sen. 'im not gay' w/matt lauer

[Kulindahr]

I disagree, DUI laws are a VERY important way of protecting the public. There should be ZERO tolerance for driving (especially) drunk, under any circumstances short of the driver's life being threatened. [EXAMPLE: he has to get to the ER *now* and cannot wait for the ambulance, or he is drunk but he is required to flee a natural disaster.] As I've said before to a number of people: "Drunk driving is, by far, the most dangerous thing that people commonly do."

I would feel so threatened that I would probably be afraid to travel much of ANYWHERE if there were no penalties whatsoever for DUI. Those laws are a deterrent. I feel that the highway death toll in the U.S. would be at least 150,000 per year rather than the current 40something thousand, if it was considered absolutely OK to drive drunk (which I think causes more problems than ALL other drugs, illegal ones as well as side effects from pharmaceuticals, put together).

The guy may be driving a stretch of [U. S.?] 95 in clear weather with no traffic within 1/4 mile, but that can change almost instantly as the semi, which is 0.26 or 0.27 miles ahead of him, approaches from the other direction and there's a collision a mere 9 seconds later. DUI laws have to consider that there can ALWAYS be nearby traffic, even if the road is "clear" at one specified moment.

DUI should include other mind-altering drugs as well (heroin, meth/speed, opium, LSD, ecstasy, etc.), but I DO NOT think that marijuana/THC should be included on the list, because
(1) people using pot usually compensate for their DUI by driving much more carefully, and
(2) because THC is stored in the *FAT* tissues, it can turn up a "positive" as long as a MONTH after use, and therefore a positive doesn't prove that the person is intoxicated.

I feel there should be no penalties of any kind for private usage of "substances of choice" - is it really wise to regulate stupidity within somebody's home? DUI laws cover the usage of such substances when coupled with driving, and quite rightly so (but again I don't think pot should be included). Those should be the only penalties for using recreational drugs, though if caught there should perhaps be some requirement of three or five hours (in the evening or daytime, to allow for work schedules) of education which objectively and truthfully talks about the bad effects of these drugs. I mean truthfully covering the bad mind effects AND possible health effects, not the propAGENDA'ist bullshit which the ONDCP continues to feed us.

In terms of punishing the responsible by legislating "safety", we should just make a law against driving; cars are the most lethal items in the U.S., so why not just ban them all and require everyone to use some sort of public transportation?
Penalties for merely driving while under some influence of alcohol punish those who have not caused harm, and I hold with those who maintain that if there is no harm, there is no crime. The proper place to set the penalties is once harm has been done; then driving under the influence resulting in a collision would not be considered an accident, but willful negligence, with much more extreme penalties -- for example, if a death resulted, willful negligence would become willfully negligent manslaughter (and personally, for multiple deaths, sentences would be required to run consecutively).
There is good reason for such an approach, and that is the difference tolerance levels among individuals. I know a young guy who actually drives better after three or four drinks, and I know numerous people who drive quite safely under most circumstances after a few drinks, but who know better than to try driving on a road with more than two lanes -- they know their limits, and behave responsibly within them. But the "one size fits all" laws discourage many people from even learning how to be responsible, i.e. knowing their limits.

OTOH, there is a very good argument for following any laws the highway people set down, which no one has advanced; namely contract obligations. The highway departments own the roads, and ownership gives the right to decree how property is to be used. By obtaining a driver's license, an individual agrees to abide by the rules the owner has set. That roads are a government-run monopoly isn't terribly relevant, except insofar as one might decide to employ civil disobedience to confront the dubious constitutionality of that situation.

So on the one hand there is a right to drive one's vehicle while intoxicated, while on the other there is a responsibility to drive safely, and on the third hand those are both superceded by the contract to abide by the owner's rules.

In the case of public parks, BTW, there is no such contractual situation; no one has to get a license to use a public park. And if someone's preferred mode of enjoying a park is to get drunk and pass out, that should be respected just as much as someone else's preference to sit by a tree and meditate.

 

[sparky95]

In terms of punishing the responsible by legislating "safety", we should just make a law against driving; cars are the most lethal items in the U.S., so why not just ban them all and require everyone to use some sort of public transportation?
Penalties for merely driving while under some influence of alcohol punish those who have not caused harm, and I hold with those who maintain that if there is no harm, there is no crime. The proper place to set the penalties is once harm has been done; then driving under the influence resulting in a collision would not be considered an accident, but willful negligence, with much more extreme penalties -- for example, if a death resulted, willful negligence would become willfully negligent manslaughter (and personally, for multiple deaths, sentences would be required to run consecutively).
There is good reason for such an approach, and that is the difference tolerance levels among individuals. I know a young guy who actually drives better after three or four drinks, and I know numerous people who drive quite safely under most circumstances after a few drinks, but who know better than to try driving on a road with more than two lanes -- they know their limits, and behave responsibly within them. But the "one size fits all" laws discourage many people from even learning how to be responsible, i.e. knowing their limits.

OTOH, there is a very good argument for following any laws the highway people set down, which no one has advanced; namely contract obligations. The highway departments own the roads, and ownership gives the right to decree how property is to be used. By obtaining a driver's license, an individual agrees to abide by the rules the owner has set. That roads are a government-run monopoly isn't terribly relevant, except insofar as one might decide to employ civil disobedience to confront the dubious constitutionality of that situation.

So on the one hand there is a right to drive one's vehicle while intoxicated, while on the other there is a responsibility to drive safely, and on the third hand those are both superceded by the contract to abide by the owner's rules.

In the case of public parks, BTW, there is no such contractual situation; no one has to get a license to use a public park. And if someone's preferred mode of enjoying a park is to get drunk and pass out, that should be respected just as much as someone else's preference to sit by a tree and meditate.

I seriously cannot belive a supposedly responsible adult can think that someone drives better after a few drinks. You wonder why we think you are a fool. Perhaps you might supply some sort of documentation that supports the "driving better with a few under the belt" idea as all the studies I have heard of suggest it is a dangerous myth.

 

[Kulindahr]

Then why don't you just ignore laws you find inconvenient? It seems to be a widespread liberal trait... if anyone asks, just say you are an illegal immigrant.

Seriously, instead of whining about 'stupid' laws, I'm certain you are voicing your opinion to every politician and fellow citizen in your local area to get those laws changed, right? Of course, they can just as easily tell you to move your happy ass out of there... but you don't, because you must enjoy having a tyrant rule over you.

I don't know where you're bringing in "inconvenient" or "liberal" from -- unless you mean classical liberal, which is what a libertarian is.

I'll assume you're ignorant of my circumstances -- like, my dad just died and mom has no one else right now -- and ignore your callous sarcasm.
But I will ask this: move where? The whole U.S. is headed down this police-state, nanny government condition of dependency. Neither Mexico nor Canada are really free countries, either.

 

[Kulindahr]

I seriously cannot belive a supposedly responsible adult can think that someone drives better after a few drinks. You wonder why we think you are a fool. Perhaps you might supply some sort of documentation that supports the "driving better with a few under the belt" idea as all the studies I have heard of suggest it is a dangerous myth.

How about addressing a point I actually made?
Three or four drinks is not "drunk" -- for this kid, it's hardly buzzed.
And I've ridden with him: sober, he speeds and cuts corners and thinks he's the best driver in the state. With a few drinks in him, he focuses on the road, stays under the speed limit, and even follows the yellow warning signs giving recommended speeds.
What prairielooner noted about marijuama is apparently the case with this guy: he knows that alcohol is supposed to impair his ability, so he focuses hard on driving -- though on the other hand, riding with him while stoned is an extreme experience; he not only thinks of himself as the best driver in the state, but in history. And when he actually is drunk, he knows he can't drive as well... but he doesn't care.

 

[andysayshi]

In a world of absolutes your statements make perfect sense, but my reality doesn't work that way. I don't want drunks driving the same highway that my brother drives his kids home on, regardless of some fanciful belief that they drive better with a few under the belt. I don't want his wife and kids confronted by a beligerent drunk when they go for lunch in the local park.

The anarchic world you dream of probably doesn't exist, because most of us don't want to live in a world like that.

 

[andysayshi]

And I've ridden with him: sober, he speeds and cuts corners and thinks he's the best driver in the state. With a few drinks in him, he focuses on the road, stays under the speed limit, and even follows the yellow warning signs giving recommended speeds.
What prairielooner noted about marijuama is apparently the case with this guy: he knows that alcohol is supposed to impair his ability, so he focuses hard on driving -- though on the other hand, riding with him while stoned is an extreme experience; he not only thinks of himself as the best driver in the state, but in history. And when he actually is drunk, he knows he can't drive as well... but he doesn't care.

What represses your friend's dangerous driving habits is the fear of being caught drunk, not the fear of an accident. Drinking isn't making him a better driver, the likelihood of going to jail is.

Your attitude is clearly borne of someone who has never lost someone to the tragedy of drunk driving. I can tell you from personal experience, when that guy who "can drive better with a few under his belt" hangs too far into the wrong lane, someone else ends up standing in a shower washing the brain matter of their best friend out of their hair. Whatever you say at this point, unless you can tell me ypu've experienced that, you can never speak honestly about the reality of drunk drivers to me, because I have done just that.

 

[Kulindahr]

What represses your friend's dangerous driving habits is the fear of being caught drunk, not the fear of an accident. Drinking isn't making him a better driver, the likelihood of going to jail is.

Your attitude is clearly borne of someone who has never lost someone to the tragedy of drunk driving. I can tell you from personal experience, when that guy who "can drive better with a few under his belt" hangs too far into the wrong lane, someone else ends up standing in a shower washing the brain matter of their best friend out of their hair. Whatever you say at this point, unless you can tell me ypu've experienced that, you can never speak honestly about the reality of drunk drivers to me, because I have done just that.

He doesn't care about going to jail on any other account -- he deliberately drives without insurance on his own vehicle, because he says (when sober) he's too good a driver to need it (when he's had a few drinks, he admits he should get insurance).

Yes, I've lost someone to a drunk driver. I've been in a vehicle that rolled because of a drunk driver. And that's why I think the penalties for those who cause harm due to their drinking are, as they stand, wimpy: my gut feeling is that public whippings should be brought back, and stocks, and all manner of other interesting devices of punishment from the time of Newton and Jefferson. It's also an area where I would have dueling legal again -- allowing the aggrieved to employ whichever friend or acquaintance felt to best accomplish the affair, and with standard dueling pistols, but the offender required to rely on himself.

But as I've said, the point is moot: by accepting a driver's license, indeed even by driving on the roads without one when the owners of those roads have specified you must have one, a person has entered into a contractual agreement to abide by the owner's rules.

Liberty is not easy, nor is it comfortable. I uphold the right if individuals to engage in whatever activities they choose because it's a matter of liberty, i.e. of self-ownership. I vote the same way, not asking whether a measure will benefit me, but whether it will increase, sustain, or restore liberty; nor do I vote by emotion (except in the case of GWB, who has me so incensed that I wrote him and said thank-you-very-much, I'll never vote for another Republican).

 

[andysayshi]

And I repeat my previous statement:

The anarchic world you dream of probably doesn't exist, because most of us don't want to live in a world like that.

 

[darcey]

I'm confused. Is this thread "jump on Kulindahr" ?? I don't agree with everything he's said, but his point is well taken. Sen Craig is so afraid of the legal consequences of being "gay" (don't get me started on the social ones) that he's trying to deny his recorded actions. The laws of this country have been growing in a manner which would horrify the "founding fathers". We can now longer "go west" if we dislike governmental control, Big Brother is everywhere. Anyone who ignores "Those who give up liberty for security, will have neither " (with apologies to Mr Franklin) do so at their own peril. The NAZI party gained total control of germany by expanding governmental power with the excuse of "protecting" the people.

 

[darcey]

ICO7 just who is ignoring reality? Rights are given to our "government" & you don't think "it could happen here"? What's to stop any one in power from using those "rights" for their own power? George Mason disliked the constitution because it lacked what are now called the Bill of Rights. This administration is trying to gut those Bill of Rights? Wake up! Power corrupts, & absolute power corrupts absolutely. Are you really so innocent & trusting that you can't see the danger? I'm not saying THIS administration will, but future ones could if given the power. Now is the time that tries men's souls & tomorrow will be to late to do anything.

 

[darcey]

But back to the thread (& rejecting the vast load of .... that has gone before.) Poor soon-to-be ex-Sen Craig has to live in the pain of rejecting himself because society (& the LAW) has given him a load of s*** which says that he can't be "good" if he is gay. My Lord & Savior never rejected anyone who recognized their own flaws & strove to be kind & loving to their fellow sinners. We all should live so that we do no harm & perhaps then the A******s that spew out hatred will be silenced. Not in my (very flawed) lifetime, but soon. Amen Amen!!

 

[darcey]

ICO7 - get back on thread & post your views on your own thread. This one is focused on Sen Craig, or didn't you notice?

 

[andysayshi]

But back to the thread (& rejecting the vast load of .... that has gone before.) Poor soon-to-be ex-Sen Craig has to live in the pain of rejecting himself because society (& the LAW) has given him a load of s*** which says that he can't be "good" if he is gay. My Lord & Savior never rejected anyone who recognized their own flaws & strove to be kind & loving to their fellow sinners. We all should live so that we do no harm & perhaps then the A******s that spew out hatred will be silenced. Not in my (very flawed) lifetime, but soon. Amen Amen!!

No, Senator Craig ALLOWS himself to be rejected by a part of society who "says that he can't be good if he is gay". He will not be hung, drawn and quartered if he confesses to being gay. He lives in a society which remains free enough that he can tell the truth about his sexuality to his constituents, if he's brave enough. He might lose a lot of friends, but he'll gain new ones.

 

[Kulindahr]

And I repeat my previous statement:

The anarchic world you dream of probably doesn't exist, because most of us don't want to live in a world like that.

Huh??
Is this a response to me? If so -- what "anarchic world"? Or do you equate liberty with anarchy?

I'm urging a civilized world where everyone has personal dignity and full rights, and is penalized only for doing harm; where that liberty comes with responsibility is taken for granted because both are merely facets of self-ownership; where people don't play victim and whine to get "the government" to do things for them.
Most people in the West today are cowards; who won't stand up for themselves, who run from danger, who meekly bow down to police exercise of force that goes beyond any law; who worship "the rule of law" even as it ruins lives and causes over four-fifths of all violent crime in the U.S.; who are submissive instead of assertive; who are so selfish that they have the warped notion that paying taxes absolves them of needing to be charitable; who see things drifting toward a police state and do nothing about it because they believe themselves powerless....

 

[Kulindahr]

^ No, he just makes himself a target. There is a big difference between Kulindahr's fantasy Hobbesian world he desires and his perception of the actual world he lives in (the latter being a city/community/society of a small portion of Oregon he can traverse in a day or so on foot), just as there is a big difference from the governments in the US and Nazi Germany. This is a representative democracy, with laws that come and go depending on the people who is represented in government. This is not a fascist state, although it is reasonable for people to be wary of such a possibility, and to pretend that it is now is absurd because drunks can't drink in a park.

Godwin's Law strikes again!

Another "lying liars and their lies" post.

I count three.

BTW, most law in this country is not made by legislators, in spite of the fact that it's supposed to be, and very little law that's ever passed is ever rescinded.

Anyone who can't see that representative democracy is a certain path to tyranny is kidding himself. Once upon a time the dream and highest principle in America was freedom; somewhere we started worshiping democracy instead.

And neoliberal trends have made most people such cowards that they don't even think about standing up and saying, "This law is stupid" when caught in some behavior between consenting adults... and ignorantly believe the judge when he tells the jury they have to judge by the law, and can't judge the law.

 

[Kulindahr]

ICO7 just who is ignoring reality? Rights are given to our "government" & you don't think "it could happen here"? What's to stop any one in power from using those "rights" for their own power? George Mason disliked the constitution because it lacked what are now called the Bill of Rights. This administration is trying to gut those Bill of Rights? Wake up! Power corrupts, & absolute power corrupts absolutely. Are you really so innocent & trusting that you can't see the danger? I'm not saying THIS administration will, but future ones could if given the power. Now is the time that tries men's souls & tomorrow will be to late to do anything.

Point of information: governments don't have rights; only people do.
That's part of Craig's problem -- he abandoned the right to say the law is unjust, or to appeal to his right of freedom of expression with another consenting adult. Apparently he imagines that someone has the "right" to limit such behavior... but in that case, it's fine for the government to ban certain kinds of bedroom behavior and define marriage to exclude everyone but monogamous heterosexuals.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, Senator Craig ALLOWS himself to be rejected by a part of society who "says that he can't be good if he is gay". He will not be hung, drawn and quartered if he confesses to being gay. He lives in a society which remains free enough that he can tell the truth about his sexuality to his constituents, if he's brave enough. He might lose a lot of friends, but he'll gain new ones.

Denying who he is, hiding, trying to explain it away, denies his self-ownership. Kissing the ground where exclusive hetero-ists walk justs hands them power over him.
It's sad when someone in such a rarified position gives such a lousy example of standing up for himself, for his rights, and thus propagates the lie that we are to be as sheep herded about by government.

 

[CuriousMonkey]

Another "lying liars and their lies" post.
Anyone who can't see that representative democracy is a certain path to tyranny is kidding himself. Once upon a time the dream and highest principle in America was freedom; somewhere we started worshiping democracy instead.

Right on! This should be OBVIOUS to anyone here who has been let down by tis 'majority rule' system. Whatever the majority of voters (or their representatives) want becomes the rule of law. As long as enough people say so, we could start imposing taxes (or restrictions) on any and every behavior. How about a blonde tax, and a ban on redheads? Would there be enough votes to block such an action?

I think I'm starting to get the point. I'm not sure I'm ready to abandon the concept of law, but I've always felt that there should be a higher standard than 'constitutional' for them. Wouldn't it be nice if some of the guiding concepts of the founders had some weight in this system? The notion that we're created equal, with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness sounds great ... but its meaningless in the face of all the laws that alienate us from our rights.

Here's what I don't get - how can all have equal liberty without law?

 

[Kulindahr]

They are?

1. That I live in a "Hobbesian fantasy".
2. That "laws come and go depending on the people who is represented in government."
3. That laws against having a drink -- or even a bottle of alcohol -- in a park isn't a sign of a (coming) fascist state: it's symptoms like that which WW II vets here cite when they say that this country is becoming what they went to Europe to fight against.

Cite.

You've got to be kidding....
Just think about the federal government for a moment... no cite is needed.

Absurd suggestion based on what exactly?

The fact that once people realize they can vote themselves goodies, and once things become "us" vs. "them", the system begins to break down until a strong man is asked for (like with so many people regarding Bush as some sort of savior, and wanting a man like that!).

And you think this is the fault of 'neoliberalism' when it seems to fall into the traditionalist values of conservatives?

Values of conservatives?
What -- teaching people to be wimps, not to accept responsibility for their own behavior, to depend on authority instead of themselves, to whine for the government to take care of them, and thus turn into cowards unable to stand up for themselves... you mean those "traditionalist [sic] values of conservatives"?
Or do you mean jury nullification, which is a classical liberal value?

I notice you once again avoid the point of how this applies to the thread... you've made a hobby of Kulindahr-bashing regardless of topic.

 

[Kulindahr]

Right on! This should be OBVIOUS to anyone here who has been let down by tis 'majority rule' system. Whatever the majority of voters (or their representatives) want becomes the rule of law. As long as enough people say so, we could start imposing taxes (or restrictions) on any and every behavior. How about a blonde tax, and a ban on redheads? Would there be enough votes to block such an action?

I think I'm starting to get the point. I'm not sure I'm ready to abandon the concept of law, but I've always felt that there should be a higher standard than 'constitutional' for them. Wouldn't it be nice if some of the guiding concepts of the founders had some weight in this system? The notion that we're created equal, with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness sounds great ... but its meaningless in the face of all the laws that alienate us from our rights.

Here's what I don't get - how can all have equal liberty without law?

Some law is necessary. The Founding Fathers tried to limit the ability of the federal government to make law by saddling it with restrictions and giving it only enumerated powers, but we've done so many end runs on that, it's tragic.

But there were checks and balances built in that we've tossed aside -- one big one, that we let the lawyers toss aside and need to recover, is the power of the jury. "Trial by jury" once meant that the jury were the ones with the authority; they didn't sit meekly and accept only the information given them, or abide blindly by what the judge said... and they could pronounce someone "not guilty" because they judged that the law did not apply, because there were extenuating circumstances, because the law was unjust, or because they had information that wasn't presented in court. It was a check on the power of the legislature to pass laws the people didn't approve of.

And all government personnel, elected or otherwise, must have it drilled into them that their one function is to uphold and protect the rights of the people, and their one principle is to always respect both those rights and the people -- something especially important for police!

But the main thing is to have a Bill of Rights that cannot be whittled away at. To me that means making it clear in the Constitution that in all cases bearing on rights, the interpretation favoring the greatest liberty to the individual is to be chosen as the correct one (boy, would Bush be up a creek!).

And at last resort, there is the right to insurrection, presented nicely in the movie Amistad; as the former president, arguing before the Supreme Court, said, "There remains always the right of insurrection against tyranny". To guard that right, as well as freedom and rights in general, there is the right to keep and bear arms, that the government might fear the people -- remembering what Jefferson said, “When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.”



Now, how this applies to Senator Craig... I think I covered that in an earlier post. I'll add this, though: if people don't stand up for their rights (as he didn't really), those rights will be lost.