D.U.I. (Driving Under Imbecility)

The other day, while my wife and I were on the freeway (she was driving), I noticed that after the person passed us on the left, they drifted partially into our lane then swerved back into their own.

Now, if you were a police officer and witnessed this, you might flash your blue and reds and pull the person over. You might also give the person a breathalyzer test due to the erratic driving. But, most likely, you would not be able to arrest this particular person for driving under the influence of alcohol. You see, as this person was passing us they were looking down at the phone in their lap.

What?!? You mean someone was texting (or Facebooking, or Twittering, or whatevering) while driving?!?

Hard to believe, I know, but true.

In the State of Ohio, it is illegal to use any electronic wireless communications device while driving. If you are over the age of 18 this is considered a secondary law. This means that a police officer has to have another reason to pull a driver over other than texting. If you are under the age of 18 it is a primary law, which means they don’t need another reason to pull you over.

So, if you are weaving or driving erratically a police officer can pull you over. But here is where it gets tricky. Just because you are driving erratically does NOT mean you were texting. You could have been drinking. Or you could have been dealing with Mayhem under your seat.

If the officer smells alcohol on you, they have a few options to prove you were driving under the influence. One of these is a breathalyzer. However, they cannot force you to take a breathalyzer test right there. You can refuse it. Of course, this is much like pleading the Fifth; which makes you “guilty” regardless of the truth.

If, on the other hand, you were texting and driving, it is much more difficult for the officer to prove. First off, they have to have seen you with your phone in your hand. And you are too savvy to get caught doing that. That is why you drive looking at your lap. You aren’t stupid enough to hold the phone up in view. (I’m clearly being sarcastic here.)

What if the officer asks you to hand over your phone? Can they take it to prove whether or not you were using it while you were driving? Nope. A police officer may take your phone if there is reasonable cause, but they may not search the data on the phone without either the driver’s consent OR a warrant.

You see, you have this little thing you can hide behind called “privacy” and there is NO WAY you are going to voluntarily give a police officer the evidence to condemn you for your own stupidity.

And that needs to change right now.

When I was a kid the police cars used to have the words, “To Serve And Protect” emblazoned on them. If those words are true, they should ABSOLUTELY be able to stop a car from driving erratically to protect US.

There should be a simple test available that if a police officer stops you for erratic driving they would be able to TAKE your phone, run the test, and figure out whether or not you’ve been using it. Like a breathalyzer. And if you refuse to hand over your phone, you should IMMEDIATELY be arrested, have your car impounded, and taken to the police station where you can sit and wait for the warrant which would OBVIOUSLY be provided.

Oh, and one major difference between driving under the influence of alcohol and texting: after a period of time the amount of alcohol in your bloodstream will go down - so if you can delay the time between the traffic stop and the breathalyzer long enough, your blood/alcohol level may drop enough to be proven "not guilty". But your phone? Baby, that shtuff is out there FOREVER!

And if you WERE texting and driving?!? That should be a felony charge. You want to put your life at risk? Go to prison. Just don’t stay on the road and put OUR lives at risk.

Make up your damn minds. If you want to text, text. If you want to drive, drive. If that Facebook post is so important, pull your car over and take care of it. Just don’t do both at the same time. Because, regardless of how good a multitasker you think you may be, in reality, you suck at it.

I’m reminded of a Gallagher routine where he thinks we should be driving with those rubber-tipped dart guns we had as a kid. Whenever we see someone driving like an idiot we could lean out and shoot a dart at their car with a flag that says, “IDIOT!” A cop sees you driving down the road with a half-dozen flags on the trunk of your car, they pull you over and give you a ticket for being an A**HOLE!!

For some people, they wouldn’t be able to see past the flags.

© Emittravel 2018

Untitled Unblog Unpost #4

I was all ready to sit down and do some writing, when I discovered in my Twitter feed that (yesterday, 20170916) the Cleveland Indians officially became the American League Central Champions for 2017. That's the second year in a row.

So, instead of a comprehensive take on the latest from my brain box, I'm going to go watch some more baseball.

Because, you know, baseball!

© Emittravel 2017

Get Out the Get Out the Vote

“Get Out the Vote.” Remember that? It came about a few election cycles ago. The idea was to get as many people to the polls as possible. Now, at first glance that seems a great idea. But when you give it a little more thought, like me, you discover it is not such a good idea. Especially when it comes to this current election.

I've joked that my Twitter feed seems to be all liberal and my Facebook feed seems to be all conservative. My social networking is a bit bipolar. And since I'm the same guy in both networks, the algorithms seem to be a bit . . . off.

Now, in both the emphasis is the same: you have to vote for one candidate to make sure the other candidate doesn't win. And if you are thinking of voting for a third-party candidate, you are guaranteeing the other candidate will win. In all cases, I see very little convincing for you to vote FOR a candidate, only AGAINST the other one. This tells me that people really don't like the candidate they are voting for, but the other candidate is so much worse and needs to be stopped.

As I've written previously, this is a job interview, and we are the potential employers. We are trying to find the best person for the job. When you hire someone, you not only look at their background and opinions, but you look to see what their job qualifications are. You don't have to go much further than the last three Presidential debates, to know that the emphasis of this particular job interview has very little to do with qualifications.

So, if your intention is to vote for someone only in order to vote against someone: DON'T VOTE!

If your intention is to blindly vote along party lines: DON'T VOTE!

“J.P., are you seriously telling us not to vote?” Yup. Absolutely. What's more dangerous than a wasted vote? A vote made in ignorance.

I don't care how many women Trump may have groped. I don't care how many emails Clinton may have deleted. I don't care if Johnson can't find Aleppo on a map. If you can't honestly say you are voting FOR someone because you AGREE with MOST (not necessarily ALL) of what they have stated their POLICIES are, DON'T VOTE!

Now, you'll notice I did not say to stay home. Go! Vote! There are usually local issues and candidates on the ballot, and those you need to vote for. Oh, and as in the above, if you can't honestly say you agree with most of what the candidate's policies are, you don't for them either.

Here is what I do: I read the ballot carefully. If I do not know enough to make an informed decision on an issue, I skip it. A non-vote is not counted as For OR Against. If I cannot say I agree with a candidate based on their policies, I skip them too. I do NOT vote along party lines (to be honest, I'm a registered Independent, so I don't HAVE a party line to vote for). And that includes those situations when there is only one candidate running for a position.

I hear that voting is one of the most important things an individual can do, outside of running for office. I say that is wrong. INFORMED voting is one of the most important things an individual can do. UNINFORMED voting is one of the most DANGEROUS things an individual can do.

So, get out and vote, or get out the get out the vote. This is too important for an emotional decision.

Our democracy depends on it.

©Emittravel 2016

And You're Praying Why?!?

Part of the hoopla in the wake of last week's horrible shooting in San Bernardino, CA, surrounded the front page of the New York Daily News on December 3:

Along with the headline are Twitter posts from various politicians, calling for - or acknowledging self - prayer for the victims and their families. This has caused quite a stir on both sides of the religious / non-religious aisle.

Does God answer prayer?

Where IS God when tragedies occur?

How can God allow a person to kill so many innocents - even in the name of religion?

Do I believe God answers prayer? Yes, yes I do. Does He answer ALL prayers? No, no He doesn’t. And to be honest, I'm thrilled that He doesn't!

Several years ago I gave a talk to a men's breakfast group at church (give a man bacon, and he'll listen to anything!) where I covered such topics as time, eternity, finite and infinite, free will versus predestination, and where we and God stand on such things.  If you are interested, you can read it here, but be aware - it's a bit long. I gave an example by asking if someone had a swimming pool. I then asked that person to go home, cup his hands, and have someone pour the contents of that pool into his hands. That is an example of Finite trying to grasp Infinite. Oh, we get little droplets, but even as we think we grasp them, they simply wash away as we try to grasp more.

I bring that up, because it would be pretty awful for an infinitely omniscient (all knowing) God to have to cow-tow to the wishes and whims of finite man. I, for one, don't want a God who sits waiting for me to tell Him what to do. And if you are a man who believes God should, I want to know one thing: How is it possible for you to walk with cajones that big? (I'm talking to you, Word and Faith charismatics!)

My question is, HOW should God be "fixing this"? What, exactly, do you want God to do? (Before you answer that, read the last two paragraph above again!)

There is only one thing that I can think of for God to do, that will prevent people from killing other people. But I have to warn you: you won't like it. The only thing God can do is to eliminate your free will. Again, feel free to take (several) moments to read that post-bacon talk I gave mentioned above to understand free will and predestination.

Now, notice I didn't say for God to eliminate THEIR free will. If God were to forcibly stop ANYONE from functioning in free will, the ability for anyone to function in free will would immediately cease. You have trouble with predestination now, wait until God stops allowing even one person to function of their own accord.

In order for God to prevent people from committing such heinous crimes, He would need to eliminate free will from mankind. That means you would NO LONGER be able to function of your own volition. Like a remote-controlled car, you would only move via the DIRECT control of someone else (in this case, God.) Only then would people no longer be able to commit crimes. Or do good deeds. Or take care of their children. Or watch the Cleveland Browns win multiple Super Bowls.

Or even one . . .

One of the prayers God DOES answer is provide wisdom to those who seek it (see James 1:5 in the bible). And wisdom is something we all need.

The ability to ACT on that wisdom is another thing. Known as "free will".

© Emittravel 2015

Is This the Hill You Want to Die On?

There are currently about 121 people/things I follow on Twitter. By "things", I mean like @LHSRangers - the high school where my wife @lisamwiegand teaches. One of the people I follow, is a very intelligent young lady named Jedediah Bila - @JedediahBila - whose descriptions of her life in New York bring lots of laughs. Her Twitter profile says she is "TV host. Author. Columnist. Radio personality. Former Professor/Dean. Animal lover. Superhero wannabe. Was juicing kale before it was cool." Again, worth the follow.

I was going through my feed, when I came across her following tweet: NOM, you've embarrassed yourselves. Badly. "Marriage Group Backs Liberal Dem over Gay Republican": bit.ly/1wFBkxp via @BrietbartNews

My brain immediately went, "WHUH?!?!?"

First off, for clarity, "NOM" stands for "National Organization for Marriage". They have stated that they will "actively oppose" the candidate for the GOP and will endorse the Democrat, even though they say that he is wrong on the issues.

Around the same time, Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, announced that he was gay (I don't think there was any connection between the two events). Included in my Twitter feed were posts of a map of the United States showing in which states Mr. Cook would have lost his job for being gay. Most of the map was colored unfavorably for those who "butter their bread on the other side".

In a previous blog article ("D.O.M.A. is D.U.M.B") I make it pretty clear that "I'm not anti-gay. I'm not pro-gay either. When it comes to the world, I'm ambivalent-gay." Just wanted to make that clear up front.

Let me try to explain something here: when you are voting for a politician, what you are doing is playing the part of employer (or Human Resources) and are saying, "Yes, I believe this person is qualified to do this job," or not. When you are looking to fill a position you look for skills that show that person can do a good job. A good job. That that person can do a GOOD JOB. Does it really matter what color their skin is? No. Does it matter if they like football or not? No. Does it matter if they prefer dark chocolate over milk chocolate? No. (But, for the record, I do prefer dark over milk.) Does it REALLY matter what a person's sexuality is when it comes to doing a GOOD JOB? If I REALLY have to answer that …

But I guess I really do, since I'm writing this.

The thing about the NOM thing is that they would RATHER support a candidate whose stance on issues is considered "wrong" than support a candidate whose stance on issues is considered "right", but turned out to be gay. For people with this mentality, I think a voting booth is a dangerous place, and they should stay far away.

Maybe this will help: Imagine your house is in need of repair, and you need to hire the best carpenter you can find. You find out that the carpenter is gay. So you instead, hire the mechanic - because he isn't. The mechanic will make a mess of your house. But hey! At least you know he isn't gay!

But J.P., don't you know that presidents, and some governors, select judges? Yes, yes I do. Two things: First, judges aren't the supreme rulers (see what I did there?). There are checks and balances built into the system. The problem is that the other two parts of the government need to check and balance - and they don't. And second, the number of judges they can select is far smaller than the myriad of other things they do in their positions, having NOTHING to do with their sexual orientation.

For some reason, there is this mentality that if a Republican is gay, they will abandon everything else to push the gay agenda. That means, for instance, if they are for less spending, less government, and a stronger military, they will abandon those and only push for things that help place "rainbows" on everything. So instead, people vote for the person who will push more spending, more government, and a weaker military, but whose sexual orientation won't have any effect on doing the job.

So I ask you: is this really the hill upon you which you chose to make your stand?

© Emittravel 2014

The Big Empty

I'm reading an interesting book by Paul Davies called About Time - Einstein's Unfinished Revolution. One of the topics mentioned is that the universe has been expanding since the "big bang". My question is, what is considered "the universe"? Is it just the material that was formed during that "bang" and is propelling away from the other material formed at the same time? Or is the universe itself the "big empty" BETWEEN the material formed during that "bang"? Is the universe a finite area that is expanding, much like a balloon being filled with air? Or is the universe ALREADY an endless expanse of "nothingness", with the material formed during that "bang" moving ever out into that "nothingness"? And if the universe is expanding like a balloon, what is beyond it? A balloon expands into something, but what of the universe?

And if everything started at the "big bang", where did that endless expanse of "nothingness" come from?

I posted a tweet that said, "Questions for God: What is the stuff of Space? How does gravity work? Why put the meat on the back of the leg, when we bang it on the front?" It was meant as sort of a grand joke - the three questions I want to ask God when I meet Him in heaven. But the first two are serious. Scientists throw terms around all the time, but do a lousy job of explaining the "why" behind them. Opposite poles attract (minus/plus) and the same poles repel (minus/minus or plus/plus). Why? What CAUSES those reactions. Just because we observed them, and gave them a clever name/law (Magnetism), doesn't answer the WHY. Same with gravity and the "stuff of space".

Another point in the book (which I am really enjoying, by the way) is that if the universe were to stop expanding (the amount of matter in the universe being enough that the amount of gravity overcomes the speed of expansion) and fall back into a "big crunch", that time itself would flow backwards. Understand, this is not something that the author is coming up with himself - many physicists and mathematicians have embraced it. Why? Just because stars and planets and "stuff" change direction, why should time as well? If I throw a ball really hard straight up, at one point, since the gravitational pull of the earth is greater than the speed of the ball, the ball would stop, change direction, and fall back to earth. Does that mean TIME goes backwards as well? Just because a star changes direction, does that mean time reverses and light from that star goes back TO it?

I guess some things are beyond our finite understanding. It takes One who is infinite to provide the answer. The One who is perhaps OUTSIDE of the universe - holding it in His hands.

© Emittravel 2013