HATIN': Because Sometimes Everyone Needs A Good A$$ Whoopin' & A Good Night's Sleep

So much to HATE on, so little time. Let’s get right into it.

New KFC “Double Down” Sandwich- Double DAMN!

Seriously? Damn, America, How Fat Are We.

After writing about the debated health care reform bill, weighing its pros and cons, news of this monstrosity of a sandwich comes out.

Now, I hear you asking, “What does this have to do with health care reform?” My answer; It has EVERYTHING to do with health care reform.

Before I get into my rant about the effects that this one sandwich can have on the entire state of our health care system, let me break down the situation.

KFC, formally Kentucky Fried Chicken, has just released that it is now offering a new sandwich called the “Double Down”, consisting of bacon, two kinds of cheeses (Monterey and Pepper Jack) and sauce between two pieces of fried or grilled chicken. That's right, fried or grilled chicken as a bun instead of bread.

Now, the fast food chain claims that the sandwich is a mere 540 calories for the fried chicken version and 460 calories for the grilled chicken version, but putting it in the category of “not that bad” or “guilty pleasure” may have you in the hospital, because the sandwich also has 32 grams of fat for the fried version and 23 grams for the grilled version; not to mention a staggering1380 mgs of sodium for the fried sandwich and 1430 for the grilled. That is more than the recommended daily allowance, and this is just for one sandwich.

I’m sorry, when you have two pieces of fried (or grilled) chicken, bacon, two cheeses and some kind of magic sauce, the next thing you should be ordering is a new heart, because yours is about to go.

Check the menu out for yourself. (http://www.kfc.com/nutrition/pdf/kfc_nutrition.pdf)

The only real cause for HATIN’ on this sandwich and the witch doctors at KFC for concocting such a thing, is that with our growing concerns of obesity and the health of our children and adults, we don’t need another high-risk, easy access sandwich to worsen our current plight. The fact that more than 15 million people are expected to be enrolled in Medicaid health services, which are paid for by tax payers, as a result of the new Health Care Reform laws, food offerings like this, which are geared toward lower-income Americans, only lead to far worst health conditions and more bitter tax payers, i.e. lose, lose situation for all.

I like that all fast food chains and companies of the like are now mandated to provide the caloric intake and nutritional value of their offerings, but if we don’t do our part to educate the masses about what said nutritional information means, the initiative is useless.

Please America; let us help ourselves to a better eating lifestyle.

HATE On It!

Flying the Wallet, UN-Friendly Skies

On April 6, 2010, Spirit Airlines announced that they will soon be charging as much as $45 for carry-on luggage, each way. This announcement comes after months of scrutiny and outrage over many major airlines charging astronomical fees for checked-luggage.

Many airlines disclosed today, that it would not follow Spirit Airlines in charging for carry-on luggage, but I think it’s just a matter of time for them to jump on the bandwagon or figure out, yet another tax/fee to put on the consumer.

My question to the entire airline industry; Where do the fees end? When does it become time to review your internal structure and costs of flying, and figure out cost cutting strategies before placing the burden on your customers? I suggest restructuring soon because at the rate your going, NO ONE will be flying anymore.

I don’t think the “powers that be” really thought this through. Aside from the obvious loss of revenue from people who will look for alternative modes of transportation, airlines and airports, who decide to adopt this new practice, will be dealing with far angrier customers, longer check-in lines and a slower air traffic process due to confrontations over coveted overhead space.

Mark my words, flying, already a bad dream, will soon become a nightmare!

But look on the bright side, budding entrepreneurs, as I hope to be one day, will have a plethora of opportunities to cash in on the stupidity that is the airline industry. Can you say disposable clothes? Or Rent-um-Attire? I can just see the airport now, packed to the brim, of portal-after-portal of shops, offering clothes that you can either buy or rent, for whatever the occasion. Have a business meeting in California?, don’t pay $90 to lug your suit around, for $30, get a clean, pressed designer suit for rent, and really impress your client. Got a wedding in Hawaii?, Rent a Hawaiian-ready ensemble for $50, that makes the bride wish she never invited you.

You laugh, Good Haters, But this is where we’re headed.

Up, Up and HATIN’

Not “Sparing the Rod” Leading to Aggressive Behavior?

A new study, soon to be published in the May issue of the journal Pediatrics, finds that children who are spanked frequently at age three are more likely to be aggressive when they're five. The results reinforce earlier studies which have found that children who are spanked have lower IQ scores, and that frequent spanking has been linked to anxiety and behavior problems and higher risk of violent or criminal behavior, depression and excessive alcohol use.

Researchers surveyed 2,500 mothers across the United States and nearly half said they had not spanked their three-year-old in the past month, while 27.9 percent said reported one or two spankings and 26.5 reported spanking more than twice.

Two years later, the mothers who had spanked their children more frequently reported higher levels of aggression such as arguing, screaming, fighting, destroying things, cruelty or bullying in their five-year-olds.

The results held true even when researchers accounted for potentially confounding factors such as the presence of aggression within the family and parental stress, depression and drug or alcohol use.

Taken from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100413/hl_afp/healthresearchchildspanking

Let me stop here.

Couple different issues that I feel the article left out, that may be important to the study and its findings:

1. The reasons behind the spankings. By divulging why the parents felt it necessary to spank their child may be an indication of the child’s temperance. For example, if a mother spanked her 3-year-old for eating a bag of skittles, then the mama should be slapped. Kids like sweets. This is a known fact. By spanking your child for something that comes naturally to them, is ridiculous. Now if your 3-year-old is consciously defying your commands of “clean-up” or “playing nice with siblings,” than a spanking may be the answer. Now, I must admit, I am a firm believer in the whole “spare the rod, spoil the child” ideology, but only when used correctly. I believe that it is acceptable to spank a child, if said child is misbehaving or acting in a way that they know is wrong. The acknowledgement of wrongdoing is important to note. If the child knows they are misbehaving, a spanking is warranted, but the parent also needs to follow-up with actions that teach the child why it’s wrong and the impending consequences to their actions. If reprimanded correctly, you should not have the same problems in the future from said child. The issue with most parents who spank is the fact that they don’t take the time to actually follow-up with the teaching part. Just because you spell out, in syllables, why they are being spanked, that doesn’t mean they have actually grasped what they have done.
   
2. Lower IQ? I doubt it. How do you test the IQ of 2 and 5-years-olds, especially seeing that they haven’t even entered school (where much of an individuals learning takes place). As a child who was spanked (not often because I was smart enough to know not to do the same, stupid thing over and over again (IQ test don't account for common sense)), my IQ is not lacking, nor, I might add, are the IQ’s of the many individuals I know who have been spanked. The study needs to provide more info on this.


3. Family Dynamic... How do you account for that? The study states that it accounted for the presence of aggression within the family and parental stress, depression and drug or alcohol use… but, how much so? I'm perplexed as to how you can accurately account for those factors. If a husband and wife are constantly arguing, regardless if the child is spanked or not, the child will emulate what it sees, or in this case hears. They will think yelling is the way to communicate, and communicate that way. Or if they see hitting; they’ll be prone to hit. Cursing… you see where I’m going with this.


4. Why did they start at age 3? Typically, I don’t know many people who spank their 3-year-olds. As I mentioned above, the acknowledgement of wrongdoing, by the child, is a must. At 3-years-old, I’m not sure just how much they can attribute to right and wrong.

Personally, I think there are many ways to reprimand a child, negative-reinforcement, under which I classify spanking, is one of them. If it keeps your child in line, respectful and obedient, more power to you. If it makes them aggressive or they try fighting you back, it’s time for you to find a new strategy. In the end, the goal of reprimanding is to teach your child right from wrong, so that they can grow up to be productive additions to society. No matter how you choose to raise your child, whether you believe in spanking or not, you will almost always come across some defiant, annoying kid, who, as a good friend of mine always says, is in need of a "Good Ass Whoopin’ and a Good Night's Sleep.”

Keep On HATIN’