April 6, 2011 – Daily Brief

Alan is right in that we need the specifics on why this poor lady died before casting judgement. That being said, I think Horton’s piece today is very compelling. (I rarely agree with him but on this one I do). We do need a year round shelter to help those in need. I checked out the shelters website today for the first time having been moved by Horton’s piece. The shelter offers many services to help people back on their feet. Where Gary and I likely disagree is on whether government should solve this problem or local charity. I think this is a perfect example where local giving is the best way to handle the problem. Our community needs to come together and see this facility open year round. http://www.santaclaritashelter.com/

….how does someone die in an emergency waiting room, after receiving medical treatment, just feet from medical services, without the medical staff knowing about the event? People don’t necessarily make a lot of noise when they die. She was thought to be sleeping, I’m sure, since she had been given permission to remain in the lobby until daylight. If she was under the influence of some drug or alcohol when she sought treatment and then was given pain meds, that could have been enough to send her over the edge into oblivion. I do agree that the shelter should be open year ’round and help made available to people like this. But having a year ’round shelter would not have prevented this lady from dying.

Linda I understand your point. At the same time, she was just seen by the medical staff and I hope a drug interaction is not what caused this woman’s death. Currently, without the whole story it is not in our best interest to speculate. Let’s wait until the facts become known.

Let’s hope the facts do become known, although the facts may not result in a clear picture of who is to blame, if anyone. As to drug interaction, patients have been known to lie in order to get medication and they have been known to overdose as well.

I’m convinced alcohol is too cost prohibitive at Dodger Stadium in that most people can’t afford to get drunk there. My guess is the perpetrators of the beating began their alcohol-fueled rage on cheaper substances prior to the event in question.

My friends and I always bring in a flask of whiskey if we think we will want a drink. I have no interest in any of the beer they sell there anyway.

While I agree with you Nate that individual responsibility should take over, the vast majority of violent incidents in the stands have involved person who were intoxicated. Simply charging them with Public Intox or a few other minor offenses isn’t going to change the culture. The reason we all go, or should be, to the stadiums for is to watch a competitive game, not get all liquored up. I was there on Opening Day for the flag detail and I saw firsthand quite a few incidents in such a short time where people of all backgrounds shouldve been ashamed of themselves and kicked off the property.

I am not saying alcohol doesn’t make things escelate. But what these two mouth breathing thugs did can only be blamed on them. Nanny Antonivich thinking that limiting alcohol more would have some how stopped these lowlife is naive at best. I think the Dodgers should offer a reward for information leading to their capture.

According to an articlein today’s LA Times, the reward money is $100,000, which includes a portion from the Dodgers. Also contributing to the reward: County Board of Supervisors and the paramedic company for which the victim worked.

Very cool. I might turn in a family member for $100,000.

I give Ryan credit for actually being due diligent and drafting a plan. I may not agree with all the cuts and think some could be made in other arenas, but at least it wasn’t just status quo with the budget plan. I also think Mr Lunetta is off the mark if he thinks that any religious organization, or non-profit, can resolve the homeless and poverty problems. If you were to lower one’s taxes do you honestly think that same person is going to donate the same amount or higher to said religious or non-profit organization?? Nope! We are greedy by nature as humans and for the most part, alot of the economic collapse that started during President Clinton’s tenure occurred because of such. We have an economy that bases it’s success on how big your house is or how much you spend, spend, spend. People spent themselves right into crippling debt and when they stopped, those who lived off such fell into hard times as well.

The fact is that Americans are already the most charitable people in the world in spite of high tax rates: http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers If taxes are lowered we will give more. I don’t share the cynical view that we are driven by greed and will just hoard everything we can. Here are some facts: The rich have been very generous as a group in America. (Bill Gates, Carnegie, Rockefellar, the list goes on). Religeous give more than Seculars. Conservatives give more than Liberals. Local charity is the best way to solve social issues and the people will rise to the occasion as they already have.

I’m no expert in this field, but my recollection on the conservative/liberal point was that it didn’t control for donations to churches, many of which are more like mutual benefit societies than charities.

The article linked above does state that about 1/3 of charitable donations are to religious institutions. It is fair to say that people who participate in religions probably skew more conservative so it’s not a surprise that conservative vs liberal and religious vs secular run the same way. I’m also no expert, but believe most organized religions in America are not ‘mutual benefit societies’ but also provide greatly to their local communities.

Additionally, even if the religious donations only help members within a specific religion it still benefits society overall. I’m not Mormon but have a great respect for their system of tithing. My guess is that there are very few Mormons taking government hand-outs.

The Mormons arent taking government hand outs because they believe in and follow fiscal responsibility. I still am not sold on the fact that people overall will contribute more if their taxes were lowered. Maybe I took too many Psychology and Sociology classes in life lol. And I know Americans in general are the most charitable people in the world but if all Americans followed the example of the percentage that do give, poverty would be dramatically reduced in this country.

Yeah, well, I think the “most charitable nation” may be open to debate. Your link was sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, a “conservative, non-profit think tank” purposed to promote capitalism, and funded in part by corporations. I think, perhaps, AEI research is not necessarily beyond critique. This link, however, includes data by Gallup which, I believe, is a more trusted resource for polling. Plus, this data was updated just last month. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country#data According to Gallup, and as reported in the Guardian, the US ranks #5 on the national giving scale. Of the four countries which ranked higher than the US in giving, all have stronger nationalized social programs than the US. Apparently, funding more social programs (ie, paying more taxes) does not hinder the Aussies, Kiwis, Irish, Canadians or the Swiss from giving more than than US citizens. Here is another fact: rich folks do not give more money than those less affluent. Sure, rich folks may give more actual dollars, but as a percentage of income, poor people way out-give their rich counterparts: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html This fact is obvious in my daily life, and here are two contrasting examples: while living in an impoverished area of Tijuana (dirt roads, no water, no sewage, no electric, houses were predominantly lean-tos), I was invited to dinner at a house with a dirt floor; I was served chile rellenos, which was a very expensive, elaborate dish for the very poor. Fast forward a number of years, I was running a food drive for Thanksgiving, and was astounded at the amount of crappy, dollar store, dented can, expired “food” that was given to feed the poor. This is both extremes: the very poor had served me her very best, while the relatively wealthy had donated the crud at the back of their cupboards while feasting on the very best, all in the name of a holiday for giving thanks. So, no thank you, I do not agree with you, James, and I think that you would be hard pressed to find concrete evidence to back your claims. And as far as local charity solving social issues — any time, my friend, any time. God knows there are enough mouths to feed, and babies to love, and families to house, and wounds to heal. Until every single one of us decides to get up close and personal with those in need, and every single one of us makes it a personal goal to serve another human being, then I will gladly pay my taxes, knowing that a collective system will provide a safety net for those that this society ignores. Shame on us all.

Blame the media! Blame the minority party! Blame Obama! Blah, blah, blah.

The Democrats know that success has come before, so why re-invent the wheel? The shutdown in the mid-90s was attributed to the Republicans (Right or wrong, I’m not here to argue that point.) They know that the public-at-large will view this as the Republican party’s unwillingness to negotiate. He who blinks first…

Really Government didn’t shut down the last 2 years… what changed again?

I just know I may need some food and someone to pay my utilities if my pay is cut http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/04/military-pay-shutdown-warning-040611w/ Lucky for me I could continue riding my bike to a job I currently wouldnt be paid for.

Maybe Buck McKeon can help you out… Congress is still getting paid. Apparently Congress is more important then our fighting men and women. So much for support the troops… Huh Bucky

When one pins the blame in the Republicans, does one need to take the party to dinner first? Or just get right in there?

Thus the importance of the proper preposition, perhaps proposition, in this case.

I am happy about the 100k reward. I hope someone collects.

Im surprised someone already hasn’t. I think they need to push it to the regional news stations a little more since they may not have been from this area.