Comments by Newsworthy
Posted on March 5 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't see Jim Whitings point, that term limits usurp voters' rights. People still would have to be elected to hold office; they just wouldn't be able to amass sufficient power to criminalize their position, like Joe Bruno and Sheldon Silver.
It appears Jim is really saying he wants everyone to join the Independence Party, in lieu of all others. That contradicts his position that there shouldn't be any parties. Personally, I believe voters have the responsibility to choose the candidate whom they feel will be best for the job - it is a secret ballot, so no one has to know who anybody votes for. That would eliminate the party powers. People just have to be convinced to do it.
Posted on February 26 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tues8capt, in line with your suggestion of a nominal salary for Senators and members of the House of Representatives (get it?), I suggest their salary be based upon the average wage of the voters of their home district. In almost all cases, this would lower their compensation significantly and (hopefully) provide more incentive for them to act on behalf of the citizens they represent.
That was easy for both of us to put forward without any name-calling, wasn't it?
Posted on February 25 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I heartily agree with Anthony about imposing term limits. Ronzo raises one of my other favorite points - voters have the ultimate opportunity to do something, yet nothing changes. Look at Joe Bruno and Sheldon Silver as sterling examples of bad politicians repeatedly re-elected.
The percentage of registered voters who actually exercise that cherished right is disappointingly low, time and again. Many then allow themselves to be told how to vote by (choose one or more): party, union, church, employer, etc. Until voters stand up and fully exercise their right, making their own choice on the secret ballot, nothing will change. Elected representatives have a vested interest in themselves and don't really care about the citizens they "represent".
All this has led to the partisan politics that is tearing our country apart and preventing a meaningful economic recovery. Who cares if Democrats of Republicans started the war or the economic crash, or whatever? We need CONGRESS, as a unified body, to solve the problems. That will take action by voters to remove the incumbents - thus, Ronzo's bleak outlook.
Posted on February 18 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jeff, I totally agree. I have had to deal with customers who won't stop talking to complete a transaction and it is frustrating, rude and disrespectful. It seems people can't refrain from answering a phone or asking a caller to wait, or call back; that call is more important than whatever current situation they are experiencing. Trust me, from the cash register side, it's hard to resist the temptation to grab the phone from their hands and throw it on the floor!
Posted on February 18 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wmarincic, I am sincerely sorry to hear of your loss. A loving partner in life is a treasure that can never be forgotten.
Posted on February 11 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, obviously none of you work for minimum wage. We've been through it before - businesses have not gone broke when the minimum was raised. Otherwise, it would still be $1.65/hr. as it was when I started working. John, your researchers' credentials are "academic"; I did offer facts, based on my own life experience. The fact that you feel it necessary to attach a label to me indicates your bias.
Posted on February 7 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John Gaetani, what an incredibly out-of touch with reality response. It's far too late to dream about an economy without government interference. Your comments regarding the people working for minimum wage were pure ignorance. While it's true that many of them work part time, that's because employers (particularly retailers and restaurants) refuse to offer full time positions. That makes it easier for them to adjust payroll hours and avoid offering benefits. Incidentally, this makes it impossible for those employees to predict their income for budgeting, or make meaningful plans.
For your additional information, John, a great many minimum wage-earners are forced to work 2 or even 3 jobs, because (you guessed it) THEY CAN'T LIVE ON PART TIME, MINIMUM WAGE JOBS! In fact, many of these people aren't students, they are victims of the "recession" - people who lost their full time jobs and can't find anything else. It's time to get your face out of papers written by people who have never actually worked; go out and talk to real people working to live and you'll find a whole new world.
Posted on January 20 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
With due respect, Mr. Wege is pushing the same old line. You don't have to possess an engineering degree to see that hydro-fracking is environmentally dangerous, as is conventional drilling. The real dangers represented by the energy industry's continued denials lie in the pollution from burning the natural gas and oil, and from the "kick the can down the road" mentality.
The industry's own ads mention enough oil and gas reserves to last 100 years. Apparently, we are expected to burn these fuels frivolously and leave our great-grandchildren to deal with the problem of exhausted energy resources.
A serious energy engineer would be working on solar, wind and hydro-electric energy use. There is more than enough such energy for all the world's needs, but at this point, the technology to use it efficiently is under-developed. The really cool factor of these energy sources is that, besides being non-polluting, they will never be exhausted! Instead of proposing arguments supporting obsolete technology, Mr. Wege should consider supporting technology that is appropriate for the future, not just for the profits of oil and gas companies.
Posted on January 3 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope you watched the TV today, when Sandy Hook Elementary re-opened. Everyone there, including the police chief, wants an environment where kids can be kids, rather than living in the fear of a police state. Giving everyone guns in expectation of a showdown is a knee-jerk fix, not a real long-term solution.
Posted on January 2 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Asking school staff to carry weapons puts them in the role of law enforcement; that's an unfair burden to place on them. A concealed carry permit not suffice. Serious tactical training needs to accompany such a permit, the alternative being wild shoot outs with more innocent people getting hurt or killed. While many would defend children with their lives, not all could deal with carrying guns all day.
I think the idea of dogs is worth consideration, with the realization that they would require a full time handler. Cost shouldn't be a serious problem. School boards find things to p_ss away tax dollars every year, because they can't stand the thought of not raising taxes. It shouldn't be a problem funding dogs and handlers.
By consideration, I mean that it should be one option among many considered for improving school security without turning schools into armed camps. Today's children have been robbed of enough innocence without seeing armed guards around them all day. They would feel imprisoned, themselves.