June 03, 2010
— Ace
Fake, you say? A blogger at the Dallas Observer says you're wrong and he's got the police report to prove it.
Thanks to tmi3rd.
Sound Effect: Now with the General Lee's horn added, thanks to "Uncle Jesse."
Clarification: The .77 is made up for the joke -- she blew such a lethal level of awesomeness in her field awesomeness test.
Sorry, I see that's confusing now.
I have no idea what her BAC was. But she was intoxicated and arrested for DUI.
Posted by: Ace at
11:25 AM
| Comments (197)
Post contains 98 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: buzzion at June 03, 2010 11:27 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: nursebynight at June 03, 2010 11:29 AM (Yge6V)
Posted by: EC at June 03, 2010 11:30 AM (mAhn3)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at June 03, 2010 11:31 AM (WMLsd)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at June 03, 2010 11:32 AM (WMLsd)
Posted by: John Galt at June 03, 2010 11:32 AM (F/4zf)
Posted by: Mbruce at June 03, 2010 11:33 AM (Fr8N6)
/General Lee Horn
Posted by: Boo Berry at June 03, 2010 03:27 PM (uFokq)
Someone please take this video and add that and post it. The internet truly sucks if this doesn't happen.
Posted by: buzzion at June 03, 2010 11:33 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at June 03, 2010 03:28 PM (mR7mk)
That what I was thinking, isn't that a low BAC?
Posted by: dananjcon at June 03, 2010 11:33 AM (pr+up)
Posted by: Social Conservative at June 03, 2010 11:34 AM (IhQuA)
Posted by: nursebynight at June 03, 2010 11:35 AM (Yge6V)
That what I was thinking, isn't that a low BAC?
Sure. For a Kennedy.
Legal limit is .08 in Texas.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at June 03, 2010 11:36 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: John f'in Schneider at June 03, 2010 11:36 AM (4Kl5M)
to France.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 03, 2010 11:36 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at June 03, 2010 03:28 PM (mR7mk)
That what I was thinking, isn't that a low BAC?
No no no, .77 is actually VERY impressive, the limit in N.J. is .08, this guy 9 times over the limit!!
YEEEESH! luck no one is dead!
Posted by: dananjcon at June 03, 2010 11:36 AM (pr+up)
okay, I know I'm not the only one who had the very first thought when seein gthe name: Is she illegal?
Posted by: Boo Berry at June 03, 2010 11:37 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: damian at June 03, 2010 11:37 AM (4WbTI)
Posted by: rIck SANchezz BITCh at June 03, 2010 11:37 AM (ngD76)
Posted by: ace at June 03, 2010 11:39 AM (66DVY)
http://tinyurl.com/36xsosv
Posted by: Kemp at June 03, 2010 11:39 AM (2+9Yx)
OT but speaking of illegal, Jan Brewer on facebook--
Governor Jan Brewer In my meeting with President Obama today, I personally invited him to come to Arizona and see the border for himself.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at June 03, 2010 11:39 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at June 03, 2010 11:40 AM (WMLsd)
Posted by: joncelli at June 03, 2010 11:40 AM (RD7QR)
It's a skirting-the-limits-of-human-physiology BAC, but it's a low *awesomeness* percentage.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at June 03, 2010 11:41 AM (mR7mk)
Oh.
I was at the shore over the weekend and as we're driving over a bridge one of the people with us revealed that the reason the toll booth looked so nice and new was because her uncle took it out a few years back when he basically did what's in the video.
Shockingly, alcohol was involved.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 03, 2010 11:41 AM (8WZWv)
Sound Effect: A reader wants the General Lee Horn added to the clip. I can't do that but if you play the below you can get it to sync up, mostly, if you start playing the below first, and then the actual car jump clip.
Really..REALLY?? I refuse to play your moronic games Ace. I will not jump through your moron hoops of fire...Good Day SIR!
ok..maybe once, if the boss ain't around.
Posted by: dananjcon at June 03, 2010 11:42 AM (pr+up)
This wouldn't have happened if she wasn't having a sexual relationship in the car with Nikki Haley.
Posted by: Boo Berry at June 03, 2010 11:42 AM (uFokq)
heh. ace, ya may wanna put an asterisk next to that BAC. I mean, you're talking to morons here.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at June 03, 2010 11:42 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Stan at June 03, 2010 11:42 AM (ZSCKp)
It's not a .77. I made that up. Because she scored a .77 in the field *awesomeness* test.
Awesome indeed!
Posted by: dananjcon at June 03, 2010 11:43 AM (pr+up)
If you had to pay $17 / day to park at the terminal, you'd try to find a way around the toll-booth, too...
Posted by: reason at June 03, 2010 11:43 AM (1R6cr)
Bzzz, incorrect.
By Breathalizer 0.976%
By Blood test 0.914%
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 03, 2010 11:44 AM (0q2P7)
Has anyone done the alcohol simulation tests that cops perform?
Speaking of awesome, it's full of it.
They give you drinks every 15 mins or on the half hour depending. Some people get food. Some do not. They test to see how much you can handle before you start to go over the legal limit (or pass out if you're a lightweight!) .
Posted by: laceyunderalls at June 03, 2010 11:44 AM (pLTLS)
We called 911 because we thought that he was going to suffocate by swallowing his own tongue. Good times...good times.
Posted by: Hedgehog at June 03, 2010 11:44 AM (oQIfB)
Posted by: Geraldo Rivera at June 03, 2010 11:44 AM (zgd5N)
Posted by: Boo Berry
Nope; she scored a .77. That's way over 18.
Posted by: Blue Hen at June 03, 2010 11:44 AM (R2fpr)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 03, 2010 11:45 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at June 03, 2010 11:46 AM (swuwV)
Posted by: nursebynight at June 03, 2010 11:46 AM (Yge6V)
Passenger: Shit, I think we've missed our flight...
Driver: No we ain't!
Posted by: reason at June 03, 2010 11:48 AM (1R6cr)
"Ramming Speed"
Posted by: nine coconuts at June 03, 2010 11:48 AM (DHNp4)
.914 is listed as the record and it occurred in Canada. Normally when you get above the .4 range you pass out and are in danger of dieing.
But let me clarify something said above. You are NOT drunk at .08. Thanks to the idiots at MADD whose ultimate aim is to restore prohibition, you can not legally drive at .08. That doesn't mean you are drunk.
I would say most people don't show visible effects of alcohol until they get above .15 or so. Heavy drinkers can probably go until above .2. I knew a guy in the Navy who I had watched drink at least a fifth of liquor that you would never tell by looking at him and talking to him he had drank anything.
Posted by: Vic at June 03, 2010 11:49 AM (6taRI)
Posted by: alexthechick at June 03, 2010 11:50 AM (8WZWv)
Posted by: nine coconuts at June 03, 2010 11:50 AM (DHNp4)
Posted by: Alamo Car Rentals at June 03, 2010 11:50 AM (Wq0+q)
Posted by: nine coconuts at June 03, 2010 03:48 PM (DHNp4)
I'm the most interesting woman in the wooooooorld!!!
brp.
Posted by: dananjcon at June 03, 2010 11:51 AM (pr+up)
ha ha ha! Wonder if she's a commenter on this blog?
Posted by: incognito at June 03, 2010 11:52 AM (u6X4c)
The police report itself often doesn't contain the BAC: depending on state law, that might be in a separate report/affidavit by the breath tech/operator. It's probably also on the DUI traffic citation.
Posted by: Dave J. at June 03, 2010 11:52 AM (/dqSG)
Posted by: JD at June 03, 2010 11:52 AM (Wq0+q)
Can we give that civil engineer a friggin' bonus for the hidden ramps?
Posted by: Fritz at June 03, 2010 11:54 AM (GwPRU)
And yet a non-drinker, would be staggering and slurring at 0.07.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 03, 2010 11:54 AM (0q2P7)
Changed my life. I took the next offramp off the Highway to Hell. except for a few Sam Adams occasionally, been sober 4 years. Haven't had bourbon since that night.
Posted by: sifty at June 03, 2010 11:54 AM (LccuO)
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at June 03, 2010 11:55 AM (swuwV)
Posted by: Wodeshed, Live from Atlanta at June 03, 2010 11:55 AM (BP84Z)
"Houston, We have liftoff"
68 With G.L. HornPosted by: Uncle Jesse at June 03, 2010 03:51 PM (hjyb5)
Ah all is right with the world
Posted by: buzzion at June 03, 2010 11:55 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Vic at June 03, 2010 11:57 AM (6taRI)
"And yet a non-drinker, would be staggering and slurring at 0.07."
This is why the "legal limit" is only one of two ways most states' DUI statutes allow the state to prove DUI, either by BAC or by "impairment." Otherwise there'd be no way to prove a DUI by someone who refused to blow. Good luck getting a jury to understand this, of course, but it also means you can blow under the "legal limit" and still be committing DUI.
Posted by: Dave J. at June 03, 2010 11:59 AM (/dqSG)
And yet a non-drinker, would be staggering and slurring at 0.07.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 03, 2010 03:54 PM (0q2P7)
Placebo effect. Hell haven't you ever heard stories about girls that hold one beer the whole night and pretend to act drunk or else they'll drink several and act trashed and then have it revealed that it was NA beer. Its even a scene in Not Another Teen Movie.
Posted by: buzzion at June 03, 2010 11:59 AM (oVQFe)
Posted by: joncelli at June 03, 2010 12:00 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: logprof at June 03, 2010 12:00 PM (CE2wR)
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at June 03, 2010 12:02 PM (swuwV)
BTW, she's listed in the police report as apparently having an SSN, but if you look close, her status is also listed as "non-resident." So either the SSN's fake or she's here on a visa/permanent resident status, I guess.
She also blew a .77 on the tattoo scale. Chica's got some ink.
Posted by: Moose4 at June 03, 2010 12:02 PM (mAhn3)
Posted by: logprof
Of course not. That would be wrong. The fact that she was trying to evade Sic Will Folks, let 'em rip.
Posted by: Blue Hen at June 03, 2010 12:02 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Unclefacts, AoSHQ Professional Debate Team at June 03, 2010 12:02 PM (erIg9)
Nothing to be proud of Russ.
One of the Vacations - I think it was Christmas after he cleared the fence and plowed through the sign.
Posted by: Raodking at June 03, 2010 12:03 PM (ynf6y)
Posted by: Wodeshed, Live from Atlanta at June 03, 2010 03:55 PM (BP84Z)
Ask him who the quote is from, betcha he gets it wrong (Gil Scott Heron, if memory serves).
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 03, 2010 12:03 PM (E4Pj8)
Posted by: joncelli at June 03, 2010 12:04 PM (RD7QR)
That's gotta be cheaper than rocket fuel.
I wonder if she's comfy in diapers?
Posted by: ontherocks at June 03, 2010 12:04 PM (HBqDo)
From the comments on that blog:
From her pics on FACEBOOK, she looks like someone that likes to PARTY HARD and take pictures of herself. Also I like her wall post, "MAN I"M BORD OUT OF MIND!! HOPE SOMETHIN COMES UP REAL QUICK LIKE!!!". Well Ms. Villasana did this wake you up?
Posted by: logprof at June 03, 2010 12:04 PM (CE2wR)
Nothing to be proud of Russ.
(come on morons, what's that from)
Posted by: polynikes at June 03, 2010 03:57 PM (m2CN7)
Lampoon Vacation (europe)
Posted by: dananjcon at June 03, 2010 12:04 PM (pr+up)
Rear-ended? By whom, Will Folks? That's pretty ballsy (and pretty stupid) to try to get back into a wrecked, burning car too.
I agree though - this is a moronette in training.
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at June 03, 2010 12:05 PM (c0A3e)
a category with one entry?
Posted by: nine coconuts at June 03, 2010 12:05 PM (DHNp4)
Posted by: maddogg at June 03, 2010 12:06 PM (OlN4e)
That's gotta be cheaper than rocket fuel.
I wonder if she's comfy in diapers?
Posted by: ontherocks
We have a contender for thread winner. Either this or the tollbooth.
Posted by: Blue Hen at June 03, 2010 12:07 PM (R2fpr)
Actually most States have two numbers. At .08 you are presumed guilty with no other evidence. At .04 if other effects (such as a wreck) are shown you are presumed guilty.
Most States also have the implied consent rule. If you refuse the blood test or the breathalyzer you are still charged based on the demonstrated evidence and your license is automatically revoked.
The latest craze however is drunk driving by people under 21 or people with levels above .20. They have turned those into regular Spanish inquisitions and I ain't talking about the old "comfy chair".
Posted by: Vic at June 03, 2010 12:08 PM (6taRI)
Posted by: Fresh Air at June 03, 2010 12:08 PM (lZwff)
OT, slightly, but still on the subject of residency and documentation.
The Mexican government set up a satellite consular office on Catalina Isand to provide illegals with ID cards. It has since been moved to a Catholic church, so that they can claim "sanctuary".
Is there anything that the Mexican government thinks they can't do?
Up on Drudge now.
Posted by: Who knows at June 03, 2010 12:11 PM (aE/nJ)
i was in a pile up on 101, where about 15 cars were destroyed, but i managed to stop in time and the only damage to my car was a cracked headlamp and a the car in front of me had a matching scratch on his rear fender
Three people in front of me, all with complete write-offs, tried to blame the person behind (ultimately, me) for pushing them. This was just as digital cameras were catching on and I had photos to make my case, but "I was pushed" is the new integrity.
Posted by: nine coconuts at June 03, 2010 12:11 PM (DHNp4)
(come on morons, what's that from)
The first Vacation, after Clark ramps the Roadster off the incline.
/I destroyed the tape by replaying that scene over and over again.
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at June 03, 2010 12:11 PM (c0A3e)
Posted by: rockhead at June 03, 2010 12:11 PM (RykTt)
While we're sitting there trying to figure this out, we see two guys walking down the road toward us. One well-dressed middle-aged black gentleman has a death grip on the arm of a younger guy, with blood and dirt on his T-shirt. Turns out that the younger guy was shitfaced, ran off the shoulder, overcorrected, and flipped his Honda. The other guy was driving right behind him, saw younger guy get out of the wreck and run for it, pulled his car over on the shoulder in front of him, and calmed him down and convinced him to come back. Anyway, Drunk Guy sees my bud, who's still wearing his shirt from his day job at the local Honda dealer parts department, and says, "Yo, man, you work at (redacted) Honda?" Friend answers, "Yeah." Drunk: "Well, yo, man, somebody stole my car, and this is where I found it!"
Later on, when the po-po and EMS were there, the county deputy took Drunk Guy out into the center turn lane to do the field sobriety test. He beckoned my friend (6'4", 250, part-time bar bouncer) over to stand behind the guy, along with a couple of the bigger dudes from the volunteer rescue squad. The deputy's orders: "If he runs, you have my permission to kick his ass."
Posted by: Moose4 at June 03, 2010 12:12 PM (mAhn3)
the only funny sitcom on now is MODERN FAMILY
Al Bundy is funny and a damn good actor.
Posted by: Boo Berry at June 03, 2010 04:06 PM (uFokq)
I am partial to Big Bang Theory. A lot of geek humor in there with no true malice behind it.
Posted by: buzzion at June 03, 2010 12:13 PM (oVQFe)
Got 2 go catch plane meeting rich guy named Van Der Sloot in Chile 4 romance! Wish me luck XOXOXOXO
Posted by: Yasmine Villasana's Twitter Account 6/1/10 6:13am at June 03, 2010 12:13 PM (ERJIu)
OT, slightly, but still on the subject of residency and documentation.
The Mexican government set up a satellite consular office on Catalina Isand to provide illegals with ID cards. It has since been moved to a Catholic church, so that they can claim "sanctuary".
Is there anything that the Mexican government thinks they can't do?
Up on Drudge now.
We should do the same. Oh, wait, who wants to live in that sh*t hole of a country? NVM.
Posted by: rockhead at June 03, 2010 12:14 PM (RykTt)
Posted by: Unclefacts, AoSHQ Professional Debate Team at June 03, 2010 12:14 PM (erIg9)
Posted by: bulwark at June 03, 2010 12:15 PM (5IU9c)
If only it was a Toyota she could have said the throttle stuck.
She might not have thought of it though. She seems really, really dumb.
I'd still do her.
Posted by: Entropy at June 03, 2010 12:16 PM (IsLT6)
Got 2 go catch plane meeting rich guy named Van Der Sloot in Chile 4 romance! Wish me luck XOXOXOXO
Posted by: Yasmine Villasana's Twitter Account
We either have a new contender for thread winner, or we're all going to Hell. Or both.
Posted by: Blue Hen at June 03, 2010 12:17 PM (R2fpr)
No, it's more complicated than that. The presumptions you're talking about go to to the ELEMENT of impairment rather than the element of UBAL (unlawful breath/blood-alcohol level). In Florida, for example, at .08 you're DUI without the State having to prove impairment (the State still has to prove you're "driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle"...trials where that's actually at issue are fun). But the BAC reading ALSO creates a rebuttable presumption that you're impaired. From .05-.08 there's no presumption either way, and below .05 there's a rebuttable presumption that you're NOT impaired.
The case law interpreting the statute holds that the jury can find you guilty based on EITHER UBAL or impairment or both, and they need only be unanimous as to guilt of DUI, not as which theory they believe the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted by: Dave J. at June 03, 2010 12:17 PM (/dqSG)
She "stated she had one cranberry and vodka last night."
And by "last night," she meant, "right before I got off of 183."
Posted by: reason at June 03, 2010 12:18 PM (5npD/)
Posted by: MelodicMetal at June 03, 2010 12:18 PM (x4S2a)
Fletch was, "Eh." No, the original Vacation was funny in the understated goofball Chase manner. The supporting cast was good, too. Chase's best work was Vacation where he was the star and Caddyshack where he shared billing. But because he's a political Hollywood nimrod now, I'm just not inclined to watch his work after he sorta went silent for a decade. Plus, I haven't watched broadcast TV for over a decade. I'm not returning.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at June 03, 2010 12:19 PM (swuwV)
You're out doing some trick driving and all of the sudden "The Man" is harassing you.
It's bullshit.
Posted by: alppuccino at June 03, 2010 12:20 PM (TbfAp)
Both,
OT - Dianne "the stuffer" Wilkerson is going to the slammer.
Former state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson pleaded guilty today to eight counts of attempted extortion and faces up to four years in jail when sheÂ’s sentenced this fall. Wilkerson, who filed for a change of plea in her federal corruption case, admitted to the charges during a 45 minute hearing in U.S. District Court in Boston. She is due back Sept. 20 for sentencing. She is free on no bail until that date.The Herald first reported yesterday that Wilkerson, 55, had reached a plea agreement with federal prosecutors.
She was arrested in October 2008, prior to leaving the State House office she held for six terms, on indictments alleging she pocketed $23,500 in bribes between 2002 and 2008, including $1,000 she was photographed stuffing in her bra at an upscale Beacon Hill restaurant. The Roxbury Democrat was to go on trial June 21.
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at June 03, 2010 12:20 PM (c0A3e)
Posted by: Craig at June 03, 2010 12:21 PM (0smvD)
When they re-created the incident with their matching minivan, stunt driver and mocked-up house, they did their first run at 75 mph. The vehicle sailed clear over the house.
They re-ran the test at 50 mph and the minivan plowed through the house exactly as the woman's vehicle had. They dropped the charges against the woman.
So yeah, normal freeway speed plus upward-angled road hazard equals airborne spectacularity.
Posted by: stuiec at June 03, 2010 12:21 PM (W+GYq)
I love BBT. It's clear that the writers actually like the characters.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 03, 2010 12:22 PM (8WZWv)
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at June 03, 2010 12:24 PM (c0A3e)
Even at .77 his coordination and reflexes are probably better than the reflexes of most of the elderly drivers in my state. But they're legal and he's not.
Hey, if you don't like the way I drive stay off of my lawn!
Posted by: Fred Fudner at June 03, 2010 12:24 PM (ERJIu)
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at June 03, 2010 04:20 PM (c0A3e)
The way you pasted it was a bit misleading. I was going to say they managed to name her party at the end of the second paragraph. But looking at the link, that sentence is more like the 5th paragraph.
Posted by: buzzion at June 03, 2010 12:25 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Will Folks! at June 03, 2010 12:25 PM (Mtciz)
Posted by: ziptie at June 03, 2010 12:27 PM (UdYT0)
Posted by: reason at June 03, 2010 12:27 PM (5npD/)
Posted by: Wodeshed, Live from Atlanta at June 03, 2010 12:27 PM (BP84Z)
Posted by: Blue Hen at June 03, 2010 12:28 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Jean at June 03, 2010 12:29 PM (JaO+v)
Correct: the theory behind this is that driving is a privilege, not a right, at least on public roads (you don't need a license to drive on your own private property). Most states' driver's licenses have a signature line indicating something like "I hereby consent to any sobriety exercise, and to any test for alcohol or controlled substances, allowed by law." If you refuse a test and your privileges are revoked, generally you can set an administrative hearing with the DMV to potentially get them back in a much shorter period than it might take the criminal case to resolve, but the evidentiary standard is lower and the burden is on the petitioner (i.e., the driver) to show that the officer had no legal basis to even ask for a breath, blood or urine test.
Posted by: Dave J. at June 03, 2010 12:30 PM (/dqSG)
Posted by: Robert at June 03, 2010 12:32 PM (jYQ2v)
The revolution will not be right back after a message
About a white tornado, white lightning, or white people.
Posted by: Upscale Community Organizing Thought Criminal at June 03, 2010 04:11 PM (IhHdM)
This is my favorite GSH tune, and appropriately enough it's called "The Bottle".http://tinyurl.com/7ooysk
Posted by: ontherocks at June 03, 2010 12:32 PM (HBqDo)
Apropos of nothin, since all day has felt like an open thread:
Public Choice Theory
Recent work in economics has focused not just on the government as an extension of individual preferences but also on government officials as people with their own agendas and objectives. That is, *government officials are assumed to maximize their own utility, not the social good*. To understand the way government functions, we need to look less at the preferences of individual members of the electorate, and more at the incentive structures that exist around public officials.The officials whom we seem to worry about are the people who run government agencies-- SSA, Dept HUD, etc., and the state registries of motor vehiclles, for example. What incentives do these people have to produce a good product and to be efficient? Might (ha ha) such incentives be lacking?
In the private sector, where firms compete for profits, only efficient firms producing goods that consumers will buy can survive. If a firm is inefficient -- if it is producing at a higher-than-necessary cost -- the market will drive it out of business. This is usually not so in the public sector. If a government bureau is producing a necessary service (or one mandated by law), is does not need to worry about customers. No matter how bad the service is at the registry of motor vehicles, everyone who owns or uses a car must buy its product.
The efficiency of a government agency's internal structure depends upon the way that incentives facing workers and department heads are structured. If the budget allocation of an agency, for instance, is based upon the last period's spending alone, then agency heads have a clear incentive to spend as much money as possible, however inefficiently. In the real world, this is too often the case, and we can see the result in our exlpoding deficits and debt on every level. This point is not lost on our government officials, who have experimented with many ways of rewarding agency heads and emplouees for cost-saving suggestions.
However, such critics say such efforts to reward productivity and punish inefficiency are rarely successful. This is clear. It is difficult to punish, let alone dismiss, a government employee. Elected officials are subject to recall and re-election, but it usually takes gross negligence to rouse voters into instituting such a measure. Also, elected officials are rarely associated with problems of bureaucracies they oversee, as they decry "waste, fraud and abuse" daily.
Critics of "the bureaucracy" argue that no set of internal incentives yet devised can ever match the discipline of the market, and such incentives may be impossible to come up with at all. They point to such things as studies of public versus private garbage collection, airline operations, fire protection, healthcare, mail services, and so forth, all of which suggest significantly lower costs in the private sector. One theme of the Reagan and first Bush Administrations was "privatization". Id the private sector could do something, it is likely to do it more efficiently than the public sector -- so the public sector should allow the private sector to take over.
One concern regarding wholesale privatization is the potential effect is might have on distribution. Late in his Administration, Ronaldus Magnus suggested that the government sell all public housing to the private sector. Would the private sector continue to provide housing to poor people? The worry was that it wouldn't because it may not be profitable to do so.
Like voters, public officials suffer from a lack of incentive to become fully informed, and to make tough choices. Consider an elected offical. If the real objective is to get re-elected, then the real incentive must be to provide visible goods for that hack's constituency while spreading the costs thin: by making other geographical regions or future generations pay for the benefits. Self0interest may, and does, easily lead to poor decisions and public irresponsibility.
Looking at the public sector from the standpoint of the behavior of individual public officials and the great potential for inefficient choices and bureaucratic waste, instead of in terms of it's potential for improving the allocation of resources has become quite popular. This is viewpoint of what is called the "public choice" field in economics that builds heavily on the work of Nobel laureate James Buchanan.
Posted by: Truman North at June 03, 2010 12:33 PM (e8YaH)
I love BBT. It's clear that the writers actually like the characters.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 03, 2010 04:22 PM (8WZWv)
You've got to wonder if the writers are hoping to get any other former Roseanne cast members for minor roles on the show.
Posted by: buzzion at June 03, 2010 12:34 PM (oVQFe)
OT, slightly, but still on the subject of residency and documentation.
The Mexican government set up a satellite consular office on Catalina Isand to provide illegals with ID cards. It has since been moved to a Catholic church, so that they can claim "sanctuary".
Is there anything that the Mexican government thinks they can't do?
Up on Drudge now.
Posted by: Who knows at June 03, 2010 04:11 PM (aE/nJ)
--[affecting Andrew Dice Clay] Unbelievable
Posted by: logprof at June 03, 2010 12:34 PM (CE2wR)
"driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle"...trials where that's actually at issue are fun
LOFL.
So if I fire my car up, throw it in drive (on private property mind you) and then crawl into the trunk and take a nap while it idles down the road it's not a DUI if they catch me?
Posted by: Entropy at June 03, 2010 12:37 PM (IsLT6)
Posted by: logprof at June 03, 2010 12:38 PM (CE2wR)
You are right. In SC they removed the .04 limit and the upper limit as well from the text of the law when they added all those enhanced penalties in 2008. This is what they have now.
It is unlawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle within this State while under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the person's faculties to drive a motor vehicle are materially and appreciably impaired, under the influence of any other drug or a combination of other drugs or substances which cause impairment to the extent that the person's faculties to drive a motor vehicle are materially and appreciably impaired, or under the combined influence of alcohol and any other drug or drugs or substances which cause impairment to the extent that the person's faculties to drive a motor vehicle are materially and appreciably impaired. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and, upon conviction, entry of a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere, or forfeiture of bail must be punished as follows:
After that the 1st, 2nd etc offence punishments are listed. The .08 and above limits are listed as to what the punishments are separately. They even added a section to get rid of juries finding people not guilty of DUI. Now the only thing a jury can rule on is what level of alcohol empairment the criminal had.
MADD has been hard at work here. Morons, you do not want to get busted for DUI here above .10 and surely not above .16. >.16 is good for a 1K fine and 30 days in the slammer.
Posted by: Vic at June 03, 2010 12:38 PM (6taRI)
For future reference. Never put an email or phone number you would be uncomfortable with receiving 1,000,000 messages, on a popular public blog.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 03, 2010 12:39 PM (0q2P7)
Postal worker. Sideswiped three cars while going back to the post office.
Next worst was a gas/electric worker. Fell off the pole he was working on.
Only a .42. People calling in to report 'the accident'. Got there in time to see him push people away who were trying to help him. He tried to drive off in his work truck. Turns out he had a fractured spine and was too soused to notice.
Worst chronic alkie, found comatose behind a dumpster at the 7-11 had a BA of .55 when they tested him at the hospital. Later he thanked me for saving his life. My reply: "Anyone can make a mistake".
Take that last as you will.
Posted by: GarandFan at June 03, 2010 12:40 PM (6mwMs)
Er, if it's a crime (i.e., it can result in jail), then the burden of proof has to fall on the State to prove every element of it beyond a reasonable doubt. The DUI statute itself may not specifically address acquittals (and most statutes defining particular crimes don't), but obviously the jury has to be able to acquit someone: how they do that generally might be in the state's rules of criminal procedure, or in statutes regarding the courts generally, rather than in the DUI statute.
Posted by: Dave J. at June 03, 2010 12:47 PM (/dqSG)
That wouldn't work here. The test has to be administered within 2 hours or you are considered to have refused it.
They also video tape the field sobriety test.
Posted by: Vic at June 03, 2010 12:47 PM (6taRI)
Sorry about that. Fiddling with the radio. What!? Stop judging me. Dicks. Car radios are hard. It's like dueling with a zombie.
Posted by: TheJane at June 03, 2010 12:48 PM (9TxlI)
MADD has been hard at work here.
Basically, as far as I can tell, 1 beer is .08 (which is the limit here).
It takes like 4-5 beers to even start to get me a little buzzed.
But yeah... if you have 1 glass of wine and get pulled over, you're pretty much at the mercy of the cop because you're over. 1 beer... probably over.
Posted by: Entropy at June 03, 2010 12:48 PM (IsLT6)
Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at June 03, 2010 12:48 PM (zgd5N)
Posted by: Jean at June 03, 2010 12:49 PM (PjevJ)
Nothing to be proud of Russ.
(come on morons, what's that from)
Posted by: polynikes at June 03, 2010 03:57 PM (m2CN7)
You forgot the under the breath "50 yards"
Posted by: Hedgehog at June 03, 2010 12:52 PM (oQIfB)
While it's not my practice to hit the highway after having too many, the logical thing to do is refuse the breathalyser and demand a blood test
Apparently the recommended thing to do is refuse to do anything until you talk to a lawyer. I've heard radio shows where they are talking to a lawyer and the lawyer is pointing out that the thing to do is say "officer before I say or do anything I would like to talk to a lawyer" then ask if you can go home. The argument being that submitting to the tests can fall under self incrimination.
I've also heard the idea of having a bottle of whiskey in your glove box, and when you're pulled over and the cop approaches, start chugging. They won't be able to determine if your BAC is from before or after you were pulled over, so you might get away with just open container. I don't want to ever really test either idea though.
Posted by: buzzion at June 03, 2010 12:52 PM (oVQFe)
That was me and the original KITT.
Nobody, but nobody makes The Hoff wait when happy hour starts
Posted by: David Hasselhoff at June 03, 2010 12:53 PM (sYxEE)
Posted by: Upscale Community Organizing Thought Criminal
I was stopped y a state police checkpoint once, and a trooper asked me to do just that. I said "sure officer, you first". He inexplicably moved on to another test. I did sing the alphabet for him. I think that he wanted it recited instead. But hey, I'm a giver.
Posted by: Blue Hen at June 03, 2010 12:53 PM (R2fpr)
Most cops don't, but most specialized DUI investigators do, carry a blood draw kit and are certified to use them: they are generally for accident cases, but work just as well for someone who wants to give blood in lieu of breath.
"While the police get permission to run up the bill on their tab your system is working overdrive to clear out the booze."
Depends on when you stopped drinking: your reading will actually go up first, as any defense attorney will tell the jury in a DUI breath trial, i.e., "he was below the limit when he was driving."
Posted by: Dave J. at June 03, 2010 12:54 PM (/dqSG)
The jury can equit but if they don't they have to determine the finding of BAC. There are very specific things that the defense can challenge on. A bunch of stuff that I will not list here.
Posted by: Vic at June 03, 2010 12:55 PM (6taRI)
I blew a .99 and still had plenty of stamina to do Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Ann Coulter, and S.E. Cupp
In SC, Liquor Holds Will Folks
Posted by: Will Folks at June 03, 2010 12:56 PM (sYxEE)
That's like .03% reduction, which could be a game changer.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 03, 2010 12:57 PM (0q2P7)
That's one of my favorite bits. I'm not a huge Roseanne show fan but it's fun to see that them show up. iirc it's the same production team behind BBT.
I hope Blossom comes back as Sheldon's not a girlfriend.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 03, 2010 12:57 PM (8WZWv)
The Sen. Edward M Kennedy Memorial Toll Plaza
Posted by: Patches Kennedy at June 03, 2010 12:58 PM (sYxEE)
In honor of my dear departed father, the Lion of the Senate, I propose;
The Sen. Edward M Kennedy Memorial Toll Plaza
Gotta read that in Diamond Joe Quimby's voice, makes it hilarious.
Posted by: Dang Straights at June 03, 2010 01:00 PM (fx8sm)
Yes I'm sure the military is quite adept at picking off all of the Chinese hackers you just gave their contact info to. UNCLASSIFIED does not mean go and tell the whole world.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 03, 2010 01:01 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Lindsey Lohan at June 03, 2010 01:01 PM (sYxEE)
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at June 03, 2010 01:01 PM (6ZPfw)
I hope Blossom comes back as Sheldon's not a girlfriend.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 03, 2010 04:57 PM (8WZWv)
That was so awesome seeing them finding what amounts to a female Sheldon.
I wouldn't mind seeing the North Korean spy in her panties again either.
Posted by: buzzion at June 03, 2010 01:03 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth
Did you count the tollbooth? It has a score to settle.
Posted by: Blue Hen at June 03, 2010 01:03 PM (R2fpr)
6:13 AM and our gal is stewed to the gills and doing Eval Knieval-type stunts.
I'll be in my bunk.
Posted by: KingShamus at June 03, 2010 01:04 PM (8n1j5)
The Sen. Edward M Kennedy Memorial Toll Plaza Bridge
Posted by: Patches Kennedy at June 03, 2010 04:58 PM (sYxEE)
FTFY.
Posted by: buzzion at June 03, 2010 01:04 PM (oVQFe)
Now they will get to know all about how the warranty on all of their vehicles is about to expire unless they take prompt action, and penis enlargement which I guess is a valued product for Air Force.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 03, 2010 01:05 PM (0q2P7)
Sadly, I know that one, too. That wild and crazy guy is still underrated for his work.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at June 03, 2010 01:06 PM (swuwV)
Only the most out-of-the-loop law-enforcement officers use that as a sobriety exercise anymore: unlike the other ones, it "calls for an incriminating response" and therefore courts have held it to be custodial interrogation, requiring Miranda warnings.
"Apparently the recommended thing to do is refuse to do anything until you talk to a lawyer."
I'm certainly not going to recommend anything -- that would be giving legal advice--but I will certainly say that "total refusal" cases (refuse exercises, refuse breath/blood/urine) are hard to prove. Juries like the hard evidence "CSI" aspect of a scientific test, and failing that, they at least want to see someone "look drunk" on video.
"I've heard radio shows where they are talking to a lawyer and the lawyer is pointing out that the thing to do is say "officer before I say or do anything I would like to talk to a lawyer" then ask if you can go home. The argument being that submitting to the tests can fall under self incrimination."
The 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination has to do with TESTIMONY, i.e., with someone's statements, not their actions (like field sobriety exercises) nor their characteristics (like BAC or, in other contexts, fingerprints or DNA). Hence, refusal to perform exercises or to give a breath/blood/urine sample not only doesn't require Miranda warnings, but can actually be used by the State to show "consciousness of guilt" without unconstitutionally shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.
Posted by: Dave J. at June 03, 2010 01:08 PM (/dqSG)
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 03, 2010 01:10 PM (OlHjR)
I don't believe asking for a lawyer as an advocate to explain your rights counts as "refusal"
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 03, 2010 01:12 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Jean at June 03, 2010 01:12 PM (QFzyw)
Posted by: reason at June 03, 2010 01:14 PM (kC3nL)
That is where the "implied consent" comes into play. The theory is that when you get your driver's license they explain the rules and that by getting the license you have given your consent to be tested for DUI when requested by an officer.
Posted by: Vic at June 03, 2010 01:20 PM (6taRI)
Fine dude, whatever, I'm sure you checked to make sure you weren't the first to publish them online for farmers. Sorry.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 03, 2010 01:22 PM (0q2P7)
Blow up Falcon Dam, ay? Being a border resident, and from a town that depends on Falcon Dam, it seems to me shenanigans like that warrants at least a limited invasion of Mexico. If they can't get their shit together and control their borders, we should do it for them.
But...Obama...right...we're screwed.
Posted by: Robert at June 03, 2010 01:23 PM (jYQ2v)
Posted by: KITT at June 03, 2010 01:28 PM (7b1Uc)
Posted by: Dave J. at June 03, 2010 05:08 PM (/dqSG)
Its been a year or two since I last heard it so I can't remember all the ins and outs and justifcations but it was a lawyer on the radio saying that you should tell the cop, "Officer before I say or do anything, I would like to speak to a lawyer. May I go home?" Wish I had saved the podcast of it.
Posted by: buzzion at June 03, 2010 01:30 PM (oVQFe)
The 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination has to do with TESTIMONY, i.e., with someone's statements, not their actions (like field sobriety exercises) nor their characteristics (like BAC or, in other contexts, fingerprints or DNA). Hence, refusal to perform exercises or to give a breath/blood/urine sample not only doesn't require Miranda warnings, but can actually be used by the State to show "consciousness of guilt" without unconstitutionally shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.
Not really in the case of DUI, or actually, at all. Most jurisdictions require a consent form that explains that a person has been told of the consequences in a drug or alcohol test for anything _other_ then a DUI. In a DUI there is the concept that driving is a privilege and not a right. You have implied consent when you agree to get a drivers license, that you will agree to the driving laws of the State.
For example, in the Military you have to sign a consent form as described in article 31(b) if you are being a drug test during the course of investigation...and those of us who have, or are, serving you give up a degree of your rights when you sign up.
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at June 03, 2010 01:33 PM (6ZPfw)
Posted by: andycanuck at June 03, 2010 01:37 PM (7b1Uc)
Posted by: astonerii at June 03, 2010 02:02 PM (z7Fwk)
.08 is one beer if you're a 90-lb. girl. It's somewhere between 3 and 5 drinks for the average male weight range.
Posted by: Dave J. at June 03, 2010 02:46 PM (/dqSG)
Well I've never taken a breathalizer.
I got a brother who's 170lbs+, had 1 beer and got pulled over 5 minutes down the road from the bar and blew .08 exactly. The cop let him go.
Also in IL there's a "0 tolerance" law for minors, and apparently if you gargle some mouthwash or smoke a menthol cigarette you'll blow over 0.
If any cop tried to give me a breathalyzer, even if I hadn't been drinking I'd probably demand a blood test. I don't trust those things.
Posted by: Entropy at June 03, 2010 02:54 PM (eL+YD)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2961 seconds, 325 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: damian at June 03, 2010 11:26 AM (4WbTI)