Get serious about it
The fundamental reason for the uninsured-vehicle law is to provide a financial avenue for the victim of an auto accident, and basic protection for the owner/driver. Another alternative to letters, citations, wasted tax money, etc., as revealed in Sunday's Democrat-Gazette is for the police to simply have the offending vehicle towed.
Why let it drive off as uninsured when others have insurance? Where is the protection for the public? Why not make an instant impression on a law-violating owner/driver dodging his/her legal obligation? A citation to a court can provide the offending person with the opportunity for a valid reason for a dismissal of the charge, if any.
Either we're serious about the violation or not.
This is a letter I sent Senators Tom Cotton and John Boozman on Sunday: Dear sir, your retirement is guaranteed by our hard work and payment of taxes on that work. Why can't you lead the way in the Senate to protect the retirement of us that are in multi-employer-funded pension funds. Don't we deserve the same protections you enjoy?
Please help some poor folks that worked hard all their lives and did the right thing. Even if you hate unions, you could protect those of us that are past working age. Please move on the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019.
Candidate Mike Bloomberg's ads have hit the airwaves. He is willing to spend up to a billion dollars to defeat President Trump. Last election he gave $100 million to Democratic candidates who were "good" on guns and climate. He recently bragged about helping to close over half the coal power plants in the United States. Apparently, poverty and all the social ills it brings with it are not much concern for this man worth approximately $60 billion. He has his, so what's the big deal about hurting the hundreds of thousands who work in the fossil-fuel industry? His religious urgency of turning back "climate change" calls for draconian measures which will leave millions behind.
As New York City mayor, Bloomberg did have a good policy in "stop and frisk," probably the only gun-control law that actually saved lives in the areas of a big city where most of the gun violence took place. The courts struck it down as racially biased. When Bloomberg started his campaign, he apologized for "stop and frisk," pandering to part of the Democratic base.
So I suspect Bloomberg is a divider rather than someone who will unite. When someone spends a billion dollars, that is not one citizen, one vote. Why would a Wall Street billionaire understand why half the country voted for Trump?
Would explain a lot
Is Tom Cotton on President Trump's short list for his 2020 running mate? Is that why he rides in Trump's back pocket?
On the wages of war
The Philip Martin and Samuel Moyn/Stephen Wertheim articles in the Sunday paper struck a chord. Martin's comment that, "While no war is genuinely noble to those required to fight it, some are necessary and right," was followed by his concluding statement, "It is proper and important that we consider and investigate exactly what we are fighting for and against, and who stands to benefit." The Department of Defense, i.e. the Military Industrial Complex, seems to be the primary beneficiary in today's world.
Moyn and Wertheim's summary of the United States' slide away from a claim of standing for peace and playing a global role as emissaries of peace following World War II is not to be found today. "The United States has undertaken more armed interventions since the end of the Cold War than during it." Regardless of which party was in control of Congress, commanders-in-chief have been allowed "to begin wars and continue them in perpetuity." This continues in spite of the majority of Americans' preference to lower rather than raise military spending, and a majority of veterans who deem the wars in the Middle East "not to have been worth fighting."
Will we ever again have a president who will act accordingly? Not likely in my lifetime.
Option even quicker
In response to the editorial titled "Drawing board," my wife and I were discussing some better options and together we would like to offer a suggestion.
What if the technology that set off the chain of events that ultimately stopped the wrong-way driver just popped up a spike strip permanently installed on the off-ramp and stopped the wrong-way driver before he/she ever got on the freeway? It could also trigger a sign at the top of the exit ramp to warn drivers that are exiting the freeway to be cautious. This would stop the problem in a matter of seconds as opposed to minutes.
Several years ago, we had a friend that was the victim of a wrong-way driver on New Year's Eve. The accident probably happened in three minutes or less after the inebriated driver entered the freeway. Every second counts when lives are at stake.
STEVE and CHERI WOOD
Editorial on 01/15/2020
Print Headline: Letters