Have you seen this story yet about the woman who was forced to show her identification to ride a "public" bus? I've used this image in posts before, and unfortunately, it's getting too common.

This woman is defended by the ACLU -- so I'm already very suspicious of the case. However, on it's face, a woman ejected from public transportation for refusing to show id is just plain wrong.

However, I don't think any rights have actually been violated here. If the bus service is being provided, don't you have to follow the rules to use that service? My solution is the right one: don't demand id for a "public" bus -- get rid of the damn public bus and the problem goes away.

Once again, this is an example where government is the cause of the problem and MORE government involvement will make the problem worse, not better. You have NO right to me buying you gasoline and buses so you can get anywhere you want to go.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:05 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

1 don't you have to pay to ride the public bus? I'm just saying . . .

Posted by: oddybobo at November 30, 2005 03:23 PM (6Gm0j)

2 Yes, I do, dammit, and I don't even ride the bus. Oh, you meant the people who ride the bus who pay 1/100th of the cost of the actual ride while I pick up the rest of the tab? Yes, yes they do.

Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 03:31 PM (/k+l4)

3 Of course, that bus reduces your costs -- by creating less traffic congestion letting you drive your car where you're going faster, burning less gasoline, causing less damage to the roads thereby keeping your gasoline taxes lower, and allowing people to burn less gas thereby keeping gas prices lower.

Posted by: Ronald Reagan at November 30, 2005 05:55 PM (LQJdM)

4 Just a minor correction: The bus creates MORE congestion because it takes wider roads to travel upon, moves slower, and takes up more space when changing lanes, blocking other traffic. The rest of your statement, as written, is actually true (and I can't tell if you intended it that way) -- in my car I AM going faster, burning less gasoline, and causing less damage to the roads. So, if it's worded as you intended, the more people that ride the bus, the better off I am -- except for the fact that I have to PAY for them to ride the bus, so my costs are higher than they would be without the bus.

Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 06:57 PM (/k+l4)

5 I'd ride the bus, but the homeless guy with the foody beard and the bird-like snore is disconcerting. I'll just drive myself, thanks.

Posted by: Stevin at November 30, 2005 07:47 PM (LfL8N)

6 My snore does NOT sound like a bird!

Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 07:56 PM (/k+l4)

7 The lady, just like the rest of us, supports public transportation through her taxes therefore is entitled to use the system without reserve (I own it therefore I use it as I please). The real problem, whether supported by ACLU or not, is that government has created the scenario from the futuristic novel "1984" (futuristic when I was a kid). So, either we agree that government has the right to ask anyone at any time for papers, thus we are required to carry papers as in all of Europe, or we do not agree thus government under no circumstances can ask for papers for utilization of public services. This is the question. Do we want Big Brother or not?

Posted by: David Anderson at December 01, 2005 01:23 PM (SoNKe)

8 If you really did own it, David, then you'd be correct. However, in today's society, YOU and The Government are no longer one and the same. If government owns it, YOU do not. And we are very, very rapidly moving to being required to carry our papers everywhere. There are court cases now, such as this one, that will determine if we are indeed required to carry identification everywhere. I think freedom will be on the losing end of this battle.

Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2005 10:47 PM (uSCkp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment