--- Oh. My. God. It's true. Everyone really does have a blog. Including Mr. Levi and black leather jacket himself---Adam Curry.

Yes. That
Adam Curry. The one from MTV. The one who had a mane that would make
any lion in Kenya proud. The man who was cool disdain personified.
{Insert a few regrets about my youth being wasted in front of the TV
here} Now, apparently his blog has been up for some time. I'm pretty
sure Instapundit (hat
tip) has linked to him before, but I never put two and two together. I
can't believe this! I pick up the references to Will Wheaton/Wesley
Crusher. No problem. I know who that little geek is. Yet---somehow---I
completely missed Adam Curry? THE Adam Curry! What the hell is wrong with me? Why did I not know about this!
AIEEEEEE!
So pathetic. Slapping self on forehead repeatedly. {Bookmark}
Note to Adam: I realize you're in Iraq and all, but from the pictures
it looks as if you've got a pretty sweet laptop---which, I'm sure, came
with a spellchecker.
AHEM! USE IT!
Not like I should talk, but hey...maybe he'll email me when he sees the
technorati. {SWOON!}
--- Ok, there's really not much else to talk about today. Nothing's
tripping the trigger. I'll be back later if something piques my
interest. Maybe.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 1 kb.

--- Well, he's gone.
Or at least he will be soon. The presidential campaign just got so
boring. It's turned into the battle of the Great White Hopes. What,
honestly, could be more boring? Watching a slug crawl across a patio is
more interesting than watching the Democratic presidential nominees.
Howard, however, just made his final misstep, though. The former Vermont governor, who went winless in 17 caucuses and
primaries after falling from leading contender early in the year, does
not intend to endorse either John Kerry or John Edwards, the aide said
on condition of anonymity. Dean has been impressed with Edwards and
suggested on the campaign trail that he would make a better nominee,
but Dean has decided to stay out of the Kerry-Edwards contest, the aide
said.
If this leak is true, well, Howard, you just pissed away your chance to
make some actual substantial change within the Democratic party. Not
that it was a good
chance that anyone in that group would take anything you said
seriously, but it was your one and only chance. By not endorsing
someone, by not pushing your agenda upon anyone as a quid pro quo
arrangement, well, you've relegated yourself to footnote status.
Neither Kerry nor Edwards is going to court your supporters. They don't
have to: they know that your supporters ultimately want Bush out of the
White House and they'll support anyone who will get them that result.
Your supporters, Howard, in other words, are Happy Meal toys. They come
free with the purchase of a regularly priced meal. Don't expect
strategy calls from Kerry. Don't even expect an invitation to speak at
the convention this summer, let alone an invitation to the convention
itself. They don't want you around Howard. They used you to get people
fired up. You were the warm-up act. Ok, now I'm officially done with my
one post about the Democratic primaries. Wake me up when Kerry and
Edwards pull on the little wrestling panties and decide to have a
Pay-Per-View smackdown. Until then...pffft. Who cares?
--- I'm tired of Lileks writing about how much The Bleat sucks.
I realize Lileks is the official nice guy of the blogosphere. He
doesn't like letting his readers down. He feels bad when he doesn't
have time to produce his screedy goodness. That's all well and good.
Very kind and considerate. But we understand, James. We know you write
other stuff besides The Bleat. You're a full-time writer. You get paid
for this stuff. How much you write directly affects how much money you
have in your bank account. You've got mouths to feed. There's no reason
why you have to explain to the freeloaders---those of us who mainly
read The Bleat and who won't chip out for The Gallery of Regrettable Food---why you're shortchanging us. We understand.
So, please, stop using the Bleat's suckiness as your theme for
Wednesdays. It's boring. And you're not a boring writer. You're not.
You're inventive. You have lovely prose. You can find subject matter in
the most mundane of tasks, but this, well, I don't have time to write a good Bleat, so I'm sorry, but you're getting a sucky Bleat attitude is getting SO OLD. So knock it off, ok?

Besides, if I could be as lame as you, I'd consider myself a lucky girl.

--- Oh, yeah!
The only beef I have with this piece is that it ignores the main
strategy behind the TSA's behavior: that all of the TSA's hustle and
bustle is about the perception of safety, not safety itself. As long as
the TSA screeners feel clearing out an airport well after the perceived
threat is gone, they're doing something about the problem. The system worked
we're no safer than we were on 9/11. This program costs the taxpayers
millions of dollars, not to mention how the flying public gets screwed
on ticket surcharges to pay for this program. And we're no safer today
than we were on 9/11. We're just not. I don't feel any safer now that
my underwire bra sets off the metal detector. It's all for show and
anyone with even the smallest amount of common sense knows this. Now,
what we need is for someone to write an article about how much money
the airlines are making from first class tickets and the people who get
a light checking from security because of this. --- Oooh, it's time for
a "Don Henley is an Idiot" fest.

"Artists are finally realizing their predicament is no different
from that of any other group with common economic and political
interests. They can no longer just hope for change; they must fight for
it. Washington is where artists must go to plead their case and find
answers. So whether they are fighting against media and radio
consolidation, fighting for fair recording contracts and corporate
responsibility, or demanding that labels treat artists as partners and
not as employees, the core message is the same: The artist must be
allowed to join with the labels and must be treated in a fair and
respectful manner. If the labels are not willing to voluntarily
implement these changes, then the artists have no choice but to seek
legislative and judicial solutions. Simply put, artists must regain
control, as much as possible, over their music."
Ah yes. It's not the music industry you need your troops to battle,
it's Congress. Congress has to come in and save you from being taken
advantage of by shameless music producers. Oh, fer chrissakes! What
exactly do you think the government is going to do about
it? Force the music companies to play fair? Pffft. It's called a free
market. If you don't want to participate in the free market, well, Don,
you should just pack it up and go home. As someone who hopes to be a
published writer someday I have researched the business realities that
hopefully will be a part of my life so I will be prepared when it does
happen. I can tell you right now that, compared to other artists, such
as a writer or an actor, musical artists get screwed by the companies that market their product. SCREWED,
I tell you. If I ever get published, the deal will go something like
this: I will sign the English language rights to my work over to the
publishing company for an upfront fee---which, depending upon how good
my work is and how well they think it will sell, will either be an
advance or an upfront payment. Out of that upfront fee, my agent will
take a percentage. Then the book goes to market. The publishing company
plans the marketing campaign. They will lobby for space on the front
table at Barnes and Noble. They will make deals with Amazon. They will
send the book out for quips from other writers who lodge under the same
publishing house to put on the back cover. And depending upon what kind
of publicity clause is in the contract I sign, I will go out and do
interviews and book signings, etc., to get the word out and to make
sure the book is sold. When the sales figures start being tallied, then
they will start deducting the advance I received from the sales. They
will turn the gross into net. It's quite simple. And after that,
industry standards dictate that for every copy of my book that is sold,
I'll get about seven percent of that money. This is why Philip Roth
makes very little coin in reality, but is also why John Grisham gets
paid the millions of dollars that he does: he moves product. Roth,
while the better writer of the two, does not move product. But the two
writers start all over again when the book is translated into other
languages and sold overseas. Same deal with the audio books. And then
there are the movie deals: options. Now, I love
the idea of options. It's frickin' fantastic. When someone in Hollywood
buys the rights to a book most often they are only "optioning" the
rights. They pay a fee to hold the right to use your book as source
material for their movie, but they only buy that right for a few years.
If they choose not to make a movie out of it, that option expires, and
then the writer can option their work to another buyer, and so on and
so on. Writers may not make millions of dollars, but when published,
chances are if they're working in a commercially viable field, like
popular fiction, they will make a decent living for the rest of their
lives. But they only make this money because they have many fields from
which to profit: they've looked for places to make money and they do
make money because of it---they spread their work out across the market
and they profit from it. Music artists, however, get screwed. It's
pretty much the same deal for musicians as for writers, but the
specifics are different. It costs more to produce a CD than it does to
produce a book. It also costs more to promote a CD than it does a book.
But the financial condition most musicians really get screwed with is
that they have this little word in their contract that writers do not: recoupment,
which means that for every dime the record company puts out on their
behalf, whether it be an advance or for a platter of cheez doodles, the
record company takes that dime back from the proceeds. Writers, in
other words, do not have to pay for the production of the book itself,
or the costs of promoting it: the publishing company takes that on.
Record companies also take all of the copyright rights. Writers can
pick and choose which rights they want to hold and to give
up---musicians can't do this unless they put out their own CD's. It
takes years, sometimes, before an artist will see any proft from their
work. And the only place musicians make money is from the sales of
their records. They don't have an audio book option. They don't have a
movie option. The music industry, in other words, depends solely upon
the sale of CD's to make a profit. Now, that's not a good deal. But
this is how the music industry has traditionally worked and they have
made money from it in the past, so they're loath to part with it. Add
into that agents and managers and producers who take a percentage, you
can understand why most musicians don't like the idea of file sharing.
They're not going to make any money if you're not shelling out coin for
a CD. Yes, there are tours and MTV and the like, but those are not
profit centers for them: those are geared toward promoting CD sales.
Any money they make from a tour is gravy to their way of thinking.
Their business model is flawed. This is why free downloads are a big
deal. This is why the RIAA is suing kids. Instead of adapting their
model to the possibility of a new profit center, they see it as a
threat to the old ones. And Don Henley wants Congress to get involved
because the music industry won't change. Well, as flawed as the music
industry is, Don, they're not going to change. And neither should they
have to. It's a free market and they're allowed to run their business
the way they want to. I'm sorry, but them's the breaks. What artists
seem to ignore, though, is the opportunity they have to make change
themselves. All it would take would be for some highly popular artist
to break the mold. To say, hey, we're going to do something radical:
we're going to change how the system works, come along with us. But
they don't do that. The big artists are the ones who are making money
on the system and they see no need to further the cause of music
itself. I don't see you going out and starting your own record company,
Don, and saying hey, we won't have recoupment. You'll actually be able
to make a living with us. No, it may not be as much as Britney makes,
but it'll be brass in the pocket for you. You want Congress to step up
and defend you from the big bad wolves. Well, that's not going to
happen, my friend. It's just not. I'm sure more than a few people on
the Hill got a good chuckle out of your op-ed, Don.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2114 words, total size 12 kb.

--- Ok, this is interesting in more than just the obvious ways.

On January 9th, when the sale was announced, I wrote:

The best possible option here would be for Putin to make a deal with
one of the oligarchs and have them buy the stuff for the Hermitage in
St. Petersburg, and then we could all see it again. But it won't
happen. Putin' doesn't have enough cash in the treasury to compete with
the other buyers at this sale, and it's not like he's going to give the
oligarchs any ground with which to strengthen their position. It's a
shame. The Hermitage is where that collection belongs.
Well, I was wrong. Can you believe that? (Heheheheh) Putin made a deal!
I suspect we won't ever know any of the specifics, but heh! He's a
crafty guy. I think Vekselberg is going to get a big ass break on his
taxes. And perhaps, if Putin's in a good mood, maybe he won't have his
ass thrown in jail. And don't think Vekselberg did this out of the
goodness of his heart. Tch. I don't think so. He didn't become an
oligarch in a country where the business world is best seen as the
Colliseum and businessmen are seen as lion's meat. It's kill or be
killed in Russia---and killing, in this situation, depending upon how
naive you are, can either be a metaphor or the real thing---it just
depends upon how much you want to know and what you would prefer to
ignore. Now, I wonder what this means in terms of the Khodorkovsky
debacle? What is this meant to teach Khodorkovsky? It's my way or the highway? or You see, I can be a reasonable man. Why not just give me what I want?
I don't know. I suspect we won't ever know, media coverage of Putin
being what it is. Interesting nonetheless. The sort of story that makes
the imagination run rampant.
--- It's not dripping in the office today because it's 1 degree outside
and cloudy. The sun's not out to muck things up. So, while I have a
temporary reprieve from the dripping, we still don't have phone
service. The Qwest people have repeatedly assured us, however, that
we're on the list and that someone should be out to fix the problem
today. Tip for Qwest customers: Pay the $3.95 a month for the
Linebacker option. This is saving us hundreds of dollars in repair
charges. It could save you, too, trouble down the line. Think of it as
an installment plan. We've had this for six years, have never been
covered under it before---but this time we are. And here I had just
been toying with the notion of getting rid of it. Glad I didn't. ---
Tip for the Day II: If you live in the Northern Hemisphere, where it
gets below 32 degrees on a regular basis, it's a good thing to know
that potting soil that has been sitting in an unheated garage all
winter long will
freeze, just like the dirt in the yard. Didn't even think about this
when I went to transplant a house plant this morning. Found out
differently when the husband told me. Yes, I am an idiot. {/idiot}
--- How much you want to bet they're going to blame this on America?

My favorite Oscar Wilde quote: America and England are two countries separated by a common language.
I still can't quote Shakespeare to save my life. Thank God for it, but
that's a discussion best left for another day.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 605 words, total size 4 kb.

--- ok, so I admit it. I have the attention span of a gnat. I've lost
interest in writing about DWI. Sorry to have teased you in a such a
manner. You may call me Jezebel, if you so choose, but I've come to the
conclusion that I'm still not ready to see this in a rational light. My
fault completely---I overestimated myself. I tried five different times
to sit down and write something that was coherent and rational and it
just didn't happen. I wound up deleting everything. So, I'm backing
down. In my estimation it's better to pull back than spew shit. Back to
our regularly scheduled blogging activities. --- Interesting tidbit
from The Economist's Business This Week section.

Yukos proposed an unusual asset swap with Russia's government. Big
shareholders in Russia's largest oil company offered to give a
controlling interest to the government in return for the freeing from
jail of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Yukos's chief executive, and two
associates, who are in prison awaiting trial on charges of tax evasion.
As the husband incredulously phrased it, Greenmail? They're trying
greenmail with Putin?
Now, do these people have balls or what? I love the audacity of this.
It's one thing to try and bribe a company that's trying to take yours
over with a stock swap or cash. That's a case of two private entities
doing business. But to offer this sort of agreement to a government, to get someone out of jail? Holy cow! That's brash and bold and ballsy. And has got to make it into the Guinness Book of World Records
for the largest amount of bail paid---ever. Putin, whether he goes for
it or not (something tells me that the greedy pragmatist in him will
take the offer), has got to appreciate what lengths these people will
go to get their rainmaker out of jail. Appreciation aside, just think
of the offer in itself. Think of YUKOS as an old Ferrari that was
rusted, beat to hell, and it looked like there was no way it was going
to get back up and running, let alone scream down the highway as God
intended it to do. You sell it off, disappointed you couldn't fulfill
the car's potential, but you're ok with the sale to a
refurbisher---maybe they'll succeed where you couldn't, plus, thanks to
the money they paid you for the Ferrari, you'll now be able to feed
yourself. So, fast forward a few years, the Ferrari is now restored to
its original glory; in fact, it's better than it ever was, thanks to some tinkering, and you've got the opportunity to get it back---for next to nothing.
What would you do? What would Putin do? (heh, new bracelet fad in
Russia---WWPD). It's a win-win situation for him: he loses no face and
he gets control of a cash cow in a place where cash is king. Seems like
a no-brainer to me. The catch? If his shareholders manage to purchase
his release, will Khodorkovsky back down? Hmmmm. Interesting question.
If the deal goes through Putin would, essentially, be his boss. Could
that work? Probably not. Khodorkovsky would probably dump his stock and
flee the country. How deep does Mikhail's devotion to his country go
and will he stick? But we won't find out about any of this until after
Putin is safely reelected. After all, wasn't that the point in throwing
Khodorkovsky into jail in the first place? To keep him from swaying the
election away from Putin? Heheheheh. I love crafty Russians. --- So,
I'm waiting for the UPS guy to show up. This is annoying. I've never
had this problem before---it's a new situation for me. Usually I'm the
girl who's always home and who signs for anything they need signed for.
Then the neighbors come over, retrieve their stuff and then go home
happy. Today, however, we're
having something delivered. Something that has to be signed for. And I
wish the guy would just ring the bell so I can get on with my day.
We're getting a new printer, you see. {Insert angels singing
HALLELUJAH! from on high here} We ordered it last week from Dell and it
should be getting here today. Sometime between 10:30 and 2:30. Very
exciting stuff. I don't know if I'll be able to handle the drama of it
all. The tension is killer. We played taps for the old printer, an
ancient HP laserjet, last month. We had to move the budget around a
little and do some serious research, but we were finally able to find
what we wanted at Dell. It's an all in one---printer, fax, copier and
scanner---everything we wanted, but for half the price of what HP
wanted for the same damn thing. I'm a little leery about going with
Dell: they only started putting out printers last year. The HP lasted
eight years---it had earned its stripes. We'll have to see just how
well the Dell version works. And I'm installing it. I know. Odd, eh?
You'd think the husband would be all over this one, but he's out
visiting his client's remote locations, doing site inspections or
something like that. Pffft. Whatever. So, to spare him the business of
the installing after listening to everyone's computer woes all day
long, I thought I'd give it a whack...
And there's the doorbell. Gotta go. Should have interesting tales of
printer installation tomorrow.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 914 words, total size 5 kb.

--- Good for Rosie.

Mazeltov. Congratulations. Best wishes for a long life together and all that jazz.

I'm happy for her. I really am. I'm glad she got to marry the woman of her dreams. I still don't have to like her, though, particularly when she says stuff like this:

O'Donnell told the crowd that she and Carpenter, who have been
together six years and are raising four children, decided to dash to
San Francisco after hearing President Bush endorse a proposed
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Tuesday.``We were
both inspired to come here after the sitting president made the vile
and hateful comments he made,'' O'Donnell said.

Ok, so what part of this is actually vile and hateful?

Now, I can understand "vile"---because to Rosie, what he said is vile. But hateful?
I don't think so. Get a grip and get one now. If we're to have this
debate, let us make it a debate, not an illogical, irrational hate fest
where someone who disagrees with you can be labeled "hateful." Where,
precisely, is that going to get you in legalizing same sex marriage,
Rosie? Not very far, methinks. Ever heard the one about attracting more
flies with honey, rather than vinegar? Personally, I think this was a
political move. Bush is trying to appease the religious right---those
conservative Christians who feel that marriage needs to be defended
from any possible threat---even if the threat to the institution of
marriage is not from Gays and Lesbians, but from stupid heterosexuals
who can get married and then divorced and all on a whim. And these are
the reasons why I think this.
1. The President of the United States of America has absolutely no part
of the amendment process. It was designed that way for a reason---to
overcome a presidential veto. So, Bush's statement means nothing in the
scheme of things because he doesn't have the power to do anything. He
can make a few phone calls, and maybe twist some arms, but that's it.
That's the full extent of executive authority when it comes to
amendements. Don't believe me? Get out your copy of the Constitution
and read it. It's Article V, if I'm remembering correctly.
2. The proposed FMA hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of actually
passing. DO THE MATH. The constitutional requrements for passing an amendment through Congress demands a 2/3 majority of each
house. Perhaps it will pass through the House, but if anyone thinks
that this piece of excrement will get 2/3 of the Senate, they're
kidding themselves. It won't. If, on the off chance the amendment
actually makes it out of Congress, it goes to the State Legislatures
for ratification---of which, 3/4 of the states must ratify said
amendment. So, there are fifty states in the Union---3/4=38 states.
That means a whopping twelve states could conceivably kill this thing.
Are there twelve such states? What do you think, knowing what you know
about where you live? And do keep in mind that small states and large
ones have the same amount of power in this decision---Rhode Island
wields the same amount of power in the ratification process as
California, in other words. As Tip O'Neill so wisely said, All politics are local.
The FMA doesn't have a chance. This is all election year politics. Make
no mistake about it: even Tom DeLay is up for reelection this year. Not
that this means he won't get reelected, thanks to his efforts in
getting Texas redistricted to his specifications. But he's got to hit
the stump, still. He has to make the effort to get reelected, as do any
other number of Republicans. This isn't going to go anywhere,
so I would really appreciate it if people would untwist their knickers
about it. It's going to wind up in the courts---sooner rather than
later. I would prefer that not happen, because it curtails the amount
of debate on the matter---and we need a debate. How are we to change
minds otherwise?---- and, to some extent, hands a fait d' accompli
to the side that gets the short end of the stick. But as I said last
week, the courts are there for a reason: they are the legitimate third
branch of the government. They play a big part in the checks and
balances the founding fathers set up, accept it and move on.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 739 words, total size 5 kb.

Muahahahahahahah!
Can't touch this.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

--- The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
America states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed.

Now, after that pleasant little refresher course in the constitution, please inform me as to how this does not violate an individual's right to be spared unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause?

So, here we have an individual in the New Mexico House of Representatives that is, pretty much, assuming that all New Mexicans are all guilty of drunk driving, hence we'd better stop them before they do it, eh?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, eh? When are
these people going to learn? It's not the social drinkers, who make up
the majority of the population, that are the perpetrators of repeated
drunk driving, it's the heavy drinkers---the ones who literally cannot
quit drinking after they've started. Need proof? Go read this.

"Two thirds of the drivers in alcohol-related fatal accidents have a
BAC (blood alcohol content) of .14 or higher. The average BAC in fatal
accidents involving alcohol is .17."
"Looking abroad. Sweden has a BAC threshold of .02, yet the average BAC
in alcohol related fatal accidents there is still .15."
Never mind the atrocious legality issues involved with this proposed
law. That's not really relevant---yet. What is relevant, however, is
the fact that this law probably won't cut down on drunk driving anyway,
or is that it's intended purpose to begin with? Hmmmm. That's a good
question. I think there's another reason lurking under the relative
political safe haven of "getting tough on drunk driving." And I think
it's that, like the author of the Cato Institute Study, Radley Balko,
claims: it's that people want to have another go round at prohibition.
Balko makes the rather convincing claim that alcohol, a legal substance
for those over the age of twenty-one, is seen, by some people, as the
root of all evil and the only way to root out
that evil is to ban it entirely. He says at one point in his findings
that (paraphrasing badly) it's the behavior and the lifestyles
associated with alcohol that these people are going after. And I think
he's got a point---look at the evidence. We've gotten to the point in
this society where a law like this can be proposed and has been
approved by one half of a state legislature and the ACLU is only doing
its concerned watching act. Which is a major contrast to what they
usually do when the Constitution is under threat: firing up all the
cylinders about the fact that the entire citzenry of a state has the
potential to be subjected to unreasonable searches held without
probable cause. Alcohol, and anything associated with it, like drunk
driving laws, have become the new Third Rail of politics. It used to be
Social Security that no one wanted to touch with a ten foot pole, now
it's all about coming down on the "right" side of the issue of booze.
But what is the right side of the issue? And the better
question is when is the insanity going to stop? Where is the friggin'
line? And when are the legislators going to realize that they've
stepped one pace too far? I have a lot of personal experience with this
issue. My objectivity might be skewed here, but you don't come here to
read about objectivity---you come here to read my thoughts. So strap in
kids---it's going to be a bumpy ride. The husband is an alcoholic. We
just celebrated his one year sobriety anniversary last week. And he's
doing pretty damn good, but at this time last year our lives were
completely thrown into a salad spinner because of his actions. He drove
drunk, as you might have guessed, and this last incident was the one
that finally woke him up to what he was doing with his life. I thank
God he got busted for this: it was the catalyst that finally made him
realize he just couldn't handle booze and that there was no shame in
the act of not drinking. A very hard lesson to learn, and one I will go
into another day, but I honestly think most people don't know the
extent that the legal system has gone to to deal with the problem of
drunken driving. Most people wouldn't know---they don't drive drunk.
Hence, they don't realize how very few rights you have when you're
accused of drunken driving---and make no mistake about it---your rights
go out the window the very minute those sirens and flashers start
blaring. So picture the situation. You're sitting in your car. You've
been pulled over. Traffic is flying by to your left and you are
terrified. Suddenly, the music that wasn't loud enough a few moments
ago, when you were carefree and screaming down the highway, is way
entirely too loud and you move to turn off the stereo, but you do so in
a manner that won't attract the cops attention, lest his pull his
weapon on you, thinking you're going for a gun. You start thinking
about what you should do. You curse. You try and pull yourself together
and do the mental math on just how long you were out and how much
alcohol you ingested. You think it may not be the best idea to take
your chances with a sobriety test. That you've heard they're rigged.
You might even look helplessly around for a penny to put under your
tongue, because you'd heard that the copper sends faulty signals to the
breathalyzer. You jolt as the cop knocks on your window and as you pull
it down, the cop starts sniffing and looking to see what your eyes look
like. You say, "Good evening, officer," whilst praying you're not
slurring your words and you don't realize it, and then the dance
begins.
I've never been pulled over for drunken driving. I've been pulled over
once for speeding, and I was let off with a warning. That's the extent
of my experience with cops. But I have to think this is what it's like.
Being scared out of your wits that two glasses of wine might have
ruined your life. This is why most people never have an issue with this
sort of thing ever again. They're scared straight, as the cons call
that particular experience. But this also means most people don't have
any idea of the consequences of protecting yourself. Any time someone
is arrested, they're Mirandized. We've all heard the little diddy on
TV, so we know it by heart, but did you know that police in most states
can collect evidence that will be used against you in a DWI case and
you cannot protect yourself without paying a price for that right? In
Minnesota, and plenty of other states, if you refuse to blow into a
breathalyzer, they will automatically suspend your license for up to a year. Just for thinking you had the right not to incriminate yourself guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
How do they get around this? Administrative rules. It's not on the
books anywhere other than at your local DMV. It's not an actual
law---it's a rule. And, as we all know from those fabulous driver's ed
classes they made us take in high school, driving is a privilege, not a
right, so they can take away your license just for refusing to test.
So, with this thought firmly in mind, and the knowledge running around
the back of your head that hey, I only had a couple of glasses of wine, with dinner, I should be fine, I should probably just blow and get it over with
you think about your options. At this point, the scales are already
tipping in favor of the police and away from the individual. You think
of all the hassle that will happen if you don't blow: your license will
be suspended, you won't be able to drive to that very important meeting
you have the next day, you'll probably be arrested on suspicion of
drunk driving anyway or for some other reason, your car will be towed
and you'll have to go through the interminable nightmare of the impound
lot to get your car back. You should be fine, you repeat to yourself, working up your confidence for the procedure,After all, I stayed on the line and I could touch my nose. I'll be fine. And...you blow.

WHAMMO!
This is where you find yourself handcuffed and on your way to jail,
watching in stupefied disbelief through the rear window of the cruiser
as your car fades into the distance. Depending upon which jail they
take you to, an hour later you could find yourself locked up in a cushy
cell with cable or in with the homicidal madmen at the badass county
jail. Then comes the phone call you will have to make to have yourself
out by morning, so you can get to work on time. The call to the spouse
or the close friend to come and bail you out. And that's when the nice
people at the jail inform you that your bail wasn't set when you were
booked; that the judge will set it for you when you're arraigned. This
is when you realize you have taken a trip into the ninth level of hell
usually only reserved for lawyers. And all because you wanted to keep
your license to drive. Fun, huh? Rights are always fun. Particularly
the violation of said rights. To be continued...

Posted by: Kathy at 01:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1653 words, total size 10 kb.

--- DWI is the planned topic of the week. If you don't care or don't
want to read, please, by all means skip it and I hope you come back
when I'm done. First, though, I felt I should give a word of warning.
If I sound a bit brusque and uncaring you should not take my attitude
to mean that I don't care about the problem of drunken driving. I do
care about it. Quite a bit. Ask anyone who's ever had to bail out a
loved one who had been charged with that particular offense. I can tell
from experience that your first thought is Thank God they didn't kill someone! Thank God they're not hurt! Which is rapidly followed up with But they sure as hell don't have long to live!

The husband has been pulled over for this six times since we were married. Six
times. I know. A horrible recidivism rate. He should, by all rights, be
locked up until kingdom come---provided he'd hurt someone whilst
driving drunk. If that had been the case, that key would have been in
the garbage can faster than you could spit and I would have been the
one who'd have thrown it there. But he never hurt anyone. The potential
for harm was there, yes. I'm not denying that one little bit, but
actual harm never occurred. The worst that ever happened while he drove
drunk was that he hit a slick spot and went into the ditch. That's it.
There was no horrific smashing of parked cars. No little kids were
mowed down in the roadway. No buses jampacked with nuns were run off
the road. None of those things ever occurred. But let's be honest about
the situation: when I wrote on early Friday morning that the husband
had been charged with drunk driving, that was what you thought he'd done. Wasn't it? You'd lumped him into the category of stupid person who gets behind the wheel and does horrible things when they're incapacitated
category. I'm sure you did. It's not your fault. That's what everyone
from Congress to our local politicians to MADD wants us to think about
drunk drivers; that they're scary individuals who don't giving a
flaming hoot about other people. They didn't care enough to call a cab.
They didn't care enough to designate a driver. They just don't care about anyone but themselves!
I am here to tell you that this is not the case. At least it's not with
the husband. He made bad choices. He did. I'm not denying this one
little bit. Every time I got the call to come and bail him out I
thanked God no one had lost their life or their livelihood because the
husband, God love him, was too stupid to see that he couldn't handle
booze and needed to quit. Every time he went out thereafter, I lived
with the horrible knowledge that maybe the only thing that was going to
stop him from drinking was that he would kill someone whilst driving
drunk. That the loss of someone else's life would be his wake up call
and it would be too late for everything. I had horrible nights when he
would do this. It wasn't very often. Once or twice a month. But those
nights were interminable. And the relief was overwhelming when he
finally would walk into the apartment---inebriated, but alive. I once
read that life happens one day at a time, like water dripping on a
stone; that no one deserves all the good or the bad they come across in
their life, and this is how I feel about the husband's alcoholism. So,
please, whatever you take out of this little diatribe, don't think I
don't care. I do. More than I can ever express. But it's also this
care, this feeling, or whatever you want to call it, that is the source
of my incredulity with the laws. This diatribe is not the work of a
hard bitten woman who's had to deal with too much legal hassle, in
other words. While the law has not not played fair, in my opinion, by
stacking the deck against the accused, I do see the need for there to
be laws against drunk driving in the first place. But I also see the
need for a better solution to the problem of drunken driving than the
one we have in place. It may work to deter the social drinkers, but as
the statistics show, the laws don't make a dent in the actual deaths
that occur as a result of drunken driving. We're past the stage where
we need ads during the Super Bowl to deter social drinkers from being
stupid. They know not to be stupid. We don't need to lower the legal
limit to .08. That's not going to do anything when the statistics show
that the average BAC of someone who's involved in an alcohol related
fatality is .17. We're at the stage that no one wants to touch because
no one knows how to resolve it. People deserve better---both the
accused and the people who have lost loved ones because of drunken
driving.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 878 words, total size 5 kb.

---- BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You know, just in case you were wondering what the muppets were
actually going to do in the magic kingdom. Personally, I think the
Swedish Chef could take those Japanese guys on Iron Chef anyday. And
Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker will undoubtedly be put to work in the
Disney labs. I picture a chain around poor Beaker's neck while they
slave away over experiments on how to further brainwash children. I'm
also picturing Kermit taking over for Peter Jennings on the ABC Nightly
News...I mean, come on, Kermit's got plenty of experience from doing
the news on Sesame Street. Kermie just doesn't give me that Monday
Night Football vibe. Al Michaels wouldn't know what to do with him. And
of course, Piggy can get her lard ridden butt over to the Lizzie
McGuire soundstage and do a karate chop on Hillary Duff. Oh, wait.
Hillary quit. Damn. Hmmm. Someone must be worthy of a karate chop at
Disney? Oh, I know. Michael Eisner. Perfect. Piggy can just go beserk
on him and the board's problems would be solved. And I'm sure they'd
give her a bonus, too.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.