I recently bought an iPod Touch. It's very cool and I love to see movies on it. I already liked my phone, so decided not to get the iPhone, but for those that don't know, the iPod Touch looks almost like the iPhone. So as I was driving home, I had the Touch in my hand and was wondering what would happen if I held it up to my ear and a CHP pulled me over for driving while talking on a cell phone (welcome to California). I'm not in favor of the law as I think it won't help public safety and see it as another intrusion of government into our daily lives, so I'd love to be pulled over just to say that I wasn't on the phone, and show the officer my iPod. The law is just for phones up to the ear, so I couldn't get a ticket, right?
That's why this law is stupid. Put a banana up to your ear, hold your cell phone in your hand while talking on the speaker phone, and you're technically driving legally. Good job wonderful lawmakers of California.
Posts
9 comments:
Another stupid law. We've been experiencing a lot of that in CA lately. And thanks for commenting on my blog about Prop 8. Your blog not listed on mine will remedied immediately. Just a little oversight. Sorry.
Question for you, the DisneyCoug:
You say that a law prohibiting people from talking on cell phones without hands-free devices while driving is "another intrusion of government into our daily lives."
Fair enough. You also argue that "it won't help public safety" (even though there are growing numbers of studies that demonstrate conclusively that driver cognition goes way, way down when engaged in cell phone conversation. But whatever).
Here's my question: How is the government intrusion into the lives of citizens to regulate marriage partnerships substantially different?
Both laws (no-cell-phones and marriage) are intended and sold to voters on the idea that they are beneficial to society.
Surely you agree with me that the government should intervene in citizens' lives according to some principles (the prohibition of murder, rape, theft, etc.).
So I wonder how you reconcile your argument against the prohibition of cell phones while driving (for which the evidence of public safety benefits is overwhelmingly conclusive) while simultaneously supporting government regulation of a relationship between two consenting adults that has little to no effect on the majority of citizens. There is no scientific consensus demonstrating that homosexual marriage is destructive to society. In fact, many studies suggest that it would produce positive results.
So why argue so vehemently against government intrusion on a miniscule scale (requiring you to pay for a $25 headset) to effect a demonstrably positive social outcome while at the same time insisting that the government intrude in one of the most intimate and significant elements of life, when that intrusion doesn't really affect you in the slightest?
Is it simply because you don't care what those different from you suffer as long as you can feel righteous?
Or do you really believe that the miniscule percentage of those Californians who would seek civil marriage is going to ruin your life (remember, just like not all hetero couples choose to get married, not all homosexual couples do either)?
Or maybe you're just trying to be obedient to the Brethren based on spiritual, rather than rational, conviction.
I really hope it's the latter. I still disagree, but I think that trying to oppose same-sex marriage on rational grounds is a lost battle. One's spiritual convictions are inviolable, though, and I can respect them even if I radically disagree with them.
Valid question, Richard. Let me first point out, that while there might be growing numbers of studies that show driver cognition goes down when engaged in cell phone conversation, the California law doesn't prohibit cell phone conversation, just holding the phone up to your ear. Studies have been mixed, at best, on whether using an earpiece is better than holding the phone up to your ear. By the way, if you want an earpiece that will block out noise so people can hear you, you need to pay more like $70 for a bluetooth device with noise cancelling technology.
But more to the point of your comment, the biggest difference to me is the scope of who might be affected by each law. The cell phone up to your ear law only affects the driver themselves. If you're going to argue that an accident might occur, it still might occur with an earpiece, so that's a moot point to me.
Contrary to your opinion, I think gay marriage will have an overall negative effect on all society. I really could care less, personally, if two homosexual people choose to do whatever they want to do. I think it's morally wrong, but that's their business. However, when marriage is involved, which with a marriage license becomes a government sanctioned activity, it leads to further problems down the road. Of upmost importance to me is the effect it can have on children. Whenever possible, a child should be raised by a caring father and mother. I'm not in favor of the government going in and making sure that happens - that would be egregious on their part. However, when marriage is involved, it can lead to adoption agencies being required to send children to gay households and might require churches to provide gay marriage services. I don't have the space here to list all of the negative consequences that could result from this.
I like how you mention voters. That's another difference. Voters didn't get to vote on the headset legislation, but they did get to vote (and passed) Prop 20. 4 judges didn't agree with that. Now we're being forced to put this into our state constitution.
But yeah, you got me. The whole reason I'm in favor of Prop 8 is so I can feel righteous. It's all about me. And Mr. Melodramatic, I don't think it's going to 'ruin my life.' Where in the heck did you come up with that? Contrary to what you might be thinking, I'm not sitting here pulling my hair out dreading life if this doesn't pass. Heck, I figure if it doesn't pass, it just means the Second Coming's closer to happening.
So to me it is rational, although I do believe that Thomas S. Monson speaks for God, and has told us how imporant it is to pass it in that capacity, so it is spiritual as well.
Again, the cell phone law is something meaningless and another example of a stupid wasteful law passed by the extremely wasteful California legislature, not based on any sound scientific data that seems designed more to help Bluetooth manufacturers make a quick buck but doesn't really do anything to improve public safety, whereas the marriage amendment can have far greater consequences for society and will be voted on by the voters of the state.
By the way, saying this amendment would cause the government to intrude into our lives only works if we didn't have to get a marriage license. You see, whenever someone decides to get married, if they want it to be legal and valid, they have to get a marriage license. In other words, they have to have 'government intrude in one of the most intimate and significant elements of life'
Thanks, TDC.
That's what I thought.
:-)
I retract my first two hypotheticals regarding your motivations, and I apologize for offending you.
And in case you're in the market, here's the $25 headset I was talking about.
I use it probably every day, in the car, in the office. Great sound on both ends, no complaints. I suppose you could pay more if you wanted to.
Don't worry, Richard, you didn't offend me. I think it's good to be challenged on one's beliefs. And thanks for the heads up on the $25 headset. Luckily I won a really nice headset at a conference I was at last month, so mine was free!
PS--Please don't use my real name on on anyone's blog. Hence the alias. Thanks.
Post a Comment