Donna's Book on Jock

[Jimmy Todd]

What guarantee? Life's only got one guarantee: One day you'll die.

Jonas didn't kill himself because they didn't strike oil. If Jonas had manned up and stuck it out for another month he'd have been rich. Jonas would have been set for a life. I bet there are a hell of a lot of people who would take that deal.. Sam overestimated Jonas's toughness. That happens.

Exactly. There are no guarantees, and when dealing with two people who would go so far as to falsely imprison someone in a mental institution, he has no reason to believe they ever would let him out and share the money with him.
When you say Jonas should have "stuck it out," keep in mind that this is not a camping trip. He was locked in an institution that was notorious at the time
for abusing its patients. He was also looking at the possibility he would never get out of there. In addition, it's possible he was given drugs or treatment that made him worse. This was the 1930's, which was not particularly advanced in terms of mental health.
When you say that Jonas should have "manned up," my response is that Jock and Sam should have "manned up." Bullying people, stabbing them in the back, and using dirty tricks are very often the tactics of cowards. It takes real
strength to hold on to virtue and a sense of honor when going the other route is more expedient. If Jock was such a tough, "man's man," then he would have faced the struggles of the Depression head on without resorting to weasley behavior Apparently he was a bit more pusillanimous than legend would have it.
Yes, it may have been foolish of Jonas to not allow drilling on his land, but this is America and that's his right because he owned the land. He committed suicide as a result of a specific situation that Jock and Sam created.
This is, of course, according to Donna's book, and there are always two sides to a story. However, she published this after Jock's death, which I personally don't think is too ethical. I'm surprised this didn't cause a big rift in her marriage. Ray was always ready to attack anyone who even slightly besmirched Jock's reputation.
I'm not saying Jock is pure evil. Maybe he was thinking that Jonas will soon be out and will be grateful that Jock and Sam
made him a millionaire. Jock may have been wracked with guilt over this and seriously want redemption. That will never be known. The well written, complex aspects of the characters are what made Dallas such a great show.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Jock's image has been damaged much, much worse. This goes beyond being a tough businessman. This is completely unethical and cruel. A person can be a tough, hard-nosed businessman, without being evil. If Jock was telling himself that this is just business or for someosome oen good, I doubt he himself believed that deep down inside.
I would go so far to say that he's not a true capitalist or American. Taking people's propery or wealth to distribute fir the greater good? Sounds like communism to me.

No, you're mistaken. They never took ownership of his land. Sam got what's known as a power of attorney. That means he gets to look after the land in Jonas's absence, and do things like decide how to most efficiently utilize that land.

Now technically, sure, it's dishonest to force you to become wealthy whether you want to be or not, because you have the right to not utilize your land efficiently and stay poor of you want to.

Sam and Jock were pissed off at Jonas because he was was too damn dumb to allow them to drill for oil on his land and make all three of them multi-millionaires. So Sam, being Jonas's relative, had Jonas committed to get power of attorney over Jonas's property. While Jonas was in the hospital, Jock and Sam struck oil on Jonas's land. They were going to split it among the three of them and it had nothing to do with Communism or "distribution for the greater good." It's a three way split.

Jonas would get his third of the money because it was his property. Sam and Jock would each get a third for discovering the oil, and having the expertise to be able to get the oil out from underneath thousands of feet of earth by drilling in the right place in the right way.

It's similar to what we did for the Arabs. They had all that oil beneath their feet but had no idea how to get the oil out from underneath the ground so it would be usable. We went there and made a deal with them: If we taught them how to do drill for oil and set up for them a system of drilling rigs and all the American technology and know-how they needed, in exchange we'd get a certain percentage of the profits on the oil they pumped. It was a fair deal for everyone until they reneged on the deal and nationalized all of it. That's what you get for dealing with nomadic tent dwellers.

Anyway, I realize it's illegal to have your uncle committed for a few months so you can force him to efficiently utilize his land and make him a multi-millionaire when he wants to remain a poor farmer. Of course that's horrible. It's un-American, anti-free will and all that.

I'm still gonna guess that most "true capitalists or Americans" would, in a heartbeat, sign up for that unusual type of "communism" where you spend 3 months in a sanitarium and as long as you don't do something stupid like kill yourself, when they let you out after 3 months and bring you home from the hospital, your net worth has increased exponentially. You go from being worth fifty grand or so to now being worth millions of dollars. Turning you from a poor man into a multi-millionaire against your will is really a special kind of "evil."

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Sam was a public, historical figure. Donna was writing a history of his life. The Jonas incident was a significant incident in his formative, early adult years as his first began to build his power.

She realized that, and although of course she didn’t want to damage her late husband’s reputation, she felt obligated to include it - after checking with those closest to Sam (Dave) and Jock (Ellie), which she also felt obligated to do.

That’s how it was presented on the show - her motivation wasn’t money and fame.

Besides the money and fame Donna got from it, what was the benefit of selling the contents of Sam's diary, of selling the public stuff that's none of their business?

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Sam was a public, historical figure. Donna was writing a history of his life. The Jonas incident was a significant incident in his formative, early adult years as his first began to build his power.

She realized that, and although of course she didn’t want to damage her late husband’s reputation, she felt obligated to include it - after checking with those closest to Sam (Dave) and Jock (Ellie), which she also felt obligated to do.

That’s how it was presented on the show - her motivation wasn’t money and fame.

People's rights to privacy and having personal things remain personal aren't just nullified once they're dead. That he didn't even talk about it to Donna makes it pretty clear that he doesn't want to tell the entire public about it. Even public figures need and have rights to privacy.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

No, you're mistaken. They never took ownership of his land. Sam got what's known as a power of attorney. That means he gets to look after the land in Jonas's absence, and do things like decide how to most efficiently utilize that land.

Now technically, sure, it's dishonest to force you to become wealthy whether you want to be or not, because you have the right to not utilize your land efficiently and stay poor of you want to.

Sam and Jock were pissed off at Jonas because he was was too damn dumb to allow them to drill for oil on his land and make all three of them multi-millionaires. So Sam, being Jonas's relative, had Jonas committed to get power of attorney over Jonas's property. While Jonas was in the hospital, Jock and Sam struck oil on Jonas's land. They were going to split it among the three of them and it had nothing to do with Communism or "distribution for the greater good." It's a three way split.

Jonas would get his third of the money because it was his property. Sam and Jock would each get a third for discovering the oil, and having the expertise to be able to get the oil out from underneath thousands of feet of earth by drilling in the right place in the right way.

It's similar to what we did for the Arabs. They had all that oil beneath their feet but had no idea how to get the oil out from underneath the ground so it would be usable. We went there and made a deal with them: If we taught them how to do drill for oil and set up for them a system of drilling rigs and all the American technology and know-how they needed, in exchange we'd get a certain percentage of the profits on the oil they pumped. It was a fair deal for everyone until they reneged on the deal and nationalized all of it. That's what you get for dealing with nomadic tent dwellers.

Anyway, I realize it's illegal to have your uncle committed for a few months so you can force him to efficiently utilize his land and make him a multi-millionaire when he wants to remain a poor farmer. Of course that's horrible. It's un-American, anti-free will and all that.

I'm still gonna guess that most "true capitalists or Americans" would, in a heartbeat, sign up for that unusual type of "communism" where you spend 3 months in a sanitarium and as long as you don't do something stupid like kill yourself, when they let you out after 3 months and bring you home from the hospital, your net worth has increased exponentially. You go from being worth fifty grand or so to now being worth millions of dollars. Turning you from a poor man into a multi-millionaire against your will is really a special kind of "evil."

I did some quick research and found that legal experts do disagree about the various aspects of property rights. However, one definition I found from the University of Illinois is that the owner or the property or "stream of benefits from the land is his to sell, give away or otherwise dispose of as he sees fit."
Laws don't make allowances for "good intentions" or what somebody other than the owner decides is in his or her best interests.
A basic idea of communism is that the interests of the state supersedes the rights of an individual. Jock and Jason, by forcing their will on Jonas, trampling his rights to distribute wealth reflects that idea. Based on how Jock was characterized he'd probably tear me apart for implying he's a communist, but there you have it.
Your last sentence is interesting. It's not about someone being forced to be a millionaire. It's about taking away free will. People have a right to exercise free will as long as no one else is hurt or unjustly burdened as a result. We even have the right to do what others may consider stupid or illogical. What good is the law if it is so arbitrary that it is subject to the whims of what someone decides is best for someone else?
Regarding becoming a millionaire. Many people would agree with you that forcing someone to become rich doesn't fall under the heading of evil. When I used that term I was mainly referring to Sam acquiring power of attorney under false pretenses and committing Jonas against his will to a sanitarium. It's not wherher most capitalists would want it or not. That's irrelevant. It's what happened to Jonas and what he experienced.
As far as being a millionaire goes, there are plenty of stories about people who say winning the lottery ruined their lives.
I don't know enough about the Middle East and the history of oil there to comment on that point. It's something I'll have to learn more about before I can voice an opinion.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

People's rights to privacy and having personal things remain personal aren't just nullified once they're dead. That he didn't even talk about it to Donna makes it pretty clear that he doesn't want to tell the entire public about it. Even public figures need and have rights to privacy.

If Sam has a right to privacy, doesn't Jonas have a right to do what he wants with his property? Im not clear why you, if I'm reading you correctly, find Donna exposing Sam more egregious than what Sam actually did.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

A basic idea of communism is that the interests of the state supersedes the rights of an individual. Jock and Jason, by forcing their will on Jonas, trampling his rights to distribute wealth reflects that idea. Based on how Jock was characterized he'd probably tear me apart for implying he's a communist, but there you have it.

Are you familiar with power of attorney? It has nothing to do with communism, I assure you.

Sam forced his will on his uncle Jonas. He was determined to not let the oil underneath Jonas's land go to waste. Sam's big sin was that he was going to see to it that Jonas availed himself of his resources whether Jonas wanted to or not.

This is pretty unique. I don't recall ever encountering anyone so passionate about the right of poor people to remain poor.

If Sam has a right to privacy, doesn't Jonas have a right to do what he wants with his property? Im not clear why you, if I'm reading you correctly, find Donna exposing Sam more egregious than what Sam actually did.

Sure. Jonas had the right to remain poor and ignorant. His nephew wanted to make Jonas wealthy and I guess he tried his best to explain to Jonas why it's better to be rich than poor, but some people are unteachable. You can force your child to do what is in his or her best interest, but if you have a crazy uncle too dimwitted to even understand that more money is better than less, there's not much you can do for him. I suspect Jonas was...of a somewhat diminished capacity.

Your last sentence is interesting. It's not about someone being forced to be a millionaire. It's about taking away free will. People have a right to exercise free will as long as no one else is hurt or unjustly burdened as a result. We even have the right to do what others may consider stupid or illogical. What good is the law if it is so arbitrary that it is subject to the whims of what someone decides is best for someone else?

My last sentence was for comedic effect. I said "Turning you from a poor man into a multi-millionaire against your will is really a special kind of "evil." Put it this way. There are billions of poor people in the world who would love for somebody to show them that much "evil." They'd love for somebody to screw them over that way and make them become millionaires.

As far as being a millionaire goes, there are plenty of stories about people who say winning the lottery ruined their lives.

Oh, of course. Some of them will also tell you how money can't buy happiness.. What they won't tell you is that money is what will put their children through college, that money is what will pay for that operation to save their father's life, that "more is better" is actually an ethos-economic principle. "More is better" actually doesn't apply to most things in life.. Usually, more is not better; the precise amount is best. Money is one of the only two things that "More is better" actually applies to, the other obviously being beautiful women.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

If Sam has a right to privacy, doesn't Jonas have a right to do what he wants with his property? Im not clear why you, if I'm reading you correctly, find Donna exposing Sam more egregious than what Sam actually did.

Sam was trying to make his idiot uncle's life better. He wanted to get the idea across to Jonas that: Guess what? There's oil underneath your backyard. If you let my friend and I drill it, we'll cut you in for a third of the profit and you don't even have to do any of the work. In fact, it would be preferable if you don't try to help Jock drill. Trust me.....What? You don't care if there's oil underneath the earth or not? You like being poor and want to make sure you stay that way Jonas? Well, you know what they say, there's a cure for ignorance but no cure for stupidity, except for the one invented by Samuel Colt.

Long story short, in his own roundabout way, Sam wanted to make Jonas's life better. Sam just tried to help in the wrong way. He wanted to force his help on Jonas, and Jonas had the right to stay stupid and poor if he wished.

Donna, in contrast, was not trying to benefit Sam in any way with what she was doing. She was hurting the way a man who was already dead would be remembered. You know that general rule of manners: Don't speak ill of the dead? Well Donna wasn't worried about speaking ill of the dead. She was going to put the ill not in spoken words but printed ones and then sell it! She was sacrificing Sam's legacy in exchange for becoming richer and more famous. Since she waited for him to die before writing the book, she didn't have to concern herself with details like asking Sam if it would be OK with him if she printed the contents of his diary for public consumption. Since Sam was dead, she didn't even have to share any of the profits with him. How convenient for Donna!

 

[Jimmy Todd]

Are you familiar with power of attorney? It has nothing to do with communism, I assure you.

Sam forced his will on his uncle Jonas. He was determined to not let the oil underneath Jonas's land go to waste. Sam's big sin was that he was going to see to it that Jonas availed himself of his resources whether Jonas wanted to or not.

This is pretty unique. I don't recall ever encountering anyone so passionate about the right of poor people to remain poor.




Sure. Jonas had the right to remain poor and ignorant. His nephew wanted to make Jonas wealthy and I guess he tried his best to explain to Jonas why it's better to be rich than poor, but some people are unteachable. You can force your child to do what is in his or her best interest, but if you have a crazy uncle too dimwitted to even understand that more money is better than less, there's not much you can do for him. I suspect Jonas was...of a somewhat diminished capacity.



My last sentence was for comedic effect. I said "Turning you from a poor man into a multi-millionaire against your will is really a special kind of "evil." Put it this way. There are billions of poor people in the world who would love for somebody to show them that much "evil." They'd love for somebody to screw them over that way and make them become millionaires.



Oh, of course. Some of them will also tell you how money can't buy happiness.. What they won't tell you is that money is what will put their children through college, that money is what will pay for that operation to save their father's life, that "more is better" is actually an ethos-economic principle. "More is better" actually doesn't apply to most things in life.. Usually, more is not better; the precise amount is best. Money is one of the only two things that "More is better" actually applies to, the other obviously being beautiful women.

I'm not passionate about keeping people poor. I'm passionate about the American ideal of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and upholding the law. It is not up to someone else to decide what is "smart" or "stupid" for someone else and violate their civil rights. Jonas could care more about preserving the land than becoming a millionaire. Whether anyone thinks that's smart or stupid has no bearing on the law.
Your brand of utilitarianism may sound good in some respects(i.e. all three get rich), but it's the idea that the law and civil rights are mutable depending on who has the upper hand in the situation. Rhe law is not based on "might makes right." The law is designed to protect citizens from "might makes right."
I'm familiar with power of attorney, but I wasn't saying that itself was communism. Taking someone's wealth and redistributing it among others with no regard to individual rights is a reflection of communism.
In the end Jonas didn't end up a millionaire because of Sam and Jock's scheme. He ended up dead.
Do you believe the law should be upheld? (Yes, putting someone in a mental institution under false pretenses is against the law. It's fraud and a violation of civil rights.)
Do you think someone can decide what's best for you and force you to do it, even if it violates the law and ethics?

 

[James from London]

Besides Miss Ellie's wrath, were there any repercussions?

No. By the time Donna's book was published, Dallas had moved on to the storyline about Jock's will which was pretty much all-consuming, but given that "Jonas’s property was the field that started the entire Culver/Ewing fortunes", and that that property was obtained illegally, there could have been huge repercussions.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

Kenny,
In reference to your post about the merits of Samuel Colt, the cure for stupidity is a gun? What if the person holding the gun is "stupid?" What if it's someone who thinks money is evil and living as simply as possible is the smart way to go?

 

[Jimmy Todd]

No. By the time Donna's book was published, Dallas had moved on to the storyline about Jock's will which was pretty much all-consuming, but given that "Jonas’s property was the field that started the entire Culver/Ewing fortunes", and that that property was obtained illegally, there could have been huge repercussions.

There was a lot of potential for drama here. If the story had been saved for a later season ot could have been the beginning of a very exciting story arc that drew in all the characters. It could conceivably set in motion a chain of events that led to Donna and Pam"s departures.

 

[James from London]

There was a lot of potential for drama here.

Yeah, but of course the main point of the storyline wasn't about repercussions or even ethics, but to shock Miss Ellie out of her denial about Jock's death (leading onto the reading of his will), and it served that purpose really well. Plus, as an added bonus, we got to see Ellie and best pal Donna at loggerheads, which was good fun. In fact, the big scene where she turns on Donna was the dramatic centrepiece of Dallas's hundredth episode.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

In reference to your post about the merits of Samuel Colt, the cure for stupidity is a gun? What if the person holding the gun is "stupid?" What if it's someone who thinks money is evil and living as simply as possible is the smart way to go?

Do you think someone can decide what's best for you and force you to do it, even if it violates the law and ethics?

If you have to ask me the questions in the two above quotes, you haven't been reading my posts. We've already been through this a number of times, and for whatever reason, you just don't get what I mean. Lately, it hasn't seemed like you're even having fun with this. Are you? You're taking every single line I write so seriously!

Some of what I write is humor. It always has been. If I have to explain which parts are funny, and then explain why it's funny, it defeats the whole purpose. My goal isn't to just write posts that are so damn serious they come across as dry, humorless lectures. I do my best to make sure my posts include both entertainment value and substance for people. People come here to have a good time. That's why they're here!

I wish more people would get involved. It's only a plus to the forum when as many people as possible get involved and we get a nice wide variety of viewpoints and personalities.

Whether people agree with me or not is not important. It never has been. I like to combine humor and intellectual substance in a way that I provide the best possible value to the forum I can. My goal is encouraging people to engage in a robust exchange of ideas and do it in a way that they have a good time doing it!

 

[Jimmy Todd]

If you have to ask me the questions in the two above quotes, you haven't been reading my posts. We've already been through this a number of times, and for whatever reason, you just don't get what I mean. Lately, it hasn't seemed like you're even having fun with this. Are you? You're taking every single line I write so seriously!

Some of what I write is humor. It always has been. If I have to explain which parts are funny, and then explain why it's funny, it defeats the whole purpose. My goal isn't to just write posts that are so damn serious they come across as dry, humorless lectures. I do my best to make sure my posts include both entertainment value and substance for people. People come here to have a good time. That's why they're here!

I wish more people would get involved. It's only a plus to the forum when as many people as possible get involved and we get a nice wide variety of viewpoints and personalities.

Whether people agree with me or not is not important. It never has been. I like to combine humor and intellectual substance in a way that I provide the best possible value to the forum I can. My goal is encouraging people to engage in a robust exchange of ideas and do it in a way that they have a good time doing it!

I did read your posts and took time to answer them. You are not answering my questions. You're just "shouting" at me.

I don't think I was being dry and humorless, and I wasn't lecturing anyone. I was addressing your points and giving my opinion. The same as you were doing.

I don't see any humor or lightheartedness in your posts. Just a couple of sarcastic lines. There's a big difference.

Actually, I was having great fun because I enjoy discussing ethics and the character development in Dallas. Your posts have devolved into angry screeds. That's a shame.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

I did read your posts

Ok, fair enough, You didn't get the meaning of them though. I've never said that what Sam did to Jonas was legal or moral. What I've been doing is looking into Sam's possible motivation for acting in the way which he did, for why he could possibly have thought he was doing a good thing and why he may have thought he was justified in his actions at the time. I haven't seen any evidence in your posts to suggest that you understand that's what I've been doing.

I wasn't lecturing anyone

I didn't say you were. The only place I even used the word "lectures" is in describing my writing style and why I include humor - so it has entertainment value to the forum as opposed to coming across as a some dry, humorless lecture. I want people to have a good time when they read my posts.

I don't see any humor or lightheartedness in your posts.

That's right, you don't, and apparently that's caused a disconnect. We all have our own sense of humor and maybe you don't get my particular style of humor but it is there. It's there a lot.

Your posts have devolved into angry screeds.

Oh, really? You think a discussion over fictional characters from a soap opera has the ability to make me angry? Wow. That's just...stunning.

 

[Seaviewer]

Besides the money and fame Donna got from it, what was the benefit of selling the contents of Sam's diary, of selling the public stuff that's none of their business?

Some might see it as journalistic integrity.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Some might see it as journalistic integrity.

That's an ideal, not a benefit. It's not something that gives Sam, or Sam's legacy anything of value in return for what Donna's getting out of it. Suppose, just hypothetically I find out you did something many years ago you don't want anybody to know about. Something you feel terrible about having done. I find out that by exposing your personal business to the public, I'll make a million dollars or more. But I'll hurt you badly. I get all the benefits and you get none. You wouldn't consent to such a deal because it's not equitable. One side gets all the benefits and the other side just gets hurt. That's what we call a sh**ty deal.

Nobody in his right mind would consent to a deal where the other party gets all the benefits and he just gets hurt. Except Sam is dead so he can't consent. That makes it even worse! I think so. She's taking advantage of the fact that since he's dead, he can't defend himself. Is there anyone here who thinks that once you're dead it's fair for people to able to rape your diary for their own gain at your expense?

 

[Seaviewer]

That's an ideal, not a benefit.

It might be argued that it's a benefit to the public at large for the truth to be exposed. Being dead doesn't make you innocent of past crimes.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

It might be argued that it's a benefit to the public at large for the truth to be exposed. Being dead doesn't make you innocent of past crimes.

Yes, that might be argued. Do we really want to set a precedent though where I can do whatever I want to you as long as it's for "the public good", whatever that means? Our system is founded upon the importance of individual rights. Other systems have been founded upon the notion you brought up, that individual rights are subservient to "the public good." It comes down to which ideology you believe in.