Page 2 of 59
Posted on June 30 at 11:24 a.m.
On another note, people might do better to consider the turn signal as a *signal of INTENT*, and not, as it appears to be taken, as a *request to change lanes* (not including use for turns, of course--that is ALWAYS intent).
If a car slightly ahead of another signals, then the following driver should expect them to move over. And, if that driver moves to block, then they should expect some fender contact--or at least not be surprised when the other car continues to change lanes. [The exception to this is when drivers try to merge late, after speeding to the merge point, and then trying to cut in. Those people are pretty much just anal sphincters.]
On Stone Starts Driving
Posted on June 30 at 11:17 a.m.
"Yeah, for the people on your road bikes, share the road, it means exactly that. It’s not a one way street. (No pun intended). The rules of the road apply to all.
Stay as far to the right as possible when possible. Cyclists going down a narrow road side by side so they can chat while impeding traffic creates an unsafe road condition for all.
Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle. There is a bicycle law for California, but it would seem there are some unaware of it."
You are being contradictory in your statements--if bicyclists are "subject to all the provisions...", and "the rules of the road apply to all", then two cyclists riding side-by-side are not necessarily "impeding traffic", but are in fact traffic themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I understand what you desire out of the cyclists. And, I would even go so far as to question whether cyclist using a lane in such a manner necessitate the "Slow Vehicle" sign, but I digress....
In the area of courtesy, I agree that bicyclists should, as they say, 'share the road', as they expect it to be shared. However, because of the power difference between a car and a bicycle, I think that the auto-motorists may just have to suck it up sometimes, and simply wait to safely pass.
Posted on June 24 at 12:17 p.m.
Ah, Capitalism....'nuff said.
Aside from that, iIs the blonde in Wally's picture inspired by Jill?
On Building Manager, Cops Shut Down Mural Event
Posted on June 13 at 11:11 a.m.
Dogs are animals, and follow their instincts.
I saw the picture of Daisy and Duke on the Edhat site, and one looks like a basic terrier mix, and the other looks to be the same or possibly have some whippet/italian greyhound genes. Terriers tend towards having a "prey drive" and whippets and greyhounds (even the little, italian ones) are sight-hounds, which chase prey, literally, when seen.
Realistically, the dogs will die because they *do* what they *are*. The "criminal" issue here is that the dogs shouldn't have been off-leash, outside of their yard. And, while I realize that the dogs apparently escape their confines, this is not a criminal case. If anything, the owners should be sued by the cat owners, in civil court.
On Daisy and Duke at Risk
Posted on June 13 at 10:51 a.m.
If you find a YUT near a pile of poop, make sure to rub his/her nose in it, followed by a stern, "NO!".
On Curbing Young Urban Travelers
Posted on May 28 at 11:13 a.m.
Regarding, "Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island has introduced a bill to prohibit the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns or handgun ammunition; the only exception would be for law enforcement, military guards, or antique collectors and regulated handgun clubs."
I think that the term "handgun" differentiates "hand"-guns from rifles. In such a case, "possession" would still be allowed for "firearms", as provided by in the Constitution.
[Note, however, the 2nd Amendment stipulates the "right to bear arms" ("bear" = possession), but it does NOT actually allow for manufacture. I think any trading ("transfer, receipt,..., or transportation") is necessary to allowing possession, but allowance does not necessarily extend to (mass) mass production. I would assume that, like liquor, if you make a gun for yourself, you get a pass on that....]
On Why Does the I.V. Tragedy Surprise Us?
Posted on May 28 at 10:31 a.m.
@Lynne Gibbs (author of the letter)
I agree, that the "mental health system" is a broken machine--I think purposely broken, but that an old argument which I will avoid.
To your point(s), I think that it's a confusing thing, that you state that law enforcement should not be "the gatekeepers for mental health", and yet seem to be against simply being reactive in our societal response to events such as the shooting ("tragedy before treatment"). I mean, I get that you are separating the responsibilities of the police with those of the "mental health system" (which I continue to double-quote, because there really is no such thing--psychiatrists are not Brain-cops, but doctors...persons who seek to aid those with psychiatric issues, but they do not enforce any laws--and on that, there are no "psychological laws" either.
Overall, our (American) society tends to be more REACTIVE rather than PROACTIVE, because that is part of how we are afforded our liberties ("Innocent, until proven guilty"). However, that does leave the door open for just these sort of tragedies.
Y have taken the side of Elliot Rodgers, in that "the current systems failed him and his family throughout his life". I also read the kid's autobiography-manifesto, and I took away from it that he would seek help, yet at the same time always deny that there was anything they could do to help him--and once even simply invalidated the medicine prescribe to him, because he researched the drug on the internet and decided that it wouldn't work for him. Elliot Rodgers failed himself.
Lastly, I think that your letter is more of a collection of a few talking points, written simply to support the introduction of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2013 (HR 3717). Yet, there is no description of what the act entails, only the assertion that, "Supporting this bill will help avert future tragedies such as this."
[I decided to look into the cons of the act. Anyone reading this that is interested: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives...
On Demand Mental Health System Changes
Posted on May 28 at 10:04 a.m.
"You and your wife imply that the solution is to create a panel of free speech judges that would decide what speech is acceptable (including artistic expressions of violence?) and what activities (skydiving?) are allowed."
You overreached on that one--apparent in your use of the word "imply". Bernard Sandler and his wife *implied" nothing. The letter listed some possible causes of an event like the shooting, and offered but a single suggestion: "If we are to move in the direction of progress as a culture and society, we must stop paying tribute to violence and praising only beauty.”
The difference is, that Mr. and Mrs. Sandler decried the glorification of certain actions, whereas you read into their letter that they were for stopping the supposed causes outright.
Posted on May 2 at 11:37 a.m.
Taken one way, this could be a case of "Two wrongs don't make a right". However, the difference in The Independent and La Opinion, is that the former is meant to be inclusive of all things and people of Santa Barbara, whereas the latter is directed towards a particular racial/social group.
This is similar to complaining about the lack of white people on Black Entertainment Television (BET), which is also more narrowly focused--although, I doubt that the producers, actors, and behind the scenes workers actually think that way.
I would hazard to say that these types of media are intended to reach groups that are left out of the "norm", when the norm equals "white". And, while that makes a logical sense while the white-norm isn't all-inclusive, the rub is that it not only reinforces the status quo, it also demonizes any attempt to create a strictly "for whites" counterpart. [Honestly though, I can't really think of anything that is specifically "for whites", except possibly bigotry towards non-whites!...Then again, there is an industry for tanning....]
On Diversity Scarcity
Posted on April 28 at 1:44 p.m.
"However I cannot on principle believe that sacrificing individual liberty for the 'greater good' is the best position, even when that liberty pertains to recreational activities. Punishing somebody who is on average a better driver than everybody else on the road simply for a BAC reading causes too much cognitive dissonance for my brain to handle."
Remember what you were taught: Driving is a *privilege*, not a right. When it comes to DUI laws, the state can be as draconian as it wishes.
Also, I don't consider "public safety" to be the same as "the greater good", although I know you're simply using it to convey the idea of a sort of plurality.
On Freeway Closed at Castillo Due to Triple-Fatality DUI Crash