Recently proposed by Texas House of Representatives Republican Warren Chisum is a wonderful new bill: bilk you for divorce. Chisum's bright idea is that a couple take a 10-hour course with a marriage counselor, even if the couple is filing a no fault divorce. With marriage counselors costing up to $200 an hour, married couples trying to end their marriage quickly and cleanly would add an extra $2000 to the cost of divorce. Chisum claims, "If we can save a few marriages, and I think we can save more than a few, but if we can save a few, it's worth our effort." What makes it the government's right to meddle in personal affairs even further? Even using the flawed statistic the media gives of a 45% divorce rate in the U.S., what gives the government the right to force a "marriage course" on couples who may not even be able to afford it?
It was my understanding that the only time a government can dictate what you do with your time is if you've committed a crime; is divorce now a crime? Sure, the bill tries to eschew this ranconian requirement for abused spouses, but documentation is required. This means the abused spouse would still have to cough up funds if they haven't filed prior police reports or protective orders.
Two years ago, Texas hiked up their marriage license from $30 to $100. Our friend Chisum had tried at that time to slide in his marriage-counseling requirement, and was shot down. Showing a wonderful personality, Chisum was quoted as replying, "I would suggest if you don't have $100, folks shouldn't get married." Are there really that many marriage counselors lobbying out there?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Driving Etiquette
Note: I'm not encouraging rampant law-breaking, just pointing out driving patterns and behaviors that could make life on the road easier. Also note that while I've noticed these patterns/behaviors in other areas, this article focuses on traffic in Northern Virginia, and may be different according to your locality.
Most states require new adolescent drivers to attend certain amounts of hours in a driver's education class before taking a test and receiving their driver's license. Some states (e.g. Virginia) additionally require time "behind the wheel" - both a written log from an adult (usually parent or older sibling) and completion of a road skills test. Neither of these requirements, however, seems to properly teach and advise what many drivers get from experience: common driving etiquette.
When driving in any setting with other cars on the road, driving rules and laws are sometimes disregarded or used infrequently. For example, a majority of drivers, regardless of age/locality/gender, tend to keep their speed at around 5mph over the posted limit. This typical behavior is almost universally followed, even though there is no written rule that suggests this behavior is the norm. While this example is almost universally followed, many unwritten rules and courtesies seem to be either unknown or unused by other drivers. This creates huge amounts of stress that translates in to road rage between those who follow the unwritten etiquette of driving and other, less informed individuals. In an attempt to "educate the masses," here are some "common" courtesies that seem to be fairly universal, and could contribute to a less stressful driving experience if followed by more drivers...
An important admonition on using your turn signals: TURN THEM OFF AFTER YOU TURN! The incongruity of turn signals left on is one of the most aggravating phenomena to see when driving. Nothing is more irksome than seeing someone on the highway with their turn signal on after switching lanes and forgetting to turn it off. Is the car planning on moving in to your lane? Pulling off the highway on to the shoulder? Or is it just the actions of a mentally deficient driver? After performing your driving action (turn, merge, etc.) turn off your damn signal!
On the other hand, flashing one's high beams can also be used as an amiable affirmative. When a car is signalling in an attempt to merge in front of you, flashing your headlights lets them know that they have room to do so, and you won't accelerate/block them. In relation to this, you can "thank" someone for letting you in by hitting your emergency lights. Letting them blink once or twice lets the car that graciously allowed you to pull in front know that you're thankful.
If it's night and there are pedestrians waiting to cross the street, you can do the same thing. In an effort to confirm whether or not the pedestrian is going to try crossing or not, you can blink your lights at them from a couple meters away, letting them know you see them, they can go, and letting you go on your way quicker without playing chicken for an extra 30 seconds.
If your on any road with two lanes or more, the right lane is for the slowest, left is 0nly for passing. So if your sitting in the left lane and being passed, MOVE OVER TO THE RIGHT LANE! If you were planning on making a left turn, only get in the left lane when you're nearing your exit, not for the entirety of the trip. A consistant feature of the left hand lane on highways seems to be that one should be going atleast 9mph over the speed limit. e.g. Speed limit of 65; if you're in the left hand lane, you should be going at least 74mph. "Slow" is relative - if you're going 74mph and cars are still passing you in the right hand lane, you still need to get out of the fast lane and on to the right. The drivers who tend to ignore this unwritten rule are also the ones who cause pointless traffic - cars start to bottleneck because of their oblivious observations on the relative speed of surrounding traffic.
Feel free to post debates/additional unwritten rules. I know I missed some; will hopefully follow up with youtubes and other suggestions.
Most states require new adolescent drivers to attend certain amounts of hours in a driver's education class before taking a test and receiving their driver's license. Some states (e.g. Virginia) additionally require time "behind the wheel" - both a written log from an adult (usually parent or older sibling) and completion of a road skills test. Neither of these requirements, however, seems to properly teach and advise what many drivers get from experience: common driving etiquette.
When driving in any setting with other cars on the road, driving rules and laws are sometimes disregarded or used infrequently. For example, a majority of drivers, regardless of age/locality/gender, tend to keep their speed at around 5mph over the posted limit. This typical behavior is almost universally followed, even though there is no written rule that suggests this behavior is the norm. While this example is almost universally followed, many unwritten rules and courtesies seem to be either unknown or unused by other drivers. This creates huge amounts of stress that translates in to road rage between those who follow the unwritten etiquette of driving and other, less informed individuals. In an attempt to "educate the masses," here are some "common" courtesies that seem to be fairly universal, and could contribute to a less stressful driving experience if followed by more drivers...
- Turn Signals: required by law, inconsistent in practice.
An important admonition on using your turn signals: TURN THEM OFF AFTER YOU TURN! The incongruity of turn signals left on is one of the most aggravating phenomena to see when driving. Nothing is more irksome than seeing someone on the highway with their turn signal on after switching lanes and forgetting to turn it off. Is the car planning on moving in to your lane? Pulling off the highway on to the shoulder? Or is it just the actions of a mentally deficient driver? After performing your driving action (turn, merge, etc.) turn off your damn signal!
- Headlights: both respective and rude roles.
On the other hand, flashing one's high beams can also be used as an amiable affirmative. When a car is signalling in an attempt to merge in front of you, flashing your headlights lets them know that they have room to do so, and you won't accelerate/block them. In relation to this, you can "thank" someone for letting you in by hitting your emergency lights. Letting them blink once or twice lets the car that graciously allowed you to pull in front know that you're thankful.
If it's night and there are pedestrians waiting to cross the street, you can do the same thing. In an effort to confirm whether or not the pedestrian is going to try crossing or not, you can blink your lights at them from a couple meters away, letting them know you see them, they can go, and letting you go on your way quicker without playing chicken for an extra 30 seconds.
- Speed: no clever quip, just don't be a jerk.
If your on any road with two lanes or more, the right lane is for the slowest, left is 0nly for passing. So if your sitting in the left lane and being passed, MOVE OVER TO THE RIGHT LANE! If you were planning on making a left turn, only get in the left lane when you're nearing your exit, not for the entirety of the trip. A consistant feature of the left hand lane on highways seems to be that one should be going atleast 9mph over the speed limit. e.g. Speed limit of 65; if you're in the left hand lane, you should be going at least 74mph. "Slow" is relative - if you're going 74mph and cars are still passing you in the right hand lane, you still need to get out of the fast lane and on to the right. The drivers who tend to ignore this unwritten rule are also the ones who cause pointless traffic - cars start to bottleneck because of their oblivious observations on the relative speed of surrounding traffic.
Feel free to post debates/additional unwritten rules. I know I missed some; will hopefully follow up with youtubes and other suggestions.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Another Police-State Headline
The post on fark.com:
(The Boston Globe)
"America takes another bold step towards becoming a police state. Supreme Court rules cops can frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so"
I'd comment, but luckily people weren't excessively alarmist and brought up intelligent points. I'll go through and cite some cases later today; I just wanted to make sure I got this info before it's off the fark main page.
To see the forum discussion post, click here.
A couple of the more knowledgeable posts:
(The Boston Globe)
"America takes another bold step towards becoming a police state. Supreme Court rules cops can frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so"
I'd comment, but luckily people weren't excessively alarmist and brought up intelligent points. I'll go through and cite some cases later today; I just wanted to make sure I got this info before it's off the fark main page.
To see the forum discussion post, click here.
A couple of the more knowledgeable posts:
More bad legal reporting. This is a pretty logical extension of Terry. Here's the actual opinion so you don't have to indure the stupid in the linked article.-Posted by filth
Let's not rush to judgment here. AP reporting on legal decisions is usually pretty shiatty.-Posted by KaponoFor3 (three separate posts)
________________________________________________________
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.
Followed by:
The justices accepted Arizona's argument that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police and that pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous.
Nothing to see here, folks. Police have always been allowed to search a driver if they have reasonable suspicion that he may be armed and dangerous (police safety rationale). Same would logically apply to a passenger.
___________________________________________________________
A unanimous Court? Interesting, though I'm not really surprised.
Reasonable suspicion to search a driver or a passenger cannot rest on an officer's unparticularized suspicion or "hunch" -- the officer must have objective, articulable factors to justify his actions (U.S. v. Sokolow)
Friday, January 23, 2009
Editorial: Great Expectations...
As excited as you might be that I'll be touching on Dickens' breathtakingly dull novel, I instead refer to the current "buzz" - Obama's new tenure as our President.
I understand how great it is that we have an African American as president; one who promised (and seems to be following through) sweeping changes in how our government operates, and how the United States as a whole operates. But... He's just the president. Take a minute, and follow that link. Sure, over the years since it's conception the president's powers have been expanded and diminished through the history of this country, but at the present, this does not make him a god. He can't wave his hand and make the economy perfect; in fact, there are vigourous debates among learned economists over what actions could improve our current state of economy.
I don't dislike Obama; I may disagree with some of his plans for policy (e.g. universal healthcare), but what vexes me is the faith and expectations that people have placed on him. Perhaps eight years under an absolute doofus of a president has provided society to see that anything is better than Bush was, and Obama's charisma increases the pedestal on which the American public seems to have placed him, but regardles: primus inter pares. He has power, but essentially he can be considered as a first among equals. The only way that he could possibly do all that others envisage him to do would be if he had absolute authority (which the country didn't like under a certain monkey faced president).
Why the brief editorial? This is just an instance where the ignorance of others in their hope that all their problems will disappear now that Obama is on the stand has driven me to frustration. Deal with your own problems, despite who's president! Hopefully America won't look quite like the cocky, ignorant bully with an intelligent, charismatic, and diverse Head of State, but otherwise, I wish people would stop expecting miracles from a government that has a less than stellar record.
I understand how great it is that we have an African American as president; one who promised (and seems to be following through) sweeping changes in how our government operates, and how the United States as a whole operates. But... He's just the president. Take a minute, and follow that link. Sure, over the years since it's conception the president's powers have been expanded and diminished through the history of this country, but at the present, this does not make him a god. He can't wave his hand and make the economy perfect; in fact, there are vigourous debates among learned economists over what actions could improve our current state of economy.
I don't dislike Obama; I may disagree with some of his plans for policy (e.g. universal healthcare), but what vexes me is the faith and expectations that people have placed on him. Perhaps eight years under an absolute doofus of a president has provided society to see that anything is better than Bush was, and Obama's charisma increases the pedestal on which the American public seems to have placed him, but regardles: primus inter pares. He has power, but essentially he can be considered as a first among equals. The only way that he could possibly do all that others envisage him to do would be if he had absolute authority (which the country didn't like under a certain monkey faced president).
Why the brief editorial? This is just an instance where the ignorance of others in their hope that all their problems will disappear now that Obama is on the stand has driven me to frustration. Deal with your own problems, despite who's president! Hopefully America won't look quite like the cocky, ignorant bully with an intelligent, charismatic, and diverse Head of State, but otherwise, I wish people would stop expecting miracles from a government that has a less than stellar record.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Police State-style headline precedent isn't that big of a deal
Fark.com headline was:
California Supreme Court: Cops can use evidence found in illegal traffic stops
____________________________________________________________________
While the headline on fark.com was, the actual article = not as much. And if anyone bothered to bring up the case on LexisNexis or Westlaw, the court had ample citations to approve this ruling.
Umm, trying to break down legalese in to English (anyone want to help?):
1) Dude (Brendlin) unlawfully pulled over and charged with possession and manufacture of meth
2) [Eventually] the court dismissed the drug charges because of the unconstitutional seizure evidence (lack of probable cause, etc.)
Stop(collaborate and listen): Despite the headline, the courts held that Brendlin could challenge the stop's constitutionality (4th Amendment), making charges made on evidence found from that stop useless (thanks to US v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 64 K, Ed, 2d 497).
3) The kicker:
Brokenbrough asked both the driver, Karen Simeroth, and the passenger, defendant, to identify themselves. Simeroth handed Brokenbrough her driver's license. Defendant said his name was Bruce Brown; however, from prior contacts, the officer recognized him as being one of the Brendlin brothers, either Scott or Bruce.
Believing that one of the Brendlin brothers was "a parolee at large," Brokenbrough "put Bruce Brendlin's name over the radio."
So in another light, the cop recognized Brendlin as being a fuck-up, and after following up via radio calls, took Brendlin in to custody. There's a question to the ends justify the means, but if you saw a known criminal, you'd be with in your rights to either issue a citizen's arrest or call the cops (you and I would probably end up doing that)(o.k. I probably wouldn't because I'm lazy). Point is, if you have an arrest warrant out on you, don't do anything that would attract any attention.
I'm pretty sure I'm more for individual rights than a lot of people who were whining about this ruling (Libertarians, hoo-rah), but [copious] citations and the logical reasoning is there, in the case ruling. As usual, the media did an excellent job making a headline.
One more brief point of relevant info: this has been bounced around the court systems for seven years. While there's a worry that cops are dumbasses (which some are) and they'll misconstrue this because the headline (which some will), the case is solid.
Correct me if you've read the case and have a valid point against it. Other than the whole "cops are dumb" "bad precedent" route. I'll concede that it has a possibility to set a bad precedent - really dumb cops start believing they can run illegal stops whenever they want, but 1)Those are the cops that glanced at the news headline, and 2) they'll be smacked down by a judge as soon as they try and pull an illegal stop on an innocent (no warrants) person.
Oh, and if you want to, citation follows.
See PEOPLE v. BRENDLIN 45 Cal. 4th 262; 195 P.3d 1074; 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 496; 2008 Cal. LEXIS 13631
EDIT: Corrected case citation (thanks, Melinda!).
 | |
____________________________________________________________________
While the headline on fark.com was
, the actual article = not as much. And if anyone bothered to bring up the case on LexisNexis or Westlaw, the court had ample citations to approve this ruling.Umm, trying to break down legalese in to English (anyone want to help?):
1) Dude (Brendlin) unlawfully pulled over and charged with possession and manufacture of meth
2) [Eventually] the court dismissed the drug charges because of the unconstitutional seizure evidence (lack of probable cause, etc.)
Stop(collaborate and listen): Despite the headline, the courts held that Brendlin could challenge the stop's constitutionality (4th Amendment), making charges made on evidence found from that stop useless (thanks to US v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 64 K, Ed, 2d 497).
3) The kicker:
Brokenbrough asked both the driver, Karen Simeroth, and the passenger, defendant, to identify themselves. Simeroth handed Brokenbrough her driver's license. Defendant said his name was Bruce Brown; however, from prior contacts, the officer recognized him as being one of the Brendlin brothers, either Scott or Bruce.
Believing that one of the Brendlin brothers was "a parolee at large," Brokenbrough "put Bruce Brendlin's name over the radio."
So in another light, the cop recognized Brendlin as being a fuck-up, and after following up via radio calls, took Brendlin in to custody. There's a question to the ends justify the means, but if you saw a known criminal, you'd be with in your rights to either issue a citizen's arrest or call the cops (you and I would probably end up doing that)(o.k. I probably wouldn't because I'm lazy). Point is, if you have an arrest warrant out on you, don't do anything that would attract any attention.
I'm pretty sure I'm more for individual rights than a lot of people who were whining about this ruling (Libertarians, hoo-rah), but [copious] citations and the logical reasoning is there, in the case ruling. As usual, the media did an excellent job making a headline.
One more brief point of relevant info: this has been bounced around the court systems for seven years. While there's a worry that cops are dumbasses (which some are) and they'll misconstrue this because the headline (which some will), the case is solid.
Correct me if you've read the case and have a valid point against it. Other than the whole "cops are dumb" "bad precedent" route. I'll concede that it has a possibility to set a bad precedent - really dumb cops start believing they can run illegal stops whenever they want, but 1)Those are the cops that glanced at the news headline, and 2) they'll be smacked down by a judge as soon as they try and pull an illegal stop on an innocent (no warrants) person.
Oh, and if you want to, citation follows.
See PEOPLE v. BRENDLIN 45 Cal. 4th 262; 195 P.3d 1074; 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 496; 2008 Cal. LEXIS 13631
EDIT: Corrected case citation (thanks, Melinda!).
Monday, December 1, 2008
Single Sentence Summation:
Finally heard on the radio (FOX business on XM radio) the reason that I don't like these bailouts:
"Successful businesses should be successful despite of, not because of, government intervention."
I think I paraphrased that a little bit, but if I did, I'm taking the quote and making it my own.
"Successful businesses should be successful despite of, not because of, government intervention."
I think I paraphrased that a little bit, but if I did, I'm taking the quote and making it my own.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Absolutely Crazy Day in the Markets
Last night, I thought we were heading towards another Black Monday; it wasn't that bad, but it was bad. I'll post later, but wanted to post this first:
DJIA closes at -
10,917.51
-504.48 (-4.42%)
DJIA closes at -
10,917.51
-504.48 (-4.42%)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
