Payson Roundup

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

If you are looking on the internet for a book and come across one printed by Hephaestus Books, you need to know something before you buy it.

I was looking for a book on an environmental disaster that I had read about many years ago. I already knew a lot about it and wanted a book with more depth than I could get by just researching online. So I went to Amazon and put in a search. One of the books I found had this odd sounding description:

“Hephaestus Books represents a new publishing paradigm, allowing disparate content sources to be curated into cohesive, relevant, and informative books. To date, this content has been curated from Wikipedia articles and images under Creative Commons licensing, although as Hephaestus Books continues to increase in scope and dimension, more licensed and public domain content is being added. We believe books such as this represent a new and exciting lexicon in the sharing of human knowledge. This particular book is a collaboration focused on Environmental disasters in the United States.”

You know what that means? It means that someone has gone to Wiki, selected (that's what “curated” means) articles, and pasted them into an electronic copy of a book. If you order one they'll be happy to print one for you and charge you for it.

But instead of getting the kind of in-depth information you expect from a book, you get nothing but the same old skimming over the surface you get by reading Wiki, which is good, but only a starter.

So I could go to Wiki, extract the biographies of—say—twenty early Hollywood directors and producers, put them together in a book—without adding or subtracting a single word!—stick a title on it like “Twenty Men Who Created Hollywood,” and charge you for the book.

Why pay for something you can get free?

What are they going to think of next?

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Can't argue with any of that.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Amen again!

I'm reading a biography again, this time a long, boring biography of Richard Nixon. I hate the way it is written, but I'm forcing myself to read on. What I don't like about it is that the writer spends more time off the subject than on it. He spends far, far too much time talking about political matters that do not bear directly on the subject at hand.

But there's a side benefit. Every page I read makes it more clear that the goal of the parties isn't really to enact laws to benefit us; it is to push their lop-sided views of the world ON us.

When I read the discussions our founding fathers had about government, they argue the ultimate good of the people. Not now though. Now we get someone else's ideas crammed down our throats. The idea of government is that we get together and see how our principles should cover some specific matter, not to decide on ways to change our principles.

Dan is exactly right.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

 Pat,

Trust me, they would have charged her with that if they could have done it, but since she was innocent of that crime what would have been the point? In order to be convicted of something you have to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There could not possibly be proof that the kids were killed because they drank beer. There are perhaps as many as 50 or 60 other, equally likely, or even more likely, possibilities.

Fred, The “17 counts” are a phony way that the justice system takes one crime and multiplies it. The woman is guilty of one count of supplying liquor to kids, just one. The fact that there were 17 kids there that does not make it 17 counts. That's like suing a person for twenty-seven million counts of lawn damage by counting the number of grass shoots he killed when he drove on your lawn. We need a federal law prohibiting such crap, or a Supreme Court decision that says it is an infringement on civil rights.

Now, if the woman had supplied liquor to kids on 17 different occasions, then she would be guilty of 17 counts. Man do I hate the way things are done today!

Dan, you are exactly correct. You said it far better than I could

“There was a law that the last bartender was responsible for what ever happened to the drunk after they left the last bar.”

Bad law. Improper law. A law that should have been struck down by the courts as soon as it was passed. Laws like that just prove that we elect over-controlling men and women who do not understand the meaning of liberty and individual responsibility. Laws like that are oppressive. They attempt to place the responsibility for one individual's actions on another individual. It would benefit this nation very greatly if we went through the existing laws and got rid of everything like that.

Think of someone trying to pass that law back in 1781.

Pat, Dan's “intent” example is different. What he didn't say, but was implied in in what he said, was that if you sit in the car while two other people go into a store with a gun—and you know about that gun!—then you have to accept the responsibility that goes with being part of a robbery where someone can be killed. The point that Dan was making was that when three men rob a store they “intend” to do it, but when a woman lets kids drink she does not “intend” that they will drive poorly. See the difference?

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Just another example of laws—and government bureaus—that we don't need, and would be better off without. Kids are not perfect. Parents are not perfect. No number of laws will ever make them that way. Unless there is real abuse—and you don't need special laws to know what that is—there should be no government interference.

Not only that, but many of our laws are passed because of pressure by special interest groups:

We have labor laws pushed by unions that don't let kids do business chores as they did for hundreds of generations.

We “child protective” laws pushed by government bureaus that want to be bigger and better paid.

We even laws pushed by businesses that want to sell more car seats.

Where are the laws that the people themselves ask for?

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

You're probably right, Bernice.

But I sure would like to know how people would react if one person came along who didn't do a Nixon routine during an election. In other words, what would happen if just one politician didn't do what Nixon was so infamous for doing—letting the end (getting elected) justify the means (Tricks by Dick).

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

My hat goes off to the Tea Party protesters who picketed the One Stop convenience store.

Stores which knowingly sell a designer drug just because they can get away with it until the law catches up with them are a blot on our honest, hardworking business community. If you are going to be in business in Payson, then be a part of Payson. The people of this area work long and hard to keep such things away from their kids. Making them available on store shelves just to make a few bucks may be legal, but there is no question that it is wrong.

It would be one thing if the drugs were not well known, but that's not the case. Everyone knows full well what they are. There's no excuse for selling them.

If the protest, and others that may be coming up, hurt businesses which choose to carry drugs on their shelves, then so be it. Shopping is a matter of choice. And if people choose to boycott places which put profit ahead of the welfare of the community, then that is their choice. Shopping elsewhere reflects the realities of the free market and is a verification of fundamental American principles. If some valley owner wants to sell temporarily legal designer drugs, let him do it in the valley. We do not want them here.

I know one thing. I will not set foot in any store which has drugs on its shelves.

I have a suggestion for the Town Council and the Mayor to consider. Maybe it would work better than scratching our heads and trying to get ahead of the drug designers. It would be cheaper, simpler, and voluntary, and would harness the power of the people. Perhaps Payson could offer, free of charge, window posters for stores which choose to be a part of our small rural community by putting signs in their windows which say, “We join with Payson by not selling designer drugs.”

No sign. No business.

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

And here's the post-Superbowl news.

I'll make it short.

Several ex-football players, including Tony Dorsett, have sued the NFL, some claiming that they are due lifetime health care. There are a total 20 or so suits.

CBS comments, “Players have differing motives for suing their former employers, and the 20 or so lawsuits against the NFL seek varying remedies, although lawyers are reluctant to discuss specific monetary damages. At least one suit, for example, asked that the NFL and Riddell fund a medical monitoring program that would test players over the years to see whether they wind up with problems that stem from concussions.”

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello quoted a written statement:

“The NFL has long made player safety a priority and continues to do so. Any allegation that the NFL intentionally sought to mislead players has no merit. It stands in contrast to the league's actions to better protect players and advance the science and medical understanding of the management and treatment of concussions.”

According to the NFL Players Association, the players union, which could have asked for full lifetime medical insurance at any time, but hasn't done it, medical insurance was not sought by current and former union leadership because such a plan would cost an estimated $50 million a year and the current U.S. health care laws should cover most players with pre-existing conditions.

What do you think? Have the players got a case?

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Susan Sanders-Watt, 60, of Greensburg, pleaded guilty Monday to four counts each of corruption of minors and reckless endangerment and 17 citations of serving alcohol to minors.

She served a half-keg of beer to teen guests at her son's graduation party. She has pleaded guilty to doing that.

After the party, 19-year-old Michael Simpson drove off with two other teens. All three of them were killed in a crash.

The woman was not charged with anything to do with the crash because no one could prove that the beer she served caused it. In fact, the driver had been drinking at another location before the defendant's party.

Nevertheless, Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck wants the 60 year old woman to face as much as 45 years in prison. On top of that, he is asking a judge to put her in jail or prison rather than letting her serve the usual probation or house arrest normally given for the offense to which she pleaded guilty.

“We're recommending incarceration because three people were killed as a result of consuming alcohol,” Peck said. Notice that he didn't dare say it was her alcohol.

Take your time thinking about this one. Sentencing will be scheduled in about three months, at which time I'll find the result and post it.

But back to the original question. I'll repeat it exactly as it was stated in the first post:

Should the sentencing in the trial for an offense carry the usual penalty for the crime, or should speculation that the crime may—or may not—have contributed to something that happened afterwards, increase the penalty for that crime?

To help you make up your mind, here's why the prosecutor thinks the woman should go to jail.

“I think adults have to realize there are going to be horrible consequences giving alcohol to minors.”

In other words, “Let's put this woman in jail, not because of what she can be proven to have done, but as a warning to other people.”

Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) says…

Okay, someone commits a crime. There are certain penalties associated with that crime. The person is found guilty of the crime and is punished accordingly.

No arguments there.

But suppose that after the crime was committed, something happen which might—or might not—have been associated with that crime in some way.

Should the sentencing in the trial for an offense carry the usual penalty for the crime, or should speculation that the crime may—or may not—have contributed to something that happened afterwards, increase the penalty for that crime?
––-
So that you can look at this issue with as little prior prejudice as possible, please think about that before you read on. The specifics will be in the second post.
––-