What Is It?

The newest cliche athletes come up with recently is this meaningless phrase: "It is what it is." Chad Greenway plays linebacker for the Vikings, and he says that almost every time he is interviewed on the radio. Today I was reading an article on Yahoo about John Elway releasing Kyle Orton. Here is his quote:

When we just laid it all out and we looked at all the different factors that were involved, it was the best thing for us to let him go,” Elway said Monday. “We knew obviously with the situation where some teams had quarterbacks go down--Kansas City being one of them and Chicago being one of them--that if he was gonna get claimed there was a chance we could play against him. . . . It is what it is."

It is what it is doesn't mean anything! It's like saying the sky is blue. Maybe it's supposed to be some detached look at the situation: There's nothing we can do about it, or something like that.
Either way, I find it more bothersome every time I hear someone say it--especially football players.

The NTSB Nannies

On my way in to work today, I was listening to KFAN’s morning show. Chris Hockey was reading a news item about the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board recommending a ban on all cellphone use while driving. My first reaction to these stories is always shock. Really? The government is going to ban drivers from using cellphones?

Here is the quote from the NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman, “Too many people are texting, talking, and driving at the same time. It’s time to put a stop to distraction. No call, not text, no update is worth a human life.”

Huh? How about a drive in the country on a Sunday afternoon? Maybe we should ban Sunday afternoon drives in case we lose one human life. How about driving to a sporting event downtown. Is that worth a human life? How about driving to work in the morning. Is that worth a human life? Is it possible for politicians and federal bureaucrats to make an argument without including the idea that they are doing it to save a human life. In this instance, as with many others, we see that the statist always has the convenient argument for taking away citizens' freedoms: it is always worthwhile if it can “just save one life.”

I’ve got an idea. How about enforcing existing distracted driving laws on people who cause accidents while being distracted, whether it is on the cellphone or while putting on makeup or fiddling with the radio. The laws already exist, why not prosecute under existing laws?

Here’s another idea: how about reducing the number of people who work at all these governmental agencies who think their number one job is telling freeborn Americans what they can and can’t do. Cut the staff of these places in half--they seem to have way too much time on their hands.

I sometimes wonder if the politicians and bureaucrats who come up with these laws drive themselves anywhere. It’s easy, I guess, when you have a chauffeur driving to text and call to your heart’s desire. It reminds me of the story from several years ago when the new part of 35E was put in with a 40 MPH speed limit. A state representative from Apple Valley was caught speeding on that stretch of road. As is so often the case, we discovered that the speeding law was good enough for me, but not for thee.

Here are six questions for Ms. Hersman:
1. When you say that “too many people are texting, talking, and driving at the same time,” it implies that some people talking on cellphones is okay. Would a ban on cellphone use while driving apply to politicians and federal employees as well as regular citizens?
2. Could we also ban any cellphone use by a politician who is being driven around by a federally paid driver?
3. In not making a distinction between hand-held devices and built-in or headset devices, it seems that the NTSB is more concerned that citizens might take it upon themselves to talk on the phone than being concerned about distracted driving. Why do hands-free cellphones also fall under this proposed ban?
4. You say, “No call, no text, no update is worth a human life.” What else, in your opinion, should be outlawed that “is worth a human life”?
5. Do you think it is healthy in a free country for the laws of the land to be so onerous and numerous that even good, law-abiding citizens break dozens of laws every single day?
6. Does it bother you when citizens exercise their rights?