Another Annoying Commercial & Voting

Ok... I'm sick and tired of the two General Insurance commercials we see fairly regularly on our local stations. If you haven't seen it, the commercial starts with ... a commercial ... more specifically, the end of a commercial, giving the number in a fast cadence: "Call 1-800-general NOW!" In one commercial, the guy is laying under his car, working on it, grabs the handy cordless phone laying by his side and calls. In the other, a cute girl is watching TV, picks up the phone, flips her long hair out of the way, and puts the phone to her ear. In both, they say they'd like to speak to "the general". The commercial goes on to describe some of the services offered, then a funky-looking animated general, driving a car toward the camera is displayed, and the phone number with cadence is repeated. Ok. so far, huh? Well, the in come the spouses. They both act somewhat suspicious, throwing their arms out, looking mad/disgusted/something like that, and say "[Honey] WHO ARE YOU TALKING TO?" (the male spouse says "Honey".) The person on the phone looks and smiles at the spouse, saying "The General!"

Why is this annoying? One - the cadence. I understand that it makes the number unforgettable. But even Gieko (sp?) has mixed up their commercials - the caveman, the gecko, and I think I've see even a different approach. I don't remember any other commercial for "the General". Safe Auto doesn't do an R Lee Ermey ("Mail Call") to DEMAND we call. Maybe the animated General logo is to soften the approach. But the other reason, REALLY gets on my nerves. Two - the spouses' attitudes when they ask who their significant other is calling. As I said, they act like "WHAT are you doing on the phone? Talking to your girl/boy-friend?" GEEZE! If I asked my wife (or she, me) that way, I doubt either of us would just smile and say "the General", and I don't know anyone else who would. Why is it that we would find this appealing? YES, all concerned are handsome/pretty young men and women, but those ATTITUDES...

On another note, before the election this past Tuesday, November 7, 2006, I wrote a piece I sent to a couple of papers (no response). It's about Politics - "Who's "best" for the position, the party, America? The dynamics of political ads, IMHO," and called Politics - Politicos and Parties. After I voted, I came home, and wrote a piece describing my experience (sent to the editors local newspaper - "The Lebanon (IN) Reporter") called Handicapped Voting at the National Guard Armory in Lebanon, Indiana. Check them out.

TTYL -BS

Political Ads and Criminals Among Us

Political Ads

Have you noticed? It seems like the vast majority of the negative political ads are by the parties' national commitees. Sure, there are local ads where the opposing individuals approve the slamming commercials. (Heck... Indianapolis' prosecutor race is at least 90% negative.) And some of the things said...

People wonder where our kids are getting this type of attitude? Yes, the scoudrels on the TV shows we all watch can be "nasty", but we can always point out to our kids that they are not real people. But the nastiness in those pervasive political ads, which gets even worse around election day, has to take SOME of the blame. These are REAL people saying these things about each other. GEEZE!

One of our news channels also interviewed a few kids about them. They were asked what they wanted to be when they grew up. A few said they'd thought about being a Mayor, Governor, etc., but they didn't think they'd ever want to run, because of the negative ads.

And the ads are one thing, but if the press should EVER find out about ANYTHING that person did when they were growing up... WATCH OUT!

Criminals Among Us

In Indiana, this week, a 16-year-old waitress was killed by a co-worker, who'd recently been let out of a Kansas prison for killing a 5-year-old, after spending 20+ years as a model prisoner. He had family in Indiana, and the paperwork was OK'd allowing him to move in with them, transferring his parole from Kansas to Indiana.

The story is that his truck broke down, she stopped to help, he "got a feeling", and strangled her to death, then stabbed her with a hunting knife to "make sure she was dead". He left her body in a field. An amber alert was issued the next morning, and the search was on. After a day or so, the police arrested him, apparently after he confessed and led them to the body. Of course, everyone is asking how this could happen? How could a child-killer (he also stabbed the child's mother, but she lived) be released from a Kansas prison, move to Indiana without the police knowing, live in a neighborhood where no one knew, and be free enough to kill again.

Well, my understanding is that when someone serves the minimum time for their crime (notice that most sentences are "10-25 years"? "25-life"? etc.?), they are eligible for parole. They go before a parole board to plead their case for release. Victims families are allowed to speak and/or send letters to the board, pleading against release. The parole board decides, based on testimony and their actions as a prisoner, and maybe they are released. (Everyone knows that CHARLES MANSON has been before the parole board a number of times, right? If you don't know who he is, search for his name.) From my understanding, normally release on parole is contingent on probation, where if they are caught doing anything against the law (I assume something like speeding is ok).

It's been very recently that those convicted of sex-crimes had to report to a registry, which everyone can view online, and see where they are living. If you don't notice, apparently, there's a time-period for their reporting. In other words, it appears that after they have reported for a length of time, and stayed out of trouble, they don't have to report any more.

Now, they are saying that the same type of registry should be created (why not the same one, so it's easier?) for "child killers". (I'm sure this will be expanded to include other violent crimes.)
Personally, I'd like to know. I know that I wouldn't do anything to them but watch them like a hawk. (Same with the sex-crime people.)

But what of those who have served their time, served their probation and are now actually "rehabilitated". I've seen cases where the criminal becomes an advocate. (Anyone else watch "It Takes a Thief" show on Discovery?) And there are many more former criminals (some sexual, some violent) who have turned around and become advocates. Of course, I'm not dumb enough to suggest that ANYONE but the ex-con themselves would KNOW that they are rehabilitated. And, I'm sure that Discovery and Allstate (who now sponser ITAT) realize that they are taking a chance. However, I'm also sure that the guys on the show also know that this is one of the very few chances they have to "ply their wares" and get away with it, by helping homeowners with their security.

What about all those former drug addicts? We glorify the stars who have "cleaned up their acts", even when they have relapses. Do we track them forever, too? How 'bout all those former hookers? Do we keep track of them, too? How 'bout the kids who commit crimes as kids, then have their files sealed when they reach a certain age? Should ALL of them have their files sealed? Should they be monitered? Who will pay for the manpower to do this? We are having problems keeping up with all of those who are arrested and NEED to be put in prison. (That's where the "early release" and/or "minimum sentencing" came from.)

Truth is, we never know most of our neighbors well enough to know whether they've ever been in prison for anything. (In this case, "jail" and "prison" are the same.)

Remember when we, as kids, had the "run of the neighborhood"? Neighbors actually WATCHED OUT for everyone's kid. Hillary's right about her quote of the African proverb, "It takes a village to raise a child." Now-days, it's "It takes a neighborhood", "town", "city", etc. And it seems it's NEVER anyone's fault but the parents.

Hell, I rode a bike or WALKED a mile to school each day, from second grade through 10th, when I got a car. Oh, and home for lunch and back to school, 2nd-6th). We played outside all over the neighborhood. Mom just yelled out the door for us when it was time to come in. There was no (or very little) worry about child molestors, no worry about kidnappers, killers, drug dealers, gangs, etc. in our neighborhood. I don't remember ANY stories (and I read the paper) of kids being killed or abused (and we were SPANKED when we were bad). I'm sure it happened, but not in our town.

Our generation was probably the last who will see that freedom as kids.

Ok... I rambled off the subject for a second... How did it happen? He did everything he was supposed to do to get out before he died. (I know that the parents of the kid he killed years ago, and the parents of the kid killed recently will object.) He went through all the legalities and was allowed to move to Indiana. The cops say they didn't know he was in the area. And what would they have done differently if they did? There are too few cops to handle the traffic, special events, patrolling, etc. AND to watch every ex-con who moves to town. The one thing it's unsure of is if anything was done about psychiatric treatment that was recommended.

What would I do if it was my kid? I'd want to kill the bastard. Thank God it wasn't. And I'm praying for the victims and the families (both the victims' and the killer's) involved.

Something has happened to our society to produce these criminals. Part has to do with the fact that very few families can live on one salary, so both parents have to work. Part has to do with not being allowed to punish our kids physically (well short of abuse) without the fear of being arrested. (Remember the wooden spoon? the yard stick? the brush? Hell, I even got whacked in Jr High by the vice-principle. I had the fear of God in me that my parents would find out. Too busy, too permissive, too... Is TV to blame? Personally, I don't think so, but the shows the parents watch WITH the kids, without explaining about "special effects" is may be... How 'bout the video games getting more and more violent? Yes, I'm sure that doesn't help. Personally, we played the more "lame" games, and the kids killed MONSTERS, not other people, at least until they were 16 or more, and KNEW it was a game... Is it the fact we don't go to church near as much? That could be, too.

So anyone have a solution short of putting them all to death? (DNA has proved that some of those convicted of crimes weren't involved, even years later.) Are we getting ready for an "Escape from New York" scenario, where we wall off complete cities, and send all the criminals there? What happens when THAT fills up?

I have no clue how to end this... I just needed to ramble... about dumb questions, about how we are no longer as safe (read free) as we used to be... about other observations.

So, that's it, for now.