Why can’t a simple car rental go smoothly? It would, if the clerk didn’t push the auto insurance, and if the customer would merely ignore the clerk’s guilt-ridden pitch.

Sadly, I fell for the ploy recently, and have been kicking myself every since. Twenty bucks a day for insurance I simply did not need. I left the counter in a sour and surly mood. Not the way to start a mini-vacation.

I was naïve enough to think that the chirpy face behind the counter would process my application quickly and painlessly. Just as it seemed we were wrapping up, she hit me with the pitch.

After inquiring about my deductible (I have Comp and Collision), she claimed that they’d come after my insurance company anyway in the event of an accident, regardless of who is at fault. So there I was standing at an airport rental agency counter with a million things on my mind—none of them related to renting a blasted car for three days—trying to digest this woman’s self-centered sales pitch.

Those insurance plans are useful for people without the proper insurance on their vehicles. At a minimum, they can provide peace of mind. But they also are profit generators for the car rental firms and a source of commission for the clerks.

I’m still steamed about the incident several days later. So much so that I vowed never to do business with Enterprise Rent-A-Car again. Not entirely fair to that company, to be sure—all rental agencies push the blasted auto insurance—but I will forever associate Enterprise with the bad experience I had at an airport rental office recently.

Moral of the story: Stand your ground when pressured by pushy, commission-based salespeople. Don’t buy something you don’t need, or you’ll regret it for a very long time.

It’s bad enough that we have to deal with police cameras on street corners watching our every legal move and the NSA monitoring our phone calls and e-mails. Now we learn that the U.S. Department of Transportation is trying to crack down on one of the country’s most pressing problems: people who don’t wear seat belts.

You read it right: An agency of the federal government is wasting precious tax dollars to try and convince drivers and riders to buckle up.

You may have heard the radio ads. The announcer talks about how police officers are cracking down on this (allegedly terrible) problem. “Click it or ticket,” the stern-voiced announcer admonishes. In one ad, a cop lets his buddy off with a warning for not using his turn signal (yeah, right), then hands him a ticket for not wearing a seat belt.

It’s obvious someone at the D.O.T. has either forgotten about or has chosen to totally ignore the fact that traffic matters are a local concern. Incidentally, the ads—and the laws they are trying to get you to comply with—aren’t found on the books in every state.

Wisconsin, for example, has a seat belt law, but thankfully the law has not be elevated to primary status, which would permit cops to ticket merely for that. Instead, they are supposed to find some other reason to stop you, then hand you an additional $10 ticket if you’re not doing what the nosy state lawmakers want you to do.

It’s time for voters to draw a line in the cement, and say, “No more!” We’ve had it with heavy-handed politicians crimping our freedoms in the name of watching out for our best interests. One of the hallmarks of a free nation is its citizens’ freedom to make bad decisions. People who refuse to wear seat belts (and helmets, for that matter) hurt only themselves. Don’t let the insurance companies or nosy politicians tell you otherwise.

The election this Fall is a good time to toss out those politicians who refuse to let us remain free.

An interesting night at the Toastmasters meeting the other night.

We decided to change the routine a bit and offer a debate format. Two 2-person teams were selected to present arguments on a rather heady topic: whether Wisconsin lawmakers should lower the state’s minimum age for hunters from 12 to 8. I was on the “affirmative” side, meaning I had to argue in favor of lowering the requirement.

This was the first time I had participated in a debate of any sort, and it was a fascinating exercise. It also proved to be a great learning experience. A couple tips for your next debate:

BE PREPARED.

Seems pretty obvious, but I witnessed a debate one evening in which most of the participants seemed to wing it. Not good.

Regardless of whether your position is the popular one–or seemingly the correct one–you can find data to support your arguments. Thanks to the World Wide Web, nearly all the world’s information is at your fingertips. Take the time to research your topic, and develop a solid base of information. Compile the necessary facts, figures, dates, quotes, and other relevant data.

Use this information to support your argument, and be specific. “Soda is bad for children” becomes “Studies have shown that a diet heavy in carbonated beverages leads to tooth decay, obesity, and the onset of Type 2 diabetes. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University, for example,….”

See the difference? Use established facts to support an argument.

LISTEN CAREFULLY, AND TAKE GO NOTES DURING DEBATE.

The second half of a debate offers participants the chance to rebut the opposing side’s arguments. But you don’t know precisely what the other side will offer until those members get up to speak. So you’ll have little time to compose your rebuttal.

It’s critical that you pay attention and take notes while your opponents are speaking. Avoid the natural tendency to daydream, look around the room (or out the window), doodle, or whatever else you’re inclined to do. You must remain focused.

Compile an outline or short list of the opponents’ arguments, and scribble a few notes of counter argument for each. When you’re called upon to give your rebuttal, you tick off the list you’ve compiled. Give the other side’s arguments, and provide a response. Much of that may just be repeating what you gave in your opening remarks, but in some cases you’ll offer new facts.

Finish strongly with a call to action. (“We must pass this legislation now!”) Leave ‘em in awe at your presentation and your passion.

Even if your side doesn’t win, it’s a tremendous feeling to have participated. And the skills you develop will make you a more confident speaker inside and outside the workplace.

The race-baiters are circling the wagons again. This time they're defending Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the firebrand radical who represents Georgia's 4th district.

As most of the world knows by now, McKinney has run into some serious legal trouble for taking a swipe at a Capitol police officer last Wednesday. McKinney had entered a House office building without her House ID badge. After flying through the security checkpoint, the officer on duty ordered her to stop several times. She didn't. Eventually the officer approached her to make a stop. When he placed his hand on her, McKinney swung around and smacked him.

Naturally the Capitol Police Department is a bit peeved at having one of its officers assaulted. But more importantly, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the anthrax scares later, security agencies in and around Washington are naturally on a higher level of alert. You can only imagine what could have happened had McKinney been a terrorist or even a garden-variety killer.

McKinney and her fellow travelers are playing the race card in hopes that the police department will cave. Fat chance. Instead, the PD has forwarded its report to the U.S. attorney's office with a recommendation that charges be filed.

It's highly unlikely that much will come of this, which is unfortunate. McKinney--and other arrogant people like her--have to be reminded that just because they make the laws doesn't mean they are above the law. If she were Jane Q. Public she'd be thrown in the clink in a heartbeat.

Perhaps the law as administered in Washington D.C. will be blind in this case. But don't hold your breath.

Get this. On a whim one day–OK, I'm working on a project–I decide to look up the word "mother" in my trusty Living Webster dictionary. The good book offers several obvious definitions, such as:

"The female who gives birth to a child."

"A female parent."

"Something that gives rise to, or exercises protective care over something else." (A bit utilitarian for me, though I can see how the authors meant for this to apply to both the human and animal kingdoms.)

And,

"The qualities characteristic of a mother." (Now, doesn't that say it all?)

But then the book offers this definition of mother. It's in a separate section immediately below.

"A thick slimy substance composed of bacteria that gathers on the surface of fermenting liquids and produces fermentation, especially in changing wine or cider to vinegar."

I understand that science needs access to the language just like every other discipline. But you’d think that practitioners would use a little discretion, or at least common sense, when crafting words for their use. Indeed, that’s the key: create a new word. Or at a minimum, don’t use one that has such a meaning and a place in our lives. If they must use a word pertaining to humans, why not “boss”? I’m sure many people would swear their bosses are a “slimy substance.” Geez. Don’t pick on Mom.

For all you English majors and students of Bill Buckley, Jr.: Yes, I know the word “mother” has foreign roots (German, according to my book). And although it’s pronounced the same whether used to talk about your parent or your petri dish, I imagine that the German root word was either spelled or pronounced differently. So perhaps the current definition doesn’t reflect changes over time.

Even so, you’d think someone–perhaps at a famous winery–would step forward with a new term the scientists can use. And allow “mother” to retain its rightful place in our hearts.