[Peter Pallotta]

Kalen -

from my perspective, I like that new .05 limit in Utah.

Sometimes laws are meant to send a broad message -- and that law in Utah says "If you're driving, you can't drink -- anything -- period!".

And, IMO, that's a very good message, one that's meant to change behaviour fundamentally over the long term.

Yes, it's government curbing our freedoms -- but I'm glad to have such freedoms as these curbed for me. 

As someone who came of age just before stricter DUI laws and the MADD initiatives, I still to this day look back with shame and disappointment on how often I'd have, "oh, 2 or 3 drinks", and then get in my car and drive off.

Sure, I thought of myself as a decent & conscientious fellow, and I always made sure not to 'drink too much', and since I was a solidly built 200 pounder who had been drinking since I was a kid, I thought I could 'handle it'.

But the truth was that I was drinking and driving, i.e. that I was impaired -- and it was only by the grace of God that I didn't hurt or kill anyone over all those years of impaired driving. 

And, after years now of the MADD campaigns and ever stricter DUI laws and dramatic shifts in public consciousness, I too have had my consciousness raised -- and my freedoms curbed -- and I'm very glad indeed.

But I still look back in shame, and sometimes with real horror imagining what might've happened, and whose life I may have ended -- and whose family I may have destroyed -- by my utter selfishness and stupidity.

No, such laws like the new one in Utah aren't going to influence/change the behaviour of the wholly irresponsible or the criminal or the repeat offenders among us, nor are they required for the teetotalers and abstainers and puritans; but there is a large, 'changeable' mushy middle -- of which I was a part -- that will over time 'get the message' and start making what are undoubtedly smarter choices re driving, even if there's a period of grumbling because the 'government is forcing that choice upon us' (like there was with mandatory seat-belts, which I also foolishly tried to dodge for many years for reasons that now seem totally inexplicable to me).    

Peter       

[Lou_Duran]

Really Tom?  Do you think I was arguing that the Bernies and Stanford were only guilty of making bad business decisions?   These thieves were rightfully punished not only by going to jail for a very long time- maybe the rest of their lives- and forfeiting whatever was left from their ill-gotten gains.


I was only refuting Kalen's false assertion:


"Steal billions thru investment fraud and plunder countless retirement funds people are counting on and you get a slap on the wrist, a fine worth maybe 10% of the amount stolen, and no jail time."

We still hear a lot of inflammatory talk about all "the crooks" who allegedly caused the residential real estate-led financial meltdown and escaped jail.  Unfortunately for this narrative, the fact is that the vast majority did not break the law.  If greed and the acquisition of power were criminal offenses, there aren't enough jails in this world to hold our population and politicians in particular.

There are any number of white-collar criminals in jail for stealing from us common folks.  Ironically, as Dallas politics have demonstrated for a very long time, the biggest danger arises when the public and private sectors act in cahoots.

Your mention of the DPFP investment in American Idol got me to Google some of its history.  The effort of public officials and their lawyers to hide alleged bad investment decisions, fraud and malfeasance is downright scary.  In this particular case, as far as I can tell, no one went to jail.  Despite the major loses from incredibly bad investments and the pension fund being some 51% underfunded, the public sector workers aren't going to be terribly affected as long as the economy here continues to hum and the taxpayer is forced to cover the slack.  But i digress.

[Craig Sweet]

Kalen, I got a DUI and, as punishment, I had to attend what everyone calls "drunk school". It was one night a week for 6 weeks.  The first thing you learn, and the one thing you are told repeatedly, is size doesn't matter.  A small person will not necessarily be any more drunk after two beers than you.  It is all about your body's ability to process the alcohol and get it into your blood stream...Thus..BOC...And body size is not a factor.

[Tim Martin]

This is a case where brazen is synonymous with stupid. I had a prosecutor tell me years ago “It’s not that the cops are that smart it’s that the criminals are that stupid”. Finally it’s a shame for people that have enjoyed his work because it’s doubtful that his career gets back to where it was.

[Mike Hendren]

This thread reveals more about us than it does about Keith Foster.  A couple of quotes from a book I'm working on seem relevant:

"People who have had no inner struggles are invariably both superficial and uninteresting."
 - Richard Rohr

And hopefully this threadkiller:

"Does not our own preaching contain too much of our own opinions and convictions, and too little of Jesus Christ?"
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Keep preaching gentlemen, if you must. (I guess I just did.)

Bogey

[John_Cullum]

For what it's worth, the best I can tell is that he has an Offense Level 12, and I assume a Criminal history I. He will get a 2 point reduction off the level for acceptance of responsibility. That puts him in the 6 to 12 month incarceration range unless he can find 2 more points to get down to Level 8, which allows for 0 to 6 months range.


Now when we factor in the white privilege points, he will of course walk free; just like Martha Stewart.

[John Kavanaugh]

He has agreed to snitch on everyone he did business with. Now the fun starts.

[Daryl David]

Now when we factor in the white privilege points, he will of course walk free; just like Martha Stewart.

Doesn’t sound like she walked free to me.


After a highly publicized six-week jury trial, Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of [/color]felony[/size][/color] charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and [/color]making false statements[/size][/color] to federal investigators, and was sentenced in July 2004 to serve a five-month term in a federal correctional facility and a two-year period of [/color]supervised release[/size][/color] (to include five months of [/color]electronic monitoring[/size][/color]).[size=0.75em][/color][/size][51][/size][/color][/size][size=0.75em][/font]

[Tim Martin]

Now when we factor in the white privilege points, he will of course walk free; just like Martha Stewart.

Doesn’t sound like she walked free to me.


After a highly publicized six-week jury trial, Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators, and was sentenced in July 2004 to serve a five-month term in a federal correctional facility and a two-year period of supervised release (to include five months of electronic monitoring).[51]

[/size][size=0.75em]


Daryl-I’m going out on a limb on this one but I think John’s tongue was in cheek when he penned the above reply. [/size][size=0.75em]

[Lou_Duran]

As I learned long ago, sarcasm doesn't come through very well on the internet.


Upon reflection on Pastor Bogie's latest message, I pray that Mr. Foster receives just/Solomonic punishment for his offenses and beg for forgiveness for having ever stepped on this thread (no sarcasm intended).  P.S.- please put me on the list for the pre-release.

[John Kavanaugh]

This thread reveals more about us than it does about Keith Foster.  A couple of quotes from a book I'm working on seem relevant:

"People who have had no inner struggles are invariably both superficial and uninteresting."
 - Richard Rohr

And hopefully this threadkiller:

"Does not our own preaching contain too much of our own opinions and convictions, and too little of Jesus Christ?"
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Keep preaching gentlemen, if you must. (I guess I just did.)

Bogey

Does anyone really care about 17th century cat posters? Hang on St. Stephan!!!

[Ari Techner]

Lou


As you continue to contradict yourself in this thread I'll just remember in how low esteem I now hold your opinion anytime I have the misfortune of reading any of your posts. 

[Chris_Blakely]

Kalen -

from my perspective, I like that new .05 limit in Utah.

Sometimes laws are meant to send a broad message -- and that law in Utah says "If you're driving, you can't drink -- anything -- period!".

And, IMO, that's a very good message, one that's meant to change behaviour fundamentally over the long term.

Yes, it's government curbing our freedoms -- but I'm glad to have such freedoms as these curbed for me. 

As someone who came of age just before stricter DUI laws and the MADD initiatives, I still to this day look back with shame and disappointment on how often I'd have, "oh, 2 or 3 drinks", and then get in my car and drive off.

Sure, I thought of myself as a decent & conscientious fellow, and I always made sure not to 'drink too much', and since I was a solidly built 200 pounder who had been drinking since I was a kid, I thought I could 'handle it'.

But the truth was that I was drinking and driving, i.e. that I was impaired -- and it was only by the grace of God that I didn't hurt or kill anyone over all those years of impaired driving. 

And, after years now of the MADD campaigns and ever stricter DUI laws and dramatic shifts in public consciousness, I too have had my consciousness raised -- and my freedoms curbed -- and I'm very glad indeed.

But I still look back in shame, and sometimes with real horror imagining what might've happened, and whose life I may have ended -- and whose family I may have destroyed -- by my utter selfishness and stupidity.

No, such laws like the new one in Utah aren't going to influence/change the behaviour of the wholly irresponsible or the criminal or the repeat offenders among us, nor are they required for the teetotalers and abstainers and puritans; but there is a large, 'changeable' mushy middle -- of which I was a part -- that will over time 'get the message' and start making what are undoubtedly smarter choices re driving, even if there's a period of grumbling because the 'government is forcing that choice upon us' (like there was with mandatory seat-belts, which I also foolishly tried to dodge for many years for reasons that now seem totally inexplicable to me).    

Peter       

Peter,


I have no problem with what Utah is doing by decreasing their limit to 0.05.  This is hardly a novel concept as Europe has these limits or even harsher ones in many counties (Norway, Sweden and Poland for example).


I often wonder why these 'curbing of freedoms' are allowed with drinking even going as far to allow illegal searches and seizures (simply following the constitution) WRT to drunk driving check points?


 I am all for this and do not condone drunk driving, but wish this policy extended to other issues where loss of life is a problem when people cannot manage themselves or their actions.


Chris

[Lou_Duran]

Lou
As you continue to contradict yourself in this thread I'll just remember in how low esteem I now hold your opinion anytime I have the misfortune of reading any of your posts.

Ari, Ari,


Cite a contradiction.  I am relieved that it is my opinion and not my character that you hold in low esteem.  Are you sure you want to go toe-to-toe with me?  Just a little bit of discipline would enable you to bypass the alluded misfortune.

[Kalen Braley]

Chris,

I think those are all valid points, especially the last one.  For example several reports show that on average 50-100k people die every year due to preventable errors in the care of health care professionals.  That's far more than the 10-20k for DUIs.

But for more context, lets specifically look at Mormon Church controlled Utah (where booze is forbidden for its members), and I don't say "control" lightly.  They openly admit during legislation sessions that such and such bill is set for approval by the church, (for at least all the big laws, including all of the alcohol related laws). Yes that is fact, I didn't believe until I lived here either, the Mormon church explicitly approves all new major laws in the state...

And they have for decades, with a long history of cracking down on anything and everything booze related.  Obscure laws like anything over 4% ABV must be bottled, designating bars as private clubs, illegal to serve a drink with more than 1.5 shots in it, to forcing new business to install "Zions Curtains" so patrons can't see drinks being made...the state has a lengthy track record of punitive booze regulations with no logical basis.

But on to DUI rates.  Go to the CDC and look at the state rankings.  Utah is in the top 5 best states year after year across the board for every category (underage drinking, DUI arrests, fatalities, etc.)  Utah is already a role model for the rest of the nation, so when they make a new restrictive law like this, combined with their dubious and punitive track record, its suspect at best. Sure there are some Mormons who don't drink so the rates are a bit lower, but as a Mormon myself until I was 30, I can tell you most still drink because they don't actively follow the religion.

And ironically they also control the retail booze industry.  Every drop of alcohol, that doesn't come from a brewery or winery in Utah, must be sold thru the state run DABC to the public, restaurants, and bars, at a hefty markup, of which they use the profits to subsidize several other state programs instead of re-investing in the DABC.

So yea, I might be a bit jaded over what happens here...but for good reason in light of all the bogus laws and how well the state already does in controlling drunk driving.

[Lou_Duran]

Kalen,


That is the beauty of federalism.  If you don't like something, say the new .05 law, you can always move.


Perhaps it is because I've very personally experienced where the Nanny state ultimately leads that I am hypersensitive to the surrendering of individual rights to those who deem to know what is best for all of us.  Death by a thousand small cuts.  As a libertarian in most ways, I can curb my lack of discipline in matters affecting others while perhaps not doing so well with those which only affect me.


Paradoxically, there are far more consequential matters in terms of annual deaths than DUIs for which individual rights are ferociously protected.  Others, which have much less dire consequences, say political speech, not so much.


Sometimes when I can't carry 200 yards with my driver I catch myself wishing for the days of my youth.  Then I think of what might happen to me if I was a college freshman having to adapt to the present landscape.  200 yards and firm fairways don't seem all that bad after all.

[jeffwarne]

Craft beers in Utah are like the girls at Notre Dame, you'll take what's in front of you...and like it.

 ....and drive hours in some cases to find some of the greatest micro-brews.

Sorry..no dog in the fight..but this one begs the question of how you got home
 Given the .05 Utah laws, I'd hate to drive hours for beer and NOT drink

[Kalen Braley]

Craft beers in Utah are like the girls at Notre Dame, you'll take what's in front of you...and like it.

 ....and drive hours in some cases to find some of the greatest micro-brews.

Sorry..no dog in the fight..but this one begs the question of how you got home
 Given the .05 Utah laws, I'd hate to drive hours for beer and NOT drink

Well 2 things here. 

1)  This was when I still lived in California, and on these occasions its was usually to just get bottled beers for later consumption.  But I did get pretty hammered at the bar a time or two in San Francisco! Next time you're in town, check out the Toronado on Haight...bit of a dive bar, but excellent tap selections! San Diego is beer heaven thou, try Alesmith or Stone selections, my personal two faves and regarded by many as two of the best breweries in the world.

2)  Everything sold in Utah above 4.0 ABV must be in a bottle for retail, so you can't anything good on tap in the entire state. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Completely OT, but I am reminded of a guy my father worked with at Campbells Soup.  He had narcolepsy, and would often fall asleep at the wheel, have accidents, get wildly lost etc.  In the 1960's they covered for him when they thought he was a drunk, but fired him when they found out he had an incurable condition.   Now, they would fire him for being a drunk, and get him help (perhaps even required under ADA rules) for his condition. 


I guess it depends on your perspective, but I take this one example as proof that the "Good Old Days" weren't exactly that in every case.

[jeffwarne]

Craft beers in Utah are like the girls at Notre Dame, you'll take what's in front of you...and like it.

 ....and drive hours in some cases to find some of the greatest micro-brews.

Sorry..no dog in the fight..but this one begs the question of how you got home
 Given the .05 Utah laws, I'd hate to drive hours for beer and NOT drink

  But I did get pretty hammered at the bar a time or two in San Francisco! Next time you're in town, check out the Toronado on Haight...bit of a dive bar, but excellent tap selections! San Diego is beer heaven thou, try Alesmith or Stone selections, my personal two faves and regarded by many as two of the best breweries in the world.

Headed out west next month-LA/San Diego......but...I'm not really a craft beer guy.
Budweiser and Goat Hill (NY and San Diego) more my style, but I'm willing to do some "research" and spend the time to acquire a taste

[Pete_Pittock]

When Utah dropped the BAC limit from .10 to .08 Oregon was second in line. There is already a bill in the works for this legislative session to follow Utah, again. It will hurt the F&B bottom line as your club.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

That will work great, assuming you're referring to Goat Hill Tavern in Costa Mesa?  I'm looking at thier tap list...Try a pint of Stone IPA, a very good beer to experiment with. And if that suits you go straight for Stone Ruination, twice the hops, and nearly double the alcohol content...an excellent Imperial IPA!

P.S. My only request is to please respect yourself and skip the Budweiser...although I have a Bud tap in my house, my kitchen sink! 

[Mark Fedeli]

I guess it depends on your perspective, but I take this one example as proof that the "Good Old Days" weren't exactly that in every case.

The good old days never were. We were all just younger.

[John Kavanaugh]

And no one in Australia drinks Fosters. Thus poses the question: Does Keith Foster possess any skills that will be missed?

[Bruce Katona]

I'm hoping the judge at sentencing considers what best for all:


Keith Foster admitted guilt
Paid a fine


What good does sitting in jail do anyone for this crime.......5 years probation and 1,000 hours of community service designing and supervising the installation of 1st Tee Facilities..........lets turn a negative into a positive.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()