The legislators, not sober drivers, are those with Impaired Judgement

Open-container bill would not make roads safer, but make life more difficult for drivers

It 's a good thing that the current draft open-container law was when I was a journalist. One of our photographers could have unknowingly violated the law, as we covered a story.

We have combined two volunteers hilarious, a lawyer and a mortician-house cleaning throughout the city. Their mission: To become real garbage. They discussed what to do with bags of garbage that goopy nicknamed radioactive ("Real garbage collectors are not afraid of nuclear waste.") They mock other volunteers ("Real garbage collectors do not have clean gloves.")

Soon, their truck was full of garbage. I saw another bag.

"Real did not drive cleaning garbage," the passenger said the driver.

The passenger jumped out of the truck and grabbed the bag. He could not wedge into the truck bed, so he opened the car door of the photographer who follows them. He threw the bag on his floor of the front seats.

Under the open-container bill - House Bill 1057 - if there was one empty beer can or a bottle of bourbon inside that bag, could be the ticket.

No matter that she was sober. Never mind that someone else put the bag there without his consent. Never mind that she did not know the contents of the bag. No matter who was carrying away waste. No matter that his employer would have been harder than any officer if he drank while he was working.

All that matters under this bill if there is an open container of alcohol in the passenger compartment.

Once again, our legislature takes us in the land of unintended consequences because it lacks the sense and courage to do the right thing, which is nothing.

Sin. They had been holding firmly against this legislation long sought by the federal government.

The federal government has extorted Hoosiers to the tune of $ 20 million per year in road taxes that our drivers have paid, because he does not like the law of Indiana highway. Never mind that pesky tenth amendment says that powers not specifically designated by the United States Constitution, belong to the states.

The Indiana General Assembly should have learned from his recent tour in the Land of unintended consequences. A law was passed in 2001 and came into force last January all the necessary food serving establishments authorized to employ food handlers.

And 'inadvertently banned potlucks for churches and other nonprofit organizations. Why can not Indiana be dangerous to those ladies church gooseberry pie or pudding corn or potato salad without state approval, even if the bereaved families who have openly appreciated a good meal after the funeral.

Oops.

Back to HB 1057.

As with other laws on alcohol, clearly will have some bizarre inconsistencies. According to the current liquor laws brewing, you can not buy carry out non-alcoholic on Sunday, even if you can not get a buzz out less, but you can buy all 50 proof Nyquil desired. Or 28.6-proof scope. Or 70-proof vanilla extract. (For comparison, the national beers and local wines are 10-14 test 24-28 test.)

I do not want blue laws to prohibit such purchases. But this shows how current laws do not make sense.

Surely harmless non-alcoholic beer will be part of this bill because, Jeepers, a police officer looking from a distance I can not say a green bottle of O'Doul a Becks bottle green.

Why not go through with the law? If you have an opened bottle of Scope, you're toast. Better keep that vanilla in the trunk. And no tolerance for a cup of orange juice, either. If the orange juice in the refrigerator was opened three days ago, has more alcohol than a bottle of O'Doul's.

This bill would punish money launderers, which reduce the burden on our landfills, collecting manure and non-profit support such as housing animals Muncie.

Collectors transporting their goods at the flea market might fines for empty cans and bottles that have been so long that the drinker has been dead for decades. Restaurateurs (or parents of the bride and groom) would not be able to choose where to put the van in half-used bottles left from a wedding reception.

The problem is not with containers of alcohol.

The first problem is unsafe drivers. (Ironically, drunk drivers will drive past police officers ticketing drivers sober.)

The other problem is with the legislators that pass laws without considering the consequences. Their opinion is clearly compromised. They are the ones that deserve mention.

Still Does not Pay To Be Gay

From my point of law, I see the issue of gay marriages or civil unions as a civil rights.

federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination against persons based on race, age or sex. As state legislatures can legally discriminate against a group of people - gay couples - based on their gender identity?

Having raised the issue for purely intellectual, I must admit that I am not a big fan of civil rights, and I do not defend them. Despite their egalitarian motives, are a misnomer.

Civil rights are neither civil nor right. The privileges bestowed by government on a group of people who always come at the expense of equal rights of others.

Marriage rights are civil privileges. Both government and business benefits to married people than the rest of us do not get and we fully supported. Licensed married people get preferential tax rates, better employee benefits and legal protections. Supporters of gay marriage or civil unions want to extend those privileges of marriage to gay couples.

I can not say I do ... and not because they are against anyone's sexual preferences. I do not want government by granting more privileges to none.

Heck, if gay couples get civil rights of marriage, there will be fewer classes disadvantaged population to subsidize the taxes and insurance rates of heterosexual married couples. How fair that the individual be like me and normal living?

It 'something to exercise our natural right to marry in God' s another to force others who are unlicensed to subsidize our behavior, hetero or otherwise.

We would be better to dismantle the privileges of particular interest, not add to them. Also, I would not on any government privileges. Government servants are equipped with too much responsibility.

marriage licenses grant the state power to divide marital assets at the whim of the General Assembly. I do not understand why gay couples want their relationship subject to our state legislators.

Ultimately I'd like to see all the authorized persons released from their commitments to the government unnecessary. This includes not only married persons licensing, but licensing lawyers, doctors, electricians and sports coaches.

The government can not certify the quality of doctors or lawyers through licensing agreements that can guarantee the quality of marriages or civil unions.

professions licensed to use government as a bully against unlicensed - and therefore not privileged competitors -. All professional licenses are licenses to steal your chance to hire someone perhaps more qualified, but willing to follow orders of the government. Consumers have better tools for licensing to assess the quality professional.

The history of marriage licenses is also clear cargo interests. marriage licenses were once used - perhaps invented - to discourage interracial relationships. Currently used to discourage gay relationships. Heterosexuality has its privileges, and still does not pay to be gay.

Disadvantaged for singles and couples without a license - gay or otherwise - Let's aspire to remain unlicensed. Let's exercise our God-given rights instead of seeking government permission to exercise them. We work to get our own house in order.

Licensed or not, all adults can draft a will or a trust to pass their property at death of their loved one (s), regardless of gender. Nobody needs a marriage license to fulfill this important function.

No pair need legislators that defines the property rights of each Party respectively shall be dissolved if its report. This can and should be done by contract - not just by gay couples, but also husbands and wives.

I am in solidarity with the people - gay or not - that employers do not extend the privilege to certain employment benefits for their live-in co-inhabitants, as do the couple married employees'. The solutions to this are the best employers, the government added a category of people to its list A.

There is only one valid justification for marriage licenses - the convenience of law. Are useful to the courts to determine legal relationships, duties and powers, when couples break or testify.

However, the common law privilege against spousal testimony earlier forced marriage licenses. marriage licenses were not legally required to prove their marital status.

There would be smart to get government completely out of wedlock and give to God, and belongs where it all began.

God, not government, manage and punish all our love relationships. Government to make available to preside over our material disputes.

That Man In The Glass

I looked in the full length mirror and saw the reflection of this old, maybe an octogenarian, looking thin and shrunken body of vitality. I can barely make out the last vestiges of the dreamer's soul, that piece-a-mania that has been said the name (Pogie! Is my pet name, sorry) and dynamic organization that used indefaticable not know the meaning of the word can not.

I looked again, this time closer to man in the glass. It took me a minute late more to realize that he sports an ill-fitting long hair and premature wrinkling of the skin and eyes had died ... myself. Or what used to me. I almost did not recognize the stranger.

But the eyes seem to acknowledge me.

Beggars-cannot-be-thinking selections

I did not know that there is a phrase coined so, let alone a attitudes. But I know someone who practically lives with her life, unbeknownst to it. Guess who?

The psyche of a person of this mentality has a world so small, always waiting for crumbs that have saved him and gave no preference but be grateful for everything, including the denigration laced words that sting and property subquality . He is robbed of the choices he was not aware it was inherent in him, a right of every human being. Worse than any disability, has been led to believe that is mentally paralyzed, not for nothing, and be content with the hand-me-down that other damage.

How can we make people victims of abuse and victims that way! It 's almost as inhumane as heinous crime! 'It could be worse. Because the scars are indelibly burned the victim's soul. You can not apply it to the antibiotics, you can not see that chaos is wrecked. And if that is not worse enough, the ruling faces abused by society and peers not to do so is dictated by how successfully.
It takes the life out of life. Definitely. It is understood that asking too much, or it is almost impossible these days?

Embrace

I just decided now that I like hugs better than kisses. If clinical trials go on it, Pete knows what germs million reside in the mouth. (Did you know that the number of species of bacteria that resides in a mouth are more numerous population of people in the world? Shows statistics ... yeah. Promise!)

Kisses can be tingling, but you can not shut his nostrils the smell of halitosis terrible. It does not matter as-a-piece-burnin 'love your partner seems, nose do not lie. Furthermore, it is great to kiss, but who can guarantee that that kiss is always fresh toothbrush when you kiss. Or you? It just takes away the romantic illusion. Yes, even the actors who put in the romantic scenes of the film would brush their teeth or chew candy breath before taking. But this does not happen in real life, right?

Bet Now To treat the best chicken dish garlic and onions Burger King, but then you will like, LovaPalooza a Piolo Pascual-viewer that is three times as most fragrant of garlic and onion-y on the open mouth. Would you dare? For like five minutes, French kiss?! Or, french fries na lang?! Yikes! Give?

Hugs, or what I prefer affectionately called it, ... hugs, is better. It's warm, affectionate, spontaneous, did not smell that good, but obviously it is better not dwell on BO, and is so similar ... um ... healthy? For me the idea of touching two hearts (and kisses, for that matter), like two breasts together in a fierce embrace more talk Than Any words evoke passionate kiss any form or poetry. And you can embrace, uh, hug anyone, anytime! It 's the best and rapid expression of love to those who care. It should not be your lover or someone who is romantic. And 'universal.

And yes ... No danger of exchanging seeds.

Imaginary reality

Our world is once cement is dissolved in a realm of intangibility.

And 'interesting to consider the ways in which the computer and the Internet have changed our lives. Tasks that once required visiting certain locations and interact with specific people, such as booking a holiday or accessing your bank account can be made online. Often when you do go somewhere to talk to an assistant end up performing the online business the same way you could do alone.

Online banking intrigues me a lot. We almost lost the need for real money. I paid with a check that goes directly into my bank account. I then log into my bank account via the Internet and transfer money to my savings account, which is at another bank to my regular account. If I ever need money from my savings account I log in and transfer back to my main account. I never gave a''real money in this bank, nor have I received any from them. Most of my purchases these days are made using Eftpos. I almost never actually cold, hard, real cash on me. In practice the things we buy with the data in those days. Numbers hover around the place, being added and subtracted from a variable to another. There is probably still somewhere real money to be couriered between banks in general but I never see it. I wonder how long it will be until they actually are not technically money.

The stock market in the same way intrigues me. I've never been involved myself, but I think it is the equivalent of professional gambling. People make a point that some stocks go up or down, and both gain or lose money depending on whether their bet pans out. What interests me most is that basically it is an economic reality built around the concept of buying and selling absolutely nothing. What precisely are theoretically 'parts' of a given society. Bit collect enough and you could own the company. Actually moved some numbers that represent money and get some numbers that represent the stocks. When these numbers get bigger numbers sell them again, and receive in exchange some numbers more money. There is usually no real product or money (which you're holding), seen in this whole process.

There are moral dilemmas, now that did not exist before. For example, piracy is really stealing? All that takes is a copy of the data. Nobody really loses something tangible out of the theft. Stealing a purse mean that someone no longer grant them. Stealing a car means that someone must take the bus for a while '. Stealing a computer program means that another copy just 'magic' comes into existence and becomes yours. The futuristic super-villains of the past, countries held hostage with real weapons of enormous size, often floating in space. The reality of our modern world is that it could hold a nation hostage, with no more 'real' of a copy a few files from one computer secure.

Virtual reality may not have eventuated in a realistic virtual worlds, but in reality is becoming a 'virtual'. It may not be problematic or even surprising, but I find it interesting that hard cash, cold hard facts are anything but fast becoming tangible.