The "Liberal Media": Would a conservative one be better? In what way? At least "Liberals" will report the events and let us interpret the information. Imagine a conservative report on, oh, say, pollution: "And for the new report from the EPA - everything looks honkey dory." There wouldn't be much substance to the news, now would there. We wouldn't want to get the public all riled up about a little toxic waste in their food and water, now would we? Also, isn't conservatism just a reaction to a government that has, over the years, begun to overstep its means. Put it this way; is not a government that could help to provide EVERYONE with a comfortable and stable life the ultimate goal (if the need is there)? Would it make sense to start a government with a conservative philosophy? Wouldn't we just amass funds that would sit idle and useless waiting for someone shady individuals to siphon it off to themselves. Oh yeah, I suppose we simply would tax minimally to "get government off our backs" (at least monetarily and replace it with greater restrictions on free speech) and let the "private sector" spend the money. Great idea! That is the perfect way to keep the rich, rich, and everyone else poor. If we are to have a "government of the people, for the people," it has to be the peoples money that runs it. Sure that CAN get out of hand, but it's something we could, very feasibly, avoid. The latter ought not be a signal for people to turn into ultra-reactionaries, backlash, become overly stingy with the pocketbook, and decide to leave the ones that haven't made it yet to the sharks. I see how it is. You make your money WITH the system; once you attain your millions, you decide that, for some arbitrary reason (pettiness), you don't need to give your fair share BACK to the system. Quit biting the hand that feeds you! If you want to live in a bubble, start your own country and quit leaching off of ours! If you want to use the resources of the government (which you invariably will no matter how hard you try not to; ex. roads, protection, utilities), pay up, YOU WHINERS!!! Getting back to the topic we started with, and speaking of whining, you wouldn't be able to cry any more on your ridiculously deceiving conservative talk shows. Christ, have any of you in the conservative audience ever used even one neuron to think about these supposed "facts" that leach out of the mouths of know-nothings like Limbaugh and his misinformed kind? Well, at least they have a job. And can you guess who provided the springboard for these loud mouths. Yep, the liberals provide yet another job (although i'm not quite sure what to make of that?). The Irony!
Please note, I am not to be branded as a "liberal" as far as party affiliation. I pick and choose my battles and what side I will take without blind outside influence. I look upon most hard conservatives with contempt, and most radical liberals with distrust (which is better than contempt, but certainly no compliment). One side sucks, the other side is pretty shoddy, at best. Either way, the media ought not be anything but liberal.
Moronic Policy and Brain Dead Drivers: As you may have noticed, speed limits are being increased around the country; even nullified in states like in Montana (during the day only). What does this mean for most people? Should we be jumping for joy over these "wonderful" new changes? Does this mean that the old adage that "speed kills" has been reconsidered? Not even close! The adage just acquired a new attachment: Speed still kills, onlythe added revenue that accrues from the increase in penalties, that will surely come with the increase in the speed limit, outweighs the inevitable increase of traffic accidents and fatalities that result. Real ethical policy we have here, huh? They are unwilling to admit that it is not speed that kills, rather inattentive and poorly trained drivers are at fault. However, admitting this would cut law enforcement revenue two ways. It would likely result in lowering penalties for speeders which obviously would take away a large part of their cash flow. The other way is the large investment of money and, especially, time that would be required to train poorly skilled drivers to avoid accidents and learn what constitutes a safe driving roadway environment. Current government policy on the speed limit, and the extensive police lobbying to control that policy, speak volumes about the true intentions of these supposed "safety minded, humanitarian" public servants. The bottom line in this case is the same thing that drives the intentions of everything else in this "democratic" capitalistic society; money.
This is a rather sad state of affairs. When backed into a position of morality or money, money wins out with the very people who are supposed to enforce laws that (ideally) are laid down on a backbone of moral reasoning. Let's start getting realistic about these laws. If the policy makers and the police still want the same laws even after considering what I've just said, at least they should be up-front about what they are setting forth to do: That is making more money and assuming greater controls on peoples lives. These pursuits are pushed by greed and the need to control people enough to provide the environment needed to keep the greed alive. This is not only intrusive and a nuisance, it costs unlucky individuals big money. If the fines don't get you, the insurance companies will. They make BILLION'S of dollars off this scam. Don't think they aren't involved in the policy process! The system is corrupt.
Consider the following evidence that shows speed ought not be the main factor in traffic control. According to a study by transportation engineers at the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), the slowest 5% of drivers had the highest accident rate; While drivers whose speeds were 10-15 m.p.h ABOVE the speed limit had the lowest accident rate (adapted from Alex Carroll's Beat The Cops published by AceCo Publishers). Essentially, the safest drivers are the ones who ignore the posted speed limit and go with the flow of traffic. Or, if there is no traffic to speak of, the safest drivers are the ones who drive at a speed that is dictated by the road conditions at the moment. The speed limit is a useless measure of motor safety. The traditional 55 m.p.h speed limit, for instance, is purely the result of the fuel crisis of 1974. It was not instated under an issue of safety and is not today utilized under an issue of safety. But that is not what we get bombarded with constantly in government subsidized commercials; "drive 55 and stay alive." The slogan should go, "drive with an active mind and stay alive." Ok, it's not as catchy, but it is more truthful. The people that drive 55 and believe they are protecting other people by the very act have it very wrong. These people become complacent because they feel too safe for their own good. They are inattentive. This is the key. This is the message that needs to be broadcast. It wouldn't need to be if most drivers had half-a-brain, but they don't so someone needs to tell them. Get the word out. These laws and the rhetoric that goes with them are a crock.