I Finally Congratulated Nutter

Not exactly headline making news, but it was worth mentioning. I'm a pretty good sport, so on the night of the election I called Nutter to congratulate him on his win. I'm not sure he ever got the message, though, and I'm sure I didn't leave a call-back number for him, either.

At any rate, on Tuesday I was downtown to complain directly to Czar, I'm sorry, Councilman Darrell Clarke about his insane new bills. I went down dressed as myself, so I was more comfortable than usual. After I left, I ran into Rikard Larma. He is the awesome guy who did the photo shoot of me when I was on the cover of the Philadelphia Metro. He's since taken photos of me at the big Anti-War Rally that took place at City Hall in March.

When I ran into him on Tuesday, he wanted to get some more photos and ask me about how the election went, as well as my feelings. I told him I was OK with the results and was OK with Nutter as long as he never declares a Crime Emergency. He tried to call Brian X. McCrone, the guy who did that awesome story about me, but his hands were tied. After speaking a bit, an old friend popped up! We talked a bit when Rikard interrupted. "Hey! Nutter is here!"

I pardoned myself to walk over and shake his hand and say Hi and congrats. Nutter was surrounded by 5 guys (You know, I can't tell you how many times I wished I had either bodyguards or a "posse"!) and some photographers. He was in a rush, so I congratulated him, he said thanks, and walked off.

Rikard got a good photo out of it, and the Philadelphia Metro blog did a little article about it. Good time was had by all!

PS: BRIAN! If you read this, I still owe your lunch! Send me an e-mail when you can!

Darrell Clarke STILL Hates Your Civil Rights!

Saw this in the Metro Blog today, Thanks! More on it tomorrow!

It's been, in no short terms, a weird day. I woke up to protest against Darrell Clarke's bill. The idea for the protest was very simple: Clarke wants to ban being able to display nooses, burning crosses, and swastikas in public. Being a fan of the First Amendment, as well as belonging to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, a First Amendment group, I oppose it with every American bone in my body. It doesn't mean I entirely agree with these symbols, but at the same time, let's consider that the Swastika alone has a VERY long history of non-violence before the freakin' Nazi's bastardized it.

Here is the proposed Bill No. 070914.

So to protest, the plan was to draw these three symbols. Not just "draw" them, but make them interesting and put them into some cool contexts. I won't lie, it wasn't a well thought-out plan since I had no clue what to draw and no signs to tell people why I was out there. Plus, I didn't know the Christmas Tree lighting ceremony was tonight, so they were getting that done while I was out there as well.

The best part? On the subway ride to City Hall I came up with an idea based on the Anthrax song "Startin' Up A Posse". In it, Scott Ian sings about how Censorship is a cancer, and goes against what America stands for. The entire song is just a cartoony rip and tear of Tipper Gore, and I decided that that was the best way to go with this protest.

Now, my plan was to not only show the picture, but also make flyers to hand out at City Hall WITH the drawing on it, and explain why it was done and what you could do if you felt the same way about censorship as me.

Now, I learned that two other measures he wants (Both which would create electronic tracking of beer, alcohol, spray paint containers, indelible markers and etching acid) are on the docket FOR THE SAME MEETING!

Bill No.: 070875 - The bill that would track cigarettes and beer:
http://www.hallwatch.org/councilnotices/bills/1192803462538

Bill No.: 070876 - The bill that would track spray paint:
http://www.hallwatch.org/councilnotices/bills/1192803462937

The meeting is scheduled for Dec 5, 2007 10:00 am at Room 400, City Hall from the Licenses and Inspections Committee.

Now, I'm sure that a LOT more people agree that all of these measures are, well... INSANE! Czar Clarke, this isn't Oceania and we are not the Proles from Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four! This is the USA in 2008, Councilman, and before you decide to take more rights away from us and start tracking up like cattle, realize a few things!

1. WE ALREADY HAVE HATE CRIME LAWS! Your entire proposal to "ban" these images violates the First Amendment! Not only that, but anyone with some basic legal knowledge knows that it is incredibly difficult to prove intent, and in a case like this, where you can not always tell the intent of an artist who uses any of these symbols, your are going to cost the city millions in lawsuits!

Councilman, why create a new law that can hurt the city to create this awareness that this is already a crime to do in order to commit hate? There is hate crime legislation already that covers this!

2. WE ALREADY CHECK IDS! Clarke's legislation to "electronically scan ID's" come down to tracking these legal purchases. There are already laws in effect to make sure that this doesn't happen, so why the extra move? Why track law-abiding citizens?

In essence, everything Czar Clarke wants is MORE government in your life! Is that what you and I need?

What we NEED, Councilman, is more ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS! We need to make sure that the citizens of Philadelphia are aware that we do have these laws. Your selective laws and enforcement (I can only suspect your behind the recent run of shut downs of First Friday) have hurt Philadelphia and continue to do so!

If YOU oppose these ideas just as much as me, feel free to contact him:

5th DARRELL L. CLARKE
Clarke-5th-district@phila.gov

Philadelphia City Council Member Darrell Clarke hates the First Ammendment

Did you ever get so angry you can't think straight? That's the case for me...

Whatever happened to the saying, "I may not agree with what you say,but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."? Day after day, I'm left asking this question as I see more and more people deny the right of letting others express themselves. Today, I learned that Czar, pardon, City Council Member Darrel Clarke is trying to ban the image of burning crosses, swastikas, and hanging nooses.

http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/2007/11/city_council_to_1.html

While many of us will agree that those symbols are linked to years and years of racism and oppression, so are the following:

The Southern Flag
The Cross
Black Face
Pentacles and Pentagrams
Satan
Mohamed
Jesus
Whips
Chains
Swords
Guns
The Bible
The Koran

Ask yourself if you can say for a second that anything in that list hasn't meant someone didn't felt excluded. Ask yourself if anything on there, when you saw it in real life, didn't make you recoil a bit because you had to look at it, hear about, was told about it, or knew about it.

Myself? I'm offended more by people who don't give me room to breath on the train or bus than anything else. That, and people who click their gum. I think there should be a law banning both. Why not? Their offensive to me! Doesn't that stuff annoy you, too?

I went to Councilman Clark's office earlier today and spoke to his legislative aid. We went into a discussion about this and it came down to this conversation:

Staffer: "This is about public places. What if you had to go to work everyday and someone kept putting a noose around you?"
Me: "Well, it would be funny the first time, but it would get old fast."
Staffer: "Exactly!"
Me: "You know, back in high school, I had this guy who constantly tried to set me on fire every single day. He would take out his lighter and go, 'I'm going to set you on fire!' It was funny the first time, but it got old fast!"
Staffer: "That really happened?"
Me: "Yep. It was annoying as sin! And there's a law against that, too, right?"
Staffer: "Yeah."
Me: "So why are we creating a new law to do the same thing an existing law does?"

Yes, a classmate of mine DID try to set me on fire daily in high school. He didn't really intend to hurt me, just light my sweater on fire (It wouldn't burn, so it was annoying when he tried), and I honestly didn't care. He was more like a fly than someone out to kill me.

My point is this: There are laws on the book that ban a lot of this stuff already. The text of what Clarke wants to amend is this:

"No person shall display, with the intent to intimidate another person or incite violence, a symbol of racial or ethnic animus, such as a noose, burning cross or swastika, in a place of employment, in a public accommodation, in a public facility, on public property or in the public right-of-way."

So, in a sense, anywhere but your house. It's a bit silly, really. Let me give you another example: I have a t-shirt with a swastika crossed out on the back. Here it is on the right. It's obvious my intent is to piss off Neo-Nazi's. So, under Clarke's bill, this shirt is now banned.

If you own a Bad Religion shirt with the cross crossed-out (The "No Cross" shirt), it would be banned, wouldn't it? Your intent is to say you don't like the cross as a symbol, but someone else could simply say your intent is to piss off people. Maybe it is. Doesn't matter, IT'S BANNED!

I can also only assume that Marilyn Manson's "Last Tour on Earth" album cover would be banned, too. A flaming cross of TV's. It's a burning cross all right! Would a performance including this act be banned, too? It's done in a public space with the intent of inciting violence, although for the purpose of entertainment.

What about simple classes and lectures on this topic? Are kids now banned from learning about Nazi Germany and the Civil Rights movement because they contain these symbols? What about college courses where the teacher can use these subjects with the intent of inciting a form of violence, of making students angry about the events of the past and use it to make their communities better by eliminating hatred and racism?

The entire point of this boils down to this: You don't have a right to not be offended. In fact, you have a right TO be offended.

That's why I love democracy! It gives you a chance to be challenged, to make you ask questions, and to re-kindle why you are who you are. If I was walking down the street and someone had on a "Stop Snichin'" t-shirt on, I would be a offended by that more than someone wearing a shirt with a burning cross or a noose.

Honestly, why did the noose become racist? It's been used to kill people for centuries! Not just blacks, but everyone! What, just because a bunch of idiots in the South decide to make it racist, BAM, it's racist? One year I wanted to have skeletons hanging from nooses for Halloween, and that was when I was 10. I thought it would be scary, but I took it down because I couldn't do it right. I know I saw it at a haunted house or something.

The noose has a been a symbol for centuries, one that reminds people of execution, death, and even the lost of rights. It has a long history of making people think.

Am I trying to say all of these things are right? Not really. In this country, groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazi's, the Nation of Islam, and countless other racists are allowed to march in freedom. You may not like what they have to say, but it's safe to say we all agree that they have a basic right to say it.

We also have a right to call them idiots for it, too.

If you don't like something, you can either ignore it or call it names back. That options always open, too. I know I do! Someone doesn't like the way I dress, I just flip them off and go on my way. Its life, isn't it? Someone is always bound to disagree with you or do something to annoy you, and you either ignore them or do something.

Civil Rights and a Possible Crime Emergency: Part 3

I was going to post this yesterday, but I've been sick for a bit and it came to a head yesterday.

We've discussed the basic civil rights questions, and asked how long this Crime Emergency could last.

We've discussed the new Police Commissioner, his background in the issue, and and his impact on Crime.

Today, we're going to tackle a few things.

• Guns
• The impact Ramsey had in Washington D.C. (Part 2)
• What all of this boils down to.

So to start things off, we can kill two birds with one stone and discuss Ramsey, D.C., and Guns at once. Why? Because in case you didn't know, handguns have been banned in Washington D.C. for 31 years. OK, let's think about this: Despite BANNING HANDGUNS in Washington D.C., they still had ONE OF THE HIGHEST MURDER RATES IN AMERICA. So all that talk about "banning guns solve everything" is true, right? Ramsey's impact to lower the murder rate 50% during his time there must deal with simple enforcement of existing laws.

On that note, Mayor... sorry, Governor Ed Rendell (He'll be mayor in my heart!) talked to the State Legislators yesterday to try and create three new laws; One to limit gun purchases to one a month, another that would allow every city to create their own gun laws, and one more that would make it mandatory to report any lost or stolen gun.

At first, I did agree with "One Gun a Month", but then again, I live in a major city. I was contacted by someone in Western PA who said, very simply, "The law would effect legitimate collectors and recreational hunters." As someone who collects swords and daggers myself, I understood what he meant.

The second, allowing cities to make their own gun laws, does sound fairly reasonable. In the same vein that this nation allows states to make their own laws, it seems fair to let cities make their own laws. The last measure, to create a law to report a stolen gun, is sheer common sense.

The first two were shot down, and the last measure has been tabled.

During my campaign, my entire gun legislation could be summed up into one sentence: No new gun laws, just enforce the ones we already have. Really simple stuff and doesn't as much time as making a new law. So, guns aside, what does all of this mean? In essence, this is what a Crime Emergency means:

1. A Suspension on Civil Rights

• The right to bare arms and defend yourself
  
• The right to freedom to protest
• the Pursuit of happiness

2. A "Code 10" Lasting as Long as they Want

• No time table needed, or given, for a Crime emergency
• No restrictions on what makes is necessary of when to end it

3. No Discussion on WHERE to implement it

• No ideas given to what "Crime-Ridden" area means.
• No idea if it will be "block-by-block", done based on Council District, or Police District

4. No Criteria given AT ALL

• The only criteria is that there is a large amount of crime

That's IT! Despite some 8 months to discuss and develop and present to the citizens of Philadelphia a full and concise plan on how, exactly he plans to implement his Crime Emergency Plan, NOTHING has been revealed other than he wants to declare one.

I have often referred to the War on Crime here in Philadelphia the same as the War on Terror the US has declared. In much the same way, we need to worry about just how we tackle this issue and what we have to do in order to make sure we not only do something positive, but we also make sure we don't do to much damage to ourselves in the process.

In much the same way that Bush declared a war on Terror, and used our fear of bad men to lure us into a feeling that we must abandon our rights to fight these bad men, Nutter has used the same exact tactic in order to lose our civil rights in Philadelphia. I will hold to him that this was not intentional; That the move was more to honestly protect the citizens of Philadelphia, something that I don't doubt for a second. But even the most well-intentioned person can make a mistake.

Which is EXACTLY what a Crime Emergency is; A MASSIVE mistake.

So, with all of my criticism, what do I propose? It's very simple and boils down to this:

1. Focus on Community Policing

Considering Ramsey has a history of actual using Community Policing, I think we need to focus on THAT more than a police state. What is Community Policing?

Community policing or neighborhood policing is a policing strategy and philosophy based on the notion that community interaction and support can help control crime, with community members helping to identify suspects, and bring problems to the attention of police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_policing

On top of that, it also relies on you actually knowing who your police officers are and trust them. Something as simple as an officer in your community coming up to you one day and saying, "Hi, I'm Officer Bob. How are you doing? How's the family?" Very simple, everyday conversations can create more of a bond and trust in law enforcement than any camera can!

Look at New York City! There's a cop on almost every corner up there and their murder and crime rate has gone done drastically!

2. FOCUS ON MINOR CRIMES!
I can not stress enough how much this can help! Let's make this simple: Say there is a rather OK section of Philadelphia with a vacant lot. One day, a someone decides to start throw some trash on there. After a week, someone sees that some trash is building up on this lot and they start to throw more on there. In a month, theres a bit of trash there. After 2 months, someone starts dumping furniture on it. After 3 months, the entire neighborhood has taken a turn to the worst because this one lot has shown that the community doesn't care about what's going on around it. Enter the drug dealers.

OK, it's a bit drastic what I'm suggesting, but think about all the areas your afraid to go to yourself and how much trash is there. Maybe not trash; Graffiti, broken-down homes, etc...

If the police focused on targeting even small offenses, such as littering, graffiti, minor theft, jaywalking, all of a sudden you know that not only are the police there to be kind and friendly, but to enforce the law. If criminals learn that not only are the police involved with the community, but they're not taking any crap as well, you've successfully chipped away at the culture of crime that has been festering there.

3. Gun Law Enforcement
As I've said before, we're not enforcing our current gun laws. At the same time, when someone is caught, they're not getting enough jail time. We need to also make sure our police force focuses on making sure they do get illegal guns off the street. Part of my idea is to create a new police unit dedicated purely to this.

That's it. No civil rights violations, not a lot spent on extra man power, and if it proves successful, you can actually take down the cameras and sell them to recoup some money. I'm sure the citizens of Philadelphia would greatly accept this more than a "Code 10".

Larry West to Make his Dansih TV Debut!

THIS JUST IN: I will be on Danish TV SOON!

For anyone from Denmark, here is the e-mail I just got:

"The show will be broadcastet tomorrow in Denmark at 2 pm US time. On Thursday you can find it on the internet at: www.dr.dk/amerika. Click on "Se seneste program". That means watch latest show."

So for us in America, we can see it sometime Thursday. I'll post the actual interview Thursday, so after you watch the parades and before you eat Turkey, check out my 5 minutes on Danish TV!

Also, check out episodes as well:

http://www.dr.dk/DR2/Clement+i+Amerika/index.htm

Mayor Street Steals my Idea: Will Perform a Same-Sex "Marriage" Saturday

Outgoing Mayor John Street will "Officiate" at a Gay Union this Saturday at City Hall. The move, of course, will be met with the usual bunch of assholes (no pun intended) who will claim it is evil, a sin, yadda yadda yadda...

The move is a bit surprising since John Street has been considered an enemy to the Gay community for years. Street said he was asked to officiate at the ceremony for Ryan Bunch and Micah Mahjoubian, a longtime colleague, this Saturday.

I'd just like to say I'm glad he used my idea. OK, maybe not, but from my own campaign lit:

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Philadelphia has an incredibly large homosexual population, and I believe in the right of two consenting adults being allowed to marry if they please. If elected, I will allow the City of Philadelphia to marry same-sex couples. For those of you oppose this plan, think of this; Philadelphia will see an expanded revenue base thanks to more money from marriage licenses, marriage taxes, and the like. I rather call it marriage, though; Civil Unions doesn't really have the same benefits and it almost makes homosexuals seem like second-class citizens, and I don't like that. The City Government will recognize these marriages and give them full benefits.

I'm still calling this another win in the "Larry West actually DID something positive by running", although I'm more likely than not am wrong for doing so. But, damn it, I'm still smiling about this!

Or not.

"Micah is my friend. He has been in my campaign and has been in my administration for eight years," Street said. "I've come to respect him as a person, and if this is something he would like for me to do, then I'd like to do it for him."

About 125 guests are expected at the ceremony, which will have no legal weight since Pennsylvania prohibits gay marriage.

"It's not marriage. It's not real marriage. They can't be married," said Street, a Seventh-day Adventist. "It's not a religious ceremony. I mean, it's not really marriage."

OK, so not really a win for same-sex couples, either, but I guess it's a bit of a start. I can only hope Mayor-Elect Nutter decides to do this, and then some, by just legalizing the thing, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania be damned (Some pun intended)!

Ban the Mohawk? HELL NO!

Frankly, I don't think I even need to explain why I'm angry about this:

Pa. football players appeal school ban on mohawks

The Associated Press

EASTON, Pa. - About 25 high school football players who got mohawks before their traditional Thanksgiving game have been told to shave their heads or risk suspension.

The Easton Area High School players had their hair shorn in what they called a display of unity before the game against longtime rival Phillipsburg, N.J.

"We saw it as a symbol for power and strength, and that's how we wanted to be represented," senior Giovanni Simmons said. "But we were told they had to go."

The district's dress code, approved last year, specifically prohibits "mohawk-type haircuts" or "spike haircuts in which the hair is sectioned and brought to a point."

Principle William Rider, a football coach for 28 years, said he understood the attempted symbolism but had to enforce the district policy.

"Without question I understand teamwork, camaraderie, doing things for the team," Rider said. "But it's not my policy. It's a school policy and I am following the rules."

The players petitioned the Easton Area School Board, and a policy committee will likely revisit the issue in January.

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/11530481.html

I'm calling the high school tomorrow to try and save the mohawks. Worth a shot.

Civil Rights and a Possible Crime Emergency: Part 2

THE CHARLES RAMSEY EFFECT

Hello, and welcome to Part 2 of my discussion of the Crime Emergency and the Crime Emergency. Yesterday, I discussed the basic civil rights issues that I feel could be threatened by declaring a Code 10, and asked the question of how long this would last and if it was needed.

Today, we'll start the discussion on the new Police Commissioner, Charles H. Ramsey. But before we do, I want to mention a few things first that I forgot to mention yesterday.

A large amount of my problem with this is, of course, Civil Rights. In all of my writing yesterday, I neglected to mention something that has been bugging me about all of this. Back in May, when Nutter's "Stop-and-Frisk" program was being called to task for violating civil rights, supporters brought up a Court Case where it was declared constitutional.

It was Nutter himself who coined this phase: "It's a Civil Right not to be Shot."

This bumper-sticker phrase was done so well, it is next to impossible to argue against it. To do so seems to allow for the same type of argument used by Conservative Republicans when you disagree with them; "What, do you mean you WANT people to be shot? You don't think it's wrong to kill and murder people?! No wonder you didn't win the election, you cold hearted bastard!"

The fact of the matter is, you don't. You have a right to live, a right to the pursuit of happiness. You have a right to be free and happy, and to live in a safe environment.

You don't have a right to not have bad things happen to you.

Being shot is something that can be prevented. In terms of federal legislation, you could easily create tougher gun laws, make better living conditions, and do everything you can to make the world a better case. At the same time, it is up to society to make sure that we are all raised well and correctly, that we allow everyone to be safe and happy.

The pursuit of happiness. To me, this is the very basis of our democracy and the idea that this nation is built upon. "Do as you will, but harm none." Not just a good idea, but words to live by if you ask me.

And this brings us to Charles H. Ramsey.

While police chief in Washington D.C., "on September 27, 2002, the MPD made a mass arrest of a large group of demonstrators who had assembled in DC’s Pershing Park to protest the World Bank and IMF meetings. The police enclosed over 400 people in the park and arrested them without ever ordering them to disperse or allowing them to leave the park. Many of the arrested were not actually demonstrators, but were journalists, legal observers, and pedestrians. On January 13, 2006, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the arrests violated the Fourth Amendment and that Chief Ramsey could be held personally liable for the violations."

http://www.philebrity.com/2007/11/15/good-news-about-the-new-guy-he-loves-your-civil-liberties/

In his time as chief, he declared Crime Emergencies as well. Not just once, or twice, but at least 4 times. My answer is to focus on this using the proven method of community policing and cracking down on minor crimes (Broken Windows Theory). When it comes to the Community Policing aspect, Ramsey has been declared an innovator for using it. Nevertheless, we have a new commissioner that has used Crime Emergencies in the past to reduce crime as well. According to the last record I could find, the one he declared in 2006 lasted over 2 months and, during the last week of it, there were 3 teenagers shot and killed.

http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/age...4/release/9745

At the same time, what was the result of civil liberties because of it? Admittedly, referring to the September 2002 protests where he was held accountable for the unlawful arrests of people there may be a bit much, it still need to be taken into account.

More than anything, we need to consider the effects this will have on the people on Philadelphia, and ask if there is no other way to combat crime here. There is massive personal rights we would eliminate in order for the proposed safety this could bring, and should not be done unless it must be.

I, personally, considered declaring a Crime Emergency the last result, the final straw when all else fails. In the eyes of some, this may be the case, but this is not a matter of organized crime, either. I feel this type of action should be reserved if the killings were more organized and done by a group of connected people. It has been proven that most murders are done, in fact, but random people.

Has this city as a whole really lost it's way so much that we must put everyone on lock down? Do you feel, personally, that you deserve it as well?

The questions I raised, about how long it would last and how it would be implemented, and valid questions and I simply wonder where the political discussion is on this. The elephant in the room of the Nutter election is that he wants to declare a Crime Emergency, but has not once explained how he would do it. Not once. The only parameter given has been that it would be in "targeted areas", and those areas were never explained.

While I may be asking for a hard answer from Mayor-elect Nutter, I am asking for an educated guess on your parts. I'm looking at what has happened in Washington D.C. and the fact that 4 Crime Emergencies were declared by this Chief by 2004. I'm also looking at the overall result in it which was a drop in murders on a whole.

But why did it take 4 of them? How long did each one last? Do they really work as well as it appears? Was the reduction in homicides there largely because of the fact that they declared a crime emergency or was it because of more community policing? Do you think it was a combination of the two?

Tomorrow, we'll probe a bit more and try to wrap this up.

Councilwoman Joan Krajewski to Retire for 1 Day to Collect $300,000!

There's a lot of news going on right now in this city, namely the new murder rankings are in. I'll have to get to that later, because right now, I'm incredibly angry about this!

This is Joan L. Krajewski. She was recently re-elected to an eighth-term as Councilperson for the 6th District. For all her time in office, at age 73, she has decided to retire.

For one day.

At a cost of $297,466.

Yes, that's right; After all her time in office, she has decided to retire simply to cash in before she starts her 8th term in City Council! This is because of a Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP), which freezes their eventual retirement benefits — meaning they will receive less of an annual pension at retirement. One can only assume that she is doing that in order to save you, the tax payer, money.

Why I do I say that? Because, thus far, no reason at all has been given for this move. The only explanation given has been this:

Krajewski pointed out that she could easily leave office now with her $297,466 payment and begin drawing her $74,366 annual pension — which she can’t get until she leaves office for good — and the taxpayers would have to pay that plus a new councilperson’s salary.

Which we will have to do once she finally retires, anyway, so that's a rather moot point to make.

Let's consider this; According to a 2003 report, the DROP program costs the City of Philadelphia $7 million a year, although some say the program does pay for itself. At the same time, this still comes out of the pocket of you, the taxpayer.

The City of Philadelphia must enter into negotiations with City workers to discuss this very pension plan. Right now, the union wants more money for their pension funds. The question now is if not only should the city do this, but how can a raise now not be justified after this?

We have a Councilperson who has just shown just how blatant some crooks are in this city. Publicly announcing she is ready to rob the City Treasury for a day, telling us just how much loot she's going to get away with? And telling us we should be HAPPY about it?

When I said I didn't want criminals in City Hall, I wasn't kidding! We need to make sure this robbery never happens!

Feel free to contact her office by writing to her personally:

http://www.hallwatch.org/profiles/council/krajewski/faxbank/writeletter

Civil Rights and a Possible Crime Emergency: Part 1.

I want to state one fact here: Despite how much I disagree with him on the Crime Emergency issue, I highly respect the man and was ready to hire him myself once elected. I agree with a large portion of what he wants, but on this issue and mainly this issue alone more than anything else, I feel he is wrong. This article, along with Part 2, are serious looks and criticisms I have about this and I have, and will, state as many facts as possible to back me up on not only my view, but the counterpoint as well.

When it comes to any and all comments, I ask you keep them civil. Thank you.

-Larry

The keystone of why I ran for mayor after the May Primary can be summed up into these words:

To make sure Nutter NEVER declares a Crime Emergency.

In essence, a Crime Emergency is this:

• prohibit or limit gatherings of people on sidewalks, streets, or any outdoor place in the designated neighborhoods;
• halt or limit the movement of vehicles through or within the designated neighborhoods;
• establish a curfew limiting the hours people could be outside their houses; and
• prohibit the sale, carrying or possession on the public street or public sidewalks, or in any public park or square, of weapons of any kind.

Let's stop for a second and look at this. To quote Nutter himself:

Title 10 of the Philadelphia Code authorizes the Mayor to take specified measures if the Mayor determines that “the City or any part thereof is suffering or is in imminent danger of suffering civil disturbance , disorder, riot or other occurrence which will seriously and substantially endanger the health, safety and property of the citizens.” Parts of Philadelphia are clearly suffering a wave of violence that endangers the safety of residents.

In other words, it's exactly what it sounds like: A last resort in case it is incredibly dangerous to even leave your house. For example, say we're under a real threat of terrorism and we've been attacked, that would be grounds to declare a Crime Emergency. Or a massive gang war erupted, where you have two rival gangs killing each other and anyone in their way. That's a good reason to declare it as well.

But at what cost? As you can see for yourself, Title 10, or as he likes to call it "Code 10", states that the local government now has the power to restrict where you can walk, where you drive, and where you go. The government becomes the baby-sitter, giving adults a curfew and telling them when they're allowed to leave their houses. It also restricts your ability to defend yourself.

I've been robbed multiple times in the past. It got to the point when I was 16 that I had to start carrying mace to defend myself. It has sense died-down a bit, but I still carry something at all times to defend myself just in case. This is the right to bare arms.

In order to give safety to the residents of Philadelphia, or at least the appearance of it, the following rights and amendments of the U.S. Constitution will be broken:

1. Freedom of Speech- The law limits gatherings on public sidewalks in certain areas. This permits the government to limit peaceful demonstrations and marches, as well as the ability to protest itself is now in jeopardy, as well as the ability to simply stand on the corner and sing, preach, or talk.

2. The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness - A fundamental principal of our democracy, the right to the pursuit of happiness is tampered by a curfew on adults. How many people will be effected? How many people will not to go out at night and have fun in town? How many bars will lose business, how many clubs will shut down, how will nightlife in this city be effected?

3. The Right to Bare Arms - The ability to just defend yourself if your attacked is basically suspended now. Anything can be used as a weapon. Will it simply be limited to guns and knives, or will it go to even mace and other legal non-lethal weapons?

I've covered two basic amendments and one ideal. At the same time, I've also mainly focused on extremes this "Extension of Powers" can go. While a bit far, they should and must be considered before we simply allow this to happen. We also must consider just WHAT this Crime Emergency will mean.

It should be noted that, per his own website, he makes the following statement:

Declare a limited crime emergency in targeted enforcement zones, as authorized by the City Code.

Now, considering Mayor-Elect Nutter wants this in "certain sections" of the city, he has never said or explained just how long it would last, and he never said which sections. This leaves a very, very, VERY wide hole of just how long our basic civil rights will be suspended, and just how it will be handled.

What would be to decide which sections are picked? Would it be based on police districts with high crime? Would it be based on a block-by-block quotient? For example, I live in the 14th Police District. Office Cassidy, who was shot and killed, worked in the 14 District and the place where he was shot is also in this district. Would the entire police district be put under the Crime Emergency?

At the same time, would this be block-by-block? If, for example, a block 5 blocks away saw crime but mine didn't, would the emergency be declared there and not here?

Could this possibly lead to criminals in targeted errors simply going to non-targeted areas to commit these same crimes?

Now, we are left to ask this same question over the Crime Emergency plan.

In fact, just how long could this be effective? Considering the fact that Operation: Safe Streets worked on criteria similar to a Crime Emergency without declaring one, and we did see a reduction in crime during the first year it was implemented, could we see a similar temporary effect, or do you think it could have a good, positive long-term effect?

At the same time, criminals in targeted areas simply moved to non-targeted areas. The Safe Streets program did not adapt using the CompStat program they had in place, and thus crime got worst. Resources have also started to dwindle, and you now have officers sitting in their cars waiting to go to the next crime instead of helping to prevent new ones.

That leads to the same problem we have now; most of the people out there committing these murders have been in jail before, are out now, and are now doing the same thing again. I understand Nutter's rehab program, but is it really going to be effective in 5 years when there new people come out of prison, let alone 10 after he's out of office?

These are questions we need to ask now before he takes his oath of office.

This is part one. Tomorrow, I'll discuss his new Police Commissioner and his history with Civil Rights, what this may mean for the Crime Emergency, and just how effective it could be. I'll also discuss more my feelings into what should be done instead.

WELCOME TO ANGRY, YOUNG, AND POOR!

Hello, and welcome to the newly re-named blog "Angry, Young, and Poor!"

I got the name from one of my favorite NoFX lyrics, " Things to do when angry, young and bored" from the song "Jaw, Knee, Music". If you can find it, get it, it's a great song! I know that Anti-Flag has the name "Angry, Young and Poor", but "bored" was nice. To a large extent, the former, rather than the later, is the fact most of the time. But I do consider myself one of the angriest folks in this city.

Why am I so angry? Frankly, I was born angry. It's rare that I actually can say I was happy for a full day. I'm a cranky bastard by nature, and all my friends say I'll have a heart attack before I'm 30. I wouldn't be shocked.

Since that election, I've decided that the best thing to just take my own personal blog and make it a way to act as a watchdog during the Nutter administration, and make sure our Presidential race stays clean and fair. Well, at least fair and we don't get stuck with some idiot. Also to make sure whoever wins that does their job.

This blog is also a way for me to just be me. You'll also see concert reviews, album reviews, a video or two from me, as well as some sketching.

But, mainly, I'm here to inform people of the world around them. Well, mainly in Philadelphia. There's a lot of shit here that needs to be taken care of.

Murder, crime, trash, corruption, etc...

It's going to be a long, angry future.