The accident in New Jersey

I suppose I should weigh in on the accident in New Jersey that was
allegedly the fault of a tired trucker. I am sure there will be calls to
restrict trucks even more than they are now in order to keep those big
dangerous things away from people. Reports are that the driver was
fatigued. It has been said that he had been awake for 24 hours prior to
the crash. It is possible. It is also possible that the driver of the
limousine was more at fault. It is also possible that it was unavoidable
by anyone involved.

I saw a comment concerning this incident, someone thought that the 70-82
hours a week that we drive is just insane. This person seems to think
that the maximum possible hours that are available for driving are
always used driving. I get a restart on my hours maybe once a month, at
the end of each day the hours that I either drove or spent otherwise on
duty from eight days prior are added to my clock. I very rarely end up
using every minute of that 70 hours during one week. As I write this, I
only have 6.5 hours left for driving. I must stop by around 7 pm central
time today because of another part of the rules that dictates how much I
can do in a day before shutting down for 10 hours. Most of the truckers
out here will follow the rules. Trucking is a very safe industry.

If the person who beleives we should cut back the hours we can drive
thought it through, they would realize that it would make the roads more
dangerous and more congested because we would need twice as many trucks
to deliver all the things that make the country go.

I feel that everyone who gets a driver's license should be required to
ride with a trucker for a week so they can understand just what it takes
to handle a truck. Maybe then, they would not complain about trucks in
the way and automatically blame the trucker in an accident.

More signs in the South

Today, I was driving through Alabama and Mississippi. Today was primary
day in Alabama, so I saw a large number of political signs. Nearly all
of them were promoting various Republican party candidates. No surprise
there. Not even surprising that a few of them were supporting the
re-elecion of Justice Moore.

However, there were a few signs that were a bit disturbing. These signs
were reminding people of the voter id law. In Alabama (as well as
several other states) one must present a government issued photo id in
order to be allowed to vote. The right wing supporters of laws like that
will tell you that the purpose is to prevent fraud at the polling place.
I have never heard of an actual case of fraud at the polling place.

The real reason is mainly to prevent as many minorities from voting as
possible. The billboards simply stated "you must have photo id to vote"
in very large letters. The message was accompanied by an image of an
attractive young black woman holding out an id card. The message is
clear. If you are a minority, don't bother trying to vote unless you
play by the white man's rules.

The other signs that I found a little off-putting were the ones for
various locally owned motels. They emphasized the fact that they were
"American owned". It is probably a safe bet to say that these motel
owners were white, overwhelmingly religious, and politically
conservative. They are advertising that they do not originally come from
some other place like India or Pakistan. They do not really understand
that the Indians and Pakistanis have likely been in the US long enough
to have become citizens, and are therefore just as American as they are.
It is even possible that these "non-american" owners are second
generation, having been born here to immigrant parents. Every single
white person in the South is either an immigrant or has immigrant
ancestry. This is hypocrisy. This is the subtle but pervasive racism to
be encountered in the American South.

On christian privelege

I am sitting at a truck stop in Alabama to make a delivery tomorrow.
Alabama is the home of Justice Roy Moore, the man who seems to feel it
is perfectly ok to put a 3 ton granite slab bearing the ten commandments
on the courthouse lawn. He truly cannot understand why that violates the
First Amendment. Mr Moore and his supporters appear to believe that the
First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion means that a person is
allowed to choose which denomination of christianity they will follow.

They will see any effort to bring some equality in how religion and
nonreligion are treated by the government as persecution of christians.
They cannot see that the so-called persecution is only removing the
favored and privileged status that their belief system enjoys.

In my last post, I proposed adjusting the holiday at the end of December
to a specific day of the week in order to eliminate the christian
privilege inherent in a government holiday for christmas. They will see
that as an attack on the foundations of our government, as well as an
attempt to eliminate god from the public sphere. They do not understand
that I don't care what religious things they do. In fact, I would
encourage them to continue celebrating christmas. It is a major part of
their belief system, and who am I to prohibit that? All I want is for
the government to end the priveleges that christianity has over all
others, religious and nonreligious alike.