that they continue to check up on products after they are certified." Hmm. That's really not explaining how a space heater with a feather duster on it got certified in the first place, but good to know that you'll be checking up on it in the future! Good. To. Know. Maybe they'll look on one of the bogus product websites that the GAO set up for these things.

Further, "In a joint statement, the DOE and EPA said they take the findings "very seriously" and that they have started "enhanced testing" to improve. But they said the public should not lose confidence in the program. " Enhanced testing? You need enhanced testing to figure out that a space heater with a feather duster on it is NOT an energy saving appliance? You DO? Really?! And because you need that testing, THAT is what is supposed to make me not lose confidence in the program?! Really?! You're going to have to explain to me WHY that would be, because from what I can tell, the folks that are running the certification show over there are a bunch of morons.

They also tried to cover their asses by saying, "A review last year found that 98 percent of the products tested met or exceeded the ENERGY STAR requirements." I find that to be an interesting statistic, as this little experiment done by the GAO managed to get 75% of their fake crap certified. Were they just having an off couple of weeks there? Because this isn't an elongated process at all. That space heater debacle? Yeah, "The EPA approved it in 11 days and listed it on the official Web site." Good Lord.

What have we learned? We've apparently learned that just because something is labeled Energy Star, it doesn't necessarily mean crap. We've also learned that the EPA thought it was a good idea to feature a space heater with a feather duster attached on their website. And that means that we've learned that there is obviously more than one moron working over there and they all seem to be on the same page. And from what we've learned, we can just simply assume that we're doomed. Doomed. And if you'd like to look at the GAO's report and see for yourself just how doomed we are, it's available here.

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.

A Parent Strikes Again

Today's post follows in the steps of yesterday's post in which we discovered how one parent (one who is likely a moron and who also likely just enjoys stirring things up) can cause the entire system to grind to a halt. We discovered how if just ONE person is "offended" by something or thinks that there is something wrong with something that the way that the complainer and the complainee think is the best way to handle it is to completely overreact and remove the "offending" item from the access of everyone, even those who are not offended. That's what we discovered. And it was through that discovery that we learned that there are just some pain in the ass people out there who want to up-end the system under the guise of "being offended". Today is another one of those stories. Please don't let that keep you from reading. It's just as idiotic as yesterday's, I promise.

Our post today takes us to Culpeper County Public Schools in (surprise) Culpeper, Virginia. It's there that we learn via the Star Exponent that the Anne Frank diary entitled "The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition"...will no longer be assigned to CCPS students". That is according to a one Jim Allen who is the school system's director of instruction. Great. So we're banning The Diary of Anne Frank now? Why is this? Oh, right. Because of the vagina passage. Wait. The what now?

I had the same reaction. What vagina passage? See, apparently there are two versions of The Diary of Anne Frank. There's the version where she's hiding out in an attic with her family for almost two years (you know, trying to avoid being taken to a concentration camp by the Nazis and all) and then there's the version where she's hiding out in an attic with her family for almost two years, trying to avoid the same fate as described above. The thing is that in the second version, there are apparently some "...sexually suggestive references". Uh-huh. The girl was 13, right? And there were only SOME sexually suggestive references? OK. And that's a problem?

It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be a problem. But guess what? It was a problem. For A parent. That's right. For ONE parent it was a problem. The problem was what was touted in several news stories that I read about this as "the vagina passage". Now, these publications don't have a problem printing the phrase "vagina passage" no matter how ridiculous it sounds. But do you think that any of them could actually print what the "vagina passage" was? No. Apparently not. Thank goodness for some thing called The Raw Story (which dubs their publication as "an alternative news nexus") that actually saw fit to include what was so freaking offensive to A parent. (It's a good thing that they found it via Valerie Strauss at The Answer Sheet otherwise we might never have known.

Ahem! The offending "vagina passage": "There are little folds of skin all over the place, you can hardly find it. The little hole underneath is so terribly small that I simply can't imagine how a man can get in there, let alone how a whole baby can get out!" That's it?

Wait a minute. That's it? That is "the vagina passage"? What is wrong with that, exactly? That seems like a perfectly reasonable for a thirteen year old to think and to write. I totally remember wondering how that whole birth thing was possible (as it is akin to shoving a pot roast through one's nostril). There's nary a hint of anything fictitious in that statement. It's just as she describes. I have no qualms with it.

But here's the thing: Let's say I was a moron and I did have a qualm with it. We could even say that I had qualms. Why is it that I can't just ask if my kid can read the less "seedy" version? Why is it that I have to go in there and say that I don't want this book taught at all to any of the children? By the way, I'm using the term "children" extremely loosely here as we are talking about eighth graders in this situation. Yes! Eighth graders! Some moron has a problem out there with their eighth grader reading a passage which very vaguely and extremely tamely describes a vagina and the functions that one may or may not believe that it has the capacity to perform!

What is it about our society that if one person complains, everyone has to be affected? I don't get that. But that's what happened. According to the article linked above in the Star Exponent "Citing a parent’s concern over the sexual nature of the vagina passage in the definitive edition, Allen said school officials immediately chose to pull this version and use an alternative copy." Please note the usage of the term "A parent". I'm not kidding, nor exaggerating, when I say that it was because of ONE complaint. ONE.

The article continues with the aforementioned Mr. Allen stating, “What we have asked is that this particular edition will not be taught...I’m happy when parents get involved with these things because it lets me know that they are really looking and have their kids’ best interest (in mind). And that’s where good parenting and good teaching comes in." Hey, I'm happy when parents get involved as well. I'm not happy when parents interfere with the rest of the learning potential of the rest of the class. But I agree that when parents are looking into what their kids are doing, the (assumedly) have their kid's best interest in mind. But I'm going to have to disagree that this sort of a reaction could be defined as "good parenting" OR "good teaching" because I don't think that it's either one.

I'm curious as to what the response of this particular school would have been if there hadn't been another alternative to this book that was essentially the same book (only with less referencing of said vaginas and all). Would they have just banned the book altogether? That seems rash. After all, this is a book about a thirteen year old girl who ultimately dies at the hands of the Nazis in a concentration camp. It's not like it's light reading material at all. If anything, I'd like to thing that the "vagina passage" kind of lightened things up a little bit. But I'm apparently the only one who would like to think anything like that of the sort. Morons.

This has got to stop. We cannot keep altering the course of the masses because one individual complains. This is not setting a good precedence AT ALL. Man, I wish I had a kid in public school so that I could just try being a pain in the ass and see what I could get away with. Maybe then I'd start to understand the thinking patterns of these school administrators that simply cave with every "offended" parent that presents an issue before them. Because as it stands now, I don't understand a thing about it other than it's completely moronic and is going to doom us eventually. And probably sooner rather than later.

Define "Dictionary"

We have really come off the rails this time. I mean really. Really really. Really.

Let's go down to southern California to the Menifee Union School District in southwest Riverside County. And while we're there, let's stop by the fourth grade and fifth grade classrooms at Oak Meadows Elementary School. And while we're there, let's look up some words in Merriam Webster's 10th Collegiate Edition Dictionary. Oh, wait. We can't. They've been removed from the classrooms because A parent complained. Wait. What?

Correct. It would seem that, according to the LA Times, "...a parent complained to the school principal about what she believed was explicit sexual content in the dictionary." Explicit sexual content? Let's break that down, shall we? The dictionary defines words. It doesn't beat around the bush. Therefore, it tends to be explicit. Whether it be a definition of a duck (a duck) or a rock (a rock) or a tree (a tree), it tends to be explicit. And explicit or not, if it's a word, it needs to be defined. Hence it's inclusion in the dictionary.

"The books were ordered off the shelves until a committee could determine if they were "age appropriate" for fourth- and fifth-graders." If they were age appropriate? For people who...read? What age does one have to be before their language is deemed to be appropriate? What the heck is that all about? ONE parent complains and ALL of the dictionaries get removed?! When did that start happening? When did the opinion of ONE person suddenly have the potential to affect EVERYONE around them? (And in this case, apparently only one completely asinine person to boot!)

"The move immediately set off cries of censorship among many, including the president of the local school board, who warned that banning one book would inevitably lead to the banning of more and more." Let's forget about censorship for a moment because censorship is really the last thing that I'm worried about at the moment. What I'm concerned about is stupidity and this is one of the stupidest things that I've ever heard. Let's forget about censorship for a moment and let's instead focus on how ridiculous it is to remove a freaking dictionary because there are words in there that are explicit! Focusing? Are you?! Good! Then you see my point! Now, what was the problem exactly?

The word and the definition of said word that is in question here is "oral sex". Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know how you're going to define "oral sex" without it containing a fair amount of explicit detail. See, that's because you're going to have to use the word "genitals" or an acceptable substitute. (And by "acceptable" I mean something that you could put in the dictionary and allow said dictionary to retain it's credibility. Therefore, terms like cootchie, hoo-ha, and wee-wee would be immediately disqualified from consideration.) And technically, the term "oral sex" in and of itself is rather explicit. You've got the "sex" part of it which could be considered explicit and you've got all of the oralling going on with it which makes it even more explicit. It's hard for me to see a way around that one, frankly. And you know, you're also going to have to include some sort of reference to the oral portions of the human anatomy making contact with said genitalia without a funny nickname. Tell me how that's going to happen without explicit detail. Oh, that's right. It's not.

Now, I thought I had a hard copy of the "devil's book" (aka Merriam-Webster's Dictionary), but I was wrong, so I've had to rely on the online version in order to further assess this lunacy. If you check Merriam Webster's online and look up the definition of "oral sex", this is the definition you'll see: "oral stimulation of the genitals". Yes, we know. (Theoretically.)

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

That's IT?!?! THAT is the explicit definition that A parent wigged out about and demanded that the dictionary be pulled from the classrooms?! Is this parent aware of some of the other words that are in said dictionary?! What about penis? I'm pretty sure that vagina is included in there! You know, the words that were referenced by the "oral sex" definition? You know, words that you could look up to get a clearer view of what we're talking about, though I doubt that from the oral sex position that you're really going to have a very clear view of anything, really. (Yes, that was a joke. Carry on.) They cross reference cunnilingus (not one who is clever with words) and fellatio (not an off shoot of the word "fellow") for crying out loud!

For the love of anything that is sane in this world, if someone could explain to me how society got to the point where if one person is annoyed by the slightest little thing that the entire system is thrown out of whack whilst that moron is accommodated? How?! How did it come to this?!

Look, the purpose of a dictionary is so that all of the words can be included. It's not a give and a take quite so much. It's pretty much an all or nothing thing here. You can have all of the words and call it a dictionary or you can have some of the words and call it a pile of words. Your choice. Actually, no. Wait a minute. It isn't your choice. It's no one's choice! It's a damned dictionary and that's all there is to it! You can't go changing the dictionary! It's not POSSIBLE! What is wrong with people (person)?

I cannot believe that because one fringe lunatic couldn't handle the term "oral sex" in a dictionary (not in their Bible, though that would be news!) for God's sake, that now (and I'm quoting) "The school is now promising to begin a thorough scouring of the dictionary for other offensive entries." Because of course they have nothing better to do, seeing as how all of the children are learning the most that they can and are getting the best education possible already.

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

Good Lord, we're doomed.

"It's hard to sit and read the dictionary (Why, yes! It is! That's why people don't do it! You moron.), but we'll be looking to find other things of graphic nature." Let me save them some time! You're going to find other things of graphic nature! You don't have to READ very much! You can just flip right to them! Let me help you! Penis is probably in there. Don't forget vagina. Amygdala should go just because it sounds hilarious. (The same goes for urethra.) Get rid of vulva (the body part, not the car. Oh, wait, that's Volvo, never mind). And while you're at it, axe the prostate, will you? You should find some testicles in there (not literally, for cryin' out loud!). Breasts must definitely go (and I will miss them). Anus? Gone! Uterus? I'm not using mine, get rid of it too! Clitoris? Until we can agree on a pronunciation, it's gone as well! (Man, if whomever that parent was is reading this right now, I'm guessing that they probably had a heart attack somewhere right around 'anus'. But again, not literally.)

Did this parent never look up words when they were younger just so that they could laugh? If not, then I'm guessing that they were not part of a very large group known as "freaking everyone!" And after the school gets done reading the dictionary, then what? Are they going to black out those entries? Good luck. Ever read a dictionary? They're printed on that paper that's just a step up from the thickness that they use for the Bible. It's very thin. There's no way that you can just run a Sharpie over your penis (not many reasons why you'd want to, really) without it blacking out the other side as well.

So do you want to know what they came up with? You know, what to do after all of the scouring? Here's the solution: "The dictionary will go back to the classroom but the parents will be given the option to determine if they want their kids to have access to that dictionary...Students will take permission slips home and parents who don't want them to use Webster's 10th Collegiate Edition can opt for alternative dictionaries." What now?

An alternative dictionary? What the heck is that? An incomplete list of words? Why yes! Yes! That's exactly what it is! There is no word on what this alternative dictionary will consist of or which one will be used. But are they serious? They're going to send home permission slips in case parents don't want their children to have access to the dictionary? I'm pretty sure that if that sort of permission slip was sent home with me when I was in school that my parents would have pulled me out of that school. They would have assumed that the lunatics are running the asylum and they would have yanked me out of there before having to read through any more inanity. (Man, I wish that they had done that when I was in high school and with my chemistry class. You know, sent home a note asking if I was allowed access to my chemistry book. I would have forged that sucker so fast. I hated chemistry.) By the way, if you're wondering what the California Department of Education (you know, the department that funds the blasted schools) had to say about it, they "...said it had no authority over what Menifee does with its dictionaries because they are not considered instructional materials." I want to cry.

It's not an instructional material? It's a dictionary! It's a reference material! How is a reference material not an instructional material? Ever remember asking your teacher how you spell something or what something means when you were in school? What did your teacher tell you? That's right. She/He told you to look it up in the dictionary. I don't know how that is not an instructional material, but apparently it isn't.

I cannot believe that this got any farther than the individual who took the complaint. Oh, how I wish I had been that individual. I think my response would have gone something along the lines of, "Uh-huh. I see. Well, Mr. or Mrs. Jackass, the point of the dictionary is that is has all of the words in it. See, because otherwise it would just be called Merriam-Webster's Partial List of Words. And who is going to want to read that, really. No one. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have non-lunatics to see. Thank you for stopping by."

Look, I'll work my way up to something that could actually be said, all right? In the meantime can you crazy people please get over yourselves? And if you can't, will you at least accept some help from the sane? Good Lord, things are off the rails these days.

Don't Be Poutine the Blame on KFC

Today we're venturing to a KFC located up north in Canada, America's Hat. Even though chain restaurants, especially fast food restaurants, have essentially the same menu no matter where you are (which makes it simply wonderful that you can get Chicken McNuggets when you're in Paris), there are variations on each menu that reflect each culture. Today's alleged culprit is something called poutine.

I, being a Yankee American, had absolutely no idea what poutine is, though from what I have read, it appears to be French fries topped with cheese curd and gravy. (It also appears to be pronounced poo-TIN. I figured I should throw that in there just in case you got a hankerin' for some and didn't want to sound like a fool trying to order some...somewhere.) So...gravy laden cheese fries, eh? I have to tell you that I can't decide if that is ruining a perfectly good plate of cheese fries or if it is creating a heaven on earth sort of delicacy. It's a toss up.

Now, the KFCs up there in America's Hat offer poutine on their menu. And up there at a KFC in Acton, Ontario, a one 15-year old Kendell Lakin had decided to partake in said poutine. So far, so good, right? Right. But then things went slightly awry.

According to the good folks over there at canoe.ca, Ms. Lakin was enjoying her piping hot poutine when she suffered an epileptic seizure and did somewhat of a faceplant in said dish. As a result "...her chin started to blister and her neck appeared red and burned. She went to the hospital and was treated for second-degree burns. Her chin and bottom lip have several large blisters." Wow. That sounds brutal. I'm glad that she's recovering from that incident. Wouldn't it be great if my sad little tale of woe ended here? Sure it would. But you know it doesn't, right? Right.

See, here's the problem: Ms. Lakin's father, a one Lee Lakin, is upset. He's upset at (wait for it) KFC. Why? Well, because they serve their poutine hot, of course. Wait. What now?

Correct. He is angry because the poutine is hot. He claims that "...he’s not after a multi-million dollar lawsuit, he just wants to speak out to warn others and perhaps get the Colonel to turn the temperature down on the cheese and gravy."

Now, below is a close up of the poutine at a KFC as shown to us by the folks over at the I Love Food Blog (picture used without permission, but without malice either). I'm really not thinking that this looks disgusting, but if it were cold, I'd think exactly that. Poutine is clearly made to be eaten hot. It's a hot dish. How do I know this? I know this because French fries are meant to be eaten hot. Gravy is meant to be eaten hot. Melted cheese needs to be hot in order to get that melted quality that makes the melted cheese what it is (that being melted). There's a plethora of heat that is needed to make this dish. That is obvious. What is not obvious is what in the world is wrong with Mr. Lakin.

Perhaps this quote from the aforementioned Mr. Lakin will help us figure it out. He said, "I’m not looking for $10 million. ’m looking for someone to stand up and say, ‘We’re sorry Mr. Lakin, we’re sorry Kendell. We want to make this right and hey everybody this food is hot.’" Hmmm. No. No, that didn't help me sort through this at all.

"Hey everybody this food is hot"? That's what he wants? He didn't know that there was hot food at a KFC?! I'm going to take umbrage at that statement (basically because it's rare that I get to take any umbrage at all anymore, so when I see a chance for umbrage, I jump at it). He knew there was hot food at the KFC. His daughter knew there was hot food at the KFC. The only thing that no one could have possibly known at that KFC was that his daughter was going to have a seizure. And I've got news for Mr. Lakin. There's no way that one can predict when a seizure is going to happen. It's going to happen whenever it wants to regardless as to the temperature of the food in front of the person having the seizure.

Mr. Lakin took his concerns to that particular KFC. He states: "One comment the manager said to me was, ‘The poutine comes in frozen so we really have to heat it up.' KFC needs to figure out how to make this poutine without burning people." KFC already HAS figured out how to make the poutine without burning people! They put it in a cup! They give folks a spork if they want one! (And who doesn't want a spork?) They don't ladle it, piping hot, into the bare hands of the restaurant's patrons! They don't force patrons to eat it out of the cup like a sow at a trough! They've got that one covered, Mr. Lakin!

Immediately following the inexplicable statement above, Mr. Lakin said, "You’ve got hot gravy and hot cheese, two really hot elements in there.” YES! Yes you DO! (Whew! For a minute there, I thought this guy was a complete moron. Oh, wait a minute. He's still blaming the hot poutine for burning his daughter when she had a seizure. Never mind. I'd like to retract that part about him not being a complete moron. Thanks.) You have two really hot elements that are going to burn anyone who touches their mortal flesh to them! That's why you see all of those folks blowing on food at virtually every restaurant establishment that serves food that isn't cold! It's to avoid the burns! We know that! We know about the "two really hot elements"!

What if she hadn't dove into the poutine? What if instead she ended up falling down and hitting her head on the concrete floor? Are you going to go around warning people that concrete is a very solid material and that people should be aware that if you fall and hit your head on the floor that it's going to hurt and is possibly going to injure you? I don't think that you are and do you know why I think that? Because it would be asinine, that's why! And acting like it was the fault of either the KFC or the poutine itself that your daughter got burned is just laughable.

Must I really state the obvious and say that it is not the fault of the KFC that Mr. Lakin's daughter was burned after she went face first in the poutine during an unpredictable epileptic seizure?! Really? The nature of hot food is that it's hot! The nature of a seizure is that it's a seizure! Let's try and put this in a different context (and let's also try not to sound like a complete ass while doing so). but if Mr. Lakin's daughter is prone to seizures, why isn't it her responsibility to only eat food that is cold in case this sort of incident happens again? Because that would be what? Ridiculous, that is correct. But if it weren't so ridiculous, wouldn't the argument be that eating only foods that were cold would be her way of taking responsibility for herself and her condition? Where is the responsibility of the individual in this story?! Oh, that's right. It's missing. Morons.

Wait! Just one more angle! Let's say that this moron is correct and that there should be a label or a sign or a talking dog (which would be kind of cool, really) that says that the hot food is, in fact, hot. Explain to me what effect that is going to have when someone has a seizure and goes face first into the hot food? The hot food that they knew was hot? (You know, because of the talking dog and all.) That's right! It's not going to have any effect. AT ALL!

Come on, sir! Just because something bad and/or unfortunate happens to someone, that doesn't necessarily mean that someone has to be blamed. It doesn't necessarily mean that someone is at fault. That's why some occurrences are called (wait for it) accidents! Sir, if you want to go around spouting some sort of message, how about you make it what to do in case you're around someone who has a seizure? At least that might do some good! But going around telling everyone that hot food is actually hot? Well, that seems like a waste of time on many levels. Stick to seizure awareness. People will hate you less.