I’ve written about bumpers before on various occasions, and I genuinely believe it is a good time to revisit them once again. Maybe it is time to consider them from a slightly different point of view or perspective. The government just loves regulating things, especially automobiles and the automotive industry. Yet, near as I can tell from what I’ve observed, they don’t seem to want to regulate bumpers very much at all.

There was a time when bumpers were engineered to absorb impacts—which, oddly enough, is where they derived their name. Over the years, designers increasingly chose to integrate lights into bumpers, and more recently, sensors and cameras. It’s worth noting that lights and sensors rank among the most fragile components on a vehicle.

My question for our engineers—one I’d like to present before Congress—is straightforward: why do they consistently place the vehicle’s most fragile components in the location most vulnerable to damage? Could financial incentives be driving this decision?

Regardless of whether this is the case or not, it has increased repair costs following accidents and, consequently, insurance premiums. To reduce insurance costs, we need to implement strict regulations prohibiting lights, sensors, and cameras on or near bumpers. While repair shops will likely object, this measure will bring down premium rates.

Truth be told, when you really think about it carefully, putting lights on bumpers honestly serves absolutely no practical purpose whatsoever, and truthfully, it doesn’t even enhance the appearance or look of a vehicle in any meaningful way. It’s just genuinely dumb and doesn’t make a lot of sense!

I never gave it much thought throughout my life. It’s neither important nor genuinely real. The distinction exists only in human perception.

I didn’t enjoy the “Kill Bill” movies—not a single one. I was pressured into watching them against my preference. Someone practically twisted my arm until I had no choice but to sit through them. I found no enjoyment in the experience whatsoever. To this day, I regret watching them.

However, those familiar with the series already understand the connection, particularly from the final movie. In that film, Bill explains it to us in considerable detail.

I’ll save you the trouble and give you the abbreviated version so you won’t have to endure the suffering I went through.

You see, Superman wears his costume as Clark Kent to conceal his true identity. As Superman, everyone sees who he really is. All the others wear costumes to hide who they are.

Aren’t you glad you learned that, if you didn’t already know it?

Way back then, they made a bad law for a good reason. A better-worded Fourteenth Amendment would have avoided the unintended consequences.

Nonetheless, it’s a simple solution. Just make a law: if the mother enters the country for this purpose, she pays by spending five to ten years in a federal prison followed by permanent deportation.

I don’t know. It might be a little extreme. However, if the law were enforced, it is likely that it wouldn’t need to be enforced all that often.

It is a form of government where, in its truest form, the majority vote rules. If that’s the case, you might expect the Democrats, if they genuinely believe in democracy, to make a concerted effort to ensure that voting is honest and free from fraud.

Yet, despite an 85% desire for laws ensuring valid votes, Democratic party leadership appears to oppose the measure. This seems strikingly ironic, given that such a law would likely pass by over 80% if put to a democratic vote.

It appears that Democratic party leaders are not particularly inclined to resolve matters democratically.