^Great, now convince a 60 year old doctor with his own small practice and 8 to a dozen employees why he needs to spend thousands getting that all set up
You must be working for the Government if you think it costs thousands of dollars to set up a small office VPN.
This is actually not a bad idea as long as it's modified to not be mandatory. At the very least, they should be an option you can have the dealer put in. If you are like me and go to the occasional happy hour, it'd be nice to know when I was legal to drive (vs. impaired, because I know when I'm impaired)
Hey, if you want to put an interlock system into your car there isn't any law that's stopping you from doing so. Personally if I was worried about it I'd buy my own breathalyzer before I'd put an interlock system on the car. Why place something into your car that may fail and leave you stranded somewhere?
I didn't know that 2 drinks put you over the legal limit, but it does.
Umm, you either weigh 100 pounds or were drinking everclear? My personal cut off for when I'd agree to a breath test is two drinks (regular drinks, i.e: 12oz beer or 5oz of wine). Anything more than that and you are risking being on the wrong side of 0.08 or at least close enough to it that the margin of error on the breathalyzer is going to screw you.
However, your comment above about how many times do you wish there was a cop around when you see it holds the answer. If you see a drunk driving dangerously, and there's not a cop there, then CALL ONE! I've done this several times, and the officers are always appreciative.
Umm, I've done it twice and I've gotten the attitude of "Why are you bothering us?" They take down all of the information (where's he headed, what's his plate number, etc) and don't do anything about it. I'm not inclined to try and follow the jackass because you never know who or what you are dealing with. It's probably just some drunk trying to stumble his way home but what if you've run across some violent asshole who is high on PCP or god knows what else? Personally I'd rather not wind up in the situation where I'd have to defend my life against the threat of deadly force.
I agree the registries are an affront, because what it says is that we can't protect your kids from the predators, because we can't distinguish between a 15-17 year olds screwing for fun and perverts, because some judge couldn't figure out that 23 year olds shouldn't be fucking 15 year olds.
My issue with them is that we've abrogated the concept of paying your debt to society. It's my belief that when you get out of prison and off parole (if you were on it) that your civil rights should be restored and you should be treated as a productive member of society. I'm not real thrilled with the concept of a scarlet letter.
That said, I do recognize that some of these people pose a significant risk to society. To me though that begs the question of why are they getting out of prison in the first place? Lock the perverts in jail and throw away the key -- then this whole discussion about registries becomes moot, doesn't it? Hell, I'd even support the death penalty for the hardcore sickos. If you are handing out candy to the eight year old down the street so you can molest him/her then society ought to put you out of our collective misery.
Confidentiality is very, very important to businesses and individuals, even more so in the Internet age. One of the reasons to continue to operate your own infrastructure, no matter what the current hype is.
More to the point, some of his reasoning seems questionable. "Google Apps is easy to use from home" Yeah, and your point is? Never heard of a VPN? Never heard of remote desktop/terminal services/Citrix? It's not like they are particularly complicated these days. Hell, if you choose a vendor neutral solution with an accepted standard (IPSec) you might not even need to install any extra software on the clients.
and you can sue google without a eula type contract.
You can sue the IT guy with a grudge too but that won't help you to recover your business reputation or lost clients after a data breach. Why the hell does everybody look at something and think that "we can sue them!" is some sort of plus anyway? I'd rather avoid being in the position of having to decide whether or not to file a lawsuit altogether, thank you very much.
I've already explained what could satisfy me. Police officers on patrol looking for drivers who are actually impaired. Not harassing them with high beams until they show "impairment", not subjecting citizens who haven't even been drinking to random roadblocks and not harassing people for visiting a legal establishment. I would also have no problem with severe punishments for people whom actually drive drunk and cause property damage or personal injury to another. The current penalties for doing so are a sad joke.
Guidelines enforced by cops. So instead, they'll harass you and then jail you without evidence.
Such a system would be better than a system where you get jailed and have no chance to clear your name because the breath machine with the 0.02 margin of error had you at 0.081. In the current system you are going to lose your case at trial in spite of the inaccuracy of the machine. Under a system where the guidelines were enforced by the police you'd at least have a chance to face your accuser -- not a rubber stamp session where a inaccurate machine that can't be cross-examined is the only thing "testifying" against you.
b) Guidelines based on some other hard metric based on "reaction time". So instead, they'll harass you, then test you, just like they do today using BAC testers.
Such a system would be as flawed as the current one (in that you wouldn't be able to cross examine your accuser) but at least the metric would be based on something that's actually likely to relate to your driving skills. Thus, this wouldn't be my first choice but it would still be better than what we have.
Because according to most studies that line represents the point at which the impairment begins to cause accidents. And I didn't advocate for them to sit outside the bar and randomly breath test people -- I advocated for them to be on patrol looking for people who are driving poorly.
The NMA says it more eloquently than I can. Try to open your closed mind and read their position paper on the issue. Then maybe we can have a rational discussion about the issue.
Or would you rather non-whites and young men be disproportionately arrested for impaired driving based solely on the judgment of a racist beat cop?
I was wondering what would happen first in this discussion -- a Godwin or the race card. I bet someone a beer that you'd pull out a Nazi analogy first. Guess I was wrong.
Because the ineffective law applies the same to everyone.
Fixed that for you.
But the minute a charge is pressed, the charge itself should be based on hard data
You mean the hard data collected by breathalyzers with an error margin of 25% of the legal BAC limit (0.02 of 0.08) and influenced by factors ranging from diet to medical conditions to the air temperature when the test is conducted? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
But note, the original poster's complaint, and the one that set me off, was about cops standing outside a bar and then harassing people so they could catch them and test them, and his claiming that the cops were somehow exceeding their authority
I never claimed that you ignorant fuckwad. My original statement related to the effectiveness of such a strategy. Here's what I said:
Statistics show that the overwhelming majority of accidents caused by drinking are caused by people with BACs of 0.15 or higher. Instead of paroling the roadways looking for these drivers (who are usually swerving all over the road -- how many times have you seen this with no police anywhere to be seen?) the police tend to sit outside bars and pull everybody over, looking for those who blow a hair over 0.08. These people are then arrested regardless of whether or not they show signs of actual impairment.
As this person said, you then barged in with "that's the law! If you break it you should go to jail!" Real helpful, that.
Ultimately, they leave the judgment in the hands of the cop, and that's a *bad* thing.
Leaving judgment in the hands of police officers is a bad thing? So you'd be in favor of pulling over everybody who exceeds the speed limit by 1 mph?
We use hard lines in law for one simple reason: it makes enforcement and judgment simple and fair.
Please explain how it's "fair" that you get to go home at 0.079 and get the metal bracelets at 0.08? This is particularly ironic given the fact that most of the breathalyzers out there are only accurate to within 0.02.
Please explain how it's "fair" that you get a $100 fine and no criminal record if you possess 25 grams of weed in New York State but get a misdemeanor charge with jail time if you possess 25.1 grams?
There's nothing fair about hard lines in law. They oversimplify the problems that we face and remove the ability to exercise discretion from our law enforcement officers, judges and district attorneys. They serve no valid purpose other than to let some jackass politician claim that he's being "tough on crime".
Again, I never argued that cops should be allowed to arbitrarily harass anyone they want.
No, just people who have the audacity to drive on the public roadways or visit a legal establishment. Everybody else is free from arbitrary harassment. That's some great logic you've got there.
The magic number is necessary to prevent abuse of the law by corrupt law enforcement officials.
They are ALREADY abusing the law! Ever been pulled over for "crossing the line" just because you pulled out of a parking lot shared with a bar? Ever had a fucking police car follow you for ten miles with his goddamn high beams in your mirror trying to intimidate you into screwing up? Ever know anybody that this has happened to?
I bet you also think it's ok that we have "implied consent" laws too, in spite of the plain language of the 4th amendment. You probably buy the bullshit argument that driving isn't a right but a privilege that's doled out by Mommy and Daddy at the DMV. Your attitude is exactly why we surrender our civil rights every single time a politician plays the fear card. Are you also in favor of pulling old women out of the airport security line and banning bottled water or are you only willing to surrender your civil rights on the subject of drunk driving?
Enjoy the police and nanny state -- people like you helped to make it possible. I'm sure you'll be "safe" though.
As an example, those roadblocks I referred to involve the cops quickly asking questions of the driver.
Uhh huh. And maybe I don't want to talk to the fucking cops just so I can drive down the street. That thought ever occur to you?
But that doesn't mean that checking people after they've left a bar is a fundamentally bad idea.
Yes, it does. As I said earlier they have no way to know if the person leaving the bar consumed zero drinks or twenty. So they harass everybody. Guilty until proven innocent. God bless America.....
Or are you really arguing that BAC limits qualify as "dumb laws"?
That's exactly what I'm arguing but you are too dense to listen to it. The singular focus on 0.08 has reduced the effectiveness of our campaign to reduce drunk driving. The limit needs to be higher (0.15 is a good number) and the focus should be more on watching for impairment and less on that magical number.
Oh ffs, if 3/4 of the police force is busy at a roadblock, then something *far* more retarded is going on. Honestly, what municipality is stupid enough to take 75% of their police force and dedicate them to a single roadblock?
I guess you've never lived in a small town, have you? When your entire 2nd shift force consists of four guys and three cars it's going to take virtually all of it to man a roadblock.
That said, I have a *significant* problem with a police force that so incompetently allocates it's resources that it's unable to otherwise do it's job patrolling the streets.
As I said earlier, every cop that you station outside the bar or on a roadblock is one less cop that can patrol the roadways. It doesn't really matter how many resources you have. The most effective way to deploy them is to have them out on patrol. Roadblocks are not a good way to catch drunks (most of the arrests at a roadblock aren't even for drunk driving) and sitting outside the bar harassing every single person who leaves isn't effective either.
The latter is particularly infuriating because they have no way to know if the person getting behind the wheel is a DD or is just coming off a 20 shot binge drinking episode. So they follow everybody and harass you with bright lights and tailgating until you screw up and they can pull you over. Or they just make something up ("drifted across yellow line") and pull you over without even waiting for you to screw up. Frankly I think it's harassment and I'm disgusted by the fact that you apparently regard it as an effective way to combat drunk driving.
So... you would rather they wait until the drivers are on the street
Yes, I would. A family member of mine was run over and murdered by a drunk driver who hadn't even gone to a bar that night. He was on his way to the gas station for a beer run with a BAC that exceeded 0.20, swerving all over the place according to witnesses. He ran her over on the fucking sidewalk and kept going on his beer run. The police tracked him down later by following the trail of broken road signs and fences. That's how badly he was driving.
On that particular night nearly three quarters of the local on duty police force was stationed at a nearby bar, manning a roadblock. Perhaps if they had been out patrolling instead of harassing people (the vast majority of which weren't intoxicated or even going to said bar) they would have caught this asshole before someone died? It's not like he was being particularly subtle. It was obvious that he had no business on the roadway. Too bad there wasn't any law enforcement around to catch him.
Go do some research on your own. The facts are all there for anybody with an open mind. Most accidents involving alcohol that result in injury or death were caused by drivers with a BAC of 0.15 or higher. The vast majority of the statistics that come from the Government are lies and distortions. My favorite one is the one that says half of all automobile accidents involve alcohol. Guess how they arrive at that number? They include passengers who had alcohol in their systems even if the drivers involved were completely sober.
China has missiles that will turn those aircraft carriers you mentioned a few posts back into so much scrap iron
I really wish the people who keep repeating this line would bother to educate themselves about Naval warfare. The most important aspect of Naval warfare isn't the weapons systems that you have or even the number of ships at your disposal. The most important aspect (see the Battle of Midway if you doubt this) is locating the enemy before he locates you. Those missiles are useless if you don't know where the carrier is. So how do you find it?
Satellites aren't the magical talismans that people think they are -- radar ones can be jammed and/or decoyed with radar reflectors/blip enhancers. Photo ones can be rendered moot by cloud cover. IR ones can be decoyed with IR lures, flares and firepots. All types are limited by orbital mechanics. It's possible for a warship to steam a course that avoids coming into the line of sight of enemy satellites, although it obviously limits where you can go and your freedom of action. Satellites can also be shot down during a shooting war.
Other platforms that can locate the carrier have their own drawbacks. Submarines can't easily communicate with base without risking detection. They also have a hard time keeping up with an aircraft carrier without losing sonar effectiveness and/or risking detection. Surface ships and aircraft will be detected and engaged before they can get close enough to locate the task force. It really isn't as easy to locate or engage an American carrier battle group as most of the armchair warriors on the internet seem to think.
And before you go talking about the vaunted missile defenses these things have, you should be aware that those won't function against ballistic missiles.
I have been through quite a few roadblocks, and never actually tested. It is simply a way to plain sight search everybody on the road (this is probably worse). In fact they brag that they brag about how less than half of their infractions are drunk driving some times.
I think you've explained for the rest of us why allowing police roadblocks is a bad idea. Roadblocks are something that most people associate with dictatorships or countries under military occupation. The fact that American citizens have to be interrogated by the police to use the public roadways that we've paid for is a national disgrace.
A plane goes down with Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on board. Who is saved?
Nice:)
Enjoy the -1, troll that is coming your way though. Next time if you want to ensure a +5 funny make the exact same joke with "George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Dennis Hastert"
So, my argument, is really, yeah, we could probably kick North Korea's rear if we wanted too, but, the price of admission to that ring is a larger war with China, and that, my friend, does not seem worth it.
I've never argued that we should go to war with North Korea, although I question that the Chinese would get involved. They do like having North Korea around as a buffer but they've lost patience with them as of late and I don't think they view the buffer as important enough to go to war with their most important trading partner.
But either way, no, the price of admission is not worth it. We should go to war with them if needed to protect the Japanese or South Koreans. Other than that we should let them rot on the vine and refuse to be intimidated by their antics.
I've never had a problem smoking while driving. Friends have commented that i'm a better driver while stoned and i've done some double blind video tape tests of myself doing things stoned showing I am actually more coordinated
That reminds me of a joke I heard a long time ago:
What's the difference between a drunk driver and a stoned driver? The drunk driver runs right through the stop sign without even looking. The stoned driver stops at the stop sign and waits for it to turn green.
Good, they should be. Why? Because *they're breaking the fucking law*.
Oh, take your self-righteousness and shove it up your ass. Ever heard the expression "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."? Everybody breaks a law everyday in this country. It is impossible to be aware of every single local/state and federal law/regulation. You think your special? Think again asshole -- if they want to get you for something they will find a way to do so.
But if you drive with a BAC over the legal limit, whatever that limit is, then you're breaking the law and you deserve to be thrown in jail. Period.
Thanks for ignoring the points I made about how such a system is completely ineffective at stopping the drunk drivers who are actually killing innocent people. Every single police officer sitting outside the community bar or manning a roadblock is one less police officer that could be patrolling the streets looking for impaired drivers who are swerving all over the place or actual criminals intent on doing something far worse than driving under the influence.
You may think it's just fine and dandy that they sit outside bars and arrest every poor slob who blows a cunt hair over 0.08 but such a system is completely counterproductive if the goal is to save lives and get the real drunks off the streets. Of course if the goal is to put a large number of people into the criminal justice system and make money for the insurance companies, well, mission accomplished.
Unfortunately, the disproportionate political influence they gained from fighting for their earlier, more generally supported, cause is often maintained far longer than it ought to be
MADD's political influence is maintained because coming out against drunk driving is about the easiest thing a politician can do to demonstrate that he "gets it" and is "thinking about the children". About the only thing that's more effective than pandering to MADD is passing more laws against "sex offenders".
Roaming offtopic here, but that's another issue that has gone way out of control. It started with the laudable goal of protecting our children from the real predators of the world (there actually are some....) and has since morphed into a system that forces a 17 year old to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. WTF is wrong with that picture? Here's a novel idea: Lock up the real kiddie rapists for life and throw away the key (kinda renders all those discussions about registries a moot point, doesn't it?) and leave the poor 17 year old out of the criminal justice system.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have been drinking, you should not get behind the wheel of a car PERIOD. I don't give a flying flip what your BAC is.
I'll remember to tell my girlfriend that the next time she takes communion.....
^Great, now convince a 60 year old doctor with his own small practice and 8 to a dozen employees why he needs to spend thousands getting that all set up
You must be working for the Government if you think it costs thousands of dollars to set up a small office VPN.
This is actually not a bad idea as long as it's modified to not be mandatory. At the very least, they should be an option you can have the dealer put in. If you are like me and go to the occasional happy hour, it'd be nice to know when I was legal to drive (vs. impaired, because I know when I'm impaired)
Hey, if you want to put an interlock system into your car there isn't any law that's stopping you from doing so. Personally if I was worried about it I'd buy my own breathalyzer before I'd put an interlock system on the car. Why place something into your car that may fail and leave you stranded somewhere?
I didn't know that 2 drinks put you over the legal limit, but it does.
Umm, you either weigh 100 pounds or were drinking everclear? My personal cut off for when I'd agree to a breath test is two drinks (regular drinks, i.e: 12oz beer or 5oz of wine). Anything more than that and you are risking being on the wrong side of 0.08 or at least close enough to it that the margin of error on the breathalyzer is going to screw you.
However, your comment above about how many times do you wish there was a cop around when you see it holds the answer. If you see a drunk driving dangerously, and there's not a cop there, then CALL ONE! I've done this several times, and the officers are always appreciative.
Umm, I've done it twice and I've gotten the attitude of "Why are you bothering us?" They take down all of the information (where's he headed, what's his plate number, etc) and don't do anything about it. I'm not inclined to try and follow the jackass because you never know who or what you are dealing with. It's probably just some drunk trying to stumble his way home but what if you've run across some violent asshole who is high on PCP or god knows what else? Personally I'd rather not wind up in the situation where I'd have to defend my life against the threat of deadly force.
I agree the registries are an affront, because what it says is that we can't protect your kids from the predators, because we can't distinguish between a 15-17 year olds screwing for fun and perverts, because some judge couldn't figure out that 23 year olds shouldn't be fucking 15 year olds.
My issue with them is that we've abrogated the concept of paying your debt to society. It's my belief that when you get out of prison and off parole (if you were on it) that your civil rights should be restored and you should be treated as a productive member of society. I'm not real thrilled with the concept of a scarlet letter.
That said, I do recognize that some of these people pose a significant risk to society. To me though that begs the question of why are they getting out of prison in the first place? Lock the perverts in jail and throw away the key -- then this whole discussion about registries becomes moot, doesn't it? Hell, I'd even support the death penalty for the hardcore sickos. If you are handing out candy to the eight year old down the street so you can molest him/her then society ought to put you out of our collective misery.
Confidentiality is very, very important to businesses and individuals, even more so in the Internet age. One of the reasons to continue to operate your own infrastructure, no matter what the current hype is.
More to the point, some of his reasoning seems questionable. "Google Apps is easy to use from home" Yeah, and your point is? Never heard of a VPN? Never heard of remote desktop/terminal services/Citrix? It's not like they are particularly complicated these days. Hell, if you choose a vendor neutral solution with an accepted standard (IPSec) you might not even need to install any extra software on the clients.
and you can sue google without a eula type contract.
You can sue the IT guy with a grudge too but that won't help you to recover your business reputation or lost clients after a data breach. Why the hell does everybody look at something and think that "we can sue them!" is some sort of plus anyway? I'd rather avoid being in the position of having to decide whether or not to file a lawsuit altogether, thank you very much.
I've already explained what could satisfy me. Police officers on patrol looking for drivers who are actually impaired. Not harassing them with high beams until they show "impairment", not subjecting citizens who haven't even been drinking to random roadblocks and not harassing people for visiting a legal establishment. I would also have no problem with severe punishments for people whom actually drive drunk and cause property damage or personal injury to another. The current penalties for doing so are a sad joke.
Guidelines enforced by cops. So instead, they'll harass you and then jail you without evidence.
Such a system would be better than a system where you get jailed and have no chance to clear your name because the breath machine with the 0.02 margin of error had you at 0.081. In the current system you are going to lose your case at trial in spite of the inaccuracy of the machine. Under a system where the guidelines were enforced by the police you'd at least have a chance to face your accuser -- not a rubber stamp session where a inaccurate machine that can't be cross-examined is the only thing "testifying" against you.
b) Guidelines based on some other hard metric based on "reaction time". So instead, they'll harass you, then test you, just like they do today using BAC testers.
Such a system would be as flawed as the current one (in that you wouldn't be able to cross examine your accuser) but at least the metric would be based on something that's actually likely to relate to your driving skills. Thus, this wouldn't be my first choice but it would still be better than what we have.
Because according to most studies that line represents the point at which the impairment begins to cause accidents. And I didn't advocate for them to sit outside the bar and randomly breath test people -- I advocated for them to be on patrol looking for people who are driving poorly.
The NMA says it more eloquently than I can. Try to open your closed mind and read their position paper on the issue. Then maybe we can have a rational discussion about the issue.
Or would you rather non-whites and young men be disproportionately arrested for impaired driving based solely on the judgment of a racist beat cop?
I was wondering what would happen first in this discussion -- a Godwin or the race card. I bet someone a beer that you'd pull out a Nazi analogy first. Guess I was wrong.
Because the ineffective law applies the same to everyone.
Fixed that for you.
But the minute a charge is pressed, the charge itself should be based on hard data
You mean the hard data collected by breathalyzers with an error margin of 25% of the legal BAC limit (0.02 of 0.08) and influenced by factors ranging from diet to medical conditions to the air temperature when the test is conducted? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
But note, the original poster's complaint, and the one that set me off, was about cops standing outside a bar and then harassing people so they could catch them and test them, and his claiming that the cops were somehow exceeding their authority
I never claimed that you ignorant fuckwad. My original statement related to the effectiveness of such a strategy. Here's what I said:
Statistics show that the overwhelming majority of accidents caused by drinking are caused by people with BACs of 0.15 or higher. Instead of paroling the roadways looking for these drivers (who are usually swerving all over the road -- how many times have you seen this with no police anywhere to be seen?) the police tend to sit outside bars and pull everybody over, looking for those who blow a hair over 0.08. These people are then arrested regardless of whether or not they show signs of actual impairment.
As this person said, you then barged in with "that's the law! If you break it you should go to jail!" Real helpful, that.
Ultimately, they leave the judgment in the hands of the cop, and that's a *bad* thing.
Leaving judgment in the hands of police officers is a bad thing? So you'd be in favor of pulling over everybody who exceeds the speed limit by 1 mph?
We use hard lines in law for one simple reason: it makes enforcement and judgment simple and fair.
Please explain how it's "fair" that you get to go home at 0.079 and get the metal bracelets at 0.08? This is particularly ironic given the fact that most of the breathalyzers out there are only accurate to within 0.02.
Please explain how it's "fair" that you get a $100 fine and no criminal record if you possess 25 grams of weed in New York State but get a misdemeanor charge with jail time if you possess 25.1 grams?
There's nothing fair about hard lines in law. They oversimplify the problems that we face and remove the ability to exercise discretion from our law enforcement officers, judges and district attorneys. They serve no valid purpose other than to let some jackass politician claim that he's being "tough on crime".
Again, I never argued that cops should be allowed to arbitrarily harass anyone they want.
No, just people who have the audacity to drive on the public roadways or visit a legal establishment. Everybody else is free from arbitrary harassment. That's some great logic you've got there.
It's just your single minded little brain
Go fuck yourself.
The magic number is necessary to prevent abuse of the law by corrupt law enforcement officials.
They are ALREADY abusing the law! Ever been pulled over for "crossing the line" just because you pulled out of a parking lot shared with a bar? Ever had a fucking police car follow you for ten miles with his goddamn high beams in your mirror trying to intimidate you into screwing up? Ever know anybody that this has happened to?
I bet you also think it's ok that we have "implied consent" laws too, in spite of the plain language of the 4th amendment. You probably buy the bullshit argument that driving isn't a right but a privilege that's doled out by Mommy and Daddy at the DMV. Your attitude is exactly why we surrender our civil rights every single time a politician plays the fear card. Are you also in favor of pulling old women out of the airport security line and banning bottled water or are you only willing to surrender your civil rights on the subject of drunk driving?
Enjoy the police and nanny state -- people like you helped to make it possible. I'm sure you'll be "safe" though.
As an example, those roadblocks I referred to involve the cops quickly asking questions of the driver.
Uhh huh. And maybe I don't want to talk to the fucking cops just so I can drive down the street. That thought ever occur to you?
But that doesn't mean that checking people after they've left a bar is a fundamentally bad idea.
Yes, it does. As I said earlier they have no way to know if the person leaving the bar consumed zero drinks or twenty. So they harass everybody. Guilty until proven innocent. God bless America.....
Or are you really arguing that BAC limits qualify as "dumb laws"?
That's exactly what I'm arguing but you are too dense to listen to it. The singular focus on 0.08 has reduced the effectiveness of our campaign to reduce drunk driving. The limit needs to be higher (0.15 is a good number) and the focus should be more on watching for impairment and less on that magical number.
Oh ffs, if 3/4 of the police force is busy at a roadblock, then something *far* more retarded is going on. Honestly, what municipality is stupid enough to take 75% of their police force and dedicate them to a single roadblock?
I guess you've never lived in a small town, have you? When your entire 2nd shift force consists of four guys and three cars it's going to take virtually all of it to man a roadblock.
That said, I have a *significant* problem with a police force that so incompetently allocates it's resources that it's unable to otherwise do it's job patrolling the streets.
As I said earlier, every cop that you station outside the bar or on a roadblock is one less cop that can patrol the roadways. It doesn't really matter how many resources you have. The most effective way to deploy them is to have them out on patrol. Roadblocks are not a good way to catch drunks (most of the arrests at a roadblock aren't even for drunk driving) and sitting outside the bar harassing every single person who leaves isn't effective either.
The latter is particularly infuriating because they have no way to know if the person getting behind the wheel is a DD or is just coming off a 20 shot binge drinking episode. So they follow everybody and harass you with bright lights and tailgating until you screw up and they can pull you over. Or they just make something up ("drifted across yellow line") and pull you over without even waiting for you to screw up. Frankly I think it's harassment and I'm disgusted by the fact that you apparently regard it as an effective way to combat drunk driving.
So... you would rather they wait until the drivers are on the street
Yes, I would. A family member of mine was run over and murdered by a drunk driver who hadn't even gone to a bar that night. He was on his way to the gas station for a beer run with a BAC that exceeded 0.20, swerving all over the place according to witnesses. He ran her over on the fucking sidewalk and kept going on his beer run. The police tracked him down later by following the trail of broken road signs and fences. That's how badly he was driving.
On that particular night nearly three quarters of the local on duty police force was stationed at a nearby bar, manning a roadblock. Perhaps if they had been out patrolling instead of harassing people (the vast majority of which weren't intoxicated or even going to said bar) they would have caught this asshole before someone died? It's not like he was being particularly subtle. It was obvious that he had no business on the roadway. Too bad there wasn't any law enforcement around to catch him.
Go do some research on your own. The facts are all there for anybody with an open mind. Most accidents involving alcohol that result in injury or death were caused by drivers with a BAC of 0.15 or higher. The vast majority of the statistics that come from the Government are lies and distortions. My favorite one is the one that says half of all automobile accidents involve alcohol. Guess how they arrive at that number? They include passengers who had alcohol in their systems even if the drivers involved were completely sober.
Also, fuck you.
China has missiles that will turn those aircraft carriers you mentioned a few posts back into so much scrap iron
I really wish the people who keep repeating this line would bother to educate themselves about Naval warfare. The most important aspect of Naval warfare isn't the weapons systems that you have or even the number of ships at your disposal. The most important aspect (see the Battle of Midway if you doubt this) is locating the enemy before he locates you. Those missiles are useless if you don't know where the carrier is. So how do you find it?
Satellites aren't the magical talismans that people think they are -- radar ones can be jammed and/or decoyed with radar reflectors/blip enhancers. Photo ones can be rendered moot by cloud cover. IR ones can be decoyed with IR lures, flares and firepots. All types are limited by orbital mechanics. It's possible for a warship to steam a course that avoids coming into the line of sight of enemy satellites, although it obviously limits where you can go and your freedom of action. Satellites can also be shot down during a shooting war.
Other platforms that can locate the carrier have their own drawbacks. Submarines can't easily communicate with base without risking detection. They also have a hard time keeping up with an aircraft carrier without losing sonar effectiveness and/or risking detection. Surface ships and aircraft will be detected and engaged before they can get close enough to locate the task force. It really isn't as easy to locate or engage an American carrier battle group as most of the armchair warriors on the internet seem to think.
And before you go talking about the vaunted missile defenses these things have, you should be aware that those won't function against ballistic missiles.
Really now? Are you sure about that?
I have been through quite a few roadblocks, and never actually tested. It is simply a way to plain sight search everybody on the road (this is probably worse). In fact they brag that they brag about how less than half of their infractions are drunk driving some times.
I think you've explained for the rest of us why allowing police roadblocks is a bad idea. Roadblocks are something that most people associate with dictatorships or countries under military occupation. The fact that American citizens have to be interrogated by the police to use the public roadways that we've paid for is a national disgrace.
A plane goes down with Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on board. Who is saved?
Nice :)
Enjoy the -1, troll that is coming your way though. Next time if you want to ensure a +5 funny make the exact same joke with "George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Dennis Hastert"
So, my argument, is really, yeah, we could probably kick North Korea's rear if we wanted too, but, the price of admission to that ring is a larger war with China, and that, my friend, does not seem worth it.
I've never argued that we should go to war with North Korea, although I question that the Chinese would get involved. They do like having North Korea around as a buffer but they've lost patience with them as of late and I don't think they view the buffer as important enough to go to war with their most important trading partner.
But either way, no, the price of admission is not worth it. We should go to war with them if needed to protect the Japanese or South Koreans. Other than that we should let them rot on the vine and refuse to be intimidated by their antics.
I've never had a problem smoking while driving. Friends have commented that i'm a better driver while stoned and i've done some double blind video tape tests of myself doing things stoned showing I am actually more coordinated
That reminds me of a joke I heard a long time ago:
What's the difference between a drunk driver and a stoned driver? The drunk driver runs right through the stop sign without even looking. The stoned driver stops at the stop sign and waits for it to turn green.
Good, they should be. Why? Because *they're breaking the fucking law*.
Oh, take your self-righteousness and shove it up your ass. Ever heard the expression "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."? Everybody breaks a law everyday in this country. It is impossible to be aware of every single local/state and federal law/regulation. You think your special? Think again asshole -- if they want to get you for something they will find a way to do so.
But if you drive with a BAC over the legal limit, whatever that limit is, then you're breaking the law and you deserve to be thrown in jail. Period.
Thanks for ignoring the points I made about how such a system is completely ineffective at stopping the drunk drivers who are actually killing innocent people. Every single police officer sitting outside the community bar or manning a roadblock is one less police officer that could be patrolling the streets looking for impaired drivers who are swerving all over the place or actual criminals intent on doing something far worse than driving under the influence.
You may think it's just fine and dandy that they sit outside bars and arrest every poor slob who blows a cunt hair over 0.08 but such a system is completely counterproductive if the goal is to save lives and get the real drunks off the streets. Of course if the goal is to put a large number of people into the criminal justice system and make money for the insurance companies, well, mission accomplished.
Unfortunately, the disproportionate political influence they gained from fighting for their earlier, more generally supported, cause is often maintained far longer than it ought to be
MADD's political influence is maintained because coming out against drunk driving is about the easiest thing a politician can do to demonstrate that he "gets it" and is "thinking about the children". About the only thing that's more effective than pandering to MADD is passing more laws against "sex offenders".
Roaming offtopic here, but that's another issue that has gone way out of control. It started with the laudable goal of protecting our children from the real predators of the world (there actually are some....) and has since morphed into a system that forces a 17 year old to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. WTF is wrong with that picture? Here's a novel idea: Lock up the real kiddie rapists for life and throw away the key (kinda renders all those discussions about registries a moot point, doesn't it?) and leave the poor 17 year old out of the criminal justice system.