Traffic control cameras - for or against?

There is a lot of controversy going on in the greater Phoenix area about the use of traffic cameras to catch speeders on our freeways and red-light runners on our city streets. The main thrust of the argument is that it is "Big Brotherish," that it is an "invasion of privacy," that it is "just a moneymaker for the city-county-state-whatever."

As far as I'm concerned, I bless the traffic control cameras. If people have to slow down on the freeway so they won't get their picture taken and receive a fine for speeding, isn't that the entire purpose of the camera? If people don't run a red light because they'll get their picture taken and receive a fine, isn't that an improvement in safety at intersections? The only way one of these cameras will take your picture is if you are speeding or running a red light, neither of which you are supposed to be doing in the FIRST place.

In other words, if you are so worried about your privacy being invaded, simply DON'T BREAK THE LAW, and your privacy will be guaranteed. And if you're worried about these cameras being simply a way for a city or county or state to make money, guess what? If you don't want the authorities to get your money, don't break the law, and they won't! It's a voluntary tax, people! If you don't run a red light, you won't get your picture snapped, you won't be charged with a fine, your privacy won't be invaded, and the authorities won't get their hands on your money. Ditto with speeding like a maniac down the freeway.

I think all the arguments the opponents of traffic control cameras are putting forth is just a coverup for the real reason they oppose the cameras - they think that if a police officer pulls them over to give them a ticket for a traffic infraction, they can BS their way out of the ticket. That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? You can't BS a camera, so let's be against the cameras.

As for the argument that we should have police officers patrolling the freeways and intersections instead of the cameras - where are we going to get the extra officers? If you DO have officers patrolling freeways and intersections, then the scofflaws argue that these officers should be assigned to control REAL crimes like homicides and robberies and so on. Well, by having the cameras as a law enforcement tool (and that is exactly what they are, a LAW ENFORCEMENT TOOL), that frees up our limited amount of officers to be investigating other crimes.

I don't want to think that you are going to run a red light and crash into me or somebody I love who is coming legally through the intersection, and I don't want to think you're going to be zooming down the freeway and cause an accident with me or someone I love. (In fact, I avoid driving on freeways because the behavior of other drivers terrifies me on freeways, and at the much higher rates of speed, it's that much more difficult to compensate for the idiocy of the other drivers.) If a camera snapping your picture and causing you to receive a fine for breaking the law will help keep me and mine safe from you, I'm all for it.

25 and naive

The "Arizona Republic" today had a quote from a 25-year-old who said he "doesn't care about all that spreading the wealth around, I just care that we've elected the first black man to be president." (Paraphrased).

Ok, son, that's because you're 25. By the end of Obama's first (and hopefully only) term, you will be in your late 20's and not mid-20's, and you will probably be starting to climb the ladder in whatever profession you have chosen for yourself. And you will find, to your startled amazement, that any salary increases your employer grants you will be swallowed up by President Obama and the Democrats who think you really don't NEED all that extra money, and they want to take it away from you and give it to somebody else they deem needs it more. And when you protest, "Hey, wait a minute! I worked for that money, it's MY salary, and I need it to pay my own bills! You can't take it!" we will remind you that you said in 2008 that you didn't CARE about "spreading the wealth around," you only cared about electing the first black president. Wait till he and the Democrats stick their hands into your wallet and your bank account and tell me this again in a few years.

In other words, grow up.

No freebies after all

Ok, we now have a President Obama (sigh). My question is - what will his avid followers do when he cannot deliver on his grandiose promises? Such as the moronic woman who rejoiced that once he got into office, she would no longer have to put gas in her car or pay her mortgage? (She's becoming as famous as Joe the Plumber, except Joe was SMART.) On January 21, the day after the coronation - excuse me, inauguration - when she goes to get a tank of gas, and finds out she still has to either put her credit card into the pump or go inside to pay the cashier, is she going to whine, "But President Obama says I don't have to pay no more!" When she rips up her mortgage bill and dances around in joy that she no longer has to pay it, and then the mortgage company tells her, "Pay up or we foreclose," will she retort, "I don't hafta pay - President Obama is gonna take care of me!"

Fool.

Sarah Palin in 2012! Go, Sarah!

Obama - the Teflon Candidate

Remember when the press dubbed Ronald Reagan "the Teflon president" because no matter what, nothing ever seemed to "stick" with him? Well, I submit to you - the Teflon candidate - Barack Obama. No matter what dubious things happened in his past, and no matter what kind of shady characters he's associated himself with over the years, and no matter how many times he trips himself up in lies - his fawning admirers won't see the truth. Nothing "sticks" with this candidate. Does he have to club baby seals to death on national TV or something similar before ANYbody decides he's not worth your vote?

Obama - Just a pretty suit of clothes

Did anyone ever read "Gone with the Wind?" (I'm talking reading the novel, not seeing the movie. The novel gives you insight into Scarlett O'Hara's thoughts and feelings that the movie can't do.) Remember at the end of the book, when Scarlett realizes she loves Rhett and never really loved Ashley? She realizes that she had made up in her imagination a pretty suit of clothes, and when Ashley came along, so handsome and so charming, she in her imagination put that suit of clothes on him and made them fit him whether they actually fit or not. In other words, she fell in love with her romanticized ideal of him, and not the person he really was, and all those years she loved a fantasy and not the real person at all.

It strikes me this is what Barack Obama's supporters are doing with him. People are so starved for a leader, someone who has the charisma and charm of a John F. Kennedy or a Ronald Reagan, and here comes Obama, so seemingly charismatic, such a glib speaker, so different, so smooth, and his ardent supporters are in love with a fantasy, not with the person he actually is. That's why all his questionable past alliances, the murky background about his birth, his obviously socialistic leanings, etc., don't matter to them. They have all "put a suit of pretty clothes" on him and are insisting on making that suit fit, whether it actually does or not. They all have this "my mind's made up, don't bother me with the facts" mentality.

Shame on us if we follow the blind into a ditch.

Neil Diamond - simply the best!

My niece Tammy and I went to see Neil Diamond in concert last Friday. I've lost count of how many times I've seen Neil in concert - is it six or seven now? - dating back to the early 1980s, but I hadn't seen him in concert since 1996, so I was glad to have the opportunity to see him again. I've been a Neil Diamond fan since I was about 14 years old (!).

And as usual, the "Solitary Man" put on a fantastic show! He is 67 but has the energy of someone half his age, and he is on stage for an entire two hours - no opening act, no intermission. While he isn't able to perform ALL his hits (I would have liked to hear "If You Know What I Mean," "Desiree" and "September Morn," all of which I've seen him do in past concerts, but which were left out this time around) he sings MOST of them, and what he gives you isn't an abbreviated verse and chorus as part of a medley, either! He gives you the entire song! His audience absolutely adores him (none of the other performers I've ever seen in concert has such a close rapport with their audience, none), and he has people out of their seats and dancing for tunes like "Cherry Cherry" and "I'm A Believer." And no Neil Diamond concert is complete without him and his fans singing the chorus of "Sweet Caroline" over and over and over! (So good, so good, so good!) (Pun intended!)

A very moving moment is when he sings the achingly poignant "Brooklyn Roads," a song about his boyhood in New York, and on a large screen behind him is shown home movies from his teen years with his parents and his brother. VERY nice, Neil - hard to keep a dry eye while watching that footage and listening to that beautiful biographical song!

Also new since the last time I saw him in concert is the slow dance he and Linda Press do while singing "You Don't Bring Me Flowers." Just beautiful! (And she gets PAID to do that - sigh...)

Here's hoping Neil keeps rocking for many years to come - your fans sure do love you, Mr. Diamond!