The real truth about a DUI is that no two DUIs are the same, yet the fines and the punishment are exactly the same unless a fatality or bodily injury results, which heightens the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony, and rightfully so.
In the meantime, a guy like Edward makes a simple wrong lane turn or perhaps has a taillight burned out or leaves a bar at closing, and these guys are all lambs headed for the DUI financial slaughterhouse, as a cop can stop anybody for almost no logical reason at all, and if they have had so much as one drink, the cop can and often does suggest a totally unnecessary sobriety test, and more often than not the cop arbitrarily decides the person flunks the test (which is rigged against the driver in the first place) and is drunk enough to arrest him/her for DUI, and one more sucker is sucked into the DUI money machine. And the $10,000 rip-off, all sanctioned and encouraged by the government legislature supposedly there to protect its citizens against blatant financial abuse, cranks out another DUI! Easy money and legal, but deliberate entrapment to the extreme, to say the least!
A DUI in most cases has become nothing more than a way for the attorneys and agencies involved to steal legally. Of course, some DUIs are certainly warranted, but the vast majority of them are neither warranted nor necessary, other than to produce revenue for the cash-starved government and the agencies that feed off this legally corrupt abuse of the citizenry.
The DUI money machine is a perpetual cash cow that just keeps getting fatter at the expense of the very people it is supposed to protect and serve.
Be sure you check your headlights and taillights before your next visit to your local bar! Even better, don’t drive past ten at night. You can’t tell who is behind you until the red lights come on, and you are about to be found guilty until you spend $5000 to $10,000, a night in jail, and a year of court hell to prove you might just be innocent. The foundational legal premise our justice system was founded on (innocent until proven guilty) doesn’t apply to DUIs! You drink, you drive, you’re guilty! Don’t waste your hard-earned money trying to prove otherwise. Welcome to the perpetual DUI money machine.
Bill Fadden, M.A.
I’ve just got around to trying to read your cover story from the January 20 issue, “That Rug You Found in a Dumpster Is Worth $125,000,” by Jay Allen Sanford. I’d like to make two comments, and this is after I’ve seen all sorts of letters back and forth about the article since then, and I was finally curious enough to go back and try to read the thing.
My first comment is, in June of 2010, my wife had a couple of tickets to Antiques Roadshow in San Diego, and we went down there, and we thought the tickets would let us go into the building and watch the show being taped, but when we got there we found out you had to bring something with you to get in. And I could have brought a couple of old things from around the house, but we didn’t know that. So, anyone else, just a warning.
Second comment is — and I haven’t seen this mentioned in any of the letters since the article was published — but you’ve got a discontinuity in the thing. Look at the last sentence of page 28 and the beginning of page 29. It doesn’t make any sense — part of the text is missing. Would you please explain? What the hell happened there?
via voice mail
Due to a technical error, the text below was missing from the story.
“Pretty soon, they decided that shots of the robot itself were good enough for a one-minute roll, even though there wasn’t going to be an on-camera appraisal.”
That meant Big Loo might appear on the eventual TV broadcast. But what about Duane?
“I signed a release form, still photos were taken, and I was videotaped for a possible spot. But that still didn’t ensure I would be getting on TV.”
Duane returned to the Convention Center later that day with one more item torun through the guessing gauntlet, having scalped an additional entrance ticket.
What’s Up On Stage?
Who is this Homer Hesse, and why do you let him write such drivel about the theater? He’s dreadful. He talks about acting but doesn’t understand it at all.
The February 5 “Stage Whisper” on the Reader’s website is the last straw. He reviews the Death of a Salesman, even though Jeff Smith already has! Why does the Old Globe have two reviews for the same play when other theaters don’t have one? What’s going on at your paper?
If you have a second theater writer, have him review community theaters like Octad-One and Coronado Playhouse. And get someone to write them who knows about theater!