The following are the words to Joe Walsh's song " Vote For Me" which he wrote in the eighties when he decided to run for Vice President..
Little did he know someone would steal his idea and put it to real use in 2008 to run for the Presidency...
I’d like to announce my candidacy,
I’d appreciate it if you’d vote for me.
I want to be Vice President.
Vote for me.
If I was Vice President you know what I’d do?
Pretty much anything I wanted to.
Vote for me. Vote for me.
I’d have a first class seat on Air Force One.
An awesome pad in Washington...D.C. (If you vote for me)
Play golf all day with heads of state,
If they brought beer wouldn’t that be great? I can’t wait!
Vote for me. Vote for me.
Well there are an awful lot of issues important to me.
Here’s my campaign policy,
Legislation, education,
occupation, arbitration,
conversation, equalization,
immigration, itemization,
immigration, race relations,
imitation, hospitalization...
I’m freaking out vote for me!
Well it’s the land of the brave, the home of the free.
That’s the funny thing about democracy.
A vote for me... is a vote for me!
So GM in talks with Chrysler. Here is what I see happening.
1. GM sells hummer to the Arabs or India.
2. GM makes Jeep one of its own.
3. GM makes minivans their own.
4. goodby Dodge and Chrysler.
Now I know there are those of you who dont see a downside to this, as the Pentastar has been dimming for a while, and I might agree. I'm talking about the demise of two more iconic names in American motoring. Remember the late fifties and early sixties Chryslers with their "space age" stylings and dashboards? How about the late sixties and early seventies musclecars? Dodge trucks have been a mainstay of no nonsense work trucks for decades, ugly as they were. I know it probably has to happen, but I don't have to like it. Also, less names, less competition, higher prices for all. I will say this, having driven the 09 Ram 1500, I hope they integrate the new multi-link coil rear suspension into their light duty pickups, as it is light years ahead of anything currently offered by either GM or the Blue Oval. What happens to the Hemi? The Charger? The new Challenger? I hope we don't all regret this...
I have seen on Fox News Channel that the NBC show Medium will have a character that is a sitting Arizona Senator, who is a former P.O.W. . The character is a murderous cannibal in the show! Whether one is for or against a candidate, this is inexcusable. It only proves that ultra left wingers in Hollywood call all the shots, and that if it was an Obama like character, or a Clinton like character, I wonder what would be said about it then? Whether or not he ends up as president, to infer that "he" ate his prisoner mates, and kills and cuts up one who would spread the "story", is an affront to his heroism and the heroism of all in the military, as well as all former P.O.W's. How far will the hate go before we all say "No More"? Lets all get off our f-a's and email NBC!! I guess we don't even have to get off our f-a's to do that, see how easy...
I heard something that astounded me last night on the news. It has been reported that Exxon paid some 30+ Billion $$ in taxes. Could this be true? If it is, it equals the bottom 50% of all private tax dollars! I have always been leery of big oil companies, and as a rule , I hate them, as do others. BUT, if this is true , maybe , in the words of Dave Chapelle, "really need to shut the @#$% up"?
Every day now, either locally or nationally, I read about a child or children being killed by parents or care-takers.Is it just getting reported more now, or is it becoming an epidemic?One guy throws his kids off of a bridge, one guy shoots his 2 daughters, one guy burns his to death in the house, one babysitter puts an infant in a sleeping bag and flings it around the room till it hits a wall.
I'm going to make all you incompetent, brain-damaged pre-lymbric single helixed mutoids a deal, and here it is.
I will agree to stand in for your kids when you feel like you must hurt them.
I am 5 ft 8 inches and 300 lbs of ex New York,short fused guido. You want to hit the little tyke for crying too hard, call me. If you can hit me before I cancel your ticket permanently, you win.
Your kid got you teed because he interrupts your meth or crack habit, call me. Ill come over and I'll guarantee you will never have that problem again.
Your daughters so westernized you want them dead, call me. When I take that gun and stick up your --- and pull the trigger, You will go to meet those virgins you want so much to see.
If GOD tells you to kill your kids, call me. You are so religious, I'll help you feel nails through your hands and feet, only it will be into the side of a large building using a pneumatic roofing gun.
You only pick on kids because you dont have the guts to pick on an adult.
In the words of John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn
"come and see a fat old man sometime"
Lets see if they got the juevos to put this blog up :)
From the National Motorists Association
www.motorists.org
Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove ItJanuary 8th, 2008 Posted in
Red-Light Cameras
The NMA has been contending that red-light cameras (RLCs) are a detriment to motorist safety for many years.
People, both in the media and in the general public, often dismiss this claim as opinion, suggest that there isn’t enough data available yet, ask why we support people who run red lights (we don’t), or write off the organization as being biased.
The only way to combat this is through hard facts and independent research. Luckily, we have both.
We reiterate our challenge: If it’s not about the money, then prove it.
No community has accepted, which shouldn’t be surprising considering the facts.
Here are five independent studies that demonstrate the failure of red-light cameras as a safety measure:
1) A Long Term Study of Red-Light Cameras and Accidents
David Andreassen
Australian Road Research Board
February, 1995
This study examined the long term effect on accident-types of red-light cameras at 41 signalized intersections in Melbourne, Australia. The cameras were installed in 1984, and reported accidents for the period 1979 to 1989 were used in the detailed analysis.
Quotes from the study:
“The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals.”
“There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure.”
Download The Full Study
2) The Impact of Red Light Cameras (Photo-Red Enforcement) on Crashes in Virginia
Virginia Transportation Research Council
June 2007
The Virginia Transportation Research Council released a report expanding upon earlier research into the safety effects of red light cameras in Virginia. Despite showing an increase in crashes, this study was instrumental in the return of red-light cameras to the state of Virginia. With a proven negative safety impact, the clear incentive to bring back the cameras was money.
Quotes from the study:
“After cameras were installed, rear-end crashes increased for the entire six-jurisdiction study area… After controlling for time and traffic volume at each intersection, rear-end crash rates increased by an average of 27% for the entire study area.”
“After cameras were installed, total crashes increased.”
“The impact of cameras on injury severity is too close to call.”
“Based only on the study results presented herein and without referencing other studies, the study did not show a definitive safety benefit associated with camera installation with regard to all crash types, all crash severities, and all crash jurisdictions.”
Download The Full Study
3) The Red-Light Running Crisis: Is It Intentional?
Office of the Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
May 2001
This report was prepared by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey’s staff. It looks at the problems of red-light cameras and how to really deal with traffic-light violations.
Quoted from the study:
“And one should ask the question, if there’s a problem with an intersection, why don’t safety engineers in the field just go out and fix the timing?
In fact, before red light cameras arrived in the United States, that’s exactly what our regulations instructed them to do. If too many people enter on red at an intersection, engineers were supposed to lengthen its yellow time. But in the year that red light cameras first started collecting millions in revenue on our shores, those entrusted with developing our traffic safety regulations dropped the requirement to fix signal timing, instructing engineers to “use enforcement” instead.
Indeed, according to the Federal Highway Administration, these problem intersections serve as a great location to hold a press conference. The agency offers a script for local officials to exploit a tragically mistimed intersection to call for the installation of additional red light cameras and tout their safety benefits.
But none of the reports that are supposed to tell us that red light cameras are responsible safety benefits actually say that. First, they dismiss increases in rear-end collisions associated with red light cameras as “non-significant,” despite evidence to the contrary. Second, they do not actually look at red light intersection accidents. The latest accident study in Oxnard, California, for example, only documents accident reductions “associated with”—not caused by— red light cameras. Although that statement has little scientific value, it does have great marketing appeal if you don’t look too closely.
Every study claiming red light cameras increase safety is written by the same man. Before joining the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), he was a top transportation official in New York City at the time the city began looking into becoming the first jurisdiction in the country to install red light cameras. In other words, the father of the red light camera in America is the same individual offering the “objective” testimony that they are effective.
A similar conflict of interest affects those entrusted with writing safety regulations for our traffic lights. The Institute of Transportation Engineers is actively involved in lobbying for, and even drafting legislation to implement, red light cameras. They are closely tied to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which in turn is funded by companies that stand to profit handsomely any time points are assessed to a driver’s license.
In short, the only documented benefit to red light cameras is to the pocketbook of local governments who use the devices to collect millions in revenue.”
Download The Full Study
4) Investigation Of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From Red-Light Cameras In Small Urban Areas
Mark Burkey, Ph.D. & Kofi Obeng, Ph.D.
North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University
July 2004
A study prepared by the North Carolina A&T State University’s Urban Transit Institute for the United States Department of Transportation.
Quoted from the study:
“Using a large data set, including 26 months before the introduction of RLCs, we analyze reported accidents occurring near 303 intersections over a 57-month period, for a total of 17,271 observations. Employing maximum likelihood estimation of Poisson regression models, we find that:
The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.”
Download The Full Study
5) Evaluation of the Red-Light-Camera-Enforcement Pilot Project
Ontario Ministry of Transportation
December 2003
This report from Ontario, Canada’s Ministry of Transportation’s concluded that jurisdictions using photo enforcement experienced an overall increase in property damage and fatal and injury rear-end collisions. The report also concludes that there was an overall reduction in serious accidents and angle collisions. However, a closer look at the data found in this government-sponsored report show that intersections monitored by cameras experienced, overall, a 2 percent increase in fatal and injury collisions compared to a decrease of 12.7 percent in the camera-free intersections that were used as a control group (page 21).
In fact, the non-camera intersections fared better than the camera intersections in every accident category.
Quoted from the study:
“Exhibit 2 indicates the red light running treatments have:
* Contributed to a 4.9 per cent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collisions; and
* Contributed to a 49.9 per cent increase in property damage only rear-end collisions.
The rear-end collision results are similar to findings in other red light camera studies.”
Download The Full Study
This is by no means an exhaustive list. You can find more studies on the NM
They're returning after their long summers away. They average 20 MPH below the limit, usually in the left lane.They see through the space between the steering wheel and the dashboard.Unlike the locals ,who are not sure what a directional is for, they leave it on for hours.The quick lunch becomes a thing of the past, as they have lunch for dinner en masse, as it were.When they won't drive a car anymore, they use golfcarts.
They do, however, really motivate the local economy, and for that, I greet them with open arms, just slightly bent over.
Welcome back SnowGeezers!
