Skip to comments.Mothers Against Drunk Drivers Them Mothers Is A Mess
Posted on 10/24/2005 8:32:02 AM PDT by Nasty McPhilthy
I begin to think that Mothers Against Drunk Drivers constitute a public nuisance, and need to be stuffed down an abandoned oil well. And indicted for fraud. We could dangle a microphone down the well on a wire so that they could testify.
These tiresome biddies arent against drunk driving, which anyone with a possums brains is against. Your dangerous drunks are incorrigibles who time and again blow horrific BACs and wobble around the roads like student unicyclists. The proper response is permanent revocation of drivers licenses. If they need to go to work they can buy a horse.
But the MADD girls are not against drunk driving. They are prohibitionists pretending to be something else. Their name is artfully crafted to make them seem to be no end virtuousmoral bidets squirting purest goodness. What could be more pure than motherhood? But it is like calling the Spanish Inquisition a society for the protection of orphans. It still isnt.
An example of the swindle: Texas sends undercover cops into bars to arrest drunks before they drive. (Links below.) A bit shaky, that. You are talking to your date over a bottle of wine and dinner when the guy at the next table pulls out a badge and a Breathalyzer. Step this way, sir . But never mind.
At The Agitator, I find this: Heather Hodges, an Abilene-based MADD victims advocate, said her group is working closely with the TABC on the project.
Says Heather, ''We believe responsible adults should drink responsibly. And those that serve them should be responsible. A lot of people think it's OK to be drunk in bar, but it's illegal. A bar is not intended to be a place to get fall-down drunk ... . You don't have to be fall-down drunk to be considered drunk. Even after one drink, you aren't 100 percent.''
Following the introductory platitude, note the logical sequence: Falling-down drunk is bad. If you arent falling down you are still drunk. After one drink you are impaired. Therefore if you have a glass of wine at dinner, you should be arrested. This is not opposition to drunken driving. It is prohibition in drag, to be enforced by disguised police.
Lets think about this. After one drink you are not a hundred percent. Heather believes that we must keep people from driving who are not one hundred percent. OK. Ill buy it. Lets get impaired people off the road.
Going to the web site of The Womens Health Channel, I find the following listed as symptoms of PMS:
" Mood-related ("affective") symptoms: depression, sadness, anxiety, anger, irritability, frequent and severe mood swings. Mental process ("cognitive") symptoms: decreased concentration, indecision."
Does that sound like one hundred percent to you? I figure its a pretty good description of an unstable borderline psychotic. Oh good. I want to drive on the roads with someone who doesnt pay attention, couldnt decide what to do it she did, and wants to kill something. Me, probably.
We need to recognize the seriousness of PMS. People joke about it, as they do about drunkenness, but these women are public hazards. Anger, irritability, frequent and severe mood swings? (Now thats a revelation.) Decreased concentration? Sounds like a bad drunk in a pool hall, a recipe for inattentive homicidal road-rage. I think the police should send squads into supermarket parking lots to check for these impaired women. Other cops should wait outside churches. To better protect the public we should have checkpoints on highways.
How does an officer tell when a woman is irresponsibly driving while under the, er, influence? Not by asking her. The impaired lie. With drunks, the dissimulation is often obvious. (Jush two beersh, offsher.) Those suffering from PMS can feign sanity, however briefly. Perhaps they should be required to carry a notarized letter from a gynecologist, like a hall pass. Or a governmentally issued calendar.
Ponder this from Planet Estrogen: Additionally, several studies demonstrate reduced reaction time, neuromuscular coordination and manual dexterity during the pre-menstruation and menstrual phases.
Are not these the classic symptoms of a snootful? The police might reasonably carry a device to test reaction times. They might profitably lurk in nail salons. Disguised.
But there is hope in technology. Last year for a newspaper I covered a proposal in New Mexico, supported by MADD, to make it impossible to start your car if you have been drinking:
From The Agitator: People across the state are upset with House Bill 126, which would require ignition interlock devices be installed on all new cars sold in New Mexico by Jan. 1, 2008, regardless of the purchaser's driving record..." (It didnt pass.)
"...The interlock device uses a blow tube which activates sensors when one blows into the tube. If alcohol is detected, the sensors activate a mechanism which shuts down the vehicle's ignition system and the car cannot be started.
The approach illutstrates the weird totalitarianism of the female. Anything, anything at all, to increase security, security, security. We are all two-year-olds in need of diapering. The Mommy State is well named.
The wisdom of the ignition-interlock is of course evident. You go camping with your daughter. While you sit around the fire heisting a brew, she falls and cuts herself on the ax. She is bleeding badly. You rush her to the car to go to the hospital and it wont start. What the hell. You can adopt.
I believe that cars should be equipped with hormone-level detectors, similar to the blood-sugar monitors used by diabetics. At the very least, to start the car the potentially impaired driver should have to insert her governmentally-issued calendar into a slot and put her hand in a fingerprint-reader.
Whatever the solution, society should not have to tolerate such threats to children. Note that women are in fact sometimes around children, when they get home from work. Further, research shows that they are habitual offenders. Drunks can sometimes be weaned off the juice, but here we are dealing with assured repeaters. At the very least perpetrators should be required to undergo therapy, perhaps in twelve-step programs. Should this not work, electronic ankle-bracelets might protect us. Institutionalization could help.
Nelson Soucasaux, gynecologist: Psychological signs and symptoms: Increase of nervous tension, anxiety, irritability, changes in the personality, emotional instability, depression, as well as increase or reduction of the sexual desire.
Irritable sex-crazed depressives at the wheel, with bad reflexes. Alternatively, frigid nut-cases. This is the adult responsibility that Heather wants? I am going to start a group called DAMM, Dads Against Monthly Murder. We will meet in tree houses, above the roofline of an SUV.
How about RASSL? Republicans Against Stupid Sourpuss Liberals
NAALCP - National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People
ACLU - Aging Communist-Leftist Union
DNC - Demonic National Caucus
People are actually safer drivers after one drink than when completely sober, because they know they've been drinking, so they drive carefully, but they aren't actually impaired yet. After zero drinks, they know they haven't been drinking, so they are more careless, and after two drinks they are starting to get impaired. But, this makes no difference to MADD.
Like Tom Arnold says in "True Lies":
"Women - can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em."
DAMM ~ Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Sorry gals; we've tried it your way once. Never again.
I don't buy that PMS stuff. For example, Mrs. lafroste doesn't suffer from it at all. But one week a month I turn into a real jerk.
This article is not a far stretch. I defended a friend one time who was arrested by TABC for public intoxication while he was sitting at a table in a beer joint. He was taken to jail, stayed there overnight, had to post a $1500.00 bond. My friend said he had two beers. The TABC arresting officer testified at trial that he arrested my friend for being too quiet(that's what he claimed was probable cause for the arrest) while the officer questioned another patron at the table. The charges were dismissed.
That's pretty far out there.
It is? Never mind.
But, ossifer! I only had ti martwonis.
They are more than prohibitionists, they are the typical communist liberals who want to control every aspect of life, and strip away every freedom you can imagine. It isn't just about drinking and driving, They'd like to take all your guns away, ban all recreational vehicles, keep you locked in your government approved compartment.
beat me to it
I am not an alcoholic, they got to meetings. I am a drunk!!!!;)
MA Lt. Gov. Kerry Healy was on WRKO's Jon DePetro Show this morning asserting that drivers waive their 5th Amendement rights when they go onto the road. She wants to stiffen the penalty for not submitting to a coerced violation of the second most abused tool in MA towit, the Breathalyzer. As to the first most abused tool by the state, she is pushing is her bill to strenghten the 209a restraining order to include GPS ankle bracelets on those "accused" by their wife's lawyer and maladjusted feminist social worker. No hearing, no trial but punished worse than a convicted sex offender. The wierd totalitarianism of the feminist. It is time for MASSGOP CC's to pre-empt her pulling a Jane Swift.
In Montgomery County MD, a state legislator proposed a bill that would take away the right to decline a breathalyzer test.
His wife was pulled over a little after that. His advice to her: don't take the breathalyzer test.
I read that over breakfast one morning a month or so ago, eliciting the following conversation with my wife.
Me: F%^&ing politicans. They're all lying sacks of s^&t!!!
Wife: Ready for coffee, hon?
A "moral bidets squirting purest goodness" ping (I just love that line).
The PMS stuff is pretty funny - but the author's commentary on MADD are right on the money.........and that boys and girls is the key word here: MONEY.
MADD is now almost totally funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation....on of the largest groups of nanny state law proponents anyone can find.
Stop by your local tavern and you will notice the vast majority of folks are smoking, at least in places that still permit such heinous behavior. Smoking bans for private establishments such as the local tavern are just a back door move toward prohibition - no smoking in the bar, few if any smokers in the bar. And guess what - much of the funding for pushing smoking bans is provided by, you guessed it, Robert Woods Johnson Foundation.
MADD should be fighting AGAINST smoking bans not promoting them. There are more people on the road, travelling longer distances to enjoy a meal or a few cocktails with friends in localities without smoking bans. When Delaware passed a smoking ban, my husband and I just started to cross the state line into Maryland when we would go out, as did most foks we hung out with.
MADD has gotten totally out of hand and no longer resembles the organization as was originally created. In fact one of the original founders quit in disgust over the turn it had taken and went to work for the trade association of the Distilled Spirits Manufacturers to promote responsible drinking through the industry.
Joining MADD is a good deal if you don't want to serve on juries.
Declining the breathalyzer in Delaware is instant loss of license for 1 year.
Good point :)
Even assuming you get into an accident with one of the former, his insurance will reimburse you. Get hit by one of the latter, and assuming you are not dead, you will find NO WAY of obtaining legal compensation. And those drivers know it.
Great line, great article! And while I do not condone drunk driving I can say for certainty that I'm in much better shape after two drinks than I am during a raging bout of PMS.
Either that or her hormones prevent her from recognizing it the other three weeks.
Nevertheless, it's true.
DAM - Mothers Against Dyslexia
"If they need to go to work they can buy a horse."
They'd still get a DUI. This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue. Not only do local and state gov'ts. benefit greatly, but so does MADD.
Good catch. From Discoverthenetwork.org: Among RWJ's grantees are the following organizations: the Tides Foundation; the Tides Center; Greenpeace International; the Natural Resources Defense Council; the Childrens Defense Fund; the Center for Science in the Public Interest; the Consumers Union; the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy; the Western Organization of Resource Councils; Multifaith Works; Senior Action in a Gay Environment..... you get the idea.
You've got that right - see my earlier post #24.
I was just gonna thank you for that input, then add that the courts also award them a ton of revenue. It is labeled as the "victim restitution fee." In addition, they force "victim impact panels" on DUI convictions, and charge for that too.
Yet, for some strange reason, I never see them actually using that revenue to offer alternatives that could help definitively stop drinking and driving. They just use the money to lobby for stricter laws, resulting in higher revenues.
They disgust me.
I get the idea alright.
I've been following the shenanigans of RWJF for years - as have several other FReepers.
They are behind nearly every nanny state/rights grabbing effort there is - up to and including gun grabbers.
don't get me wrong, I don't want drunk drivers on the road anymore than the next person - however I find suspect any and all groups getting even a dime from RWJF.
The police here in my city just cruise the bar parking lots, take down the plate #'s and either get you when you get into the car, or they get you trying to do the right thing by walking home. It's a no-win situation here.
You and me both.
Sounds like what they do in Delaware. It took nearly 10 yars, but they did finally change the DUI laws regarding los of driver's license - the way it had originally been written dolks doing the right thing such as walking or even riding a bicycle were losing their DLs.
As another FReeper often posts - if they don't want you driving after drinking why do bars have parking lots?
"Women - can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em."
Well, you can, but pretty soon, all the good places to bury them are used up!
Mark (ducking and running!)
I wish I could write like that..
In truth the Mom's got kicked out of MADD Long ago.
More proof it has everything to do with revenue and nothing to do with safety. If they are going to pick up people walking home, then what motivates people to make the right choice? Won't these people then say, screw it, if I get caught walking or driving then it is the same, why not drive? How on earth does that discourage drunk driving?
What amazes me is that the same liberal nanny state busybodies who rail endlessly against alcohol and file lawsuits against bars - have no problem with judges that keep letting repeat offenders out on bail until they finally kill someone. It's the same with guns: liberals are endlessly solicitous of career criminals with arm-length rap sheets who use guns to commit crimes. But if you or I use a gun to defend ourselves against such punks, they'll sue you, me, and the gun manufacturer, too.
However, the tone of his little rant suggests to Fred's got some issues of his own. He's a bit too angry. Girl problems, bottle problems, maybe both.
If the people that instigated these laws, legislated these laws, enforced these laws, litigated on these laws, and judged upon these laws, were themselves AND their families SUBJECT... to these laws (absent the special dispensations they usually arrange)...we wouldn't HAVE these laws in their present form.
Just let these above-the-law bastards be subject to the standard penalties they advocate and inflict, and watch these hypocritical SCUM run...to hammer out the inevitable amendments. I have nothing but disgust for these holier-than-thou EXCREMENT.
That is simply NOT true... after 1 drink their BAC is somewhere in the .02 range, and they are not capable of driving any better but rather have a little less ability to react than if they were completely sober, and after 2 drinks, they are approaching .04 range, which is DWAI in Colorado. I don't know what data you are relying on...
Yeah, I know whacha mean. I read about Churchill's diatribes about Hitler. Over the top, yaknow? Also, Churchill was way into the sauce. Also, insulted a woman about being ugly long after he sobered up. Guess he was wrong about WWII 'nd stuff too...