Computer Owwwwieee

I was down a couple of days with a slightly sick computer.

Back in the saddle again....

Manners - You know, how to respect others around you, OR NOT

My, my, how we Laredoans sure have forgotten our manners, that is if we had any in the first place.  Because of my observant eye catching hundreds,  if not thousands, of Mr. Manners violations over the last weekend, I will take it upon myself to offer some helpful hints in making Laredo a wonderful place to live.

As we go forward, some of you may not consider some of the items I will discuss as actual manners violations…..”Well, YOU CAN GO STRAIGHT TO HE.....opps, let me cool off and put my good manners hat on again.  Your opinion is valued, and you will have your chance to respond in the comments section.

Big violation number one:  To the pig headed lady who stood in front of me at the Jiffy Mart, while checking out,  talking on her cell phone, and not paying attention to the cashier who was trying to tell you you owed more money….You are a manners violator.    Next time, turn off your phone, or hang up before you check out.  This goes for the mini-marts, grocery store, gas station, anywhere others may be in line waiting for you to get your pig head out of the way so they can go about their business……Opps again, sorry.

Mega violation number two:  This one has popped up before, to you lazy slime balls, sorry, lazy individuals who fail to put their grocery cart in any one of the 10 cart racks at the HEB at Del Mar and McPherson, you should have your car doors hit with a hammer by the witness while you repeat the phrase, “I will put my shopping cart in the rack” 200 times.  Get outta my lot you lazy slobs…sorry, my bad, again.

Mega violation number three:  At  the Clark St. Wal-Mart this Sunday, at around 8 a.m. while shopping for ammunition, I notice there must have been over 100 shopping carts full of miscellaneous products that were apparently picked up during a shopping spree by many stupid, uneducated fools, who either do not have any idea how much the things piled in the cart are going to cost, or has such a small bit of brain matter, that they forgot why they put the stupid thing in their cart in the first place, then  take them out at the check stand and leave them with the checker.  OK, you non-rocket scientist idiots, it cost the store money to put those products back in the shelves, that is, if the product is not damaged too much to restock.  This cost that the store incurs in restocking all these items is passed on to the shopper.  Even for those who know, how much money they have with them, and what they want to buy are forced to pay for these non-rocket scientist, can’t add two plus two idiots.  PS, to the plastic bag ban gang……just wait and see how much more often this will occur when big lazy Suzy, the stupid non-rocket scientist won’t buy another reusable bag to fit her extra bags of cookies into, and she leaves it on the counter.

This violation can cause me to go into cardiac arrhythmia, or whatever it is that gets your heart beating a million times per second, and your face to turn redder than the Texas A&M dog’s (Revillie) bandana.  To those employees who are supposed to be waiting on you (name the place) who are reading, texting, or talking on a phone, or cell phone.  I wish I had the money to pay the bail bondsman, and court cost for all the times I would like to take the electronic device out of the hands of the offender and smash it into a million pieces, and then smile in a condescending manner and then ask the employee,  “What up dude (dudette)?

And this last one is by no means the last attack on manners I see in Laredo, but I am tired, and the arrhythmia thing is starting to kick in.  Anyway,  to you that hold a space in line (especially in front of me) for your friend(s) at Luby’s because they cannot get there on time, and then they have to see, smell, touch, and ask questions about every item from the salad bar to the wrapped butter bowl. Then decide to pay with a debit card that has expired.  All this time I am patiently waiting behind you with a piece of fish that is re-growing its scales and the tartar sauce is starting to go rancid.  You then decide you don’t want the liver that I have had to smell for the last 30 minutes of your buffet ballet, but would rather have the lasagna.  To you, and your ilk, I say, NO MORE LUBYS FOR YOU, at least until you go into the place with some idea of what you want and why.

I await with the great courteousness your comments.

Ray Garner: New Police Chief at Laredo PD

Last night, in a unanimous vote, the Laredo City Council approved the recommendation from City Manager Carlos Villarreal that current UISD Police Chief Ray Garner be hired as the new Chief of Police at the Laredo Police Department.

I have met Ray several times during my time in Laredo and always found him to be a knowledgeable and positive individual.  It will be interesting to see him deal with the Laredo Police Department, one fragmented with 3 separate police unions/associations.

I only heard part of Ray's presentation to city council, so I can't, at this time comment too much on that topic.  However, I will say that a 10 minute presentation does not make the man. So, I expect, any one of the three candidates would have made a good chief.  But, Garner got the nod, so LPD, it is time to back this new chief, give him a chance and hopefully those problems we hear about on the low key will be mitigated somewhat.

Chief Garner, good luck.

PS, Chief, go down a few post on this blog and read my post:  Open Letter to New Police Chief

Chickens Have Feelings Too: Or NOT....

Last Friday I read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle (no link, so trust me on this one) that was about a company who had invented a replacement for the egg.  The title of the article implied that these folks had found a way to make eggs without the chicken.

Being the curious person I am, and from the mid-west where I visited many different farms over the years, I wanted to know more about this break through product.

After the first couple of catch lines in the article, it tells the real story about a company who has created nothing more than an egg substitute.  But the article did say that the company believed that their product would reduce the number of real eggs needed, therefore freeing millions of chickens from bondage.   You know, freeing chickens from being all cooped up in, you know, CHICKEN COOPS.....

Anyway,  I think we already have such a product for sale today, or maybe not, as I eat the real things, not the substitute.  Well, I probably eat the substitute when it is used in a recipe of a prepared food that I might buy.  But I was happy to see that the egg, the one that comes from chickens, is still the gold standard.

But after I finished reading, I wondered if the real intent of the article, which was obviously a well placed advertisement for the egg substitute,  was to have people really believe that, one, a chicken actually cares about his/her lifestyle, and two, that just by reading the headline, the reader might believe the company created a real egg, shell, yolk, white and all.   I said to myself, "Surely not, no one is that ill informed."  Then it hit me.  This article was aimed at those who really, truly believe, there is a big monetary difference between a product labeled "organic" and one that is not.  You see these folks seem to believe anything that comes from farmers that have modernized their operations to include pesticides, fertilizers, and mass food production systems are making food that will kill them.  Hence, they want foods grown using the old style farming, where bugs eat the crop, you get the leftovers, use cow-@#*&  for fertilizer, and sell it as organic.  And raise your cows and chickens on the open range, so they will be happy, right up to the point they are slaughtered for human consumption.

As I have stated in other post, those that buy "organic" are the farmers/growers best friend.   Just look at the produce at the local HEB, and see the difference in the outward appearance of the fruits and vegetables that are labeled organic and not.  I know, I know, the organic fruits and vegetables say they were not subject to pesticide and chemical fertilizer use during growing, blah, blah, blah.  Maybe you will get lucky and get to eat a worm in your apple.  Then you will  have really experienced the organic revolution.  The truth is, that the pesticides used make the fruits and vegetables less expensive and at no loss in nutritional values, or safety.  What, you don't wash your organic vegetables or fruit...you know what they use for fertilizer?

Anyway, give me a real egg, with a real shell, and cook it in bacon grease, over hard please.  And that, along with the bacon used to make the bacon grease, and some toast and jelly is a real breakfast my friends.

PS, if you are still worried about the chickens, and their feelings, go visit a chicken processing plant, or a mid-west farmer who has decided to cull his chicken heard of a couple of hens for a family get together.  You know how they kill a chicken on the farm?  They wring its neck until the head pops off.  Then they wait for the chicken to quit running around, ah, like a chicken with its head cut off, and then pluck (worst smell ever) it, and cook it. 

I would bet the cooped up hen would tell the soon to be de-headed "range" chicken, "I'll stick to layin eggs, you go ahead and enjoy your romp around the yard.  Just beware of family picnics."

National Football League, Is it time to add another F to NFL?????

I know, Tony Gonzalez is not a running back and no longer
with the Chiefs.  But it is my blog, so, I get to pick the pictures.

Well those folks who want to add another F (Flag) to the National Football League are at it again.

This time (read story here) they want to make it a foul for an NFL running back to intentionally hit a defender with his helmet.

Emmit Smith, of Cowboys fame, says the NFL is crazy.

I happen to agree with him.  At some point,  the NFL is going to impose such stringent safety measures on its game that the older fans will no longer watch the games.   Could be the NFL, or the new NFFL (National Flag Football League) will attract a new, softer, gentler, more forgiving fan base that will enjoy watching 350 lb. men, and women of course, run down the field until a defender puts a vicious, teeth rattling, bone crushing, pull on the little pink flags the offense will wear on their belts, signifying what used to be called a tackle.

I cannot wait until a middle linebacker goes into celebration mode, and flexes his/her muscles and growls loudly while holding up the pink flag snatched from the belt of the punishing running back.

Of course the new NFFL will have to ban a few words/phrases that announcers are currently allowed to use:

crushing
jarring
teeth rattling
smashing
hit so hard all you could see were spit bubbles coming out his mouth
and many more.

(Feel free to add your own future banned words or phrases)

Yes NFL commishes, please add this new rule.  I want to see more penalties, more reviews.  I want to see and hear more from the referees during the games.  Of course you just might free up my Sundays and Mondays where I will no longer be watching TV.  Now, that might be a good thing.

Sequester: More Foolish Spending

How stupid does the President think we are?  Obviously pretty stupid.  Well, in his rant about the end of the world coming via sequester, the President, and our local US Congressman should have mentioned that they (remember money comes from politicians, not taxpayers) are giving $50,000 to the Sullivan, Tx. Police Department.  (Read Full Story from McAllen Monitor Here)

Now, at first, this seems like a small pittance of the federal cash pile, but one must take a closer look at the recipient just to see how much money this really is.

Sullivan city, located in deep South Texas (the valley) is a booming metropolis of 4,900 people.  Now, I am not really sure how many police officers that Sullivan city has, but it cannot be more than 3 to 5 that are paid a salary.

The real question here, does it make sense for our U.S. government to give money to local police departments for border security, when they are furloughing real border patrol and C.B.P. bridge personnel?

Of course not, and it is just another indicator that the President of the United States is doing everything he and his cabinet can do to inflict pain of the people to score political points.  Impeachable offense, YES.

St John: Has He Gone To The Dark Side?

Has Jay St John gone over to the dark side?  Has spending so much time with Sergio Mora (Past Laredo Democratic Chairman) infected him?

Jay recently posted a story about how Laredo will be impacted by the sequester.  Jay seems to agree with U.S. Congressman Henry Cuellar that Laredo is going to really, really, be hurt by the sequester.  In that part, I agree, Laredo will be hurt, but it will be an "intentional" hurt implemented by President Obama, his cabinet, and obviously his horn tooters.

The President, and his cabinet, had the authority to decide what would be cut in each agency.  Yet, they decided, for purely political advantage, that they would make the cuts as painful as possible for the American people, then deflect the blame to the Republican party.  The ultimate goal, taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2014 mid-term elections.  Now, even the main stream media is saying the President's hype was way overboard.

Anyway, back to Jay.  Jay, say it ain't so.  Tell us you are going to seek a Sergio Mora-ecthomy....to remove those liberal ideals from your brain (insert your joke line here.)  Jay, you even implied you are for a plastic bag ban....this is how I really know you have entered the dark side.  Your prognosis is not good without treatment.

OSHA: A Great Place for Targeted Sequestraion

Occupational Safety & Heath Administration

If ever there was a need for "targeted sequestration," this agency and it's minions are deserving of the swordsmanship of the forced reductions in manpower and capital.

Side note:  Notice how the word sequestration rhymes with castration.  Sweet isn't it!!!!

In a suburb (where I used to live actually) an AT&T repairman was killed in a violent robbery attempt in which he was struck in the head and later died (Read full story here).

Those wise government officials at the OSHA decided AT&T should be fined $7,000 for not providing the worker with a "panic button" that would have alerted authorities that he was injured.

I do not know what kind of fantasy world these government officials live in, or what they watch on television, but I know of no such panic button, other than the one sold in the commercials where a woman screams "Help, I fallen and can't get up."  And in reading the story, of course many facts are not presented, it appears that the man was hit in the head, and later died from the blow.  My bet is, since he had a cell phone, and a laptop, that the man was unconscious and unable to call for help, so the panic button would be useless.

What is sad now, is that AT&T will have to defend itself against this ridiculous charge and fine.  And that cost my friends is passed on to you.

We can only pray for the budget swordsman to locate these OSHA folks and slash their powers.

I Believe In Conservationism, Not Environmentalism

I took this photo at Lake Casablanca a couple of years ago.

With the renewed interest in the RGISC in banning plastic bags in Laredo becoming a topic of local bloggers, and recent revival of those who wanted to save a retention pond (aka:  wetland) at a development near the airport and Lake Casablanca, I thought it time to lay out some of my personal beliefs on land use.

I am a conservationist.  Meaning, I believe in the willful conservation of land and buildings for future generations of people and wildlife.  Note, I said willful.  I would love to see Laredo shoot for a wildlife preserve, just like they have in Rio Grande Valley.  This area is not only great for locals, but brings in lots of tourist.  I think this city council has missed the boat on focusing only on "my district" issues.  Meaning, well, we cannot have a wildlife refuge in your district, and not in mine.  Never mind the fact that council then prices the city out of opportunity to enhance the city as a whole.

Anyway, my belief is simple:  Property rights trump group rights, unless the property owner is doing something so bad that the community is in "real" danger.  Imagined or made up dangers do not count.  Then it is up to the courts to decide the outcome based on law, not hyperbole.

On the other hand, environmentalist use terms such as, BAN, TAKE, HALT, END, and others too numerous to list in order to advance their agenda.  They believe things like a multi-million dollar project (you name the type) should be stopped in order to protect a bug they think may be near extinction.  How they can know that has always baffled me, as the human race has never mapped every bug, animal, plant, or fish on this planet.  Oh well, I digress.  So, instead of allowing a project to move forward, they HALT it for months or even years until it is either ENDED or moved at an enormous cost to the citizenry.

Environmentalist could care less about property rights.  Environmentalist care nothing about business.  They love to take a liberal line that the rich are ruining the planet and that corporations are killers.  Yet, their own leaders live under the umbrella of  huge corporations with the same internal power struggles.

So, my fellow Laredoans, and bloggers, I believe in saving land and buildings for our future. I do not believe in "consensus science."  You know the science that says well a bunch of us think this or that will happen, so it must be true.  In science, FACTS ARE FACTS.  Until they are proven, they are just a hypothesis   If someone, be it a city council, a preservation group, or whoever, wants to TAKE land or a building from someone, be prepared to pay the market value, if the owner "agrees" to sell.  Otherwise, move on.

And finally,  I just don't think the government, nor environmentalist,  have the right to tell me how to use/take my land without due process.  Nor does the United States Constitution.

They're Back: RGISC wants to ban the bag.

Well, I guess since Austin just banned single use plastic bags, the RGISC (Rio Grande International Study Center) does not want to be left behind and is, again, calling for a ban on single use plastic bags.

I hope you readers take the time to really investigate bag bans that have been in effect for some time, and just how ineffective they are in reducing trash.  The only economic impact is to the retailers bottom line, and the wallets of the consumer.

But locally, in todays Laredo Morning Times:

While in front of the Laredo Citizen's Environmental Committee, he RGISC and City of Laredo staffers claimed that a bag ban will clean up Laredo and save the city lots of money on trash clean up.

The RGISC also reported they got some money from a grant to buy reusable bags (for the poor folks I guess) and to advertise for a bag ban.

Here are some questions for the RGISC:

1.  How many people will get free re-usable bags for shopping with your $6,000?  My guess, is at 7 to 8 bags per family, and at $1 each, about 750 families.

2.  With over half the population of Laredo being classified as "in poverty," how do you expect the poor to add these re-usable bags to their home budget?  And don't forget the time and cost to wash the bags regularly.

3.  What will you tell the public when they still see all the trash on the streets, in the creeks, and other plastic hanging on the trees?  Will your response be "We need more bans?"  (Remember, the TxDOT study that found only .6% (six tenths of one percent) of the trash along Texas highways were single use plastic bags.

4.  What will you tell people who reuse their single use bags for trash disposal, litter box cleaning, storage, or any of a hundred other uses people find for these bags that they will now have to BUY bags for such use.

5.  How do you address the increase in folks visiting the hospital for contaminated food illnesses, and possible deaths?  More bans?

These are just a few questions that I have heard people ask.  We await your answers RGISC.

According the Laredo Morning Times, the RGISC just completed a public opinion poll that ask Laredoans if they support a ban on single use plastic bags.  According to the RGISC, 48% of our citizens were in favor of the ban, and 15% were not sure.   I guess that leaves only 37% of us against the ban.  I would like to see the questions that were asked of those polled.  I wonder what percentage of those polled were poor and on food stamps, as they will be impacted the most.  I wonder if the poor were asked some of these simple questions:

A:  Do you know if a ban takes place, you will be forced to buy your own bags for groceries, shopping at the mall, shopping at the mini-mart near you?   Ask now, do you agree or disagree with the ban?

B:  Do you know if a ban takes place, only .6% of the trash on Laredo streets will go away?  Ask now, do you agree or disagree with the ban?

C:  Do you know if you use the re-usable bags, you MUST wash them regularly or you and your family could get sick?  Ask now, do you agree or disagree with the ban?

D:  Do you know the stores will make money off you when you purchase these reusable bags for about one dollar apiece?   And that they most likely will not reduce the price of their products at all, even though they are no longer paying the cost of the plastic bags?  Ask now, do you agree or disagree with the ban?

E:  Do you realize that if you have to make a quick stop at the store, and have left your reusable bags at home, you may have to buy new bags at one dollar apiece to get your groceries home?  (If you leave them in your hot car, the reusable bags grow germs faster)  Ask now, do you agree or disagree with the ban?

My guess, none of the above questions was asked in the survey.  My guess is also that the survey conducted was not scientific in polling the people by economic means.

I will wait on that to be proven wrong.

Below is a statement an link to a study discussing the health impacts of these "re-usable" plastic bags:

The study, by Jonathan Klick of University of Pennsylvania Law School and the Property and Environment Research Center and Joshua D. Wright of the George Mason University School of Law, found that in jurisdictions where plastic bags were banned saw ER visits increase by about one-fourth, with a similar increase in deaths compared with neighboring counties where the bags remained legal.

Basically people were schlepping leaky packages of meat and other foods in their canvas bags, then wadding to the bags somewhere for awhile, leaving bacteria to grow until the next trip, when they tossed celery or other foods likely to be eaten raw in the same bags.

Washing your bags reduces the risk, but let's be honest: who does that? 

To quote the study:

We find that the San Francisco County ban is associated with a 46 percent increase in deaths from food borne illnesses. This implies an increase of 5.5 annual deaths for the county.

City council, don't fall for the easy, ineffective ban on plastic bags.  It will not solve the littering problem, it will not save the city money on trash mitigation, and it will do nothing more than add Laredo to a list of cities that are reacting to an over zealous group of environmentalist whose only solutions to community problems involve the banning of things they do not like.

City council  if you want to clean up the littering problem, work on instilling some pride in this community that will prevent people from littering.

Laredo, Wake Up and tell me what you think.

Open Letter to New Police Chief

Dear New Chief:

I have a few suggestions for the Laredo Police Department that would improve response times to calls for service and make life easier for local citizens.

1.  Sub-Stations:  Reduce the number of sub-stations to north (off Mines Road) and south (centralized in south of 359 hwy).   Man these stations for 16 hours per day with civilian employees.

2.  Instruct the citizens of Laredo that the police will no longer dispatch a police officer on the following types of calls for service:

a.  Non-injury accidents on private property.
b.  Theft/burglary of a home/business of less than ???? dollars.  (you figure out the number, as we know detectives do not actively investigate minor thefts.  They do not have the time)

Start with these types of calls and move forward in looking at other calls for service that could be eliminated where there in no police actions taken.

3.  Have citizens report minor accidents and thefts directly to sub-stations or by phone to the sub-station (number location can be provided by dispatcher), or online.  Most of these calls for service are never investigated, and are only processed for the citizens insurance company.

By doing 1,2, and 3, patrol officers time will be freed up to respond to real calls that require a police action, disturbances, large thefts, major accidents, and others.

Then, you need to instruct your patrol officers on how to really do pro-active patrol versus just handling calls for service as they come across their computer screen.  Maybe, they could start with issuing citations for people who run red lights in front of them.  I see it all the time.

There are many things that these officers can be doing other than handling minor issues that will never see a detective or further follow up occur.

NOTE TO CITY COUNCIL:  Don't start whining about your district not having a sub-station.  Most of these so called sub-stations are nothing more than parking lots.  This city is not that big (land mass) and does not require 7 substations.  Kansas City, Missouri, much larger than Laredo only has 6 sub-stations with 4 times the population, and 10 times the land mass.

Sequester Part II - Crying Wolf, a New Art Form

President Obama speaking to 6th graders.  Maybe he believes
the American people are no smarter than 6th graders and have
no clue how a budget works.

Well here it comes.  This morning's Laredo Morning Times reports that we can expect "peak" wait times at the bridges to be up to "two to four hours," and holiday wait times to be "five to six hours" long.  Even our local US Congressman, Henry Cuellar is spouting the official line, that sequester will hit everyone from small business to schools.

Folks, I ask you, have you had to make any budgetary adjustments over the last four or five years, with the food, gasoline, electric, sewer, and water prices increases we have seen?  Did the tax increase of about 2% that hit most of us on Jan. 1 cause you to change your budget?  Maybe not for some of you, but I guarantee that most of you had to make some kind of adjustment.  Maybe cut out a Starbucks, or maybe a fancy lunch once or twice a week.  One less shirt or pair of pants bought this month.

Yet, our President and his minions, cannot for the life of them think that the federal government can cut any money from their budget.  NONE.  These folks are so self centered that they think taking a dime from them will result in the end of democracy as we know it. (Dem's are ending democracy in other ways)  And to prove that point, the federal government  under the direction of the President of the United States, have been instructed to make sure that these minuscule budget cuts will hurt the American people where ever, and when ever possible.

The NY Times reported that an administration email has been sent to a federal agencies instructing them to make sure that the sequester cuts "are as painful as the President said they would be."

Friends, in my entire life (over 50+ years), never have I seen a president try to punish the people of this country to make a political point.  How can Henry Cuellar, or any Democrat agree that the American people need to be punished in order to prove that the federal government cannot do what you, as an American citizen have been asked to do in these tough financial times?

I am sickened by this childish behavior.  There is no excuse.

Sequester,The Smoke Screen

You will hear more about sequester than the next GDP report.
Or at best, you will hear the sequester caused the low GDP
numbers.

The most talked about word in government circles since "pork" has to be sequester, well at least for the next couple of weeks.

What is sequester?  Read for yourself.  I personally like numbers 2 and 4.  Remove, seperate, hold and control excess spending capabilities of the enemy (Congress and the President.)  

Politically, and this became clear to me last week, the sequester is a smoke screen that the President has deployed to keep Americans focused on Congress and not the economy.  Last week the Commerce Department upgraded the last three months of 2012 GDP (Gross Domestic Product-How much money the total economy generated) growth rate to % 0.1.  It had been reported at a %0.1 decline from the preliminary report. What this means is that if the next GDP report is an negative number, which many analyst believe it will be, the media will not invoke the "recession" word.  In order to have a recession, you must have two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.  

With the President's tax increases taking place on Jan. 1st, there is less money in the GDP pool.  There are numerous reasons for this, and I will not go into them here.  However, all one needs to know, is that sequester is a Presidential smoke screen, and it is not the end of the world as we know it.

For him to act like a child whose mommy took away his toys because he was abusing them (spending too much money,) is at best, sickening.  For him to scare people who should not be scared, for him to hope for the worst, for him to not want to make sensible cuts, but cut where it hurts most, is in my opinion, childish, and representative of the traits of a person who could care less about America as long as he himself is held in adoration.

If this country cannot cut 2 1/2% of the federal budget, then we are doomed.  It really is that simple.  

What say you?

Vouchers For You (NOT)........... Private School for Politicos (YES)

I for one am split on the idea of school vouchers.  I agree we need a very strong public school system  However, until someone finds a way to really fix (and money is not the solution) our broken schools, I feel sorry for those who cannot afford to send their children to a private school that could make them better future citizens.

Note to Politicians:  If you say vouchers won't work, you need to explain, if you send your kids to private school. why poor folks should not have the same opportunity of school choice that you have?  This includes elected officials, and school administrators.  Before you tout the public education line, explain to us where your kids go to school, and WHY.

On the one hand, public schools seem to focus entirely too much on the lowest common denominators in the school system.  If their focus was on the better students, those at the bottom would  start to rise.  But if you constantly teach to lowest levels, the smart kids are done for.  And school district run charter schools may fix some of that, but the politics of these schools is overwhelming.

Now, for $5,000, you can get a good private school education.  Yet, in Laredo, our schools spend nearly $10,000 per student.  Yes, I understand that the private schools are very selective and get rid of those kids that do not want to learn.  Maybe, just maybe they have an idea that we need to really investigate.

That being the idea that there is always a group of students (I use the term loosely) who could care less about school and spend their entire time in class rooms being disruptive.  Enough already.  We need ditch diggers and other persons to fill menial task that no one else wants to do.  Just ask those that preach about illegal immigration.  They tell us there are millions of these jobs to that Americans do not want.  

So, try this....if a kid is disruptive early in their school career, sent the kid out to do a few days work at a job like ditch digging, picking crops, whatever job requires little education (there are not many left.)  If that does not scare them straight, and their parents don't care enough to be involved in their schooling, it is time to let them go.  I know, then these kids might become wards of the state (prison/welfare, etc...)  But, hey, that is happening now at an alarming rate.

Or how about this:  If you are a student and you do not get a high school diploma, you will not be eligible for welfare.  None.  Would this be a valid incentive for some?

How about we give new ideas a try?  What can it hurt?

What say you?

Part II: Intersection Begging - A problem, or just a Laredo tradition?

So, city council thinks this orange vest, and a few cones makes one safe when standing in the middle of the busiest intersections in Laredo.  And now they pretend if you wear one of these you should be allowed to be an "authorized panhandler" and if you do not you will be the dreaded, unsafe, "un-authorized panhandler," subjecting both the giver and givee to police ticketing.

No matter what city council, or city staff says, I have not heard of a panhandler being hit by a car in the act of panhandling.  I just cannot remember reading such an article.  Maybe it has happened, but I just don't recall it.  So, if it is sooooooo dangerous, where's the mangled bodies city council.  Where are the facts.  Laredoans let elected officials get away with far too much anecdotal information than they should.  Let's see the statistics that back up your claims on panhandling being dangerous city council.

At what point do we wise up and say, HEY, no more authorized or un-authorized panhandling period.  That would be a perfect ending to the whole issue.  Just stop it all together and go after the giver, not the givee, and things will get better, not stop, but get better.

Intersection Begging - A problem, or just a Laredo tradition?

I blurred the sign..Tom

Well, well, Laredo City Councilman Jorge Vera wants to have the police issue a ticket (take your money) to those that give money to the folks who stand in the intersections and beg for money from passing motorist.

Councilman Vera only wants the police to ticket you if you are giving to a person who is not "authorized" by the city to beg.  His reasoning is that because he almost ran over a homeless person begging for money, and the city not being able to enforce its own laws against panhandling, it is now time to go after the PUBLIC who give these people money.

Now, you may have noticed I use the word begging to describe "all" of the people who stand at intersections and ask you for money, whether they are "authorized" or not.

I moved to Laredo in 1992 from the Midwest   I lived in cities of all sizes before moving to Laredo at the ripe age of 39.  Until I moved here, I had never, repeat never, seen school age kids, adults, and organizations wanting to raise funds stand in the street, just like the panhandlers, and beg (ask) for money.  I don't know if this is just a Laredo thing, a border thing, but I don't, or haven't seen it occur in San Antonio or Dallas.  But I must admit, I have not spent a lot of weekend time in those cities.

What really shocked me, and still does, is that our school districts allow kids to work intersections and beg for money.  Yes, when they are in the intersections, they are begging you to give them money for some cause, whether it be to fund a trip, or buy uniforms, whatever.  How can any parent, guardian, or school administrator allow such an activity to take place?  What happened to "earning" your money for whatever reason you are promoting.  Have a car wash, plate sale, anything but begging.  The only people that should ever be on a street corner asking for something are legitimate charities, ie, Red Cross, United Way, the fire departments boot fill, and the other real groups too many to mention.  Even most of the real charities do not stand in the street begging, but fund raise in other manners.

So, if I am a city council person, I tell Councilman Vera during his comments that Laredo should ban all the begging at intersections.  No one, repeat no one can go and beg in the street.  And then I tell him, we have a police department to enforce that law, and we will not hold the generous public accountable for being generous.  And if we cannot find appropriate means to enforce the no begging ordinance, then we will look to the community for assistance in dealing with the truly homeless.

It is time for Laredo to take a big step and tell our children that standing on a street corner asking for money is never a replacement for working/earning money the old fashion way if you want to fund a trip, buy uniforms, or whatever your money making cause is about.

Who Say's There Is No Movement To Confiscate Firearms?

Democrats will have you believe that they truly are hunters who only care about stopping criminal shootings.

They also tell you on national television that there is no movement to confiscate firearms.  That they, as true hunters, would never, "In a hundred years," as one politician put it, try to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens.

Well read this story about Missouri Democrats who introduced a bill requiring law abiding citizens to turn in firearms that they want to ban.  If the law abiding citizen does not turn in the firearms, they will be charged as felons.

So, for all you bloggers and Facebook contributors who keep saying that there is no movement by Democrats to confiscate firearms, what say you?

Minimum Wage- Why just $9, why not $20 per hour?

In last nights State of the Union Address, President Obama called for a new minimum wage of $9 per hour.

If we are going to raise the arbitrarily obtained number, why not just go ahead and make it $20 per hour?  That way, no one working a minimum wage job would live in poverty.

Come on Mr. President, dream a little.  We know you think the government is the do all, save all for the American public.  So really, just $9?  $20 per hour would do so much more in your dream world.

School Funding Will Never Be Equal

There won't likely be a ruling from the appeals courts on the equality of school funding this legislative session.  But there will be plenty of discussion, both at the legislature and in the local school houses about the issue.

My take is this, there will never be 100% equity is school financing by district.  It is just not possible with the number of school districts and the varying economic situations of each district.

The state cannot equalize every dollar spent as some districts will always find a way to spend more as they are richer districts.  What do the courts want to do, lower the potential spending to the lowest common denominator?   If say, $1700 is the number, is that all you can spend?

To think that if the state says it costs $1700 per student to educate them properly, do you really think that the richer districts will stop there?  No, they will hire better teachers and pay more, they will offer benefits and perks that do not appear on budget lines, and any host of other methods to secure the best help, and the best facilities.   What about buildings, must each district have exactly the same square foot per student ratio in buildings and amenities?  And finally, how do you equalize socio-economic issues?

I have real trouble when people say everything must be equal, because it can never be equal when talking about education.  There are too many factors that influence the learning process and those that teach.  You will not achieve 100% equal funding unless you stop richer school districts from spending above whatever the state deems the educational cost per student that will be allocated to each district.

You don't believe me, just look at the difference in Laredo between UISD and LISD.  Will they ever be equal?  Probably not, and they are in the same city.  The only way to truly equalize schools is to make everyone spend whatever the lowest common denominator spends.  And that would be a very sad state of affairs.

Wetland Sold - Still a lack of vision with local group

At last night's city council meeting, the acreage for the Town Center development was sold by the city of Laredo to the developer.

What was most striking about the renewed debate of the wetlands issue was Rio Grande International Studies Center (RGISC) lack of future vision and misunderstanding of what was planned for the site by the developer.  

When Riazul Mia, the Director of the City of Laredo's Environmental Division made his presentation at the council meeting concerning the wetlands and the rumors of it's demise, I was shocked at how much the developer had accomplished since this issue was raised years ago.

Mia's presentation showed what really was going to take place, and what the developer had done in the background to help secure and improve the sustainability of Lake Casablanca.  The only thing changing in the layout of the wetland in question is the movement of a currently inefficient retention pond.  The new pond will provide real filtration for run off pollutants, unlike the current pond which is filled with silt and does nothing for filtration.  As an added bonus, the developers is adding a new man made run off filtration system to clean the run off even more.

Second, the developer bought 40 plus acres of land on the north side of the lake as a conservation easement.  Both the  conservation easement and the wetland (although a little smaller) cannot be built upon without another hearing in front of the United States Corps of Engineers.

Reality:  This is a good deal for Laredo as a whole.

My issue:  I suggested a couple of days ago that the folks at the RGISC might want to ask the city for some of the proceeds from the sale to start discussions on creating a wildlife refuge here in Laredo abutting Lake Casablanca on the east side.  I was told that it would be too hard to do, and that I was crazy in suggesting such a thing, and that business people had no business in dealing with environmental issues.  Now, these were not official statements from the RGISC, but from their followers.  I guess I should have expected as much.

However, the RGISC, through it's director, failed in realizing the facts of the developers plans.  They failed in understanding the meaning of the Corps of Engineers permit.  The RGISC never mentioned the purchase of the additional 40+ acres north of the lake for the conservation easement.   Instead they painted the movement of a 20 year old retention pond as the end of a "Laredo Treasure" which is just not true.

The RGISC missed a golden opportunity to work with the business community to further the future of Laredo by asking for future funding to develop a "real" area of wildlife preservation with protections provided by the United States government.  Instead they burned valuable political capital on a misinformed venture to save something that was never gong to be destroyed.