( - promoted by JDRyan)
I had a feeling when I said I was leaving for an indefinite time, that it'd be either a very long time or a very short one. So while I am back, don't get too used to me, as you won't be seeing me around very much - at least for the time being. As I said when I'd left, the attacks on me personally from those who haven't approved of what I've written (SVR being the most recent and high-profile, but hardly the only such case) have impacted my life in various ways - but things can change quickly. As such, here I am, but I don't intend to return to Front Page status or be a very frequent contributor for a while. Personal matters still need to settle down, but it's good to feel that I don't have to stay away completely to protect myself and my family. Thanks to everyone for your kind words and wishes (many of you I saw last Saturday in Burlington, and I should have thanked you there and then, but I think I was subconsciously pretending that everything was hunkey-dorey... either that or I was just being a jerk... sorry). Thus endeth a few really crappy weeks (I hope)
But I just had to come back today. I couldn't stay quiet when I heard the news. No, not Town Meeting...or Scooter Libby... I mean the bad news. The news that Captain America is dead.
Yeah, okay, so I'm enough of a geek that I've blogged about Cap before. But consider the storyline in Captain America comics; a superhero-symbol of America not simply dead, but gunned down leaving the courthouse where he was on trial for his refusal to comply with a draconian law that completely deprived an entire class of Americans of their civil rights in the interest of law enforcement and national security.
Now I'm not going to belabor the metaphor's obvious relevance except to make the point that sometimes things that we roll our eyes at or don't take seriously can contain real content that should be openly talked about rather than casually dismissed.
Case in point, but in a negative way: Rep. Tom Koch's (R-Barre Town) proposed legislation that would mandate a $600 fine for virtually any "distraction" while driving - not simply cell phones, but coffee, or dealing with pets, children, or presumably scratching oneself in hard-to-reach places.
The reaction to this bill has generally been to mockingly dismiss it, the exception being Charity who implied that such a proposal was atypical of a Republican and more consistent with Democrats. I think both perspectives are fallacies (details below the fold)... |
| The AP described the bill this way:
Vermont lawmakers are considering a measure that would ban eating, drinking, smoking, reading, writing, personal grooming, playing an instrument, ''interacting with pets or cargo,'' talking on a cell phone or using any other personal communication device while driving. The punishment: a fine of up to $600.
Similar bills are under consideration in Maryland and Texas, and Connecticut has passed one that generically bans any activity that could interfere with the safe operation of a motor vehicle.
Now consider what the actual effect of this bill would be if implemented. A police officer would have the authority to pull virtually anybody over for anything, with the excuse that they were trying too hard to find a station on the radio or adjusting their rear view too vigorously. Nobody's really looked at in in this light because we're all to busy chuckling at how goofy the bill is.
Well I aint laughing.
here's some of the text of the bill:
(a) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle while distracted, as defined by this section.
(b) "Distracted driving" means operating a motor vehicle while engaged in any activity involving the use of one or both of the driver's hands if the activity is not necessary for the operation of the vehicle or any of its installed accessories, including reading, writing, performing personal grooming, smoking, consuming any food or nonalcoholic beverage, playing a musical instrument, interacting with pets or unsecured cargo, using personal communications technologies, except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, or engaging in any other activity which causes the operator to be distracted from the primary mission of driving.
The bill then leaves it up to the Douglas administration to define the specifics.
The truth is that the draconian increase in police powers this bill would be a nice and easy fit with the dramatic increase in authoritarian government we've seen under the Bush administration at the national level. In fact it slides so easily into that narrative, we hardly even notice - nor did we notice the fact that it's only one of many such bills being introduced around the country. It's the political zeitgeist, making something this small and local in scale hardly worth mentioning. Just a footnote in the long list of institutional power grabs. Really, is anybody even keeping track any more?
And that's what concerns me the most - the context.
I'm not suggesting anything conspiratorial-minded. Nor am I suggesting that Koch has a secret agenda beyond what he's stated publicly. That's not the point.
The point is, that this bill is not simply a goofy anomoly. In this era of domestic spying, loss of habeus corpus, secret prisons and secret tribunals, it's right at home. And the bill is not something we would sooner expect from Democrats, as it is a clean, easy local companion piece to the Bush Republican agenda for all of us. What we should be is shocked that Democrats, Progressives and Independents have signed onto it.
Between this proposal and Barre City Mayor Lauzon's call for the death penalty for drug dealers, we are seeing the Bush wing of the GOP unleashed at the Vermont level - to the chagrin of not only Democrats and Independents, but Libertarian minded Republicans as well.
And the last thing we should be doing is rolling our eyes, blowing it all off and moving on. We should be reminding folks every chance we get. Remind them that this Bush breed of Republican is alive and well in our back yard and shamelessly firing more bullets into Captain America's heart. |
