NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to thank you for the check for exactly $2.50 you enclosed in the recent form letter you sent me. I will soon cash this free money in my savings account because, like you, I am "In no position to throw money away." As a member of the Cynical Bastards of America Association (CBAA) I am to observe that your offer to me of money for more money to you is nothing but a pathetic cry for pity. Unlike the fat, moronic, female, stay-at-home, middle-class demographic that your organization obviously adheres to I need actual information than the bullshit you asked me to sallow in your letter which leads me into my next point.

In your letter you gave several "nightmarish" statistics as you so 'scare-tactically' put it. Although I have no problems with the first few I must take issue with the following: "someone is killed every 30 minutes and some else is injured every minute." Can you please explain to me the logic behind this statement? How can a person get injured by a drunk driver every minute? Obviously people normally aren't drinking and driving from 8AM to 4PM now are they? Primarily because people work during that time of day, but obviously people who stay at home watching Oprah and The View all day wouldn't have a very good concept of that. This is just another scare-tactic that makes us think if we're driving around at anytime of day there's a huge chance we'll get T-boned by some faggot who doesn’t know his limit.

I would also like to comment on how your letter gives absolutely no reassurance that your organization does anything at all. Qualitative statements like, "People are changing their attitudes about drinking and driving," and "our efforts are paying off!" are not very helpful. Unless you give me actual poll numbers and other statistics I can only assume that you're just making shit up. Can you give me a reverse-scare-tactic that says, "Every five minutes MADD saves a life."? Oh I'm sorry, "Every five minutes MADD saves a life!" I forgot how the letter underlines and exclaims everything of importance. People don't need help reading and identifying main points. That's what we did in high-school. Oh, and I think a shit-load more drunk driving accidents are caused by high-school students than grade-school and middle-school students. Maybe you should give high-school students those hour-long lectures that only serve as avenues for mothers to cry about shit, because grade- and middle-school students have already forgot about that by the time they get a Driver’s License.


Cynically,
Bāss Wolfgang Foxxinnia

Is that your real name?

Is that your real name?
E'sa my psudoname.

You gonna mail that Foxy?

His Nom De Guerre, so to speak!

MADD volunteers come into the hospital where I work every now and then. They drop of pamphlets and brochures that clutter up the waiting room and give awful information, plus they have this "holier-than-thou" attitude, even towards the interns and doctors.

Basically, I dislike them.

In your letter you gave several "nightmarish" statistics as you so 'scare-tactically' put it. Although I have no problems with the first few I must take issue with the following: "someone is killed every 30 minutes and some else is injured every minute."
I guess you haven't lost someone near and dear to you as a result of someone driving under the influence of alcohol?

Penalties For Drinking and Driving Get Stiffer (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/drive/a/aa082797.htm)

So, what fate awaits these drunk drivers? They may be surprised to find that penalties for DUI, even the first offense, have been increased since they last checked. Due to the efforts of groups like Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), some 1,600 new DUI laws have been passed nationwide since 1980.

Your satire is shallow at best. :(

Heres an idea: lets all join DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers):D

Did you know MADD spends 17% of its money seeking donations?
http://www.madd.org/aboutus/1847

Does that seem a little high to anyone else?
That's almost $1 out of every $5 going towards paying a telemarketer, or some jerk to write up letters like the one received here...

Looked up the Canadian Cancer Society, and figured they spend 13%...
Huh... and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada spends 18%.

That seems like an awful lot of money going back out in an attempt to get more money in.
I know my dad doesn't donate to charities that continuously harrass him for money. His position is, if they ask him more than once a year, they're wasting the money he gave them. I think that's pretty understandable...

If people really care, they could look up the 990s on the intarweb and see what the top five employees make.

That would give a fair idea of how legit they are.

Did you know MADD spends 17% of its money seeking donations?
http://www.madd.org/aboutus/1847

Does that seem a little high to anyone else?
That's almost $1 out of every $5 going towards paying a telemarketer, or some jerk to write up letters like the one received here...

Looked up the Canadian Cancer Society, and figured they spend 13%...
Huh... and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada spends 18%.

That seems like an awful lot of money going back out in an attempt to get more money in.
I know my dad doesn't donate to charities that continuously harrass him for money. His position is, if they ask him more than once a year, they're wasting the money he gave them. I think that's pretty understandable...
The old saying is that you have to spend money to make money.

It costs money to advertise and if you don't advertise, no one is going to know anything about you or your business.

getting drunk drivers of the road is good business?

Your response would be better addressed to Allstate Insurance of Canada. That is who now provides their funding and uses them as a lobby to push for laws that increase their profits. A million dollars a year and a few useful idiots can really wreck havoc on individual freedom.

The old saying is that you have to spend money to make money.

It costs money to advertise and if you don't advertise, no one is going to know anything about you or your business.

getting drunk drivers of the road is good business?

I suppose that's true... just seems to me that it's a pretty high amount getting spent on making money.
Maybe I'm just frugal. ;)
I think advertising and soliciting are two separate things... not sure if they lumped them all under "Fundraising" or not...
Either way, I'd like to think there would be a better way of getting donations. With how well known so many charities are these days, you wouldn't think they'd have to advertise/solicit all the time.

Your response would be better addressed to Allstate Insurance of Canada. That is who now provides their funding and uses them as a lobby to push for laws that increase their profits. A million dollars a year and a few useful idiots can really wreck havoc on individual freedom.
What "individual freedoms" are you referring to?

Your response would be better addressed to Allstate Insurance of Canada. That is who now provides their funding and uses them as a lobby to push for laws that increase their profits. A million dollars a year and a few useful idiots can really wreck havoc on individual freedom.

If you place "individual freedom" to drink and drive and threaten innocent lives over legislation to save lives from that very cause, I have a problem with your way of thinking.

What "individual freedoms" are you referring to?
Mandatory laws that appear to be in the best interest of everyone, but are only for the purpose of increasing their own profits. Many many traffic laws, seat belt laws, black box spy equipment, and now the push to for prohibition all together are on the agenda of MADD in my state. At their height they went so far as to post their own observers in the municipal courtrooms of major cities to over see the punishment that judges were passing out and reporting them to the state insurance commissioner who of course was appointed by none other than the Insurance companies. It is really a very slick scam they have going on in the name of the nanny state.

If you place "individual freedom" to drink and drive and threaten innocent lives over legislation to save lives from that very cause, I have a problem with your way of thinking.

I have no problem with drunk driving laws as I do not drink. But their agenda is much much more expansive than that. Once they met their stated goals of lowering the legal limits across the country, they decided to expand their focus and keep the money flowing in. Now they are a new kind of animal that operates strictly at the leisure of corporate interests.

I have no problem with drunk driving laws as I do not drink. But their agenda is much much more expansive than that. Once they met their stated goals of lowering the legal limits across the country, they decided to expand their focus and keep the money flowing in. Now they are a new kind of animal that operates strictly at the leisure of corporate interests.

Or perhaps they found that their initial goal wasn't good enough, and took a new look at it as a first, baby step towards a real solution?
I'm not saying that IS the case, but just another thought to throw out there.

Mandatory laws that appear to be in the best interest of everyone, but are only for the purpose of increasing their own profits. Many many traffic laws, seat belt laws, black box spy equipment, and now the push to for prohibition all together are on the agenda of MADD in my state. At their height they went so far as to post their own observers in the municipal courtrooms of major cities to over see the punishment that judges were passing out and reporting them to the state insurance commissioner who of course was appointed by none other than the Insurance companies. It is really a very slick scam they have going on in the name of the nanny state.
IF you don't drink and drive, you don't need to worry about the penalties.

Have you got a source for the "MADD agenda" that you offer here?

Although I have no problems with the first few I must take issue with the following: "someone is killed every 30 minutes and some else is injured every minute." Can you please explain to me the logic behind this statement? How can a person get injured by a drunk driver every minute? Obviously people normally aren't drinking and driving from 8AM to 4PM now are they?
While I agree with pretty much everything you said, I disagree with this point you made. While I agree it is fairly unlikely that someone gets injured every single minute due to car accidents, you have to keep in mind that there is a whole wide world out there. It might be midnight where I am-and very few drivers out. But in Albania it is 9:00 in the morning and I am sure there are some people out driving. And in Japan I bet people are going home from work right about now.

After work one night, a few of us went out for a night of drinking. I was so sloshed that I knew I couldn't drive home. I went to my car in the parking lot and decided to sleep off my drunkeness. It was winter and cold so I decided to turn the car on and get some heat. I was awakened by a flashlight banging on my window and almost arrested for DUI. How f-ed up is that? Apparently the law is that you are not even supposed to have the keys in the car if you are drunk. The only reason I got off is that I have a family member who is a cop (unfair also but I'll take it). Some of the drunk driving laws are just plain stupid. I am not against busting those who drive drunk but the way the law is written and what constitutes "driving" is just plain ridiculous. I tried to do the responsible thing and almost ended up in the slammer for it.

While I agree with pretty much everything you said, I disagree with this point you made. While I agree it is fairly unlikely that someone gets injured every single minute due to car accidents, you have to keep in mind that there is a whole wide world out there. It might be midnight where I am-and very few drivers out. But in Albania it is 9:00 in the morning and I am sure there are some people out driving. And in Japan I bet people are going home from work right about now.

Are you sure that MADD would be giving statistics of drunk driving outside the United States?

While I agree with pretty much everything you said, I disagree with this point you made. While I agree it is fairly unlikely that someone gets injured every single minute due to car accidents, you have to keep in mind that there is a whole wide world out there. It might be midnight where I am-and very few drivers out. But in Albania it is 9:00 in the morning and I am sure there are some people out driving. And in Japan I bet people are going home from work right about now.

Plus it's an average, so if you factor in multi-vehicle, multi-person accidents, you don't need an accident every minute.

Or perhaps they found that their initial goal wasn't good enough, and took a new look at it as a first, baby step towards a real solution?
I'm not saying that IS the case, but just another thought to throw out there.

That may be the purpose of the well intentioned useful idiots that they have doing their footwork, however, their new daddy is their largest contributor Allstate insurance, and their legislation in my state comes directly from the Insurance Commissioners office. Unfortunately here we have the same scam going on that California had going on several years ago, until they got wise.
Being retired LEO, I have had many occasions to hear them speak. For whatever reason they seem to assume that if you are in law enforcement, you are automatically of like mind. They are very brazen about their intentions, and it has nothing to do with saving lives. It's about saving profits.

Are you sure that MADD would be giving statistics of drunk driving outside the United States?

Are you sure they wouldn't?
I hate ad campaigns that say very general blanket statements, without saying where those numbers apply. For instance, an ad saying X number of children die every minute, IMPLIES that those children are dying of starvation in Africa, but doesn't explicitly say that is what they were looking at. For all we know, it could be children all across the world, for any number of reasons.

IF you don't drink and drive, you don't need to worry about the penalties.

Have you got a source for the "MADD agenda" that you offer here?

Well, Bush has an agenda, have we ever seen the real one? I think not. (Sorry, Canadian. Entitled to be bitter. And someone had to do it. Well, I did.)

But in all seriousness, I don't drink, ergo, I don't drink and drive. My father, however, is in a slight pickle. Drove while drunk, was caught. $1100.00 cdn in fines plus a handy little machine that goes off every 20 minutes or so and registers alcohol content in breath.

This may seem extreme, but it's worth it. He'll never do it again. Yes, perhaps some of MADD's methods are simply mad, however, they have a reason.

I think not wanting more people do die because of others utter stupidy sounds reasonable to me. No?

MADD is a necessary evil. *sigh*

Are you sure they wouldn't?
I hate ad campaigns that say very general blanket statements, without saying where those numbers apply. For instance, an ad saying X number of children die every minute, IMPLIES that those children are dying of starvation in Africa, but doesn't explicitly say that is what they were looking at. For all we know, it could be children all across the world, for any number of reasons.

You mean people are actually manipulative? :eek:

Always need to see how much of your donations are actually going to those starving children. Can't trust anyone wanting to take your money.

:sniper: poeple dont care really i dont care about madd or some shmoe getting killed i wont care till it happans to me or some one i know the way most people think!...

You mean people are actually manipulative? :eek:

Always need to see how much of your donations are actually going to those starving children. Can't trust anyone wanting to take your money.

Only the people outside of NS... ;)

I think I'd just refuse to ever give money to anyone who asked, and only give it to specific groups whose ideals I agreed with, and who had sound fiscal records.

My fiancee is convinced I'll never donate a penny. :p

IF you don't drink and drive, you don't need to worry about the penalties.

Have you got a source for the "MADD agenda" that you offer here?

Actually I could probably dig out volumes of it, however, the words of their founder should really be enough to let you know something is up with these folks. Note: it is a very common situation where a special interest group with good intentions and stated goals are taken over and become somthing entirely different.

“Candy Lightner, MADD’s founder, says she disassociated herself from the movement in 1985 because she believed the organization was headed in the wrong direction. ‘It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned,’ said Mrs. Lightner, who founded MADD after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. ‘I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.’”
— The Washington Times, August 2002

A guy I used to work with owned a company that telemarketed for donations to various charities. About 1/5 of the money actually made it to the charities and he and his cronies split up the rest of it. I never give to anyone who calls looking for donations, no matter how good the cause. I think doing charity work is much more rewarding and the benefit is tangible.

Your response would be better addressed to Allstate Insurance of Canada. That is who now provides their funding and uses them as a lobby to push for laws that increase their profits. A million dollars a year and a few useful idiots can really wreck havoc on individual freedom.

Individual freedom to drive drunk?

It appers the power is has shifted to my position.

Individual freedom to drive drunk?

Nope, read on...

Actually I could probably dig out volumes of it, however, the words of their founder should really be enough to let you know something is up with these folks. Note: it is a very common situation where a special interest group with good intentions and stated goals are taken over and become somthing entirely different.

“Candy Lightner, MADD’s founder, says she disassociated herself from the movement in 1985 because she believed the organization was headed in the wrong direction. ‘It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned,’ said Mrs. Lightner, who founded MADD after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver. ‘I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.’”
— The Washington Times, August 2002

Pure odds had to have us agree on something.

This is an interesting report. http://www.abionline.org/downloads/intheirownwords.pdf

To be brutally honest, people are not going to stop driving under the influence because a bunch of mommies are pms-ing. In fact, the influence of authority against DUI ends with an opposite affect, encouraging teens and young adults who are anti-authoritarian to get shitfaced and drive home.

And you must also think about this; If you are drunk, your decision-making ability is impared, therefore, if you are very drunk, you no longer have the mental capacity to know you're too drunk to drive home. Yes, I do believe there should be social progressive policies to encourage safe driving, but having a bunch of Mothers yelling into megaphones and sending out junk-mail isn't going to do anything

To be brutally honest, people are not going to stop driving under the influence because a bunch of mommies are pms-ing.
To be brutally honest with you, this is not about a mother's time of the month issue.

In fact, the influence of authority against DUI ends with an opposite affect, encouraging teens and young adults who are anti-authoritarian to get shitfaced and drive home.
Can you source the info that supports your "fact"?

And you must also think about this; If you are drunk, your decision-making ability is impared, therefore, if you are very drunk, you no longer have the mental capacity to know you're too drunk to drive home.
The idea would be to plant the seed with those who have the greatest potential to drink and drive while they are indeed sober.

Yes, I do believe there should be social progressive policies to encourage safe driving, but having a bunch of Mothers yelling into megaphones and sending out junk-mail isn't going to do anything
Every little bit helps and I am sure that if it results in a loved one of yours not getting killed or seriously injured by a drunk driver, then it would be worth the effort?

I guess you haven't lost someone near and dear to you as a result of someone driving under the influence of alcohol?

:(
One a minute. Didn't you read the letter?

Did you know MADD spends 17% of its money seeking donations?
http://www.madd.org/aboutus/1847

Does that seem a little high to anyone else?
That's almost $1 out of every $5 going towards paying a telemarketer, or some jerk to write up letters like the one received here...

Looked up the Canadian Cancer Society, and figured they spend 13%...
Huh... and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada spends 18%.

That seems like an awful lot of money going back out in an attempt to get more money in.
I know my dad doesn't donate to charities that continuously harrass him for money. His position is, if they ask him more than once a year, they're wasting the money he gave them. I think that's pretty understandable...

These charities are old and established. They've worked out the best "bang for their buck" in terms of seeking donations. Their spending is pretty mild compared to political campaign fund drives. And there are a lot of new "charities" that spend 80-90% of their money on "administrative costs." There's no movement to pass a law against this because whenever a new charity gets set up its going to go through a period where 100% of their funds are spend on themselves.

12-18% isn't that bad.

Mandatory laws that appear to be in the best interest of everyone, but are only for the purpose of increasing their own profits. Many many traffic laws, seat belt laws, black box spy equipment, and now the push to for prohibition all together are on the agenda of MADD in my state. At their height they went so far as to post their own observers in the municipal courtrooms of major cities to over see the punishment that judges were passing out and reporting them to the state insurance commissioner who of course was appointed by none other than the Insurance companies. It is really a very slick scam they have going on in the name of the nanny state.

and everyone makes money..you know.."for the kids'

i call b.s.

the lawyers,cops,judges,legis,and of coarse theINSURANCE companies are all profiting greatly...under the guise of public safety..and for the kids.

if anyone here lost a loved one to a drunk driver..you truly have my condolences.

i have as well.

but i consider drunk driving,being impaired to the point your balance,depth perception and reaction time is impaired(sorta like the 90 gazillion old people driving)
yet they have aarp to rep them,so no new retaking tests for granny who pulls out in front of me every day,and causes the drunk to crash..lol..j/k...but my point is,any sane person is against some shit hammered twit swerving all over the road,and causing a wreck...i know i am.
yet they use that same emotion to pass ridiculous laws..that everyone is for,cause who is for"drunk driving"?
easy law to pass..and the money they make..damn...i wish i had 1/10th of 1/10th of 1 percent..i would have mass transit up and running in no time.
but thats a whole nother point!
fact is..the law in n.j. is .08
that is less then 2 beers to me..and I AM NOT DRUNK on 2 beers.and if you have a cdl(commercial d.l.)it is half...whether you are driving a truck or not.
again,another example of fear mongering...who wants a trucker drunk with 80,000 pounds of truck...no one...but they sneak in whether you are on the job or not...sooo...i go to the bar with my trucker buddy,i have 2 beers(sober,but to them drunk now)and my buddy has 1 beer,we both get dui's,is that fair?
does this sound like a rant?well it is...i got a dui for .09,i passed the field tests,cause i wasnt drunk..i had 2 fricken beers and left(cops cherry picking)and now i have a 1000.00 fine,3000.00 in surcharges,the stupid classes you gotta pay for...and i wasnt drunk !

oh,did i mention the suspension..6 months...and with no decent public trans...well i gotta drive to work,aint walking 20 miles..so now they get a ticket for driving while suspended...what a fuckin scam.another 500.00 fine and another suspension..ad hominen

fnny thing is when i go to a bar,i sit 2 stools down from a judge that gets shit faced on scotch,but he drives,and no cop is gonna ticket him..i aint going to the cops i know getting slathered.

my point is...NO ONE WANTS DRUNK ASS IDIOTS ON THE ROAD...i have kids,so of coarse i dont want some drunk twit slamming them...but i don't want no bimbo twit girl doing her make up at 55 slamming them,or some blue hair who cant see over the wheel slamming them,or joe biz dude on his cell slamming them.

wheres those laws?

how about you are responsible for your actions..if you are babbling on your phone,or putting on makeup or fucking drunk..it's your FAULT

not some guy that had 2 beers instead of 1,just cause it is an easy target for the insurance company to villafy without worrying about a public backlash..cause you know..everyone is against drunk driving!!!

did i say i am against drunk driving?

i am also against irresponsible people in general,like kids on the phone,elderly people that CANT DRIVE,so start villafying them and i will jump on board.

till then..guess you know my opinion.

put some relic insurance exec against me in a skill competition,and i will slam 5 beers..and i will still smoke him..but then again...he dont get locked up and fined for being feeble..i do cause i went past there money benchmark.

AGAIN...I AM AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING..I DON'T EVER DO IT!!!!!!

i am against bullshit laws that prey on the common publics emotions to line the pockets of hypocrites!and thieves!

p.s. the founder of mad got a dui in texas a few years back.
but i guess with all the loot the insurance lobby pays her/her organinazation..she can afford a limo nowadays.

she has no excuse whatso ever!

it's a shame the suffering of some,is manipulated into suffering by many,for the profit of a few.

but heh..we are capitalist's after all.

i should start my own group..soopcom(sick of old people cutting off me);)

After work one night, a few of us went out for a night of drinking. I was so sloshed that I knew I couldn't drive home. I went to my car in the parking lot and decided to sleep off my drunkeness. It was winter and cold so I decided to turn the car on and get some heat. I was awakened by a flashlight banging on my window and almost arrested for DUI. How f-ed up is that? Apparently the law is that you are not even supposed to have the keys in the car if you are drunk. The only reason I got off is that I have a family member who is a cop (unfair also but I'll take it). Some of the drunk driving laws are just plain stupid. I am not against busting those who drive drunk but the way the law is written and what constitutes "driving" is just plain ridiculous. I tried to do the responsible thing and almost ended up in the slammer for it.

wow..i am jealous..thats how i got my dui...middle of february at the shore,too tired to drive,not drunk,but i put on my heat,put the seat back and napped...awakens too..your under arrest...you know it from here,i wasnt driving...you had the keys in the ignition...but surely when you awoke me you saw i was asleep?
to no avail:confused:
we saw you leave the bar 20 minutes ago....ok..how perfect...now the beer i drank is in my bloodstream..and i was 10 blocks away from home...grrr

i was not as fortunate as you..seeing as i have no family member cops..but does that not raise a red flag?
it is imposed at whim!

i lost and got screwed,glad you didn't.

if that don't tell you it is a moneymaker..nothing will...they cant pick and choose violent crimes(i would hope)they persue.

bunch of whore money making scammers if you ask me...the insurance lobby,and their henchmen

and the kicker is..i was asked to leave the bar cause i was dozing off(it is illegal to sleep in a bar here)and i wasn't drunk,just really friggen whooped,but it was cold,i went to my car.debated driving the 10 or so blocks,and put on some tunes and zonked..2 minutes later i am in cuffs.

did i say i am against drunk driving?

Individual freedom to drive drunk?

you got the freedom to dodge me..dont you?

if you pay attention to your enviroment,you should see me coming...no?so in other words,you are not in control of your car,cause if your sober,you should see me coming and get outta my way..no?

j/k...i hope you know;)

If nothing else, it irks me when people abuse statistics to make their point. I remember seeing somewhere that 33% of all accidents are caused by drunk drivers. To me, that would mean that 66% of all accidents are caused by sober people, so why worry about drunk drivers when you are twice as likely to get hit by a sober person?

MADD - yeah, I remember them.

They were the killjoys who drove the final nail into the coffin that once was a fun Friday night, ruining the festive atmos with that godawful ad on latenight featuring an iron-lunged infant screaming its' head off for a solid minute.

Now I remember! *slaps knee* That's why I gave up television. 'Cause I figured out the arseholes who took this from the committee room to the airwaves were just the sort of people who were all tucked into their beds by 10 o'clock on a weekend night. And I don't like being preached at.

Pure odds had to have us agree on something.

This is an interesting report. http://www.abionline.org/downloads/intheirownwords.pdf

Without a doubt, but this is twice in as many weeks! Is this a trend or do we need to return to our respective corners and regroup?;)

Pure odds had to have us agree on something.

This is an interesting report. http://www.abionline.org/downloads/intheirownwords.pdf


Definitely interesting. The observation that drew my attention the most is that despite lowering the legal limit, drunk driving accidents are on the rise. Let's see: by lowering the legal limit, it has increased the number of people on the road that would be considered to be drunk drivers, therefore it has increased the number of accidents caused by drunk drivers.

If nothing else, it irks me when people abuse statistics to make their point.

I agree 100%! There is no quicker way in the world to make me completely disregard someones position than to start pulling that sort of tatic. In fact it is probably what drove me away from supporting enviormental groups and many other well intentioned special interests. I remember growing up hearing how the rain forest were disappearing by XXX acres per day and they would be completely gone in 20 years. It all sounds good until you do the math, live long enough to see their lies, or now, follow the money and see who benefits from their existance.