With Hurricane Sandy moving closer rather than further away from the east coast, and with seemingly more and more weather related events… shouldn’t we have our major government centers and majority of our people NOT living in these areas? Even looking at something as simple as Federally-Insured Assets along the costs of the United States, you can tell that we are very vulnerable to quite possibly our worst enemy on our home soil, with that being the weather.
I am not suggesting that we pack up millions of people living along the coasts and move them inland, I am merely suggesting important assets like the government in Washington D.C. and the stock markets shouldn’t be blocks from the ocean, when they could be several hundred miles inland. Unrealistic to move these things? Maybe. It would probably be the easiest way to prevent unnecessary closures more toward the middle of the country with an added benefit of decentralizing our countries growth as an added bonus.
Am I crazy to think we shouldn’t have everything built up on the coasts with a near constant barrage of these weather events? Would there really be any benefits to move the Capital away from unnecessary threats?
(No picture today, I will let you imagine your favorite political yard sign was here.)
It’s that season when political yard signs have been up for several months, and they are starting to get on my nerves. It’s not so much what people are for or against, but the fact that people nearly 100% of the time will have multiple yard signs all supporting either a republican or democrat. So what, right? Wrong. I’d like somebody to have a yard sign not because they vote party lines which is very clear when driving through the twin cities, but rather that people were bright enough to vote for the best candidate or yes/no on a constitutional amendment based on their own thoughts rather than on the political party they are affiliated with.
I haven’t really seen much information throughout St. Paul concerning the new school levy that is being pushed for by Saint Paul Public Schools, and anything that I have seen is are few and far between little yard signs saying to vote “Yes for St. Paul Kids”. I might be the only person who doesn’t see this as a vote for St. Paul kids, but more of a vote whether or not you support arrogant waste in St. Paul Public Schools. Here is what I am taking about:
Instead of renewing the previous levy they had on the books, they decided to lump maintaining the current extra funding and throwing an additional 25% increase on top. I would think many people other than myself would agree that a 25% increase in funding is a little ridiculous in this economy and with results that cannot be verified one way or another.
I received 3 of these flyers telling me to “Vote Yes!” at my house, due to the school district not knowing that The Wife, Me, and The Wife and I all live at the same address and have the same mail slot. Maybe, it was a small mess up for my house? Should the school district be taking money away from the schools they are claiming so desperately need to fund advertisements in city that won’t turn down any chance to have their taxes raised? I don’t think so.
They claim that the increase is for “investment in technology”. Do all the kids need the most expensive Ipads or apple laptops? Do they even need them at all? From the looks of most standardized testing they need to work on the 3 r’s.
What are your thoughts on the matter? Was it a gutsy move to ask for a 25% increase in the levy as a yes or no vote? Do school need more technology or do they need to get back to text books and the basics?
Sometimes you hear things or see things that make you confident that our government has way to much money to spend or we have the wrong people in control of it. I told you about a radio ad the I heard encouraging people to sign up for food benefits because its surprisingly easy to qualify. A new government sponsored ad from sharetheroad.org encourages drunk people of all things to “look both ways” when walking home from the bar after drinking 8 beers.
What surprises me is that someone apparently thinks this is a significant problem because I have heard it several times on the radio over the last few days. Isn’t the bigger concern that drivers aren’t seeing these pedestrians or other objects? Have we completely cured drunk driving in this state?
Maybe what we need is some sort of law for spending government money for safety ads. Something like more than 10 out of every 5 million people are killed a certain way before we think society has a real problem that needs money and public service announcements to control the madness.
In honor of the presidential debates last night, I am going to make this post political. Not so much one side or the other but more specifically about the ballot, I am going to be presented with this November.
In between the constitutional amendments and the state level and the school board, recycling, and other local options I am actually going to need to read my ballot to confirm I am selecting the option that aligns with what I think. What do I mean? There are 6 different yes/no questions showing up on my ballot this year, with the default being a “no” vote if not answered. To be fair the yes usually means we are changing something from the default, whether amending the state constitution like we decided to do for the Minnesota Legacy act or whether its increasing property taxes so the local recycling trucks will start composting too. As such the no’s usually are voting for no change (from the current). As such, I encourage people to look up what these various laws or changes are or aren’t changing and know the details about how they will or won’t affect you i.e. voting to raise property taxes when you don’t pay them.
Do you think the amount of choices on the ballot is getting a bit crazy? Confused by all the vote yes or no signs with different agendas? Let me know!