Take this Bag and Shove It

It never fails. I go to Taco Hell, Jack-in-the-Crack, Mickey Dees. I go through the drive-thru and order up a burger or whatever passes for edible in these joints and specifically ask to be given it with no bag. The point is to try to save the bag for the next customer. It's not a "green" thing, I just don't want to waste the damn bag.

What happens is, either I get some kind of argument that its "company policy" to give me the bag (B***S***, if that's the case then even walk-in orderers would be given the stuff in a bag) or else, they take the stuff out of the bag (after I already told them before they bagged it I didn't want one) and then wad the bag up and throw it away. That's exactly what I was trying to avoid, Poindexter.

Of course, one of the arguments they give me is they can only do it that way if I walk in. Fine, unlock the damn front door, I wanted to walk-in anyway. The point here is all of my drive-thru shopping is because the walk-in doors are already locked. I want to disabuse you of that idea from the outset. I don't use the drive-thru because I'm lazy, but because its my only option. I get off at 11 at night, and I want a snack. Where am I gonna go? Get greasy day old hot dogs on stale buns at the convenience store?

I thought there was a standard in this country that the customer is always right. Apparently, "Have it your way" went out with platform shoes, because I can't seem to get it my way, even if I am the only person who does want it that way...

Driver's Ed.: It's Not Just for Teenagers Anymore

I took driver's education in high school 30 some odd years ago, but even past that ages ago event, I remember what I learned. It's too bad that, apparently, some people forget or more likely just ignore what they learned in the same class.

Today, while going down the road on a four lane road, I saw the approach on the other side of a fire truck. I was told that (in Texas at least, but I'm sure it's the same in other states) you are to pull over and come to a stop, unless traffic conditions make it impossible to do so. (Like on the interstate).

So I obeyed what I know to be the law. People on the same side of the road, however, passed me. One driver, who was behind me at the time, pulled out into the other lane and I heard the impatience he must have had in the tromp on his gas pedal to get around me.

One time, a couple of years ago, I witnessed what was an event that was even more irking to me. Again, I was travelling down the opposite side of the road when i saw an approaching ambulance. The driver was hampered by the fact that no one seemed willing to give up the road, despite the lights and sirens. And that was on the opposite side. The same thing occured on my side of the road with people passing me, a lane which would, and SHOULD, have been available for the ambulance driver if the law was follwed. I can only hope that whomever the emergency involved survived.

No one is above the law, but apparently that only matters if it's not an inconvenience.

How We Gonna Feed Our Children?

Popeye's Runs Out of Chicken

You gotta see this video. It's just too ridiculous to be believed.

In essence, a news crew filmed a bunch of people ranting about a local Popeye's in Rochester, New York running out of chicken during a special, and closing up. Some of the comments made by these people are just unbelievable. One woman wanted to know how she was going to feed her children since she couldn't get Popeye's chicken. Hey sweetheart, you know what a freakin' stove is for?

And if notice, most of the people in the video have cell phones. So you're telling me you can afford $50 or so a month for a cell phone, but you can't afford to spend a couple of bucks more by going to KFC or Church's? I'm willing to bet they weren't out of chicken. You people need to get a life. Not everything revolves around you, no matter what your momma told you.

Just say "No" to Cocaine.

And the wheels of justice, every turning, succeed in making a mockery of reason. In Texas, a new energy drink, with the racy name of "Cocaine" has been banned for sale by the Republican Attorney General, Greg Abbott. The energy drink actually has no cocaine in it, unlike the original version of Coca-Cola®, and is completely legal, under any sense of the word, to market. Unless you are a self-righteous politician who is coming up for re-election next year, and need a platform to build a case for that re-election, that is.

How a soft-drink, or more properly an "energy drink", can be any more harmful to consumers because the makers claim it will get you "high" as opposed to, say "give you wings", is anybody's guess. Whatever the name of the product is, it's still what is in the product that matters. If the product were determined to actually have cocaine in it, then you have a case, not only for banning it, but arresting the makers for illegal distribution of a controlled substance.

But to make some kind of case out of it that the makers are inadvertantly (or even directly) promoting drug use is ridiculous. I'm not kidding. WOAI's afternoon talk jock, Joe "Pags", actually spent an hour in discussing this, and refused to budge, despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of his callers disagreed with him. As a matter of fact, in 2007, the Democrat Attorney General of Illinois used the very same criteria as a basis for removal of the product from sale in that state. (I wonder if she was up for re-election in 2008?)


The news story that I read stated that the office of Greg Abbott claims that "the defendant made unsubstantiated claims that it could help treat depression, lower cholesterol, prevent hardening of arteries and protect nerve fibers from glucose damage." If their website had these claims at one time, they are not there now, so I only have the word of the Attorney General that they did. I don't really think a company would be that irresponsible with laws governing such claims, but if it did, then the worst that should have happened was a fine and immediate withdrawal of the unsubstantiated advertisement.

Tune in next time, when we ban the Crock Pot. Surely they want people to start toking it up.

Cell Phone: Useful Gadget or Element of Destruction?

Some states have them, some states don't. I'm talking about laws regarding cell phones and driving. According to the Governor's Highway Safety Association, "5 states (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington), the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from talking on handheld cell phones while driving." And "8 states (Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey and Washington) and the District of Columbia have a text messaging ban for all drivers."

Using a hand-held cell phone requires, obviously, taking one hand off the wheel. That and the added distraction of using something that requires you to devote a minimum of attention away from the traffic and operation of a vehicle makes for hazardous actions. The number of deaths caused by accidents involving a driver using a cell phone alone should be enough to have every state enforcing a cell phone usage ban for all drivers.

Yet, taking my home state of Texas as an example, some states only have minor restrictions. For instance a cell-phone usage ban in Texas is only on school bus drivers, and novice drivers, although how they determine they are novice drivers in order to pull them over is anybody's guess.

There are even some states who have no restrictions at all, and don't even collect crash data about cell phone usage in accidents, according to the GHSA website. The guilty parties are Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina and Wisconsin.

There should be a law in all states, completely banning the use of hand-held cell phones, regardless of the time of day, traffic or weather conditions, or any other mitigating factors. According to my research before writing this, several states do have bills on the docket for their legislature to consider this. I encourage them all to pass them. The lives we could save from it would be more than worth the inconvenience caused to those who commit this distraction.