Tim McG

The European [English in specific] aristocracy of the 16th and 17th wore tons of white make-up owing largely to the fact people didn't bathe but twice a year. They would just cover up the dirt and perfume it away. Snuff [for men] and fans [for ladies] or handkerchiefs were used to keep the offending odors at bay. The idea was the water was making people sick. They hadn't yet figured out that all the human waste being dumped in the streets from chamber pots was getting into the rivers and lakes or other ground water supplies. That is what was making them sick.

Giants win! Vogelsong lost to a fracture in his throwing hand.

Hope it's a great day, Chuck!

Not even for a $50 dollar bill.

Giants lose...again. Grrrr

Great video, Jim. Thanks for posting that.

Agreed. Drunks have no business getting behind the wheel. I was hit by a drunk driver myself; nearly threw me from the vehicle. Once, I watched a drunk [we found a half empty quart of booze on the front seat] blow through a red light and nearly kill the driver of the car he hit [my brother and I jumped out of our car to apply first aid and direct traffic]. This is serious business, no doubt in my mind. It is the proverbial "slippery slope" I am concerned with here.

To be fair, though, there are folks who just choose not to use the technology. My sister-in-law, a middle-aged Boomer, is one of them. On the flip side, if that is the case, having the check written out ahead of time isn't an unreasonable thing to ask, IMHO.

Giants lost again! Gaaa! Seven defensive errors in two days. Wow.

Enjoy it! Francona is a very good manager and I figured they'd show improvement. Oh, no. Francona sucks, doncha know? Just ask a jaded Red Sox fan.

I am completely with you regarding cell phones. That is the worst sort of impairment any driver can under take. However, glasses impair driving ability, so does listening to the radio or CD changer...a conversation with a passenger distracts as well. The point is this is a one-size-fits-all approach that criminalizes perfectly legal behavior. And can you imagine the wasted taxpayer dollars for all the pretend stops the police could make? With all due respect, it is a fool's paradise to believe that every single person who has a BAC of 0.05 is drunk. Or impaired or whatever. Again, I am all in favor of not driving when you've had anything to drink, but reality dictates otherwise. Let's keep those drunks off the road, but leave the responsible citizen who has a brew with his buddies after work out of this. The police have enough control over our lives.

Thanks, Guys. Bruce, the good guys win.

Brandon Crawford: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=27188379&topic_id=&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_27188379&v=3

BTW...does anybody have a recommendation for a good non-fiction book? I'm looking for a good page-turner for a Summer read. Tanx!

So you are in favor of giving police more control then. Criminalize the responsible drinker. Perfect.

Nearly sprayed the computer screen with my coffee. I guess we can file this one under: Oops. Thanks for the chuckle, JH

I honestly don't understand your response to what I posted. Under what circumstances will a "perfectly innocent person" be "rousted by the police"? The "ifs" I posited aren't a justification, but an argument against the likelihood that what you fear will happen. The issue is 0.05 equals drunk driving. I'm saying that is just not true. I seriously fail to see how one glass of wine or one beer equals a DUI. Just my thoughts. All but one. ONE person in the entire population of America...really? I honestly don't understand your response to what I posted. Under what circumstances will a "perfectly innocent person" be "rousted by the police"? The "ifs" I posited aren't a justification, but an argument against the likelihood that what you fear will happen. A person with alcohol on his breath. This 0.05 gives the police even more control over our lives and precludes any REAL reasoning relative to detaining a person for hours even if he is innocent.The "ifs" are predicated on the police deciding if the alcohol on your breath means they can detain you for hours while they figure it all out. The responsible drinker is now a criminal. The police gain WAY too much power over people who drive a car. TBH, I am not sure why that is a mystery. I call that tyranny. You guys call that controlling DUIs. A 0.05 is NOT a stone, sloppy drunk. What you guys are advocating for is a police state. I object.

Hey now. Not my doing. Cool song, though

Agreed. Which why i don't drive if I drink. I was bringing to light the unintended consequences of a arbitrarily low BAC number. Wait. Are you being serious this time or is this another sarcastic post? Why don't you just put me on ignore and save us both a lot of stress? That's quite a remark. Tough day? A drinker with a BAC of .05 is "responsible", until he sits behind the wheel of an automobile. Studies show that driving skills are impaired at the .02 level, and are "significantly affected" at .04. And how would the government keep anybody who drinks off the road? Do they have radar guns that detect BAC? Will a driver have to pass an on-board BAC test to start their car? Aside from situations where a motorist is stopped for some other violation, the vast majority of incidents we're talking about occur when a person has already exhibited impaired/dangerous driving behavior. If we're lucky, the police have witnessed this behavior and pulled them over. If there's reason to suspect that alcohol is involved, and if the driver agrees to a BAC test, and if the test's results are significant, and if the person is subsequently convicted of DUI in a court of law, then and only then might they be restricted in their use of an automobile for a period of time. Imo, that's a fair balance between the rights and protections afforded people who drive impaired, and the rest of us. In the mean time, a perfectly innocent person is rousted by the police. Those are a lot of "ifs" to justify it all, SonnyMax.

Happiest of Happys, Larry!

Only if the IRS is investigating blue collar working stiffs who like Steve Miller.

Wait. Are you being serious this time or is this another sarcastic post? Expectations of what...?

I am not defending drunk drivers. Nobody should get behind the wheel if they are drunk. Period. I am, however, saying consumers need to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Further, restaurants and pubs have a right to do business in this country. Alcohol is a legal beverage. Hence, the government will only deter business, not drinking. People can do that at home, too. A drunk will still drink irrespective of any laws and then get behind the wheel. This law is not for them. The 0.05 level now cuts into the population of responsible drinkers and that, my friend, is my problem with it. This has nothing to do with "personal responsibility." Not if that person is driving and endangering others by their actions. Agreed. But here again, 0.05 isn't that guy. This law isn't about keep drunks off the road. It's about keeping ANYBODY who drinks off the road. And that is not what government should be involving itself in. Unless, of course, it is [as I said] the "new prohibition".

Well, so much for that big break in the tax biz. Back to the guitar. Hit it boyz!

My point is that a responsible drinker could get popped for a DUI simply upon the basis of the lower number. Not because he was drunk or impaired enough to be a hazard behind the wheel. Then he is detained for hours while the cops figure it out. That isn't justice, it is tyranny. As to a field sobriety test, my knees are shot to shit. I couldn't walk a straight line in any condition. I'm willing to bet the ranch I'm not the only one. I just don't like giving police [or government, for that matter] that much control over what I can or cannot do.