Topics to be discussed on Indiana Week in Review today:
Evan Bayh's voting record. Is there a shift to the right this year?
Cap and Trade opponents rally in Indianapolis
Baron Hill's Tele-town hall plans
André Carson's lack of town hall plans
Dress Code protest at Richmond High School
Mitch Daniels' misunderstood remarks about motorcycle helmet use
emphasis mine. note the framing here: poor misunderstood mitch! all he did was claim that helmets aren't that important for motorcycle safety! never mind that his remarks were plainly, demonstrably false—he's just misunderstood! and this is the frame being advanced not by IWR's resident republican hack, but by the show's host and moderator, jim shella!
to refresh your memory, since i haven't seen this discussed much outside of this blog or a brief mention by doghouse riley—here are the remarks in question:
Asked, though, if those fatalities might be lessened with a mandatory helmet law, Daniels said that "honestly, the data says that's not the key -- that really the key is practicing motorcycle safety and people on four wheels being a little more attentive. That's what will make the difference, just as seat belts have made a difference."
of course, the data says precisely the opposite. numerous studies have shown that:
- motorcycle helmets save lives and help prevent serious injury
- mandatory helmet laws encourage more people to wear helmets, thus
- mandatory helmet laws save lives
in fact, studies have shown that wearing a helmet is the #1 most important factor in surviving motorcycle crashes. anyone who tells you otherwise is lying, plain and simple.
in my previous post on the subject, i wondered why the indy star let mitch get away with such blatant falsehoods. why didn't someone at the star spend five minutes on the NHTSA site, like i did, finding the actual data? after all, when someone tells me something i know is provably false, my reaction is to prove it false, not to simply repeat the false assertion without challenging it. they didn't even bother getting a quote from a motorcycle helmet proponent to counter mitch's claims, which is what usually passes for "balance" these days.
but shella is taking things one step further. if the governor says something that, on its face, seems to be false, shella assumes that the governor must have been misunderstood! because gosh and golly, it's not like a politician would ever lie about something like that.
there are so many ways shella could've phrase that line. here are some examples, any one of which would have been more accurate:
- Mitch Daniels' recent remarks about motorcycle helmet use
- Mitch Daniels' controversial remarks about motorcycle helmet use
- Mitch Daniels' misunderstanding about motorcycle helmet use
- Mitch Daniels' misinformed remarks about motorcycle helmet use
- Mitch Daniels' blatant lies about motorcycle helmet use
- Mitch Daniels' second-degree burns after his pants spontaneously combusted while lying about motorcycle helmet use
that shella instead chose "misunderstood" is telling: shella is more interested in covering for the governor than in getting to the truth about motorcycle helmet safety.
it should be interesting to see how they try to spin this one on IWR. i'm also curious to see whether anyone other than ann delaney (IWR's token democrat) bothers pointing out the truth. i'm not holding my breath on that one. ¶