NJ wants to ban smoking in cars? Ignorance, or stupidity?
New Jersey may be the first state to ban smoking in cars. In the name of safety, of course.
Seeing as how I have actual experience with accident prevention, and risky behavior, I do feel more than qualified to address this one. My job with the 82d Airborne Division was to reduce accidents. Quite a job when you're dealing with people who volunteer to jump out of perfectly good airplanes. These are not your average young men and women, they are willing to take risks the average person wouldn't. You learn that even with the best training, and knowledge of how to minimize the risks, things still go wrong.
It is always commendable to try to reduce accidental deaths and injuries. However, there must be a balance between personal freedom, and the state's right to regulate behavior. Regarding smoking while driving, and I just heard about this today, I don't know if only the driver is prohibited from smoking, or if everyone in the vehicle is to be prohibited from smoking. I guess they'll have to ban everyone, so the driver doesn't just hand the cigarette to a passenger (see open container laws), to avoid the citation. If distraction is the reason to ban smoking, then talking to passengers, changing the channel on the radio, even looking at something other than the road ahead, should also be banned.
Let's make it a crime to have passengers, be they humans, or pets. Let's make it a crime to look for addresses (seeing as how they're never where they should be, in plain sight), or even looking at GPS devices designed to help a driver find his way. While you're at it, make it a crime to roll down the windows since a bee might fly in, and cause the driver to lose control.
How far are we willing to go to legislate behavior? Some people can drive just fine while they use a cellphone, but others shouldn't be allowed to have passengers, because talking to them is just as dangerous as using a cellphone.
Why not just make ignorance and stupidity a crime? Oh, yeah, then whoever thought of this would be guilty, along with the rest of us.
Ahoy from the Captain.
Roberts' record
If an attorney represents Planned Parenthood's right to perform abortion, he does it to the best of his ability. If, several years later, the same attorney represents the Federal Government's position to not use taxpayer money to pay for abortions, he does it to the best of his ability.
In both cases, it shouldn't matter what the attorney's personal feelings are. Those are to be put aside while he works for his client on the case at hand. Just because defense attorneys sometimes get murderers acquitted, doesn't mean they condone, support or believe in murder.
Representing both sides of a particular issue, to the best of ones ability, shows a high degree of integrity when it comes to judicial objectivity, not a lack of integrity.
This is why I see no benefit in examining any of John Roberts', or any other attorney's, arguments made while trying cases. For these arguments do not guarantee anything concerning the attorney's personal beliefs. They are simply arguments made to win a case, and should be the best they can use, no matter which side they are on.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Ahoy from the Captain.
Don't run
The boy who fired a bottle rocket at a car, and was chased by the driver, is dead for the same reason as Mr. Menezes, who was shot by British police. They both ran. Sure, the boy's friend got beat up, but he's still alive.
People make mistakes, including the police. If we learn anything from this, it's not to put yourself in a position where your mistake, or theirs, will cost you your life.
Was it ignorance, or stupidity? Because one, the other, or both, usually contribute to these events.
Ahoy from the Captain.
How to help Al Franken
The Air America diversion of funds story reminds me of a bit Al Franken did on Saturday Night Live (for those who were around when Al Franken did Saturday Night Live). He asked viewers to put a dollar in an envelope. And send it to, me, AL FRANKEN. I always wondered if anyone ever sent him any money? Just address the envelope to, me, AL FRANKEN. I guess it was funnier then.
Ahoy from the Captain.
Global warming & why Al Gore is wrong
No one has figured out how to address the real problem of global warming. Before any problem can be solved, one must first identify the problem. In the case of global warming, it has been mentioned, but buried amongst emission controls. Why? Because no one knows the politically correct way to say that the largest contributing factor to global warming is there's too many people on the planet.
We must talk about reducing the population. Not reducing population
growth, for any continued population growth will still mean continued growth of this problem. And ask any expert where this is headed, and you'll find that if we don't address the problem, it will eventually be done for us. Which means,
to us.
Simple math shows that we cannot continue to increase the population, and expect to survive on a planet with finite, and diminshing resources, forever. There will come a time when there will simply be too many people breathing, for the Earth to sustain us all. When we start to reach critical mass, the Earth will start killing us off.
The sooner we start talking about this aspect of global warming, the sooner we can address the problem. Maybe it's too late already, maybe the corrections the planet takes are already in motion, and won't be reversed for as long as it took to create this problem. If this problem started with the first fire, the first clearing of forest, maybe it will take just as long for any changes we make now, to take effect. The planet does not operate on our time schedule.
Even if we eliminated all motor vehicles, all airplanes, trains, factories, every fire and emission, other than the total number of people breathing, we will still have this problem. It may be too late already, it definately will be if we refuse to acknowledge it, and fail to come up with a solution.
If the planet is a living organism, and we kill it, we kill ourselves. Sometimes things are really that simple.
Me, I've said what I think needs to be said. Now, I'm going sailing. Let me know when I can do something else to address this problem.
Ahoy from the Captain.
Only non-believers kill in the name of their religion.
Anyone who kills in the name of their religion, cannot be a true believer of that particular religion. This guy Rudolph, who murdered in the name of Christianity to oppose abortion, is just as much a non-believer as is Mohammed Bouveri. Bouveri killed Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in the name of his religion, and claimed he would do it again.
Just because they think they are believers, doesn't mean they are, if their actions contradict the religion they claim to believe in. If a police officer stole money from people he arrested, or committed other crimes, would he really be a police officer? No, he'd be a criminal.
If they kill in the name of their religion, they insult their religion, and must be considered non-believers. That means they are infidels if they kill in the name of their religion. They cannot be anything else. And anyone who supports them, or fails to condemn them, insults their religion as well.
That's why I say Rudolph is an insult to Christianity, and these murderers in the name of Allah are insults to Islam. They're all infidels.
Ahoy from the Captain.
Let those boys go...
Let those boys go, the ones arrested for protesting G8 in SF over the weekend. Yeah, take them all to the corner of Powell & California Sts, strap them to skateboards with wheels affixed to the cable car tracks on California St, and while a cable car is headed towards Powell from Chinatown on California St, LET THEM GO headfirst down California St towards Chinatown. If they damage the cable car, arrest them again for destruction of property. If they're lucky, they'll hit a car first, but hey, that's one more car off the road (at least while it's being washed).
Ahoy from the Captain.
Abortion issue perfect example of polarization
Abortion is one of the few issues that provide a clear example of polarization in America today. You're either on one side or the other, there's not much room for middle ground. When this happens, examples of extremism on both sides are easy to find.
Murder is always killing, but killing is not always murder. We allow, and justify killing other humans for self defense, in wars, and to save and/or protect innocent life. Besides these instances of killing other humans, every human being must eat in order to live. Everything we eat, whether plant or animal, was killed before, or while we eat it. Many people do not think about this, especially those who claim to value all life, and refuse to eat meat (while conveniently ignoring, or refusing to accept, that the vegetables and plants they eat are forms of life that were killed for their meals). In order for us to live, something else must die. This applies to everyone alive, every day of our lives. I say this not to celebrate killing, but to acknowledge it. If killing is not acknowledged, then how can one ever be cleansed or forgiven?
The abortion issue has produced a very strange mindset in some people, who refuse to acknowledge that abortion is killing. They choose to believe that life does not begin at conception, therefore abortion is not killing. These extremists choose to believe they aren't killing anything, and act as if abortion is some sort of "procedure". On the other side are the extremists who say abortion is murder.
If abortion is killing, then no one except the mother has the right to kill her unborn child. For if a mother has reason, and decides to kill her unborn child, she deserves compassion, empathy, and our support. She does not need idiots calling her a murderer when she's facing the hardest decision she's ever made. Those who do not acknowledge that abortion is killing, do not deserve our compassion, empathy and support, for they don't need it. They don't believe they're killing anything, and if they accepted our support, they would have to admit they've been lying to themselves about killing their unborn child.
I support a woman's right to kill her unborn child, as long as she has reason, and acknowledges the killing. Those who believe abortion is not killing, are extremists on the opposite end of those extremists who believe abortion is murder.
Ahoy from the Captain.
