Yesterday I saw something that really made my blood boil. The family and I where driving to KFC after picking up my wife from work. We came across a motor vehicle accident. There were multiple squad cars and an ambulance on the scene. As we were approaching, it appeared that they where almost done cleaning up. A Flatbed tow truck pulled away carrying a Dodge truck with severe front-end damage. At that point, I noticed that the front end of the ambulance was also severely damaged. It pissed me off to no end to see that. Why? What if that had been your Husband, Wife, Son, Daughter, Mother, Father, etc in the back of the ambulance?

People, driving is not a constitutional right, driving is not something you can do half-assed, driving is not a game. Daily I see idiots that make “brilliant driving maneuvers” such as making a left turn from the right lane, weaving in and out of traffic doing 15+ over the speed limit, cutting people off, and just plain not paying attention to their surroundings. That type of driving behavior is what leads to most accidents. These are also the same people that when an accident occurs are the first to yell, “It’s not my fault!” Do you want to know something? It is your fault. The majority of it is your fault. Sure, the other driver should be paying attention and have escape routes just in case of idiots like you. However, if you weren’t driving like you have cranial-rectum disease it would have happened either.

What makes this worse then a regular accident is that it involved an ambulance. You know the big boxy things that drive down the road usually painted in easy to see colors and with lights for even greater visibility. Just in case you are blind they have this loud handy device called a siren, but you might not hear that due to the excessively loud music youÂ’re blaring out of your speakers. Some people may be willing to give the benefit of the doubt and say that either the ambulance was empty, not running lights and sirens, or caused the accident. I tried to find the local news source for this story online, unfortunately I couldnÂ’t find one, so IÂ’ll paraphrase from the local rag, er newspaper that has the story. The ambulance was rushing a patient to a local hospital when the driver of the truck ran a red light and struck the ambulance. The driver of the truck was ticketed for failure to yield to an emergency vehicle and a red light violation. The patient in the back of the ambulance had to be picked p by a second ambulance.

I worked in law enforcement for many years. After working in that field IÂ’ve come to the conclusion that lights and sirens on emergency vehicles are a waste. Many people just do not pull over for emergency vehicles. It doesnÂ’t matter if it is a fire truck, police car or ambulance, they just donÂ’t care! People are more worried about getting to their destination faster, then the rules of the road. On numerous occasions, IÂ’ve actually witnessed drivers using emergency vehicles to help themselves get through traffic. When others pull over, the asshole drivers speed around them. Then there are the ones that just blatantly ignore the emergency vehicles. Every one else has pulled right, they however have to make a left turn half a mile up and continue on their merry way to their turn. Then because of traffic in the oncoming lane, they canÂ’t move and end up blocking the road, slowing down the emergency vehicle.

Personally, I would love to see them install cameras on all Fire Trucks, Ambulances and Police Cars just to track the vehicles around them when they are running lights and sirens. If someone is driving like an idiot, the owner of the vehicle gets a $200.00 to $5,000.00 fine (Depending on the nature of the response and number of offenses). Make it so these tickets canÂ’t be removed from your record by going to traffic court. Maybe IÂ’m being too harsh, but all I can think of is if it was my loved one that needed help and that help arrived just seconds too late because of idiots not getting out of the way.

What do you think? Do you have this problem where you live, or is this unique to Northern Illinois/Southern Wisconsin?

Posted by: Contagion at 04:21 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 749 words, total size 4 kb.

On Saturday for my wifeÂ’s birthday, I told her I would take her to do anything she wanted to do. I had a sitter arranged from noon until 8pm. I was hoping she would want to go to a hotel for an afternoon of wild, kinky sex. Instead, she decided she wanted to go see some movies and then go to one of her favorite restaurants for dinner. She wanted to see War of the Worlds and Fantastic 4, so that is what we saw. Prior to the movies starting they have this slide show ad/trivia to keep the huddled masses entertained so I, er we, er they donÂ’t start picking the stitching out of the chairs in some strange obsessive-compulsive disorder boredom avoidance habit. Whoever created this slide show had some serious issues. They had two different trivia questions that had NO follow slide with the answers.

One of the two trivia questions was “Which two good ol’ boys are playing brothers in the upcoming Dukes of Hazard Movie?” There was a picture of the General Lee with the actors leaning up against it cut out. My being a Dukes of Hazard fan knew the answer was Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville. Being in an extra butter and salted popcorn haze didn’t notice the wording problem with the question. My beautiful and observant wife did. From the picture it was obvious they where referring to Bo and Luke Duke, however Bo and Luke are not brothers; they are cousins. My wife and I discussed it for a little bit and it started me thinking on what a screwed up family they came from.

Okay, you have Bo, Luke and Daisy that are all cousins. Jesse is not one of their fathers as they all refer to him as Uncle Jesse. Now, Jesse raised all three of them. What happened to their parents? Was there some terrible moonshining accident that killed three sets of parents leaving Jesse with their children? Is this why Jesse never had kids of his own and if he did, where the hell are they?

Now when Bo and Luke left to try their hand on the NASCAR circuit (The season that Tom Wopat and John Schneider left for contract reasons), Cousins Vance and Coy came to live with Uncle Jesse. These are two more cousins, Vance and Coy referred to each other and Bo, Luke and Daisy as cousins. Jesse was again their Uncle, so neither could be JesseÂ’s kids. Now I know is some of the other episodes they had other cousins that popped in for one episode (I know because I just saw those episodes in the last couple of months). The English one was a cousin by marriage, but the other didnÂ’t say that. We now have six cousins, different parents.

Using deductive reasoning, we can come to some conclusions. Grandpa Duke was a busy man! He had at least seven boys. How do we know this? They all have the last name Duke. Meaning that Jesse had to have six brothers in order to have 6+ nephews and nieces with the last name Duke. Sure, he could have had a sister that had a child out of wedlock, but this was during the late 70Â’s and early 80Â’s on TV. They had yet to address that issue and I could be wrong, but I donÂ’t think the networks at that time would allow it. But back then, when the child was born, wouldnÂ’t the child still have the fatherÂ’s last name, not the mothers? Okay, maybe the mother didnÂ’t know the father. Now we get back to the networks not allowing that story line.

Where the hell are all the parents of these kids? Not once do I recall seeing a one on any of the episodes. Is there a Duke family curse? If you donÂ’t run moonshine you will die and the creepy confirmed bachelor uncle that does make moonshine will take raise your children. What the hell people? In addition, if grandpa duke was producing children like a madman, did his children not breed? There is not one sibling amongst any of the kids that where on the show? Does this mean that their parents had just enough genetic material to breed once and that was it? Maybe moonshining has other side effects besides going blind; maybe it makes you sterile! I honestly donÂ’t know.

Coming to the realization that I have already spent excessively too much time contemplating the genealogy of the Duke of Hazard IÂ’m going to wrap this up. However, I know at one point IÂ’m going to loose sleep on this. While laying in bed staring at the darkness, I will start pondering where all the Duke spawn came from. IÂ’ve already been obsessing on this for 2 days and itÂ’s only getting worse.

Posted by: Contagion at 06:40 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 822 words, total size 5 kb.

1 They could be all girls with out of wedlock kids. Maybe Uncle Jesse was the only boy so they figured they would send the kids to him so that they got the male perspective? Oh and you are wrong (I found saying that strangely satisfying, ha ha), they did cover the out of wedlock kid theme in "Mary Kaye's Baby". Remember? Pregnant to a gangster who she wasn't married to & she stole money calculated to the penny as child support? HMM?? Yep, i watch way too much of the Dukes. I know every episode. Glad ya'll had a nice quite celebration for your wife's birthday.

Posted by: Oddybobo at July 18, 2005 03:46 PM (6Gm0j)

2 I hit send before I was done:

In the pilot episode we find out that the parents of Bo, Luke and Daisy died years ago. Also in the episode "Brotherly Love" Luke's long-lost brother comes to visit.

Posted by: Oddybobo at July 18, 2005 04:13 PM (6Gm0j)

3 They could be all out of wedlock... I just highly doubt they where all out of wedlock, and again I still believe the child at that time would take the father's lastname.

I forgot about that episode, but where they unmarried? I thought she was getting a divorce or was divorced from the mobster.

As for the death of the Bo, Luke and Daisy's parents... How, why? and What about Coy's, Vances's and the other cousin's?

And I thought I over analysed this... At least it's nice to know there is another Dukes of Hazard kindred spirit out there.

Posted by: Contagion at July 18, 2005 04:29 PM (Q5WxB)

4 I'll have to rewatch that episode to see if they say how they died. Oh, the mobster and she were not married, but she pretended they were at first. yep, gotta go home and watch my dukes of hazard dvds now. . .

Posted by: Oddybobo at July 18, 2005 04:47 PM (6Gm0j)

5 Yipeee! Something to drive my husband crazy. I'll have to ask him.

Posted by: vw bug at July 18, 2005 05:36 PM (i7MTM)

6 Bullshit. We all know Jesse took unwanted babies as payment for moonshine and sold them on the black market.

Bo, Luke, Daisy, Coy, and Vance were overstock.

Posted by: Graumagus at July 18, 2005 11:11 PM (MmUHg)

7 Well, at least Grau's explaination makes logical sense...

Posted by: Ogre at July 19, 2005 10:04 AM (/k+l4)

8 I seem to remember reading an interview with Tom Wopat a while back, and IIRC, he said the backstory they were told, but which was never actually in an episode, was that the parents of Bo, Luke, and Daisy had all gone on vacation together and died in an airplance crash, so the kids had to come live with Uncle Jesse.

Of course, one option you've missed is the thought that they might not all be first cousins. Great-grandpa Duke might have been the one getting busy. It's not like birth control would have been a real option back then.

(No, I'm not obsessed with this. Really. I just have a magpie mind.)

Posted by: Jenna at July 19, 2005 11:01 AM (f/kUC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Fri, July 8, 2005 AP

A man arrested when police showed up to break up a New YearÂ’s Eve party at a friendÂ’s house has filed a lawsuit, arguing he had a Constitutional right to get drunk on private property as long as he didnÂ’t cause a public disturbance.

emphasis mine

After reading this article I read through the Constitution and itÂ’s Amendments to see if I felt this guy has a leg to stand on. The first thing I noticed is that there is nothing in the Constitution regarding the right to get drunk anywhere. Of course there is the 18th Amendment banning Alcohol and then there is the 21st that repeals the 18th, but other then that I saw nothing that actually said someone has a right to get drunk.

As I first read this, I thought he might be covered by the fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” I quickly changed my mind after reading the following:

Laverriere said that he drank several beers, but wasnÂ’t drunk, when officers arrived at his friendÂ’s duplex saying someone had thrown bottles at a passing police cruiser.

That means that the police where investigating the crime. If the owner of the dwelling had any common sense he would have exited the house, closing the door behind him baring the police from access to his home. If had denied them access to the home, then this may not have been an issue. ItÂ’s hard to tell what they would have saw while the door was open, however according to the article it seems that most of the problems started once the cops where in the house. I donÂ’t think the fourth Amendment is going to help anyone out here.

(IÂ’m not a lawyer, I do have a law degree and worked in Law Enforcement, I never let a cop in my house unless I called them there or they have a warrant. Even if I call them I tend to talk to them on my front porch. IÂ’m not about to give up my fourth Amendment rights for anything. Even if they do enter or as in one case they searched my vehicle, I keep telling them that I donÂ’t want them in my house, searching my vehicle, etc. IÂ’m sure some of the lawyers out there will tell you this may not be the best strategy, but itÂ’s what I do. )

After ruling out the Fourth Amendment I then decided to look at what else could be out there to help this poor lad out. It was then that I thought that maybe this would fall under the little used and rarely cited ninth Amendment. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain right, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” I’m sure some of you are asking yourselves, “What in the hell does that mean?” After looking through my legal books and various opinions online, to paraphrase, it basically means that “the number of rights listed in the constitution shall not be the only rights kept by the people and that these other rights shall not be degraded, or depreciated or negated by refusal to accept the truth or existence thereof. “ – Chuck Klein. Guns & Ammo Magazine 12-99.

I think here we have a base for a decent argument here. Do we as citizens of the US have the right to drink, let alone get drunk? I think we do. If we didn’t have a right to drink alcohol they wouldn’t have repealed the 18th Amendment. Thus it doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to come to the conclusion that if it is a right to drink, then as a side effect of drinking, we have a right to get drunk. If we have the right to get drunk were should we do this, in public or private? I would have to say you have the right to get drunk in both. However, when you are in a public location others now scrutinize your actions. If you are perceived as a threat or “danger” to yourself or others then it is up to the police to intervene. If you are in someone’s private home and you are doing nothing that is a crime, then I feel the police should stay out of it. If this guy was in a bar, drunk off his arse and the police hauled him away, I don’t think he’d have a case at all. HOWEVER, he was drunk in the privacy of a friend’s home. Sure maybe his right to privacy is subject because he was not in his own home, but he was in a friends home and in my opinion that gives him a reasonable expectation of privacy. I will also concede that if a bottle was thrown at a police cruiser that the gathering wasn’t all that peaceable.

What was this guys threat to him or others? Was he so heavily intoxicated he couldn’t remain conscious? Not according to the article. Was he flashing a weapon about? If he was, the press didn’t mention it. Did he try to drive off in a car? According to the article he was planning on staying the night. At worst, from what I’m getting from the article, is that he was uncooperative with the police. Is being uncooperative with the police a danger to yourself or others? Based on that and what I wrote earlier in this post. Let's say I’m at my house having a small party; we’ve had a drink. One of my neighbors gets the nerve to call the police to complain about noise. When the police come to my door I stop out on the front porch and close the door behind me. They ask if they can come in, with respectful, “Hell no” I decline to invite them. They can smell alcohol on me, and decide to arrest me for “My own protection”. Because my drinking led me to be uncooperative and one of the cops is getting pissed, his anger has caused the urge to beat the ever-living snot out of me, thus putting me in "danger". They surmise that if I had been sober I would have let them in and all would be well. When in reality I had only just started drinking so I wasn’t drunk and I wouldn’t let them in no matter what.

What worries me is that this law in Massachusetts pretty much gives the police carte blanche to just arrest anyone they feel is intoxicated and is a “Danger to themselves or others”. I know many people that are a danger to themselves or others sober, let alone drunk. Add a beer, and a cop using this law, could just arrest that individual. What is next, it is illegal to have an IQ below 120 because you may endanger yourself or others?

Yes, I went to an extreme there, but I agree with this kid. I donÂ’t feel that he should have been taken into custody. I could just see something like this being used against my friends or me, especially around a campfire at a re-enactment with all the black powder around.

With the Blogcrawl coming up shortly I was wondering what my readerÂ’s opinions on this is. Please donÂ’t be afraid to speak up, even you shy ones that read here and for some reason donÂ’t comment. IÂ’m really curious as to what everyone elseÂ’s opinion is.

Posted by: Contagion at 04:46 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1317 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Being drunk in the privacy of your home, or a friend's home... cool. There should be no reason that the cops lug someone off for their "protection." This guy may or may not have been the bottle thrower, but they can't just walk in and haul him out because he starts video taping them. Wish I knew the whole story here.

Nevertheless, we have the rights to do what we wish, as long as we're not infringing on other's rights... or affecting their safety. Especially in private. Publicly, we still have those rights, but there are more responsibilities with them.

Can't wait for the 30th. We'll chow, get smashed and throw bottles at police cruisers as they go by!

Posted by: That 1 Guy at July 13, 2005 05:13 PM (ga5jD)

2 I gotta say - if you're in a private home and not hurting anyone LET IT ALONE.

Key word - PRIVATE.

And as I learned....never let 'em in your door unless they got's the paperwork. Ouch.

Bet his next party won't be so well attended.

Posted by: Tammi at July 13, 2005 08:54 PM (t0y+r)

3 I'm with you on this one, Contagion.

Posted by: Harvey at July 14, 2005 09:30 AM (ubhj8)

4 Very interesting analysis -- seems to be rather solid to me.

In addition -- if this law is upheld, it gives the government the absolute power to arrest someone to "protect" them...and if they have that power, then government also, by default, has the power to determine what is and what is not safe...oh but I guess they already have that power...drugs, seat belts, etc. Damn.

Posted by: Ogre at July 14, 2005 10:12 AM (/k+l4)

5 What?!

Jesus Christ, if you can't get drunk in your own home.. ?

Or would they have us giving up blogging altogether?

;-)

Posted by: Sally at July 14, 2005 05:13 PM (vJb9l)

Hide Comments | Add Comment