I'm certainly no fan of Governor Corzine, but I also certainly hope that he recovers fully and soon from his auto accident. And if he really wasn't wearing a seatbelt, that was dumb, and should be a lesson taken from the incident for all. I'm always amazed at people who don't wear one. My grandmother hated to--she claimed that it was more dangerous to do so because she might get trapped in the car in it, completely misjudging the relative odds of this happening versus getting her face plastered into a dash or through a windshield.

[Update on Friday evening]

I just heard the Lieutenant Governor say that "business in New Jersey would continue to take place as usual." If I were a Garden State resident, I'd take small comfort in those words. One would like an improvement, I think...

Why is this not an example of evolution in action?

philw: because neither common or accidental stupidity is genetic.

Yes that's right: humanity is pretty much stuck on stupid, best thing we can do is admit it ^_^

Why is this not an example of evolution in action?

Because (among other reasons) he's already bred...

I hope he gets all the support he needs for his upcoming lengthy rehab and I wish him the best.

BUT

If he didn't have a seatbelt on...he should get issued a ticket and so should the state trooper who was driving. Dumb is dumb but hypocrisy is downright moronic.

"Dip"lomatic immunity?

I think it's a cultural thing, where people are automatically opposed to anything the guv'mint reccommends.

I lived for a couple years in a small town where people had this attitude. Not wearing seat belts - even people who had already taken the windshield taste test refused - was just part of it.

Of course, in the early days of open-cockpit
racing cars, before roll cages, fire-resistant
suits, etc., it was considered safer to be thrown
from the vehicle in a crash, to take one's
chances with velocity and gravity (like motorcycle
racers still do), rather than being trapped inside
the car as it tumbled to flaming ruin.

In bike racing, a clean separation between rider
and vehicle at the moment of a crash is still
considered safest: there are pictures of fallen
racers sitting on trackside haybales watching
their bikes tumble down the track "doing the
parts dance" as the seat, fenders, etc. become
detached from the frame and follow it down the
track in a cloud of loose pieces.

In a modern closed car, of course, which is
designed to maintain a protected compartment
during a wreck, it's safest to be strapped in
securely and not rattle around inside the thing.

-dw

He should absolutely get a ticket, and it's a pity the ticket can't be scaled to suit his wealth so it makes both an impression and a stink.

He gets a $46.00 ticket for breaking the law with the law sitting right next to him?! Nice.

"He should absolutely get a ticket, and it's a pity the ticket can't be scaled to suit his wealth so it makes both an impression and a stink."

Nope. He should pay the fine that the law allows. No more or less. The swedish policy of scaling tickets to wealth is just wrong.

Just wondering why scaling tickets is wrong if scaling taxes isn't. Isn't the whole point of tickets to give a financial slap on the wrist? Shouldn't it be perceived as just as painful for anyone (rich or poor) who gets it?

Just wondering why scaling tickets is wrong if scaling taxes isn't. Isn't the whole point of tickets to give a financial slap on the wrist? Shouldn't it be perceived as just as painful for anyone (rich or poor) who gets it?

Posted by Habitat Hermit at April 13, 2007 06:33 PM

Hello:

The theory of law in this country is "equal justice under the law"...violating the law is a crime against the Soverign which in the case of the US is the people.

Each of us is held equally accountable to "the soverign" for violating the soverigns collective moral code...no "uppers or downers".

That is why in every criminal case it is styled " The People of (insert jurisdiction) V (insert defendant)..."

Aka "The People of Harris County vrs insert name"

Robert

I think its a matter of personal choice. There is sovereignty that a country possesses over its lands and there is the sovereignty that a person possesses over their own body. If they so choose to take that chance and that risk then so be it. They can live, or die, with the consequences as a result.