Minnesota is at the top of the charts when it comes to teen traffic fatalities. Legislators are thankfully taking some action.
Thanks to Rep. Frank Hornstein (DFL-Minneapolis), new drivers may have some further restrictions soon. A bill passed the Minnesota House, that among other things, would restrict new drivers from driving with more than one under-20-years-old passenger (who is not a sibling) for the first 6 months behind the wheel. New drivers would also be not permitted to drive between the hours of 12 and 5 AM, unless traveling between home and work or a school event.
As someone who believes that the drinking age needs to go down, but the driving age needs to go up, I applaud these modest changes. Of course, I don't think they go far enough. I don't understand why these restrictions couldn't be for the first 12 or 18 months of holding a license--especially on late-night driving.
These modest restrictions will probably only have modest results. But when talking about teen lives being saved, each little bit counts. If we're serious about saving lives on Minnesota's roads, we'd probably also invest in mass transit as a driving alternative for young people.
The Star Tribune gives further details on the measure in an article on Friday. Overall, it is a good piece. I was annoyed by one line about one-third the way in: "The statistics on teen crashes are heart-stopping." In the grand scheme of things, I know it isn't a big deal; but this cute, play-on-words in reference to teen driving deaths has the unintended impact of making light of the subject rather than underscore it. No, the statistics aren't heart-stopping. The accidents themselves are literally heart-stopping. Keep in mind that to anyone who knew a young person who has died in a car crash, it is much more than a "heart-stopping statistic." It is a devastating reality.
Yes, this is hardly bad enough to complain about. It is a pet peeve of mine. Certainly, it could be worse.
Please, news reporters, please stop using figurative language in reference to a subject that is literally true. You might think it is clever writing, but it is cheap and often comes out wrong.
Showing posts with label Minnesota Legislature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Minnesota Legislature. Show all posts
Friday, April 25, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
More news on MN AG office disarray
Eric Black seems to be one of the only reporters spending time on this, which is quite disconcerting. Today, more detailed allegations from multiple sources on unethical and union busting practices from Attorney General Lori Swanson and some of her minions. Only Tim Pugmire at Minnesota Public Radio has also given decent coverage to the allegations.
It is also unclear whether state legislators are giving any consideration to holding hearings on these serious allegations. The only lawmaker I know of who has called for investigations is Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Delano). Emmer is seen as an oddball among some of his own Republican colleagues and is unlikely to singlehandedly convince the DFL majority to hold investigative hearings. Though that hasn't stopped him from trying.
I don't know enough about Minnesota legislative jurisdiction to know who would have the authority to hold hearings. The House doesn't have any judiciary committee. There Emmer has focused his efforts on the all-powerful Rules Committee chair and house majority leader, Tony Sertich (DFL-Chisholm). The Senate does have a judiciary committee, but I don't know what if the Attorney General's office falls within their scope. Reluctance of DFL legislators in investigating the Attorney General are understandable. She's a DFLer and the Attorney General is a constitutional office elected by the people of Minnesota. Still, if their were allegations of ethical lapses and union busting activities by the governor, you can bet they'd be itching to look at that.
Amy Lawler, the lawyer put on leave last week after going public with some of these concerns responded with a letter and attachments 27 pages long. She presents a pretty damning case on a number of fronts on the goings-on in that office. Check out the full letter here [pdf]. After reading this, I don't know how legislators could NOT call for an investigation.
An aside: Isn't 'Amy Lawler' just about the perfect name for a lawyer?
It is also unclear whether state legislators are giving any consideration to holding hearings on these serious allegations. The only lawmaker I know of who has called for investigations is Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Delano). Emmer is seen as an oddball among some of his own Republican colleagues and is unlikely to singlehandedly convince the DFL majority to hold investigative hearings. Though that hasn't stopped him from trying.
I don't know enough about Minnesota legislative jurisdiction to know who would have the authority to hold hearings. The House doesn't have any judiciary committee. There Emmer has focused his efforts on the all-powerful Rules Committee chair and house majority leader, Tony Sertich (DFL-Chisholm). The Senate does have a judiciary committee, but I don't know what if the Attorney General's office falls within their scope. Reluctance of DFL legislators in investigating the Attorney General are understandable. She's a DFLer and the Attorney General is a constitutional office elected by the people of Minnesota. Still, if their were allegations of ethical lapses and union busting activities by the governor, you can bet they'd be itching to look at that.
Amy Lawler, the lawyer put on leave last week after going public with some of these concerns responded with a letter and attachments 27 pages long. She presents a pretty damning case on a number of fronts on the goings-on in that office. Check out the full letter here [pdf]. After reading this, I don't know how legislators could NOT call for an investigation.
An aside: Isn't 'Amy Lawler' just about the perfect name for a lawyer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
