My wife will tell you I'm not the best when it comes to turn signal use. I used to be, but that was before spending a year in Korea and then eight years living in the Boston area. Those two places taught me that using turn signals will just give others warning so they can prevent you from doing what you are trying to do. (I'll digress for a second here: A tip for driving in the Boston area is to never make eye contact, and just start merging or turning if traffic is too heavy to do it politely. Be aware of your surroundings and the vehicle you are inconveniencing, but don't give unless they are stronger willed than you!)
Anyway, my point about turn signals is, if you are going to use them, USE THEM RIGHT!
It's amazing that many people who use turn signals think they are doing a good job, but are instead a real hazard out on the road.
If your brake lights come on before your clicker... FAIL! The whole idea of turn signals is to announce your intentions. If you are already slowing, or worse, turning, then what's the point? You didn't tell me anything and I can figure it out when you are slowing or already starting to turn. Put that turn signal on in advance of the turn, before you hit the brakes.
Of course it isn't always that simple. You don't want to turn the signal on two blocks before the turn. Not only is that not helping me behind you, but may cause people to pull out in front of you if they think you are turning before you reach them. It can be tricky at times, but overall this isn't that hard.
And who am I to comment given my admission I don't always signal? Well, maybe I shouldn't, but I have my own system that I base on my belief of common sense. If you are far enough ahead or behind me, and my actions aren't going to affect you in the least, I probably won't signal. (This is more for changing lanes left/right than actually turning.) If I'm the only one on the road, I promise you I won't signal. I use turn signals for what they are for: to signal drivers around me who need to know my impending actions.
And consider too, sometimes actions are obvious just by where you position your vehicle. If you are in a left/right turn only lane, it's safe to assume where you are going. (Please signal if you want to do something different!)
So much of driving comes down to having a little common sense... sadly that is lacking in so many drivers today.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Initiative 1183 - A No Brainer
Again, maybe I'm just simple-minded, but I only see one possible vote on 1183: YES.
Regardless of any possible consequences from the passage of 1183, and the 'no' group keeps telling us there are many negative ones... all you have to think about is the 'roll of government'.
Never should government run a business. Not only are they not good at it... look at the waste and inefficiency of any government program... it is not what government is for. The government is there to protect and serve the citizens. This usually means providing such things as police, fire, and ensuring safe environments and etc. At no time should a government run a business.
Washington is one of a small minority of states still running liquor stores. That alone should tell you something.
If there are problems with non-state entities selling liquor, then it is the state's responsibility to regulate and enforce. Having the state be the only vendor is hardly the only way, or even best way, to accomplish that.
So again, there can only be one logical vote on 1183. YES. Get the government out of running a business.
Regardless of any possible consequences from the passage of 1183, and the 'no' group keeps telling us there are many negative ones... all you have to think about is the 'roll of government'.
Never should government run a business. Not only are they not good at it... look at the waste and inefficiency of any government program... it is not what government is for. The government is there to protect and serve the citizens. This usually means providing such things as police, fire, and ensuring safe environments and etc. At no time should a government run a business.
Washington is one of a small minority of states still running liquor stores. That alone should tell you something.
If there are problems with non-state entities selling liquor, then it is the state's responsibility to regulate and enforce. Having the state be the only vendor is hardly the only way, or even best way, to accomplish that.
So again, there can only be one logical vote on 1183. YES. Get the government out of running a business.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Clueless Drivers I (I just know there are going to be more rants about drivers...)
So I started walking again, trying to improve my health. (I need to lose a few pounds and I'm not really interested in dieting!) I walk a 2+ mile route on rural roads. About half of it is nearly free of traffic, but part of it is on a narrow road where I have to walk just a hair off the fog line with cars passing every minue or two.
Me, I'm walking facing traffic like I was taught. Hey, if somebody is going to hit me, they are going to have to work at it! I'm not going to make it easy for them as I'm watching their every move!
I'm amazed at how many people pass me and give me little room. It's one thing when they can't see far enough down the road, but a good chunk of my route, visibility is fine.
Some of these people seem to think they can't leave their lane. They stay planted right in the center of it. And I don't mean to sound sexist, but it is usually women. And usually old women.
When I'm driving and pass a pedestrian, I'm half way or more into the other lane to give them lots of room. I'd feel real bad if I hit somebody because they fell out in front of me or something. Moving over is just the right thing to do and will save both of us a lot of potential grief!
My hats off to those that do give me a ton of room. And the drivers that slow way down when passing me because they can't see far enough, or a vehicle is approaching them, that too is much appreciated. Thanks!
Now, if all the rest would get a clue...
Me, I'm walking facing traffic like I was taught. Hey, if somebody is going to hit me, they are going to have to work at it! I'm not going to make it easy for them as I'm watching their every move!
I'm amazed at how many people pass me and give me little room. It's one thing when they can't see far enough down the road, but a good chunk of my route, visibility is fine.
Some of these people seem to think they can't leave their lane. They stay planted right in the center of it. And I don't mean to sound sexist, but it is usually women. And usually old women.
When I'm driving and pass a pedestrian, I'm half way or more into the other lane to give them lots of room. I'd feel real bad if I hit somebody because they fell out in front of me or something. Moving over is just the right thing to do and will save both of us a lot of potential grief!
My hats off to those that do give me a ton of room. And the drivers that slow way down when passing me because they can't see far enough, or a vehicle is approaching them, that too is much appreciated. Thanks!
Now, if all the rest would get a clue...
Monday, October 24, 2011
No Farm Labor - But Unemployment is Over 9%?
As I walked down our road this morning I noticed a bunch of apple bins in the orchard and apples still hanging on the trees. Awfully late in the season for them not to be picked. They may not be as I've heard their is a farm labor shortage.
I read a front page article in last weeks paper about how in Alabama, farmers are complaining they are losing money because there are no migrant workers to pick their crops due to tougher immigration laws in the state. I get that.
So why don't the unemployed legal people, white, black, brown, whatever, get out there and work? This would take care of two problems. Seems simple enough.
But of course it isn't. When non-migrants have been hired, farmers complain the work ethic isn't there, and many quit after a day or two because it is hard and doesn't pay well. Besides, they can make nearly the same... or more... on unemployment.
We need a complete shift in the way things are done to fix this. It doesn't seem that hard to me...
First, if you have been on unemployment for a set time... let's say six months... you need to take these jobs or lose eligibility for benefits. People should not be allowed to get so comfortable on unemployment. I know the job market is tough right now, but it may not turn around for a decade. It reaches a time where people need to take the jobs that are available. I'm not completely hard-nosed on this; I think the government can help by offering up credits for day care or other legitimate needs while the unemployed are working temporarily as farm laborers. And I think it is fair that they make as much, maybe more, than they were receiving in unemployment benefits too, meaning they might be offered a partial unemployment payment to make up the difference. Working as a farm hand isn't supposed to be punishment, but is a way to help the farmers, our economy and the unemployed.
The farmers are going to have to take on a bit more too. Basically they are going to have to ensure they have a safe, and decent work environment. (This is something that isn't always done when using illegal migrants because the illegal aliens won't complain.) They need to pay a fair wage. (This of course is dictated by the the market; I don't expect they should have to take it in the shorts.) Probably the biggest effect on farmers will be the work quality in the beginning. For sure much of society isn't used to having to work this hard and do these types of tasks, so they are going to be slow. But you know what? Everyone has to go through this initially; nobody is born good at anything.
Will this ever happen? It doesn't look good. Many in government are afraid to take something like this on. While those on the right might want to take unemployment benefits away after a set length of time, I don't think any of them have the courage to actually ask the unemployed to take a 'farm labor' job. Those on the left seem happy with extending benefits until... who knows... and don't seem to think the unemployed should ever take a job that is (thought to be) beneath them.
But you know what? The jobs aren't coming back quickly and the states and Feds are running out of money. Where is the unemployment benefit money going to come from? Our great Country will not... be a great Country... and may very well not even survive, if we don't make some logical changes.
But hey, that's just me.
I read a front page article in last weeks paper about how in Alabama, farmers are complaining they are losing money because there are no migrant workers to pick their crops due to tougher immigration laws in the state. I get that.
So why don't the unemployed legal people, white, black, brown, whatever, get out there and work? This would take care of two problems. Seems simple enough.
But of course it isn't. When non-migrants have been hired, farmers complain the work ethic isn't there, and many quit after a day or two because it is hard and doesn't pay well. Besides, they can make nearly the same... or more... on unemployment.
We need a complete shift in the way things are done to fix this. It doesn't seem that hard to me...
First, if you have been on unemployment for a set time... let's say six months... you need to take these jobs or lose eligibility for benefits. People should not be allowed to get so comfortable on unemployment. I know the job market is tough right now, but it may not turn around for a decade. It reaches a time where people need to take the jobs that are available. I'm not completely hard-nosed on this; I think the government can help by offering up credits for day care or other legitimate needs while the unemployed are working temporarily as farm laborers. And I think it is fair that they make as much, maybe more, than they were receiving in unemployment benefits too, meaning they might be offered a partial unemployment payment to make up the difference. Working as a farm hand isn't supposed to be punishment, but is a way to help the farmers, our economy and the unemployed.
The farmers are going to have to take on a bit more too. Basically they are going to have to ensure they have a safe, and decent work environment. (This is something that isn't always done when using illegal migrants because the illegal aliens won't complain.) They need to pay a fair wage. (This of course is dictated by the the market; I don't expect they should have to take it in the shorts.) Probably the biggest effect on farmers will be the work quality in the beginning. For sure much of society isn't used to having to work this hard and do these types of tasks, so they are going to be slow. But you know what? Everyone has to go through this initially; nobody is born good at anything.
Will this ever happen? It doesn't look good. Many in government are afraid to take something like this on. While those on the right might want to take unemployment benefits away after a set length of time, I don't think any of them have the courage to actually ask the unemployed to take a 'farm labor' job. Those on the left seem happy with extending benefits until... who knows... and don't seem to think the unemployed should ever take a job that is (thought to be) beneath them.
But you know what? The jobs aren't coming back quickly and the states and Feds are running out of money. Where is the unemployment benefit money going to come from? Our great Country will not... be a great Country... and may very well not even survive, if we don't make some logical changes.
But hey, that's just me.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Really? This You Support the Feds On?!
Here's the deal. We have an illegal immigration problem. Whether you support the current laws or not, they are on the books and should be enforced. That's just me... the rule follower... If the majority want to change the law, please do. Until then, follow it.
Our local sheriff isn't willing to enforce illegal immigration. He claims it is the Feds responsibility and that by his department enforcing it, it creates a tougher environment for solving crimes. (Basically witnesses won't come forward if they fear deportation.) He may have a point, I don't know. What I do know is we have a Federal law that his department routinely breaks. But illegal immigration isn't the point of my comments.
A local person recently tried to hold a 'Medical Marijuana Expo' that was ultimately shut down before it got started by the Sheriff's department due to improper permit paperwork. In a local newspaper article, the Sheriff stated cancelling the event was probably a good thing for the event's coordinator as his office had notified the local office of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of the event and that his office would support any action the DEA cared to take regarding the event. The sheriff was later quoted "I don't think it's an appropriate function." "It violates federal law."
Seems to be a bit of hypocrisy here. The sheriff is willing to help enforce Federal drug laws but not Federal immigration laws.
Again, I'm a rule follower, especially when it comes to those who are elected to uphold the laws. I don't see how the Sheriff is fit to hold his position if he won't uphold ALL the laws.
But maybe it is just me...
Our local sheriff isn't willing to enforce illegal immigration. He claims it is the Feds responsibility and that by his department enforcing it, it creates a tougher environment for solving crimes. (Basically witnesses won't come forward if they fear deportation.) He may have a point, I don't know. What I do know is we have a Federal law that his department routinely breaks. But illegal immigration isn't the point of my comments.
A local person recently tried to hold a 'Medical Marijuana Expo' that was ultimately shut down before it got started by the Sheriff's department due to improper permit paperwork. In a local newspaper article, the Sheriff stated cancelling the event was probably a good thing for the event's coordinator as his office had notified the local office of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of the event and that his office would support any action the DEA cared to take regarding the event. The sheriff was later quoted "I don't think it's an appropriate function." "It violates federal law."
Seems to be a bit of hypocrisy here. The sheriff is willing to help enforce Federal drug laws but not Federal immigration laws.
Again, I'm a rule follower, especially when it comes to those who are elected to uphold the laws. I don't see how the Sheriff is fit to hold his position if he won't uphold ALL the laws.
But maybe it is just me...
Welcome to My Ramblings
And my wife might interject they are sometimes boring and senseless ramblings...
But here is the deal. I'm constantly seeing things that drive me crazy and I'm tired of just ranting to my wife. So if you are unfortunate enough... or fortunate enough... guess it depends on you point of view... to stumble on my ramblings, you too can be subjected.
A little about me... Middle-aged. Married with a pre-teen daughter. Conservative but with mostly middle-of-the-road social views. Retired Air Force. Lives in a rural area. Drives a big truck (and not apologetic). Enjoys the great outdoors via motorized conveyance.
This blog isn't necessarily political in nature, but it will 'go there' at times.
I'm a 'right/wrong' type of guy. I see most everything in black and white. My biggest pet-peeve is the short-attention span of the public and those that take advantage of it. I believe rules should be followed, laws enforced, and when a person is caught in the wrong, they need to accept the consequences. (And no, I'm far from perfect, and my wife is happy to point that out whenever needed.)
Hopefully that is enough about me to get this show started...
But here is the deal. I'm constantly seeing things that drive me crazy and I'm tired of just ranting to my wife. So if you are unfortunate enough... or fortunate enough... guess it depends on you point of view... to stumble on my ramblings, you too can be subjected.
A little about me... Middle-aged. Married with a pre-teen daughter. Conservative but with mostly middle-of-the-road social views. Retired Air Force. Lives in a rural area. Drives a big truck (and not apologetic). Enjoys the great outdoors via motorized conveyance.
This blog isn't necessarily political in nature, but it will 'go there' at times.
I'm a 'right/wrong' type of guy. I see most everything in black and white. My biggest pet-peeve is the short-attention span of the public and those that take advantage of it. I believe rules should be followed, laws enforced, and when a person is caught in the wrong, they need to accept the consequences. (And no, I'm far from perfect, and my wife is happy to point that out whenever needed.)
Hopefully that is enough about me to get this show started...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)