The Seatbelt Bill is back before the House

Bettencourt! (0.00 / 0)

No surprise that it is Senor Bettencourt who wrote this dog's-breakfast of a blurb. He is a facts-be-damned ideologue with the work ethic of a teenage slacker and the intellectual heft of a Captain America comic book. Not surprisingly, he is also a leader of the extreme rightwing of the House Republicans.

It is odd that this blurb managed to get published, as usually blurbs are required to reflect some version of reality. It must be because the adults are all focused on the budget and don't have the time to watch everything the children are doing. Luckily, it's unlikely that disinterested Representatives will be swayed by Bettencourt's "logic".

As for the "real" reality, seatbelts save lives and there is no serious argument against this. Wouldn't it be great if the Live Free or Die crowd accepted this fact and stopped saying that making a requirement to wear them the law actually isn't the same thing as Nazis taking away our precious freedoms.

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 10:58:11 AM UTC

Ahem. (0.00 / 0)

Let's not be dismissing the intellectual heft of Captain America here. He is/was (Steve will be back) no mindless cheerleader of the flag.

It was Tony Stark who led the government thugs - Cap led the resistance.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 23:03:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

HB415 (4.00 / 1)

is not really about bathrooms. It is the Republicans who have bathrooms on the brain. HB415 is about equal rights and ending discrimination in our fair state, and thus my need to see it characterized as an equal rights bill and to stop parroting the name given it by people who would like a license to continue to discriminate against a minority.

---

by: beverlywoods @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 11:52:31 AM UTC

I agree (0.00 / 0)

I'm sure it wasn't intended to offend, but let's not reinforce Republican messaging by repeating it.  It's a gender equality bill.

---

by: brianrater @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 22:36:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps we need a bathroom bill. (0.00 / 0)

It could impose penalties on persons elected to public office who attempt to obstruct justice by using their official position to influence law enforcement personnel who catch them soliciting sex in public restrooms.

The GOP'd be all for that, right?

---

by: Tim C. @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 17:30:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Color me ambivalent about requiring seat belt use in the law. (4.00 / 1)

It could be used as another excuse by the police to make random stops seem purposeful, even as the driver's ability to demonstrate the excuse to be unfounded is enhanced.  Profiling can be disguised in all kinds of ways.

Despite years of "safety" improvements to vehicles, the kill rate on the highways stayed pretty constant until gas prices reduced the number of miles logged.  Meanwhile, the 38,000 deaths are significant, but there is much less attention to how many injured survive to require medical care for many years.

Since a motor vehicle is an inherently potentially lethal machine, operators are properly subject to many more personal restraints than a person moving around on foot.  However, mechanical restraints and technical "improvements" have not been shown to be successful in rendering vehicular transport less lethal to all of God's creatures.  Reducing the top speed at which a vehicle can travel might be more useful.  That some people get a rush from driving very fast should not be reason to strap every person into a lethal machine.

I say that as someone who's installed and used seat belts since before they were standard equipment and as someone who's never been in a crash in half century of driving coast to coast and border to border.  As a liberal, I believe in self-control.  However, I also realize that self-control is not universally employed.  

Color me ambivalent.

Oh, and doing anything to get a federal dollar bribe is a bad idea.

---

by: hannah @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 12:03:44 PM UTC

Number of deaths is not the key stat (4.00 / 1)

It's the number of deaths per miles driven. On that basis, we have made huge progress- cutting the number of deaths from 5.5 per 100 million miles travelled(HMMT)in the 60's to about 1.2 per HMMT.  

If the death rate were today were the same as in the 1960's, there would have been more than 160,000 fatalities last year. The number of actual fatalities has dropped, but the number of miles driven has more than quadrupled.

Seatbelts work. As do better suspensions, better brake systems, more rigorous inspections, and cars design with safety and crash zones.

As for the argument that police will use the seatbelt law to harass drivers, that is an argument about police behavior, not seatbelts. If they want to harass drivers, they don't need seatbelt laws.  

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 12:31:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is this version of the seat belt law proposal (0.00 / 0)

still a primary offense?

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 14:29:35 PM UTC

Yep. (4.00 / 2)

That's the problem. A secondary offense would be just as enforceable, but a primary opens up yet another avenue for profiling and abuse.

Classical Liberal since 1983

---

by: Reverend Ryan @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 15:23:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 1)

Why is it that the slogan my body my choice is only used by Democrats when it comes to abortion?

If I wish to live at risk is it not my body and my choice?  

There are certainly plenty of other activities with statistics showing to be just as if not more dangerous then driving without a seat belt so will the next step be to ban them as well?  Where's the line of how much freedom and personal liberty you are willing to take away on behalf of "protecting" people?

---

by: lildog @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 18:02:53 PM UTC

OK lildog, I'll bite... (0.00 / 0)

Name just 3 other activities that kill 37000 Americans every year. This ought to be easy if there are plenty of them.

And why the quotes around "protecting". Do you agree with Bettencourt that the juries is still out on seatbelts?

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 19:40:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think... (0.00 / 0)

Lildog is another of the libertarians who have signed up and started posting here recently; free speech, free country, but don't expect much agreement.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 19:57:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mikey... (0.00 / 0)

I can name two easy...
Smoking kills an estimated 443,000 Americans each year.
I don't have the grand total for drinking related deaths but alcohol is blamed for the deaths of over 1,400 college students alone each year.  I would be willing when you expand it out to include adults and others it would come close if not pass the 37k mark.

But I don't think total deaths is the key factor.  It's deaths per 1000 people who partake in the activity.  Some hobbies such as skiing kill at rates per 1000 far greater then those in cars.  However we all ride in cars far more frequently so the total mortality rate is higher.  So I ask again, where's the line in protecting people?  How far into infringing upon individual rights and liberty does it have to go before you too admit its too far?  Does it have to get to a point where we have to walk down the street wearing protective gear and every corner of every object have padding put over it?

I also noticed not one of you answered my questions.  We have people like elwood who instead turn to insults, Kathy who deflects and tries to make it about me.  Mike, I have to hand it to you, you at least attempt a response on target even though you avoided my question.

And to answer your question, I put the quotes there to highlight the word.  I agree seatbelts help protect us but that doesn't justify you putting a gun to my head and forcing me to wear one.  Its no more justified then my forcing you to wear a bullet proof vest every time you leave your house.  Can you argue that bullet proof vests do not save lives?

---

by: lildog @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 13:47:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not making it about you (0.00 / 0)

I think it is great that the Ron Paul libertarians are posting here; just wanted Mr. Marsh to know where you were coming from on the ideological spectrum, since you, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Slattery are all newbies.  

For myself, I know that there are some issues you and I will never agree on because of a pretty large ideological divide, so on those issues I wouldn't get into a discussion with you because it would be like beating my head against a wall. And vice versa.  It would be like debating Red Sox v. Yankees with Jon Bresler - there will never be common ground, but I still like him.  So, don't be so sensitive!



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 14:02:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right in the middle of Dems arguing the pros and cons (4.00 / 2)

of a bill, we have a halfwit with a keyboard pop up to say Dems are all, always, on the same page.

Plus the halfwit ignores all the Republican women who are strongly pro-choice.

Go back to your other hobbies, lildog.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:10:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

funny how it's nanny stateism (0.00 / 0)

when it's seatbelts, but it's "protecting marriage" when the lildogs of the world start attempting to justify their anti-marriage equality stance.

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 15:37:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Question For You, Susan (0.00 / 0)

When did lildog say he was against gay marriage here? If you can't blockquote this, I'd ask you to retract your rather bigoted statement.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 17:37:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

lildog (4.00 / 2)

is a frequent poster at necon hate forum, NH Insider. Feel free to go on over and read what kind of shit they post.

Your attempts at equalizing my comment to you are silly at best. I'm sorry you feel so threatened that you have to attempt to play tit for tat.

I have no intention of retracting a statement made to a troll.  

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 17:45:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Neocon Hate Forum? (4.00 / 1)

Trust me, i'm not threatened by you. Offended to be sure, considering that me and Michael Marsh and Jim Splaine and other people who frequent this site wrote for that "neocon hate forum" at one point.

What you just said is just as ridiculous as the people who claimed that all Kucinich supporters are latte sipping hippie communists who have been abducted by aliens and believe the government caused 9/11. (among the other things I've heard about the Kucinich campaign)

So Susan, if lildog is a neocon hatemonger, are you all of those things? I don't think you are, but that's because I try my best to judge people on an individual basis rather than as one collective group.

Bigotry doesn't stop with the color of ones skin or the contents of one's reproductive system.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 17:58:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And For That Matter.... (0.00 / 0)

What do you even know about lildog himself? Would you like me to tell you more about him? I actually talked with him about that and got his ok the other day, "lildog" is just a nickname he's had since he was a kid.

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 18:04:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

have you spent any time on the forum (4.00 / 2)

part of NH Insider, Andrew? Go check it out. Come back and tell me all about the high minded political discourse going on at that forum. I'll gladly apologize to you, which is what you seem to desperately want from me.

I called you on making a homophobic comment. You are REALLY REALLY pissed off about it, overreacting, and making a fool of yourself.

I'd suggest taking some deep breaths away from your computer.  

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 18:08:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Since you bring it up (0.00 / 0)

Susan, since you mention the NH Insider forum I'd like to direct you to a discussion about same sex civil unions from 2006:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/...

You will find "lildog" (me) DEFENDING it.  The only issue I raise is a concern that the wording of the law would allow churches who refuse to perform same sex marriages (freedom of religion) to be sued by same sex couples who want a church wedding.

So are you reach to admit your wrong and apologize to both myself and Andy?

---

by: lildog @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 18:25:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I gave you as much of an apology as (4.00 / 1)

you're going to get. I said I was pleased to be wrong.

Would you care to address my point about you participating in the shouting down of liberals at the NHI forum?

Would you like to address the fact that you have generalized and stereotyped, as well as made hit and run troll posts in your time here at BH?  

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 18:35:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Susan, Help Me Understand Where You're Coming From Here (0.00 / 0)

I'm more frustrated at you than I am angry at you, Susan. I know you well enough to calibrate my perception of you. Similar to Kathy the other day. But thank you for your apology in any case.

Still, you can help me become less frustrated by helping me understand what you're thinking here, i've got a few questions.

#1. I made about a zillion comments this week in support of gay marriage and you call me a homophobe.

#2. I wrote at NH Insider for over a year and you think I didn't know it had a forum? (do a member search if you like, check for andysylvia. Founded 11/15/06, grand total of 5 posts ever.

#3. Why do you think I stopped writing for NH Insider?

#4. Do you think Jim Splaine, myself and Mike Marsh hold the same views as lildog just because we were at that site at one point?

#5. Do you realize that you calling all of the people as the exact same thing would be no different than if lildog had said something about the North Country and said that attribute must apply to you since you live in the North Country?

I don't get it, Susan, help me out. How is it Progressive to be against intolerance of one kind, but for intolerance of another kind?

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 18:26:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Andy (0.00 / 0)

go back and reread the comment. I didn't call you a homophobe. I said your comment was homophobic.

You are overreacting.

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 18:40:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Susan, Help Me Understand Where You're Coming From Here (0.00 / 0)

I'm more frustrated at you than I am angry at you, Susan. I know you well enough to calibrate my perception of you. Similar to Kathy the other day. But thank you for your apology in any case.

Still, you can help me become less frustrated by helping me understand what you're thinking here, i've got a few questions.

#1. I made about a zillion comments this week in support of gay marriage and you call me a homophobe.

#2. I wrote at NH Insider for over a year and you think I didn't know it had a forum? (do a member search if you like, check for andysylvia. Founded 11/15/06, grand total of 5 posts ever.

#3. Why do you think I stopped writing for NH Insider?

#4. Do you think Jim Splaine, myself and Mike Marsh hold the same views as lildog just because we were at that site at one point?

#5. Do you realize that you calling all of the people as the exact same thing would be no different than if lildog had said something about the North Country and said that attribute must apply to you since you live in the North Country?

I don't get it, Susan, help me out. How is it Progressive to be against intolerance of one kind, but for intolerance of another kind?

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 18:26:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Susan, Adny is correct... (0.00 / 0)

I've publicly defended Jim Splaine and others who support same sex marriage.  My refusing to support the right of two consenting adults to do and call themselves what they wish so long as it doesn't effect me personally would be no better then forcing someone to wear a seat belt against their wishes.  I don't support limiting freedoms or imposing my views on others so long as they don't impose on me.

Your projecting what you feel as a whole of NH Insider bloggers onto me is very narrow minded.  It would be like my simply projecting what I read in one or two articles here on everyone who posts here.  That's small minded and lazy.

I also think it says something that rather then debate the point on hand you and others resort to muddying the water by continually turning to other arguments such as trying to link this somehow to same sex marriage.

I don't support forcing on persons will onto others PERIOD  It's wrong when the democrats do it, it's wrong when the republicans do it.  It's wrong no matter who does it and forcing someone to buckle up who chooses not to is forcing your will on someone else.  It makes you no better then the republicans who refuse to accept two consenting adults living the way they wish and seek to impose their will over it.

---

by: lildog @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 18:13:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well aren't you special, lildog (4.00 / 1)

Of course you coming over here and projecting what you feel on the whole about Democrats and liberals - that's just different, right?  

I've read plenty of your posts on NHI. You follow the herd there, and participate in the shouting down of anyone with a liberal viewpoint. The forum is an echo chamber of right wing insanity.

I'm glad you've made a positive statement concerning your position on gay marriage. I'm pleased to be incorrect in this instance. But don't pretend you are here for intelligent debate. You generally make hit and run troll posts. The only reason you didn't this time, is because you could do a gotcha.  

---

by: susanthe @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 18:24:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Echo Chamber Disease (0.00 / 0)

The forum is an echo chamber of right wing insanity.

No kidding Susan, but how is that any better than the left wing echo chamber that is developing here?*

The problem with NH Insider isn't that it's right wing, but that it's an echo chamber. I tried my best to stop it there, i'm trying my best to stop it here now. I don't know, maybe it's just the nature of the internet.

*-Please note that I have the highest respect for Dean and the crew just as I did for the DeMauras at NH Insider. Neither of them are responsible for the content of their contributors in my opinion and should be applauded for expanding the dialog of political discourse in New Hampshire.

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 18:35:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Andy... (0.00 / 0)

I disagree that NH Insider is an echo chamber of the right as there are left wingers on there, they just don't write as much.  The owners have that site make concerted efforts to allow views from both sides to be presented there.

Could it be that the reason it has strayed more to the right is because the left as a majority (as seen in an example of this thread) are unwilling to debate and discuss with those who they disagree with?

---

by: lildog @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 18:48:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Mostly Disagree, Rick (0.00 / 0)

While it is true that the DeMauras tried to make NH Insider a multi-partisan website where Blue Hampshire is specifically geared towards the left, I don't think that's the case.

To paraphrase what I said to Susan, I don't think you can pigeonhole all individuals within any group of people as being identical in their attributes unless that attribute is a prerequisite for joining that group (e.g -- you can't be a Marine unless you get through boot camp, so all Marines know what boot camp is like.)

I think it's a troubling problem on both sides, and I see it more on the right than the left (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc.), but I readily admit I am biased and I do admit our side is not pure.

Drinking water isn't completely pure either, but there's a limit before it becomes toxic and that's what concerns me. I don't want to see our side become an echo of the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world from our side of the fence.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 19:04:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Susan... (0.00 / 0)

I guess like you, I see very few here who do not fall into the views I have about democrats and liberals.  However unlike you I am not about to paint with that broad a brush and assume everyone here falls into what I view in the majority.

Trust me, assuming I have the time I do not intend to be simply a hit and run poster here.  I've tried to response to questions and comments posted in response to my own comments when I see them.  I also try to stick to the topic.  What I'm seeing here is instead of sticking to the topic and answering questions I raise others such as yourself go off on tangents that have nothing to do with the topic on hand.  That says to me that your arguments are weak so you must turn to other arguments outside the topic at hand.

Personally I welcome opposing views to anything I write and I do debate and engage those who I disagree with.  I attempt to stick to facts and the topic on hand.  In an attempt to broaden my views I come here from time to time to at least try to understand what the other side is thinking even if I disagree with it.  When I question views and raise counter facts I get what you see in this thread... insults and response having nothing to do with the topic on hand.  You will not see the same from me I assure you.

---

by: lildog @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 18:42:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Devil's Advocate To The Devil's Advocate (0.00 / 0)

Ok....Deep Breath.

Rick, you can do what you like, but Susan tried to reach out to you partially, and you should give some small acceptance of that in your comment back. I'd ask you not to escalate things here, I know you're a better person than that.

And I think one thing we all need to understand is something I learned a few months ago after that hoohah about Elwood and anon accounts.

Someone who's an established user here sees an anon or pseudo-anon account saying something they disagree with during a politically sensitive period and begin not to see what they're saying but begin to see why they're saying it....

The whole "What" versus "How" dichotomy I've been talking about for the past week or two.

Someone who is coming onto the site wanting to have a discussion is wondering why the established users are so rude and defensive, and then engage that behavior with a counter-behavior that mirrors it which causes a spiral of conflict.

I remember back on Wikipedia that they tried to counter this by making it a rule that users must Assume Good Faith, but par for the course over there, They ignored their own rules.

This situation is not unique to say the least, but it's unfortunate and both sides in arguments like these should show initiative to combat this combativeness.

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 18:58:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Don't Get Why This Issue Keeps On Coming Up (0.00 / 0)

I don't entirely agree with either side, and I don't understand the rancor since the seatbelt bill is not that important.

Let's forget whether or not that seatbelts save lives or not. They can't hurt. However, it couldn't hurt the health of Americans to close down all the McDonald's or Burger Kings either. Heart Disease kills far more people than traffic accidents.

For that matter, let's go from mortal lives to the live thereafter. A common argument you will probably hear from the Evangelical Right against Gay Marriage is a one of compassion, that they're trying to save the souls of these homosexual people.

I don't understand why those on the right who don't understand that the souls of gay people who want to marry are not theirs to save, and I don't understand those on the left who don't understand that the lives of those people who don't want to wear their seatbelts are not theirs to save.

It's the exact same thing on different magnitudes and frames.

If you want to try to persuade or plead or ask people to wear their seatbelts, that's great. Like with Gay Marriage, it should be the choice and the right of the individual, not the right of the majority trying to impose their values onto the minority.  

---

by: Andrew Sylvia @ Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 14:30:48 PM UTC

Not that all of this name calling and gay marriage debate isn't scintillating.. (4.00 / 1)

But back to seatbelts....

They save lives. They are a good idea. We should all wear seatbelts. That said, at what point are we as liberals and democrats going to stop supporting every law that asks the government to think and make decisions for us?

I'd really appreciate it if the NH legislature could concentrate on protecting my civil liberties, fund education and take steps to make NH a better and more affordable place to live for young people. Instead they keep wasting valuable time with this kind of nonsense.

These kinds of laws always remind me a sociological therory that states (and yes, I am paraphrasing here) that increases in these types of "Nanny-State" laws correlates directly with how much the generation in charge trust the generation coming up behind them to cross the street by themselves.

If the adult citizens of this state can't be trusted to look out for own welfare then why are we allowed to walk around unsupervised?

Politics is a dirty game but if you don't play the bad guys win - Morgan Magnus Grey

---

by: Blue Granite @ Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 19:18:01 PM UTC