I don't know if this is necessarily correct but ever since a handful of corporations bought out the majority of media companies they have biased/censored the news to support their parent companies views and positions.
Question, who owns Time magazine and what do they stand to gain by purporting such a story?
Again, I don't say this is fact but generally if you follow the money and it doesn't pass the sniff test...
Speaking of which, one of the big issues in AZ was the inequality regarding who received a ticket. An expose was written about the issue and it was discovered if your vehicle was registered under a business, you would be very unlikely to receive a ticket.
Turns out a business entity is not a person, ergo no citation can be issued. A lot of ppl were setting up LLCs and re-registering their cars when this became known.
I've lived in Phoenix for more than 30 years and have seen this town transformed from a sleepy agricultural burb into a Nascar/Demo derby.
PPL too busy to pay attention to anything but their cell phones and themsleves. Add +115F degree weather along with heavy congestion and if you think you've seen road rage... well, let's just say we know anger.
So, after trying to implement photo radar for years and adding red light cameras several years ago, former AZ Governor Janet Napolitano thought she could make a case for adding photo radar to the freeways.
PPL who normally would tolerate the worst offenses to wallets became incensed. I do believe if Napolitano hadn't become head of Homeland Insecurity, she would have been impeached.
The safety maggots loved the cameras and repeatedly pointed to statistics incorrectly indicating reduced fatalities and accidents. They ignored the fact that these were already declining anyway thanks in no small part to the tanking economy.
However, the uproar over the cameras and Redflex (the camera owners) never relented. These truly were money makers for the state and Redflex. Recently, it was discovered that Napolitano was hoping to proliferate the installation to 150 permanent highway cameras (only 78 were actually installed)throughout the state. The gaps were filled by roving Ford Escapes masquerading as AZ Dept of Public Safety vehicles with RedFlex employees operating them. Less than a year after the freeway camera program started, a Redflex employee was shot and killed by an incensed (and obviously unstable) motorist.
As I see it, the fact remains we are a society who values our mobility beyond almost all else including the loss of personal freedom. As such we will tolerate almost any government intrusiveness past the point of taking away our wheels. If that is true the only real way to change ppl's driving habits is to incorporate better driver education and licensing requirements. The truth is, as has been stated here by others, it is far too easy to get a driver's license in this country and so we all pay the price.
I don't believe raising gas prices is the answer, instead stricter requirements in obtaining a license and increasing the severity for non-compliance makes far more sense. The states need to uniformly create a 3-strikes law. If you screw up more than 3 times in one year and get caught you lose your license for 5 and must use mass transit, no exceptions. This will not only remove the idiots from the roads but will help cities better utilize and justify public transportation.
If states want to really prove to people it's not about the money, then implement the above changes and abolish red light cameras completely.
If not, they can always install speed bumps at each intersection and every 1/2 mile along the interstates... ;)
If Lobbyists formed a political party what would their platform be?
A few thoughts...
- Lobbyist... vote for us - you know where we stand.
- The Lobbyist party, transparency is all an illusion.
- Lobbyist - we work hard for the money.
- Lobbyists - power to the ppl (now show us the money).
Though I am far from being a lawyer I wouldn't be at all surprised if this decision stemmed from legal arguments regarding the upcoming case.
When Letterman outlined the scheme in a very public way he created a virtually indelible perception of his innocence. Right or wrong, this placed the accused in an unenviable position of guilt by celebrity accusation.
In other words, a well known celebrity states very publicly (to a millions of ppl) that a specific individual has attempting to extort money from him through blackmail.
Without giving the allegedly accused "blackmailer" a timely opportunity to refute allegations, it not only becomes virtually impossible to find an unbiased jury, but inevitably ends up as another case tried in the public media.
Regardless of who you believe, guilty or not, due process never occurs in a vacuum. But having a persistent and ever expanding message concerning someone's viewpoint can't help but sway any argument. Granted, it may already be too late but the defense team needed to have the video taken down.