In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

I'm not (an electrician.) Where did you get that notion?

You like to play one on usenet. My mistake.

I have never claimed to be an electrician.

You haven't spent much time with us of late, but one of your past habits
was to cite chapter and verse of the NEC, frequently. Apologies for
drawing an inaccurate conclusion.

On Jul 29, 4:30*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
In article , wrote:

stuff snipped

Of the many things she does, she translates for the deaf at trials.

Still think they don't need to be licensed?

Why? *This could just as easily be taken care of the same way you get
okayed as an expert witness. I had testified many times before I got
any kind of certification. They asked about my training and
experience, etc.

My dad was an "expert witness" and many courts will simply eject a
witness even with credentials when they start reaching impossible
conclusions. *I've seen it happen in a case where a forensic expert
tried to reconstruct a fire's origin based on blurry 3 by 5 photos
that he had not even personally taken. *He hadn't visited the fire
scene, either. *Zoot! *Out he went. *The outcome might have been
different if it has been a jury trial, I'll admit, but smart lawyers
make sure the witnesses they hire are credentialed out the wazoo and
well-spoken, too, before they take the stand. *For engineers, the
credentials part usually (not always) means having a PE license.

As for licensed translators being more competent then their unlicensed
brethren all I can say is there's no shortage of appellate briefs
alleging translation errors during criminal trials and in my limited
experience, those allegations often prove true. *That's because
translation is subject to all sorts of errors.

A brief review of POTUS errors in translation (ostensibly the best
translators money can buy) will reveal "I am a donut!" and "my wife is
frigid," the two Presidential translation errors most cited in the
press. Extra credit if you can tell me what they were really trying
to say.

The first was JFK trying to convince Germans that he was a native of Berlin
("Ich bein ein Berliner").

Don't know about the second. That's not surprising, though. Inasmuch as the
phrase has been uttered, at most, once in the last century, it's rare enough
to not have been recorded.

He was doing nothing of the sort, as you well know, but maybe you're
just descending to your usual level of...

It's obvious that Kennedy was sending a message of solidarity with the
Berliners. The amusing part is that German speakers have been arguing
ever since about whether he was saying " Ï am a a jelly doughnut" (ein
Berliner), or Ï am a Berliner.""
Strictly speaking, it should have been the latter, but the message of
solidarity got through anyway.

HB

On Jul 28, 10:30*pm, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
In article , dpb wrote:
On 7/28/2011 3:05 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
....

... Why on earth should a license be required in order to work as a
makeup artist? Go on, let's see you make the case for that one.

Bad hygienic practices could easily lead to introduction of infection in
the eyes w/ possibly serious ramifications up to and including blindness
would be one..

That's, ummm... pretty far-fetched. To be charitable.

You must lead a sheltered life...

Unlicensed "beauty parlors" who also employ unlicensed beauticians
frequently
cause outbreaks of infections where they fail to properly sterilize
the equipment
between customers -- what grows or doesn't grow under your nails when
you are
getting a mani-pedi shouldn't ever be exposed to another person...
Period...

Same deal with make up artists...

It is more than just slathering on make up powders... Theatre and
film make-up
often uses prosthetics and plaster casting as well as extensive use of
air brush
application methods...

Not to mention the chemicals involved as well as being able to
recognize an
adverse/allergic reaction if one is happening...

Still think that make-up artists shouldn't be licensed ?

~~ Evan

On Jul 28, 10:36*pm, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
In article , "DGDevin" wrote:





"Doug Miller" *wrote in ...

Why stop there? Because incompetent travel and tourist guides,
incompetent funeral attendants, incompetent home-entertainment installers,
incompetent florists, incompetent makeup artists, incompetent interpreters
for
the deaf, and incompetent animal trainers don't pose a clear danger to
public
health or safety. Incompetent doctors, incompetent pilots, incompetent bus
drivers, incompetent demolition contractors, and incompetent electricians
do.

Where is it written that that the only public harm worth protecting against
is death or injury?

Real estate brokers or accountants or lawyers can cost you huge sums of
money if they screw up despite you having suffered no physical injury, is
that a convincing argument that they shouldn't need extensive training and
certification?

No, it's not. If a real estate broker or accountant or lawyer screws up and
costs you a lot of money, you sue him and recover your money. If a doctor
screws up and ruins your health, you can't sue him and recover your health.



What happens when an unlicensed contractor (who thus has no insurance) makes
a mess of your house, takes out a load-bearing wall and drops an upstairs
bedroom into the kitchen? *Who do you sue, some hack who moved two states
over before your lawyer could file the papers and is now installing lawn
sprinkler systems under another name? *You didn't suffer any broken bones,
does that mean you didn't lose anything?

You didn't lose anything that can't be replaced. That's the crucial difference
that you seem determined to fail to understand.

Insurance companies like licensing
for a reason, it reduces the number of checks they have to write by helping
to keep incompetent hacks out of the business.

So let the insurance companies deal with it. Keep the government out of it.

On Jul 29, 5:59*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
In article , wrote:

stuff snipped

Of the many things she does, she translates for the deaf at trials.

Still think they don't need to be licensed?

Why? *This could just as easily be taken care of the same way you get
okayed as an expert witness. I had testified many times before I got any
kind of certification. They asked about my training and experience, etc..

My dad was an "expert witness" and many courts will simply eject a witness
even with credentials when they start reaching impossible conclusions. *I've
seen it happen in a case where a forensic expert tried to reconstruct a
fire's origin based on blurry 3 by 5 photos that he had not even personally
taken. *He hadn't visited the fire scene, either. *Zoot! *Out he went. *The
outcome might have been different if it has been a jury trial, I'll admit,
but smart lawyers make sure the witnesses they hire are credentialed out the
wazoo and well-spoken, too, before they take the stand. *For engineers, the
credentials part usually (not always) means having a PE license.

As for licensed translators being more competent then their unlicensed
brethren all I can say is there's no shortage of appellate briefs alleging
translation errors during criminal trials and in my limited experience,
those allegations often prove true. *That's because translation is subject
to all sorts of errors.

A brief review of POTUS errors in translation (ostensibly the best
translators money can buy) will reveal "I am a donut!" and "my wife is
frigid," the two Presidential translation errors most cited in the press.
Extra credit if you can tell me what they were really trying to say.

--
Bobby G.

Translation is more art than science...

All languages have dialects -- not all translators know all the
possible
dialects of every language they can translate...

Even sign language has several regional dialects within the US...

~~ Evan

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "David1950"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "DGDevin"
wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message ...


Why stop there? Because incompetent travel and tourist guides,
incompetent funeral attendants, incompetent home-entertainment
installers,
incompetent florists, incompetent makeup artists, incompetent
interpreters
for
the deaf, and incompetent animal trainers don't pose a clear danger
to
public
health or safety. Incompetent doctors, incompetent pilots,
incompetent
bus
drivers, incompetent demolition contractors, and incompetent
electricians
do.

Where is it written that that the only public harm worth protecting
against
is death or injury?

Real estate brokers or accountants or lawyers can cost you huge sums of
money if they screw up despite you having suffered no physical injury,
is
that a convincing argument that they shouldn't need extensive training
and
certification?

No, it's not. If a real estate broker or accountant or lawyer screws up
and
costs you a lot of money, you sue him and recover your money. If a
doctor
screws up and ruins your health, you can't sue him and recover your
health.


What happens when an unlicensed contractor (who thus has no insurance)
makes
a mess of your house, takes out a load-bearing wall and drops an
upstairs
bedroom into the kitchen? Who do you sue, some hack who moved two
states
over before your lawyer could file the papers and is now installing
lawn
sprinkler systems under another name? You didn't suffer any broken
bones,
does that mean you didn't lose anything?

You didn't lose anything that can't be replaced. That's the crucial
difference
that you seem determined to fail to understand.

Insurance companies like licensing
for a reason, it reduces the number of checks they have to write by
helping
to keep incompetent hacks out of the business.

So let the insurance companies deal with it. Keep the government out of
it.



LMAO!!!!! Being licensed requires insurance. _Only_ government can
require
being licensed, not insurance companies.

Like DGDevin, you seem determined to miss the point.

The point being, why in the world would anyone get insurance, if government
(license) didn't require it? Sure, you could sure a hack, what good would
it do if they don't have a dime?

Many states if not all, require proof of insurance to have a valid license,
renew your plates, and to drive, PERIOD.

I'm tired of paying for uninsured motorists on my car insurance, because
people of your ilk don't believe in car insurance for their hundred dollar
clunker.

In article , Evan wrote:

Anyone in a position where they are providing some service on a professional
basis where they can cause their clients harm of any kind should be insured
and licensed...

Whether this harm be "life and limb" or "loss of housing" and damaged
chattels or financial damage...

And I don't necessarily argue with that. Where I have a problem is when
government uses the force of law to prevent unlicensed tradesmen from plying
their trades. IMHO, the only legitimate legal force in this regard is to
require that said tradesmen prominently advertise whether they are or are not
licensed -- and allow the consumer to make the choice.

In article , "David1950" wrote:


The point being, why in the world would anyone get insurance, if government
(license) didn't require it?

Because many of their (potential) customers would.

I'd never even consider using the services of an unlicensed surgeon or
attorney. But if I want to hire an unlicensed painter or landscape gardener, I
think I should be free to do so.

Sure, you could sure a hack, what good would
it do if they don't have a dime?

That's a risk that some people would be happy to take, in exchange for getting
the services cheaper.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message ...

No, it's not. If a real estate broker or accountant or lawyer screws up
and
costs you a lot of money, you sue him and recover your money. If a doctor
screws up and ruins your health, you can't sue him and recover your
health.

Training and certification are a good way of preventing the damage in the
first place. No, that doesn't mean I figure a kid should need a license to
set up a lemonade stand. But I sure check the license of any contractor I'm
considering hiring, and I wouldn't hire one who didn't have a license. Your
insistence that monetary damages are not serious enough to be prevented by
licensing sounds ideological than practical.

You didn't lose anything that can't be replaced. That's the crucial
difference
that you seem determined to fail to understand.

What do you figure the odds are that a contractor who neglected to be
licensed has insurance? Why is it a reasonable thing to require me to chase
him for years in hopes of maybe getting paid for my loss? Wouldn't it be
better to require contractors to be licensed, with insurance a condition of
being licensed?

So let the insurance companies deal with it. Keep the government out of
it.

There are reasons why govt. is the preferred entity for licensing, not the
least of which is the lack of profit as a motive to influence how they
administer licensing. I'll go out on a limb and guess you're not well
disposed towards trade unions being able to charge people to work at a
particular job, but now you're in effect arguing on behalf of people needing
to pay a private company to get the license they need to work. What happens
when a company in the industry being regulated buys the insurance company
that issues the licenses, are we to believe they wouldn't dream of using
that to their advantage? Look what happened with the bond rating agencies
on Wall St., because they were being paid huge sums of money to rate
extremely complex securities and despite the fact that they knew they
couldn't actually gauge the value of those securities they nonetheless
stamped them triple-A--profit was more important than honest certification.
I want to know a commercial truck driver beside me on the highway got his
license because he passed the test, not because the private licensing
company is cranking out licenses to unqualified drivers in search of profit.

I never claimed there were arguments against requiring doctors to be
licensed;
in fact, I acknowledged that there *is* a compelling public safety
interest in
doing so.

Your insistence that there is no public interest unless blood is spilled is
ludicrous, most of the civilized world has moved past such a position. Do I
think licensing can be taken too far? Of course I do, but I also believe
your contention that life and limb have to be threatened before we can
justify licensing is simplistic and dogmatic.

Ever get a makeup brush jabbed in your eye? No? Well then, you aren't
qualified to speak to the horrors of unlicensed makeup artists running
amuck
leaving chaos in their wake.

GMAFB. Can't you do any better than that?

It was a joke, loosen up before you give yourself a stroke.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "David1950"
wrote:


The point being, why in the world would anyone get insurance, if
government
(license) didn't require it?

Because many of their (potential) customers would.

I'd never even consider using the services of an unlicensed surgeon or
attorney. But if I want to hire an unlicensed painter or landscape
gardener, I
think I should be free to do so.

You are free to hire a hack. There's _no_ law, which says you can't.


Sure, you could sure a hack, what good would
it do if they don't have a dime?

That's a risk that some people would be happy to take, in exchange for
getting
the services cheaper.

Hire away. There's no law against it, what's your complaint?

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:



Training and certification are a good way of preventing the damage in the
first place. No, that doesn't mean I figure a kid should need a license to
set up a lemonade stand. But I sure check the license of any contractor I'm
considering hiring, and I wouldn't hire one who didn't have a license. Your
insistence that monetary damages are not serious enough to be prevented by
licensing sounds ideological than practical.

YOU would do all that, heck, I do, too. But I am not suggesting that
my desires be placed on everyone. If someone wants to roll the dice why
should that be the government's decision?


You didn't lose anything that can't be replaced. That's the crucial
difference
that you seem determined to fail to understand.

What do you figure the odds are that a contractor who neglected to be
licensed has insurance? Why is it a reasonable thing to require me to chase
him for years in hopes of maybe getting paid for my loss? Wouldn't it be
better to require contractors to be licensed, with insurance a condition of
being licensed?

And yet the licensing boards every month or so pull a license
because of no insurance. It is a condition of having a car in Indiana
that you have insurance, but many people still don't. My experience is
that licensure is by no means a guarantee. Few places that I know of
track insurance so a person could get insurance, get a license, and then
let it lapse w/o anybody knowing.



So let the insurance companies deal with it. Keep the government out of
it.

There are reasons why govt. is the preferred entity for licensing, not the
least of which is the lack of profit as a motive to influence how they
administer licensing.
You're kidding right? There is plenty of profit motive and you see
it all the time. The city councilman gets a little boost in
contributions for making it a little harder to get a plumber's license,
all the way up to the Congressman. The staff wants to go from licensing
board job to a job in industry. Every licensing board I am familiar with
has at least a majority of the board from the industry itself.

Look what happened with the bond rating agencies
on Wall St., because they were being paid huge sums of money to rate
extremely complex securities and despite the fact that they knew they
couldn't actually gauge the value of those securities they nonetheless
stamped them triple-A--profit was more important than honest certification.
I want to know a commercial truck driver beside me on the highway got his
license because he passed the test, not because the private licensing
company is cranking out licenses to unqualified drivers in search of profit.
Look what happened with the "highly" regulated banks themselves.
They went to Congresscritters (of both parties) and paid them off
(profit) by power, schmoozing, or campaign contributions. If the
government types (over about 15 years or so) had done their job, the
rating agencies sins would have superfulous. Your trust in the
government is almost touching.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

You are free to hire a hack. There's _no_ law, which says you can't.

I disagree. I think there are many laws against practicing many trades
without a license.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

You are free to hire a hack. There's _no_ law, which says you can't.

I disagree. I think there are many laws against practicing many trades
without a license.

You may want to read that again.

In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

You are free to hire a hack. There's _no_ law, which says you can't.

I disagree. I think there are many laws against practicing many trades
without a license.

You may want to read that again.

Suppose you clue me in to what I misinterpreted.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 18:38:55 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

You are free to hire a hack. There's _no_ law, which says you can't.

I disagree. I think there are many laws against practicing many trades
without a license.

You may want to read that again.

Suppose you clue me in to what I misinterpreted.

The pedant said there were no laws against *hiring* an unlicensed whatever.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

You are free to hire a hack. There's _no_ law, which says you can't.

I disagree. I think there are many laws against practicing many trades
without a license.

You may want to read that again.

Suppose you clue me in to what I misinterpreted.

You're talking about trades practicing without a license. It's irrelevant
as far as if Doug wants to hire a licensed contractor, or a weekend
warrior. There's _no_ law saying Doug is limited to hiring only a licensed
contractor. However, when one hires an unlicensed or uninsured person, they
must be prepared to pay the consequence.

In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

You are free to hire a hack. There's _no_ law, which says you can't.

I disagree. I think there are many laws against practicing many trades
without a license.

You may want to read that again.

Suppose you clue me in to what I misinterpreted.

You're talking about trades practicing without a license. It's irrelevant
as far as if Doug wants to hire a licensed contractor, or a weekend
warrior. There's _no_ law saying Doug is limited to hiring only a licensed
contractor. However, when one hires an unlicensed or uninsured person, they
must be prepared to pay the consequence.

You are incorrect. Here is a quote:

"In states that require licensing, hiring an unlicensed contractor is
illegal."

Here is one of many credible sources for that:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Creat...ory?id=2624448

In article , "David1950" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "David1950"
wrote:


The point being, why in the world would anyone get insurance, if
government
(license) didn't require it?

Because many of their (potential) customers would.

I'd never even consider using the services of an unlicensed surgeon or
attorney. But if I want to hire an unlicensed painter or landscape
gardener, I
think I should be free to do so.

You are free to hire a hack. There's _no_ law, which says you can't.

No, but there *are* laws that prohibit unlicensed tradesmen from plying their
trades.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

You are free to hire a hack. There's _no_ law, which says you
can't.

I disagree. I think there are many laws against practicing many
trades
without a license.

You may want to read that again.

Suppose you clue me in to what I misinterpreted.

You're talking about trades practicing without a license. It's
irrelevant
as far as if Doug wants to hire a licensed contractor, or a weekend
warrior. There's _no_ law saying Doug is limited to hiring only a
licensed
contractor. However, when one hires an unlicensed or uninsured person,
they
must be prepared to pay the consequence.

You are incorrect. Here is a quote:

"In states that require licensing, hiring an unlicensed contractor is
illegal."

Here is one of many credible sources for that:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Creat...ory?id=2624448

Call me a skeptic, but until I see a "credible source" such as something in
a city's code, I stand by what I said. I know a lot of people put stock in
ABC news, I'm not one to believe it's the gospel.

A credible source is something in a State code, or let's just go with a
city code, maybe just one instance where someone was actually arrested, or
code saying as such.

Here's a thought, since you say it's "one of many credible sources", maybe
you can provide a link to verify such a code even exists. Since we're on
the subject, if it were true one "could" be arrested, I doubt anyone would
complain to the Attorney General or the BBB, "if" they used an unlicensed
contractor.

In article , "DGDevin" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ...

No, it's not. If a real estate broker or accountant or lawyer screws up
and
costs you a lot of money, you sue him and recover your money. If a doctor
screws up and ruins your health, you can't sue him and recover your
health.

Training and certification are a good way of preventing the damage in the
first place. No, that doesn't mean I figure a kid should need a license to
set up a lemonade stand. But I sure check the license of any contractor I'm
considering hiring, and I wouldn't hire one who didn't have a license. Your
insistence that monetary damages are not serious enough to be prevented by
licensing sounds ideological than practical.

Correct. It *is* ideological; I believe that Thomas Jefferson was correct:
"That government is best, which governs least."

You didn't lose anything that can't be replaced. That's the crucial
difference
that you seem determined to fail to understand.

What do you figure the odds are that a contractor who neglected to be
licensed has insurance? Why is it a reasonable thing to require me to chase
him for years in hopes of maybe getting paid for my loss?

Because you were the idiot who hired him. If you hire an unlicensed, uninsured
contractor, you should not be surprised if he screws up and costs you money.
Why do you think there should be a law to protect you from your own
foolishness?

Wouldn't it be
better to require contractors to be licensed, with insurance a condition of
being licensed?

No, I don't think it would be. Leave it up to the consumer to evaluate the
tradeoffs, and decide whether he's better off paying more to hire a licensed,
insured contractor, or taking the risk of hiring a cheaper, but unlicensed and
uninsured one. This is not a proper role of government.

So let the insurance companies deal with it. Keep the government out of
it.

There are reasons why govt. is the preferred entity for licensing, not the
least of which is the lack of profit as a motive to influence how they
administer licensing.

LMAO at that one! "Lack of profit motive"? You've *got* to be kidding me.
There's plenty of "profit motive" in the adminstration of contractor licensing
in several states and cities. Not *legal* profit, mind you...

I'll go out on a limb and guess you're not well
disposed towards trade unions being able to charge people to work at a
particular job, but now you're in effect arguing on behalf of people needing
to pay a private company to get the license they need to work.

WRONG. I am doing nothing of the kind. I oppose the very idea that they need
to get a license in order to work.
[irrelevant paragraph based on above mistaken assumption deleted]

I never claimed there were arguments against requiring doctors to be
licensed;
in fact, I acknowledged that there *is* a compelling public safety
interest in
doing so.

Your insistence that there is no public interest unless blood is spilled is
ludicrous, most of the civilized world has moved past such a position.

I did not say there is no public interest. I said that there is no
justification for laws requiring a license to work in trades or professions
where incompetence poses no threat to public health or safety.

Do I
think licensing can be taken too far? Of course I do, but I also believe
your contention that life and limb have to be threatened before we can
justify licensing is simplistic and dogmatic.

I _did not_ say that. My objection is not to licensing, but to laws that make
licensing a condition of being able to work.

Please stick to debating what I actually wrote, not what you imagine you read.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "David1950"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "David1950"
wrote:


The point being, why in the world would anyone get insurance, if
government
(license) didn't require it?

Because many of their (potential) customers would.

I'd never even consider using the services of an unlicensed surgeon or
attorney. But if I want to hire an unlicensed painter or landscape
gardener, I
think I should be free to do so.

You are free to hire a hack. There's _no_ law, which says you can't.

No, but there *are* laws that prohibit unlicensed tradesmen from plying
their
trades.

You can go to a Third World Country to get unlicensed medical, unlicensed
building, unlicensed driving, etc. This country has gone downhill enough
without bringing it down to the Third World Country living standards.

Maybe you should consider moving.

In article ,
"David1950" wrote:

Here's a thought, since you say it's "one of many credible sources", maybe
you can provide a link

No thanks. You're too invested in being correct to be corrected. Look it
up your damn self, or stay wrong, I don't care.

Evan wrote:

It is more than just slathering on make up powders... Theatre and
film make-up
often uses prosthetics and plaster casting as well as extensive use of
air brush
application methods...

Not to mention the chemicals involved as well as being able to
recognize an
adverse/allergic reaction if one is happening...

Still think that make-up artists shouldn't be licensed ?


No, they should not be licensed. Your examples of disaster have nothing to
do with licensing - they are adverse consequences of insufficient training
and experience (plus mathematical probability), which have no necessary
connection to the license. Further, the cost and discouragement of the
licensing process more than outweighs any possible benefit that would
accrue.

Have you ever strolled through the makeup section of a large department
store? If so, how do you feel about the manufacturer's representatives who
hawk: "Here, try this blush" or "Care to sample this new perfume?" Are these
promoters "make-up artists"? Should they be licensed?

After all, one in ten million might drop dead from an allergic reaction!

DGDevin wrote:

There are reasons why govt. is the preferred entity for licensing,
not the least of which is the lack of profit as a motive to influence
how they administer licensing.

Think Underwriter's Laboratories.

Evan wrote:

Translation is more art than science...

All languages have dialects -- not all translators know all the
possible
dialects of every language they can translate...

Even sign language has several regional dialects within the US...

You're correct. An ancient maxim says: "All translators are traitors."

I would add "... or as stupid as a crate of anvils, or merely mendacious."

Often translations fail for mechanical reasons - the translator is
translating WORDS instead of MEANINGS. In the Hebrew Bible the word 'et'
frequently occurs. The translators of the King James mechanically rendered
this Hebrew word as "and" in almost every instance. In context, the word
"et" could mean "but," "for," "with," or several other English words.

Another example is "Thou shall not kill" while in Hebrew the meaning is
"Thou shalt not MURDER." Killing is not only permitted, it is encouraged.
God proclaims it is meritorious to kill Jebusites, Philistines, Ammonites,
homosexuals, and others.

Of course this was written before Muslims...

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:59:32 -0500, Hell Toupee
wrote:

On 7/28/2011 2:48 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

... get rid of occupational licensure, says the Wall Street Journal.

"Travel and tourist guides, funeral attendants, home-entertainment
installers, florists, makeup artists, even interpreters for the deaf
are all regulated by various states. Want to work as an alarm
installer? In 35 states, you will need to earn the government's
permission. Are you skilled in handling animals? You will need more
than that skill in the 20 states that require a license for animal
training."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj


Why stop there? Doctors, pilots, bus drivers, demolition contractors,
electricians--open up all lines of work to anybody who wants to give
it a try. If they're not so good at it, well that will come out over
time as their employees and clients fill hospital beds and graves.


Why stop there? If the price of regulation and the price of wages
hurts job creation, then obviously the price of products does, too. So
companies should be slashing their prices to spur demand and create
jobs. If everything was free, demand would go through the roof = jobs
for everybody!


You forget that there is a minimum wage which limits the miniumum cost
of providing any service or building a product.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

last part. The data on airbags
has clearly shown that they have taken the lives of a great many
innocent people, not just "small stature" people, but also average
people killed in accidents directly caused by airbags deploying
improperly such as when the car hits a pothole. The data also shows that
many of the people "saved" by airbags would have been better off dead
since the airbag did not protect most of their wrecked bodies (this I've
heard directly from ER doctors).

Especially since the early legislative history of the airbag clearly
shows it was originally the intention of Congress to use them as passive
restraint systems, to save those who would not buckle up. Ooops.

I

explains in excruciating detail how they calculate the benefits of seat
belts and air bags and even factor in the unfortunate and rare occurrences
when belts or laps do more harm than good. As our resident medical
statistician, Kurt, you can't possibly agree that all but a small subclass
of passengers would be better off without airbags. Air bags and seat belts
have been studied from here to Andromeda and back.
I was merely mentioning that when originally legislated, they were
touted as a REPLACEMENT for seat belts. The research shows that a much
larger class of people were killed by airbags only.

Nobody has ever been killed in an accident caused by a seat belt, the
same is very much not true for airbags.

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Nobody has ever been killed in an accident caused by a seat belt, the
same is very much not true for airbags.

Actually that is not true. There have been a number of people (I had
one personal experience when I was working on an ambulance) where the
chest belt decapitated a rather dimunitive adult. This is the main
reason that car seats and boosters are mandated. To protect the children
(in this case from the gov't.)

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in newsY-
:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Nobody has ever been killed in an accident caused by a seat belt, the
same is very much not true for airbags.

Actually that is not true. There have been a number of people (I had
one personal experience when I was working on an ambulance) where the
chest belt decapitated a rather dimunitive adult. This is the main
reason that car seats and boosters are mandated. To protect the children
(in this case from the gov't.)

We should mandate common sense. (Hope you're at least smiling ...)

And require more easily height-adjustable seatbelts.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in newsY-
:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Nobody has ever been killed in an accident caused by a seat belt, the
same is very much not true for airbags.

Actually that is not true. There have been a number of people (I had
one personal experience when I was working on an ambulance) where the
chest belt decapitated a rather dimunitive adult. This is the main
reason that car seats and boosters are mandated. To protect the children
(in this case from the gov't.)

We should mandate common sense. (Hope you're at least smiling ...)
You will be happy to know that I giggling uncontrollably (g)

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Nobody has ever been killed in an accident caused by a seat belt, the
same is very much not true for airbags.

Actually that is not true. There have been a number of people (I had
one personal experience when I was working on an ambulance) where the
chest belt decapitated a rather dimunitive adult. This is the main
reason that car seats and boosters are mandated. To protect the children
(in this case from the gov't.)

You misread what I said "Nobody has ever been killed in an accident
*caused* by a seat belt". Note the causation, seat belts do not cause
accidents, airbags do and this has been documented.

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Nobody has ever been killed in an accident caused by a seat belt, the
same is very much not true for airbags.

Actually that is not true. There have been a number of people (I had
one personal experience when I was working on an ambulance) where the
chest belt decapitated a rather dimunitive adult. This is the main
reason that car seats and boosters are mandated. To protect the children
(in this case from the gov't.)

You misread what I said "Nobody has ever been killed in an accident
*caused* by a seat belt". Note the causation, seat belts do not cause
accidents, airbags do and this has been documented.

Not, I read it fine, I just didn't put that fine a point on it. I don't
know of a time when the air bag deployed on its own that killed someone.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Han wrote:

snip

We should mandate common sense. (Hope you're at least smiling ...)
You will be happy to know that I giggling uncontrollably (g)

You made my day !!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Pete C." wrote:

Nobody has ever been killed in an accident caused by a seat belt, the
same is very much not true for airbags.

Actually that is not true. There have been a number of people (I had
one personal experience when I was working on an ambulance) where the
chest belt decapitated a rather dimunitive adult. This is the main
reason that car seats and boosters are mandated. To protect the children
(in this case from the gov't.)

You misread what I said "Nobody has ever been killed in an accident
*caused* by a seat belt". Note the causation, seat belts do not cause
accidents, airbags do and this has been documented.

Not, I read it fine, I just didn't put that fine a point on it. I don't
know of a time when the air bag deployed on its own that killed someone.

There are many documented cases and several recalls for improper air bag
deployment. I'm not sure if there is an officially documented improper
airbag deployment caused death, however I'm sure there are many
accidents where the occupants were killed and no further investigation
was done where the airbags were the initiator of the accident.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message newsY-
"Pete C." wrote:

Nobody has ever been killed in an accident caused by a seat belt, the
same is very much not true for airbags.

Actually that is not true. There have been a number of people (I had
one personal experience when I was working on an ambulance) where the
chest belt decapitated a rather dimunitive adult. This is the main
reason that car seats and boosters are mandated. To protect the children
(in this case from the gov't.)

I recall some very hairy moments in a rent-a-car that had those abominable
motorized shoulder belts trying to strangle me as I reached out of the car
trying to retrieve a parking pass that had fallen out of the car. I can
easily believe those sorts of belts caused some pretty serious accidents
because they disappeared from the scene pretty quickly. That's usually an
indication that something was wrong with the technology.

I recall the last time we discusses those motorized abominations, there was
more than one person that had a bad experience with them. As Kurt noted,
the major failing with those belts is that they tended to make people to
forget to buckle the lap belt, resulting in very serious injuries and in
some cases, decapitations. Not what you want in a safety device. )-:

But "Easy Meat Pete" insists on posting from the hip. It's just like when
he tried to claim that the experiences that he and his four friends had with
a few hundred CFL's (out of a billion that have been sold) were somehow
statistically relevant to the question of slow-to-warm-up CFL bulbs. I'm
sure he'll keep sniping away at me until he feels avenged and maybe one day
he'll be right. (-: It's not today, though.

There are lots of sites that describe very serious issues with seatbelts, so
let's review:

As automatic belts came into use, their defects and failures became
apparent. Automatic shoulder belts with separate manual lap belts had very
low lap belt use rates because the automatic feature of the shoulder belt
engaging lulled occupants into forgetting to buckle their lap belts. The
more cumbersome door-mounted belts were often detached by the users
rendering them ineffective. The shoulder-strap-only belts often caused
serious neck injuries and even decapitated occupants; and door mounted belts
completely failed to protect when doors opened in crashes, as they do 10% of
the time. The failures of automatic belts are showing up in a growing
number of personal injury lawsuits that will soon grow into a flood.

source: http://www.jimadler.com/defective-seatbelt-lawyer.html

As for the claim that no one was ever killed by a seatbelt:

(October 28, 2008)-A 13-year-old boy who was pretending that he was being
strangled by a seat belt died after his neck actually got tangled in the
belt, Houston police said Tuesday. Houston police spokesman Victor Senties
said the teenager's death appears to have been an accident. The name of the
victim was not immediately released. Autopsy results were pending Tuesday.
Senties told The Associated Press that the boy and a friend were riding in
the back seat of a vehicle driven by the friend's mother Monday night in
northwest Houston. Senties said the teenager wrapped a seat belt around his
neck, pretending he was being strangled, when he started "choking for real.
Evidently he got tangled up in the seat belt," Senties said.
Police say the woman managed to free the teen who was transported to a
Houston hospital and pronounced dead.

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/33445154.html

But wait, there's MO

Seat Belt Strangles Boy - A seat belt malfunction left a 5-year-old boy in
critical condition yesterday after his seat belt nearly stangles him after
became wrapped around his neck Monday on I-95 near Washington, DC. The child
's mother, Yuko Harris, pulled over and called 911 after seeing her son,
DeAndre Harris, in the rearview mirror being strangled by his seat belt
while sitting next to his 2-year-old brother.
DeAndre had no pulse when a Maryland State Police trooper arrived. The
trooper had to use a knife to cut away the seat belt.

(Some reports indicate the boy subsequently died, but I haven't been able to
confirm that. It's hard to separate incidents of death caused by seat belt
failure in an accident from seat belts killing kids on their own. It's
clear, though, that the automatic retractors can pull the belt hard enough
to cause strangulation.

http://a11news.com/1234/seat-belt-strangles-boy/

Belt Entanglement

Children can become entangled in vehicle seat belts. If a seat belt features
a locking mechanism, it may retract and strangle the child.

https://www.usaaedfoundation.org/Saf...round_vehicles

If I had more interest in this area, I'd pursue it further, but I think the
original point I made is still quite valid: seatbelts and airbags save
lives, and certainly more lives than any bizarre accidents with either might
cause.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


I recall some very hairy moments in a rent-a-car that had those abominable
motorized shoulder belts trying to strangle me as I reached out of the car
trying to retrieve a parking pass that had fallen out of the car. I can
easily believe those sorts of belts caused some pretty serious accidents
because they disappeared from the scene pretty quickly. That's usually an
indication that something was wrong with the technology.
Forgot about those. The only seat belt that could kill you while the
car was still standing still. I think their biggest problem was more
convenience. I don't know that they killed that many people because the
consumer complaints got them pulled fairly quickly.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Pete, Kurt and Robert Green wrote:

last part. The data on airbags
has clearly shown that they have taken the lives of a great many
innocent people, not just "small stature" people, but also average
people killed in accidents directly caused by airbags deploying
improperly such as when the car hits a pothole. The data also shows
that many of the people "saved" by airbags would have been better
off
dead since the airbag did not protect most of their wrecked bodies
(this I've heard directly from ER doctors).

Especially since the early legislative history of the airbag clearly
shows it was originally the intention of Congress to use them as
passive restraint systems, to save those who would not buckle up.
Ooops.

explains in excruciating detail how they calculate the benefits of seat
belts and air bags and even factor in the unfortunate and rare
occurrences when belts or laps do more harm than good. As our
resident medical statistician, Kurt, you can't possibly agree that all
but a small subclass of passengers would be better off without
airbags. Airbags and seat belts have been studied from here
to Andromeda and back.

I was merely mentioning that when originally legislated, they were
touted as a REPLACEMENT for seat belts. The research shows that a much
larger class of people were killed by airbags only.

I see. And agree although I would have worded it differently. Can you have
a "larger class of people?" (-: How about:

"Airbags alone don't save many lives. They need to be used along
with lap/shoulder belts for maximum protection." (I feel like a
Congressman fine tuning a bill!) g

Airbags are clearly less effective at saving lives than seatbelts but they
don't require a deliberate act of the driver or passenger to engage.
People protected by both seatbelt/shoulder belts AND airbags have the best
of all possible protection because the airbags can prevent facial injuries
from flying glass, etc. and the belt keeps the head far enough away from the
deploying airbag to avoid concussions. At least that's what the NHTSA tests
I posted previously claim.

I have a hard time believing the statement that people would be "better off
dead" than if they had used airbags but anything's possible. Maybe if Pete
added "airbags alone" because very bad things can happen if you get too
close to the deploying airbag too early in the process. That's an easy
thing to do if you're not belted in. This is new technology, relatively,
and we're still learning how to do it right. There have been many
enhancements since they first appeared.

However, I've yet to see the study that proves the contention that airbag
only users would be "better off dead" no matter how much anecdotal evidence
from ER doctors to the contrary. The stats show a marginal increase in
live-saving ability. I'll admit that it could be possible that airbag-only
use leads to more serious non-fatal injuries than belt use, but I couldn't
torture that conclusion out of the NHTSA data. Maybe after another few
sessions with my trusty Amazon Home Waterboarding Kit . . . (-:

Injuries caused by airbags have been declining based on the feedback
obtained from accidents where their deployment caused serious injuries.
IIRC, the deaths occurred mostly to small children whose necks can be broken
by the rapidly deploying bag. They also occurred in cases where occupants
were unbelted allowing their heads to get too close to the deploying bag.

I recall one study I read saying the death rates for such accidents in the
past were less than 100 a year and are much less now, but I am too lazy to
go find it again. Now, cars come with ways to disable the airbag for the
passenger side if a young child is riding in the seat. People are also very
much more aware of the issue than when airbags first appeared.

But the bottom line is something I don't think a lot of people know: If you
have an active airbag and don't use your lap/shoulder belts, then you're
just looking for serious trouble.

Pete may be right in that the general public doesn't know that airbags alone
do not make a good restraint system, if that's what he's trying to say. (-:
I didn't know how bad the numbers (14%) were until researching this post.

I think you pointed this out earlier, Kurt, that passive systems like air
bags and motorized belts are in some ways perverse because they lead people
not to buckle up their lapbelts. That combination has been proven to have
some serious bad outcomes.

Are airbags less cost-effective than seat/shoulder belts? I'd say
"certainly" but even that comes with a "yabbut." If the safety goal is to
protect people even though they are unwilling to protect themselves by
buckling up, then airbags are mildly successful. But is that a laudable
societal goal for the Feds to enforce at the manufacturing level? I'd say:
"Probably not." Airbags, in their current state, promise way more than they
deliver. I think if you don't care enough about your own personal safety to
buckle up, then you should be prepared to accept the consequences of
depending on airbags alone. But people need to know those consequences and
Pete is right to point out that airbags alone do not make for good crash
protection.

IIRC, the NHTSA study showed that use of airbags *alone* only increased an
occupant's chance of survival by 14%. That's not much, IMHO, but it's
certainly better than nothing and I believe that the report also stated that
those who used both devices were far away the best protected. Is that extra
percentage worth the additional cost of airbags? Hard to say. If a genie
appeared to me as I was having a head-on collision and said "think an airbag
is worth it now?" I am sure I would agree. (-:

IMHO they're going to have to get *much* cheaper, much more reliable and
much more protective (more than 14%) to justify their continued "mandatory"
existence. Like so many other options, airbags should be left up to the
purchaser and not the Feds.

--
Bobby G.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

I recall some very hairy moments in a rent-a-car that had those
abominable
motorized shoulder belts trying to strangle me as I reached out of the
car
trying to retrieve a parking pass that had fallen out of the car. I can
easily believe those sorts of belts caused some pretty serious accidents
because they disappeared from the scene pretty quickly. That's usually
an
indication that something was wrong with the technology.

Forgot about those. The only seat belt that could kill you while the
car was still standing still. I think their biggest problem was more
convenience. I don't know that they killed that many people because the
consumer complaints got them pulled fairly quickly.

Those mechanical demons must have killed someone. After wrestling with the
belt like Laocoon did with the serpents I understood why EMT's carry those
special belt cutters. I think the very early models didn't even
auto-reverse upon detection of strangulation level forces.

Those powered belts were a bad branch on the tree of evolution like
Esperanto, PL-1 or those devices that shaved off the ridges on people's
fingernails.

IIRC, I was on my way to an accident scene at the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
In the early days of gateless EZ Pass toll lanes, toll booth personnel often
got hit at 40+ mph as they crossed the plaza. The problem was compounded
when there was more than one EZ-pass lane and drivers could change their
destination up until the last second. There's been some astonishing CCTV
footage (oddly, I can't find any on YouTube) of humans jumping around moving
cars just like squirrels as well as being knocked out of their shoes and
thrown 250 feet.

The best I could find we

http://www.theledger.com/article/200...news/906075017

"Parker left her mother's vehicle and walked across a SunPass lane, which is
for vehicles that use a transponder to automatically pay the toll as they go
through the lane without stopping, to get change from a worker in one of
those booths. Parker was struck by a vehicle on her way back across the
SunPass lane, an FHP report said."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPXjE5Rfh0E

Crazy bimbo driver soars like a 747 when she hits the rail at a tollbooth at
DFW airport.

It took more than a few deaths for more safety features to be added (lane
separators, better training (using the CCTV video) and even pedestrian
tunnels and catwalks. People driving up to tollbooths are pretty uniformly
distracted - looking for money, jockeying for the fastest lane and trying
not to hit other cars. Running out in front of such distracted drivers
hoping or thinking that they'll see you and stop is taking a big chance.

Anybody who thinks being a toll booth attendant is a cushy job hasn't manned
a toll plaza in a traffic jam. Despite running seriously large fresh air
vents to each booth, the air quality sucks. I got dizzy just trying to
photograph one particular accident scene because the air was so foul in the
toll plaza.

Some of these poor folks that got launched into orbit were on their way to
the john. Death row prison guards are lucky - they can usually shame a
prisoner into using cotton balls and rubber bands before the big event to
keep the post-mortem a little less icky, if you know what I mean. I am
*sure* Oren does. He's always up on the worst of the worst. (-:

I don't know why I thought of all this just now. I just started thinking
about all the people I've seen hit by cars (it's way too many) and how many
times they get knocked clean out of their shoes, which often remain at the
point of impact, side by side as if they had been carefully removed. Laced
shoes, slips ons, sneakers, etc. The first time you see it, you think
someone placed them there deliberately.

After the third or fourth time it becomes clear it's some quirk of physics
that sucks people out of their shoes after a high-speed impact. It's about
as unusual as the number of infants who survive horrific car wrecks by
falling into the back seat footwell, one of the last places to crush
completely in a high-speed accident. I saw that happen with a multiple
vehicle fatality caused by a drunken driver who was the only one to survive
except for an 18 month old baby of the family he massacred. I'll never
forget him coming up to me, stinking of booze, saying how sorry he was in a
drunken stupor.

He was but one of many people I thought I could kill with my bare hands. It
turned out it was far from his first DWI and he had been driving on a
suspended license when the accident occurred. I, for one, am quite thankful
that people like that are now forced to get alcohol blood level sensor
equipped ignition interlocks to keep them from driving while drunk. They're
quite sophisticated, requiring frequent testing of the driver's breath while
driving so that they can't have a friend start the car for them. Somewhere
I read the cost of a serious DWI arrest is upwards of $7K in some states
because of legal fees, the cost of interlock kits, fines, etc.

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" wrote in
:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

I recall some very hairy moments in a rent-a-car that had those
abominable
motorized shoulder belts trying to strangle me as I reached out of
the
car
trying to retrieve a parking pass that had fallen out of the car.
I can easily believe those sorts of belts caused some pretty
serious accidents because they disappeared from the scene pretty
quickly. That's usually
an
indication that something was wrong with the technology.

Forgot about those. The only seat belt that could kill you while
the
car was still standing still. I think their biggest problem was more
convenience. I don't know that they killed that many people because
the consumer complaints got them pulled fairly quickly.

Those mechanical demons must have killed someone. After wrestling
with the belt like Laocoon did with the serpents I understood why
EMT's carry those special belt cutters. I think the very early models
didn't even auto-reverse upon detection of strangulation level forces.

Those powered belts were a bad branch on the tree of evolution like
Esperanto, PL-1 or those devices that shaved off the ridges on
people's fingernails.

IIRC, I was on my way to an accident scene at the Delaware Memorial
Bridge. In the early days of gateless EZ Pass toll lanes, toll booth
personnel often got hit at 40+ mph as they crossed the plaza. The
problem was compounded when there was more than one EZ-pass lane and
drivers could change their destination up until the last second.
There's been some astonishing CCTV footage (oddly, I can't find any on
YouTube) of humans jumping around moving cars just like squirrels as
well as being knocked out of their shoes and thrown 250 feet.

The best I could find we

http://www.theledger.com/article/200...news/906075017

"Parker left her mother's vehicle and walked across a SunPass lane,
which is for vehicles that use a transponder to automatically pay the
toll as they go through the lane without stopping, to get change from
a worker in one of those booths. Parker was struck by a vehicle on her
way back across the SunPass lane, an FHP report said."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPXjE5Rfh0E

Definitely worth a click.


Crazy bimbo driver soars like a 747 when she hits the rail at a
tollbooth at DFW airport.

It took more than a few deaths for more safety features to be added
(lane separators, better training (using the CCTV video) and even
pedestrian tunnels and catwalks. People driving up to tollbooths are
pretty uniformly distracted - looking for money, jockeying for the
fastest lane and trying not to hit other cars. Running out in front
of such distracted drivers hoping or thinking that they'll see you and
stop is taking a big chance.

Anybody who thinks being a toll booth attendant is a cushy job hasn't
manned a toll plaza in a traffic jam. Despite running seriously large
fresh air vents to each booth, the air quality sucks. I got dizzy
just trying to photograph one particular accident scene because the
air was so foul in the toll plaza.

Some of these poor folks that got launched into orbit were on their
way to the john. Death row prison guards are lucky - they can usually
shame a prisoner into using cotton balls and rubber bands before the
big event to keep the post-mortem a little less icky, if you know what
I mean. I am *sure* Oren does. He's always up on the worst of the
worst. (-:

I don't know why I thought of all this just now. I just started
thinking about all the people I've seen hit by cars (it's way too
many) and how many times they get knocked clean out of their shoes,
which often remain at the point of impact, side by side as if they had
been carefully removed. Laced shoes, slips ons, sneakers, etc. The
first time you see it, you think someone placed them there
deliberately.

After the third or fourth time it becomes clear it's some quirk of
physics that sucks people out of their shoes after a high-speed
impact. It's about as unusual as the number of infants who survive
horrific car wrecks by falling into the back seat footwell, one of the
last places to crush completely in a high-speed accident. I saw that
happen with a multiple vehicle fatality caused by a drunken driver who
was the only one to survive except for an 18 month old baby of the
family he massacred. I'll never forget him coming up to me, stinking
of booze, saying how sorry he was in a drunken stupor.

He was but one of many people I thought I could kill with my bare
hands. It turned out it was far from his first DWI and he had been
driving on a suspended license when the accident occurred. I, for
one, am quite thankful that people like that are now forced to get
alcohol blood level sensor equipped ignition interlocks to keep them
from driving while drunk. They're quite sophisticated, requiring
frequent testing of the driver's breath while driving so that they
can't have a friend start the car for them. Somewhere I read the
cost of a serious DWI arrest is upwards of $7K in some states because
of legal fees, the cost of interlock kits, fines, etc.

--
Bobby G.