Would You Believe?

American's and Safety

Virginia just voted down a law that would prohibit Teens from driving and using the cell phone at the same time. According to the news, the predominant argument was "it is discrimination since adults are not prohibited." Does that mean the Insurance must change their rates so they don't discriminate by charging one group a higher rate? Adults can't even handle driving and a cell phone at the same time. To me it is COMMON SENSE to be safe and not do something that endangers others. But for some reason Americans must have a law to prevent their unsafe acts and then they ignore it until they are cited by the law officer. Everyone knows that talking on cell phones distract you from doing your primary task of driving. Ever see a car that wanders all over their lane, or can't keep a constant speed even for 100 yards, or someone cuts you off or pulls out in front of you .. each time they have a cell phone plastered to their ear and just talking away. It goes back to Americans can't act responsible; they must have a Law to force them.

Look at seatbelts. Everyone knows and most accept the fact that seatbelts save lives. But do we wear them? No, but when we do it is mainly because we have to in order to avoid a ticket. Even so, many still don't and take that chance. Only after a close call do they change their mind do what is right.

Running red lights is another. We all agree that it is dangerous and even potentially deadly. But we do it if we think we can get away with it. The government puts up Red light cameras and we then make a fuss to get them down. Excuse me, but they are there only to make us do what we won't do normally. Is it a moneymaker for the city? Yes, if we obeyed the law just because it was a safe idea, then they wouldn't need those cameras. Once again, Americans can't act responsible; they must have a Law to force them.

The list goes on but I will step down from the box. Ok, America, grow up!

Supreme Court Ruling on 18-Year Olds and Death Penalty

Well, this is a fine one. I hate to know a child would be executed but sometimes the crime warrants it. If the child shoots someone and kills them then the jury should weigh the facts and the faculties of the child in their decision between life and death. A child mishandles his parents gun may be an example where death isn't warranted. But the Columbine Killers, Lee Malvo and the DC Sniper, or a kid standing there on the playground pointing a gun point blank at another child’s head and executes the them are cases where the pure evilness of the situation warrants death.

We have already seen some changes because of these laws based on age. Drug runners are under 18; because the penalty if caught is lesser than if they were over 18. Plus at 18 their juvenile records are wiped clean and they start over. Stealing cars is another one done by the teenagers for the same reasons. The way things go these days it is almost like "Catch and Release” we do for fishing. Meanwhile the real criminal mastermind goes free and gets richer.

I believe the U.S. Supreme Court just made murder another option for the under 18 crowd to add death to their arsenal of getting even with their schoolmates.

Jackson Defense

I love where they are blaming the boy's mother greed and attempt to get rich as the reason Michael Jackson sexually abused the child. Excuse me, have the trial deal with did he or did he not sexually abuse the child. It is a simple yes or no thing. Then deal with who did what to get rich. She was trying to get rich and equally bad Michael Jackson was trying to use them to defuse what he said on that tape in order to save his image and financial base. So they both tried to work the system meanwhile a child was abused. Focus on the real travesty, child abuse, and deal with the others later. Besides, more trials mean more money for these lawyers.

You can almost see it now. We are going to bend over backwards to protect MJ much like the priests and let a horrible crime, child abuse, go unpunished.