Citing Their Way Around in the Endarkment

Earlier this week, I noted a tragic event, a fatal drunk driving accident, after a local radio station’s (B-93) yearly concert festival.  I titled the post “It’s the Festival’s Fault." Today, one week after the accident, and six days after another fesitval (the FOX Festival) which followed the B-93 concert the day after, and disallowed alcohol in response to the accident after the B-93 concert, both concert festivals have been terminated.  Here’s the reason cited, that both concert festivals have been ended at the Allegan County Fairgrounds, according to “city officials.”

"City officials said the decision is not linked to last Saturday’s crash that claimed the lives of Shawn Lawless, Rebecca Styf and Peter Christiansen. A fourth person, Melissa Booker, has been released from the hospital."

Yeah, right.  The reason both festivals have been terminated is because one individual got behind the wheel of a car, drunk, and caused the death of not only himself, but two other individuals.  If there had not been a fatal accident, after the B-93 concert last Saturday, city officials would be crowing about the peaceful fun, the diversity of bands, and their great relationships with B-93 and FOX.

“B-93, Fox concerts end stint at fairgrounds."

Posted by on 06/26 at 01:06 PM

  1. Well, let’s get specific, here.

    Consider this question: Is this the government seeking power, or is it simply a reaction, based on the financial implications of defending the government (And thereby, the taxpayers) from the lawsuits? 

    Posted by Bithead  on  06/26  at  01:50 PM

  2. Bithead - Your question is worth considering, and I think you supplied the answer, to your question.  The answer supplied, though, then leads to an even more pertinet question.  Why should the government be a part of it at all?

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  02:54 PM

  3. Well, the question you ask is two-fold.

    The first half seems to me to involve the question of the government’s regulation of who can and cannot drive.

    The second involves the question of regulating drinking at concert events.

    In both cases, the question is made complex by the fact that the activity in question occurs on government-run property; IE; the roads, and the parks. (I assume the Country fairgrounds are not privately owned, but rather are run by the government)

    The case for government management of each, at least before the age of the BS lawsuit, could be made fairly easily.


    Either is a problem because ownership of property, or management of it, implies some degree of resposnibility for the actions on the property, particularly when BS lawsuits come calling.

    Posted by Bithead  on  06/27  at  11:41 AM

  4. Sorry.  Hit submit too early.
    THe problem here is not the government ownership or management of either the roads (and thereby having the ability to remove the ability of some to drive) or the fairgrounds.(And what people do during events there).

    The problem, as I’ve been saying, is that government in the person of the courts, refused to lift Bozo The Boozer’s license when it should have.

    The reaction after those deaths, then, is misdirected. Why are there no calls (Besides my own) for the judge who let this guy drive, seeing serious jailtime?

    Posted by Bithead  on  06/27  at  11:46 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: On "Declinism" and "Golden-Ageism"

Previous entry: Employment At Will

<< Back to main