![]() |
| |||||||||||

| The BBHQ Boomer Essays: |
| Our Boomer-In-Charge here at BBHQ, Hershel Chicowitz, writes frequently about current events... from a boomer perspective. He is sometimes funny, sometimes provocative, sometimes a little of each. We hope you get a kick out of our Boomer Essays. |
|
As we all know, the evidence is building that cell phones are an annoyance in restaurants, theatres and other public places, and a serious danger in automobiles. Well, I want it noted for the record that I have been against those high-tech electronic leashes since they first came on the scene. Like so many technological innovations, cell phones were at first a novelty, then a status symbol, a convenience, a necessity, an entitlement... and now, a flipping nuisance and dangerous menace to our society!
Many times I have told my friend and political sparring partner, Phyllis, that I do not hate anyone, not even Bill Clinton. But I am ready to make an exception: I hate everyone with a cell phone. And that means you, too. You know who you are; I hate you.
So, much as I hate big government (now there is a record.... "hate" thrust viciously twice in the same essay), it is going to take big government to rid us of this ugly, intrusive and dangerous blight on society. It is time for federal action: a federal law, a constitutional amendment, an executive order... I don't care.... just ban the suckers!!
| "Any individual, adult or minor, using a cell phone while operating a moving vehicle (automobile, motorcycle, RV, SUV, bicycle, skateboard, roller blades, golf cart or shopping cart - yes, a shopping cart - those suckers are the equivalent of hand-driven torpedoes!) shall be guilty of a violation of federal law and subject to a prison sentence of up to 36 months and/or a fine of up to $3,500." |
Don't give me this crap about rights... driving is a privilege, not a right! Second offense: you lose your privilege for five years.
Oh, and another thing... if you place a phone call to someone who answers your call while using a cell phone and engaged in any one of the activities identified above, you are an accessory to a federal crime. You face punishment, too! That ought to make you think twice. Is that call really necessary?
What's that? You want to limit it to certain situations? OK, but you're edging down a slippery slope here. Using a hands-free phone is OK, you suggest? All right, I'll accept that. But I was at a stop light last week next to a guy hollering at Rush Limbaugh on a hands-free phone, and I swear he was a million miles away from the road in front of him. If he'd been driving through a busy intersection or a school zone, the lives of everybody within a hundred yards would have been in serious peril. So we have to amend the law:
Dr. Laura: Yes.
Rush Limbaugh: No.
Oh, and the law applies whether you are talking to Rush Limbaugh on the phone or merely listening to him on the radio. It's the same thing. Too tough to enforce, you say? Well, maybe we can get the tech wizards to develop some kind of device. When your cell phone or your radio detects the voice of Rush Limbaugh, it disables the car engine. Surely that will please a certain percentage of the population. (And it appears to be the only way we can reduce his obscene ratings.)
So... I want you to write your congressman, organize demonstrations, initiate petitions. Let's start an annual national "Turn in Your Cell Phone" day. "No justice, no peace!" When you see someone using a cell phone in their car... well, you know what to do.
Now, that takes a big swing, but it misses the larger problem. Say what you want about the dangers of cell phones in cars, but the FACTS, the STATISTICS show that far more accidents and injuries occur when motorists are distracted while eating and drinking than while talking on the phone.
So, if you want to apply logic, consistency and effectiveness to this law (and I know that is a huge stretch for many of you), it must apply to eating food while driving a car, too. Do you want to go for a solution to the problem, or do you want to do something merely cosmetic and fashionable that does not deal with the heart of the problem? As Margaret Thatcher said at another equally grave situation, "This is no time to go wobbly." Human lives are at stake.
So... no more drive-thru windows at McDonald's. Well, I guess you can, if you order for your passengers only. As the designated driver, you may not eat or drink while driving. I think that, to play it safe, we have to reconfigure all those drive-thru windows so that they can be accessed from the passenger's side only. 16,000 McDonald's restaurants will have to be modified. But if it saves even one life... one life, surely it is worth it. Nobody can possibly argue that.
What if your passenger feeds you a couple fries while stopped at a red light. Oh yeah... try to eat just "a couple" fries; just try! I DON'T THINK SO!!
How 'bout a quick cup of coffee while on the way to work. NO! Aside from other drivers and passengers, you are putting your legs, your thighs, and your.... privates at risk. Now... what is more important than protecting your privates? This is precisely what our founding fathers had in mind as they crafted the Constitution. Show me where it says that the government cannot establish laws to protect your privates! First amendment rights, my keister!!
Does the law extend to candy bars hidden in the glove compartment? Of course it does. Food is food. A stick of chewing gum that you popped in your mouth while still parked in the garage? Oh sure... tell it to the judge. A piece of hard candy to ease a nagging cough? Why are you driving while impaired in the first place? You had better have a doctor's prescription, that's all I can say.
Now... how are we going to enforce this? With human lives at stake, I believe we have to give police officers wide discretion to observe illegal activity in your car. Can they stop you and perform a cavity search without reasonable cause? Of course not. But, do they have the right to shine a flashlight into your car and look down at your crotch for signs of a half-eaten Big Mac? Yes, they do. Can they examine the inside of your legs for telltale traces of special sauce dripping carelessly to the floor? Of course they can.
And what if it turns out that the police stop a disproportionate number of motorists who are grossly overweight? Would that constitute cellulite profiling? I don't think so. This is a health issue, not a fat slob issue.
Now, I know this sounds intrusive to some of you. But remember, this started with a federal investigation of the dangers and possible remedies for accidents caused by people using cell phones in their cars.
As for me... I told you I hate cell phones, and I no longer buy McDonald's fries. So it is fine with me. Frankly, I'm applying for a job as a police officer. I'll even supply my own flashlight.
Regular BBHQ visitor TK checks in: "Nice essay, Hershel. A few will not
get it at all; many will see the humor, chuckle, and move on. But
only a very few will see the serious issue you are addressing. Pity; you
are too subtle, my friend. My advice to everybody: read between the
lines... carefully."
![]() ![]() ![]() |
We're open to offerings from visitors to BBHQ. If you have something to say of interest to boomers, write it as well as you can in 800 - 1,000 words, and send it to us. We can't guarantee we'll publish it, but we'll surely consider it.
If you like what we're doing here at BBHQ, please help us by buying stuff through our link to Amazon.com:
![]() | ||
|
|
| |
Copyright © 2001-2008, Baby Boomer HeadQuarters - WWW.BBHQ.COM - All rights reserved.