WIRETAPS WIN FOR W

New York Post ^ | Jan. 19, 2006 | Dick Morris

[takenoprisoner]

We the people must realize it is up to us to protect and defend our freedom...since the politicians we elect are dead set on challenging them. Now we all know how incrementalism works and how politicians lie constantly.

Recall the first seat belt laws? We were promised that we wouldn't be pulled for a violation...rather we could be charged if we were pulled for something else. Well, that didn't very long. Now they set up roadblocks to see if we have our seatbelts on.

Just recently South Carolina was one of if not the last state to get on board with the seat belt law where LE can pull you over if they see a seat belt violation. In the first month 6700 hundred citations were written.

Some may recall how years ago there was no dui rather dwi. Some of the younger folks may not recall dwi...which is driving while intoxicated. That means the driver was visibly impaired and failed roadside sobriety tests.(walking the white line etc.)

Now comes the incremental factor. A new device can measure bac. Politicians pass a law that says a level of .15 is considered drunk regardless if the driver can pass the sobriety test. Politicians see the monies being generated with this .15 and realize that they can increase profits by lowering the level to .10...oh they're not done yet. Now reduced to .08 and still counting down.
Now guess what? Now some local jurisdictions realize even greater profits via zero tolerance...that means a .03 can get you jailed and is up to the discretion of the LE.

How bout you smokers. Have the laws of incrementalism affected you?

Now ask yourself just based on the samples cited where there are hundreds of other samples, how can we possibly allow the unpatriot act to stand? If we allow it to stand, based on the well established laws of incrementalism, who knows what they'll do next?

[spintreebob]

You are right about "incrementalism".

There is a 3-sided conflict.
On one side, we say "innocent til proven guilty". The inference is: til proven guilty of harming someone else thru intent or negligence.

Prevention is the 2d side. Crime prevention, disaster prevention, etc. I've been in the "loss prevention (risk management) business for insurance companies most of my adult life."

Seatbelt, DUI and speed limit laws are intended to be laws of prevention. But then the "innocent til proven guilty" rule is applied, not to harming someone else, but to violating the law of prevention.

The law of prevention has its own "incrementalism". Driving Under the Influence (including amounts less than visibly impaired) CLEARLY ENDANGERS others statistically to a high probability. Speeding also has a correlation to endangering others... but that correlation is much much less than DUI.

SeatBelt use has not prevented a single crash. Its sole stated function is to reduce the severity of injury when there is a crash. Of course, that injury only occurs to the person wearing (or not) the seatbelt. This then gets into the quicksand of who is responsible for the cost of medical treatment. The seatbelt advocates inherently presume that it is society's obligation to pay for the injury to a person wearing (or not) a seatbelt.

But why is the fact that ZERO net lives are saved by seatbelts not faced honestly by the public?

Pure superstition. For the same reason that we believe other inanimate objects have special powers, we believe seat belts are magical. (Others: guns bad, condoms good, SUVs bad, renewable engergy good (except in front of the Kennedy summer home, etc).

Now who benefits from perpetuating these superstiions? Is it not the elitists who think that they know how to run our lives better than we do ourselves? They know how to spend our money better than we do. They know how to protect us with consumer protection laws better than if we observe the axiom "let the buyer beware". At any point that there is a problem with the massive network of regulations, the problem is that there are not enough regulations.

Just look at campaign reform. After Watergate, there were massive "reforms". Those Watergate reforms created a worse situation than pre-Watergate. So were the "reforms" sunsetted. Of course not. More and more "reforms" have constantly been piled on top of each other. Now, the laws are so complicated that one cannot practice freedom of speech without a high priced lawyer to review every comment before he makes it.

Who controls our lives is the 3d side of the 3 sided conflict. The elitists look at Dubya or Ronnie and say "He is too dumb to control other people's lives. We need a smart person in charge of controlling other people's lives."

But those of us not in the elite would rather have a dumb person controlling our lives the alternative. The worst alternative is to have a person controlling our lives who is billed as "the smartest woman in the world."

The smartest woman in the world will use the Patriot Act to protect us, not just from the once in a lifetime WTC, but also from the daily terrorism caused by corporate greed and all those other dangers we face.

[takenoprisoner]

"But why is the fact that ZERO net lives are saved by seatbelts not faced honestly by the public? "

The fed.gov claims that seat belts save lives. Billboards along the roadways claim "seat belts save lives."

I'd say your answer is that John Q. Public having had fed.gov program him into believing that seat belts save lives is convinced that seat belts save lives.

So, can you back up this "zero net lives" with some available stats? I always figured insurance companies were behind seat belt laws.

[spintreebob]

http://seatbeltchoice.com/

re: I always figured insurance companies were behind seat belt laws

I've worked for insurance companies most of my adult life, 14 years in risk management/loss prevention with massive attention to statistics, and now many years managing their databases.

There is a big difference between the data in the insurance company databases and what comes from the PR department. This is true, not just of seatbelts, but of many other politically correct sacred cows, eg Drivers Ed classes in high school.

Consider this.
The crack down on DUI and seatbelts and ABS brakes and engineering of highways for crash prevention have all occurred at about the same time. It is possible to go through the database and compare the statistics between states, and individual cities before and after they cracked down on DUI. They can be compared to adjacent states and cities of similar demographics.

Clearly statistics prove a high correlation between high profile enforcement of DUI and crashes, injuries, deaths, $of damage, every way you want to look at it.

Likewise ABS brake statistics can be compared where braking incidents occur at certain known curves in the road and certain points where traffic tightens up and have to wake up and brake quickly. Clearly ABS brakes save lives, dollars, etc.

Likewise with highway engineering. A high rate of crashes has occurred at certain spots due to poor highway design. When that poor design is re-worked, the crash rate goes down noticably.

Then, apply that same methodology to seat belts. Compare when and where states and cities adopted them, and the degree to which they adopted them and enforced them. There is no statistical correlation. None. Zip. Nada.

There are anecdotal stories where seat belts DID save lives. There are anecdotal stories where seat belts caused the death. Stupid drivers drive onto train tracks in heavy traffic and then are boxed in and can't move the car out of the way when the train comes. Those panicked drivers can't unbuckle their seatbelt fast enough to get out of the car and walk to safety. Panicked people in cars on fire, and card under water, can't unbuckle their belts fast enough to escape injury and death. In some crashes, the seatbelt causes more injury to the organs in the abdomen than would have occurred without a belt. In other crashes, the seatbelt reduces the severity of injuries that would have otherwise occurred.

The result is that in statistics, seat belts are a "wash". The good and the bad balance each other out. There is no net benefit.

The major role of things like seatbelts has been to raise the price of cars and make cars unaffordable to the working poor. Many working poor lose their jobs because they do not have dependable transportation to get to work. Things like seatbelts just oppress a few more poor people. (Don't let me digress into environmentalism on that topic.)