Lane sharing/life snaring

Re: "When will it stop," Daily Press letters, July 24 and responses in today's letters (July 27) regarding "Personal choices" and "Irresponsible drivers" ... The responses are right on!

I myself was a victim of a lane sharing Fontana police motorcycle officer. And why was I to blame for his clumsiness when he hit my driver's side rear view mirror when he tried to lane share? Because people like the original respondent on July 24 think they, the motorcyclists, are invincible and everyone else should get out of their way and accommodate their recklessness.

California is the only state that allows such reckless behavior and driving like I witness every time I drive up the Cajon Pass on a busy afternoon.

The writer and others of his mentality should be getting petitions signed to repeal that aspect of the vehicle code that allows such reckless (suicidal) driving between cars at 70-plus mph, not complain to the public at large who are sick of being found at fault for such absurd driving behavior. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is safe or practical. As a matter of fact, the California Driver’s manual specifically states in three places that lane sharing is not recommended.

We auto motorists are in constant apprehension of someone roaring up from nowhere and possibly hitting the side of our vehicle as they weave through traffic. A helmet is not enough protection for getting "shot out of a cannon" at 75 mph. Last week's Cajon Pass motorcycle fatality is evidence enough. I think the only reason the California Motor Vehicle Code has not been corrected is because of the lobbying by those same risk takers who do not realize or maybe do not care they put us at risk also.

Irvin Kettler, Victorville

Sanctuary states/cities

It is against the Constitution to tell the federal government that you are going to be a Sanctuary city or state. Section 1373 simply states that cities or states can't ban law enforcement of any kind, federal or state, from detaining or arresting illegal immigrants and then deporting them.

The United States Supreme Court upheld this provision in 2012 in Arizona vs. United States. The point being that our Attorney General is correct in saying he does not have to award any discretionary federal grants/monies from the Justice Department to cities or states that violate 1373.

What we are seeing is the same as the resistance the Southern state governments in Mississippi or Alabama used. They refused to educate blacks until forced to do so by a court order. We are seeing California, and the cities like Bell Gardens, who are refusing to act in the best interest of America, and would rather support the interests of Mexico and make sure their citizens are first and Americans are second!

It is about nullification, going back to 1832 and the nullifiers like John Calhoun in South Carolina, and he lost, just like today's illegal immigrant nullifiers have lost and must obey the immigration laws of the great United States of America!

Dan Daniels, Oak Hills

Liberal compassion

In a speech he delivered at Hillsdale College on Oct. 14, 2014, William Voegeli, senior editor, Claremont Review of Books, is well worth listening to today. The welfare state we have today got started 85 years ago with FDR's New Deal in 1932. It has been growing ever since. In 2013 the federal government spent $2.279 trillion — $7,200 per citizen, two-thirds of all federal outlays, and 14 percent of GDP. This does not include the uncalculated cost paid by Americans through policies aimed at enhancing welfare without government having to deal with it in the federal budget; policies such as minimum wages, maximum hours, and mandatory benefits for employees, or rent control.

Voegeli notes that if the left were really concerned about the welfare of the downtrodden, they would be scrupulous in eliminating fraud and waste, so they could use those saved funds to reach more of those who really need help. He concludes that, "The machinery created by the politics of kindness doesn't work very well —in the sense of being economical, adaptable, and above all effective — because liberals who build, operate, defend, and seek to expand this machine don't really care whether it works very well and are, on balance, happier when it fails than when it succeeds."

The compassionate person does not become hungry when he meets or thinks about a hungry person, or sick in the presence of the sick. He is affected by the other's suffering, and experiences discomfort of his own because of it. He wants to do something, allegedly for the unfortunate person, but in reality he does it to make himself feel better. Liberals care about helping much less than they care about caring. They get a "satisfaction of pious preening" from it, and in trying to maintain that high, they get hooked on it. "They regard their own compassion as the central value that makes them good, decent, and admirable people." The late political theorist Jean Bethke Elshtain wrote, "Pity is about how deeply I can feel, and in order to feel this way, to experience the rush of my own pious reaction, I need victims the way an addict needs drugs."

The entire speech can be found in "Imprimis," a publication of Hillsdale College (hillsdale.edu).

Gabriel Portillo, Hesperia

Lawsuit waiting to happen

Numerous neighbors have called about a projection TV that started out in front of a house that has construction work going on due to a fire last year on the corner of San Juan Street and Sitting Bull. It then progressed to the street. Now it is in the middle of San Juan Street.

To make matters worse, the streetlight is out, which I called in and won’t be fixed until next week. Does it take someone running into it in the dark and getting injured before someone takes action? I can see a big lawsuit against the city if that happens. I’m not about to move it to the curb or the sidewalk as I may get blamed if someone gets hurt by it or my neighbor might be cited for something that doesn’t belong to them.

Tony Steczkowski, Victorville