I don’t think this will affect my ability to enjoy his music, actually. If Strummer had gone right-wing it would have been very different, because it would have completely undermined his “rock persona” as a thoughtful guy communicating messages that he was passionate about. Rotten’s persona was that he was an idiot who wanted to offend as many people as possible, so finding out that’s actually who he is in real life isn’t much of a shock. I think at least one of the Ramones was right-wing, too, but what else would you expect from a guy who wants to sniff some glue?
Yeah, Johnny Ramone has been described in various places as “a staunch Republican.” I seem to recall he thought Reagan was our greatest president.
Yeah, that has always been his shtick, provocation for provocation’s sake, devoid of substance. Strummer OTOH was a honest class warrior with a heart.
That was Johnny. He wasn’t only a nazi, but stole the band’s Jewish member and singer Joey’s girlfriend, so an asshole all around. (Joey wrote a song about it, “The KKK Took My Baby Away”)
I wonder what crime has the more severe penalty: driving while drunk, or driving while blind.
That was a scene from the 1982 movie If You Could See What I Hear
Being legally blind is not the same as being blind. A legally blind person(depending) might still be able to make out large shapes (such as that large blur is a car) and the road. Lanes, traffic signs, pedestrians or lane markings are another matter. Also not being able to dial a phone to call a cab or friend.
Substitute Sid for Johnny and I’m in agreement.
You may not know how drunk you are when you drive, but you damn well know how blind you are when you drive, making the latter deliberate.
“Legally blind” doesn’t always mean “completely blind” nor always preclude driving. When I was in college, I would be driven from my job back to campus by a legally blind artist.
I assume he got written up for driving without a license. Although, since the I in DUI is now generally referred to as Impaired instead of Intoxicated, you could make an argument for the DUI.
The CDC defines Impaired as being caused by substances. Nothing about physical or mental handicaps.
- Impaired driving happens when someone operates a vehicle while impaired by substances such as marijuana, illicit drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medicines, and/or alcohol.
- Driving while impaired by any substance is dangerous and illegal.
- There are effective measures that can help prevent injuries and deaths from impaired driving.
I imagine the actual law, also, but I can imagine a prosecutor taking a run at it if he had grudge against the blind guy.
Question for our legal types: Would this be grounds for recusal/removal of the prosecutor or grounds for discipline if it became known that it was followed through on?
(Yeah, I know. Clumsy wording.)
In my state, the “I” stands for “Influence” (the “U” being “underthe”
I seem to remember DWI being the term in Washington State when I was growing up (Driving While Intoxicated) but at some point it changed to DUI (Driving Under the Influence). DUI can be caused by alcohol, cannabis, or any other substance that impairs your ability to drive safely.
(Cannabis is legal here but like alcohol you can’t legally drive while under its influence.)
A couple days ago I learned from a cite upthread (post #4330) that in Wisconsin it’s OWI: Operating While Intoxicated. Which might apply to boats, go-carts, and even horses. Unclear from the cite what intoxicants are covered or whether it’s a catch-all for f***ed up by any means.
Well, Wisconsin does have a significant Amish population.
This happened in my home town last Sunday. The news report, which I’m quoting verbatim, is from the local paper, which is paywalled.
TL;DR: Man is released from jail at 10 am. Man robs Walgreens at 11 am. Man is arrested a few minutes later holding the exact amount of cash that was stolen from Walgreens.
A man robbed Walgreens of cash on Sunday. Shortly after, Newton Police arrested a suspect in the crime. The robbery occurred around 11 a.m. Sunday, according to the Newton Police Department.
Edit: Removed copy right material -Miller
Heck, a man needs some folding money once out of jail. Food doesn’t pay for itself.
If he was arrested with the same amount of money that was stolen from the Walgreens, that means he had no money at all before the robbery. I’m also surprised that they jad a perfect accounting of how much was taken, viewed the surveillance tapes, and got that information to the arresting officers so quickly.
Is this in the Newton that the cookie is named for? Probably not.