The controversial Porters rehab project is now belly-up according to a Journal Times article that avoids the most obvious question, that is: Was any taxpayer money given to the project up front and if so, how much and will we get it back?
Friday, January 31, 2014
Saturday, January 25, 2014
On Proper Discrimination
There is a documentary (shown once in Milwaukee) called Pattern or Practice that alleges racial discrimination by the City of Racine towards minority bar owners. I have not seen the movie but I have over the years commented on the troublesome bars and the plight of their owners.
I don't think City of Racine leaders are discriminating against minority bar owners. Rather, I think they are cowards. Nearly all of us are cowards on the subject of race. Finally I agree with Attorney General Eric Holder on something.
So I will try to be brave. If you were told that I suspect that Japanese eat more sushi that Cubans, that would not be controversial. Or that Californians are more likely to surf than Kansans. The elderly commit fewer violent crimes than teenagers. No problem yet, right? Can we conclude that behaviors can differ in frequency among different races, or ages, or cultures, or races? Not controversial yet, right?
Now suppose we wonder about crime or deviancy and whether people of different races, genders, ages etc... commit crimes at the same rate. Certainly there must be differences, right? If so, what demographic (as opposed to individuals) causes the most problems? Blacks or Asians or Hispanics or whites? Toddlers, teens, young adults, or the elderly? Men or women? I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that men commit more crimes than women and that teens and young adults commit more crimes than toddlers and the elderly. But what about the race question? Better not go there, right? Better to pretend that there can't possibly be some that cause more problems than others, or risk banishment from polite society.
I will limit my racial observations to the particular issue at hand. And my observation is that the late night congregating of large crowds after bars - in parking lots or on the street - in Racine anyway, is a young black thing. There, I said it.
Congregations are not of course necessarily a bad thing. But when they are loud or if they are blocking traffic or if violence erupts, well, then we have a public health hazard and something should be done.
But alas we are cowards and in one sense racially discriminatory. We hold unruly black people to a lower standard. We coddle them. I think the police even call it babysitting. And instead of confronting the behavior of the individuals in the crowds, we more or less allow it to happen. And then they go after the license of the "offending" bar owner, hoping that will put an end to the crowds. And indeed it does for a time until the problem crowd moves on to another location.
I don't think the city has a particular axe to grind against minority bar owners. A little thought experiment. Imagine a black entrepreneur running a polka bar for elderly white folks. Would his license be at risk? How about a white guy running a hip hop bar where patrons spill on to the street and defy police instructions to disperse. Would his license be at risk? If you answered no and yes respectively, you would be right, and you would disprove the "racism towards minority bar owner" theory.
The problem could be solved if we first identify it correctly, as I believe I have done. Then we decide what behaviors we will not tolerate among people after bar time and we crack down on the behaviors no matter the race of the offender.
Replace the racial discrimination (lower standards of behavior for blacks) with behavioral discrimination.
I don't think City of Racine leaders are discriminating against minority bar owners. Rather, I think they are cowards. Nearly all of us are cowards on the subject of race. Finally I agree with Attorney General Eric Holder on something.
So I will try to be brave. If you were told that I suspect that Japanese eat more sushi that Cubans, that would not be controversial. Or that Californians are more likely to surf than Kansans. The elderly commit fewer violent crimes than teenagers. No problem yet, right? Can we conclude that behaviors can differ in frequency among different races, or ages, or cultures, or races? Not controversial yet, right?
Now suppose we wonder about crime or deviancy and whether people of different races, genders, ages etc... commit crimes at the same rate. Certainly there must be differences, right? If so, what demographic (as opposed to individuals) causes the most problems? Blacks or Asians or Hispanics or whites? Toddlers, teens, young adults, or the elderly? Men or women? I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that men commit more crimes than women and that teens and young adults commit more crimes than toddlers and the elderly. But what about the race question? Better not go there, right? Better to pretend that there can't possibly be some that cause more problems than others, or risk banishment from polite society.
I will limit my racial observations to the particular issue at hand. And my observation is that the late night congregating of large crowds after bars - in parking lots or on the street - in Racine anyway, is a young black thing. There, I said it.
Congregations are not of course necessarily a bad thing. But when they are loud or if they are blocking traffic or if violence erupts, well, then we have a public health hazard and something should be done.
But alas we are cowards and in one sense racially discriminatory. We hold unruly black people to a lower standard. We coddle them. I think the police even call it babysitting. And instead of confronting the behavior of the individuals in the crowds, we more or less allow it to happen. And then they go after the license of the "offending" bar owner, hoping that will put an end to the crowds. And indeed it does for a time until the problem crowd moves on to another location.
I don't think the city has a particular axe to grind against minority bar owners. A little thought experiment. Imagine a black entrepreneur running a polka bar for elderly white folks. Would his license be at risk? How about a white guy running a hip hop bar where patrons spill on to the street and defy police instructions to disperse. Would his license be at risk? If you answered no and yes respectively, you would be right, and you would disprove the "racism towards minority bar owner" theory.
The problem could be solved if we first identify it correctly, as I believe I have done. Then we decide what behaviors we will not tolerate among people after bar time and we crack down on the behaviors no matter the race of the offender.
Replace the racial discrimination (lower standards of behavior for blacks) with behavioral discrimination.
Combatting Global Warming
Downtown Racine recently had its annual snow carving competition, which was once again plagued by warm weather and torrential downpours. When will they wise up and schedule the event concurrently with a global warming conference?
O'Care Adventures
If you read White House and media pronouncements, you know that Obamacare is going swimmingly. My own experience with O'Care has gone as swimmingly as a global warming cruise.
Our adventure started with our insurance agent informing us that our then current, now expired, plan (the one we could keep if we liked it) would be illegal in a year. So we took a look at the O'Care offerings and realized that we were barely eligible for a subsidy. As a result our premiums would have been roughly the same but our deductible was going down from $11,000 to $2,000. My thinking was: I didn't write the law, I think it will implode, my own plan was going away, but a family member had a scheduled medical procedure that would have easily exceeded $11,000, so we can save $9,000. So we went for it.
On the advice of our agent, who had at that time been unable to sign up anyone via the O'site, we filed a paper application. The next step was to await a call from the O'Carigators, at which point we would select a plan, pay, and join the swelling ranks of the happily insured.
The call never came and the deadline for Jan 1st coverage was approaching. So we called the navigators again and again and again and again. We got through ok and they politely took our information, entered it into the system which after an hour or so of waiting, finger crossing, small talk, failed. Nothing they could do. Try back later. As a retailer of gifts, I had nothing better to do on December 23rd.
The deadline came and went. Previously noted medical procedure was cancelled because we were not insured.
Still no insurance at this point despite numerous attempts. There is a uncashed check floating around somewhere at the exchange. We went to Paul Ryan's office. They were helpful and nice, like the navigators, but I fear they will be unable to help. Apparently they will be able to secure for me a federal caseworker of some sort who can force these difficult cases through via some other method besides the web site. The government has thirty days to respond to Ryan/us. Not holding my breath.
Just like a purchase at Amazon, except with government sector sclerocity.
Our adventure started with our insurance agent informing us that our then current, now expired, plan (the one we could keep if we liked it) would be illegal in a year. So we took a look at the O'Care offerings and realized that we were barely eligible for a subsidy. As a result our premiums would have been roughly the same but our deductible was going down from $11,000 to $2,000. My thinking was: I didn't write the law, I think it will implode, my own plan was going away, but a family member had a scheduled medical procedure that would have easily exceeded $11,000, so we can save $9,000. So we went for it.
On the advice of our agent, who had at that time been unable to sign up anyone via the O'site, we filed a paper application. The next step was to await a call from the O'Carigators, at which point we would select a plan, pay, and join the swelling ranks of the happily insured.
The call never came and the deadline for Jan 1st coverage was approaching. So we called the navigators again and again and again and again. We got through ok and they politely took our information, entered it into the system which after an hour or so of waiting, finger crossing, small talk, failed. Nothing they could do. Try back later. As a retailer of gifts, I had nothing better to do on December 23rd.
The deadline came and went. Previously noted medical procedure was cancelled because we were not insured.
Still no insurance at this point despite numerous attempts. There is a uncashed check floating around somewhere at the exchange. We went to Paul Ryan's office. They were helpful and nice, like the navigators, but I fear they will be unable to help. Apparently they will be able to secure for me a federal caseworker of some sort who can force these difficult cases through via some other method besides the web site. The government has thirty days to respond to Ryan/us. Not holding my breath.
Just like a purchase at Amazon, except with government sector sclerocity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
