We've got problems, people; have you noticed? Even Bush, who as it turns out was the actual Y2K problem, acknowledges that "we've hit a bad patch." Apparently when a Texan falls out of an airplane he employs the term "bad patch" which translates to English as "Oh look, there's ten thousand feet of clear air under my hiney."
Whatever gasoline costs at the moment I write this, I can guarantee it will cost more by the time you read it two days later. According to some reports, Toyota is exploring technology that will enable a Prius to run on unblended 18-year old Glen Morangie Scotch, which could dramatically reduce fuel costs. The same elixir used judiciously as a substitute for milk, eggs, and bread bids fair to save consumers a bundle on food bills. It is hoped that the pinch will be temporarily eased (like, for some number of minutes) by the tax rebate checks most of us have gotten or will soon be getting, although technically there's no "re" to it since we're not actually getting our own money back; Dubya borrowed it all from foreign interests to give to us because all "our" money is otherwise occupied at a secret location, so strictly speaking we're getting tax bate checks. Perhaps that should be spelled "bait."
But I digress. The California legislature will soon be tackling a thorny problem which has heretofore slipped under the legal radar and over time has become a festering wound endangering the health of the entire body politic. It goes nearly without saying that I speak of Assembly Bill 2233, known affectionately as "the lapdog bill" which is aimed at eliminating yet another driving distraction by "prohibiting a person from driving a motor vehicle while holding a live animal in his or her arms, or upon his or her lap." Upon such cornerstones great civilizations are built.
This will certainly become a classic battle in the culture wars, pitting the effete elite "I would never have an animal in my lap while driving so this wouldn't apply to me but there ought to be a law anyway" approach against the rugged tough-guy "This is America and if I can't choose to have my matched pair of rottweilers in my lap in the pickup then we might as well just hand the place over to the terrorists" school. This is going to get ugly, and we'll be lucky to come out unscathed.
But I sense something deeply twisted in this bill; you know, like if it were a movie it would be directed by Wes Craven. See how it prohibits folks from driving while holding or providing a lap for only "live" animals? I mean, isn't that a little creepy? You can get a $35 ticket for holding your two-pound, well-trained Pomeranian while you drive but it's perfectly legal to go hauling down the road with a dead moose in your lap -- where's the justice?
OK, I'll grant you, a live moose is likely to be more frisky and thus a bigger distraction than a dead one; you know, it'll probably want to be licking your face and sticking its antlers out the window to feel the wind and all the other goofy stuff moose always like to do in a car, but still I can't help but believe that even a fully-dead moose in a person's lap, especially if the person is on the smallish side, could under the right circumstances create a moderately distracting situation the like of which the Legislature in it's term-limited wisdom would want to protect other drivers from. I mean, as it is now a person could accidentally plow into a busload of senior citizens and tell the cop "Don't look at me, I didn't do anything illegal; the moose is dead." And they'd be right.
So what would be the harm in a gentle amendment to the bill prohibiting a person from driving a motor vehicle while holding or lappifying "an animal", you know, so whether the animal is currently drawing breath or not isn't a legal tipping-point. At least in the interests of basic fairness let's say "a live animal or a moose in any condition."
I mean, laws are important, and when our solons buckle on their partisan armor and do battle in the name of the people for the benefit of the lobbies they represent they should get it right. No cell phones, no Big Macs, no 64-ounce Slurpees, no shaggy forest creatures. Of course, once we run out of premium Scotch we won't be able to afford to drive at all, so maybe the problem won't arise.
Robert Mitchell
Robert Mitchell Robert Mitchell is an eccentric attorney who has been practicing general law in Morgan Hill for more than 30 years. Reach him at r.mchl@verizon.net.
Although the Morgan Hill Times does not have any obligation to monitor this board, the Morgan Hill Times reserves the right at all times to check this board and to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to the Morgan Hill Times in our sole discretion and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. The Morgan Hill Times also reserves the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions. All threats to systems or site infrastructure shall be assumed genuine in nature and will be reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Submission of any comments will be considered permission to use online or in print.
