I don't know. Maybe it's just me. I guess I may very well be the one who is mixed up.
Anyways, yesterday the family and I went out someplace leaving our dogs in the back yard. We left thje dogs out in the backyard like we usually do. They finally caught what they have been after for three years, another animal.
I used to be amused watching them go flying into the backyard, the backyard they have ruined, to chase various critters. There were some rabbits who made their home under the shed and lately the groundhogs have been coming into the yard. Perhaps they evicted the rabbits and made their home here. I'm not really sure. I never go into the backyard anymore.
It breaks my heart to go into the backyard. My front yard looks like the fairway of an expensive golf course. The backyard, with some straightening would most closely resemble the surface of the moon. There was once freshly laid sod back there. It was nice but that was a long time ago, before we got the dogs.
The dogs are not particularly close to their cousins in the wild. These are pampered pooches. They come from a successful show line. I have no idea why we decided to buy expensive show line dogs but we did. These dogs are weaklings. I had a "less showy" dog of the same breed a few years ago and that was a rugged dog who could pull a large human being across a hundred feet in a few seconds. These dogs cannot even hold a rope in their mouths if you give it a good tug. They're complete wimps.
Anyways, the one skill they have seemed to master is the art of the dig. The backyard has the holes to show for it. We once put up an expensive aluminum fence to cage in our wandering dogs. One of them is an escape artist and managed to dig and crawl under the fence at will. So we lined the fence with heavy railroad ties to prevent the dog from digging out. Then the two started digging under the shed I keep in the backyard. It got so the slightest rain would cause them to dig madly until they got to where the critters lived. They would walk out of the house clean and come back completely covered in mud.
I'm rambling so let me get to the crux of the issue. Yesterday, as I said, the dogs caught themselves a critter. It was a groundhog. I don't know what they did when they caught it. I wasn't home. But it caused quite a stir in our neighborhood. First the kids saw the streetfight which ensued. They either called parents to come see or the noise caused several of them to come into my backyard to see if they could stop the madness.
Later that day, somebody called to let us know what had happened. Apparently several adults entered the yard specifically to rescue the groundhog from my evil dogs. They were shocked by the viciousness of my creatures' attack. They are now frightened of them because of the way they reacted when the adults tried to save the poor groundhog! &nbs; None of my neighbors can look me in the eye today. It seems that they must believe that I too must be evil since I have somehow caused these fluffy, weakling dogs to become cold blooded killers. I think they want us out of the neighborhood. They're that standoffish.
Now I may not be a genius but I can tell you that it is perfectly within the normal realm of dog nature to want to hunt critters. What a pair of show dogs would do with a groundhog once they caught it, I just can't say. But I do know that the result of their actions resulted in the death of the groundhog. I got the duty of cleaning up the kill. That was quite an experience.
The last time I had to play coroner for a deceased mammal of this size, I was removing a rat from my house. One doesn't feel remorse when one removes the carcass of a rat from one's abode because the alternatives are not particularly appetizing. I placed a plastic bag over the dead groundhog and picked it up while pulling the bag shut over top of it. I then put the plastic bag inside another and another and another. I don't know how many bags efficiently cover a corpse but I wasn't in a conservation frame of mind. I just wanted the thing, its flies and its stink to disappear.
The whole episode was little eery. The thing weighed I would guess about five pounds. I received the full experience as rigor mortis had already set in. The beast was stretched out like a cliff diver with claws showing. There were flies beginning to utilize the kill for reproductive purposes. The thing stunk already.
Anyways, even though I was not removing a rat from my house, I still did not feel anything for the "poor groundhog." I'm not really sure why one would. I would never enter someone's backyard in order to protect one from "vicious" dogs. I don't really get why anyone would. Groundhogs have plenty of terrain in which to live happily. They don't need to make a home in my dog patrolled poor excuse for a backyard. They aren't an endangered species. Why are humans so concerned about them?
The only thing I can come up with is somehow we have completely gotten out of touch with the realities of the natural world in which we most certainly make our homes. I live in a town where there has been a recent spate of coyote attacks. Coyotes have bitten children and pets. Its been all over the national news. But that's what coyotes do. They don't have to be rabid in order to attack a human child or the pet of one. And they don't do it to be mean. They do it because they fully intend to eat the child or pet. They see themselves walking through the supermarket or restaurant and they say to themselves, that looks good and not overly expensive, why don't we have that for dinner.
People are all up in arms over the recent spate of attacks. The first thought they come up with is, the coyotes must be rabid. Then they wonder if perhaps it is not really coyotes but rather somebody's pit bull that has attacked. It's coyotes almost certainly since they are, as a matter of fact, all over the place now. They should be motivated to be in my town thanks to the hugs volume of deer found here. I recall a little more than ten years ago seeing deer on the other end of town. I was shocked since I thought we were kinf of more urban than rural. Nowadays it would be uncommon to drive through the town at dawn or dusk and not see a deer or heard of them. They've been in my yard. I've seen them jump the neighbors five foot fence to get at their shrubbery. And where there are deer, there are sure to follow some sort of predator. Maybe you;re thinking a coyote cannot kill a deer but let's face it, deer have babies and coyotes can most certainly take Bambi.
So that's it. That's my story. We have become so denatured that we no longer recognize reality. If we lived in reality, nobody would ever trespass on another's property in order to save a groundhog. And folks wouldn't be surprised to find coyotes in a place infested with deer. As it is, we see ourselves as somehow outside of nature, somehow aboard a spaceship made of metal and plastic. That's a bad way of thinking.
The State of New Jersey is starting a governmental agency dedicated to dealing with obesity. "Progressive" states everywhere will most likely follow suit. But since NJ has the biggest problem, they had to be first. Many healthcare professionals are hoping NJ's program becomes a national model.
You know, I had this same idea when I started reading about the "obesity epidemic." What we really need is a governmental agency dedicated to wiping out the problem. The government has been so effective at wiping out poverty, bringing the educational system back to where it should be, controlling crime, eradicating drug abuse, eliminating prostitution and gambling, and dealing with so many other problems, it is difficult to fathom just how effective and efficient government can be once they set their minds to it. I know in my heart of hearts that we have now turned a corner. The obesity epidemic will be over before much longer.
The strategies to be employed by this new agency are so obvious, I don't know why we didn't think of them sooner. The commissioner of the state Department of Health and Senior Services outlined some of those for the newspapers. He says he wants to "de-normalize" the massive portions served in restaurants, target "black and Latino youths, who are more likely to be overweight than white youngsters," have "schools notify parents, via report cards, of children with weight problems," and encourage "physical activity, rather than by banning particular foods."
I may have an additional idea or two but I don't know where to write to voice my opinion. My thoughts are we could have devices placed at restaurants which measure BMI. Anyone over a certain threshhold would not be allowed to enter just like we do at amusement parks with the roller coasters preventing certain people from riding. Perhaps no black or Latino youths would allowed in restaurants which are known to serve "massive portions" since these obviously present a tremendous threat to those already struggling with weight issues. Over the weekend, we ate at some place called "Fat Burgers." Obviously this would be the place to start such a prevented entry system.
Another thought I have would be to randomly sample servings at all restaurants and then fine the establishment if caloric, fat, carbohydrate content and other measurements exceed certain threshholds. We don't have to "ban" the massive portions per se. Instead we could use a system of economic benefits to reward restaurants which serve healthy foods in proper proportions. This could work like carbon trading. One restaurant would serve healthy food and earn "obesity credits." Another could serve horrendous sizes of fatty and otherwise completely unhealthy foods but would be forced to buy "obesity offsets" from the healthy restaurants. Ice cream shops and other unhealthy servers would see a rapid increase in the costs of doing business and then pass the cost on to consumers. Only really rich people could afford to be fat. The poor, impoverished inner-city youths wouldn't be able to buy unhealthy foods at least not at restaurants. We could form a "treaty" of sorts and call it something like the "Obesity Protocol" which would give a greater degree of specificity than I have. The ultimate objective would be to have the people all have "obesity neutral footprints."
I do love the idea of notifying people via their kids' report cards. This is so obvious, I don't know why we haven't been doing this all along. You tell the parents:
Math ... C- Reading (remedial) ... B- Cultural Enrichment ... A+ English (as a second language) ... B- Physical Education ... A BMI ... F - A - T Health ... A Social Studies ... D
That way the parents of a 200 pound 5th grader would have absolutely no doubt that their kid is FAT. Identification of a problem is the first step towards dealing with it and these parents may have been totally in the dark prior to the presentation of BMI on the report card. Now they will certainly take steps to alleviate the problem before it gets set in stone. Thank goodness somebody let them know this was a problem.
Wow, these government people really do know what they are doing. Isn't it wonderful that we live in a country with so much good, old-fashioned common sense?
There is hope for the future provided that human society continue to pump out bright, energetic kids who atre skeptical of conventional wisdom. There's one who has created a web site about global warming as part of a school project. I invite you to take a look at Ponder the Maunder.
Hillary Clinton advocates a "We Are All in It Together" society rather than the "on your own" society Bush policies have created. She says she wants shared responsibility and prosperity to rule the day. I totally agree. But why should we wait for over a year until she wins the presidency and begins implementing this new Socialism? We can start right now. I know several poor minority families who could easily move right into her and Bill's excessively large home tomorrow. She and Bill would do just fine in say 1,000 square feet of living space in the ghetto. And after they vacate their mansion for more humble digs, perhaps they could share some of their millions with the likes of me and some I know who don't have much money. We are, after all, raising children who are the future of this country. And I think we could easily devise a fair way to divy up their wealth. Let's get started right now.
Here's a quick survey for you. If you are a conservative and need definite answers for things (see prior post), you can view it as a multiple choice question with one right answer. If you are a liberal (or "progressive thinker") who likes things to be more creative, simply rank the answers according to your situational ethical values.
If the grade on the quarterly report card reads C-, D, or F, is the student who receives this grade:
A) suffering from dyslexia, ADD or some sort of "learning disability" B) stupid C) lazy D) suffering from poor parenting and/or inadequate teaching
Your answer says more about you than who you are, be that student, parent or teacher, more than whether you are conservative or liberal. It also tells us when you are answering the question. If you answered the question in say 1900, your answer would most likely place A last, or leave it off entirely, and consist of a mixed ranking of B, C, and D with D most likely coming after B and C. If you answered it over the past 20 or 40 years, you would be likely to respond with A first, followed not very closely by D, B and C, with D far ahead of either B or C. Many would leave off B and C altogether.
The results of this survey say something about our society. A result from say 1900 would tell us that hardwork and perseverance despite difficulty were highly valued. One's failures were largely blamed upon oneself. One's successes were similarly often credited to oneself. In the current state of society, these values are no longer prevalent. Rather, we seek out causes of failure which cannot in any way be ascribed or blamed to the one failing. It's a rather convenient thought process.
We, modern, advanced, educated humans have a tendency to mistake predisposition for causality. We confuse potential with ultimate result. We eschew value judgments like blame and credit because they cause one person to be held in higher regard than another. We see that as denying the dignity of all humans equally. We see these value judgments as the work of small minded, orthodox thinkers. Yet, our efforts to unstigmatize large portions of the lazy, stupid, or otherwise below average populace so as to not offend their self-esteem costs a great deal to society at large. It also tends to punish the smart, energetic and successful.
This is apparently a controversial subject as I have learned whenever I have criticized the high percentage of American school children who have received pharmaceutical solutions for poor school performance. Let me be clear so I can avoid the sort of bashing my notions might cause. I do believe there exist biological reasons why some kids have greater difficulty learning than others. I believe there are "reading disorders" which make it necessary for kid A to work four times as hard as kid B in order to read and comprehend at the same level. I had a friend who suffered from something which caused him to require educational remediation before he could read adequately. I also had a friend who was genuinely ADD. Yet, these are the only two kids I knew who would have fallen into some sort of "classification" system used to identify genuine learning disabilities. When I hear today about the high number of kids who are classified and therefore require powerful psychoactive medication or additional funding or whose grades fall outside the system of school performance evaluation, I suspect there are other causes at work which need to be examined.
Our systems for "classification" are a rigged game. If you pull F grades, you don't want anyone to call you stupid or, worse yet, require you to expend greater amounts of effort and energy to step up to the plate and bring yourself up. If it is your kid who is underperforming, you do not want anyone to call your bluff and question the values you have instilled in your child or examine your parenting techniques. You would much prefer that the system classify your kid and prescribe some once a day medication, additional funding, or something else that doesn't cost you personally and seems to solve the problem. If you are the teacher who is responsible for this kid's education, you would much prefer the system classify him or her than examine you and your teaching style or techniques. And the people who perform the evaluations have a vested interest in "classifying" the student. The very existence of their career path depends upon it. Their life is 100% about classifying such children. If the universe of kids who really needed to be classified was to shrink to what should normally be expected, they'd be out of a job.
The way I usually look at things like the classification of kids with learning disabilities is via the normal or bell curve. It stands to reason that if 100% of humans were classified as learning disabled in one form or another, nobody would be so classified. The bell curve tells us that about 2.5% (at both ends) of everyone should fall outside a range we consider "normal" or ordinary. If everyone falls victim to the same poison, we call the stuff poison and do not attempt to describe the affliction which all humans suffer that causes us to die when we come into contact with the stuff. If everyone were to be dyslexic, there would be no such thing as dyslexia. We'd all read about the same and nobody would be the wiser. If every human being had trouble sitting still for 6 straight hours in a school desk, we'd say that's normal and would not attempt to describe an affliction.
Today there is a report made by a researcher who claims "Dyslexia is a social fig leaf used by middle-class parents who fear their children will be labelled as low achievers." I suggest you take a look at it and consider the ramifications. I cannot speak to the manner in which this researcher conducted his "30 year" study. Perhaps it is another worthless pseudo-scienctific piece of garbage. But, if what the article says is true - ten percent of all people in the UK have been diagnosed with dyslexia - this issue ought to be looked at a bit more closely.
Are you a conservative? Liberal? Did you know that you had no choice (or almost no choice) in deciding on which end of the political spectrum you sit? That's the conclusion reached by John Jost, a psychologist at New York University, as reported by LIveScience.com. But don't just accept what Mr. Jost or LiveScience has to say. This was not an extensive piece of original research. Its conclusions are at least somewhat suspect. They're also a teensy bit condescending.
Jost conducted an "overview" or "meta-analysis" of previous studies including his own work, not an original, well designed, extensive research project. That seems to be the way things are done in psychology these days. Nobody has enough energy, money, time or desire to conduct real research. Rather, these "experts" simply perform research-masturbation by massaging the work of other, more ambitious and energetic folk. I could go on bashing all the research re-hash we have been forced to digest over the years but I think the phenomenon speaks for itself.
Jost did not simply conclude that genetics were fairly important (about 50% attribution) in determining one's political leanings. He also saw relationships between an individual's psychology and his or her political philosophy. Live Science notes the "work" also concludes "people who are more conscientious and prefer order, structure and closure in their lives tend to be more conservative, whereas creative people who are open to new experiences tend to be more politically liberal." The web site says Jost's research "showed that liberals seem to be drawn to chaos and novelty - for instance, they tend to support social change - whereas conservatives prefer reassurance and structure, and thus like to maintain the status quo."
There is a popular notion, engendered by the media, not to mention our educational institutions, that desire for order and structure, need for reassurance and closure, and clinging to the status quo are negative attributes, almost childlike in nature. On the other side of the coin, characteristics such as creativity or being "open" to new experiences carry positive connotations and are indicative of maturity. This notion tends to be propogated and supported by "creative" people and, as a matter of fact, political liberals.
Yet the chief characteristics of an organized society are necessarily structure and order and the near elimination of chaos. No society on Earth has ever prospered without structure and order. Societies without structure and order mostly devolve into a condition in which every individual seeks only their own immediate gratification, their own personal benefit. That usually is described as survival of the strongest or most aggressive, or as a jungle mentality. "Creative" people tend to not be particularly aggressive, big, strong, or capable of survival in the jungle. "Creative" people tend to be trampled in chaotic or anarchic situations.
Every successful society has established a strong body of law and an orderly means by which to enforce it. The very existence of laws of any sort demonstrate that structure and order are critical to society. We establish bodies of law precisely so that members of the society have reassurances regarding what are and what are not permissible behaviors. This is necessary for any meaningful, positive societal action to proceed. Without an organized strong body of law, individuals are free, and motivated, to act only in their own immediate best interests.
Meaningful, positive societal action are the very tools which provide the opportunity for creativity to take root. If mankind spent all his time gathering the fruits of the wild and stalking prey for dinner, as we once did, there would be no time for drawing pictures, creating sculptures, or seeking out new "self-actualization" experiences. Rather, society would be completely utilitarian in nature. Anything which did not put food on tables, roofs over heads, or improve some vital aspect of the lives of individuals in society would be characterized as wasteful and erradicated accordingly. Yet mankind did lift itself up from "hunter-gatherer" through the establishment of order, via organized agriculture and many institutions we take for granted, or try to bring down, in everyday modern life. Without structure, order, law, deliberate organization and the fruits which flow therefrom, there is no room nor time for creativity.
Most of our society's political debates are about these laws which create the organization that allows society to prosper and creativity to bloom. The liberal side sees things one way while the conservative sees them another. The choice of which side one embraces is really about one's priorities and values, and which sides' "solutions" seem more likely to cause those priorities and values to thrive.
The juxtaposition of all those wonderful, advanced people who invoke our passions and allow us to develop our intellectual capabilities by seeking out new experiences, embracing chaos and novelty, supporting social change, and feeding their own personal creativity, with those stiff, conscientious conservative types who prefer order, reassurance, structure and closure while making sure the status quo remains the status quo, seems a bit disingenuous. Conservatives could get by without liberals. Their lives might be a bit poorer but they would survive. Liberals would perish without some number of "conervative thinkers" to take care of them. The food in the fields would rot while the artists entertained themselves. The bigger, stronger, beasts and men of the jungle would come out and eat them without a few conservatives around to build the forts and man the walls. Sometimes I think we forget that.
Environmental activists are building a new "Noah's Ark" to get our attention about global warming. And, after all, this is about getting attention. That's what these idiots live for, getting everyone to look at them. But at least if they're kept busy building something, they won't be wasting OUR time. As an aside, I thought that the vast majority of these folks are atheists. As such, they can't believe anything in the bible actually happened, can they? So, what they're doing is recreating a myth? I don't know. I just don't get these people.
This test asks you 10 questions about global warming to see how much you know about the topic. Just as an FYI, yes, I answered all 10 questions correctly!
But after each question, the site offers you some interesting factoids about global warming, such as this one on Question #9...
President Clinton and others cite a letter signed by 2,600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we now know that fewer than 10% of these "scientists" know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine.
If anything, it's great entertainment, ideology or not.
The Global Warming test is hosted on a website run by a couple of guys interested in plant fossils of West Virginia. Because, someone's gotta study that stuff.
The Associated Press reports today that two vegan parents were sentenced to life in prison after their baby died from eating a vegan diet...
Defense lawyers said the first-time parents did the best they could while adhering to the lifestyle of vegans, who typically use no animal products. They said Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby, who was born at home, was in danger until minutes before he died.
Read that quotation carefully.
The key phrase is "Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby ... was in danger until minutes before he died".
Meaning, when you feed a baby a vegan diet, you have no way of knowing if this diet is killing your baby. Does that not prove that a vegan diet is DANGEROUS and UNNATURAL?
The baby died at 3 1/2 pounds, which is quite small for a baby, however, it was only 6 weeks old. Furthermore, vegans are used to being thin and small, so I believe these parents felt a 3 1/2 pound vegan baby at 6 weeks old, is par for the course.
And that's part of the problem with vegans. They become so caught up in their ideology, they can't hear Mother Nature screaming at them in the face.
Want-to-be-President Barack Obama made a little teensy wheeny mistake yesterday. He claimed that 10,000 people died in tornadoes the other day. The actual count was less than 10. That's kind of a big mistake in percentage terms, don't you think? Obama chalked the error up to fatigue. He says sometimes I'm going to get tired and make mistakes. We've still got more than a year to go in the campaign and he's tired? How's he gonna feel after that year? And let's speculate that he wins the office, what happens then? When he gets tired is he going to send more FEMA people to a disaster than the number who were affected by the disaster? Will he send the military to the wrong country because he's just sooo tired? What kind of complete f#@%ups can we expect when the pressures of the office, exponentially tougher than those of running a campaign, get to him? Actually, the 10,000 mistake was something I could live with. One could say, heck, he exaggerated a bit. But to turn around and complain about fatigue goes a little too far. The man doesn't even have a real job. He doesn't know what tired is.
I think this one needs no further explanation or elaboration:
"
(Actual letter from an Iowa resident and sent to his senator)
The Honorable Tom Harkin 731 Hart Senate Office Building Phone (202) 224 3254 Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Harkin,
As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Burlington , IA
An Islamic children's television program created a character looking very much like Mickey Mouse, except preaching to children that...
"We will return the Islamic community to its former greatness, and liberate Jerusalem, God willing, liberate Iraq, God willing, and liberate all the countries of the Muslims invaded by the murderers."
A bunch of Muslim terrorists planned an attack on a military base or a couple military bases in New Jersey. But they got caught by law enforcement folks. Thanks goodness for that. Yet the Associated Press can't tell us that without also telling us,
"The description of the suspects as "Islamic militants" renewed fears in New Jersey's Muslim community. Hundreds of Muslim men from New Jersey were rounded up and detained by authorities in the months following the 2001 attacks, but none was connected to that plot.
"If these people did something, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law," said Sohail Mohammed, a lawyer who represented many of the detainees. "But when the government says 'Islamic militants,' it sends a message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous."
"Don't equate actions with religion," he said."
OK. So they weren't "Islamic militants." They were fucking illegal immigrant Islamic terrorist militant bastards.
The election of right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy as the next President of France is perhaps a tell-tale sign that the French are nationalizing.
Liberals and socialists had plenty of time in French power to bring about prosperity and safety to France, but failed to do so. A very high unemployment rate is one of the motivators, but the biggest of all is the rapidly growing population of muslims.
Late in 2005, muslims in France rioted in response to a growing trend of hatred and discrimination towards their religion. The French were appalled to see muslims burning, looting, and killing other French people. You better believe it that was on the minds of French voters when they elected Sarkozy.
During those riots, Sarkozy was serving as France's Interior Minister. In response to those riots, he referred to muslims as "scum".
Muslims are building up a political base in France, similar to how Mexicans are building one up here in the USA. The difference is that France has always been French, whereas America has always been a little of everything. Americans have more tolerance. The French do not.
Sarkozy's election is perhaps one or two steps away from ethnic cleansing in France. He's no Hitler or Milosevic. But, he was elected because the French have had enough of "multiculturalism".
If we will one day see a third world war pitting Christians against Muslims, the election of Sarkozy will push things a little closer to it.
A off-duty Arizona highway patrol officer slammed his car into the rear-end of a motorcycle on I-17 in Phoenix. The guy sitting on the motorcycle was catapulted off of his bike, and then run over by a semi-truck.
Because the State of Arizona does not permit lane-splitting, the motorcyclist was forced to sit in traffic and put himself at risk. Had the law permitted him to split lanes, this would have never happened.
Lane-splitting, which is the act of motorcyclists riding in between lanes of cars on congested freeways, is legal in only one state, California. It would have been banned in California had the California Highway Patrol not lobbied the legislature to keep it legal.
The reason why is because data shows that when motorcyclists are forced to sit in traffic with cars, they are more likely to get rear-ended and catapulted off of their bikes, than if they were allowed to split lanes, and ride in between cars.
The California Highway Patrol actually complied statistics comparing motorcycle accidents in California and other states, and made believers out of state lawmakers.
I don't expect readers of this blog to write their state lawmakers to legalize lane-splitting. My goal is to explain why California realized the importance of permitting motorcyclists to split lanes.
Time Magazine is making news again, by publishing its list of "Top 100 People Who Shape the World".
You figure with a heading like that, this ought to be a list of some VERY important people throughout the history of our planet. Jesus Christ. Mohammed. Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Edison. Adolph Hitler.
Well, Time Magazine didn't say this was a list of all people throughout time. You'd think that's what they meant, considering the fact that they're name is "Time". But no, they meant people who are still alive, and are currently in the news.
So here are some of the people they considered to have SHAPED THE WORLD as we know it today...
Rosie O'Donnell - Oh boy. Yeah. She has made significant contributions to our planet. In fact, my life and career today is largely because of her. We all have Rosie to thank.
Tina Fey - She's the chick that did the comedy skits on Saturday Night Live. She also plays on the sitcom, "30 Rock". What do you think folks? Is Tina Fey one of the top 100 most influential people shaping our world today?
Elizabeth Edwards - The only reason why Time per her in is because she has breast cancer, and she is a liberal. Has she done anything huge to change our world as we know it? Why wasn't Betty Ford put in this list? Ford did more for breast cancer awareness than ANY OTHER WOMAN on the planet. And yes, Betty Ford is still alive.
What about the people who are not in this list?
George W. Bush - Well, he didn't do much. He only changed the way Islamic terrorism operates around the globe. And his administration did this minor thing about polarizing American political thought. Yeah, everything he has done is completely transparent and unnoticed throughout the world.
George Soros - This guy only supplies money to militant left-wingers, and makes it possible for liberal hate groups to thrive. He's part of the reason why Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. I don't think Time wants to put any spotlight on this guy. Better to keep this one "hush-hush".
