Ok, this was meant to be a single topic post, but as I was writing, new topics kept jumping up at me. Sorry for the length. I hope you enjoy!
Theo Returns!
Upon seeing that title, one might think that they were about to read a glowing essay on the brilliance of the Red Sox to bring Theo back and a thankful treatise that Theo has decided to return. One would be wrong.
Here's how I see it: The Red Sox have been desperate for Theo to return since the day he left. Like a bad motel 6 commercial, anytime Theo was mentioned, John Henry and Larry Lucchino continually let it be know that "we're leaving a light on" for Theo. He can come back whenever he wants.
Compound that with the fact that the Sox have been falling faster than the Hindenburg with no shortstop, no 1st baseman, and no Center fielder. But don't worry, they have eight 3rd basemen. Anyone think they didn't look like a blind mule when Damon was stolen away from them by the Evil Empire? And how about the thanks they gave to Wakefield for signing the most "Team friendly" contract in history by trading his personal catcher within the month! They are a mess without Theo!
Now, in the distance, a cloud of dust arises on the horizon. Gallantly galloping towards Fenway... it's a man in a gorilla suit in a suit of shimmering armor. The valiant knight on a white horse comes riding into the oldest ballpark in America to rescue the damsel from the dragon of her own making. She gazes up at him and says:
"Why in the world did you leave!?! If you had been here I probably wouldn't have created this massive beast that we are now expecting you to defeat!"
When the trade rumors were Manny Ramirez, Matt Clement, and cash considerations for Miguel Tejada I said that Theo could not come back at that point. The devastation had reached the point of no return. I had said that if Theo returned he would look like a spoiled child who was taking his ball and going home in October. Now he gets to burst through the doors, his cape flapping in the wind behind him, fists squarely on his hips, the TE emblazoned on his chest. Theo has arrived!
I'm sorry, why did you leave? And what has changed that caused you to return now that it appears to be too late?
Seat Belts
A law has been passed in the Massachusetts House that will allow police officers to pull someone over simply because they are not wearing seat belts. The lobbiests claim that this will save lives and save money. Because it will lower the amount of Medi-Care that the government has to pay to uninsured people injured in car accidents when they weren't wearing their seatbelts.
What do I see it as? A reason to raise peoples insurance. Another step of larger government. Another reason to stop someone for no apparent reason in order to search their car.
One politician (who somehow still has his job) said, "You can choose to have an abortion, but you cannot choose whether or not you will wear a seatbelt. Does anyone else see the irony here?"
I be the insurance companies are thrilled about this! If I get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt my premium goes up. They get more money! This is a great idea according to them!
A private citizen asked, "How long until we have seat belt road blocks? Where does it end?"
Am I suggesting that we shouldn't wear our seat belts? No. I am saying that the government shouldn't be sitting next to me like a "big brother" telling me that I must wear it or dole out some cash!
Truce?
So a recent recording of Osama Bin Ladin has been released with him warning of future attacks and asking if we'd like a truce. Yes, a truce. Who are the ones who ask for a truce? Oh yeah, the ones who are losing!? Last time I asked for a truce I think I was pinned to the ground with my older brother tossing snow in my face... Yeah, that sounds about right.
Bin Ladin goes on to say that we could trust his truce because his religion doesn't allow him to backstab his allies or go against his promises. He followed that up with "but it does allow me to kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children. Isn't it great!?"
So we've clearly got him scared. Or he's deathly ill and wants to be able to relax. Either way, it's a good thing.
Most of what you've just read is just my opinion.
7 comments:
Dan Shaughnassy is steamed!
Here's why: A lot of people blame him for Theo's leaving to begin with!
Now, he learns before a press release was offered that Theo is returning and he thinks he is going to be able to break the story. Scoop everyone and their mother that the boy genius is back! Then the Red Sox put out a nothing press release the night before he'd be able to break the story! What did it say? Theo's comeing back, more info later. Basically, it said: We aren't going to let Shaunassey break this story!
So what does Dan write? He slams the Red Sox. He mashes the front office. He destroys Theo! Like a teenager who has been disappointed, he lashes out!
Poor Dan, he tried his best to get Theo out. He succeeded, then when Theo comes back, much to his chagrin, he doesn't get to be the one to scoop the story.
Guess you aren't in the inside loop any more Danny-boy. Too bad.
(click here to read about when Theo left.
http://acesoneights.blogspot.com/2005/11/thank-you-theo.html
(ok, so the here didn't work so here's the link.)
That's exactly it. Everyone's led immediately to the little-kid-getting-the-snot-beat-out-of-him calling for a truce image. Paraphrasing Jon Stewart last night:
What Osama doesn't understand is that most of us are in favor of getting out of Iraq, but we're all still pretty much in favor of bombing the sh-- out of him.
I can tell by your rant on the seatbelt bill that you read the Howie Carr column, but - unfortunately - not the bill itself.
It is not a surchargable offense, so your insurance rates will not go up. The insurance companies do like it -- because FEWER people flying through windshields means they have to pay out LESS money LESS often.
The "roadblocks" line is ridiculous. First of all, for the first 180 days of the law you can only get a warning. As a traffic officer, I want to devote my resources to blocking a street to give out warnings?! Secondly, it is a $25 offense. So I want to barricade a roadway to hand out $25 tickets when you can SEE the roadblock and then put on your seatbelt?
If a cop is bad, he is bad. They will find a reason to pull you over. Your tail light isn't working. I thought his registration had expired, your honor. Etc.
As long as you are driving on a *public* roadway with other people on it or in the car with you, then there is a demonstrable public policy interest in regulating your behavior. Pseudo-libertarians claim this bill is an infringement on their right to do whatever they want - there is no right to do whatever you want. Your rights extend only so far as they do not impigne on the rights or safety of others in this country. That's why we go through security in airports. That's why it's illegal to drink and drive. And now, in Massachusetts and a thankfully growing number of states who are serious about public safety and escalating health insurance costs (both private costs AND public costs - because when someone is in an accident with no seatbelt on and they likely exit it with a massive head or neck injury, it is the *taxpayers* who pick up the tab), you will have to buckle up when you get in a car.
By the way, it is already illegal to drive without a seatbelt in Massachusetts. And for children, it is a primary offense.
I am amazed that the same people who say we need to protect taxpayers, opposed a measure that would reduce the cost of medicaid insurance for vehicle accident claims. I am amazed that the same people who say the government is right to suspend our civil liberties to protect the American people are miffed when the government says you need to buckle up to protect the people in other cars or your car. I would have thought that the Howie Carr's and Marc Fillion's of the world would embrace this pro-public safety, pro-taxpayer bill.
Hey, Dom. Thanks for the comment. I actually didn't read Carr's column. I know, it's hard to believe that more than one person could have the same thoughts on an issue.
Don't get me wrong. I'm well aware of the MA law that requires seatbelts. I'm none to pleased that it is now something that the officers can pull you over for just that offense. While I understand where "Pseudo-libertarians" could be upset about the original law, I am not among them. Does that make me more or less Pseudo?
I don't see how this is a "public saftey" measure. It's a personal saftey issue. The saftey of the drivers around me is not increased if I am belted or not.
"Your rights extend only so far as they do not impigne on the rights or safety of others in this country" is a very interesting, very untrue (yet understandably believable) statement that perhaps we can talk about some other time.
Again, to clarify, my beef is not with the initial law. My beef is that an officer can now pull you over simply if they suspect you are not wearing your seatbelt. If someone can see the road block and put on their seat belt, can't they see the flashing lights behind them and do the same? Why bother!
Because if the lights are behind you, they know you did it. If the roadblock is in front of you, you can see them coming and change your behavior before they see you.
As to the note about it already being a secondary-enforcement statute - my point is that if it is already illegal not to wear your seatbelt, why shouldn't the police have the authority to enforce that law? It's like saying, it is illegal in Massachusetts to drive drunk in Massachusetts, but the police can only cite you for drunk driving if they pull you over for a broken tail light.
As to the public safety/personal safety issue, it is both. Back to the drunk driving analogy - if you drive drunk on a public roadway, you risk both your life and the lives of the people in that car you are about to collide head on into. If you are not buckled up, you are risking your life and - because you become a projectile moving with incredibly force per feet towards the other drivers - you are also risking other lives.
I also note you don't address the medicaid cost issue. I know you'll come back with "you can't put a price on civil liberties" but I don't buy that you have a civil liberty ensconced in any constitution or law to not comport to public safety regulations.
Finally, to your last comment - "Why bother!" Inconvenience to the public is not a sufficient public policy reason to weaken a public safety statute.
Confession time: I got pulled over once, and I wasn't wearing my seatbelt! I reached in front of my torso with my right hand, gently took the belt and buckled it. The officer was none the wiser.
I understand why it's a law, but I feel that it's unenforcable. You'll only nail the huge idiots for it (idiots are the people not wearing them in the first place. Huge idiots are the ones who don't think to put it on after they've been pulled over.)
That's a pretty weak "public saftey" argument. I've never heard of anyone being injured by a flying motorist...
Well, you've got me on the medicaid costs. I believe fiscal responcibility is more important than civil liberties so I wasn't going to say "you can't put a price on civil liberties." (Though many liberals seem to think that civil liberties are more important than stopping terrorists... See: Patriot act outrage.)
"Why bother?" is not regarding inconvenience to the public. It is about the unenforcablility of the law. The potential for discriminatory suits from people who were pulled over because the police believed they weren't wearing their seatbelts who claim it was because they were (pick one) black, hispanic, white, old, young, Muslim, Christian, Goth, Athiest, female, male, conservative, a drug dealer, etc... How about this: Not a law that says we can pull you over if you aren't wearing your seatbelt, but rather one that says "You aren't eligable for medicare if you are injured and it is found that you weren't wearing your seatbelt at the time."
Post a Comment