 |
| Rob's Soapbox | ||
|
Congratulations!
You have finally landed on the one page on this entire site (and on the entire internet for that matter) that is purely without bullshit... my soapbox page. There are a lot of times during our show that, whether it's because of time constraints and other obligations, I don't always get to address some issues that I feel don't get the attention they deserve. There are even more times when I just don't feel like waiting until the show the next day to get some things off my chest. Thus, I have started the "Rob's Soapbox" page. If you have clicked on this page looking for someone to coddle your fragile sense of self-esteem, or tell you what you want to hear or to reinforce your outdated world view, then exit this page right now and go somewhere else. If you are in search of the last forum for reason and common sense left in the world, then sit back, relax, and enjoy. I make only one promise with this soapbox page... if you read long enough and often enough, you will eventually be offended. So here's my latest soapbox. Listen up, 'cause you just might learn something... |
||
|
||
September 23, 2007 YOU FIGURE OUT THE TITLE THIS TIME I admit that there are a lot of laws in America that I neither agree with nor understand. That, to me, is the American way; one must abide by laws they don’t like while working to peacefully change them. Perhaps the most glaring example of this process is the abortion issue in this country. Half of all Americans don’t agree that abortion should be legal, even though the Supreme Court ruled it would be almost 40 years ago. Yet, the nation still functions, abortions occur, and millions wake up every morning trying to find new ways to overturn Roe versus Wade. This is America in action. I have a ton of my own personal Roe V Wades that drive me insane. DUI checkpoints are clearly a violation of the 4th Amendments’ protection against illegal search and seizure, yet 39 states in this country allow them. That one makes my blood boil on a fundamentally Constitutional basis. I could write all day about specific legal atrocities occurring in this land as our rights are stripped away from us, but a recent movement in a major American city has reminded me of my most astounding, confusing observation of American law. There has, for many years, been a contradictory policy involving age in this country that has never made any sense to me; allow me, for a moment to lay out my case:- At the age of 16 you are old enough to drive - At the age of 16 in most states, however, you are not old enough to have sex. In other words, you are responsible enough to operate a 3,000 pound missile, but you are not responsible enough to operate a 6 inch wiener. - At the age of 18 you are old enough to vote, own a firearm, and be an adult in every way legally, including (most notably) you are old enough to be sent overseas to die defending our nation’s freedoms. - At the age of 18 however, you are not old enough to responsibly drink alcohol. In other words, you can operate a tank, take a man’s life and/or leap out of a plane all in the name of defending our nation, but if you try to have a Budweiser to relax, we’ll throw you in jail. These are merely the most asinine and absurd examples of our hypocritical behavior involving maturity, youth and the law. There are countless others. In fact, in the last 10 years we have added a new twist to this idiocy by adding in the “delaying of the inevitable.” Many states have created a series of Indiana Jones-like challenges that teens must conquer before truly being allowed to drive on their own. There are restrictions against driving at night, driving with other teens, driving while chewing gum and a host of other stupid laws passed by mourning parents whose children died in cars and the parents, in their own suffering, decided it would be neat to punish the rest of society for their mistakes in raising an irresponsible driver. Not allowing teens to drive at night does not, of course, solve anything. In South Carolina, where they just implemented this stupidity 2 years ago, the accident rate amongst 16-18 year old drivers is down almost 25% since they instituted the “no driving at night” law. What they don’t advertise is that the accident rate amongst 18-21 year olds has gone up by more than 65% in that same time period and of that 65%, 90% of the accidents have occurred in the dark. This is where we insert the loudest “DUH,” known to mankind. If a person is responsible enough to drive at 16, then they must be allowed to actually drive; everywhere, all the time. Not allowing them to do so simply stunts and stalls their development and delays the inevitable. But I digress. We have truly taken the hypocrisy to a new level in Cleveland, Ohio. News agencies reported a very sad story from Cleveland in the following way (paraphrased): So, just to recap; we have the tragic death of a girl who is 12, shooter unknown. In a seemingly completely unrelated sentence, we are told that 70% of all gun crimes in Cleveland involve people under 28. Note the word involve; that can mean that the victim (as in this case) is simply under 28, not necessarily the shooter (especially since in this story the shooter was never caught). This brings us to the dumbest man alive, the Mayor of Cleveland, the honorable Frank “I’m an idiot” Jackson who has proposed a new law that will wipe out all gun crimes in his fair city. In Cleveland, where a 12 year old was shot by an unknown assailant and where people under 28 are involved in a preponderance of gun crimes, the mayor has proposed banning gun ownership to anyone under 21 years old. I guess we call this “splitting the difference.” Take a moment to think about the lunacy involved in this. There are so many things out of step with logic in this proposal it gives me a headache: - For starters, the overwhelming majority of people in America (including Cleveland) who use guns in crimes don’t obtain the guns legally so the law doesn’t matter to them. Lawbreakers, by definition, don’t follow new laws.
- Why is the ban at 21? Shouldn’t it be anyone under 28 can’t own a gun? - Since we don’t even know who shot the 12 year old girl, shouldn’t this idiot mayor be banning people under the age of 28 from simply leaving their houses ever? Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep them inside away from the guns? - The piece de resistance of course is the glaringly obvious; this mayor wants to welcome 18-21 year old soldiers back from Afghanistan, where they have defended our freedom, by giving them a hug of thanks and confiscating their side arms in one fell swoop. “Thanks, son, for protecting us against those terrorists people over there, but you’re just too immature to walk the streets of Cleveland with a handgun. Hand it over.” Granted, Cleveland is very similar to Kabul in many ways, most notably the stench, but that’s for another column at another time. I fully understand, by the way, that I am arguing logic with illogical people. Laws restricting gun ownership have never been about logic or sense, and have always been about “feeling” safe, creating the illusion of leadership and banning outright, guns, until every criminal in America has one and the rest of us don’t. Washington D.C. stupidly made gun ownership illegal decades ago (the only city in America to do so) and has been the murder capitol of the nation ever since. This is what happens when you arm the murderers and strip away the defenses of the innocent all at once. Indiana Jones taught us years ago that showing up to a gun fight with a knife (or whip) is a sure way to lose. (By the way, score me 50 points for my second Indiana Jones reference in one column, thank you very much). The broader picture remains the same; this nation has spent decades sending mixed messages about maturity and growth. The argument has been that people can handle different things at different stages in their life but the logic is flawed. If a man can handle being gunned down on a battlefield in the Middle East then he can certainly handle knowing when to say when. By the way, plenty of people who are 41 don’t know when to say when, so let’s all stop pretending that banning a 19 year old corporal from having a shot of Tequila is good law. The answer, of course is to make 18 the national age of everything. At 18, you should be allowed to drink, smoke, drive, screw, aim, shoot, fire, and vote. At 18, you should be required to register with social service, pay taxes, get a god-damned job and move the hell out of your parents’ house. Ba-doop. Now that the column has ended (as indicated by the use of the all-inclusive argument-ending phrase, “ba-doop,)” I now invite you to vote for your favorite title to this Soapbox. I usually, magically, decide upon the titles myself with little or no thought, as they simply come to me. In this case, there seemed to be so many catchy phrases I could use, I thought I would offer them to you to allow you to pick your favorite. So without further adieu, the nominees for the title to this Soapbox are: - OLD ENOUGH TO DRIVE, OLD ENOUGH TO DIE, TOO STUPID TO DRINK- LET’S NUKE CLEVELAND - THINGS INDIANA JONES HAS TAUGHT US
|
||