Cars Have Bumpers; Bikers Have Bones...Share the Road

"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, 'Wow! What a Ride! " 

 -Hunter S. Thompson

      Ahh....Memorial Day weekend. Visions of barbecues and backyard pools fill the minds of some, but for my husband and I, it represents a weekend away from kids for some adult fun.  Every year we attend Hog Wild Rodeo, which is a motorcycle rally put on by the Circle of Pride M.C. here in SE Iowa. It's a great time...bands, vendors, drag races, camping, and well, a whole lot of drinking. Even with colors represented, it's a fairly safe environment; however, leaving the grounds on a bike is another story, and one that might not have a happy ending.

     May is Motorcycle Awareness month, and Memorial Day weekend is one of the deadliest in terms of highway accidents. Every year, hundreds of Americans die from alcohol-related crashes; more so than on any other holiday of the year. According to a report released on Tuesday, May 22, by the  U.S. Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), motorcycle fatality rates have remained about the same from 2010 to 2011, with about 4500 deaths, but rates have been slowly increasing over the last few years.  In 2010, 29% of fatally injured motorcycle riders had a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit of .08 (NHTSA, 2011a). With gas prices rising, more people are opting to ride, and unfortunately, not all of them know what they are doing. Compound that with the fact that you have other drivers in cars and trucks that don't seem to know how to share the road, and you can see that we have a large problem on our hands. In all, motorcycle accident deaths accounted for 14% of all traffic deaths in 2010.

  

     Obviously, these are not statistics that we want to see. Only one out of five riders who are in an accident come out of it with simple bumps and bruises. Those who wear protective equipment, such as leathers and helmets, can fare better, but helmets are not always a great option and can sometimes cause more harm than good. Seven states have repealed their helmet laws since 1997, and no state has enacted a universal helmet law since Louisiana in 2004. A total of 19 states have universal helmet laws, but there are also states, like my own (Iowa) who have no helmet laws at all. While helmets can and do save lives, they can also impair vision and hearing, which may lead to accidents as well. Age and training also factor in:  Motorcycle riders aged below 40 are 36 times more likely to be killed than other vehicle operators of the same age. The group ABATE (A Brotherhood Aimed Towards Education) are committed to promoting safe operation, improving licensing , and better rider training, as well as making other motorists aware of bikers. They feel, (as do I), that education is key in saving lives, not passing legislation that encroaches upon our civil liberties, such as mandatory helmet laws.

     Knowing how to ride safely is only a step in the process, however. The most important thing is to be aware of other drivers. Unfortunately, those in cars or trucks (or "cagers") don't always reciprocate. According to several reports in 2010, two-thirds of all accidents involving motorcycles and other motor vehicles were the direct result of that motorist turning into a biker's lane and violating the motorcyclist's right of way. It has been suggested that bikers are 27 times more likely to die in an accident that involves a motor vehicle than the passengers in that vehicle. Those are some pretty scary numbers. Distracted driving also accounts for a lot of accidents; many times a motorist will be eating, drinking, texting, or fiddling with the radio when they collide with a motorcycle. Iowa has passed a "no texting" law that will hopefully cut down on some of the distraction, but I'm not holding my breath. I still see drivers doing it all the time, especially younger ones.

     So, how can we save lives? That is the key question. For bikers, the number one rule of safe riding should be to park it when you've had too much to drink. (even at the rally; road rash from sand hurts, too.) Education is also key, and new riders should have to go through a safety course before getting out on the road, as a lot of new bikers are self taught.  If you can avoid it, when you're in the city, never enter an intersection without another vehicle on your right side...this cuts down the danger of some idiot turning left into your lane. Make sure that your bike is maintained well. Wear your leathers. Know how to ride in a group. Don't act like a moron...that's a given. And definitely be aware of other drivers on the road, because they may not be as aware of you. Don't assume that they see you; they probably don't.

     For drivers, much of the same applies. Don't drive drunk. Don't hog the road. Pay attention to what you're doing, and be aware of bikers on the road. Look twice before turning. Don't be an idiot. Put your cell phone down and pay attention to what you're doing. Remember, above all, that you are bigger than that bike and you will cause more damage...so take steps to make sure that doesn't happen, even if it's inconvenient. You can eat that candy bar when you get to work.

     We are anticipating a fantastic time this weekend, and it's one that we look forward to every year. My biggest wish, however, is that my Hog Wild family; and others that come from hundreds of miles away, make it home from the weekend safe and sound. Pay attention, park it when you're trashed, and watch out for other vehicles. I'd rather see my fellow bikers have a hangover than a head injury. 

"Four wheels move the body; two wheels move the soul"

-Anonymous 

   Have a safe and happy weekend! 

-Angie

  

  

Sources:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2010 data.

  

http://www.lawcore.com/motorcycle-accident/common-causes-of-motorcycle-accidents.htm

http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/pdf/spotlights/spotlight_motorcycles12.5.pdf

 http://www.abateiowa.org/

http://circleofpridemc.com/   

(warning: adult content)

    

     

     

Marry your Sweetheart, Not Your State

  

 "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
Thomas Jefferson

  
      Those who know me well are very aware of my position on gay marriage: I find absolutely nothing wrong with it. However, my decision is a secular one: if you take religion and government out of the marriage business, there shouldn't be any debate. The problem is that people also don't seem to realize that it is a Constitutional argument as well.
  
      For most of history, marriage has been a private contract between two people or a contract between families, usually for economic purposes. In ancient Rome, marriages were civil agreements between people that didn't require any kind of religious stamp of approval or one from the government. When laws compelling marriage were enacted, marriage rates actually declined, as well as birth rates. In these times, partners had a good deal of equality in marriage. Homosexuality was not frowned upon, but venerated in the arts and the theater. Men or women would engage in homosexual behavior before marriage, and then would make a choice to either continue with the same sex partner or enter into a civil contract for inheritance or to have children.

      It wasn't until the rise of Christianity that the power structure changed dramatically. According to the Bible, the main reason for marriage, rather than a civil contract, was for procreation and the perpetuation of the family name. However, the "bride price" (later called the dowry) was still used, so it can be argued that these marriages were also advantageous economically and socially. As marriage continued to come under the jurisdiction of the church, the laws changed drastically. At this point, marriage was still recognized as the free consent of two people (as per Roman law). In early Christianity, the church was not involved in private marriages...it wasn't until the 12th century that people actually starting getting married within the chapel. Keep in mind, though, that marriage was still viewed as an economic and civil contract, even though the church continued to become more and more involved.

      As the church gained more power in the following centuries, they continued to impose more and more restrictions upon what constituted a legal marriage. Divorce was abolished and regulations were imposed. Marriages were advantageous to the Church; it was taught that living together was a sin, and that only through marriage could one expect to enter Heaven....and church officials were paid handsomely to perform marriage ceremonies. The Catholics held a monopoly on salvation; they had a large foothold in Europe, and maintained that marriage could only be ended by death, though exemptions could be made for a generous fee. The Church was also able to impose fines for violations of doctrine, such as consanguinity or a marriage deemed "invalid" if the proper fees weren't paid.  At this time, church and state were still deeply intertwined. "Sodomy laws" were not enacted until the 16th century, when Henry VIII withdrew from the Catholic church.

     Early influence on American marriages came from the Puritans, who declared that "marriage is no sacrament" and even passed an Act of Parliament to that end in the 17th century. Church laws became obsolete and marriage was considered a secular act. "Common law" marriages became recognized in the Americas, and some states still recognize partnerships as such. 

     Later marriage laws in America were largely based upon racist notions. In the early 18th century, laws were passed in the colonies forbidding mixed race marriages, or marriages between slave and master. Our Founding Fathers, even though they also kept the same ideas of "traditional marriage", still made it clear that it should reflect the ideas of liberty and choice. The idea was to bring about freedom from arranged or forced marriages.

   The government became more involved in marriage in the 1920's ,primarily for economic reasons. An Oregon Supreme Court case involving miscegenation laws ( In re Paquet's Estate) opened the door for the government to begin suing estates for inheritance taxes. Ultimately, government involvement in marriage in the U.S. came about as a way of enriching the coffers of the Federal government, which was not something that was envisioned under the Constitution. Today's laws are instituted as a way of redistributing monies and for taxation purposes...it has nothing to do with the government protecting "the sanctity of marriage." 

    So, we have explored church involvement and its purpose (money) and government involvement and its purpose (money). Now it is time to explore the Constitutional part of the argument: The 14th Amendment.

     As marriage was intended to be a civil matter, and indeed was strictly so until the church became involved, one can argue that under a secular government (as asserted under the 1st Amendment), marriage should simply be a personal decision to share life with another person.  Furthermore, the 14th Amendment prohibits states and government from denying any person equal protection under the law. While it does not specifically deal with marriage, the 14th Amendment most certainly deals with civil liberties. As a citizen of the U.S., people are guaranteed freedom from infringement upon life, liberty, and property without due process and are afforded equal protection. 

     In  Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ..." While this particular case dealt with interracial marriage, the premise is the same. The definition of "civil liberty" includes the right to marry, and if same- sex marriage falls under a secular realm, it is a violation of the civil rights of homosexuals to prohibit them from marrying the person of their choosing. Rather, laws that have been passed that disallow same sex- marriage can be argued to be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause.

     Here is the crux: If marriage is a civil matter, it would not be constitutional to allow heterosexual couples to marry but disallow marriage for same-sex couples. Love cannot be mandated by the government or the church.  Marriage does not have to be treated as anything under the law than what it is: an exercise of the right to be able to choose the person that you want to spend your life with. 

      The concept of self-government is one that is very important in this argument. Jefferson expressed that in order to self-govern, "one must be free from authority in all its guises." In this is the Libertarian notion of being free to live as one sees fit as long as you aren't infringing upon the rights of others.

     While everyone should be afforded equal protection, the government should not be involved in determining the legality of a freely chosen partnership. Rather, the focus should be upon upholding the civil liberties of each individual, regardless of sexual orientation, race, creed, or gender. 

"Toleration and liberty are the foundations of a great republic."

-Frank Lloyd Wright

Beating the War Drums in the House

"Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerer of death's construction "  

Black Sabbath, War Pigs

     

      Yesterday, the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2013. While the neo-con controlled House rejected the Smith and Amash Amendment, effectively endorsing indefinite detention of American citizens under the 2012 NDAA, they were also passing a bill  that urges our armed forces to prepare for another war. Another resolution which is still in committee, HR 538, allows for the U.S. to lower the threshold for war.

     Ron Paul came out in opposition of HR 538 yesterday. He opined that this resolution

states that the House "rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran." To Paul, this resolution" makes it very clear that the intent of the House is to authorize force against Iran not if it acquires a nuclear weapon, but if it has a "capability" to acquire them some time in the future." The definition of capability is left wide open, which allows a loose interpretation. 

     H.R. 4310, or the NDAA 2013, makes no bones about the fact that we are authorizing the use of military force against Iran. Section 1221, the Declaration of Policy, parts 7-9, lay it out on the table: 

(7) In order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the United States, in cooperation with its allies, must utilize all elements of national power including diplomacy, robust economic sanctions, and credible, visible preparations for a military option.

(8) Nevertheless, to date, diplomatic overtures, sanctions, and other non-kinetic actions toward Iran have not caused the Government of Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

(9) With the impact of additional sanctions uncertain, additional pressure on the Government of Iran could come from the credible threat of military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

(b) Declaration of Policy- It shall be the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran’s neighbors with a nuclear weapon.

  

     We have been threatening Iran, sanctioning them, and isolating them for the last thirty years.  According to our government, these "diplomatic" policies are not working, if you can call it that. I believe the definition of diplomacy includes "handling affairs without arousing hostility." I really don't see that the use of force through economic sanctions makes any friends, but there's more.

     Sec. 1222 deals with United States Military Preparedness in the Middle East. The "Plan" outlines what we are prepared to do to enforce our new policy. I'll pick a couple out here and you can draw your own conclusions:

(A) pre-positioning sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions, fuel, and other materials for both air- and sea-based missions at key forward locations in the Middle East and Indian Ocean;

(B) maintaining sufficient naval assets in the region necessary to signal United States resolve and to bolster United States capabilities to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets, to protect seaborne shipping, and to deny Iranian retaliation against United States interests in the region;

(D) conducting naval fleet exercises similar to the United States Fifth Fleet’s major exercise in the region in March 2007 to demonstrate ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and to counter the use of anti-ship missiles and swarming high-speed boats.

    Rather than learning from the mistakes we made with Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems that the Republicans are ready to jump feet first into Iran, even though Israeli intelligence believes that Iran would not pose a threat to Israel and may be seeking nuclear "capability" simply to protect themselves from U.S. occupation and intervention. We have been systematically occupying Middle Eastern countries and controlling interests since the early 20th century.  Iran's nuclear program seems to be our straw man.

      "War pigs" were used in ancient warfare as a countermeasure against war elephants. The Romans employed squealing pigs to repel the elephants of Pyrrhus in 275 B.C.E. There have been historical accounts of the use of pigs, dipped in pitch and set aflame,as a method of repelling war elephants as well. The elephants were frightened, and would bolt in terror.

     Like the ancient elephants "scared by the smallest squeal of a hog", the Republican-dominated house is preparing to repel the war pigs. However, the elephants of history often bolted and killed their own soldiers. We can only hope that ours don't do the same. 

  

   "All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it." ~Alexis de Tocqueville

 

(Read the text of HR 4310 at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4310/text)

 (Read more of Paul's statement at http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2012/05/17/dangerous-legislation/)
 <a href="http://www.hypersmash.com">www.Hypersmash.com</a>

How You Became a "Terrorist" in Eight Easy Steps...or The Pitfalls of Too Much Government

      What is liberty? There are many definitions:  The condition of being free from restriction or control. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. Personal freedom from servitude, confinement, or oppression. Personal sovereignty. It's a concept that we take for granted here in the United States....one that not everyone thinks about.

     Here's a scenario: You get up in the morning, and you're running late for work. You decide to shave and nick your chin, and while searching through the medicine cabinet, you realize that you are out of hydrogen peroxide....no big deal. You have to take the bus, anyway, and it's a long ride. You'll just order some on your laptop to be dropped off at your apartment later.

 The lady sitting next to you seems overly friendly, and you don't want her to see your password, so you tilt the screen of your laptop away and shield it with you hand. You feel your phone vibrate, and you take it out to see why...it's a text from your girlfriend. Nosy lady is still next to you, so you turn your back to her to send a quick text back to your girl. She lives with you and works the night shift, so you ask her if she can go pick up some groceries while you are at work...probably enough to last sometime into next week...you both are crunched for time and she has finals coming up. "Oh, better grab some new flashlights, too, hon...it is supposed to storm this weekend, and if the lights go out, I want to be able to see what I'm doing."

 Your bus reaches its stop, and you slam your laptop shut, pick up your briefcase and a bag that has an extra change of clothes for the gym, and head to your office. It was chilly when you left, but the sun is up, and it's getting warmer. Maybe you didn't need your jacket after all.

     Guess what? You are now a terrorist, according to the U.S. Government. How is this possible? Well, let's break it down:

1. You shaved for work this morning. According to a flyer published by the FBI and the Department of Justice, changing your appearance is a potential indicator of terrorist activity. And here you just thought it would be good to look professional for a change.

2. You ordered hydrogen peroxide from a website.....ding, ding, ding. According to this same flyer, buying chemicals online is a good indication that you're building a bomb. Or that you skinned your knee...or something like that.

3. As you ordered your "bomb-making" chemicals online, you didn't want the lady next to you to be all up in your business, so you shielded your screen from her view. Our government says that if you are overly concerned with your privacy and shield your computer screen from the view of others, you might be a terrorist.

4. The text from your girlfriend...a simple, "Have a good day, honey..." According to a DHS commercial for the "citizen spy" program, if you are texting in public but concealing it from others, you should be reported for suspicious terrorist activity. A simple, "Love you, too" won't suffice.

5.  Asking your girl to get a week's worth of groceries....congratulations, you are now a terrorist threat. The FBI believes that anyone who has a store of food that will last more than 7 days might just be up to no good.

6. Getting flashlights for the storm? You'd be better off stocking up on candles. Flashlights are considered night-vision devices, so they also fall under the realm of "terrorist activity".

7. That briefcase and gym bag? Probably better rent a locker, buddy. You are carrying "too much baggage", so you are potentially a terrorist.

8. And, let's not forget that you grabbed a jacket because it was chilly this morning. Being overdressed for the weather? More terrorist activity. And you just wanted to stay warm.

     So....the seemingly normal, boring routine that you went through in the hour or so that it took you to get to work labelled you a terrorist under the watchful eye of the FBI and the Department of Justice. Eight simple actions that you took for granted could land you in jail indefinitely under the NDAA. Yes, folks, this is the new America. Not the one your mama told you about.

     It's time for change...REAL change, not a mediocre attempt to influence policy. You and I are losing our liberty, day after day, and no one seems to want to do anything about it....well, except one person....and millions of  average Americans like you and me who just want to be free.

     Yeah, I'm a Ron Paul supporter. You know, that guy that's running for President on the Republican ticket. Wait...you thought Romney was the only candidate? That's exactly what the media wants you to think, and I'm here to tell you why. 

     Ron Paul has a message that the establishment Republicans don't want to hear....one that is very complex, yet easy to understand. Paul's message is one that appeals to many different people, from very different walks of life. There are many facets to his vision, but it all boils down to one very important concept: liberty.

      The mainstream media ignores him, the neo-cons ridicule him, and the RNC just wants him to go away, and take his supporters with him.

     Guess what? We're not going away. And neither is Dr. Paul. Take some time to learn about his stances from the masses of liberty-minded Americans that the media chooses to ignore. Whether you like him or not, it's important that you know who he is and what he stands for. If you enjoy your freedom, he may just be your only hope.

   "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

 -Thomas Jefferson

Source:  FBI "Communities Against Terrorism" Suspicious Activity Reporting Flyers; Public Intelligence, Feb 1, 12

http://publicintelligence.net/fbi-suspicious-activity-reporting-flyers/