FIRE’s President Greg Lukianoff emails:
Today, FIRE adds Appalachian State University to the long list of institutions at which it has toppled speech codes. Following FIRE and the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy’s landmark Report on the State of the First Amendment in the University of North Carolina System, and at the behest of student activists, App State recently repealed its most egregious speech code. We are gratified by this victory and look forward to further advancing the cause of liberty in the UNC System.
From FIRE’s press release, “Speech Code Falls at Appalachian State University”:
[…] FIRE and the Pope Center unveiled their Report on the State of the First Amendment in the University of North Carolina System in January. The Report documented that while “the universities in the UNC System are legally bound to uphold the First Amendment rights of their students and faculty,†they “are failing miserably.†As it demonstrated, “13 out of the 16 schools in the UNC System have at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.â€Â
One of these codes was the harassment policy enacted by App State’s Department of Housing and Residence Life. As FIRE’s press release on the Report noted, that policy banned “insults, taunts, or challenges directed toward another person.†Upon reading about this policy in the Report, Paul Funderburk, a graduate student and the president of App State’s ACLU chapter, urged administrators to repeal the policy. As he put it, “The free exchange of ideas is the foremost prerequisite of a democratic society.â€Â
On March 22, App State administrators made FIRE aware that the policy had indeed been repealed and removed from the university’s website. App State’s entry on FIRE’s Spotlight: The Campus Freedom Resource has been updated accordingly, although the university still receives a “red light†rating due to other troubling speech codes.
“We are very pleased that FIRE has taken the time to evaluate the state of the First Amendment in the UNC System,†Funderburk commented. “Without FIRE’s assistance, this affront to free expression would have gone unnoticed. FIRE provides a tremendously valuable service to all college students.â€Â
“App State’s policies are not perfect, but the university has taken a tremendous step forward,†FIRE’s Lukianoff stated. “The speech code that was just repealed was definitely the worst offender among its policies. We look forward to seeing App Stateâ€â€and the entire UNC Systemâ€â€take even more steps to guarantee students’ precious rights.â€Â
FIRE—along with those students committed to First Amendment freedoms and offended by the presumptuous totalitarianism of campus speech restrictions who bring these offenses to FIRE’s attention—are one of the few checks on what has become an institutionalized culture of “tolerance” that is, in true Orwellian fashion, actually quite intolerant—allowing for no speech that is offensive to anyone (the one exception being criticism of what’s seen as the dominant hegemonic power structure: white, male, Christian conservative, with an allowance for the evils of Zionism; this is actually encouraged by many faculty members in the humanities, in my experience).
Many of my detracters on the leftward listing blogs continue to suggest (often through the use of kitten pictures or out of context quotes) that my criticisms of university culture grow out of paranoia or envy. Evidently, they feel that discrediting me makes the problem go away—or at least suggests that I have reason to overstate the case.
But for anyone who wishes corroboration of the discouraging anti-intellectual tendencies in the modern academy, I encourage you to visit FIRE regularly. As Lukianoff noted in a recent newsletter, instances of First Amendment abuses are actually on the rise—or at least, more are being brought to FIRE’s attention—and so long as universities can get away with it, they will almost always try to minimize confrontation at the expense of free speech.
Such an strategy for student governance is fertile ground for both the identity politics movement and for PC / “diversity” industry representatives—many of whom are now kept on full-time to re-educate offending students whose speech is deemed unacceptable by those who have presumed to constrain certain types of expression.
It’s a vicious cycle. And it’s one that needs to be broken if our universities are to re-embrace the benchmark for intellectual engagement—the free exchange of ideas.
I reccommend that anyone interested in protecting free speech on campus read FIRE’s excellent pamphlets, available in PDF format for free download.
Obviously, FIRE is some sort of cabal.
Coincidentally, Amanda’s Deep Thoughts on the subject of PC came out today.
Ass-Holier Than Thou
At the time, I liked Robert Hughes’s take on the PC culture in his book ‘Culture of Complaint’, which distilled down to: Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, just grow the fuck up.
This shows why its important to have state owned schools and spaces: you have first amendment rights there.
*sigh*
Oh Jeff, Jeff, Jeff… Don’t you know that “the free exchange of ideas” is just a tool of oppression?
Whereas if the state did not enjoy a virtual monopoly on education (at the elementary and secondary level) you would be free to take your money to a school that didn’t violate your rights, and those that did violate them in a significant way would not last long…
It seems like a pretty silly argument.
I wonder if Actus would prefer to give the state ownership of his home, in order to “protect” his rights there…
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” – Gerald Ford
Nobody thinks a private university is like person’s home. More like a boss or landlord.
Obligatory “ignore acthole” comment posted here.
Not at all, more like a contractor who you hire to perform a service, and can fire at your pleasure.
Most private universities profess a commitment to intellectual freedom. That then becomes part of the contract between the student and institution. When FIRE challenges oppressive speech codes at a private university, it is on the basis that they haven’t lived up to their advertised claims to respect intellectual freedom.
I see no problem with a hypothetical university who tells prospective students up front: “Here, we will enforce conformity with our way of thinking, and those who deviate from it will be sanctioned as we see fit.” If, in spite of such an illiberal environment, students still choose to contract with such a school, that is called “freedom of association”.
Apart from religious education, where this sort of thing may be a feature and not a bug, such a school would probably not attract many students.
Quoting from Kenneth Minogue in The New Criterion March 2006:
Apropos of nothing, really. I just found this bit in this essay interesting as it explains a lot of the insularity of the modern university.
Thats curious. So FIRE wouldn’t have a problem with speech codes that are well known?
I searched their site and didn’t find anything on religious institutions. But they do seem concerned with religious freedoms. So maybe they give some schools a pass.
“Here, we will enforce conformity with our way of thinking, and those who deviate from it will be sanctioned as we see fit.†If, in spite of such an illiberal environment, students still choose to contract with such a school, that is called “freedom of associationâ€Â.
I believe certain Evangelical schools do just that.
STOP EVERYTHING!
Jeff, please cut off the comments, there is absolutely no need for your dragnet any longer.
We have, ladies and gentlemen, the most mucho stupidest comment ever typed on Al Gore’s World Wide Web.
Everybody, you don’t have to go home, but you need to get the hell out of here.
Modus operandi for countless leftist debates: make the appearances more prominent than the reality; a standard ploy of the appearances-bound dysfunctional.
‘Course the other tactic is just reframing the argument entirely. Or lying through your teeth.
(Speaking of actard, I think his programming needs a rewrite. This thread’s contributions are the zenith of naderism for our resident hapless Marxist.)
Jeff, I wish you would add to your passions, opposition to the draconian drunk driving statutes which are making it almost impossible to not break the law if you have 2 beers at a bar and then drive home.
In my state, once you are arrested for DUI you are generally faced with a Hobson’s choice: either submit to court mandated “re-education” at the hands of court approved “therapists” or have your license revoked. This despite the fact that the re-education is almost completely ineffective doing nothing at all except subsidize the life style of arrogant psychologists etc. I have made a habit of asking the reformed drunks that I meet if they went thru “therapy” or went to AA. Without exception they said they quit on their own. Of course you can find reformed drunks at AA meetings but there is not that many, even there.
Of course the police mostly know it is crap and only pull over obvious drunks. But if you happen to get pulled for something like a broken taillight and blow a .08, you are in deep do do.
Sorry for the long post off-topic but I feel deeply that the drunk driving persecution sytem that has developed is fundamentally un-American.
Ha! Jeff’s little game is up. While visiting the doc he left Actuse v1.1 running unattended overnight. And this happened:
tw: #&@@@@&((—-
(Turing word generator’s on the fritz too. The whole place is going to hell…)
Take that sentence and replace “drunk driving” with one of ten thousand choices of social law. Hell, 100,000.
Welcome to actus’s Mother, noah. It guarantees rights.
Thanks 6Gun for reminding me. Now, excuse me while I go out to the liquor store and get a bottle of vodka so I can get drunk at home!
Can anyone, but the world’s-dumbest-fucking-person, actus, elucidate for me the thinking that allows a government-subsidized body, any body besides the military, restrict speech of any kind at all.
[Running up the BS flag, snapping to attention, popping a sharp salute]
I am not so sure that speech codes at public universities are unconstitutional. Liberals would argue that hate speech as they define it is equivalent to falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Probably would be a close call in a SCOTUS that upheld McCain-Feingold 5-4!
But if you happen to get pulled for something like a broken taillight and blow a .08, you are in deep do do.
If the sensor’s accurate, you shouldn’t be driving.
Ah yes, the tried and true argument by moral intimidation:
“If you support the President you’re a fascist.”
“If you want taxs cuts you hate the poor.”
“If you don’t like the multi-cult you’re a racist.”
Thus, A+0=B. It’s so simple that actually making the case is a waste of time.
How could it be any other way? Liberalism’s only two principles are underdog absolutism and collective subjectivity. If there’s really anything else to their ideology they’ve done a good job hiding it.
Next, fat and sodium content breathalyzers outside Micky Dees. It’s for the children (and their soccer moms.)
(What happens if you turn up the heat very slowly…)
I went to college at App, and was almost booted out for expressing myself freely.
Of course, it was past midnight and I was caught rapelling from the 6th story of my dorm. I mean, one man’s freedom of speech is another man’s safety violation. I don’t get it.
Next, fat and sodium content breathalyzers outside Micky Dees. It’s for the children (and their soccer moms.)
Don’t be an asshole. I couldn’t care less how much you drink. The moment you take control of two tons of steel on a public road? That’s a different story.
JohnAnnArbor,
Thanks for not responding to my point. The “persecution system” is not effective, is devastating to the individuals caught up in it, and is inimical to fundamental American values.
But you are right, I am an asshole. But for other reasons, asshat.
Huh? Are you two different people?
Don’t like the system? Don’t drink and drive. It’s not a hard concept.
Odd, that fellow who plowed into the pregnant woman’s van (killing her, her unborn child, and leaving her 6 year old child near dead)not far from my home had been drinking alcohol, not eating Big Macs to the point of intoxication. Hmmm.
Read: people who consume an intoxicant and then decide to operate heavy machinery and get caught.
My solution? Mandatory jail for for anyone caught driving with a .16 or involved in any sort of accident above .12. Fines only for .10.
No American should ever be required to undergo therapy especially unproven therapy to avoid punishment…even if they would prefer it.
Ah, I think I detect someone who got bonged for a .08 or .09 perhaps? Not a big fan of court ordered alcohol evaluation/treatment, hmm? Ok, don’t do it, take the jail/fine/revocation of license or whatnot and call it a finish.
AnnArbor…you need to get out of town fast. Your mind is rotting in Ann Arbor…densely populated with leftist assholes.
Right, but .08? Some states are going to .05 I hear. In ten years it will be .0001 if things keep going the way they are going. The pre drunk driving becoming such a political issue science said being over .15 was the danger. Now most places the limits are slightly over half that. It’s mission creep: drunk driving in the beginning now drinking and driving. The zeaots and nanny staters won’t be happy until having one beer and driving is a crime.
And as for the “classes” and “evaluations” and all the other bullshit they make you do after you’ve had a dui? A Joke, only a politician could believe that these things help in any way. In most cases you go in, watch a video and the counselor gives a lecture and your done. An hour and a half, $400. You do that twice a week for a month. Pure revenue generation for the state and the “organizations” that run the classes.
For an hilarious commentary on AA see the season ending South Park from this fall that was banned becuase they ripped on the Pope. I’m sure it will be on the Season 9 (I think, maybe 8) DVD.
My solution? Mandatory jail for for anyone caught driving with a .16 or involved in any sort of accident above .12. Fines only for .10.
.10 is wandering-lanes accident-causing territory, which is why it was lowered to .08. It was not arbitrary.
The zeaots and nanny staters won’t be happy until having one beer and driving is a crime.
I won’t be happy until there are a few thousand less deaths from people you who decide “hey, I can handle a few beers and drive!”
Vercingetorix—We had to destroy the village to save it.
Say, how the heck did we get so far OT?
AnnArbor…you need to get out of town fast. Your mind is rotting in Ann Arbor…densely populated with leftist assholes.
Lots o’ people I don’t always agree with here, true enough.
But just because I object to pricks like you deciding to drive drunk because “hey, I can handle it” and only stopping when you run in to the back of a schoolbus doesn’t make me a lefty.
If being below .15 does not affect your driving, how is lowering the limit going to prevent future deaths?
Well, MajorJohn thank you for jumping to conclusions. From your prior comments, on other threads, I thought you were a conservative. Nope…you apparently believe that unjust laws are sacrosanct because the government has passed them. It upsets you and induces you to resort to ad hominem towards anyone that would argue against them without disputing the arguments made.
I apologize for incorrectly assessing the quality of your intellect.
If being below .15 does not affect your driving, how is lowering the limit going to prevent future deaths?
Who said .15 doesn’t affect driving? The Frat Boy Association of Mobile Keg Parties?
Fracture lines run through the Bush KKKult! The monolith topples! Somewhere Duncan Black’s head starts hurting…
Fracture lines run through the Bush KKKult! The monolith topples! Somewhere Duncan Black’s head starts hurting…
We’re just putting on a public show before the next secret Ceremony of Bush Adulation we’ll all attend…..
Noah – I think you protest a bit too much. i am simply making an observation that picking a number and making a complaint about a specific standard and a specific portion of a court ordered sentence (usually one of the conditions set on court supervision, so as to keep the conviction from entering). I never said you were a convict or a drunk or such. It just sounds like a lot of the complaints I heard when I was with the SAO. Injustice is always that which I got caught at…
I saw lots and lots and lots of accidents with people at .08-.12. Some youngster or non-drinker that knocks a couple back and tries to go home can;t really handle the vehicle. I’ve also seen hard core, functional alcoholics barely do something worth PC for a stop and blow over .19. Unfortunately we cannot vary the law to take massive alcohol tolerance into consideration.
As for the court ordered alcohol treatment being ineffective – I agree the lower levels were not particularly useful, other than as a deterrent/additional punishment in the form of money and time. .08 is low enough for me. .05 is getting a bit low on the scale for any return – and I think the cops I know would agree.
I agree Big E. MJ and AnnArbor would gladly accept anything MADD rams thru and gladly accept that Americans can be indoctrinated for whatever reason the government decides.
If not, then what is the principle that prevents the government from doing so? I’m waiting.
for whatever reason the government decides.
Not dying in a flaming wreck caused by a drunk is a good reason. No one’s stopping you from knocking back a few gallons of Thunderbird if you want.
Noah, calm down a bit. You accuse me of ad hominem and then decide I am a deficient intellect and nanny-statist re-educator. Deep breath man. Lets just have a little disagreement and call it that, huh?
I just don’t feel that the drunk driving law standards need to be lightened. Nor tightened for that matter.
.05 is getting a bit low on the scale for any return
That’s my take, too, after reading about it here and there.
You are impaired at .08. Fatalities are most commonly caused by that subclass of drivers who are habitual offenders with serious alcohol problems who have no compunction about getting absolutely stinking, and who have higher BAC’c… but it’s rational to cut off at .08. Reaction time and your ability to steer, brake, switch lanes, etc, is measureably reduced at .08.
I supposed a person might be an impaired driver if the cheesepaper from their Mcboiled frogburger flies up and sticks to his eyes, but otherwise don’t get the McD’s analogy. It can hardly be called nanny stateism to restrict impaired drivers. The state isn’t merely protecting you from your bad habits by making driving while intoxicated an offense.
The reason nobody objects to the worthless goverenment mandated indoctrination of drunks is that if you object you are subjected to ridicule from the likes of MJ and AnnArbor.
Why fucking bother, they are subhuman drunks? They aren’t really Americans. They were Americans but when they blew the .08…Bingo!…their fundamental civil rights are voided. Convenient niggers.
One could always vote out the legislators that propose and approve lower levels. MADD doesn’t have the ability to change the Illinois Compiled Statutes last I saw. .08 took some doing, and I don’t think that people in Illinois see the need to go any lower.
Who says being over .08 but below .15 does? The nanny stater, anti-alchohol neo-prohibitionist’s over at MADD? You bet they do and no one has the balls to question it because hey, if .15 is saving lives than .08 will save almost twice as many right?
JohnAnnArbor, where is the limit? Is .05 ok with you? Would you prefer zero tolerance? Spell it out.
I think that someone should do a comprehensive, scientific study to find out where the line is and that should be the standard, and it should stay the standard until other good hard science disputes it effectively. If it is .08 fine, .01 whatever. Ask yourself, “why was the limit .15 initially” because that was the science said at the time. To my knowledge no sound science has disputed it. The subsequent lowerings have been done for political reasons spurred on by an increasingly anti-alchohol MADD among other essentially prohibitionst groups.
Proud App. State (everybody say it with me “App-uh-latch-ian, not App-uh-lay-chian) grad here, class of ‘91. This and the I-AA football championship in one year-be still my heart.
Guess I shouldn’t hope too hard for a simple, polite decision that we disagree and get back on topic, huh?
Where was I ridiculing or declaring people non-American or sub-human? All I pointed out was an excuse I heard from dozens of defendants in the hallways and conference rooms of the Kane County Judicial Center. The Public Defenders used to be able to recite to us the speeches they heard from memory.
Who says being over .08 but below .15 does?
Driving simulator studies, which are extensive. No, I don’t have the reference. Look it up yourself.
It wasn’t arbitrary.
Well, MJ you haven’t been reading with comprehension. My main objection should be clear…the government should find a more freedom friendly method of punishing drunk driving than subjecting offenders to useless therapy else face jail or loss of license. Its offensive to me that anyone should face that choice for any crime…smacks of re-education camps.
And pardon me but I think my sensibilities are perfectly reasonable and should not be demonized just because I am arguing for the rights of a disfavored group.
Hey, I’m down with that.
For the record though, I’ve never had a DUI and my views are not those of someone who is trying to justify his actions. I simply feel that from knowing too many people who have had DUI’s (often more than one) that the treatment does not work, nor I believe is it designed too.
I’ve done a decent amount of research on the matter (for a long paper in college, although fairly recently-1999) but I will check into it when I have a chance.
A self-interested, pro-.08 view.
A self-interested anti .08 view
The best I could do with my poor Google skills on the Federal “G”
BECAUSE THIS IS MUCH MORE THAN WORKING, LIKE I SHOULD BE. HEH.
If you would acknowledge that “therapy” is just an excuse for the idiots in charge to feel like they are doing something to stop the drunks, I don’t think we would be having much of an argument because from there it is a short logical step that they should not do things like that, EVER!
Alright, you kids, stop your bickering right now.
Don’t make me separate you.
Thanks Big E, now if you could convince Noah…
I read quite well, I think. We are at loggerheads. So lets leave it at that and get a little bit of manners back in the mix.
The only people I have “demonized” in the past few years have been the HIG and the Taliban. Well, demonized, and tried to kill off.
I just don’t have that much anger left for things like this.
We’ll stick with just the “loss of license” idea, then, ‘K? Fine with me.
Noah, please see my remarks:
Level III treatment (in-patient) is somewhat effective, but that is usually reserved for the way over .08 crowd (like .20-.21 and up range), accidents with injury/death, third convictions and the like.
Level II – eh. Helps some, doesn’t do much for others.
Level I – see previous quoted remarks.
I simply feel that from knowing too many people who have had DUI’s (often more than one) that the treatment does not work, nor I believe is it designed too.
That’s a fair point. Replacing it with something else, like video of driving-simulator studies might be interesting. Of course, the “but I’m a better driver than these guys who just can’t hold their liquor” thing is a STRONG effect, however.
BTW – Shank, if you still have good rappelling skills, any interest in joining the ARNG?
I guess the IDEA of freedom from government mandated indoctrination (and actually the government does not generally prescribe the indoctrination you will receive…just that you pay for it and that you generally must at least pretend to accept it or you may be sent back to court!) just zings right thru your skull like neutrinos from the Sun zipping thru Earth.
Several items. I have had one DUI and one citation for “having physical control of an automobile while intoxicated”. The first one (DUI)was certainly justified, the “physical control” was BS. I realized that I was too drunk to drive and got in my car, put the keys in, turned on the radio and laid down to sleep; in the parking lot of the bar. Cops woke me up and cited me because the keys were in the ignition.
Both were in Ohio many years ago and resulted in a “mandatory 3 day jail sentence”. Went in on Friday PM, had mandatory “drunk” class on Saturday and was let out first thing Sunday AM. Heavy fines and had to get a “bond” from the insurance company. Limit at the time was .10.
I believe that the .08 limit, IIRC, is mandated by some Federal Highway Act. If states do not lower their limit to .08 they do not receive federal Hwy funds. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Cops woke me up and cited me because the keys were in the ignition.
Wow, that’s silly.
Don’t drink and get behind the wheel and drive upon the public ways of your state. You’ll never have to hear a word, read a page or watch a frame of film. It is part of a criminal court sentence. It is intended to stop people from injuring/killing others and destroying property on or along public ways.
If your argument is that it is ineffective, that’s one thing – open to debate, proofs offered, studies, etc. If your argument is that rehabilitation should be removed as an element of criminal sentencing in alcohol cases, on principle, then you are venturing into different terriotry.
I was up at 5 am and ran way too far for my work out. I think I am too tired to engage in an Ethics in Criminal Law lecture right now – tho’ I did teach it previously.
If that makes me some sort of empty-headed fool, I guess I can live with your judgment. Shouldn’t cost me too much sleep tonight…
I thought so too. Attorney said if the keys were in my pocket instead of the ignition or if I had been in the back seat, there would be no charge. Keys in the ignition was the big “no no”.
rls, most cops around here just take the keys out, roust the person and get a cab.
I cannot imagine wasting the time on that kind of arrest – even if it falls “within the law”. When I was an ASA, I would take one like that and reduce them to some sort of “open container” or lesser somesuch. Sheesh.
In Tennessee you don’t even have to have the keys in the ignition. They can also arrest you for DUI even if you aren’t in your car if they can make a case that you must have driven intoxicated to be where you are.
Wow. I didn’t know y’all were a bunch of delinquents
Of course, you could have run into a Chicago cop – he could have taken your keys out, thrown them down a storm drain and made you walk to the “El”. Heh. Not that I have ever known any cops that did that…
Delinquents? Nah, just a variety of life experiences.
My mistake, in hindsight (the best kind of sight) was not calling someone, or having the barkeep call someone, to come pick me up.
I did learn from those incidents. I never over indulge and drive now. If I’m going to have more than a couple of beers with dinner I make sure someone else is driving. If I have intentions of getting drunk (or not caring how much I drink) it usually is where I have a room. Then all I have to navigate is the elevator.
There is definitely a “deterrent factor” to having to spend a weekend in jail, paying for an attorney, paying a hefty fine and getting the privelage of paying for a “surety bond” for three years.
Which actually a certain amount of sense in both cases especially if you are parked dead drunk by the side of a country road far from home or bar…is it plausible that you just drove out to said side road for the purpose of getting drunk?
OK…MJ…you do have a smidgen of a point. Let it go at that.
If the State on the basis of solid evidence wishes to set BAC at whatever level, be my guest.
I followed one of the links. Local legend has it that two beers would get you over the limit…apparently that is not true…especially low alcohol beer they sell here.
Since we are still on this subject…
I think what Noah is objecting too is IF we feel that someone driving at .08 or whatever is a danger to society at that point then we should just take away their license or jail them or whatever BUT he (and I) dont think that society really thinks they are a danger. So, since we know they aren’t really a danger we’ll just make them jump through some hoops and pay some fines etc to make ourselves feel better and let them go with their license. As far as the indoctrination goes, I don’t know. I mean the classes are obviously going to be anti-drinking and driving but since they often (I’ve heard) are essentially anti-drinking period it may be a bit of a over reach by the government.
Till you get busted. Then you’re just a plain old delinquent.
Noah, I’ll take that. Heh heh. Now, back to making the US economy safe from the mass tort plaintiffs bar…
I’m clean as a whistle. Couldn’t keep my Secret clearance otherwise.
I learned all I need to know in life from court appointed attorneys.
Almost Big E. A friend of mine who for about 20 of the 25 years that I have known him was a very heavy drinker who drove home drunk 3-4 nights per week (fair disclosure…me too but not near as drunk in my estimation). Many times I would offer to drive him home and he would always refuse as a matter of drunken masculine pride I guess. Well, he finally got nailed with a BAC of .16 altho he was never involved in an accident and was not speeding. There, I suppose, but for the grace of God go I (didn’t you know that God protects drunks?). But if the law is to paint bright lines then he was a danger to society no matter how good a drunk driver he was. In order to keep his license he went thru months of classes and in order to continue driving had a breathalyzer interlock installed in his car. He relapsed fairly quickly once the interlock was off (if he drank at night he found that he could not start his car in the morning). I think the only thing that keeps him fairly straight is that he knows his wife would leave him if he didn’t. He goes on frequent weekend trips out of town “on business” by himself and I’m pretty sure he checks into a motel and drinks but he won’t admit it.
Indoctrination didn’t work. Humiliation and possible loss of consortium did work to a certain extent but I’d bet dollars to donuts he is still drinking (but not driving).
Different motivations work on different people. I didn’t give up alcohol – I gave up the combination of the alcohol and the steering wheel. Speaking of such, I’m going to pop a top now on the first Beck’s of the day.
I mus say, there is nothing that tastes as good as the “first sip of the first beer of the day”. If they all tasted that good, I’d be wasted all the time.
Let me, in my inimical style and casual flare, decline the discourse to and through the floor:
If you are drunk and driving, go to jail. If you set limits which are so low that you cannot put people in jail (there are too many), raise the limits. Put the party animals with their three hundred sodomizing best friends, in the clink.
On the other hand, if I enjoy a beer or three at a barbeque over a couple of hours, and you want to take away my license, or fine me a couple of grand, or throw me in jail, my public service message is simple.
Fuck off and die.
This isn’t rocket science. Do something bad, get Singaporan school nannies to take thick-as-your-thumb clubs to your wrists. If you’re–gasp–a mortal human being, carry on.
Show Trials!!!
Now, anybody else, besides the world’s-fucking-dumbest-commenter, actus, like paste?
Yum, Yum.
The wierdest thing about my friend is that he is an absolutist about speeding but would think nothing about driving drunk until the cost was very high (he is a lawyer and of course every lawyer in town knows about his DUI but they all knew he was a drunk[driver] too…I guess as long as he wasn’t caught or got off it was ok).
rls,
Yeah that first Sierra Nevada Pale Ale of the day always puts a smile on my face. And on odd occasions a song in my heart. Generally “Here I am again on my own” or something like that, because my heart loves 1980’s cock rock anthems. My tastes are a little more refined but what can you do? The heart wants what the heart wants.
Noah,
At least your friend isn’t going to get himself or someone else killed while he’s drinking heavily. OBTW I used to drink and drive pretty often when I was younger but managed to avoid the dreaded DUI. I’m so paranoid about it these days 3 beers is my top limit. I’ve seen the hassle and humiliation people go through and it just doesn’t seem worth it (and yes I also dont want someone to get hurt or killed due to my own carelessness).
Show Trials!!!
Well, duh. Being part of a grand fascist organization’s no fun if you DON’T have show trials.
The wierdest thing about my friend is that he is an absolutist about speeding but would think nothing about driving drunk until the cost was very high
Denial and alcohol are a powerful team.
Vercingetorix – .08 is a rational BAC limit, since that level is associated with a measurable decrease in a person’s ability to handle an automobile….and license suspension for impaired driving is a rational penalty.
I guess I don’t understand the outrage.
I don’t either, but then again, I have seen good Marines take a beer or two, literally, and roll through the gate, get breathalized, and lose their career. Not get sloshed and run down the gatehouse, mind you. A beer or two followed by a reduction in rank. That is bullshit.
I’ve also known three Marines that got wasted at the e-club, decided not to drive home, but turned the car over to get the heat roaring. Actually a very commendable thing to do.
Followed by a reduction in rank. And you can’t reenlist with a DWI or DUI. Bull-shit.
I also knew a guy, had a beer, rode home on his motorcycle. Car sideswiped him, her fault, but since he had a beer, it was alcohol-involved…even though her car dropped clear out of the blue sky at a stoplight. Who got screwed on that one? Hint: Wasn’t the babe.
When the law is so impotent it cannot crush evil doers beneath the glorious heel of justice and instead inflicts harm across the board, hey, I’m off the gravy train. Smash criminals, stay away from the also-rans.
I don’t really see any relevance of DUI laws to a discussion over speech codes…
I got a DUI almost exactly a year ago. Are the penalties harsh and excessive? Yes. Do they work? They are working for me. I have absolutely no desire to go through the same nightmare (albeit worse after a second offense) again.
I am happy to take a cab (to and from the bar) when I go out for a few drinks. I think of it as treating myself by being chauffered. It is a very small price to pay in return for being able to enjoy myself without worrying about losing my freedom to drive, paying ruinous fines, and/or being locked up.
Those who want to loosen the DUI laws have recourse to the political process. Another option is to buy yourself a hand-held breathalyzer like the cops carry in their cars, so you can be sure when it is safe and legal to drive. They cost a couple hundred bucks, which is a fraction of the cost of a DUI bust, even if you manage to beat the rap. In my town, the cops will give you a ride home if you tell them you’re too drunk to drive.
Factoid: In Japan, the legal limit is 0.00%. If a police officer smells alcohol on a driver’s breath, the driver is guilty. I don’t know if their penalties are as harsh as ours, but this system does have the virtue of simplicity (you never have to wonder whether you’re over the limit, because if you’ve had anything to drink, you are).
Let me straighten this shit out for you, AnnArborJohnnie.
First of all, you’re a non starter: Anyone who follows mindless slippery slopes with simplistic assertions and calls names about it is, well, a stooge from a socialist college hellhole just down the street from the most corrupt mayor in America.
Secondly, get it straight: Harm someone, get strung up. Get hammered, just don’t harm anyone.
Not “safe” enough for you? Stay home! You’re owed the “right” to drive safely? Bullshit. That’s two tons of steel at 70. Times say, the 300 cars you encounter in a 20 minute drive. Don’t you tell me it’s “safe” or that it’s not your daily choice to risk it.
Oh, you can’t think with seven beers in ya? Fine. You’ll never see the outside again. It’s called the social responsibilities and deterences a free society places on itself by way of choosing to pay the daily price of freedom. Freedom has that price, if you’re not too much of a lazy fuck to pay it.
Third, before you toddled off to UoM, we had laws. And we had laws before we had virtual behavioral tyranny and willing dependents such as yourself. Your Socialist Republic of East Michigan—where they routinely hire some of the most dishonest, corrupt, idiotic, and statist politicians on earth—just happens to be a textbook example of softheaded dependency in the false name of safety by legislation.
But anyway. We used to have laws for adults; we had responsibility and social performance expectations instead of nannies in cars with blue lights going around doing the jobs the jackass ninnies in your Lansing hive of collectivism and our Washington legislature of buy-a-law marketing make them.
You’re damn right we’ll end up like fucking Japan with an imperial police force. And you’ll love it.
Where’s this nannyism come from? Why’s it conflict basic rights and freedoms? Because of special interest. MADD; what-have-you. It has nothing to do with reality or original rights. It has to do with lobbies with enough power on any given Thursday afternoon to take everything you own because of a mere interpretation of a soon-to-be-law so convoluted and so offensive to your primary rights you’ll never see the outside.
When you’ve had a beer. Or maybe not.
Don’t you call me an asshole for understanding unintended consequences, John. I well know the bullshit reasing behind defending tyranny when you’re an idiot with a big mouth. I detect it’s foul, unprincipled, pissy, arrogant stench every time.
6Gun. As I suggested earlier, deep breath, hold the invective, a little bit of manners and please try to admit there can be a difference of opinion about drunk driving laws without resorting to calling people all sorts of nasty stuff and implying they are totalitarian wanna-bes. Cripes, did this thread run off the rails…
Why is the anger so thick in here?
Mj, it’s the booze.
(That was the drunkest emoticon I could find.)
Hey Jeff, any chance you could re-institute the Spong!!-icon?
Well, this is the thread I’ve been looking for for five years.
I was convicted of my first DUI in Versailles, KY in 2000. I paid close to $6000 in court and lawyer fees. I was not drunk so much as lost and hungry, having not eaten anything in a 12 hour day of restaurant management. But I blew .157 so I was DUI.
Did the group therapy, did the driving class. In 2003, coming home from an anniversary party for work I was arrested in my driveway. I was hammered, frankly. I was fired from my $100,000 plus per year job; had to sell my home, declare bankruptcy, get a divorce, move back to Tennessee, get on welfare and food stamps, get state aid for mental health, and have paid over $15,000 in fines, councelling, and services. I have an intoxilock and I have to go to Georgia every four weeks at a cost of $88.25, and every five weeks I go to the only supervised driving program in the state of Florida that takes out of state people in Bunnell. I drive eight and a half hours for an appointment that lasts eight minutes but I must do it to keep my license. MADD has politicized DUI to the point where only draconian measures will work.
In 2003 I paid $36,000 in taxes. Because it is impossible to get a work only license I made $16,000 this year. The system is full of cynical, fee grabbing assholes that will support any crazy measure that bringx in more revenue.
I don’t want off the hook for my DUI. I am grateful no innocent prson was injured. But the law as written is crazy.
And nothing will change until 2009.
6Gun apparently failed reading comprehension.
More likely you just asked for it…