An examination of this series of events evinces two critical aspects of our contemporary political climate: first, women’s health is being increasingly trivialized and debased by anti-choice movements in the United States; and second, grassroots financial and verbal support remains a profound democratizing force despite the increasingly powerful presence of private-interest money and lobbying characteristic of our last three decades of political history.

Although Komen claims that the foundation’s policy of not funding organizations under federal investigation motivated and determined its decision, anti-choice activism—both by outside groups and Komen executives—most likely underpinned Komen’s markedly political move.  Unfortunately, over the last year, similar and indefatigable anti-choice-driven movements have targeted Planned Parenthood and, in doing so, have threatened the health and welfare of millions of low-income American women.

Planned Parenthood is the nations largest abortion provider, yet abortions account for only three percent of their total services; the majority of Planned Parenthood’s work involves providing uncontroversial, nonpolitical preventative services—the exact type of services that Komen’s grants help support.  It is unacceptable and reckless for anti-choice activists to pit their political agenda above the livelihoods of low-income women: in 2010 alone, there were over 200,000 new cases of breast cancer diagnosed in the United States and over 40,000 deaths from the disease.  Frequent mammograms and breast exams are the easiest ways to reduce the fatality of the disease and we must fight to ensure that low-income women have access to these critical services.  Ultimately, the American people and the Susan G. Komen foundation grasped this reality, but anti-choice groups will undoubtedly continue their virulent practices, making the type of enthusiastic pro-choice and pro-health activism we saw during this last week vitally important to ensuring American women a safe and secure future.

Komen’s change of heart came after a three-day period in which Planned Parenthood raised $3 million—with $400,000 coming from smaller donations made by 6,000 people—and added 10,000 new Facebook friends.  In that same time period, tens of thousands of citizens signed online petitions, prompting prominent public officials—including 26 senators—to admonish Komen directly for its decision.   The outstanding public outcry indisputably impelled Komen to reverse its decision and forcefully established the continued relevance of grassroots political activism.  In this instance, Komen did not fall prey to the yoke of powerful corporate interests, but rather succumbed to the prowess of a united populist exhibition.

Although the Komen controversy illuminated and embodied the noxious practices of anti-choice movements in the United States today, it also showcased for us the most effective way to combat such movements.  Under the tutelage of a politically engaged citizenry, Planned Parenthood remains a viable and laudable organization, which the Susan G. Komen foundation will continue to support—as it should.

Photo courtesy of lifesitenews.com

In any event, House Republicans later imposed a deadline of two months, a deadline Obama labeled “rushed and arbitrary.” The President then rejected the proposal with the justification that he could not make an intelligent decision with the Republicans’ deadline. Of course, critics have turned around and said he just wants the issue buried before the election and is consequently being overly cautious.

After all, from a campaigning standpoint, this could be a problem. The pipeline question is fundamentally a conflict between promoting jobs and caring for the environment; at least, that’s the impression one gets from the media coverage. It could be more or even less complicated than that, but this is what it means to the voting public.

With the unemployment rate what it is, creating stable jobs is a paramount issue to the upcoming election. The environment is also a sore spot; Democratic voters—forgive the generalization—tend to feel more strongly about the environment than the general population, and Obama certainly does not wish to alienate his own base. That said, Democrats will vote for Obama anyway, it’s that gray area (independents) he needs to impress.

And that is why I’m inclined to believe Obama when he says the Republicans’ deadline was the cause for the projects’ demise. If he went ahead with the project, it would help dispel a common criticism of his administration: it is not creating enough jobs in an economy that desperately needs more sources of employment, and employment is certainly the hot button issue right now.

I consider the aforementioned allegations that he just wants the issue buried unlikely, because that is obviously not going to happen: no matter what he did, the other side was going to call him out on it, and he would defend it, and there would be spin-doctoring on all sides because it’s just that time of year.  Trying to gloss over this one makes just about as much sense as whispering into a megaphone. Therefore the only selfish reason I can think of for blocking the pipeline is to avoid looking bad if it does not go well.

He would not undercut job creation if he did not at least think that was a possibility, and that the potential ramifications of ok-ing the pipeline outweigh the consequences of being “soft” on job creation. He knows that no matter how he acts the probability of his reputation taking a hit is high, and that the same questions would be raised no matter what position he takes. It also stands to reason that the chance of making a poor decision increases when given less time to reflect on these decisions.

What’s good for the Obama campaign, and what’s good for the nation are not necessarily one and the same.  However, it is now that time of year when everyone is paying attention. With the competition heating up from the Republican Party, and with the media varied in its sympathies, it would behoove the President to act in the nation’s best interests.

Under one scenario, fares overall would increase by 43 percent, while under the other, they would increase by 35 percent. Under the second scenario, a larger number of bus routes would be cut, generating savings that would enable the smaller fare increase.

Under both scenarios, MBTA ferries would be eliminated, commuter rail weekend service would be eliminated and nighttime service would end at 10 p.m., and weekend service on the Mattapan Line as well as the E branch of the Green Line would be eliminated.

This past week, I attended the MBTA’s Mattapan and Dorchester public forums on these cuts and service hikes. I heard grievances from all types of people: poor, rich, local and state politicians, state transit advocacy groups, the elderly, students, and many more. They are all saying the same thing: these scenarios are dumping the problem on the backs on the bottom 1 percent.

The MBTA’s most advertised statistic is their estimation that of the people affected by these cuts and service hikes, only 1 percent of them are considered to be reliable riders.

This may be true, but what has become increasingly clear to me is that this one percent is largely a part of the same community. Boston residents who are considered to be reliable riders are reliable because they have low wages or are unemployed. Furthermore, many working poor rely on weekend and graveyard shifts. These cuts are directly affecting this demographic. Under both scenarios, the elimination of the Mattapan High Speed line and commuter rail service (12 lines) on the weekends and after 10 pm during the week effectively serves to target two of the poorest regions of the Boston area, Mattapan and Dorchester.

Under scenario 2, 24 percent of all bus routes will be cut. Again, the people who rely most on these services, which are quite frankly under-serviced as it is, are lower income individuals.

A part from the effects that these cuts will have on high school students in the Mattapan/Dorchester area, the elimination of E-Line service on weekends and after 10 pm during the week will introduce a completely different transit reality to Northeastern students who rely on the E line for travel.

You may be thinking, how did the MBTA get itself in this mess?

Prior to July 1, 2000 and the start of fiscal year 2001, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority operated on a very different funding model.  Under a model referred to as “open-ended reimbursement,” the Authority had the Commonwealth’s backing on all of their bonds and was reimbursed for any expenses incurred that exceeded revenue. This way, the budget books closed balanced every year.

Under Governor Paul Cellecci and through the State Legislature, a measure known as “Forward Funding” was passed, to take effect for fiscal year 2001.  Under the measure, the Authority is expected to be financially self-sufficient.  This means that the T must operate with the ultimate goal of raising a surplus, or raising more revenue than it incurs in expenses. If there is a deficit, then the Authority has to start considering hiking fares, eliminating jobs, and cutting service.

Under the “Forward Funding” measure, the MBTA’s revenue would come both as a portion of the state sales tax (20 %), along with any revenue raised from fares, parking fees, and advertising.

Since “Forward Funding” was passed, the sales tax has grown just 1% year by year, nowhere near the 3% assumed by the Plan. Instead of operating costs decreasing year by year, they have increased – mostly due to increased labor and materials costs.  Therefore, between FY01 and FY08, the Authority made $500 million less in debt payments than called for by the Plan. All of this, combined with the necessity of adding new debt to fund Capital Improvement Projects, has resulted in the Authority carrying a debt load that is currently thought to be more than $8 billion, $3 billion of which is interest.

So let there be no mistake, the MBTA has a serious debt problem on its hands, and no one is denying that a solution is needed. However, because the MBTA’s only options towards fiscal solvency lie in raising fares or cutting services, its options are limited. These proposals serve to target the bottom 1 percent in more ways than one, and unless the state legislature is willing to step in and offer other revenue injection ideas, the residents of Dorchester and Mattapan will experience the brunt of this burden.

With all due respect to Jerry Thornton of Boston Barstool Sports, and my fellow colleague Rob Rossi, they’re completely wrong. Thornton’s piece, entitled “The Patriots are in a position to settle all the family business”, makes the wrong comparison: Michael Corleone is not Tom Brady, rather, he is Eli Manning (more on that later).  Rossi’s article, “Kill New York, Vol. 2,” is a misnomer, because in his so-called Volume I (Super Bowl XLII aka the Best Game of All Time), the Giants won.

First of all, it’s an absolute travesty for some Boston blogger to compare The Godfather to the New England Patriots. The Godfather is an authentically New York movie, so you’re just pissed that The Departed doesn’t fit into your narrative. Not once does Michael Corleone make the four hour drive to Boston to make an offer that cannot be refused.

Now, you might be wondering, why did I call this article “The Godfather: Part Blue”? Well, Godfather Part I was the best movie of all time, until Godfather Part II came out. Super Bowl XLII is the greatest football game ever played, up until Super Bowl XLVI is played this Sunday.

That being said, The Godfather is strikingly similar to the storyline of the New York Giants. You have Eli Manning as Michael Corleone, the youngest (and perhaps the greatest) son of Hall of Fame father Archie Manning (Vito Corleone). Peyton Manning (Sonny Corleone) was tabbed to be the best (lead the Family), but was sidelined this year due to injury (ambushed and murdered at a parkway toll booth). The person who stood most to gain from Peyton’s injury was his rival Tom Brady (Don Barzini, who orchestrated Sonny’s untimely demise).

Now Eli Manning has had a career year this season, and put the team on his back (Michael took over the family after Sonny died). Eli also had to win four consecutive games, one in the regular season (Cowboys), and three in the playoffs (Falcons, Packers, 49ers), in order for the Giants to stay alive. The last, most dangerous team in Tom Brady and the Patriots is still alive. In the iconic climax of The Godfather, where Michael is in a church attending the baptism of his godson, five rivals of the Corleone family are assassinated (four rival bosses plus Moe Greene in Las Vegas). The last mob boss to be assassinated is Don Barzini, the biggest rival to Michael Corleone. With this completed, Michael eclipses both his deceased brother and father in accomplishments and becomes the undisputed Mob Boss of New York.

Now, the Giants are already the undisputed kings of New York with a crushing victory over the Jets on Christmas Eve, but with a victory over Tom Brady this Sunday in Indianapolis, Eli Manning eclipses both his father and brother in Super Bowl rings and overall greatness.

And indeed he did. Last Tuesday Obama delivered a clutch performance: a State of the Union that was perhaps the best oratory in American politics since John F. Kennedy’s “Ask Not” Inaugural Address. With “winning the future” as the recurring theme in his speech, Obama presented a bold and ambitious, yet practical blueprint of an economy that is built to last, one that is built on American manufacturing, American values, American skills and American energy.

I was extremely impressed with Obama’s speech for several reasons. One, he addressed a major problem that our country has been facing: the outsourcing of American jobs overseas. Obama listed concrete achievements that have already been made under his Administration, such as the fact that 3.2 million private sector jobs have been created here in the past 22 months, and that companies are starting to reinvest in America, as evidenced by a unionized Master Lock plant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin that is running at full capacity. Evoking the spirit of John F. Kennedy, Obama challenged business leaders to, “Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.”

Obama then proposed a series of well laid-out proposals that would put the American economy back on top. He called for tax breaks for small businesses and major companies that create jobs here in America, while eliminating tax breaks for companies that outsource. He also announced the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that would investigate China’s currency manipulations and unfair trading practices in the world economy.  These are major policy breakthroughs that only stand to benefit the American worker, the American business, and most importantly, the American consumer.

In order to meet the anticipated growth of job opportunities over the next several years, Obama also spoke about job training programs and college tuition tax credits as a crucial component of his plan. This is a crucial and worthwhile investment that will pay dividends: college and job training programs will allow people to acquire the education and skills needed to have a successful career in a 21st century economy.

Another core tenet of Obama’s plan is tax reform. I applaud Obama’s vocal support of the so-called “Buffett rule.” The proposal, named after the billionaire investor Warren Buffett, calls for a minimum income tax of 30 percent on individuals earning more than $1 million per year. This would prevent taxpayers in the highest income bracket from exploiting loopholes in the tax code to pay a lower rate than those in lower income brackets.

The rest of the speech focused on a myriad of other issues, such as Obama calling for increased federal funding of research labs, the refinancing of home mortgages, new regulations on Wall Street, and ending subsidies for oil companies. He also further implored Congress to approve funding for capital infrastructure projects,  justifying the various expenses by reasoning, “Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.”

Obama also made it a point to stress American energy independence. Although I do agree with Obama in principle, I am opposed to Obama’s plan that would open up new areas for offshore drilling. In my opinion, that only fuels our addiction to oil and does not address a long-term solution.  Renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar and hydroelectric power should be the focus rather than fossil fuels.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that Obama has developed an economic blueprint that is clear, attainable and is in the long-term American interest. This speech gives Obama a platform to run on that will win him another term this November. I support winning the future with Barack Obama. So should you.

However, I feel that some of the positions that certain candidates (I’m looking at you, Rick Santorum) hold on social issues are quite frankly, ignorant and irresponsible at best and downright malicious, intolerant and oppressive at worst. Santorum has stated, both in debates and on the campaign trail that gays, “shouldn’t have the privilege of enlisting in the armed forces” and would annul all existing gay marriages. In addition, if president he would cut off federal funding for birth control.

Santorum tries to justify these positions by saying that, “our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God’s law” and “we have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth . . . And those truths don’t change just because people’s attitudes may change.”

Hold on just a minute. This is America. Forcing one’s religious beliefs on other people, as Santorum is doing here, contradicts the very notion that this country was founded upon. Santorum is making a direct and concerted attack on the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of, and from, religion. In the words of Dean Obeidallah of CNN, Santorum is proposing a sort of “Judeo-Christian sharia” to impose upon the American people.

This view is disturbingly similar to Islamic theocracies, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, which use sharia as both a religious and civil code of law. In America, if a candidate were to invoke the Quran as a basis for his or her positions, it would be effectively political suicide. The irony here is that Santorum has previously claimed that Muslims want to force Sharia law upon non-Muslims (a dubious assertion), yet, he would govern the country on Biblical, rather than Constitutional principles. Whether it is coming from a devout Muslim, or a God-fearing Christian, the existential threat to the sacred principle of separation of church and state is clearly apparent.

Now I’m not saying Santorum cannot hold his religious beliefs. In fact, he has every right to hold whatever religious beliefs he chooses, even if they oppose abortion and gay marriage. However, he does not have the right to impose these personal, religious views on the country.

John Kerry put it best. In the 2004 election campaign, Kerry stated, “I can’t take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America.” At the same time, Kerry is personally pro-life due to his religious beliefs, but is politically pro-choice stating, “First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic – raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life, helped lead me through a war, leads me today. But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that. But I can counsel people, I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility.”

This is where the notions of “tolerance” and “acceptance” come into play. “Tolerance” means to have “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude towards opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.” Acceptance means “to approve, the act of assenting or believing.”

Let’s put these definitions into current context.  John Kerry is a Catholic. The Catholic religion forbids abortion and gay marriage. Yet, Kerry realizes that he cannot force his faith upon others and adheres to the First Amendment and the separation of church and state by being “tolerant” of other people’s religions and views, even if they are opposed to his own. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, is also a Catholic, but is seeking to force his faith on others, an extreme form of “acceptance” and a blatantly unconstitutional stance.

The fact that Rick Santorum even won the Iowa primary is a sad testament to the current state of American politics. Even though Santorum ultimately has no shot at holding the highest office in the land, he represents a minority demographic, the Christian right, which has historically and dangerously exerted a pull on the political system far beyond its numbers.

With this in mind, pro-choice advocates and those in favor of gay marriage need to realize that they are not going to change everyone’s mind. Forcing everyone to “accept” abortion and gay marriage is just as bad as using the political process to force religious beliefs, Christian or otherwise, on other people.

With that being said, gay marriage needs to be legalized nationwide and abortion rights need to be upheld.  In the esteemed words of Mr. Garrison from South Park, “Just because you have to tolerate something doesn’t mean you have to approve of it!  ”Tolerate” means you’re just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off!”

It is a fundamental right to choose who you want to marry, or what you do with your own body, and that should not be impeded. You also have the right to oppose abortion and gay marriage for personal, moral, or religious reasons. No one is forcing you to accept anything.  However, these beliefs should not trump someone’s right to have an abortion, or get married to someone of the same gender.  Toleration, rather than acceptance, is the American way.

I was flipping through the channels one night earlier this week and came across “The Magic School Bus”. Many of us probably saw this particular episode before in our distant past, when the class goes into space to stop an asteroid from hitting the Earth. However, there is one question I ask myself: does Ms. Frizzle deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for her innovative teaching methods, or a rather lengthy jail sentence for child endangerment? Food for thought.

Speaking of old television shows, (and I know many of you are going to laugh at me for this one), I have joined my mom in watching the final episodes of the soap opera “One Life to Live”. The show has aired on ABC since 1968, and my mom has followed the series since it first started. Sometimes when I was younger I used to catch a glance or two of the show while my mom was watching it, and got a general idea of what was going on. I haven’t caught it since, until now. Since the show is ending for good on January 13, what the hell? However, with writing that either just plain sucks or is intentionally corny to provoke laughs, a barely believable plot, and a confusing character web, you have this strange, yet addicting show that is literally going down with all hands on deck and guns firing away.

I was at MetLife Stadium for the Giant game against the Cowboys on New Year’s Day. This was my second pro football game ever, and I experienced my first tailgate. I’m surprised at myself that it took me this long to partake in this parking lot barbeque football fest. As someone that is a clear-cut Giants fan and who puts baseball and the Mets first, the football experience is unique to me. With a ballpark, while the game is the central focus, there is also an emphasis on food selection at the concession stands, and the way the ballpark is designed encourages you to walk around the concourse, look at the architecture, and visit the team store. Not so much with football. Although MetLife is a great and clean place to watch a game (its only in its second season), it doesn’t matter really whether the stadium is a dump or it’s a palace. All that matters is what’s happening on the field.  And tailgating is something that is completely non-existent when you go to a baseball game.

Speaking of football, I think I need to address this whole Tim Tebow phenomenon. Here’s my take: statistically, he’s a mediocre quarterback who relies more on his legs than his arm. His team puts him in the position to make so-called “miraculous” plays. As for his religion,  while I find it annoying that he “tebows”and the media is obnoxiously pushing his faith in their narrative to garner increased ratings, viewership, readership, audience, etc., he does have a right to express his faith in a public forum, as does anyone. As such, it is my right to be of the opinion that Tebow is annoying, but I can’t say that he shouldn’t be allowed to express his faith in any way. I’m of the belief that sports shouldn’t mix with politics and religion, but who am I to prevent the constitutional right to freedom of expression?

While we’re on the topic of sports, today the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) just inducted Barry Larkin into the Hall of Fame. Good for him. He was a great player, one of the best shortstops of his era, and the honor is well-deserved. Overall, the BBWAA is extraordinarily strange when it comes to induction. Hall of Fame caliber players like Larry Walker and Tim Raines were not elected this year, while Jack Morris, a slightly above average pitcher who happened to be on championship caliber ballclubs, garnered over fifty percent of the vote. Thankfully, as long as a player gets at least five percent of the BBWAA vote each year, they are left on the ballot for fifteen years. However, I find it disturbing that the BBWAA tries to be the judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to steroids. Jeff Bagwell, who certainly has the stats to be in the Hall of Fame, has never been under investigation for steroid use, yet the BBWAA continues to suspect him, and punish him by withholding his induction as a result without any tangible evidence whatsoever.

Here’s my take. The BWAA is hypocritical and is holding a double standard. Hall of Fame’s induction mandate states that, “Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played.” However, it is not like the Hall of Fame is totally comprised of good, virtuous saints without sin. Babe Ruth was an alcoholic. Ty Cobb was a racist and assaulted a handicapped fan. Roger Hornsby was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Wade Boggs, in a legendary feat, once drank 64 beers on a cross-country flight and admitted to being a sex addict. Ted Williams, and probably the greatest player of all time in my mind, Willie Mays, were rumored to have used amphetamines. Now while alcoholism, sex addiction, assault, and being a racist are not exactly performance-enhancing, can you hold that against players who are up for Hall of Fame induction? Obviously, the BBWAA never followed its induction mandate to both the spirit and to the letter, so maybe the character clause should be thrown out altogether. Or maybe you can use the character clause in all present and future cases, leaving members of the Hall of Fame with less than scrupulous character records grandfathered in.

But with amphetamines and steroids, these are performance-enhancing drugs, and are more than just character flaws: they affect the integrity, the spirit, and the fair play and competition of the game. Sports are meant to be played on a level playing field, with no one given an unfair advantage, and each athlete playing at the best of his or her natural abilities as a true test of skill. Performance enhancing drugs destroy this level playing field.

However, one must keep in mind not to make unfounded accusations without proof. With amphetamines, the allegations against Williams and Mays are simply that: allegations. There is no tangible proof, and the two men were never found guilty or were even investigated by the powers-that-be, even though amphetamines were rampant in clubhouses during that time. Indeed, the BBWAA made the right decision here, inducting both men into the Hall of Fame. Now, however, Bagwell is having his name unfairly tarnished by the BBWAA, essentially blackballing him from the Hall for what is unfounded speculation.

I think that the rule that should be followed is innocent until proven guilty. What a novel idea, it just so happens to be the one used by the court system and is guaranteed by the Constitution. Bagwell should be in the Hall of Fame, no question. But for those who have already admitted guilt, or were found guilty of using steroids, like Mark McGwire and Alex Rodriguez, should not even be considered for Hall induction.

The invention of the telephone is credited with no one man, but history writes the span of its inception as having taken place during the late 19^th century. Alexander Graham Bell, an American Professor at Boston University, is commonly credited with the invention of the first practical telephone in 1876. His idea changed everything, but as you can expect, it took time for the telephonic communication to become a societal standard.

In Bell’s time, people didn’t expect to be able to talk to whomever they wanted, whenever they wanted. Inventions like the automobile, airplane, the Internet, and most importantly to this discussion, the invention of the cell phone, have redefined the standards by which society considers communication and the rate at which that communication is transacted. These inventions have improved the interconnectivity of society in ways that we cannot fully fathom, as their effects are dispersed throughout generations of progress. However, we can all agree that in today’s world, we expect a return call within the hour. We expect to be able to contact whoever we want, whenever we want, at any point; well, besides jail.

On Tuesday December 13^th, The National Transportation Safety Board said that it had voted to recommend the ban on the use of mobile devices by drivers, citing what it said were the risks of distracted driving. The recommended ban applies to hands-free devices, a recommendation that goes further than any state law to date.

This recommendation is outdated and will prove futile in terms of seeing drivers actually opting to avoid using their cellular devices on the road. Modern society’s communication complex has drastically changed from what it used to be, and in this sense, the recommendation from the N.T.S.B. will serve only to increase the stress of America’s drivers.

Americans now spend more than 100 hours a year commuting to work, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Yes, that’s more than the average two weeks of vacation time (80 hours) taken by many workers during a year. Driving in America, for a lot of Americans, is not just something we do to get from point A to point B. It’s more signficant and time consuming than that, and they need to be able to communicate during that time.

Picture yourself on the road with a law like that in place. If you’re like most of us, you too share the aforementioned complex that seems to be the nature of most spheres of communication, both social and business. You’re on the road, and you receive a text or a phone call from your boss or best friend, what are you going to do? Most of you will pick it up regardless of the law on the books, which would render this recommendation from the N.T.S.B. obsolete. But, on the contrary, say you decide to be a law-abiding citizen and refuse to answer the call or text, would you not be curious? I would suspect that some of you would perhaps drive faster and riskier, so as to arrive at your destination earlier to return the call, or to return said text message.

The fact is we can all agree that texting and, to a much lesser degree, phone calls can distract people from what they ought to be focused on, namely driving well. However that is the nature of the times, and there is no changing people’s desire to act with the communication complex that has developed. For the most part, making decisions to drive safely are personal decisions. But if the goal is increase the quality of driving on the road, then the target should be DMV driving standards; for I am sure we call name a few friends that simply cannot handle the wheel.

By the same token, perhaps the N.T.S.B. should be more critical of telephone companies and automobile makers for not creating products that work efficiently towards the safety of their customers. Why not sell Bluetooth ear devices with a car or make them available at dealerships? Why not make voice recognition software and integration software in automobiles a higher priority, so that automobiles would be able to handle the needs of the drivers?

This recommendation from the N.T. S. B. is out of touch and essentially functions as a prohibition. If we have learned anything from history, it is that prohibition does nothing to decrease usage in the aggregate. This proposal serves only to transform the automobile into, well, jail.