Comments for Off the Top of My Head

Comment on Gang Violence: “You Got to Keep the Respect…” by Aizzi Drumms

Aizzi Drumms — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 06:41:05 +0000

Hi there,
“trickertricks” on Youtube provides some answers.
Check out Escalating Violence pt1, 2 and 3.
Peace

Aizzi

Comment on Gang Violence: “You Got to Keep the Respect…” by Gail

Gail — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:55:10 +0000

Could a formalized mentoring program in high schools, colleges and universities reduce gang violence by a quarter, a third, a half, or more? Any significant reduction would be accompanied by a corresponding reduction of costs to taxpayers. That would be a true win-win situation.

In the two years I taught 18-25 year old high school dropouts at the Adult Education School at our local VoTech, I found a great deal of talent that has been or is about to be lost forever. I do believe that crime, gangs, and violence can be drastically reduced if kids can be reached before they make the irrevocable decision to join a gang.

I feel so strongly about wasted youth that I have written three books, which I believe that if implemented in every school would drastically reduce the need and/or desire to join a gang. I cannot emphasize how devastating it is to see talented kids who have broken the law awaiting trial, knowing that they will be worse when they come out or kids just getting out of jail who have so much to offer the world but who will have a very difficult time getting a job because of their records.

We have to stop the fire before it has been ignited, before innocent bystanders are hurt, before wayward kids destroy not only their own lives but the lives of others. I believe with my whole heart that it can be done. I’ve seen the “at risk” kids and young adults respond beautifully to validation, direction, and communication skills. Experiencing the changes I’ve seen in this population motivated me to put into writing what worked, why it worked, and how it works. A large percentage of these kids can be saved, but we have to begin before the gangs reach them. We have to ground them in the belief that they can be productive members of society.

The books which are coming out this month include The Validating Mentor, which provides kids with validation and respect; Profit From Your Passion, which provides kids with direction; and You Cannot NOT Communicate, which provides kids with communication and human relations skills. Each of the last two books could be a semester course while the first one, The Validating Mentor, would be for seniors mentoring 9th, 10th, and 11th graders.

I strongly believe in providing validation, direction, and communication skills training. We all want to be validated, and most of us are fortunate enough to get that. We also need direction according to our individual interests and talents, and to make it all happen, we need to know how to communicate effectively, know how others perceive us, and know how we can create the image we desire by mastering communication skills.

Comment on Mary Winkler – Murderer or Victim? by dcguy

dcguy — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:36:35 +0000

At the risk of sounding like a misogynist, I have to admit that the thing that ticks me off most about this case is that were it a man shot-gunning his wife in cold blood he’d be spending the rest of his years in prison or on death row. This seems like a straightforward case of murder in cold blood to me. I don’t care how “abused” Mary Winkler felt, she obviously never properly confronted her so-called abuser or tried to seek help (marriage counseling, support groups, etc)…

I find her claims of “sexual perversion” to be a bit far-fetched. Ok, so her husband wants her to “dress slutty” – not that he should be able to make her do that – but what’s the big deal? It certainly doesn’t justify her killing the man in cold blood.

No one besides Mrs. Mary Winkler and members of her family (who are obviously biased) seem to be able to corroborate her story about a long-term abusive relationship, and I just don’t believe that a person who stays in an abusive relationship has the right to “snap” and take another person’s life. Just because she “put up” with all this supposed abuse doesn’t give her the right to kill her husband. I’m sorry, call me an insensitive pig, but I just don’t believe murder was justified in this case.

Comment on Mitt Romney and His 5 Sons by ekibitz

ekibitz — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:15:13 +0000

constructivecriticism, I agree with you. Most people certainly do not agree, me included, that the level of service offered by serving in the military and campaigning for Dad are on an equal level.

Sean, I can see where you’re coming from. I don’t know how much he encouraged them in the campaigning and how much of that was their choice. If they’re going to choose their own career, they certainly should choose to campaign or not on their own too.

Comment on Mitt Romney and His 5 Sons by Sean

Sean — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:47:51 +0000

Romney was the one that put his sons on the campaign trail. He is the one parading them around as models of a good family. He is the one supporting the war. If he was a true patriot he would be embarrassed that his children have not volunteered. If Iraq is a threat on par with Nazi Germany, like the neocons say, then Romney’s children should be volunteering. If they are not Romney should be embarrassed of their cowardice. If he is not embarrassed it means two things. One he would rather have others fight and die, or two he really doesn’t believe the war is that important but supports it as a political ploy.

Comment on Mitt Romney and His 5 Sons by constructivecriticism

constructivecriticism — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 05:10:05 +0000

I think more people took offense to his following statement, saying his sons were serving the country by working to get him elected President.

Comment on Michael Rasmussen Out of the Tour de France? by ekibitz

ekibitz — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:55:20 +0000

Good points, all around. As I reread my post, it sounds like I was against Rasmussen and that was not my intent. I only wanted to point out that since his team apparently had the right to suspend him from the team that I thought they should have made their decision and informed Rasmussen right away. This really never got to the point of being a legal matter. In legal terms, your points are dead on, but I guess the team doesn’t have to wait for legal action and I don’t think waiting to suspend him was fair to him or Tour de France fans.

Comment on Michael Rasmussen Out of the Tour de France? by sj

sj — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:56:02 +0000

Why is it that a man i convicted before proven guilty?
Why is it that nobody is looking into the power struggle between UCI and ASO?
Why is it that a man that has passed 17 dopingtests clean in the last 2 minths is labelled as ‘not clean’ and accordingly with Vinokorov who has been proven positive?
Why is it that Rasmussen should be dismissed before with two warnings, when several riders in the tour also have 2 warnings?
Wht is it that Contador can ride even though he is still linked in with the operacion Puerto?
why is it that nobody wanders how Team discovery can place 3 rider between the best 8?
Do people actually know that the director of the danish cyckling organisation, Jesper Worre, hates Rasmussen and has done so for many years because Rasmussen did not want to ride Tour of denmark? Do people know that is was actually Jesper Worre who leacked confindential information to the press about Rasmussen as soon as he god the yellow jersey?
Do people know that Theo de Rooij from Rabobank has been in touch with ASo all along, that he is finifshing after this Tour de france and will probably take on a high position in the Tour afterwards?¨
Do people care that many other witneses – contrary to Cassani – place Rasmussen in Mexico? Do they care that Cassani has 2 doping convictions?
Do people care that Indurain says Rasmussen was robbed of the title? Do they care that UCI says Rasmussen is allowed to ride the Tour?

In my country there a re rules to be followed. Laws to abide by. And we are innocent untill proven guilty.
Rasmussen has 2 warnings related to his whereabouts. One of them was a warning because it was handed in too late (along with 5 other Rabobank riders) – hence it was NOT a missed drugtest. 3 warnings constitutes the limit – not 2. Or how about 1 warning – should riders with just warning be alowed to particioate? And what about the US… 3 offences mekas prison – why not start imprisonment at the second or the first offence?

Rasmussen is as clean as any rider. He has made some mistakes – yes. But is does not in any way constitute his departure from the race. Denmark is a small country – and Rasmussen os not a very liked rider. I guess this would never have happened to a french, italian, spanish… or american rider.