Burnt Orange Report

I have to ask if no one else has. How many votes did the ficus get?

The SOS only lists how many votes the registered, non write-in candidates got. I've got a request in to the Sec. of State about the matter. It got great media coverage in the Chronicle, Ft. Worth Star Telegram, DMN and CNN.com.

Matt:

After reading your post about Congressman Brady’s drunk driving arrest and the story you linked about the tragic death of teenagers in Conroe, my heart goes out to both the parents of the children killed and to the Congressman. However, I do not believe it is fair to use the tragedy in Conroe to emphasize the situation Brady is dealing with right now.

Con. Brady is lucky that his actions did not cause senseless death like the incident in Conroe, but he understands that. I agree that drunk driving is a serious problem, but I am tired of a citizenry that has unrealistic ideas about the politicians they elect being perfect. No human being is perfect, nor will that human being do the right thing all the time.

The Congressman had a few drinks, thought he could make it back to his hotel, and he was obviously wrong. You are right this is not a partisan issue; we all need to wake up and realize that tragedy strikes unexpectedly and even politicians can get arrested for drunk driving.

Though I'm sorely dissapointed in Congressman Brady, especially considering how much of a problem drunk driving has been in MoCo (especially 25 years ago), I was more astonished that he hadn't 'learned his lesson' before. I thought that it was an odd thing to say.

Agreed.

Dear Jeff,
I agree with you that politicians are only human and bound to make mistakes as we all do. BUT, you would think that a Congressman would at the very least obey the law. I don't think that is to much to ask of the people we elect to public office.

Hey now..give him a break. Even good Christians mess up once in a while. But he has Jesus on his side, so all will be alright.

Of course...if this happened to a democrat, everyone on the right would be screaming: "You know this culture of self destruction isn't surprising. People like him dont value life...they dont value families...so why should we be surprised that someone like this got drunk and put lives in jeopardy."

:)

I suspect his "contrition" is probably the result of his knowing he blew the breathalyzer and the other tests administered and that refusing a blood alcohol test, while a right under the law, is more or less is an admission of guilt simply because a blood-level test is pretty irrefutable and so something you really don't want admitted as evidence. Of course his wife more or less pleaded guilty for him, didn't she?

She could learn a lesson as well. Take the car keys away and call a cab next time.

It's a shame the ficus tree didn't win.

Andrea:

First, we don't know what the Congressman's breath test shows, so we have no way of knowing how intoxicated he really was. Second, most people have had a few drinks and gotten home just fine. If he hadn't had a "problem" with the tail lights on his car, we wouldn't even be discussing this right now.

I hate feeling like I'm defending a Republican on this. Drinking and driving is not smart, but just about everyone has done it to some degree.

If memory serves me right, and as I see by the Star-Telegram, Brady recently appeared before an enraged group of hurricane survivors from his district while protected by a bullit-proof vest and a phalanx of armed law enforcement officers. Apart from citing a death threat, his hired flacks refused to comment.

"If he hadn't had a "problem" with the tail lights on his car, we wouldn't even be discussing this right now."

Unless a car pulled out of nowhere or a child darted across the street and in his "we have knowing how intoxicated he really was" state couldn't react in time and killed someone.

"Second, most people have had a few drinks and gotten home just fine."

And that is why so many people are killed in this country. Because everyone thinks they, too, can get home just fine.

"Drinking and driving is not smart, but just about everyone has done it to some degree."

It is also illegal and the reason why it is illegal simply is that some people inevitably find a way to rationalize and excuse behavior that endangers others.

Has "just about everyone . . . done it to some degree?" Drinking and driving in South Dakota? Shades of Jim Janklow!

Baby Snooks and Coleman:

Give me a break! You are telling me that y'all have never had a few glasses of wine or a few beers and driven home???

Drinking and driving is not a healthy habit, but everyone has been in that situation. I don't believe invoking hypothetical death and dooms day scenarios is an appropriate way to scare people into responsible behavior. You people sound like an advertisement for MADD. Get real!

You hit the keyword. Responsible. As we get older, we tend to become more responsible. Our age doesn't make violating the law less a violation or more a violation but it does reflect a shift in responsibilty and our willingness to be more responsible in our behavior. In essence we shift from a feeling of immortality and invincibility to realizing how mortal and vulnerable we are. How old is Kevin Brady?

I believe our elected officials and our public officials and our "protectors" such as law enforcement should have a different standard applied. A more stringent one. Don't like that? Find something else to do in life.

What does the word "leader" mean? We expect our leaders to set an example. More and more they're setting the wrong one. What Tom De Lay needs most, by the way, is the back of a hand in the back of a woodshed. From his momma. Kevin Brady should have his car keys taken away. As should anyone else. Myself included.

The Answer to the Problem of Drunk Driving, etc.

Copyright: 1987-2005 © Bruce Alm. Documentation is available.

The answer to the problem of drunk driving, etc. could be this; a permit for the purchase and consumption of alcohol beverages.

This would not only be a major assault on the problem of drunk driving, but would also have an effect on virtually all other crimes such as these;

murder, rape, assault, burglary, robbery, suicide, vandalism, wife beating, child beating, child molestation, the spread of aids, animal cruelty, etc., the list is endless.
If this proposition was made law, there could be a major reduction in all these areas of concern, even though the emphasis concerning alcohol abuse seems to be drunk driving in particular.

There could also be many other positive results; families healed, better work performance, booze money spent on products that would help the economy (we've all heard of the guy who spends half his check in the bar on payday,) would spare many health problems, etc.

This new law could go something like this:

Any person found guilty of any crime where drinking was a factor would lose the right to purchase and/or consume alcohol beverages.

For a first misdemeanor, a three year revocation. a second misdemeanor, a ten year revocation. a third misdemeanor, a lifetime revocation. Any felony crime, an automatic lifetime revocation.
Anyone caught drinking alcohol without a permit would receive a possible $1000 fine and/or jail sentence. those who would supply alcohol to people without a drinking permit (and possibly make money at it,) would also lose his/her right to purchase alcohol beverages.

What wife or husband would buy an alcoholic spouse a bottle?

What friend would give a problem drinker a drink at the possible cost of a thousand bucks and the loss of their own privilege? This could be a total discouragement to these would-be pushers.

This permit doesn't seem as though it would be a problem to put into effect. It could simply be a large X, or whatever, on the back of any drivers license in any state, to show who has been revoked, and cannot purchase alcohol.
Most people of drinking age have a driver's license, but one area that might be a problem could be New York City, where many people don't drive.

This problem could be resolved, however, by a license-type I.D. specifically for the purchase of alcohol beverages. Most, if not all states have these already for the purpose of identification.
This could be a small price to pay for the saved lives of thousands of Americans each and every year.

After this, it would simply be a matter of drinking establishments checking I.D.s at the time of purchase.
In the case of crowded bars, they could simply check I.D.s at the door, as they do now.

Would this be a violation of rights? There can be no argument here since they already check I.D.s of people who look as though they may not be old enough to drink.

This could be a good saying, "If a person who doesn't know how to drive shouldn't have a license to drive, a person who doesn't know how to drink shouldn't have a license to drink."

Here are some other pluses to this idea:

A good percentage of people in correctional institutions are there because of alcohol related offences . Because of this, court, penal, and law enforcement costs could drop dramatically.

A.A., ALANON, MADD, SADD, etc., could become things of the past.

What the alcoholic fears most, is the temptation to have that first drink, usually a spur of the moment type thing. Without the ability to do this, he/she is fairly safe. To start drinking again would almost have to be planned in advance. and to maintain steady drinking would be extremely difficult, in most cases.

Even though A.A. members as a group don't become involved in political movements, it seems as individuals, they would all be in favor of a situation like this. Any person who wants to quit drinking, even if never having been in trouble with the law, could simply turn in their license for the non-drinking type.

A woman from MAAD, on the NBC TODAY show, said "One out of every ten Americans has a drinking problem, and that 10% consumes 60% of all alcohol beverages sold in the U.S.." If this is true, there could be financial problems for breweries, liquor stores, bars, rehab centers, etc., as well as lawyers, massive amounts of tax revenue 'down the drain,' and so on.

But it doesn't seem as though anyone would have a valid argument against a proposal such as this for financial reasons. To do so would be morally wrong, and could be likened to a drug-pusher attitude.

Even with the problems this new law could present, it still could, in one sense, be considered the simple solution to the number one drug problem in the U.S. and elsewhere. Alcoholism.

P.S.

What ever happened to the skid row drunk?