Yesterday, Gov. Jim Doyle got what he wanted for Christmas: a tougher drunk driving law. And yet he's complaining even as he signs it into law. Why? It doesn't go far enough.
That's right, he's at it again - bemoaning the fact that he can't include mandatory sobriety checkpoints in the legislation. But what's wrong with them?, you say. Aren't they helpful? Aren't they just another tool for the police to use in their search for wrongdoers? That might be true if the police bothered to, say, abide by the Fourth Amendment and not use the DUI roadblock as an excuse to not only search the vehicle illegally, but to harass and intimidate drivers while they're at it. I have nothing against police; I like them, and I think they have a tough job a lot of the time. However, my appreciation for them disappears when they start violating people's civil rights. A little back story:
In 1990, the Supreme Court overturned Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, a landmark case where the Michigan Supreme Court ruled sobriety checkpoints illegal due to its violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Even in overturning the case, the justices in both the majority and minority opinions noted that it violated people's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Apparently Justices Rehnquist, et al decided that the ends justified the means and that getting rid of those evil, evil people who had been drinking and driving was worth their raping of one of our basic rights.
Now, I'm not in favor of people driving drunk; people who are seriously impaired should not be driving a go-kart, let alone a 2000+ pound vehicle. However, when you use a political agenda (like MADD does)to stomp on people's Constitutional rights, then I draw the line. Arrest them; fine them; keep them off the streets if they're a menace to society. But you can do all of that without destroying people's civil rights. Many people - cops and legislators alike - seem to have either forgotten that or just overlooked it. And when those roadblocks fail to yield any drunk drivers at all? Well, they're still keeping the roads safe. Oh, and generating revenue for the police department - purely a coincidence, I assure you. Move along - nothing to see here.
But, aren't police professionals? Aren't they held to higher standards? Don't they always abide by the law? Please. Ask anyone who lives in a large metropolitan area (think Chicago, L.A., NYC, Atlanta, etc.) just how trustworthy the police are. Unconsenting blood draws are being advocated; forced catheterization has happened in at least one reported instance; seat belt laws allow police to stop you any time, even you're part of a funeral procession; police have forced teens to drive drunk, then arrested them for it; meanwhile police departments lie about DUI stop results; use vehicles confiscated from DUI stops for personal use; cover up their own wrongdoings, even when they're appalling; and try to make their own officers immune to disciplinary action. Oh, and Chief Justice John Roberts wants to widen the drunk driving exception to the fourth amendment. But trust them, they wouldn't abuse their authority. Right?
I've had people ask me why I get so worked up about "protecting drunk drivers" (yes, someone actually said that to me once) by insisting that their rights be protected. The answer is simple: Just like everything else, if you give people power without oversight, it can and will be abused. And one day you might be on the receiving end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've officially joined the ranks of the states that have legalized discrimination.
I've never understood the whole "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry" stance. If you hate gay people so much, why not just come out and say so? Because realistically, there is no other reason to ban gay marriage other than not liking gay people. "Sanctity of marriage?" Does anybody even believe that, or is it just another lie you have to tell yourselves to help you sleep at night? "If we allow gay marriage, soon people will be marrying children/sheep/all sorts of other things!" Really? Gay marriage is between two consenting adults - the same is not true of children/animals/inanimate objects/anything else you try to bring up as a canard. "I believe marriage is between one man and one woman?" Your personal beliefs should not be law, by virtue of the fact that they're personal beliefs - in other words, they're what you believe (and you have the right to believe whatever you want in this country), not what makes a sound, binding law.
Let's be realistic here, shall we? The anti-gay-marriage position doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny, and it crumbles like a bad cake under the most basic of questioning. How is it still allowed to go on? Because people want to enforce their beliefs on others? I thought the Bill of Rights was supposed to protect against that. Apparently it doesn't apply to some areas of our society, huh? I guess some people really are more equal than others.
I hope you're proud of yourselves. Me, I just see one more reason to weep for my country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This guy has got brass balls. Huge ones. I'd like to say that I'd do the same thing in the same circumstances, but I don't know if I could say that and be 100% certain I wasn't lying. It's not often you see people following through the way this man does.
Bill Caudle, you have my respect for doing the right thing for your wife in the long term, even if it means a lot of short-term pain. My hat is off to you, because you have the guts to do what you think is right.
HT: Legal Satyricon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, apparently President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm a bit confused.
Not that I don't think he's a nice guy, but as they even stated in the article, he'd been in office for 12 days when he was nominated. And the fact that he's been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in just over 8 months after he takes office seems extraordinarily fishy to me. I'm not saying he might not deserve it - there may be some special reason that I'm not aware of - but he's just starting his term; he hasn't even had a chance to give a State of the Union address yet, for crying out loud. Most people work their entire lives to get nominated for this.
And the reason for his nomination - his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" - seems a bit weak. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of this to award people who've actually, I don't know, done something about problems in the world? Maybe next year, after he's had a chance to deal with international problems instead of just talking about them, then he might be qualified. But the fact is, he hasn't done anything other than talk about said problems; and in his defense, he's had a lot to deal with on the home front - the financial crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, figuring out his actual position on things now that he's in office, etc. (And if you think that last one is a spiteful jab at him because I don't like him, ask people in the gay community how they feel about his change in position about gay marriage.)
Now, just to clarify: I like Obama. I don't think he's an ideal president, but let's face it - nobody who was nominated in 2008 was an ideal candidate. I would have preferred a libertarian president, but you take what you can realistically expect. I am glad Obama won over McCain, both because I didn't want Sarah Palin anywhere near the possibility of being President and because of the two I think Obama will be a bit softer on social issues. He's made some encouraging steps (vowing not to federally raid states that have medical marijuana laws, this spot-on tally, etc.), but he's also had his massive disappointments (not following through on his pledge to post bills on the Internet for 5 days prior to signing them, continuing the Bush administration's policy of indefinitely detaining "enemy combatants," etc.). And if I was able to give Bush a chance for the first year of his presidency, I can definitely do that for Obama as well.
The big problem I have is that this is a political statement, pure and simple. In the same vein (although in entirely the opposite direction) as giving Yassir Arafat the peace prize to snub Bush, I think the Nobel committee is making overtures toward an administration that they like, in essence saying, "We don't hate you like we did Bush, we'll work with you - here's a show of our trust in you." So while I really can't fault Obama for accepting it (since it's the Nobel committee's decision to play politics with their Peace Prize), I think it's a bit silly to be awarding it to the man this soon.
Oh, and while I was typing this I came across this, which sums it up beautifully. Well done, Mr. Balko.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a little late jumping on the bandwagon for this topic (well, relatively speaking, anyway - I'm "late" by Internet standards), but I thought it was worth posting, since it keeps popping up on other blogs I read.
Blog entries like this make me literally want to vomit. Not because of the writing - I enjoy reading Rogier Van Bakel's writing, and I tend to agree with him the vast majority of the time; now is one of those times.
The fact that we're bothering to criminalize teenagers having sex (including oral sex) speaks volumes about where we are as a society. Not only are we unwilling to tolerate something which was until recently seen as "natural" - i.e., it happens to virtually everyone (and those who say they never felt sexual urges and/or confusion when they were younger, with rare exception, are full of shit), we can't be bothered to deal with it ourselves.
Now I will be the first to admit that I am not speaking from experience. I don't have any teenage children, so I have no direct experience with having to deal with this. However, I do know that I was a teenager at one point; all adults were. When I was younger and full of raging hormones, I wanted to have sex just as badly as these kids did - well, not "badly" in the sense that they were bad at it (as fumbling, awkward people are), but "badly" in the sense that I wanted it so much that if anyone had given me the opportunity I would have leapt at it. And if I'd gotten caught, I would have expected my parents to be angry with me, just as these kids' parents are undoubtedly angry with them. What I would not have expected (because my parents happened to be - and still are - rational people) would be to get in legal trouble for it. What the hell happened?
To me this reeks of two things: First, of the obvious point that has been made: That having laws on the books which can and do prosecute kids for doing something which virtually everyone wants to do at that age is asinine at best, and dangerous and insane at worst. What kind of society feels the need to go to this length to harass kids? And make no mistake, that's exactly what this is - harassment by a government which tells them that if they're underage, they can't legally make the decision to have sex, but will still prosecute them for a "crime" which it explicitly tells them they are unable to make a decision to engage in. We have special clauses for people who are unable to be held accountable for their actions - people who are clinically insane, in an altered (usually chemically-altered) state of consciousness, people who are developmentally disabled, etc. - because by legal definition they are unable to understand their actions well enough to make an informed decision about them; yet somehow teenagers are legally unable to make the decision, but legally able to face the consequences? We're applying a double-standard here.
Second, and to me equally important: What the hell is wrong with these kids' parents? At what point do you decide to not only give up on the parenting process, but to turn over to the government one of the most personal issues in anyone's life? If your partner did something unexpected in the bedroom - not illegal, mind you, just unexpected; physical injury and non-consenting sex are very much a different topic - would you turn them over to the cops? If your partner wanted to do something that you thought was gross (whether it be water sports, coprophagia, B&D, S&M, threesomes, voyeurism, the good old-fashioned money shot, or anything else that might strike you as gross), or if you did something that you later regretted or thought of as "gross," would you call the police? Would you get them involved in your sex life? Do you care so little about your kids' privacy that you're willing to expose them to public scrutiny because you either want to "teach them a lesson" (and what a fucked-up "lesson" that is) or because you just can't be bothered to do your fucking job as a parent?
And what about the consequences of police involvement in these cases? Do you really hate your children so much that you're willing to have them branded as a "sex offender" for the rest of their lives? Because you can't be bothered to teach them about sex you're willing to force them to register as a "pervert" (and you know they're going to get referred to as such, because not everyone is willing to listen to the background before making that call) for the rest of their lives? What kind of fucked-up, backward-ass set of values do you have? And if that's the way you approach raising kids, wouldn't they be better off living with someone else in the first place? Doesn't ruining your kid's life doesn't fall under the category of abuse, or at the very least, neglect?
And yes, I realize that not all of these are as simple as two 14-year-olds who got caught fumbling around in the backseat. Some of them are adults and "kids," although I use that term loosely as they're close enough in age that they fall under "Romeo and Juliet" laws in the states that have them. However, the principle remains the same: You're ruining someone's life for an innocent mistake. If people were to be held accountable for every "mistake" we made when we were kids, there'd be nobody left who wasn't in jail. Sometimes you've got to let things slide.
This is another example of why I detest this country's attitude toward sex and sex education. No, I don't think we should be teaching kindergarteners about condoms, or 6-year-olds about STDs; but at some point you have to realize that their bodies' natural development is going to take over and you need to be prepared to deal with that head-on. Not only will you be a better person for talking honestly with your kids about something which happens to everyone (physical development), you'll also be equipping them to better deal with things like this when they occur. And if you talk to your kids - actually talk to them, like you're supposed to - then maybe, just maybe - you'll build a better relationship with them, and make them feel like they can trust you and talk to you about difficult and important matters. You never know until you try.
(Further references here, here, and here.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The hockey rink that the UW was planning on building to house the women's team events and a permanent practice area for the men's team might not get built. The reason? Lack of funding. UW athletic director Barry Alvarez's beautiful quote:
"If we don't have it by the end of this year, we're not going to build it," he said. "We're not going to put a shovel in the ground unless
we've raised 'X' amount of dollars. We're not going to deplete our reserve."
Really? Someone in Madison who knows what the phrase "fiscal responsibility" means? How shocking. Of course, Barry Alvarez, unlike our City Council, has to work within a budget; if he goes over budget, he has a lot harder of a time justifying it to the people who are going to need to cough up the money (in this case, private donors).
The City Council, on the other hand, has TIF funds to use, and can always just increase taxes or bump up fees (also known as passing the buck; see also: Madison Metro fare increase). And if they do go over budget (not that they'd ever do that), they can always pray for rich donors to give them a bailout, or liquidate their reserves to pay for their mistakes - you know, that thing that Barry Alvarez doesn't want to do. Because he understands how a budget actually works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because this is likely to be an extremely erudite and well-thought-out op-ed. And apparently she can't go one time where she sticks her foot in her mouth makes herself sound like an idiot again opines publicly without bringing up the "Death Panels" canard. I can't think of anything to write that could possibly be any funnier than what comes out of her mouth.
Insert your own jokes here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A rare little bit of justice compensation for a victim in a police Tasering incident. At least someone realizes that some of these increasingly-frequent Taserings are unwarranted. Even with this ruling, however, there's still a small caveat:
The settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing on the part of police...
Of course not. While I have a lot of respect for the Madison PD (seeing as how they actually understand how to deal with, say, drug busts, for example)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or just an asshat?
Michael Moore's new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story," is about the disastrous effects of capitalism on people's lives. That would be the same capitalism that not only promotes and distributes his films, but has made him a wealthy man because of said films.
The IMDB synopsis of the plot mentions a variety of bewildering plot points, including "14,000 jobs lost every day." So that would mean that, over the course of a year, excluding weekends (to try to make the calculation include only the "standard" work week), and allowing for 10 holidays per year (which is more "holidays" than I'm allotted at my job), that 3.5 million people lose their jobs every year. And yes, I realize that this doesn't account for new jobs created, but neither do any of the statistics about job loss out there, unless they specifically mention otherwise. Because saying, "14,000 people lost their jobs in one day," sounds much better than, "14,000 people lost their jobs, but approximately 7,000 of those people applied for and were hired at new jobs, so don't be scared by the giant numbers we're throwing around." (Note that all numbers are approximate and may in fact be a complete fabrication, both mine and theirs.) As I said, I hope this is explained. For instance: Where do these numbers come from? How are they adjusted to show new jobs that are created? Does this include the 3.5 million jobs President Obama has promised to create?
Also, will Michael Moore eschew the use of these eeeevil corporations in the filming, production, editing, marketing, and showings of his new film? Because if you actually want to help solve the "problems" that capitalism has caused, you obviously don't want to add to the problem, right? I'm sure he'll just use independent film houses and small chains to show the film, right? And he won't accept any corporate help in promoting it, right? Right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow.
So, let me get this straight: This guy - the FIRE CHIEF, I might add - tells the cops that he doesn't like their ticketing policies, and they shoot him? In COURT? I understand there was apparently a "scuffle," but that hardly calls for the use of firearms in a courtroom, I would think.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe that's why I'm not a police officer. Of course, if the Jericho PD included more people like me who were more hesitant to shoot an unarmed man in court, maybe this wouldn't have happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
