The Way I See It

Anita Roddick, who founded The Body Shop and pioneered the “ethical” beauty movement in the 1970s, died on Monday. She was 64.

Roddick had contracted Hepatitis C over 35 years ago during a blood transfusion when giving birth to her youngest daughter. She died of a brain hemorrhage.

Read the full article on Anita Roddick.

Let’s recap. Way back in September ‘06, Paris Hilton was stopped by the LAPD for driving erratically and registered .08 blood alcohol level. Paris denies knowing that her license was suspended due to the conviction in that case. When she was picked up driving on that suspended license, she was sentenced to 45 days in jail, later reduced to 23 days, for driving on a suspended license. At the time of this second stop, she was not intoxicated. She spent 3 days in jail and has now been released to house arrest.

Those are the facts. Now for the disclaimer. I’m not a fan of Paris Hilton. I’m not at all happy about the image she portrays to young, impressionable girls. Maybe everything we see about her is an act and she’s really a great human being. Maybe not. Whatever the truth, I’d like to see less of the Paris Hilton we’ve seen these past years. Being a person who believes in redemption and second chances, I’d like to see someone get through to Paris and get her to do some real good in the world. But that’s not what this is about.

Paris Hilton should never have been convicted of DUI.

I have a huge issue with the .08 BAC (Blood Alcohol Concentration) currently in effect in this country. For one thing, most states previously set the limit at 0.1 which was acceptable. MADD wanted the BAC lowered but many states resisted. Enter the federal government. The federal government had no constitutional right to set a nationwide BAC so they did what they always do when they want to overstep their bounds and strong arm the states: they tied tax money to the States’ BAC levels. In other words, if a state didn’t lower the BAC to .08, they didn’t get the highway dollars that are vital to every state’s economy. The federal government did the same thing when they wanted the legal drinking age raised from 18 to 21. So now, you aren’t mature enough to have a beer until you’re 21 but you are mature enough to be tried as an adult at 18 when you commit a crime. Excuse me for being dense, but if we’re setting arbitrary ages, then wouldn’t it be wise to, at the very least, be consistent? And shouldn’t those ages have some relevance to the issue?

Before I get bombarded by the MADD supporters, I’ll state right up front that DUI is a serious offense. I was just 11 years old when my friend, her mother and brother were all killed by a drunk driver. It isn’t something you forget. However, the person who killed my friend had a BAC level far above .08. And that is the point of my rant.

I have searched online in every way I know to find statistics regarding alcohol related accidents, with and without injury or death, where the BAC level was between .08 and 0.1 but have come up empty. The only thing I’ve found are statistics regarding accidents with BAC over .08. That isn’t the point. Those statistics would include BAC levels at 0.15 or 0.2. I want statistical proof that lowering the BAC to .08 was not just “feel good” legislation but was really an important measure.

My contention is that .08 is not an unreasonable level, does not indicate inebriation or drunkenness, and serves only to make criminals out of law-abiding people. This isn’t so much about Paris Hilton as it is about the 64 year old grandmother who goes out to dinner with a friend a few months after being widowed, has a glass of wine and gets picked up for DUI with a .08 BAC. (That isn’t a made up story. I know the woman it happened to and it still irks the hell out of me.)

I also contend that if the statistics backed the current laws and rhetoric from groups such as MADD, they’d be widely available. You won’t find them because those statistics would prove that the .08 BAC level is useless. So I challenge anyone to come up with the statistics I’ve tried to find.

Since this started out with Paris Hilton, I’ll end it with her as well. For all of her foibles and disgusting displays of unladylike behavior, I’ve never seen her outright drunk. She may be ditzy or trashy at times, but she has always appeared sober to me. With a .08 BAC level, I couldn’t call her an alcoholic. I don’t know if she’s addicted to anything else, but this conviction does not prove she’s an alcoholic. In fact, that low BAC level indicates the opposite, that she’s an occasional drinker who doesn’t overindulge. You know, normal.

[tags]Paris Hilton, DUI, Government, MADD[/tags]

I’m tired of the debate about this word. I never even knew the word existed until I was in high school. My parents never used it. No one we associated with used it.

No one needs to use it.

I’ve heard both sides of the issue about why it should not be used and why some rappers and comedians use it. It’s something about claiming the word and using it takes the power of the word away. And somehow that empowers those the word is intended to hurt.

That’s fine if those using it lived in a vacuum. They do not. They live in a world where small children will surely hear that word, unaware of the history of it or its insulting connotations. That creates even more problems. I know this first hand.

Two of my sons have had black friends. They were all frequent visitors here. My youngest son, Levi, was quite young at the time and like any kid that age was like a sponge, soaking up everything he heard and saw. And naturally, he adored his older brothers and their friends.

And so, when these black kids used the “N” word, I would cringe, knowing Levi was nearby and listening. I knew the debate; I knew that this white woman’s opinion might not be welcome. But it was my house, after all. And it was my kid being affected.

And then it happened. My little Levi, barely 3 years old, said the “N” word in front of a couple of Jesse’s friends. They stopped in mid sentence, unable to speak. They weren’t angry at Levi; they knew exactly where he’d heard that word. They knew that they had been this child’s teachers.

I never heard the boys using that word after that. I didn’t have to address the issue, either. Those 18 year old boys had been given a valuable lesson from a 3 year old child. They got to see how their words are important, how their words do impact those around them.

And that is why I believe there is no appropriate time nor place for that word. If you don’t want to teach it to the next generation, don’t use it. Even a small child can understand that.