While the political death match of the 2012 GOP presidential candidate nomination continues, we thought we might pull our attention today towards a slightly less distracting, but equally intense piece of news released earlier in the week.
In case you missed it, the NTSB - the National Transportation Safety Board - released an official recommendation earlier this week, calling for a blanket ban on the use of all cell phones and text message devices while driving. The instant the recommendation hit the news media, we began seeing a steady stream of e-mails, tweets and texts - some of them likely coming from people driving motor vehicles.
The NTSB's recommendation may seem like common sense, to a degree. After all, distracted drivers are more dangerous than those who are focused on driving. Multiple studies over many years have proven that to be true.
The sad thing is, the NTSB's recommendation appears to be based on a study with both questionable methodology and questionable findings.
In recent statistically significant studies from both the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and major auto insurer State Farm, about 60-to-70% of Americans admitted to talking on their cell phones while driving, while between 30 and 40% of Americans admitted to texting behind the wheel.
While the numbers may be staggering, the reaction by millions of Americans, on all sides, is a mix of understanding and horror. Americans seem to understand the statistics generated from distracted driving deaths and accidents - but they're horrified that a government agency could take away what they see as their right to do whatever they please behind the wheel.
Everyone has their own excuse, too, as to why they shouldn't have to give up their rights to mobile communication. From small business persons to law enforcement officers - some of whom now have cars that look like the cockpit of the Space Shuttle - most Americans believe their abilities to drive and communicate should allow them to avoid any kind of ban that might come from the recommendation of the NTSB.
Technically, the NTSB has no direct way to turn its recommendation into action. As an independent federal agency responsible for investigating transportation accidents and promoting transportation safety, the NTSB has no legislative powers at its disposal.
What it does have, however, is the ability to influence how Congress distributes money to the states for things like roads and bridges. In much the same way that the NTSB pushed states to adopt seat belt laws, and has pushed auto manufacturers to adopt higher safety standards, the NTSB has now publicly stated their intentions to put mobile communications in their influential crosshairs.
What they may find, however, is an automotive and telecommunications industry aligned together against them, along with millions of Americans - especially at the state level of politics - who have no intention of being silenced behind the wheel.
While we are firmly against texting and driving, and we tend to recommend hands free use of any mobile communication, we think the NTSB may have just driven this idea off the end of the proverbial cliff. The fact is, some people may actually be able to drive and hold a conversation. Unfortunately, far too many Americans are somehow allowed behind the wheel simply because they still have a pulse.
If the NTSB wants to put out blanket recommendations to encourage better safety on America's roads, they should start by putting forward tighter rules for who should be allowed behind the wheel in the first place.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Fortunetelling
About this time every year, news media and entertainment organizations float even thinner skeleton crews than many already run on a normal basis. That results in a proliferation of "Best Of" lists and "Top Story Of The Year" lists littering the media landscape, like holiday decorations strewn about. Some few even attempt to look into the future of the next year, though most of their attempts are usually nothing more than poorly written fiction.
There a few, however - like us - that are still on the job as the holiday draws near.
Thankfully, polling guru Nate Silver and his team at FiveThirtyEight.com are also working through the holidays - and their first look at the 2012 political race is anything but fiction.
In fact, Nate released FiveThirtyEight's first polling-based Iowa GOP Caucus forecast Tuesday night, and in short, the GOP race is without question... wide open.
While Nate's conclusion isn't entirely surprising, the data that Nate released early was very surprising - as it shows that any of five different candidates could legitimately win the Iowa caucus.
To savvy political observers, the conclusion that either Gingrich, Romney, or even Ron Paul could win the Iowa event hasn't been that big of a stretch. The latest poll from the well-known pollster Public Policy Polling released late yesterday proves that while Gingrich's surge appears to have peaked and may now be falling, Rep. Ron Paul may be the GOP's first flavor of the month in 2012.
We agree with many of you - the political horse race IS ridiculous, and attempting to forecast the winner may seem even more ludicrous. There are some very serious problems U.S. citizens should focus on solving - not to mention the potential horrors facing those in politics, economics and media in Europe.
If you truly want to see a political "Ghost of Christmas Present" that will set your hair on end, try imagining the dreams of France's President Sarkozy or Germany's Angela Merkel.
For the Republican Party, though, there's a political ghost of their own that's been waiting in the wings for years, that they'll finally be forced to face in 2012.
To put it bluntly, Republicans don't know how to play as a team anymore - and they're tired of pretending they do.
For much of the last twenty years, the Republican Party has increasingly marched in lock-step, and ostracized or shouted down any dissension within its ranks. Reagan's so-called "Eleventh Commandment" - "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican" - has become an ideological straight-jacket of orthodoxy that has strangled the sense out of much of the Republican Party.
For many in the Democratic Party, watching the upcoming battle royal on the right may be just the kind of political present they've asked political Santa to deliver for years.
Still, if we were in the Democratic Party hierarchy, we'd wait before any champaign corks were popped.
What Nate Silver's data says, and what our own experience tells us, is roughly the same thing that we've always said in political races before they're finished: It ain't over 'till it's over.
There's only a couple of things thing we're certain of when looking at next year's political races: they won't be dull - and they won't be clean.
Batten down the hatches, folks. 2012 looks to be a bumpy ride.
There a few, however - like us - that are still on the job as the holiday draws near.
Thankfully, polling guru Nate Silver and his team at FiveThirtyEight.com are also working through the holidays - and their first look at the 2012 political race is anything but fiction.
In fact, Nate released FiveThirtyEight's first polling-based Iowa GOP Caucus forecast Tuesday night, and in short, the GOP race is without question... wide open.
While Nate's conclusion isn't entirely surprising, the data that Nate released early was very surprising - as it shows that any of five different candidates could legitimately win the Iowa caucus.
To savvy political observers, the conclusion that either Gingrich, Romney, or even Ron Paul could win the Iowa event hasn't been that big of a stretch. The latest poll from the well-known pollster Public Policy Polling released late yesterday proves that while Gingrich's surge appears to have peaked and may now be falling, Rep. Ron Paul may be the GOP's first flavor of the month in 2012.
We agree with many of you - the political horse race IS ridiculous, and attempting to forecast the winner may seem even more ludicrous. There are some very serious problems U.S. citizens should focus on solving - not to mention the potential horrors facing those in politics, economics and media in Europe.
If you truly want to see a political "Ghost of Christmas Present" that will set your hair on end, try imagining the dreams of France's President Sarkozy or Germany's Angela Merkel.
For the Republican Party, though, there's a political ghost of their own that's been waiting in the wings for years, that they'll finally be forced to face in 2012.
To put it bluntly, Republicans don't know how to play as a team anymore - and they're tired of pretending they do.
For much of the last twenty years, the Republican Party has increasingly marched in lock-step, and ostracized or shouted down any dissension within its ranks. Reagan's so-called "Eleventh Commandment" - "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican" - has become an ideological straight-jacket of orthodoxy that has strangled the sense out of much of the Republican Party.
For many in the Democratic Party, watching the upcoming battle royal on the right may be just the kind of political present they've asked political Santa to deliver for years.
Still, if we were in the Democratic Party hierarchy, we'd wait before any champaign corks were popped.
What Nate Silver's data says, and what our own experience tells us, is roughly the same thing that we've always said in political races before they're finished: It ain't over 'till it's over.
There's only a couple of things thing we're certain of when looking at next year's political races: they won't be dull - and they won't be clean.
Batten down the hatches, folks. 2012 looks to be a bumpy ride.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Of Matchsticks And Money
As the holiday season blooms in full force, we're enjoying some of our favorite holiday songs and stories, as we hope you are. Something we've noticed in past years, however, struck a chord with us today, as we were scanning the recent political news.
In many of those traditional holiday tales - from Hans Christian Anderson's Little Match Girl to Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol - the theme, whether good or bad, is how things are now and how they might be, if only the protagonist acted differently. Strangely, Americans are facing a similar choice themselves when it comes to the problem of money in American politics. The difference is that the horrors we're all seeing as the 2012 races approach aren't just the ghosts of future elections - they're a terror that's already here, and getting worse.
Just yesterday, a federal appeals court in Wisconsin followed the misguided lead of the U.S. Supreme Court in their Citizens United decision last year, striking down a state law limiting how much any one person can donate to independent political action groups. With decisions like these, wealthy individuals, political lobbying groups, and corporations have effectively reduced elected officials of either major political party to little more than pets on leashes.
Even as the winter of our political discontent continues to grow less hospitable to good government, an independent U.S. Senator and a Democratic member of the U.S. House may have begun to bring light to legitimate campaign finance reform.
In case you missed it last Friday, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to help shrink the influence of money in politics. If you think we've made mention of similar proposals earlier this year, we have. There were no less than five similar measures proposed in 2011, though most of them have loopholes Santa can drive a sleigh through. This one is different.
The Sanders amendment in the Senate is the identical twin to an amendment proposed by Florida Representative Ted Deutsch in the U.S. House. The amendment plainly and clearly states that the Constitution ONLY fully protects and outlines the rights of "natural persons" - real-life, flesh and blood human beings. No corporations. No unions. No amorphous outside political groups that can take as much money as they want, without disclosing clearly where that money came from. Those groups have severe limitations under this amendment, different from natural persons - because outside groups, unions, and especially corporations are not people.
We're well aware a constitutional amendment as proposed by Sanders and Deutsch is an incredibly small light in the darkness, a massive challenge to pass at any rate, let alone quickly.
That said, any number of great American leaders, from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln, to even our most recent leaders, have faced off with big banks and corporations. These groups have attempted to control far too much for the benefit of far too few, leaving most of us to shiver in the cold. Still - some of our leaders have attempted campaign finance reform. Some have even been successful for a short time.
Just as Scrooge questioned whether the terrifying future he was confronted with was what he truly had to live with, so too our future doesn't have to be one where only those with the most money have freedom.
Do we shiver in the alley, looking on as the fat cats treat our politicians like their pets? Or do we follow the lead of those like Sanders and Detusch, who reach out to help us, even at their own peril?
The choice is still ours. Let's hope we all make the best decision in 2012.
In many of those traditional holiday tales - from Hans Christian Anderson's Little Match Girl to Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol - the theme, whether good or bad, is how things are now and how they might be, if only the protagonist acted differently. Strangely, Americans are facing a similar choice themselves when it comes to the problem of money in American politics. The difference is that the horrors we're all seeing as the 2012 races approach aren't just the ghosts of future elections - they're a terror that's already here, and getting worse.
Just yesterday, a federal appeals court in Wisconsin followed the misguided lead of the U.S. Supreme Court in their Citizens United decision last year, striking down a state law limiting how much any one person can donate to independent political action groups. With decisions like these, wealthy individuals, political lobbying groups, and corporations have effectively reduced elected officials of either major political party to little more than pets on leashes.
Even as the winter of our political discontent continues to grow less hospitable to good government, an independent U.S. Senator and a Democratic member of the U.S. House may have begun to bring light to legitimate campaign finance reform.
In case you missed it last Friday, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to help shrink the influence of money in politics. If you think we've made mention of similar proposals earlier this year, we have. There were no less than five similar measures proposed in 2011, though most of them have loopholes Santa can drive a sleigh through. This one is different.
The Sanders amendment in the Senate is the identical twin to an amendment proposed by Florida Representative Ted Deutsch in the U.S. House. The amendment plainly and clearly states that the Constitution ONLY fully protects and outlines the rights of "natural persons" - real-life, flesh and blood human beings. No corporations. No unions. No amorphous outside political groups that can take as much money as they want, without disclosing clearly where that money came from. Those groups have severe limitations under this amendment, different from natural persons - because outside groups, unions, and especially corporations are not people.
We're well aware a constitutional amendment as proposed by Sanders and Deutsch is an incredibly small light in the darkness, a massive challenge to pass at any rate, let alone quickly.
That said, any number of great American leaders, from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln, to even our most recent leaders, have faced off with big banks and corporations. These groups have attempted to control far too much for the benefit of far too few, leaving most of us to shiver in the cold. Still - some of our leaders have attempted campaign finance reform. Some have even been successful for a short time.
Just as Scrooge questioned whether the terrifying future he was confronted with was what he truly had to live with, so too our future doesn't have to be one where only those with the most money have freedom.
Do we shiver in the alley, looking on as the fat cats treat our politicians like their pets? Or do we follow the lead of those like Sanders and Detusch, who reach out to help us, even at their own peril?
The choice is still ours. Let's hope we all make the best decision in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)