Posts Tagged usa today
Bicyclists “Cop an Attitude”
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Uncategorized on August 9th, 2009
In the August 4th edition of USA Today, Sheriff James Alderden of Larimer County, Colorado, is quoted as saying that some bicyclists, “cop an attitude” when it comes to following traffic laws. I think that this is an example of anti-bicyclist discrimination. It’s common for cars to roll through stop signs at 10 mph. Yes, it’s illegal, and sometimes people even get ticketed for it, but nobody ever says that motorists are “copping an attitude” about following traffic laws when they do it. So why is it different when bicyclists do the same thing?
“There are tens of thousands of recreational cyclists in our county, and they all want to use the canyons at the same time, it seems like,” says Boulder County sherriff Joe Pelle. If tens of thousands of people want to use the roads for a legal recreational purpose, why is preference being given to motorists, who are greatly in the minority? Why are the cyclists seen as the problem?
“Occasionally,” says Pelle, “you meet a pack of jerks. They’re just being obstinate or activist about their right to ride in the road. They slow down traffic and then they flip (drivers) off.” In many states, bicyclists are treated legally the same as cars. So let’s flip that statement around: “Occasionally, you meet a pack of jerks. They’re just being obstinate or activist about their right to drive on the road. They whiz past bikes dangerously close and honk and throw things at cyclists.” Why are the cyclists being cast as the problem in this story and not the drivers, if both groups are supposed to have equal access to the road?
Socialist… Internet?
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Government and Law on July 28th, 2009
On June 8th, USA Today ran a story about Internet access in rural areas, titled Rural Americans long to be linked (digital version here). That story contains these quotes:
“Just because we live in rural America doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have broadband,” says Roper, a third-generation peanut farmer. “We’re all Americans. We shouldn’t be treated less than anyone else.”
I wonder if these people support or oppose government-sponsored health care. I wonder whether the same principle that motivates them to ask the government to subsidize their Internet connectivity would motivate them to ask the government to subsidize health care for other “Americans who shouldn’t be treated less than anyone else.”
Currently, about 57% of urban households and 60% of suburban households subscribe to broadband. In rural areas, only 38% do, according to a report by the Communications Workers of America.
“As a country, we’re basically punishing people for living where they want to live,” says Vince Jordan, CEO of Ridgeview Telephone, a small Colorado-based carrier that caters to rural customers.
But of course it’s not a “punishment”. As the article later states, it’s a simple matter of economics. Or, maybe it is a “punishment,” if you expand the definition of that word just a bit. But if it’s a “punishment” when broadband providers won’t connect you to DSL at a price you’re happy with, what is it when you can’t get medical treatment?
The article closes with this quote:
“Every time you put a bite of beef in your mouth or a cotton T-shirt on your back, it came from rural America,” Schooler says, her voice welling with pride. “We are one country. We feed you; you take care of us.”
Where is this, “We are one country” sentiment when the question of paying to keep people healthy and alive comes up? It’s legitimately confusing to me. When it comes to broadband, apparently the socialist/communist ethic is okay. When it comes to health-care, it’s anathema.
Your Own Personal Hoard
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Money and Marketing on July 3rd, 2009
Seen as an advertisement in USA Today:
Imagine finally getting something that will never lose its value. Sounds too good to be true? Well, it’s true and word is quickly spreading about the free handout of Armored Safes that are being stocked full of never-circulated U.S. Gov’t issued coins and currencythat by law will never be minted again.
Those who claim cash will “never lose its value” apparently don’t understand inflation. And make no mistake, cash is what they’re selling here. A bunch of rolls and stacks of uncirculated coins and bills. You can pretty much buy those at a bank. For face value.
These free Armored Safes are being turned over to the general public who make it in time to beat the order deadline for their share of the hoard of brilliant, never-circulated U.S. Gov’t coins and currency before the 72 hour shutoff. … This valuable Collection will never, never, never lose its face value. You will always have something worth a lot of money.
You know what’s worth even more money? The money that I have now, that I will not use to buy your crappy money and your “free” safe.
U.S. Gov’t Savings Bonds used to be a favorite way to keep money safe and popular to give as gifts. But no one can take a Savings Bond and go buy something with it. That’s why this hoard of valuable coins gives everyone the comfort of having full control of their money. No matter what, they will never lose their U.S. cash value.
See: inflation. You may not be able to spend a bond, but you can earn interest on it.
If times ever get really tough, any coin in the hoard could be used to buy anything. But unless it is a good reason, only a fool would do that because this personal hoard of money is already worth so much more in collector value.
Yeah, apparently worth more to me. When I pay far more than face value for these coins, bills, and a “free” safe. What a joke.
I remember the good old days, when you had to gather your personal hoard yourself. Now, apparently you can just buy it out of the paper.
-
What I'm Doing Now- Oops! No Twitter!
