http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/...ain612067.shtml

There's no way Bush will be impeached. Also, the white house is suggesting that people read this book -- I don't think they're really worried about it.

Of course not. He didn't cheat on his wife.

just because woodward wrote it, doesn't mean it carries any weight. the white house knows this...and they laugh.

perjury has nothing to do with cheating on your wife.

Excellent point. I'm not defending perjury. I'm questioning the fact that the subject was brought up at all.

Playing devil's advocate, the subject was never brought up in an official capacity. The media made it about infidelity, but the official line was sexual harassment, after all. Which, again, is more serious.

But I agree with you, the Clinton impeachment was a joke. As is this, I fear.

Will

I thought it was about lying under oath.....

(Edited by MissSeptember at 8:19 am on Apr. 28, 2004)

I'm not going to put myself on the side of defending Clinton, because frankly I was never a huge fan of the guy (though he was at least articulate, his thoughts cogent, but that's another argument). I guess I'm just incensed by the fact that in our sanctimonious/conservative/christian culture a public official can be put in a position to commit purjery because of marital infidelity. What a load of bullshit. Clinton clearly blew it by lying under oath. Again, I'm not defending that. But anyone who thinks that's what the whole scandal was about is tragically naive and delusional. Clinton was put in a position where they knew he would lie (a lot of people would have) and that gave Trent Lott, Ken Starr and all the others the silver bullet they were looking for, not to mention the whole "it's not about infidelity it's about lying under oath" thing that it became. What a fucking joke.

I know what you're saying Neuboy, but some politicians would tell the truth under the same circumstances because they believe their integrity is much more important than making their indiscretions (sp?) public. Yeah, cheaters suck, but I have a lot more respect for those who own up to it. I think the situation was more of an example of his sometimes faulty decision-making rather than a horribly evil and inexcusable thing he did.

I have nothing to back this up.

If that were the case, wouldn't they have had a lot more to pin on him than getting a blowjob? The investigations went on for years and they didn't have anything on him except for marital infidelity. I'd say that's probably a good sign that the guy just had a bad personal decision as opposed to a political decision.

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 3:18 pm on Apr. 28, 2004)

It was about lying under oath. But that came about from a sexual harassment investigation, which was also (I'd say) serious. Neuboy's spot on that the actual media event and much of what the Republicans were doing at the time was simply about marital infidelity, and I agree that that was bullshit. But there was also perjury and, I'd say, sexual harassment, and so basically, like the rest of DC, the man was dirty. Big surprise.

At least he never sent us into a years-long conflict that the entire world opposed. I'd also harp on Bush's administration for the loss of civil liberties post 9/11 (which is what pisses me off most), but I've yet to be entirely convinced that a democratic president wouldn't have done the same, and I've yet to be convinced that a majority of the country didn't want it, at least back in '02. But there are alot of narrow-minded, frightened people in this country.

Will

Speaking of civil liberties, am I the only one that is obsolutley in shock and inflamed over Tennessee trying to pass the seatbelt law as a primary offense? Do you realize what this means? I really don't think it will hold up, it should be deemed unconstitutional.

Essentially, this law will give the cops the right to pretty much pull you over for any reason whatsoever. They can say that they thought you weren't wearing your seatbelt, and then just pull you over. I'm sure MADD and SADD are behind this, not that I condone drunk driving, but they've already gotten the BAC lowered and now this.

I'm afraid I'll have to take the rare opportunity to disagree with you on one point. I agree 110% with the silliness of the primary-offense seatbelt law, especially the way it enables the police to pull anyone over, anytime (though ask any VW Bus owner with a Phish bumper sticker if they didn't already think that the police excercised this right; not that I am among them but I've know two folks that fit that description that avoid interstates because they always got pulled over "on suspcions").

Where I have to disagree with you is the "they already got the BAC lowered" point. I see this as good. I'm sorry, but if you drink, you simply shouldn't drive. Easy for me to say in a city with public transportation? Maybe. But if I drink I won't touch a car for 8 hours, and with good reason.

I hate rights being taken away, but driving is a right that should be taken away when one chooses to drink.

Will

Wiyum,

We aren't in disagreement here, I totally agree with the not getting behind the wheel when you are impaired in judgement. I'm paranoid myself.

My point is that .08 is getting into the area of not really impaired for some people. I'm sure Carl can lecture on this until our ears bleed, but to lower that that much is insane. I think there is no doubt that people at .10 are legally drunk. But people metabolize alcohol at different rates and a 20% drop is a lot of slop room to account for.

Imagine if they cut the speed limit 20% of 55. We'd all be driving around rural highways at 44mph. That's my point. It's just such a huge drop. I don't think there was any scentific evidence ever looked at to what's really "impaired".

I remember watching a 20/20 back in the late 80's where John Stossel did a story about this. Essentially he just got wasted on camera, then drove an obstacle course, did a reaction time test... blah blah blah, well to his surprise, he faired very well until his BAC got over .1. Then it went to hell in a hand basket.

I may be getting crazy in my old age, but I just think that .08 was set as a revenue generating point and to appease lobbying groups. If someone would show me (ie Carl) where there is scientific proof that even Michael Schumacher would be a danger to society behind the wheel at .08 I'll humbly concede. Until then I"m still gong to be knocking at this windmill. That's my line in the sand.

(Edited by Peace Frog at 8:01 am on Apr. 30, 2004)

Yeah, people should wear seatbelts anyway. I know no less than three people (including my father) that have died because they didn't. It's very much a personal sore spot of mine, and it's a rule in my car. There's no reason why you shouldn't. You have to get certain shots if you leave the country and go to say, Southeast Asia. People don't get all up in arms about that - even though it's taking away a civil liberty. Yeah, it's different because you could get a disease and then infect tons of other people, but in my experience, drivers who don't wear seatbelts don't care if their passengers do or not, and that's just putting their lives in danger. Do I think you should get pulled over for not wearing your seatbelt? No. I just hope you never go flying through your windshield into a tree. I'm done now.

With rodent animal models, we shoot for about 40-60mM which I believe is the equivalent of around 0.10% BAC. All I know is Journal of Neuroscience thinks that a concentration of 100mM is way too high for mice and I need to repeat my experiments with 50mM before they'll publish my paper.

the point is it is still a percentage of your blood. correct me if im wrong, but metabolism is directly related to your blood volume. im a small girl with a high metabolism, but i think that if you compared .10% BAC in me, it wouldnt be that different from a huge man, because its still a percentage of his blood [although he would regain sobriety a lot faster than me]. we both have blood that is circulating up around our brains and if that percentage is the same, then we are both going to be similarly impaired. where metabolism comes in: his kidneys might take up his alcohol from his blood 10 times faster than mine will and he will be sober sooner; but at the point in time when his BAC was tested, it was still at .10% which would make him impaired while driving. does that make sense? am i wrong?

No, you are right... .1% is .1% whether it is 5 beers in you or 10 in a guy twice your size... my point was that some people "hold their liquor" better, and metabolization is part of that. I was looking for the line where the majority of people are impaired. The top of the Bell Curve. I'm sure some people are fall down stupid drunk at .02 and some are fully functional at .12. I just would like to know where the mean is. I just can't believe it's .08.

Check out this chartBAC chart

4 drinks puts me in the danger zone, but I know from personal experience that they wouldn't really impair me to the point of not being able to drive. Now that said, if I drank four drinks at dinner and then immediately got in the car to go home would I drive? No. I'd be flipping the keys to my wife.

I know I'm just fighting a terribly uphill battle here, and I don't want to come across as advocating drunk driving, because I certainly do not, in fact I think minors should get DUI if they register any BAC at all, afterall they were partaking in alcohol illegally. My argument here is in the way it was lowered, I'm sure there was no scientific evidence put into place here, but a knee jerk reaction to catch the lowest common denominator, and to grease the squeeky wheel (special interest groups).

I just see this happening with the seatbelt issue now. Do I wear a seatbelt? Every damn time I'm in a car. Do I need the cops to tell me to do that? No. Do I need to have my privacy invaded under the suspicion of having no seatbelt on? Hell no. Same argument with motorcycle helmets.

You look like an uncaring ass, or a raving alcoholic arguing the BAC lowering, but my fear is that they keep chipping away at these small liberties next thing you know you're front door's being kicked in for suspicion of being an enemy of the state. Laugh at me at me if you want, but that's the road we are going down.

i really cant make a decision about the seatbelt issue. sure, i am all for personal rights. in fact, i could see myself attempting suicide just to make a fucking point if i needed to. its not illegal to cut all of your limbs off with a chainsaw. its not illegal to commit suicide. you do need a permit to carry a gun, but not a chainsaw. i dont know where im going with this, i guess im jsut trying to illustrate that i really care about personal rights, even though i am for gun control. i just dont think that anything good can come from having a gun, and i also dont think that anything good can come from not wearing a seatbelt.

heres another thing, and it may seem really selfish, but sometimes i see it this way. what if someday im not paying attention while driving and i hit someone. they arent wearing a seatbelt and they die or are paralyzed. obviously i should feel guilty for driving recklessly, but do i need the [possibly preventable] death of a person on my conscience for the rest of my life? even if wearing a seatbelt increases your survival chances by 1%, i would damn well wish that the person i killed would have taken the opportunity to increase those chances.

on the other hand. i think that comitting suicide is selfish, just like not wearing a seatbelt is selfish. but is there a law against selfishness? obviously not. i think that out of consideration for yourself, your family, the people tha care about you, and the other people on the road, you should wear a seatbelt. but benevolence isnt a law, its a choice. i dont know, im rambling. sorry.

Are you sure about that?

I actually believe it is illegal to commit suicide... may have to look that one up

If so, you should all become criminals.

But if you were pregnant, you'd have 50% more blood volume. I guess you could drink an equivalent amount more and still drive in that case, ha.

& stopforme- I have the same exact selfish argument in favor of motorcycle helmet laws. If I killed some motorcyclist, it would destroy my life as well as his. I get nervousevery time I see one without a helmet. Should we get into a really base discussion- of how those who do not protect themselves are also a financial burden on society? Major accidents cost a lot of money in rescue & medical expenses, which I'd guess that most people or most people's insurance rarely completely pay for. I don't begrudge anyone his right to services like that, but I've heard the argument made. Universal health care, of course, would level out some of that burden across more people. But I've always wondered where this argument draws the line- will we outlaw smoking because of its burden on our health care system?

I have to disagree with the "no reason you shouldn't" part. One time about 8 years ago Rollum hit an ice patch on a stretch of interstate between Tennessee and Indiana and the car flipped. When it was all over he ended up pretty hurt....in the back seat. How is that an argument against mandatory seat belts? Because the front seat of the car was completely crushed in. Had he been wearing his seat belt that day everyone's favorite drummer wouldn't be alive. True story.

i'm sure the ratio of people that died from not wearing a seatbelt compared to the amount of people that died because they were wearing their seatbelt is not even close.

I don't disagree with you there at all. I just feel that since incidents have occurred where seatbelts were a factor in some deaths, it should be up to the driver or passenger to determine what is safest for them. In a situation where you are on a highway or some curvy backwoods road where you're biggest threat is running off the road or hitting a tree, the seatbelt would almost always be the best bet. But, in a packed high traffic situation, where you face a realistic chance of being crushed rather than thrown, the seatbelt might not be the way to go. Basically, I'm 100% against the government forcing citizens to do something that might kill them, regardless of what the statistics may show. It's overstepping their bounds.