Save gas and lives! Drive Slower!

John Ehinger recently wrote a column that appeared in the Sunday edition of the Huntsville Times.

The topic: Saving lives and driving down the cost of gasoline!

The solution? Simple, really. Just slow down! Driving slower would reduce the demand on gas by 2 to 3% and maybe knock the price of gas down by 10%. Driving slower is also safer, so this is obviously a 'win-win' situation for everybody.

Ehinger points out the solution, and then calls on what else? Government to fix it!

'The Alabama Legislature should lower the maximum speed limit to 60 mph on interstates and all other highways...'

It sure sounds good in theory... but it won't happen.

The reason it won't happen is because we're willing to accept a certain amount of risk for the benefit on not having a longer commute. Namely, driving 70mph on the interstate for 15 minutes as opposed to driving 35mph for 30 minutes.

We're also not willing to do everything we can to save on fuel. When radio stations hold promotional events and sell gas $1 a gallon, people line up as far as the eye can see. People will wait HOURS to be able to fill up and save $20-$30.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay $35 bucks to fill up my tank in 3 minutes and be done with it rather than wait an hour or two so I can pay $10 bucks for a fill-up.

And although hundreds line up for the cheaper gas, there are thousands more who DON'T.

Their time is more valuable!

Government can't pass a law that will change a human behavior.

Something better comes along...

Parker decided that he was going to the high school prom. He asked Mary to go with him but Mary already had other plans and turned him down.

'No worries,' thought Parker. 'There are more fish in the sea.'

So then Parker asked Betty the beauty queen to the prom... and she said yes!

Perfect! Parker rented a tuxedo and a limo and charged both on his parent's credit card without batting an eye. He was committed to taking Betty to the prom.

But then Parker found out that Tina, a COLLEGE student and a cheerleader at an upper-crust university, had just broken up with the Captain of the college football team... only weeks before a big on campus party which falls on the same date as the high school prom.

Chances are Tina wouldn't want to go to a high school prom... but Parker could certainly see himself going to a big college party instead.

Parker found himself in quite a pickle. Yes, he was the one who asked Betty to the prom, but when he did he didn't know that 'something better' would come along. Namely a college student named Tina and the chance to go to a college party instead of a high school prom.

After much debate, Parker decided that someone else could take Betty to the prom and he'd pursue Tina instead. He was certain Betty would understand.

Oh... the rented limo and tux?

Sorry, no refunds.

Run For Congress?

Since my senior year in high school, Robert 'Bud' Cramer has represented the 5th district of Alabama in Congress. Just recently he announced he would NOT seek re-election so now there is a lot of talk of other 'career politicians' wanting to make a bid to fill his seat.

Maybe I should throw my hat in the ring as well?

One might wonder what qualifications I have. That's a fair question. The answer is that I am MORE THAN QUALIFIED since I well exceed the three requirements.

1) You have to be at least 25. Check!
2) You have to live in the state you represent. I'm 2-for-2 so far...
3) You have to be a U.S. citizen. Looks like I'm batting a thousand!

So if elected to the House of Representatives, what would I do?

In no particular order...

1) This country's tax system is beyond broken. It doesn't need tweaking and it doesn't need fixing. It needs to be abolished and replaced with the FairTax.

2) I would introduce legistation to repeal the 17th amendment. Back in the day, senators were elected by your state legislatures. The 17th amendment did away with that and now you vote directly for your senators.

3) I would vote NO on every bill that I couldn't read from beginning to end in less than 10 minutes.

4) I would vote NO on every bill that had a provision in it that wasn't specifically enumerated as a function of the federal government.

5) Every bill must show where in the Constitution it is a function of the federal government. Otherwise, the 10th amendment applies and it gets a 'no' vote.

6) I would introduce the 'Equal Treatment Bill' which would state that what the federal government does for one citizen it must do for ALL citizens. Likewise, what it doesn't do for one citizen it must not do for any citizen.

Those are six things just off the top of my head... but I think it's a good start...

Hate Mail

Last Sunday (2/24), a technical glitch at WHNT caused the first story aired on '60 Minutes' to be missed. Viewers missed all but the final 5 minutes of a much hyped story dealing with this state's former Governnor. At first we (WHNT) thought the problem was on CBS' end. We soon discovered it was on our end.

We apologized, aired the story at 10pm and again the next at 6pm. We also put it on our website.

Regardless... the ever-so-tolerant, good peace loving liberals came unglued. Yes, some employees here even took death threats!

Enjoy!

(jaela2@yahoo.com) Thank you for blacking out the Siegelman story. Your clumsy attempts at censorship will now bring much needed attention to this story. Even more than 60 Minutes could have done on its own.

(TKwow@aol.com) Your partisan censorship of "60 Minutes" on Sunday night sounds like something more likely to happen in the former Soviet Union. Good luck renewing your broadcast license once Siegelman is exonerated and a Democratic administration is in power. Go climb up Karl Rove's ass where you belong. Disgusting!!!!!!

(tgbeachbum@yahoo.com) YOU ARE SO TRANSPARENT...and disgusting.60 Minutes signal failure????What a joke, you're a bunch of NAZI's

(hwbliz@mac.com) Your claim that your equipment failed at the exact moment the Seigelman story came on the air, streaches the limits of credibility

(kwgrlup@ndsupernet.com) Although i am many miles from your station, i do have friends and relatives in your area. What your station did with the referenced segment of 60 Minutes, regarding Don Siegelman, was shameful to put it mildly! The reason our forefathers created an exception in our founding documents for the fourth estate was to be sure OUR government was held accountable, NOT so that the media, who uses OUR airwaves, reports infotainment and trash, but reports to us what we the people NEED to know for our own good. To do what you did was a treasonest act to the people of your area, state and our country. You should lose the priviledge of use of the airwaves. My friends and family WILL see that segment! i will make sure of it. i and many others will be filing a complaint with the proper agencies. How do any of you sleep at night?! And you call yourself a "news" station! HA!

(GeorgeP922@gmail.com) What you did IS a step towards Facism You should be ashamed of yourselves.The public will always see you guilty in your actions.American media is supposed to be without bias and free.You are NOT State owned media!This is America, not China, North Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia etc.Actually the producers there have at least one exuse, they will go to jail.I can't wait till Congress prosecutes you.I don't accept your apology, tell the truth and forgiveness can begin.Shame on you.So many americans have died for freedom that you just crushed.

(sirgent77@yahoo.com) Will you reair that 60m story about the Gov...If not why not..Alabama the little USSR state...

(bkohatl@hotmail.com) What liars you are. Now We know what evil is.Hitler censored German Radio; Stalin censored Russian Radio and TV. The Bass Brothers want to Turn America into Nazi Germany. You see a Reporter for WHNT be sure and say Sieg Heil and Segregation Today, Segregation Tomorrow and Segregation Forever. A language all evil people understand. Now you know how Bob Riley, Judge Fuller and Pryor Stole the 2002 Governor's Election. Treason at WHNT

(imarhfc@bellsouth.net) Congradulations! WHNT made "the worst" on Countdown on MSNBC

(erik.anderson@furman.edu) your recent censorship of 60 minutes ...... is absolutely despicable. Think of the company you now find yourselves in: Pakistan, Russian, North Korea, Iran ... . Here's a tip: after rereading your copy (if you have one) of the U.S. Constitution, go to your local library (if you have one) and check out John Stuart Mill's classic work, On Liberty. Then go somewhere and hang your head in shame.

(jack.griffith@pobox.com) You are a bunch of partisan whores. Who paid -off you suck-ups to censor 60 minutes? What a joke. This is very typical for a pack of redneck Republicans. I hope the FCC pulls your license (after Obama is elected!!).

(clay.harris@gmail.com) You really do embarrass yourself. Blacking out the nub of 60 Minutes, while mocking Ted Kennedy. Would you do that to a Republican? Try at least to pretend that there's some objectivity there.

'Free' Money

If there is only ONE thing you can be sure of and bet your life on, it's this:

THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.

That's right. EVERYTHING has a cost associated with it. Even stuff that is 'free' to you has a cost, even though you may not have had to pay anything for it.

If I buy you a newspaper, it still cost something. Namely, 50 cents out of my pocket.
If you're going to read it, it's going to cost you something as well. Namely, not watching the tv for the next 20 minutes.

THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.

Moving on...

Just passed in Washington D.C. was the much-hyped 'Economic Stimulus' package. In an attempt to 'jump start' the 'slowing' economy, our lovely politicians have decided to send most people in this country 3oo or 600 dollars. Free and clear!

Except there's a problem: THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.

Where does the government 'get' the money it's going to send you?

There are 3 ways that happens.

First, government could simply print more money! But that leads to inflation.
(Simple explanation)

Government can tax us. Of course, raising taxes means that the money comes from someone and then given to another. If your long, lost uncle left you and your brother each $50,000 dollars, it is ridiculous to think that your brother would actually only get $10,000 dollars more than you if it were divided 60/40.

Finally, the government can borrow the money. Going back to the long, lost uncle analogy, imagine the same uncle borrowing $600 dollars from the bank, giving it to you and then dying... leaving you to pay back the $600 (with interest) to the bank.

Don't get too excited about the 'free' money you'll get in May. Sure, it's nice. But it's far from free.

Guilty as sin! Why bother with a trial?

I asked this question to some co-workers the other day, involving an upcoming murder trial:

If you were on the jury right now and had to decide 'guilty' or 'not guilty' after hearing the opening arguments ONLY... how would you vote?

The over-whelming response: GUILTY.

Look, we all KNOW the guy did it! And we all know that the defense attorney is out to accomplish one thing: Keep the guy from getting 'the big stick.' It's a win for them if their client gets life in prison.

The accused is guilty! AS SIN! He knows it, the judge knows it, the prosecutor knows it, the jury will know it, my co-workers know it... and I know it.

So why am I the only one to take the same hypothetical question and say I'd vote 'not guilty?'

'That's pretty crazy, especially if you KNOW the guy did it!' you might say. But not at all. In this country, something very important has to happen (or at least 'should' happen) in order for someone to be found guilty: The government (prosecution) must PROVE that the accused did what they are indeed accused of. The burden of proving guilt lies soley with the prosecution! If you can't be convinced by FACTS that the defendant is guilty, then you MUST vote NOT GUILTY.

Is it better for a guilty man to go free rather than have an innocent man go to prison?

Some would say no... but would be quick to change their mind if they were the innocent man looking at life in prison.

What's really ridiculous about illegal immigration...

Welcome to 2008.

To kick off the new year, a new law is now in effect in Arizona. Any business that is found to have knowingly hired an illegal worker is subject to punishment which can range from probation all the way to a 10-day suspension of their business license. A second violation will result in having their license revoked permanetly.

Apparently in addition to businesses running their day-to-day operations, they must now be in the business of verifying someone's legal residence in this country.

I was under the impression that job belonged soley to the federal government.

The problem with illegal immigration isn't the millions of people being here illegally. It's with the government having made something illegal and then lacking the gumption to enforce its own laws. Rather than actually catch those in the country illegally, the feds sit back and do nothing while politicians, always pandering for votes, debate over amnesty, guest worker programs and the like. The states then take it upon themselves to burden businesses with the task of verifying a person's legal residence. But it's not up to McDonald's, Lowe's or Pep Boys to do the federal government's work!

Laws needs to be enforced or they need to be taken off the books. Unenforced laws are useless and pointless.