LJWorld.com

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

Duh. A quick look at the combat vets from WWI, WWII or Nam would have quickly revealed this "trend!"

On Study: After combat, citizen soldiers turning to alcohol

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

It has been argued (among scientists) that nature itself is the main cause of the most serious levels of pollution (see http://books.google.com/books?id=HirXllm... and http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1... for discussions; there's lots more out there).

Some people who study this issue will admit that one large volcanic erruption can do more damage to air quality etc. then all the vehicle and other human caused events, from the time man first appeared on earth until present day. So do we ban nature?

In addition, China is catching up with the US (or surpassing it some would say) when it comes to being an industrialized nation. If we were to look back at the amount of "bad things" being done in the US when we first began to emerge as an industrialized nation, it might persuade us to be less impressed with ourselves and the righteousness with which we view countries who are now trying to catch up with us in terms of being "modern."

That said, I was in Romania in 1974 and can attest to how awful it can be to be breathing YELLOW air. Even for a short while!

What ever its cause, leaders who do not do what ever they can to improve the air breathed by the inhabitants of their country (and visitors) are not destined to stay in power forever. Decent air quality sooner or later becomes an issue.

On False promises

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinio...

On Person injured in fall from third-floor balcony

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

To paraphrase the author of many books (you guess who):

There must be a yearning deep in the human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Most rules, laws etc. - are always meant for the other fellow. Because people rarely say "Please pass this law or rule so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop." No, it is always something we want our neighbors to do or stop doing. Stop them for their own good. But leave me alone.

Building codes are probably a good and necessary thing - unless we want to more severely penalize the owners of defective buildings where the defect causes much harm. We might see a lot fewer balconies (let alone balcony accidents) if after an accident due to a defect in a balcony the owners of buildings were pushed off from the same height.

However, short of killing them at birth (or before) there is no way possible to guard all human beings against every kind of harm that may befall them as they grow older. We rarely need a new law. What we may need is more common sense and punishments that more closely reflect the damges caused by us. For example, if an accident caused by someone results in a young person being seriously impaired for life, the person causing the damage should become responsible for caring for the injurred person, for the rest of their life. That kind of thing might cut back on negligent (or deliberate) actions that harm others, far more then a few thousand more rules and laws designed to further regulate every one else's conduct.

On Person injured in fall from third-floor balcony

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

Now that the dust is settling, there is a very good chance we'll see PK back in Shawnee county, working with and for his constant friend Eric Rucker who defeated DA Hecht. If Eric R. wins the general election in Shawnee, the group and their devotion to one cause will simply relocate (back in) Shawnee county.

On Kline loses Johnson County district attorney primary

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

P.P.S. If they do get "their livelihood taken away" it would be their own fault for being greedy. Had they kept to running one HUGE store, they'd have still be quite well off. Feeling sorry for someone who has chosen to break this law (and their attempt to HIDE the true ownership of the 2nd store shows they were well aware of the laws - they tried SO hard to get around it....HINT: if you have to be super sneaky to do something, it's a bad idea every time) is akin to saying it's a shame to take a license to practice away from a doctor who didn't give cancer medicine to patients but charged them for it anyway! I realize there's no comparison to killing people versus violating a market-control law. But the principle is the same; violate the law = pay the price.

On Appeals court frustrated by legal conflicts in Cork and Barrel case

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

P.S. The word on the street is that the Appeals court will get out of making a substantive decision by deciding the district court lacked jurisdiction in the first place. Thus affirming the ABC's decision (but not directly). Expect C&B to then ask the Ks. S.Ct. to hear the case (all the while running two stores at the same time, for a few more years)!

On Appeals court frustrated by legal conflicts in Cork and Barrel case

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

"Justthefacts - oftentimes, the only way to get a law overturned is by challenging it in court. Sometimes this is done on purpose, sometimes by accident. Either way, it shouldn't matter how much in daily revenue one store makes. Being rich is not a crime, just as being poor is not a crime."

Overturning an unpopular (not illegal) law (a) is not undertaken by/through the courts (despite what Boston legal may lead people to believe) - only the entity that enacted the law (in this case the state legislature) can overturn an otherwise legal/lawful policy decision; (b) involves the lawbreakers willfully going to jail - by the hundreds - to make the point (think 60's civil rights movement or Ghandi or South Africa) - these people want to break the law and not suffer the consquences anyone else would suffer - that is thinking you are ABOVE the law; or (c) can best be addressed by persuading the lawmakers to change the laws.

To those who think the family admitted to wrong doing but is simply saying "It is a stupid law whose time has come" I invite you to read all of their (lawyer's) pleadings. They have squirmed and wiggled and done summer saults to show why they complied (which they did not in the opinion of those who routinely enforce these laws). They may WISH that the laws did not exist, but they are not arguing that they violated the laws but "so what." They are arguing their dual ownership was "technically" ok.

And I have absoutely NO problem with the American dream being acheived nor any envy or resentment of the rich. More power to those who achieve AND follow the rules!

What I object to is unfairness in the legal system (or anywhere else). And imo it simply unfair that a business should violate a law - for years - (designed to protect mom and pop stores from unfair competition) and profit hugely from their violation. That and the fact that the C&B lawyers keep mistating the facts so often (read the pleadings if you want to get a whiff of how flexible some people's grasp of reality can be!)

It is a shame all the money they made while in violation of the law cannot be siezed and re-distributed to (a) the taxpayers who have had to pay the legal bills to make them comply with the same laws everyone else is subject to or (b) all the mom and pop stores in town who lost business in part b/c they followed the rules and the money making machine did not!

On Appeals court frustrated by legal conflicts in Cork and Barrel case

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

"Guess who" is correct with regard to why the Kansas laws are written the way they are. Kansas has always had rather restrictive liquor laws - it took long enough to get the OK for Sunday sales, and they still cannot sell it in grocery stores.

The underlying intent and purpose of many of the current (but older) laws is indeed to give the mom & pop stores a fighting chance to survive. Kansas's love of under-dogs has led it to be protectionistic when it comes to allowing large monopolies to thrive.

The fact that the C&B stores do so much business in the city (to the point that they literally can lock out a supplier they don't like by simply refusing to buy from them - resulting in it not being profitable for that entity to sell to anyone else in town, thus making that brand unavailable to anyone else - points to what type of situation the multiple store rule(s) are meant to prevent. Big stores often put little stores out of business.

But like or hate the law, why should one owner get to break the law while other must obey it? Because they have more money. That's why.

On Appeals court frustrated by legal conflicts in Cork and Barrel case

justthefacts (Anonymous) says…

Quote: "The AG's office has wasted alot of money the last few years with this kind of BS."

The ABC (alchohol beverage control) - not the AG - filed the charges and pursued this case. The ABC is a part of the Dpt. of Revenue, which is a cabinent level agency; the GOVERNOR appoints the Secretary of the Dpt. Revenue. The only connection this case has with the AG's office (regardless of who is in that office) is that the attorney who works for the ABC has been authorized to act as an Assistant AG (but then so are a lot of state lawyers working for an agency not controlled by the AG - it has to do with authority to represent the state in court). Let me repeat- the ABC (not the AG) is the agency/entity/group of people who have made all the decisions in the C&B case. The AG has been informed of what is going on, but the people running the show are controlled by the GOVERNOR!

So for those who want to place "blame" for this case on the correct people, and want to exclude or absolve from guilt the owners of the TWO IN ONE CITY liquor stores, at least get your facts straight.

P.S. if you know of other law breakers, by all means turn them in.

On Appeals court frustrated by legal conflicts in Cork and Barrel case