Welfare Might as Well be a Full-Time Job

     Welfare is meant to be a help to those who need it. Yes, there are those who take advantage of it, but there are people who genuinely need assistance. What's a real problem is that those who truly need it can feel ashamed of their need as a result of being associated with those who choose welfare over actual work or seeking work. In order to minimize the cheats, the welfare department requires a lot of proof that you are who you say you are and are as poor as you claim. This evidence makes the process of obtaining assistance very difficult and time consuming.
     As a result of the events described in my first post of this year, we are poor. Very poor. We went and applied for Welfare about two weeks ago. They issued us a card same day so we could buy groceries with the intent to return with certain pieces of paperwork. Two pieces we need are a letter from my former employer stating that I am no longer employed by them and a letter from unemployment declaring that I am either receiving benefits or that I have been denied. They can't help us any further until we get those two pieces of paper to them. Here's where it gets silly though. My former employer was being very elusive with the phones. No matter who I called, I got sent to voice mail, and of course the message was never returned. We asked for and received an extension on our claim as a result.
     However, today, I finally get a call back and am told to call the payroll company (I was officially employed by one company and leased to the company I drove for). When I called them, they said they don't send out letters. Ever. Not gonna happen. Seriously? You can't write a letter stating that I am no longer employed by you and send it to me? Isn't that just a little ridiculous? So, I call my former company again and actually get through! But again, I'm given the run around. I tell the lady that I called about needing paperwork and she responds, "I left you a message." "Yes, I got the message, called them, and was told to call you because they don't do letters." She takes down my info and claims to need to run it by the boss. Listen, I'm not asking for a recommendation or an opinion or anything that I might sue over, I'm just asking for a simple letter simply stating the fact that I'm not working there anymore.
     The second half is the need for a letter from Unemployment. I've been calling them everyday and everyday I've gotten the recorded message that they are receiving more calls than they can handle. Well, maybe you need to hire more people. Simple solution, right? Finally, I dig a little deeper and find out that I actually have to apply through Illinois' Unemployment department. This, after I punch in my SSN to California's department four times, only to have them hang up on me. Is it me, or does that strike anyone else as somewhat careless or risky on their part to take people's social security numbers over the phone only to hang up because they still don't have enough people? Anyways, I call Illinois, get a place in line, wait ten minutes or so, and hang up. Gonna have to try that again tomorrow, just ran out of time today.
    Why does this frustrate me so? Because it's very frustrating, duh. But also because the Welfare folk stress the fact that they will be tracking my social security number to make sure I don't have any unreported income. So, basically, it's in their power to get all of this information themselves if they just thought for a moment. Instead, I have to deal with people who have no ability to think for themselves and fight to get one single letter stating that I'm unemployed and wade through the system of another state to get a letter stating that I am not receiving any unemployment benefits. I only worked for a month, so I'm pretty sure that I won't be eligible.
    

War on Drugs? part 2

Blacks are twice as likely to be living in poverty in comparison to the rest of the population (Poverty rate among African Americans nearly double that of White Americans). On the surface, a causal relationship between poverty and crime seems obvious and logical. If you can’t afford the things you want, you are more likely to rob someone than if you had plenty of money. Fifty-three percent of people in prison earned less than $10,000 in the year prior to their incarceration (Williams). However, we have had the opportunity and ability to track the overall crime rate during three different stages in our economy: the Great Depression, the roaring economy of the 1960’s, and the current recession that began in 2008 (Mac Donald). According to the theory that poverty causes crime, crime should have risen in the Great Depression, fallen during the 1960’s, and should be on the rise again today. However, facts show a different tale. Crime plummeted during the Great Depression. As Heather Mac Donald states, “The Great Depression also contradicted the idea that need breeds predation, since crime rates dropped during that prolonged crisis.” During the prosperous times of the 1960’s, crime was on the rise again; even though more cushy government jobs were being opened for inner city residents, homicide went up by forty-three percent. Today, as our economy shrinks again, crime has fallen to the lowest it has been since the early 1960’s. So, we can be fairly sure that while people in poverty may be more likely to commit crime, poverty itself does not cause crime. So, knowing that poverty itself does not directly cause crime, we can move past poverty as a root cause.

When it comes to drug arrests, thirty-three percent of those arrested were black (Crime in the US, 2009). This means that blacks were arrested at a rate nearly three times higher than their percentage of the population would suggest. However, the group Common Sense for Drug Policy (CSDP), has compiled data that shows that blacks comprise only eleven percent of the nation’s drug users while making up nearly sixty percent of those in state prisons for felony drug convictions. They also point out that prior to mandatory minimum sentencing, blacks received sentences only six percent longer than whites. Four years later, black prison terms were ninety-three percent longer than white prison terms. A big portion of that disparity comes from the disparity in enforcement of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. Crack is largely used in the black ghettos whereas powder cocaine is generally the drug of choice of more affluent, usually white, users. Crack cocaine brings with it a punishment 100 times more harsh than powder cocaine. To add to it, while other drugs require the intent to distribute in order to get the harsh sentencing, one must merely possess crack to be hit with the harsher sentencing (The EFFECTIVE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 1999). Since crack has such harsh sentencing and is generally found in low income black communities, it is largely black people who get sent away for these long prison terms for possessing crack. According to the Institute on Race & Poverty, black people account for 37% of drug arrests, 55% of convictions, and a whopping 74% of those who are subsequently sent to prison (Institute on Race & Poverty).

The War on Drugs has focused law enforcement and law makers on the drug problem in America. There is indeed a problem, but the solution isn’t necessarily getting “tough on crime”. The laws regarding mandatory minimum sentencing and drug enforcement may have been written with good intentions, but they weren’t written with enough thought put into side effects or how they might collide with each other. As we know, felony convictions cause you to lose certain rights, chief among them your right to vote. Thanks to tougher enforcement of drug crime, more people are getting charged with felonies. These are people whose only crime may have been getting caught with some crack cocaine. With most drugs, you must be in possession of at least 500g to be charged as a dealer. Since the inception of the War on Drugs, only five grams of crack gets you charged with intent to distribute. Five grams of crack is just your average crackhead, yet now he’s a felon with no right to vote. He can get cleaned up, turn his life around, and become a productive member of society, but he still has lost certain, supposedly inalienable rights. With 33-37% of all drug arrests being black people, just correcting this disparity in enforcement will make a large impact. We also need to focus more on rehabilitation for drug offenders. This will have a widespread impact. Catch a man with drugs and toss him in lock up, he’ll go right back to them when he gets out. Rehabilitate the man and give him a chance to succeed and you have a much higher likelihood of keeping off drugs and out of prison.

No matter your opinion on crime, for 12% of the population to make up over 40% of the prison population has to tell you there is a serious problem. We’ve explored a few possible causes and looked at where those ideas go astray. Poverty may be related to increased crime rates, however poverty does not cause crime. We looked at the differing crime rates, arrest statistics, and conviction rates and saw that blacks still make up too great a proportion of arrestees and convicts. I’ve put forth my ideas for how to correct the system, but most importantly, I hope I’ve provided some new information and maybe shed some light on a problem that you may not have realized the depth of.

War on Drugs?

Currently, the American population sits at 312,000,000. The number of Americans currently behind bars is over 2,000,000 strong and climbing. In a totally fair world, that population would closely resemble the general population, but this world is not fair. Currently over forty percent of the United States prison population consists of African-Americans. This is from a group that makes up only twelve percent of the total United States population. Blacks find themselves in prison five to ten times more frequently than whites and Hispanics. Some will tell you it’s racism, others will say poverty. Some will even say that 12% of the population honestly is committing 40% of the crime. I don’t believe it is a result of any of these. The War on Drugs, coupled with mandatory minimum sentencing and three strikes laws have created a devastating one-two punch. The data I uncovered in my research led me to one conclusion: the War on Drugs is a disaster. The only results we’ve seen are prison overcrowding thanks to the absurd amount of people locked up for drug violations, excess costs incurred by our law enforcement, and an entire generation of black children growing up without their fathers on account of the number unfairly punished by the War on Drugs.

            America is home to the largest prison population in the world. Out of a total of 10.1 million prisoners worldwide, America is home to 2.29 million prisoners (World Prison Population 2011). We also are owners of the highest rate of imprisonment with 743 out of every 100,000 people in prison, compared to a worldwide average of 146 per 100,000. How did America, Land of the Free^TM, end up with so many imprisoned? Today’s prison population represents a tenfold increase in prison population over the last thirty years (US Prison Population Tops 2.4 Million). Why is our prison population so high? According to the above article, mandatory minimum sentencing is largely to blame. Laws written to protect people from serious and violent crimes have instead sent nonviolent offenders to jail in ever increasing numbers. Almost three fourths of new inmates are nonviolent offenders. Between 1980 and 2000, the number of drug related offenders in prison has increased by a factor of twelve as a result of the war on drugs. The most vulnerable tend to be minorities at the bottom of the income bracket.

             As of 2008, the US Census estimates blacks made up 12.33% of all Americans. Hispanics totaled 15.08% of America. Whites make up 65.87% of the population, still the majority by a wide margin. Asians make up a very small portion of America, comprising only 4.37% of the population. In the prison world, blacks make up 43.7% of the population. This bit of over representation follows the minorities, but none to the huge impact it has on blacks. The only group that shows a lower percentage in prison than in the rest of America is whites (Prison Policy Iniative). The percentage of black people in prison exceeds the percentage in the general population in every single state in the union. In twenty states, blacks find themselves incarcerated at a rate five times higher than in the general population. Nearly one in four black people are either in prison, on parole, or on probation. The rate of incarceration for black men aged 18-64 is more than seven times higher than that of white men of the same age range. When seeking to understand how we find ourselves at this stage, there are only a couple options. Either black people are indeed committing nearly ten times as much crime as white people or there is some form of bias in the system.

Eastbound and Down

        Here I stand, or rather sit, at a crossroads in my life. I have embarked upon a new career path and a new adventure...for about a month. However, it's killing us financially; it's wounding us spiritually. Driving a big truck has long been a dream of mine. I've always felt the call of the open road and been drawn to these rigs which never sleep and never cease their movement; the feeling of purpose borne of the knowledge that I am an integral part of what makes America tick. A fully loaded truck and trailer combo can weigh up to 80,000 pounds. Let that number sink in. That's the dry weight of a Boeing 747 airliner - on eightteen wheels driven by almost 2000 foot-pounds of torque.
        The truck I was on was a little over a year old, a 2012 model Freightliner Cascadia, yet it had over 300,000 miles of hard use and was in better shape than any vehicle I've ever owned excepting my wife's nine year old minivan. These are amazing vehicles capable of amazing things. In the time I was on the truck, unless we were waiting for a load to be ready, the truck only stopped but briefly for us to eat, use the restroom, or change drivers. The truck got very little rest while under load. Aside from the truck itself, the lifestyle was something I've yearned for. I love travel, seeing new places and things, and just keeping on the move. I'm always looking to find interesting subjects to take pictures of, write about, or just see and talk about later. The life of a trucker is nothing but travel.
        I've been places I never would've gone by choice and seen places I wouldn't have had opportunity to see anytime soon. Starting in Caseyville, Illinois (right across the river from Springfield, Missouri), I've been from Portland, Oregon to Grand Prairie, Texas and on up just over the border into New Jersey. I've been stranded in a blizzard in York, Nebraska; fought for traction climbing an icy mountain in Wyoming; hauled 45,000 pounds of Sam Adams through rain and heavy fog in the Poconos; and been forced to take advantage of my size and bull my through dense traffic in Oklahoma City. I bobtailed four hundred miles in the rain out of Memphis (where the FedEx guy informed us a few of their drivers have been shot or stabbed just outside their huge, sprawling compound) and was propositioned by an elderly prostitute in Portland. At six in the morning. I even got to roam the nation's largest truck stop - the Iowa 80 - and drool over some of the custom tractors sitting inside. Getting stuck in the middle of nowhere in a five mile traffic jam, I got to laugh at stereotypes playing out over the CB as my trainer took on an Apu-esque accent and proceeded to get insulted by other drivers and accused of being involved with the terrorists who attacked us eleven years ago. Then came the driver who, referring to the messed state of traffic at the moment, called out over the radio, "This is more f***ed up than a n***er's check book!" I just had to shake my head and laugh at the ignorance. I even thought up a couple quick one-liners. "Or a hillbilly's family tree!"
        Piloting such a large rig, you never forget how much responsibility is being placed on your shoulders. In the beginning, it's nerve wracking to be anywhere but the far right lane. Having to keep an eye on the inattentive, oblivious, self-important drivers around is bad enough when they're only on one side. But put them on both sides of the truck, giving you only eightteen inches of clearance on either side, and it's quite the harrowing experience. It's amazing how quickly you adapt to it, though. By the third week, I was practically at home in that truck, averaging between 550 and 650 miles a day.
        Then came Christmas. Christmas was a killer. We were rerouted up to Clackamas, Oregon instead of the route we were originally supposed to take through Salinas, California. About one hundred miles from our destination came the call that they had no routes to get us back south so I could be home for Christmas. The company was, however, willing to pay for a Greyhound ticket and a hotel room while I waited for the bus. My trainer would be gone for about a week and could then swing through and pick me back up. This was a far cry from the 3-4 days I was hoping for so I could get back on the truck and making money again, but I chose to see it as a blessing. A week with family and the opportunity to get to church on Sunday, this was workable. Less workable was when I couldn't get hold of anybody for the first week, and then found out it would be more like two weeks. And then a couple more days were added to those two weeks. After averaging far less than what I was told to expect income-wise, two weeks with no pay was a deal breaker. While I'd love to get back on the road, I can't afford it now. I was averaging $90 a week just feeding myself in the truck. I'd be cutting it close feeding myself for the next two weeks until my pay catches back up, not to mention the fact that my family still has to eat and survive at home. That money wouldn't last us two weeks. Besides the money problems, me being gone was stressing my wife more than we had expected, especially with the boy acting out a lot more than he used to. I had to do what is right for my family. I feel like a failure because after two yrs of unemployment and going to college, I found a job, only to quit a month later and start the new year unemployed again. I don't know how I will provide; I just have to trust that doing what's right for the family will bring us blessings.
        I'm going to miss being on the road. A lot. Driving that truck crystallized in my mind what I want to do with my life. I want to get paid to take road trips and write about them. I know this is a long shot, but that's why I'm writing this today. To hone my writing and my voice, so that I can possibly trick - I mean, convince a magazine to hire me on as a contributing writer/editor one of these days.

Nothing on the news is ever cut and dry.

I am late to the party, I know, but late is my natural state. To what party am I referring? Why, the Occupy Whatever party, of course. It started as Occupy Wall Street, a noble but misguided goal, as they wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for a government that has given them free reign to be a problem, but I was with them at this point. Corporations hold too much sway over our elected officials via campaign contributions. No politician has made it to office in recent years without being beholden to some corporate interest. This needs to change. I think the solution could be quite simple: put all campaign contributions into one big pot to be evenly divided amongst the candidates. What would this fix? Well, first, we wouldn't have money being given to a particular candidate so no one would owe anyone anything. Secondly, it would provide money for some of the lesser known third party candidates and maybe help us get rid of this broken and corrupted two party system we find ourselves in. It would also allow non-rich people, the supposed 99%, to be able to run for office and be guaranteed ad space somewhat equal to their opponents. I don't envision or desire a free for all with ten candidates,  but it would be nice to see people running for office other than savvy career politicians, savvy business men, or savvy men married to heiresses - people that would represent the American people. I also think that maybe we should institute a test for people who want to run, make sure our potential leaders understand the Constitution, our history, and foreign relation to a certain degree before we give them access to the big red button. The president doesn't have to know everything, just someone with a basic understanding of our nation and common sense. Good cabinet members will cover any lapses in knowledge.

Now, with that out of the way, let me get to the topic hinted at by the title. I recently had the treat of watching some live coverage of the Occupy LA movement on the news out here. I'm not sure what these people were after, none of them really had any clear answer when talking to the reporters. The one common thread was that the police were wrong for trying to kick them out because the First Amendment guarantees us the right to peacefully assemble. The problem with their logic is that the First Amendment starts off with the phrase, "Congress shall make no law..." Congress shall make no law. This doesn't mean that local jurisdictions don't have the right to tell you that you are not allowed to be somewhere. It means that Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. So, when you pitch a bunch of tents in the park, with no suitable restroom facilities, creating a public nuisance, in violation of city ordinances, at the very least you damn well better have an idea of exactly what grievances for which you are seeking redress. Don't claim that your right to assemble or your right to free speech is being unlawfully restricted. Your rights end where someone else's begin. The people who live or work near your rally have the right to a clean park to enjoy, the right to see their tax dollars being spent on upkeep for the park, not cleaning your mess. You need to follow the same rules everyone else does. Painting a snappy slogan on a sign doesn't give you automatic freedom to do whatever you want. If anyone else wants to have a gathering, they need a permit and to provide for the needs of the attendees. Your protest doesn't make you a higher class of citizen than the rest of us. So, yeah, understand the place the Constitution holds. It restricts the actions of the Federal government, not your local city. And even in that regard, free speech can be restricted where it causes a public nuisance or endangers others. Try yelling fire in a crowded theater and see if you don't charged for it later. Incite a riot somewhere and see if you get away clean. Labeling your actions as protest does not give you the ability to do things the rest can't.

I also got to see a more complete recording of the recent events at UC Davis. The media shows us short edited video clips of a group of peaceful protesters sitting on the ground getting sprayed with pepper spray. In the context of the original video, yeah, it's hard to come up with any reason to justify such behavior. Public outrage was aroused and warranted. However, watching the more complete footage, you see a very different story emerge. Protesters were warned the day prior that they were breaking the law and police would be sent in to force them to leave. Police arrived to a noisy raucous bunch who shouted them down all three times the officers warned them to leave or be arrested. After the police arrested a number of people, the remaining protesters, still outnumbering police by a wide margin, followed their ring leader into holding the police hostage in exchange for releasing those who had been arrested. Now, last I checked, when you hold someone from leaving, you are now becoming hostile. Police officers showed a great deal of restraint here again by giving the mob numerous warnings that force would be used if they did not allow the officers to leave. When backup arrived, pepper spray was deployed only on those who were directly in the path the police were trying to leave by. Now free, the police began leaving as the crowd chanted that were going to give the police a moment of peace in which they would allow the police to leave.

Call me crazy, but 50 years ago, had one of the groups protesting for civil rights surrounded a group of officers and refused to allow them to leave unless they released their prisoners, that group of protesters would've had dogs turned on them and they would've been shot. That these kids were able to essentially hold police hostage for however long, and get off with just a small portion being hit with pepper spray shows me not that the police are out of control, but that our police are performing at a much higher level of restraint than in days past. No one was injured by the police, some hopefully learned a valuable lesson about showing some respect for the people wearing the badge.

One of the comments surrounding the video I watched saw the poster claiming that he would raise his kids to be free-thinkers and make up their own opinions, not just follow what the media said, implying that his kids would be with the protesters as a free thinker. Why do I find this humorous? Because most of the protesters actions were led by one man who would yell something out to be repeated by the crowd at large. How much free thought was actually occurring amongst the protesters if their every action was dictated by a guy who could yell slightly louder than the rest? He wasn't even among the group that was led to be hit with the pepper spray. He led them over there, chanted for them to be strong, for the police not to attack these "children", but where was he? Safely out of harm's way so he could lead the chant allowing the police to leave apparently.

My kids will grow up to know that there are certain causes worth fighting for, but anytime some guy tells you to go put yourself in harm's way while he stands off to the side, it's probably not something you should be a part of.

What it Means to be a Man

Lately, there's been a rash of millionaires getting caught cheating. Tiger Woods has slept with 43% of America's blonde population and David Boreanaz is sharing Tiger's women. The media is having a field day with it, condemning the men and largely ignoring the women. A lot of guys have been complaining about this supposed unfair treatment. I mean, come on we men are programmed by nature to spread our seed, to choose the primo mate; it's in our DNA! Monogamy is virtually non-existent in nature. It's all part of being a man, we rule the world but have a huge weakness for a willing female.

We can't blame them, these women knew who they were getting involved with. They knew they were married, but they slept with 'em anyways. Everyone's pointing their fingers at Tiger; what about the women? If the women hadn't thrown themselves at Tiger and David Boreanaz, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to cheat, right?

Well maybe so, however, being a man has to do with more than just your hormones. A man doesn't just give in to whatever base instinct strikes us. Being a man means you do what is right even when it's tough. Take Tiger, for example. He's married, to a Swedish bikini model nonetheless. He's on the road, he gets lonely, some golf groupie (do those exist?) comes up and flashes some skin. Quick, what should he do? If you said his only option is to go ahead and have sex with her, you're wrong. You made a vow to your wife and that doesn't dissolve just because you've found another option. The right option is to stand by your wife, even if your buddy's gonna call you a loser for the next couple weeks.

It doesn't matter what your buddy thinks. He'll be the one paying for a divorce because he went after that pretty young thing that said she would love him forever. Now he's broke and she doesn't want him anymore. He'll be the one with the gnawing emptiness from knowing that he threw his life away for a moment and that moment passed.

As a man, you stand by your word. You have a set of a morals and you live by them. This applies to all areas of your life. From your marriage to how you conduct business. With the current mortgage "crisis", a new question is being asked: When is it ok to walk away from your mortgage? Shockingly, the answer to that question is becoming yes more and more frequently. People who decide it's better to skip a few mortgage payments than to live within their means. More men are choosing not to work and not to provide for their families. What happened to the man of the house? He used to work and provide for a roof over their heads, food on the table, and ethics for the children. Now just as often as not, he sits at home, beer in hand while his wife struggles to make ends meet. Through this, he still expects her to respect him as the head of the house when he's relinquished that role in favor of a cold beer.

We need a revival. A revival in manhood. I'm not advocating turning everyone into a bunch burly he-men, but I would like to see us striving for greatness again. The world is going to crap and it's our fault. We no longer show respect to anyone else, and so neither do our kids. We don't follow through on our promises, our commitments, or our word. Look at the kids of today. Our sons are all wannabe thugs and our daughters look like prostitutes. Boys haven't had a good solid male role model in their lives so they're left emulating their favorite rapper or movie star. You look at what they promote on TV and in music and it's all about being tough and nailing as many chicks as you can. Step up to the plate and be the example your kids need.

On a side note: Anyone else find it funny that Big Ben's Beef Jerky has been pulled from the shelves seeing as to how Big Ben's beef has been causing problems...

Save the drama for yo mama

So, at work, I'm surrounded by drama. Grown men creating drama, scheming and backstabbing like a bunch of teenage girls in "Mean Girls". Seriously. One of them has a problem with me and has brought another one in against me. They've been scheming since about 6 months after I got there. They've contaminated our leadership with negatively skewed reports. Now I'm on a performance improvement plan which I'd imagine could mean my firing if I don't meet their standards. However, these two are still scheming to put together a file that justifies my firing.

Jackasses piss me off. Why do they feel the need to screw with people? I do my job well, but I'm not perfect. None of us are. However, when I make a mistake, it's noted and supposedly a firable offense. For the past year and a half, I've been told at every review, "We have documented enough to fire you over, but we're not gonna right now." If you want me gone, then fire me, but you're not gonna convince me to quit.