You may have a cold one on me this afternoon / evening (provided you pay for it yourself). And for those of you “celebrators” doing kegs and eggs and the like, well…wobble safely.
The Real issue: Helmet Head
Even Lloyd and Harry wore helmets, right?
That is pretty much the argument going on in the Legislature right now.
Two of the main arguments for “Repeal the Mandatory Helmets!” going on in Unicameral are:
1) if you repeal must-wear-a-helmet, every motorcycle ridin’ yahoo will stop wearing a helmet, wipeout, smash their brain, not have insurance, and cost everyone else tons of money.
2) Ah, but if we KEEP the law, thousands upon thousands of helmet-less HOG riders will avoid Nebraska like the boss on the afternoon of St. Paddy’s Day, and not give us those sweet-sweet tourist dollars.
Now…are either of these completely legit?
Yes, I know there are probably a few stats out there that say 5 more brain injuries will set us back a billion dinero. But are any put out by something other than the “We Hate Motorcycles” groups?
And is there any realistic evidence that riders are currently avoiding Nebraska en masse — of even if they are, what sort of cash loss we’re talking about?
(I’m supposing there is an argument that people avoid Nebraska on their way up to Sturgis. But are they ALL hatless?)
And then the one that cracked me up was that State Sen. Dave Bloomfield is willing to give in on his repeal a little — by instead requiring goggles to be worn! So…aren’t we right back to the same thing?
If you’re going to require goggles, how about requiring leather pants, jacket and boots? Where is the skin-graft lobby on all of this?
So for those of you Unicam watchers and staff (hey you can’t watch the basketball, you might as well be reading Leavenworth St!), weigh in and take sides on this a little. You don’t need to (and can’t anyway) add a link, but refer to study X that everyone can Google if need be (please no giant quotes). Or better yet, give your own argument.
Just try to keep the green food coloring off the keyboard.
He meant “Lucy”, as in Ball…
Former House Speaker John Boehner said yesterday that if the GOP nomination should go to an open convention, he is all in for…Paul Ryan.
Ryan of course deftly avoided this conversation by stating that he is categorically NOT running for President, and would not accept the job if offered.
Just like House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan said he would NOT accept the gig as Speaker.
In the mean time, apparently Boehner went on to refer to Senator Ted Cruz as...Lucifer.
The next shoe?
Senator Deb Fischer stuck to her word and has NOT yet endorsed Ted Cruz after her guy Marco Rubio dropped out.
Currently Cruz has one (or is it two) Senators on his side.
Two more than Donald Trump I think, though.
Have a great day and evening and drive — or better yet, Uber — safely!