Fly the friendly skies?

American Airlines, as with all other airlines, needs an image boost. Not this:

http://consumerist.com/5406536/american-airlines-fires-web-designer-for-helping-customer?skyline=true&s=x

Why in the world would you fire someone for being helpful? Most companies laud their employees for being caring, and going above and beyond the call of duty. But not American Airlines. They must be one of that stupid group of people who thinks there is no such thing as bad publicity.

I usually go with whichever airline is cheapest. But if it's a close call between American Airlines and someone else, I'll go with someone else thank you.

Stupid Brits

Well now here's an interesting law that seems quite ridiculous:

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/28/council-bans-parents.html

They want parents to abdicate responsibility for their own children? Isn't a day at the playground supposed to be a time of interaction with your child? I can see this backfiring, and parents will just use these parks as a dumping ground for their kids. They're being watched by a certified, responsible adult after all, right?

When my kids were little, they sure as heck were not going to leave my side and go play on the big scary slide by themselves. And how many playground supervisors are there going to be? One for every 2 or 3 children? I highly doubt that. In a typical park, at least all the parks near me, you've got big kids stepping on little kids, all kinds of running around and smacking into each other, fights over who got to the teeter totter first, little kids needing a push on the swings or a catch at the bottom of a slide. And the list goes on. With that many small children, you need all the parents you can get. And I can't even imagine what kind of liability this could actually open them up to. "Your back was to my child and he fell off the swings!"

Granted, not all parents participate as fully as they should in their child's playground time. Some sit far off to one side, on their cell phones, not noticing as their precious little Johnny runs around screaming, stepping on toddlers' toes, shoving them, not saying excuse me, etc. But for the most part, all the parents are engaged in ensuring the safety and enjoyment of their own children. These people are the MOST qualified, and entitled, to be performing that task. I'm not even sure what exactly the government is trying to protect the children from. Are there hundreds of reports of weirdoes stealing or molesting children in parks? I highly doubt it -- far too many other parents there. If I ever hear a viable explanation, I'll publish it here, but meanwhile I am not holding my breath.

This kind of thinking still exists?

Sorry for the long delay between posts. I've seen some stupid things out there, but none too spectacular. Just the Balloon Boy and his parents, but that's already been given so much coverage.

So there is a judge in Louisiana who refuses to wed interracial couples:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/interracial.marriage/index.html

I wish I had something witty or wise to say here, but I'm just not too good with words. I only like pointing out the cases of stupidity I happen to come across. I just don't know what this judge's rationale is for not doing his job. He is supposed to act according to the law, and there is no law against interracial marriage, as far as I'm aware. He claims that children of interracial couples have a hard time in life, and that seems like it could be true, but it certainly isn't a known fact, and I'm sure it isn't true for many parts of the country. And most importantly, it is not for him to decide.

Stupid Blog

The blog itself is not stupid; the customers listed in the posts are. I read through a few posts and couldn't decide which one was the best one to publish here, but I ran across this one from Portland, OR, and since I'm originally from that area I decided to share this one with you.

http://notalwaysright.com/the-wicked-witch-of-the-pacific-northwest/2350

If you like it, you can click the Home link on their page, and read all the other hilarious posts. Just when I think people can't possibly be that stupid, I read about someone else who is even more stupid.

Cuckoo

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557760,00.html

I have no commentary for this. It speaks for itself.

Speidi

For those of you unaware of the reality tv phenomenon known collectively as "Speidi," let me enlighten you. Spencer Pratt (and what a prat he is) and Heidi Montag are a married couple, whose sole claim to fame is their appearance on reality tv's "The Hills".

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20309161,00.html

I can't decide whether Spencer is smart or stupid. Overall, he is an incredibly stupid person. This is only my opinion (as well as the opinion of many others, including CNN's Anderson Cooper); don't sue me. Anyway, he has the right idea that the last thing he and Heidi should be doing is procreating. But he's going about it in an incredibly stupid way. Why in the hell is he married to her if she could be lying to him about her birth control? And why is he withholding sex from her? That's not what married people do. Well it is, but you know what I mean. People in a relatively normal relationship do not just withhold sex for reasons such as this. Before they got married, they must have known that they had differing opinions on having children.

I hope their travesty of a marriage ends soon, before he really does give in to her, sans birth control, and they create a very unfortunate baby, who does not deserve to have parents like Speidi.

As a side note, I do not watch "The Hills", but through clips on shows such as "The Soup" I have seen more than a snippet of their stupid antics. So don't call me stupid for following them :-)

Shortsighted lawmakers

Ok I suppose one could argue that the police and prosecutor were only doing their job:

http://www.tribstar.com/local/local_story_246225916.html

How many hours and taxpayer dollars were wasted on this case? Time that could have been used to investigate real criminals. Seems like these days, every police force in the nation complains about budget cuts and lack of time needed to go after the real criminals. If they have time to track down a granny who goes .6 grams over the limit, then maybe they DO need a budget cut.

But it's the law itself I object to. My state has a similar law regarding the purchase of pseudoephedrine. I have to sign my life away to get a box of Sudafed. That is, if I can even find a pharmacy that carries it anymore. As long as we are willing to show an ID and sign for it, why should we be allowed only one box? The law can then just go after anyone who has bought an extremely high amount, no pun intended.

Furthermore, is the police even aware that pseudoephedrine is no longer necessary for meth production? I do not keep up with the latest innovations in drug use or composition, but that much I do know. (Thank you, "Breaking Bad"!)

By their (the lawmakers) rationale, air travelers would now have to submit to mandatory body cavity searches because one guy figured out a way to smuggle explosives in a body part that one generally does not discuss in polite conversation. That story probably deserves a post of its own but it's already quite prevalent in mainstream news, and I try to go for the more overlooked stories.