The Word "Mandatory." Can it Ever be Used by the Anarchist

FROM MY FRIEND RAY
But I don't know that every use of the word "mandatory" is a slang word. I've made it a practice of telling my kids from an early age that when they really really fall in love with a girl, or really really like her a lot, and want to get close to her, then for their sake and hers, it is "mandatory" that they wear a raincoat. I don't have any girls, but I suspect if I did, I'd have another couple of mandatory instructions, one for her and one, backed by my shotgun, for any guy who came to take her out.

Last time I read the 10 commandments they appeared to be phrased in the mandatory, "shalt not," notwithstanding that some of the rules are pretty difficult to comply with.

So let me propose some blasphemy. Since 3/4 of all motorcycle accidents result solely from auto driver negligence, without any contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclists, half of the total resulting from intersection right of way violations, either because a car pulled out from a side street or a car driving the opposite direction turned left into the motorcyclist's right of way, I would say that instead of mandatory motorcyclist education, what we really need is "mandatory" auto driver education; including specifically mandatory education to teach these four wheeled fucks how to avoid motorcycle accidents.

Now, all you good anarchists, please don't beat me up. Whether you believe in imposing safety requirements on auto drivers or not, from mandatory auto driver education to laws outlawing the use of cell phones while driving, I will suggest that these positions, even to the realistic extent that we suspect that they will never be adopted by our legislatures, can fit nicely into our arguments that we too should be free from government oppression.

A legislator asks at the end of the biker advocate's legislative testimony "But you agree that wearing a helmet will sometimes save a life, right?" If you admit it, the implication will be that if just one life is saved then the helmet legislation will have been worthwhile. Well, one part of the answer can be that helmet laws are rather clearly ill-suited to saving motorcyclists lives. If you legislators REALLY CARED about saving bikers lives, then you should first look in the mirror. The solution isn't to helmet motorcyclists, who, just like auto drivers, can just as surely die from internal injuries or be rendered quadriplegic by spinal cord injuries sustained in accidents; rather, the solution is to reduce the incidence of motorcycle accidents, the vast majority of which are caused by auto driver inattention at intersections and now auto driver use of cell phones while driving. So if you REALLY CARED about reducing the incidence of motorcycle accidents, and saving motorcyclist lives, then what you would do is retrain your fucking auto drivers and write laws to get the auto drivers the fuck off their cell phones -- instead of pointing your finger at bikers.

Yeah, I know, they won't write a law that fucks with the majority, even to restrain their addiction to gossiping while driving, just like they won't write a law to require auto drivers to wear helmets. Auto drivers are the majority of these politicians' constituents, without whom they cannot be reelected. But the utility of the argument is that it demonstrates their hypocrisy in seeking helmet laws.

It demonstrates the legislative hypocrisy and it demonstrates the hypocrisy of the insurance industry experts and ER doctors who come to these hearings to demand that riders wear helmets. The argument is more simply, "Hey, fuck wads, clean up your own fucking act before you start pointing your fat little fingers at me."

Peace and Love, Ray

I'm going with what Ray says! Fuck wad is one of my favorite derogatory titles!