Galt's Gulch
11

How MADD lies to Steal Our Freedom

Posted by dbhalling 10 years ago to Culture
47 comments | Share | Flag

MADD lies about drunk driving statistics. It reminds me of the DARE program and needs to go the way of the dinosaur.
SOURCE URL: http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by dbhalling 10 years ago
    If we were really against drunk driving we would get rid of the taxi monopolies, but we don't, which shows this is not about saving lives but collecting revenue and turning people into criminals.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by richrobinson 10 years ago
    MADD plays right into the hands of law enforcement. They use emotion to push their agenda and law enforcement uses it to get money. I really think the money component is more important to all of them now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Madanthonywayne 10 years ago
      That's definitely the case. For instance, studies have shown that a long yellow reduces accidents and reduces the number of tickets issued for running the light. Short yellows have the opposite effect ( more accidents, more tickets issued). Which do you think cities prefer?
      http://www.alternet.org/story/145752/cit...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by richrobinson 10 years ago
        I hadn't heard that before but it makes sense. My uncle was a cop years ago. He hated working speed trap duty. They would set up at the bottom of a hill and then turn the traffic light off at the top of the hill so cars would didn't have to stop. It was not for safety---it was just to raise money.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ Terraformer_One 10 years ago
        Reminds me of Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" - the broken glass of the butcher's shop means the Glazier has work repairing the window. But the money required for the repair would have been employed creating something new that had not previously existed (from memory the example was a new suit).

        The cost of repairs from the accident and/or traffic tickets could have lead to the creation of new wealth instead of being uselessly being consumed ( using the original sense of 'consumption' - slowly wasting away)

        And people wonder why the economy is so sluggish - the would-be entrepreneur no longer has the money required to bootstrap his idea to the stage of proving feasibility of the concept where investors see value in committing their resources.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years ago
    They start with an answer and then look for facts to support that answer, the opposite of science.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by NealS 10 years ago
      Precisely, it's the new way, hope and change. That actually should have read hype and change.

      And, if you don't have the facts or stats, just make up something, it seems the majority will just believe it anyway. If it sounds good it must be good.

      It all reminds me of the election of 2008, but even more so of 2012. It's unbelievable where we have gone, and I'm thankful that we get old and die before we see all the destruction from where we started.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years ago
        "I'm thankful that we get old and die before we see all the destruction from where we started. "
        I think it's always been this way. Operating illogically is the norm for human history. It's actually gotten better, not everywhere in every way, but the average person can reason better today than 500 years ago. I don't think anything unusually bad, as human history goes, is happening at the moment.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by NealS 10 years ago
          You say, "I don't think anything unusually bad, as human history goes, is happening at the moment." I beg to differ, I just saw the results of our election in Washington State. The people just passed I-594, making it illegal for me and my son (or anyone) to go shooting with my guns. If he or anyone else, even my spouse, touches one it is considered a transfer and must first be transferred legally only after a background check. Then after we transfer and do our shooting, in order for me to take my gun back we need to go through another background check before I can touch them again. This law was passed because Bloomberg sent a lot of his money here and between him and Bill Gates they decided to deceive the people and sneak the true intent of their bill through by covering it up with lies about it just being background checks for transfers between people. They also lied about background checks not being required at gun shows to get people to vote for it. All gun owners here will soon be felons by this ridiculous law. It's effects on the criminals will be nothing. I've got to find another state to move to, or I should I be looking for a new country?

          Dear NSA, I'm just kidding. This is really someone else writing this, it is not really me.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years ago
            "The people just passed I-594, making it illegal for me and my son (or anyone) to go shooting with my guns."
            You can't shoot guns in the state of Washington? If that's true, I can't imagine the tortured logic the courts would use to say that doesn't violate the Second Amendment.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by NealS 10 years ago
              Sorry, the key word in my statement actually was "my". They can't shoot "my guns", only their own. Shooting my gun would constitute "possession", and the only way to posses my gun would be for me to "transfer" it to them. A "transfer" requires a "background check". And to get it back again, yes you guessed it, another change in possession therefor another background check for me to get my gun back. That's the farce about this new law, it's for "CONTROL", and eventually a "gun registry". Also some legal jumble about confiscation without due process. It was advertised telling lies about gun shows in WA State, we already do go through a background check every time we buy a gun. The law was supposedly designed and advertised to stop street sales from occurring. I'm sure that will occur form now on. I'm also sure the garbage they added to harass legal gun owners was just an oversight. Yah, sure!!!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years ago
                "They can't shoot "my guns", only their own."
                If they're entitled to have guns, i.e. they're not using them to commit crimes, I can't imagine why they can use guns belonging to another lawful gun owners. It sounds like harassment as you say.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 10 years ago
    Another example of power and money grabbing masquerading as altruism and supported by tear jerking rather than thought.
    Another example of corporate support being given for superficial do-gooding.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by term2 10 years ago
    The reality of this whole program is that it is an extreme moneymaker, disguised as some sort of socially appropriate endeavor. Its a little like the flood control departments. As they do flood control projects, the actual flood damages go down, and the agency needs to expand the definitiion of floods so as to keep itself in business. With MADD, as the number of fatalities goes down, they need to expand their definitions to keep in business. Temperance is a natural expansion direction. I have thought that they really wanted zero alcohol use, and wanted to use the power of government to enforce that.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 10 years ago
    Whu-whu-whu-what? MADD needs to go the way of the dinosaur?
    Oh, I get it. MADD needs to go the way to where I reside at my Jurassic Park paddock. I have a trick that employs my tail, a big rock and a big switch in the electronics section. My payoff? Yum! Yum!
    Just have them stand by the sign that states, "For the love of God, do not pull this lever." Who knows? Maybe one of those know-it-alls will render my batting skills unnecessary.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years ago
    They all lie about stats, every one of them.

    The actual stats don't impress so they start moving decimals around.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by dbhalling 10 years ago
      If so-called scientists can do it, then why not advocacy groups?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Technocracy 10 years ago
        Neither scientist nor advocacy groups should do it, and yet they do.

        Its why I cynically assume that a good chunk of the stats you see/read are "off" to a greater or lesser degree.

        Example: In my town we had a big debate over opening a premium outlet mall. One of the property abutters pulled a number out of his nether regions of 15 Million cars a year would drive through the area for the mall.

        Even assuming open 365 days a year, which would not be true, that would be 41,095 cars a day in a parking lot sized for about 500 cars, including employee parking. In other words pretty much an impossible arrangement. The true traffic isn't even close to that.

        Didn't stop him or his agenda from making up a totally bogus stat.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by NealS 10 years ago
    I'm getting a little more fed up with the lies and nonsense from many of these organizations anymore. State the problem, state the solution, and enforce the law, period. The lies and deceptions only cause loss of credibility, and that's what we spend most of our time arguing about, the bull stuff (if you know what I mean).

    Here in WA State, I-594 (Gun Registration in disguise) is a bunch of lies. Perhaps it has one good point in the bill, but the majority of it is to take away more freedoms from it's law abiding citizens. It will do nothing to prevent what it is proposed to do, stop shootings in theaters, schools, etc. The problem with the bill is that there is too much "pork" added in it that has nothing to do with the problem it is trying to correct. It's like Obamacare on guns. Now I found there are even conservatives, Second Amendment believers, that are voting for it, because it has perhaps one good point of law, never mind the "pork" parts that will make most law abiding citizens of the state criminals*. Why can't we understand that laws need to be written to solve a particular problem, and leave the personal political benefits out of them? Why do our murder laws now allow 10 and 15 year sentences? Perhaps sentences should be equal to the crime.

    *Then again, if we put all law abiding citizens in the prisons, won't that leave the rest of the state to the criminals? Since they will all be criminals, will that cause all the laws to become extinct? It reminds me of how I perceive how our Department of Justice mostly operates today.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RevJay4 10 years ago
      I-594 has nothing to do with preventing "gun violence" and everything to do with another step toward disarming the citizens. I know you already knew that, Neal, but it is worth repeating every time these bogus laws are brought up by the left. To remind everyone of what the end game truly is, tyranny.
      That this passed in WA is no surprise. When I lived there, I saw the "Californication" of WA taking place and decided to move on. Of course, it helped the decision process that my spouse's folks needed help in OK. Much better now in the Midwest, where we can live and prosper and live among conservative and logical folks. For the most part.
      Wonder what the left has promised Gates for his support of all their crap?
      I feel for ya, Neal. Move before it becomes California north.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by dbhalling 10 years ago
      Yes and citizens should be able to challenge laws for their effectiveness - those laws that don't meet there stated objectives (efficiently) should be null and void.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years ago
        I think any Congress worth its salt [fat chance] should be required to repeal one law for every law passed, and not be allowed to stray into the old "it shall be against the law in the city of Boulder to carry a metal lunch box on Pearl Street." kind of laws. Maybe number of words repealed for number of words passed.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo