Free Republic

While I believe the Hurt report didn't find any relationship, there was an Aussie study that showed riders with white helmets were in 25% fewer accidents than riders in black helmets. Of course, there's the question of causality -- were there fewer accidents because people in bright colors were more visible, or are the people who are more careful riders in fewer accidents and they happen to wear bright colors because they perceive them to be "safer".

Personally, I don't mind the idea of riding something very visible. A lot of the 'Wing guys I see on the highway are wearing that neon-yellow color that street signs are made out of these days, and I see a lot of brightly colored rain suits. Most of the gear that I see at my local dealer, though, is pretty muted. I'd prefer a brighter color simply from the perspective that sitting in traffic or at a red-light wearing all-black in the middle of the summer means that I'm soaked in sweat by the time I get where I'm going!

On a semi-related note, I did find it interesting that the highway patrol takes a "we're better than you" approach. If the argument is that you need to be more visible because OTHER PEOPLE have a hard time seeing you, how is the "we're better trained" argument supposed to hold water?

I knew it was too good to be true! You did say, though, that criminals have no rights. And that "You lose your civil rights to avoid violence at the hands of others as soon as you step onto another's property and proceed to commit crimes. I referenced the law of my state on this matter already here". That's a direct quote. So, I say the guy has come onto my property and commited a crime.

What's stupid is thinking that arbitrary, vigilante, lynch mob justice is workable in a civilized society.

You lose your civil rights to avoid violence at the hands of others as soon as you step onto another's property and proceed to commit crimes. I referenced the law of my state on this matter already here.

Wow. So in PA, if a guy lets his dog take a dump in my yard, then walks away from it without cleaning it up, I can shoot him (as long as there's a pooper-scooper ordinance)? Dude, I am so moving!

I think, perhaps, being beaten within inches of your life and having a tree branch shoved up your tailpipe might be a little bit extreme. I'm not defending what he did -- yes, he's a pervert, and yes, he should be prosecuted for what he did, and absolutely, the folks that live there should have detained him using whatever force was necessary until the cops could arrive to haul him off to jail. But while the guy's a pervert, that's not something that rates the death penalty (except, perhaps, in Arab states).

There's a good reason that we have a criminal justice system. It surely isn't perfect, but it's a bit less chaotic than allowing anyone to decide what the punishment should be for any given crime. If the brothers of Mark Hacking decided that their sister-in-law was kind of a pain, after all, and maybe Mark was better off without her, should they -- being the ones that "caught" him when he confessed -- be permitted to just let it slide? I like my bike quite a bit, so should I be permitted to execute a man who sits his three-year-old on the seat of it without asking? I was pretty offended by his rudeness, after all.

The simple fact is that we have a system of justice in this country which does a pretty decent job of making sure everybody gets a fair shake. There's nothing "wimpy" about holding down a criminal and waiting for the cops to come and deal with him.

This fascination with the left lane seems to be extremely prevelant with Buckeyes. The most irritating thing, however, are "racers". You know... those people that are driving along at 65 mph... you come up behind them at 70mph... you pull into the left lane to pass them and just about the time you get your front wheel even with their rear wheel, they've managed to creep up to 70 mph. So, you fall back and get back in their lane behind them at a safe distance... and they drop back to 60 mph. So, you pull into the left lane and start to speed back up to 70 to pass. Again, as you come alongside them, they speed up, matching your speed. Downshifting to 3rd, you fly past them at 80-85mph (before they have a chance to creep up on you) and get back in the right lane. After slowing down to your previous 70mph, they come back up on your left side, passing you with a drity look. They get back in front of you and slow back down to 60mph. For the rest of your trip, you repeat this cycle.

I do not understand what is so difficult about deciding on a speed and driving it. If you cannot keep your car within one or two mph of your desired speed on mostly flat road with no traffic, you need to turn in your license.

I've been thinking the very same thing for a while now. When we eliminate Osama's merry bunch, there will be another group using terror tactics, and when we defeat them...

Agreed. This is a war, and certainly in wartime some extraodinary measures must be taken. This is a bit different though: Under what conditions do we declare victory? At least for the Japanese in the internment camps during WWII, there was a scenario where their rights would be restored: when Japan was defeated. Is the war on terror a war with an end? Unseating the Taliban did not end terrorism. Defeating Iraq didn't do it. It's not a war against Islamofascist terror, either, so what about the ELF? Or the Basques? If we get a lefist administration, will they declare Operation Rescue a terror organization? Before I'm willing to sacrifice my freedom for a wartime effort, I think I'm within my rights to know in what scenario my rights will be restored. When most people talk about these sorts of infringements on our rights (for example, being allowed to take pictures of tunnels) I hear them talking about two periods of time: pre 9-11 and post 9-11. For example: "In a post 9-11 US, it is dangerous to allow people to have pictures of landmarks because they could use them in planning a terror attack". I do not hear people saying "Until we have defeated terror, it is dangerous...". That way of thinking frightens me.

Actually, I would agree with the principle of prohibiting "things that go boom" from being carried onto the plane. While I'd feel a lot more comfortable if I were armed, putting a hole in a pressurized tube at 30 or 40 thousand feet is a non-stop ticket to loss of structural integrity. However, I like the idea of the pilots being armed, and I am all for armed air marshals. I think those guys are are a great defense against future hijackings, and they've been giving the appropriate training for discharging firearms in pressurized planes. One hopes they have, at least!

I have read that. It's been posted here about four hundred times in the last couple of days. I have no doubt that there is another attack brewing. It sounds like the air marshals did a good job of keeping an eye on the situation. But we're talking about two entirely different things. Trying to rip the mirror out of an aircraft's lavatory and watching cars go by are not equalivant! Even giving them an extreme benefit of the doubt, it sounds like these guys were failing to comply with the flight crew's instructions. They were certainly in a position to endanger the safety of the other pax if the plane would have hit some turbulence -- having 180 pound ragdolls being tossed about the plane can certainly cause injury to innocent by-sitters.

In the case of airliners, though, there is nothing that can be done to provide complete security against hijackings short of handcuffing each pax and shackling them to their seats. They found a way to go "low-tech" and get through our "no things that go boom" armor on 11SEP: They proved themselves determined enough to use small blades to slaughter the flight crew. Do you seriously think that they won't find something else, now that box cutters are disallowed? A broken piece of glass? A pencil's stab wound to the throat? A garotte? If we say that we must sacrifice everything to provide airliner security, I submit the only possible way is to shackle pax in their seats, handcuff them, and ship their luggage (and carry-ons, and purses) on a seperate cargo plane, after hand-inspecting every single item in every single bag.

The same applies for targets closer to the ground. If we say we value our security more than anything else, I submit that the logical conclusion of this slipperly slope is to mandate state-issued travel papers, outlaw photography, prohibit any outdoor painting or sketching, and to arrest and prosecute anyone who is outdoors and not actively moving. You keep pressing the point that it's just middle eastern men that you're seeing, and I'll grant you that, right now, that's not an altogether invalid point. Right now that is where the main threat is from. But what happens when they start winning converts from other ethnic groups? If they work with the Irish, then we'll only arrest arabs and redheads for looking at a building for more than 3 seconds. Then they'll work with the North Koreans, and it'll be arabs, redheads, and asians. Then, maybe the pakistanis, and they look kind of like Indians to a lot of people, so throw them into the mix as well.

Yes, that is taken to the extreme. My point is only this: There must be a point where we decide we are as secure as we can get without giving up "too much" freedom. I believe that when we're to the point of making it illegal to take photographs of public landmarks, we have traveled past that point of "too much".

I do not know why they were there. Neither do you. But quite frankly, I would much rather live in a country that is at risk for an attack than a country where I am interrogated by the police for doing nothing more than watching cars go by, or be arrested as a terrorist for wanting to hang a picture of a bridge in my living room.

Perhaps you're willing to live in a police state. I would rather have my essential liberties than a temporary and false sense of security.

That was strange enough, but when there is a second person on the next bridge doing the same thing and they are both Middle Eastern, you know what? THey are doing something no good. Sorry pal, this may be America, but some people living want that to change in a whole lot worse ways than simply not allowing photos.

---

There is a point where we have to say that we have balanced our essential liberties with our temporary security. In air travel there is only so much security we can have on our planes when passengers are not shackled and handcuffed to their seats for the duration of the flight while all their luggage is shipped seperately. In everyday life, there is only so much security we can have as long as people are allowed to walk or drive where and when they please and look at whatever they wish to see. Do you propose that every person walking the streets should be interrogated by a police officer as to from where they came and to where they are going? Should I have to have a signed and notarized document from my employer stating that I have a need to travel interstate 75 northbound between 0800 and 0830 mondays through fridays, and southbound between 1600 and 1630? Should I have to provide evidence that I have membership in the church down the road and that I have been cleared by the city government to walk from my house to the service and back, between certain hours on Sunday? Do I need to call the state police and get their permission to park my motorcycle at a rest stop, sit under a tree, and smoke a cigar while watching the trucks go by on the interstate? If I should want to have a picture of the Roebling suspension bridge to keep at my desk, or use as a Windows wallpaper, should I have to submit to a full background check first, and then call to get your approval? Is it okay with you that I've spent an hour or two very day standing on the balcony of my hotel room watching the container ships and the fishing vessels move in and out of the port?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be on the lookout for those on the 'most wanted' lists. And I'm not saying that anything short of immediate detention of those on the terror watch lists who attempt to cross our borders is unreasonable. But, at some point, you have to ask yourself: where is this leading, and how much freedom am I willing to sacrifice?

When I was in high school, I took a couple years of German. The Wall was still up and I remember our teacher talking about East Germany. One of the things that suprised me was that if you were in East Germany, you had to be extremely careful about where you pointed your camera, since you stood a good chance of being accused of espionage and locked up Top Secret-style, if not executed. How wonderful it was, I thought, to be blessed enough to live in a country where simply photographing or taking interest in your surroundings wasn't something that would get you into jail.

Imagine my suprise, then, when I was in New York City about a year ago (the first and only time I've been post-11SEP) and saw huge (hugh?) signs around one of the tunnels our bus went through proclaiming that it was illegal to take photographs! And now, to see so many folks ready to call the police should I give more than a passing glance to anything. If I find the comings-and-goings of ships in a harbor fascinating, and wish to watch them, should I have to go through a background check? I love to sit on the Covington side of the Ohio river and watch the traffic going over the bridges. Do I not have the freedom to do that? I've timed how long it takes barges to get from one bridge to another on the river all the time. Why am I doing that? Quite frankly, that's my business, not the government's, and certainly not the business of some busy-body that wishes to interrupt my mid-cigar entertainment with an interrogation. I like to look at power plants, dams, manufacturing facilities, bridges, highways, planes, trains, and automobiles. Those marvels of modern engineering fascinate me. I always felt sorry for the East Germans who would have their motives questioned for taking an interest in the world around them, never thinking that someday, that might be me, too!

And, no, I'm not of middle eastern descent, so, you might argue, noone would think twice about me. But, with the reports of the terrorists trying to recruit non-Arabs, how long until that doesn't matter anymore?

everytime the child gives her a hug or kiss, she has to realize she tried to kill her own baby.

---

Perhaps I'm just too much of a pessimist, but I'm not sure that she's entirely capable of making that connection.

Actually, the only part of that I would question is that if Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were placed on a terror watch list on 24AUG, why were they allowed to board a plane? I'm not aware of how such lists operated before 12SEP2001: Did they only check names at Immigration, or were the lists made availble to domestic carriers?

As far as their weaponry, before this happened, carrying that sort of thing was permissable, and an everyday occurence. I used to take my pocket knife with me whenever I flew, you could carry nearly any tool as carry-on luggage, and the only things that they were stopping were those that could go boom. These terrorists found a chink in our armor and exploited it. We kept them from getting AK47s on the plane, so they went low-tech and brought knives. Now we're preventing them from bringing knives onto planes, but what's next? Broken glass can cut quite well, a pencil isn't a very effient stilleto but it can get the job done, and I'd be willing to bet that you could construct an innocent-looking plastic item that could have a cutting edge good for a few slashes. The terrorists have already demonstrated that they're willing to go to extreme measures, and that they're quite determined. Certainly, the passengers and flight crew aren't going to follow the old mantra of "comply with their demands and no one gets hurt", but that's an awfully risky last line of protection, don't you think? I hope and pray that our Air Marshals are as well trained as we've been told they are, but until there's a couple on every flight, I don't think I'm convinced that we're not at risk.

You are absolutely correct that it's not just the physical objects we carry through that need to be carefully considered by the security folks. At the same time, though, we should be cautious that we aren't trading essential liberties for temporary security. Taken to the extreme, why not shackle and handcuff every passenger before the aircraft door is closed? Be sure to wear your Depends on the longer flights! And don't show up to the ticket counter without five years' worth of paystubs, tax returns, and bank statements as well as a current copy of your credit report.

Perhaps I'm getting a littly lengthy here. I'm not trying to flame you, I'm really only thinking out loud. I realize that there is a certain balance to all of this, but at some point we need to decide that we have "enough" security that we can stop encroaching on our freedom. And I'm quite afraid that even at that point, shy of putting every passenger in leg irons and handcuffs, we are still going to be vunerable.

This is not the first time that I find myself proud to be represented by Senator McConnell, and I'm sure it shan't be the last!

But she would have had to have carried the three babies for a whole nine months. Why, a good portion of those could have had her on bed rest! And during the peak indoctrination season, too, so she'd have to take time off work. Not an exact quote, but she said something to the effect of while she could have made it work, financially, she just didn't want to. How can a rational person possibly argue with selfishness like that?

'91 Honda Nighthawk 750.

Not riding it to work today, though: I'm about 10k miles away from it right now, on a business trip!

Here in Singapore though (on the topic of motorcycles), they've got all these bikes that look like the big sportbikes and the big cruisers, but they've got tiny little engines on them -- like 250cc singles at best. Apparently the big dream here is to ride a Harley, but how they can keep them here, I have no idea: There aren't any SAE tools for miles!

No, no, no.. see, you don't understand: It's art!. You little people obviously don't understand that when you pay to be entertained by an artist, it is the artist that gets to provide for you the art that you need, no matter what you think you want! You don't have the right to offend people by calling weeks off school during December "Christmas Holiday", but, you see, Linda "I-thought-she-was-dead-must-have-just-been-her-career" Rondstadt has the right to offend you with her art!

Really, now, we plebians in flyover country just don't understand how the country is supposed to work!

(that wasn't too sarcastic, was it?)

The potato, too, is a member of the nightshade family and, if Alton Brown and his Nutritional Anthropoligst are to be believed, most of Europe didn't want much to do with it because of that. I wonder, sometimes, how mankind survived after all these crazy attempts at sticking things in our mouths (hey look, berries! Hey, look, I dry this leaf out, roll it up, light it on fire and suck on it! hey, look, 'schrooms!).

I'm suprised he hasn't used this research as an opporunity to tell Wolf Blitzer that his family took initiative in creating the potato...

Fantastic idea. Of course they won't stick to my bumper -- it's plastic! =) But, the trunk will work just fine. You wouldn't happen to have a good source for those, would you?

Just bought a handful of them, myself. They'll be waiting in my mailbox for me when I get home!

I figure anything that gets the dim's so worked up must hit awfully close to home!