Norwegian billionaire given US $30,400 drunken driving fine

[PeterA]

The 22-year old she is just like you and I; never asked anything the day she was born.
@ 22 I was a good looking young man and I was driving a super cool car, and life was fun living on the beautiful lane. She reminds me of me @ her age.

She made the news because in part the tobacco industry is big time the cause of cancer/death for millions of people. The tobacco manufacturers are truly terminators of human health. ...No doubt.

But her, she didn't ask for it, she unfortunately inherited it from her Dad's; so that he could save millions in taxes, on the back of her young daughter. The articles are quite clear about it.

Our discussion is cool because we compare the laws from European countries in the vision of our own North America. We even go further than just drink and drive and the penalties to pay, but we examine the consequences when fatalities/deaths are caused by drunk drivers.

It's a big social issue, and education issue, an extremely important issue because when people are dead, it's for life. And the people who are causing those death, our very very poor system of education and unfair justice through unfair laws created by unfair lawmakers...it is where we all fail very miserably.

It is very simple; we know that drinking and driving is not only dangerous and contagious, but it can kill very very easily. So, why even permit it by giving small sanctions?
A car is not a tool to defend your property and your person and your family, a car is not a gun for hunting rabbits, a car is a vehicle to transport humans and goods. Alcohol has no place in a car, if we want to drink there are millions of bars all over the world where alcohol consumption is provided for your pleasure. Or even @ home with our friends we can drink freely and walk around naked if we feel like it.
Taxi cab drivers they hang around bars, because it's the best place to get customers and make few bucks...and save lives. I cannot emphasize this last part strongly enough.
When we go to bars, we go in cabs, or if we drive there, we leave our cars in a parking garage all night and we can get it back next time we are sober, with a friend or a cab.
Another solution is to have a non-drinking friend who can drive the drinkers around.

I'm sure that the young woman had time to reflect, just as we are doing night now. But its not that tobacco thing that should make her more deplorable..., that, is totally out of her hands and wishes.
She's a normal young woman who is unfortunately rich from involuntary wish. She still remains a person of dignity and respect in this society we all created.

In Norway they take drinking and driving very seriously. ...And smoking tobacco too.

In Canada we take those seriously too, very. But we are not as advanced and sophisticated as in Norway; in my sincere and admitted opinion. The beautiful young woman is just a normal kid like anyone else...with a heart and soul.

Great post Bob. I agree. That lovely young woman is indeed not deplorable. I meant that comment to be understood as sarcasm. She should not have driven while drunk, and that makes her careless and perhaps dangerous.

I asked Al why he called her "deplorable" up thread, but he did not answer. I completely agree that she is part of what some call the "lucky sperm club." She was born to very rich parents and a comfortable existence. Then she inherited great wealth. Most people would consider her to be very lucky. Perhaps she is also spoiled. I don't know. She certainly did not ask to be born into that family. No one can ask for such a thing. I presume Al means that she is deplorable because she drove drunk, not because she was born to a rich tobacco family, but I don't really know. "Deplorable" has become a fascinating adjective.

 

[PeterA]

The Obama you "didn't build that" could have only been said by a person that never had a job and never built a business. Absolutely ridiculous!!!

The government didn't build the roads, canals, railroads, airports in the USA....individual entrepreneurs built them. The railroads are still totally owned and maintained by the railroad companies, one of the reasons we have the most efficient goods and raw materials transportation system in the world.

That comment was repeated by my Senator Elizabeth Warren. There was venom spewing out of her mouth when she said it. Ridiculous indeed. If a business founder did not build his business, who did? Oh, the arrogance. Society and the government provided the environment and conditions in which the entrepreneur could built his business, but the collective Elizabeth Warrens of the country certainly did not have the ideas, take the risks or implement the plans. Frightening.

 

[jeff1225]

That comment was repeated by my Senator Elizabeth Warren. There was venom spewing out of her mouth when she said it. Ridiculous indeed. If a business founder did not build his business, who did? Oh, the arrogance. Society and the government provided the environment and conditions in which the entrepreneur could built his business, but the collective Elizabeth Warrens of the country certainly did not have the ideas, take the risks or implement the plans. Frightening.

The fact that she has any credibility with anyone after she misappropriated her heritage claiming to be an Indigenous American is laughable. Some people earn their money, some people join government to take it.

 

[Al M.]

I asked Al why he called her "deplorable" up thread, but he did not answer.

After the very good post by Bob I didn't feel the need to answer any further.

 

[Al M.]

That comment was repeated by my Senator Elizabeth Warren. There was venom spewing out of her mouth when she said it. Ridiculous indeed. If a business founder did not build his business, who did? Oh, the arrogance. Society and the government provided the environment and conditions in which the entrepreneur could built his business, but the collective Elizabeth Warrens of the country certainly did not have the ideas, take the risks or implement the plans. Frightening.

It is obvious from the context that Obama did not mean the businesses themselves, but the roads and bridges. See:

In context: Obama's ‘you didn't build that' comment

(Note that Politifact here doesn't need to 'explain' anything. The transcript they provide explains itself. I've checked the video again, the transcript is correct. Of course, rightwing media have distorted the whole thing.)

 

[Al M.]

Society and the government provided the environment and conditions in which the entrepreneur could built his business,

Agreed.

but the collective Elizabeth Warrens of the country certainly did not have the ideas, take the risks or implement the plans.

Also agreed.

As I told Jeff in #39, we appear to agree on fundamental points, but naturally disagree on details of implementation. I assume the same holds for the both of us as well, Peter.

 

[PeterA]

It is obvious from the context that Obama did not mean the businesses themselves, but the roads and bridges. See:

In context: Obama's ‘you didn't build that' comment

(Note that Politifact here doesn't need to 'explain' anything. The transcript they provide explains itself. I've checked the video again, the transcript is correct. Of course, rightwing media have distorted the whole thing.)

Thanks for the link, Al. I watched Obama give the speech and then I read the quotes. In my opinion this speech is very poorly written, and poorly delivered. It wanders and is unclear. The biggest problem is that he does not credit the individual for his accomplishments. He does not seem able to admit or reconcile individual achievement with progress and success. He praises the collective as though it is responsible for everything that is great in this country. He focuses on society and government and public works, roads, bridges, teachers, and fighting fires. He is at a fire station. He did not praise Henry Ford for developing automotive manufacturing which led to the production of those fire trucks. He did not praise the individuals who had the ideas that created the technologies to build the roads or the architects or engineers who designed the bridges. He did not even praise the laborers who built the roads or laid the bricks to build that building.

Absent from that speech and why Romney pounced on that line, and why many voters were outraged, was the complete disregard for the individual. Great ideas are what push things forward and individual effort is what makes things happen. If the great communicator says "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." how else can one interpret the words but as he said them? He is speaking directly to the person who has the business. It was an insult to every hard worker, business owner and great idea. Watching it again just infuriates me. I'm sorry.

And if I remember correctly, Elizabeth Warren then doubled down and simply repeated what Obama had said. She did not clarify what he meant. She continued the message. Whatever one thinks about the context and the good intentions, people were insulted. Impressions are what matter and what are remembered.

EDIT: I just watched a video of Elizabeth Warren's remarks. Sure enough, she reinforced Obama's message and kept repeating the idea that even though one may have started a successful business, it was "the rest of us" who paid the taxes and built the roads and trained the workers, etc. etc. No one starts a business without help from the "rest of us". There is the collective again. I don't think Warren trained anyone or built anything to help me in starting my business. She taught a class at Harvard for over $300K and we all know about her lying about her heritage. I pay taxes for infrastructure and public schools just like "the rest of us." No wonder people think voters in Massachusetts are crazy.

 

[Al M.]

Thanks for the link, Al. I watched Obama give the speech and then I read the quotes. In my opinion this speech is very poorly written, and poorly delivered. It wanders and is unclear. The biggest problem is that he does not credit the individual for his accomplishments. He does not seem able to admit or reconcile individual achievement with progress and success. He praises the collective as though it is responsible for everything that is great in this country. He focuses on society and government and public works, roads, bridges, teachers, and fighting fires. He is at a fire station. He did not praise Henry Ford for developing automotive manufacturing which led to the production of those fire trucks. He did not praise the individuals who had the ideas that created the technologies to build the roads or the architects or engineers who designed the bridges. He did not even praise the laborers who built the roads or laid the bricks to build that building.

Absent from that speech and why Romney pounced on that line, and why many voters were outraged, was the complete disregard for the individual. Great ideas are what push things forward and individual effort is what makes things happen. If the great communicator says "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." how else can one interpret the words but as he said them? He is speaking directly to the person who has the business. It was an insult to every hard worker, business owner and great idea. Watching it again just infuriates me. I'm sorry.

And if I remember correctly, Elizabeth Warren then doubled down and simply repeated what Obama had said. She did not clarify what he meant. She continued the message. Whatever one thinks about the context and the good intentions, people were insulted. Impressions are what matter and what are remembered.

Peter, I agree that the speech is not one of Obama's best, was not delivered with an appropriate tone, and did not leave the best impressions. This does not excuse the distortions that followed at the time.

 

[NorthStar]

Great post Bob. I agree. That lovely young woman is indeed not deplorable. I meant that comment to be understood as sarcasm. She should not have driven while drunk, and that makes her careless and perhaps dangerous.

I asked Al why he called her "deplorable" up thread, but he did not answer. I completely agree that she is part of what some call the "lucky sperm club." She was born to very rich parents and a comfortable existence. Then she inherited great wealth. Most people would consider her to be very lucky. Perhaps she is also spoiled. I don't know. She certainly did not ask to be born into that family. No one can ask for such a thing. I presume Al means that she is deplorable because she drove drunk, not because she was born to a rich tobacco family, but I don't really know. "Deplorable" has become a fascinating adjective.

I knew that you meant it as a sarcasm Peter. By now I have learned your thinking language.

The reason she inherited over a billion is for her Dad's saving taxes. She herself doesn't have access to it; she only have a very humble monthly allocation. ...And one of the loopholes in this and why she wasn't fully sanctioned with a $6.2 million fine.

When Al mentioned 'deplorable' I too am not too sure the origin of his thought. Only Al knows and we cannot assume or we might be totally wrong. And even if we assume correctly it's only a word, no sexual or psychological abuse here. :b

As for spoiling kids I have no clue; I was born unspoiled and my parents have various backgrounds...The arts; musicians, singers, designers, administrators, land developers, architecture, steel, tobacco too, and very normal folks.
If I was 25 I would love to be her friend.
___

* Deplorable = regrettable, unfortunate

 

[PeterA]

Peter, I agree that the speech is not one of Obama's best, was not delivered with an appropriate tone, and did not leave the best impressions. This does not excuse the distortions that followed at the time.

Al, I don't know about the distortions that followed that speech. I just know about the impression the original speech made on me. I tend to read the original text or watch the original video and make up my own mind rather than listening to the opinions of the pundits. See my EDIT remarks in post #47.

 

[PeterA]

I knew that you meant it as a sarcasm Peter. By now I have learned your thinking language.

The reason she inherited over a billion is for her Dad's saving taxes. She herself doesn't have access to it; she only have a very humble monthly allocation. ...And one of the loopholes in this and why she wasn't fully sanctioned with a $6.2 million fine.

When Al mentioned 'deplorable' I too am not too sure the origin of his thought. Only Al knows and we cannot assume or we might be totally wrong. And even if we assume correctly it's only a word, no sexual or psychological abuse here. :b

As for spoiling kids I have no clue; I was born unspoiled and my parents have various backgrounds...The arts; musicians, singers, designers, administrators, land developers, architecture, steel, tobacco too, and very normal folks.
If I was 25 I would love to be her friend.
___

* Deplorable = regrettable, unfortunate

Bob, I'm not sure, but it sounds like she lives on a fixed income from an irrevocable trust. Perhaps the principle even skips a generation. If that is the case, she did not inherit the money. She is the beneficiary of a trust without access to the capital. That is a big difference and explains why the fine was $30K instead of $6.2 M. She is not a billionaire. Would you have her pay a fine on the value of a trust which she does not own? People are calling for her to pay a much larger fine. On what are these opinions based? It sounds like she was fined the allowable amount under Norwegian law. If she has a "very humble monthly allocation" as you claim, then perhaps $30K is a lot of money.

Edit: I just read another of Bob's links. She has an annual income of $13.2K ($1,100 monthly) and a bank account with $110K. $30K is a lot under these circumstances. She has no access to the billion dollar capital and the article does not state when, if ever, she will have access. There must be provisions about increasing income over time and perhaps access to the capital, but it is not clear. Again, I wonder on what basis people think that she should have had a much higher fine, in the millions of dollars. How would she have been able to pay it? She only has $110K in the bank. What am I missing?

 

[Al M.]

Edit: I just read another of Bob's links. She has an annual income of $13.2K ($1,100 monthly) and a bank account with $110K. $30K is a lot under these circumstances. She has no access to the billion dollar capital and the article does not state when, if ever, she will have access. There must be provisions about increasing income over time and perhaps access to the capital, but it is not clear. Again, I wonder on what basis people think that she should have had a much higher fine, in the millions of dollars. How would she have been able to pay it? She only has $110K in the bank. What am I missing?

What are you missing? Maybe nothing. I didn't know about the access to money that she has. Good information, thanks. If that's the case then a $ 30 K fine may be excessive.

 

[NorthStar]

Lol you guys are funny; you are all richer than her...she only gets $1,100/month.
And why she was fined over $30,000 for drunk driving I have no idea how in Norway they calculate her financial potency.

I'm sure she'll survive just fine. Money is not the end of the world, abuse of power is.

 

[Al M.]

Lol you guys are funny; you are all richer than her...she only gets $1,100/month.

Well, I've worked under wrong assumptions then. We all do it at times, only some of us have an easier time admitting it than others . If you can't admit a mistake, this is a sign of insecurity. Just look at our President .

 

[NorthStar]

Interesting what you just said Al, because if we are in denial and won't admit our mistakes we only have less than life itself to hang on to.
And if we do admit our mistakes, in this world we live in today, we are judged in masses, by our friends, our lesser friends, our own families, our Twitter and Facebook and Instagram fellow members. Everyone in the world is now condemning us for life. We have no more reason to even exist; might as well get a facelift, change our name, change country, and purchase a new life. I don't see this happening with some of our leaders...ever.

No? :b

Brief, we are now entering a new shift; people are getting toasted, fired and the truth will ultimately come up; if not in one thousand years, tomorrow morning then.

 

[Al M.]

And if we do admit our mistakes, in this world we live in today, we are judged in masses, by our friends, our lesser friends, our own families, our Twitter and Facebook and Instagram fellow members.

I don't experience that, Bob, and honestly, I don't care too much about what others think of me. Makes for an easier life, really. I know my own worth and I know my own flaws. I'm at peace with that.

Everyone in the world is now condemning us for life. We have no more reason to even exist; might as well get a facelift, change our name, change country, and purchase a new life. I don't see this happening with some of our leaders...ever.

No? :b

Nah.

 

[NorthStar]

I don't experience that either Al, because I don't make serious mistakes, only insignificant small ones; the last one sixty years ago, when I jumped from the second floor window into a snow bank during winter.

I talked to my neighbor yesterday; he said to be careful with the women nurses @ the hospital.
Any word misinterpreted and I can get toasted. He said don't talk, wear shades, and walk real slow.

I'm being humorous.
___

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3044539.stm
• http://www.carscoops.com/2017/11/russian-billionaire-fined-over-30000.html

 

[Al M.]

I'm being humorous.

Obviously

 

[NorthStar]

Obviously

I didn't say that for you, only for the ones who weren't sure.

But I did jump from the second floor window when I was young, and I ended up in the snow below. I was still just a baby. That, is the truth.

 

[PeterA]

I didn't say that for you, only for the ones who weren't sure.

But I did jump from the second floor window when I was young, and I ended up in the snow below. I was still just a baby. That, is the truth.

Was that a serious mistake or an only insignificant small one? Either way, to cite that one example in the last sixty years is pretty incredible. Well done.