The Invincible Idiot

I remember having that invincible feeling when I was younger. God, it was great. Not giving a crap about anything you do is a fabulous feeling. The only problem with it in the scenario that I'm describing is that at the time that you're doing it, you don't know how great it is to feel so invincible. You just feel that way because you don't know any other way to feel. You're under the impression that nothing bad will happen to you no matter what you do. And that includes jumping off of the Golden Gate Bridge when you're on a field trip. Wait. What now?

Apparently, according to KTVU, "...a male student from Windsor High School in Sonoma County leaped from the bridge at approximately 11:15 a.m. Approximately 45 students and two teachers were at the bridge for the school field trip". OK, then. That's a really stupid thing to do on many levels. Level One, more than 9 times out of 10, you're going to die. Level Two...well, I think that Level One really covers all we need to know here. The most likely outcome (even though that miraculously was not the case this time) is that you're going to be dead moments after you step off of the bridge. How this kid was able to swim away and then walk away practically unscathed is beyond me.

After he made it to the shore with the help of some surfers (a couple of whom this dipwad almost landed on when he jumped) "The student told paramedics that he's a recreational bridge jumper, and has done stunts like this before". What the what is a 'recreational bridge jumper'? Is that just another word for a 17-year old idiot who just took a plunge into the San Francisco Bay? Is that opposed to a professional bridge jumper? What sort of profession is that? How often are those sorts of services needed? I'm guessing not often, but that's probably only due to the incredibly low levels of intelligence if this guy is any indication of those who participate.

And the stunts that he claims to have done before, were they also on field trips with his school? 45 kids and two teachers and this guy still manages to climb over all of the obstacles that they put up in hopes of stopping the unstoppable? Of course. He's a 17-year old. Not only do they feel invincible, they're remarkably determined at performing the inadvisable. But if you're thinking that this was a dare, oh no, think again. See, "Students said they wanted to make it known that no one dared the student to jump or egged him on." Uh-huh.

Do they really think that we're dumb enough to believe that? You have got to be kidding me. The only question is whether more kids dared him to than didn't dare him to. (And if there was going to be a second question, it would be whether or not either of the teachers participated in any of the daring. I'm not implying that they did. I'm just curious.) "We would never encourage that," said a student who likely did just that. Yeah, right. I'm not saying that they're to blame. No, that responsibility lies squarely on the wet, wet shoulders of the moron who actually jumped. I'm just saying that anyone who says that they would never encourage something, especially trying to get a classmate to jump off of a bridge, is not the most truthful individual you're ever going to run across.

I'm not sure what sort of notoriety this stunt is going to bring the kid at school. He's either going to be hailed as the new king of the village or shunned as the new village idiot. (Well, as another village idiot. There are a lot of openings for idiots when you're in high school.) The student under mental observation for a short time after being 'rescued', but I don't know what they're going to find out other than he's 17 and has balls the size of coconuts. But I'm sure that he'll be making the media rounds in a little while here, so we'll get to hear first hand what this moron has to say about all of recreational bridge jumping activities. Makes me kind of glad we're going to be hearing about that tsunami for a while.

I know this much, though: If this little stunt makes it so that the debate about having better barriers on the Golden Gate Bridge is reignited, I'M going to jump off of the bridge. It doesn't need more suicide barriers. If people want to kill themselves by jumping off of the bridge, that's their decision. Land of the free. Remember? Sure, it's sad. Suicide usually is. But do you know what is even sadder? Trying to idiot-proof everything in society in the quest to achieve the impossible goal of trying to make everything safe and sound for everyone all of the time. And even sadder than that (if you can imagine something being sadder)? That's right. Trying to use my tax money to pay for it. Sad, sad, sad.

A Penis With Personality

You know what will happen when a bunch of city supervisors over at your local City Hall enact a law which completely takes away your freedom of choice under the apparent guise of them knowing better than you? That's right. People near and far are going to want to enact another one which limits your freedom to choose even more. I'm not talking things like abortion and guns here, but that's only because I'm talking about San Francisco. No, when you factor San Francisco into the mix, you have to include wacky things like Happy Meals and the male foreskin. Wait. What now?

Yeah, there's a sentence that I never thought I'd type. At least, I never thought that I'd have the opportunity to include both 'Happy Meal' and 'foreskin' in the same sentence and have them both be relevant. But thanks to San Francisco, such a sentence AND such a concept is now possible. Try not to hang yourself until you finish reading. (I know how tough that will be. I had to resist the urge to hang myself until I finished typing.)

As you may or may blissfully not be aware, last week, San Francisco passed a law that forbids fast food outlets from giving out a toy with a meal that is not deemed "healthy". Personally, I think the easiest way around that law, rather than succumb to what San Francisco thinks that you should do and/or eat, would be to sell the toy and include the meal for free. There's no law against that. Yet. But I digress. Now, there might be a measure on the ballot next year "...that would make it a “misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the…genitals” of a person under 18." So sayeth CBS San Francisco. Good Lord, people.

I'm all for the not being able to mutilate genitals. Don't get me wrong, as that sounds like a fairly reasonable provision. However, to need a separate law for it would be, you guessed it, completely ridiculous. That's because you typically don't define a medical procedure as 'mutilation'. But back to the foreskin. (Again, a sentence I never thought I'd type.) The author of this asinine bill is a one Lloyd Schofield who claims that the circumcision IS genital mutilation. Uh-huh. OK, then. What else?

He seems to be going on the belief that circumcision is a religious practice. And yes, it has been for many years and still is in some instances I would assume. But I would be surprised if the majority of circumcisions that are being performed today are being done so because of a religious belief. I would also be surprised if the majority of people thought of circumcision as a religious rite as opposed to seeing it as a medical procedure. I checked with the CDC (at their website) and they don't have any guidelines on whether or not a circumcision should be performed for health reasons. According to the CBS article "Scientists with the Centers for Disease Control are still studying whether circumcisions are healthier, and have promised recommendations to the public." Oh, good. A foreskin promise. That's something to look forward to.

Haven't we always been told (or taught) that circumcision cuts down (pun probably not intended, but completely inevitable) on diseases and is just cleaner or easier to clean? I don't know the specifics, not ever having had a foreskin, I'm just going on what I've learned in various health/anatomy classes. I'm also going to go with what was on Seinfeld when Elaine asked Jerry if he had ever seen one that wasn't circumcised. He said he hadn't and she went on to tell him that it wasn't good. "No, had no face, no personality, very dull. It was like a martian. But hey, that's me." Do you want a weenie with no personality ? I don't think you do.

The point here (surprisingly enough) isn't about the penis. It isn't even about the foreskin. It's about the government trying to ooch its way into every aspect of the life of a private citizen and the decision that they should be making ON THEIR OWN. You don't need to the government to tell you what kind of food you can buy for your child. You're supposed to be responsible enough to make that decision on your own. Yes, yes. I realize that we are surrounded by morons. And I also realize that we are surrounded by morons with children. But we can't let the freedoms of the capable be taken away by the moronic. Technically, the moronic are supposed to suffer as a result of their poor choices. I realize that consequences are practically non-existent in a socialist society, but we're not totally there yet, so there's still hope.

I'm semi-interested in whether or not the author of this bill has had his snipped off. I don't know why I'm semi-interested in that, but I just am. Regardless, it doesn't mean that he gets to try to dictate (again, no pun intended, but pretty funny none the less) what others do with theirs. Why are people not up in arms about the very thought of this happening? I'm not exactly sure, but that alone frightens me more than the possible ban on circumcision does.