Keeping Roads Safe from Chapstick and Raking In Money

This news story about police keeping roads safe from “distracted driving” shows how the populace is trained to be exploited.

I once read a science fiction story where a steak restaurant used modified cows that could talk. The cows were trained to want to be killed and eaten. In fact, they actually came to the customers’ tables, showed off their portions, and then, after getting an order, went back to the kitchen to slaughter themselves “humanely.”

That’s pretty much a perfect picture about how governments and ruling classes want to train the people to behave.

When the machinery is working, the media, the government’s agents, and even the victims themselves all legitimize the consumption of people for the sake of rulers.

So here is a Washington Post story doing all it can to program you to think that this is justice: “Vegas woman gets $200 distracted driving ticket for applying lip balm at a red light.”

Distracted driving is bad news — and really, no one should do it.

But did you know that applying lip balm while you’re behind the wheel can result in a $200 ticket and points on your driving record? We didn’t either.

One Las Vegas woman learned the hard way that when the Nevada Highway Patrol says it has zero tolerance for distracted driving, it really means ZERO.

Stephanie Fragoso, 37, thought it was just another day at the wheel. She was driving to take care of something at the Department of Motor Vehicles, of all places, when she pulled away from an intersection, and the officer who had stopped at the red light next to her pulled her over.

He told Fragoso that she was getting a ticket because she was putting on makeup.

“I said no, I was putting on Chapstick,” Fragoso told The Washington Post.

Plus, she was stopped at a red light. A red light!

“He was very sorry; he did not want to give it to me,” Fragoso said of the ticket, which was first reported by CBS affiliate KLAS.

But Fragoso had violated a little-known local ordinance that can land drivers with expensive tickets for doing a host of things that might distract them from the road.

How has the phrase, “zero tolerance,” become a magic incantation that somehow justifies all sort of robbery and abuse?

cop drives by

The writers of the story shed crocodile tears for this woman who was basically mugged by an armed man and robbed of two hundred dollars, but they completely justify the regime. (Yeah, not exactly shocking. When has the Washington Post ever seen a group of armed marauders they didn’t like, as long as they operated under the auspices of a badge or flag? The only chance they would ever look at the situation objectively would be if the regime happened to be under GOP control and the victim was a transgender or something like that. An ordinary woman with chapped lips is meant to be served up on the statist menu as far as they are concerned.)

The police spokesman justifies this crime on the grounds of a woman who was watching a movie on her iPad while driving. How does that have anything to do with a woman applying lip balm while stopped at a red light? It doesn’t. It is an outrage against reason to offer such garbage as an argument in the first place.

[See also, “Man Robbed By Armed Thief—Armed with Gun and Badge.”]

Most pathetic of all, the woman actually joins with her oppressors. She expresses respect for the people who are using idiot arguments to justify looting her and bringing her substance into their coffers.

“It’s really crazy, but the drivers in the city are so bad, I kind of feel better knowing that [police] are doing it,” Fragoso said. “I’m just kind of sad I was the example of that.”

Fragoso is obviously a noble person from what I can see but all her morals have been twisted so that she uses her own moral code against herself and justifies robbers. What helpless sheep we have become! I’m not saying that it was wrong for her to comply. She would be stupid not to, unless she has resources to go to court and attempt a legal challenge. But she doesn’t even speak up for herself and against the looter who mugged her on the highway! Can you imagine people with that attitude participating in the Boston Tea Party or even listening to Patrick Henry?

Throughout the entire story no one ever questions that the state government-empowered bureaucrats might possibly have another motive for imposing self-admitted “zero tolerance” on drivers.

Do you think if we were able to get hidden video footage of these patrolmen that we would find that both hands are on the steering wheel at the three and nine position? No, we don’t even need footage because we know that just to use their radios or on-board computers they can’t possibly be obeying the law they impose on others.

So we are officially stratified: the revenue collectors of the ruling class and us peasants, those who shake down and those who get shaken down.