Nice try on DUI laws

The story: A new DUI law went into effect in Arizona on Wednesday, mandating that DUI offenders install ignition-interlock devices in their cars. The device, similar to a Breathalyzer, tests the alcohol level of a driver’s breath before unlocking the car’s ignition and allowing it to start.

The response: First of all, no one cares. It is remarkable what people will do after they have had a few drinks. There is no way that anyone is going to have a couple of beers and then on their way to the car think, “”Hmm … I’d better not drive because I don’t want a Breathalyzer device installed in my car.”” Penalties should be far stricter. How about this: if someone gets behind the wheel with too much alcohol in their system, they are shot. And then, instead of putting in a cute, little device, the vehicle should be shoved off of a cliff. This whole DUI thing would be solved very quickly. Honestly, people are not afraid of the consequences of being convicted of DUI, so what’s the point of increasing those consequences? The thought of hurting or killing someone else is far scarier and far more serious than any mandatory car device to blow into – and, clearly, that doesn’t stop anyone. Points for a noble try, but let’s just get serious.

-Chelsea Jo Simpson is a junior majoring in journalism and Spanish.

Please, no ‘Giuliani Gang’

The story: Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani interrupted a speech to the NRA on Friday to answer a phone call from his wife. The call ended quickly, but not before Giuliani managed to say “”I love you”” twice.

The response: This isn’t the first time Giuliani has tried to pull a savvy stunt like this one. A few months ago, the same wife called in the middle of a rally. Granted, no conclusive proof has been given to show the calls were planned, but how much evidence do you need? The man was giving speeches on national television, for Occam’s sake. Fortunately for tickled Internet video surfers, videos are now plastered all over the internet featuring Giuliani’s smiling face, loving adulations and muffled responses of his wife.

It is obvious that both phone calls were clearly staged and are just the latest political stunt to try and boost a candidate’s family-oriented image. A day before Clinton testified in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, a photo was conveniently captured of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton lovingly dancing on a beach in bathing suits. And who can forget the painfully long, and sloppy Al and Tipper Gore kiss at the Democratic National convention in 2000? Advertisements featuring the Bush twins and Kerry children were so common in 2004 I expected to see cutesy team names on the ballots, like the “”Kerry Krew”” and the “”Bush Bandits.””

I suppose this is one of the sad results of an increasing emphasis on value-based elections. Politicians are required to fit a long bill of expected social norms to even make it to the podium. Pundits have long been warning Rudy he has to boost his image as a traditional family man to overcome the prevalent reminders of his two previous marriages. Why is our Gossip-, People-crazed society today so enraptured by private lives that politicians have to script telephone calls from spouses in the middle of speeches on gun control? How many times did Reagan have to parade his second wife on stage to establish his values?

Then again, if this is what voters are demanding, maybe candidates should take heed. Perhaps Flavor Flav could call up John McCain to holla at his favorite candidate at the next health care forum. Maybe while on the stump at a university, Barack Obama could receive a message from his daughter’s Facebook profile wishing him good luck. Or maybe if we care this much about the candidates’ private lives, we should just start a reality show and require them all to move into the same house, all captured on digital telecommunications. Sadly, MySpace has already proposed the idea.

-Matt Rolland is a junior majoring in economics and international studies.