“It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” —Samuel Adams
“[T]here are three kinds of people in this world: Sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. The sheep form the largest segment of our society. According to Grossman, these are the people who are living in a constant state of denial. They are generally incapable of doing violence to another person and largely unaware of the existence of evil in this world—the true evil which is, thankfully, confined to a minority of the population...[T]here are others among us who are fully aware of the existence of another class of persons we will call the ‘wolves.’ These people are sociopaths who prey upon the sheep and wish to do them evil...[T]he third class of people: the sheepdogs... unlike sheep, are fully prepared to kill other human beings. But, unlike the wolves, they do so in order to protect those whom they love—most of whom are unable to fend for themselves. Their willingness to kill is a function of their love for their fellow citizens...[T]he wolves are still out there and we do not know when they will attack. But they will. And, for most of you, the sheepdog is your best and only hope.” —Mike Adams
Monday, June 18, 2007
On the roads, there's room for everyone
On the roads, there's room for everyone
http://www.poststar.com/articles/2007/06/17/opinion/editorials/9e4e87893aee7a02852572fc0082db5c.txt
Our view: Following simple rules can make summer safe.
Published: Sunday, June 17, 2007
On a really nasty roller coaster, your body will experience a gravitational force of 4.9 Gs.
The pressure on space shuttle astronauts during a launch is about 3.4 Gs.
A race car driver taking the turns at Texas Motor Speedway can pull almost 5 Gs.
And when you smack your head on the ground falling off a bicycle or motorcycle, the force transmitted to your brain at that instant can be more than 1,000 Gs.
You don't want to be one who fell of that bike. And you don't want to be the one who made the rider hit the deck in the first place through careless, aggressive or drunken driving.
Summer is Wild West time when it comes to accidents. Folks are out on the roads walking, jogging, riding their bikes. Motorcycles and ATVs come out of the garage. People pile into cars for trips to the beach or the drive-in. We're drinking alcohol. We're staying up late. Teenage drivers are out of school and out on the roads with their friends. There are more of us sharing the same road space than at any time of the year, and we're all a little distracted.
Kids are particularly at risk from highway accidents in the summer. The National Transportation Safety Administration lists July, June, September and August, in that order, as the months when the most teenagers die in car crashes each year.
It's not a coincidence. And nearly one third of all bicyclists killed in traffic accidents are between 5 and 15 years old.
So as the end of the school year approaches and summer ramps up into full throttle, we need to remind ourselves about the dangers we all face, and the dangers we all pose to one another, when we're out on the road.
You always hear drivers say that a bicyclist might have the right of way, but in a one-on-one battle with a car, it's the bicyclist that's going to lose.
http://www.poststar.com/articles/2007/06/17/opinion/editorials/9e4e87893aee7a02852572fc0082db5c.txt
Our view: Following simple rules can make summer safe.
Published: Sunday, June 17, 2007
On a really nasty roller coaster, your body will experience a gravitational force of 4.9 Gs.
The pressure on space shuttle astronauts during a launch is about 3.4 Gs.
A race car driver taking the turns at Texas Motor Speedway can pull almost 5 Gs.
And when you smack your head on the ground falling off a bicycle or motorcycle, the force transmitted to your brain at that instant can be more than 1,000 Gs.
You don't want to be one who fell of that bike. And you don't want to be the one who made the rider hit the deck in the first place through careless, aggressive or drunken driving.
Summer is Wild West time when it comes to accidents. Folks are out on the roads walking, jogging, riding their bikes. Motorcycles and ATVs come out of the garage. People pile into cars for trips to the beach or the drive-in. We're drinking alcohol. We're staying up late. Teenage drivers are out of school and out on the roads with their friends. There are more of us sharing the same road space than at any time of the year, and we're all a little distracted.
Kids are particularly at risk from highway accidents in the summer. The National Transportation Safety Administration lists July, June, September and August, in that order, as the months when the most teenagers die in car crashes each year.
It's not a coincidence. And nearly one third of all bicyclists killed in traffic accidents are between 5 and 15 years old.
So as the end of the school year approaches and summer ramps up into full throttle, we need to remind ourselves about the dangers we all face, and the dangers we all pose to one another, when we're out on the road.
You always hear drivers say that a bicyclist might have the right of way, but in a one-on-one battle with a car, it's the bicyclist that's going to lose.
Monday, May 28, 2007
A Guest Article.
The Sage of Baltimore
by Charley Reese
The sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken, once observed,
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a
false-face for the urge to rule it."
We could even indulge that old habit of division by
saying that people are divided into two classes –
those who are willing to leave others alone to pursue
their own happiness, and those who have a burning itch
to tell others how they should do it and, if they
don't listen, force them to follow instructions.
I've seen this in my own life. Even under the
influence of spirits, I never imagined that disliking
the flavor of brussels sprouts could spark anger in
another person, but as it turned out, I married just
such a person. She had a great many virtues, but it
did upset her to find out that people had different
tastes and opinions about things.
She thought, bless her memory, that her firm statement
that brussels sprouts were good was a universal and
indisputable fact. It frustrated her greatly when I
insisted that it was merely a matter of opinion, and
in my opinion they were not good and that their flavor
resembled the smell of sewage.
My philosophy, no doubt a result of my Celtic genes,
is that I will do what I like and other people are
free to do what they like. Differences of opinion,
tastes, even ideology don't bother me. I'm even
reluctant to give advice when people ask for it.
In fact, since the traditional definitions of liberals
and conservatives have been made obsolete by modernity
and its muddy thinking, we can even redefine them. A
liberal is person with a burning itch to run other
people's lives; a conservative has no desire to do so.
Look at our current society. People who think smoking
is bad are not content to quit the habit themselves;
they wish to forcibly prevent others from smoking.
People who think eating trans fat is bad are not
content to avoid it themselves; they want to ban it.
People who think owning a gun is a bad thing want to
prevent others from owning guns. People who think
using certain drugs is bad want to prevent others from
using them. People who dislike the Confederate battle
flag wish to prevent those who like it from displaying
it. And so on and so forth.
In every case, prevention is translated into a denial
of choice, and what is freedom but the liberty of
making one's own choices? The more areas of our lives
in which we are denied the freedom to choose, the less
liberty there is. Totalitarianism is the denial of all
choices. We haven't gotten to that point yet, but we
seem to be steadily marching in that direction, led,
of course, by liberal reformers who wish to save us
from ourselves. That's why I say that
authoritarianism, not democracy, is the direction the
world is headed toward.
Truly, I've never understood the psychology of those
people who want to control the lives of other people.
Granted, parents have to provide some guidance to
their children, but even that, I think, should be
limited to survival skills and a basic moral code.
Children come into the world their own persons, and
parents have no right to force them into some kind of
mold. Whether a child likes sports or reading should
be left up to the child, for example. All of a child's
inclinations should be encouraged, and none
discouraged. Conditional love is, in my opinion, not
love at all. No child should have to earn his or her
parents' love.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn said once that America had lost
its civic courage, and that might be our core problem.
It takes a great deal of courage to live free and to
allow others to live free. Maybe I've answered my own
question. People's itch to control others might be
motivated by fear. That's at least worth thinking
about.
May 19, 2007
Charley Reese [send him mail] has been a journalist
for 49 years.
© 2007 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
by Charley Reese
The sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken, once observed,
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a
false-face for the urge to rule it."
We could even indulge that old habit of division by
saying that people are divided into two classes –
those who are willing to leave others alone to pursue
their own happiness, and those who have a burning itch
to tell others how they should do it and, if they
don't listen, force them to follow instructions.
I've seen this in my own life. Even under the
influence of spirits, I never imagined that disliking
the flavor of brussels sprouts could spark anger in
another person, but as it turned out, I married just
such a person. She had a great many virtues, but it
did upset her to find out that people had different
tastes and opinions about things.
She thought, bless her memory, that her firm statement
that brussels sprouts were good was a universal and
indisputable fact. It frustrated her greatly when I
insisted that it was merely a matter of opinion, and
in my opinion they were not good and that their flavor
resembled the smell of sewage.
My philosophy, no doubt a result of my Celtic genes,
is that I will do what I like and other people are
free to do what they like. Differences of opinion,
tastes, even ideology don't bother me. I'm even
reluctant to give advice when people ask for it.
In fact, since the traditional definitions of liberals
and conservatives have been made obsolete by modernity
and its muddy thinking, we can even redefine them. A
liberal is person with a burning itch to run other
people's lives; a conservative has no desire to do so.
Look at our current society. People who think smoking
is bad are not content to quit the habit themselves;
they wish to forcibly prevent others from smoking.
People who think eating trans fat is bad are not
content to avoid it themselves; they want to ban it.
People who think owning a gun is a bad thing want to
prevent others from owning guns. People who think
using certain drugs is bad want to prevent others from
using them. People who dislike the Confederate battle
flag wish to prevent those who like it from displaying
it. And so on and so forth.
In every case, prevention is translated into a denial
of choice, and what is freedom but the liberty of
making one's own choices? The more areas of our lives
in which we are denied the freedom to choose, the less
liberty there is. Totalitarianism is the denial of all
choices. We haven't gotten to that point yet, but we
seem to be steadily marching in that direction, led,
of course, by liberal reformers who wish to save us
from ourselves. That's why I say that
authoritarianism, not democracy, is the direction the
world is headed toward.
Truly, I've never understood the psychology of those
people who want to control the lives of other people.
Granted, parents have to provide some guidance to
their children, but even that, I think, should be
limited to survival skills and a basic moral code.
Children come into the world their own persons, and
parents have no right to force them into some kind of
mold. Whether a child likes sports or reading should
be left up to the child, for example. All of a child's
inclinations should be encouraged, and none
discouraged. Conditional love is, in my opinion, not
love at all. No child should have to earn his or her
parents' love.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn said once that America had lost
its civic courage, and that might be our core problem.
It takes a great deal of courage to live free and to
allow others to live free. Maybe I've answered my own
question. People's itch to control others might be
motivated by fear. That's at least worth thinking
about.
May 19, 2007
Charley Reese [send him mail] has been a journalist
for 49 years.
© 2007 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
Friday, May 18, 2007
The Patriot Post Founders' Quote Daily
The Patriot Post
Founders' Quote Daily
"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free
country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the
disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the
national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty,
an efficacious power over the militia in the same body ought,
as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext
to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can
command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call
for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can
the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of
force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged
to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary will be a
more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand
prohibitions upon paper."
-- Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 29, 10 January 1788)
Founders' Quote Daily
"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free
country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the
disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the
national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty,
an efficacious power over the militia in the same body ought,
as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext
to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can
command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call
for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can
the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of
force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged
to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary will be a
more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand
prohibitions upon paper."
-- Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 29, 10 January 1788)
MRF Opposition to HR 2093
MRF E-MAIL NEWS Motorcycle Riders Foundation
236 Massachusetts Ave. NE
Suite 510
Washington, DC 20002-4980
202-546-0983 (voice)
202-546-0986 (fax)
http://www.mrf.org (website)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jeff Hennie, MRF Vice-President of Government Relations
jeff@mrf.org (e-mail)
07NR06 - MRF Opposition to HR 2093
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation reports its opposition to HR 2093, a
grassroots lobbying reform bill introduced my Marty Meehan (D-MA). HR
2093 attempts to give more transparency to how grassroots lobby groups
legally conduct business. More transparency in our government is most
certainly a good thing. However HR 2093 tramples over many of the
constitutional freedoms that our country is founded on.
Like most things in Washington, the devil here is the definitions.
HR 2093 specifically targets "lobby firms" however what or better yet
who is defined as a lobby firm. The Meehan legislation would re define
"lobby firm" to any person or entity who on behalf of "client"
(which can be any other person or entity), "receives income of,
or spends or agrees to spend a total of $100,000.00 in a quarterly
period" to engage in paid communications to influence the
general public to lobby congress. Sound like anyone you know of?
So, a single paid individual who direst the spending of as little as
$100K, from any number of sources, on public-influencing activities
would become, by definition, a lobbying firm. Once established as a
firm the individual would be required to report to congress quarterly
detailing the public influence campaigns participated in over the past
three months. The price of not reporting would be hefty campaign finance
fines of up to $200,000.00 per occurrence.
H.R. 2093 would regulate private communications to and among
the general public, and would violate five First Amendment rights;
speech, press, association, petitioning and religion
The bills sponsor initially stated that the legislation would close a
"Jack Abramoff type loophole". After reading the text of the
legislation it becomes apparent that neither Jack Abramoff nor
the kick-backs to him under the scandal would have been disclosed
under H.R. 2093.
Meehan also claims that the bill is targeted at so-called 'Astroturf'
lobbying. But the fact remains that the legislation doesn't target, and
never even attempts to define, 'Astroturf.' Instead, it regulates
genuine citizen-supported policy communications.
Not only is H.R. 2093 unconstitutional, it will leave well heeled
lobbyists, lawyers and wealthy special interests laughing all the way to
the bank.
It also fosters the creation of sham or "straw-man" entities as fronts
for corporations and billionaires, yet manages to have many harmful
consequences for genuine citizen-supported grassroots causes.
The Senate passed similar reform legislation (S 1) earlier this year.
S1 had all of the grassroots reform language stripped out on the Senate
floor. 43 Senate democrats voted in favor of heavily regulating and
punishing grassroots lobby organizations. (110th Senate: roll call vote
17)
The MRF encourages you to contact your federal elected officials and
voice your opinion on this important issue.
236 Massachusetts Ave. NE
Suite 510
Washington, DC 20002-4980
202-546-0983 (voice)
202-546-0986 (fax)
http://www.mrf.org (website)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jeff Hennie, MRF Vice-President of Government Relations
jeff@mrf.org (e-mail)
07NR06 - MRF Opposition to HR 2093
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation reports its opposition to HR 2093, a
grassroots lobbying reform bill introduced my Marty Meehan (D-MA). HR
2093 attempts to give more transparency to how grassroots lobby groups
legally conduct business. More transparency in our government is most
certainly a good thing. However HR 2093 tramples over many of the
constitutional freedoms that our country is founded on.
Like most things in Washington, the devil here is the definitions.
HR 2093 specifically targets "lobby firms" however what or better yet
who is defined as a lobby firm. The Meehan legislation would re define
"lobby firm" to any person or entity who on behalf of "client"
(which can be any other person or entity), "receives income of,
or spends or agrees to spend a total of $100,000.00 in a quarterly
period" to engage in paid communications to influence the
general public to lobby congress. Sound like anyone you know of?
So, a single paid individual who direst the spending of as little as
$100K, from any number of sources, on public-influencing activities
would become, by definition, a lobbying firm. Once established as a
firm the individual would be required to report to congress quarterly
detailing the public influence campaigns participated in over the past
three months. The price of not reporting would be hefty campaign finance
fines of up to $200,000.00 per occurrence.
H.R. 2093 would regulate private communications to and among
the general public, and would violate five First Amendment rights;
speech, press, association, petitioning and religion
The bills sponsor initially stated that the legislation would close a
"Jack Abramoff type loophole". After reading the text of the
legislation it becomes apparent that neither Jack Abramoff nor
the kick-backs to him under the scandal would have been disclosed
under H.R. 2093.
Meehan also claims that the bill is targeted at so-called 'Astroturf'
lobbying. But the fact remains that the legislation doesn't target, and
never even attempts to define, 'Astroturf.' Instead, it regulates
genuine citizen-supported policy communications.
Not only is H.R. 2093 unconstitutional, it will leave well heeled
lobbyists, lawyers and wealthy special interests laughing all the way to
the bank.
It also fosters the creation of sham or "straw-man" entities as fronts
for corporations and billionaires, yet manages to have many harmful
consequences for genuine citizen-supported grassroots causes.
The Senate passed similar reform legislation (S 1) earlier this year.
S1 had all of the grassroots reform language stripped out on the Senate
floor. 43 Senate democrats voted in favor of heavily regulating and
punishing grassroots lobby organizations. (110th Senate: roll call vote
17)
The MRF encourages you to contact your federal elected officials and
voice your opinion on this important issue.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
MRF Opposition to HR 984
07NR04 – MRF Opposition to HR 984
MRF E-MAIL NEWS
Motorcycle Riders Foundation
236 Massachusetts Ave. NE
Suite 510
Washington, DC 20002-4980
202-546-0983 (voice)
202-546-0986 (fax)
http://www.mrf.org (website)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jeff Hennie, MRF Vice-President of Government Relations
jeff@mrf.org (e-mail)
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation announces opposition to H.R. 984
April 3, 2007
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation today announced its opposition to H.R.
984, a bill introduced into the 110th congress by United States
Representative Henry Waxman. Mr. Waxman’s bill is referred to as the
"Executive Branch Disclosure Act of 2007." This bill would require certain
federal executive branch officials to make a record of and file a report
to the Office of Government Ethics of any "significant contacts" between
the executive branch official and any private party relating to any
government action.
In announcing its opposition to the Waxman bill, MRF Vice President of
Government Relations Jeff Hennie had this to say, "Communication with
executive level officials is a cornerstone of our lobbying efforts. We
believe that having the government create a database of citizens of who
exercise this right will have a chilling effect on our ability to mobilize
our members and the motorcycling public to contact the Secretary of
Transportation for example, on issues that effect motorcycles."
The bill goes on to define a significant contact as "oral or written
communication (including electronic communication) that is made by a
private party to a covered branch official in which such private party
seeks to influence official action by any officer or employee of the
executive branch of the United States."
In section 602 of this bill it states that the Director of Government
Ethics shall make "a publicly available list of all private parties who
made a significant contact; and computerized systems designed to minimize
the burden of filing and maximize public access to reports filed under
this title." Thus our employer, local elected officials, or even a nosy
neighbor may have easy access to our views on issues and with which
executive level federal official we chose to communicate.
This legislation is increasingly being referred to irreverently as "H.R.
1984" in reference to 1984, George Orwell’s classic novel depicting a
horrific totalitarian state.
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation encourages our members, our Sustaining
State Motorcyclists’ Rights Organization partners and all concerned
Americans to contact your member of the United States House of
Representatives and express opposition to H.R. 984, the Executive Branch
Disclosure Act of 2007. Ride Free Forever
Michael Kerr
MRF Vice President
MRF E-MAIL NEWS
Motorcycle Riders Foundation
236 Massachusetts Ave. NE
Suite 510
Washington, DC 20002-4980
202-546-0983 (voice)
202-546-0986 (fax)
http://www.mrf.org (website)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jeff Hennie, MRF Vice-President of Government Relations
jeff@mrf.org (e-mail)
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation announces opposition to H.R. 984
April 3, 2007
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation today announced its opposition to H.R.
984, a bill introduced into the 110th congress by United States
Representative Henry Waxman. Mr. Waxman’s bill is referred to as the
"Executive Branch Disclosure Act of 2007." This bill would require certain
federal executive branch officials to make a record of and file a report
to the Office of Government Ethics of any "significant contacts" between
the executive branch official and any private party relating to any
government action.
In announcing its opposition to the Waxman bill, MRF Vice President of
Government Relations Jeff Hennie had this to say, "Communication with
executive level officials is a cornerstone of our lobbying efforts. We
believe that having the government create a database of citizens of who
exercise this right will have a chilling effect on our ability to mobilize
our members and the motorcycling public to contact the Secretary of
Transportation for example, on issues that effect motorcycles."
The bill goes on to define a significant contact as "oral or written
communication (including electronic communication) that is made by a
private party to a covered branch official in which such private party
seeks to influence official action by any officer or employee of the
executive branch of the United States."
In section 602 of this bill it states that the Director of Government
Ethics shall make "a publicly available list of all private parties who
made a significant contact; and computerized systems designed to minimize
the burden of filing and maximize public access to reports filed under
this title." Thus our employer, local elected officials, or even a nosy
neighbor may have easy access to our views on issues and with which
executive level federal official we chose to communicate.
This legislation is increasingly being referred to irreverently as "H.R.
1984" in reference to 1984, George Orwell’s classic novel depicting a
horrific totalitarian state.
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation encourages our members, our Sustaining
State Motorcyclists’ Rights Organization partners and all concerned
Americans to contact your member of the United States House of
Representatives and express opposition to H.R. 984, the Executive Branch
Disclosure Act of 2007. Ride Free Forever
Michael Kerr
MRF Vice President
Monday, April 23, 2007
Illinois Toll Road Fines.
The following is the opinion of a
NY Freedom Rider.
http://www.dot.state.il.us/press/r033005.html
While reading the press release from the Illinois DOT,
something struck me as odd when I came to and read these
statements.
“Next week is Work Zone Safety Week and the traditional beginning to highway construction season. We want to send a message to motorists now to slow down in work zones,” IDOT Secretary Timothy W. Martin said. “If you are caught speeding in a work zone, at minimum you will be looking at a fine of $375, at worst, you can kill yourself, a loved one or a worker.”
Under enhanced penalties passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Rod Blagojevich last year, first-time work zone speeders, including those caught on camera, will be hit with a fine of $375, with $125 of that sum going to pay off-duty State Troopers to provide added enforcement in construction or maintenance zones. Two-time offenders are subject to a $1,000 fine, including a $250 surcharge to hire Troopers, and the loss of their license for 90 days.
Starting in July, State Troopers will deploy specially equipped vans that can take photographs of drivers speeding in IDOT and Tollway construction and maintenance zones. Tickets will be issued by mail to vehicle owners.
In addition, drivers who hit a worker are subject for up to a $10,000 fine and 14 years in prison.”
Now, isn’t it odd that the fines for speeding in an Illinois
construction zone and “hitting a worker” are so much more
severe than hitting or killing a motorcyclist anywhere else?
Where is the equity, the equality, the justice?
Grey Wolf
a New York Freedom Rider.
NY Freedom Rider.
http://www.dot.state.il.us/press/r033005.html
While reading the press release from the Illinois DOT,
something struck me as odd when I came to and read these
statements.
“Next week is Work Zone Safety Week and the traditional beginning to highway construction season. We want to send a message to motorists now to slow down in work zones,” IDOT Secretary Timothy W. Martin said. “If you are caught speeding in a work zone, at minimum you will be looking at a fine of $375, at worst, you can kill yourself, a loved one or a worker.”
Under enhanced penalties passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Rod Blagojevich last year, first-time work zone speeders, including those caught on camera, will be hit with a fine of $375, with $125 of that sum going to pay off-duty State Troopers to provide added enforcement in construction or maintenance zones. Two-time offenders are subject to a $1,000 fine, including a $250 surcharge to hire Troopers, and the loss of their license for 90 days.
Starting in July, State Troopers will deploy specially equipped vans that can take photographs of drivers speeding in IDOT and Tollway construction and maintenance zones. Tickets will be issued by mail to vehicle owners.
In addition, drivers who hit a worker are subject for up to a $10,000 fine and 14 years in prison.”
Now, isn’t it odd that the fines for speeding in an Illinois
construction zone and “hitting a worker” are so much more
severe than hitting or killing a motorcyclist anywhere else?
Where is the equity, the equality, the justice?
Grey Wolf
a New York Freedom Rider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)