Hello everyone! My next episode will be coming this afternoon. I was well on my way to finishing what I was originally going to post, which was about college, except the judicial branch today has dropped a whole shopping basket full of better things to opine on: The Supreme Court has unleashed a spate of new decisions, notably one forbidding warrantless searches of cell phones, and a federal district judge has shot down Indiana's gay marriage ban. So I'm scrapping my original episode for now and going with what's come down today. I'll see you shortly!
0 Comments
Hello all! I wanted to throw out a note on Episode 12. I typed that episode out today on Microsoft Word, thinking that I could cut and paste it onto here and it would come up in the usual font, size, and color. Obviously, I was wrong about that, and do apologize for any inconvenience. I think it looks kind of nice that way, however, I'd also like to see consistency between episode posts. Also, a video episode is in the works! I don't have a timeline for it yet, but I am planning a video episode in the future. Good evening! I’m going to be putting on an extended episode this evening, discussing the reports circulating that an Article V constitutional amendment convention is close to becoming reality. I’d like to start by reminding everyone that what is being proposed is an AMENDMENT convention, not a constitutional convention; there is a difference, as a “con-con” is called to draft a new Constitution, not amend an existing one.
There has been a lot of buzz recently about the prospect of a convention to amend the Constitution. The effort, whom Indiana Senate President Pro-Tempore David Long (R-Fort Wayne) seems to be the biggest cheerleader, would call the states together for such a convention, authorized under Article V of the Constitution. The aim of the convention would be to develop new amendments to the Constitution, and if approved by the convention, send them to the state legislatures for ratification. A lot of people are eyeing the convention talk, and for good reason: this would be the first time an Article V convention in this manner has been called. Previous amendments, specifically the 11th through 23rd Amendments, originated from Congress, and were generally limited to one, or maybe two, amendments at a time. The convention as envisioned by Long, among others, would allow for as many, or as few, amendments to be considered as the delegates so pleased. It is conceivable, indeed even likely, that the delegates could be limited by the states they represent in what amendments were proposed and discussed; during the Constitution Convention of 1787, many delegates went to Philadelphia with state-imposed restrictions. But just as with the 1787 effort that drafted the Constitution, limitations imposed by the states may not necessarily be adhered to by their delegates. In fact, of the twelve states represented in the Philadelphia gathering—Rhode Island did not participate—only the New Jersey and North Carolina delegations were sent without any directives from their legislatures, and when other delegates began to go against the limits demanded of the New York delegation, which was to amend the Articles of Confederation, not replace them, two of the Empire State’s delegates walked out, leaving Alexander Hamilton alone to speak for them. And in fact, some historians believe the walkout of Hamilton’s companions actually helped the Philadelphia effort, because unlike his colleagues, the future Vice President—who would later lose his life in a duel with Aaron Burr on Long Island—was willing to go against Albany’s desires. Some modern-day commentators, most of them conservative, believe that similar restrictions could be—and likely would be—imposed on state delegates to an amendment convention. They say that restrictions imposed by the state legislatures, or perhaps oaths sworn prior to departing, would keep the delegates “in check” and prevent a runaway convention. But if the delegates of 1787 were so willing to flaunt the desires of the states that sent them, with seeming gusto, what would keep the delegates of the 2010’s from doing the same thing? The simple answer, historically speaking, is nothing. The answer is nothing because no matter how noble the cause, there is an ulterior motive behind the convention. Those supporting the convention say they want the convention because they feel the gridlock in Washington has given them no other choice; but if one looks at what’s already being tossed around as potential amendments, it seems that, no matter the bipartisan nature, this convention is being dominated by conservatives. Many of the states involved are under Republican leadership. And given the state of affairs in Washington, with a Republican-dominated House of Representatives and Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House, the GOP has the most to (potentially) gain from such an endeavor. Loosely translated, “dysfunction in Washington” means “Democrats”. But what other choice does the Republican Party have? Even if they gain control of the Senate this year, which is still a distinct possibility, President Obama will still be a Democrat, and even with a Republican-controlled Congress, they may not have enough of a foothold to just run roughshod over the White House, even with a conservative Senate. And there would still be enough “establishment” Republicans in the senate to pre-empt any Tea Party shenanigans, even if briefly. So to the Republicans, their only hope of shaping America the way they want it to be shaped is to call an amendment convention, throw out some potential Constitutional amendments, and go on a PR blitz to convince the requisite 38 states of the benefits of ratifying any amendments that rise from this occasion. So what’s being thrown around so far? Like I said above, most of the rumored potential amendments would clearly benefit the Republicans, like an amendment repealing the 17th Amendment and returning Senate elections to the state legislatures, or an amendment requiring a three-fourths vote of state legislatures before the debt ceiling can be raised again. In fairness, a balanced budget amendment has garnered support from Democrats, as has proposals to institute term limits, and any Democrats participating in the process could, theoretically, attempt to introduce amendments beneficial to their causes in exchange for support for Republican-proffered amendments that they would otherwise scoff at. The conservative pundit Mark Levin has come up with eleven “liberty” amendments that include those mentioned above, as well as amendments giving states the authority to override federal law or enact amendments without Congressional intervention, defining the Commerce Clause to mean that states cannot impede commerce between other states, which he says was James Madison’s intent in the first place (although Jack Rakove, whose splendid Original Meanings is based in large part on research using Madison’s writings, would disagree), and requiring a photo ID to vote. There are a few others in there, but I’ll save those for a later episode. And I don’t want anyone to think that I’m totally bashing the concept; on the contrary, I think it’s interesting, and whether I agree with what would come out of it or not, I’d like to be able to tell my grandkids someday that such an event took place in my lifetime. I’m also not knocking the Republicans by any means—but neither am I completely supporting them; they’ve been dealt a bad hand, and have to play it the best they can. The problems in Washington rest on both sides, not just one, and perhaps a convention to amend the Constitution, or at least the threat of one, will be enough to end the gridlock. My only goal here was to examine the potential problems that could arise during the process, and to examine some of the potential ulterior motives involved. Long, Indiana’s Senate president pro-tem, acknowledges that an Article V convention is a long shot. I’m not so sure that it’s as unlikely as he thinks it is; I’m also not so sure that he fully understands the potential for such a convention to devolve rather quickly into the kind of petulant bickering that the 1787 constitutional convention ultimately turned into. Senator Long is a man worthy of respect, and I know that, whether or not I agree with him, he’s doing what the voters in Fort Wayne sent him to do. My only hope is that he, and those who stand with him, think good and hard about the can of worms they might be opening up. I will be dedicating a future episode to analyzing several of the potential amendments being thrown around. Until then, keep your feet on the ground, and keep reaching for the stars—rest in peace, Casey Kasem. Also, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the passing of Tony Gwynn, “Mr. Padre”, the longtime San Diego slugger and baseball hall of famer who once called Indiana home. Gentlemen, I drink a toast to you. Hi there! As promised, here is my newest episode.
Today, the focus of my opinion is on cops, and how to pay for them. Louisville and Jeffersonville both want to hire more police. For Louisville, the motivation is some hard self-examination in the wake of the downtown mob violence back in March; for Jeffersonville, the impetus depends on who you believe more, with the mayor saying it's necessary because services aren't being provided to the areas annexed several years ago, and the city council president saying the need for more police is strictly because the Jeffersonville end of the Big Four Bridge is finally open. In both cases, there's controversy over how the new police are going to be paid for. Over in Louisville, Mayor Greg Fischer proposed 3% franchise fee on LG&E gas bills. The fee would contribute roughly $5 million towards public safety, namely the Louisville Metro Police Department; that money would help hire, train, and pay 24 new officers--fifteen based out of a downtown substation that recently opened, the other nine deployed into the First or Second Divisions. A Real Time Crime Center would also be established so that LMPD could monitor the surveillance cameras downtown, which are currently monitored by Louisville Metro Corrections. Naturally, some members of the Metro Council were adamantly opposed to the idea. And who could blame them? Residents in Jeffersontown and St. Matthews, or areas covered by a police department other than LMPD, would not have to pay the fee, essentially making it a tax on those who receive LMPD service. And there was a question about how the city can fund thousands of dollars in bicycle lane conversions--a controversy in itself--but has to find money to hire new cops. Metro Council Republicans felt that the fee was unnecessary, that money could be diverted from other uses (for example, bicycle lanes) to add new cops. Others wanted to wait until an outside review of LMPD staffing was finished. In the end, Fischer got a 2% increase. This figure will only provide roughly $2.8 to $4.3 million in extra revenue. The fee passed several days ago, 12-10, with most Republicans voting against, one abstaining, and four not voting. When the new officers will hit the street is anyone's guess; the real question is, will they be enough? I'm willing to bet not. Meanwhile, on this side of the bridge, Mayor Mike Moore wants to add 25 new police officers to Jeffersonville's force, at a rate of 5 officers per year for 5 years. In making his proposal, Moore said that the city is not making good on promises made when several areas east of the city were annexed in 2011, and that the 25 new officers would keep the promise regarding police protection. He also noted the compared to other cities in the area, which have 2 to 2.5 officers per 1,000 residents, Jeffersonville has just below 2 officers per 1,000 residents; the FBI recommendation is between 2 and 2.5 officers per 1,000 residents. City Council President Dennis Julius, who has declared his candidacy for mayor in the next mayoral race, sees it differently. To him, Moore is not motivated by annexation, but by the recent opening of the Big Four Bridge ramp, the subsequent jump in JPD overtime, and the need to bring in off-duty officers to help provide security around the Big Four in the interim. Julius agrees that more cops are needed, but doesn't think the city needs 25 new cops; in his eyes, more cameras and drones--yes, drones--are needed, with fewer new cops. Whatever Mayor Moore's motivation, which I will not comment on, he's right. Jeffersonville needs more police officers. Although I don't live in Jeffersonville, I'm in the city a lot, and I somehow doubt 25 would even be enough. Cameras are nice to have things, but they can't answer runs for service. And the mere mention of drones is ludicrous, for the same reasons--coupled with the same privacy concerns that have led people in other areas to declare "open season" on drones, vowing to shoot them down. And like with cameras, a drone can't answer runs. I have a scanner, and I listen to it on a fairly regular basis. Police Chief Chris Grimm recently told the City Council that JPD has become a "reactionary" department; the scanner traffic I hear tells me that's almost an understatement. Ultimately, there is a turf war starting to brew between Mike Moore and the City Council, much in the same way that there was, or maybe still is, one between the Metro Council and Greg Fischer. What everyone needs to do is sit back, take a deep breath or two, and come up with some sort of workable solution, perhaps one that doesn't involve franchise fees. Or drones. I hope they do, because neither city can afford to see a repeat of March 22. And while they're at it, Chiefs Steve Conrad and Chris Grimm need to take a good look to see if two dozen is enough. I don't mean to criticize them at all, but 24 or 25 new cops doesn't seem enough. Hello out there! I apologize for being away for so long; unfortunately, life has been calling the last couple of months. Fortunately, I'm at the point now where I can get back to it.
I'm going to change a few things up around here. For starters, I'm going to undo all the references to "us"; I shouldn't act like there's more than one person running this blog. I'm also going to only run one or two things, instead of three like I have been. And finally, I'm only going to post twice a week for the time being. Once I get a little more time--i.e., at the end of this monster summer semester at school--I'll start working my way back to daily posting, but for now, twice a week should do the trick. I'm also going to find a better background picture. This wave looks neat-o, but I think it kind of interferes with reading the entries. So sit tight, folks, and grab some popcorn; my next episode's coming right up! Welcome to the tenth episode! Today I'll be discussing bridges, tornadoes, and Amazon, not necessarily in that order. I hope you enjoy the show!
AMAZON DID WHAT??: In case you haven't heard, there's this little company called Amazon, founded out of a garage by a fellow named Jeff Bezos, and if he has his way, he and his empire will rule the world. Jeff and his little company have already taken huge steps towards global domination, building fulfillment centers in every corner of the world--my girlfriend lives in the shadow of one--and coming up with things such as the Kindle, which has helped render the book nearly obsolete, and Amazon Prime, where for about $100 a year, you can get access to a whole bunch of bells and whistles. Heck, they're even looking to utilize drones as delivery vehicles! So nobody should or would be too surprised that they've come up with another crazy idea, right? It depends. Do you like your cable provider? (I don't like mine) Yesterday, on a Manhattan stage set to look like a living room, Jeff Bezos' evil empire unveiled their newest gadget--Amazon Fire TV. What this contraption does, essentially, is it hooks into your TV and Internet, and you can stream video onto your TV. You can watch programming provided under license, or one of the Amazon-produced TV shows. Yep, you heard right; Amazon's gotten into the TV show business. But wait! There's more! You can also play video games! A separate controller will make this possible. Minecraft fans, that includes you. The company will also provide content from Netflix and Hulu, and will even let you watch or edit videos and upload them. At $99, the device is fairly cheap, but it requires one of those $100 per year Amazon Prime memberships--there's always a catch. So what made this all possible? How is it that Amazon is unleashing their dastardly plan to rule the world? Well, quite simply, we exist. Amazon doesn't see us as people, they see us as consumers. Jeff Bezos looks at a person on the street and doesn't see a guy in a suit and tie, or a woman in skinny jeans and a t-shirt; no, he sees dollar signs. Any-and-everything anyone can come up with to have some sort of connection with our lives, Amazon has either come up with it first, or came up with it last but got it designed, tested, refined, and put on sale first. To this end, Fire TV will have the ability to figure out what you're watching, and mold their advertising around it, thereby ensuring that at some point, you will be at least tempted to click on that advertisement for hair gel that pops up after the umpteenth Dapper Dan reference in O Brother, Where Art Thou?. Should we be afraid? Probably not. Although they will be a Fire TV content provider, Netflix already provides considerable competition. And the cable companies are liable to start firing figurative and literal shots across the bow--according to the New York Times article on this, Comcast already has trained their sights on Fire TV. Other, more well established forms of online content providers will get a jump start on showcasing how their product is better, while the cable providers will probably engage in a two-front offensive, trying to charm existing customers while calling in favors on Capitol Hill to make Amazon's plan a little harder to implement. But they're not going to be able to stop Jeff Bezos and that little company of his. Amazon's still working on grocery delivery, and has plans in the works to establish in-house logistics services, where they will handle cradle-to-grave shipping, warehousing, and delivery services, essentially cutting themselves off from the outside world, logistically speaking. I wouldn't be surprised if they were looking into getting into the business of manufacturing their own products (don't get any bright ideas, Bezos). I'm sure there are many bright ideas running around their collective heads.Just give them some time, and they'll come up with another insane--and insanely brilliant, in a Dr. Frankenstein-ish sort of way--idea that will put them one step closer to owning, or at the very least heavily influencing, your daily lives. You've been warned. Keep calm and carry on. SO LET'S TALK TECH SOME MORE: Google's got Glass, and a TV. Amazon's come up with this Fire TV doo-hickey. Apple came up with the iPhone. There are apps for just about anything--I can work on this show from my Android while listening to the smooth sounds of I Heart Radio or the comings and goings of the Toronto Police. My, how far we've come. I'm a "millennial" (31 soon). When I was little, the Steves (Jobs and Wozniak) had just come out with the Macintosh. Atari was still in vogue, and some folks in Japan were watching the Nintendo take hold; in 1983, Sega was still a year or two away. Cable was limited to a handful of channels, the best music (at least in the Louisville area) was still on the AM band, and the Internet was still a military toy. Those wealthy enough to afford a cell phone had to lug a bag around--or get a personal assistant to do it for them. Flip phones and tablet computers (called PADDs, for Personal Access Display Device) were those things Kirk and Co. used in the Star Trek movies, and text messaging required pen, paper, envelope, and a stamp. So from 1983--the year of my birth--to now, we've now got zillions upon zillions of technological gadgets. People my age fly planes from computer consoles on an Air Force Base somewhere. The Postal Service is no longer a middle man to instant text communication. Cell phones are basically small computers, and there's those pesky iPads. Where movies were once made with massive budgets, bulky cameras, and six months of editing two months worth of film, anyone with an inexpensive camera and the right software can shoot, edit, and release a movie. This show wouldn't be possible without the widespread rise of the Internet. What's my point? Well, I don't know, really. The thing is, technology has exploded around us. It has become an integral part of our daily lives. Maybe too integral. . .we've become so reliant on technology that, FORTY YEARS AGO TODAY: This is the fortieth anniversary of the Super Outbreak of 1974. Locally, tornadoes struck in several places. 31 people were killed in an F5 tornado that made its way through Breckinridge and Meade Counties in Kentucky; 28 of those killed were in the city of Brandenburg, along the Ohio River in Meade County. That tornado crossed the river and lifted in southern Harrison County, IN, not far from Mauckport and Laconia. An F4 tornado touched down just north of Louisville International Airport and weaved its way through the old city, St. Matthews, Rolling Fields, and Barbourmeade--among others--before crossing into Oldham County and lifting; the numbers vary, but between 2 and 6 people died, and 225 to 243 injured. A pair of F4 tornadoes struck Jefferson County, Indiana that day, killing 11 and injuring 294. The first tornado touched down near Henryville, in Clark County, and marched into Jefferson County, where Hanover and Madison took direct hits; seven of the 11 fatalities from this twister were in Hanover. This tornado continued into Ripley County, IN before lifting. The second tornado touched down east of Madison as the first one was still running through the city, and continued on into Switzerland, Ohio, and Dearborn Counties prior to lifting. The storm that produced the Madison-area tornadoes later produced an F5 in Cincinnati. In all, over 300 people died in 148 confirmed tornadoes across 13 states and one Canadian province. The worst of the tornadoes was an F5 that struck Xenia, Ohio, killing 32 people and inflicting over $100 million in damage. The town of Tanner, Alabama was struck by two F5 tornadoes within a half hour of each other; a total of 50 people perished between these two storms, whose paths were less than a mile apart, and largely parallel to each other. This town would later be struck by another F5 tornado, in 2011. Nine people died in Windsor, Ontario, Canada when a F3 tornado crossed the Windsor River out of Michigan and struck a curling hall. At one point, sixteen tornadoes were on the ground simultaneously, and National Weather Service forecasters trying to keep up with the tornadoes in Indiana placed the Hoosier State under a blanket tornado warning, the only time in history an entire state has been under one. Remember my previous blurb about technological advances? Well, many advances have been made when it comes to weather forecasting and tornado warnings. A 2012 tornado struck Henryville, Indiana, not far from me, but thanks to weather radios and increased lead times due to advances in weather radar technology, among others, nobody in Henryville lost their lives. (There was one person who died, in Borden, not far from Henryville) A number of students were trapped inside Henryville High School, having been taken back there by their bus driver as the tornado approached; all came out okay, save for minor injuries. Research projects like the 1990's-era Project Vortex, undertaken by Oklahoma University and the National Severe Storms Laboratory (now a part of the Storm Prediction Center, born in part from Project Vortex research), have given meteorologists new insight into tornado development. The lessons learned in 1974 have made it easier for those in the weather-guessing business to tell us where that tornado is, and although sometimes it can go a little too far--see also the TOR:CON, or Tornado Condition, index, the brainchild of The Weather Channel--by and large, we are safer and better prepared, as evidenced in Henryville. Destructive, killer tornadoes still happen, and there's nothing no mortal being can do about that, but at the very least, we're in a position where we can protect ourselves better. BRIDGE TO SOMEWHERE, SOON: Mark your calendars once again! April 30 is now the target opening date for Jeffersonville's end of the Bridge Four Bridge. Now, you're probably thinking the same thing I am--"Yep, we've heard this before"--but apparently, this time it's for real. The city has approved funding to install temporary lighting that will allow the city to open up while the permanent lights are being installed. The city will hold a ceremonial ribbon cutting ceremony that day; the park at the foot of the Jeffersonville side will be finished in September*. (*Subject to change) Now, there's no one person or group that can take the blame for the multiple "We're gonna open this day, no, now it's this day, never mind, it's this day" routine. I recently hit on some of the people who live near the Big Four landing, who decided fighting the city over the original lights--which would have looked like Louisville's--was preferable to buying curtains, so they can thank themselves for this. So can the city. And INDOT, the state Department of Transportation. Jeffersonville stands to reap more of a financial windfall from this project than Louisville does, because the Jeff side empties a block from the Spring Street commercial district, but it's coming at a fairly big expense, and not just monetarily, because homes had to be bought, and many of them moved, and people had to move out of them and find a new place to live--my girlfriend among them--and the temporary lighting has to be installed, and that defective beam on the ramp had to be replaced. . .Add to that security requirements that were painfully brought to the fore courtesy of a mob attack in downtown Louisville recently, which will probably require more police and lots of cameras. This thing's turned out to be fairly expensive. it's nice that there's finally a concrete opening day, and it's nice that the city's going to make a few bucks off of it in the end. But before anything else is done--like, say, the proposed western walking bridge, which would use an existing, active train bridge that once carried cars and which both Louisville and Indiana officials have said they're willing to seize through eminent domain to use--everyone needs to sit back, take a long, hard look at what happened here, put together some serious lessons learned, and ask themselves, is it going to be worth the trouble? Norfolk Southern's promising the mother of all battles if eminent domain is used, and they'll probably win because, after all, they DO still use the 14th Street Bridge for train traffic, and because there ARE major safety concerns that would need to be addressed. I'll talk more about that tomorrow. Well folks, that about does it for today's episode. Tomorrow I'll touch on the 14th Street Bridge some more, and throw in whatever other random thoughts I have. Until then, enjoy your day! Welcome to the long-awaited ninth episode! I was going to get thisout sooner, but that was before sinusitis took hold. We've got a lot of ground to cover, so let's get right to it!
CAMPAIGN FINANCE SHENANIGANS: In a 5-4 ruling today,the Supreme Court struck down caps on how much money individuals can donate to federal candidates and political parties or PAC's. The federal candidate cap was $48,600; the party/PAC cap, $74,600. This is a grand total of $123,000 per election. This is the same Supreme Court, save a new justice or two, that decided the Citizens United case, which lifted bans on corporate and union money being used to support candidates. In the majority ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts compared donors to newspapers, essentially saying that the government doesn't restrict how many candidates they endorse, so government shouldn't restrict how many candidates they support. Which isn't an illogical statement at all; I personally ought to be able to support as many candidates as I want. But here's the thing: this means that more money from high-rolling donors will be coming in. This gives people like Sheldon Adelson and George Soros the ability to throw as much money as they so choose to candidates, and it's not implausible to think that there would be an expectation that the candidate, if elected, would champion causes and issues near and dear to the donor--this IS Washington after all. And as Justice Steven Breyer said in the dissenting opinion, these wealthy donors could "drown out" smaller contributors. According to NBC News, six of the ten biggest donors to outside political groups gave to Republican groups; Adelson, a casino guy, was number 1. And 57 percent of the 591 donors who gave at least $46,200 to federal candidates in 2012 were Republican. NBC News cautions that money doesn't necessarily buy an election, noting that in the 2012 presidential election, no party held a complete advantage, despite the spending. But that was before the SCOTUS' ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC. The McCutcheon--first name Shawn--is an Alabama businessman who sued the Federal Election Commission, arguing that the finance restrictions were a violation of his right to free expression; he called the right to donate as much money as you want, to whoever you want, a "basic right". At any rate, what I was going to say was, the 2012 election was before today's ruling. Now, with few limitations--which WERE upheld by SCOTUS--the Republican and Democratic committees can rest easy knowing that their wealthy supporters will funnel all the money they want into their campaign chests, which they can funnel down to the candidates. Local to me, this ups the ante--figuratively and literally speaking--in the three-way battle between incumbent Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell, his Republican challenger, the Tea Party-backed Matt Bevin, and the Democratic challenger, Kentucky Secretary of State Allison Lundergan Grimes. This race is seen as critical to Republicans gaining control of the Senate, or Democrats keeping control, and the Republicans, the Tea Party, and the Democrats are doing what they can to help their candidate win. For someone like me, who lives north of the Ohio River, this ought not to matter, but it does, because what happens in this race--where the Senate Minority Leader, one of the most powerful Republicans in office, faces a two-pronged battle from a Tea Party guy and the daughter of a high-profile Kentucky Democratic contributor--can affect the outcome of other Senate races, and will probably have more of an affect on post-election Senate control than any other race. This is also going to further damage any attempt by independent or third-party candidates to gain a foothold. Without the enormous financial support from a central committee that has been made further possible by today's ruling, any candidate that's not a Republican or Democrat stands a snowball's chance in Hell of getting anywhere in an election. And that is sad news, because perhaps it's the independents and third party candidates who hold the solution to the gridlock in Washington. There will be more to come on this. Stay tuned! PET LICENSE: I just saw an article on the IUS Horizon website that caught my eye: the city of New Albany requires that dogs, cats, and exotic animals be registered with the city. The license is good for a year, unless the pet is microchipped or fixed, in which case a lifetime license is available. Those tho do not license their pets can be fined between $50 and $200. Really? The article doesn't really say why the city enacted such an ordinance. A student said registration can help track down the owners of a lost pet brought to the shelter, or can help track down an animal believed to have rabies. That's all fine and well, but can't there be a way that doesn't involve a fine if one doesn't comply? Why not just require collar tags with the owner's phone number? "Hey, did you lose Fido?" "Yeah, why?" "We've got him at the shelter." "Okay, I'll be there shortly." It's a good thing I live in Clarksville. I was going to mention something about Jeffersonville's end of the Big Four Bridge but I need to discuss something else instead. ANOTHER SHOOTING AT FORT HOOD: An active shooter situation has taken place at Fort Hood, Texas. Reports are still coming in, but KCEN in Temple, Texas is reporting that 4 are dead, including the shooter. This is the second time in recent history that Fort Hood has been the site of a mass shooting. In November 2009, Nidal Hasan, an Army shrink, killed 13 people and wounded over 30 others; he has been sentenced to die, a sentence that cannot be carried out soon enough. And this comes just a few days after a Navy master-at-arms (military police officer) was shot and killed aboard the destroyer USS Mahan at Naval Station Norfolk, VA, by a convicted felon who gained access using a TWIC--Transportation Workers Identification Card--and was shot dead by a member of Mahan's security force. A civilian base police officer is on leave, and NCIS is investigating. My heart aches for those affected by today's events. Although I'm a Navy man now affiliated with the Coast Guard, those at Fort Hood, home to the Army's III Corps and the capital of the Cavalry, are my brothers and sisters in arms, and their families, and service allegiances fall by the wayside when something like this takes place. May God bring comfort to those affected. I would be remiss if I did not mention that the victim of the shooting at Norfolk was MA2 Mark Mayo of Maryland. He was the chief of the guard--essentially, security supervisor--aboard Mahan. He placed himself between the gunman and the petty officer of the watch, whose gun was used to shoot him. His bravery shall not be forgotten. I also should take a moment to acknowledge Lieutenant Ed Walsh and Firefighter Michael Kennedy of the Boston Fire Department, who died fighting a fire in Boston's Back Bay neighborhood last week. A funeral mass for Lt. Walsh was held today; FF Kennedy's funeral is tomorrow. To those who lost their lives in today's shooting at Fort Hood, MA2 Mayo, Lt. Walsh, and FF Kennedy, may you all rest in piece. Hi there folks! Sorry for the extended absence, I've been a wee bit busy lately. I had to spend a few days down in Nashville, and had a couple other things going on. But rest assured, the next episode is coming! Tomorrow, to be exact. So stay tuned!
Hi there! Tonight I bring you the eighth episode of The Chris Kaelin Show. Lots to talk about, so let's get to it!
TAKE IT EASY, KIDS: Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning, and his chat with host Chris Wallace was fairly interesting. One major highlight was Mr. Gates' insistence that those criticizing President Obama on his handling of the crisis in Ukraine should "tone it down". He told Wallace that Russia's recent trek into Ukraine was, in all likelihood, unavoidable. He reminded Wallace--and viewers--that in the wake of Russian president Vladimir Putin's excursion into Georgia (the country), nobody criticized former President George W. Bush. Point, Gates. In fact, it seems to me that the only difference between Georgia and Ukraine is, a Democrat who is despised by the Republicans occupies the White House. The GOP is always looking for a reason to assail Obama. In all fairness, he's sure given them plenty of ammunition, and not every bit of criticism is undeserved. But the fact is, Gates is right--Putin would have gone into Ukraine regardless of who was in the White House, and regardless of missile defense systems and threats of sanctions and whatever else we can threaten the Russian government with. Of course, nobody's going to listen to Robert Gates. After all, he's no longer SecDef, and why would anyone let someone of his stature and intellect keep them from a good time bashing the president? But if the people in Washington won't listen, perhaps we ought to. Because nobody called Bush "naive" the last time this happened. I WANT YOUR VOTE: Also on Fox News Sunday, Senator Rand Paul appeared. Go figure, right? Actually, this time, he kind of made sense. Other than the fact that he managed to answer questions with. . .well, no-answers, he DID rebuff Chris Wallace's attempt to criticize him for his recent lunch with Attorney General Eric Holder, easily one of Rand Paul's least-favorite people. Even though Holder is a defendant, along with Obama and several others, in a lawsuit over the whole NSA thing filed by Paul, they saw fit to enjoy each other's company atlunch to discuss the one thing Paul agrees with the administration on. Yes, folks, you read that right, Rand Paul actually agrees with the Obama administration on something! Specifically, the restoration of voting rights for felons convicted of non-violent crimes. I worked in corrections. I know what it's like on the inside. I've heard about what it's like to be outside the stun fence once you've been in. Many people wind up back inside. Why? Because they can't make it on the outside. There are laws that make sure of it. Employers cringe at felony records. Felons can't vote, can't possess a firearm, they can't do many things. So I agree that it's about time we took a step back and reevaluated these laws. I'm not so sure about giving felons their right to possess a firearm back, but if we're going to try to do something about our recidivism rates, restoring voting rights for non-violent felons is a great step in the right direction. My only worry is that it's being done for political purposes, that Rand Paul and Eric Holder and whoever else figures that those felons with their voting rights restored will start voting Republican or Democrat based on whoever helped pass the law granting those rights back. This needs to be done out of a genuine concern for the continued successful reintegration of convicted felons into society post-incarceration, and not an attempt to score brownie points for the party. So I say, Senator Paul, go for it. Just do it with society's interests in mind, not the party's. THOSE DARN MILLENNIALS: There's a new survey out that says that millennials are not attached to religion or politics, but network through social media, have trust issues and a lot of bills, and don't want to get married anytime soon. On the plus side, we're pretty optimistic! Millennial is defined as anyone in the 18-33 age group; at 30, I fall into the higher end of this group. We've been called selfish and entitled because we're brimming with self-confidence. We play well with others, but want to get that promotion more than you do, but we're also not satisfied with our jobs, so we find a new one all the time. Actually, not every millennial is like that. I'm not self-confident, in fact I have ZERO confidence, but I have an ego large enough to warrant its own ZIP code. I prefer to work alone, but I'll play with others when I need to, as long as they understand that I'm not the most normal person on Earth--and in my experience, it's my fellow millennials who have an issue with that. It could be because I dislike Facebook, only use Twitter for the show here, have no interest in Pinterist, have no desire to Instagram anything, and I only set up this blog to inflict my opinion on others--see, the ego thing. I like getting promoted, too, and in fact just promoted myself today, in my own little world where I am king. . .and the only resident. We millennials think we're going to change the world, and we've already started--Mark Zuckerberg's one of us. Because we're so self-confident, we think we're destined for greatness, and get huge egos in the process. Because we quit our jobs every other day, we're probably going to end up unhirable by the time we're in our 40's. Many of us tend to choose the cheap thrill of a one-night stand, and run the risk of catching an STD/catching a sex crime charge/catching a fist to the face of an angry boyfriend or girlfriend (choose one), and THEN decide to get married. But because many of us live at home until after college, that one-night stand's going to be hard to come by. But there's always Facebook! And we text--a lot. I have a point to all this. Ninety-five percent of the above was said with tongue firmly planted in cheek. What IS true is everything I wrote about me (there goes my ego again) and that we millennials know what we want and are willing to do what it takes to get it, yet at the same time, we are so difficult to please. And truth be told, despite all the studies and research and whatnot, I don't think any of us really know what makes us tick. We're chock full of ambition and optimism and possess the wherewithal to make things happen so we can get what we want, which is probably where folks get the idea that we're self-centered. Are we? We can deny it all day long but at the end of the day, probably. We're impatient. And we've created that monster. We want something and we want it NOW, be it a promotion or the latest iPhone. We are the captains of the ship called "technology" and yet it dominates our lives. Whereas those before us would take the front page of the newspaper in the bathroom with us, we take our phones. We've managed to influence society in a way not seen since the Greatest Generation, and yet we only see things in the immediate sense. I'm not your typical millennial. Thankfully. I know I'm destined to achieve some great thing, but ego aside, there's a difference: I don't define greatness by how much I've contributed to the improvement of society, I define greatness by how much I've contributed to the improvement of ME. I don't mean that in a self-centered manner, by any means, but I can't control the way the millennial generation changes society around me. I can only control my own little slice of the pie. And I'm perfectly content with that. Good morning folks! A quick TCKS update: I forgot to add the link to the Courier-Journal database I used to put the chemical leak information. The link is below, as is a link to C-J reporter James Bruggers' outstanding article about the matter. I also ought to add that the data used to glean the "worst case" scenario is based on 2013 figures.
The link to the database is here: http://datacenter.courier-journal.com/interactives/2014/dangerzones/ The link to the article is here: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20140307/GREEN/303070095/ I just saw an interview with Rand Paul on Fox News Sunday that I'm going to comment on later. Until then, have a great day! |
About UsJust some guy talking about stuff Archives
July 2015
|