Here We Go Again

Christmas Eve, 2015.

We were headed to K's family's Chris activities, kids in the car.  Stopped at a red light, we waited to turn right along with a single car in front of us.  The turn could wait.  We heard the slightest of screeches, tires squealing on the road, and then felt it.  Yep, for the second time in this calendar year, I was rear-ended.  Fortunately, people have told us, nobody was hurt.  "Fortunately?"  If we were "fortunate," we wouldn't have been rear-ended!

Yes, I think the lady was on her cell phone.  It was dark and I wasn't looking in my rear-view mirror, but she got out of her car almost instantly after the crash, as soon as I did--and she was holding a cell phone in her hand.  I find it hard to believe that, after ramming us, she had the time or the presence of mind to grab her cell phone before getting out so quickly.

Her first reaction was to yell, "I didn't hit you!  I didn't hit you!"  Looking at my car (actually I was driving K's) and her car, smashed halfway to the windshield, I merely replied, "Well, I think you did."  "No, I didn't!  My brakes didn't work."  Hmmm, then what was that screeching sound we heard and, more, why is it apparent that your front end dipped just before the crash?

But talking on the phone and blurting this nonsense was just the beginning.  This happened in Detroit and I really doubted any police would come, although I had K call 911.  They likely are far too busy with other matters, like the almost daily murders, multiple murders, in the city.  (Just two days before there was a fatal shooting just a couple of blocks from where we were, merely a mile and a half or two miles from where I grew up.)   But a squad car did show up, thanks to very fortunate circumstances ("fortunate?").  One of the officers asked me, "Who was driving the other car, the one that hit you?"  I pointed to the lady and said, "She was."  He chuckled, saying, "She said she wasn't."  Her story was that "some guy" was driving and after he hit us, he opened the door and ran away, but she "didn't know who he was."  She changed her tune when she was told lying to a police officer was going to get her arrested, but driving with a suspended driver's license and without insurance wouldn't get her taken in.  Yep, she had no insurance and was driving on a suspended license.

Yep, we were "fortunate."

On the drive home, there was another squad car, flashers flashing, at the same corner and yet another about a half mile down the road.

OK, the accident irks me, esp all the hassle of getting the car repaired.  That will be a pain in the neck, time-wise, inconvenience, and all.  But what really upsets me is this stupid state.  I can't go out to dinner and have two beers over the course of two hours or more without fear of being pulled over, facing a possible loss or restriction of my driver's license, thousands of dollars (or more) in fines, court costs and lawyer fees, periodic urine tests (out of the way), and more, yet there are no such penalties for these idiots who are talking, texting, or whatever it is that people do on their cell phones while driving.  Yes, I mean "idiots."  They rammed me twice by not paying attention, one time totaling my car and the other endangering my wife and grandkids, all three of them.  Maybe there should be a Mothers/Students Against Cell Phone Drivers.  I'm not in favor of drunk driving, not at all.  My brother-in-law was killed in an alcohol-related accident.  But having two beers in two hours shouldn't at all force me to face the above potential penalties.  And, driving while using a cell phone is demonstrably far more dangerous than not.

Now, apparently, I'm due for another couple of months of checking my rear-view mirror every time I stop at a red light or stop sign......

On to another thing that has me upset.  The Michigan State Legislature passed a two-pronged law last week.  I agree with one of it, or at least don't oppose it.  It gets rid of straight-ticket voting, that is, having the ability to vote for all candidates of one party by merely pulling one switch in the voting booth.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  So voting is a bit more difficult or time-consuming?  So city or county clerks' jobs are a bit tougher?  Maybe democracy shouldn't be easy?  The second part is more problematic.  It prohibits local gov't officials, including school districts, from disseminating information about an election for 60 days before that election.  Why?  Will the incumbents running for office (that is, these same state legislators!) also refrain from campaigning during those last two months?  Heh Heh......  But even more, was the sneakiness of the Republicans in passing this.  Twice in the recent past, Michigan voters have rejected proposals similar to these, rejected them soundly.  It's not just the Democrats who are arrogantly elitist, knowing what's best for us, better than we do ourselves.  Even more, the Republicans attached a small financial package to the bill, now a law when the Republican governor inevitably signs it (He's very sneaky, too, one not to be trusted.), to prevent voters from overturning the law.  Two things need to happen.  One, voters need to amend the state constitution to get rid of such a provision making it almost impossible to overturn such legislation.  Two, voters need to shake themselves and begin voting for candidates who are not Establishment Republicans or Democrats.

Therein lies, I think, the major attraction of Don Trump.  People have awakened to the fact that, in essence, the Democrats and Republicans have become one.  There are no major differences.  Their main goal, both parties, is to go along to get along to get re-elected.  Look, for instance, at Paul Ryan, the current Speaker of the House, who once held such promise.  He's sold out.  And note how the Establishment Republican apologists in the media--columnists and radio hosts--have jumped in to defend the most recent sell-out called the omnibus budget bill.  C'mon, the bill rises to the tune of $1.1 trillion!!!!!!  Under my gov't, as if that's ever going to happen, anyone who votes for an incumbent Dem or Rep would have to justify his or her right to vote.  OK, I'm not serious, but before jumping on me about abrogating natural rights, consider we can, under strident circumstances, limit or deny other rights--of speech, of religion, etc.

Perhaps the worst thing about all of this is the sense of frustration, that it seems nothing can be done to stop or even slow down the behemoth called "government."