According to my calendar, today is actually Veterans Day, though
yesterday was celebrated as such, with many companies giving the day off
from work. A nice respite for veterans and those who honor them with
public accolades, speeches and parades. We all have friends or relatives
who are veterans and these days its easier to use electronic media to
wish them well and thank them for their service. But, it would be nice
to take an active part in protecting them from predatory lenders. This
advice comes from Public Citizen.
We honor the sacrifices made by
servicemen and servicewomen, but being ripped off by predatory lenders —
many of whom prey specifically on residents of military bases — should
NOT be among our veterans’ sacrifices.
The Department of Defense has the authority to rein in the unpatriotic predators who gouge service members.
Service
members are targeted by “payday” lenders because military rules require
them to maintain good finances, but the realities of service — such as
sudden relocations to different parts of the country — often result in
unanticipated expenses.
Meanwhile, forced arbitration clauses
buried in the fine print of the terms for these high-interest (as in 500
percent) loans mean that our troops are denied their right to a day in
court.
The Military Lending Act is supposed to
protect service members from banking abuses. The sad truth is that
industry lobbyists poked loopholes in the 2007 law that are big enough
to drive an armored personnel carrier through.
Now, the DoD is working to close these loopholes — and is accepting comments from the public for a limited amount of time.
Add
your name to Public Citizen’s comment urging the Department of Defense
to stop predatory lenders who prey on our armed forces. Click here: http://action.citizen.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12622
Thank you,
Rick Claypool
Public Citizen’s Online Action Team
action@citizen.org
Showing posts with label common sense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label common sense. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Friday, October 31, 2014
FIX RATHER THAN CONDEMN
The New York Times, whaa??? The New York Times chipped in on
Proposition 47 with some good sense. I hope as voters you'll remember to
vote for something that can help rather than hinder law enforcement.
This measure is supported by SOME veteran law enforcement professionals,
though the greater number of them oppose it.
A number of major California newspapers that have endorsed a Yes vote on Prop 47. Then, this morning, something unexpected happened.
The New York Times editorial board, which rarely weighs in on California ballot initiatives, added its voice to the chorus urging California voters to pass this common sense reform. Our reform movement is catching fire across California and across the country. Prop 47 could be on track to become a model for other states.
Read the full editorial below, then forward this email to everyone you know in California.
Editorial: California Leads on Justice Reform
Prop 47 Could Take the State a Step Further in Reducing Overcrowding
For a long time, the conventional political wisdom was that no one ever lost an election for being too tough on crime. That wisdom has been turned on its head in recent years, as both politicians and the public are realizing how much damage the lock-’em-up mind-set has caused.
In recent polls asking about the most important problems facing the country, crime ranks way at the bottom. That’s because crime is at its lowest levels in decades, even while overstuffed prisons cripple state budgets.
A familiar retort is that crime is down precisely because the prisons are full, but that’s simply not true. Multiple studies show that crime has gone down faster in states that have reduced their prison populations.
An encouraging example comes from California, the site of some the worst excesses of the mass incarceration era, but also some of the more innovative responses to it.
For five years, the state has been under federal court order to reduce extreme overcrowding in its prisons. In response, voters in 2012 overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to scale back the state’s notorious “three-strikes” law, leading to the release, so far, of more than 1,900 prisoners who had been serving life in prison — in some cases, for petty theft.
Dire warnings that crime would go up as a result were unfounded. Over two years, the recidivism rate of former three-strikes inmates is 3.4 percent, or less than one-tenth of the state’s average. That’s, in large part, because of a strong network of re-entry services.
The 2012 measure has provided the model for an even bigger proposed release of prisoners that California voters will consider on the ballot next week. Under Proposition 47, many low-level drug and property offenses — like shoplifting, writing bad checks or simple drug possession — would be converted from felonies to misdemeanors.
That would cut an average of about a year off the sentences of up to 10,000 inmates, potentially saving the state hundreds of millions of dollars annually. To keep people from returning to prison, or from going in the first place, the savings would be invested in anti-truancy efforts and other programs like mental health and drug-abuse treatment. Some would go to victims’ services, a perennially underfinanced part of the justice system.
Law-enforcement officials, not surprisingly, oppose the measure, warning that crime will go up. But they’ve already been proved wrong on three-strikes reform.
Californians — who support the proposition by a healthy margin, according to polls — have now seen for themselves that they don’t have to choose between reducing prison populations and protecting public safety.
It is very rare for lawmakers anywhere to approve legislation to shorten sentences for people already in prison; it is virtually unheard-of to do it by ballot measure. California’s continuing experiment on sentencing can be a valuable lesson to states around the country looking for smart and safe ways to unravel America’s four-decade incarceration binge.
Think! Then vote. Hooray for Californians, leaders across the nation.
A number of major California newspapers that have endorsed a Yes vote on Prop 47. Then, this morning, something unexpected happened.
The New York Times editorial board, which rarely weighs in on California ballot initiatives, added its voice to the chorus urging California voters to pass this common sense reform. Our reform movement is catching fire across California and across the country. Prop 47 could be on track to become a model for other states.
Read the full editorial below, then forward this email to everyone you know in California.
Editorial: California Leads on Justice Reform
Prop 47 Could Take the State a Step Further in Reducing Overcrowding
For a long time, the conventional political wisdom was that no one ever lost an election for being too tough on crime. That wisdom has been turned on its head in recent years, as both politicians and the public are realizing how much damage the lock-’em-up mind-set has caused.
In recent polls asking about the most important problems facing the country, crime ranks way at the bottom. That’s because crime is at its lowest levels in decades, even while overstuffed prisons cripple state budgets.
A familiar retort is that crime is down precisely because the prisons are full, but that’s simply not true. Multiple studies show that crime has gone down faster in states that have reduced their prison populations.
An encouraging example comes from California, the site of some the worst excesses of the mass incarceration era, but also some of the more innovative responses to it.
For five years, the state has been under federal court order to reduce extreme overcrowding in its prisons. In response, voters in 2012 overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to scale back the state’s notorious “three-strikes” law, leading to the release, so far, of more than 1,900 prisoners who had been serving life in prison — in some cases, for petty theft.
Dire warnings that crime would go up as a result were unfounded. Over two years, the recidivism rate of former three-strikes inmates is 3.4 percent, or less than one-tenth of the state’s average. That’s, in large part, because of a strong network of re-entry services.
The 2012 measure has provided the model for an even bigger proposed release of prisoners that California voters will consider on the ballot next week. Under Proposition 47, many low-level drug and property offenses — like shoplifting, writing bad checks or simple drug possession — would be converted from felonies to misdemeanors.
That would cut an average of about a year off the sentences of up to 10,000 inmates, potentially saving the state hundreds of millions of dollars annually. To keep people from returning to prison, or from going in the first place, the savings would be invested in anti-truancy efforts and other programs like mental health and drug-abuse treatment. Some would go to victims’ services, a perennially underfinanced part of the justice system.
Law-enforcement officials, not surprisingly, oppose the measure, warning that crime will go up. But they’ve already been proved wrong on three-strikes reform.
Californians — who support the proposition by a healthy margin, according to polls — have now seen for themselves that they don’t have to choose between reducing prison populations and protecting public safety.
It is very rare for lawmakers anywhere to approve legislation to shorten sentences for people already in prison; it is virtually unheard-of to do it by ballot measure. California’s continuing experiment on sentencing can be a valuable lesson to states around the country looking for smart and safe ways to unravel America’s four-decade incarceration binge.
Think! Then vote. Hooray for Californians, leaders across the nation.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
THE 99 CENT STORE DIET
I’m a fan of John Tesh who provides a radio segment several times a day called Intelligence For Your Life.
He has a staff of researchers who read through scientific journals and studies; magazines that specialize in cooking, nutrition, gardening, parenting, counseling, home place and work place advice, relationships, marriage, school… I’ve heard him weigh in on topics such as cigarette damage from third- hand smoke (just recently), resumes, how to handle problems on the job, how to get a job and so on.
He happens to be on our local station Star 92 at 92.7 on my radio dial. If you are interested, his archive of “intelligence” is located on his website at:
http://www.intelligenceforyourlife.com
I heard him yesterday talk about a guy who lost over 250 pounds on the 99 Cent Store Diet. I went to the dentist and my hygienist sent ME to the 99 cent store for some fuzzy toothpicks. So, while I was there, I looked around at what Tesh was talking about.
First the diet:
What this guy did was eat omelets with spinach or some type of vegetables for breakfast.
For a snack, he’d have yoghurt and fruit.
For lunch he’d eat whole grain bread sandwiches with canned chicken or tuna.
And for dinner he chose beans and rice with a small amount of meat, and a salad. Or soups with vegetables and beans with very little meat. He avoided ANY sugar. No sugar at all, which is hard to do. In two years, he took off over 250 pounds, cured his diabetes, lowered his blood pressure so he didn’t have to take drugs and he bought everything from the 99 Cent Store because it is cheap.
Well, not all 99 cent stores carry fresh vegetables and eggs, but most have canned meats and vegetables. I expect the someone locally could vary his/her diet a bit with fresh veggies and a choice of fresh meats. And, it can certainly be done cheaply, even for a family or individual on food stamps. I know, because I have a close friend that is temporarily on food stamps. Or the SNAP card, as it is called, and she eats healthfully.
When Jim and I are out on the road, we do shop some at 99 Cent stores and they have some wonderful stuff. I wouldn’t do it on a regular basis because I read labels and the chemicals are enough to turn you away from canned and packaged goods in the discount grocers and 99 cent stores. But, cheap, fresh produce, and the healthy improvement is worth the temporary, and yes, I’m calling a two-year program, temporary risks, of canned chemicals until your weight is under control.
I don’t often feel I need Tesh’s advice, since it is aimed at much younger people for the most part, but, it validates my thoughts on a subject; he dispenses common sense; and I never fail to learn something new from John Tesh. That’s why I’m a fan.
He has a staff of researchers who read through scientific journals and studies; magazines that specialize in cooking, nutrition, gardening, parenting, counseling, home place and work place advice, relationships, marriage, school… I’ve heard him weigh in on topics such as cigarette damage from third- hand smoke (just recently), resumes, how to handle problems on the job, how to get a job and so on.
He happens to be on our local station Star 92 at 92.7 on my radio dial. If you are interested, his archive of “intelligence” is located on his website at:
http://www.intelligenceforyourlife.com
I heard him yesterday talk about a guy who lost over 250 pounds on the 99 Cent Store Diet. I went to the dentist and my hygienist sent ME to the 99 cent store for some fuzzy toothpicks. So, while I was there, I looked around at what Tesh was talking about.
First the diet:
What this guy did was eat omelets with spinach or some type of vegetables for breakfast.
For a snack, he’d have yoghurt and fruit.
For lunch he’d eat whole grain bread sandwiches with canned chicken or tuna.
And for dinner he chose beans and rice with a small amount of meat, and a salad. Or soups with vegetables and beans with very little meat. He avoided ANY sugar. No sugar at all, which is hard to do. In two years, he took off over 250 pounds, cured his diabetes, lowered his blood pressure so he didn’t have to take drugs and he bought everything from the 99 Cent Store because it is cheap.
Well, not all 99 cent stores carry fresh vegetables and eggs, but most have canned meats and vegetables. I expect the someone locally could vary his/her diet a bit with fresh veggies and a choice of fresh meats. And, it can certainly be done cheaply, even for a family or individual on food stamps. I know, because I have a close friend that is temporarily on food stamps. Or the SNAP card, as it is called, and she eats healthfully.
When Jim and I are out on the road, we do shop some at 99 Cent stores and they have some wonderful stuff. I wouldn’t do it on a regular basis because I read labels and the chemicals are enough to turn you away from canned and packaged goods in the discount grocers and 99 cent stores. But, cheap, fresh produce, and the healthy improvement is worth the temporary, and yes, I’m calling a two-year program, temporary risks, of canned chemicals until your weight is under control.
I don’t often feel I need Tesh’s advice, since it is aimed at much younger people for the most part, but, it validates my thoughts on a subject; he dispenses common sense; and I never fail to learn something new from John Tesh. That’s why I’m a fan.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
COUNTRY MENTALITY.
Yesterday, I complained about a bonfire on the parcel next to me. I went to the Murphys Fire Department, Cal Fire, talked with the Prevention Officer, Breton Brown on the phone. I learned that a fire permit is given for two years. When winter sets in, anyone can burn without a permit. During the iffy season, dates set by the state, you must have a permit. The permit must be with you when you burn and you are restricted to a four by four-foot burn pile. You can have multiple piles, but not anything bigger. The above fire was over 25 feet wide, and definitely against the law. The fire constituted a misdemeanor crime.
Now, let us discuss country mentality. Cal Fire responded to the fire, it was a criminal act, but no one was cited or fined. Why?
Because the Prevention Officer is the only one allowed to issue a citation. He is the Prevention Officer for three counties and he has to be called and witness the fire himself to issue a citation. Small county budgets must share one officer.
My questions to the agencies and Brown. Who set the fire, the owner or the construction company working on the property? Who has the permit? Was there a permit?
Nobody seems to have a clear record of who has a permit, and if they knew, they couldn’t give me the name because I might retaliate and go shoot that person.
You can publish the names of child molesters, their address, records of arrests made in the county, the suspected perpetrators of a crime, but you cannot have a list of people in the county with fire permits. Whaaa?
Well, it seems that a fire permit for Calaveras County can be obtained in San Diego? So, who knows who has them? According to Murphys Fire Department, they don’t know.
Are fires monitored?
Well, yes, after the event. Then they are given a warning, if they are in violation, unless the prevention officer happens to be on the scene. and can issue a citation. So, the answer is, no. Neighbors must monitor by calling in.
Do they have to notify the local department when they intend to burn? Are there any restrictions on a burn permit for an occasion with 30 and 40 mile per hour winds having been announced on television, radio and on-line for the evening?
No. They expect people to use common sense.
Why can’t other responders with Cal Fire issue a citation?
Because they have to go to a 6 month class to do so and they are unmotivated to do that.
Seems to me an over sized fire doesn’t take that much education to judge, but, hey, you have to be able to distinguish between a crime, intentionally set, etc. etc. and etc.
Why can’t each station have one person able to make a simple fire-permit violation citation? I mean, how hard is that?
Well, the county board of supervisors cannot do that because all fire law is set at the State Senate level. And the fire laws have gone unchanged since the 1920′s and can’t properly address today’s issues of heavy equipment in our forests, etc. etc.
Does the person burning have to have a source of water to burn on a five acre parcel?
No! Unless they are agricultural. (There is no water on the parcel where the bonfire was set. They have vineyard fencing, over six foot high wire with barbwire on top. But, no grapes are planted, yet.)
Do people with burn permits have to qualify with at least some knowledge of the proper way to burn?
There are instructions with the permit
.
Fire laws have been on the books unchanged since the 1920′s, according to Brown. For instance, the loggers have to have a fire tool box to lumber, but what is contained in it is absolutely inadequate to stop even a small fire in the middle of the woods.
If the parcel is over five acres, air pollution control issues the permit. Another layer of disorganization. Surely other communities are affected by this?
When I looked at the assessors map to find the owners name, it was blocked by the owner. I didn’t know that could be done. Isn’t that a public record?
This property has a nuisance owner who has kids who come up on weekends with ATV’s, and do wheelies in the dust scraped up by the heavy equipment on the property. A construction contractor has to have a water wagon to keep the dust down. I have dust drifting onto my deck, I have to close the windows when the dust cloud blows my way. My clothing hanging on the line, one time, had to be rewashed. From my car, I could not distinguish my friend’s driveway just two lots away one morning. My renters are threatening to move, because the peaceful Big Valley is no longer peaceful. These people use the property as a firing range and shoot at night with loud, loud guns. You can be sure, I will find out who the owner is and make it known that we would like some consideration on their part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)