Herbert Harrington of Wilmington wants to make us all safe by having automobiles equipped with cell phone jammers:
Yep. This makes perfect sense. My son is having an asthma attack in the back seat of our car. We are racing to the hospital. My wife, in the passenger seat, is attempting to call 911 and get better medical instructions or at least have the ER personnel alerted that we are coming in.
Technological gizmos do not resolve all safety issues because--Herbert, you twit--they are incapable of making judgments.
But I am sure that he will someday find political support for eliminating all ability of anybody--passengers or drivers--from having access to cell phones in any vehicle.
Oh, wait, some progressives already have.
A letter to the editor last Saturday had a great idea of installing cell phone jamming devices in autos when they are being driven, suggesting that this technology be developed.
The devices are available right now on the Internet. The only problem: They are illegal to own in the United States. Is this a great country or what?
All around us on Interstate 95, nitwits are having animated phone conversations, or texting (which is cell phoning on crack), and we can't protect ourselves.
Cell phone jammers have an effective cone of protection of about 30 meters, and their use for individuals trying to protect themselves should be immediately made legal.
Yep. This makes perfect sense. My son is having an asthma attack in the back seat of our car. We are racing to the hospital. My wife, in the passenger seat, is attempting to call 911 and get better medical instructions or at least have the ER personnel alerted that we are coming in.
Technological gizmos do not resolve all safety issues because--Herbert, you twit--they are incapable of making judgments.
But I am sure that he will someday find political support for eliminating all ability of anybody--passengers or drivers--from having access to cell phones in any vehicle.
Oh, wait, some progressives already have.
Comments
Would you really tolerate such "logic" from your students in their papers? Really?
I said "some"--is Slate not considered a progressive blog? (Serious question; I always thought so.)
More to the point: as you do not allow me to determine who should get to speak for libertarians and libertarianism, nor do you have the power to determine which progressives I will cite.
Funny how that consistency thing eventually bites everybody on the ass, isn't it?
Oh snap
Sorry Dana but "you don't have a monopoly on the word progressive and your version of it isn't the only version in town."