Wolf Blitzer interviewed a survivor of the terrible Oklahoma tornado and asked her if she thanked God for surviving. “No,” she replied, “I’m actually an atheist…”
It always struck me as kind of insulting for people to claim that God saved them from a disaster. I mean, what does that say to those who did not? “Sorry, God obviously didn’t like your loved ones; he saved me, though.” Do the families who suffered need to hear that?
I know that’s not what people mean, but it’s kind of insensitive, isn’t it?
And, as this woman interviewed by Wolf Blitzer shows, it’s not even accurate. Apparently God saved the atheist before He saved some believers. (I should note that the woman said, immediately afterwards, “I don’t blame anybody for thanking the Lord.”)
If you ever survive some catastrophe while others die, please think twice before you say something that may comfort you while you are unknowingly insulting those who died.
Turns out there is a scandal after all.
The Republicans have searched for one since the incident happened. First they claimed that Obama never called it a terrorist act (like that is a crime). Turns out he did, the very next day. Remember how Romney tried to accuse him of that during the debate and instead just looked completely incompetent? That was fun.
Other than that, I haven’t been able to completely figure out what they’re saying. Apparently they are mad because the Obama administration didn’t have 20/20 hindsight to realize it was a terrorist attack. If there is something more, no one has been able to entirely explain it yet.
But one thing they said turns out to be true: Talking point memos were changed to make it seem that it was something other than it was.
Turns out though that those memos were changed by Republicans in their press releases to reporters, and not by the Obama administration.
Fake quotes. They just made them up.
So when people say that there is a scandal going on concerning Benghazi, you can reply “Yes, there is! I see it now!”
This is a common question those on the right ask. Why doesn’t the mainstream media cover Obama scandals?
Well, the answer is simple: They do. As we can see from the IRS scandal and the Associated Press scandal, both of which were the main stories on the nightly news and front pages, the media loves scandal (Just ask Anthony Weiner). Scandals get ratings and sell papers. It has nothing to do with ideology.
But they love real scandals, not made-up ones.
Right wing blogs, following Fox News’ lead, cry about made-up scandals all the time. Benghazi, birth certificates, umbrellas, or whatever silly thing they are obsessing over never make the “mainstream media” not because the other news sources are in Obama’s pocket, but because there is no news there. They’re fantasy scandals, and honest and legitimate news sources know that.
Much of the “mainstream media” is actually quite conservative. Many newspapers endorsed Romney and write editorials critical of Obama. But even they aren’t covering these “scandals” because they (unlike Fox) have journalistic integrity.
But the people who believe these things tend to be more paranoid than the average American. Many of these people also believe the government is out to install a dictatorship and take all our guns and install Sharia Law — and that the Illuminati or something controls the White House with help from the aliens in Area 51 and what-have-you.
So the inability of these people to understand that there is no vast liberal media conspiracy kind of makes sense, because they tend to believe in other things that don’t exist — like the Benghazi scandal.
There is a movement now to lower the level by which you can be convicted of drunk driving from .08% to .05%.
As a criminal defense attorney who handles a lot of DUI cases, I certainly have opinions on this.
The problem is that my opinion has a lot of “ifs.”
First, let me explain the law. In Pennsylvania (where I practice), you can be driving perfectly fine, no problems whatsoever, but if you have more than .08% in your system, you can be found guilty of drunk driving. It’s a “per se” law which means that simply by having that much in your system you are guilty even if it did not affect your driving. I assume every other state is the same.
Obviously, alcohol affects everyone differently. One person can be drunk from two beers while another needs six, based on the size of the person and other factors.
So that law kind of bugs me, because you’re guilty even if the point of the law (to prevent drunk drivers) is not technically served.
On the other hand, people should not be driving after they’ve had a drink. Come on, why try to guess if you’ve had enough? Just don’t drink if you know you’ll be driving. (I’ve never been much of a drinker, but I’ve seen so many lives ruined from drunk driving that I don’t even have a sip if I know I am driving.)
So when I see studies showing that lowering the amount to .05% (which is the limit in a hundred other countries) results in less accidents, it’s hard to argue that we shouldn’t lower it.
The problem is this: In America, thanks to MADD and groups like that, the penalties for drunk driving are ridiculously harsh. Most states have a mandatory jail sentence for a first offense. (There’s not even a mandatory jail sentence for aggravated assault.) For a third offense in Pennsylvania, you could do a mandatory year in jail, even if your driving was perfectly fine, just because your BAC level was too high. A year! When I say people’s lives have been ruined because of drunk driving, I’m not just talking about the victims of accidents; most of the time, there is no accident.
I’d be willing to bet that in those countries that have reduced the rate to .05%, the penalties are nowhere near what we have. Penalties such as points on your license, a loss of license, and the requirement that you take alcohol classes (which we have now) may be sufficient to punish people without throwing them in jail, too.
So I may surprise people when I say that I am not necessarily against lowering the rate (and no, I’m not saying this so I can get more clients), but I would only support it if we got rid of mandatory prison sentences. (This is, in some way, a separate issue worthy of another blog post — one of the reasons the US has more prisoners than any other country is because instead of treating addicts, we imprison them.)
ventrellaquest.com 