by Chris James
What is it about
the word illegal that people---almost exclusively liberals and other left-wing
pettifoggers---don't understand? Illegal means unlawful. When you
break a law, there is a penalty associated with that law for the express
purpose of punishing you for your transgression. So that you learn from
the experience and never do it again (it says here).
The most obvious living
example of the hypocritical corruption of the word illegal, so that its meaning
is deliberately vaporized, is when it is applied to the "illegal"
entry into this country by migrants from south of the border. This
patently illegal refutation of the illegality of this activity has got so far
out of hand as to bring down wrath on those who even use the word illegal in
context. The preferred smarmy and invidious euphemism when referring to
south-of-the-border immigrants is "undocumented (insert your own friendly,
neutral noun here; profanities and the word 'aliens' are criminally
forbidden)".
But the cause of
illegally kidnapping the concept of "illegal" is not limited to
weighty matters like immigration. A recent newspaper column defined the
extent to which the cancer had metastasized. In fact, all the way down to
the lowly cyclist. You know, those usually brightly colored individuals,
wavering along on fragile, engine-less vehicles, more or less at the side of
the road, and who endlessly complain about other road users who apparently have
no right to be there at all.
The column was written
by the Director of the California Bicycle Coalition. If there is a
Sophistry Hall of Fame, then this utterance should be the first thing you see
when you come through the door. It is so hysterically infantile and
self-serving that you may not make it to the toilet in time. His thesis?
Cyclists roll through stop signs (and, incidentally, traffic lights) all
the time and therefore this should not be an illegal maneuver for cyclists.
His reasoning?
1. "At
cruising speed, bikes flow so easily that their riders don't even need to hold
the handlebars (OMG!). But a stopped bike falls over." Not if
the rider puts a foot to the ground, or better, gets off the saddle and stands
astride the cross-bar. Notwithstanding the fact that many riders wear
shoes that lock into the pedals so that they are simply too lazy to free
themselves and take a stand.
2. "It takes a
great deal of time and energy for someone on a bike to go from full stop to
steady roll, which is why cyclists so rarely stop at stop signs."
Oh, you poor babies. My hemorrhoids bleed for you. And is
this a driveling, monumental admission of guilt, or what?
3. "Rather than
continuing to call that a crime (stop sign running)---one so common that police
and courts don't have the resources or will to enforce it (does that ring a
bell on the immigration issue?)---perhaps it is time to legalize safely and
slowly rolling past stop signs on a bicycle." Personally, I have
never seen a stop sign on a bicycle, but then I have lived a very sheltered
life.
4. "Yes, I know
that there is rampant lawlessness among cyclists. I hear those complaints
all the time, most of them justified". And these are the same
sociopathic nincompoops who are going to ride slowly and safely through stop
signs? OMG!
5. When all else fails,
play the race card. "Furthermore, studies in some communities in
California, including here in the East Bay, show that police stop people of
color on bicycles more frequently than they stop whites.” No citations
supporting this assertion, and, from me, no comment.
There is more bilious
rambling in the column about what an Eden our society would be if we would
adopt this proposed putrid protocol. No normal person with more than one
brain cell would accept this detritus. Right? Wrong. State
Assembly Bill AB 1103, proposing this change, is about to be seriously
considered by the Assembly Transportation Committee. Geez! Gimme
High Speed Rail. Please.
