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.

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...

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".

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.

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.

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

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 35^th 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)
80^th & 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 65^th     1 shot, leg had and back
7200 S Honroe     2 shot, 1 to back, 1 to arm
1100 E 47^th   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

First Amendment - Religion

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Things bother me, I'm human so I expect it, this blog is to help me get the demons out. One thing that has bothered me for the past few years has been this notion that you can not place a statue of Jesus at a city hall, you can't say the Pledge at a public school because the word "God" is in it. You can't place religious symbols anywhere that the government controls. This bothers me. Looking back at the first paragraph, directly from the First Amendment of this country we see exactly what it says. "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Does anyone see a line I'm missing anywhere? Is there invisible ink that I can read that says the President can not put up a religious item in front of the house he lives at? Does it say somewhere that the Capitol Building will burst into flames if a Senator wishes to say a quick prayer to their God before trying to pass a law? Is there a hidden page that has banned these things?

No, there is not.

The founders of this country were some fairly smart people, they wrote this Amendment with the intention to give people the freedom to speak and practice religion as they choose, or not to if they so choose. The not establishing a religion by congress was in direct response to England's government run Anglican Church. They didn't want the government telling you and me who to worship because they chose to. They wanted the people to choose for themselves. That is all this Amendment means, it gives freedom, not take it away.

Let me be real clear here, I do not think any one person, or group of people has the right to force you to celebrate Christmas or Kwanzaa or Ramadan. What I do believe though is we should all be mature about this. If the public school system thinks it is a good idea to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before class, as I think it should, then they should do that. If you, as a parent, or your child in the class has a problem with the word "God" you should have the right to not speak that part - with no penalty whatsoever. That is freedom of religion, what to practice or what not to. Some people have issues with what "God" they are referring to, that's a bunch of bull in my opinion. We all worship our own "God" when you say that word you mean your "God" be it "God" "Allah" "Jehovah" "Odin" "Money". You are saying it, it is what it means to you, if you believe in nothing, then say nothing. No big deal.

Now I read this today

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/13/religious-freedom-group-sues-gov-perry-over-planned-all-day-prayer-event/

So this guy, a Texas Governor who might run for president, wants to lead a day of prayer, he's INVITED other Americans to join him, and this group sues him for a First Amendment violation of Church and State.

Excuse me? Where is the violation? Did he mandate that all Americans must stand up and pray with him to his God? No, he did not, he INVITED people to join him, no one is forcing anyone else to pray if they do not wish to, it's your choice America pray if you want, if not don't why waste money on a stupid lawsuit. I would be totally on the plaintiffs side if it were mandatory, even if it were the religion I practice. The thing is I could care less if a Wiccan High Priestess goes on television and wants every one to worship her favorite tree, I can watch, or turn the channel... freedom is still in my hands.

The freedom is still yours America, let's do what we can to help stop clogging our court system with stupid lawsuits and live our lives free.

Congratulations! Crime is down again!

Wow, great job everyone! Really, amazing, Chicago's crime is down again, for like the 30th month in a row! This must be the safest place to live on the Earth, there is no such thing as crime left. It must be like the movie Demolition Man where profanity has stopped and we just walk around with smiles. Welcome to Chicago/Mayberry, except in Chicago Otis, the town drunk is in rehab and not drinking anymore.

Sarcasm aside, who really believes these numbers? Who is generating them? Are they the same people who think the economy is growing? I am not going to blame the media for this, I blame our people in charge who put forth these lies. Cooking the books does nothing to help the problem. That is the same thing as when I was a child and my mom would tell me to clean my room, I'd just shove everything under my bed and yell "done!" The room looked cleaner, but the mess was still there, it didn't work for my mom, the cities lies shouldn't work for you either.

What I will blame the media for is not taking a hard look at these numbers, and having the courage to expose these lies. Without any research whatever I'm going to show you what I am talking about.
On the Chicago Breaking News site they entered the story "Cops: Violent Crimes continue decline in June, auto thefts increase." That story, as I am writing this one is 21 hours old, what has happened in the past 21 hours? Let's go right to their very own headlines....

• 2 Killed, 11 wounded in overnight violence (posted 19 hours ago)
• One man killed in Englewood homicide identified
• Boy shot in Englewood, girl hit in West Garfield Park
• Burglary call leads to pot bust in South Side
• Cops: man, 47, shot on West Side during argument
• Teen standing in group shot, wounded
• Boy, 13, shot in Marquette Park
• Man, woman shot inside vehicle on South Side
• Man killed in car in Hegewisch
• Woman shot in head on Southeast Side
• Man injured in Southwest Side shooting
• At least 11 wounded across city on steamy night (posted at 4:30 this morning)
• Teen charged in crash that killed dispatcher

Now I am not a rocket scientist, in fact I bought my son a build a rocket kit a few years back, parts of it are still in my trunk, I'll get around to building it someday, but I smell something funny here. If crime is down so much here how can all those stories exist? That's a lot of people shot in 21 hours, and that's just in one city! How come there is not a new story by breaking news that reads

•  Breaking news questioning Chicago's ability to tell truth about crime stats.

I would love that, Breaking News has more than enough ammo for it, why aren't they doing it? That's right the media is in bed with our politicians.  Obi Wan Daley and his apprentice Rahm Skywalker are doing Jedi Mind tricks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnjaUoR15dU

These aren't crimes you are looking at, nothing to see here

Apathy

Apathy (n) - absence or supression of passion, emotion, or excitement.

I see many things every day, that's okay, I get paid to experience the world in all it's glory. I've seen the glory of the birth of my son, I've worked a presidential inauguration in Washington D.C. I've watch people take their last breath of life. All this I expect in my line of work, in fact I expect it in life as well. One thing that troubles me is this growing sense of apathy around me. When I was growing up (sounding like my dad again) people worked for their money. People voted, people got involved in their community, in their church. People cared about who was in their neighborhood.

Yesterday while working the Folks and Roots music festival at Wells Park I saw a number of professional people enjoying a day off at the park with their families listening to music. That's great! What I also saw were groups of people who I could only describe as "mud people". Large groups of late teens to early twenties people who look like they haven't bathed this month, and I'm doubting that water touched them last month as well. Tangled snarled hair was the norm in these groups, backpacks and bedrolls to help them in their journey (wherever that may be). When the fest ended, the families left, why not they had children to get to bed, homes to return to. Who was left in the fields? You guessed it the mud people. Advising them that the park was closed elicited not a motion from them, it was time for a love in! They just experience the majesty of some unknown texas band singing to them for an hour playing baselines from old Parliment tunes (Is stealing other bands tunes apathetic too?). After 15 or 20 minutes of standing back and allowing people to leave without upping the ante and using the "outside" voice I realized these people had every intention on staying all night doing whatever. Time for the "outside" voice to come out. Now in a much stronger voice and a firmer tone the advice to leave the park is now an order to leave the park. My coworkers and I were met with blank stares and "I'll get to it, man."

I'll get to it man? Who do they think they are talking to? I'm not their mamma expecting them to get to homework or cleaning their room, or showering. I'm an authorized agent of the state to enforce all laws and ordinances on the books. Let me tell you something about the police, some are complete a-holes, merciless and hard. Most just want to do a good job and go home to their families. Challenge these officers and you get the "book". No I'm not talking about a NYPD Blue style beat down in an interview room, I'm talking about going through the law book and finding every single statute available to hammer the offending person. Like I said I'm not these people's mother, if they are going to make me work late, they'll be staying longer too, just not in the park but in a cell.

It got me thinking though, what do these people do for a living? What are their drives in life, how do they want to leave their mark in the world? When I started on this job there were handfuls of these types of people, now they come in droves. Last nights fest looked like a hippie fest from San Fransisco circa 1974. I wonder what will these people be doing in ten years? How are they going to get jobs looking like a person who just doesn't care with an attitude of "I just don't care". A thing that worries me about the way things are going is the apothetical approach to the world, and this younger generation is increasingly going towards not caring about anything. Some will say what are we losing, these people are losers anyway. I would beg to differ. I saw people out their who if you looked past their apothetical, pot glazed eyes had intellegence, that was not being used. What I don't get is if you think the world is messed up, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Don't travel from park to park sharing joints with random strangers listening to music and getting dirtier by the minute, go do something to change it.

One standard I hold myself to is if you didn't vote you can't complain because you willingly took yourself out of the process. The same is true in life, if you willingly check out you have no right to say anything about how the world is going.

My suggestions to the younger generations, for better or worse:
Be clean in appearance, showing up to a job interview with your pants on the floor and an unwashed shirt on will not get you that job.
Disturbing body art is bad, first impressions are everything, if you walk around with a spike through your nose, a nail through your lip, have twenty tattoos up and down your body, you look to others as a person who doesn't respect their body, that leaves an impression. A couple of tattoos that are artistically done might be okay, but look at some high school basket ball games and you'll see 17 year old boys with what looks like prison ink up and down their bodies.
Respect others, giving an attitude that you are above everyone else, and that they are bothering you is going to put people off - alot!
Get involved! If you don't like something I can guarantee you there is a group of like minded people to get involved with that want to change things, also just as important, learn the other sides argument like it is your own opinion, and (this is hard) respect it. The only way to truly beat something is to understand it and respect it. To just deny something won't make it go away.

And for the love of God, take a shower every day!

Media selective censorship?

We all read the news websites, breaking news sites are very popular, so are the websites for such papers here in Chicago like the Sun Times and the Tribune. They control what gets printed, the stories, the feel for the stories and now they control the comments readers have for the articles.

Isn't the media famous for crying censorship when certain things get withheld from them? Why then would they practice the same thing by shutting down comment sections for stories "too emotional" or "too hot topic" or whatever else they choose?

Isn't your opinion on the story important to them? In some case I think they have a certain agenda and really could care less what you say. Most of the people reading this will know instantly what I am referring to but for those of you who don't let me show you examples.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-suit-claims-chicago-police-punch-first-and-ask-questions-later-20110706,0,902009.story

In this story we have a federal lawsuit filed against Chicago police for an incident "caught on tape" the lawsuit is brought by Loevy and Loevy law firm, a firm made rich by suing the police department and hoping the city will settle so they can reap the rewards. The settlements come directly from your tax dollars and they have been getting rich doing it for years - with the media's help. In this video which I watched you see a very tense situation involving police and citizens, it says it was over searching a house. At one point in the video you see the "evidence" of a police officer punching a citizen who according to the lawyers was just "exercising their first amendment rights." The thing is when it comes to the video footage all you see is a bouncing camera and an arrest situation where yes it does appear that a punch may have been thrown. You do not have sound, you do not have any evidence that the punch was unjustified, or even a punch at all. Grabbing at an offender, from a distance, can look like a punch. We also do not know if the accused in this instance provoked any action, the only real thing I can see is a tense situation, a scuffle, and then a whole lot of other people running away, not backing off or walking off, actually running at full speed down streets, gangways etc. If these citizens were just exercising first amendment rights why did they run away so fast? In my experience some of those who ran were holding onto something they shouldn't have, I point this out based on my experience, I am not accusing them because I do not really know why they ran. Maybe they were really scared to be confronted with possible arrest, maybe their mother called them for supper, who knows? The thing is Chicago Breaking News has shut down any comments to this site, why?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-2-chicago-cops-charged-with-sex-assault-20110511,0,6865638.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-2nd-police-officer-charged-in-sex-attack-posts-bond-20110513,0,1778317.story

Now here are two separate stories involving a recently famous alleged case where two on duty cops pick up a drunk girl and at some point consensual sex occurs in the squad car, they buy more booze and go back to her house and play strip poker, more sex happens and at this point the girl is now claiming she was raped. Was she? I don't really know what happened, I wasn't there. I can say at a bare minimum these officers exercise not poor judgement, but sheer stupidity, sex in a squad car, buying booze on duty etc is inexcusable, and if there is evidence she was raped then I hope these two get what they deserve. If it is a glory stunt for money then I hope these two get off on the charges, they should not get their jobs back for their stupidity. That's my opinion, you are entitled to yours. What is my point? Look at the article involving the officers lawyers, that's right no comments allowed. But in the second article involving bail set the comments are open, why? Oh yes that's right Loevy and Loevy are now representing the victim in this case. So why open comments on a bad side of the story, but close comments on the officers side of things? The only thing I can figure is to assist one side of the story, there is no other reason I can think of.

The thing I really do not get is why the need for censorship in the first place. Anyone can comment, and if there is civility in the comment it should be allowed to go through. What I mean by civility is there should not be racism or profanity or things like that. If you think that the two are guilty you should be allowed to vent your feelings. If you think they are being railroaded you should also be able to post that. Gearing comments only to one side though is dangerous, it shows a bias by the media towards not the truth that happened, but the truth as they want it to be. The media should never strive for that, the media should strive for the truth, always.

Walter Cronkite, while I do not agree with much of his views on the world always appeared neutral and professional. The newspapers of that age were much in the same, they sought the truth not sensationalism. We now live in an age where the media is trying to adjust how you think and that is dangerous. They claim it is in an effort to get the story out to the people, but I think that causes more damage than good. Give me a reporter who researches what they are writing, even if I disagree with it I will respect it because it is factual.

Is it any wonder why the newspapers are struggling so?

The verdict...

Not Guilty? Outrage! There is outrage by reporters. There is outrage by the "celebrity" lawyers. There was outrage by the people outside the courtroom. Family, and friends of mine have expressed outrage.
Police officers have expressed outrage. I was taken aback by the verdict, but I can not say I was shocked.
You see we are judged by our peers, and from what I saw of the trial, on the make up of that jury, I would have to ask all the people who are outraged "What did you expect?"

Having outrage over a verdict isn't the right thing here folks. Outrage that a young girl is dead is a proper thing. Outrage over our court system is also proper. I think back to a saying I heard once in court. A defendant was speaking with his lawyer on a case I was not involved in. They were discussing which type of a trial they should take a bench (judge) or jury trial. At one point in the discussion the lawyer stated to his client "I think we should go ahead with a jury trial, then I only have to try a case before people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty." Is this how all lawyers think? I hope not, I hope that there are defense attorneys out there who believe in getting people falsely accused off, and prosecutors who will doggedly pursue justice for victims. I hope, but from what I have seen of this system let's just say I will not hold my breath.

We live in a society that glorifies violence and more and more shows a mistrust of law enforcement. We also live in a society that has done nothing to put in place a more effective type of judicial system. A jury of peers is a great concept, but just what is a peer? Peer is defined among other things as "a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status". So how do we try our accused under this premise? I would assume that you would try a criminal gang leader by sitting them in front of other criminal gang leaders. You would try accused police in front of other police. Obviously this would make the wheels of justice fall off. So we do the best we can, we call in random Americans, ask them questions (those that show up) and take the best of what we have. Most of these people who sit on these trials get all of their legal information directly from their televisions. Defense attorneys know this, that's why they try cases as if it were a television series. Jose Baez, head attorney on this case did an interesting trick here, he went with the misdirection play. Here we are at a murder trial and he brings up alleged sexual abuse by the Casey's father and brother to Casey. Suddenly we have a jury who is caught up in their favorite cop drama thinking about conspiracy, and tainted evidence, the reasonable doubt is there and will grow over time.

I'm not an expert on the judicial system, as my blog states I'm just throwing ideas out there and seeing what sticks, but it's time for us all to think of a more professional way of holding jury trials. I would start by making jurist an actual profession, make it a requisite to have a background in criminal justice. Hell maybe we could even have law students pay down some of their legal debt by sitting on the juries and gaining experience in the system before they graduate. We need to stop calling in people who 1. don't want to be there 2. don't know the legal system 3. will lie their way out of their duty if possible. Once we establish a professional system there should be judicial overview of jurist proficiency. If a verdict was obviously wrong in a panel of judges eyes those jurists most likely should not be invited back. Conversely jurists who perform well should be invited back time and again and even gain in pay.

The best thing I take from this whole thing is outrage shows America is a boiling point, which way will it turn out.

Happy 4th of July!

Happy Fourth of July to all out there! I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of our military out there who have or are keeping this country safe. I would also like to thank all who serve this country in other ways, police, fire, yes even you politicians, peace corp and all else who help make this country great! Now onto thanking the people who made my beer!

Everyone wins

Another problem facing America today is this notion that everyone is a winner and we should teach our children that. Everyone gets a trophy! No one loses! The fact you played makes you a winner!

We should be pressing our youth to strive for victory, not participation. If they don't win we should not punish them, that would be horrible, but we should point them to be the best they can be, and point out when they fall it is perfectly okay but point out what they did wrong and help them get better. This is what a good parent should do. If your child does poorly on a test, sit down with them and try and figure out what the problem is, because there is a problem. If your child misses the winning kick in a soccer game, help them figure out why and practice.

I remember vividly as a youth coming to bat with runners at second and third, one out in the championship game. Dreams of glory came into my mind, down one run all I had to do is make contact and I would tie the game, a base hit surely meant the presige of winning the championship. Up to bat I went, after working a full count, I started figuring that a walk wouldn't be too bad either, I wouldn't be under pressure anymore, yes the pitch was thrown and I watched it go by for strike three. I was upset, I went from visions of heroism in my head to hoping I would just get out of the situation. We lost that game after the next batter struck out as well, I didn't see why I was too busy crying about my misfortune. After the game my father came up to me and said "You lost your focus didn't you? I could see a difference with that last pitch." After his statement I was upset, instead of consoling me and telling me I was still his number one favorite player he told me he saw me do something wrong. How dare he! As I thought for more than one second I realized however he was right, I lost my focus, first before even getting to the plate, dreaming for glory instead of focusing on the task. Next by hoping for a walk, he saw it just as I felt it when I was batting. I looked up to him and just shrugged, what else could I do? He was right. It was then he put his hand on my shoulder and said "Learn from it, we all make mistakes and sometimes it costs us, the fact you were so upset is a good thing, it means you really wanted to try hard, if you learn from this the next time you will do better."

I have learned from that experience and have learned that a loss of focus does cost us things we want. Teaching our children that "You can be anything you want to be" is a load of crap. A proper statement we should teach is, "if you focus on something, work really hard at it you will put yourself in the best postition to succeed."Guaranteeing success to our children causes a lot of anxiety later in life for them and is a disservice to them. I wanted to be the starting first baseman for the Chicago Cubs when I grew up. Under current philosophy I should try and sue for the position that wasn't given to me, forget the fact that I just didn't have what it took to be a mojor league player. Not all dreams come true, that's life. I see it all the time in my job, people are completely at a loss when something bad happens to them, they are shocked, this wasn't the world they were promised from a young age. I am stunned when a person who goes out, drinks to excess and loses their credit cards and then points to me as not doing my job when I can't instantly produce a piece of their property that they could have lost anywhere over the course of the last few hours. Blame someone else, you couldn't possibly be wrong could you? Being wrong is for losers and I'm not a loser because no one ever told me I could be.

Sad things we can do to our children with best intentions.

What laws do

Welcome to America on the 4th of July weekend! The land of the free and home of the brave! Enjoy your freedom! While we are talking freedom let's take a moment to realize just what freedom means. Consulting my handy dandy dictionary I find...
Freedom (noun)
1. The state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint.
2. exemption from external control, interference or regulation
3. the power to determine action without restraint.

Now let's ponder this for a minute, are we really free? Quite possibly this is the most free land on the planet, but we as a nation are catching up really quick with our laws which legislate freedom.

Make no mistake I do not propose we live in an anarchistic society with no laws or rules, that would be terrifying to almost all of us. What I am growing more concerned about is the way our government spends our money to legislate our freedom and hammers down the fines on the small stuff to generate more money for the government and then goes blind when it comes to major stuff.

You see just this week in Illinois two tidbits in the news came to my attention: Death penalty officially expires for use in Illinois under Governor Quinn and Governor Quinn signs new law to require back seat passengers to buckle up. You see some people get all queasy when it comes to the death penalty. That is fine with me, the topic of what to do with murderers should be something that we as a society should debate. The taking of someone's life is the ultimate form of taking ones liberty. I have my opinions on the death penalty and I'm sure you have yours, that is healthy! In the end though what message are we sending our society when most people who commit murder go into jail and come out in an average of 8-10 years? What message does that send to the loved ones of the victim? Is the victim's life really only worth 8  to 10 years?

Conversely what right does the government have to regulate how you live your life? If you want to drive your car unbuckled, knowing that if you get into an accident you could be killed, isn't that really your decision? What right does the government have to tell you as the driver of a vehicle that you have to pay a fine if one of your passengers unbuckles as you are driving? Aren't you, as a responsible driver supposed to be paying attention to the road? I doubt that the responsible driver checks their back seat all that often while driving.

We are a nation defined by our laws and our laws get more and more petty all the time. Why? Because all the sensible laws have already been enacted and our legislators want to get their names on new ones is my best guess.

You see the only thing that laws effect are law abiding citizens, they do not effect criminals, the punishment might yes, but the law does not effect the thought process of a criminal. Take gun laws as an example. In Chicago from 1985 on to 2010 handguns were banned in Chicago. You could not legally own one in the defense of your home. You could not drive one through the city limits in your car legally. Go ask a police officer how bored they were during those years as far as it came to dealing with handguns. I mean there couldn't be any in Chicago because they were illegal right? You are right to assume that handguns were not scarce on the city streets in those years. Criminals used them all the time. A law abiding citizen could not. Illinois got so incredibly insane about this that they wanted to make it public knowledge who was a registered gun owner. Let's put on our thinking cap on this one, I am a law abiding citizen who wishes to own a gun, I go through all the required laws, the expense to legally acquire one and now the state wishes to punish me by making my information available to all those who didn't. That includes criminals. Criminals own guns, but do not register them. Why? Because they disregard the laws. This is insanity! Second Amendment arguments aside, why would you make it more dangerous for a law abiding citizen to live?

The politicians will always tell you that it is for officer safety, that the laws for registry are there to let the police know who has guns. Let me tell you two things I have always practiced or seen in my career as a law enforcement officer.
1. Everyone I stop, that I do not know as a personal friend of mine, I assume has a weapon, I could care less if the current law requires gun owners to paint themselves blue when carrying a weapon, I will assume, for my safety, that the person I am dealing with has disregarded the law.
2. Registry laws do not work, one I do not know of a database that assists me responding to a house that tells me "There is a gun in that house" and furthermore not a single time I have run into a person carrying a firearm, who is not law enforcement, has that weapon been registered anywhere. Not once in over 13 years.

In closing what do laws do? Restrict the freedom of law abiding citizens and not change anything for a criminal. A person who wants to kill, will. A person who wants to rape, will. In the end if we as a society wish to be free we need to take the criminals off the streets for long periods of time. We also need to stop breaking the backs of law abiding citizens by fining them for small misjudgements I.E. not having a passenger buckled up