I got an email forwarded to me with the story of a driver who got caught up in a new law which I had never heard of.  SB 193 became law on September 1, 2003.  It requires drivers to either move over to the next lane or slow down to a speed that is 20MPH under the posted limit when an emergency vehicle is on the side of the road with lights activated.  On multilane roads I’d always moved over when possible just to avoid getting too close to the cop standing on the side of the road.  However, I can see this law causing some pileups when someone in a 70MPH zone slows down to 50 and gets rear-ended.

This made me curious as to what else the busy little beavers were up to in Austin when they weren’t throwing tantrums and running off to other states.  I found this page that lists all of the bills signed by the governor during the 78th legislative session (including all of the special sessions, which is why there are some duplicate bill numbers).  There were 1625 bills signed during the last session.  Let’s say that again: One thousand, six hundred and twenty five. 

How does a citizen have any hope of keeping up with all of these damn laws?  This seems to be the typical way that our legislature operates.  They pass a bunch of bills and we only find out about them when we get in trouble for violating the new laws.

I hereby propose a new amendment to the Texas constitution:

At the end of each legislative session a summary of all bills signed by the Governor as well as the full text of each will be distributed to each registered voter in the state by the Secretary of State.  No bill may become effective until at least 90 days after the Secretary of State has made notification as required by this provision.

Common sense could have told us about this result.

The O’Leary Report /Zogby International poll of Red States (those that voted for George W. Bush in 2000) and Blues (sic) States (those that supported Al Gore) reveals a nation deeply divided by party, ideology, the presidency of George W. Bush, and values.

For example, the answer to whether the 2000 election was “stolen” by George W. Bush depends on where you live.

When respondents were asked whether Bush was legitimately elected president, or whether the 2000 election was stolen, 62% of Red State voters said that Bush is the legitimate president, while 32% said the election was stolen away from the popular vote winner, Al Gore. In the Blue States, half (50%) of the respondents said that the election was legitimate while 44% think it was stolen.

Then there’s party identification.  Of interest is the large number of people in both “Americas” (Zogby’s phrasing) who identify as independent.  Both major parties should note this as an indicator of dissatisfaction with the choice between Socialism (Democrat Party) and Socialism-lite (Republican Party) amongst people like me.

Ideologically, the two Americas are quite distinct. Those who label themselves “progressive” constitute just 5 percent of voters in the Red States, but 11 percent of voters in the Blue States. Meanwhile, conservatives account for 39% of respondents in the Red States and just 29% of those in the Blue States.

Ideological differences are buttressed by considerable discrepancies in party identification. In the Red States, 38% call themselves Democrats while 39% are Republican. In the Blue States, Democrats dominate with 40% of the respondents while Republican identifiers total 31%. The number of independents is higher in the Blue States (29%) than in the Red States (22%).

On the gun issue, it’s easy to want to restrict something that you know nothing about.

There are significant differences in gun ownership. A majority (51%) of those living in the Red States say they own a gun, while 64% in the Blues States do not.

Again on the subject of guns, I came across a reference on Zogby’s site to this article by David Keene in The Hill, which cites the results of the above poll.

Gun issue could cost Democrats the White House again

Liberal Democrats in Congress are getting ready to force their party’s presidential nominee down the same road that led to the defeat of Al Gore and his running mate four years ago.

In the days following the 2000 election, a number of Democrats realized that their fixation on guns and gun owners had cost their candidates millions of votes that year. Even before leaving office, President Bill Clinton warned that the “gun issue” and the efforts of the National Rifle Association (NRA) had cost Gore five states that he might otherwise have won and, thus, the election. Labor leaders began urging the party to “get the gun issue off the table” after watching droves of their own members desert Democrats they were afraid would restrict their right to own firearms.

…

The irony is that as Democrats prepared for the 2000 elections, many of them believed in their bones that if they could get their candidates to focus on the gun issue and “go after” the NRA, they would win millions of new votes. In those days it was an article of liberal and Democratic faith that most Americans loathe guns and live in fear precisely because guns are legal in this country. It followed that their opposition to what they liked to describe as the “gun culture” would be applauded by an appreciative public and would help their candidates win.

Their inability to realize before the votes were counted that they were dead wrong stems from the fact that Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives, really do live in different worlds. Recent evidence of this comes in the form of data from a poll conducted by John Zogby for Southern Methodist University’s Tower Center and the O’Leary Report. The poll was unique in that Zogby broke down the results by looking at contrasting attitudes in the states that voted for George W. Bush and for Gore four years ago. The data showed on issue after issue that those who live in the so-called “red states” won by President Bush harbor far different beliefs and attitudes than those who live in the “blue states” carried by Gore.

Surprisingly, however, the data showed that while more people in the blue states favor new and tougher gun laws than those in the red states, most voters in both groups of states are far more supportive of the right to own firearms than the Democrats suspected. Indeed, only the sorts of urban and campus-based liberals who dominate the leadership of the Democratic Party were found to be as hostile to gun ownership as Gore and his running mate had been in 2000.

While the candidates are trying like crazy to distance themselves from the gun control platform that seems core to the Democrat Party, we’re still seeing the party being driven by the shrill, pointy-headed “urban and campus-based” set.  This is part of the reason that I almost never believe a Democrat who says he supports the right to own guns.  If the candidate says that he believes in hunting or makes a point to be seen shooting skeet or hunting ducks, then I give him extra demerits on my internal freedom scale.  As someone once said, “The Second Amendment ain’t about duck hunting.”  Of course, GW isn’t winning any points with his silly statements about supporting renewal of the “Assault Weapons” ban. 

It’s almost enough to make me stay home on election day, given the dearth of available candidates that seems likely.  And I’ve heard the arguments about how if I stay home the Democrats will win.  Well, if they do at least we have a pretty good idea where they stand on the issue.  A declared enemy is better than a “friend” who is an enemy in disguise.

If there’s one phrase that’s guaranteed to get steam coming out of my ears, it’s “undocumented immigrants”.  As if they merely forgot to stop at the office on the way into the country to pick up some papers.  What utter bullshit!  These people committed a crime by entering this country illegally and should be arrested and sent home.

I may rant and rave about all the stupid and unconstitutional laws that we have at the federal level, but controlling the borders is one of the few jobs that government legitimately has.  Now it appears that we’re going to abdicate that responsibility and ignore the law.  This doesn’t exactly send a good message about our seriousness concerning our borders (nor does it do much to enhance “homeland security”).

I really don’t have a problem if people want to come to this country to work, especially given that the majority of the Mexicans who come here take low-paying grunt work that Americans don’t want to do.  Our economy depends on them.  But that doesn’t mean that we should ignore our own laws concerning legal entry into the country.  If the law is getting in the way of people who want to work coming into the country, then we should change the law.  But granting “amnesty” to people who have violated the law is just inviting more lawbreaking.

Jeff at Caerdroia has been pondering his position in relation to the available political parties and doesn’t like what he sees.

I cannot find a political party that accomodates me. I am a libertarian, republican, liberal, federalist, free-market (not far away from laissez-faire), interventionalist, natural rights respecting American with no place to go. As Treebeard said, “I am not entirely on anybody’s side, because nobody is entirely on my side.” Yep, that about says it all.

I can understand where he’s coming from.  I, too, have no political home after having discarded the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party (in that order).

I particularly liked this line, as I think it neatly sums up my objections to the two major groups in American politics.

I want the Right to stay out of the front of my pants, and the Left to stay out of the back.

While at the Sam’s Club in Grapevine this Saturday I saw a sign in the book section about an upcoming book signing event.  What caught my eye was the name of the author.  It turns out that former President Jimmy Carter has written a novel, The Hornet’s Nest. 

Here’s a review (registration required) from the Dallas Morning News.

If I remember the sign correctly, the signing will be tomorrow evening at the Sam’s Club in Grapevine.

I came across this article by Walter Williams today on the craptacular federal “Click it or ticket” campaign.  If you want to see me unleash a cloud of profanity, you should be around when one of their asinine commercials comes on.  The city of Dallas has been touting its 90% compliance rate, yet at the same time it’s suffering from a rising crime rate.  Maybe they could put their resources to better use?  And perhaps the federal government could butt out and quit wasting my money for this ($4.2 million according to the Dallas Morning News article).

I’ll be the first to admit that wearing a seat belt is a good idea, but it’s not a matter for the government to decide for us (no matter how altruistic it may be).  Seat belts have saved my behind twice in the past.  But I’d prefer to have been treated as an adult and given the information, rather than forced to wear them at the point of the government’s gun (and I’m not exaggerating here, just ask that woman who was arrested for a seat belt violation).  Anyway, I know the standard argument: people who don’t wear seat belts cost us all money because we have to treat them.  Williams phrases the response to that better than I could.

Some might argue, but falsely so, that the problem with people exercising their liberty to drive without seatbelts, ride motorcycles without helmets or eat in unhealthy ways is that if they become injured or sick, society will be burdened with higher health-care costs. That’s not a problem of liberty but one of socialism. (emphasis added)

There’s no liberty-based argument for forcing one person to care for the needs of another. Under socialism, one is obliged to care for another. A parent-child relationship emerges between the citizen and the government. That was not the vision of our Founders.

Given next week’s election to consider the light rail tax boondoggle in Denton County, this article seems appropriate.

Well, all these statistics are interesting, but they are just dressing on an obvious point: Americans, more than perhaps any other nation, have been free to fully embrace the use of a device unparalleled as an articulate, efficient, safe, comfortable, versatile mode of travel—the automobile.

“Light rail,” or whatever the latest public transit nostrum, doesn’t get you to the parking lot of that interesting restaurant you’ve heard about in some little town. Nor does it get you back home. Nothing else gets you door to door like a car.

The introduction to the NHTS notes that the survey was conducted because (excuse the bureaucratese) “the process of improving the transportation infrastructure related to passenger travel requires an understanding of current passenger travel behavior patterns.”

Read my lips. “Current passenger travel behavior” in America centers on the car. Now, if only the politicians and planners would listen.

Indeed.  Texas is a car state and most people in Texas have no interest in taking an inconvenient train and losing their freedom of movement.  Let’s stop wasting our time and money chasing after a stupid idea that will never work. 

I plan to vote NO on the DCTA tax increase.

Link via Instapundit.

On Saturday, September 13, there will be a general election in Texas to consider twenty-two amendments to the state constitution (and cities in the Denton area will be considering a Denton County Transportation Authority tax increase).  For those who have not studied the Texas constitution, this might seem like a high number.  However, after reconstruction Texans were afraid to give too much power to government, so they created a constitution that severely limited what the legislature could do.  The downside to this is that a tremendous number of amendments have been necessary over the years (410 since 1876).  I guess the bright side is that the voters get a lot more say over things (although sometimes it seems too nitpicky).

This time the big issue is over Proposition 12 (PDF), which would limit “noneconomic” damages in liability suits (note that it’s being targeted at medical malpractice suits, but it would apply to all liability suits after 1/1/2005).

Proposition 12 would add sec. 66 to Art. 3 of the Texas Constitution, authorizing the Legislature to set limits on damages, except economic damages. It would apply to limitations on damages in medical liability cases enacted during the 2003 regular session of the 78th Legislature or in subsequent sessions. It also would apply to limitations on noneconomic damages in all other types of cases after January 1, 2005, subject to approval by a three-fifths vote of the members elected to each house. The amendment would define “economic damages” as compensatory damages for any pecuniary loss or damage. Such damages would not include any loss or damage, however characterized, for past, present, and future physical pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of companionship and society, disfigurement, or physical impairment.

The Legislature’s authority to limit noneconomic damages would apply regardless of whether the claim or cause of action arose or was derived from common law, a statute, or other law, including tort, contract, or any other liability theory or combination of theories.  The claim or cause of action would include a medical or health-care liability claim, as defined by the Legislature, based on a medical or health-care provider’s treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from an accepted standard of medical or health care or safety that caused or contributed to a person’s actual or claimed disease, injury, or death.

The ballot proposal reads: “The constitutional amendment concerning civil lawsuits against doctors and health care providers, and other actions, authorizing the legislature to determine limitations on non-economic damages.”

It should be noted that this is an enabling amendment to allow HB4 (passed during the 2003 legislative session) to stand.  HB4 caps noneconomic damages at $250,000 per claimant and $500,000 for all institutions involved in a liability case.  As written, HB4 is unconstitutional according to a previous ruling (Lucas v. U.S., 757 S.W.2d 687 (1988)) by the Texas Supreme Court.

I’m kind of torn on this issue.  I understand the problem of outrageous jury awards and the rising costs of malpractice insurance for doctors.  However, I think that doctors and hospitals need to be held accountable for their mistakes.  Consider the recent case where a doctor amputated the wrong leg or the one where a doctor removed a man’s penis when he didn’t have cancer (further, he didn’t tell him that he was going to do so).  These are both cases where the economic damages don’t do justice to the harm done to the patient.  It is my understanding that the original intent behind the civil legal system was to make the injured party “whole” again, but there are some injuries that just can’t be made whole.

I suppose the fundamental problem comes down to the fact that it’s nearly impossible to quantify a monetary value for the loss of a leg (or of the ability to have a sex life or children).  Juries are understandably sympathetic and tend to be moved by emotion, which allows them to justify huge pain and suffering awards.  However, I’m not convinced that limiting these awards is the right answer.  We need to somehow find a balance between the insultingly low amount proposed by Rep. Nixon and the outrageous verdicts that are sometimes returned by juries.  I don’t have any solutions to this, especially since it’s impossible to legislate common sense.  We do have a problem with suits that aren’t really malpractice (i.e. people who got sick or died through no fault of the doctor, but the family needs someone to blame; or perhaps they saw the potential for a financial windfall), but that won’t necessarily be solved by capping damages.  I think a return to a society that understands the concept of personal responsibility might help.  Unfortunately after years of indoctrination into the victim society, it might now be impossible to turn things around.

The other problem I’m having is the tone of the advertising concerning Proposition 12.  This morning I saw two television ads in a row, one for and one against the proposition.  The first ad advised to vote for Proposition 12 because the “sleazy” trial attorneys were driving up our costs and causing doctors to leave.  The second ad was sponsored by the trial attorneys and devoted its entire time to attacking Rep. Nixon, who sponsored the amendment.  While Nixon may indeed be a shady character, this kind of sleazy attack ad just pissed me off.  For a short time I was tempted to vote for Proposition 12 just to spite these bastards. 

I think, though, that I find this current bill far too slanted in favor of doctors and liability insurers.  My current thinking is that I will vote against it (even if that’s the same position that is taken by the “sleazy” trial lawyers; and it feels kind of dirty to be on their side).

Jeff at Alphecca asks an interesting question about people who are protesting the Ten Commandments in Georgia.

Do those who complain about this display also insist, when they are called to testify, that they do NOT “swear to tell the whole truth… …so help me God?” Do they refuse to handle American currency?

I’ve not weighed in on this issue, because I usually find religion to be quite tedious.  As an agnostic, though, I have an interest in seeing that all of our government functions are carried out without respect to any particular religion.  I generally don’t object to small displays of religion that don’t affect any particular court or government operation.  If a judge wants to display the Commandments, I’d consider that his business up until the point where he starts using them (or his other religious beliefs) to make rulings.  It’s the job of the judge to interpret the laws of man, not of a god that may or may not exist.

But I’ve strayed from the point.  To answer the first question, I’d be a hypocrite to swear to a god I don’t believe in (or to do so on a religious book).  I could not in good conscience swear that oath.  However, I could affirm that I would tell the truth, and it is my understanding that the courts allow for this (although you have to let them know that you won’t swear an oath).  In fact, even the oaths of office for the various offices in the United States include this option.  For example, consider Article II, Section 1.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

In fact, there are also religious groups that won’t swear an oath (like the Quakers, who are thought to be the reason for this particular wording in the Constitution).

As for the money issue, I tend to ignore it.  I’d prefer it wasn’t there, but it doesn’t seem to do any harm, since no one is required to buy into that particular phrase to use money.

During the last election an issue was added to the ballot for the creation of a Denton County Transportation Authority.  At the time, it was sold as simply being the creation of the authority and no new taxes would come from creating it.  I saw this for the bovine output that it was, and voted against it.  But I was in the minority and it passed.  On September 13th there will be another vote to approve a half-cent sales tax increase to pay for a light rail system between Denton and Carrollton.  This will push Denton’s sales tax rate to the state maximum of 8.25 percent.

The people pushing this boondoggle are operating under the delusion that this will somehow reduce traffic on I-35.  Mass transit is simply not an effective option in most parts of Texas.  This area is too geographically dispersed for it to make money.  Further, Texans (and I think most Americans in general) prize the independence that comes from having their own vehicles.  We go where we want when we want, rather than making ourselves subservient to the whims of the train or bus schedules.  I’ve always been wary of mass transit.  There’s a faint reek of socialism around it, which always puts me on guard.

What got me started on this topic is that the signs have started showing up around town trying to exhort people to vote for the tax.  There was also this article in this morning’s Denton Record-Chronicle.

Former Corinth Mayor Shirley Spellerberg said there’s a long list of reasons she can’t support the authority or an increase in sales taxes for any resident in the county.

“It’s not going to reduce congestion and pollution on the highways because of low ridership,” she said.

“People don’t use the HOV lanes that are there now,” she said. “If people were concerned about congestion, they’d be carpooling in the HOV lanes to get where they want to go. That’s not the way it works in Texas.”

She almost gets there, but she’s still somewhat under the influence of the “cars are evil” Kool-Aid.  If we really wanted to do something about congestion, we’d widen I-35 and get rid of that stupid HOV lane.  But she ultimately comes back around to a couple of salient points.

Opponents also said mass transit really only works in high-density metropolitan areas with centralized business districts.

“I wish they’d listen to the experts on how this hasn’t done what it was supposed to do in other areas,” Ms. Spellerberg said. “Surely someone has enough common sense to say that you don’t pour all the money down a rat hole.”

I’m hoping to be out of Denton soon, but I will be around long enough to vote against this boondoggle before I leave.  But I’m not holding out hope that it’ll be defeated.