Ed Markey grandstands following Epcot death

However, might it be truly weak-minded to believe that all “politicians” regardless of party are for unreasonable overactive legislation in response to amusement ride accidents when all available evidence shows this not to be true? I could guess that blindly believing that a person’s political party has no affect on their views and actions could be considered a rather weak-minded take. What is more simple or weak-minded than to blindly believe a cliché like “they all do it”, absence of evidence that shows the said cliché to be true.

The excessive reliance on clichés and generalities seems a bit naïve. I’d rather avoid generalities and look at the evidence. So please, anybody, find me a case of a republican who indeed was involved with legislative action or proposal to regulate the amusement industry. If indeed party affiliation can in no way be indicative of the possibility of being for or against amusement park regulation, then it is fair to say that there should be evidence out there that shows both sides of the isle do indeed participate in amusement park regulatory actions.

I can only guess that any person who is fair-minded and interested in objectivity would indeed like to look at the evidence before drawing conclusions.

You and I have a history Jeff. I’ve no desire to flame it. I’m in no way trying to say I’m absolutely correct and that you are wrong. I merely ask for some objectivity (from everybody) when commenting on this rather small slice of the amusement industry related to politicians who “grandstand” on the back of amusement park accidents. I think it is indeed fair to say, that to date, democrats are indeed the politicians who have been involved in regulatory activities related to amusement park safety. I do not believe it is fair to say, “they all do it” in this case.

I stand-by my original assertion that it is factually incorrect and therefore dishonest to assert that “politicians” be the replacement for the word “democrat”. The evidence simply has not shown this to be true.

Help me see the light CBers…find me ONE case of a republican “grandstanding” on the backs of an amusement park accident. Just one…and I’ll gladly fall back into line…

Sparky:

I agree all “politicians” grandstand. There is plenty of evidence to show this to be true. However, I do not think it is fair to say that all politicians grandstand on the backs of injured participants of an amusement ride accident. In this specific type of case, the evidence shows that “democratic” politicians do the grandstanding. Republicans are probably grandstanding on another issue while Markey and the like are doing their thing.

I don’t agree with the original take by the way. I was merely responding to jan’s response

Did some traumatic event happen to Ed Markey at an amusement park when he was a child?

Maybe he couldn't fit in the restraints?

Or he was ejected from a park for line jumping?*** This post was edited by Brad G 6/15/2005 7:55:18 PM ***

So one moron's pet cause is representative of the entire party's personality? That sounds pretty silly to me.

I think we should note here that Markey has found very little support for his amusement ride legislation in either party.

Someone asked what kind of warnings are posted on the Epcot Space ride...my entire family rode this several times on our trip last summer. And I can say I have NEVER seen an attraction with SO MANY warnings! The warnings were repeated many times, there were oppotunities and invitations to opt out at the last minute. They were very serious about this ride and how a person might react.

Jeffrey -- you're right in that Republicans aren't rallying around all the "safer parks" grandstanding, but then neither are "most" Democrats. Intead, they've got their own useless (IMHO) things to harp on, as Justin pointed out. Markey using this to get himself in the news once again is, to this observer, quite similar to Santorum and Schiavo (actually, I personally think Santorum is even more tasteless, but that's just me)

Markey's an idiot, that I'll agree with, but I find I still agree with Democrats more than Republicans on a day-to-day basis. People have opinions, but generalizations like "Democrats want ride restrictions" are useless and wrong.

That was exactly my point. I was calling out the generalizations being thrown at Democrats. I could care less about who's affiliated with what party, I tend to vote for who I think will do the best job. However, making grand statements about all Democrats over one member of the party is naive and biased. Sure, there might not be ONE incident of a Republican attaching their name to an amusement park related issue, but there are a HELL of a lot of Republicans attaching their names to other sensitive situations to further their agenda. Democrats do it too, they're not innocent here, either.

Now, how about we get back to discussing what we all agree on? The stupidity of Markey. Regardless of his party affiliation...

Here is some information about groups and nine other politicians supporting Markey's bill...

Markey's bill is supported by the nation's leading consumer-protection advocates, including Consumer's Union, the Consumer Federation of America, the National SAFE KIDS Campaign, Saferparks.org, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The American Academy of Pediatrics also expressed its support for the measure, saying, "a first step to prevention of these injuries is adopting stronger safety regulations that allow for better inspection and oversight of the fixed-rides."

Nine of Markey's colleagues are co-sponsoring the legislation: Representatives George Miller (D-CA), Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), Barney Frank (D-MA), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Richard Neal (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), and John Tierney (D-MA).

http://www.rideaccidents.com/2003.html#may22

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR03032:@@@P

This link shows 53 co-sponsors of Markey’s bill. There were 5 republicans and 48 democrats! I’ve finally found the republicans, so I must apologize to jan and say that “politicians” could indeed be used as a replacement for “democrats.” It took a lot of hard searching to prove myself wrong… :-) Anyhow jan, you assertion is indeed factually correct (though rather weakly I must say)! :-)

I’ll save you guys time and let you know that Bilbray, Boehlert, Morella, Petri, and Quinn are the republicans while the remaining 48 co-sponsors plus Markey (the sponsor) are democrats (49 total of 54).

---

So one moron's pet cause is representative of the entire party's personality? That sounds pretty silly to me.

---

In response to this take Jeff…I’ve never believed or said that Markey’s pet cause is a one-man crusade. I think that is a mistaken belief that you and others may have. Markey is just the spokesman for the “regulatory cause” in my opinion. The fact that there are 53 other individuals lending their names and reputation to the cause shows that this is a rather large group of elected officials. I’ll let you determine if 49 of 54 members coming from one party is representative enough to demonstrate that party’s personality.

For me, the answer is rather obvious. I would think it would be “rather silly” to go on pretending that one particular party is not the driving force behind the legislation. But maybe you’ve set your convincing threshold impossibly high. Believe me, I know how difficult it can be to change stubborn-held opinions in light of such contradictory evidence. This is something I still have to work at every day.

Anyway, I think it is fair to say that this is much more than “one moron’s cause.” It is 54-elected morons’ cause. If any of your congressmen and women are on the list (some may be defeated by now) then contact them if this is important to you!

Either way, we can all believe what we want. I hope this information is at least beneficial to those open-minded enough to possibly change a viewpoint in light of the evidence. I in no way believe that this is an important enough issue to change one’s political affiliation (if you participate in that sort of thing), but I hope you understand that there are a lot more powerful people and lobbies out there that back what a lot of us see as Markey’s grandstanding. And there indeed is a large slant toward the democratic party as members most likly to support the stuff Markey spews. It is not a good thought for those of us geeks who love amusement rides.

*** This post was edited by Jeffrey R Smith 6/16/2005 2:40:28 AM ***

You still unreasonably want to label, pigeonhole and categorize everyone. You might as well say all enthusiasts are dorks, black people only like rap music and Jews are cheap. Really, when you generalize about people, you're only one step away from doing just that.

Jeff:

I prefer to let the facts form my opinions. Anybody can have an opinion. I prefer not to call people “silly” & “weak-minded” in order to flame. I certainly would not pull out the old bigotry (race-bait) argument.

Again I return to the facts. There are 49 of 54 people from one party. Your prior claim that Markey is a lone ranger is certainly not true. If 49 of 54 is not enough to convince you, or anybody that there is a possible party connection to the subject, then that is just “silly.” To have 53 co-sponsors for any bill is a ridiculous amount of support. To have 90% of that support coming from one side of the isle, just might be enough to convince a reasonable person to conclude that this may actually be a party driven issue. Nobody has said ALL democrats are for this. I’m sure there are some that are not. You, Jeff are the only person using the term “pigeonhole.” It is just plain misleading to paint a picture that this is an equitable bipartisan issue. It is not… That is all I’m saying and it is all the facts show to be true.

I’ve obviously hit a raw nerve with you and others who, for whatever reason are interested in protecting their worldviews. To listen to you and others, you’ve painted a picture of one man---Markey---alone “grandstanding” a cause that it appears most think is ridiculous. I’ve never once seen you admit you are wrong Jeff. But your prior claims are ridiculously wrong and do not hold up to the facts. It is a tough thing to admit your wrong. That too is something I’m always working on. You’ll feel better when you let go of that anger and petty desire to insult and realize you are not always right. See above when I apologized to jan.. It is a very humbling, yet releasing experience. You should try it sometime. It could make you feel better.

Anyhow, you’ve taken this thread to a whole new level. Your argument keeps changing as the facts keep refuting what you’ve had to say on this subject. I’m afraid that your past history would indicate that you’ve no intention of engaging reasonable debate with any fact to back your claims. I will however, hold out slight hope that you will turn a new leaf. If you do indeed desire a friendly debate of the issue, then I’m more than ready to respond. I’ll grant any takes you have when you provide evidence to support your assertions.

If however, you are planning on replying with an elementary two-line post calling people “silly”, “weak-minded”, or bigot---insert your insult here---then you might as well save your time. I’ve gone out of my way to treat you (and everybody) with respect and dignity. I would hope, that one time, you may return the favor.

I'm not going to read your post. Actually, I never read your posts. I figure if you have to write that much you're probably trying to convince yourself something, not me.

But with regards to facts: There are few absolutes in life.

Of course one is BLIND to the facts when they are unwilling to read about them and ASSUME they are all knowing so they dont have to take the time to read otehr viewpoints

Summary for those who can’t read:

• Jeff made statements
• Evidence contradicts Jeff’s statements
• Jeff is unable to admit he was wrong
• Jeff is frustrated
• Jeff calls people names

Bob O, I wouldn't start chiming in with talk about how people are BLIND to the facts, when you were the one that cast the first stone.

The evidence that most of the support for Markey's legislation are Democrats is definately substantial. However, the evidence DOES NOT support statements like this:

"Bob O.:
While no one wants to politicize this case, but if you had democrats in charge of the senate and house then his(markey's) idiotic ideas would have a great chance to become law and he would do eveything in his power to outlaw fun in theme parks."

OR THIS:

"tservo:
typical democrat, gleeing for himself over a tragedy."

These are the types of statements and generalizations that Jeff, myself and a few others have taken into account here. Not your evidence. So Jeff doesn't have to admit anything, he was merely calling out the generalizations people were making. Saying this behavior is "typical" of all Democrats is like Howard Dean saying all Republicans are white christians. It's just plain stupid.

I agree that generalizations are wrong. That is why I make an effort to back my opinions with evidence. I’m not one prone to say “they all do it” or “it is not a black and white world” or any other tired cliché that so many believe without looking at any evidence to support the subject at hand. What could be more of a generalization than "they all do it?" Unfortunately generalizations are made on this board all the time. We just recently had the board administrator (Jeff) say:

---

I swear, enthusiasts can't think of anything other than their own views

---

What could be more ridiculous that generalizing and condescending an entire group of people for no other reason than their love of amusement rides? Maybe he’ll see the error of his ways and offer up an apology for his unreasonable generalizations of the very people who pay to use his service. Here is the link...

http://coasterbuzz.com/forum.aspx?mode=thread&TopicID=42049&page=1

JustinAdams:

Could you show me where I generalized anything? I've had Jeff accuse me of doing so, but he has offered zero evidence to back his words. I’ve taken great effort to be fair-minded and objective in my approach. It appears that you and Jeff may be confusing me with somebody else. Maybe, I have unknowingly allowed my words to castigate an entire group. It appears that Jeff believes this to be true. But given his accuracy performance in this thread, I think it might be fair to say that he is possibly wrong again. If I did not know better, I might even think that Jeff is purposely trying to impugn my character without a lick of evidence to support his actions. I can’t know this with 100% accuracy though. My intentions are never to offend. Please point to any of my offensive jargon and I would be glad to either explain or apologize.

See, you're only interested in coming after me, which is precisely the reason I won't be drawn into your "debate." It just ain't about me.

You’ve responded to reasonable evidence-based claims with personal insults. You’ve been caught displaying the worst kind of generalizations that you accuse me of doing, yet you are unable to provide evidence to back your accusations. You don’t fool a soul. We all know you are reading the posts and that you are not man enough to admit you are wrong. Even you friends have stayed mostly silent on this one. Nobody wants to be associated with such a hypocritical sinking ship. We can go back and look at who really made this a personal argument. But I need not enlighten anymore of your lies and misleadings. Your inability to just say, “I was wrong” speaks volumes about your character. I certainly hope you will someday grow up a bit and realize that the universe does not revolve around you and your tired clichés.

I’ve no ill will toward you no matter what your ego may tell yourself Jeff. I feel bad for somebody that is unable to admit that he may not have the answers. I feel bad for somebody who is intolerant of opposing viewpoints. I feel bad for somebody that is so closed-minded that he is unwilling and unable to back his boisterous opinions with any evidence. I feel bad for a man who must sink so low as to outright misrepresent what another has said so he can somehow fool himself into believing he is the almighty all-knowing. You’ve been outed. I’m sure this is frustrating. I feel bad that you have a personality that is such, that it is impossible for somebody to have a reasonable discussion with you, even when kid gloves are applied.

You’ve got problems. I hope that someday you’ll be able to get over whatever it is that makes you so defensive, yet still so boisterous. Get help.

You’re so vain that you probably think I write to make you look bad. But I don’t. I’m comfortable with whom I am and what I believe so that I do not have to resort to such actions that you have shown. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong and do not have all the answers. I'm not afraid to be pursuaded by evidence that contradicts my worldview.

But I'm certainly not “weak-minded” enough to cower to personal insults that some closed-minded pathological coaster-board administrator throws at me. I’m sure your act works well with the “I don’t read long posts” and “who needs evidence” crowd. With the educated, you just look foolish. I sincerely desire that you (or anybody like you) gets some serious help to deal with whatever self-esteem issues you are having.

P.S. All you or any body has to do is look at the tone and order of this thread to see that you’ve got a real ego-confidence complex that borders on pathological. Your need to “be right” and be accepted has overcome you. May I suggest you just walk away and leave this one alone. You’ve made yourself look foolish enough as it is. Go get that help…I mean this with all due gratitude.