Can tragic things still be an accident?
In December of 2009, an 80-something year-old woman swerved to avoid a car stopped behind a school bus and drove onto the curb, striking and killing a small child who had gotten off the bus. It's horrible. Tragic.
Today, the
driver was sentenced to 3 years in prison for "vehicular homicide".
Was it preventable? The word "accident" usually means that it was unavoidable, that people did what reasonable people would do and that there was no negligence and no malice.
No one has claimed there was any malice, but was there negligence? Over the last decade or so, there have been many instances of elderly persons killing or seriously injuring others through driving mistakes. Elderly drivers often have to be tested more frequently or more thoroughly, but many continue to drive. This woman had a valid driver's license. The state said she was qualified to drive. What does that mean?
I've driven more than 300,000 miles through 40 states in cars, cargo vans, a box truck and on motorcycle. Based upon the driving I've experienced, the states, including Georgia, have very low standards for "qualified". Perhaps she was both qualified to drive and completely unprepared for that situation. Perhaps she, and thousands or hundreds of thousands like her, drive around and avoid death and injury through luck. Happens chance.
It's horrible when a child is killed. It's tragic. But in the rush to find meaning, to find a reason for why it happened, people assign blame. Someone must be responsible, they say. Maybe it's not someone. Maybe it's everyone.
Maybe there are lots of legally qualified and completely unprepared drivers. And she, and the child she killed, were just unlucky.
Labels: death, driving, elderly, georgia, law, politics, vehicular homicide
GA Rep Mark Hatfield Introduces Citizenship Bill Because He Likes To Talk
On Wednesday, Georgia State Representative J. Mark Hatfield, (R - Waycross)
introduced a bill requiring that anyone running in a Presidential primary in the state of Georgia would have to prove they meet the citizenship requirement of the Constitution.
When did the good Mr. Hatfield introduce it? Eight calendar days before the end of the legislative session. With only three days of active session to act upon it. How can the good Mr. Hatfield expect to pass it? Well, he doesn't:
Hatfield acknowledged that there's not enough time remaining in this year's legislative session to bring up his bill for a vote, but he introduced it anyway "to start a conversation" in Georgia, with the idea of re-introducing the bill in time for consideration in next year's legislative session.
Hmm. He could have introduced it earlier this year. He could have introduced it last year. He could have introduced it the year before that, when one of the Republicans on the primary ballot was not born in the U.S. and his citizenship was in question. He didn't. He waited until absolutely nothing could be done except his bantering about it while he runs for re-election.
And he still isn't convinced that Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to be president.
11Alive News asked Hatfield, "Do you consider yourself a 'birther?'"
"No. I wouldn't say that, at all. I'm simply a citizen who is concerned, to make sure that the Constitution is upheld and enforced."
"So you don't know one way or the other whether he is a citizen of the United States?"
"Well, of course not. I have not been given any sort of proof, one way or the other."
Uh huh. Obama's birth certificate has been presented along with birth announcements in newspapers. If say you don't know Obama's a natural born citizen, you're either a moron or a liar.
Georgia State Representative Mark Hatfield (R - Waycross) is either a moron or a liar.
Labels: 2010 georgia legislative session, birther, georgia, legislature, mark hatfield, obama, politics, racism
