A Group Gone Too Far?

Or maybe outlived it's usefulness?

Prior to 1980, the laws and attitudes towards drunk driving were lax - almost as if drunk driving was an acceptable fact of life. But 1980 saw the formation of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Through their efforts, public awareness was raised, laws were toughened, and drunk driving deaths took a nose dive.

Over the last few years, the decline has plateaued, remaining at around 13,000 deaths per year due to drunk driving.

MADD has decided to take a more agressive path to get that number declining again, preferably to zero. They are calling for a breathalyzer in every vehicle for every person convicted of a DUI, even first-time offenders. To start the car, the driver has to breathe into a tube and if he's over the legal limit, the car won't start.

Sounds noble until you consider a few things. First, such a device would mean that a 120-pound woman who drinks two glasses of wine during a two-hour dinner won't be able to get her car started. Second, the device can be rigged to require the driver to blow in the tube periodically during a course of a trip to ensure he didn't enter the vehicle sober and then started drinking or had a sober friend blow in the tube to begin with. And third, everything in this country is set on precedence. Rumors (and I emphsize rumors) are being whispered that the ultimate goal of this program is to require this device in every newly manufactured vehicle as "standard equipment". Not only that, but there is equipment that can monitor every movement in the car as well as the air quality, and if alcohol is suspected, the car can shut down.

I don't know about you, but I don't need Big Brother in my car. I'm all for getting drunk drivers off of the road, but I draw the line at requiring equipment in my car that presumes I'm guilty before I start the engine.

Catholic Bishops Are So Understanding

American Catholic bishops on Tuesday called on gays to live a life of celibacy, but still referred to homosexuality as "disordered". They also encouraged gay Catholics to remain in the closet, both spiritually and sexually, by only telling a close circle of family and clergy of their homosexuality. -story

The bright note?

They declined to endorse reparative therapy, claiming there was no evidence it was effective. Instead, they called on homosexual Catholics to seek therapy that would help them lead a life of celibacy.

They still oppose gay couples adopting, but do encourage children of gay parents to be baptized.

At their anuual meeting, they also called on Catholics, especially those of child-bearing years, to shun birth control methods.

"The goal is not negative to stop people from doing things," George said. "The goal is positive—to give themselves entirely to Christ and to do that lovingly. So the goal is to empty yourself of yourself and hold nothing back, including your own fertility, and embrace human life and sacrifice yourself for the sake of something greater."

Perhaps the real motive against contraception - produce more babies because we're losing too many Catholics rejecting our shallow, and sometimes backwards, way of thinking? I'd like to see the New Way Ministries (a break-away Catholic religion who accepts homosexuality) issue their own paper, one encouraging condom use among homosexuals and celibacy for heterosexual Catholics, especially thos of child-bearing years.

Homophobia Is Homophobia, Mr. Hyman

Here's a new one. Yeah, I know. I've been kind of slacking. (For anyone new to this blog, periodically, I counter the general manager of the Sinclair Corporation, parent company of Fox News. I encourage everyone to lend him an earful.)

Mark Hyman took three days to try to link the ACLU to the support of pedophilia. I won't rehash all three reports here, but do encourage everyone to take a look at his remarks (use the drop down menu and choose the ones titled NAMBLA).

My response to his three-days of lying:

Wow! It took you three days to blow a thick smoke screen in an attempt to convince your viewers the ACLU supports pedophilia. The only problem is most of your viewers can see through the twisted facts and lies.

Point one: the ACLU is not against the Boy Scouts nor do they wish to not “separate men from copulating with young boys.”

First, according to the FBI, 90% of the pedophiles are heterosexual, not homosexual. By your reasoning, there should be no scout leaders.

Second, the very homophobic implication that homosexuals want sex with young boys warrants an apology on your part to your viewers and homosexuals.

Third, the ACLU is against discrimination, born out of homophobic myths like the one you have tried to perpetuate. They only argued that if the Boy Scouts receive public money and use public facilities, then they have to scrap their discriminatory practices against homosexuals.

Point two: the ACLU did not support NAMBLA. What they did support is free speech. Since the material NAMBLA publishes is not illegal, the ACLU argued that the group cannot be held liable for any crime committed because someone “got ideas” from their literature.

Now think of the implication for a moment. Every night I watch your reporters teach me how to deal drugs, rob banks, of kill someone. Sure, they don’t give me the lessons all at once, but each story reported gives me ideas of what I should and should not do if I were to commit a crime.

Do you want every criminal behind bars suing you for putting ideas in their head that caused them to commit their crime?

Perhaps they should sue you for giving them faulty information, much like this three-day expose on the ACLU and NAMBLA.

Protect the Everglades of the North - Final Outcome

Yesterday, it was announced that over 700 acres of the 1,000 acre proposed site will be sold to the state to become a permanent part of the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge. We're assured (ahem) that the announcement's timing has nothing to do with today's election.

The Critical Bay Commission nixed the hotel, convention center, retail center, and golf course but did allow the 2,700 homes since they were far back from the Little Black River. With the crux of the project (read, moneymaker) axed, the developer decided to negotiate the sale with the state and settled for building a654 homes, instead, that will mostly cater to the elderly.

The developer will still get 10.4 million for that 700 acres, though. I wonder if he will take some of his profit from the sale and donate it to the refuge he threatened to destroy.

Probably not. Stay tuned. I'll see what I can find out.