Last Tuesday night (10/21) outgoing Huntsville city councilman Glenn Watson proposed a new ordinance that would punish those who operate a cell phone or other electronic device (iPod, GPS) while driving. (Article here)
Just what we need. More petty laws. (note sarcasm)
Violators would face a $100 fine or up to 10 days in jail for the first offense. A third offense can put you in jail for up to three months!
Would we really all be better off by having more people in jail for victimless crimes? If I'm on my phone while driving, there's no victim. If I hit someone, that's different. There's a victim because of my actions.
Enforcement of the proposed law would be a nightmare. Cops could pull over anybody just because they thought someone was using a cell phone. Will I be pulled over if I even pick up and look at my cell phone? If I have to call 9-1-1 while driving will I be cited? It would be easier to pay a fine rather than fight it out in court! Of course, that may be the whole plan.
Watson said the next morning that if this measure saves just one life it will be worth it. But wouldn't it be better to save ALL LIVES by just dropping the speed limits in the city to 5 or 10mph?
'No one would accept speed limits that low! We have places to be!'
I agree. The reality is that we're willing to put more lives at risk (in the name of higher speed limits) in exchange for convenience (our time).
Recently Glenn Watson ran for a seat on the Madison County Commission... and lost. With his departure from the city council as well, we're all better off with one less politician introducing laws that turn law abiding citizens into criminals.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Getting What We Ask For
In a recent conversation about politics with Mom, she expressed how she feels (and I'm sure how other of millions of Americans feel) about the state of affairs with the folks in D.C. and the upcoming presidential election.
Paraphrasing a 10 minute conversation into one sentence: 'All politicians are crooks, aren't worth spit and need to be voted out.'
I'm fairly certain that she isn't the only one who feels that way. In fact, if you asked a million voters if they agreed with that above statement, I think you'd get 85% in agreement.
So why do the same yahoos keep getting elected? Is it because the public feels the 'other guys' don't stand a chance?
Here's my theory on what it takes to get elected to higher level public office (in order of importance):
1) First and foremost, the candidate must either be a Republican or Democrat. If the person doesn't have an 'R' or a 'D' by their name, they can hang it up. The public is so hung up on those two parties, that anybody else is considered 'fringe' (especially by the press) and can't be taken seriously. It's a two-horse race & it's a crying shame.
2) The candidate must be fit & attractive. Newsflash: Ugly people don't get elected. If the individual can't make the cover of GQ, he won't get the votes. Views and positions on the important matters don't amount to a hill of beans yet. Oh sure... you say you'd vote for someone based on their qualifications and whatnot, but that's a lie you're telling yourself so you can sleep at night. Can you imagine if FDR were around today running for office? A guy in a wheelchair?! 'What would that say to the leaders of other countries if our president couldn't walk? We'd be attacked!' Sad but true.
3) The candidate must be a decent public speaker. You're allowed to stumble on occassion and flub a word or 3 here and there, but you must be able to win the crowd with a mic in hand. If you can't, you're doomed.
These are my opinions of course... but like with most everything else on my blog... I'm right.
Sadly, what we want and say we want are very different. We get exactly what we ask for.
Paraphrasing a 10 minute conversation into one sentence: 'All politicians are crooks, aren't worth spit and need to be voted out.'
I'm fairly certain that she isn't the only one who feels that way. In fact, if you asked a million voters if they agreed with that above statement, I think you'd get 85% in agreement.
So why do the same yahoos keep getting elected? Is it because the public feels the 'other guys' don't stand a chance?
Here's my theory on what it takes to get elected to higher level public office (in order of importance):
1) First and foremost, the candidate must either be a Republican or Democrat. If the person doesn't have an 'R' or a 'D' by their name, they can hang it up. The public is so hung up on those two parties, that anybody else is considered 'fringe' (especially by the press) and can't be taken seriously. It's a two-horse race & it's a crying shame.
2) The candidate must be fit & attractive. Newsflash: Ugly people don't get elected. If the individual can't make the cover of GQ, he won't get the votes. Views and positions on the important matters don't amount to a hill of beans yet. Oh sure... you say you'd vote for someone based on their qualifications and whatnot, but that's a lie you're telling yourself so you can sleep at night. Can you imagine if FDR were around today running for office? A guy in a wheelchair?! 'What would that say to the leaders of other countries if our president couldn't walk? We'd be attacked!' Sad but true.
3) The candidate must be a decent public speaker. You're allowed to stumble on occassion and flub a word or 3 here and there, but you must be able to win the crowd with a mic in hand. If you can't, you're doomed.
These are my opinions of course... but like with most everything else on my blog... I'm right.
Sadly, what we want and say we want are very different. We get exactly what we ask for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)