Sawyer asks of laws banning texting while driving: "[H]ow much of a nanny state do we need to stop it?"
August 06, 2009 10:25 am ET
From the August 6 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Seat Belts is something that was fought hard from the right and the auto industry claimed it would bankrupt them if they were forced to put seat belts in every car.
Obviously if it's so obvious than why fight a law against it.
It's already a moving violation in California, but it's regularly ignored because I see people doing all the time.
People are outraged at drunk drivers but they dismiss this issue like its nonsense... if I was the only one on the road I wouldn't care, but because some teenager with an iPhone who doesn't see my brake lights because he/she is twittering, well than there should be laws.
Great post, blueline. I agree with you completely. Further, is it a "nanny state" when the State or Feds impose driving speed limits? Of course not. Speed limits are established to minimize risk as much as possible without impeding commerce and transportation.
Is it a "nanny state" when Highway Patrols enforce safety standards on vehicles? Again, no, ensuring trucks and cars have functional lights, proper tires, intact glass, etc. is, again, established to minimize risk and increase safety as much as possible without impeding commerce and transportation.
We could come up with examples all day, but anyone with a lick of common sense realizes the innate dangers of texting and driving. Over the last year or two we have seen bus crashes, train crashes, and subway crashes all due to this irresponsible behavior. I certainly hate seeing the Feds or State having to come with laws to ban such behaviors. I think it is "bad law". But, I'll gladly take such a law if it makes our roads safer.
Liberals only mock the "nanny-state" when it "protects" from the "terrors" of marijuana, oral sex or teh gay, but we generaly see auto-safety laws and regulations as a good idea. Conservtaives seem to alwasy mock it when it's trying to do something that's actually worthwhile. (Like provide everyone with health care.)
Texting while driving is dangerous for the person is not paying attention to the road. Their eyes and thoughts are on typing LOL or OMG instead of looking at the road.
You have that backwards. It's NOT THEIR WORD. They never use it! The right uses it to describe laws designed to help people live better lives.
For their report, they interviewed someone from the CATO Institute which some of us know where they stand ideologically. The CATO Inst. answer is not surprising. We want people to be responsible but if they can't, the Fed will tell them.
What are the statistics? What are the costs(individual, societal, financial, police, investigation, health costs for the unisured) engendered by thousands of accidents? Who pays for the costs incurred by texting while driving. It is the FED for God sake .
Why do you teabagging hicks "think" you can speak for others?
Oh, by the by, I believe you have used up your daily allotment of typing 'teabagging hicks' on this site. Feel free, however, to use it on your twitter account while driving. :)
And really, can even YOU speak for others and describe me as you did? Tsk, tsk, that's not very consistent now is it?
We are all being afforded an opportunity to debate the subject at hand, but like clockwork, with you it's always about your assessment of MMFA's motivations and sensibilities as though it has any bearing at all on the subject at hand.
No, even the title explains it. The complaint is the use of the term 'nanny state'. That conjours up thoughts about socialism and greater government control in the mind of the general public. media matters (for very little) is angry that use of the term only reinforces the presence of 'nanny state' in the public's lexicon, reminds people of what it means and how it's very usage threatens their leftward agenda.
Ms. Sawyer should be flogged and quatered for such a vocabularic offense!
They want free trade with Mexico (no govt.) but no illegal aliens (not enough govt)
They want the govt to get out of the way between the patient and their doctor (health care), except when it's Terry Schaivo or a woman looking to have an abortion. <<I stole that example from KO>>
They want to protect constitutional rights like Gun Rights but decry the ACLU whenever they prevent Christian symbols from being on govt property.
They don't want govt involved in their families except when they prevent gay marriages.
There is hypocrisy on all sides, but the conservatives will never acknowledge their own hypocrisy and they have plenty of venom and hatred when they see it on the other side.
Enough with the BIG LIE. The health care reform does not want to kill your grandparents. Why are they repeating it.
And describing a policy against texting and driving a "nanny state" is wrong. It just is.
Excellent post and excellent points! If any neocon wingnut responds, watch them dance around to avoid what you said and instead attack somebody/something because they can't refute their own hypocrisy.
Blueline:
Free trade is always good for a government and it's citizens. Capitalism generates opportunity for wealth for every individual because what follows/precedes capitalism is the free expression of behavior of the individual. We call that liberty.
As far as immigration, you are right, we need to make certain that the people that come here legally and for an appropriate purpose, from wanting citizenship to just day work. Keep in mind the goverment's obligation to its citizens to protect us from foreign invaders.
With Terri Schaivo and abortion similar concerns are raised, that is that life is not just a commodity. Terri's case was filled with ambiguity regarding the intent of the husband, first wanting her to live and receive care from him until a court settlement was made. Who are we to choose the quality of her life, especially when other family members were willing to let him divorce her and take over care. The ONLY evidence that she would want DNR status was his word, no document, no taped living will. Again, the left was more than happy to choose death over life. (Isn't that part of the health coverage debate now, when will care cease to be cost effective?)
When you consider the loss of human imagination, intellect and possible value for the whole of humanity, through abortion it is just staggaring. Why? Primarily convenience, again a choice of death over life. What could have been added to the quality of life with these innocent humans that have been killed?
Abortion and its legal standing as a 'right to privacy' is a post constituitional creation and hopefully will be challenged constitutionally someday. Abortion is not a right, unlike the right to keep and bear arms. Constitutional law says that the government should not set up a state religion per-se' but the ACLU says no expression of religion is acceptable. Alot of conservatives like me consider religion to be a personal matter, requiring me to instruct my children. However, the religion of atheism has become the defacto state religion. It hurts our country because so much of what we are as a people is based upon the pre-existence and creative acts of a supreme being. Inalienable rights, endowed by our Creator, yes I know that's the declaration of independence, but it forms the substance of permanence that upholds our country. Our rights exist apriori the establishment of any government, they didn't come into existence when those white guys gathered in Philadephia.
I agree that health care is not about finding out how to kill off grandma, but with socialized medicine the only way to control cost is to limit access and to ration care. Grandma's hip replacement might not be deemed cost effective by a government bureaucrat whereas even now we have the choice to find ways to pay for it, if insurance won't, so she can pursue life, liberty and happiness without government interference.
It's the left's job to change the meaning of nanny state in the minds of the public. media matters (for very little) has attempted to take a small step by chastizing someone in the media for even uttering the word.
You can't justify hypocrisy simply because YOU believe it's alright.
Also, learn some damn paragraph structure. Between the terrible grammar and laughable points you gave me a headache.
So why the need to find some ulterior motive here?
Incidentally, it's "drawn and quartered", in case you weren't trying to be witty there.
Guess what? Cell phone and texting related accidents kill about as many people -each year- as died on 9-11: ~3000. Is that enough incentive for you to enact a law? Because the last time that many Americans died, and granted it was televised, you conservatives and Republicans created a whole new branch of government!
proudconservative, the 'nanny state' is a concept that deals with a government making your moral choices for you so that you do not make the wrong (in their eyes) choice. Abortion is a good example. Typical nanny staters would simply outlaw abortions just because they happen to feel it is wrong. Not just wrong for them, but wrong for everybody. Alcohol prohibition, same foolishness. Gay marriage? Oh yeah. Banning gay marriage is a total nanny state decision. Hey, let's just force everybody to be Christian! Another nanny state concept.
This law, on the other hand, provides penalties to people who are risking -your- life with -their- behavior. Got nothing and I mean nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is a dead horse, so have fun beating it, I guess. It's a good demonstration of your 'compassion'.
That is the point of my postings, the interrpretation of the term 'nanny state'. I made no complaint about the texting law mentioned in the news story. Enforcement is required with any law, but the level of intrusive enforcement is moving into the nanny state territory. How do you stop someone from using a cell phone while driving? How far should the authorities go to stop the behavior.
What mm(fvl) is concerned about is the use of the term and what it means for the general public. Your use of it above shows that the term, nanny state, means the same to each of us, over stepping police or government action.
The meaning of the term upsets mm(fvl) because as the national debate of healthcare, cap and tax for energy, or any topic moves forward, mm(fvl) knows that we conservatives will talk about over-reaching government intrusion into our lives, the loss of individual liberty and choice that the left wants for our country. We will use the term nanny state, just like we use liberal/progressives to identify someone's position. Why do dems running for office resist accepting the liberal label? Because in the language of the public, it means spend and tax, weak on defense, and yes state nannism. Whether true or not it is accepted as fact by the public. Just like politicians like lie and try and attach labels to us on the right.
media matters (for very little) is mad that Ms. Sawyer even deigned the term as worthy of use in this news story. They know that when we attach the term 'nanny state' to health care, people will have a reaction. I believe their reaction to that will be correct in that they will say no to socialized medicine. I also believe that mm(fvl) recognizes the public will have the same reaction to the word and wants to prevent anyone from using the term now.
May I suggest you move to Somalia -- its the perfect neoKKKon paradise: there's no recognized gov't, no one to interfere with the "free market." You can text while driving -- and pirate -- to your heart's content.
Remember when you were a kid, and you wanted to do something, and your parents said 'No' and you asked 'Why?' and they said 'Because we said so'? That's paternalistic governing. The essence of it is this: You aren't smart enough to run your own life, so we will run it for you. It is acceptable to treat children this way, because oftentimes they are unable to grasp the reasoning behind the decision. If you've ever tried to logically debate a 5 year old, you know what I mean.
However, as adult citizens, we -are- allowed to ask 'Why?' and we can expect a response from our representatives. This behavior (texting/cell phone use) while driving will affect people besides the person engaging in that behavior. That makes it a public safety issue. We aren't concerned with protecting the person who is foolish enough to text while driving. Rather, such regulation would be an attempt to protect others around that person. If you're opposed to the government intruding in people's lives, then let's get the government out of our bedrooms, out of our doctor's offices, and out of decisions we make about our own bodies, hmm?
Liberalism and progressivism is not synonymous with nanny state, proudconservative. It was conservatives who banned alcohol, just as one example. It was passed over the progressive President's (Woodrow Wilson) veto. Liberals are also not soft on defense. There might be more options besides force, not that this would ever occur to the average conservative.
Just to be perfectly clear about a couple of other things:
It's cap and trade, not cap and tax.
President Obama is pushing health -coverage- reform, not health -care- reform.
As a progressive, I'm actually interested in -more- choice. For instance, I'd like the choice of getting my health insurance coverage from a non profit organization, even if that means the federal government, just as one little example.
Again, I never complained about this law or any law. People should be arrested for driving recklessly, whether under the influence of drugs or a tweet!
What you are doing here is what mm(fvl) is afraid of, that 'nanny state' will have to be explained away in addition to trying to convince people that for instance, socialized medicine, is not 'nanny statism' in any way, shape or form.
Cap and trade is another example. I choose to call it cap and energy tax, because that is what I believe.
My comments about liberals, weak on defense, etc stick, I said, whether or not they are true. Just like when people of the left call conservatives nazis for instance.
Reasonable debate is in the use, understanding and application of language. Win the language and you have won 3/4's of the debate.
media matters (fvl) sees the term 'nanny state' and others like socialized medicine, liberal as too high a hurdle to overcome with debate alone, they seek to remove the terms as they are now from America's language.
mm(fvl) could care less about this law itself, it cares about it's attachment to 'nanny state'.
And...
Don't be so shallow to bring in the knee jerk Halliburton response. Do what I have suggested makes for debate, it's language but first understand the language and meaning before you jump in and drown.
What this tactic is called is a strawman argument. It's a logical fallacy. One of the problems with it is that it leads off down the trail of some other topic, like socialism, and away from the topic at hand. In this case, legislation criminalizing the use of cell phones while driving.
The simple truth is that if you are such an important person that you have to conduct meetings over the phone while you're in transit, you will be provided with a driver. People that important always are, because they have better things to do.
My comments about liberals, weak on defense, etc stick, I said, whether or not they are true."- proudneoKKKon
TRANSLATION: My mind is made up {thanks to Rush Limpballs} -- DON'T confuse me with facts!
Can you defend your position about the economic devestation that will be wrought by cap and tax? (yes I know, my words)
Secondly, I was making a point about labeling and the responsiblity of the labeled to fight back and correct the misconception, not accusing them of being weak on defense.
Translation: Someone is a few synapes short of frontal cortex...
Yes -- and that someone is the one who keeps repeating:
mm(fvl) could care less about this law itself, it cares about it's attachment to 'nanny state'.
2. Just once, try to write a post without using the term "socialism." Failing that, try to use it correctly. Just ONCE.
3. "Media Matters (for very little..)" Seriously. There is nothing more pathetic on this planet than a conservative who tries to be clever. It's like trying to watch a fish mount a bicycle. You and Wit do not belong together; stop trying to mix oil and water, ok?
When socialism is part of the thread, I will make certain that readers have all the information they need, including updates on socialism.
And thinking, especially in light of Descartes view of singularity of mind and sensation, is in fact a voluntary activity.
In regards to my attempts at humor, they are just that, attempts. But I generally hope to entertain myself first, anything beyond that is pure gravy.
Not everything that is brown is gravy, proud.
And rather poor ones. You'd have been better off trying to joke about murder; that's always a popular neoKKKon theme.
"But I generally hope to entertain myself first, anything beyond that is pure gravy.
Then why come here? Lonely over at FoxNation?
But, I guess I understand the neoKKKon need for entertainment; that partly explains why a drug-addicted radio shock jock is running the GOP, and why neoKKKons get their news from a comedy channel [FOX]. . .
'People don't kill people, cell phones kill people' and try to have the devices banned altogether...
Speaking of driving under the influence; How is it that some substances that are known to affect your abilities/judgment make you guilty of a crime if you operate a vehicle with them in your system, but others are not?
Say I go get a prescription filled of a strong pain killer or the like, and it clearly warns me not to operate machinery. Why is it that the well tested and known effects, along with how long they will remain in my system, of prescription drugs doesn't automatically cause my driver's licence to be pulled for as long as I am on such medication, and for so many days/weeks afterwards?
There is a blatant hypocrisy in all that. Seems to me it would be quite easy to get all the drugged drivers off the road, without having to wait for an accident or play luck-of-the-draw on which tests are performed, and further clogging the justice system as well as increasing our insurance rates sorting it all out.
Given the realities, there is no good excuse for not doing so.
Thanks for so succinctly making my point!
When you hear the term nanny state, what do imagine or visualize?
Hey, don't blame me. It's Pavlovian.
The fact that millions of us will die as a result of such a system is just par for the course if you are a laissez-faire capitalist, right? The problem here, proudconservative, is that you have no control over who will and who won't die, see. It might be somebody you care about. It might even be you.
There are legitimate reasons for the government to regulate an aspect of our lives. Public safety is one of those reasons. This is a public safety issue. Remember that whole 'promote the general welfare' part of the preamble? We have government for that, and we're better off for it.
I imagine if I lost a loved one in a texting/cell phone related accident that was not their fault, I might take it upon myself to go out and find drivers who endanger others in such a way, and put a stop to it on a case by case basis. Far better to let the police and legal system deal with it, I assure you.
Of course, Conservatives are ALWAYS looking for terms like "Nanny State" and "Socialism"- using such terms sure beats thinking, doesn't it, Proudconservative?
I love how wingnuts like proudneoKKKon will yell about the "rule of law" with regard to Sonia Sotomayor one second . . . and complain about the "nanny state" the next . . .
We have a law against murder. Does it stop murder? No. So, what, we should repeal it? This seems to be what Ms. Sawyer is suggesting.
The fact remains that 3000+ people are killed in text and cell phone related accidents each year. After 9-11, we got The Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security. Was this nanny state nonsense? (it -was- locking the barn after the horse had been stolen, but that's a topic for another day)
Whoa, whoa. I'm not talking "pitchfork militia" seen at town hall meetings. It's up to us to contact our state governments to ban texting and driving. I mean, any activity that requires attention away from driving ought to require state-determined standards.
Sawyer's choice of words are poor, but not likely deplorable.
2. What other issues are "like this" that you would like to leave to the states? Legalization of marijuana? Gay marriage? Regulation of the Health Insurance Industry? Please enlighten us- what other issues are "like this?"
Think of the mess that'd create -- there might actually be a war over it. :)