Don't lower speed limit across the board

By GLENN DROMGOOLE

Traffic fatalities in Texas have increased by more than 16 percent since the 70 mph speed limit went into effect on most state roads. The problem, however, is not so much the 70 mph speed limit, which is a reasonable speed for most highways.

The problem is that we try to drive as fast as we think we can get away with. If the speed limit is 70, well, we can probably get away with 75. If it's a rural road, which isn't likely to be enforced, we might do 80 or even 85.

At those speeds, we're not as able to control situations, and we're not as likely to survive accidents.

What's the solution? Please, it's not to arbitrarily lower the speed limit back to 55, which was unreasonably slow for wide open Texas roads. And there aren't enough highway patrol officers to keep us from speeding.

But we ought to invest in more warning signs for hazardous situations and in a PR campaign that stresses the dangers of speeding. And the speed limits on some roads - with emphasis on some - should be reduced to 60. But it should be on a case-by-case basis.

What is creativity?

I clipped out Doris Wild Helmering's column on creativity and put it on the fridge. If you missed it, you might want to get a copy of last Tuesday's paper (Aug. 12) and check it out. It's one of the best articles I have read in a newspaper.

Essentially, what she said was that a lot of everyday things we do can be considered creative - such as mowing the yard, or cleaning the garage, or playing golf, or going fishing, or baking cookies.

"Creativity means you're active physically or mentally," she wrote. "You're doing instead of observing."

Yet, too many of us spend our time in uncreative ways. One of the most uncreative time-wasters is watching TV. A lot of spectator sports falls into that same category. What's creative about watching a bunch of grown men play a sport for jillions of dollars? Why waste our time on them, when we could be learning something new or doing something that will make us, or someone else, feel better?

We don't have to be able to paint a picture or play a musical instrument to be creative. We all have creative capabilities if we think of them as Helmering put it - "doing instead of observing."

In the news again

Abilene can't get restaurants or events listed in Texas Monthly magazine, but at least the magazine knows we exist. Last month's cover story was about the House of Yahweh. The other day a TM reporter was here doing a story on - what else - Knockers.

The reporter interviewed me because Mike Cochran quoted me in an earlier Associated Press article on Knockers as saying, "In Abilene, everything is a religious issue." Which is exactly what I said. How else can you explain how the letters to the editor debate over the appropriateness of a place called Knockers would evolve into a debate over the appropriateness of wearing shorts to church?

Anyway, look for the Texas Monthly rendition in a couple of months.

By the way, I told the TM reporter I wished the magazine would pay more attention to West Texas, and he said an upcoming issue is all about West Texas. I also told him we would like to see Abilene included in the roundups of restaurants and events.

Don't look for it to happen, though. Several years ago a TM editor explained that the magazine only lists cities served by Southwest Airlines. A curious reason, I thought then - and still do.

Line item veto

President Clinton struck out three provisions from the balanced budget and tax bill using the new powers of the line item veto. Now the matter of whether the president has the right to do that will probably face a constitutional challenge.

Of course he should have the power. Governors in 43 states have it, including the governor of Texas, and that doesn't make them all-powerful. But it does give the executive branch - which is, after all, responsible for administering government - a tool to be used in curbing legislative largesse.

The bottom line is that the president ought to be able to strike out measures he, or she, feels are not in the best interests of the country, cost too much, or whatever.

Someone needs to put the brakes on Congress, which is too easily influenced by powerful interests and by back-scratching trade-offs by legislators.

The line item veto levels the playing field. If anything, the president should have lined out a lot more items than he did.