Couple of news items to comment on...

1. Article in USA today laments the rise of motorcycle fatalities now that helmet laws have been relaxed in so many places. It's written with the typical liberal 'moan' with shades of 'OMG the humanity!'

Marso sez: So what? People should be free to do what they want. That includes going out and collecting your Darwin Award in the manner which best suits your personality. Live Free AND die, baby! Minors under 18 should = helmet required. 18 and over: do what you want and don't complain if you die. Insurance companies should be able to attach riders to policies stating that injuries/death when unhelmeted are not covered. This prevents any 'burden to society' issues and prevents those with more common sense having to subsidize the dumb (and reflex impaired).

2. Headline: "Obama: McCain would continue Bush's 'You're on your own' society'."

Followed by an article about Obama pontificating (apparently) on the fact that what Bush called the 'ownership society' is in fact the 'you're on your own society' and so on.

Marso sez: These little jewels of oration by Obama betray the man's uber-socialist nature. While couched in 'OMG the eeeeevil Republicans don't care about us and want everyone to starve' phraseology, the article only serves to illustrate Obama's root belief that government should be free to intervene in everyone's lives, rescue the financially irresponsible at taxpayer expense, and that he assumes the American people are perfectly okay with that. I'm sure some of the are- meaning the other socialists. But then there are those like me that see something like that and my reaction is that I want to be on my own, meaning left alone by the fucking government, and oh by the way, get your fucking mitts off my wallet!

And the boredom ensues, hanging in Spokane WA, waiting for the snow in Pullman to melt off the frakkin' runway so we can go. (If that even happens today...)

My diabetic friend, who's on his third pancreas transplant, LOVES helmetless bikers.

There ya go. The silver lining, right there!

Obama's condemnation for being on one's own shows his real agenda: he wants you dependent on government. Being a self-reliant, responsible, autonomous citizen is, in his world, some kind of negative outcome to be avoided.

If Marso owns a motorcycle, one assumes he won't object to his insurance rates increasing to cover the payouts to families of cyclists killed while not wearing helmets...

There would be no payouts for cyclists killed while not wearing helmets.

^I'm sure the family lawyers will find a way to exploit that.

Or maybe he wants to ensure the opportunity to be just that.

Maybe he envisions a future America where the only jobs left are service. We apparently can't even make our own nation's passports here anymore

"Do you wants fries with that?"

"OMG...I was gonna ask you the same thing!"

Clearly you didn't read the last couple sentences of paragraph 1., or misunderstood what you did read.

Why? Insurance companies are evil incarnate. They get away with fucking people over with actual legitimate claims, what makes you think they couldn't do this? No shitty ass family lawyer is gonna take down an insurance company over something that was clearly spelled out in the policy.

Manufacturing jobs are sooooo 20th Century. Knowledge, Information, and Creativity jobs are the future.

I don't mourn for manufacturing jobs. Every one that disappears (eliminated or moved elsewhere) is contributing to cheaper manufactured goods.

I assume you mean "in America". Otherwise that's a bafflingly dim comment.

What if every nation on Earth embargoes us?

Obama's nationalized health care, plus a relaxing of motorbike helmet laws? Great, so now the taxpayer is on hook for some other person's idiocy.

I thought that went without saying.

Aside from being an extremely unlikely scenario? They commit economic suicide.

But it's the 21st century, and nations still manufacture things :flow2:

We won't sell them any fries?

We can't even criticize China for inhumane behavior because they might cut off our allowance. We aren't exactly looking at the end of the sword that you want to grasp.

SO...we shouldn't make preparations for unlikely scenarios?

But the more advanced nations, less so. And we haven't suffered as a nation because our shoes and televisions are now made elsewhere; in fact, we've gotten much richer.

If China embargoes us, China suffers too. America can re-establish manufacturing much easier than China can re-establish customers.

You said 'every nation.' I doubt that scenario is worth planning for.

Who is "we"?

Where do the funds come from to "re-establish manufacturing"?

From where?

And how much more are these products going to cost now that they're made in the USA again?

I'm opposed to helmet laws. At the same time, I think you'd have to be a total retard to ride without one.

So can we safely assume that you ride with a helmet?

Increased injury/death is a result of not wearing a helmet, so claims would be higher on average.

I support helmet/seatbelt laws because the consequences of not using them are not limited to just the individual involved.

An accident with a serious injury/death will take longer to clear up and investigate than one that is less serious, causing more disruption to other road users.

So no helmet/seatbelt laws if you are on a private track, but while you are on a public road people have to follow the rules that make the system work best for everyone.

Stop talking sense, willya? This is the Red Room!

You're missing the silver lining here. If can we can cause insurance for motorcyclists to skyrocket, then I won't have put up with as many 18 yr old deuche bags zipping by me at 140mph on the highway on their crotch rockets.

What the fuck are you talking about? I don't even ride a motorcycle. Go back and read the fucking original post, and clue in!

Um...

I thought almost no American men had helmets...

I agree. Thus, the solution is to privatize the roads.