2007
Week 8
February 24, 2007

Hi

Communication is enhanced with careful use of words -- words that can be fairly understood by a variety of listeners. Conversely, there are words which are guaranteed to set up blocks to communication. Often those words are used as clubs.

Today's paper has a column repeatedly referring to “illegal aliens.” Hello? From which planet? What officer has arrested, which prosecutor has charged, and which court judged these aliens guilty of a crime? Turns out, none. Attorneys tells us the persons targeted are breaking no law by living here. Local officers have no witness or evidence of their crossings. They broke a law when they entered our country, just as an alcohol impaired person broke a law by driving. Unless a court judges either guilty, do we call either one “an illegal”? (By the way, I would rather meet the ‘alien’ than the ‘drunk’ on the sidewalk or on the road.)

This is not to diminish in any way the serious problem of persons entering the U. S. illegally, which is a huge challenge to our system. My purpose is to enhance conversation about the problem. If we could actually converse about it, instead of shouting insulting terms, we could make progress on both the alien and the drunk.

Another abused word in current public discourse is “victory.” For me, it was a jaw-dropper to hear our president use that word in relation to his Iraq policies (which I do not discuss). Does he not have staff to vet his language and avoid words that guarantee anger, reaction and far less chance of ‘victory’ in the Arab world? “Victory” requires a winner and a loser. Since we usually choose to be the winner, who are we labeling a loser? Muslims? A sect of Muslims? Patriotic Iraqi? Arabs? (Do we need more enemies?)

The word “success” would allow diplomats to move ahead with talk about “win-win.”

“Success” in a decade-long dilemma came for Ruth and me in a big way this week. Everybody wins.

Nebraska is one of the few states which does not allow civil liability to apply to a bar that violates license regulation when a worker serves an intoxicated person more drinks -- and the person leaves, picks a fight and assaults someone, or kills someone through use of a vehicle. If you or I handed a drink to someone obviously “looped” and that person immediately injured someone (by any means) we should worry about a lawsuit. But a bar is exempt from successful lawsuit for server violations in Nebraska. The server's act is not legal but a suit would be thrown out, quoting pointed comment by the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Several laws were broken in our son's injury.

1. Adults bought alcohol for a youth (who provided the money).
2. The purchase was in front of a dealer who knew what was going on, as it happened every Sunday after the Saturday night paycheck.
3. The purchase was on a Sunday morning, from a closed shop.
4. The daylong drinking of the group was in a public park.
5. The adults selected the teen as the designated driver to take some of them home, as his license was suspended and, they said, he had nothing of worthwhile to lose. (Hmmm. He was the only one of the group with money.)
6. He drove without a license, impaired, left the scene......

Our bill (in public hearing this week) would make the dealer liable in #2 and #3 and makes the adults liable in all the rest as “social hosts” who provided alcohol to a minor and aided him in a crime. Committee members were most supportive and there is a chance a “dram shop” bill will be debated on the floor next week, for the first time in 70 years. (We have been trying with others for 15 years and more.)

The change that turned the trick? First, a lot of work. But central, we wrote in a section that if every server is trained and certified by the state, and follows the training, the bar or package store is protected from any judgment against it. I love it. No new law on training servers (which the owners requested in negotiations). No enforcement dollars for 5,000 bars. No gaps in enforcement. No added police effort. Either train your staff or be at serious risk of a judgment. You and your insurance company decide.

Social hosts who allow teens to have a keg party in their large home are liable to a judgment which could easily claim that expensive property -- and more. No training exemption is offered. Whereas a server could be in error in inspecting a minor's ID, the social host is deliberately breaking a law in an act which is extremely hurtful to minors and highly expensive to tax payers.

One father drove across the state to testify. His daughter never drank but ended up one night at such a house. She drank and quickly realized she could not safely drive home. The host panicked and forced her to leave immediately. She rolled her car down a steep embankment on a stormy night. She lived, through some miracle. While she was being treated at a Scottsbluff hospital, two more teen girls were brought in, individually, from another home party. The one was dead, with no heart or breathing. The staff revived her, but they did not know if she had brain damage from the lack of oxygen.

Success? We all win if we can scare these parents out of such dangerous behavior.

In a success mode,

Lowen