Alright alright, last post about Mark for the day. This is in his AIM profile:
I can't wait to fly back to Germany!! Although now there's actually something (or should I say -one?) that could have me craving to come back... :-D:-D:-D
posted by Steve at 1:29 AM
Only one year after its implementation, the City of Peoria’s Neighborhood Policing Program has proven to be a success so far. The program has police officers working proactively with the citizens in designated “hot zones.” Hot zones were chosen by comparing census tracks and respective crime rates, selecting areas such as the East Bluff and the far south end of the city.
The Neighborhood Policing Program, an updated version of the Neighborhood Enhancement Action Team (N.E.A.T.) program, places Problem Oriented Policing (P.O.P.) officers in designated zones so they get to know the residents. To Lieutenant Robert Baer, the officer in charge of the P.O.P. unit, establishing strong relationships between officers and residents is most important.
“This program is about making officers available for face to face, person to person contact,” he said in a phone interview, “Because the officers are there in person, they can find out what’s going on immediately and address it.”
Jack Baize, a retired Peoria Patrol officer and president of the Willow Knolls Residents’ Recreation Association also noted the merits of the tactic.
“[The officer] knows the regular people that are in and out around the district, and can recognize the strange ones,” Baize said in an email.
Once officers are made aware of a problem in their area, most often vandalism, burglary or drugs, and the team decides on the best solution. Many times the solution is to flood the neighborhood with police units in marked cars, on bicycle, or using covert surveillance.
The combined efforts of a P.O.P team that deals primarily with drug related issues, and an N.E.A.T. team that enforces city ordinances, is often most effective at lowering crime.
“Using between 10 and 20 officers to give tickets for stuff like noise violations and littering often leads to additional violations or arrests for revoked licenses, warrants, and drug activity,” Lt. Baer said.
Often times all it takes is a greater police presence to lower crime in any given area. “Any time you can flood an area with increased police officers, the problem will decrease,” Baiz commented. Residents often appreciate the work of the team so much that they applaud officers as they make arrests and give tickets.
But are crime levels really going down? Statistics available on the Peoria Police Department’s website paint an unclear picture, showing little difference in the number of arrests and calls from last year to this year. Lt. Baer maintained that the Neighborhood Policing Program is a double-edged sword.
“Because officers are more proactive, they end up giving out more ordinance violations and tickets, and make more arrests, which cause the statistics to go up,” he said. He added that the results of the program would be more obvious after one or two years. “It’s more important that the neighborhoods see the difference,” said Anne Ruggles, coordinator of the city’s Crime Stoppers division.
LaVetta Ricca, president of Olde Towne South Neighborhood Association, is one of the many people benefiting from the program.
“I've lived here for 66 years and watched as my neighborhood deteriorated,” she said via email, “Now with the P.O.P program I'm happy to say it has improved some what.”
Ricca’s situation is typical of Peoria’s crime problem. Residents that have been living in the same area of town for a great length of time have seen the surrounding housing situation change dramatically.
Neighborhoods that were once filled with houses now consist of subsidized apartments. In turn, neighborhoods often fall into disrepair, which often breeds a high level of crime.
To counteract this, the Neighborhood Policing Program also works to improve citizen’s quality of life. According to Anne Ruggles, officers often help to clean up their assigned neighborhoods on their own time and help to set up neighborhood clean up days.
“If residents see [officers] doing it, they will help too,” she added. Around Christmas time officers work with local charities like Cops 4 Kids to get presents for children in need, further strengthening the bond between the police and the people they protect.
But one of difficulties that the Neighborhood Policing Project faces is how crime moves. Once a P.O.P. team moves into an area to lower crime, it inevitably moves to another area. Lt. Baer commented that “Crime is never completely dealt with, it’s always displaced.” Jack Baize agreed, saying, “They’ll just pick up their operation and move it to another location.”
Some of the presidents of Peoria’s Resident Associations offered suggestions to both the city and to its citizens. Jeanette Luschen, president of Sunset Hills Neighborhood Association suggested an expansion of the project.
“A P.O.P. program that includes the entire City would be the optimum, but I understand the City budget constraints, she said in an email, “A police advisory committee consisting of representatives from all existing neighborhood associations would be the next best solution.”
Jerry D. Jackson, president of the Uplands Residential Association asserted that a communal approach would work best: “We must all take responsibility for our own safety and security first. We are all part of a community, with the responsibility to look out for each other.”
posted by Steve at 1:23 AM
Steve Mizek
ENG301
You’ve been in a wonderful, loving relationship for seven years with the same person, but are not allowed to ask them to marry you. You’re in the hospital after a car crash and the doctor needs permission to perform a risky procedure on you to increase your chances of living. Your significant other is not allowed to sign off on it. You’ve died, and your significant other is unable to collect your social security benefits. If you’re a queer couple living in America, you’ve been denied these rights. You’ve been treated as a second-class citizen and met with many inequalities. But marriage is about love, not about the genders of those involved. Queer couples should be allowed to marry and be privy to the same rights as straight couples.
Marriage is one of the most common desires that people have as they grow up. Over 50% of America’s population older than 15 is married. It’s reinforced all throughout society that when you find someone you love very much and want to spend the rest of your life with, you propose marriage. Parents and family members begin to worry if a son or daughter does not find someone to marry. It’s become an expected desire of all humans – something that you would suspect everyone would want. Because marriage is so common and so highly desired, it’s of little surprised that gays and lesbians have the same wish. They simply want to be like the rest of the population. Much of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric, then, is used to dehumanize gays and lesbians; distinguishing them from heterosexuals serves to de-normalize their desires. Homosexuals should be granted the right to marry because they are just like heterosexuals. We all have the same desires: to be considered normal, to live comfortably with our chosen significant other. Why should queers’ desires be treated any differently than that of straights? Certainly their love is no different.
It’s become a common knowledge statistic as of late that around 50% of all marriages in the U.S. end in divorce. This is a rather disparaging figure, particularly in light of oft-said phrase, “marriage is sacred.” With our celebrities and normal people alike getting married and divorcing each other at alarmingly high rates and tales of marital scandals all over the news, it’s hard to believe that our country actually takes this to heart. How can marriage be sacred enough for it to be exclusively for heterosexuals and yet not sacred enough to be treated as such? Since straights aren’t having all that great of luck with being married, I see no reason not open it up to queers as well.
Perhaps the biggest barrier that gay marriage faces is religion. Christian religious figures from around the country have spoken out against gay marriage, saying that allowing gays to marry would topple over one of the pillars of society. Leaders and followers alike also cite a passage of the Bible that says marriage is between a man and a woman. This makes the struggle for gay marriage even more difficult, because standing up against religious values is often ineffective. However, marriage is more than a religious institution. Marriage also exists in the civil realm, and there are benefits that come with being married that are provided by our state and federal governments. Spouses have the right to see one another in the hospital and are allowed to make decisions for each other’s health in the case that it’s necessary. In many states, spouses can be on each other’s insurance policies and can receive the survivor’s benefits of a spouse’s social security. For a queer couple, these benefits do not exist. Being a life-partner is currently an undefined option for society, and this ambiguity prevents life-partners from ever receiving benefits. If queer couples could get married, they could all be under the same umbrella and reap the same benefits without any question.
In addition to providing a number of financial and emotional benefits, gay marriage would create a large number of new, “legitimate” families. As it is now, it’s difficult for gay couples to adopt, regardless of their financial status or length of time together. However, if homosexuals were allowed to marry, in theory they would be afforded the same status and eligibility for adoption. One of the reasons that queer couples are not given the right to adopt is because critics claim that because life-partners are not considered real, “recognized” family units, that a couple’s adopted child would be ostracized. But if homosexuals were given the right to marry, those sorts of families would become more common and more accepted. If it were a recognized institution, a greater level of acceptance would likely follow, and queer couples wouldn’t be as unusual.
This is a topic that’s very difficult to argue from a positivistic point of view, mostly because there is such a strong opposition that makes dehumanizing and degrading remarks about queer couples. I myself as a gay man find it tough to not just lash out at opponents and point out weaknesses in their rhetoric. What it all boils down to is that queer couples want to be treated as normal human beings. We want the same sort of consideration that is given to our straight counterparts. We want to be able to fulfill the same desires we would be able to if we were straight. We want the same rights afforded to us as those given to any other heterosexual couple.
posted by Steve at 10:58 PM
01 : Iron & Wine - Free Until They Cut Me Down
02 : Spoon - Don't Let It Get You Down
03 : The Shins - Pink Bullets
04 : Nick Drake - Which Will
=
05 : Screaming Trees - More or Less
06 : Fu Manchu - Squash That Fly
07 : Kyuss - One Inch Man
08 : The Envy Corps - Walls
=
09 : Ben Kweller - I Need You Back
10 : Weezer - Surf Wax America
11 : All Night Radio - Sad K.
12 : The Starlight Mints - Goldstar
=
13 : Kinky - Airport Feelings
14 : Franz Ferdinand - The Dark of the Matinee
15 : The Unicorns - The Clap
16 : The Cooper Temple Clause - Blind Pilots
17 : Muse - Hysteria
=
18 : Dizzie Rascal (ft. Wiley) - 2 Far
19 : Diverse (ft. Lyrics Born) - Explosive
20 : Prefuse 73 - The End to Biters
21 : Gang Starr - Mass Appeal
=
22 : Iggy Pop - I Wanna Be Your Dog
23 : Mark Lanegan Band - Wish You Well
24 : The Church - Don't You Fall
25 : Ben Arthur - End of the Day
=
26 : Oasis - Cast No Shadow
27 : Grandaddy - The Final Push to the Sum
posted by Steve at 4:56 PM 