Although I may not be realistic I'd like to see everyone involved in the fiasco be sued, bulldoze the pool under and use the money awards to hand out passes to Dorney Park so kids could swim next year. We've already committed $3.3 million to this boondoggle. I feel taxpayers deserve at least some sort of compensation.
I posted at length about this before. I'm not going into it again. But I did state in the past we'd be better off granting passes to Dorney Park where most of the kids who use our pools would be far happier with the water park and rides at Dorney Park. I also mentioned liability issues Allentown would be relieved of as well as the labor and maintenance costs associated with these water attractions within our parks.
We might want to think along these same lines as well now that we learned the Allentown Golf course is over $200,000 in the red.
I'm going to go one step even further in saying, what we spend on playground equipment, pools, golfing, city management and other incidentals like policing of them would be better spent issuing passes to private venues. All of these costs the city incurs for these can wildly fluctuate. Allocating a certain number of dollars each year for passes seems like a wiser choice where there are no surprises or pensions costs involved. Tell me one kid who wouldn't rather go to Dorney Park or a golfer who wouldn't want to play on different courses from time to time.
We don't necessarily have to foot the whole costs, but under the current system we most certainly do. I'm not convinced the city should be in these type of ventures since we're apparently not very good at them. Things change. The city shouldn't try and compete with other venues. Instead use whatever financial resources they would have spent otherwise go towards the kind of things people would stand in line for.
I further urge policy makers to put it before the people. See which they'd prefer. Money for parks or passes?
Cable News all began with Ted Turner's CNN at 5:00PM on June 1st 1980. It was the first ever shot at broadcasting the news 24/7.
CNN: The Early Days
CNN's First Hour: June 1, 1980
Somehow since that time it, along with all the others devolved into nonstop split screen jibber jabber BS commentary. Wouldn't it be great if one--JUST ONE- would go back to cable news' core mission of informing and educating viewers?
I really truly wish they would. I'm sick to death of the lot of them. Imagine for one moment a TV news channel where you could go and get actual traditional reporting. I don't give a crap what any of these so called analysts (pundits) think. Frankly most of them don't know more then any of us do. They're nothing more then BS artists who make a living off of this kind of stuff.
Stop talking down to us like we're idiots. How about this concept. Just give us the facts. Then adopt this policy for your news format-- "We report--You decide".
Some things evolve for the better. A bunch of chattering monkeys (sometimes hostile) in a bunch of split screens isn't one of them. Yeah sure it may be a helll'va lot cheaper then "real" reporters but viewers could get the same banter sitting in a bar down the street from Cliff Clavin.
In short, things didn't go well for other nations who had given up their weapons to appease the United States. This is not to excuse North Korea acting like a bunch of threatening idiots and not trying to strike a better tone. BUT... I can't help wonder if Kim Jong-un's rational behind his big mouth isn't influenced by some of the past actions United States took against other countries who ended up less fortunate when they tried to somewhat appease the U.S. and got tagged anyway.
Under no certain terms am I agreeing with how North Korea is responding nor that they aren't a threat. But sometimes it may be wise to step back and figure out why the other guy is thinking the way he does. If fear is Kim Jong-un's rational perhaps he could be approached in a much different way then how we approached these other countries.
Again I'm not supporting North Korea's current stance but sometimes scared people shoot first if they feel threatened. Maybe.. just possibly.. a wiser path would be to approach N.K with diplomatic assurances rather then strong arm threats. Like any other animal in the world you'll get further with treats then threatening them with a stick.
Below are a few examples of past policies where we acted in haste where no one was better off for it and things could have turned out far differently.
So Here It Is In The Nutshell We're against North Korea, Syria and Iran just as we were Iraq and Libya. The difference was Iraq and Libya were pushovers unlike Syria (with Russia's support), Iran and North Korea with their missiles and nukes. I'm not talking about right or wrong policy or ideologies. What I'm trying to point out some of these nations aren't coming to a gunfight with a knife. Something which is probability not escaping Kim Jong-un's attention. We need to address this with his and other countries. How?
As long as they see us as a threat these issues will never be resolved. Indeed Iran is a threat to Israel and others in the middle east. Syria not as much (they have their own internal struggles). None of these are a direct threat to the United States so long as we don't attack them. So how about this... we play more a role as peacemakers rather then storm troopers in their disagreements with other nations. We have a bad habit of making every other country's problems our own. Nothing wrong with helping out a friend, but we've gone beyond trying to interfere in their own internal problems.
I'll give you other examples where we're sticking our nose in.. Cuba, Venezuela, the Philippines and Somalia each posing little or no threat to our national security. No one appointed us guardians of the world. Sometimes these things have to work themselves out within their countries. Nothing wrong with offering counseling and advice, but I don't see how pointing a gun or nuke at any of them is going to turn out well for anyone.
Just like in personal situations sometimes it's better to avoid getting involved in arguments. Ever try to break up a fight?
First off I want to apologize if this post takes a while to load because of the number of videos enclosed. I found "Google Chrome" does the best job. That said, I think every one of the following videos are as pertinent today as when they first aired. See if you agree.
"The Newsroom" Rinos, Real Republicans, The Tea Party, The Founding Fathers on religion and more
"The West Wing" on gays in the military
"The Newsroom" Booing a Gay Soldier
"The West Wing" budget negotiations
"The West Wing" on unfunded mandates
"The West Wing" on gun control
"The Newsroom" Will McAvoy's apology on behalf of the media.
Many of the same issues we are speaking about this very day are still the same ones we faced for years. The thing that did change is how both political parties have become cult like religions to their followers. A point where almost all logic, respect and reasonableness has been dispensed giving way to blind allegiances. When a nation of people put their divisions above the principal of the godlike commonality of us all there will be no winners.
Throughout history one nation after another, when it became too corrupt or fractionalized, each has fallen no matter how great they once stood. I'll bet no one ever thought that could happen in each of theirs back in their time of greatness. Let's not deceive ourselves into believing the United States will be the only exception. We need to wake up if it isn't too late already.
Finally I want to leave you with this video of actor Martin Sheen speaking on "WE Day" in 2010.
Wikipedia: "WE Charity is a children's charity founded in 1995 by child's rights advocate Craig Kielburger. Since 2007, WE Day participants in Canada, the U.S. and UK have raised $45 million, which was given to more than 1,000 charities."
Welcome To The Club To hear Donald Trump speak he's the only one who ever got push back for his policies on immigration That somehow just because he now sits in the oval office he's the only president who had to endure such tenacious resistance. Immigration policies were never simple easy matters. Obama spoke on this topic dozens and dozens of times. Here's one such example where Obama addressed his own frustration from the White House Rose Garden on June 30, 2014....
As a side note, according to ABC News : Obama Deported More People Than Any Other President-- "Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who "self-deported" or were turned away and/or returned to their home country at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)."
Before I comment further, check out this TED Talk video...
Here's Where I Stand I don't have a problem with Donald wanting permanent future immigrant residents being required to learn English, his clamping down on the numbers nor getting rid of illegal arrivals. Where I differentiate is his apparent fear of foreigners. We need a lot of unskilled laborers willing to take jobs Americans won't. Especially in the meat packing, vacation and agriculture industries. Not that I'm trying to relegate them to such lousy work, but it would be a place for many of them to start. Some which would be better jobs then where they came from.
Another thing I' like to point out. My dentist is South Korean. My neurologist is from Czechoslovakia. My wife's two specialist are from India and China. My primary physician and pulmonary specialist docs are the only ones from the good ole USA. I suggest people look at the medical providers they are seeing and ask themselves what it would be like if they weren't allowed immigration to this country. In July 2016 Forbes published 25% Of Physicians Are Born Outside The U.S. . Not to mention so many more who's parents arrived as immigrants who's offspring became one. Throw in the number of medical techs and nurses and we'd have a severe shortage.
Point is, not all immigration is good, but over protectionism can be a very bad thing for us. Not all those seeking asylum are coming here with terrorists intentions The way this administration is presenting it you'd think otherwise.
