In a time of scientific accuracy, it is incredible that the amber light time at stop lights is any person's guess. Until the time when cars a programmed to stop automatically at stop lights, I propose a simple solution: The time of amber lights should be standard throughout the nation.
Based on the posted speed, a wide white line should be painted a distance before each stop light. If a vehicle has crossed the white line when the amber light appears, it should continue through the intersection. If a vehicle has not crossed the white line, it should stop.
Even though my proposal is simple, it would prevent most intersection accidents.
Quinnipiac University of Connecticut conducts personal polls by cold calling people and only using information from those who decide to talk to them. Their staff consists of 10 full-time employees and a set of telephones. Someone pays the research division of this university to conduct the poll and provides them with the questions they want answered. The questions are not developed by the poll center, but by the client that hired them.
I cannot believe that reporters take such an unscientific poll as accurate. Anybody who does research will tell you that it is the absolute worst type of data gathering around. It does not give you an accurate cross section of the population. It only represents those who have something in common with those conducting the poll.
In this case, it was about people who would rather vote for Clinton instead of Rubio or Bush. Asking a Democrat if they would vote for Clinton is like asking a kid if they like to play. Reporting that result as definitive news is garbage reporting.
Editor's note: Quinnipiac employs about 160 work-study students as interviewers, ... and the poll does not accept clients or outside funding.
...Andrew S. Tanenbaum, the founder of the poll-analysis website Electoral-vote.com, compared major pollsters' performances in the 2010 midterm Senate elections and concluded that Quinnipiac was the most accurate, with a mean error of 2.0 percent. - Wikipedia
Natural law can be described as the principle that man is endowed by his Creator with a moral code of conduct which is written in the nature of things. As such, the natural law contains truths which gives man immutable rights such as life and liberty. In fact, my 1973 edition of "The Random House College Dictionary" even implies that it was then considered ethically binding in human society. For more than 200 years, it was generally accepted that most of the founding fathers believed in natural law. However, suddenly in 1991 during his Supreme Court nomination hearings, Clarence Thomas was virtually skewered by the Senate Judiciary Committee for agreeing with Abraham Lincoln about the natural law basis for the Constitution.
How in heaven's name could such a dramatic change have taken place in such a brief time? In my opinion, the natural law had simply become too much of a stumbling block to many of the economic, political and cultural ambitions of today's modern progressive movement. Abortion, gay marriage, diminished parental authority and the many politically motivated government scandals would have been easily trumped by a citizenry well versed in the absolute truths found in the Constitution and the Bible.
Unfortunately, we are now left with a radical pluralism that respects all views and honors no truths. For example, we no longer call things by their proper names. To a modern progressive, abortion, reproductive health and safe motherhood are synonyms even when applied to a second trimester abortion. Euthanasia, once identified with the German Holocaust, is now simply a remedy for the "quality of life" of the elderly.
To be sure, John Adams' quote that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religions people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." has now been verified in our own lifetime.