Day by Day

Saturday, August 16, 2014

So, just to be clear...

...the Democrats in Texas are demanding that a drunk-driving alcoholic DA who is in charge of the Public Integrity Unit be allowed to keep her job despite the drunk-driving, cop-abusing behavior, and attempts by Gov. Rick Perry are illegal in their book.

Oh, and this drunk-driving Democrat DA wasn't just drunk, she was friggin' hammered.  To whit, a .238 BAC.

.238.  Blood.  Alcohol.  Content.

Lemme tell y'all a story about younger Dave, m'kay?  Younger Dave, back when he was an MP, had gone through DUI detection and deterrence courses, and as such, was volunteered to be the drinker at the upcoming DUI detection course.  In short, they have people get drunk so that other MP's can do the field sobriety tests on them, and thus learn just what a drunk person looks like while taking field sobriety tests.  On top of that, you have to determine the person's BAC within a certain percentage just from the field sobriety tests, and in order for that to happen, the person you're testing has to have an actual BAC.

So Dave drank.  And drank.  Keep in mind that when I was younger, this was not an unknown thing for me.  I was a hard drinker when I was younger; probably borderline alcoholic.  I could drink a lot of folks under the table.  Not everybody, but most people.

So I did thirteen shots of Southern Comfort 101.  That's 101 proof SoCo.  50.5% alcohol.  In three hours.

Folks, I was hammered.  I had a hard time walking.  I could speak, but not well.

At the three hour mark, they took my BAC with a breathalyzer test.  It was a .133 BAC.

.133 after thirteen shots in three hours.  And again, I was hammered.  I was drinking on the Army's time, and damn if I wasn't going to do the best drinking I could do!  But I couldn't walk, and I damn sure wasn't even going to think about driving.  They took my BAC an hour later and I was a .113 BAC, and that's STILL too damn drunk to drive.

So trust me when I say that if someone has reached a .238 BAC and they are still upright, they have been getting drunk each day, every day, every week, for years and years on end.  For this woman to be DRIVING with a .238 BAC means that she has been doing this more than once.  More than twice. Hell, I'm willing to bet that she gets behind the wheel with a snoot-full at least once or twice a week, because she has been drinking hard-core for YEARS.  I would hazard a guess that she's downing a fifth of liquor a night, or at least close to that amount.

And then she goes for a drive.

Hey, just the person you want as your DA, right?  Just the person you want running the Public Integrity Unit, right?  Well, only if you're a Democrat in Texas, I guess.  So every time you hear about Rick Perry being indicted, just remember that the Texas Democrats are demanding that a drunk-driving DA be allowed to keep her job AND be in charge of the Public Integrity Unit.


Erin Palette said...

Indicting Perry is going to have about as much success as impeaching Obama.

Ragin' Dave said...

I think it will have the reverse effect, actually. The DA's story had died down quite a bit, but this indictment brought it right back to the front page. There are more people across the country who see what Perry has to put up with from Democrats in Texas, and how he dealt with them. There's going to be plenty of people looking at Perry now and saying "Hell, I'd vote for him!".

There's also going to be a lot more people wondering why she still has a job after blowing a .238 BAC.

Erin Palette said...

That's basically what I meant, I just phrased it poorly. To whit:

The Dems really want the GOP to try to impeach, so they can play the victim card. Instead, the GOP seems quite happy to continue allowing Obama to be the millstone around the Left's neck.

Similarly, any attempted indictment against Rick Perry is only going to backfire, as the video and photographs of the judge in the restraint chair and anti-spit mask threatening cops is only going make Perry look good for wanting to dismiss her.

Erin Palette said...

Put another way:

Anonymous said...

Maybe Rand Paul will get back to his dad's stand against Israel and we won't have to worry about you dual loyalists.

Ragin' Dave said...

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I think the Dems made a strategic mistake on this, especially on the national level. But then, this has been their tactics for decades now. It's pretty much all they know, and all they have.

Still, nice of them to make the blunder.

And anon - dual loyalists?

Put the bong down. Step away from the bong. The bong is not your friend.

Erin Palette said...

By "dual loyalists" he means people who support both Libertarian issues and Israel. Hard-core Ron Paulbots wants us to return to Wilson-era isolationism.

Ragin' Dave said...

Ah, gotcha. I figure that supporting a democracy surrounded by a bunch of murderous islamic thugs is the right thing to do. As much as I would love to be an isolationist, I cannot do so in a world where some maniac can take a suitcase nuke across the ocean in less than 12 hours.

Back when it took a couple of months to cross the Atlantic, isolationism made sense. But we can't keep our head in the sand when our enemies want to kill us just for being us, and they can do so in less than 24 hours if they put their mind to it. The only thing keeping them "over there" is that they don't want us "over there" as well, and they know we would be if it came to that.