And I think that if an officer were to see someone texting while driving, careless driving already applies, so there is no need for a new law for a stop. Police can already stop anyone they want, whenever they want, almost.

But seriously…and it doesn’t at all make it right or acceptable, but how many of the hundreds/thousands of laws on the books ARE just symbolic and basically useless/overlap other laws that would already apply?

to #31:

Her article suggests that this stuff is being legislated more on beliefs than facts.

That’s just how Carolyn rolls. Facts rarely support her case. ;)

I realized long ago that the best and brightest this country has to offer – say, Ed Whitten or Steve Jobs – would never DREAM of going into politics.

Why would they? They’re not screwups…they’re smart enough to make money on their own without whoring their vote out to interest groups.

Seriously, though, after college I was involved in politics for awhile (worked for my state legislature and worked several campaigns) and I noticed two distinct types of politicians…those who had primary private sector careers before politics and went into public service as a way to “give back” (and usually understood the ramifications of most of the legislation they were proposing) and those who chose politics as their primary career or who had rarely or never worked in the private sector (and dealing with them was like conversing with a brick wall covered in talking points). Figured out pretty quickly which group was the one worth talking to.

Feckin ejits!!

1) Pull head out.

2) Wipe brown shite from eyes

3) open eyes

4) Say DUH!!!!!

I realized long ago that the best and brightest this country has to offer – say, Ed Whitten or Steve Jobs – would never DREAM of going into politics. Elected office is for the underachievers and dim bulbs who have been told they’re hot shit because they’re tall or good-looking or can deliver a decent oration.

#43 Nando

It’s the least common denominator theory that people in a group tend to “think down” to the stupidest person’s ability.

I think you’re naively giving people way more credit than they deserve. I think when you add up the collective IQ of some groups, you actually get a number smaller than the lowest IQ in the group. But , I wouldn’t expect anyone to believe that without indisputable concrete examples, so I usually just refer them to Congress and every state legislature in the country.

The American people will overwhelmingly support a ban on texting because “texting is bad” therefore there should be a law against it.

Yep. Gotta agree with that. That’s precisely why I hate it when we, as libertarians, argue against a law only by countering the supposition that the outlawed thing is bad, therefore the law is legitimate. That allows proponents of the law to frame the debate in their terms. As some have already said here, the fact that texting makes driving more dangerous isn’t, by itself, reason to ban it. If that’s all it takes to ban something, then everything can be banned and there is no freedom.

That’s the irony of democracy. Although almost universally considered a means of ensuring freedom, democracy also guaranties that no activity of man is immune to the tyranny of the majority.

Now that I’ve thoroughly depressed myself, I think I’ll go knock back a tall shot of hemlock.

What we as Agitator readers tend not to understand, and what people like Carolyn McCarthy and Glenn Beck understand VERY well, is that the vast majority of people are NOT CAPABLE of these complex thought processes. They’ve been watching infomercials and sound bites all their lives, and these are the only things they can grasp.

Jesus is that elitist.

I think most people are capable of reasoned thought processes they just tend not to use them all that much. Its an issue of training. I often think, “What are the unintended consequences, how can I get around it, is it even doable?” when I hear about a policy. If people would just ask those questions they’d realize most of the legislation that is passed these days is just crap.

I agree that most people are capable of reasoned thought processes; however, I don’t think many use them that frequently. My grandfather taught me that a person is smart but people are dumb. It’s the least common denominator theory that people in a group tend to “think down” to the stupidest person’s ability. While I do not like generalizations, I think that, by and large, the American people have become accustomed to snippets of information. Headlines, if you will. Because of our immediate gratification mentality, we want results as quickly as possible. We read headlines and ignore the stories so often because we’re crunched for time that it has become habit, even when we have time to spare. If the news isn’t processed, digested, and regurgitated over and over to us, we don’t internalize it, just ignore it.

I have caught myself doing the headline reading and moving on. I have to remind myself to read the articles to get the full body of information. It is the main reason I stopped watching 24 hour news channels because all they do is glance over some stupid Paris Hilton headline and ignore the real stuff.

The American people will overwhelmingly support a ban on texting because “texting is bad” therefore there should be a law against it. You know, if only for the children. God forbid someone has a 10,000-to-1 chance of being in a given situation, they want a ban on it because they heard it on the news and it’s “scary.” The American people, on most things, have become reactionary, mostly to their fears. Rational thinking just doesn’t play the role it used to.

It’s simply one of those weasely little terms used when they’re about to take something else away from you. You don’t really even need to know what they’re taking away in order to oppose it.

Yeah. Simplistic thinking and all. But some things you really can put on the “default to this behavior” list and be correct the better part of the time. Saves a lot of effort.

As I’ve gotten older I’ve come to the conclusion that most politicians are simply stupid people with horrible ideas who really aren’t worth listening to unless you enjoy getting pissed off.

You wrote as though DUI laws are slam dunk, but DUI laws are enforced in two ways, broadly speaking:

A) Drunks drive erratically, the police pull them over for driving erratically, the police notice concrete indicators that the driver is drunk. With this approach, DUI laws work like severe enhancements of wreckless driving laws. The same could be done for texting, as Balko suggested. The quibbling comes when discussing burden of proof and appropriate punishment, not in whether it should be legal to drive wrecklessly while drunk.

B) Random checkpoints, made-up police testimony, criminalizing harmless levels of alchohol, making driving contingent upon forfeiting fourth amendment rights, and prohibition-inspired broad alcohol restrictions. Some people will defend each of these, but they’re far from obviously good.

So DUI laws are either A) consistent with Balko’s position, or B) not obviously good. Argue the issue based on its merits instead of shallow sarcasm.

Approximately 90 percent of American polled want marijuana legalized for medical use. So why isn’t it legal already?

I believe in marijuana legalization. I don’t believe in more laws against texting, using cell phones, and other devices. People will find ways around the law. And even politicans and their relatives are hypocritical on this issue: Maria Shriver was recently photographed using a phone while driving.

You can’t and shouldn’t legislate everything by polls. As Anatole France warned, “If 50 million people believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing.”

Argument FAIL

Agreed that roping in pot legalization was a bit of apples and oranges. I wanted to make a point that there are times when Congress doesn’t give a flying fuck what the majority of Americans want, except when it dovetails with their lust for power and control

As a member of Congress, I work to pass comprehensive, common-sense legislation that will benefit average Americans. With the same fervor I had when I was first sworn in to office in 1997, I seek common ground on issues that I believe will make our country stronger and safer each and every day.

Three emetics, and just before dinner.

Thanks!