As IF Times

Source: Advocates support a ban on all hands-free devices behind the wheel – NEWS 1130

Who are these advocates anyway?   The proposed ratcheting up of restrictions for drivers supposedly addresses a safety issue by, what else; more laws, more fines and more restrictions on people just going about their daily business.  We knew this wouldn’t end at just stop signs.

In fact this extra heaping helping of regulations may never have the desired effect.  The idea is to remove all distractions from drivers so that they can concentrate solely on driving.  This is idiocy and naivete institutionalized. People are as likely to stop talking on phones in cars as they are to do only 50 in a 50 zone. The never ending creep of do-gooders and finger waggers is like the spreading of an infectious virus.  It is indiscriminate and adversely affects innocent people.  And there is no vaccine in sight.  There is an organized  movement of technology philistines determined to roll back advances in technology and who won’t be happy until bicycles and red flyer wagons are the preferred modes of travel.  As soon as someone finds some favorable statistics, we can expect restrictions on travelling while dark.  How did the Amish become so militant?

Throughout the long evolution of man, he has been able to adapt to whatever environmental challenges have been placed upon him.  It seems highly improbable that he can’t surmount the challenge of talking or listening to music while holding on to a steering wheel.  There are bodily functions that work automatically without conscious thought, such as breathing air or passing gas.  We can do these things without conscious effort, allowing us to mentally focus on other things simultaneously.  Let’s draw the line at performing dental procedures, putting on contact lenses or juggling cats, but we suspect that most normal people are capable of talking and perhaps even chewing gum while driving.

There’s no argument that typing homework on a phone while driving to school would be ill advised, dangerous and would most certainly qualify for a Darwin award.  Unfortunately there are idiot quotients in every society.  Anyone causing an incident while being irresponsible deserves whatever consequence is due to them. But there should really be an awareness push on non drivers.  I refer to the general pedestrian and bicycling population that move about without proper regard to their own safety and whom are often the victims of distracted drivers.  This contingent of people have been brainwashed/deluded to believe that since the ‘law’ gives them a notional right of way,  they are impervious to harm by vehicles.  We see this all the time, pedestrians and cyclists who put themselves in harm’s way on the streets as if there’s a magic bubble which protects them from the dangers of vehicles.  What’s worse, is that these days, they are texting while walking or while riding making them oblivious to their surroundings.

Logically, if flesh and bone steps into possible harm’s way in front of a parade of two ton metal vehicles moving at any speed, it should be with a healthy bit of caution.  A roadway is not a dog park.  There will always be idiots at the wheel at any given time.  The principle of self preservation should rule people’s actions, not some fanciful notion of right of way.  As it stands now, complacency trumps the very basic instinct of survival for people and this has given rise to careless pedestrians and cyclists alike.  This carelessness needlessly makes them all victims.  It’s as if people don’t expect to get eaten by a wolf just because they’re wearing an ‘I am a vegetarian t-shirt’.

More laws on what we can do in cars leads to more enforcement officers, to more legal battles, more work for lawyers, (truly sinister) fine payment mechanisms,  paperwork, more use of paper and eventually this daisy chain of consequences leads to deforestation, global warming, yada yada yada.  Why would we be for global warming?

Update:  I didn’t make this up: nose pick

Source: Ted Cruz on Donald Trump tweets: Who cares

All of the tabloid like headlines surrounding the battle for the Republican nomination gives a different perspective on the sanctity of the eventual office itself.

We can name numerous action movies based on the premise of protecting or rescuing the President from some terrorist or existential threat.  As the drama typically unfolds, armies of people are tasked with sacrificing their very lives if need be, to protect the safety of the President.  A literal army of people, the finest in protection armament, the cutting edge of electronic gadgetry; all are at the disposal of the Secret Service to save the President from harm.  Invariably, Morgan Freeman directs the rescue mission as if the fate of the world rests with the salvation of a politician.

And no doubt this depiction in cinema is reflective of the protocols observed in real life. This appears to make sense because the officeholder is the presumptive symbol of freedom for the entire world, not just the United States. But does it really?

Historically, leaders of nations were militarily adept and well suited to advance the fortunes of their empire.  From Genghis Khan to Julius Caesar, the empire depended on their leader’s health to preserve the integrity of the societies they ruled.  Even as recently as Winston Churchill, leaders exhibited some uniqueness of leadership, some essential irreplaceable  element that was important to the society’s survival.

Things are quite different today.  As we watch the nomination process for the potential Presidential candidate, we see that most are loathed as equally as they are loved, sometimes more so.  We see that most exhibit a stunning lack of leadership qualities and whatever moral high ground they claim is as ephemeral as the next poll. We see that the eventual winner is more likely the product of marketing, spin and bloc voting than because of any quality of leadership.  It’s about desire for the office more than the suitability. The process has become American Idol.   A survey of the candidates shows the following:

An almost septuagenarian egomaniac billionaire with the temperament of a 6 year old

A self avowed septuagenarian socialist who thinks money is like jujubes, to be given away to anyone who asks.

A preachy lawyer, who is possibly Canadian with a high dislike quotient by both parties

A professional politician who has no record of accomplishment in a lifetime of public service and whose ability to contort on every issue makes Gumby look like a piece of re-bar and who may yet be disqualified by law.

This is the cast of people, one of whom the Secret Service will be obligated to offer life and limb to keep safe after the election.  I dunno.  God forbid that any circumstance should arise when they may be called upon to extend extraordinary effort and cost to keep them safe from harm.  But as a pragmatic matter, maybe the calculus may go along these lines:  “Well he (she) wasn’t well liked anyway, he barely won the nomination and he really isn’t that special…we’ll just use the next guy.”

And that would be the end of political thriller movies involving the President.