TheAgitator.com
Radio Ga-Ga
Thursday, December 4th, 2003Upcoming radio interviews w/ your favorite Agitator:
2:30pm ET today: The Dolans on WOR in New York City.
4:30pm ET today: The Andy Thomas Show, statewide in South Carolina.
8:45am ET Monday: WTIC FM in Hartford, CT.
My interview in Seattle this morning was interesting. I was debating the .08 BAC threshold with the host, who then brought on a guest — the Washington State president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. She then informed us that she had been hit by a drunk driver, was in a coma for a month, and lost a leg in the accident.
Tough way to start a debate.
Turns out, however, that the driver who hit her had a BAC of .26, and was an admitted alcoholic. Which sort of only proves the point that using law enforcement resources to man well-publicized roadblocks aimed at the .08 to .10 crowd is a misallocation of resources.
Alcoholics who regularly drive with a .26 BAC aren’t going to be dissuaded by newspaper articles letting them know there’s going to be a sobriety checkpoint at 5th and Elm this weekend. They’ll find another route home.
Rad-
I take it you pointed these things out to her, if gently?
Ever notice how the evidence never points their way, but they try and use it to their advantage anyway?
I would have no problem if you had told her the facts bluntly, rather than gently as another commenter suggested. The reason MADD uses victims and relatives of victims is two-fold: 1) in your sympathy for them you’re more likely to believe them and do as they say and 2) so that you’ll feel bad telling them that they’re wrong. It’s a very intentional effort on their part to stifle mature debate.
What if it just makes people feel better to support such laws regardless of the results, aren’t they entitled to that in a democracy?
If I feel better supporting a law that allows us to round up Japanese nationals and herd them into concentration camps on the West Coast, then that’s OK, regardless of the results?
John T. Kennedy: ‘What if it just makes people feel better to support such laws regardless of the results, aren’t they entitled to that in a democracy?’
The reason it’s not a good idea is due to the costs. Some states have rejected the federal funding that comes with the .08 law because it’s costs more to implement the changes (including road blocks, new cars, more troopers, etc.) than the money they receive from the federal government. What this translates into is marginal return on a huge expenditure of money that could be put to better use elsewhere or even a reduction in taxes.
Due to your ‘entitlements’ my generation, my kids’ generation and their kids’ generation is going to have to pay for the foul ups with Social Security, Medicare, and host of other entitlement benefits.
So the simple answer is NO PEOPLE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE RECKLESS SPENDING OF MONEY IN A DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!! I get just over half my paycheck due to assanine logic like yours. I guess the government should just borrow and spend to its heart’s content because people feel better, regardless of the fact that they are bankrupting my generation (I’m 29) and everyone younger than me!
God, I feel a deep sympathy for those that are injured by drunk drivers, but it seems that the american approach to any problem is punishment regardless of the expense, not only for the offender and his victims, but the families of both victim and offender.
It is obvious that our present methods of dealing with problems amounts to a jobs program for what is becoming a government growth program and is producing about the same results as prohibition and Elliot Ness.
Since alcoholism is a recognized disease and our treatment is punishment, think of what we could do to those that have HIV or cancer.
One more thing John T. Kennedy, as I keep having to remind people, we do NOT live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. In fact, I believe the word ‘democracy’ doesn’t even appear in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
What on earth do the Constitution or DOI have to do with the current US govt?
a simple re-design of the car, so that drivers lie down face first with their heads un protected, would enable us to do away with all alcohol and speed restrictions – drivers would take much more care about crashing, if a crash meant certain death for the driver.
“NO PEOPLE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE RECKLESS SPENDING OF MONEY IN A DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!”
Don’t we have a right to vote on that proposition?
“Dont we have a right to vote on that proposition”
John, what if we all voted to make you our bitch, would it be OK because we are a democracy and majority rules?
As James points out, it is important to remember we live in a republic. That means that although we elect representitives through a democratic process, a constitution ensures that the majority doesnt “vote” away the rights of the minority.
Kennedy: “Don’t we have a right to vote on that proposition?”
John, go ahead, take a few minutes the read the constitution one more time. Go ahead I’ll wait….
The answer is No. What the federal government can do is spelled out very clearly, but the gov today misuses and abuses the commerce clause to do whatever it feels like. Most of what the fed gov does today is clearly unconstitutional, but because of people like you, we are sinking into a black hole of debt. Thanks.
What the states can do is a little more murky, but clearly limited in scope in Article I. In addition, many of the provision in the surrounding drinking laws directly contradict the constitution- refusing a breathalyzer is protected under the fifth amendment and security check points are prohibited under the fourth.
Also, governments (in the US) are mandated, in the constitution, to improve the general welfare. What is being proposed is special interest, not the general welfare. Moreover, much of the research shows that this actually hurts the general welfare due to the cost. Wealth is squandered using your logic, that could otherwise save many more lives and generally improve the public.
But Ken, all three branches of government of your repblic agree that it’s perfectly constitutional. Aren’t they empowered to decide that?
Devin,
So nobody’s rights are being voted away?
John,
No with that type of attitude the three branches could get together and decide to do whatever they want. So no they are not empowered to do whatever they want.
Now we have activist judges who find rights of all kinds in many places in the Constitution not intended for the judgements they pass. The authors of the Constitution wrote it clearly and precisely because they knew of the governments propensity to garner more power and money from its population. Legislators, judges, presidents and all sorts of beauracrats seem to think all words have more than one meaning, so a document can mean anything they want it to.
This is clearly wrong to anyone that’s completed elementary school, since we are all taught that most words have specific meanings particularly in legal documents. The problem is with the public, in general, for letting this happen to begin with and accepting this type of governmental activism. But I don’t know how to explain that to people when many think like you- if all three branches agree, it must be okay and constitutional.
What if the legislature introduced a law to prevent reporting any damaging news about the military. Now due to security concerns about terrorism, our president might sign it into law and thinking this might be a good step towards security, the Supreme Court decides the law should stay in place. I think we could all agree this would be unconstitutional, but you seem to think it would be okay. Why? Why would you be so willing to give up any freedoms you have because a group of about 500 people said it’s okay?
“What if the legislature introduced a law to prevent reporting any damaging news about the military. Now due to security concerns about terrorism, our president might sign it into law and thinking this might be a good step towards security, the Supreme Court decides the law should stay in place. I think we could all agree this would be unconstitutional, but you seem to think it would be okay. Why? Why would you be so willing to give up any freedoms you have because a group of about 500 people said it’s okay? ”
It would be entirely consistent with the constitution because it flows from the same premises. You are ignoring the moral contradictions in the constitution itself. Anything can be logically derived from accepted contradictory premises.
From where did the framers derive the moral authority to tax for instance? Is it moral for the majority to take your property for the common good?
The constitution says yes, and from that there’s really no difficulty getting to spend it on any damn thing people want.
buy xenical Xen-770009122-345566