Parents who won't protect their children, under the disguise of "morality"

The human papilloma virus (HPV) is a sexually transmitted disease that causes cervical cancer. 3,700 women die of cervical cancer every year. Fortunately, a vaccine has been made to prevent women from contracting HPV. The best time to receive the vaccination is before sexual activity starts.

The state of Michigan has issued legislation that would require all girls attending public school to receive the vaccination before entering the 6th grade. There are provisions for parents to opt out for medical, moral, or philosophical reasons. [Story Here]

Of course, some parents are outraged. They say that this sends the message to kids that underage sex is okay. What these parents don't understand is that whether underage sex is "okay" or not, their own children have a 62% chance of becoming sexually active anyway.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, [View PDF File]:

• 6% of girls and 8% of boys start having sex before the age of 14
• 62% of teens have had sexual intercourse by the 12th grade

Yes, your little angels have sex regardless of whatever morals you try to instill in them.

For parents of girls, this especially applies to you:

• 18% of sexually active boys in grades 9-12 have had more than four sexual partners
• 25% of sexually active girls' first partners were four (or more) years older than them; girls with older partners are less likely to use contraceptives
• 33% of sexually active kids ages 15-17 report "being in a relationship where things are moving too fast sexually",
  
• 24% of sexually active kids ages 15-17 participated in sexual acts that they really did not want to do
• 12% of girls in grades 9-12 report being physically forced to have intercourse

The prospect that a young teenage girl is forced into sex by an older boy who has had four or more sexual partners is a bit scary. Keep reading:

• 4 million teens contract sexually transmitted diseases each year
• 1 in 4 sexually active teens will contract a sexually transmitted disease

So if one in four sexually active teens has an STD, and 18% of sexually active boys have had four or more partners, then it is reasonable to assume that nearly all of those boys have an STD.

These are the boys that your daughter is most likely to have her first sexual experience with -- whether underage or not. Even if she remains abstinent during her teenage years (which she is statistically unlikely to do), she will be dating these guys in college and thereafter.

So to the parents who are outraged over the suggested requirement for this vaccination: Take off your blinders and stop chanting the "it won't happen to my child" mantra. How terrible would you feel if your precious daughter undergoes years of chemotherapy only to die from cervical cancer because you were too morally rigid to have her vaccinated? At some point, you need to realize that your child is human and will make bitterly regrettable mistakes. When a preventable consequence is cancer, it is inhuman not to take action.

Latest Boeing resembles a flying Twinkie

mmm ... Twinkies.

You know, Boeing could sell some advertising space on this one :P

There is more info on Boeing's new plane [HERE].


So after seeing this plane, I went to the Twinkies official website. There, I was greeted by a slim little girl being embraced by a happy-but-tired-looking mother. Just in case the front page changes, this is the image:


First of all, if this woman feeds her child twinkies, then her child is bulimic. Nobody can eat Twinkies and remain slim without puking it all up later.

This is a much more accurate picture:



Second, a "Twinkies Cookbook"? They must be joking. But they sadly aren't. [This Page] is full of Twinkie recipies -- taking the already-fattening Twinkie to make it even more fattening. Do people even care anymore about what they put into their bodies?

Third, Hostess does not even provide nutritional information about its products anywhere on the website. What does this suggest? It tells me that Hostess products are nutritional suicide, and the company knows it. Otherwise, Hostess would provide easily accessible nutritional information on its website like all of the other reputable food companies do.

I had to go to another website just to find the nutritional info. [Nutritional Info Here]

Let's see ... one itty bitty little 43 gram Twinkie has:

• 150 calories
• 45 calories from fat
• 5g total fat
• 2g saturated fat
• 20mg cholesterol
• 25g carbohydrates (14 g sugar)

That's for one little Twinkie.

A 167 gram 6-inch Subway sandwich has less fat, fewer fat calories, no cholesterol, and additional healthy vitamins than one tiny 43 gram Twinkie.

So if a hungry person eats 167 grams of Twinkies (imagine a 6-inch Subway sandwich-sized Twinkie), they're getting:

Gram for gram, Twinkies are practically poisonous. No wonder Hostess won't provide the nutritional info on its website.

And it's also no wonder that a growing number of people want to impose a "Twinkie Tax" on nutritionally-harmful snacks. The tax would help pay for the medical expenses associated with America's growing obesity epidemic.

Considering that cigarettes and alcohol have been taxed for years because of the high cost of the health problems they cause, a "Twinkie Tax" seems like a good idea.

But wait --surely obesity doesn't cost as much as tobacco and alcoholism. Or does it?

Here are the latest figures for each -- these are the annual healthcare and lost productivity costs in the United States:

• Obesity: $117 billion per year ([source])
• Tobacco: $167 billion per year ([source])
• Alcohol: $185 billion per year ([source])

Obesity isn't costing as much as tobacco or alcohol yet, but I'd say that it's a costly problem worthy of a tax.

A recent article suggests that due to health problems caused by obesity, today's children will be the first generation in history that fails to outlive its parents. [Read the Article]

Make that "Twinkie Tax" high. Really high. The costs are going to be limitless.


On second thought, maybe it would be in Boeing's best interests NOT to sell advertising space on its new plane to Hostess ...

Pushy San Diego reporter is attacked; News Media plays dumb

A San Diego news reporter recently did an expose on a couple's alleged real estate scam. Note especially the word "alleged".

Regardless of the fact that no charges had even been filed against the couple, he broadcasts his expose on the couple, subjecting them to accusations and humiliation.

Nevermind the constitutional right of being considered "innocent until proven guilty". This reporter wants the public to find them "guilty before even being charged with a crime".

His first expose did not result in charges being filed against the couple. So what does he do? He goes back to their private home to further harass them.

This CNN video shows what happens next: [Click Here]

The reporter harasses the wife. The wife panics. After all, this is the man who is accusing her and her husband of committing a crime, and he's doing it by broadcasting it to the public masses.

The wife snaps and tells the reporter and crew to get off her property. The reporter indignantly plays "innocent" -- after all, he's trying to portray her as a criminal without giving her a chance to defend herself.

She happens to be holding a water bottle. She throws water on the camera to get it to stop rolling, but they continue to film, and the reporter continues to harass her.

She slaps the reporter in the face with the empty plastic water bottle, at which point, he plays the role of the martyr and extends his hand to her, sarcastically saying, "have a nice day".

The reporter deserved what happened next.

Her husband drives up, sees what's happening, and ruthlessly attacks the cowering reporter.

It's a beautiful scene: This incredibly rude and arrogant reporter, a mere doll of a man who could hardly handle getting spanked in the face by a little girl with an empty plastic water bottle, gets absolutely clobbered by her macho husband. Beautiful. It's like watching justice unfold.

Of course the police arrive within minutes and arrest both the wife and the husband for assault. The reporter sustained bruises, cuts, and gashes. The crippling injury to his massively oversized ego was understandably not reported.

CNN puts the video on their website, and it's an instant hit with the public. It's the most popular video at CNN.com.

Due to the popularity of the video, the reporter appears all over the national news to describe the ruthlessness of the ordeal. After all, he was savagely and viciously attacked by criminals. You can almost see a halo glowing over his pathetic little martyred head. Awwwww!

It's hilarious to watch the news media's response to this situation. They are playing innocent and placing this reporter on a martyr's pedestal. After all, the news media must consider it to be perfectly ethical and normal to smear the reputation of random people by exploiting them in the most public way possible, denying their constitutional rights to a fair trial through biased and ruthless reporting.

CNN has posted another video, pretending to be shocked by the public's enjoyment of his beating: [Click Here]

This video asks the important question:

"Whatever did he do to deserve this ... this ... (sniff, sniff) ... (whimper) ... terrible beating?"

Look, the public knows what he did to deserve it, and they love to watch it over and over again. Why? Everyone loves to watch someone get what they deserve.

Is it open season on reporters? No. But the public has had enough of this kind of intrusive and pushy reporting.

Let's face it: the news media underestimates the intelligence of their audience. We know fair and unbiased reporting when we see it. Halos of martyrdom and press tags don't hide dishonesty.

Treat people fairly and honestly. What goes around comes around -- and this mendacious reporter's well-deserved beating proves it.

To the reporter: Get off your cross. Other abusive reporters need to be beaten with it.

Breast Feeding is apparently a WAR now ...

"Babytalk" magazine has received over 700 letters regarding this cover featuring a baby nursing.

People are outraged and disgusted. One woman even shredded the cover so that her teenage son wouldn't see the sinful "sexual content". Obviously she hasn't seen the dozens of "Playboy" and "Maxim" issues under his mattress or the porn files on his computer.

Other women say, "Men are sexually excited visually. A breast is a breast. It doesn't matter to them whether it's being used to feed a baby or if it's being used in a porn movie." Which in my opinion seems to be a degrading statement to the male gender. Men are human beings, not sexually rabid monsters.

Am I the only person alive who thinks that these people are over-reacting? Even at first glance, I thought it was a beautiful picture depicting a baby's innocent dependence on its loving mother.

It's only a breast. Why are people disgusted? At any shopping mall in my area, you will find dozens of fat girls sitting on benches, leaning forward with their pant waists sinking down past their slimy buttcracks, revealing butterfly tattoos and g-strings. That's perfectly acceptable.

It's also perfectly acceptable for teenage girls to dress like hookers and prance around with their breasts and buttocks partially exposed. But entirely covering a breast while feeding a hungry baby in a secluded area is NOT tolerated and is called "sexual".

Sometimes the world's most disgusting perverts masquerade in Puritan skin.

[Full Article Here]

KFC's "Famous Bowl", the Freakiest Fast Food Offering of All Time

According to the commercials, KFC's "Famous Bowl" consists of: "creamy mashed potatoes, sweet kernel corn, bite size pieces of all-white meat crispy chicken, topped with our homestyle gravy and 3-cheese blend" all crammed into one bowl.

My great-grandparents fed their pigs the same slop.

What were they thinking? Did they do any market research before releasing this?

Nutritional Info:
The bowl is packed with 720 calories, 290 fat calories, 32 grams of fat, 65 mgs of cholesterol, 2390 mgs of sodium, and 81 carbs.

Since all fast-food menu items have to "beat" the previous items by being bigger and having more stuff, let's predict KFC's next menu item:

"Creamy mashed potatoes topped with corn, fried chicken, gravy, and cheese, then doused with a medium Pepsi, topped with a cherry pie, then coated with french fries and deep fried to a golden crisp and topped with more cheese and gravy."

Any other ideas?

Judge Dismisses Child Rape Case. Why?

Cleveland, Ohio -- Judge Eileen Gallagher dismissed a child rape case because the prosecutor was late to court.

The little girl was only 10 years old at the time of the rape, and is now 16 years old. Her mother says she feels victimized by the judge's decision.

[Full Story Here]

And we wonder why we have such a terrible crime problem here in the USA ...

I think the judge should be removed from office. Then she should be raped, and her own rape trial should be later dismissed.

The rapist should be executed in the following way: first his genitals should be sawed off with an old, rusty saw. Then he should be left to bleed to death. If he doesn't bleed to death, he should be doused in gasoline and set on fire, then left for dead. If he still isn't dead, leave him alone until he dies of hunger. (No offense to anyone. That's just what I think should happen to ALL rapists.)

But that's just my hiney-whiney little opinion :D

Price of new PS3: Arm, Leg, Firstborn

Sony has just announced the price of the new PS3 game consoles: $499 for the standard version (20 gig hard drive), and $599 for the deluxe version (60 gig hard drive, and a few other features). The PS3's processor is supposedly 35 times more powerful than the PS2's processor, and each PS3 will include a Blu-ray high-definition DVD player (stand alone cost of a Blu-ray player can run around $1800).

I loved the Playstation, and I loved the PS2 ... but the PS3 is gonna be a few miles out of my price range, lol.

Kind of makes me want to drag out my old Nintendo while I'm at it. Which reminds me ... I came across a vintage Nintendo commercial on Google Videos. [Wanna See?] Brings back memories! And for more old school Nintendo fun, you might enjoy this [Mario Brothers flash] and this [Old Power Pad Advertisement].

It's interesting how video games have changed over the years. The newer, more flashy games leave no room for the imagination. They're more complicated, more violent, sexually indecent, and well ... not as fun.

The older video games were meant to be fun. PacMan was fun. Frogger was fun. Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Halo were never intended to be fun. How could any normal person "have fun" killing people? But then again, How could any normal person "have fun" directing a helpless frog to cross a busy highway?

I dunno. Maybe I'm just getting "old", lol :P

PS3 or no PS3? I'll probably get one ... after the price drops and some decent games come out.