Recently I was attending a school Christmas pagent which took place in a church. I got there and observed the young children excited to be partaking in the even. The kindergardeners recieved their Christmas bells and were jingling happily - until their teacher yelled at them. The pageant was pretty impressive. The little ones seemed on best behavior trying to impress their parents, friends and relatives and, dare I say, their Lord.
As I looked around the older grade students looked less impressed, bored even. It made me think back to my childhood. You see God and the Church were always important to me. Sure there were times I had my doubts, who doesn't? My hope and faith in something better led me through those doubts. Some of my generation didn't make it through this stage. It seems that a majority of people who walk away from the Church do so at the teen age time. I started to think about a reason for this and that led me to this revalation...
SPOILER ALERT.... SMALL CHILDREN NAVIGATE AWAY FROM THIS PAGE NOW...
You see, we raise our children to believe in fantastical things, magical things... and then systematically we pull them all away from them. Is it any wonder that a teen ager who has lost so many magical figures in their lives wonders about God and Jesus? Realistically is the story of the tooth fairy or Easter Bunny or dare I say S.C. that much more fantasic than the story of Christ or the other stories in the Bible? Here we have our children and we yank away these figures in a period of 3 to 4 years and they realize those gifts were not for magical figures they were from parents. Why wouldn't a child of 13 or 14 who has been educated in history, science and other aspects of life be doubtful of a Virgin birth, or rising from the dead for other people's sins?
I am just wondering if we are doing a real disservice to our children by throwing so many different things at them and pulling away many of them as fiction. Let me say this as well, I am a Christian, I believe in a higher power. Do I believe every story in the Bible as completely true? No, I believe that they are stories of wisdom and messages from our ancestors on how to live a good life. I do believe that good people go to Heaven and the way to Heaven lies within those stories. I do believe that other religions have merit as well and many of the stories, while the characters may be different, the message is the same. I wonder if for our future generations sake if we need to get away with making up fictional characters who bring gifts, and just give the gifts anyway and explain that they are given out of love...
Just a thought...
Happy Holidays to all, religious or not, and a prosperous New Year to all
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Occupy Everything!
You all didn't think I'd let the Occupy protests get off without a comment did you?
Here in Chicago you have a group of protesters who are protesting the corporate greed and influence on our government. I agree with them in concept. You also have people who are protesting the Tea Party, I'm okay with that, it is their right. Then you have people who are protesting just about everything you can think up, gay rights, student loan forgiveness, legalizing marijuana, racial harmony, I've seen it all, and again I don't have a problem with this.
What have I not seen at these protests? I have not seen one anti-Obama sign, not one. It made me think just who is behind this Occupy Movement? (Occupy by the way is a horrendous name for this movement one of the very definitions of occupy is "to take possession of or control a place as in a military invasion, not very non-violent sounding there)
Let's take a little lookie into just who is at these protests
SEIU - The Service Employees International Union, per CBS news the SEIU PAC spent $27 Million on Obama's first campaign.They also backed him in 2004 for Senate. Is that a little like a corporation influencing a government entity? You decide.
Jordan Farrar - The leader of the Young Communist League, what else has Mr. Farrar done in his life? Oh yes that's right I remember he is a member of Obama's Organizing for America group, ANOTHER Obama tie? Let's see who else is behind this...
Lisa Fithian, who is Lisa Fithian? You remember those riots in Seattle a decade or so ago? Yes that was her group who led that protest, she's also behind Cindy Sheehan's antics. What does she have to say about protesting? Well here is a quote right from her mouth "I have no issue with property destruction. I think sometimes it’s appropriate, sometimes it’s not. Again, I look at it strategically. Does this help us or does it hurt us? Does it help us achieve our goal, or does it not? We’re in a society where property is idolized, so a lot of people don’t get it yet that it doesn’t really matter. It’s just glass or products." That's right Chicago Lisa doesn't care if a building gets destroyed if it helps her cause. Fithian started in the 1970's working with Abbie Hoffman, she has advocated violence in the past. Most recently during the 2008 elections at the Republican National Convention. There were two radical left wing protesters who were turned in by one of their own and arrested for the planned Molotov Cocktail bombings at the convention. Fithian when asked about the arrests supported the arrested and condemned as a traitor the member who turned them in (people they planned to throw fire onto other human beings and she supported them). Who is Fithian affiliated with? Not Obama directly silly! She is a self described SEIU Commander who trains protesters on how to protest for the group. Fithian tied to SEIU who is tied to Obama.
Folks I'm just scratching the surface here, it's all right there for you to google. I have given about an hour to two hours of research for this article, it's not really all that hard to peel away the layers of the onion to get to the core. Now am I suggesting that our President is behind all these protests? As much as it would make me a genius to uncover that fact, I can not say that he is, nor do I think he is. I do think people around him are though.
The name George Soros keeps popping up as a possible financier for the movement but proof of it keeps coming up empty. Reuter's did publish a story where he did finance Adbusters a group that is credited for being one of the designers of the OWS movement, but it ends there. Soros is a huge supporter of the Democratic party and Obama in general, it is interesting to note that you can go on the Internet and find that SEIU spent 27 million dollars on Obama in 2008 but a search of how much money Soros spent is not available, must mean he knows how to hide what he does with his money. Possibly even fund protest groups...
Is the Occupy movement a tool of the Democratic party, I would hope it is not any more that the Tea Party is for the Republican. Are the protests of the Occupy movement valid? Hard to say because as of right now it is a jumbled mass of requests, as I said before on the main points I can get behind some of them but some of the others, please, a living wage? You want to get paid for living? By whom?
In parting a few things I would like to point out to the protesters, the real ones, not the professionals who are only there for their own egos, the real ones who want to make a difference.
1. Stand strong, while I might not agree with you, the fact that you are an American gives you the right to protest which is why this country is so great.
2. Do not get caught up in the moment, antagonists are within your ranks and they could care less if you take the heat for a bad situation, in fact they hope you do so they can get camera time for themselves.
3. If the police tell you it is time to go somewhere else, then please do that, you can continue the protest tomorrow, or at your house or a friends house that same night.
4. If you do get a chance to "Occupy" the streets en mass do it responsibly, if you hear a siren move aside! That ambulance is not trying to trick you, it's trying to save a life.
As always God bless this country
Here in Chicago you have a group of protesters who are protesting the corporate greed and influence on our government. I agree with them in concept. You also have people who are protesting the Tea Party, I'm okay with that, it is their right. Then you have people who are protesting just about everything you can think up, gay rights, student loan forgiveness, legalizing marijuana, racial harmony, I've seen it all, and again I don't have a problem with this.
What have I not seen at these protests? I have not seen one anti-Obama sign, not one. It made me think just who is behind this Occupy Movement? (Occupy by the way is a horrendous name for this movement one of the very definitions of occupy is "to take possession of or control a place as in a military invasion, not very non-violent sounding there)
Let's take a little lookie into just who is at these protests
SEIU - The Service Employees International Union, per CBS news the SEIU PAC spent $27 Million on Obama's first campaign.They also backed him in 2004 for Senate. Is that a little like a corporation influencing a government entity? You decide.
Jordan Farrar - The leader of the Young Communist League, what else has Mr. Farrar done in his life? Oh yes that's right I remember he is a member of Obama's Organizing for America group, ANOTHER Obama tie? Let's see who else is behind this...
Lisa Fithian, who is Lisa Fithian? You remember those riots in Seattle a decade or so ago? Yes that was her group who led that protest, she's also behind Cindy Sheehan's antics. What does she have to say about protesting? Well here is a quote right from her mouth "I have no issue with property destruction. I think sometimes it’s appropriate, sometimes it’s not. Again, I look at it strategically. Does this help us or does it hurt us? Does it help us achieve our goal, or does it not? We’re in a society where property is idolized, so a lot of people don’t get it yet that it doesn’t really matter. It’s just glass or products." That's right Chicago Lisa doesn't care if a building gets destroyed if it helps her cause. Fithian started in the 1970's working with Abbie Hoffman, she has advocated violence in the past. Most recently during the 2008 elections at the Republican National Convention. There were two radical left wing protesters who were turned in by one of their own and arrested for the planned Molotov Cocktail bombings at the convention. Fithian when asked about the arrests supported the arrested and condemned as a traitor the member who turned them in (people they planned to throw fire onto other human beings and she supported them). Who is Fithian affiliated with? Not Obama directly silly! She is a self described SEIU Commander who trains protesters on how to protest for the group. Fithian tied to SEIU who is tied to Obama.
Folks I'm just scratching the surface here, it's all right there for you to google. I have given about an hour to two hours of research for this article, it's not really all that hard to peel away the layers of the onion to get to the core. Now am I suggesting that our President is behind all these protests? As much as it would make me a genius to uncover that fact, I can not say that he is, nor do I think he is. I do think people around him are though.
The name George Soros keeps popping up as a possible financier for the movement but proof of it keeps coming up empty. Reuter's did publish a story where he did finance Adbusters a group that is credited for being one of the designers of the OWS movement, but it ends there. Soros is a huge supporter of the Democratic party and Obama in general, it is interesting to note that you can go on the Internet and find that SEIU spent 27 million dollars on Obama in 2008 but a search of how much money Soros spent is not available, must mean he knows how to hide what he does with his money. Possibly even fund protest groups...
Is the Occupy movement a tool of the Democratic party, I would hope it is not any more that the Tea Party is for the Republican. Are the protests of the Occupy movement valid? Hard to say because as of right now it is a jumbled mass of requests, as I said before on the main points I can get behind some of them but some of the others, please, a living wage? You want to get paid for living? By whom?
In parting a few things I would like to point out to the protesters, the real ones, not the professionals who are only there for their own egos, the real ones who want to make a difference.
1. Stand strong, while I might not agree with you, the fact that you are an American gives you the right to protest which is why this country is so great.
2. Do not get caught up in the moment, antagonists are within your ranks and they could care less if you take the heat for a bad situation, in fact they hope you do so they can get camera time for themselves.
3. If the police tell you it is time to go somewhere else, then please do that, you can continue the protest tomorrow, or at your house or a friends house that same night.
4. If you do get a chance to "Occupy" the streets en mass do it responsibly, if you hear a siren move aside! That ambulance is not trying to trick you, it's trying to save a life.
As always God bless this country
Saturday, October 15, 2011
# 5. Political Correctness
I have a feeling the top 5 will really rankle a few people, but this is my blog and how I feel so be it.
Why am I so against political correctness? The fact that it has failed and started creating a bizzaro world. I mean think about it. In the 70's America had a beloved show called All in the Family, it featured a bigoted main character. This kind of bigotry would most likely not be allowed on the big three networks any longer, possibly not even basic cable stations like FX. In All in the Family you did have a main character who had a flawed way at looking at things and it often led to comedic spots in the show, but in the end the main character could always be trusted to do the right thing in the end, mostly for his family. What was missing from that show? Swearing, nudity, sexual situations, etc. etc. etc.
So with the growing movement of political correctness you have more gratuitous violence and sex, drugs, but you can not have a character who has biased opinions. The only show I can think of in recent memory would be Rescue Me on FX, but that still had all the sex and drugs alcohol, violence etc that All in the Family did not need. The main character in Rescue Me was biased for sure but it was more like biased lite, they never pushed it too far for fear of the backlash.
Now am I saying there should be a comedic show featuring the Klan or Black Panthers? Absolutely not. My feeling here is that when we censor free speech and reality we lose part of who we are. Our country is filled with bigots and the best way to handle them is to laugh at their absurdity and perhaps try and show them the errors of their way.
Then there is the thing called "Hateful Speech" this has gotten out of control as well. I understand that we should not be going around yelling blatantly hateful things to each other, but it has gotten to the point where everyone has some kind of pet name so as not to speak the truth. As an example I will describe myself as a fat, lazy, crude, slob of a man who likes to speak his mind mostly at the wrong time. Translate that into "non-hateful" speech and I am a gravimetrically challenged, non-overachiever, who sometimes does things that would be described as non-happyish.
My feeling is hey, I'm a big boy tell it like it is. I grew up and was called fat, stupid, retarded, even a gayrod (5th grade), amazing I was called all these things and yet I made it through and became a productive member of society. Why? Because I grew a thick skin, that's why, it could be a reason for why I am crude but I can live with that. I'm more productive as a matter of fact than most people I knew that were never called those names and were sheltered by their parents from the mean hurtful words.
Political Correctness became a big thing in the 90's and I have seen a decline in our society ever since then. Maybe its time to start calling it like it is again. Maybe then we will have less cases of bullying. See when you have kids who have been sheltered from the meanness of the world and are suddenly exposed to one side or the other of it bad things happen. On the bullied side you have a person who is suddenly getting picked on and is not prepared to shrug it off and even worse becomes easy prey for more bullies. On the bully side you have people who have suppressed their natural animal instinct to dominate others (Alpha male/female), once they turn on that side of their psyche it's almost like they need to make up for lost time and go a bit off the deep end. Incidences of bullying have become shocking at just what is done to the bullied. We've gone from calling people "idiots" to group beatings, that's insane but is expected when you have people making up for lost time.
It's time to start letting people be people again, if you don't like the way a person treats you, stand up for yourself or don't go near that person, it works!
Why am I so against political correctness? The fact that it has failed and started creating a bizzaro world. I mean think about it. In the 70's America had a beloved show called All in the Family, it featured a bigoted main character. This kind of bigotry would most likely not be allowed on the big three networks any longer, possibly not even basic cable stations like FX. In All in the Family you did have a main character who had a flawed way at looking at things and it often led to comedic spots in the show, but in the end the main character could always be trusted to do the right thing in the end, mostly for his family. What was missing from that show? Swearing, nudity, sexual situations, etc. etc. etc.
So with the growing movement of political correctness you have more gratuitous violence and sex, drugs, but you can not have a character who has biased opinions. The only show I can think of in recent memory would be Rescue Me on FX, but that still had all the sex and drugs alcohol, violence etc that All in the Family did not need. The main character in Rescue Me was biased for sure but it was more like biased lite, they never pushed it too far for fear of the backlash.
Now am I saying there should be a comedic show featuring the Klan or Black Panthers? Absolutely not. My feeling here is that when we censor free speech and reality we lose part of who we are. Our country is filled with bigots and the best way to handle them is to laugh at their absurdity and perhaps try and show them the errors of their way.
Then there is the thing called "Hateful Speech" this has gotten out of control as well. I understand that we should not be going around yelling blatantly hateful things to each other, but it has gotten to the point where everyone has some kind of pet name so as not to speak the truth. As an example I will describe myself as a fat, lazy, crude, slob of a man who likes to speak his mind mostly at the wrong time. Translate that into "non-hateful" speech and I am a gravimetrically challenged, non-overachiever, who sometimes does things that would be described as non-happyish.
My feeling is hey, I'm a big boy tell it like it is. I grew up and was called fat, stupid, retarded, even a gayrod (5th grade), amazing I was called all these things and yet I made it through and became a productive member of society. Why? Because I grew a thick skin, that's why, it could be a reason for why I am crude but I can live with that. I'm more productive as a matter of fact than most people I knew that were never called those names and were sheltered by their parents from the mean hurtful words.
Political Correctness became a big thing in the 90's and I have seen a decline in our society ever since then. Maybe its time to start calling it like it is again. Maybe then we will have less cases of bullying. See when you have kids who have been sheltered from the meanness of the world and are suddenly exposed to one side or the other of it bad things happen. On the bullied side you have a person who is suddenly getting picked on and is not prepared to shrug it off and even worse becomes easy prey for more bullies. On the bully side you have people who have suppressed their natural animal instinct to dominate others (Alpha male/female), once they turn on that side of their psyche it's almost like they need to make up for lost time and go a bit off the deep end. Incidences of bullying have become shocking at just what is done to the bullied. We've gone from calling people "idiots" to group beatings, that's insane but is expected when you have people making up for lost time.
It's time to start letting people be people again, if you don't like the way a person treats you, stand up for yourself or don't go near that person, it works!
Friday, October 14, 2011
Chicago disgrace
Been away for a little while. I was a bit busy with selling a house and buying a new one, and just got access to the Internet again late yesterday.
With that in mind I'm going to stop the top ten countdown for the moment and speak on a new issue that has come up.
The closings of police stations to save money.
See when I read the first hints that the 013th district and 021st districts were slated for the axe I didn't really bat an eye. They are two old antiquated buildings in areas of relatively low crime. I felt bad for the officers who would be displaced but I actually saw the sense in shutting down small stations to save money (savings in heat, electric, maintenance, etc).
Then I read that the 019th district, the one I work in was slated to close as well. Well that didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It has a range in it, a lock up that houses female prisoners from all around the northside districts, has gas pumps to refuel the squad cars and a repair garage to keep the fleet moving. I still wasn't that angry about it because it is a big tract of land and if the city truly closed it down and sold the land they stood to get quiet a sum of money. The station is not that old, in fact it's younger than I am, but if it saved money I would be willing to sacrifice and work somewhere else.
Then the announcement that it is not closing, but will be housing all the northside detectives. I thought "Where is the savings gained on that?" "What about the upstairs of Area 5, or the 25th district? Is that just going to remain empty?"
Now this just doesn't make sense. See the city keeps saying they are putting more "boots on the ground." and "streamlining the force". Bull Sh*t!
Will the 019th, 021st, and 013th districts lose police, no I don't think they will. Will it take longer to get to you if you need help fast and the night happens to be busy? Absolutely. Take as an example, you need help and are at say Wrightwood and Clybourn. Currently that is about a 3 minute trip driving fast coming from the Belmont and Western Station, about 45 seconds with lights and sirens and low traffic. Now under the new plan let's say the car that is assigned to patrol that area is in the new station, at Addison and Halsted, how fast are they going to be able to get there if they get the assignment? I'm guessing based on my experience, even with lights sirens and favorable traffic it's going to take a minimum of 5 minutes for that car to get there, if the gods are with you maybe a car is closer and available and you might get service quicker. But lets say there is a Cubs game letting out, now that same car has to get through vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic and even with lights and sirens the best you can hope for is at absolute best 7-8 minutes but probably closer to 15 minutes. That extra car that might be closer to you? Forget it there is a Cubs game letting out, everyone available is busy with other things. So if you are being robbed, beaten or raped you now have to fend for yourself for between 7 - 15 minutes before help arrives instead of 45 seconds to 3 minutes.
Does anyone know what a robber or rapist can do with an extra 10 to 15 minutes? I do and it isn't pretty.
Am I bitter I'm being moved? Not really I've been doing this a long time, I'll be doing it for years to come unless I get fired for writing this, my whole concern is with you, the citizens of the city of Chicago and your safety.
Oh and by the way just announced today several top positioned police and fire and mayoral aides receive an average of 9% raises in this same budget, the police got an average of 1.5% and waited 2 1/2 years to get that. Makes you think just how much are things changing? How much have the aldermen sacrificed for you, the voting base? Have they given back their expense accounts and said "I'll pay my own way?" No. Have they said let's look at reducing the number of wards and streamline that so less of us draw funds from your taxes? Not even close.
It's time to wake up Chicago, your safety is being compromised and the top echelon is still sitting pretty.
With that in mind I'm going to stop the top ten countdown for the moment and speak on a new issue that has come up.
The closings of police stations to save money.
See when I read the first hints that the 013th district and 021st districts were slated for the axe I didn't really bat an eye. They are two old antiquated buildings in areas of relatively low crime. I felt bad for the officers who would be displaced but I actually saw the sense in shutting down small stations to save money (savings in heat, electric, maintenance, etc).
Then I read that the 019th district, the one I work in was slated to close as well. Well that didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It has a range in it, a lock up that houses female prisoners from all around the northside districts, has gas pumps to refuel the squad cars and a repair garage to keep the fleet moving. I still wasn't that angry about it because it is a big tract of land and if the city truly closed it down and sold the land they stood to get quiet a sum of money. The station is not that old, in fact it's younger than I am, but if it saved money I would be willing to sacrifice and work somewhere else.
Then the announcement that it is not closing, but will be housing all the northside detectives. I thought "Where is the savings gained on that?" "What about the upstairs of Area 5, or the 25th district? Is that just going to remain empty?"
Now this just doesn't make sense. See the city keeps saying they are putting more "boots on the ground." and "streamlining the force". Bull Sh*t!
Will the 019th, 021st, and 013th districts lose police, no I don't think they will. Will it take longer to get to you if you need help fast and the night happens to be busy? Absolutely. Take as an example, you need help and are at say Wrightwood and Clybourn. Currently that is about a 3 minute trip driving fast coming from the Belmont and Western Station, about 45 seconds with lights and sirens and low traffic. Now under the new plan let's say the car that is assigned to patrol that area is in the new station, at Addison and Halsted, how fast are they going to be able to get there if they get the assignment? I'm guessing based on my experience, even with lights sirens and favorable traffic it's going to take a minimum of 5 minutes for that car to get there, if the gods are with you maybe a car is closer and available and you might get service quicker. But lets say there is a Cubs game letting out, now that same car has to get through vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic and even with lights and sirens the best you can hope for is at absolute best 7-8 minutes but probably closer to 15 minutes. That extra car that might be closer to you? Forget it there is a Cubs game letting out, everyone available is busy with other things. So if you are being robbed, beaten or raped you now have to fend for yourself for between 7 - 15 minutes before help arrives instead of 45 seconds to 3 minutes.
Does anyone know what a robber or rapist can do with an extra 10 to 15 minutes? I do and it isn't pretty.
Am I bitter I'm being moved? Not really I've been doing this a long time, I'll be doing it for years to come unless I get fired for writing this, my whole concern is with you, the citizens of the city of Chicago and your safety.
Oh and by the way just announced today several top positioned police and fire and mayoral aides receive an average of 9% raises in this same budget, the police got an average of 1.5% and waited 2 1/2 years to get that. Makes you think just how much are things changing? How much have the aldermen sacrificed for you, the voting base? Have they given back their expense accounts and said "I'll pay my own way?" No. Have they said let's look at reducing the number of wards and streamline that so less of us draw funds from your taxes? Not even close.
It's time to wake up Chicago, your safety is being compromised and the top echelon is still sitting pretty.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
#6 Youth Image and feel good doctrine
Teens hanging out on the corner, tattooed up, pants hanging suggestively off their hips, underwear hanging out. It's alright because the teens are just expressing themselves right?
You see the country I have as an image has people who care about what they look like. Now I know I might get some heat that dressing in the current style is caring about your image. What I mean by caring is a stylistic approach to your appearance. You look back just a few decades and you see men in buttoned down shirts, with a tie usually, a dressy styled hat on their heads. Casual pants in place and dress shoes on their feet. The women usually wore dresses, they looked very stylish, but sometimes pants were worn and they too were stylish. When you shopped for clothes sometimes you didn't have a great budget but you still cared about your appearance. I think back to my grandparents as an example, these are fond memories. I look back to even the ghetto pictures from the 20's and the residents there wore conservative and stylish clothing. They might not have had money or prestige but believe me I would take them more seriously than I would anyone from the cast of Jersey Shore.
I blame television and the program producers as much as I do flawed parenting. When I grew up it was with such television shows as Emergency, CHIPS, and other type shows, it showed emergency personnel as heroes, and when they went home it was to a simple lifestyle that most of us have. What do we have now? Shows like the Sopranos, The Shield, Oz, and others. Do I think these shows should not be on television? Absolutely I think they should, but I do not think our young teens or pre-teens should be allowed to watch them, its a recipe for disaster. I also think our youth looking to the current bunch of celebrities for guidance is just as much a disaster. Lindsay Lohan, Gaga, Lil Wayne, Katy Perry all strut around in ridiculous outfits, sport new body modifications and put out that this is a normal thing that everyone should do. The thing is these people now have money and do not have to worry about presenting themselves for job interviews.
The big danger is somewhere the message has changed from responsible choices to "do what feels good". This is a foreign concept to me, life should not be just about feeling good, it contains struggle and to be properly faced you need experience in life making hard choices to face and eventually beat that challenge. Why do so many of our childhood celebrities have a horrible track record in sustaining their lifestyles? Its a simple thing, too much of a good thing is doomed to fail. The brighter a star glows the quicker it usually burns out and with great show.
To return to a better place in the way the world looks upon our country we need to be more responsible to our next generation and show them that a gluttonous lifestyle filled with excess only leads to downfall.
You see the country I have as an image has people who care about what they look like. Now I know I might get some heat that dressing in the current style is caring about your image. What I mean by caring is a stylistic approach to your appearance. You look back just a few decades and you see men in buttoned down shirts, with a tie usually, a dressy styled hat on their heads. Casual pants in place and dress shoes on their feet. The women usually wore dresses, they looked very stylish, but sometimes pants were worn and they too were stylish. When you shopped for clothes sometimes you didn't have a great budget but you still cared about your appearance. I think back to my grandparents as an example, these are fond memories. I look back to even the ghetto pictures from the 20's and the residents there wore conservative and stylish clothing. They might not have had money or prestige but believe me I would take them more seriously than I would anyone from the cast of Jersey Shore.
I blame television and the program producers as much as I do flawed parenting. When I grew up it was with such television shows as Emergency, CHIPS, and other type shows, it showed emergency personnel as heroes, and when they went home it was to a simple lifestyle that most of us have. What do we have now? Shows like the Sopranos, The Shield, Oz, and others. Do I think these shows should not be on television? Absolutely I think they should, but I do not think our young teens or pre-teens should be allowed to watch them, its a recipe for disaster. I also think our youth looking to the current bunch of celebrities for guidance is just as much a disaster. Lindsay Lohan, Gaga, Lil Wayne, Katy Perry all strut around in ridiculous outfits, sport new body modifications and put out that this is a normal thing that everyone should do. The thing is these people now have money and do not have to worry about presenting themselves for job interviews.
The big danger is somewhere the message has changed from responsible choices to "do what feels good". This is a foreign concept to me, life should not be just about feeling good, it contains struggle and to be properly faced you need experience in life making hard choices to face and eventually beat that challenge. Why do so many of our childhood celebrities have a horrible track record in sustaining their lifestyles? Its a simple thing, too much of a good thing is doomed to fail. The brighter a star glows the quicker it usually burns out and with great show.
To return to a better place in the way the world looks upon our country we need to be more responsible to our next generation and show them that a gluttonous lifestyle filled with excess only leads to downfall.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
#7. Revolving door penal system
We in America incarcerate more people than anywhere else on the planet. Now don't think I'm going soft on crime, because I never will. I believe in law and order. What I see as a danger in our country is a virtual revolving door of convicts. I can't tell you how many people I have locked up, put into the penal system only to come face to face with them a few years later doing the same criminal activity or worse.
I understand that some people are just inherently evil. These people can not be helped. They can not change, it's just the way they are. What I am concerned with is how do we, as a great country help those who want to change?
Recently for a college class I was given the task of finding something and changing it from the ground up. I took this as a challenge and dove into our penal system. I read study after study of peer reviewed literature and generally was unsatisfied by what I read. That is until I read a study of a prison program in Kansas where non-violent criminals were allowed to work 8 hour shifts making airplane parts for an airline company. The results were fantastic. The inmates involved in the program performed exceptionally, the quality was off the charts. The company was very pleased and saved millions on labor. The problem came when these trained individuals were released and then took their newly learned job skills to the company they were unwelcomed because of their status as felons. Some went back to a life of crime, some determined individuals were able to gain employment with smaller contractors for the airline company and continue to produce quality parts. This got me thinking, and I came up with a grand scale idea.
Bear with me because this is a long plan, but if you care for the safety and security of this country I think it bears looking at. I will use my home state of Illinois as an example.
1. Find land, preferably a shut down prison to retro fit, in Illinois I am thinking of a certain downstate prison that was recently designated as a place to send all the Gitmo detainees, that quite frankly will never go there.
2. expand on that land to purchase surrounding land making in effect a smallish city, wall it off.
3. Choose the top 5 to at max 10 % of non-violent criminals already in the system who have not committed any crimes or major infractions while incarcerate, I.E. model prisoners, and give them the option to transfer to this "prison city".
4. The terms of the transfer must be met with:
a. an admission of guilt by the prisoner
b. a willingness to forgo any parole options, a full sentence must be served.
c. a guarantee by the prisoner to stay a model prisoner any infractions of the law will get the prisoner sent back to a regular prison with no possible re-acceptance into the program.
5. In exchange for these promises the prisoner will get placed into a much lower level of security situation, his cell will in effect be a small one bedroom apartment to be built on this land. The prisoner will then be given an option of jobs needed to sustain the "prison city." Be it custodial duties, construction, cooking or agricultural. The prisoner will receive training for their new profession. The prisoner will be expected to work with their community to sustain it. There will be everything a normal city can expect to see, including farming. The idea being that eventually this community once up and running properly can maintain itself, costing the taxpayers virtually nothing more than paying the salaries of the guards and other staff. The prisoners will also get anger management classes, drug abuse programs, alcohol abuse counseling medical care, etc. My goal for this project is that within ten years of the first inmates being admitted to the facility they could actually then sell their products to the outside community effectively bringing in money for the "prison city" half the profits would go to staff salaries and half back to inmate accounts.
6. Upon completion of their sentence the inmate will be free to go, with their savings back into the outside world, with job knowledge. Ideally the inmates should be encouraged to go elsewhere other than where they originally were when they were arrested. Part of the program will help find outside affordable housing for the inmates, another part of the program will work closely with local businesses to hire these ex-cons. In return for participating in the program the businesses will receive tax break incentives from the state. Thus when a prisoner comes to his or her release date they are returning to our community with a home, a job, some money in reserve and most of all hope. Also as an added incentive the prisoners felon status will be erased if they have not gotten rearrested in a year period after release.
7. The cities population would remain fairly stagnant, as one convict is released one will take their place.
All too often when I speak to ex-cons their response is "I do it because no one will hire me anyway, no one cares about me." Another factor I see is that the ex-con goes straight back to his gang or previous lifestyle where criminal activity is encouraged, this would end with housing placement.
My goal with this whole rewrite of the penal system would be targeted at the model prisoners, but would also, with the success of the program show borderline prisoners that there is hope and it could pay off for the prisoner to become a model prisoner. I feel that if there is a hope that something good can come from this, there is an incentive to change bad behavior.
Remember this only applies to non-violent prisoners, murderers, rapists or other predatory criminals would never be eligible for this program. My hope is that the program will also help our economy by helping the businesses hiring these reformed criminals grow and produce more. I think it definitely bears taking a look at, I'm sure there can be holes found in my logic, but all in all I feel it is a strong idea.
For the record, my teacher in the class, an activist, questioned me as to are we just creating more "projects" like Cabrini green. I countered that this would not be a band aid approach, we wouldn't just build it and forget it, it would be monitored and regulated with a microscope to make sure that the community within grows and flourishes. She also questioned about the cost, and while I am not an economist by any means, I will admit at the inception of the project it will be costly getting it started. I countered though that with proper administration of the "prison city" within 10 years it will cost the tax payers nothing and start actually making a profit for the tax payers.
I received an A for my overall project.
I understand that some people are just inherently evil. These people can not be helped. They can not change, it's just the way they are. What I am concerned with is how do we, as a great country help those who want to change?
Recently for a college class I was given the task of finding something and changing it from the ground up. I took this as a challenge and dove into our penal system. I read study after study of peer reviewed literature and generally was unsatisfied by what I read. That is until I read a study of a prison program in Kansas where non-violent criminals were allowed to work 8 hour shifts making airplane parts for an airline company. The results were fantastic. The inmates involved in the program performed exceptionally, the quality was off the charts. The company was very pleased and saved millions on labor. The problem came when these trained individuals were released and then took their newly learned job skills to the company they were unwelcomed because of their status as felons. Some went back to a life of crime, some determined individuals were able to gain employment with smaller contractors for the airline company and continue to produce quality parts. This got me thinking, and I came up with a grand scale idea.
Bear with me because this is a long plan, but if you care for the safety and security of this country I think it bears looking at. I will use my home state of Illinois as an example.
1. Find land, preferably a shut down prison to retro fit, in Illinois I am thinking of a certain downstate prison that was recently designated as a place to send all the Gitmo detainees, that quite frankly will never go there.
2. expand on that land to purchase surrounding land making in effect a smallish city, wall it off.
3. Choose the top 5 to at max 10 % of non-violent criminals already in the system who have not committed any crimes or major infractions while incarcerate, I.E. model prisoners, and give them the option to transfer to this "prison city".
4. The terms of the transfer must be met with:
a. an admission of guilt by the prisoner
b. a willingness to forgo any parole options, a full sentence must be served.
c. a guarantee by the prisoner to stay a model prisoner any infractions of the law will get the prisoner sent back to a regular prison with no possible re-acceptance into the program.
5. In exchange for these promises the prisoner will get placed into a much lower level of security situation, his cell will in effect be a small one bedroom apartment to be built on this land. The prisoner will then be given an option of jobs needed to sustain the "prison city." Be it custodial duties, construction, cooking or agricultural. The prisoner will receive training for their new profession. The prisoner will be expected to work with their community to sustain it. There will be everything a normal city can expect to see, including farming. The idea being that eventually this community once up and running properly can maintain itself, costing the taxpayers virtually nothing more than paying the salaries of the guards and other staff. The prisoners will also get anger management classes, drug abuse programs, alcohol abuse counseling medical care, etc. My goal for this project is that within ten years of the first inmates being admitted to the facility they could actually then sell their products to the outside community effectively bringing in money for the "prison city" half the profits would go to staff salaries and half back to inmate accounts.
6. Upon completion of their sentence the inmate will be free to go, with their savings back into the outside world, with job knowledge. Ideally the inmates should be encouraged to go elsewhere other than where they originally were when they were arrested. Part of the program will help find outside affordable housing for the inmates, another part of the program will work closely with local businesses to hire these ex-cons. In return for participating in the program the businesses will receive tax break incentives from the state. Thus when a prisoner comes to his or her release date they are returning to our community with a home, a job, some money in reserve and most of all hope. Also as an added incentive the prisoners felon status will be erased if they have not gotten rearrested in a year period after release.
7. The cities population would remain fairly stagnant, as one convict is released one will take their place.
All too often when I speak to ex-cons their response is "I do it because no one will hire me anyway, no one cares about me." Another factor I see is that the ex-con goes straight back to his gang or previous lifestyle where criminal activity is encouraged, this would end with housing placement.
My goal with this whole rewrite of the penal system would be targeted at the model prisoners, but would also, with the success of the program show borderline prisoners that there is hope and it could pay off for the prisoner to become a model prisoner. I feel that if there is a hope that something good can come from this, there is an incentive to change bad behavior.
Remember this only applies to non-violent prisoners, murderers, rapists or other predatory criminals would never be eligible for this program. My hope is that the program will also help our economy by helping the businesses hiring these reformed criminals grow and produce more. I think it definitely bears taking a look at, I'm sure there can be holes found in my logic, but all in all I feel it is a strong idea.
For the record, my teacher in the class, an activist, questioned me as to are we just creating more "projects" like Cabrini green. I countered that this would not be a band aid approach, we wouldn't just build it and forget it, it would be monitored and regulated with a microscope to make sure that the community within grows and flourishes. She also questioned about the cost, and while I am not an economist by any means, I will admit at the inception of the project it will be costly getting it started. I countered though that with proper administration of the "prison city" within 10 years it will cost the tax payers nothing and start actually making a profit for the tax payers.
I received an A for my overall project.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
#8. Sport team mentality in politics
If you are from Chicago you are a Democrat it has been said. If you are from Texas you are a Republican.
What the politicians have been banking on for years is the general population like to root for things. We don't like losing so what the general public does is identify themselves as Democrat or Republican, Left or Right, Conservative or Liberal. Often times when I am having a political discussion with on or the other side of the line I will ask a question for clarity on why a person has a certain stance on an issue.
The response I get most often? "Because I am a (fill in political party here) it's what we believe."
Most can not answer why they just stand by their party line.
Here is my take, I am conservative on most issues, liberal on a few. That is just the way I think. I tend to vote right, but have not always voted for a right party candidate if I feel the other candidate will better represent my beliefs. That is the way I feel this country will prosper the most. No candidate who has ever run has seen eye to eye with my beliefs 100% so it is my responsibility to find the best fit.
My responsibility as an American, and my responsibility to my countrymen.
The problem I see here is we now have voters who vote based on their experience with watching reality television, or news channels, there isn't much original thought going on here. It is our responsibility to educate ourselves on the issues. Too often that is not the case, again the answer I get most often is because that is what my party wants.
America, what do YOU want? That is why we have a voting process. Tragically it has turned more into a "you will vote this way" policy. I have some amazing friends on both of the political spectrum who do educate themselves on the issues and I enjoy the back and forth in our discussions. What happens though when educated people get together and discuss issues is that sometime you can agree to disagree, but most times someone from one side will make a very strong argument for one side that makes great sense, and the other can not come up with an argument against it. Everyone knows what was just said makes sense.
By the political parties treating us as "sheep" or people without free thought is each side has dug themselves further against each other. The original idea behind the two party system was for a more streamlined government. When one side proved not able to get the job done, they could be voted out and replaced by the other who had similar but slightly different ideas. Government never missed a beat and went on.
Obama's "Change" campaign was brilliant, yet dangerous. It did play to millions of Americans who were not happy with the way things were going. The idea of electing someone who promised change sounded great, we were in a recession, fighting two wars, losing brave soldiers. Who wouldn't want change?
The danger in the "Change" message that I saw is it was identifying that the two parties are now so far apart on issues that a streamlined government no longer existed. Changing something means that the ideas from one side to the other are separated by miles not feet.
What we have seen is even more gridlocking, one side took control the other fought back, and what I see now is one party always is the underdog. Americans love an underdog, it's a great place to be. What we should be asking is not for fundamental change for change sake, we should be asking for a candidate who will lead us as a nation closer together. Obama's message was just that, what happened is it drove us farther apart. It could just well be time for a third party to rise up be it libertarians, tea party, green or any other party. I just pray that party can make the moves to draw us together before we, as a nation find ourselves fighting a second civil war because from everything I see there are parallels to that time period happening right now as I type
What the politicians have been banking on for years is the general population like to root for things. We don't like losing so what the general public does is identify themselves as Democrat or Republican, Left or Right, Conservative or Liberal. Often times when I am having a political discussion with on or the other side of the line I will ask a question for clarity on why a person has a certain stance on an issue.
The response I get most often? "Because I am a (fill in political party here) it's what we believe."
Most can not answer why they just stand by their party line.
Here is my take, I am conservative on most issues, liberal on a few. That is just the way I think. I tend to vote right, but have not always voted for a right party candidate if I feel the other candidate will better represent my beliefs. That is the way I feel this country will prosper the most. No candidate who has ever run has seen eye to eye with my beliefs 100% so it is my responsibility to find the best fit.
My responsibility as an American, and my responsibility to my countrymen.
The problem I see here is we now have voters who vote based on their experience with watching reality television, or news channels, there isn't much original thought going on here. It is our responsibility to educate ourselves on the issues. Too often that is not the case, again the answer I get most often is because that is what my party wants.
America, what do YOU want? That is why we have a voting process. Tragically it has turned more into a "you will vote this way" policy. I have some amazing friends on both of the political spectrum who do educate themselves on the issues and I enjoy the back and forth in our discussions. What happens though when educated people get together and discuss issues is that sometime you can agree to disagree, but most times someone from one side will make a very strong argument for one side that makes great sense, and the other can not come up with an argument against it. Everyone knows what was just said makes sense.
By the political parties treating us as "sheep" or people without free thought is each side has dug themselves further against each other. The original idea behind the two party system was for a more streamlined government. When one side proved not able to get the job done, they could be voted out and replaced by the other who had similar but slightly different ideas. Government never missed a beat and went on.
Obama's "Change" campaign was brilliant, yet dangerous. It did play to millions of Americans who were not happy with the way things were going. The idea of electing someone who promised change sounded great, we were in a recession, fighting two wars, losing brave soldiers. Who wouldn't want change?
The danger in the "Change" message that I saw is it was identifying that the two parties are now so far apart on issues that a streamlined government no longer existed. Changing something means that the ideas from one side to the other are separated by miles not feet.
What we have seen is even more gridlocking, one side took control the other fought back, and what I see now is one party always is the underdog. Americans love an underdog, it's a great place to be. What we should be asking is not for fundamental change for change sake, we should be asking for a candidate who will lead us as a nation closer together. Obama's message was just that, what happened is it drove us farther apart. It could just well be time for a third party to rise up be it libertarians, tea party, green or any other party. I just pray that party can make the moves to draw us together before we, as a nation find ourselves fighting a second civil war because from everything I see there are parallels to that time period happening right now as I type
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
#9. The American Education system
# 9: The education system
Now let me be the first to say, teachers are essential to our nation and to our children. The profession of teaching is a noble one, on par with police, fire, military even the clergy. Teachers should be praised for their contribution to society and rewarded in kind.
That is the only for good ones.
I understand in every profession you have bad apples, you have lazy workers who do not care and are only there to collect a paycheck, I get that. But within that field there are some excellent, qualified teachers that fundamentally change their students. Those teachers should be given their weight in gold my friends. The problem is the system, the system rewards all teachers the good ones and the bad ones. No child left behind tactics don’t work either. The idea might sound good, make sure each and every student is reading and doing math at a basic level. The problem there lies in the fact a teacher can then elect to just train the students to pass the state required tests and teach nothing else. You lose a ton of creativity in the classroom which is the core of learning.
An example for you: In high school I had one teacher, honors algebra, who came in every day, read out of the book, asked us if we did our homework and when we said yes he took our word for it. This process was repeated every day and I learned absolutely nothing. I passed the class with a C, this is after learning nothing. The teacher’s response was “Everyone needs to pass so I can keep my spot.” There was one guy in my class who cut the class the entire second semester, he earned a D. The problem was partially with me, I didn’t care to learn, and there was a girl in class who liked to lift her shirt and flash people, that was much more important to me to watch than the teacher. However, it is the teachers job to inspire his students, to find a way to get them to want to learn, this teacher failed, and I would take it was getting more money in salary for “his spot”.
On the other side of the coin I took chemistry in my senior year, many people who had already taken it told me what a horrible class it was and I would hate it. I loved every minute of it. The teacher in this case showed us the world of chemistry in practical lessons. We made soap through chemistry, we made aspirin, and in a truly bold move and with permission slips sent out we made dandelion wine from scratch and distilled our own alcohol. At the end of the year we were presented with our own bottles of wine to take to our parents. I lived for each class; I soaked up knowledge because I was motivated to learn. Here you had a teacher who was teaching, and wasn’t in “a spot” because it was not an honors class. He kept our attention by presenting the material in a way that the text books didn’t spell out, but rather in a way that we could relate to.
To me this is teaching!
How about this as a new idea. When students get to the college level they select what they are most interested in. Usually this gets changed because the student is getting a new experience; they’ve never had to make these choices before and don’t really know what they want. How about revolutionizing the whole experience and from a very young age teaching students based on what interests them. Students from a young age usually excel in one or two areas like math, or science or reading. If a student excels in math, focus on math! Of course they still need to be trained in reading and science, but make the overall focus on what they excel at. Not everyone can be a doctor, not everyone can be a rocket scientist. If a student shows promise in an area, expand that area and challenge them in what they can most readily understand. You could then revolutionize education by setting up math academies, science academies, etc. and enroll students in those schools that will gain the most from it. Fill those schools with teachers that excel in teaching the subjects. I never understood, even as a child a teacher teaching 8 different subjects, they couldn’t be that versed in everything, and as I got older and asked questions in certain subjects I often got “I’ll check into that” as an answer. The student now knew as much as the teacher. Why have a teacher who wants to teach math also have to teach English and science? That doesn’t make sense and can lead to teacher burn out. Let the teachers do their jobs that they are most able to do! Also start looking really hard at underperforming teachers and cut the fat, if they can’t effectively teach any subject what good are they to our children anyway?
Finally, and quite possibly most importantly, we need to get a control on out of control tuitions. There is no reason why it should cost $53,000 a year to send someone to Harvard, or $46,000 to Notre Dame, or $43,000 to Northwestern. Do the students really get a return for their money spent? Sure they get a great name on their diploma, and it opens doors into the working world, but does it really cost $40,000 per student per year to go to 30 credit hours of classes? I’ve been doing a lot of reading on this subject with journals, and periodicals from the likes of Forbes and Wall Street Journal and they agree. There is a lot of wasted spending by those Universities administrations. They know it, but they also know that if their program is that desirable people will pay the money. In a Forbes article it even stated that if the University raises tuition it often make them EVEN MORE DESIRABLE! We have been shammed into thinking going $100,000 to $200,000 in debt equals better. Harvard’s endowment has reached $35 billion in funds, so they spend that on the student’s right? A very little percentage of that yes, but overall the answer is no. They can take more students in with that much money, right? Sure they can, but they don’t enrollment has remained steady for the past 20 years, while the endowment has grown and grown and grown. Does Harvard really need $35 billion dollars sitting around? Hell in my city we are facing a $700 million dollar budget gap next year, how about a few of the local universities dip into those endowments and bailing us out?
A higher education should cost more than a basic one, I don’t dispute that, but it shouldn’t cost 4 to 5 times the amount of a private high school education per year, I could accept 2 to 3 times for a prestigious university, but no more than that. Unless we fix our educational system our country is doomed, the current trend of teaching texting instead of writing (Proposed in Indiana grade schools), grading papers with purple ink instead of red because red will make the child feel bad (California comes to mind here but I’m sure more states have done away with shameful red ink) and covering for useless teachers (unions are to blame for this one) is doing much more harm than good to our most precious commodities, our children. I’m very interested to hear back from teachers, I’ve said it before, I’ll say it now, I just have ideas, I’m open to newer and better ones. Until we can all get together and discuss solutions we are just spinning in the mud.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Top ten things America needs to fix: #10. The Grasshopper and the Ant
One thing I’ve been promising myself I would do is lay out a 10 part plan on what has gone wrong with America and how best to fix it. So Over the next few weeks I will list my top ten list of what went wrong. Here comes the first topic. If you are reading and agree or disagree with anything I write, please comment, the only way we can truly fix this is by conversing and planning!
10. Demonizing the working class giving a pass to the leeches
My father is retired. He gave 48 years of service to my city, and to its residents, 48! That I know of the only real time off my father ever took from the job was his yearly vacations and some time when he got really sick and was hospitalized. Other than that he went to work every day, for 48 years. He did that to make sure he and his family was taken care of.
My mother is retired. She worked two jobs at times to make sure me and my siblings had what we needed. I had the opportunity to work a job with my mother and I can vouch, this woman knows what customer service entails! She has been versatile as well, working for schools, department stores, midsized companies, large companies. It didn’t matter where she worked she always gave her best. I can’t remember a time my mother wasn’t working.
Now they are retired and the key words being used around America is “cut backs”. Cuts to Medicare, and medicate, cuts to social security and cuts to pensions for government workers are things being thrown around. Let me get this right, we want to take our working class; you know the ones who did it for decades, helped this economy and take away the things promised them?
You know I watch the news stations fairly religiously. Fox, CNN, even for comedic value MSNBC. It’s important to understand all sides of the argument. Watching one side of the argument is counterproductive at best. The thing I have noticed is the demonization of the worker. Where is the outcry to stop the free money going to the people who have sponged on the backs of the workers? I’m sure there are stories out there, and people who want this to happen but the overwhelming focus is cuts to the worker.
A Google of “stop welfare” revealed not much in the way of articles to read. Googling “Stop Social Security” reveals many more articles. Now I’m not saying our politicians are out and out saying the wish to cut social security, that could be political suicide, but they sure do use it as a scare tactic. “If I don’t get (place sought entitlement program here) I don’t think we can save social security!” This comes from both sides of the political spectrum. What should be said is “We need to overhaul social security so the workers are taken care of, the people who earned it get their benefits, and the ones who didn’t, don’t. “
You see I make a living dealing with all classes of people, high end, low end, and middle class. The one thing I get all fired up about is seeing a hard working person of any class get penalized by a person who scams the system. I arrest people for a living. I love feeling like I made the city I live in a bit safer each day, I do my job. People let me tell you I am tired arresting 19 year old drug dealers who always seem to ask me “when am I getting out? I need to get my social security check.” I think most people would be alarmed by how common this actually is. One time specifically comes to mind with a person I have arrested at least 5 times and has a record that is literally pages long. This day in particular I got the guy, with drugs, and trespassing to sell his drugs. The conversation went something like this.
Him: “Let me go man, I need to get to the social security office.”
Me: “Why do you need to go to social security?”
Him: “For my check man! I got no job.”
Me: “Dude, you’re 20 years old why can you work?”
Him: “I can’t work, I get seizures.”
Me: “Why can’t you work? Do you get medication for your seizures?”
Him: “Yeah, but I can’t work because of them.”
Me: “have you ever tried to get a job man.”
Him: “Hell no man, jobs are for chumps.”
So here is a guy who sells poison to others like heroin, crack, cocaine etc. who is saying he has never had a job and never will, who is getting free money from our government because he has seizures. I know people with epilepsy who go to work every day and work their behinds off who are not on social security. Other people with disabilities work every day as well. But this guy will just take his free check and make tax free money selling poison and buying weapons and more poison. This is one story I’ve come across that mirror many others. I’ve dealt with families that are living on free government money and are on their fourth generation of living on the government’s teat with no intention of ever changing that status.
This is a problem, people! This is something we need to change!
Am I saying we stop the payments to people who fall on hard times but who want to work? Absolutely not! A mother whose husband leaves her without any financial support for her and her children should be entitled to help. But only for a limited time, say two years, enough time to stabilize her life. I think we need to have a discussion on securing benefits to the workers who earned that security by a lifetime of toil and stripping away the useless waste. If you get welfare and are between to ages of 21 and say 50 or maybe even higher you should be required to earn that welfare by working for it! No more sitting around on your behind waiting for your check! If you live in government housing for free you should be required to help maintain that housing development or work on beautifying your community to earn that payment that comes your way, it should be required that you show proof that you did something for your money! Imagine the reduced cost of government if instead of the government hiring people to clean the roadways, or paint over graffiti or fix a broken window, you give those same jobs to people who are already drawing from the tax dollars brought in. If you don’t work for it, then no money for you, you’re on your own until you can prove you can work for it!
Let’s stop with the talk of stripping pensions, social security and medical benefits for the people who have worked their entire life and now deserve the break and start talking about ending the waste eating away at the programs! Going back to my example, and putting it bluntly, maybe at risk of sounding too blunt do any of you out there really think if this 20 year old drug dealer who thinks “jobs are for chumps” stops getting his free money, crawls under a bridge and dies that our society would be any poorer for the loss? I don’t.
Friday, August 5, 2011
America's war with Islam -circa 1784
The war with Islamic Fundamentalists continues on, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria all play a role in our daily threats. To a lesser extent, at least on the surface, Saudi Arabia worries us too, even though they are on our “friends” list. These are all things you know if you even scan the newspapers. You also may know that we have now been at war with these so called Radical Islamic Fundamentalists for about 10 years, or have we?
You see we have been at war with these radicals for as long as our country has been around.
Huh?
Time for a little history lesson.
You see on October 11, 1784 Moroccan pirates seized the brigantine Betsey. This was the precursor to the Barbary wars. Spain helped our new nation out and negotiated a release of the ship and crew. Spain also gave us some advice, pay tribute to the Barbary States. Enter Thomas Jefferson, you know the creator of separation of church and state guy, third president of the United States. Well obviously he wasn’t president yet, he was merely a minister in France for the United States. He, and future second president John Adams went to London to negotiate with a representative of the Barbary States from Tripoli, now Libya, Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. When our ambassadors asked the representative why there were hostilities between our country and theirs his answer was chilling, at least to me. Why? The message hasn’t changed much in 200 years. What he basically said was it is our duty as Muslims to go to war with countries who were not Muslims. Jefferson himself wrote an account of the ambassador’s reply:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.
Thomas Jefferson was a man who neither cared if his neighbor worshiped 20 gods or none so long as they did him no harm. What Jefferson saw in radical Islam however bothered him greatly. Here was a group of territories where there wasn’t separation of Church and State, but rather the Church was the State, and people who did not worship at that Church were the enemy. Jefferson was against paying tribute to the Barbary States from the very beginning. Our congress decided to pay the tributes anyway, even when George Washington was against paying it.
Jefferson, when he became president in 1801, got a present from Tripoli, a demand for tribute of $225,000. Jefferson stuck to his guns and refused to pay the demands going against what congress wanted. Jefferson dispatched our relatively new Navy to the North African region to protect our citizens and vessels in the area. The USS Enterprise (Not the one with James Kirk) did battle with the 14 gun Tripoli and defeated her on August 1st 1801. The United States Marines saw action on the shores of Tripoli, and even a song was written about it. The term “Leatherneck” it has been said was brought about by the Marines wearing leather around their neck to protect them from sword blows by the Muslim pirates. It’s a romantic but not entirely true story though. But any way you slice it Semper Fidelis guys!
Jefferson even at the end of his days was still interested in the Islamic threat; he knew that one day it would return. Boy was he right. Jefferson even owned his own Koran, a book on which he studied to get to know the mindset of the people he was dealing with. Centuries later Democrat Keith Ellison used that same Koran to swear him into our Congress, Ellison saying Jefferson was a true “visionary” of his time because he owned a Koran. What Jefferson really was trying to figure out was why a group of people half a world away felt they had the right to go to war with those who didn’t worship the same way they did. I did find it somewhat disappointing that one of Jefferson’s sticking points towards the Barbary States was his horror that the pirates often sold our citizens who were captured into slavery and that somehow Jefferson didn’t see the problem with our own slave trade as equal in fault.
Regardless of that glaring fault it was the beginning of America’s war with Radical Islam, and people those same people are back at our doorstep. They hate us, not for our perceived liberal ways, but for our freedom to worship who we choose, or to not worship. The radical Islamists wish to change that. That is not to say that 99% of Muslims out there wish to do that, they don’t they wish peace. It’s that 1% that Jefferson was so worried about way back in 1784, that same 1% is the problem we face today.
Monday, August 1, 2011
What is a Debt Ceiling?
The Debt Ceiling deal was announced yesterday by a very tired looking Obama. Somewhere in the back rooms of Washington D.C. there was high fiving and back slapping. Nancy Pelosi’s face moved… slightly. Dick Durbin belched. But what exactly does the debt ceiling deal accomplish?
Well if you listen to the politicians with the deal we can now pay our bills, the treasury department can start printing money again!
But underneath it all what does it really do?
"In reaching this agreement, each political party yielded to the other party's highest-priority political and ideological interest," and fails to resolve the country's long-term budget problems, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Monday.
So this was about political parties digging in? What about us, the American people? You know us, those who control (supposedly) the government by electoral process? What does it do for us?
Well… um… that’s the thing… not much. This country has a budget of around 3.7 Trillion Dollars. The cuts to that budget amount to somewhere in the neighborhood of $21 Billion dollars for this year, or less than 1%. In 2010, according to U.S. Federal Receipts the Government took in approximately $2.16 Trillion in Tax Revenues. That’s all the money they get, they spent approximately $3.46 Trillion using my handy dandy math skills beaten into meat by Sister Ann Lucille that makes for $1.3 Trillion in debt added to the already growing national debt… in one year!
In the year I was born our national debt was $ 370 Billion, total so in one year we put approximately 4 times that number on our national debt!
Now do not think that I am above letting both sides of the political spectrum get away without fault being throw their way. I think Ronald Reagan was one of the strongest presidents of all time, however under his watch the national debt climbed alarmingly from around $900 Billion dollars to around $2.6 Trillion dollars, and this was from a president that demanded a smaller government and was “conservative”. Yes he made our country stronger, yes he was instrumental in tearing down the Berlin Wall, mostly by funding a covert action in Afghanistan to help mire the Soviets in a endless war, by sending weapons into Pakistan and having the CIA and Pakistani people work with Afghani rebels to arm them, and yes that does cost money, it essentially crippled the Soviets, but it also heap a huge burden on the next generations of Americans.
Bush the senior was not any better taking over a national debt of $2.6 and growing it in only 4 years to around 4 Trillion. Yes there was the first Gulf War. I’m starting to see that war is costly! Imagine the debt in 1976, the 200th anniversary of our country was $620 Billion, so in 200 years our country was in debt by $620 Billion in the next 16 years through the presidencies of Carter, Reagan and Bush we succeeded in overspending another $3.38 Trillion dollars! The first 200 years we over spent an average of 3.1 Billion dollars per year, the next 16 we overspent by an average of $211 Billion dollars per year! That’s an enormous jump folks! I will admit that the Clinton years our national debt did not rise much, a balanced budget does that, it only rose slightly and I would assume that is due to interest. Bush the Junior left office with our Country in debt around $10 Trillion and now Obama has raised that debt to over $13.5 Trillion. Yes, again I understand we are in wars, we have been attacked and we must be vigilant against terrorism. Economic downfalls also have had a major role in the debt. But what exactly does raising the debt ceiling have to do with economic prosperity? It doesn’t.
What is the debt ceiling? It’s a cloudy number that the government can’t spend past what it takes in. This law took effect in 1917 and the number has been raised many, many times. If our government didn’t raise the debt ceiling it couldn’t spend more money. It would have to wait until more money was in their coffers before they could write checks. This sound familiar to me… kind of like when I have to wait for my check to pay my bills. If I spend more than my check I have to go into debt, how much I wish to go into debt is my own personal debt ceiling.
I think it is time to look to electing brave, fiscally responsible politicians who are going to balance our budget and even start paying down our debt, just what is the interest accrued on $13.5 Trillion?
Sources for this came from FoxNews, CNN Money, Los Angeles Times, NPR, and several government agencies.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Closing the borders...
Immigration, it's a hot topic lately. From Luis Gutierrez getting himself arrested protesting immigration reform at the White House. The DREAM Act. Border disputes. And Federal Border Agents being prosecuted for actions they had to take. This is a hard topic to deal with. What do we do with all the illegal immigrants already here? The liberal line of thinking is generally towards amnesty. The conservative is more in line with prison time and deportation. I want to get away from that and focus more on why closing the border is a good thing. And when I say border, I'm not omitting Canada's border either. What we have here is a potential for disaster for this country. When the amnesty people speak of illegal immigrants they always want you to think of people like this...
hard working day laborers. The work cheap, do the jobs that most Americans do want to, what could be bad about these people? They just came here to build a better life for their families. The work hard. All of these things I say to everyone reading are predominantly true. They should be, anytime someone has a point to get across they fill it with smaller details of the argument, all mostly true and irrefutable. What is missing from this equation?
They came here illegally.
Let's suppose for a minute someone from Russia snuck on board a cargo ship, and somehow made their way to America, when they got here, they didn't ask for asylum, they didn't go through any of the correct channels for citizenship, they didn't tell anyone, just assumed an identity and went to work. Now let's say they get caught, what are we to do with this person from Russia, our one time enemy? Do we deport them? I would say in almost every case the answer would be yes, and it would be based on our distrust and potential threat from Russia.
Not enough for you?
Let's now make that same person from Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan. Do you think that person should be deported? Do you think they might get charged with some kind of violation of the immigration laws and held? I would say 99.9% of the time this would and should happen. If some one's life is so horrible in a place there are proper channels to go through, even for the ones who come into the country illegally, when you bypass these channels you need to pay the price because you should not be trusted. You didn't adhere to our immigration laws, respect our policies, you disregarded everything that you came here to be protected by.
You see the thing that the amnesty people are not telling you, and only a few of the lockem up and deport them people are whispering is there is a real threat from Mexico to the United States. No it's not those day laborers. You see every day along with those day laborers are guys who come out of Mexico like these guys
and these guys
Mexican cartel gangs like Los Zetas have ties to not only drugs and weapons, but current intelligence shows they are also funded and trained by extremest radical Muslims. The training camps for some of these gangs are literally minutes by car away from some American towns. I hope that got your attention.
You see there is nothing more that the "radical Muslims" would like than to strike again into the heart of America and cause chaos. What a better way than to enter a country close to the United States, that has an open border, train people in terror tactics and send them on their way, into a country they can easily enter and blend? This is true for Canada to an extent but not as much so as in Mexico. Brutal drug lords, brutal slayings, gangs such as Los Zetas are gaining footholds in America as this article states
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/19/violent-mexican-drug-gang-expands-into-us/
It's not just Los Zetas we have to be concerned with either, Mara Salvatrucha, Sinaloa Cartel, are just a few. All of these gangs have access to not only common weapons but more advanced weapons, and chemicals. Sinaloa has become famous for using acid on it's enemies. These are dangerous times and dangerous times are times we need to enforce our laws not ignore them or change them to make people happy.
Those day laborer pictured above, you know the illegal immigrant ones, I really could care less if they turn themselves in, pass an intense background screening and go through the legal process to become a citizen and add to the tax base instead of skirting around it, if they stay here. The ones who do not go through this process should be immediately deported back to their countries of origin. A border fence, a real one that is effective needs to be built to keep us safe. Yes I know here is another guy who uses terrorism for everything.
Well if using the potential threat of terrorism wakes up enough people to do the things that will keep us safe, then count me in. Sitting around trying to make nice nice with everyone will not work with these driven people who hate our country for what it stands for.
They came here illegally.
Let's suppose for a minute someone from Russia snuck on board a cargo ship, and somehow made their way to America, when they got here, they didn't ask for asylum, they didn't go through any of the correct channels for citizenship, they didn't tell anyone, just assumed an identity and went to work. Now let's say they get caught, what are we to do with this person from Russia, our one time enemy? Do we deport them? I would say in almost every case the answer would be yes, and it would be based on our distrust and potential threat from Russia.
Not enough for you?
Let's now make that same person from Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan. Do you think that person should be deported? Do you think they might get charged with some kind of violation of the immigration laws and held? I would say 99.9% of the time this would and should happen. If some one's life is so horrible in a place there are proper channels to go through, even for the ones who come into the country illegally, when you bypass these channels you need to pay the price because you should not be trusted. You didn't adhere to our immigration laws, respect our policies, you disregarded everything that you came here to be protected by.
You see the thing that the amnesty people are not telling you, and only a few of the lockem up and deport them people are whispering is there is a real threat from Mexico to the United States. No it's not those day laborers. You see every day along with those day laborers are guys who come out of Mexico like these guys
and these guys
Mexican cartel gangs like Los Zetas have ties to not only drugs and weapons, but current intelligence shows they are also funded and trained by extremest radical Muslims. The training camps for some of these gangs are literally minutes by car away from some American towns. I hope that got your attention.
You see there is nothing more that the "radical Muslims" would like than to strike again into the heart of America and cause chaos. What a better way than to enter a country close to the United States, that has an open border, train people in terror tactics and send them on their way, into a country they can easily enter and blend? This is true for Canada to an extent but not as much so as in Mexico. Brutal drug lords, brutal slayings, gangs such as Los Zetas are gaining footholds in America as this article states
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/19/violent-mexican-drug-gang-expands-into-us/
It's not just Los Zetas we have to be concerned with either, Mara Salvatrucha, Sinaloa Cartel, are just a few. All of these gangs have access to not only common weapons but more advanced weapons, and chemicals. Sinaloa has become famous for using acid on it's enemies. These are dangerous times and dangerous times are times we need to enforce our laws not ignore them or change them to make people happy.
Those day laborer pictured above, you know the illegal immigrant ones, I really could care less if they turn themselves in, pass an intense background screening and go through the legal process to become a citizen and add to the tax base instead of skirting around it, if they stay here. The ones who do not go through this process should be immediately deported back to their countries of origin. A border fence, a real one that is effective needs to be built to keep us safe. Yes I know here is another guy who uses terrorism for everything.
Well if using the potential threat of terrorism wakes up enough people to do the things that will keep us safe, then count me in. Sitting around trying to make nice nice with everyone will not work with these driven people who hate our country for what it stands for.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Media slant in police shootings?
I'm reading my morning papers, I peruse the Chicago Slum Times and am greeted with this
this picture along with an article stating that the police shot a boy of 13, the parents of the boy dispute it. The picture is meant to make you feel for this poor boy. The police state they received a call of shots fired and were investigating, this 13 year old ran from the police. The police then state he was carrying a gun and refused to drop it so they were forced to shoot him in fear of being shot by an offender who was not complying. The gun turned out to be a BB gun. Sad on the face of it, but you can understand that when faced with a weapon that looks like it can kill you and a person who will not drop it, in an area where shots have recently been fired there can really be only one proper response to end that threat if you are armed.
Of course now the parents of this child have gone on record that he was a good kid, not into gangs, drugs, he was a straight A, B student (I always thought you could be a straight A, or straight B student, if you are getting different grades it's hard to be straight). He liked to laugh and joke and pick flowers for the ladies on the block (ok I made that last one up). His mother even went so far as to say he did not own a gun, she knew that. The media also went out of it's way to report that his CPS teachers showed up in horror that this little gift from above was now shot because he was such a great kid, these same teachers refused to give their names because they were not "authorized" to. The Slum Times did put the police version of the story but glorified the other side, I understand, controversy sells papers. What did the Chicago Sun Times miss?? Um... Let's see... Oh yeah
Yep, there is the little angel throwing up his favorite gang signs, and no they are not angel wings. You see I get parents being upset with their child being shot, be it by the police or anyone else. I live in daily fear that my child is okay, which is why I set rules for him. One of those rules is to not be on the street at 11P.M. when away from me, ever. Even if he's at a sleep over if the kids want to run around after dark my kid better have not left that house. Never in a million years, if I lived in the middle of a war zone (see my thread HOW SAFE IS CHICAGO), would I let my kid out of the house at 11 P.M. to go to a party in the park, these parents should be charged with child endangerment not paraded around like the victims of something!
As far as his mother knowing for a fact that he didn't own a gun, really? You mean you are the only parent on earth whose child doesn't lie to them? Even if he didn't own a gun it is common when one gang member shoots a gun to hand it off to the "pee-wees" in the gang and for them to run away with the gun if the police show up. The gang members understand the system, be an adult carry a gun go to big bad prison, be a juvenile carry a gun go, maybe, to the Audy home for awhile.
Who knows, maybe this kid is a great guy who is fascinated with gang life and got caught up in a bad life decision. That is possible, I won't deny it. What is tragic is that these so called parents who let their child run the streets at 11 P.M. with who know what kind of people are getting a sympathetic by-line from a major newspaper. Do some checking into the backgrounds of these angels before you question the integrity of the Chicago Police Department Chicago Slum Times!
UPDATE....
The people over at Second City Cop posted this picture
This is the BB Gun that was recovered at the scene. Does it look real to you? If it were pointed at you would you feel like your life was being threatened? From what I understand, and I can not confirm at this time because I am not at work for a couple of days, the little innocent prince has made a confession to the police. This confession, being that he is 13 would be required to be given infront of a family member or at the very least an advocate for the child. So any future claims that he was beaten into a confession are bogus. What did little angel confess to? Carrying the weapon, shooting out windows at a nearby school and running from the police.
Again Chicago Slum Times I ask you, if dumb ole me can uncover these types of things and print them on a blog where are your crack reporters? Where is your papers huge retraction, you know just as big as the story you ran with hailing junior as an upstanding citizen ready to cure cancer?
What? No retraction? Oh I get it, admitting you are wrong makes you lose credibility and doesn't help sell your papers...
this picture along with an article stating that the police shot a boy of 13, the parents of the boy dispute it. The picture is meant to make you feel for this poor boy. The police state they received a call of shots fired and were investigating, this 13 year old ran from the police. The police then state he was carrying a gun and refused to drop it so they were forced to shoot him in fear of being shot by an offender who was not complying. The gun turned out to be a BB gun. Sad on the face of it, but you can understand that when faced with a weapon that looks like it can kill you and a person who will not drop it, in an area where shots have recently been fired there can really be only one proper response to end that threat if you are armed.
Of course now the parents of this child have gone on record that he was a good kid, not into gangs, drugs, he was a straight A, B student (I always thought you could be a straight A, or straight B student, if you are getting different grades it's hard to be straight). He liked to laugh and joke and pick flowers for the ladies on the block (ok I made that last one up). His mother even went so far as to say he did not own a gun, she knew that. The media also went out of it's way to report that his CPS teachers showed up in horror that this little gift from above was now shot because he was such a great kid, these same teachers refused to give their names because they were not "authorized" to. The Slum Times did put the police version of the story but glorified the other side, I understand, controversy sells papers. What did the Chicago Sun Times miss?? Um... Let's see... Oh yeah
As far as his mother knowing for a fact that he didn't own a gun, really? You mean you are the only parent on earth whose child doesn't lie to them? Even if he didn't own a gun it is common when one gang member shoots a gun to hand it off to the "pee-wees" in the gang and for them to run away with the gun if the police show up. The gang members understand the system, be an adult carry a gun go to big bad prison, be a juvenile carry a gun go, maybe, to the Audy home for awhile.
Who knows, maybe this kid is a great guy who is fascinated with gang life and got caught up in a bad life decision. That is possible, I won't deny it. What is tragic is that these so called parents who let their child run the streets at 11 P.M. with who know what kind of people are getting a sympathetic by-line from a major newspaper. Do some checking into the backgrounds of these angels before you question the integrity of the Chicago Police Department Chicago Slum Times!
UPDATE....
The people over at Second City Cop posted this picture
This is the BB Gun that was recovered at the scene. Does it look real to you? If it were pointed at you would you feel like your life was being threatened? From what I understand, and I can not confirm at this time because I am not at work for a couple of days, the little innocent prince has made a confession to the police. This confession, being that he is 13 would be required to be given infront of a family member or at the very least an advocate for the child. So any future claims that he was beaten into a confession are bogus. What did little angel confess to? Carrying the weapon, shooting out windows at a nearby school and running from the police.
Again Chicago Slum Times I ask you, if dumb ole me can uncover these types of things and print them on a blog where are your crack reporters? Where is your papers huge retraction, you know just as big as the story you ran with hailing junior as an upstanding citizen ready to cure cancer?
What? No retraction? Oh I get it, admitting you are wrong makes you lose credibility and doesn't help sell your papers...
Friday, July 22, 2011
Holy Crap this is bad!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/22/san-francisco-considers-legal-protection-for-criminals/
So the city of San Fransisco in it's Divine wisdom is seeking to place convicted felons in a protected class status. You see there are some in it's government that are saying it's too hard for a convicted felon to get a job and they should have protected status so a potential employer couldn't check into their past or even ask about it.
Yes that's right why would I, as a day care teacher need to know if my new hire is a pedophile? Why as a banker should I need to know if my new hire is a thief? Why indeed?
See a protected class of people is one thing, African Americans, Mexican-Americans, People with Disabilities, are things that people are born as or with, they did not get a say in their lot in life. A felon does, they have a choice to sell drugs, or commit rape, or battery or theft. Committing a crime is a choice and the consequences of that choice is part of the punishment for the bad choice.
Rash decisions to make everyone equal are just too scary to comprehend sometimes. How about doing something more fair. I am all for rehabilitated convicts turning straight and rejoining society. How about instead of making them protected people you give them a chance to fulfill their sentence completely, without parole, and finish it in a way that the person does not commit any more crimes while incarcerated, they can get the felon label taken away for job interviews. If they take the easy way out, take parole, or use drugs, or misbehave in prison they keep the felon title when they get out. If they want to live their lives with no honor then they get what they deserve, no future. If they can show they can play well within societies rules then we as a society should welcome them back into our society.
What we should not do is make excuses for people and protect criminals as "protected people".
So the city of San Fransisco in it's Divine wisdom is seeking to place convicted felons in a protected class status. You see there are some in it's government that are saying it's too hard for a convicted felon to get a job and they should have protected status so a potential employer couldn't check into their past or even ask about it.
Yes that's right why would I, as a day care teacher need to know if my new hire is a pedophile? Why as a banker should I need to know if my new hire is a thief? Why indeed?
See a protected class of people is one thing, African Americans, Mexican-Americans, People with Disabilities, are things that people are born as or with, they did not get a say in their lot in life. A felon does, they have a choice to sell drugs, or commit rape, or battery or theft. Committing a crime is a choice and the consequences of that choice is part of the punishment for the bad choice.
Rash decisions to make everyone equal are just too scary to comprehend sometimes. How about doing something more fair. I am all for rehabilitated convicts turning straight and rejoining society. How about instead of making them protected people you give them a chance to fulfill their sentence completely, without parole, and finish it in a way that the person does not commit any more crimes while incarcerated, they can get the felon label taken away for job interviews. If they take the easy way out, take parole, or use drugs, or misbehave in prison they keep the felon title when they get out. If they want to live their lives with no honor then they get what they deserve, no future. If they can show they can play well within societies rules then we as a society should welcome them back into our society.
What we should not do is make excuses for people and protect criminals as "protected people".
Republican victory? Debt talks
Recently our house Republicans declared a "victory" after they were able to get $38 Billion dollars in spending cuts from our 3.6 Trillion federal budget. That same budget is $1.4 Trillion in the red.
So where is the victory?
Did you know that the interest that our county, yours and mine, has to pay on that 1.4 Trillion dollar debt is $213 Billion dollars?
So where is the savings?
You see, the signers of our constitution, the founding fathers, purposely gave the federal government limited powers. This left the people free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness on their own merit and either flourish on their own, or fail on their own. Somewhere along the line our politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike have perverted that vision and insisted that some companies were "too big to fail". The danger in this thought process is that it is the government's responsibility to bail out companies with poor management skills, all on the backs of taxpayers.
I heard the arguments, "If this bank goes under it will devastate the economy so we need to bail them out." That line of thinking is total horse crap.
You see with free enterprise you always have your "big dogs", your "medium sized dogs" and your "small dogs". Let me give you a scenario. With the current bail out strategy you can have a bank, let's call them XYZ corp. Initiate careless lending policies, throwing out their clients money around to people who should not qualify for those same loans, when the loans default, the banks get the property. What happened is too many banks were recieving property for defaulted loans that there was no money coming into those banks to repay the clients money used to give out the loans. This is where the bailout comes in. The federal government gives the money to the same banks who mismanaged the funds, all on the backs of the taxpayer. In the meantime the banks still have all that property to control and sell back, what do they use the money for? Buying up other, smaller banks. Yes by mismanaging loans and going into default status XYZ Corp now comes out stronger with less competition from other mid and small banks. It's left less "mom and pop" banks, or neighborhood banks out there, the competition is dwindling so why change the policies for XYZ Corp? They are slowly growing into a Monopoly and have become a mega-bank.
Capitalism has come under fire as of late. But the policies our government are following are anything but Capitalism. What should have happened to XYZ Corp is they should have defaulted on those loans, the properties should have been auctioned off and pennies on the dollar and the clients of that bank should have been paid off, and XYZ should have been left vulnerable to a take over by one of those medium or small sized banks whose lending policies left them in a stronger position to grow. XYZ Corp gets bought out and gets absorbed into the purchasing bank and goes away. A smaller sized bank then takes XYZ's place and the policies of that bank stay the same and the fiscal outlook of that bank stay strong. Eventually another smaller bank starts up and the cycle continues. That is capitalism, the strongest survives, it creates competition. Companies with poor business sense go away, companies with strong business sense grow. In the short term this would damage the economy but leave it with a much better chance to recover in a much stronger light. Under current policies, mis-managed companies are still in power, but the economy has taken a serious hit that will be felt for decades to come. It's no wonder the dollar has crashed and the countries credit rating is plummeting.
Our government needs to live just like you and I, within their means. If you can afford to buy a television because you need to pay the heating bill, you do not buy the television. One cause of the crash is too many people started to live their lives like our federal government - on credit. Look what happened in the past few years to our economy because of this choice. Now multiply that when our creditors come looking for all that borrowed spending from our government. The policies need to change now.
So where is the victory?
Did you know that the interest that our county, yours and mine, has to pay on that 1.4 Trillion dollar debt is $213 Billion dollars?
So where is the savings?
You see, the signers of our constitution, the founding fathers, purposely gave the federal government limited powers. This left the people free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness on their own merit and either flourish on their own, or fail on their own. Somewhere along the line our politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike have perverted that vision and insisted that some companies were "too big to fail". The danger in this thought process is that it is the government's responsibility to bail out companies with poor management skills, all on the backs of taxpayers.
I heard the arguments, "If this bank goes under it will devastate the economy so we need to bail them out." That line of thinking is total horse crap.
You see with free enterprise you always have your "big dogs", your "medium sized dogs" and your "small dogs". Let me give you a scenario. With the current bail out strategy you can have a bank, let's call them XYZ corp. Initiate careless lending policies, throwing out their clients money around to people who should not qualify for those same loans, when the loans default, the banks get the property. What happened is too many banks were recieving property for defaulted loans that there was no money coming into those banks to repay the clients money used to give out the loans. This is where the bailout comes in. The federal government gives the money to the same banks who mismanaged the funds, all on the backs of the taxpayer. In the meantime the banks still have all that property to control and sell back, what do they use the money for? Buying up other, smaller banks. Yes by mismanaging loans and going into default status XYZ Corp now comes out stronger with less competition from other mid and small banks. It's left less "mom and pop" banks, or neighborhood banks out there, the competition is dwindling so why change the policies for XYZ Corp? They are slowly growing into a Monopoly and have become a mega-bank.
Capitalism has come under fire as of late. But the policies our government are following are anything but Capitalism. What should have happened to XYZ Corp is they should have defaulted on those loans, the properties should have been auctioned off and pennies on the dollar and the clients of that bank should have been paid off, and XYZ should have been left vulnerable to a take over by one of those medium or small sized banks whose lending policies left them in a stronger position to grow. XYZ Corp gets bought out and gets absorbed into the purchasing bank and goes away. A smaller sized bank then takes XYZ's place and the policies of that bank stay the same and the fiscal outlook of that bank stay strong. Eventually another smaller bank starts up and the cycle continues. That is capitalism, the strongest survives, it creates competition. Companies with poor business sense go away, companies with strong business sense grow. In the short term this would damage the economy but leave it with a much better chance to recover in a much stronger light. Under current policies, mis-managed companies are still in power, but the economy has taken a serious hit that will be felt for decades to come. It's no wonder the dollar has crashed and the countries credit rating is plummeting.
Our government needs to live just like you and I, within their means. If you can afford to buy a television because you need to pay the heating bill, you do not buy the television. One cause of the crash is too many people started to live their lives like our federal government - on credit. Look what happened in the past few years to our economy because of this choice. Now multiply that when our creditors come looking for all that borrowed spending from our government. The policies need to change now.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
What effect do entitlement programs have?
I read. A lot. In fact when I am home you will generally find at least one book per room that I am reading, ask my wife she finds them all the time. One thing that my reading does is make me think. Recently I was reading an article by Mychael Massie, who is Mychael Massie you ask? Mychael Massie is the National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, CSPAN, BBC News. One thing he wrote recently caused me to sit straight up. In talking about the damage liberal entitlement policies have caused to the black family platform. The exact thing that caused me to sit up was the line At the signing of the Civil Rights Act, 87 percent of black households were married, two-parent homes, and 40 percent of blacks were business owners.
Read more: Chicago's top cop is a coward http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=316189#ixzz1SNjINIaj
Wow, this couldn't be right I thought. So I did some digging, mostly through the US Census Department's own web site, and sifting through numerous really boring charts, graphs and big worded studies I compiled my own list to check on these figures. In 1970 the number of black households that were married with both spouses living together was 68.3%. The number of households with just a black, unmarried female running the household was 28.0%. This was roughly 6 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'm not saying the Act in and of itself was wrong, it was not. Segregation, poverty, crime and attitude towards the black culture by white Americans was deplorable. Something had to be done to right the wrongs. What happened to the black family from this point on is what Massie was trying to point out. The entitlement programs created, helped to drive a wedge in the black family dynamic, welfare, food programs and other social programs started gearing a thought process towards a non-nuclear family lifestyle. Let's take a look out from 1970 onward by decade and see...
1980: Percent of black households with both spouses present: 55.5%, Percent with unmarried black female running household 40.3%
1990: Percent of black households with both spouses present: 50.2%, percent with unmarried black female running household 43.8%
2000: Percent of black households with both spouses present: 32.5%, percent with lone black female running household 48.9%
2010: Percent of black households with both spouses present:30.1%, percent with lone black female running household: 73.4% with only 26.6% married with spouse present.
What does this all mean? It shows hard figures on what is happening to our society today, this isn't a black/white/brown issue separately, numbers of married living together couples have been declining for every race since the era of social reform in the 60's. It just seems that the minorities have been hit the hardest. Income does come into play in this whole figure yes, a black male making less than $15,000 a year only marries 24.2% of the time while a black male who makes over $100,000 will be married 68.4% of the time. Obviously money helps to have a family life but, while I do not know Mr. Massie personally what I took from his article and from my own research when you take a person who makes little or no money and give them incentives to not work they will most likely not work and learn to use that system to the best of their abilities. You then raise the next generation within that system and for those children living like that is normal, it's all they ever knew.
And yes these numbers work just the same for white and Hispanic populations too, my research was geared to finding the numbers that Massie quoted so I geared my research to the black family. In doing that research you can see an overall trend away from the nuclear family, especially within the poorest income ranges, note however that even though marriage rates are dropping in these income brackets, birth rates are not which generally means you have one parent raising one or more children, the cycle then continues.
Read more: Chicago's top cop is a coward http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=316189#ixzz1SNjINIaj
Wow, this couldn't be right I thought. So I did some digging, mostly through the US Census Department's own web site, and sifting through numerous really boring charts, graphs and big worded studies I compiled my own list to check on these figures. In 1970 the number of black households that were married with both spouses living together was 68.3%. The number of households with just a black, unmarried female running the household was 28.0%. This was roughly 6 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'm not saying the Act in and of itself was wrong, it was not. Segregation, poverty, crime and attitude towards the black culture by white Americans was deplorable. Something had to be done to right the wrongs. What happened to the black family from this point on is what Massie was trying to point out. The entitlement programs created, helped to drive a wedge in the black family dynamic, welfare, food programs and other social programs started gearing a thought process towards a non-nuclear family lifestyle. Let's take a look out from 1970 onward by decade and see...
1980: Percent of black households with both spouses present: 55.5%, Percent with unmarried black female running household 40.3%
1990: Percent of black households with both spouses present: 50.2%, percent with unmarried black female running household 43.8%
2000: Percent of black households with both spouses present: 32.5%, percent with lone black female running household 48.9%
2010: Percent of black households with both spouses present:30.1%, percent with lone black female running household: 73.4% with only 26.6% married with spouse present.
What does this all mean? It shows hard figures on what is happening to our society today, this isn't a black/white/brown issue separately, numbers of married living together couples have been declining for every race since the era of social reform in the 60's. It just seems that the minorities have been hit the hardest. Income does come into play in this whole figure yes, a black male making less than $15,000 a year only marries 24.2% of the time while a black male who makes over $100,000 will be married 68.4% of the time. Obviously money helps to have a family life but, while I do not know Mr. Massie personally what I took from his article and from my own research when you take a person who makes little or no money and give them incentives to not work they will most likely not work and learn to use that system to the best of their abilities. You then raise the next generation within that system and for those children living like that is normal, it's all they ever knew.
And yes these numbers work just the same for white and Hispanic populations too, my research was geared to finding the numbers that Massie quoted so I geared my research to the black family. In doing that research you can see an overall trend away from the nuclear family, especially within the poorest income ranges, note however that even though marriage rates are dropping in these income brackets, birth rates are not which generally means you have one parent raising one or more children, the cycle then continues.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Stupid is as stupid does...
No serious posting today just read this little article and smiled, thought I would share it with you
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-cops-man-stabbed-during-robbery-in-west-depaul-20110714,0,7853282.story
Selling drugs from your apartment, bad
Inviting strangers into your house, worse
calling police when your marijuana stash gets stolen but still have more drugs lying around which causes you to get arrested? Priceless
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-cops-man-stabbed-during-robbery-in-west-depaul-20110714,0,7853282.story
Selling drugs from your apartment, bad
Inviting strangers into your house, worse
calling police when your marijuana stash gets stolen but still have more drugs lying around which causes you to get arrested? Priceless
Thursday, July 14, 2011
How safe is Chicago?
Little experiment here, I've decided to keep a running total of all the people shot each day. I will only use the reports from the newspapers and lets see where we get to... It's July 14 we shall how high the number rises... check back daily I will update.
Running Total: 155 Shot, 42 fatalities
13 Jul 11
3800 W Roosevelt 1 shot to thigh and shoulder
7100 S California 1 shot to the buttocks
9000 S Yates 1 shot in face
100 N Latrobe 1 shot to the buttocks
6600 N Newgard 2 shot both to legs
9300 S Avalon 2 shot 1 fatality 1 ok
Total for day 8 shot 1 dead.
14 Jul 11
6600 S Seeley 1 shot fatality
5700 S Emerald 1 shot, fatality
6400 S Racine 1 shot in arm
6200 S Paulina 1 shot
2400 W 35th 1 shot in buttocks
Total for day 5 shot 2 fatalities.
15 Jul 11
7900 S Essex 1 shot, fatality
3600 W Chicago 2 shot, 1 fatality
1100 N Keystone 1 shot
2200 S Troy 1 shot
5900 S Prairie 1 shot
Total for day 6 Shot 2 fatalities
16 Jul 2011
5200 S MLK Dr 1 shot, fatality
0-100 N Parkside 1 shot, fatality (exchanges gunfire with CPD)
80th & Ashland 1 shot, fatality (hostage situation, CPD)
5200 S Justine 1 shot, forearm
7000 S Eggleston 1 shot, head (non-fatal at this point) UPDATE 1 fatality
400 E 65th 1 shot, leg had and back
7200 S Honroe 2 shot, 1 to back, 1 to arm
1100 E 47th 1 shot, fatality
Total for day 9 shot, 5 fatalities
17 Jul 2011
6500 S Rhodes 2 shot
18 Jul 11
6000 S Indiana 2 shot, 1 fatality
3500 W Walnut 3 shot
Wilcox/Karlov 2 CPD officers shot
Total for day 7 shot, 1 fatality
19 Jul 11
7000 S Parnell 3 shot, 1 fatality
3700 W Montrose 2 shot, 1 to head and chest, no fatalities yet
3100 W 84th 1 shot, 1 fatality
9200 S Justine 3 shot, 1 fatality(cpd shooting, after offender shot other two)
Total for day 9 shot, 3 fatalities
20 Jul 11
Nothing reported on breaking news site
21 Jul 11
4100 N Kenmore 2 shot
8500 S Bishop 1 shot
22 Jul 11
500 E 65th 1 shot, fatality
300 E 56th 1 shot
5700 S Wabash 3 shot
6100 S Talman 2 shot
1200 S Independence 2 shot
3100 W Peterson 2 shot, 1 fatality
23 Jul 11
5800 W Thomas 1 shot, fatality
400 E 74th St 1 shot, fatality
8200 S East End 2 shot, 1 fatality
4900 S Wolcott 1 shot, fatality
3700 W Grand 1 shot
300 E 60th 1 shot
3600 W Lawrence 2 shot
11100 Homewood 1 shot
1300 N Mayfield 1 shot
5700 S Winchester 1 shot
300 E Garfield 1 shot, critical condition at this point
12300 S Wentworth 1 shot
1700 N Keystone 1 shot
5100 W Monroe 2 shot, 1 in critical condition at this point
Total for day 17 Shot, 4 fatalities
24 Jul 11
0-100 E 102nd 1 shot
That's everything posted on breaking news. Funny, I overheard at least 2 calls of people shot last night, during my shift, why didn't those get published?
25 Jul 11
2200 S Kirkland 1 shot, not fatal at this point
1000 N Kedvale 1 shot, CPD involved shooting
1500 W Chicago 1 shot, fatality
3200 W Ontario 1 shot, CPD involved shooting
8800 S Indiana 1 shot
Total for day 5 shot, 1 fatality
26 Jul 11
4400 W Armitage 1 shot, CPD involved shooting
8000 S Racine 1 shot
6600 S May 1 shot, fatality
Totals 3 shot, 1 fatality
27 Jul 11
3000 S Drake 1 shot, fatality
1100 E 72nd St 1 shot
28 Jul 11
3700 W Chicago 1 shot, fatality
6500 S Campbell 1 shot
3100 W Douoglas 1 shot
7100 S Washtenaw 2 shot
5 shot 1 fatality
29 Jul 11
5400 W Washington 1 shot, fatality
3100 W 81st St 1 shot, fatality
1200 S Albany 1 shot
5700 S Halsted 1 shot
900 N Harding 3 shot
2300 N Long 1 shot
8200 S Cottage Grove 2 shot, 2 fatalities
7100 S Rockwell 1 shot, fatality
7900 S Cottage Grove 1 shot, fatality
12 Shot, 6 Fatalities
30 Jul 11
7100 S Ridgeland 1 shot, fatality
5900 S Union 1 shot, fatality
2200 S Paulina 1 shot
4400 W Walton 2 shot
2600 W Montogomery 1 shot, fatality
7800 S Homan 2 shot
8 shot, 3 fatalities
31 Jul 11
6800 S Wood 1 shot, fatality
4300 S LaSalle 1 shot
2 shot 1 fatality
01 Aug 11
600 E 71st St 1 shot
7700 S Sanginaw 1 shot
1500 S Karlov 2 shot
4 Shot
02 Aug 11
Nothing reported
03Aug 11
12700 S Wallace 1 shot
300 N Latrobe 1 shot, fatality CPD Related
1600 W Erie 1 shot, fatality
6800 S Bishop 3 shot
1700 E 72nd St 1 shot, fatality
4200 S State 1 shot fatality
8 shot 4 fatalities
04 Aug 11
4300 W Dickens 1 shot, fatality
6200 S Western 2 shot
5800 S Prairie 2 shot
5 shot 1 fatality
05 Aug 11
800 S Justine 1 shot
9200 S Wallace 1 shot
300 W 61st St 1 shot
2800 N Kildare 1 shot
4500 S Normal 2 shot
400 N Harding 2 shot, 1 Fatality
2400 S California 1 shot
9 shot 1 fatality
06 Aug 11
6900 S Bell 1 shot, fatality
1500 W Jonquil 1 shot, fatality
4200 W West End 4 shot
6 Shot 2 fatalities
07 Aug 11
7400 S Sangamon 3 shot, 1 fatality
300 S Springfield 4 shot
6800 S Campbell 1 shot
8 shot 1 fatality
Running Total: 155 Shot, 42 fatalities
13 Jul 11
3800 W Roosevelt 1 shot to thigh and shoulder
7100 S California 1 shot to the buttocks
9000 S Yates 1 shot in face
100 N Latrobe 1 shot to the buttocks
6600 N Newgard 2 shot both to legs
9300 S Avalon 2 shot 1 fatality 1 ok
Total for day 8 shot 1 dead.
14 Jul 11
6600 S Seeley 1 shot fatality
5700 S Emerald 1 shot, fatality
6400 S Racine 1 shot in arm
6200 S Paulina 1 shot
2400 W 35th 1 shot in buttocks
Total for day 5 shot 2 fatalities.
15 Jul 11
7900 S Essex 1 shot, fatality
3600 W Chicago 2 shot, 1 fatality
1100 N Keystone 1 shot
2200 S Troy 1 shot
5900 S Prairie 1 shot
Total for day 6 Shot 2 fatalities
16 Jul 2011
5200 S MLK Dr 1 shot, fatality
0-100 N Parkside 1 shot, fatality (exchanges gunfire with CPD)
80th & Ashland 1 shot, fatality (hostage situation, CPD)
5200 S Justine 1 shot, forearm
7000 S Eggleston 1 shot, head (non-fatal at this point) UPDATE 1 fatality
400 E 65th 1 shot, leg had and back
7200 S Honroe 2 shot, 1 to back, 1 to arm
1100 E 47th 1 shot, fatality
Total for day 9 shot, 5 fatalities
17 Jul 2011
6500 S Rhodes 2 shot
18 Jul 11
6000 S Indiana 2 shot, 1 fatality
3500 W Walnut 3 shot
Wilcox/Karlov 2 CPD officers shot
Total for day 7 shot, 1 fatality
19 Jul 11
7000 S Parnell 3 shot, 1 fatality
3700 W Montrose 2 shot, 1 to head and chest, no fatalities yet
3100 W 84th 1 shot, 1 fatality
9200 S Justine 3 shot, 1 fatality(cpd shooting, after offender shot other two)
Total for day 9 shot, 3 fatalities
20 Jul 11
Nothing reported on breaking news site
21 Jul 11
4100 N Kenmore 2 shot
8500 S Bishop 1 shot
22 Jul 11
500 E 65th 1 shot, fatality
300 E 56th 1 shot
5700 S Wabash 3 shot
6100 S Talman 2 shot
1200 S Independence 2 shot
3100 W Peterson 2 shot, 1 fatality
23 Jul 11
5800 W Thomas 1 shot, fatality
400 E 74th St 1 shot, fatality
8200 S East End 2 shot, 1 fatality
4900 S Wolcott 1 shot, fatality
3700 W Grand 1 shot
300 E 60th 1 shot
3600 W Lawrence 2 shot
11100 Homewood 1 shot
1300 N Mayfield 1 shot
5700 S Winchester 1 shot
300 E Garfield 1 shot, critical condition at this point
12300 S Wentworth 1 shot
1700 N Keystone 1 shot
5100 W Monroe 2 shot, 1 in critical condition at this point
Total for day 17 Shot, 4 fatalities
24 Jul 11
0-100 E 102nd 1 shot
That's everything posted on breaking news. Funny, I overheard at least 2 calls of people shot last night, during my shift, why didn't those get published?
25 Jul 11
2200 S Kirkland 1 shot, not fatal at this point
1000 N Kedvale 1 shot, CPD involved shooting
1500 W Chicago 1 shot, fatality
3200 W Ontario 1 shot, CPD involved shooting
8800 S Indiana 1 shot
Total for day 5 shot, 1 fatality
26 Jul 11
4400 W Armitage 1 shot, CPD involved shooting
8000 S Racine 1 shot
6600 S May 1 shot, fatality
Totals 3 shot, 1 fatality
27 Jul 11
3000 S Drake 1 shot, fatality
1100 E 72nd St 1 shot
28 Jul 11
3700 W Chicago 1 shot, fatality
6500 S Campbell 1 shot
3100 W Douoglas 1 shot
7100 S Washtenaw 2 shot
5 shot 1 fatality
29 Jul 11
5400 W Washington 1 shot, fatality
3100 W 81st St 1 shot, fatality
1200 S Albany 1 shot
5700 S Halsted 1 shot
900 N Harding 3 shot
2300 N Long 1 shot
8200 S Cottage Grove 2 shot, 2 fatalities
7100 S Rockwell 1 shot, fatality
7900 S Cottage Grove 1 shot, fatality
12 Shot, 6 Fatalities
30 Jul 11
7100 S Ridgeland 1 shot, fatality
5900 S Union 1 shot, fatality
2200 S Paulina 1 shot
4400 W Walton 2 shot
2600 W Montogomery 1 shot, fatality
7800 S Homan 2 shot
8 shot, 3 fatalities
31 Jul 11
6800 S Wood 1 shot, fatality
4300 S LaSalle 1 shot
2 shot 1 fatality
01 Aug 11
600 E 71st St 1 shot
7700 S Sanginaw 1 shot
1500 S Karlov 2 shot
4 Shot
02 Aug 11
Nothing reported
03Aug 11
12700 S Wallace 1 shot
300 N Latrobe 1 shot, fatality CPD Related
1600 W Erie 1 shot, fatality
6800 S Bishop 3 shot
1700 E 72nd St 1 shot, fatality
4200 S State 1 shot fatality
8 shot 4 fatalities
04 Aug 11
4300 W Dickens 1 shot, fatality
6200 S Western 2 shot
5800 S Prairie 2 shot
5 shot 1 fatality
05 Aug 11
800 S Justine 1 shot
9200 S Wallace 1 shot
300 W 61st St 1 shot
2800 N Kildare 1 shot
4500 S Normal 2 shot
400 N Harding 2 shot, 1 Fatality
2400 S California 1 shot
9 shot 1 fatality
06 Aug 11
6900 S Bell 1 shot, fatality
1500 W Jonquil 1 shot, fatality
4200 W West End 4 shot
6 Shot 2 fatalities
07 Aug 11
7400 S Sangamon 3 shot, 1 fatality
300 S Springfield 4 shot
6800 S Campbell 1 shot
8 shot 1 fatality
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)