This week The Stu Pitt Award goes to ...

The Death Penalty

for being so slow

In the U.S. it takes 20-25 years to implement the death penalty. Upon being convicted and sentenced to death, there are years and years and years of appeals. This is just in case the accused was innocent. Why should it take 20-25 years to do all this? And if an occasional innocent person gets put to death, so what?

The 20-25 years cost the taxpayers about 1 million dollars to keep the sentenced-to- death scumbag alive. Meals, medical care, overhead, etc. for 20-25 years, at $40,000-$50,000 a year. A million dollars. Why? Can we taxpayers afford it? No.

The Chinese, upon finding someone guilty and sentenced to death, take him out back and put him in front of a firing squad. Then, afterwards, they send the bill for the bullets to the dead guy's family. Time frame from trial to execution? 30 days. Cost? $25 for 5 bullets.

Now that makes sense!

Taking 20-25 years and a million dollars to execute someone convicted and sentenced to death does NOT make sense. What makes sense in the U.S. is one trial, within one year, and one appeal. The appeal should take place in 30 days after the trial conviction. Then, if he loses the appeal, within 24 hours, execute the sucker. Total time frame: 1 year. Total taxpayer cost: $50,000.

Is this 1-year-1-appeal implementation of the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment? No. Is it efficient? Yes. Is it cost effective? Very.

Congratulations to all the U.S states who have the death penalty, this week, for your politically correct - and slow - death penalty execution, you earned the Stu Pitt award.


This week The Stu Pitt Award goes to ...

The U.S. federal government

for their groin groping

Regarding groin groping by the U.S. federal government and its Transportation Security Agency (TSA) here is a direct quote from the U.S. Constitution, The Bill Of Rights section, which I got from the U.S. House of Representatives web site ...

"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Regarding groin groping of commercial airline passengers it seems to me the federal goverment and the TSA is in direct and obvious violation of the U.S. Constitution and The Bill Of Rights. Groin groping in advance of boarding a commercial aircraft would seem to clearly violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons. And this groin groping is done without probable cause. A potential genital bomb or buttocks bomb is not a reasonable or even a remotely probable cause.

Congratulations, TSA, this week, for your unconstitutional groin groping, you earned the Stu Pitt award.


This week The Stu Pitt Award goes to ...

Campbell Soup Company

for their misleading labeling
of chicken noodle soup

I went to my local supermarket the other day to buy some soup for lunch. I was looking for a the lower sodium “healthy choice” flavor. On the shelf I spied a Campbell’s soup can. It read lower sodium and the flavor said chicken noodle, in big letters. Perfect. Campbell’s chicken noodle soup. Lower sodium. A large can, And on sale too! Just what I wanted. I bought it, took it home, opened the can and starting pouring the contents into a pan to heat up on the stove. I saw plenty of chicken chunks, plenty of carrots and peas and plenty of noodles. Short fat curved noodles. Short fat curved noodles? Chicken soup has long thin noodles. I wanted long thin noodles not fat short noodles. What the hell? Did Campbell’s put the wrong noodles into this chicken noodle can? I fished the empty can out of the garbage. The can read Chicken Noodle soup. I was confused. Chicken Noodle soup has long thin noodles not these short fat noodles. I looked at the can again. I looked at the picture of the can and, upon closer inspection, saw a picture of short fat noodles. Chicken noodle soup with short fat noodles? Never heard of it. Is no such thing. Chicken noodle soup has long thin noodles. And has for like 100 years. I’m Jewish, and, if it’s one thing I know, it’s chicken noodle soup! Chicken noodle soup does NOT have short fat curved noodles. At least not in America.


If Campbell’s is going to sell a soup with chicken in it and short fat noodles they shouldn’t be calling it chicken noodle soup. They should call it Chicken Pasta Noodle Soup or maybe Italian Chicken Noodle Soup but not Chicken Noodle Soup. You can’t call it Chicken Noodle Soup. Chicken noodle soup does not have short fat noodles!

Congratulations! For misleading consumers, who thought they were buying the age old standard chicken noodle soup, because that’s what the label on the can said it was, this week’s Stu Pitt Award goes to the Campbell’s Soup Company.

Los Angeles City Council

This week The Stu Pitt Award goes to ...

The Los Angeles City Council

for their new Anti-Smoking study

Today, Novemeber 10, 2010, the L.A. city council voted, 13-0, to commission a new study that would ban smoking anywhere in Los Angeles "where people congregate" and in all apartment building "common areas", which includes outside on the apartment property and on your own private outdoor balcony.

It's bad enough that the State of California treats smokers like lepers. Or worse, like environmental murderers.

It's bad enough that California discriminates against smokers and taxes them to death.

It's bad enough that in many California cities smoking is banned totally.

Now, the L.A. city council voted to study making it against the law to smoke in Los Angeles "wherever people congregate"? Now they want to make it against the law in Los Angeles to smoke on my own outdoor apartment balcony???

Well, guess what? I've lived in Los Angeles for 23 years. And I can move to Nevada! Fast. Anytime I wish. And take my money, AND my cigarettes, with me.

Keep it up, California. Keep driving people and businesses out of the state with your uber high taxes and outrageous anti-freedom regulations. Soon there'll be no one left in the state ... or at least no one earning enough money to pay taxes ... and policicians salaries. Congratulations, L.A., you just commissioned a study for new anti-freedom anti-smoking restrictions which will help to kill even more businesses and jobs. And drive even more people out of California. All in the name of the Nanny state. Because some people in L.A. are offended by the smell of smoke! And you did it at a time of record high unemployment and the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

Atta boy, Los Angeles city council. You, and the state, continue to keep going down the socialistic "government-knows-best" road and see where it ends up. It ends up with California becoming a third-world politically and bureaucratically run economic disaster.

Hey, city council, did you ever hear the saying, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned"? You chose to focus your time and efforts on banning smoking while the City of Los Angeles is going totally broke, has severe gang and drug problems, has no jobs, and has the worst traffic congestion in the nation. In spending the time and effort in voting to commission a stupid overly-restrictive new anti-smoking study you, the Los Angeles city council, are fiddling while your city burns.

Congratulations, L.A. city council, this week, for your new anti-freedom anti-smoking governmental study, paid for by us 500,000 smoking L.A. taxpayers, you earned the Stu Pitt award.

P.S. You'll all FIRED!


This week The Stu Pitt Award goes to ...


a giant government ripoff

This entire week I have been doing research in advance of my Feb 2011 induction into medicare.

What I have discovered is not good. Not good at all ...

No human being at age 65 could possibly comprehend what they are getting into when they become eligible to get medicare. Yes, the U.S. medicare program is explained but NOWHERE does anyone explain the ramifications of choosing the different options you have to choose from. At its simplest, there is Part A and Part B. Part A covers hospitalization, Part B covers doctors visits. Part A is free, Part B costs like $110 a month. There are large "gaps" in what is covered (80% of hospital, co-pays for doctors visits, and NO drug coverage) so one needs to buy supplemental coverage policies. And therein lies the problem. These supplemental policies cost an additional $150-$200 a month.

In addition, and the worst part of medicare, is that there is NO drug coverage. None. So one is forced to buy a medicare prescription plan. This is another $50-$100 a month and does NOT pay for all my drug costs. The prescription drug plans offered for my zip code (Los Angeles) have a co-pay of nearly $250 a month for my 5 medications! $36 each for 3 meds and $74 each for 2 meds AND a deductible of several hundred dollars a year. And, no, I cannot substitute generic for my meds. As the average number of meds for people age 65 and older is 11 all the prescription drug plans are no bargain, no bargain at all. They are ripoffs! (I checked all 30 of them offered for my zip code.

So, under medicare not only will I NOT be getting FREE health care but being on medicare will COST me $600-$700 a month!!!

This is way too overpriced when weighing benefits vs cost. Medicare is no great deal when compared to what an average man at 64-65 pays for decent non-medicare private health coverage now. It's about the same ... about $600-$700 a month in premiums.

I was stunned to find all this out. After paying into medicare over a lifetime of working I find out that medicare is NOT free ... does NOT cover everything ... does NOT cover drugs and requires a LOT of additional coverage and substantial additional monthly cash outlays for additional policy premiums and coverage. The average reasonable healthy male ends up with about the same coverage as before, at about the same cost. So what is the big deal about finally hitting 65 and getting medicare??? Nothing. It's a big nothing. Actually, it's a big pain in the butt because it's very confusing and complicated and requires a LOT of research, research that you can't even do on your own, it is impossible! Basically, if I was a healthy male, at age 65, if possible I would simply continue with the health insurance I already had and would not bother to take medicare at all ... even though I freaking paid for it my entire life!!!

I was always under the illusion that medicare would cover ALL my medical costs, ALL my hospital and doctor costs and pay for most or all prescription drug costs. I thought that those were the benefits you got after a lifetime of paying in. NOT.

Medicare is a giant lifetime government ripoff. Aided and abetted by the private health insurance industry. It's total bullcrap. A giant ripoff. Because of all the loopholes and non-coverage gaps - and no drug coverage at all - one ends up not really getting anything for all the money you paid into medicare for all those years. And no one knows it until they bump into medicare at age 65!

Yes, I am really really upset about this. Yes, for me medicare is a big savings in my monthly medical coverage costs. But only because I am on a high risk, private, uber costly PPO health coverage policy, a policy that costs more each month than my freaking rent! But for most people, medicare is not a good deal at all and they get little or no monthly cost savings and no additional benefits by being on it as compared to the health incurance they already have. Because of the drug coverage, or NON drug coverage. Plus, it's impossible to figure out what to do and what to choose. And, on behalf of all American baby boomers who are approaching medicare eligibility at age 65, the whole thing truly pisses me off! It's a gigantic baby boom ripoff! Boy, oh boy, when tens of millions of baby boomers become eligible for medicare the government is gonna catch holy hell for it!!!

Medicare or medicrap? You decide.

Congratulations, Medicare, this week you earned the Stu Pitt award.

U.S. Federal Gov't

This week The Stu Pitt Award goes to ...

U.S. federal government

slower than molasses

How long does it take for the U.S. Copyright Office to register one simple single book copyright? I filled out the form, paid them and uploaded the book, all online. Submitting my copyright was very efficient. How long did it take Washington to then process and register my copyright?

Answer: 10 months!

This is the same slow-as-molasses federal government that wants to run your health care!

Congratulations, Washington, this week you earned the Stu Pitt award.