To borrow a phrase, can’t we all just get along?
I found myself pondering this pearl of wisdom recently while on my commute home, having popped into my head all of a sudden while I was in a stand-off at a four-way stop sign with an automobile.
Either the driver was in complete shock over actually seeing a bicyclist stop at a stop sign, or she was too scared to go for fear that I might decide turn in front of her anyway. Whatever her reasons, I couldn’t help but shake my head and mutter under my breath in frustration over just how many drivers don’t know that the rules of the road apply to bicycles, too.
That’s right: Bicyclists who ride on the road are subject to the same traffic laws that cars are. The trouble is that so few drivers and bicyclists seem to know this.
What this has caused among automobile drivers is either resentment or outright hostility toward riders, or else an awkward fear of them because of the damage that could be inflicted in an accident.
Bicyclists have only themselves to blame.
Some ride with reckless abandon, showing total disregard for traffic laws and right-of-ways. For others it is a matter of ignorance of traffic laws and their application to all vehicles on the road—including those that are pedal-powered. Still others are just plain arrogant, adopting the mind-set that rules do not apply to them, and that drivers have to look out for them anyway.
The offenders know who they are. A good many of them are the very people who dress like they know what they’re doing; but they are too vain or egotistical to care about an insignificant yield sign they just blew past. There are also the youths that are bullet-proof until their first serious accident.
And then there are those who are about as oblivious on a bicycle as they are clueless behind the wheel of a car.
You irresponsible bicycle riders give me a bad reputation every time I take to the road and share the same asphalt with a tractor trailer pulling 50,000 GVW.
Because of you, I have to deal with drivers who are too afraid to proceed at a four-way stop, even though I have clearly stopped and have motioned them to take their right-of-way. Because of you, I’ve had cars stop in the middle of busy four-lane roads and their drivers motion me to turn left in front of them despite the fact that I am supposed to yield to oncoming traffic from the left-hand turn lane.
What’s worse is arguing with the guy who has stopped in the middle of the busy road, trying to get him to go because (1) he has the right-of-way, and (2) because his stopping suddenly poses a traffic hazard to everyone else.
And because of you bad bicyclists out there, I must incur the wrath of some ticked off driver who has a bone to pick with you.
There’s something unnerving about a two-ton hunk of steel blowing by me at 50 mph and leaving little more than an arm’s length between me and a side-view mirror.
The bottom line here is that, at some point, bicycles and cars must learn to coexist and share the road.
This means that bicyclists need to be applying the same principles to the road when riding their bikes as they would be when driving their cars. And this also means that automobile drivers ought to be aware that the road is open to bicycles, too.
Just because I am riding my bike to work doesn’t mean I can stop driving defensively. And just because there’s a bicycle in the roadway doesn’t mean a driver can dismiss it as somewhat less significant than another car.
The reality is we need to look out for one another. That’s what driving—and riding—defensively is all about. A little mutual respect can go along way toward avoiding an accident and promoting a safer commute for everyone.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
The next revolution...
…may well take place over the hotly contested health care law pushed by President Barack Obama and the progressive leadership of the Democratic Party.
In light of renewed efforts by the White House and Congress to resurrect the failed health care referendum of 2009, and succeed in passing it into law the following year, there are still some who are willing to stand for liberty.
Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter signed a measure requiring the Idaho attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance. The republican governor is basing this measure on the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
To put it more succinctly (if that’s possible) what the Tenth Amendment says is that the powers that the Constitution doesn’t give to the federal government are instead granted to the states or the people therein. Last time I checked, health care and the ability to regulate and control it was not a power granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. It is neither the responsibility of the legislative nor executive nor even judicial branches of the United States government.
As such, the health care issue should be rightfully delegated to the individual states and to the people to regulate as they see fit. What Gov. Otter was saying with his measure is that Congress and the President are acting outside of the powers that the Constitution limits the federal government to.
But wait: It gets even better.
Evidently, more than thirty other states have legislation similar to Idaho. This means that a vast majority of individual states are now poised to sue Uncle Sam for a breach of contract—i.e., the U.S. Constitution—as a result of the health care bill recently passed that requires all citizens to own and carry health insurance. What better way to hurt a bunch of lawyers and career lawmakers than with a lawsuit against the government they are in control of.
Now this is what I call fighting fire with fire.
What we are on the cusp of here is a modern American Revolution. Only this one will be fought with pens and paper, instead of swords and muskets.
Frankly, I hope the lawsuits can proceed and the public at large can get an education about the Constitution and the powers that it limits the federal government to. I hope we see a lawsuit so that the power-hungry progressives, who have run rough-shod over individual liberty with reckless abandon the past several decades, can be exposed for the frauds, phonies and fakes that they really are. I want their political agenda exposed for all to see.
Of course, this is assuming that people still have eyes to see with. Hopefully, the poisonous propaganda spread by the left over the last half century hasn’t done permanent, irreversible damage to our individual senses of what freedom and liberty are really all about.
In light of renewed efforts by the White House and Congress to resurrect the failed health care referendum of 2009, and succeed in passing it into law the following year, there are still some who are willing to stand for liberty.
Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter signed a measure requiring the Idaho attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance. The republican governor is basing this measure on the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
To put it more succinctly (if that’s possible) what the Tenth Amendment says is that the powers that the Constitution doesn’t give to the federal government are instead granted to the states or the people therein. Last time I checked, health care and the ability to regulate and control it was not a power granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. It is neither the responsibility of the legislative nor executive nor even judicial branches of the United States government.
As such, the health care issue should be rightfully delegated to the individual states and to the people to regulate as they see fit. What Gov. Otter was saying with his measure is that Congress and the President are acting outside of the powers that the Constitution limits the federal government to.
But wait: It gets even better.
Evidently, more than thirty other states have legislation similar to Idaho. This means that a vast majority of individual states are now poised to sue Uncle Sam for a breach of contract—i.e., the U.S. Constitution—as a result of the health care bill recently passed that requires all citizens to own and carry health insurance. What better way to hurt a bunch of lawyers and career lawmakers than with a lawsuit against the government they are in control of.
Now this is what I call fighting fire with fire.
What we are on the cusp of here is a modern American Revolution. Only this one will be fought with pens and paper, instead of swords and muskets.
Frankly, I hope the lawsuits can proceed and the public at large can get an education about the Constitution and the powers that it limits the federal government to. I hope we see a lawsuit so that the power-hungry progressives, who have run rough-shod over individual liberty with reckless abandon the past several decades, can be exposed for the frauds, phonies and fakes that they really are. I want their political agenda exposed for all to see.
Of course, this is assuming that people still have eyes to see with. Hopefully, the poisonous propaganda spread by the left over the last half century hasn’t done permanent, irreversible damage to our individual senses of what freedom and liberty are really all about.
The government needs to save us from salmonella
I’m only saying what nearly half the country is thinking and feeling, right?
News reports make it sound as though more government involvement would have prevented the largest egg recall and salmonella outbreak in recent history.
I heard it again yesterday: “Some blame the federal government for not doing enough to ensure the safety of eggs,” the reporter said. “They say tighter regulations might have prevented the outbreak from happening.”
What?
Could somebody please tell me how tighter regulations would keep bacteria in check? Do micro-organisms cower in fear at the very mention of big government? How utterly absurd to think that more laws and more government will cause there to be less bacteria.
How profoundly arrogant, too.
Somehow I rather doubt that microscopic, single-cell bacteria care whether or not humans and their organizations try to take greater control over their environment.
Case in point: Despite a massive campaign launched against the flu each year by government-run public health agencies, millions of people are stricken with one of millions of strains of the virus.
Yes, in spite of the popularity and prevalence of flu shots, the flu continues to affect a significant segment of the population each year without fail.
In 2009 the H1N1 “Swine Flu” virus became a national epidemic that claimed the lives of hundreds, even after the federal government intervened and authorized the release of vaccines to fight the virus.
Yes, sir, salmonella had better watch out because Uncle Sam is on the case, and he is going to pass more laws to fight its spread. I wish somebody would remind e. coli and botulism that they are also heavily regulated.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has very stringent sanitation standards for food industries. And yet, despite these tough regulations against food contaminants, e. coli, botulism and salmonella et al tend to raise their ugly heads from time to time.
Do you remember the California spinach scare a few years ago? That was an e. coli outbreak.
Salmonella and botulism are still such common threats in meat that they warrant additional food handling warnings to the consumer... despite FDA regulations already on the books. The U.S. meat industry has been perhaps under the harshest scrutiny for well over a century, since Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” was published, exposing foul and unsanitary practices of meat packing companies.
Since then, sanitation has vastly improved, along with the incidents of spoiled, rotten and infected meat. But federal regulations have neither reduced nor eliminated the risk of bacteria to the industry.
In spite of the laws meant to keep consumers safe, raw meat should still be washed in cold water before cooking, and hands cleaned after being handled. Most meats should be fully cooked all the way through to kill off bacteria and reduce the risk of salmonella or botulism poisoning; all of this after meat companies have complied with the law.
What good, then, are additional food safety regulations on business if consumers must continue safe food handling practices after producers have already done so? Isn’t the law supposed to address the problem so you and I don’t have to? That’s the logic of some in the wake of the latest salmonella outbreaks. But it is flawed reasoning, to be sure.
News reports make it sound as though more government involvement would have prevented the largest egg recall and salmonella outbreak in recent history.
I heard it again yesterday: “Some blame the federal government for not doing enough to ensure the safety of eggs,” the reporter said. “They say tighter regulations might have prevented the outbreak from happening.”
What?
Could somebody please tell me how tighter regulations would keep bacteria in check? Do micro-organisms cower in fear at the very mention of big government? How utterly absurd to think that more laws and more government will cause there to be less bacteria.
How profoundly arrogant, too.
Somehow I rather doubt that microscopic, single-cell bacteria care whether or not humans and their organizations try to take greater control over their environment.
Case in point: Despite a massive campaign launched against the flu each year by government-run public health agencies, millions of people are stricken with one of millions of strains of the virus.
Yes, in spite of the popularity and prevalence of flu shots, the flu continues to affect a significant segment of the population each year without fail.
In 2009 the H1N1 “Swine Flu” virus became a national epidemic that claimed the lives of hundreds, even after the federal government intervened and authorized the release of vaccines to fight the virus.
Yes, sir, salmonella had better watch out because Uncle Sam is on the case, and he is going to pass more laws to fight its spread. I wish somebody would remind e. coli and botulism that they are also heavily regulated.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has very stringent sanitation standards for food industries. And yet, despite these tough regulations against food contaminants, e. coli, botulism and salmonella et al tend to raise their ugly heads from time to time.
Do you remember the California spinach scare a few years ago? That was an e. coli outbreak.
Salmonella and botulism are still such common threats in meat that they warrant additional food handling warnings to the consumer... despite FDA regulations already on the books. The U.S. meat industry has been perhaps under the harshest scrutiny for well over a century, since Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” was published, exposing foul and unsanitary practices of meat packing companies.
Since then, sanitation has vastly improved, along with the incidents of spoiled, rotten and infected meat. But federal regulations have neither reduced nor eliminated the risk of bacteria to the industry.
In spite of the laws meant to keep consumers safe, raw meat should still be washed in cold water before cooking, and hands cleaned after being handled. Most meats should be fully cooked all the way through to kill off bacteria and reduce the risk of salmonella or botulism poisoning; all of this after meat companies have complied with the law.
What good, then, are additional food safety regulations on business if consumers must continue safe food handling practices after producers have already done so? Isn’t the law supposed to address the problem so you and I don’t have to? That’s the logic of some in the wake of the latest salmonella outbreaks. But it is flawed reasoning, to be sure.
Bullied into the operating room
I recently heard a news report on a television morning show about children seeking plastic surgery to correct physical blemishes that they say make them targets of teasing and bullying.
Even more alarming is the fact that some parents appear to support putting their own children under the cosmetic knife.
What in the world?
So, little Susie comes home crying because her ears stick out too far and her schoolmates tease her about them. The solution? Plastic surgery, of course. Just pin those little ol’ ears back and Susie will never be laughed at again. Problem solved, right? Wrong.
I can speak from experience and with authority that the bullying doesn’t end just because there’s nothing visible for bullies to laugh at.
As a young boy, I had a bright red birth mark right smack-dab in the middle of my forehead. I looked like one of those Indian women with the red dots on their foreheads. To top it off, I wore thick framed glasses. I was laughed at and teased incessantly. By the seventh grade, though, both my glasses and my birthmark were gone. Yet, the teasing and the bullying continued. Why? Because it was me—and not my physical appearance—that the bullies targeted. I was just one of those children to whom bullies were drawn because of my quiet good-naturedness. I seemed like an easy target for being picked on.
Make no mistake: Bullies tend to know the kids that they can get away with teasing or bullying. They are the kids less likely to fight back; who will walk or run away rather than stand up to them; and/or who will take the abuse because they want so badly to be accepted and to fit in.
I think it is a grave mistake for parents to support cosmetic plastic surgery for their children as a solution to being teased or bullied. The negative messages that parents subconsciously send their children are that (1) they agree there’s a physical problem needing correction, and (2) there’s no other more reasonable solution.
My mother always insisted that she liked my birth mark because it made me unique and special. She told me God gave me my birth mark to remind me that I am His child, too, and that He loves me. Mom said that the birth mark made it easier for God to see me amidst the billions of other children in the world. Dad, meanwhile, told me that my glasses made me look sharp, distinguished and sophisticated. No matter how many times I came home crying, mom was always there with a reassuring hug that told me someone loved and accepted me just the way I was. I didn’t need to change my appearance to be loved and accepted. I believe that is the healthiest and most positive message parents can send their children.
There are three really big pitfalls to using plastic surgery as a way to combat bullying and teasing.
First, the root of the problem is not being addressed. Children are teased because of who or what they are, and because the bully has found them to be an easy target for their teasing or bullying. Physical blemishes just give a bully something to point at, but they are not the targets. The children themselves are.
Second, parents who consent to plastic surgery as an anti-bullying method are sending a destructive message to their children: It is better to run away from your problems instead of facing them. This teaches them nothing constructive. They do not learn how to handle themselves internally during hard times, because they find themselves stuck in “fight or flight” mode all of the time.
And third, the corrective plastic surgery approach only validates a bully's reasons for targeting a child. As a parent, I cannot even fathom telling my kid that, "yeah, you've got a big nose. Maybe we should get it fixed so you won't be laughed at anymore." The last thing parents need to be telling their children is that the bullies are right and justified in their actions. That is precisely the message we send our children when we agree that there is something physically wrong with them that needs to be corrected.
By encouraging our children to change their appearances because of bullying we are telling them that what they look like isn't good enough for others; and especially for those who love them the most.
Should we really be telling a kid that s/he isn't good enough the way s/he is, and that perhaps s/he will never be truly "good enough," because physical perfection is an impossible pursuit? I perish the thought.
Even more alarming is the fact that some parents appear to support putting their own children under the cosmetic knife.
What in the world?
So, little Susie comes home crying because her ears stick out too far and her schoolmates tease her about them. The solution? Plastic surgery, of course. Just pin those little ol’ ears back and Susie will never be laughed at again. Problem solved, right? Wrong.
I can speak from experience and with authority that the bullying doesn’t end just because there’s nothing visible for bullies to laugh at.
As a young boy, I had a bright red birth mark right smack-dab in the middle of my forehead. I looked like one of those Indian women with the red dots on their foreheads. To top it off, I wore thick framed glasses. I was laughed at and teased incessantly. By the seventh grade, though, both my glasses and my birthmark were gone. Yet, the teasing and the bullying continued. Why? Because it was me—and not my physical appearance—that the bullies targeted. I was just one of those children to whom bullies were drawn because of my quiet good-naturedness. I seemed like an easy target for being picked on.
Make no mistake: Bullies tend to know the kids that they can get away with teasing or bullying. They are the kids less likely to fight back; who will walk or run away rather than stand up to them; and/or who will take the abuse because they want so badly to be accepted and to fit in.
I think it is a grave mistake for parents to support cosmetic plastic surgery for their children as a solution to being teased or bullied. The negative messages that parents subconsciously send their children are that (1) they agree there’s a physical problem needing correction, and (2) there’s no other more reasonable solution.
My mother always insisted that she liked my birth mark because it made me unique and special. She told me God gave me my birth mark to remind me that I am His child, too, and that He loves me. Mom said that the birth mark made it easier for God to see me amidst the billions of other children in the world. Dad, meanwhile, told me that my glasses made me look sharp, distinguished and sophisticated. No matter how many times I came home crying, mom was always there with a reassuring hug that told me someone loved and accepted me just the way I was. I didn’t need to change my appearance to be loved and accepted. I believe that is the healthiest and most positive message parents can send their children.
There are three really big pitfalls to using plastic surgery as a way to combat bullying and teasing.
First, the root of the problem is not being addressed. Children are teased because of who or what they are, and because the bully has found them to be an easy target for their teasing or bullying. Physical blemishes just give a bully something to point at, but they are not the targets. The children themselves are.
Second, parents who consent to plastic surgery as an anti-bullying method are sending a destructive message to their children: It is better to run away from your problems instead of facing them. This teaches them nothing constructive. They do not learn how to handle themselves internally during hard times, because they find themselves stuck in “fight or flight” mode all of the time.
And third, the corrective plastic surgery approach only validates a bully's reasons for targeting a child. As a parent, I cannot even fathom telling my kid that, "yeah, you've got a big nose. Maybe we should get it fixed so you won't be laughed at anymore." The last thing parents need to be telling their children is that the bullies are right and justified in their actions. That is precisely the message we send our children when we agree that there is something physically wrong with them that needs to be corrected.
By encouraging our children to change their appearances because of bullying we are telling them that what they look like isn't good enough for others; and especially for those who love them the most.
Should we really be telling a kid that s/he isn't good enough the way s/he is, and that perhaps s/he will never be truly "good enough," because physical perfection is an impossible pursuit? I perish the thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
