Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Ruggers straighten out airliner drunk
An irritating airline passenger gets a 'tuned-up,' courtesy of a South African rugby team. Sadly enough, while I was playing rugby BITD I recall being the disruptive guy. . .
Monday, March 24, 2008
For Your Own Good
America shares a certain legal sensibility with paragons of liberty Mongolia, Indonesia, and Palau. Palau shouldn't even count, as it only became fully independent from US trusteeship in 1994. That legal sensibility is of course, the minimum age which a citizen is allowed to use alcohol.
I suppose by now most people think that the arguments for a drinking age of 18 are a bit stale. At 18 (or before,) Americans can sign contracts, enter into marriage, exit marriage via divorce, adopt children, pursue political office (exclusive of presidency,) enlist in the armed forces, be drafted into the armed forces, become a policeman, fireman, or physician. At 17, an American can join the armed forces and in the course of events be forced into mortal peril with the sure knowledge that survival might be impossible, if the mission is important enough. Americans can do many things at age 18. It seems shameful that drinking alcohol is prohibited.
I understand the arguments used by the prohibitionists at MADD. Eighteen year-olds don't make good choices. Their bodies are still developing. Drunk people are more likely to cause automobile accidents if driving. But still. Eighteen seems an arbitrary number. Why not thirty-five? Why not forty-five? As long as we are using arbitrary figures, might as well shoot for the moon. After all, by age forty-five development has stopped, judgement has improved, and the accrued life experiences of the middle-aged should lead to better decisions all around. Don't worry, I smiled when I wrote that last passage. But using arbitrary cutoff ages to restrict behavior can be tricky. Where exactly should the cutoff be, anyway? And since its Mothers Against Drunk DRIVING perhaps what should instead be restricted is DRIVING age. Why doesn't MADD advocate increasing the driving age to 21, or 35, or 45? After all, their stated mission is to prevent death from automobile accidents after one or more drivers have used too much alcohol. If they feel (and they do) that underage drinking is a major cause of drunk driving deaths then not allowing any driving by persons unable to legally drink by virtue of low age would seem the most effective route.
Sadly enough, when enough MADD literature and press releases are examined we find that MADD is actually nothing more than a modern-day prohibitionist lobbying firm. Through various initiatives like the Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device, they are attempting to eliminate alcohol use in almost all social settings. The Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (AIID) is a system which when installed into an automobile will disable that vehicle if an "unauthorized" alcohol level is detected in the driver. Setting aside concerns about exactly whose alcohol-laden breath might actually be measured (after all an automobile IS essentially a closed container itself,) the likelihood that the sensor will measure blood alcohol levels accurately (there is a reason police breathalyzers aren't installed into a wall, with suspected offenders asked to breath in the 'general direction' of the sensor,) and the likelihood that other atmospheric contaminants might adversely affect the AIIDs accuracy (i.e. perfume, diabetic's ketotic breath, cleaning solutions, etc.) What is also concerning is this; at what level does the AIID shut off the ignition? At .08% BAC, the limit it many states? But cars are sold in all states, and are expected to be used by anyone who has a license. Many states are now considering lower BAC limits in general, and specifically for those previously convicted of a DUI/OWI. Lets not forget that minors (under 21 in this case) might also purchase and drive automobiles. For them no amount of alcohol is legal. Most states define a BAC of .01 or higher evidence of alcohol use. So, automobiles would be unable to be started, or will quit running if the dashboard breathalyzer detects a BAC of .01 or higher. Everyone will effectively be prohibited from using an automobile with any measurable amount of alcohol in their (or possibly a passenger's) system. Forget about going to dinner and having even one drink, or if the sensors get finicky, forget the perfume too.
But, you say, couldn't there be a switch installed in the AIID which set the interlock at a different limit based on who was driving? I suppose so. It couldn't be a manual switch because the underage would just set it for the higher limit. The mindset which demands AIIDs in the first place wouldn't allow such a measure, anyway. Then how to set variable limits? Perhaps one's drivers license would work like an ATM card; insert/swipe it in the dashboard to activate the car. Again, easily bypassed by using another person's ID, or using a fake ID. I don't see any solution which would appeal to a MADDite other than the universal .01% BAC cut-off. Hey, that's alright; I wasn't using my civil rights anyway. What you should perceive by now seems to be the real goal of the MADD crowd, a new prohibition. Restrictive legal limitations upon private activity "for your own good." Most of us know by now that "for your own good" rarely is anything of the sort. Generally those words are a reliable indicator that what follows next is oppression of some sort.
Thinking of the most egregious forms of oppression extant in America today I note a common theme: "for your own good." Campus speech codes, censorship of media (remember Tipper Gore?), and the calls for dissenting climate scientists to be subject to Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for calling into question global warming hypothesis' (George Monbiot in his book Heat.) Oddly enough, these are all proposals put forth by our freedom-loving friends on the left side of the political divide. Even the most right-wing of the right-wing-types hasn't called for all beds sold to be equipped with sensors to detect gay sex and/or underage and/or unmarried sex. It would take a leftie to come up with a proposal so intrusive and which bypassed civil rights so egregiously. But of course, it would be for my own good so I'd better not complain. If I do, maybe they'll have me stand before a Nuremberg tribunal, too. For my own good.
Returning to the topic at hand, though. Minimum drinking age laws in America are a disgrace, and should be changed to reflect the reality of our society. At age eighteen we are considered adults, and should be considered so before the law. Not just the laws which MADD condescends to permit. Telling me that a twenty-one year-old drinking age saves lives is like telling me that a thirty-five year driving age saves lives. Interesting, but hardly persuasive in a free society.
I suppose by now most people think that the arguments for a drinking age of 18 are a bit stale. At 18 (or before,) Americans can sign contracts, enter into marriage, exit marriage via divorce, adopt children, pursue political office (exclusive of presidency,) enlist in the armed forces, be drafted into the armed forces, become a policeman, fireman, or physician. At 17, an American can join the armed forces and in the course of events be forced into mortal peril with the sure knowledge that survival might be impossible, if the mission is important enough. Americans can do many things at age 18. It seems shameful that drinking alcohol is prohibited.
I understand the arguments used by the prohibitionists at MADD. Eighteen year-olds don't make good choices. Their bodies are still developing. Drunk people are more likely to cause automobile accidents if driving. But still. Eighteen seems an arbitrary number. Why not thirty-five? Why not forty-five? As long as we are using arbitrary figures, might as well shoot for the moon. After all, by age forty-five development has stopped, judgement has improved, and the accrued life experiences of the middle-aged should lead to better decisions all around. Don't worry, I smiled when I wrote that last passage. But using arbitrary cutoff ages to restrict behavior can be tricky. Where exactly should the cutoff be, anyway? And since its Mothers Against Drunk DRIVING perhaps what should instead be restricted is DRIVING age. Why doesn't MADD advocate increasing the driving age to 21, or 35, or 45? After all, their stated mission is to prevent death from automobile accidents after one or more drivers have used too much alcohol. If they feel (and they do) that underage drinking is a major cause of drunk driving deaths then not allowing any driving by persons unable to legally drink by virtue of low age would seem the most effective route.
Sadly enough, when enough MADD literature and press releases are examined we find that MADD is actually nothing more than a modern-day prohibitionist lobbying firm. Through various initiatives like the Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device, they are attempting to eliminate alcohol use in almost all social settings. The Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (AIID) is a system which when installed into an automobile will disable that vehicle if an "unauthorized" alcohol level is detected in the driver. Setting aside concerns about exactly whose alcohol-laden breath might actually be measured (after all an automobile IS essentially a closed container itself,) the likelihood that the sensor will measure blood alcohol levels accurately (there is a reason police breathalyzers aren't installed into a wall, with suspected offenders asked to breath in the 'general direction' of the sensor,) and the likelihood that other atmospheric contaminants might adversely affect the AIIDs accuracy (i.e. perfume, diabetic's ketotic breath, cleaning solutions, etc.) What is also concerning is this; at what level does the AIID shut off the ignition? At .08% BAC, the limit it many states? But cars are sold in all states, and are expected to be used by anyone who has a license. Many states are now considering lower BAC limits in general, and specifically for those previously convicted of a DUI/OWI. Lets not forget that minors (under 21 in this case) might also purchase and drive automobiles. For them no amount of alcohol is legal. Most states define a BAC of .01 or higher evidence of alcohol use. So, automobiles would be unable to be started, or will quit running if the dashboard breathalyzer detects a BAC of .01 or higher. Everyone will effectively be prohibited from using an automobile with any measurable amount of alcohol in their (or possibly a passenger's) system. Forget about going to dinner and having even one drink, or if the sensors get finicky, forget the perfume too.
But, you say, couldn't there be a switch installed in the AIID which set the interlock at a different limit based on who was driving? I suppose so. It couldn't be a manual switch because the underage would just set it for the higher limit. The mindset which demands AIIDs in the first place wouldn't allow such a measure, anyway. Then how to set variable limits? Perhaps one's drivers license would work like an ATM card; insert/swipe it in the dashboard to activate the car. Again, easily bypassed by using another person's ID, or using a fake ID. I don't see any solution which would appeal to a MADDite other than the universal .01% BAC cut-off. Hey, that's alright; I wasn't using my civil rights anyway. What you should perceive by now seems to be the real goal of the MADD crowd, a new prohibition. Restrictive legal limitations upon private activity "for your own good." Most of us know by now that "for your own good" rarely is anything of the sort. Generally those words are a reliable indicator that what follows next is oppression of some sort.
Thinking of the most egregious forms of oppression extant in America today I note a common theme: "for your own good." Campus speech codes, censorship of media (remember Tipper Gore?), and the calls for dissenting climate scientists to be subject to Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for calling into question global warming hypothesis' (George Monbiot in his book Heat.) Oddly enough, these are all proposals put forth by our freedom-loving friends on the left side of the political divide. Even the most right-wing of the right-wing-types hasn't called for all beds sold to be equipped with sensors to detect gay sex and/or underage and/or unmarried sex. It would take a leftie to come up with a proposal so intrusive and which bypassed civil rights so egregiously. But of course, it would be for my own good so I'd better not complain. If I do, maybe they'll have me stand before a Nuremberg tribunal, too. For my own good.
Returning to the topic at hand, though. Minimum drinking age laws in America are a disgrace, and should be changed to reflect the reality of our society. At age eighteen we are considered adults, and should be considered so before the law. Not just the laws which MADD condescends to permit. Telling me that a twenty-one year-old drinking age saves lives is like telling me that a thirty-five year driving age saves lives. Interesting, but hardly persuasive in a free society.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Irony, defined
After a real-world road test in Europe driving ". . . just over 200 miles of autoroute, about 200 miles of B roads, including winding ascents and descents in Switzerland, and 100 miles of urban driving," a head-to-head competetion between a BMW 520d and Prius ended thusly:
The Prius is a wonderful car, depending upon what you need and what you plan to do with it. Sadly enough, just like in real life, good at one thing doesn't necessarily equate to good at another.
BMer guy: ". . . I had averaged more than 50mpg."
Prius guy: "For all my defensive driving, slippery bodywork and hybrid
technology, my average fuel consumption was 48.1mpg. I’d lost to a Beemer and I
was disappointed; I had never driven so slowly or carefully for so long in my
life."
The Prius is a wonderful car, depending upon what you need and what you plan to do with it. Sadly enough, just like in real life, good at one thing doesn't necessarily equate to good at another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
