Election Time, Again

Well, it's that time o' year again when we folks in the United States of America go out 'n' decide what we want to complain about fer the next one er more years. The day we try to figger out who the smallest liar is 'n' whether er not we want to agree to vote ourselves another tax we can gripe about having to pay. The day we have to make an extra trip, carve a little extra time out of our busy schedules, 'n' put up with long lines full o' folks we normally wouldn't want to be within fifty feet of, just so we can put some marks on a sheet o' paper 'n' hope that enough other people're smart enough to put the same marks down so that our marks will actually count fer something. It's election day.

I was sharpening my tongue up fer a big ol' diatribe 'bout the sorry bunch o' folks we got to choose from this year. I was coming up with 'n' reviewing some, hopefully, witty 'n' scathing remarks 'bout the propositions they's trying to fool us into getting passed, er voting down. I was ready to lament the poor state o' the Arizona constitution, which they seem determined to keep hacking up, tacking on to, 'n' just generally rewriting ever' year. But then I read something last night that made me rethink the whole thing.

It was an article by Peter M. on his blog 'bout New England Folklore. Mr. M. said that, back in the early years o' this country, even 'for it was a country, folks used to vote in the fall fer their local officials even though the officials didn't take office until the next May. The day they took office in May was called "Election Day" 'n' was celebrated like a holiday. He says that, by 'bout the mid 1700's, the celebrations included such things as parades, parties, athletic events, 'n' even special cakes. The best part 'bout it was, it was a celebration 'bout the simple fact o' being able to elect folks. Nowadays, it seems like the only celebrating folks do 'bout elections is to celebrate that their side won er the other side lost.

So I read that. 'N' then I thought 'bout it a bit. 'N' then I thought 'bout it a bit more. 'N' then I thought 'bout all the time that has passed between then 'n' nowadays 'n' all the changes that have happened in this country 'n' the ways folks viewed the whole voting 'n' election processes during all those 250 to 300 years. Then I thought 'bout the way so many folks seem to treat voting these days.

I thought 'bout the stories I've read 'bout how they used to close down the bars 'n' taverns 'n' the pubs 'n' the buying o' liquor on election days 'n' how you couldn't buy a drink 'til after the polls'd closed 'cause going out to cast your vote was a serious, sober responsibility. Do they even still do that these days? I'd be willing to bet real money that I could walk down to the local grocery store 'n' buy a six pack er a fifth o' something er other 'n' wouldn't no one bat an eye. I bet I could walk into any bar in town at any time today 'n' watch folks getting drunker 'n' drunker as they watched the election news. I'd even be willing to bet that there'd be at least one person, already well past the "legal" limit, who'd suddenly stand up 'n' say, "Shoot! I ain't even voted yet," 'fore running out to the polls.

I thought 'bout the stories o' folks who would get dressed up in their Sunday best to go vote 'cause voting was so important 'n' serious as church. Now days it seems like folks just show up in whatever they happen to have on er whatever they can grab 'fore they head out. In the last Presidential election, there was even a few folks in line who hadn't even bothered to change out o' their bed clothes. (Although, I guess I should give 'em credit fer being so eager 'n' dedicated to vote in that one that they was willing to get up at all that early in the morning.)

 I thought 'bout all those folks back 'fore there were cars who had to walk er ride miles 'n' miles to get to where they was supposed to go to vote 'cause it was so important to 'em. So many of 'em today seem to treat it more like some kind o' chore er drudge than the right er privilege that it is. They seem to approach it like it's some sort of odious task, like having to clean the cat box er jury duty er something. The biggest thing these days seem to be all the folks signing up to early vote er vote by mail so they don't have to take that extra time out o' their day to go do it. Personally, I get a big shot o' pride walking up to that desk 'n' taking pen in hand to mark all those little circles. I stand a little taller when I walk out o' the building with my little "I Voted" sticker tacked onto my shirt. I ain't never seen it as a chore ner an imposition. I've always seen it as a solemn something I'm more'n proud 'n' happy 'n' honored to do.

'N' I thought 'bout the idea of a bunch o' dour, humorless Puritans kicking their heels up 'n' having celebrations 'cause the folks they got to pick was stepping into office, instead of a bunch o' folks someone else had lumped 'em with. Now days it seems like so many folks're so busy voting 'gainst something er someone they cain't take no joy in their decisions.  Maybe that's why we ain't having no parades ner parties ner even special cakes to celebrate the fact that the folks we get to pick're stepping into office. Maybe too many folks these days're feeling like they's stuck with a bunch o' folks someone else lumped 'em with 'cause they felt like they couldn't vote fer who they really wanted lest the "wrong" person wound up winning.

So I thought 'bout all this stuff 'n' I decided I was going to try 'n' learn a lesson from the way they viewed elections back in the olden days. From here on out, I'm going to try 'n' keep my sharp tongue in my pocket on election day. I'm going to try 'n' keep my civil tongue in my mouth on the days I get the privilege o' going to the polls 'n' jotting down my two cents' worth in the form o' little dots on a page. I'm going to try 'n' show the day the respect it rightfully deserves 'n', who knows, maybe next year I'll even make a special cake on the day. 'Sides, I got all the other days o' the year to take my sharp tongue out o' my pocket 'n' use it.

I'll Drink ('n' Drive) to That

Saw a story online 'bout a feller who lost an argument with a train the other day. The feller's name was Jason Michael Hair 'n' the altercation took place near Queen Creek, Arizona, which is a little southeast o' Phoenix. What happened was, he was speeding down the road, texting on his cell phone, 'n' broke right through the crossing arms and smacked into the side o' the train, which was already in the process o' crossing the road. One witness to the crash claimed that Hair had passed him, doing somewhere near 65 mph, so intent on his typing to whoever was on the other end o' the phone that he either didn't notice the train, er was unaware o' just how fast he was going 'n' couldn't stop in time. (Makes me wonder just what he was typing, too. "Hey! I'm going to try for one of those "Darwin Awards"!")

They said the crash was so bad that Hair had to be cut out o' the wreckage 'n' suffered a head injury. Now, you might be thinking, "Well, he got what he deserved for being so stupid, then," 'n' you might be right. The thing was, though, that his four-year-old boy was in the car with him. The son survived, too, but he also had to be cut out o' the wreckage 'n' was flown to a local hospital as a precaution. Whatever Hair may have deserved fer his stupidity, his boy sure didn't deserve to suffer fer it.

Anyways, this story got me to thinking 'bout the last time I was up fer jury duty. See, the case we was being considered to jury fer was a drunk driving case. (They didn't actu'ly say that, but when they start asking prospective jurors questions 'bout whether they've ever been convicted o' drunk driving er whether er not they er a loved one has ever been involved in an accident that was caused by a drunk driver, you kind o' get the indication that that's what the whole thing's 'bout.) More important, it was just after they'd started running news stories 'bout studies done on the dangers o' yapping on the phone er texting while you're driving.

So, once they'd picked their first dozen possible jurors 'n' sent the rest of us out in the hall while they questioned 'em a little more intensely, I sat there thinking 'bout those studies 'n' 'bout how they was some that claimed to show that yapping on the phone er texting while driving was least as dangerous, if not more so, than driving after a few drinks. Then I got to thinking 'bout how one o' these dangerous practices had been illegal fer decades while the other still didn't have no laws 'gainst it.

Well, that was the direction my thoughts was running in when it turned out that there was some o' the original twelve who'd been dismissed, so they come out to question some o' the rest of us more closely, me being one o' those they chose. They took me in 'n' sat me down in a chair 'n' started asking me 'bout the time I'd been in an accident 'caused by someone who had given all appearances o' having been three sheets in the wind at the time. (Never did learn what that feller's problem was 'cause he wound up pleading guilty to the accident 'fore it ever got to trial. But when the guy leaves the scene o' the accident 'n' then shows up fifteen minutes er so later, pushing his car in the opposite direction 'cause it ain't working so good no more, you got to wonder 'bout what kind o' state his mental faculties 'n' judgement abilities're in.) All those questions was fairly easy to answer, 'cause all I had to do was tell the truth.

Then the judge turns to me 'n' asked,"Is there any reason that you think you could not render a fair and impartial verdict in this case?" Well, I had to stop 'n' give that question some real consideration 'fore I answered it. I mean, here was a guy who was being tried fer doing something that was no more dangerous than what other folks was doing with no fear o' being hauled into court fer. So I told the judge that it just didn't sit right with me that this feller was facing the possibility o' legal repercussions fer doing something when there were studies that showed that something that was just as dangerous was considered perfectly fine 'n' legal.

To my surprise, the judge agreed with me 'bout how he also thought that yapping on the phone while driving should be just as illegal as driving while intoxicated. But, he said, as a judge, his concern had to be with the law, 'n' since the law 'lowed one o' those actions while outlawing the other one, he didn't get to choose which ones appeared in his court. So he changed his question a might 'n' asked if I could overlook my opinions on driving while yapping 'n' render a fair 'n' impartial verdict based strictly on the law as it stood at that moment.

I gave that a little more thought 'n' decided that, since I was a law-abiding citizen, it was my duty to see that the law was upheld 'n' render a verdict o' guilty if I felt that the prosecution had proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the feller had in fact been legally drunk at the time o' his apprehension. So that's what I told the judge. He thanked me fer my time 'n' sent me out o' the room while they brought in the next person to question. (I wasn't picked to serve on that jury, by the way.)

Since then, I've given the topic a lot more thought. Mostly what I've thought about was this: Where do my duties as a law-abiding citizen really lie? Is it merely to see that the law, all laws, no matter whether I agree with 'em er not, are upheld? Don't I, as a citizen who loves his country 'n' should be concerned 'bout the rights of all my fellow citizens, also have a duty to fight against laws that are unjust 'n' discriminatory? If a law singles out one group o' folks fer punishment while 'lowing other groups o' folks to get away scott free fer doing something that is just as bad er dangerous, what is my duty then? Do I side with the law, er with the citizens who are being discriminated 'gainst?

Isn't the law supposed to treat all folks equally? Shouldn't the law treat the drunk driver just the same as it treats the person who's yapping er typing on his phone while driving? 'N' what about the person who's so busy putting on makeup, er trying to read a road map, er eating, er yelling at the kids, er changing the station on the radio? (We actually did have a case like that a few years back where a young boy hit 'n' killed a lady on the side o' the road 'cause he'd looked down to change the radio. I don't 'member the partic'lars, but I'm pretty sure he got off with a lot lighter sentence than he would have if he'd had a couple beers in him.) Aren't those distractions just as dangerous as being drunk er texting?

'N' what about a law that penalizes folks fer what they might do? That's what a lot o' these drunk driving (er "driving while intoxicated" er "driving under the influence" er whatever else they call 'em) laws're actu'ly punishing folks fer. I would be willing to bet real money that most folks who get convicted fer such offenses did so when they hadn't actu'ly 'caused any accident yet. They were hauled into court simply 'cause o' what they might do.

Seems to me we should have just one law that applies to ever'body: a "driving while distracted" law, if you will. It would apply equally to anyone who has been drinking, anyone who is yapping on a phone, typing on a phone, putting on makeup, trying to read a road map, eating, yelling at the kids, changing the station on the radio, er whatever else it is they might be doing that takes their attention away from their driving. I just don't see how I can continue supporting anything less.

So, if I ever get in another situation where a judge asks me if I can offer a fair 'n' impartial verdict based strictly on the law as it stood at that moment, I guess I would have to answer with I could only do so if the law, as it stood at that moment, was fairly 'n' equally applied to all folks who could fit in the broader scope o' the spirit o' that law 'n' what it was enacted to protect us against. I'm willing to bet I wouldn't get chosen fer that jury, neither.