Have you heard about the new study the Pew Center released? Oregon spends a bigger percentage of its state budget to lock up criminals and supervise their parole than any other state, according to a new study that examined three decades of prison growth across America.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1204259110324800.xml&coll=7
What do you think about that? I for one am not a big fan of what some call "rehabilitation". Criminal law is based on one of two theories, retribution (ie punishment) or rehabilitation. I believe that both have a place in preventing crime, however our system has gone WAY too far to the rehabilitation side. Prison is not a babysitter or college. We must re-institute the concept of punishment. There are many ways to make the punishment more severe. One of those ways is to lengthen prison sentences (ie Measure 11). The other would be to make prison less attractive (ie miserable).
Did you hear the story two days ago about prisoners fighting about what they would watch on TV, and this nearly caused a riot. Are you kidding me? On what planet are prisoners entitled to watch TV? I think that we should make prison just as miserable as the law and courts will allow us to. That will help keep the recitivism rates down. Last time I looked it was way over 50% of people that go to prison once, go back again. That is horrible and speaks to show that the rehabilitation theory that we have been implementing since the 60's does not work.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Monday, July 9, 2007
Accuracy of the news
First, before I criticize the news, I want to thank the Fire Department from Hubbard (all volunteer) and from Woodburn and Aurora. They tried very hard to contain the fire and put it out.
Every time I have been up close and personal on an event that makes news coverage I notice just how mistaken they are about details, small facts and large facts that they simply state or imply. Do you have any stories about bad reporting? Lets hear them. I am not saying they do it on purpose, they just don't get all the information. It's more like they are lazy. They talk to someone that has no clue about what went on and then head back to the news office. Take for instance this fire yesterday. The TV news people decided to interview the guy that had his camera watching the fire burn, from a long way away, rather than any of the various people that were actually there fighting the fire or had their house burn.
http://www.katu.com/news/8389532.html
Second, if the news doesn't care about accuracy then what do they care about? Probably just the sensationalism aspect of it. All they like to talk about is the explosion, which had nothing to do with the original fire - as far as I could tell from 25 feet away as I was helping the owner try to put the fire out 5+ minutes before the propane tank blew up. Furthermore, nobody was barbequeing and the reported knew that, or should have known that because we all did by then. ( because one house's BBQ's was on the other sides of the house and not burnt, and the other owner wasn't even home). It's sad that all they do is interview one guy - (who instead of helping, just video taped it from about 6 houses away. Thanks for helping buddy), and interview another guy that wasn't even home during the fire and got home from work approximately an hour after the fire. (great investigative reporting). Anyway, in case you can't see the clips, everyone is ok. Other than the terrible tragedy of losing their houses, the owners are safe. It just makes me wonder if this is the type of effort the news puts into every story they do. Makes we wonder about every story I see. Hubbard is a great place to live though, many of my fellow neighbors were right there helping me try to put it out, or helping in other wayss and the support from so many neighbors and friends makes you feel happy to live in a good neighborhood.
http://www.kptv.com/video/index.html
Every time I have been up close and personal on an event that makes news coverage I notice just how mistaken they are about details, small facts and large facts that they simply state or imply. Do you have any stories about bad reporting? Lets hear them. I am not saying they do it on purpose, they just don't get all the information. It's more like they are lazy. They talk to someone that has no clue about what went on and then head back to the news office. Take for instance this fire yesterday. The TV news people decided to interview the guy that had his camera watching the fire burn, from a long way away, rather than any of the various people that were actually there fighting the fire or had their house burn.
http://www.katu.com/news/8389532.html
Second, if the news doesn't care about accuracy then what do they care about? Probably just the sensationalism aspect of it. All they like to talk about is the explosion, which had nothing to do with the original fire - as far as I could tell from 25 feet away as I was helping the owner try to put the fire out 5+ minutes before the propane tank blew up. Furthermore, nobody was barbequeing and the reported knew that, or should have known that because we all did by then. ( because one house's BBQ's was on the other sides of the house and not burnt, and the other owner wasn't even home). It's sad that all they do is interview one guy - (who instead of helping, just video taped it from about 6 houses away. Thanks for helping buddy), and interview another guy that wasn't even home during the fire and got home from work approximately an hour after the fire. (great investigative reporting). Anyway, in case you can't see the clips, everyone is ok. Other than the terrible tragedy of losing their houses, the owners are safe. It just makes me wonder if this is the type of effort the news puts into every story they do. Makes we wonder about every story I see. Hubbard is a great place to live though, many of my fellow neighbors were right there helping me try to put it out, or helping in other wayss and the support from so many neighbors and friends makes you feel happy to live in a good neighborhood.
http://www.kptv.com/video/index.html
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Gas price gouging legislation.
Democrats fake whining about "big oil" and gas price gouging share one thing....they are ridiculous. Particularly troubling is the fact that the government makes more money on gas than the oil companies, but yet the government and democrats wants people to think that "Big Oil" is ripping all of us off. Does anyone beside me ever get upset when the government rips us off and then politicians lie about who is doing it? I think that if people would dig a little and do some investigation they might not support the Democrats.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/ap_on_go_co/house_rollcall_gasoline_prices_1;_ylt=AgLcFK5xj8ZkZsnXGDAogfAF1vAI
We should call it brain gouging. Because the government is gouging your brain. They take the good sense that you are born with and fill it with this kind of crap. Most people would be surprised at how far the govt's hands are in everyone's business. You think gas companies are gouging? In Oregon a gas station owner gets 9-12 cents for every gallon. The state gets 43 cents for every gallon. That is almost 300% more than the people that actually do the work. So I ask again who is gouging the public? In Washington the government gets 51 cents for every gallon. Nationally it is 46 cents. According to the logic of the idiots pushing this gas price gouging bill we should thank the gas station owners and sue the government.
Do you want cheaper gas? Then get off you but, go make about $60 and buy yourself a barrel on the commodities market. Get a book on how to refine it, pay uncle Sam some more money so he won't arrest you for illegally refining oil, then pay the environmentalists so they won't picket you, or try to burn you down (see eco-terrorists), then you can transport it from wherever the government tells you that you can refine it, to where you actually need the gas. Sounds easy doesn't it? No wonder gas is not so cheap.
If you really want cheaper gas, de-regulate, and lower your fees, licenses and market regulations. Open ANWAR and start drilling and refining again in the US. If you aren't willing to do those things... Democrats in congress.... then shut the hell up about high gas prices. Congress, you don't have the right to complain when you are the source of most of the problem.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/ap_on_go_co/house_rollcall_gasoline_prices_1;_ylt=AgLcFK5xj8ZkZsnXGDAogfAF1vAI
We should call it brain gouging. Because the government is gouging your brain. They take the good sense that you are born with and fill it with this kind of crap. Most people would be surprised at how far the govt's hands are in everyone's business. You think gas companies are gouging? In Oregon a gas station owner gets 9-12 cents for every gallon. The state gets 43 cents for every gallon. That is almost 300% more than the people that actually do the work. So I ask again who is gouging the public? In Washington the government gets 51 cents for every gallon. Nationally it is 46 cents. According to the logic of the idiots pushing this gas price gouging bill we should thank the gas station owners and sue the government.
Do you want cheaper gas? Then get off you but, go make about $60 and buy yourself a barrel on the commodities market. Get a book on how to refine it, pay uncle Sam some more money so he won't arrest you for illegally refining oil, then pay the environmentalists so they won't picket you, or try to burn you down (see eco-terrorists), then you can transport it from wherever the government tells you that you can refine it, to where you actually need the gas. Sounds easy doesn't it? No wonder gas is not so cheap.
If you really want cheaper gas, de-regulate, and lower your fees, licenses and market regulations. Open ANWAR and start drilling and refining again in the US. If you aren't willing to do those things... Democrats in congress.... then shut the hell up about high gas prices. Congress, you don't have the right to complain when you are the source of most of the problem.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Global Warming fury cools
Well, you know I posted an article saying this same thing about a month or more ago. (see list of Global Warming Debunkers). Now there are even more and more former scientists that were part of the consensus, but are now taking that all back...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
I have added these names to the "List of Global Warming Debunkers", as always check back frequently, I am sure there will be more updates.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
I have added these names to the "List of Global Warming Debunkers", as always check back frequently, I am sure there will be more updates.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Newt for Pres!
Yesterday morning Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, leader and author of the Contract with America, focal point of the Republican Revolution and historian told Diane Sawyer that there is a great possibility that he will run for President.
Good, we need it. I have long been touting Newt as my early favorite. At least my early political favorite. Sure he is getting started late, but he already has a huge political network, massive name recognition, and fundraising ability. Newt is the only one of the current big name candidates (Rudy, Mitt, McCain) that can argue a consistent conservative message. Plus Newt is brilliant. We need a candidate that can educate the american voter. That is what Newt is best at, he does it for a living, and as a historian, knows how to explain the past, combined with future policy to make a better America.
Thus, right now I rank the primary Republicans as follows:
1. Newt
2. F. Thompson
3. Romney
4. Hunter
5. T. Thompson
6. T. Tancredo
Good, we need it. I have long been touting Newt as my early favorite. At least my early political favorite. Sure he is getting started late, but he already has a huge political network, massive name recognition, and fundraising ability. Newt is the only one of the current big name candidates (Rudy, Mitt, McCain) that can argue a consistent conservative message. Plus Newt is brilliant. We need a candidate that can educate the american voter. That is what Newt is best at, he does it for a living, and as a historian, knows how to explain the past, combined with future policy to make a better America.
Thus, right now I rank the primary Republicans as follows:
1. Newt
2. F. Thompson
3. Romney
4. Hunter
5. T. Thompson
6. T. Tancredo
Monday, May 14, 2007
Gas Prices Hit All-Time High After Post Katrina Peak
The U.S. gas prices have hit an all-time high earlier this week at $3.10 per gallon. This tops the previous record set after hurricane Katrina hit in 2005 of $3.07 per gallon. I've read so many comments on this topic that I'm driven to write a blog on this site in response.
The comments that I have read and hear people say refer to the high gas prices as being totally controlled by our government and big U.S. oil companies. I have to believe that people have not taken the time to fully educate themselves about the current situation, but rather take the easy road and blame the government, specifically the president. Where is Congress in all of this? We now have a Democratic controlled Congress, yet no one wants to ask these same tough questions of the Democrats. That would probably because our current Congress is also blaming the president rather than trying to help solve the issue at hand.
While I don't love the $3.33 I just paid at the pump here in Oregon, I do understand part or most of what is driving these high gas prices. I think people either don't know or have completely forgotten that refineries have shut down in the past limiting supply of gas. This especially rings true on the West Coast where California, Oregon and Washington are reporting the highest gas prices in the nation. In addition, we are now approaching the summer demand for gas which goes up significantly versus other times throughout the year. Refineries are just starting to increase their production which should ease things a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean prices are going to go down.
In addition, while SUV and truck sales have been down over the past few years, people are still buying them. For whatever their reason is, I still see new trucks and SUVs on the road, so the gas prices must not be too painful yet. That might partly be because incomes are on the rise. If incomes are on the uptick, then people are likely to spend more. Just a comment....why isn't the president getting kudos for incomes rising? Probably because the liberal media doesn't want the public to know this information. Otherwise, the president's approval rating might go up a little and they don't want that as we move into an election year. They want people to have their focus on 2 things and only 2 things right now...Iraq and gas.
The comments that I have read and hear people say refer to the high gas prices as being totally controlled by our government and big U.S. oil companies. I have to believe that people have not taken the time to fully educate themselves about the current situation, but rather take the easy road and blame the government, specifically the president. Where is Congress in all of this? We now have a Democratic controlled Congress, yet no one wants to ask these same tough questions of the Democrats. That would probably because our current Congress is also blaming the president rather than trying to help solve the issue at hand.
While I don't love the $3.33 I just paid at the pump here in Oregon, I do understand part or most of what is driving these high gas prices. I think people either don't know or have completely forgotten that refineries have shut down in the past limiting supply of gas. This especially rings true on the West Coast where California, Oregon and Washington are reporting the highest gas prices in the nation. In addition, we are now approaching the summer demand for gas which goes up significantly versus other times throughout the year. Refineries are just starting to increase their production which should ease things a bit, but that doesn't necessarily mean prices are going to go down.
In addition, while SUV and truck sales have been down over the past few years, people are still buying them. For whatever their reason is, I still see new trucks and SUVs on the road, so the gas prices must not be too painful yet. That might partly be because incomes are on the rise. If incomes are on the uptick, then people are likely to spend more. Just a comment....why isn't the president getting kudos for incomes rising? Probably because the liberal media doesn't want the public to know this information. Otherwise, the president's approval rating might go up a little and they don't want that as we move into an election year. They want people to have their focus on 2 things and only 2 things right now...Iraq and gas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)