It's Tea Time

Who do these people think they are? Equating cell phone driving to drunk driving...what a retarded waste of time. I'm beginning to think it is better to just keep some people in the dark about the dangers of certain behaviors. All it ever leads to are stupid regulations that solve nothing, but take more money out of our pockets one way or the other.

What a joke! First of all, the study to end all of this BS came out years ago, and here is one more recent (and close to home, for us NJ drivers).

In New Jersey, police reported 3,580 accidents statewide involving cell phones in 2006, the only year for which a full accounting is available, according to data collected by the Department of Transportation.

The number of crashes involving hands-free and hand-held devices were about evenly split -- 1,854 to 1,726. And of the 11 fatal crashes among the total, six involved drivers using hand-held devices and five involved drivers using hands-free ones.

I remember reading the article from 2003, and thanking the dear lord that some sense had been added to the argument. Apparently not.

How much more proof do people need that this is just one big scam? "Hands free" technology does nothing (save possibly reducing brain tumor odds, but that's another story). It does not make you any safer of a driver. The phone is not the danger, the conversation is the danger.

I, and many other people, drive with one hand regardless of whether I am using the other hand or not. If I am ever on the phone, and something occurs that requires my other hand, I drop my phone and use my hand. It's not complicated really, I can call the person back so long as I'm still alive, so it's an easy choice. Again, it's the distraction of the conversation that is the problem. You are using some of your brains "field of attention" for something other than driving, so sure, that may increase your risk of an accident a tad. How much is highly debatable and I would imagine highly dependent on the individual and their mental faculties/driving abilities.

I could go on with this, mentioning interviews I had seen relating evidence showing that picturing the person in your head that you are talking to increases risk. Or that just plain old detailed daydreaming in general does. I won't though, because I think it's painfully obvious what a load of crap all of this is. Have no fear though! "Hands free" tech has made billions by now I'm sure, and state governments love the extra revenue they generate from issuing bogus cellphone tickets. The truth is lost amidst the profits, just another day in the USA.

So basically, ban everything from drinking coffee to listening to the radio. It's the only way to be safe. Or, we could just grow up and kick the nanny state in the nuts. Let them know we won't be their puppets to be used to pander to their buddy lobbyists in the endless quest for riches. At least, not on the cellphone thing anyway...

EDIT: For those of you searching for the amount of calories in a blueberry muffin (of which there are many): 510 calories for a Dunkin' Donuts blueberry muffin. Here is the direct link to the info on the Dunkin' Donuts site: Muffin Time

ORIGINAL POST FOLLOWS
--------------------------------

NYC mandatory calorie counts on fast food menus going into effect.

The new rule is already providing food for thought for frequenters of fast food joints, including a Telegraph correspondent who was distressed to discover that a morning blueberry muffin from Dunkin' Donuts contained 470 calories (now 510) - more than twice as many as a chocolate-covered éclair.

I know the above information is going to make someone I know think twice about muffins.

The whole thing is ridiculous in my eyes. I saw Chipoltes Mexican Grill caloric ranges that were 420-950 on the same meal! It's based on the particular ingredients you have or don't have on the meal of course, but your guess is as good as mine as to which ingredients those are. And don't be so quick to judge what's what when it comes to caloric intake, because:

...there was no sign of any such listing in McDonald's visited by the Telegraph in downtown Manhattan last week.

Asked about the calorie information, a server looked blank but then went to fetch her manager who pulled out a detailed "nutrition chart" from beneath the counter. This revealed that a bacon, egg and cheese McGriddle clocked in at 420 calories, making it a healthier breakfast option than the blueberry muffin, by this criterion at least.

I hate the "by this criterion at least" they throw in there. F u McDonalds you fat people making scum bags! Oh wait...OK maybe it was the blueberry muffins at Dunkin Donuts, sorry McDonalds. Whatever, this whole calorie counting movement pisses me off. For most of you who are fat, your problem is you eat to damn much. For those of you with medical problems that cause you to be obese, I feel for you truly. The rest of you are just assholes. Assholes who have now forced people to do math before they eat meals so they can feel good about themselves, all because you can control your eating behaviors about as well as a food obsessed dog. The starving people of the world must really be praying we just sink into the sea (separate from Canada and Mexico of course).

I'm just going to let this one speak for itself...

China is sending medics to offer reverse sterilisation operations to parents who lost their only children in last month's quake, state media says.

Go go gadget North Dakota!

It's light -- almost like gasoline -- and sweet, meaning it's low in sulfur. Best of all, the Bakken could be huge. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated in 2000 that the Bakken might hold 413 billion barrels. If so, it would dwarf Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the world's biggest field, which has produced about 55 billion barrels.

OK, so we could potentially have the largest oil reserve in the history of mankind on our own soil, but we live in an era of fear driven by oil prices. Our government sends us back rinky dink refund checks, talks about price controls on gasoline, and begs the Saudi's to up production to save our ass. All the while, we may have the solution to this problem for the next couple hundred years under North Dakota. Great.

Seriously, lets focus some money and minds on that area for a few months, see what these guys can come up with. A field like that we could tap into would bring the dollar roaring back, gas would cost thirty cents a gallon, and most importantly: we would buy centuries of precious time to develop technology and alternative energy sources.

Count me in, use my tax dollars for some of that please!