Two days before Christmas, Paul Crabtree had some last minute Christmas 'shopping' to do.
His girlfriend/friend/whatever, Elizabeth Holt, also had some 'shopping' to get done... so she went with him.
Unknown person #3, accompanies Paul and Elizabeth to fight the holiday crowds and the trio sets off to get gifts and spread holiday cheer.
How did they fare?
It turns out, they skipped the malls, the traffic and the crowds. Instead they went to an apartment complex, armed themselves with knives and broke into someone's home.
Those were bad decisions. But then it got much worse.
The resident of the apartment was home. And armed. With a gun.
What's the old saying? 'Never bring a knife to a gunfight?'
I'll give you 3 guesses as to who came out on the short end of the stick here, and the first two don't count.
When Crabtree took a slug from the gun, Miss Elizabeth Holt and the other unnamed person decided they got the wrong apartment and got the heck out of dodge. They left Mr. Crabtree at the apartment to discuss things more in depth with the resident.
Rest easy. The good guy (apartment resident) is alive and kicking and gets to enjoy Christmas of 2007.
As for Crabtree? He's forever on the 'Naughtly List' and enjoying a dirt nap. His two accomplices, Elizabeth Holt and the unknown person... they're on the run. For now.
The good news in all this? There's one less criminal you have to worry about breaking into your home and doing you and your family harm. There are two other criminals who will think twice (hopefully) before doing something like this again and will be caught soon.
And lastly... the guy at home who fended off the intruders... He's alive.
Thanks to his gun.
I can only imagine how this scenario might have turned out had our hero only been allowed by government to be armed with a knife...
Monday, December 24, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Before you sign...
Scenario 1: You're going through 9 pages of paperwork with the bank for the approval of your loan. At the signing, you:
A: Get a short synopsis of each page and then sign where the loan officer tells you to sign.
B: Read and scrutinize through each section, asking questions before you sign anything.
Scenario 2: You are about to sign the contract for your new job. When it comes time to sign your contract, you:
A: Go ahead and sign it. You're certain it says exactly what you agreed it would say.
B: Read and scrutinize through each, making sure everything is correct before you sign at the bottom.
Although entirely different scenarios, the importance of each doesn't change. You have to know, understand and agree to all the terms when you're entering into something that requires your signature.
Sure, going through those nine pages at the loan signing will take an extra 20 to 40 minutes as you read over everything... and yes, you're eating into the loan officer's lunch break. But this is important because once signed, it's fixed.
And re-reading the contract with your about-to-be employer before signing it may make you appear to be a bit paranoid, but if something is wrong and not in your favor, you want to catch it BEFORE you sign.
Home loan. Employee contract.
Important things.
They really don't compare to a hill of beans when it comes to imposing a federal law, right? Once something is law, we're all bound to it and can face severe punishment if we don't comply.
On Wednesday, December 19th, the Energy Bill was signed into law by President Bush.
The bill was about a foot in height and had about three thousand five hundred pages.
Ask yourself: Do you think any member of Congress or President Bush read all 3,500 pages?
Me neither.
That strikes me as irresponsible.
A: Get a short synopsis of each page and then sign where the loan officer tells you to sign.
B: Read and scrutinize through each section, asking questions before you sign anything.
Scenario 2: You are about to sign the contract for your new job. When it comes time to sign your contract, you:
A: Go ahead and sign it. You're certain it says exactly what you agreed it would say.
B: Read and scrutinize through each, making sure everything is correct before you sign at the bottom.
Although entirely different scenarios, the importance of each doesn't change. You have to know, understand and agree to all the terms when you're entering into something that requires your signature.
Sure, going through those nine pages at the loan signing will take an extra 20 to 40 minutes as you read over everything... and yes, you're eating into the loan officer's lunch break. But this is important because once signed, it's fixed.
And re-reading the contract with your about-to-be employer before signing it may make you appear to be a bit paranoid, but if something is wrong and not in your favor, you want to catch it BEFORE you sign.
Home loan. Employee contract.
Important things.
They really don't compare to a hill of beans when it comes to imposing a federal law, right? Once something is law, we're all bound to it and can face severe punishment if we don't comply.
On Wednesday, December 19th, the Energy Bill was signed into law by President Bush.
The bill was about a foot in height and had about three thousand five hundred pages.
Ask yourself: Do you think any member of Congress or President Bush read all 3,500 pages?
Me neither.
That strikes me as irresponsible.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Trumping Contracts
Suppose you work for a multi-million dollar company and have a contract that states the terms, conditions, the salary and the salary increases of your employment.
When the contract was drawn up, you and the company both agreed to the terms. Each side was happy because they felt that they were getting the better end of the deal.
Two years into your employment, the company falls on hard times. Sales are down, the projections are off, etc.
It's unfortunate for the company, but luckily for you, YOU have a signed CONTRACT that specifically states that you still get your raise/bonus from the company. Right?
Not so fast.
The Federal Government steps in.
The government 'suggests' that instead of the company giving you your 15% raise next week, it should 'freeze' your salary right where it is.
For the next FIVE YEARS.
How 'bout them apples?
So when the government 'steps in' and 'suggests' to banks and mortgage companies they should 'freeze' their interest rates so that people who bought houses they can't afford won't have to foreclose or sell their homes when their interest rate increases.... You should be equally miffed as well.
When the contract was drawn up, you and the company both agreed to the terms. Each side was happy because they felt that they were getting the better end of the deal.
Two years into your employment, the company falls on hard times. Sales are down, the projections are off, etc.
It's unfortunate for the company, but luckily for you, YOU have a signed CONTRACT that specifically states that you still get your raise/bonus from the company. Right?
Not so fast.
The Federal Government steps in.
The government 'suggests' that instead of the company giving you your 15% raise next week, it should 'freeze' your salary right where it is.
For the next FIVE YEARS.
How 'bout them apples?
So when the government 'steps in' and 'suggests' to banks and mortgage companies they should 'freeze' their interest rates so that people who bought houses they can't afford won't have to foreclose or sell their homes when their interest rate increases.... You should be equally miffed as well.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Drug Testing Students?
The Madison School Board was about to vote on drug testing students recently but the vote was stalled thanks to three parents who voiced their opposition.
So how could any rational parent be opposed to this vote? The parents 'said they didn't think the proposed policy had been publicized enough and would like to know why the policy is being considered in the first place.'
Good for them! These three parents deserve our thanks. They stopped politicians from sneaking through a vote that would affect their children. That's called being a GOOD parent.
By the way, it IS 'sneaking' when the board doesn't put it on the agenda and doesn't mention it on their website.
The school board says the drug testing would have been 'random.' Random meaning students who drive to school and those who participate in extracurricular activities.
That pretty much covers 90%+ of students age 16 and older... and folks, that's not 'random.'
This is another example of government run schools. First, when your child is ready for school, your local school system sends you a letter. It states that your child is required by law to go to school. Punishment for not complying? Mom and dad go to jail.
Wow! Where do I sign up for that?! (note sarcasm)
(You've already signed up. You don't have a choice.)
Next, after being forced to go to school, the government decides that, for a better, safer and healthier society, that it will test the students for illegal drugs.
Great!
Just show probable cause and get a warrant FIRST.
Yes... GET A WARRANT. People in this country have RIGHTS and it doesn't matter if the person is 40 years old or 15 years old. The same rules apply across the board! EVERYONE is protected by the 4th amendment... which reads:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
What part of the 4th amendment isn't clear about that?
I've heard the argument that the Constitution doesn't apply to minors or students... but that's hogwash. The Constitution applies to our GOVERNMENT.
What's sad is that when it comes to 'winning the war on drugs,' the government is quick look past the rules (the Constitution) that impedes their effort.
Which is yet another reason to end the insane war on drugs...
So how could any rational parent be opposed to this vote? The parents 'said they didn't think the proposed policy had been publicized enough and would like to know why the policy is being considered in the first place.'
Good for them! These three parents deserve our thanks. They stopped politicians from sneaking through a vote that would affect their children. That's called being a GOOD parent.
By the way, it IS 'sneaking' when the board doesn't put it on the agenda and doesn't mention it on their website.
The school board says the drug testing would have been 'random.' Random meaning students who drive to school and those who participate in extracurricular activities.
That pretty much covers 90%+ of students age 16 and older... and folks, that's not 'random.'
This is another example of government run schools. First, when your child is ready for school, your local school system sends you a letter. It states that your child is required by law to go to school. Punishment for not complying? Mom and dad go to jail.
Wow! Where do I sign up for that?! (note sarcasm)
(You've already signed up. You don't have a choice.)
Next, after being forced to go to school, the government decides that, for a better, safer and healthier society, that it will test the students for illegal drugs.
Great!
Just show probable cause and get a warrant FIRST.
Yes... GET A WARRANT. People in this country have RIGHTS and it doesn't matter if the person is 40 years old or 15 years old. The same rules apply across the board! EVERYONE is protected by the 4th amendment... which reads:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
What part of the 4th amendment isn't clear about that?
I've heard the argument that the Constitution doesn't apply to minors or students... but that's hogwash. The Constitution applies to our GOVERNMENT.
What's sad is that when it comes to 'winning the war on drugs,' the government is quick look past the rules (the Constitution) that impedes their effort.
Which is yet another reason to end the insane war on drugs...
Monday, October 8, 2007
Torturing Terrorists & Constitutional Rights
Last Friday night I was listening to a local radio talk show. The discussion was about torturing terrorists in order to gain information about future attacks & terrorist activities.
I think I may have been the only individual who called in to think that it's wrong to do so.
Other callers said that torture was completely acceptable... by any means necessary!
Wow. That's just plain scary.
When I called in, I said that I was fairly confident, more than 98% sure, that when the feds apprehend someone they think is a terrorist, they've got the right guy.
Great. Give him a trial and prove it.
That's right. Give the suspected terrorist a trial (and a lawyer). After all, if the government is so certain, the trial should be open and shut in a day!
What ensued quickly thereafter were numerous callers saying that terrorists don't have a right to a trial. In fact, they don't have any rights, period!
Well, that's just plain ignorance of how our government works.
When our government suspects someone of a crime or other illegal activity, there are certain rules that must be followed. The individual(s) must be charged, given a trial, etc.
Other calls didn't seem to think so... that our constitution doesn't apply to others.
That's true. Our constitution applies to our government. It's the set of rules that restricts what our government can and cannot do.
Other callers chimed in using the term 'constitution rights.'
Folks, there are no such thing as CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. That's a ridiculous term that implies that the rights and freedoms we have come from a document that specifies what our government can and cannot do.
Not so.
Our rights come from above. Period. Our constitution was created by our founding fathers to ensure that the government does not impede or trample on the rights we, as human beings, have. Our rights are therefore constitutionally protected.
I think I may have been the only individual who called in to think that it's wrong to do so.
Other callers said that torture was completely acceptable... by any means necessary!
Wow. That's just plain scary.
When I called in, I said that I was fairly confident, more than 98% sure, that when the feds apprehend someone they think is a terrorist, they've got the right guy.
Great. Give him a trial and prove it.
That's right. Give the suspected terrorist a trial (and a lawyer). After all, if the government is so certain, the trial should be open and shut in a day!
What ensued quickly thereafter were numerous callers saying that terrorists don't have a right to a trial. In fact, they don't have any rights, period!
Well, that's just plain ignorance of how our government works.
When our government suspects someone of a crime or other illegal activity, there are certain rules that must be followed. The individual(s) must be charged, given a trial, etc.
Other calls didn't seem to think so... that our constitution doesn't apply to others.
That's true. Our constitution applies to our government. It's the set of rules that restricts what our government can and cannot do.
Other callers chimed in using the term 'constitution rights.'
Folks, there are no such thing as CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. That's a ridiculous term that implies that the rights and freedoms we have come from a document that specifies what our government can and cannot do.
Not so.
Our rights come from above. Period. Our constitution was created by our founding fathers to ensure that the government does not impede or trample on the rights we, as human beings, have. Our rights are therefore constitutionally protected.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
What's the alternative?
Recently an older gentleman struck up a conversation with me outside in a parking lot. He told me that he had had a car accident and now his insurance company was stringing him along and not paying for all of his medical care.
Not knowing anything more than what he told me, I responded, 'It beats the alternative.'
I think he was really looking for someone to take his side in the situation. He said that was a good point and then we parted ways.
Rarely do people consider the alternatives in any situation. Take the price of gas today. At 2.50 a gallon, people loathe paying for gas. They feel like they're getting raked over the coals every time they fill up.
But what's the alternative? There's a lot! The alternatives could be walking, carpooling, taking a bus, not doing whatever is needed to have to use gas... or no gas at all! The truth is that getting gas at 2.50 a gallon beats the alternative... otherwise you wouldn't be getting that gas.
That doesn't mean you have to like getting gas for 2.50. But 'liking' something isn't a factor to consider.
Not knowing anything more than what he told me, I responded, 'It beats the alternative.'
I think he was really looking for someone to take his side in the situation. He said that was a good point and then we parted ways.
Rarely do people consider the alternatives in any situation. Take the price of gas today. At 2.50 a gallon, people loathe paying for gas. They feel like they're getting raked over the coals every time they fill up.
But what's the alternative? There's a lot! The alternatives could be walking, carpooling, taking a bus, not doing whatever is needed to have to use gas... or no gas at all! The truth is that getting gas at 2.50 a gallon beats the alternative... otherwise you wouldn't be getting that gas.
That doesn't mean you have to like getting gas for 2.50. But 'liking' something isn't a factor to consider.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
'Illegal' Immigration
Regarding 'illegal' immigration, I used to be of the mindset that those who were against it were probably bigoted in some sense. After all, no one's complaining about immigrants from Canada, right? It's the immigration from Mexico that's causing a stir.
But that's not the reason so many oppose illegal immigration. The issue isn't just Mexicans sneaking across the border & being in the country illegally. The issue is the cost they have on our economy, namely using our system of free education, lack of health insurance, receiving Social Security without paying into it, all while working and getting paid under the table and avoiding our income taxes. Some say that 'they' are a burden on us, slowly bleeding us dry.
To that end, I say 'ROCK ON!' If I could do it too, I would! Heck, who wouldn't?
To those who oppose illegal immigration, examine things closer:
Many years ago, immigrants came to this country to pursue a better life for themselves and their family. They worked. There was no promise of having your children getting a 'free' education. There was no promise that someone else would pick up your medical expenses if something happened and you couldn't pay.
Not anymore.
Now immigrants (not all) come to this country seeking the promises of 'free' education or 'free' housing and the expectation that they'll be taken care of if they get sick.
Reality check: When stuff is being sold as being 'free,' you get more people wanting more of it. (Think of gas being sold for 14 cents today. Imagine the lines at the pump!)
You can't have it both ways. You can't want your 'free' education for you and then not expect MILLIONS of other people in this world to not come and try to get a slice of that pie for themselves. It just doesn't work that way.
I could care less about 'illegal' immigration. The 'burden' they have on this country is our own doing. We offer so many 'services' for 'free' it's no wonder there are people doing ANYTHING they can to get in here.
It's our bed and it has quite a few nails. And it's starting to suck to have lay in it.
But that's not the reason so many oppose illegal immigration. The issue isn't just Mexicans sneaking across the border & being in the country illegally. The issue is the cost they have on our economy, namely using our system of free education, lack of health insurance, receiving Social Security without paying into it, all while working and getting paid under the table and avoiding our income taxes. Some say that 'they' are a burden on us, slowly bleeding us dry.
To that end, I say 'ROCK ON!' If I could do it too, I would! Heck, who wouldn't?
To those who oppose illegal immigration, examine things closer:
Many years ago, immigrants came to this country to pursue a better life for themselves and their family. They worked. There was no promise of having your children getting a 'free' education. There was no promise that someone else would pick up your medical expenses if something happened and you couldn't pay.
Not anymore.
Now immigrants (not all) come to this country seeking the promises of 'free' education or 'free' housing and the expectation that they'll be taken care of if they get sick.
Reality check: When stuff is being sold as being 'free,' you get more people wanting more of it. (Think of gas being sold for 14 cents today. Imagine the lines at the pump!)
You can't have it both ways. You can't want your 'free' education for you and then not expect MILLIONS of other people in this world to not come and try to get a slice of that pie for themselves. It just doesn't work that way.
I could care less about 'illegal' immigration. The 'burden' they have on this country is our own doing. We offer so many 'services' for 'free' it's no wonder there are people doing ANYTHING they can to get in here.
It's our bed and it has quite a few nails. And it's starting to suck to have lay in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)