September 30, 2009

Getting taken for a ride

I can't stand people who talk on their cell phones or send text messages while they're driving, but do we need to make a Federal case out of the issue?

Apparently, yes...

Democratic Sens. Charles E. Schumer of New York and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota spoke at the event to promote a bill they are co-sponsoring that would require states to implement a ban on texting while driving or lose 25% of their federal highway funds.

"We need every state to put safety first," Schumer said. "We need a ban on texting while driving in every state across the country and we need it now."
If the states want to ban this sort of behavior (like mine already has) that's their business. But why does the Federal government have to butt in and dictate how people behave while they're behind the wheel? Is that even constitutional?

That last question has, sadly, become more or less rhetorical.

Posted by: Sean M. at 08:45 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

September 03, 2009

No Slider for you.

(Sort of updating Plebian's post where he notes they're messing with fast food in the NHS)
So some food nazis want to get local gov'ts to zone fast food places out of poor neighborhoods.
Some group called The National Research Council (under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, they are a committee of health care professionals, academics, and policy makers) put out the report about how we have to save poor people from White Castle.

It's mostly what you would expect, idiocy.
that studies show that fast food restaurants are disproportionately located in low-income and minority neighborhoods.

Wait, you mean that there aren't a bunch of Benihanas and Ruth's Chris Steak Houses in poor neighborhoods? And there are places where you can feed a family of 4 dinner for $20 or less?

So great idea, make it illegal to have fast food joints in poor neighborhoods.
Of course that doesn't mean Lawry's is going to move in. Or even Chili's.

If their good deed-ism makes it harder for poor people to eat out and more expensive for them to eat period?
Well, that's a price these rich liberals are willing to pay.
h/t Neal Boortz

Posted by: Veeshir at 04:41 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

Some interesting links

Here are some interesting tales of the UK's NHS for you to ponder as you think about universal, single-payer coverage:

NHS urged to cut 1 in 10 staff to meet savings targets.

NHS medication errors double in two years.

To save NHS money, we should stop making ourselves ill (this one's a hoot if you care at all about individual freedom).

Fattening food banned from school canteens (and you thought Obama was going to lean on children!)

Here's the thing: those last two are perfectly logical responses if I'm being heavily taxed to provide you with health care.  In fact, if I have to pay for it, I don't want you to be able to smoke, or drink, or even drive a car over the speed limit.

The ultimate end of universal health-care is a return to prohibition-era restrictions on everything, because we can't very well have people costing more than their fair share, now, can we?

Posted by: plebian at 03:57 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

September 02, 2009

Et tu Pittsburgh?

I didn't know that Pittsburgh was going to host the G-20 next month.

They're all afraid of the traveling riot that comes with it so they've decided to enact Philadelphia style, anti-state-law "laws" making carrying certain firearms illegal even if you can legally carry them according to state law.

Not all firearms, they have a list of 37 that will be illegal.  Because the rioters are going to check the list to make sure theirs are legal.
So the Pittsburgh Post Gazette has something to say about it:
We would be the first to concede that the gun provisions are legally dubious, given that in this case -- regrettably -- state law would seem to preempt anything Pittsburgh might enact. Empowering the police to be mind readers of intent is also troublesome

They go on say the city's masters have to be careful about it.
You can smell the foul stench of their "but" coming, can't you?.
But please spare us those who would make an unreasonable, absolutist defense of the Second Amendment

You know, cuz our political, social, intellectual and moral betters get to decide which rights we can be trusted with.

I've really been rooting for an asteroid lately. Not one the size of Texas, just a Lucifer's Hammer sized one. I'd ride it out in the Catskills, they should be above the tsunami and my uncle's family has been farming there for generations so we should survive.

Via Snowflakes in Hell, which I should be reading but I saw it via Say Uncle

Posted by: Veeshir at 02:19 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
20kb generated in CPU 0.0156, elapsed 0.2276 seconds.
60 queries taking 0.2197 seconds, 136 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.