Pay attention and it won’t be an issue

So SJ-R.com actually had an “Our Opinion” article that actually made some sense. SOME sense. I can’t give them too much credit, given their past track record with their “opinions”, and especially since their reasoning for this opinion was ever so slightly flawed.

Anyway, apparently, your state legislators are working up a bill to ban the use of cell phones while driving. Don’t get me wrong- I think cell phones (specifically, the use thereof while driving) are a major, major distraction. But is it up to the Gubment to tell us we can’t use them, and even if it does wind up being up to the Gubment, do you really think it will change anything?

Let me start by dogging the article’s reasoning. Basically, they start by comparing the seat-belt law to the cell-phone ban. I quote:

But seat belts and cell phones aren’t exactly comparable. It’s no trouble to buckle up, and it only makes you safer. Not talking while driving might mean you miss a business call, can’t tell your kids you’re on your way, can’t tell your date you’re running late. Will drivers adopt a cell phone law as they adopted the seat belt law?

I was with them 100% until the “not talking while driving…” part. So you miss a business call? Are you really that indispensable to your company? So you can’t tell your kids you’re on your way? Why are you checking in with them? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? So you can’t tell your date you’re running late? If you’re running that late, you’re already in deep shit as it is. Will calling really make things any better? Bottom line: in ANY of these scenarios, how freakin’ hard is it to pull off the road for 30 seconds, make or take your call, and get back on the road? Answer: not very.

Buuuuut, I don’t know that a ban will accomplish anything significant. We have a law requiring the wearing of seatbelts in the state of Illinois. I think everyone should wear seatbelts, but it’s not up to the Gubment to tell us we “have” to. Hey, if people want to splatter themselves all over the road in an accident because they didn’t wear their seatbelt, let them. Same as with motorcycle helmets. The herd needs thinned out anyway. You can’t legislate stupidity, people. Besides, making it a “law” doesn’t magically make people obey it. (I’ll bitch about THAT later.) Some people still don’t wear seatbelts; you think nobody’s going to use their cell phones while driving just because it’s a “law”?

Look at it like this: we have speed limits, and people still speed. We have “strict” DUI laws (give me a break), but people still drink and drive. Hell, we have laws against killing people and people still do THAT every day. Is a cell phone ban going to strike fear into ANYONE? Plus, it’s a tad hypocritical, considering the Popo apparently have immunity on most laws (or at least with regard to IVC regulations) that the rest of us have to follow, and lawmakers will themselves immune from any and all laws as they see fit.

People argue it’s a distraction, talking on the phone while you’re driving. I concur 100% and even go so far as to call that “fact”. But when it boils down to it, so is putting on make-up while driving. Let’s ban that, while we’re so quick to ban distractions. How about a ban on shaving while driving? Or using one’s laptop? Or reading? Playing with the dog, cat, ferret, parrot, pot-bellied pig, duck, moose, wildebeest, dolphin, or whatever pet you have sitting on your lap? Or when it boils right down to it, how is listening to the radio not considered a distraction? Or talking with a passenger in the car? How is talking with someone in the car any less distracting than talking with someone on a cell phone (for sake of argument, let’s make it as even as possible and assume you’re using a hands-free device)? What about having a child or children in the car? As a father of two, I know firsthand what kind of distraction kids can present. Are we going to ban children from riding in cars now? Then, since we’re already going down Ridiculous Road, let’s ban billboards, neon signs, flashing lights, and all other marquees, advertising, and signs- even traffic signs- whose sole purpose is to grab one’s attention (and thus take it away from the task at hand- driving). Or what about simply thinking? If one’s mind is preoccupied with something else, they’re not paying full attention to the road.

Honestly, I’m better with people actually using the phone while driving as opposed to sending text messages. At least with a call, once the number is dialed and you push SEND, you can at least still watch the road.

Look, people, it’s not the cell phones; it’s the drivers. Let’s actually punish people for the serious stuff (rape, murder, DUI resulting in the injury or death of someone, shit like that). If people get in a collision because of talking on the phone, deal with that individually. If people get in a collision due to dicking around with the radio or iPod or in-dash DVD (which are also “banned” but people still have them) or other assorted electronic distraction, deal with them individually.

The fact of the matter is that most people are distracted easily, and can’t (and probably shouldn’t) do two things at once, i.e. drive and talk on the phone. But if you ban one distraction you must ban them all, and punish violators equally. (Make-up putter-onners, drive-thru patrons tonsil-deep in their Big McWhopper Sancho ThickBurger, Mr. Can’t Miss the Wall St. Journal So I’ll Read It On The Way To Work Because It Makes Me Look Like I’m Impotent Important guy, the mid-50’s spoiled rich wife getting “wuvum’s from widdle Mr. Schnookums” on her lap in The Lexus™, whatever). But regardless, there will always be people who will not follow laws and/or rules, either because they think they’re above everyone else and that laws and rules don’t pertain to them, or because they feel it’s only illegal if they get caught.

Like I said, I think talking on cell phones while driving is a HUGE distraction and I don’t think people should do it. But I don’t feel it’s up to the Gubment to tell me I can’t do it, especially when there’s other problems just as severe if not more so that aren’t being addressed.

Sorry folks, Illinois is closed

If the yay-hoos in the Statehouse and the Governor of Chicago Illinois don’t pass a budget by August 1, then the state will shut down.

Come on, folks, think about that for a minute.

If the state “shuts down”, that means there would be no IDOT to fix or clear roads, inspect bridges and overpasses, etc. There would be no DCFS to protect abused and neglected children. There would be no SOS to issue illegal CDL’s. (Okay, maybe that’s not so bad…) There would be no IDPH to inspect your restaurants to make sure they aren’t serving salmonella specials and E. coli platters. And I don’t even want to consider what a “gubment shutdown” would do to the prison system. Ooof.

True, there might be some state employees temporarily deemed unable to be paid (myself included). True, there might be some agencies that lose funding for certain programs. And true, the State Fair might be affected. Heaven forbid–wherever will I get my gator on a stick?

But the state will not just come to a grinding halt, as everybody seems to be panicking will happen. Being a state employee, I have a rather vested interest in this situation, but to say the state will just simply shut down is “loodacruth”, as Mike Tyson would say. (That’s the boxer, not the former Cardinals second baseman from the 70s.)

Anyway, I’m not a conspiracy-theorist by any means, but personally I think this is all a big smoke screen to try to get the spotlight off of what an enormous douchebag the Governor is. I’m betting a budget just “miraculously” is reached in the 11th hour (it’s probably been reached already) and they’ll spin it to make Blowjo Blago look like a hero for “saving” the state from certain demise.

When will people learn that Chicagoville politicians are friggin’ crooked? Even those from as far “downstate” as Kankakee (no names mentioned… {cough} Ryan {cough}). Not that politicians from central and/or southern Illinois are necessarily shining examples of integrity, but how would we know until one that isn’t from Chicago is elected, instead of those that are from Chicago that get the election bought and paid for, as is true with the last couple we’ve had? We need a governor that serves the interests of ALL of the people of Illinois, not just the rich in Chicago. We need a governor that won’t drag his family to the State Fair for photo ops (since that’s the only reason he’d even consider attending in the first place) and then turn around and complain about the vulture-like photographers and reporters. We need a governor that actually works- and LIVES- in the capital city, which, last time I checked, was still Springfield. And even if that governor is too good to live in a little piss-ant one-horse town like Springfield and wants to commute every friggin’ day, then s/he can do it at their own expense instead of sodomizing his/her taxpayers for 6 friggin’ G’s a day. And if that’s not bad enough, Blowjo Blago has the nerve to publicly berate the Senators and Representatives for not being in Springfield working every day?

Hello, kettle? This is Hot Rod. You’re black.

Look, Bozo, the taxpayers of this great state pay for you to live in that enormously large house at 5th & Jackson here in THE CAPITAL CITY, whether you’re in it or not. The least you could do is live in it. It’s within walking (jogging?) distance of your REAL office (that would be the Statehouse, genius), and it’s gated, so it’ll keep all the riffraff–like your constituents–out of it. We’re paying for your security staff, various wait staff, landscapers, maintenance staff, et al, anyway; what say you actually let them earn their damn money? Either that or pass a law decreeing your precious Chicago the new state capital and save us 6 bills a day, not to mention the futility in believing you actually care about us little people outside your little Bubble on the Lake. Oh, and regarding your little healthcare program? How about coming up with a plan for affordable healthcare for everyone, not just making us working stiffs foot the bill for the poor? Oh, and stop giving yourself and the likewise already overpaid Senators and Representatives pay raises. How about all of you contributing your per diems toward the budget problem, since it’s your collective faults this situation is occuring, thus allowing you to receive the per diems for no reason, since none of you are actually doing anything? Tom Brokaw used to have a segment on the NBC Nightly News about the “fleecing of America”. Mr. Governor, you are fleecing the shit out of us and we’re tired of it.

No matter, though… you’re not going to be governor much longer. Your own party is pretty much fed up with your bullshit tactics. Soon we’ll be able to have a new governor… to take advantage of all of us that don’t live in Chicago.

Creating racism where there is none… is RACISM, people!

Yet again, Springfield P.D. has been deemed racist by the black community, this time because they had the nerve to do their job.

Our story begins on a traffic stop at 18th & Pine. SPD had this guy pulled over because they were alerted he may have a gun. So they’re speaking with him, and they ask him to step out of the car after they witness him acting suspiciously and reaching under the seat. Probably just looking for his registration and insurance card, no doubt.

Then he takes off. (red flag #1)

SPD engages him in a brief chase (according to officers, at more than 40 MPH above the posted speed limit) and soon end the pursuit, then his car is spotted on Taylor Ave. The driver hits an occupied vehicle that was on the side of the road then ditches the car at the Abundant Faith church, jumping from the moving car (red flag #2), which hit a car in the lot and then the church itself, and then runs into the church, while a service was being conducted. He was singled out by the churchgoers to officers as they followed after him. He kept his hand in his pocket (red flag #3), and wouldn’t allow officers to put his arms behind his back (red flag #4), causing him to get Tasered. A weapon was not found on him or in his car- though he said he could take them to a gun if the charges could disappear (”how much would it take…”)- but they did find pot, and over $800, on him.

I’ve never had $800 in travelers’ checks on me while on vacation, let alone real money. Who the hell carries that kind of cash around? (I have a guess…)

So enter our players.

The pastor of the church (and the alderman of that ward has jumped on board as well) is screaming “racism” because of the fact that this incident occurred in an east-side church, and would supposedly have been handled far differently at a “west-side church”. The pastor is quoted in the paper as saying he didn’t want to “play a race card” and that “it’s not my desire to cause a divide between blacks and whites or between east side and west side”.

My personal opinion, that’s a load of total bullshit. I believe that was exactly his desire. I think he saw the opportunity to create a racial issue out of nothing and ran with it and then recruited the alderman for support and extra media coverage.

First of all, right or wrong, police officers have to assume every subject they stop or encounter at least potentially has a weapon. It’s the same principle of universal precautions in hospitals- you have to assume every patient has something infectious and use safe practices with every patient. Same as with the police- if they don’t at least recognize the possibility of a subject having a weapon, they can die. What’s more, that was the whole reason they pulled this guy over in the first place- they were alerted to the possibility that he may have a gun. Turned out he didn’t at the time of the arrest, but he supposedly knew the whereabouts of one, provided all his troubles up to that point just sort of vanish. How convenient. Oh, and he did have marijuana and an exorbitant amount of cash on him too.

Secondly- and this is the key that certain individuals seem to be all too willing to overlook- the guy ran from the police. People who run from the police are always guilty of something, or else they wouldn’t run. Unless they’re just stupid. Plus, this guy has a history of manufacturing and delivery of a controlled substance as well as aggravated unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. That’s aggravated unlawful use OF A WEAPON.

But let’s look at some other scenarios: suppose the guy did have a weapon and burst into the church. Right there, you would almost certainly have a hostage situation. Then there would have been all sorts of criticism of the police department- either they were too aggressive or not aggressive enough. Or suppose it did happen at a west-side church, although what the location of the church has to do with anything is beyond me. Would the police have rushed in after him or not, disrupting the service? Should the police have rushed in after him or not? Again, where the church lies geographically has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. Suppose all the officers involved were black. Would the same uproar have been made? I think not. I do think there are at least some race issues that exist, but SPD is in a no-win situation no matter what they do. If they follow him into the church, they’re racist because it was on the east side of town, with people assuming SPD thinks that’s where all the trouble is. If they don’t follow him into the church then they’re racist for not diffusing the situation quickly enough because it was on the east side of town, with people assuming SPD thinks it’s not worth their attention.

It’s easy to point fingers at the police department. But walk in their shoes and see how easy it is to do their job, only to be criticized for everything they do and everything they don’t do.

Again, I do believe that there are some issues at the city and at the police department that need to be addressed, but screaming “racism” every single time blacks or the east side of Springfield is involved with something, with no basis for the accusation other than blind assumption, just further compounds the problem and is also racism itself. As I’ve had to state many times here before, you cannot allege racism and then follow it with a racist statement of your own. To do so is racist (and also lends itself to showing yourself as a complete idiot).

But I guess the moral of the story is that it’s okay to be a racist- as long as you’re not white.

Oh, and Happy Birthday, America.

Don’t hate the intersection…

There have been many accidents at the intersection of Lawrence Ave. and MacArthur Blvd. That intersection, along with Lawrence and Walnut, has been dubbed “dangerous intersections”, and even have cute little yellow warning signs saying so, complete with flashing amber light to draw your attention (away from said dangerous intersection).

Gotta love irony.

Anyway, a certain former alderman had long opposed doing anything to improve the safety of the intersection. I’m not sure of his reasoning, whether the cost, or the removal of trees that would be required, who knows? A few days ago, he and his wife were involved in a six-car accident at that intersection, and suddenly something needs to be done about it and done now (slam fist on table for effect). Shocker.

Don’t get me wrong- both the MacArthur and Walnut intersections of Lawrence Ave. are somewhat dangerous. They are somewhat “blind” depending on from which way you’re approaching, and there needs to be left turn lanes added for all directions of traffic. But heaven forbid, folks- you don’t think just maybe at least a few (read: most) of those accidents might just possibly have been caused by shitty drivers?

Guns don’t kill people…

In the aftermath of the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech University, the big gun control debate has yet again reared its ugly head.

It’s really very simple, folks: guns don’t kill people; killers kill people.

If someone is poisoned, nobody launches a tirade against the poison. Or at least, they shouldn’t. Their ire is more appropriately directed at the poisoner. If someone is stabbed, are we supposed to ban knives? No. Using the “guns must be banned” philosophy, what do you do in cases of arson? Exactly how will you do away with fire? Ridiculous? Exactly. And with that philosophy, I don’t even want to know what those people want to do about sexual assaults.

And WHY doesn’t Illinois have the death penalty again?!

In one of the most inexplicably stupid acts in all of politics, former Illinois governor George Ryan effectively abolished the death penalty in Illinois, in one his his last acts of governor before himself ultimately being sent to prison- NOT on a death sentence, mind you, but the asshole still has yet to serve a single day. That’s another story.

This changed more than 100 inmates’ sentences from “death” to life- in a way, pardoning them for their crimes.

Read this story and explain to me why this was a good idea.

I could expound for hours on the faults of the whole parole program, but I won’t. A little too touchy (and close) a subject for me. Anyway, prosecutors are looking into pursuing the death penalty for this jagoff. Now check me if I’m wrong, but if the death penalty has been “repealed” or “abolished”, what is the point of sentencing anyone to death? If you’re not going to execute them, why bother pretending you’re going to? Is a “death” sentence supposed to serve as nothing more than an indicator of just how heinous a crime a person committed?

The CLASS of 42

This past Sunday was Jackie Robinson Day in Major League Baseball, commemorating a historic point not just in sports, but also in society: the beginning of integration of blacks into professional baseball.

Jackie Robinson broke into the majors on April 15, 1947, to the chagrine of many closed- (i.e., simple-) minded players, managers, owners, and fans, and went on to become an amazing athlete and arguably one of the best baseball players of all time. Naturally, considering the times, he was constantly faced with bigotry, hatred, racial slurs, death threats, and just plain ignorance, yet simply came out every day and played the game he always wanted to play. There was even a manager for Philadelphia (the name escapes me at this moment) that said something to the effect of “I don’t want that n*gger playing on ‘my’ field”. The players at the time were extremely close to “striking” and just not playing if they allowed blacks to play professional baseball. Several players, however, including the great Stan Musial, decided they would go against the popular opinion of the times and would play against and especially along side Robinson and any other blacks that came into the league.

Hypocrisy Gone Wild, volume two

So much discussion yet again about adjusting the police recruiting and application so as to be able to hire more minority officers.

The paper reports that the city has hired some mope from Sangamon State University to “boost its minority-hiring numbers”.

Okay, I only have a high school diploma, but can somebody–ANYBODY–please explain to me how this is NOT racism?!

How many times do these people need it spelled out for them: Hiring someone simply because they are of a certain race IS JUST AS RACIST as NOT hiring someone simply because they are of a certain race. How difficult is that to figure out?! To take a quote from one of the greatest movies of all time, “How can you be so obtuse?!” And to say that it’s “what white people get” because blacks have suffered this for so many years IS JUST AS RACIST AND BIGOTED as the whole concept of not hiring a black man because he is black in the first place.

Under-18 driver signs

The Illinois General Assembly is considering a law requiring any Illinois driver younger than 18 to attach to their vehicle a sign indicating they are a new driver. However, the Secretary of State’s office is concerned that doing so could potentially identify teens, essentially as targets, to sexual predators.

There are two sides of this issue, and I fall on both sides.

First of all, whether you want to accept it or not, many teenage drivers are not good drivers. Most kids think that because they have the little piece of plastic in their purse or wallet, they are somehow magically endowed with good driving ability. Hey, 2+ decades ago, I was that way as well- I imagine we all were at that age. However, in teenagers’ defense, I know people who have been driving for 20-30 years or more, and have absolutely no business being allowed behind the wheel. Turning 18 does not suddenly make one a good driver. If you’re going to ID people as “student drivers”, then do not limit it to teenagers. You should also include anyone (at any age) who has just started driving, you should include anyone who has multiple moving violations, you should include people who can’t FREAKING parallel park (it’s not that difficult, folks), you should include bad drivers period…