MADD = Mothers Against Speeding Drivers? Only if they're drunk, dummy!
We're all, I think, familiar with MADD. Y'know, they're the assholes who think that drunks shouldn't get behind the wheel of a car, at least according to these fine folks.
An association of - guess it! - liquor store and bar owners has decided that MADD has become a pro-prohibition organization, and are angry that GM gives money to MADD. First off, look, everyone in this country knows what happened the last time we decided prohibition was a good idea. There's no chance that all of the asshat politicos would ever get the support they needed to reinstate it, even assuming they through it would be a good idea.
From the MADDatGM site:
quote:But GM and MADD have formed a mutually profitable relationship: in return for GM's financial support, MADD stays conveniently silent on traffic safety issues outside of �impaired driving.� GM, meanwhile, is vociferous in its opposition to any drinking before driving, buying itself immunity from MADD�s potential criticism for encouraging speeding and distracted driving.
Yeah, but is MADD really a "traffic safety organization" as they claim? I mean, I guess, but isn't their focus on drivers who are impaired by being drunk? They're aren't MAPWTOTCPWDEITAS*, now ARE they?
quote:MADD spokeswoman Heidi Castle says preventing driver distraction is not MADD's focus.
"Our mission is to prevent drunken driving. We want people on the road that are safe. We are not against drinking by people who are over age 21. This group is just trying to scare people because of our effort to lower the blood-alcohol standard to 08," said Castle.
Just in case there is some confusion, on the MADD home page, you can find their "official position statement". Here we go:
quote:Positions from MADD's National Board of Directors on Issues Involving Enforcement, including: Sobriety Checkpoints, Preliminary Breath Testers and Passive Alcohol Sensors, .08 BAC per se Laws, Mandatory BAC Testing for Death and Serious Injury, Enforcement Technology, Drug Recognition Expert Program, and Open Containers in Vehicles.
Do YOU see anything in that about speeding, or talking on the cell phone, or eating while you're driving, or getting a blowjob from your girl while driving? No. Well, unless you're doing that while drunk. Which is, again, just to drive the point home, why they're Mothers Against Drunk Driving. See, the DRUNK part is the opperative word here.
Oh, a search on Google turned up this brain-dead moron (David J. Hanson, who claims to have a PhD, in what, I ask? Stupidity?) who apparently also doesn't know that MADD stands for Mothers Against Drunk Driving and goes off on a riff about them, um, not being interested in traffic accidents not involving alcohol:
quote:When a MADD leader was asked about how traffic fatality statistics involving cell phone use compared to those involving drunk drivers, he tellingly replied "I have absolutely no idea, nor do I care." On CNN's Crossfire, the President-elect of MADD refused to discuss cell phones and the traffic fatalities they cause. She said "We're not here to talk about cell phones. We're here to talk about alcohol." Following more questions about how cell phones impair driving, the MADD leader snapped "I'm not going to talk about cell phones." Similarly, a MADD lobbyist was quoted on the program as saying "I don't care about deaths from cell phones."
Note to the author of that piece: dude, you're an idiot.
Anyway, back to MADDatGM. Where were we? Right.
"This group is just trying to scare people because of our effort to lower the blood-alcohol standard to 08."
Now, why would they be trying to do that? I'm guessing they're afraid less people are going to indulge in drinky-drinky because of a fear of being arrested, so their answer is to combat an organization that according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for reducing "the number of alcohol-related deaths ... from 26,173 in 1982 to 17,013 in 2003."
Oh? The best part of this story? According to The Detroit Free Press "MADD notes GM specified that its money go to underage-drinking prevention for three years and the next two years to help people harmed in drunken driving."
(I bring out the snark, baby).
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I'm starting a new organization... PAPOWI
That's People Against Posting Online While Inebriated
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I could use a drink.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Y'know, when you put an asterisk after something, you're usually supposed to actually include a footnote about it someplace...
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
I wouldn't have felt right if I posted something you couldn't nixpick.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'm also starting a new group: MWESTEBJWD. It's a club for men who enjoy speeding, talking on the cell phone, and eating while you're driving, and getting a blowjob from girls while driving all at the same time. Sure our acronym needs some polisihing, but we're happy, happy guys.
It originally included smoking a ciggarette, but those things are dangerous! Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: I'm starting a new organization... PAPOWI
That's People Against Posting Online While Inebriated
OW
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
So what is the legal blood alcohol limit for driving over there? Here it's 35 micrograms per 100ml of breath (no idea what the blood level limit is).
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It depends on the state. Or technically it does. Apparently it is the same in every one, though: .08, which is to say grams per deciliter.
I don't know what the deal with Massachusetts is. Assuming this website is accurate.
I guess the deal is that there, along with South Carolina, in addition to being over the limit you have to appear visably drunk. And apparently atheists are supposed to be opposed to such laws for some reason.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
For hate's sake, I spit my last 35 micrograms per 100ml of breath at thee. *collapses on top of bike cop*
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
In Florida it's .08...unless you're a celebrity.
Then it's all good.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Hmm. It's 80mg/100ml here. So the same, then. I suppose you could argue that our beer is stronger, our roads narrower, and our people thinner though.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So you could argue that your tolerance for drunk motorists is that much more?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Don't make me start a blog.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :