The media is in a frenzy over the massacre in Connecticut where 26 people, 20 of which were children, were killed by a gunman on December 14, 2012.
But at issue is the families of the 26 victims, specifically the parents of the 20 children. I can't begin to imagine the pain these people are feeling right now. Losing anyone loved is tough. Losing a child has to be much tougher as you assume you will die first, as this is the proper progression of life. Losing a child a few days before Christmas would be the worst. As I saw noted on a friend's Facebook page, these parents have Christmas trees with presents under them, for their children that will never have the chance to open them. What could be worse than this?
I don't understand the ability to take someone's life without cause. I certainly don't see how you could kill defenseless children in cold blood. A person who does this is a truly sick person. What drives a person to do this?
There are people quick to call for the banning of guns when something like this happens. These people are opportunistic. Maybe some of these folks truly believes this will prevent these kind of tragedies in the future. But I ask them how would that work? Maybe you could get law-abiding people to give up their weapons. Do you think the criminals will hand theirs over? (I mean, they are criminals... not too concerned with the rule of law in the first place...) Even assuming you could take every gun off the street tomorrow, what would prevent more guns from being smuggled in? (We can't control drugs or illegal aliens from coming across the border. What would be the difference.)
Over the next few days and weeks, we'll find out what drove this individual to commit this horrendous act. Odds are there will have been some telling signs, and had they been acted on, this attack could have been prevented. As a nation, PREVENTION is what we need to focus on. When we see signs of odd behaviour or obvious mental health issues, we HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.
I'm not a 'god fearing' man. But most religions offers several important benefits, one being the raising of strong families with good morals. While we don't need religion to instill these values, we have to bring our nation's focus back to this goal. While I'm a firm believer in 'looking out for number 1', I don't believe this means you can't also look out for others, and this absolutely doesn't mean you can infringe (or harm) others in your pursuit of betterment.
Let me close by offering my deepest sympathies for all involved, especially the mothers, fathers and siblings of the 20 children. My thoughts are with you now and always.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Officials Ramp Up Hunt for Illegal Immigrants - A Good Thing!
The Obama Administration has sent mixed messages regarding illegal immigration. Truth be told, they are soft on it. This is clear when you note they are suing Arizona for basically trying to enforce Federal policy at the state level.
Recently, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has upped their efforts to deport illegals with criminal (more than that pesky illegal entry crime) records. Task force teams have been increased from 104 to 129, and each team has a goal of arresting 50 suspects a month. Ths is GOOD!
The Administration is playing a game, but the results are in the favor of the American public. It's no secret they don't care about mostly law-abiding illegals being in the country. The perception, likely true, is that it helps them with the Hispanic vote. (Let's hope we are only talking legal Hispanic votes. I'd like to believe the illegals aren't voting... although I'm not so sure.) But from what I've read, deportations are up over the Bush Administration. And while I support deporting ALL illegals, who can really argue with a priority of deporting the worst criminals?
So, while I want to see all illegals acknowledged and dealt with appropriately, I will give props to the current administration for increasing deportations, regardless of the motivation.
Recently, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has upped their efforts to deport illegals with criminal (more than that pesky illegal entry crime) records. Task force teams have been increased from 104 to 129, and each team has a goal of arresting 50 suspects a month. Ths is GOOD!
The Administration is playing a game, but the results are in the favor of the American public. It's no secret they don't care about mostly law-abiding illegals being in the country. The perception, likely true, is that it helps them with the Hispanic vote. (Let's hope we are only talking legal Hispanic votes. I'd like to believe the illegals aren't voting... although I'm not so sure.) But from what I've read, deportations are up over the Bush Administration. And while I support deporting ALL illegals, who can really argue with a priority of deporting the worst criminals?
So, while I want to see all illegals acknowledged and dealt with appropriately, I will give props to the current administration for increasing deportations, regardless of the motivation.
Liquor Prices Up 35% with Privitization - Hmm...
This was basically the headline in Sunday's Yakima Herald-Republic.
I'm not sure what the real point of the article was. Was it really a news piece and is it true prices are going to skyrocket? Or is it a case of sour grapes by those that were against the initiative? Hmm, I sound a bit like a conspiracy theorist, don't I? It really doesn't matter; it's not the point of my post.
My point is if prices are up, so be it! The issue here is who should... or shouldn't be... selling liquor. It should never have been the state! Ever! The function of government is never to run a business. They don't do it well. Government employees don't have the same drive to succeed in a business. (Consequences aren't the same.) And then there is the issue of monopolies and how these types of things affect legitimate business owners. (Government shouldn't be standing in the way of the private sector.)
Government needs to know its place. We, the people of Washington State, have earned a great victory in turning liquor sales over to the local businesses. Now, what is the next area we need to tackle?!
P.S. While liquor prices might spike initially, I suspect they will drop. Competition is good and has a way of working these things out.
I'm not sure what the real point of the article was. Was it really a news piece and is it true prices are going to skyrocket? Or is it a case of sour grapes by those that were against the initiative? Hmm, I sound a bit like a conspiracy theorist, don't I? It really doesn't matter; it's not the point of my post.
My point is if prices are up, so be it! The issue here is who should... or shouldn't be... selling liquor. It should never have been the state! Ever! The function of government is never to run a business. They don't do it well. Government employees don't have the same drive to succeed in a business. (Consequences aren't the same.) And then there is the issue of monopolies and how these types of things affect legitimate business owners. (Government shouldn't be standing in the way of the private sector.)
Government needs to know its place. We, the people of Washington State, have earned a great victory in turning liquor sales over to the local businesses. Now, what is the next area we need to tackle?!
P.S. While liquor prices might spike initially, I suspect they will drop. Competition is good and has a way of working these things out.
Shane Backlund - Right Choice for Selah Schools
Wow, I've been a bit remiss! My plan was to post daily, or nearly so... Too many irons in the fire I guess...
I don't really know Shane Backlund. He was principle at John Campbell part of the time my daughter attended and we've exchanged greetings. Seems like a nice guy. But that is not why I support him as the new Superintendent.
Why do I support him? Mostly because he is 'home grown'. I'm a big fan of promoting from the inside whenever possible. I've never a been a fan of hiring outside people... you truly don't know them or the baggage they may be dragging along. Just look to the last Yakima Police Chief for an example of this... (although much of his baggage wasn't really a secret for those of us paying attention)...
Shane has been with he district for many years, and while we don't know for sure what direction he wants to take the District, we have a pretty good idea of who he is and what shortcomings he may have. (I don't mean to say he has shortcomings... I'm not close enough to him to know. I'm just saying those who have worked with him would know.)
The outgoing superintendent, Steve Chestnut, is an accomplished man. He has the awards to prove it. He was a fine choice as an interim superintendent, a position which he was initially hired to fill. But this man never had any intentions of staying, and has used his wife's health as his reason for seeking greener pastures. He should never have been offered the position for the long-haul... which he obviously wasn't committed to anyway. My daughter is in 5th grade and we're going on the 4th superintendent in her short time in school. This is too much turnover and not good for the District.
Shane probably isn't here long-term either. I'd guess he will be here longer than the past two, and I'd hope he is here at least five years for the District's stability. But I won't hold this against him as he is young and will be looking for greater challenges.
From my seat, it looks like the Selah School District is in good hands for the next several years. And I'm glad to see it.
I don't really know Shane Backlund. He was principle at John Campbell part of the time my daughter attended and we've exchanged greetings. Seems like a nice guy. But that is not why I support him as the new Superintendent.
Why do I support him? Mostly because he is 'home grown'. I'm a big fan of promoting from the inside whenever possible. I've never a been a fan of hiring outside people... you truly don't know them or the baggage they may be dragging along. Just look to the last Yakima Police Chief for an example of this... (although much of his baggage wasn't really a secret for those of us paying attention)...
Shane has been with he district for many years, and while we don't know for sure what direction he wants to take the District, we have a pretty good idea of who he is and what shortcomings he may have. (I don't mean to say he has shortcomings... I'm not close enough to him to know. I'm just saying those who have worked with him would know.)
The outgoing superintendent, Steve Chestnut, is an accomplished man. He has the awards to prove it. He was a fine choice as an interim superintendent, a position which he was initially hired to fill. But this man never had any intentions of staying, and has used his wife's health as his reason for seeking greener pastures. He should never have been offered the position for the long-haul... which he obviously wasn't committed to anyway. My daughter is in 5th grade and we're going on the 4th superintendent in her short time in school. This is too much turnover and not good for the District.
Shane probably isn't here long-term either. I'd guess he will be here longer than the past two, and I'd hope he is here at least five years for the District's stability. But I won't hold this against him as he is young and will be looking for greater challenges.
From my seat, it looks like the Selah School District is in good hands for the next several years. And I'm glad to see it.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Why Not Deportation?!
The Yakima Herald Republic ran an article on Joseph Anderson Evans Sr., aka Roman Ceniceros-Mora, stating this Mexican national had been lying and cheating our system for 20 years and finally been caught and convicted. But what is the punishment? Eight years in prison, three years probation, and $155,000 restitution payment.
But nowhere is there any mention of this illegal alien being deported. Why?!
For me, the key here is 'probation'. A deported person couldn't be on probation. We are going to allow an illegal alien... not just an illegal alien, but a illegal alien with additional convictions of fraud, stay after his sentence to be on probation?
And what were the exact crimes?
And the icing on the cake: He claimed to be a disabled Marine who saw combat in Vietnam and was awarded a Purple Heart.
So maybe a future deportation was just overlooked and/or omitted from the article. Let's hope so!
But another item that should really concern people is the amount of abuse this illegal alien piled on our social services system. THIS is a PROBLEM! This is why we need to stop illegal immigration AND require proof of citizenship before allowing ANYONE to receive a social service.
But nowhere is there any mention of this illegal alien being deported. Why?!
For me, the key here is 'probation'. A deported person couldn't be on probation. We are going to allow an illegal alien... not just an illegal alien, but a illegal alien with additional convictions of fraud, stay after his sentence to be on probation?
And what were the exact crimes?
- Social Security fraud
- 20 counts of Food Stamp fraud
- Illegally receiving $128,000 in disability assistance
- Illegally receiving $27,000 in state medical aid and food assistance.
- False claims of U.S. Citizenship
- Making a false statement on a Passport application.
And the icing on the cake: He claimed to be a disabled Marine who saw combat in Vietnam and was awarded a Purple Heart.
So maybe a future deportation was just overlooked and/or omitted from the article. Let's hope so!
But another item that should really concern people is the amount of abuse this illegal alien piled on our social services system. THIS is a PROBLEM! This is why we need to stop illegal immigration AND require proof of citizenship before allowing ANYONE to receive a social service.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
U.S. Postal Service - Example of How to Run a Business Into the Ground
The Postal Service's current plan is to slow down the delivery time of mail in order to save money. I guess the idea is that with fewer processing centers and post offices, it will take longer to get mail from point A to point B.
Wow, what a BAD idea!
In this day and age of improving processes and quicker communication systems, publicly stating you are going to be doing things (delivering mail) badly, is hardly a way to entice customers.
Yes, the amount of mail (letters and other flat pieces) being sent is down with the advent of e-mail, social media, texting and etc. But while this type of mail may be waining, more and more people are using the internet for buying, which means a lot of delivering of packages is going on. More now than ever.
But the U.S. Postal Service isn't necessarily benefiting from this. It's amazing how many packages I received from UPS and Federal Express. Now, when I mail packages, I know that typically, the U.S. Postal Service is usually cheapest, or about the same as UPS. So why do other businesses bypass the Postal Service when they mail? Obviously the overall process of dealing with UPS or Federal Express is better for them.
So the U.S. Postal Service is headed in the wrong direction. Eliminating Saturday mail delivery... another plan in the works... along with slowing delivery times down... is only going to further send customers to other sources. (I expect UPS and Federal Express to gain business from this action.)
My suggestion? Improve efficiencies, deal with the labor unions, and make modest increases in postal rates. (They can raise rates some and still be under the competition. And a rate increase is in the future anyway, but it is only a penny on First Class mail.)
In the end, this is just another example of why governments should not be in business. With more than a 100 year head start, the U.S. Postal Service is losing ground to the likes of UPS and Federal Express. Why? Because the private sector has to succeed or go out of business. The government can keep a failing business going for years by infusing money or other benefits. (Note the U.S. Postal Service hasn't received taxpayer money in many years, but also note they are nearly bankrupt and can't meet their pension commitments.)
Wow, what a BAD idea!
In this day and age of improving processes and quicker communication systems, publicly stating you are going to be doing things (delivering mail) badly, is hardly a way to entice customers.
Yes, the amount of mail (letters and other flat pieces) being sent is down with the advent of e-mail, social media, texting and etc. But while this type of mail may be waining, more and more people are using the internet for buying, which means a lot of delivering of packages is going on. More now than ever.
But the U.S. Postal Service isn't necessarily benefiting from this. It's amazing how many packages I received from UPS and Federal Express. Now, when I mail packages, I know that typically, the U.S. Postal Service is usually cheapest, or about the same as UPS. So why do other businesses bypass the Postal Service when they mail? Obviously the overall process of dealing with UPS or Federal Express is better for them.
So the U.S. Postal Service is headed in the wrong direction. Eliminating Saturday mail delivery... another plan in the works... along with slowing delivery times down... is only going to further send customers to other sources. (I expect UPS and Federal Express to gain business from this action.)
My suggestion? Improve efficiencies, deal with the labor unions, and make modest increases in postal rates. (They can raise rates some and still be under the competition. And a rate increase is in the future anyway, but it is only a penny on First Class mail.)
In the end, this is just another example of why governments should not be in business. With more than a 100 year head start, the U.S. Postal Service is losing ground to the likes of UPS and Federal Express. Why? Because the private sector has to succeed or go out of business. The government can keep a failing business going for years by infusing money or other benefits. (Note the U.S. Postal Service hasn't received taxpayer money in many years, but also note they are nearly bankrupt and can't meet their pension commitments.)
Christmas Lights - Just Because You Can Doesn't Mean You Should
I like a festive light display. In fact, I aspire to some of the fantastic displays posted on YouTube and ones I've seen on HGTV specials.
When we lived in New Hampshire, I put together a pretty nice display. It grew more each year. When we moved to Selah, I started out small again, but each year it grew. We then moved again in Selah, and it is taking me awhile to get back in the groove, but again, I'm building some each year. (Electrical capacity and receptacle location are important and slowing me down...)
But as I drive around, I see some real disasters when it comes to Christmas light displays.
Take a little pride!
First, if you live in the country and people can see your house from all sides, you should be lighting all sides. Yes, it is more work, but looks so much nicer! (I have to go all the way around our house for that reason.)
Second, string your lights in such a way that you don't have areas unlit (that should be lit) or a tail of lights a few feet long that are just hanging there (as you reach towards a receptacle). A little bit of planning can fix these issues and makes the display look so much more professional. (Versus that LAZY look!) A couple of tricks I use is to either splice in part of a second line to make the reach, or to remove bulbs if the line is too long. (Due to built in fuses and the need for a certain amount of resistance in the line, these mods may require some trial and error.) You can also cover small bulbs with electrical tape, especially the new LED bulbs that don't get hot.
I like LOTS of lights. But just because you own a 100,000 twinkle lights doesn't mean you should put them all up. Check out 'Christmas Vacation', a Chevy Chase classic, for how NOT to light your house. But if you can add lights tastefully, like to outline roof angles, or windows, or fences, or trees, or whatever, then by all means, do it!
Lawn ornaments have become popular in recent years. Whether it is white lighted reindeer or blow-up Santas, a person needs to be reasonable. Too much and your yard looks like a junkyard during the day when the lights aren't on. And keep themes in mind. Santa shouldn't be sitting next to your Nativity scene. (And honestly, the blow-up stuff... most is pretty hideous... probably ought to be skipped altogether!)
And for cryin' out loud, don't turn on your lights before Thanksgiving, or leave them on past January 1st. Let's keep the season reasonable!
P.S. Weather can dictate when you put your lights up and take them down. Just because they are up, doesn't mean they should be on. And don't be one of those guys who leaves them up year around, with lights hanging askew. (People who know me might call me out on leaving the lights up since I did this past year. I had extenuating circumstances and it won't happen again!)
When we lived in New Hampshire, I put together a pretty nice display. It grew more each year. When we moved to Selah, I started out small again, but each year it grew. We then moved again in Selah, and it is taking me awhile to get back in the groove, but again, I'm building some each year. (Electrical capacity and receptacle location are important and slowing me down...)
But as I drive around, I see some real disasters when it comes to Christmas light displays.
Take a little pride!
First, if you live in the country and people can see your house from all sides, you should be lighting all sides. Yes, it is more work, but looks so much nicer! (I have to go all the way around our house for that reason.)
Second, string your lights in such a way that you don't have areas unlit (that should be lit) or a tail of lights a few feet long that are just hanging there (as you reach towards a receptacle). A little bit of planning can fix these issues and makes the display look so much more professional. (Versus that LAZY look!) A couple of tricks I use is to either splice in part of a second line to make the reach, or to remove bulbs if the line is too long. (Due to built in fuses and the need for a certain amount of resistance in the line, these mods may require some trial and error.) You can also cover small bulbs with electrical tape, especially the new LED bulbs that don't get hot.
I like LOTS of lights. But just because you own a 100,000 twinkle lights doesn't mean you should put them all up. Check out 'Christmas Vacation', a Chevy Chase classic, for how NOT to light your house. But if you can add lights tastefully, like to outline roof angles, or windows, or fences, or trees, or whatever, then by all means, do it!
Lawn ornaments have become popular in recent years. Whether it is white lighted reindeer or blow-up Santas, a person needs to be reasonable. Too much and your yard looks like a junkyard during the day when the lights aren't on. And keep themes in mind. Santa shouldn't be sitting next to your Nativity scene. (And honestly, the blow-up stuff... most is pretty hideous... probably ought to be skipped altogether!)
And for cryin' out loud, don't turn on your lights before Thanksgiving, or leave them on past January 1st. Let's keep the season reasonable!
P.S. Weather can dictate when you put your lights up and take them down. Just because they are up, doesn't mean they should be on. And don't be one of those guys who leaves them up year around, with lights hanging askew. (People who know me might call me out on leaving the lights up since I did this past year. I had extenuating circumstances and it won't happen again!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)