Drinking for Texans: Friday Night Open Thread

In the spirit of our founding fathers and in remembrance of lost freedoms in Texas, I’ll be drinking beer tonight — but neither Shiner Bock nor Lone Star. I’m not sure if the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission gets a cut from beers brewed or bottled in Texas or not. Until I know for sure, I’ll not support those thugs — but will probably drink Sam Adams instead.

BTW, the Sam Adams Brewery has one of their advertisements available online which celebrates the values of independence and freedom, values once held by Texas politicians. From the commercial:

You can’t change the course of history with watery beer.

Of course, the neocons and their neoprohibitionist cronies wish to stifle revolution. In the meantime, Michelle Shingal and I are considering making a batch of T-shirts in support of the bar owners suffering financially and people who wish to just go grab a few beers. We need a witty theme for them, though. The first ideas included these captions:

“Just say no, don’t blow”.

“Hell no, we won’t blow”.

“Friends don’t let friends blow drunk”

The problem’s that they’re not requiring breathlizer evidence to bust people drinking in Texas. Your witty T-shirt concepts would be appreciated.

In the mean time, it’s Friday night. Watch the Sam Adams video, grab your favorite brew, and post a few T-shirt ideas or other commentary. I’m going out, and will probably CUI (Comment Under the Influence) upon my return. It’s a safe bet I’ll be plotting some sort of revolutionary scheme once I get a few Sam Adams under my belt.

21 Comments
  1. I forgot one analogy from my earlier posting. Going to a bar and not having a few beers (or wine or whatever) is like laying in bed with a beautiful naked woman and not going all the way.

    WTF are they thinking in Texas?

  2. Went to Texas and won’t go back,
    since a couple drinks will catch you flack.

    As everyone’s heard about the TABC,
    They’ll lock you up and throw away the key.

    It’s not the driving that makes them mad,
    Nor the fighting nor pissing… it’s just plain sad.

    Yet, don’t take my word… just have a drink,
    Your ass will end up in the local clink.

  3. I’m having a drink and waiting (still) for my wife to finish her warpaint. SVD motivated me to write a limerick:

    A man, while drinking his beer,
    Felt something shoved in his rear,
    He started to cuss,
    the state of Tex-us,
    Which stole freedoms he felt were so dear.

  4. Why are you people surprized
    That freedom in Texas has evaporized
    After all, the state is redder than red
    And Republicans won’t stop until freedom is dead
    Those who despise freedom are full of hate
    But at least I’m a bit more free, in the safety of my blue state.

  5. Good one Leroy!

    But on another note… so what if the breathalyzer isn’t required? That’s screwed up that NO evidence is required, sure, but so what if they do meet some individuals standard for “inebriation”. And furthermore as I said in an early related topic, the breathalyzer’s results are dubious at best and easily manipulated in a way that is NOT in the accused’s favor.

    Drunk driving and “public drunk” must be legalized. You can’t punish someone because they meet YOUR standard that they “might” commit a crime. If someone drives over someone else and kills them, does it matter whether or not they are drunk? Of course not! Someone got killed. But try to explain liberty through the lense of private property to a damned conservative and you might as well try to explain the ideas put forth in Hawkings “A Brief History of Time” to a fucking hampster.

  6. Covered this for a while on the show tonight. I wonder if anyone will actually do anything. Probably not. America has been beaten into submission.

    There’s only one chance left:
    http://freestateproject.org

    Consider joining the First 1000. I did.

  7. Devious David, you raise an interesting philosophical issue when you say drunk driving should be legalized. At what point should the state get involved when someone may be a danger to others? For example, if your neighbor is shooting his gun in his own backyard in random directions, and he has not yet shot anyone, should the police get involved and arrest him? There has to be a point where a person should be stopped before they actually hurt anyone, even if they have not yet hurt anyone. Similarly, if someone is drunk but driving perfectly fine, then I would say let them be. But if they’re drunk and swerving all over the road, then I would say that the risk to others is great enough to arrest them. The problem with the current law is that it’s a one size fits all kind of thing. For someone with a high tolerance 0.08% BAC is barely enough to get a buzz. For someone like myself who doesn’t drink, 0.08% would get me nicely lit and possibly be a danger to others if i drove

  8. Hey ppls I’m fucked up. 9 beers and 9 shots (est) wouldn’t do shit to me in the day but this is unusual for me now so bear with the fuckin typos OK?

    TABC – instead of Texas Alcohol and Beverage Control, Terrorist Alcohol and Beverage Control

    Tshirt: TABC logo or modified.

    bottom they really do hate us for our freedom

    back if you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists

    OK I hope that works, and props to whoever the fuck came up with the idea in one of the ealier threads. Ah dammit I can’t even type, I have to go back like every other letter. Whatever.

    Anyway hope it helps…………

  9. 0.08% BAC

    are you freakin’ kiddin me?!

    I am a lightweight nowadays, granted I would not want to be driving right now but I’m at least 3x that amount.

    And this is NOTHING compared to when I used to drink regularly.

    At that time what I had now, would not even impair me in the slightest bit.

  10. So if you don’t blow, do you lose your license? What if you do a field sobriety test and you fail? Do they suspend your right to walk for a year?

    When I was growing up there in the ’70s, there were drive through liquor stores and no open container laws!

    I wonder what Kinky Friedmans platform is on this?

  11. Leroy, you make a good point. If I wanted to be moderate on the matter, I would say the best answer is that yes, the state would have to prove that a person was indeed a certain danger on the road. Which makes me think that drunk or not, the person was a certain danger on the road. So it doesn’t matter that they were drunk, just that they were driving erratically. But if you insisted that the state be able to prosecute the “drunk” aspect, BOTH points would have to be proven, or they could be severed into two different offenses. IE, erratic driving/endangerment and drunk driving. Practically the BAC would have to be raised substantially due to various factors, one of which is the inaccuracy of the breathalyzers. Look at the statistics closely and most people in crashes are .12 and above anyway. So maybe put the BAC at or above .12. And then of course there would be reform of the penalties.

    So, yes I suppose you could at least in theory have drunk driving laws that are “reasonable”.

  12. Also, the “no test, no license” would have to be abolished too, although I don’t beleive in licensure either!

    Really, what would happen here is more likely, what we already have now. If the state/police can rule over one matter based upon the idea that someone MIGHT infringe upon someone’s liberty/property, then that opens the door for a lot of other abuses and expansion of the law to perverse extremes. Of course the only thing that could possibly restrain the state (in flawed theory in my view) is THE PEOPLE. But I am digressing now.

  13. Hey everyone, the TABC toll free snitch line at 888-843-8222 works from outside TX and apparently is staffed 24 hrs a day. So good libertarian minded, freedom loving people can call from all over the US 24 hours a day and voice their outrage! Spread this info far and wide and let freedom loving people give these bastards a lesson in freedom!

    I just called the TABC snitch line and some flunky answered. I told him he was an accessory to police state tyranny and he said he didn’t work for the TABC but was a “college student” who answered an annoymous TABC hotline. Then he swore at me and hung up on me. Typical “public servant.”