Skip to main content

When the country is more concerned about the concealed carry of sugar than guns

Since 1972, worldwide there have been 18,483 fatalities via plane crash. Since 2001, there have been 3,222 fatalities in the United States via terrorism, 2,902 of those occurring on September 11th of 2001. Combined, that's 21,705 fatalities. So, on average, there are approximately 528 deaths via plane crash worldwide every year and 190 deaths via terrorism in the United States on an annual basis. If we were to strip 9/11 from said equation, that average would decrease to 20 per year. Even if we go with the high end of that range, the two variables would combine for an average of 718 deaths every year. In other words, it's probably more likely for a person to die by getting struck by lightning than for him/her to die in a plane crash or by an act of terror. Yet we seem to be more paranoid than ever of being victimized by these lottery-jackpot odds, enough so that we've nonchalantly allowed our freedoms to be infringed for a false sense of security.

I say this because of a recent incident involving the TSA. Remember the time when we could go through the security line without removing our shoes, raising our hands like we're being held at gunpoint by the police, getting frisked even after walking through the metal detector unscathed? Those were the days, right? Not only that, but there's now a list of items one can't bring on a plane which may have exceeded the length of California. One item on the list? Sugar. My mother, a 64-year-old woman who feels guilty about swatting at mosquitoes, even after they've infected her with the West Nile virus, was taken aside by TSA agents due to a bag of sugar she had in her purse. This led to her missing the flight and getting to her destination 6 hours later than originally scheduled. Really? Is this really what we've come to in this country? We can't seem to pass any laws to limit gun violence, which kills approximately 35,000 people in this country every year, but we're fearful of a 64-year-old women possessing sugar at an airport? Give me a fricking break...

http://www.airfleets.net/crash/fatalities_year.htm


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"