Plastic Bag Tax

Citizens in Ireland have been faced with a tax on plastic bags for the past five months. In doing so, the government has reduced the use of the litter producing bags by 90 percent and increased revenue.

I feel that this a great measure in helping reduce the litter of these bags. They clog up the environment and create dangerous situations for some animals as well. Not to mention that they require oil to be manufactured.

I have already seen a trend where more and more people are beginning to use reusable bags to do their shopping, but it hasn't quite reached the mainstream just yet. I believe that the U.S. could learn a thing or two about this.

In fact, why should we stop at plastic bags? Why don't we start taxing everything else that is not eco-friendly? I believe that gasoline should be taxed more than it is at the moment. If it were, you would begin to see people drive more fuel efficient vehicles, ride bikes more often and use more public transportation.

But instead we will continue to invade nations that provide us with a steady cheap oil supply. What ever happened to using innovation and invention to overcome obstacles? I know most Americans do not share my sentiment, but if we are to ever turn our polluting ways around, the government will have to step in and either mandate certain policies, or tax us for choosing more polluting alternatives.

What are your ideas or opinions on the subject? I would love to hear from you. Just leave a comment below.

Get Your Money From Congress

You could soon be receiving a rebate check from the government worth $300 to $800 a person. With the economy sinking faster everyday, the government is looking for a way to spur a turnaround. Along with rebate checks, President Bush also favors tax breaks for businesses.

There are many people out there that believe that this is an ineffective patch to the problem at hand. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review puts it bluntly, "Tax rebates, however, don't stimulate the economy. Cutting tax rates does". Becky states in her blog Just a Girl in short shorts, "Now, what would make a difference is if the government were to quit pocketing one third of our income, or at least knock it down in a meaningful way."

While I feel the rebate checks will undoubtedly be welcomed, I don't think it will help jump start our economy out of a recession. I believe that what ever positive spike in the economy is felt, it will be short lived and we will be back where we started.

What are your thoughts on the subject? Leave a comment to let us know!

Boston Tea Party and Ron Paul?

On December 16^th, 1773, American colonists entered Boston Harbor and climbed aboard British ships. Once aboard, the colonists proceeded to throw all the crates of tea overboard in protest to being taxed without being represented in Parliament. Large amounts of American colonists also began to boycott tea imported by the British government or their companies. Some believe that these actions helped stem the American Revolution a few years later.

Fast forward 234 years and you will find a tea party of another kind. Ron Paul, a Republican candidate popular on the Internet, has organized a fund raising campaign. The goal is to gather donations from citizens around the country interested in changing how America operates.

Ron Paul is on record for wanting to pull the troops out of foreign wars (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan), tighten our borders and above all, reduce government involvement in our lives. He feels the government places too many restrictions on our daily lives and looks to the Constitution as his reference.

At the time of this writing, Ron Paul's “tea party” has raised over $1.4 MILLION dollars. These donations come from average citizens looking to change America to begin a new trend of defending our own borders with our own military, remove troops from other countries, reduce government involvement, and protect our environment.

If you feel like these are policies that affect you and are important to you, then you should consider contributing to Ron Paul's campaign to protect the American way of life and our liberties.

Will the Internet Help Ron Paul Win In 2008?

The Internet seems to be a great predictor of many outcomes, but will it allow Ron Paul to ride to the Presidency? Recent research compiled by Compete indicates that Ron Paul is getting almost double the traffic than his closest competitor, Mike Huckabee.

Forbes also shows that if the race for the Presidency were to take place online, Ron Paul would overtake Hillary Clinton. They show that Ron Paul is the most Googled candidate, even though in the news media he is a relative unknown.

Others have pointed out that the Internet has become the ultimate equalizer. News media still controls which candidates they favor, and if you aren't on the list, chances are you are going to get the votes at the poll.

I'm very excited to see that other candidates can use the Internet to their advantage and overcome this media obstacle. Hopefully this will encourage the media to be more open in fair in their debates and coverage. Ron Paul could be paving the way for other great non-traditional candidates to be heard. Imagine a Presidential race that has an independent third party candidate in the lead!

I'm also on the Ron Paul bandwagon as he preaches against the corruption in Congress, the bloating, and the negative issues that stem from there that others seem to ignore. He also stems from a libertarian background, believing that less governmental control is better.

I hope that Google, Compete and Forbes are correct and Ron Paul can pull into the Presidency and reclaim this Country.

Legal Hemp in North Dakota?

First, for the uninitiated, the hemp plant is different than marijuana. Although both are derived from variations of the Cannabis sativa plant, the subspecies indica is the one that is referred to as marijuana. Hemp (Cannabis sativa subsp. sativa) contains no or very little THC, the compound that gives marijuana is psychotropic properties. The plant differences don't stop there; the hemp plant is taller and easily made into a variety of different products, while the marijuana plant is very short and bushy.

North Dakota is the first and only state to allow commercial hemp production in the country. Hemp production is a growing industry all over the world, while the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) does not allow the production of hemp as it deems all Cannabis sativa as marijuana, despite the distinct differences.

Dave Monson and Wayne Hauge are two farmers from North Dakota who decided to make a good business out of selling industrial hemp. They met all the state's criteria for being a hemp producer such as, unannounced inspections of their fields; provide geo-positioning coordinates to their fields; ensure that they use seed that contains less than .3% THC and pass a background check. The DEA does not seem concerned that was is being cultivated is hemp. To them, it is nothing more than marijuana and a violation of United States Federal law.

According to the DEA, Federal law prohibits the cultivation of the Cannabis sativa plant in all its variations, to include hemp. To them, they are enforcing the law as written, even if the laws were misguided. At the moment, a judge has promised the farmers a decision within the month regarding the situation.

To me, the situation is another gaff by the United States government and their attempt to control and protect the innocent. In their infinite wisdom, they decided that marijuana was a dangerous drug and banned it, but in doing so banned the entire plant species Cannabis sativa, not just the subspecies indica. In doing so, they crippled the hemp industry and it died out giving way to plastics, cotton, burlap, and tree pulp. Now it is going to take Congress to change the law to allow production of this very versatile plant.

I won't list all the uses that it can be good for, but the list contains insulation, paper, hair conditioner and food products. The crop is also very good for farmers as a rotational crop to replenish the ground with nutrients. To read more about hemp and its uses, go to Wikipedia.

I don't see how we cannot begin to cultivate this plant in the United States, as it has tremendous uses and properties. It is old thinking and clouded minds that keep this plant from seeing its true potential in the U.S. Already manufactures here are importing hemp and using it in various products. When is our government going to see that we a losing out?

$1 Gas Tax

In the past six years, the price of a barrel of oil has increased almost $65 by going from $25.50 to $90. Apparently after the tragedy of September 11, 2001 occurred, many called for a gas tax of one dollar to allow for more energy efficient designs from American automotive manufactures, and to keep revenue from going to the very countries that oppose the United States of America.

But the government decided that it would be in their best interest to not interfere with the free market and the price of oil has steadily increased. The tax was to be phased in over 12 months, and was to help Americans switch to more economical friendly automobiles and to be more energy conscience.

Personally, I think Americans have become spoiled in how we use our energy. Many always state that we have the freedom to do this. My question would have to be, "At what price?" The United States is one of the biggest polluters in the world and we don't seem to care.

While I'm not as dedicated or severe as a tree-hugger, I feel that if we can do minor things (that have a big impact) for the environment, why not do so. Unfortunately, others do not feel the same and need to see a change in their pocketbook before they will initiate change in their life. This is where the tax would have helped.

Americans do not rely enough on personal transportation (i.e. bicycles), or mass transportation, but instead climb into a huge 8 passenger SUV to transport usually just themselves (at 13 MPG). When gas prices peaked at over three dollars a gallon, you began to see a change in this trend. Many found alternative forms of transportation because they were forced to because of a change in their financial situation, not because they wanted to help the environment.

If the United States leaders care at all about the environment, they would initiate a stronger gas tax. But since the U.S. did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, I doubt the government is interested in helping the environment. They only worry about their status and popularity; creating another tax or changing our way of life would disrupt how they are viewed and therefore the status quo prevails.

The $1 tax in itself would probably not do much for Americans other than cause them to spend more on gasoline...and complain. Some day others will realize that reducing emissions and oil usage will be beneficial to the environment and people. Hopefully it is not too late.

Gay Rights Around the Corner?

A recent poll has revealed that 50% of straight people feel that gays should have the same rights as everyone else. Although the release does not reveal who conducted the poll, but claims that 2,000 people were polled.

Many gave religious reasons for not speaking more openly for gays, even though they feel that they should have equal rights.

Being religious myself, I feel that every person in America should receive the same rights, no matter what their sexual orientation, race, or gender. I know it is not the religious standard to give gays rights, but our laws should not be based on religious preferences. It is stated that we should have a separation of church and state.

I don't see gays getting equal rights in the near future, but possibly in 5 to 10 years. What are your thoughts on the matter? Leave a comment!

Universal Health Care

For many Americans, it is either difficult or impossible to get health care because they either carry little insurance or none at all. A Universal Health Care system in the U.S. would fix this problem. Proponents say that it allows all to receive health care, no matter what income level or injury you have. Opponents blast that the coverage is inadequate and wait times are too long.

Many developed countries across the world have some sort of Universal Health Care. In fact, the United States is one of the few developed countries that does not offer free medical care. In the U.K., the health system is primarily funded by taxation, while conversely, Canada's health system is funded through taxes, yet at least 30% is paid through the private sector or individuals.

I know that American's don't like to be taxed, in fact, I bet you can ask pretty much any one in the world and the answer would be the same. In this instance, I believe that the U.S. could possibly reduce income taxes and basically create a Universal Health Care tax, in which all medical charges would be paid through.

Of course this would really throw the system we have in place into an upheaval. Doctors are used to making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. How would this affect their salaries? I'm sure that they would have to decline. Some of these salaries are outrageous. Although, I know a lot of this ends up as malpractice insurance and also helps to offset the costs of medical school, but past that, it is all money in their pocket.

I believe that medical care is one thing that should be given to all citizens as a protection of their government. If we can't properly care for our citizens, who will we have left?

Child Identity Crisis?

While public schools have taken a hit from the No Child Left Behind act, some are becoming involved in a battle involving student privacy. With this one might think about the student's rights while in school, but something new is emerging: biometrics.

Biometrics is a way of uniquely recognizing humans based upon one or more intrinsic physical or behavioral traits. Basically, it is a way to identify a person based on a fingerprint scan, retina scan, or facial recognition. Although there are many other methods these are very popular.

The school district in Boulder, Colorado wanted to find a quicker way to get children through the lunch line. Fingerprint scanners were brought up as a possible solution as it would be easier for the younger children who would have a hard time remembering a six digit PIN number. Parents were outraged at this proposal. Activists believe that the information stored in the database about a person's biometrics could be compromised and lead problems such as identity theft or being unfairly tracked by the government.

Some schools use fingerprint scanners to allow students to check in for class. This allows for a more accurate count, while allowing the instructor to dedicate time to other duties. Some States have already enacted laws barring the use of biometrics in the classroom, such as Michigan and Iowa.

Personally, I really don't see where the problem lies. This is a quick, efficient and easy solution to some schools problems involving attendance and accountability. While I understand that some people don't like their personal information being stored, at this point, what could someone use their fingerprint data to access?

I understand that if someone had my fingerprint data from when I attended school and I ever became a person of importance that they may be able to use this information if fingerprint scanners ever became common place. As of right now though, I see any of our biometrics as being just as important as our Social Security number, and many people let that number fly around more often than they should.

I feel as long as the information is stored securely, by a reputable company, there should be no problems. Like I stated above, many people shout out their Social Security number to clerks at shopping malls and retail stores when applying for credit, while trusting the clerk that they will not use the information later. Fingerprints will be more secure, yet not completely free from abuse.

Any method you use will be subject to abuse in some form or another. It is up to everyone to help each other find the best method that works with minimal abuse.

Are Traffic Cameras Fair?

I have heard many people protest the idea of traffic cameras to catch those who speed. While I know that they can have some errors, I would rather see them in use to keep people honest. Some say that this isn't fair, but I think if you are breaking the law, then you should pay the consequences. Most don't feel the same way as I do, and it shows when speed cameras become targets of vandalism.

A company in Holland has developed a speed camera that is near indestructible. The Innovative Digital Enforcement Environment, or IDEE, stands at 13 feet tall and can withstand heat, tampering, and impacts. It has sensors connected to the base to alert authorities when it is being tampered with. But at a cost of up to $100,000, is it worth it?

In my opinion, no. People will still find cheap ways to tamper with the cameras, such as spray paint, tape, or Vaseline. The cost of upkeep will be huge and people will begin to learn the locations of such cameras and either adjust their speed around them, or take alternative routes.

If there was a way to hide the cameras so that no one saw them, then that might work, but as long as people are aware of them, they will be avoided or vandalized.

I'm not for speeding as I see it as dangerous, especially on residential streets. I have debated with others over this and most of them say it is their right to go the speed that they choose. Now, I'm not saying that speed limits don't annoy me from time to time, but I believe that if there is a posted speed limit, then it should be enforced.

Enforcement of speed limits is difficult and labor intensive. That is why an automated system works best, but whenever technology advances, so does the general population in finding a way to beat the system.

Does your vote count?

When the Constitution was created, there were provisions included within Article II that provided us with a body of electors from each State. These electors were to cast their ballots for who they wanted as President and then cast a separate ballot for who they wanted as Vice-President. Each State is awarded a certain number of Electoral votes based on the number of Senators and Representatives in the House. When all votes are tallied in each State, the electors will compile their votes and the candidate with the most electoral votes will get those electoral points.

Here is where it becomes redundant. 27 of the 50 States require the electors to vote the same way as the popular vote. Some of those States even have penalties for those who do not do so. I'm not saying this is wrong, but what I don't understand is if they are required to vote the same as the popular vote, why have the Electoral College at all? Why not just tally up the popular vote and the candidate that wins in that State receive those electoral votes?

The answer lies in Article II of the Constitution and Amendment 12 of the same document. These require States to have electors. There have been a couple of attempts to change this, but nothing has ever come close to being passed through the House or Senate.

I don't believe we should have electoral votes or points at all. Like we saw in the 2000 election, the candidate with the most popular votes did not win the election (Al Gore). Although this is very rare, it should not happen. There should not be a reason why the candidate with the most popular votes should not receive the Presidency.

Direct popular vote would also encourage more third party candidates. Since most third party candidates are not funded as well as their more popular adversaries, they find it difficult to travel to a lot of States and try to "win" each. With the popular vote, they could easily be seen on T.V. debates, or on the internet and people would know that their vote did not get wasted because of the electoral college process.

Of course, the Electoral College has at least one benefit. When and if there is a recount needed, it is only done in the particular state where there may have been a discrepancy. There may not be a way to differentiate votes by State in a popular vote contest, leaving a recount to the whole country.

Overall, I see the electoral process as a big waste of time. I feel that if people thought that their votes really counted in an election, such as with a popular vote contest, that there would be more people at the polls.

Are there any other opinions on the subject?

For more information: NARA FAQ

Chinese High-Speed Rail

By the end of the year China will be operating their first domestically produced high-speed rail line. Operating between the 71 mile (115 km) Beijing-Tianjin route, the new rail line will reduce the trip from 70 minutes to a half hour. Capable of moving 600 passengers, the line will be just in time for the Beijing Olympics next August.

Nine months ago, I brought up the idea that America should have its own high-speed rail. It seems that I'm not the only one with this idea, as Wired magazine wrote an article on the topic. To me, it just seems like this would be the perfect competition to airlines and bus travel, neither of which are looked at fondly.

The Midwest High Speed Rail Association is also looking to increase the awareness of high-speed rail in the central United States. There are many existing tracks that could be upgraded and straightened to create viable high-speed rail lines. In many places tracks have been upgraded and used as high-speed lines and the ridership has increased.

I believe that people would use high-speed rail if it was available to them as a comparable alternative to driving and flying. For most comparisons, the distance is limited to 500 miles, or a three hour flight. I would be more inclined to take rail if the prices were comparable, even if it meant that it would take an extra hour in travel. Passenger rail cars are more spacious and comfortable. They can provide better than an aircraft can, so I would have no qualms about taking rail.

Now, if we could just get the government and investors on board.

New Defense Weapon

Raytheon has developed a new less-than-lethal weapon that utilizes millimeter wave technology to essentially "warm" the target and force them from the area. Similar in overall effect to tear gas, tasers, and beanbag shotguns, the Silent Guardian allows the user to disperse a crowd, protect a checkpoint or engage in non-lethal force.

This system provides many benefits over other less-than-lethal systems. Unlike tear gas, the Silent Guardian can target a single individual, making it effective against a rogue protester. It also provides the benefit of being able to be deployed from a distance, something that a taser cannot accomplish. The system is very versatile as well; it can adjust from a narrow beam, targeting an individual, to a wide beam to disperse a crowd.

This could help those in the military with base perimeter defense or enforcing checkpoints. On the civilian side, it could help with crowd control or riots. Although this device provides many advantages, it is not without its detractors.

Some believe that the device could be used for purposes other than what was intended, such as torture. Since the device leaves no marks of its use, this would be perfect for those looking to inflict pain, but leave no trace. There is also some concern of what would happen if someone with a weak heart or pacemaker was exposed to the rays of the device.

I believe that device will do more good than harm. I see it being used in military applications to help save lives. Any device that is created can be used outside its designated purpose, and I don't feel that the Silent Guardian is any different. Just like any weapon created, you want to keep it out of the hands of the enemy. Even in civilian utilization, I see great uses for this product.

All in all, this should be a great product, and should provide law enforcement and military personnel with a tool to help prevent disasters and save lives. Let me know what you think.

Wanna be an Astronaut?

NASA has released today that it is looking for new astronauts for its 2009 class. Who as a child never thought of becoming an astronaut? I know I had always thought about roaming around the cabin of a space ship; leisurely floating while doing experiments.

There are a few requirements though. To apply you must have a bachelors degree in math, science or engineering. You will also have to be physically fit. The training that is entailed is rather intense, but the benefits are many.

The site lists some various locations you may visit during your training and missions, such as Texas, Florida, California, Russia, Kazakhstan, the International Space Station and the moon.

This is definitely not a quick process. The training and evaluation process can take up to two years! That seems like an awful long time to train for something that you may never get the opportunity to do.

This position is open to all civilians and military. It gives me a little motivation to finish up my bachelors degree...

Religion and Nudity

From the day we are born, we are naked. And on that first day we are covered up. Mainly we are covered up for protection from the elements and to keep things sanitary. But past that, what is the main reason we wear clothing? Why do most religious groups get so uptight about nudity?

I believe that being nude is a perfectly natural thing and that people, especially Americans are uptight about it. What is wrong with seeing someone nude when it is not tied to a sexual scene? Set aside the fact that it might be someone you wouldn't want to see naked, but overall, there is nothing wrong about being nude.

Now, I don't walk around my house naked, mainly because I feel like a reptile most of the time. I really think I'm cold blooded. My wife on the other hand will walk naked around the house a lot of the time, or at the very least topless or bottomless. No one in our household thinks anything weird of it because we are used to it. If people were raised around nudity, then we wouldn't have so many people uptight about it.

The truth is, is that too many people tie being nude to sex. This is what creates the problem. I have never raised my children this way and when they see topless woman on the beach or in a movie, I never hear them snicker, point or stare. Whereas I have seen plenty of other children do this as they were not raised around nudity...to them it is funny, taboo and naughty.

As a libertarian, I feel that the government should back off and allow its citizens to live freely and without regard to what I should wear or not wear. But maybe it's getting better...did you know in New York City it is legal for a woman to be topless?

Here's hoping that we can all learn as a country that nudity is natural, and normal. But something tells me it won't be that easy...

Passing of a Generation

I found this through an email I had received. I decided to post this exactly as it is on the original web page for a couple of reasons. First, the web page is very poorly designed and has a really distracting background. Second, I believe that this generation deserves to be recognized before they are all gone. Everything you see below is an exact copy from the web page. Thank you to all who serve and have served in our Nation's Armed Forces.

FROM A MILITARY DOC

I am a doctor specializing in the Emergency Departments of the only two military Level One-Trauma Centers, both in San Antonio, TX and they care for civilian Emergencies as well as military personnel. San Antonio has the largest military retiree population in the world living here. As a military doctor, I work long hours and the pay is less than glamorous. One tends to become jaded by the long hours, lack of sleep, food, family contact and the endless parade of human suffering passing before you. The arrival of another ambulance does not mean more pay, only more work.

Most often, it is a victim from a motor vehicle crash.

Often it is a person of dubious character who has been shot or stabbed. With our large military retiree population, it is often a nursing home patient. Even with my enlisted service and minimal combat experience in Panama, I have caught myself groaning when the ambulance brought in yet another sick, elderly person from one of the local retirement centers that cater to military retirees. I had not stopped to think of what citizens of this age group represented.

I saw "Saving Private Ryan." I was touched deeply. Not so much by the carnage, but by the sacrifices of so many. I was touched most by the scene of the elderly survivor at the graveside, asking his wife if he'd been a good man. I realized that I had seen these same men and women coming through my Emergency Dept. and had not realized what magnificent sacrifices they had made. The things they did for me and everyone else that has lived on this planet since the end of that conflict are priceless.

Situation permitting, I now try to ask my patients about their experiences. They would never bring up the subject without the inquiry. I have been privileged to an amazing array of experiences, recounted in the brief minutes allowed in an Emergency Dept. encounter. These experiences have revealed the incredible individuals I have had the honor of serving in a medical capacity, many on their last admission to the hospital.

There was a frail, elderly woman who reassured my young enlisted medic, trying to start an IV line in her arm. She remained calm and poised, despite her illness and the multiple needle-sticks into her fragile veins. She was what we call a "hard stick." As the medic made another attempt, I noticed a number tattooed across her forearm. I touched it with one finger and looked into her eyes. She simply said, "Auschwitz." Many of later generations would have loudly and openly berated the young medic in his many attempts. How different was the response from this person who'd seen unspeakable suffering.

Also, there was this long retired Colonel, who as a young officer had parachuted from his burning plane over a Pacific Island held by the Japanese. Now an octogenarian, he had a minor cut on his head from a fall at his home where he lived alone. His CT scan and suturing had been delayed until after midnight by the usual parade of high priority ambulance patients. Still spry for his age, he asked to use the phone to call a taxi, to take him home, then he realized his ambulance had brought him without his wallet. He asked if he could use the phone to make a long distance call to his daughter who lived 7 miles away. With great pride we told him that he could not, as he'd done enough for his country and the least we could do was get him a taxi home, even if we had to pay for it ourselves. My only regret was that my shift wouldn't end for several hours, and I couldn't drive him myself.

I was there the night MSgt Roy Benavidez came through the Emergency Dept. for the last time. He was very sick. I was not the doctor taking care of him, but I walked to his bedside and took his hand. I said nothing. He was so sick, he didn't know I was there. I'd read his Congressional Medal of Honor citation and wanted to shake his hand. He died a few days later.

The gentleman who served with Merrill's Marauders, the survivor of the Bataan Death March, the survivor of Omaha Beach, the 101 year old World War I veteran, the former POW held in frozen North Korea, the former POW held in frozen North Korea, and the former Viet Nam Corps Commander.

I remember these citizens.

I may still groan when yet another ambulance comes in, but now I am much more aware of what an honor it is to serve these particular men and women.

I have seen a Congress who would turn their back on these individuals who've sacrificed so much to protect our liberty. I see later generations that seem to be totally engrossed in abusing these same liberties, won with such sacrifice.

It has become my personal endeavor to make the nurses and young enlisted medics aware of these amazing individuals when I encounter them in our Emergency Dept. Their response to these particular citizens has made me think that perhaps all is not lost in the next generation.

My experiences have solidified my belief that we are losing an incredible generation, and this nation knows not what it is losing. Our uncaring government and ungrateful civilian populace should all take note. We should all remember that we must "Earn this."

Written By
CPT. Stephen R. Ellison, M.D.

Helmet Laws

One thing I never could understand is why certain state governments require motorcycle riders to wear helmets. For that matter, why is it mandatory to wear seat belts? It seems that some states are thinking of repealing laws that require helmets to ride. Missouri is one of the most recent to consider this change.

I suppose this is where my libertarian viewpoint shows through. I don't believe that the government should impose rules on us that affect our lives. If someone chooses to ride without a helmet and dies, then that is for their family to deal with. The government should not have control of my life. I'm sure insurance rates are a bit higher for those who do not wear helmets; then again, maybe the insurance companies don't ask.

I can understand the requirement for minors to wear helmets. But once the person is of the age to make decisions on their own, I believe the choice should be theirs. This could be debatable by some, but I believe that minors should have to wear helmets.

This same argument could be applied to seat belts. Does the government gain anything by requiring seat belts? Maybe there is something I'm missing, but to me, it doesn't seem like there would be much reason to require helmets or seat belts.

Hopefully more states will wise up and give the power back to the people...where it belongs.