Articles: September 2003 Archives

So, this has very little to do with the ticket I just got (59 mph in a 35). I have been thinking for a while about speed limits, both on regular roads, on the PA Turnpike.

These two ideas are not really related, though they could be I suppose:

1. I think that the speed limit on the Turnpike should be raised to 100 mph. Then what happens is, every mph over the normal speed limit (65) I go, I would pay a little extra when I exit the Turnpike. So for example, I go between 75-85, I pay an extra $0.15 when I exit.

The extra money would be a windfall for the State, and it would be a great benefit for the drivers because we could drive safely at a speed we're comfortable at, without running the risk of getting caught, or having to slam on our brakes everytime we see a cop.

Let's face it. Many cars and drivers can safely go faster than 65, and on the Turnpike, or some other mostly straight stretch of road, 65 seems SOOOOOO slow. It's natural for you to want to go faster. So we should let people pay for the privilege.

2. On the other hand, perhaps we should abolish the speed limit and create a speed advisory system again. Look at it like this. There are times that you need to go faster, and there are times that you want to go faster. That should be a choice you as an adult should be allowed to make. But some roads certainly should provide some guidance to the driver. So they post a 'Speed Advisory' saying 'Recommended Speed: 45'. You have the choice of driving 75 on the road and not get in trouble. You can drive 80 on the road, and pass by a cop, and not get in trouble.

But if you're going above the advised speed and you get into an accident due to your own negligence, there could be additional penalities if it goes to trial. If you're going above the advised speed and you get into a terrible accident, your insurance company may not pay all of the expenses.

The idea is to let the driver decide how fast they feel like driving without having to worry about getting caught, or getting in trouble, and if anything goes wrong the responsibility returns to the driver.

This system I find much more agreeable to the proposed English solution that would monitor your speed and automatically issue you a ticket if you exceed the limit. What if you're driving to the hospital because your wife is giving birth? Oooo, that's going to cost you extra. What if you're going to a very important client meeting, and you're late? Too bad for you.

Would either of these systems work? Well, sure! We're all adults, or some reasonable facsimle thereof. Many roads in Germany do not have a speed limit, and they do not suffer from more, or more tragic, traffic accidents. There are roads out west in the US that do not have speed limits and they also do not suffer from greater or more tragic accidents.

I'm always in favor of systems that allow people to act on their own best judgement with a minmum of interference.

I know that can sometimes be scary, but I think once you got used to it, you'd like it too.

You know, George Carlin once said "There's a bigot in every house on every block in America" and I laughed when he said it. His statement echoed similar statements from other people like Malcolm X. But I never really thought it true.

But thinking about it, I realized that I am indeed a bigot. I'm not a bigot ala David Duke, or Archie Bunker. I've got black friends, and Indian friends, and friends of many other colors. But I'm still a bigot.

I grew up in a neighborhood full of people from all around the world. My mom's from Europe, and my baby-sitter during the day while my parents worked was a kind old black lady named Mrs. Jackson. (She eventually moved away from Virginia to join her family in Jacksonville, FL, which to me as a kid was the coolest thing ever. I wanted to live in Reevesville. I even asked my mom one time if they named the town after her, I idolized that woman that much.) But I'm still a bigot. Yes, still a bigot even though I regularly go to lunch with my Indian co-workers at the local Tandoori grill, and hang out with the Chinese people at my office.

How am I still a bigot?

I can't stand poor white people, specifically, those known as 'white trash'. I have an immediate, rabid reaction to "white trash". I don't even know why, but it's automatic. I can't go to Wal-Mart (there seems to be a higher concentration of white trash in my local Wal-Marts than you find elsewhere) without breaking out in hives. It's not a reaction against the South. I love the South. It's not against poor people in general. I've been poor in the past, and I'm not rubbing elbows with Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. It's not even country music, or fans of country music. See, I can't even plant my finger on the exact combination of characteristics that bother me, but I know it when I see it.

I'm not happy with being a bigot. I'd like to think that I judge each person on their own merits, and give everyone a chance, and I guess I do, though "white trash" has a much harder time convincing me.

This is something I've felt since I was a kid! I remember mocking my cousin because he had a thick Southern accent, and was an overall-wearing, shoeless, backwoods, countrified white-boy, and it drove me crazy then.

So, what's the cure then? Go to a bunch of county fairs and get in touch with my white roots? Meet the kissing cousins, and go catch me a greased pig? Hop on the John Deere and drive down to a John Michael Montgomery concert, wearing my nicest Skoal cap? More importantly, how do I make sure that I don't transmit this down to my own children.

Maybe Carlin, Malcolm X, and the rest are right after all, and our bigotry isn't just confined to other races or genders, but can be applied to any group, by anyone.

I'd want to sue my senators, representatives, members of Bush's administration, and George Bush himself for breach of contract.

"What contract?" I hear you mutter. Why, their oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" which they took when they were sworn into office. An oath is an oral contract, one that the swearer is bound to follow or suffer the consequences. A good example would be the oath witnesses take in court to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", which, if they violate, they are arrested for perjury. Or how about the oath that members of the military take to follow orders and defend the Constitution, which if they violate, they are subject to imprisonment on a raft of charges. In some states, someone can be charged with adultery if they break their wedding vows!

So back to the matter at hand. What have these collected politicians done to qualify them to face such a suit?

On Sept. 3rd, Marketplace, a daily business news radio show broadcast on NPR, had author and consumer advocate Jamie Court on to discuss who he viewed as the real culprit of August's East Coast blackout. He squarely placed the blame on deregulation and called for more government oversight and control of the grid and energy companies.

However, Mr. Court did not consider, or mention two things: