Daily Dose of Common Sense

The answer, of course, is no.

Today is the third Friday the 13th in 2009, the most times that combination can possibly occur in one year. It’s rumored that millions of people postpone surgeries or travel on this day, and many are frightened that something bad will happen to them today. Is it true? Are many people paralyzed with fear over Friday the 13th?

It appears not.

…in Chicago, for example, neither O’Hare International Airport nor United Airlines has noticed any drop in the number of people flying on Friday the 13th.

“It’s an old wives’ tale,” said United spokeswoman Robin Urbanski in an e-mail.

The same goes for two of the biggest hospitals in the city–Northwestern Memorial Hospital and the University of Chicago Medical Center–where it appears people are just as likely go to go under the knife that day as any other, and aren’t rushing to the doctor, either.

And, investors don’t care, either. Friday the 13th is typically a good day for the stock market.

So, don’t let the superstition get to you. Travel, invest, and plan events for today as you would any other day. That’s what most of us are doing, anyway. As Stevie Wonder said,

When you believe in things
That you don’t understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition aint the way

Photo

Stupid haircut? Yes, for sure.

But, worthy of getting suspended from school? Not even close.

This boy was suspended from a Cincinnati middle school because the school deemed the haircut as violating its “extreme and distracting hairstyles” code. The student is a Bengals fan and wanted to show his team spirit.

What kind of world are we living in where we refuse children the right to have any hairstyle or haircut they want? I had a mullet in middle school. For SURE that look should have been banned somehow. (I still have to live with the photos to this day.) Perhaps the school should realize that the future shame will be enough punishment for this haircut.

Photo

A man in New York is suing Bank of America for “$1,784 billion, trillion dollars.”

Did Bank of America kill his first-born child? Nope. He’s suing the bank because of a bad customer service experience.

Yeah, you’re not going to win that one, buddy.

Photo courtesy of Flickr: The Consumerist

A study just released claims that one in ten teenagers has posted a nude or seminude photo of themselves online. This incredibly high number should cause some head scratching. Like a hasty tattoo, these photos could be hard to later remove and therefore haunt these teens for years.

I have a friend who says that everyone should get nude pictures of themselves taken when they are eighteen years old. He says you’ll never, ever look better so document it while you can. Well, I didn’t and now that I’m sliding down towards forty, I have to say I agree with his logic. So, I certainly can’t begrudge teens for taking racy pictures of themselves. But, posting them online? We all know how iron-clad the online privacy is these days. Do these kids care nothing at all for who sees their photos?

I guess the teens uploading these types of photos aren’t planning careers in politics or anything with a morals clause. Nike might not be thrilled with seeing its star player’s bait and tackle all over the Internet, even if they were old pictures. Before she started scene-stealing on Ugly Betty, Vanessa Williams got in a little bit of trouble due to some nude photos, as have many other actresses. I guess if you’re going into porn, building a fan base with some nude photos might be a smart move. But, I doubt very many teens are thinking about future careers or potential employers. So, what about parents, teachers, classmates, neighbors, or other family members? Not everyone would want Mrs. Mitchell or Uncle Bob to see their racy photos on the Web.

Someone needs to remind kids about long-term ramifications and the Internet. Remember the Facebook privacy bruhaha from earlier in the year? The social network giant caught all kinds of flack after saying they own your content–even after you deactivate your account. Nothing ever goes away, folks. Not even when you delete it.

[Via PatsPapers.com]

Photo courtesy of Flickr: visualdensity

In a massive common sense fail, a Burger King manager in Missouri asked mother Jennifer Frederich and her six-month old baby to leave his restaurant. The offense? The baby had no shoes on. The manager cited public health code, which mandates that people wear shoes in places where food is prepared and sold. But, a six-month old? Come on–they’re not even walking yet.

“I just looked at him and said, ‘That’s my daughter.  She doesn’t own shoes.  She’s only six months old,’” said Frederich. 

Frederich says she went on to make the case that, “She doesn’t walk, so she’s not touching the ground.  There is no reason for her to have shoes on.”

The mother, who was clearly baffled by the request, tried to accommodate the manager by putting socks on her child. The manager said that was not enough and asked them to leave.

Burger King headquarters has since apologized to the family and offered them a free meal. A complimentary Whopper seems like paltry compensation for such a PR blunder. Couldn’t they at least have gotten to meet this guy?

Photo courtesy of Flickr: zieak

Last week, a New York woman was charged with drunk driving while transporting home five kids after attending a festival. At 12:30 in the morning, she was pulled over for a broken headlight. But, the officer smelled booze and a sobriety test was performed (and failed).

The woman’s excuse? According to the news report:

“My husband was 10 times drunker than I was. I had two kids left with me that weren’t even mine that I had no intention of driving home in the first place. It was either let my husband drive and kill everybody or leave those two kids abandoned,” she said.

Hmmmm. First, how about coming up with a plan for someone in your group to be responsible and stay sober throughout the night? It seems like a simple, adult conversation to have, especially when you have kids along. “Are you going to drink tonight? OK, then I won’t.” If the advance planning is too difficult for you, how about asking someone else for a ride home? Or, calling a cab?

If I were the parent of one of the two non-family kids involved, I would be furious at this woman. There is a point where safety trumps carpooling duties. I would rather my kid be abandoned than driven home by someone who had been drinking. At least then, s/he could use a phone to call me.

It’s mind-boggling: After all the awareness through ad campaigns, public service announcements, pamphlets, and news reports, some people still get behind the wheel after drinking. What more can be done to convince people it’s a really, really bad idea?

It is always surprising to get in an elevator in a hotel and see the numbers go from twelve to fourteen. We all know there’s a number missing. Are some people really still paralyzed with fear over the number thirteen?

There are many theories as to why thirteen has gotten a bad rap. Some say it has Christian roots revolving around the Last Supper. Others say the ancient Egyptians believed the number thirteen to be a symbol of death. There are also Norse and medieval ties to this number as well. Regardless, we all know superstitions are just crazy, right?

For example:
- Knocking wood won’t really change your luck (there’s no such thing as luck).
- Spilling salt doesn’t bring the devil (it means you’re clumsy).
- Sneezing doesn’t let your soul escape (it means there’s an irritation in your nose).
- A sudden shiver doesn’t mean someone is walking on your grave (it means you’re cold!).

And yet, the fear over the number thirteen persists. Friday the thirteenth is not just a horror franchise; many people actually alter their plans when this day rolls around. A small percentage of people polled said they would request a room change if given accommodations on the thirteenth floor.

A recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll suggests a large majority of Americans — 87% — would be comfortable with a 13th floor room assignment. But 13% say they’d be bothered by a 13th floor room assignment, including 9% who would be sufficiently bothered to seek a room change.

The poll shows women, people age 65-plus and those with annual household incomes below $30,000 are more prone than average to seek a new room if assigned to the 13th floor.

The trend of renaming the thirteenth floor in buildings and hotels began in the late 19th century. However, in a rash of rationality, some newer hotels have bucked this nonsense and have installed elevator buttons with thirteenth floors. I say let the 9% move to a different floor–and get a grip. But, until then, I guess I’m staying on the “fourteenth” floor of my hotel.

PETA has had an interesting past couple of days. Not long after getting upset at the Pike Place Fish Market employees for “callously” throwing fish, the animal-rights group is taking President Obama to task.

The White House apparently has a fly problem. During an interview, President Obama had a fly land on him, so he did what 99.9% of us would do: he swatted and killed it. (Check out the video. Great technique by the President. He’s like Mr. Miyagi from The Karate Kid.)

PETA doesn’t approve and wants the President to use a humane fly catcher instead. This device catches the unwanted flying creatures and allows them to be re-released into the wild. (Someone really makes something like this?)

Twitter has been abuzz (ahem) today with reaction. Most think PETA has lost its marbles. The best tweet I saw said this sort of hooey is why PETA loses its credibility on the larger issues. They bring attention to their cause with big publicity like this, but it’s the wrong kind of attention. Do we really need to be concerned about depletion of the fly population? Judging from my summer bar-b-que experience, there is no shortage of flies.

So, here’s some zen-like advice, folks: Focus on the stuff that matters, and don’t sweat the rest. Wax on, wax off.

In Seattle, one of the biggest tourist attractions is the Pike Place Fish Market. The fishmongers are known for being robustly energetic with their product. Fish from the day’s catch are thrown around–sometimes even over the customers’ heads–as workers move the fish from place to place. If you want a more descriptive account, here’s an example video from Seattle Travel.

PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, doesn’t agree with this practice because they think it’s cruel to the fish. The dead fish. They plan to protest an exhibition of the practice at an upcoming veterinarian conference held in Seattle. PETA believes the tossing of dead fish is disrespectful to the animal. The dead animal. They feel it shows a “callous disregard” for the suffering it went through to make it to the table. They would eventually like the practice to stop inside the Fish Market as well.

“Killing animals so you can toss their bodies around for amusement is just twisted,” said Ashley Byrne, senior campaigner for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in Washington, D.C.

Really? Is that why the fish were killed? They’re just thrown around? They’re just props at a carnival?

As far as I can tell, the animals weren’t killed just to boost the tourism at Pike Place. Common sense dictates that the fishmongers throw the dead (read: no longer alive) fish in order to move them from one place to another. It happens they developed a quick and elaborate method that is efficient for their business.

The fish are an important source of food for many as well as an important source of income for the employees. And not just the employees of Pike Place. If Pike Place flourishes, so do the distributors, fisherman, manufacturers of fishing equipment, and so on, and so on. If Pike Place can increase the likelihood that these sources continue to succeed, they affect a lot of jobs.

Remember, this discussion isn’t about whether fishing is right or wrong. It’s about how the already deceased fish are handled. Is this really where all this energy should be focused?

In a case that will surely go down as one of the lowest points in our legal history, a California woman sued the makers of Cap’n Crunch cereal. No, she didn’t find something horrible in her cereal box. Nor was she gypped out of a prize inside. Instead, this woman was outraged that “crunchberries” aren’t real fruit.

The plaintiff argued that consumers are being misled into thinking that crunchberries contain real fruit because “berry” appears in the word.

It’s hard to see how anyone could dream up a case of fraud here. Regardless of the fact that the ingredients are plainly listed, the picture on the front of the box shows you exactly what the cereal looks like. There’s no big mystery. Luckily, the judge agreed and dismissed the case.

What next? Will someone sue because the Cap’n isn’t a real Captain?