These pages contain responses to news articles, broadcasts and mailings which I thought just needed a rant. They should always be fairly new and old ones will be moved to the Old Rants page.

I was looking through the Indiana Driver Manual today and found some more unbelievable things about our driver licenses.

One of the provisions allows for suspension of your license for "making graffiti". I'm sorry but why does this form of vandalism have a different punishment than say breaking windows or driving thru someone’s yard with your automobile? It's the same punishment that a vehicular homicide has. What in the world is going on? Of course not very many people are graffiti artists so who cares. Right?

Another one makes it possible for the BMV to suspend your driver license if you do not finish school. I guess they don't want you to succeed without an education.

Finally, they can just plain suspend your driver license for any "reasonable” cause. Who decides what that means?

Obviously, three more reasons for the legislature to fix the "driving is a privilege" crap and quit clubbing us over the head with our driver license for everything but driving.

Just like the incremental seatbelt law. Someone is trying to shove a wedge between the motorcyclists and the automobilers. Yesterday I saw Channel 15 ran a “What’s up with that” spot which asked the question, “Why do we have to wear our seatbelts and motorcyclists don’t have to wear a helmet?” Well the answer is simple, most drivers are sheep and most motorcyclists are goats. When we have enough automobiler goats, the law will be repealed.

When seatbelt laws took effect for cars, someone quickly pointed out that pickup trucks were not treated the same way. One character down at IU even tried to take the issue to court citing that treating trucks differently was unconstitutional. Our buddies at the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute even ran an add on TV with the same message. Once again the end justifies the means with these tyrants and turning one social strata against another is not beneath them.

As I’ve said other places in these pages. Enslaving everyone equally does not make slavery right.

Saturday July 28 on the six o’clock news, Channel 21 had a feature on Pridefest and there was my seatbelt nemesis Ms. Berger droning on about diversity. Well apparently her appreciation of diversity has no problem with the uniformity of “equal enslavement” as decreed by seatbelt laws. The ironic thing is that we should be on the same side and when the righteous right tells her where to stick her diversity maybe she’ll think about the goats and the words of Frederick Douglass, “No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.”

Finally the in.gov web site has posted the new seatbelt law. In case you want to see what tyrannical gobbledygook looks like I have reprinted it in these pages. The new law seems to open the door to legally not wearing your seatbelt in reverse. Think of the possibilities. Which side of the road do you drive on if only using reverse? Why did they change the old wording which included reverse? They’ll probably change that, soon enough.

I watched Bill Moyer's Journal the other night on PBS. It was a repeat. His guests were John Nichols and Bruce Fine. These are definitely not conservative political journalists but they were making some of the same arguments that I do about Washington's and specifically the executive branch's power. They seemed to grasp the notion that precedents set by this president and vice-president could have serious consequences for The Constitution and allow future presidents even more power. Their solution is impeachment.

Isn't it ironic, that even as these two use terms such as "children" and "subjects" they don't realize that their own agendas in the past have made it possible. As Washington extends its uniformity to the states, it desensitizes the citizens and makes it easier for the would-be rulers there to look at them as children and rule them as subjects. Journalists and TV pundits continually call for leadership (a word used extensively on your evening “news”). Are they really asking to be ruled? John and Bruce have undoubtedly called for increased federal power over the states in the past. Why put the brakes on this president at this time? Obviously they think that some of the powers assumed by this president go beyond those envisioned by the framers of The Constitution. I personally think the Department of Homeland Security is a Bush contrivance that will run amuck. John and Bruce may think it already has. Maybe we’re right.

John mentioned another of my favorite things. He suggested that people had too many other things going on in their lives, were busy being entertained and generally uninterested in the operation of government. Is that the fault of the citizens or are they being lead down that path by design. As a method of ruling, it was laid out long ago like this: "The wise therefore rule by emptying hearts and stuffing bellies, by weakening ambitions and strengthening bones" -Lao Tsu. Long live the iPod and cable TV.

Home