Illogical Arguments

Prata gave me an idea for a blog entry. That's been my problem lately: lack of good ideas. Yesterday, Prata mentioned a study done that shows that cell phones impair driving. Anyway, the first article I could find is from the University of Utah. Now, when I think of University of Utah, I think of Mormons that couldn't get into BYU (or could not afford it). That's probably not an accurate depiction – but let's face it, I am some chick for Georgia. I have not been past the Mississippi River. Or admit to the traveling that far. Now I understand that there are wonderful and interesting places that far west, but I don't know specifically of any. Just mark this up to dumb chick and move on. Nothing to see here.

Anyway, the cell phone article I found was not the one I was looking for. The one I was looking for said something about talking on cell phones impairs one's driving – decision-making skills and reaction skills, akin to having either a 0.08 or 0.10 blood-alcohol level. Again, I could not find the article, but I normally don't do much research when writing. It sort of interferes with my writing. So I am thinking – most people don't want to outlaw talking on cell phones while in the car. Not sure if it is because of the "big brother" syndrome, a pro-libertarian stance or because talking on a cell phone is just so darned efficient.

Here is a thought. Why don't we just raise the blood-alcohol level for DUIs. I mean, if driving on a cell phone impairs driving and we are okay with this, why not just let people drink and drive. Sounds a bit irresponsible does it? I know, if you drink and drive, you need to put something on top of your car to highlight your impairment. I mean, cell phone users, by in large, can be distinguished by cradling the phone to their ears or speaking into their dashboard so we can easily avoid them in tricky situations. There must be a way to distinguish alcoholics.

On a completely different subject: the other day I heard an argument about global warming. Some conservative was talking about how the "environmentalist nut-jobs" think global warming is occurring because it has been warmer in certain areas for 10 years. Soon-thereafter a caller called to agree with him, stating that when he moved to Pennsylvania, four years ago, they had the worst snowfall they have had in some time. So this accumulation of snow proves global warming does not exist and the talk show host agreed with the person.

My initial reaction was to think – you ridicule someone for using only ten years, and you bolster your argument with one season. But then I thought: snowfall is precipitation. It has little to do with extreme cold temperatures. Sure, in Georgia, we don't get too cold, but in Pennsylvania, if it gets colder, you don't judge it by the amount of snow on the ground. At colder temperatures, I have been told, it gets "too cold to snow." Well, I don't know if this is true or not, but snowfall needs two things – a temperature of around 32 degrees Fahrenheit and precipitation. That seems a really poor predictor of global warming.

Now I don't want to argue about global warming or talking on cell phones. It just seems to me that some of the arguments for talking about them make little sense.

For cell phones, they have said "well, people eating are distracted too." That is sort of like saying that since smoking and a high fat diet will both kill you, we should tax McDonald's French fries because they have so much fat. Other than increasing the price on such a taste morsel (which I avoid), the argument seems to be muddled. Who knows, years from now, perhaps we will have a fat tax. So donuts and lard beware.

My brain hurts now. Guess I should stop thinking for a while.