« Captured British aid worker killed during rescue attempt (UPDATED) | Main | Rural Residents Seek Changes in Fire Policy After House Allowed to Burn »

There Oughta Be A Law...

Yesterday's dissection of soi-disant "moderate" commenter galoob's views brought out some very interesting discussions -- and highlighted quite thoroughly the fact that many of today's liberals have a very bizarre notion on what "the law" is about, is for, and means.

For example, if someone opposes something, then obviously they oppose it so much that they think their beliefs ought to be enforced by law.

For example, Steve Crickmore cited a very thinly-sourced report that Sarah Palin doesn't believe in evolution, is a hard-core creationist, and believes that dinosaurs co-existed with man.

That means, of course, that she wants to mandate schools to teach that and ban the teaching of evolution.

Never mind that during her tenure as mayor of Wasilla or governor of Alaska, she never even hinted that she intended to do so, let alone proposed any sort of legislation in that vein.

Or the Ground Zero mosque. Palin's against it. So am I. But I would never support any kind of government action to prevent it, and Palin has never even hinted at such a thing. But that doesn't keep our opponents (I can't really call them "supporters" of the Mosque, because they seem primarily motivated in opposing "our side," and not actually interested in the construction of the building apart from proving some ideological point) from accusing us of being against the First Amendment and religious freedom and hateful racist bigots and whatnot.

Which leads me to a related point: so many of the left seem to think that simply passing a law makes a problem go away. People should wear seat belts in cars? Make it a law, and problem solved. People shouldn't smoke? Make it almost impossible to smoke legally, jack up the taxes to the point where the government makes far more off each sale than anyone (or everyone) else in the business, and the smoking problem will go away. People using over-the-counter drugs to make meth? Make a law and it goes away.

Then wrap your head around this: it's also a tenet of the left that "bad" laws should just be ignored. Drug laws? Addicts are victims, not criminals. When arrested for breaking the law, they should be treated, not locked up. Illegal aliens? The laws are bad, and shouldn't be enforced. In fact, we should probably suspend all enforcement until we can swing "comprehensive immigration reform" (and trying to nail down just what the hell that means is like trying to nail Jello to a wall).

Think I'm exaggerating? Senator Chris Dodd and Congressman Charlie Rangel are two of the leading members of their respective Houses for overseeing financial matters, and they've both saved fortunes by ignoring the very laws they helped craft and expect the rest of us to pay. And let's not forget Treasury Secretary Timothy "Turbo Tax Tim" Geithner.

So, what is "the law," anyway? I'm going to steal a concept from the old TV show "The Commish." On that show, Michael Chiklis' character expressed his philosophy on policing: "the job of a police officer is to regulate human behavior."

That's what it boils down to. The law is one implement we use as a society to regulate the behavior of our members. And it's the one that we put the full force of our society behind enforcing.

We have many other ways of setting and enforcing standards for behavior. But none are driven by the power of the law. None of them have the power of the government behind them. None of those other methods have the power to deprive individuals of their property, their freedom, or even their lives.

Which is a large part of why I personally hold such respect for the law. I obey the law. When I disagree with the law, I will argue forcefully for it to be changed. I might even willfully violate the law, when I believe it worth the consequences.

And yes, sometimes I'll violate the laws that I shouldn't. When caught, though, I won't whine or bitch. I'll own up to it, and accept the consequences. I've never lied to get out of a speeding ticket (either time I was pulled over), and I guess my attitude has been refreshing and contrite enough to get off with warnings, 'cuz I still have a spotless driving record.

But back to the point. On some specific issues, let me spell out how I believe they should be handled in regards to the law:

Abortion: Roe v. Wade is one of the worst-crafted Supreme Court decisions I've ever seen. The reasoning is incredibly sloppy and full of holes. It deserves to be struck down. The issue itself should be resolved by the states, on an individual basis, where the people can more directly express their opinions on the issue. Abortion simply isn't a matter that is covered by the Constitution, and therefore by the 10th Amendment is a matter for the several states to decide.

Evolution v. creationism: As an agnostic, obviously I fall on the evolution side of the argument. I've always reconciled the two sides, though, by saying that evolutionary theory and cosmological theory are simply ways that can explain how God did what He did (presuming that He exists). "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth with a big bang."

Quite frankly, I think that anyone who gets bent out of shape over the topic as a political litmus test -- on either side -- is nuts, and ought to be kept as far away from positions of power as possible. It's being used as a football, with the leading proponents being hard-core evangelical Christians and hard-core atheists, with most people in the middle being pulled one way or another. A pox on both their houses.

The Ground Zero mosque: the federal government has no role to play in the issue whatsoever. The state and local levels do, on a lesser basis, with existing laws to be respected and enforced even-handedly. No, the opposition (which I count myself among) should -- and is -- using strictly social pressure and non-governmental means to express our opinions. The whole thing is a very-thinly-veiled "victory monument," wrapped in all kinds of symbolism to proclaim supremacy while offering up a fig leaf of cover of "tolerance" and "interfaith" and whatnot. Further, the constant rewriting and denials and secrecy of the Mosque backers continue to convince me that my perception is correct.

There. Three issues addressed, and not once did I make a federal offense out of any of them.

There are some matters that need to be addressed by federal laws. For a good listing of them, feel free to consult the Constitution.

There are other matters that should be addressed by the other levels of government. The 10th Amendment makes that abundantly clear.

And finally, there are some matters that the law itself should take a strictly agnostic view towards -- leave them up to the individuals, and the various forms of social regulation we've developed for ourselves.

Only simplistic idiots think that any time someone expresses an opinion, they're calling for the law to back them up. And only simplistic idiots think that when a politician expresses their opinion, they want the federal government to enforce their views.

Well, that's not necessarily true. There's an alternative explanation:

Projection.

Some of those people who howl so loudly about the right doing such things are scared -- because that's precisely what they would do if given the opportunity.

They have their vision of an ideal society, and by god they're going to bring it about -- whether members of that society wants it or not.

Nobody should have to go without health insurance -- so we're all going to have to buy it, whether we want to or not.

No one should ride in a motor vehicle without a seat belt -- so you're going to buckle up, or pay a fine, or even go to jail.

No one should smoke -- so we're going to regulate and tax the hell out of it until no one can afford it or find a place to do it.

No one should be a bigot -- so we're going to make it illegal to even speak "hateful" words.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

I agree with each of those sentiments. Hell, anyone with a lick of common sense should. But I do not think, under any circumstances, that it is the business of the government to protect us from being idiots. To protect us from ourselves.

But then again, I don't hold my fellow citizens in contempt. I don't think of them as children who need Big Nanny to look out for them and protect them from the consequences of bad choices by making sure they can't make "bad" choices.

Which, of course, means they won't be allowed to make any meaningful choices at all.

No, thanks.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40317.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference There Oughta Be A Law...:

» Weekend Pundit linked with Thoughts On A Sunday

Comments (47)

But..but..but...liberals wa... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

But..but..but...liberals want a 'guilt-free' and 'consequence-free' society! The elite should rule; dictating the daily activities of others. What they eat, what they read, where they go, how/where they work. What they produce at work.
Only then can we attain paradise.

It only took 80+ years for the Russians to find out it was all bullshit. John Smith found out the same, but it only took him a couple of months.

JT, of course as usual you ... (Below threshold)
galoob:

JT, of course as usual you set up a bunch of straw man arguments that "liberals" allegedly believe in, like hate speech laws, and then try to tar me with them.

It doesn't matter that I am against hate speech laws as an infringement on the First Amendment, or that I broadly agree that the abortion issue should be left to the states. I also believe 1st/2nd trimester abortion can't be outlawed as a practical or principled matter.

Otherwise, your arguments are incoherent. You talk about smoking -- well, that is an issue which has been handled just as it should be - by local municipalities and states. There's only a modest federal tax. What's your beef? If New York bans smoking in restaurants, aren't there strong arguments in favor of that? Personally, I have no nostalgia for the day when my $25 swordfish dinner was ruined by someone smoking at the next table.

More incoherence - you rail against taxation and regulation of smoking in restaurants and workplaces, but then turn around and advocate for strict laws against "drugs," implying that "addicts" should be "locked up." So let me get this right - people should be allowed to smoke tobacco like chimneys in the office, but if you smoke marijuana or snort coke in the privacy of your home, your house should be raided and you should go to jail?

I submit that you may be more of a nanny-state "liberal" than I am. After all, you are the War Krugmanite who believes that government spending boosts the economy. The fact that you believe that only war spending qualifies does not make you a "conservative," only a misguided tool.

Beyond that, your post is an exercise in naiveté or willful blindness.

Obviously people are elected to legislate or make executive decisions, both of which involve setting policy.

So you are saying a person's expressed values have no potential or real effects on policy. I say, what are you smoking? Or, who's paying you to write this crap? If you are respectful of religious liberty and want science and not religious doctrine to prevail in schools, why support someone like Palin, who is likely to enlist her Christian theocrats in a jihad to edit textbooks (like the Texas Board of Education) and ban library books in order to have their views prevail?


All you have to do is watch... (Below threshold)

All you have to do is watch the "10:10" commercial to understand what the left wants to do to those who disagree.

Or just visit the killing fields of Cambodia, the gulags of the USSR, the mass graves in, well, any country where the left gets a foothold.

Yes, they do want to kill you if you don't agree with them.

Oh, galoob, you delight me ... (Below threshold)

Oh, galoob, you delight me so. You have ZERO evidence that Palin wants to do any such things. She's never proposed it, never spoke in favor of it, and never tried when she might have held the power. But because you think she might, she obviously will.

As far as drugs... I didn't offer an opinion on drug laws. I said that the laws now say if you get caught, you get locked up. I am in favor of enforcing existing laws. I am also in favor of changing laws that are wrong or don't work. What I do NOT like is this bullshit "let's just ignore the laws because they're mean or something" that we're getting a lot of.

And thanks for affirming my statement about those who get worked up about the evolution/creationism debate. I noticed you blipped right past the part where I stated my stance on the issue; instead, you focused on how I don't care as passionately about it as you do, and therefore I'm the enemy.

J.

Not to mention that passing... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Not to mention that passing a law, while it doesn't necessarily make the problem "go away," does indeed often have a salutary effect. Even using Mr Tea's own examples.

When I was growing up, EVERY adult I knew smoked cigarettes. Then came the Surgeon General's warning, and laws against smoking here or there, and higher tobacco taxes, and, guess what? Nowadays smokers are an ostracized and dwindling minority, with the benefit to society of decreased Medicare and insurance costs, a more pleasant environment for all, longer, healthier lifespans, fewer low birthweight babies, etc. Do you think if there had been no government action against smoking, and cigarettes still cost $0.35 a pack, that as few would be smokers today as is currently the case?

Seatbelt laws? Same thing. Cars in my childhood didn't even come with seatbelts, but since seatbelt laws, thousands if not millions of lives have been saved, and we all save on car insurance and health insurance.

And if I'm not mistaken, there has been a decrease in meth use since pharmacists moved pseudoephedrine products behind the counter. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And Mr Tea may not see evolution vs creationism as a reason for a litmus test, but I do. Sorry, but if you're a "young earth creationist," you are crazy or stupid or both and I don't want you representing me in government. And if you believe, as Palin is alleged to believe, that dinosaurs coexisted with man, you DEFINITELY don't belong in a position of having your finger on a nuclear trigger. Since "young-earth creationists" and the people I call "rapture nuts" are usually the same people (am I wrong?), I don't want one in a position to bring about Armageddon because of his/her nutty-ass beliefs.

Bruce, I don't smoke. Never... (Below threshold)

Bruce, I don't smoke. Never have. Never will.

I don't drink.

I always wear my seat belt. I've buckled up to back out of a garage, knowing I'll have to get back out and close the door.

All because I understand the risks involved, and have made a choice to act in my own self-interest.

If you're too stupid or selfish or short-sighted to make such choices on your own that you need the government to hold your hand and tell you what to do and what not to do, feel free. But while you're at it, please consider not making other decisions that might harm others as well.

Such as voting. After all, you wouldn't want your vote to end up being the wrong one, would you? Why not let others make up your mind for you in that case, too?

J.

JT, you may be convincing m... (Below threshold)
galoob:

JT, you may be convincing me that Palin is more of a manipulative opportunist than a person of strong belief. But a political figure who bases her candidacy on religious grounds is suspicious.

Here is a story from a few days ago:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43198.html

Sarah Palin: Abortion an 'essential' issue for midterms

Abortion is an "essential" issue for midterm election voters, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin declared Tuesday.

Addressing an anti-abortion rights group in Houston, Palin said that President Barack Obama has overseen "the biggest advance of the abortion industry in America" thanks to the health reform law, CNN reports.

Now, how do you interpret that? You can be against Obamacare on many grounds, why does she choose that one? And how can you argue that beliefs have no influence on policy?

You wrote:
As far as drugs... I didn't offer an opinion on drug laws. I said that the laws now say if you get caught, you get locked up.

Weasel words, and factually wrong. Do you favor the drug laws as they are now? For your info, the drug laws often do allow for probation, with treatment as a requirement of probation. So, as often is the case, you just don't know what you're talking about.

I am amused that you are silent in defending your advocacy for war spending as a boost to the economy, you Keynesian, you.

Bruce Henry - typical mindl... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Bruce Henry - typical mindless, helpless, loser lib.

Oh Galoob, JT didn't try to... (Below threshold)
Rich:

Oh Galoob, JT didn't try to tar you with all those ridiculous far left notions of the law and its uses. Your a moderate,remember.

Drug laws? Leave 'em to the... (Below threshold)

Drug laws? Leave 'em to the states, by and large. Only get the feds involved when it involves crossing state or national borders.

"Keynesian?" You think I give a rat's ass about whatever label you think you can tar me with? That was a rhetorical flourish, intended to set up the following "real cost of war" bit. Patented Jay Tea head fake. I pull it all the time.

Abortion? Obama HAS pushed for changes in abortion laws, by sneaky means. Hell, he fought like hell for a law in Illinois for fetuses that survived abortion procedures to be locked in closets until they finally took the hint and died. I don't care what Obama says -- I care about what he does. And he's made his position quite clear.

Overturning Roe v. Wade will NOT suddenly make abortion illegal all across the United States. It will return the matter to the several states, and that's where I think it ought to be.

J.

Jay, glad to see your respe... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Jay, glad to see your respect for a rule of law not rule of men or women. I agree with Charles Reich author of 'the Greening of America, and I think you concur, the most important thing about the US, is the bill of rights and the American constitution.

I don't want to talk too much about Palin, (she isn't worth it, and is too easy a target) but since you brought it up, this is the sort of demogogue incoherence you can expect from her (or her ilk), when she is on a lecturn or if she ever became President.

This was shortly after the abortive Christmas 2009 attempt to blow up a airliner from Amsterdam landing in Detroit, Obama said (like Bush with Reid the shoelace bomber from the UK) that he would try the-would-be underwear bomber in civilian courts, -he confessed and cooperated fully under FBI interrogation. Palin: see video


The constitution provides the path to a more perfect union. It's the constitution. (and then in the next breath) By the way.. in these volatile times.. is when we need a commander-in -chief not a constitutional law professor lecturing us from a lecturn".

You can't make this up!

Mr Tea, you HAVE seat belts... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Mr Tea, you HAVE seat belts in your car because there is a federal law mandating them. If there was not, as was the case in my youth, you would have to ask for seatbelts as an option, if they were available. Besides, as I said, there are societal benefits to seat belt laws such as lower insurance rates, fewer highway deaths, etc., in which it can be argued the state has a compelling interest. Can it not?

Same goes for your other examples. People would still be smoking in huge numbers were it not for the fact that government, on all levels, has made a concerted effort to curb the practice. I notice you haven't taken issue with my contention that meth use is down since the new pharmacy practices took effect, too.

And you may congratulate yourself for your rectitude and common sense all you like, but the fact is that the state has an interest in a healthy poulace, and that is why the laws in your examples were enacted. The fact that smoking is down and seatbelt use is up is NOT due primarily to the fact that everybody is as by God commonsensical as you, Mr Tea. No, it's due to the fact that someone said, "There oughta be a law," and now there IS one.

No, Steve, and you can't ma... (Below threshold)

No, Steve, and you can't make up your own spelling of "lectern."

And thanks for reminding me of the Christmas bomber. Couple that with the Times Square bomber, and we have two potentially major terrorist attacks under Obama that failed not by his enlightened policies or inspiring leadership, but entirely by the incompetency of the terrorists.

Why, one might think that Bush had killed off most of the competent ones...

J.

"Why, one might think that ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Why, one might think that Bush had killed off most of the competent ones..."

Darwinian selection DOES work, doesn't it? Kill 'splodydopes, and they simply breed new ones. Kill the folks who breed and educate the 'sploydopes, and the the 'spodydopes get less and less capable of their self-destructive instincts. Personally, I'm all for making sure genus 'splodydope is extinct in all forms worldwide.

"Sorry, but if you're a "yo... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"Sorry, but if you're a "young earth creationist," you are crazy or stupid or both and I don't want you representing me in government. "


I'll take that any day over the idiots the dem party puts forward:

"Everyday that I am here is going to be spent, debunking the MYTH, that this country's in debt and we just can't spend. Well you can spend."-Rep. Phil Hare, D-IL

"I don't care about the Constitution..."-Rep. Phil Hare, D-IL

"My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize," - Rep Hank Johnson, D-GA

"A complete investigation might reveal" that "President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11." -Rep Cynthia McKinney, D-GA

"Guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal will be about socializing...uh, um...Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies." Rep Maxine Waters, D-CA

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA

"The Social Security system has been stable for more than 75 years and has one of the most efficient ratings in terms of any agency..." Rep Russell Carnahan, D-MO

"And next to me was a guy from an insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option saying it wouldn't let private insurance compete; that a public option would put the private insurance industry out of business (cheers)... My single payer friends, he was right. The man was right." - Rep Jan Schakowsky, D-IL

I could go on indefinitely.

I don't know what is more scary, the quotes of the stupid and the paranoid or the quotes of the marxist and authoritarian.

There are scores of dems who are all far too stupid to be given the dangerous amount of power over our nation that they have.

Galoob makes the claim that... (Below threshold)
Burt:

Galoob makes the claim that "there's only a modest federal tax" on cigarettes. I just looked it up and it is one dollar per pack. That seems excessive to someone like myself who can remember buying cigarettes for 16 cents per pack.

"Keynesian?" You think I... (Below threshold)
galoob:

"Keynesian?" You think I give a rat's ass about whatever label you think you can tar me with? That was a rhetorical flourish, intended to set up the following "real cost of war" bit. Patented Jay Tea head fake. I pull it all the time.

By "rhetorical flourish" do you mean "bullshit that I don't really believe in" or "bullshit that I do believe in" that you "pull all the time?" Weasel words.

So, do you believe that spending on the wars is a boost to the economy or not?

Me, I think the tragedy of the aid worker killed in Afghanistan provides an example of how our tax money and money borrowed from the Chinese is spent.

The unfortunate aid worker, Linda Norgrove, worked for DAI, a US-based "Beltway Bandit" aid contractor. The contract was for $349 million dollars. A large component of this was for local construction projects, which some of the local Afghan staff got bribes and kickbacks for steering to contractors.

http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2010/pr100616_1.html

She was a British national. The security company which provides security for the project, assuredly for another large part of that $349 million, Edinburgh International, is a UK company.

http://www.dai.com/about/newsroom.php?nid=398

http://www.rigzone.com/search/sites/Edinburgh_International6938.asp

It appears that almost all of that $349 million was spent offshore, on non-US staff, security personnel, and corrupt Afghan staff and contractors. Zero benefit to American workers or infrastructure.


In the previous article, so... (Below threshold)

In the previous article, someone was wondering how long it would take for some leftist to blame the US for the murder of Linda Norgrove by the Taliban on the US.

Folks, it just happened.

If anyone had "galoob at 2:49" in the betting pool, collect your winnings at the window.

J.

Galoob makes the claim t... (Below threshold)
galoob:

Galoob makes the claim that "there's only a modest federal tax" on cigarettes. I just looked it up and it is one dollar per pack. That seems excessive to someone like myself who can remember buying cigarettes for 16 cents per pack.

Yeah, the dollar ain't worth that much today, ya old codger, not like what it was when cigs were 16 cents a pack.

A dollar won't buy you a Coke nowadays, the way a nickel would when cigs were 16 cents a pack.

In Germany, taxes are almost $5 a pack. I used to make serious beer money from arbitraging the difference between US commissary cigarettes and German market cigs.

In the previous article,... (Below threshold)
galoob:

In the previous article, someone was wondering how long it would take for some leftist to blame the US for the murder of Linda Norgrove by the Taliban on the US.

Hey, if you mean we should not have been spending $349 million on a futile project to social engineer ignorant, corrupt and illiterate Afghans into modern Jeffersonian democrats, and sending young British women into war zones to do it, yeah I'll take it.

Otherwise, you're just being dishonest as usual. I'll take it as another "rhetorical flourish," i.e. bullshit.


Or the Ground Zero... (Below threshold)
Dane:
Or the Ground Zero mosque. Palin's against it. So am I. But I would never support any kind of government action to prevent it, and Palin has never even hinted at such a thing. But that doesn't keep our opponents (I can't really call them "supporters" of the Mosque, because they seem primarily motivated in opposing "our side," and not actually interested in the construction of the building apart from proving some ideological point) from accusing us of being against the First Amendment and religious freedom and hateful racist bigots and whatnot.

Wel, you are hateful racist bigots, but let's not let that get in the way of seeing just who Sarah Palin really is.

Sarah Palin tweeted the following:

"Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate," Sarah Palin tweeted yesterday afternoon."

So then, Muslims in favor of the Park 51 mosque are apparently not "peaceful muslims?"

In that one simple (simple-minded) tweet note the hate speech "code" of the right wing KKK-like racists Sarah Palin who labeled the Park 51 Muslim supporters as dangerous.

Racists talk in code to other racists. Palin is good at that. So is Jay Tea.

But, in all fairness to Jay... (Below threshold)
Dane:

But, in all fairness to Jay Tea, I honestly think he's too stupid to realize the ways the leaders of the right wing manipulate bloggers like Jay.

Jay strikes me as someone who isn't smart enough to know that the party leaders who manipulate him into repeating the right wing messaging are racist bigots because he himself isn't a racist bigot.

He's just a tool of those who are, and he unknowingly does their bidding in spreading their hate without realizing it. The anger Jay Tea carries against liberals in general is manipulated into support for racism and bigotry.

Bruce-"with the... (Below threshold)
914:

Bruce-

"with the benefit to society of decreased Medicare and insurance costs,"

What f n planet are you living on dimwit?

Dane!! A racist-

"The anger Jay Tea carries against liberals in general is manipulated into support for racism and bigotry."


What f n planet are you living on dimwit?


Dang, Dane done cracked the... (Below threshold)

Dang, Dane done cracked the secret code. We're gonna have to change it now.

914, reakbay outsay ethay ewnay odecay ooksbay, osay eway ancay etgay ackbay otay ottingplay oursay extnay ovemay...

J.

Mr Tea, you HAVE seat be... (Below threshold)
Mycroft:

Mr Tea, you HAVE seat belts in your car because there is a federal law mandating them. ... Besides, as I said, there are societal benefits to seat belt laws such as lower insurance rates, fewer highway deaths, etc., in which it can be argued the state has a compelling interest. Can it not?
.

12. Posted by Bruce Henry | October 10, 2010 2:31 PM

Actually, try looking at ALL the statistics. While it is true that the total number of deaths are reduced due to seatbelts, it is also true that injuries at lower speeds are both more numerous and more serious BECAUSE of seatbelts. In a rational society we would be able to choose when to use seatbelts and when not to, based upon the type of driving we were going to do.

So, really there ought NOT to be a law, but don't let that stop the liberal bull.

"Evolution v. creationism: ... (Below threshold)
Human Ape:

"Evolution v. creationism: As an agnostic, obviously I fall on the evolution side of the argument."

It's not an argument. Every educated person knows evolution is fact, and magical creationism is bullshit.

You are obviously an uneducated moron.

Mycroft-So, rea... (Below threshold)
914:

Mycroft-

So, really there ought NOT to be a law, but don't let that stop the liberal bull."


Spot-on observation of Bruce's nansy pansy need to stick his nose in our business and hands in our wallets. Hey Bruce' you should run for liberal office! But wait til after November.


"Galoob"(rolls eyes) I mea... (Below threshold)
G.:

"Galoob"(rolls eyes) I mean think about it.

Wow, Mr Mycroft. Is that so... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Wow, Mr Mycroft. Is that so? Evidence? ALL the statistics I'm supposed to have looked at before making my nansy-pansy assertion?

So, is it better to be killed in a high speed car crash than to be injured in a low-speed one?

The fact is that fatalities per car crash are fewer now than they were in the days before mandatory seat belt laws. High speed, low speed, whatever.

The state has a compelling interest in keeping its citizens alive and healthy, so they can participate in the economy, pay taxes, and fight wars. That's why the state has public health departments, traffic laws, fire departments, and.....seatbelt laws, anti-smoking policies, and rules about where pseudoephedrine products can be sold.

RE # 15:You can go... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

RE # 15:

You can go on and on with stupid quotes from Democrats, Jim M, that is true. However, it doesn't refute my assertion that "young-earth creationists" are crazy, stupid, or both, by virtue of BEING "young-earth creationists."

Nor my assertion that, since, in my experience, young-earthers and rapture nuts are the same people, a young-earther shouldn't be trusted with the nuclear football. Just sayin'.

Mr. Tea,I poked th... (Below threshold)
SER:

Mr. Tea,

I poked the idiot nest the other day, but you really smacked it with a stick. You have the whole troll gang flying out at you!

29. Posted by Bruce Henr... (Below threshold)
Mycroft:

29. Posted by Bruce Henry | October 10, 2010 5:42 PM

Wow, Mr Mycroft. Is that so? Evidence? ALL the statistics I'm supposed to have looked at before making my nansy-pansy assertion?

Why should I do your homework for you and chase it all down, I've seen it before.

So, is it better to be killed in a high speed car crash than to be injured in a low-speed one?

You miss the point (so what else is new?). If I am driving at 30 mph max to the grocery store that is 1/2 mile away, the the seatbelt is DETRIMENTAL to my health to wear. BUT THE LAW MAKES ME WEAR IT! If I am driving on the interstate at > 50 MPH, then it is in my interest to wear it. The LAW takes away my ability to decide to do thing the BEST for me at any given time.

The fact is that fatalities per car crash are fewer now than they were in the days before mandatory seat belt laws. High speed, low speed, whatever.

And injuries at lower speeds are up. Laws should do the best for ALL the people, ALL the time.

There is a saying that liberals need to learn: In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
Most conservatives know the second part already: In practice, there is.


The state has a compelling interest in keeping its citizens alive and healthy, so they can participate in the economy, pay taxes, and fight wars. That's why the state has public health departments, traffic laws, fire departments, and.....seatbelt laws, anti-smoking policies, and rules about where pseudoephedrine products can be sold.

So you agree with me then that the seatbelt law should be repealed. Thank you.

Well, you SAY injuries, at ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, you SAY injuries, at lower speeds, are up, but offer no proof. Suppose I say they're down. Why should I chase it down for you? I'm telling you that's how it is.

Wow, that's easy. Where'd you get that little factoid, anyway? Some Randian website that tells you to go Galt and not wear your seatbelts?

BTW, better clue Mr Tea in on your info. He's been known to buckle up to back out of a garage! Wouldn't want him to get whiplash!

Galoob does it again. Sara... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

Galoob does it again. Sarah Palin believes abortion is important to the midterms not because she wants a Consitutional Amendment, but because Obama and his minions have just overturned the Hyde amendment. Ask Stupak about that. He use the already overturned executive order as cover for his vote and then, realizing he could never win, "retired. If Pelosi and Obama took an up or down vote on required US funding of abortion, they would have lost, so they lied, just like Galoob. Oh, and Palin chose that one because, as your reference stated, she was addressing an anti abortion group. Why is that simple fact so diffiuclt for you to grasp?

On drugs, Jay Tea specifically said that what we cannot do is ignore certain laws. Much like the Justice department seems to want to ignore some voting rights laws, can we assum then the next administration can ignore different laws?

Galoob still idiotically attacks with this silly idea of war spending as Keynesian stimulus. It is silly because it has little multiplier effect and because it has been too small an amount to be a stimulus.

Bruce Henry, having seat be... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

Bruce Henry, having seat belts in the car is not the same thing as being forced to use them. I am surprised that concept confuses you. In fact, the federal government mandated the installation of seat belts, but not the use. They they got the brilliant idea to blackmail the states with highway funds to mandate the use of seat belts. Which is exactly the reason never to let the federal government collect taxes for you with the promise they will be returned. First, there is the "vig" and next there are the "strings".

Bruce, I think you make stupid arguments. There ought to be a law you cannot make stupid arguments. Can I have that law now? There are also a lot of laws that should not be laws. So, just because someone says there ought to be a law, does not mean there should be such a law. Can you say "unintended consequences".

It is a good thing Dane is ... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

It is a good thing Dane is on the job to let jay Tea know he is too stupid to recognize he is being manipulated. It is always good when a superior guy like Dane clears all that up.

Look Dane, the idea of putting a mosque in the shadow of ground zero is a sharp stick in the eye. The Muslims know that and most Americans know that. If the guys fighting to put the mosque there were really of a religion of peace, they would move it. They are not. They would rather have a propaganda opportunity than get along. I find it amusing that guys like you think they are too smart to consider the obvious.

Bruce Henry makes a couple ... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

Bruce Henry makes a couple of classic logic errors. But, they are logic errors we expect of a liberal. First, the fact there are fewer auto fatalities than before is not necessarily due to mandatory seat belt laws. it could well be cars are better designed and more protective. Bruce Henry does not know.

The second error of logic is that mandatory seat belt use reduces the rate of fatalities. How about considering the use of seat belts voluntarily?

Back to the seat belt issue... (Below threshold)

Back to the seat belt issue: I once dated a woman under five feet tall. She refused to wear her seat belt. Her argument: at her height, she had to sit so close to the steering wheel that should the airbag deploy, it would snap her neck. The federal law was essentially a death sentence for her.

But thanks to federal law, she had to wear that seat belt and could not legally deactivate the airbag. For her own good, she had to face a likely death sentence should she get into an accident.

Gosh, isn't it great that the federal government is looking out for her?

By the way, whenever I drove, she buckled up. Whenever she drove, she didn't. It's what's called "free choice." It's what's called taking responsibility for one's own actions and safety.

But she couldn't exercise that choice for herself.

Thanks to people like Dane and galoob and Bruce.

She's still alive, I think. And she's avoided any accidents that could kill her. No thanks to those laws "for our own benefit."

J.

"As an agnostic, obviously... (Below threshold)
Don L:

"As an agnostic, obviously I fall on the evolution side of the argument."

"I fall on" is just an avoidance phrase that says "I believe in this...."

That neutral stuff may work for some people, but others might say that "you are either with Him or against Him"

I suppose someday you'll find out -but an agnostic can not pretend to be neutral and then chose one side. Unless you've chosen "without knowledge"

"But thanks to federal l... (Below threshold)
Dane:

"But thanks to federal law, she had to wear that seat belt and could not legally deactivate the airbag. For her own good, she had to face a likely death sentence should she get into an accident."

More strawman arguments from Jay Tea.

Here's a translation: "You can ignore any law if you're stupid or paranoid enough to think of a reason to not follow it."

Simple solution.ww... (Below threshold)
Dane:

Simple solution.

www.seatbeltmasters.com/

I agree with the philosophy that any idiot who wants to kill themselves should be allowed to do it, but what about someone else riding in the car with Jay's moronic friend. In an accident someone without a seat belt is less likely to be able to control the car and bring it to a stop safely, thereby endangering others in the car with her and others on the road at the same time.

Be a moron is not an excuse to avoid the laws.

But in the Tea world if you're so damned stupid that you think you're safer without a seat belt it apparently is....

Well, you SAY injuries, ... (Below threshold)
Mycroft:

Well, you SAY injuries, at lower speeds, are up, but offer no proof. Suppose I say they're down. Why should I chase it down for you? I'm telling you that's how it is.

Because I used to work in the insurance industry, as stated in earlier posts. And I take ANYTHING listed on the internet with a grain of salt as to it ability to be a fact. Fact is, I have been reported dead there more then once, but last time I looked, I'm still alive.

Wow, that's easy. Where'd you get that little factoid, anyway? Some Randian website that tells you to go Galt and not wear your seatbelts?

From wikipedia:

Side-effects of seat belts

Critics have pointed to fatalities and injuries caused by wearing seat-belts. Chest injury may cause cardiac arrest, lung bruises are amongst the most common causes of death by seat-belts especially for people of weak heart such as the elderly who can also suffer a heart attack and not be able to free from the seatbelt in order to get to help. In neck injury cases, the deceleration from a high-speed impact can cause a seat-belt wearer's head to continue forward suddenly while the body is restrained, potentially causing paralyzing injuries. A study of such injuries notes "Seatbelts save lives. However, they may cause injury to adjacent structures and when they malfunction can cause injury to the abdominal viscera, bony skeleton and vascular structures. The motor industry has attempted to reduce these injuries by modification of vehicle design and safety equipment."[19]

And based upon earlier experience, wikipedia is left biased as well, and even they admit it. Other sources, exist, but like most liberals, you want the rest of us to do your homework for you..

BTW, better clue Mr Tea in on your info. He's been known to buckle up to back out of a garage! Wouldn't want him to get whiplash!

Mr Tea can take care of himself. And that's the whole point. The government doesn't belong in the job of regulating behaviour.

33. Posted by Bruce Henry | October 10, 2010 6:22 PM

Dane,didn't. Jay say... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Dane,
didn't. Jay say he wears his seat belt to back out of the garage?
jeebus

Truth to tell, SCSI, that b... (Below threshold)

Truth to tell, SCSI, that buckling up is not a conscious decision, but an ingrained habit. Door closes, seat belt goes on. I don't think I'm safer buckling up getting out of the garage; I just do it. And it's annoying to unbuckle it again...

And my ex... well, she had her reasons. And they were fairly valid. But valid or not, she doesn't have the choice under the law.

J.

Eventually there will be en... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Eventually there will be enough laws on the books so that one will be in violation of them knowingly or not. That or the law will be ignored because people know that there is no one around to enforce it.

Lastly... Were you really so bored that you had to bait them?

Baiting is easy. Simply men... (Below threshold)
914:

Baiting is easy. Simply mention Sarah Palin and the trolls show up like flies on shit.

914 I agree, Sarah Palin is... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

914 I agree, Sarah Palin is getting way too much coverage, for someone who is not even running for office or holds office.

There are other more relevant, even nuttier Tea Partiers in the lineup now, but seldom get mentioned by the posters here. I don't know why?

It would actually be entertaining if some of them got elected in 2010 like a trial run for 2012, against Palin in the primaries. Then it would be a contest of who was the wackiest.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy