My friend was telling me about how his brother was ticketed by photo radat at 4am for speeding. The idea behind photo radar is to reduce speeding because you know the saying, "speeding kills." So do strokes. Bah.
However, what dangers to others are there really on the road at 4am? My friend was surprised that radars weren't shut off at those times. For him, this was nothing but a cash grab.
Duh.
But people don't really like to ponder the potential intrusion on personal responsibilities by the state. They buy the "well, it's only good for you" line and move on. They assume the state will be logical in its application of rules. Yes, I do feel radars should be shut off at certain points on highways. It's on the residential roads where zero tolerance should be applied. If the speed limit is 30 km/hr in a school zone and you're clocked doing 40, yes, you deserve all that's coming to you. Doing 130 km/hr on an empty high way poses little risk except to yourself - and that's a personal choice.
***
Speaking of speed limits, I assert Transport Quebec and the government of Quebec have acted irresponsibily and illogically by setting the limits on the service road of the Met (Trans-Canada; Highway 40) at 50 km/hr. I use that road everyday and each time I fear an accident. 50km/hr is waaayyy too low for that spot. 70km/hr is far more reasonable. I do 50 and not a km more because I don't want to get pinched by the cops and give them my money. However, believe me when I tell you I cheat death often.
***
I mentioned in the previous post about how liberals love to describe the populist/capitalist narrative as the "sheep and the wolf." Obama seems to take that posture when he says companies who don't "bilk" people don't have to fear his reforms.
One liberal commentator couldn't have put it any more clear about the entire philosophical outlook of how liberals view life and why they accept state control: People can't be trusted. I have a liberal friend. A smart cookie at that. He tends to see life through that prism. People are stupid and if they won't listen they should be forced (or mandated) to do so and comply.
Sure thing O'Brien.
The latest battle is regarding the FDA's decision to force companies and restaurants to restrict the use of salt in processed and cooked foods.
The science behind salt isn't complicated. It does lead to high blood pressure and too much of it isn't good for you. That they want to do this is not necessarily a bad thing or wrong. However, it's another example of "saving people from themselves." The sheep must be protected from the wolf.
Interestingly, Campbell's and Kraft had announced they were cutting salt and I've seen many products and companies with a "'less salt" tag well before the state decided to get involved. There were moves to make changes.
Last, above all, I take offense that someone would say, "I can't be trusted" because I happen to be one of those people who carefully reads ingredients on the back of cans and boxes. So, that commentator can kiss my ass. "One-size fits all" has its limits and I'm growing tired of having to pay for the sins of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.