thamanjimmy

Jacksonville, FL

City Council Moves to Cut Veterans Day Parade

"Veterans Day Parade: Downtown parade on Nov. 11; city funding, $40,000 Sail Jacksonville: Tall ships festival also features river education; $200,000 Starry Nights: Outdoor concerts with Jacksonville Symphony Orchestra; $200,000 Happy Holidays in Hemming: Holiday-themed window displays; $45,000 Senior Prom: Dance event for the elderly is in its 29th year: $14,000 Mayor's Fish A Thon: Fish fry for seniors; $12,416 Mayor's Older Buddies: Quarterly luncheons focus on news and information, $12,000 Mayor's Holiday Festival for Seniors: Holiday event draws nearly 3,000; $10,534 Fun in the Suns: Senior citizens event at Jacksonville Suns game; $9,800 Legislative Forum: Seniors discussion on current events; $6,400 Mayor's Walk for Senior Wellness: Fitness walk for seniors; $5,000 Blessing of the Fleet: Palm Sunday tradition for boaters; $5,000" This would be a horrible political move. You would think they would cancel these other events that would more than add up to $40,000 to cover the Veterans parade. There have to be more important things to cut in the city budget. I would question the $200,000 for the symphony thing for one. Do these prices include police?  (Sunday | post #16)

Jacksonville, FL

Mayor Peyton Floats Appointing Sheriff and School Board

Another horrible political decision for Mayor Peyton. I have yet to hear him say one thing, at least within the past two years, regarding education or crime in this city except for the Jacksonville Journey program (which is a waste). If he really cared about those two problems he would be more active in the media and in council meetings. He would provide goals or ideas for the city to follow. It is better to keep the two elected positions that way so that if Jacksonville residents are angry about crime or education they could, theoretically, actually do something about it. Giving that power to only one person would only make it that much harder to get things done. In a way, I understand what the Mayor is saying, however, he has yet to show any passion for either crime or eduction. Thus, giving him the power to appoint the sheriff and school board would be pointless. http://thamanjimmy .blogspot.com/  (Sunday | post #1)

Jacksonville, FL

Is it U.S. job to cure all social ills???

I think the FDA serves as a political institution to make us think our food is healthy and to determine what drugs should be allowed based mostly on the politics involved. Regardless of the FDA, food gets spoiled and many die because of it. In addition, drugs that could potentially help people are either sidelined or put off to a later time, while other drugs are allowed into the system without either a lengthy debate or proper testing (i.e. the new H1N1 vaccine). Can you just imagine the corruption that could occur because of the politics involved? "We estimate that foodborne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year. Known pathogens account for an estimated 14 million illnesses, 60,000 hospitalizations, and 1,800 deaths." http://www.cdc.gov /ncidod/EID/vol5no 5/mead.htm God only knows exactly what the long term effects of any of the drugs we have in our systems are. Or are the "experts " so intelligent and all-knowing that they have everything right. I mean scientists have always been correct, right? (remember, there was a time when homosexuals and blacks were considered anatomically inferior - by medical professionals). Basically the system is set up for corruption. Politics, rather than choice, decides what is or is not allowed (though to be honest this is not always true). I am not saying, however, that there wouldn't be corruption in the private sector - competition, however, would allow the system to be fixed over time. In my world (just my normal world not my utopia) individuals would be left up to decide what drugs or food should or should not be allowed. Private organizations could come up with suggestions (i.e. "recommended by such and such") that could help consumers choose the best products. Regardless, people could decide on an individual basis what is best for them. For example, if you buy food from company A and it leads to food poisoning you would stop buying from the company. As people begin to shop at company B, company A will either go bankrupt, remain intact but lose their market share, or fix what was wrong. With government deciding what should happen we lose this choice. The main problem that I see of letting the market work its magic is that it will take a little longer for changes to be implemented. I would assume that government legislation could have immediate effects which would initially be more effective though not in the long run (as costs would continue to rise and the cost/benefit's would prove to be inefficient due to bureaucracy and no competition). Add the news organizations to this and their "investigativ e reporting" (which has basically disappeared) and you have a decent "free" system set up without having to trust politicians. A system that would save taxpayers millions of dollars while taking away power from the coercive government. Imagine what this money could do in the market system! Loans would be made as people would have more money in banks and people would buy more products thus leading to job growth. Finally, poor people would finally have the opportunity to get out of the vicious cycle of poverty as an old job opens up. According to wikipedia the FDA's budget is about $3 billion. This might not sound like a lot compared to the current budget but it is money that could potentially provide thousands of private sector jobs. In addition, (though I have no facts to back this claim up) I would assume private sector response to the FDA regulations would surely cost a pretty penny as well. http://en.wikipedi a.org /wiki/Food_and_Dru g_Administration_( United_States) Sorry, for the long post. I am bored and do not want to do homework.  (Wednesday Nov 18 | post #56)

Jacksonville, FL

Is it U.S. job to cure all social ills???

And our founders sure had some morality code. Many owned slaves - while at the same time claiming to be against the institution. Many cheated on their wives. Some speculated in land - land that was not originally or officially owned by them. Many ended up massively in debt due to financial troubles. "Conservative s" or rather Republicans, those who supposedly advocated limited government, escalated conflicts which led to broader wars. Finally, many of the nation's founders looked the other way when it came to the U.S. Constitution (i.e. they established a national bank, closed exports to European countries, and even silenced the opposition in the press). The Revolution itself began in much the same way. The Sons of Liberty, led by Samuel Adams, was basically a group of lawless rebels. They burned and destroyed government property and wrote propaganda to get the masses to believe they were fighting for a just cause - the idea that we were not properly represented in government (mmm...do we not argue the same today?). Yeah, the founders definitely understood "decency. " I do agree with you, however, that a free market is not perfect. But at least with competition you have a choice. With government, in both fiscal and social issues, you have no choice at all.  (Wednesday Nov 18 | post #53)

Jacksonville, FL

Is it U.S. job to cure all social ills???

All I am trying to say is that effort to stop drug use is not worth the time and money of the government. That money would be better spent in the free market economy. I am also trying to point out how few people actually do heroin. According to the same study I used earlier only 500,000 people used the drug in 1996. Let's just say that 1 million people today do the drug. Is it "fair" for the other 300 million people to pay? http://www.oas.sam hsa.gov/treatan/tr eana11.htm I really wish people in this discussion would talk to people or read forums regarding alcohol use and its relationship with family violence or child abuse/neglect. People who are trying to cut off ANY addiction will go to any extremes to meet their needs - whether a "class 1" drug (as defined by those smart people in Congress) or not. Regardless of whatever occurs you are always going to have people who do bad things. My "liberal " point of view is to just limit the effects these few people have on the vast majority of Americans. http://www.cato.or g/pub_display.php? pub_id=1017&fu ll=1 The above link is a great article regarding prohibition of alcohol during the early 20th century. The author points out that consumption of the "drug" decreased at first but then went back up to pre-prohibition levels shortly later. So, in effect, the prohibition didn't even work. And what you did have was an underground economy in which corruption was rampant. "Westside Conservative" points out that without our laws on drugs now the use of drugs would be much higher. I would wonder what people have to say about this after reading the above article.  (Tuesday Nov 17 | post #38)

Jacksonville, FL

Is it U.S. job to cure all social ills???

While I do feel for those addicted they are not from the same cloth as the alcohol or legally prescribed pill addict. Its comparing apples to oranges." I just don't understand why alcohol or pills, for example, are any different than hard drugs (besides that they are legal). Regardless apples and oranges are both fruit - they both have the ability to tear apart marriages, end relationships, and cause people to lose their jobs, etc. It is crazy about the apples and oranges statement because someone just told me that earlier about the same exact subject. I just don't understand what the difference is (besides the fact that legal "drugs" are considered ok and part of our culture). Would not illegal drugs do the same over time? Remember, there was a time when heroin was legal. The whole illegality of the drug occurred within the past few decades. During the great western expansion, Chinese workers would smoke opium all the time. It was alright until the late 20th century when government decided that they could change the social habits of its people (a Republican idea that was far from "conservative "). Why is this government intervention allowed but not when it comes to fiscal matters? Is it not all relative - it all gives power to the government and it all advocates the idea that government is the best means to produce a successful or pleasing outcome. And by the way, drugs aren't the only reason people steal from family and friends. There are a plethora of reasons, etc. that can be involved: money, status, age, boredom, education, etc. My main point is to suggest that ending a war on drugs could open up billions upon billions of dollars (and more importantly save the lives of police) that could be used to permanently stimulate the economy. More jobs equals more education. More education means less crime. "In 1995, heroin was mentioned in 4,178 deaths." - Remember we have a population of over 300 billion. http://www.oas.sam hsa.gov/treatan/tr eana11.htm "diabetes contributed to a total of 233,619 deaths in 2005" - Where is the call to limit sugar? http://diabetes.ni ddk.nih.gov/DM/PUB S/statistics/#what "Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years" - Where is the call to prohibit alcohol? http://www.msnbc.m sn.com/id/6089353/ I would argue that because so many people eat sugar and drink beer a call to prohibit either would fail miserably. But drugs, ahh, that effects a much smaller number. Who would possibly care about this minority. I mean, after all, they are all thieves and hoodlums.  (Monday Nov 16 | post #31)

Jacksonville, FL

Is it U.S. job to cure all social ills???

While legalization proponents have some very sound arguments the problem is the same. Somebody is going to have to make a business around a product that is killing you and destroying the person who you are." Are there not other things out there that destroy "the person you are"? Should we criminalize everything that has the ability to be addictive? Should the internet, tv, video games, books, alcohol, fantasy football, sugar, soda, caffeine, etc. be banned? Do these not destroy people? Do these not destroy marriages and relationship when they go to far?  (Monday Nov 16 | post #23)

Jacksonville, FL

Is it U.S. job to cure all social ills???

Sorry, I just don't get the connection. Drug dealers are not hired by taxpayers...nor do they enforce laws established by our "representati ves."  (Saturday Nov 14 | post #15)

Jacksonville, FL

Is it U.S. job to cure all social ills???

lol. It is not the cops fault for doing his job but rather the legislatures job for making drug use illegal. The same can be said with any other problem one has with criminal laws. I do agree with you, however, that the illegal drug market is a huge money maker. Could you imagine if it was legal and sold in stores? There are just too many benefits to legalization thus the reason politicians do not like the idea.  (Saturday Nov 14 | post #9)

Jacksonville, FL

Will you be using the TOPIX TOOLBAR?

Waste of space.  (Friday Nov 13 | post #5)

Jacksonville, FL

Jax Violence

I would think our 68% or so graduation rate would be one of the top reasons.  (Friday Nov 13 | post #6)

Jacksonville, FL

Is it U.S. job to cure all social ills???

The more important question is can the US cure all social ills. Or even more importantly, what are the unintended consequences of trying? And are they worth it? I would say that government intervention tends to make things worse. Life is never going to be perfect but time and time again, government intervention has only either increased problems or just put a band aid on such problems. Think of racism for one. Are we still a "racist" nation? Were we ever one?  (Friday Nov 13 | post #4)

Jacksonville, FL

Did Political Correctness help kill at Fort Hood?

Does anyone know how often this (mass shootings on military bases) happens in America? What about compared to other countries?  (Wednesday Nov 11 | post #12)

Jacksonville, FL

Cash-for-grades fundraiser

"Susie Shepherd, the principal, said a parent advisory council came up with the idea, and she endorsed it. She said the council was looking for a new way to raise money." Have to love parents who put the actual real life system before their child's education. Why would they even send their children to school? (This would support my idea that they should just make a babysitting service for parents who don't care as this would save a lot of money. They could just throw all the kids in a gym and give them some bouncy balls and have a security guard or two just in case).  (Wednesday Nov 11 | post #4)

Jacksonville, FL

More Than 250 Underage Drinking Arrests From Florida Georgia Game

I found an article relating to the decrease of business in the Landing (at least with beer): "For the Florida-Georgia game Saturday, Oct. 31, The Jacksonville Landing will cut in half the number of places alcohol can be purchased and will not allow wandering, outdoor vendors to offer shots of liquor." "Drinks will be limited to a maximum of 20 ounces, far smaller than several years ago, when 60-ounce footballs were filled, Landing spokeswoman Rachel Nudge said Tuesday. Pitchers of beer will still be available but must be consumed inside the venue where they are purchased." http://jacksonvill e.com/news/metro/2 009-10-13/story/ja cksonville_landing _to_cut_back_on_al cohol_during_flori da_georgia_weeke I also found this regarding the cost of the Safety Zone: "Hollingswort h also said the City is willing to pick up the entire tab for the Sideline Safety Zone, an area where intoxicated, dehydrated or lost fans can go to rest, get something to eat or drink and make a phone call with no questions asked. The Safety Zone costs about $30,000 to set up, operate and take down. In previous years, the City and the schools split the cost equitably." http://www.jaxdail yrecord.com/showst ory.php?Story_id=5 2750  (Tuesday Nov 3 | post #10)