San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, December 14, 2012

Sports Fans Stupidly Sue MLB And The NHL

In a Reuters report written by Jonathan Stempel and Liana Baker last week, it was reported that a New York federal judge had "allowed sports fans to pursue a lawsuit accusing Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League and various networks of antitrust violations in how they package games for broadcast on television or the Internet."  In addition, it was reported that the plaintiffs sought damages because of sales agreements they said resulted in "reduced output, diminished product quality, diminished choice and suppressed price competition."  In particular, "U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in Manhattan said the subscribers could pursue claims that the packaging has reduced competition, raised prices and kept them from watching their favorite teams located outside their home markets."  Boo Hoo!  The plaintiffs are nothing more than a bunch of silly cry-babies who are trying to use the coercive power of government to force business to give them what they want, when they want it and specifically how they want it.  Business does not work that way.  They need to grow up, get over it, deal with it, and mind their own business.  Let me explain.
Some rabid sports fans relocate from one city to another.   That is a part of adult life.  Sometimes you have to move.  When some folks move they find it more difficult to watch what used to be their home sports teams.  Whose fault is that?  According to these crazy people, it is the fault of the sports program television companies and Major League Baseball.  They were the ones who made the decision to move.  Nobody forced them to move to another city.  They should have been big boys and realized that when you move from one city to another sometimes things change.  Sometimes you can't always get what you want (apologies to Mick and Keith).  But apparently some sports fans believe it is the fault of the sports network providers that they are unable to see every game of their favorite team, regardless of which part of the country they live in.  Think about this realistically for a moment, do the cable and dish television providers of sports programing have a moral duty to provide every game to every fan everywhere in the world?  I have a hard time seeing how that could be true. I have an even harder time understanding how this could ever become the object of a lawsuit and I find it incomprehensible that a federal judge would allow a suit of this type to go forward.  What possible law could be violated in this situation?  What possible moral principle could be involved here?
According to Wikipedia, antitrust law is designed to "keep companies from becoming too large and fixing prices, and also encourage competition so that consumers can receive quality products at reasonable prices.  These laws give businesses an equal opportunity to compete for market share.  Preventing monopolies ensures that consumer demand is met in a fair and balanced way."  Now that is a mouthful of gobbledegook.  What does it mean for a company to "become too large"?  How do the enforcers of antitrust law distinguish between a company that has become large because it serves the public well (Wal-Mart) and one that has become large because it has government-granted monopoly privileges (U.S. Post Office)?  How did Judge Scheindlin determine that Comcast and Dish TV have become "too large"?  If they have become too large is it time to break them up into smaller parts?  Who knows?
Antitrust law, so we are told, is designed to "encourage competition so consumers can receive quality products at reasonable prices."  Who determines what quality products are and who determines what reasonable prices are?  Are those things not best left to the voluntary negotiations of the interested parties in an open and free market environment?  Why should those voluntary negotiations over what will be put on the air waves and how much it will cost to view those air wave transmissions become subject to judicial review?  Perhaps most importantly, why should an individual citizen have the right to sue a television sports programer for not having a show simply because it is a show he wants to watch?  I want to watch every stage of the Tour of Italy and the Tour of Spain on ESPN from now on.  ESPN does not carry either of those fabulous bicycle grand tours.  My local cable provider does not carry either of those tours.  Should I now sue them for not doing so?  What if I want to watch my 12 year old son's baseball game from the comfort of my living room?  Can I now sue the local television station for refusing to send a cameraman down to the little league park to televise my son's games?  Where does this all end?
The impetus for this lawsuit was the fact that a couple of good old boys were upset, no doubt after putting down several six packs of adult beverage, that they could not purchase individual coverage of a baseball game of their favorite team.  In order to purchase the game they wanted to watch they had to purchase a package of several games that included the one they wanted to see, which, quite expectedly, cost more.  They were mad.  They wanted the television companies to give them exactly what they wanted, exactly when they wanted, for the price they wanted to pay.  Apparently these deluded soul's mothers never taught them that the world does not revolve around them. 
Maybe it is true that sports television companies have the technical ability to provide coverage of every single professional baseball game in every single town in the country.  I don't know.  Even if they do, it still does not follow that they are morally required to do so.  It most certainly does not follow that they breaking any law when they do not do so.  Using the long arm of the law to force a company to personally serve my individual wants is an extremely dangerous precedent to establish.  Judge Scheindlin has opened a can of worms that should have been put back on the shelf.  Does she really want to allow every upset consumer in the country to have the legal right to sue any company in the business of providing goods and services anytime the exact good or service, as determined by the consumer, is not instantaneously provided?  If so, I am going to sue Hostess for going out of business.  I am going to sue ESPN for not giving me coverage of the Tour de Italy.  I am going to sue my local Fox network for not covering my son's baseball game.  I am going to sue the local independent station for not broadcasting my personal round of golf for my friends to enjoy.  The list is endless.
Maybe it is time for people and judges to realize that some things are best left alone.  Not everything should be the subject of a lawsuit.  Maybe it is time for those same folks to realize that if providers of sports programing can make a profit providing a particular type of coverage, they will provide that coverage.  If they cannot make a profit providing that coverage, they will not provide it.  Using the coercive power of government to force a television company to provide coverage to a group of childish, selfish jerks and that will end up costing the company money is a gross misuse of the judicial system and should not be tolerated.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

The Superior Economics Of Batman

I finally got around to watching "The Dark Knight Rises" last night.  It is the final installment in the latest Batman trilogy.  I was too cheap to go see the movie in the theaters when it first came out.  I prefer to wait until it shows up in the cheap movie theaters.  I was checking out the latest releases on my Comcast pay-per-view list last night and the movie showed up on the list for only $4.99.  I ordered it immediately.   While watching the movie I was highly impressed and very surprised by the portrayals of economic truth found within it.  Allow me to point a couple of them out.
First, as you all know, Batman is Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne is a billionaire industrialist without apology.  He lives in a mansion.  He has a hired servant named Alfred.  He has a garage full of fancy sports cars.  He attends high society functions.  Despite all of these obvious trappings of extreme wealth, nobody in Gotham City, except the bad guy, has anything bad to say about Bruce Wayne.  He is an honored and respected member of Gotham City society.  Aside from the evil bad guy who is plotting his destruction, we find the ordinary citizens of Gotham City treating this billionaire with the respect and dignity that he deserves.  Most refreshingly, Bruce Wayne is not the subject of sinful envy.  A billionaire who is not portrayed as the object of envy by "good" people is extremely rare in Hollywood movies these days.  I poured a glass of wine and sat back to enjoy the rest of the movie.
The bad guy, in this case a fellow by the name of Bane, is a true bad guy.  He hates private property.  He hates those who are successful.  He hates the rich.  He hates the material possessions associated with wealth.  He hates the New York Stock exchange and those who work there.  He hates Bruce Wayne and his company, Wayne Enterprises.  But what is delightfully refreshing is that Bane is a bad guy, not a good guy.  In most movies these days what I just wrote above would be a description of the hero in the movie.  The hero is the one who hates rich guys and corporate America.  The hero plays Robin Hood.  Not so in the Batman movie.  Batman believes Robin Hood to be immoral.  The rich guys are good guys and those who hate the rich guys are the bad guys.  Wonderful.
Batman, Bruce Wayne's alter-ego, can only exist because Wayne is rich.  If Wayne did not have the luxury of time he would be incapable of going around Gotham saving the citizens from dastardly fellows who are bent on their destruction.  In this case the rich are not characterized as the idle rich.  No, Wayne is a very active rich man.  Even more, he is not just active in the sense that he jets around the world playing the role of the billionaire playboy.  On the contrary, Wayne is obsessed with doing good.  His Batman character exists exclusively for the purpose of doing good deeds for the citizens of Gotham City.  When was the last time a rich industrialist was portrayed in that fashion in a Hollywood movie?  I can't think of any examples other than the last Batman movie.
The immense wealth and power of Wayne enterprises allows Batman to create a plethora of mechanical and technological gadgets that aid him in his fight against crime and the evil madman Bane.  Rather than taking the standard environmentalist view that technology is evil because it consumes energy, destroys the rain forests and makes rich people even richer, Batman embraces technology and uses it for good.  The good folks at Wayne Enterprises are working around the clock to come up with new and better products and technologies to serve the citizens of Gotham.  Capital is created and technology is celebrated.  Wow.  This movie just keeps getting better.
Batman is no fool.  His company has created a nuclear fusion reactor (cold fusion I assume) that could provide the energy needs for the entire city in perpetuity.  Wayne, however, made the decision to not bring it to the market.  Why, you might ask?  Normal socialist movies would have said that he was doing so to perpetuate dependence upon foreign oil and keep the citizens of Gotham under his control.  This is no ordinary movie and it is certainly not socialist.  Wayne decided to keep the fusion reactor under wraps because, of all things,  he believes in original sin.  He believes that there is too great a risk of the reactor falling into the wrong hands.  He knows that there are evil people in the world so he makes the decision to keep the reactor out of the public eye until a more opportune moment arrives.  He does not want the bad guy stealing his technology and using it for evil purposes.  He is an industrialist with a heart , a brain and a keen sense of human nature.  How many Hollywood movies deal with the issue of original sin?  Not many.
Of course the bad guy becomes more powerful and there is the explosive final scene where Bane and Batman confront one another.   Batman wins because he is morally superior.  What a nice twist.  Then, in one of the final scenes of the movie, we see much of the vast wealth of the Wayne estate being distributed to charitable functions.  What a joy.  How many Hollywood movies recognize that it is the wealthy who so often fund the most significant and important charities in our land?  And, to top it all off, Batman does all of this anonymously.  He takes no credit for what he has done.  He gets no key to the city from the Mayor of Gotham.  He rides off into the sunset, quite by himself.  As he flies away he tells Police Commissioner Gordon that he is not a hero.....and he means it!  Now that is humility.  Mothers, let your children grow up to be Batmen.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Michigan Union Members Are Ignorant Hypocrites

Everybody knows the statement of Jesus when He said "Judge not, lest you be judged."  It is a favorite phrase of those folks who love to judge others but are unwilling to submit to judicial scrutiny themselves.  They spend great amounts of time rendering informal judicial decisions about the life and actions of others around them.  However, the moment the light of truth shines on them they exclaim that others are not permitted to judge them since Jesus had said that they should "judge not".   Those who understand His words in that fashion are on the exact opposite side of the fence from the truth.  What Jesus was actually condemning was not the act of judgment itself.  He was condemning the act of hypocritical judgement whereby one man holds another man to an ethical standard that he does not simultaneously hold himself to.  All of this brings me to the case of union members in Michigan.  Let's consider them for a moment.
As most of you are probably aware, the Republican majority in Michigan state government has rapidly pushed through a "right to work" law that guts many of the powers and state granted privileges of the various unions found throughout the state.  As you would expect, union members and their representatives are outraged at their loss of political privilege.  In light of the present situation, let me ask you a simple question.  Bear with me for a moment as this question may not immediately seem to have anything to do with my topic.  Do you believe most union members would be in favor of monopoly?  No, I don't mean the game from Parker Brothers.  I mean, do you believe that most folks who belong to a union also believe it is a good thing for corporations to have state sanctioned monopoly power?  In general, do union members and their representatives speak in glowing terms about those companies that have monopoly power or do they call for the government to break up those same companies?
I believe most of us would recognize that union members, with some possible exceptions that would establish the rule, believe that monopoly power is a means by which the evil corporations allegedly try to hold down the worker and justify paying lower wages and fewer benefits.  I believe we would be hard pressed to find any historical examples of unions that were strongly in favor of government supported and created corporate monopolies.  Indeed, I believe it is fair to say that most union members would consider government established corporate monopolies to be immoral since they artificially depress the noble workers pay scale.  We have to go no further than the ongoing story of union opposition to Wal-Mart to prove what I am arguing here.  Union members universally believe that Wal-Mart is a monopoly that uses it monopolistic power to abuse the regal worker.
I was working out at the gym yesterday when a report came on the television.  My treadmill was in front of the television that was broadcasting Fox News and I was treated to a report on the present state of affairs in Michigan in regards to the new "right to work" law.  As I listened to the report I pondered the nature of a labor union.  I know enough about economics to know that labor unions exist for the purpose of trying to obtain wage rates for union members that are higher than what the free market would bear in the absence of the union.  As I ratcheted my treadmill up to a 15% grade and increased the speed to 3.4 miles per hour it occurred to me that labor unions attempt to establish a monopoly over the supply of labor in order to extract a higher price for their labor than what the market would generally pay.  In fact, it all became quite clear to me, despite the sweat that was pouring into and stinging my eyes....labor's opposition to "right to work" is entirely based upon its position that it should exercise monopoly control over all supplies of labor.  No man should be free to sell his labor to a company at a price each voluntarily agrees to.  No, that type of autonomy does not allow the labor union to exercise monopoly control over all sources of labor.  Make no mistake about it, the goal of the labor union is not higher wages for its members.  That might occur for a select number of members only as an unintended consequence of its actions.   No, the goal of the labor union is to become an all-powerful monopoly that controls all supplies of labor in the geo-political area.
Historically, the leaders of the monopolistic labor unions knew that they could never force every individual provider of labor in a particular geo-political zone to join the union.  So, they went in search of politicians who would give them the second best option.  In exchange for campaign contributions, the unions purchased career politicians who crafted laws that required all laborers to pay union dues, whether they were members of the union or not.  These laws were anti-right to work laws that forced all providers of labor services to pay money to the politically connected representatives of the union against their will.  No labor provider in the area would be permitted to enter into a voluntary contract to provide labor to a company without first paying an extortion fee to the local union.  In this fashion the unions could accomplish their real, unpublished, goals.  Despite the fact that the union propaganda machines continually crank out insipid literature designed to convince the stupid and ignorant that they ceaselessly strive to improve the lives of the worker, the fact is unions exist exclusively to perpetuate themselves and grant fat retirement pensions to their leaders.  Union members who are dumb enough to believe the propaganda become unwitting dupes in the scheme.  Up to a point I feel sorry for them. But only up to a point.  They are still immoral.
Judge not lest you be judged.  Union members continually judge for profit businesses and find them morally lacking.  Union members continually judge corporate entities and find them guilty of desiring government sanctioned monopolistic privileges over their competitors.  Yet, when the light is shined upon themselves, they see nothing but pure white driven snow.  Hypocrites!  All union efforts to prevent the passage of a right to work law are nothing more than union efforts to protect their government granted monopolistic control over the supply of labor.  Hypocrites, all of them.  The recently passed right to work law allows sellers of labor services in Michigan the right to sell their services to the highest bidder without having to pay an extortion fee to the local labor union.  That is a good thing.  The fact that the unions, and their representatives, attempt to cast the right to work law in a negative light only indicates how far their ability to discern moral behavior has devolved.  As is so often the case with self righteous habitual hypocrites, these folks are beyond rehabilitation.  Make no mistake about it, Michigan union members are not paragons of virtue.  They are nothing more than petty thieves and ignorant hypocrites.  Mothers, don't let your children grow up to be union members.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Dana Milbank Really Hates Mitt Romney

Last week I read an article by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post Writers Group.  It was not enough for Dana that Mitt Romney lost the presidential election.  Dana continues that long established tradition of kicking a man while he is down.  I know it is hard to believe but Dana takes Mitt to task for retiring from politics.  He writes, "Romney's post-election behavior has been, in a word, small.  Never again, likely, will his voice and influence be as powerful as they are now.  Yet rather than stepping forward to help find a way out of the fiscal standoff, or to help his party rebuild itself, he delivered a perfunctory concession speech, told wealthy donors that President Obama won by giving gifts to minorities, then avoided the press at a private lunch with the president."  Call the police! Bring in the FBI!  Romney is the most immoral man who ever lived simply because he has retired from politics.  Romney should be arrested because he lost the election and is now behaving like a man who is not the president.  Doesn't he know that, according to Milbank, he should continue to behave as if he won?
Milbank continues to pour it on.  He writes, "The nation is headed toward the fiscal cliff but have no fear, Mitt Romney is coming to the rescue----of Marriott International Inc....he announced that he was rejoining the hotel chains' board of directors....It was emblematic of the tone-deaf, I-have-some-great-friends-that-are-NASCAR-teamowner' moments that contributed to his loss.  The country is in a crisis, political leades are in a standoff, and Romney is joining his buddy's corporate board."  Wow, Milkbank's hatred for Romney knows no bounds.
Let's examine some of Dana's comments.  Somehow Dana believes that a man who was just defeated for the office of President of the Socialist Democracy of America is now at his most powerful and persuasive peak.  How can a man who just lost the election be at his most politically powerful moment?  Dana does not say.  In reality, Romney is now at his most politically impotent moment. He holds no political office. The majority, which rules the SDA, has spoken and spoken clearly.  The majority wants nothing to do with Mitt, his policies or his ideas about how to solve the fiscal cliff.  He has no power at all because he cannot persuade the majority to agree with any of the things he believes.  If he could he would be the president. How that makes Mitt's "voice" as "powerful" as it has ever been is a mystery to me.
Dana also believes Mitt needs to "step forward" and solve the "fiscal cliff".  How in the world is a regular citizen of the SDA supposed to do that?  Mitt has no power.  Mitt holds no political office.  Mitt's ideas on how to resolve the fiscal cliff have already been rejected by the majority of the voters.  How can Dana possibly believe that Mitt now has a responsibility to somehow seize power for himself and lead the nation out of the fiscal cliff boondoggle?  Dana's ideas border on the insane.  I you think Dana supports Obama?  I think he does.  And if he does, why does he not believe that the all-powerful Obama is sufficient to lead us out of the fiscal cliff crisis?  Could this continuing to beat up on Mitt be nothing more than a powerful admission that he has no confidence in his own choice, King Obama?
To his credit Dana admits that "Romney is a private citizen now and free to do as he chooses."  Dana should have concluded his article with that statement and moved on.  He desperately needs to leave Mitt Romney alone.  But Dana, riddled with envy and hatred for a man who has more money than he does, cannot stop.  He continues by saying, "But its not as if he needs the money:  the $170,000 in cash and stock that Marriott directors received in the most recent year reported is but a sliver of the $20 million or so Romney takes in annually from his investments."  So there we have it.  We have now arrived at the heart of Milbank's criticism of Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney is financially successful and Dana hates that truth.
Dana's Washington Post colleague, Philip Rucker, decided to join forces with him in his envy and hatred for Mitt.  Rucker writes that Romney "is exhibiting the same detachment that made it so difficult for him to connect with the body politic through six years of running for president."  The "detachment" Rucker writes of is simply the fact that Romney has become a private citizen and is now minding his own business and tending to his own affairs. After all, is that not what the American people wanted?  Is that not what the majority ruled in the last election?  Why, oh why, should Mitt be castigated for not continuing to act like a politician when he is no longer a politician? Why, oh why, should Mitt be criticized because he has gone back to what he does best....running corporations?  Both Rucker and Milbank willingly ignore the fact that Romney no longer has any civil authority whatsoever.  Why do they do this?  Because they hate Mitt Romney.  Why do they hate Mitt Romney?  Because he makes more money than they do.  Disgusting, isn't it?
Milbank's hatred for Romney spills over to hatred for political conservatives and believers in limited government in general.  While criticizing Mitt for returning to the private sector he writes, "But this is a crucial time for the country and particularly for Romney's Republican Party, which must unshackle itself from the far right or become irrelevant."  Wow!  How does Dana know that the Republican party is "shackled" to the far right?  How does he know that this shackling is going to make the Republicans "irrelevant"?  Even more preposterous, when did the Republican Party become Romney's personal property?  Furthermore, why is it any of his business what the Republican party does?  Clearly Dana is not a Republican. Why does he then proceed to tell the Republicans what to do? 
Dana Milbank has a serious problem.  He is a man of extremely low moral character.  He is filled with envy.  He is filled with hatred. He minds the business of others and ignores the development of his own character.  Dana Milkbank needs to leave Mitt Romney alone.

Monday, December 10, 2012

CDOT Opposes Women's Right To Choose

In an article in the Boulder Daily Camera last week, reporter John Aguilar informed the citizens of Colorado about the fact that the Colorado Department of Transportation has taken an official position against a woman's right to choose.  I was shocked that a positive report endorsing CDOT's position would be written in a liberal newspaper like the Daily Camera.  I was even more shocked that CDOT would be so forthright and come out with such an outrageous position on a woman's right to choose.
Now if I understand anything about a woman's right to choose, and I probably don't, then I believe women stridently support their right to make choices about what to do with their own bodies.  Of course, there are many things that a woman can choose to do with her body. She can choose to take it for a walk or fill it with hamburgers.  She can choose to dress it up in fancy clothes or adorn it in sweat clothes.  She can choose to  put it on an airplane bound for the Bahamas or she can choose to go for a drive in her car.  Women quite properly believe that they have the right to make these choices about how their bodies function and behave.  I am in full agreement with them.  I fully support a woman's right to make these choices without the long arm of government interference opposing her.  That is why I was so shocked to read the report about CDOT's tyrannical oppression of female choice.
To be completely accurate, it is not CDOT which has initiated this reign of terror against a woman's right to choose.  CDOT is complicit in the affair but it is the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) that is to blame for this act of misogyny.  CDOT could exert its superior authority over the roadways in the State of Colorado and put a stop to the tyranny of DRCOG but chooses to remain a silent partner in the oppression instead.  What has DRCOG done?  According to Mr. Aguilar, "DRCOG aims to reduce single-occupancy vehicles from 74 percent of all trips in metro Denver today to 65 percent by 2035....Commuters in metro Denver are getting their first glimpse of a cheeky new ad campaign with the tag line 'Stop Being an SOV'---single occupancy vehicle.  Regional transportation planners hope the campaign, costing $250,000 to $300,000, will lead to fewer single-occupancy vehicles on the road and more trips by transit, van pool, carpool and bike."
So there you have it.  Women make up 51% of all drivers on metro Denver roadways.  Women frequently drive alone.  Now DRCOG, with the full support of CDOT, is spending at least $250k of taxpayer money to tell them that they do not have the right to choose to drive alone in their SUVs.  Tremendous pressure is being put on women to try and force them to stuff their bodies into cars with other women and, perhaps, even other men.  In an outrageous breech of governmental authority the jack-booted thugs at the DRCOG have suggested that women should place their bodies upon bicycles and use those bicycles to get around town.  This gross endangerment of female lives is unconscionable.  This slap-down of a woman's right to choose to drive alone is unbelievably immoral.  This in-your-face use of the self-described "cheeky" slogan, "Stop Being an SOV", is highly offensive to all women.  Women are already regularly verbally abused by means of the "B" word.  Now they have to suffer abuse at the hands of the government and be slandered as "SOVs"?
In an attempt to put a soft face on the terrorist like activities of the DRCOG, Agulilar reports that "Steve Erickson, DRCOG's communications and market director, said the ad campaign is meant to be 'playful' and is not an attempt to 'point our fingers at vehicles or people who drive them as evil.'"  Yeah, right.  Despite his protestations to the contrary, it is abundantly obvious to anyone who has a brain that DRCOG ardently desires to enslave the female population of Denver and force them to sit in close proximity to other human beings, thus violating their right to choose to sit alone in a vehicle of their choice.  Calling this concentrated campaign of propaganda "playful" is straight out of 1984, where every term means the exact opposite of what it has historically meant.  Verbal abuse directed at women designed to eliminate their right to choose to drive alone is about as "playful" as a slap in the face or a kick in the stomach. 
Oppressive billboards have been erected along Denver metro area highways and are spewing forth the foul message of female enslavement.  To add insult to injury, female taxpayers are the ones who are being forced to bear the brunt of the cost for these billboards.  A woman cannot even drive to the grocery store without being assaulted by the message that she is inferior and immoral simply because she exercises her right to put her body into her vehicle and drive to the store by herself.  What is this world coming to? 
DRCOG does not hesitate to describe its goals.  It wants to reduce female single occupancy vehicles from 75 percent of those on the road to 65 percent of those on the road by 2035.  In other words, women take note, some of you must be willing to sacrifice your right to choose to drive alone in order that others may retain their right to choose a solitary form of  transportation.  In a devious and underhanded attack upon feminine fraternity, the DRCOG has now put the burden of responsibly for compliance with their ridiculous law upon the female population in general.  Could a more calculated and vicious attempt to destroy female solidarity be conceived?  I don't believe so.  Women are going to be forced to debate among themselves and determine which of them will be sacrificed for the cause.
Women of Denver.....arise and throw off the shackles of oppression.  I suggest you pick a day early next year in which all of you will take to the streets of the metropolitan area and drive alone.  If all of you do it they can not arrest you all.  Rise up and tell these petty bureaucrats that they can not and will not take away your right to choose to drive alone.