This is in response to your most recent article, "The White faces of crime". I understand completely what you are trying to get across in that article, that not all crime is perpetrated by black males. Yet, you are comparing violent criminals that have murdered innocent victims, to white collar crimes that have ripped off people from their bank account. These are two different types of crimes. If someone steals my identity, or steals my credit card number and buys a lot of stuff in my name, it may be a hassle to get it straightened out, and it could take 3 years. But, it may be fixed in three years. If my mother or brother is shot dead in downtown late at night.. that cannot be "fixed", there is no getting my mother or brother back. (Just so you know, that didn't happen) There is a big difference between losing thousands of dollars, and being attacked and raped, or spreading drugs around the city, or murder. Yes, both effect people's lives, but the white collar crime can be dealt with a LOT easier than losing a loved one. The city has made great strides in working to combat the gang problems in Chattanooga, and are still working on it. Do people need jobs in this city? You bet! Do people need to feel safe downtown? Yes! but, the people who are on the top 30 list of criminals, like all criminals, had chosen to do those crimes. No one that I know of had a gun to their head saying, "you must hold up this convenience store, sell drugs, shoot innocent people or other gang members for no reason". The same goes for white collar crimes, but the violent crimes do more lasting damage than the financial crimes.
I believe ALL gang members should be in jails, regardless of age, race, or status. In jail, they need to try to be rehabilitated and if not, then locked away. If the gang members are underage, then the parents should be held responsible for their children's actions. Maybe it would help keep kids off the streets if the parents are held responsible for the citizen that is held up by their son or daughter.
There are fees associated with collecting records, printing documents, and hours of research that need to be paid for. The government cannot afford to do all of this for free, and the fees are a common way to alleviate these costs. Just because there is a fee does not mean that the government is hiding anything, the people only need to be more focused as to what they are actually looking for, be concise and forward, and realize that this takes time, and people need to be paid for their work.
It's funny, I just moved back here after 6 years. I've applied for countless jobs in the past 3 months (since the end of Christmas) and only 2 interviews. I have an associate's degree which I worked my ass off for, and I'm an Eagle Scout. Yet, I've only gotten 2 interviews. Sure, companies are coming in, but where are the jobs? I try gas stations, fast food... they won't hire due to thinking once I get an offer that applies to my degree, I'll move on. (who wouldn't?) So, I'm stuck. Every job I apply for requires experience, yet I can't get any without a job. Companies say it's easier to get a job when you already have one, yet where is the logic in that? As I said, no job is beneath me, and the pay is what it is... I'm willing and wanting to work. I want to see that paycheck, not a government handout. I have been on unemployment and I feel ashamed, considering I have the skills, I have the knowledge, yet companies want experience. Well, how is one to start out?
I truly enjoyed this article,and have experienced this firsthand through FIOA, which sometimes is a complete joke. You ask for one small thing, and they say, "we'll give you 10,000 pages, print it, and ship it to you!" When they know all you want is 5 pages. Like you said, they work for US!
the U.S. Supreme Court settled the matter in 1893, ruling in Tennessee’s favor that “a boundary line between states or provinces which has been run out, located, and marked upon the earth, and afterwards recognized and acquiesced in by the parties for a long course of years, is conclusive.” In other words, if you agree to live with a border for long enough, you forfeit the right to complain about it.
I was a cub scout and boy scout, and am an Eagle Scout. On one hand, I can understand the BSA's side of things, protecting young boys from a possible harm. Before you hit reply, let me get one thing clear. I am not suggesting that gays hurt young boys. On the other hand, I see where the gay community is, considering the sexual aspect is rarely brought up within scouting. My opinion? If full background checks aren't already in place, then put them in place. Gay scout leaders should probably just leave that part of their lives out of scouting all together, as it doesn't pertain to any merit badges or anything. if a scoutmaster is homosexual, there is a time and place for that, and in my opinion sexual preference, or sex at all, is not appropriate for the boy scouts, scout leader or scouts themselves. So, what if there is a boy scout who has openly admitted he is gay to his troop? I only hope that the troop will accept him, but also let him know that there is a time and place for sexual preferences, and the Boy Scouts is not a place that should discuss sexual matters, that it should be talked about through the parents pr legal guardians. Also, we should all respect that the Boy Scouts is a time honored and an upstanding group that has held fast to its rules for over 100 years. It should be respected and given the diligence it has earned over more than a century. No one has had any problems with their rules for 100 years, society needs to pay respect to a program that has helped generations of young boys grow into strong and moral men. After all, Gerald Ford was an Eagle Scout.