See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On August 4th, 2009 at 2:04 pm, GladzKravtz said:

   I’m sure the IOU list is quite long, Michelle.

2. #2
   On August 4th, 2009 at 2:05 pm, hunter said:

   “The public is sick and tired of people being distracted and causing accidents the government inserting itself into every aspect of their lives”

   There, fixed it for you Ray Ray.

3. #3
   On August 4th, 2009 at 2:07 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

   Why do I get the idea that this will end with me standing before a firing squad?

4. #4
   On August 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

   Good grief! Is there such a thing as Federalism anymore? Hellooo? Tenth Amendment?

5. #5
   On August 4th, 2009 at 2:15 pm, hawkeye54 said:

   Is there such a thing as Federalism anymore?

   There are many in congress decidedly opposed to Federalism and some who have no clue to what it is, and even some who are competely clueless and only do what they are told.

   At the rate congress is allowing ZERO to appoint czars, it will find itself comepletely irrelevant and disposable.

6. #6
   On August 4th, 2009 at 2:17 pm, tarpon said:

   The AstroTurf Joker’s administration wants in on everything. Isn’t this a state issue?

7. #7
   On August 4th, 2009 at 2:19 pm, Salt said:

   On August 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

   Good grief! Is there such a thing as Federalism anymore? Hellooo? Tenth Amendment?

   This is the rub precisely.

   By attempting to make this federal, they are doing what isn’t done for DUI laws (nor should it be).

8. #8
   On August 4th, 2009 at 2:19 pm, Misscheryl said:

   can Oklahoma secede yet?

9. #9
   On August 4th, 2009 at 2:21 pm, HomeoftheBrave said:

   I’d love to respond faster but there’s too much damn traffic here…. whew, that was close! No worries!!

10. #10
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:22 pm, right_on said:

    The brilliant scientist who can develop a cell phone chip that disables the “texting” ability when a car is in motion is going to make a fortune!

    Once available, an astute politician (it will be a liberal, no doubt) will recognize the money-making potential of said chip, and author a bill that would make it mandatory for all mobile devices to be fitted with said chip.

    Of course, this will only occur once he/her and family are well invested in the manufacturing, and distributing businesses given the federal contracts.

11. #11
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:27 pm, spaceycakes said:

    …um can someone tell me why you’d text someone rather than just call them?

12. #12
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:30 pm, denver republican said:

    Is texting while driving really any more dangerous than governing while stupid?

13. #13
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:31 pm, pecze said:

    Denver…you beat me to it.

14. #14
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:36 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    um can someone tell me why you’d text someone rather than just call them?

    I thought it was for confidentiality while in public, or in assemblies or meetings where talking would be disruptive.

    The mindless obsession with texting is the unintended consequence of the original reason for text messaging.

15. #15
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:37 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Aren’t they supposed to encourage texting while driving for the very old as part of their health insurance plan?

16. #16
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:40 pm, glockomatic said:

    Don’t be distracted. This is just more misdirection to keep people chattering about the unimportant things.

17. #17
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:41 pm, Doug Powers said:

    They didn’t text & drive back in Ted Kennedy’s heyday, and things were a lot saf… nevermind…

18. #18
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:45 pm, jbh45 said:

    texting and driving is against the law in Cali. But being Cali the gov’t didn’t pass this without a major glich first. Back in 08 they first outlawed calling and receiving calls with a handheld cell phone while driving. Then after they realized how they forgot to add “texting” to that law they had to pass another law in 09 banning “texting” while driving.

    stupid is….

19. #19
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:45 pm, Misscheryl said:

    :30 pm, denver republican said:
    Is texting while driving really any more dangerous than governing while stupid?

    I’m glad I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read this. Too funny!

20. #20
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:47 pm, cheapseat said:

    #17, lol, yeah errrah when teddy was driving he didn’t text, he was busy drinking with one hand and guiding some gal with the other so she wouldn’t bump her head on the steering wheel. he just had a leg spasm which caused his steering with his thigh to lose control on a skinny bridge. it could happen to anyone.

21. #21
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:48 pm, Savage24 said:

    I believe that texting and driving will become a “hate crime” as soon as they get the driving czar.

22. #22
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:51 pm, Regulus said:

    What’s weird about liberals is that on one hand they’re all for a “positive freedoms” view of rights and liberties, but they spend an inordinate amount of time seeking to ban things.

    More rank hypocrisy from the left. Quelle surprise.

23. #23
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:51 pm, Misscheryl said:

    texting is a symptom of a society that is moving away from actual human contact. When we look at each other, we don’t see. When we hear, we don’t listen and when we touch, we don’t feel. Stands to reason our lives would reflect this as it does with texting. Course, younger people won’t understand what I’m saying because it’s all they have known, sadly.

24. #24
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:56 pm, jbh45 said:

    Misscheryl said: Course, younger people won’t understand what I’m saying because it’s all they have known, sadly.

    Younger people won’t understand because your post is not in shorthand.

    GTG. BRB.

25. #25
    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:57 pm, Teddy Kennedy said:

    Errah was this sign located right after the Wreckovery one? More to come . . . .

26. #26
    On August 4th, 2009 at 3:00 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    Then after they realized how they forgot to add “texting” to that law they had to pass another law in 09 banning “texting” while driving.

    And I have to tell you, it has been quite an effective law. Soooo many people have been pulled over, cited and fined, that the revenue collected will no doubt finally end California’s budget crises for decades to come, AND everyone here absolutely fears law enforcement so much that texting while driving has practically become a bygone habit!
    I tell ya!!

27. #27
    On August 4th, 2009 at 3:00 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    On August 4th, 2009 at 2:19 pm, Misscheryl said:

    can Oklahoma secede yet?

    with you on that one…guess I’ll be pinging Sen. Reynolds about doing exactly that and the heck with any more of these silly “resolutions”…we need something far more substantial….

28. #28
    On August 4th, 2009 at 3:07 pm, Misscheryl said:

    tiredofit08 – so glad to see another Okie on here. Maybe we will meet at a Tea Party at some point!

    I am seriously ready to secede and will support any effort to do so. Taking Federal money costs waaaayyyy too much.

29. #29
    On August 4th, 2009 at 3:15 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    I am seriously ready to secede and will support any effort to do so.

    If it comes to that, I’ll gladly leave SSRKalifornia and join the secession myself!

30. #30
    On August 4th, 2009 at 3:29 pm, Misscheryl said:

    Well come on hawkeye54 – we can use your vote!

31. #31
    On August 4th, 2009 at 3:54 pm, SixDegrees said:

    The brilliant scientist who can develop a cell phone chip that disables the “texting” ability when a car is in motion is going to make a fortune!

    Once available, an astute politician (it will be a liberal, no doubt) will recognize the money-making potential of said chip, and author a bill that would make it mandatory for all mobile devices to be fitted with said chip.

    Of course, this will only occur once he/her and family are well invested in the manufacturing, and distributing businesses given the federal contracts.

    That ability already exists. Newer cell phones have GPS built in, so speed can be derived without trouble. Deactivating texting – or, preferably, the whole damn phone – when speed exceeds, say, 10 mph would be trivial.

    Storing speed along with phone activity would be another option, allowing authorities to access that information in cases involving accidents and tacking on additional fines in such cases.

    I agree, however, with those who have already pointed out that this is fundamentally a state’s rights issue, and that the Federal government has no place implementing any penalties or even regulations. Anything beyond recommendations oversteps state sovereignty.

32. #32
    On August 4th, 2009 at 3:56 pm, backwoods conservative said:

    Hang up and drive!

33. #33
    On August 4th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, noTnoP said:

    More government regulation of common sense?
    First, seems that this sort of behavior should be covered by distracted driving laws already in place.
    Second, if what has been talked about goes into effect, we will have a Federal law mandating that all states put in place an unenforceable state law or lose 25% of federal highway funding.
    Lets face it; the laws the states currently have in place are doing very little to curb the problem. Unless people are doing this right in the police officers face, how will they enforce it?

34. #34
    On August 4th, 2009 at 4:11 pm, txvet2 said:

    I know this sounds a little old fashioned, but what is there about texting that wouldn’t be easier by just speaking into the phone?

35. #35
    On August 4th, 2009 at 4:15 pm, Roland said:

    Deactivating texting – or, preferably, the whole damn phone – when speed exceeds, say, 10 mph would be trivial.

    Won’t work. Passengers of moving vehicles should be able to use.

    Storing speed along with phone activity would be another option, allowing authorities to access that information in cases involving accidents and tacking on additional fines in such cases.

    That’s the ‘ticket.’ Big fines.

    Anything beyond recommendations oversteps state sovereignty.

    That appears to be a nearly unanimous theme here. Me, too. Emphatically.

36. #36
    On August 4th, 2009 at 4:24 pm, Salt said:

    On August 4th, 2009 at 3:54 pm, SixDegrees said:

    That ability already exists. Newer cell phones have GPS built in, so speed can be derived without trouble. Deactivating texting – or, preferably, the whole damn phone – when speed exceeds, say, 10 mph would be trivial.

    This would also eliminate the ability to text on a train. Personally, I’d much rather hear the clicking than have more people yakking on the phone on the train. …but maybe that’s just me.

    Also, should parents be fined if their children text from the backseat?

    I understand what you’re saying about the technology, but there would still be challenges.

    I agree, however, with those who have already pointed out that this is fundamentally a state’s rights issue, and that the Federal government has no place implementing any penalties or even regulations. Anything beyond recommendations oversteps state sovereignty.

    Yep. Those that seek to dismantle federalism will do so with policies and laws that seem reasonable on the surface.

    Enforcing the law would require state and municipal support and resources. The ultimate outcome would likely still be negligible considering that actually catching someone doing this is not as simple as catching them speeding.

    It’s all a waste of time on the part of congress and a poor distraction from the likes of nationalized health care and cap and trade.

37. #37
    On August 4th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, Wayfaring Stranger said:

    On August 4th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, noTnoP said:

    More government regulation of common sense?
    First, seems that this sort of behavior should be covered by distracted driving laws already in place.

    It is covered by the distracted driver laws. But like so many other laws on the books, they don’t enforce it.

    So some politician gets a bug about it and decides to act like he/she is doing something for the public good.

    Total waste of time. Any new law will end up being unenforced, just like the hundreds of others that were passed before.

38. #38
    On August 4th, 2009 at 5:46 pm, jbh45 said:

    I almost got hit by a CHPS officer on the 101 because the officer was on his handheld cell phone and not paying attention. I being a nanny state resident reported on the nanny officer to the nanny officer’s desk officer.

    nothing done. so much for law enforsement.

39. #39
    On August 4th, 2009 at 6:19 pm, backwoods conservative said:

    On August 4th, 2009 at 5:46 pm, jbh45 said:

    I almost got hit by a CHPS officer on the 101 because the officer was on his handheld cell phone and not paying attention. I being a nanny state resident reported on the nanny officer to the nanny officer’s desk officer.

    nothing done. so much for law enforsement.

    I noticed you pointed out the he was using a handheld cellphone. A lot of people think hands free phones are better. Studies have shown that it’s not having a person’s hands occupied that makes driving less safe, it’s having their mind occupied that does the damage. There’s a difference in carrying on a conversation with someone who is in the car and someone who is elsewhere. A person riding along in the car can see when the driver is in a difficult driving situation such as a busy intersection and know when to shut up for a bit. A person on the other end of a phone conversation does not.

    I turn my phone off when I get behind the wheel. Anybody who wants to get in touch with me can leave a message. I’ll get back to them.

40. #40
    On August 4th, 2009 at 6:37 pm, mattm said:

    Soooo… you can’t text/talk and drive but you can stuff you mouth with fries and a burger while driving. I’m sure the health nuts are working on getting rid of the pesks fast food places anyway.

41. #41
    On August 4th, 2009 at 6:38 pm, tanksoldier said:

    We need no texting czar
    in our car
    whether we drive near or far
    to avoid this fascism
    we fought a war

42. #42
    On August 4th, 2009 at 6:51 pm, vickisoup said:

    Texting and driving is a bad idea. We don’t need the feds to tell us that. If you cause an accident because you were not watching the road, it’s your fault, regardless of what distracted you. What is this; some effort to enhance penalties? Negligence is no longer negligence? The more they keep at this stuff, the more they’re going to get insurance companies to decline coverage, because you can’t cover certain types of liability. Stupid greedy idiots.

43. #43
    On August 4th, 2009 at 7:29 pm, CO2 Producer said:

    F we cud gt a laZ speler zar id b 4 it lol

44. #44
    On August 4th, 2009 at 7:48 pm, graysonret said:

    Fortunately, I have On-star calling and bluetooth for my cell phone hooked into my navigator. I certainly don’t like texting and hate using a cell phone when I’m driving. This business, however, is a state issue, not a federal issue. The government, sadly, has ways to blackmail states by holding back federal funds. Forget whether it’s Constitutional or not; the government doesn’t use the Constitution anymore, except for “oaths of office”, or it agrees with some politics. It’s used when convenient. I hope the states tell the feds to stay out of the issue. Too many states saying “no” will counteract their blackmail.

45. #45
    On August 4th, 2009 at 7:54 pm, ofbbg said:

    A Modest Proposal – if insurance companies would refuse to pay for the expenses of individuals who cause accidents while texting or non-hands off phone use – not their victims, just them – perhaps that might wake them up? Might work for seat belts, too.-

46. #46
    On August 4th, 2009 at 10:38 pm, bluesoc said:

    I agree, however, with those who have already pointed out that this is fundamentally a state’s rights issue, and that the Federal government has no place implementing any penalties or even regulations. Anything beyond recommendations oversteps state sovereignty.

    If they limited it to Interstate Highways, they could probably pass it under the Commerce Clause.

47. #47
    On August 5th, 2009 at 12:02 pm, Wildcatter1980 said:

    Actually, I support the sentiment behind addressing “distracted” driving.

    As an avid bicyclist, I am concerned about my friends and me when we ride on the open road. (We do try to ride away from metropolitan/high traffic areas, but that is not always possible.) We do try to wear bright colors to aid in our being seen, but a driver with their focus on their cell phone to read/write a text message ain’t gonna see us!

    Do I want Big Brother Government? No. Do I want education of drivers about the dangers of distracted driving? Yes, yes, yes!