These are the videos from Mr. Leibham's listening session in Sheboygan. They are many short videos, instead of a few long ones, because it is easier to upload short videos than longer ones. I recommend numbers 1, 5, 6, 7 & 8 if you are interested in the changes that have been made and that are being proposed to WI auto insurance laws. I would also recommend that folks start really paying attention to what is happening in our legislature.
This question is regarding the freezing of the picture on the questioner's television. And this question took up several minutes of the session time-as you will see. In my opinion, it is a testimony to the importance of bread and circuses.
The speaker addressing the question is an alderwoman in the city of Sheboygan.
There are 12 things on Mr. Leibham's list of changes to our law to be discussed, and 15 or so that are pending-some of them egregious abuses of power on the part of our legislature and we are talking about television reception, over which Mr. Leibham has zero control. While I understand the urge to be helpful and provide an answer-I hate unanswered questions, myself - this time could have been used better.
This gets back to insurance changes pretty quickly. It's worth watching. It also illustrates one of my principle disagreements with Mr. Leibham. (And which videos have been watched the most since I posted them? That's right, the ones with the discussion of the television question.)
The insurance discussion continues.
This man nails the essential difficulty I have with the mandatory insurance provision. He is willing and able to pay the damages to the other party in his accident and sees no reason that he should be required to pay for insurance as well. This insistence on mandatory insurance is encouraging the entitlement mentality which is already out of control. Yes, doctors and hospitals and vehicle repairs are expensive, but an auto accident should not be seen as a ticket to riches. Sometimes bad things happen and life is hard. It is not American or moral to penalize someone beyond the actual costs of the damages they caused, simply to feed that sense of entitlement. If an individual is able to pay the minimums determined by the state towards an auto accident, they should not be required to pay for insurance as well.
Mr. Leibham does have a lozenge in his mouth and apologized for that necessity several times while asking for our tolerance as he had a bit of a frog in his throat and this was the last of his three listening sessions for the day.
This bit is addressing the question of cell phones while driving.
There were a few other questions on ATV's and the appointment process for the head of the DNR, but my memory card was full.
"Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, "~ Lev 6:4
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I was intrigued by his explanation of how the 1% liability change would essentially work. If his explanation (essentially, "I was distracted by the flower delivery truck two blocks over, which makes the flower shop liable") holds water (and I'm assuming that it does), then it is one of the most blatant forms of unAmericanism that I've ever heard of. What the h*ll is going on up there in Madison???
I think that people don't understand what Americanism is. Thus they don't understand what constitutes unAmericanism. But, of course, that's old news.
I wish I were surprised by the fact that more people are concerned about the tv issue than are about the real issues at hand. But, unfortunately, that seems to be the world we live in, God help us all.
I told you, Terry, it's the air or something in Madison. It must be. The Capitol building is in the middle of what was, essentially a swamp. Surely there must be some noxious gases being produced which leave our legislators senseless when it comes to voting for common sense measures or refusing to vote for outrageous ones.
Yes, the flower truck is distracting,(which is what makes it 1% liable, right?, lol). I prefer my explanation from my earlier post.
You can see that the man in the back "gets it" when he remarks that the increase in the minimum levels of coverage is making criminals of people who were already having a hard time getting by.
The television thing annoys me, because this is not the first such use of the listening session time to discuss extraneous issues, over which Mr. Leibham has no control or input.
May God help us indeed, but first, may we use the wits our Lord has given us to do what we can.
"We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid and protection." ~Samuel Adams
(Fast becoming one of my favorite quotes.)
Hey, a little off the subject, but we may have a conservative option to replace Feingold with. I don't know enough to endorse him, I am still researching, but Dave Westlake is looking pretty good from what I have read so far. The liberal bloggers here are really tearing him apart, which makes him sound even better to me. Here is his website. Do you, by any chance, know anything about him? If you do will you email me any information you have. I want to make sure he is as coservative as he sounds.
DR,
I am sorry I don't have any info re: Mr. Westlake. I am currently in internet purgatory, having spent far more time talking to tech support over why my connection keeps cutting out than doing anything constructive ... for the last 4 days.
(One is hoping this will actually post. before my hair turns white.)
Post a Comment