Proof Positive, New Jersey is run by idiots
 

This is completely ridiculous.......


However, it is an election year, and the politicians are probably afraid to vote against it for fear of being seen as not concerned about the safety of children!


It's not about the issues....it's about getting re-elected!

Aren't these the same people who raise all manner of hysteria about big bad government taking away our liberties because the CIA listens in on phone calls between terrorists in order to prosecute a war?

I guess it is OK to actually take away freedom from ordinary citizens for a feel-good but ineffective effort to protect little Johnny, but not OK to listen in on terrorist plots to protect the entire nation.

Go figure.

Two of our local parks' league rec rules mandate the use of a heart guard and face shield for pitchers in 10U - not a bad idea.

Do we need to start carrying the legislated bat list too? Will those red light cameras start shooting paint balls soon? Do I need to wear a helmet in addition to my seat belt?

lame

real lame

Did you notice the 4-2 vote was along party lines.

I say screw them, who are they going to arrest, the 12 yo batter?

These people are dangerous to the country and should be eliminated from ever holding any public office for the sake of the sanctity of the republic of the United States of America

you got that right.

Oh now thats stupid, even thought i live in PA, come on. :mad: Wood bats are more dangerous then metal ones. So does that mean if you use a metal bat in a youth league, its not only against league rules, but state law??? :eek: What gives the govt such a right. Bahh. If this is the direction this country is going im going to Canada :D

And the proponent's willingness to exclude softball points out:
- he is just trying to make a fuss
- he knows nothing about softball
- he doesn't think softball matters (not manly enough), part of the boys sports vs. girls sports problem
- he backs down when someone else know more than he does

It's a good thing George Washington and friends didn't try to solve a problem by running away

Sure, you'll find less government involvement in your everyday life there. Sure. You betcha.

Wade,
Did you lose the "say" or simply misplace it?

maybe the grammermammarian stole it.

That would be intentional interference

Just herd on this evenings news that NYC is now considering the same legislation!

However, reading this knowledgeable article taught me something. I never knew that there was a pitching mound in softball. :D

Sorry to disagree with all here but I'm for banning the bats. They've become lethal weapons out there. When a 12 yr old can cause death just by hitting a ball something needs to be done. I do rec ball here on L.I. New York and I'm fearful of getting hit. Can you still cause injury with a wooden bat,sure but not a catastrophic one like the Metal ones can.

Other than personal opinion, there is absolutely nothing to substantiate this comment.

This is not a valid issue for legislation. It is a "Chicken Little" theory that is absurd, and being used as a political tool. What happens next year when a kid gets killed (which did not happen in the case of point) by a shot off a wood bat?

Or has an eye put out or other serious injury by a broken wood bat?

Idiot "we are smarter than you and can tell you what to do for your own good" politicians are, unfortunately, not limited to NJ. It is everywhere and covering all aspects of our lives.

Leave this kind of thing to the leagues, the sanctioning bodies, and to personal, individual, parental decisions. I can make my own decisions, thank you very much, and I have much greater faith in the individual than I do in any vote-buying, pandering politician.

Come to think of it, Didn't Steve Yeager invent the dangling throat protector because he was injured by a broken wooden bat while on deck?

Wait a minute - I just feel like being obstinate here!

All you Libertarians that are getting SO upset about government interferring with your lives to legislate safety - so how do you feel about seatbelts and motorcycle helmets and OSHA and smoke detectors in public buildings? How about traffic lights and yellow no passing zones? Should we have any controls over the transportation of hazzardous materials? (Or disposal of?)

Does the NFHS have the authority to force females warming up pitchers to wear a (legal) helmet/mask - but not the male players? Has not ASA decided that hot metal bats are threating the safety of the players in softball? Are they not using their power to FORCE independent American manufacturing companies to conform to their definition of what is a proper product to build and sell?

WMB

There's a surprise! :D Let's not overgeneralize.
But, since you asked, they should be available, but use should not be legislated for adults.
These all go beyond individual decisions and consequences, although I do think some of these (e.g. OSHA) are highly questionable in many circumstances, and the general thinking leads to all of the smoking, fat, food, etc., Nazis running around today all trying to put into law what is "best" for me.The right? Sure, but maybe I shouldn't say that too loud. Might be a politician running for re-election reading this. Is it wise? Probably not.ASA is not forcing any bat manufacturer to do anything, witness all the illegal (for ASA) bats still being made.

You've made a leap that many who take your position take, and it is a strawman argument.

Only the government has legitimate authority enforceable by the power of police. Neither the NFHS nor ASA have that authority. If I want to form a league that plays by the TSA rules (Tom's Softball Association), I can, regardless of what ASA or NFHS do. A state law is an entirely different animal.

But the whole point is, if a group doesn't like bats other than wooden ones, you start a league that uses only wooden bats. Don't look to someone to legislate to you how you, or others, should conduct yourself.

Well....maybe I should have read on before I posted that last post. As per usual, I see that Tom has made the argument very eloquently. :D

Don't let the border gate hit you in the rear on the way north. And don't forget your woolen jammies.

Bob

for the record, i oppose helmet and seatbelt laws as well

i hate goober cell phone users and their crappy driving - but oppose the new CA law.

:cool:

I support laws that would ban anything that has caused an injury or death. We need to reduce those to 0% - thats the only way that we all stay safe forever.
So, lets look in the past, and anything that has caused harm must go!
Laws can protect us all, and our lawmakers do care. Full body armour 24/7.
Thats what I say....

So, Mr. Angel, or can I call you Arch?

For those who believe in God, such laws much be very tough for you to swallow. Who would think that a 1.25 inch vinyl strap or plastic helmet could deter God's will? :confused:


After all, when God says it's time, it must be time, right?

:D

Gotta admit, I'm a fan of using wood bats and punky balls - but not a fan of legislating that. I'm such a fan because there are way too many mediocre players who can now bat 400 or higher. I like "small ball" and when somebody does blast one out of the park, I'm impressed. That's not so with the technologically enhanced bats & balls today.

But legislating it?!? Not unless they legislate a whole lot of other things - many of which are already listed.

Steve,

I believe that is the main issue. There are far too many other things needed to be addressed in this country by our representatives whether it be at the national, state or local level.

"Legislation" is not the answer to every little pet peeve or concern of a constituent.

So Irish tell me where do we as a society draw the line on laws that help us as a people. When ASA comes down with a Rule that's comparable to a Law ,isn't it? We as umpires enforce safety issues every game we do. When indivuals can't or won't protect themselves then it's up to Government to step in. Otherwise wejust as well should be in IRAQ!

What utter BS. Read my previous answer to WMB.

Please support this by quoting any relevant portions of the US or any state's constitution.

Define "society". There is no such animal. Most people use the term in a fashion that a "society" determine the set of rules by which a person wants to live with no regard to what another may wish. What one believes to be society here may be a cult elsewhere.

Under what authority does anyone have to determine what is better for the next guy? Guess what? People in this country are the same as those in Iraq. They will do almost anything to insure their next door neighbor live in the same manner as they do.

If you truly believe in freedom as most people in this country think they enjoy, you must be willing to accept another's way of life as you wish them to endure yours.

There is a huge difference in accepting rules from an organization and enduring and intrusive government. You can choose to not participate in a non-governmental organization. Unless you have unlimited resources, getting up and moving away from a government is a bit more difficult.

Of course it is. Otherwise they'd move the state to a better location.

Anyone who follows baseball knows that today's wooden bats don't crack. They SHATTER. Which is much more dangerous to a pitcher, and everyone else in the infield, than a ball coming off an aluminum bat.

Bob

If you disagree with rules designed to prevent a pitcher from being hurt due to a bat that causes the ball to come back to the pitcher too quickly, do you also propose unbanning all the banned bats? Do you also disagree with rules requiring batting helmets and facemasks or limiting the makeup and length of cleats? If you do not, where is the line between where an association bears the responsibility to prevent injury to the best of it's ability and where an association should not try to prevent a foreseeable injury?

I can't tell who you are addressing with this, so I will answer.

I think, in general, the youth sports organizations are becoming a bit to paranoid and "kid in a bubble" oriented. But, that is <font size=4>not even close</font> to my objection to such things as the OP issue.

If I don't like ASA's rules, I can umpire for AFA, or USSSA, or form my own league.

If I don't like the state's rules, I can suffer loss of property or liberty.

A huge difference, and I wish people would quit munging them into the same issue. They are not even remotely the same issue.

A law too often disobeyed is a bad law; it's up to the legislator eliminate it or change it, so that the same contempt will not affect the other good laws.
(Memoirs of Hadrian - M.Yourcenar)*

Roman Emperor Hadrian (of course his thoughts are made by the author of the novel, french writer M.Y.) perfectly knew that a bad (or weak) law will affect the entire system.
Sorry to say the same wisdom seems to me NOT to belong to New Jersey (or others) politicians...

*the original text is written in french. My text was in italian and the translation is mine... sorry!!!

To everybody: I learned more about USA by this thread than from several books at school!!
To Mike: your thoughts about the relations between induvidual and society simply fascinate me. And in a sense you partially changed my view of people from USA, thanks for this.

Ciao

"Herd" as in I HEARD a HERD of cattle running by?

Bob

In the case of state legislators, correct.

Irish, just got back in town, but my post was a, poor I guess, attempt at sarcasm!!
There's too many out there that actually believe what I posted in jest. Go figure...

IT's not so much the present day bat's makeup as it is the game itself which has gone through severe changes, the athletes and the dimension of the fields.
The game is faster, the girls more stronger and athletic, the bats more potent, but the dimensions of the field remain the same.
The pitcher's mound needs to be moved back. Also, I believe some defensive positions should be required to wear face guards and light chest protectors.
Some might laugh, but I've seen too many career ending injuries occur.
The girls will not give up their bats.

Pitcher's mound? What pitcher's mound. This board has discussed moving the Pitcher's plate back before to 43' That may well happen in the future
How is mandating protective equipment any different from a rules org declaring certain bats illegal?
The girls will give up their bats if ASA or some other sanctioning body says they will.

Please elaborate. I for one would interested in the anecdotal specifics.

I, for one, think we could accomplish the same affect with less overall impact by lowering the .COR of the game balls. Changing the .47 ball for a .44 ball would create a more than 6% reduction in the resultant force from the bat impact. I think that is a favorable alternative to reducing bat perfprmance 6%, and would certainly be less costly.

I am for moving the pitching plate back to the 43' mark, as we have already discussed in another thread. I am against any mandating of safety equipment by either the governing body of the game, or by the government itself. If parents, players, and coaches have concerns, then they certainly should be able to figure out what they need to in the area of safety equipment without it being forced upon them. I could also see approving the reduction in the COR of the ball, as Steve proposed.

SP changed to a .44 COR, but it was stated that the compression has more bearing on the ball's exit speed. It was proposed for FP also, but I cannot remember why that wasn't changed.

With all the headaches we have been through with the bats, helmets and facemasks, haven't you people caught on yet? The moment something is mandated, everyone will cheer UNTIL they realize it will take more than a year to develop a base line for safety, determine the standard, have NOCSAE approve it, run it through their probationary period prior to final approval and then ALL the equipment previously used on a voluntary basis is no longer legal equipment.

Even though something like this is with good intentions, it is fraught with issues, softball, personal and legal.

Who are you talking to when you say "you people?" If you reread my post, you will note that I said I am "against mandating" any equipment changes for safety reasons. I believe that parents, players and coaches should realize what they have available to them in the safety equipment without anyone mandating its use.

I understand that, but knowing that, you should realize I wasn't speaking to you, Scott :)

I had my government class read this thread and comment on it...while they mostly think it is stupid to even consider this type of legislation, they were able to find parts of the Constitution of the United States that would argue that creating this legislation would be acceptable.

The Preamble mentions "general welfare." Safety may fall under general welfare clause.

Article I, Section 8 mentions "...all laws necessary and proper..." This may well be used to argue for allowing this type of legislation.

Not bad for a bunch of emotionally disturbed, learning disabled children!

True enough, but the Bible also gives us this command, "Thou shalt ... kill". You just have to ignore the context.

I shared your comment with them just now...and they took rather heated offense, as if you were insulting them. I informed them that you were NOT trying to insult them; rather, it is just in your nature to be rude :) . They are currently preparing a rebuttal on why it is WOULD be in context of the constitution (and as an extension, case law decisions) for this type of law to be made.

The "average" kid (if you can call a triple-homicide committing, drug-dealer average) even said, "man, they're getting what they THINK the government can and can't do mixed up with what the government LEGALLY can do." Then again, this guy has more experience with the legal system than many practicing lawyers!

Of course, you would probably just blow them off because their opinion disagrees with yours. ;)

It's sad that kids with an IQ of 60 can get the connection, and adults can't (or refuse to)!

HAVE A GREAT DAY! :D

...But the two kids who have been to New Jersey (at least until they were caught) do agree that....

NEW JERSEY IS RUN BY IDIOTS!

:D You are completely misunderstanding my position here, so with you as the conduit, it is no doubt so are your little darlings.

I have no doubt that case law and court precedence would uphold such a law. But that is because courts in the 20th century have done great violence to the constitution with the reading of the commerce clause to mean, basically, "any darn thing that congress wants to regulate." We are at a position in this country where there are no surviving limits on federal power left in the constitution because neither the congress nor the executive nor the people have the guts to stand up for THEIR rights under the constitution and instead allow the courts to be the final arbitor of all things. Hell, we even have recent Supreme Court rulings based on European law, fer cryin' out loud!

If you want to have a meaningful debate, make it about the constitutional concept of limited federal powers. Start with what the founders actually wrote, and debate how much of that is left intact at the beginning of the 21st century.

Besides, this OP is about New Jersey, not the federal government. The constitution grants far more powers to the states than it does to the feds (as if that even matters anymore).

No, but I will blow your opinion off, since, ...
...it is even sadder when an instructor in government does not even recognize (or worse, refuses to recognize; or pretends to not recognize) when a debate is about strict constructionism vs. living document schools of constitutional rulings.

You, too.

Now define "general welfare" and "necessary and proper".

There is a reason that only titanium bats have been banned based on the alloy used. It is the only alloy that could be proven to increase the speed of the ball. No other alloy or composite carries that distinction in the world of softball. IOW, there is absolutely no proof that the bat itself causes a dangerous environment. IOW, this law cannot be proven as a remedy, so how would this law be to the benefit of the general welfare, or necessary or proper to enact?

In my mind, it would be "necessary and proper" to return to the whipping post as a means of punishment for convicted criminals because it benefits the "general welfare" of the community. And I have an argument to accompany this. Would a criminal (dealer, user, thief, etc.) knowingly commit a crime in your community where the punishment would be 30 lashes and 5 years or go down down the road where the punishment would be 5-7 years? Granted, many criminals are not that smart and think doing the time is easy, but they know pain.

I'm sure some in your class would be repulsed by the idea of a whipping post. Then ask them, if they had to commit a crime to survive, and had an option of a jurisdiction with flogging as opposed to one without, where would they commit the crime :rolleyes:

I cannot respond for my class, although I know how they're going to respond.

I can reply for me: I've been one of the best government teachers in the state for years...teachers ask ME how to debate items...I know pretty much every side of every issue...for you to judge me based on what you read here is, well, ignorant. Are you sure you're not from New Jersey? ;) (please understand this is a little humor...very little) Like many people, you fail to the reality of the situation, and you (at least via your posts) apply only what you want to apply to the situation. But what else can I expect? Like every American who ever attended school, you know better than any teacher, right? (Lots of sarcasm here)

I'm having a great day, how about you?

I think this is a great response, Mike. You bring up points already debated in class. Can you give supporting documentation (and, further, enough public support) to return the whipping post? Can you document that it would actually deter crime? Or, would it cause criminals to, as you put it, go to one without it? This is the MEANINGFUL conversation that happens in a good debate!

I do not have the document in front of me, but I will look for it, so you know I'm not making this up. A study done several years ago showed that punishments do not deter most crimes. The study was about the death penalty (the ultimate punishment in the minds of some). It showed that most murders will openly admit that they did not care what the penalty was; they were going to commit the murder. Having talked to several muderers (as their teacher) they honestly did not care what the penalty was...they were going to do it.

Crimes of necessity? A great topic for debate! Having already debated this, my class decided that there should still be a penalty, but (again, from their experiences) it was still worth it to commit the crime (i.e. stealing money for food or rent or whatever they deemed necessary).

They only way to truly and accurately define necessary and proper is to ask the person who wrote it...and they've been gone for 200 years, so it's up to our ELECTED officials to determine the meaning of necessary and proper.

Then again, with enough public support, any rule can be changed (see ASA men's FP pitching rule over the last 10 years)!

Actually, being from the last state to give up the whipping post, I have been involved in the discussion of the deterent, but that was 35+ years ago. I don't have the time for research, at least not at this time, but if memory serves me correctly, the statistics showed a substantial increase in crime in the state once the judiciary stopped sentencing people to a public flogging/whipping.

As far as people commiting the crime regardless of the sentence, I would question the results of your research unless additional parameters were posed to those interviewed. For example, how many thought they were going to be caught? How many believed if caught, they would actually be convicted and, if so, receive the maximum sentence permitted. How many began their day knowing they would be commiting a crime? How many got up in the morning knowing they were going out and killing someone that day? Would the answer be the same if there was no question that, if caught, they would die? No other options, no 20 years on death row while an indefinite number of appeals are filed. In and out of court and directly to the chair/stretcher/rope/wall?

(Please note, late at night and using "they" simply in a generic form, grammar be damned!)

The main problem is there is very little "punishment".

For nearly all misdemeanors, you will be cited out. Even if arrested on a No Bail warrant for FTA Jail or something like that, you will be cited out.

The county jails are full and the criminals know it.

If you are remanded from the court room to serve say 20-30 days, its very common for the you be out on the streets before the Judge has left for the evening.

You already receive time and 1/2 for "good behavior" - compounded by the fact the jails will release you = you will likely do little time at the county level.

So this means, if you are sentenced to 8 months and you do 2 days and they let you go because they are full, that will be considered as serving your entire sentence.

Then there are work release, probation, behavioral, and diversion programs.

Most probation is court monitored, known as conditional sentence -very few are actual on formal probation where they must report to a probation officer or are subject to the serious threat of a search waiver.

The criminals know the game and they work the system well.. for instance, the real smart criminals will refuse probation and just insist on serving their entire sentence in jail, knowing that they will be released early and not have to deal with the hassle of Violation of Probation issues.

The Justice system is essentially a contract betwen criminals and most are more than willing to not comply with its terms, and as such become the winners.

There are the good people who dont get in trouble with the law.. to those types, the justice system holds a great deterrent effect.

For the criminal element, it is a side line hassle, especially at the county level. Those that mess up and find themselves in prison arent doing so well. but the main criminal element.. the minor level slime balls - they ride free.

You haven't addressed the issue at all; only hurled insults, declared self-proclaimed expertise, and revealed yourself to be, apparently, only able to demean instead of debate. Apparently you are used to intimidating people. Good luck with that.

You are the one who declares things about me based on a shallow reading of what I am saying. If you are such a great government teacher, why is it you have still not addressed the issue of limited powers of the federal government?

So, oh great government teacher, what DO you think about enumerated powers? Does the concept have any meaning left? Do you think that is a good thing?

Can you debate an issue without belittling? Are you used to indoctrinating or teaching? Do you allow contrary views in your class, or do you intimidate, ridicule, and insult and call that debate?

Bottom line: I don't care what you "think" since it seems you have forgotten how.

Another issue swift execution of given punishment would handle. Instead of 6-month sentence, make it 30 lashes and 1 month. This should also create a positive turn in the expense of operating correctional institutions.

Its just not going to happen. besides the fact its been rule cruel and unusual, or surely would be, todays society would not tolerate it. Essentially society is happy thinking criminals are punished, when the reality is, there are a myrid of "outs" provided to criminals of that punishment, including - if they dont agree to comply, there is no real recourse. Your drivers license can only be suspended once, only so many of your fines can be put into collections, before its considered a non issue by said criminal.

Of course there should still be a penalty. Punishment is also about punishment.

For example, the threat of prison may not deter people the first time, (I believe it does on a big level though -and admittedly I dont have numbers in front of me, just personal experience of dealing with these issues every day- not in a class room either) - most people do not want to go back to prison once out. I've literally seen people tatoo on their hand "No mistakes" to remind them not to get into trouble so they dont find themselves back in prison.

For those that Prison does not work on - leave them there for life or until they have no life left 65-70 y/o.

For those that commit capital crimes, execute them (sooner the better). Will it deter? No, but they are punished and gone. Its a nonissue. There is no detering those who will do it whether they will be executed or not. So forget about that end - These people are useless to society and turn your stomach when you look at them. Their momma may miss them, me and you certainly wont.

The BIGGEST fraud on society is behavioral and diversion programs, which are actually excuses to let the criminals the streets because we CANT keep them, so we trick them into thinking we'll be nice and let them out of jail if they do their weekly program or if they be good, we'll dismiss the charges. Its money for the program teachers, thats about it. Rehabilitation is a joke until the person WANTS to rehabilitate. That comes at the point when they have hit bottom and been crushed beyond the point of functioning. Crush them sooner, and they probably would want to rehabilitate sooner.

Talk about your thread hijacks, this one takes the cake!!!

We started out discussing the legislation by one state of the rules of a sport, and suddenly it has morphed into a discussion of the US Constitution and Crime and Punishment (apologies to Dostoevsky).

Off season... don't do dome ball; can't wait for spring! :rolleyes:

I believe it was you who hurled the first insult by dismissing what my students said. I currently see 4 insults in your reply. Look in the mirror before you speak to me anymore.

I'd be glad to discuss all the issues in a true debate setting: Not the word twisting I see here.

You two are starting to sound like a couple of politicians preparing for Tuesday. :p

You believe wrong, but, hey, I'm just a poor slob who has the temerity to challenge a school teacher. (OK, increase your insult count by one. I thought I should tell you that since you seem incapable of recognizing the real insults. Now increase it by another one.)

Let's see, in my first reply to you, all I said was your recounting of what your darlings said was out of context. It was. Just because they are of the mentality that they took this "as if" I was insulting them does not mean I was. But, street thugs probably have a different definition of being insulted. Then, you then said, among other things,I generally (but not completely) ignored these digs, and instead focused on this comment...Which told me you (and therefore, they) did not understand my point. I was expressing a political opinion on the proper interpretation of the consitution, not stating what I think our current legislatures can do or what the courts would find legal.

I did, indeed, respond in kind to your IQ of 60 dig. But, you started it.

You still have not addressed the issue of enumerated powers. Do you not understand the issue, or do you just not wish to address it?

I have oft read, and marvelled at the wisdom of Mr. Jefferson. Here is a quote that really seems to fit this original post:

"Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves."

Justification does not lead to vindication.

I voted for #3! ;) Send 'em all here... they'll go running, screaming into the night!

Neither do short, meaningless, quips.

So, what about enumerated powers?

Probably the one statement you have made in this thread that won't bring an argument. :D

I support an even more effective change to small iron cannonballs. These will not leave the bat more than a few inches no matter how hard they are struck.

But they sure are difficult to pitch or throw with any effectiveness.

I have lived in the once-great Garden State for more than 50 years, and it is indeed run by idiots, particularly of the nanny-state variety. We had a governor known unaffectionately as "Flim-Flam," for example, who saw to it that restaurants were forbidden to serve eggs that were the least bit runny. (Public outrage put an end to that one.) Our legislature has decreed that as soon as the attorney general of the state deems the technology "available," every firearm sold in the state will have to contain a sensor that prevents it from being fired except by the "hand" programmed into it. (Don't think—vote!) In case you hadn't looked, our attorney general was recently fired for, among other things, being a scofflaw who didn't take care of her mountain of traffic tickets. (The fact that she was utterly incompetent was immaterial.) And one former governor has apparently returned to trolling highway rest stops.

(Of course it has long been common knowledge that New Jersey is run by crooks, too. Frankly, I'd take crooks over nanny-state idiots any day.)

So it's no surprise that our legislature is considering banning metal bats. Don't look into the matter. Don't ask anyone who knows anything about sports equipment. TheTrenton Times simply ran an editorial glibly claiming "advantage batter" from non-wood bats, and demanded a ban.

Not all that long ago, New Jersey was a low-tax, business-friendly state. But it is now fast becoming very much like New York City: OK if you're rich or poor, but not if you're somewhere in the middle. In fact, if it were not for immigration, mainly from the Far East but also from Mexico and Guatemala, New Jersey would be losing population rapidly—the old residents are leaving in great numbers. And the people of New Jersey complain but keep returning the high-tax nanny-staters to office.

I am very partisan in my politics, and I used to write to my legislators. But in NJ today, believe me, there is no bigger waste of time. They do not care what a constituent thinks, because it's all fixed. New Jersey sends 13 representatives to the U.S. House (7 Democrats, 6 Republicans). In 2004, all 13 won by 17 points or more.

So we will ban metal bats. Meanwhile, the guy who murdered 7-year-old Megan Kanka (in 1994) watches TV and plays cards. I predict, incidentally, that before our present governor leaves office, he will commute the sentences of all the killers on death row. In a great example of cost-effectiveness, that governor bought a seat in the U.S. Senate 6 years ago. He served 5 years and botched every job his party gave him to do, then quit to run for governor. It cost him, out of his own pocket, $29,000 per day for the time he was a U.S. Senator.

Not to mention, yall are radioactive.

A minor point - if it saves even one child's life....

It would save at least one childs life to cease the use of all automobiles; however, we dont do that. It would surely save a childs live to make every kid wear bright orange and walk around in helmets, after having their parents screened for a minimum level of aptitude and requiring parental licensing to allow them to breed. "If it saves one child's life" can be used to make just about any argument you can fathom, as such has no real meaning, and is rhetoric, certainly not a point.

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm :)

A few years ago, on my way out of the park after my FP game, I stopped to watch a LL baseball game. Every batter, before he entered the box, was wrapped with a pad—looked like a thin mattress, maybe an inch thick—that extended from the underarms to a little below the waist. I can't imagine how anybody swung the bat while wearing this guard.

I asked the coach how he liked the pad, and he just shook his head and said, "They make us do it."

I'm certainly not a nanny-stater, but to me it's ironic that if I drive across the river to Pennsylvania, I can be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt. But if I take my motorcycle across, I can remove my helmet and ride around all day.

The deer population in central NJ has grown so much that I once had 19 such critters in my yard at one time. Interesting that the same people who were arguing that hunters should have to store their rifles at the police station on the basis of "if it saves just one child" were absolutely opposed to a hunt to reduce the deer population, even though several people, including kids, were killed in local car-deer collisions over the past few years.

NJ Bat Ban Update
 

Just poked around on this yesterday ...

Apparantly on 12-11-06 the bill passed the Assembly floor with an amendment that removed "softball" from the list of organized sports that this bat ban would apply to. See the amendment here and refer to section 2.

So we're somewhat in the clear. The bill still needs to go to the full general assembly for a final vote... and changes could still happen there. :confused: