Social Commentary, not Personal Anecdote

This is a social commentary, not a personal complaint.  While the author has been affected personally only through the unjustice inflicted upon his employees and acquaintances, he has never been affected directly by the law, other than the fact that he knows that the unjust law has increased, not decreased, his probability of injury and death.

Lobmamzer whines "he supports drinking and driving", which is patently false, but since his inability to comprehend the point might not be restricted solely to lobmamzer, this clarification will be added to the DUI page.

I don't drink and drive, by personal choice, not because of any law.  Drinking and driving laws have had negligible effect on me, other than being stopped twice in one night at DUI checkpoints, the DAY of arrival from a year and a half in Russia where he was never stopped at any checkpoint whatsoever, other than numerous border crossings to and from Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, etc., none of which resulted in the invasion of privacy represented by ONE DUI checkpoint.

As a pilot, I also don't drink and fly, something that has utterly nothing to do with a law, but with personal choice.  My critique of federal laws about drinking and flying have nothing to do with any direct personal experience, only what I've witnessed happening to friends and acquaintances.

STATISTICS from the NTSB, from a data base called FARS, show that only 4% of all accidents involved a DRIVER with a blood alcohol content [BAC] greater than 1.0. 

There are many good reasons to exclude from the statistics drivers with a BAC less than 1.0, and to exclude people other than drivers who'd been drinking, which "newspapers" like USA Today DO include in their headlines:

1. Officially, it hasn't been against the law, at least not until very recently.
2. TWO different studies, not just one, prove that drivers with a BAC between 0.2 and 0.8 are involved in 35% fewer accidents per capita than drivers with 0% BAC.
3. These very same STATISTICS also show that a man driver must have 7 drinks to drive as dangerously as a sober woman driver.
4. A law which punishes people before they even injure someone or damage property based on the presumption that they MIGHT is unjust on its face.
5. There are 24 TIMES as many accidents which involve those with a BAC less than 1.0 than there are which involve drivers with a BAC greater than 1.0.
6. The justice system which created this monster is the very same justice system which hasn't been able to catch more than 200,000 murderers in JUST the last 4 decades

This author HAS seen many of his employees' lives wrecked by drinking and driving--but never because of an accident, and always because of  the effects of being arrested for a DUI.  One involved a very good woman employee whose DUI arrest and conviction she never recovered from.  Anecdotal evidence concurs with the statistical evidence, which is that the law itself does hundreds or thousands of times more damage to society than it prevents [IF it prevents anything at all].

Without looking at the facts behind the statistics, it's very easy for happy mamzers and gullible womento be bequiled by USA Today headlines when they say "FORTY TWO PERCENT OF ALL ACCIDENTS INVOLVE ALCOHOL".  This author noticed that the headline itself was inconsistent with the data in the article itself, which was inconsistent with the FARS data, called the editor of USA Today to ask why, only to be told that "one person writes the article, the other writes the headline".   In other words, USA Today feels that its met all of its obligations to responsible journalism by spreading the error across enough employees that no single person can be held accountable for this egregious reporting (something that used to be called Yellow Journalism).

Was I ever successful at getting them to write a correction?  Of course not.   The correction should be headline news, because the original erroneous headline was off by an order of magnitude.  But that's not how jewsnews works today.

A mild comprehension of algebra is all that's required to prove to yourself that the USA Today headline and the data in the FARS data base are as different as 42% and 4%.

Why is it important for you to know this?  Our politicians now feel justified in continuing a certifiably failed "drinking and driving" campaign without fear that their electorate will ever discover their egregious error.  Orange County, California, whose multi-billions of dollars of tax collections was met with a multi-billion bankruptcy, "solved" its bankruptcy problem with stricter enforcement of DUI laws.  So what's wrong with imposing unjust laws?  A LOT.   These politicians must be stopped.

Had the amount of money which has been STOLEN from taxpayers and hapless drivers to try to convince them that they have a drinking and driving "problem" instead been spent to solve 200,000 UNSOLVED murders, there would now be only 20,000 rather than 200,000 murderers running around free, free to murder again and again.  Our crime rate, rather than going through the roof, reaching the obscenely high level of 80.6 homicides in our nation's capitol in 1991, A WORLD RECORD HIGH MURDER RATE, would never have happened.  Had we done this early enough, 800,000 of the 1.1 million murders in the US in the 20th Century alone would never have happened.  If we continue down the same path, our politicians will sacrifice through murder alone another 4 million American lives at the altar of political correctness in the 21st Century alone.

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party