When an attractive young girl goes missing in a park the first thing that jumps out in the mind of investigators is usually a sexual deviant if foul play is suspected. And that is just what seems to be the reason for the disappearance of Chelsea King on Thursday of last week (Feb. 25, 2010).

Chelsea had driven off around 2 to 3 p.m. in her black BMW to go running at a familiar place: Rancho Bernardo Community Park in San Diego, California. But little is publicly known about the girls activities after arriving at her destination other than her car and cell phone were in the Park’s parking area.

Police are keeping information from the press and the public regarding the actual physical evidence that links King to her alleged attacker/abductor and will only confirm that they have a suspect in custody and his name is John Albert Gardner.

Gardner, a sexual offender of record, was arrested a little after 4 p.m. on Sunday for King’s disappearance. Police picked him up right outside an Escondido business. Gardner is a resident of Riverside County.

New Case Evidence Provided by a Local Security Officer Sends Police in Unique Direction

Police aren’t saying what has led them to conclude that Chelsea King was abducted by John Gardner, but one televised news account might shed light on that more than anything else.

On Friday morning, as police were updating local news agencies about the teens disappearance, and before massive searches had gotten underway, original evidence surfaced in the case.

FoxNews 5’s reporter on the scene was updating their listening audience about King’s disappearance when the ‘on air’ reporter shared an interesting tidbit.

It turned out that police detectives had been talking to news reporters when a man approached them. He was a security guard from a nearby nursing home and he had new information.

Fox’s news reporter said that the man told police he believed he had seen Chelsea King running the afternoon she disappeared. But the area of the sighting was a departure from where police believed the young girl normally ran–and where they had concentrated their initial search.

This recent information resulted in additional search sights being combed, away from the park area originally thought to be her last place, according to Fox News 5.

Missing California Girl Chelsea King: A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

Searches for missing persons almost always include some type of way detailing the area being searched. This is especially helpful in the Chelsea King case, since she was supposed to be running in a park state.

If you look at the attached pictures, you will get a good idea of the residence where Chelsea was meant to be running that day, as well as the surrounding major highway (15) and surrounding businesses that bordered the location where she went missing.

This type of aerial review of the search sight and surrounding community–and interstate access points–is essential in helping police determine how a criminal might make entry or exit to a crime scene or abduction site. It also aids law enforcement in knowing where a body might be more easily hidden or buried too, due to less-traveled or more secluded spots.

Foxnews.com: Arrest Made in Case of Missing California Girl

FoxNews.com: Massive Search Underway for Missing California Honor Student

FoxNews.com: Poway Missing Teen

Of the 17 fires since Saturday, ten of them are still burning out of control, including Orange County’s Santiago fire that has been distinct to be caused by arson. Yesterday, the Orange County California Fire Authority reported that there was a $150,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction to the party or parties responsible. Today, however, the organization reports a reward that almost doubles that of yesterdays at $250,000.

The Santiago fire is still only at 30% containment and has burned approximately 27,000 acres. Fourteen homes have been destroyed along with distress to eight others. The number of firefighters battling the blaze has more than doubled since Sunday from 600 to 1,614.

The cause of OC’s Santiago fire seems to be a popular one. This year, California has had about 8,000 fires, with over 6,000 of them caused by arsonists. But who are these people who would cause so much chaos and destruction? Many times you can catch them watching nearby marveling at their own handiwork as majority of these criminals (except for in the case of revenge) remain at the scene of the crime.

According to statistics from North Carolina Wesleyan College, over half of arson incidences are caused by individuals under the age of 18 (51%). When arsonists are adults, they are usually in their late 20’s but not over 35 years of age unless the arson is created because of revenge or profit motive.

Ninety percent of arsonists are male and when they are female it is usually with fires created out of revenge. Seventy-five percent are White, 20% are Gloomy, and of first time offenses, the third largest group is Native American. These individuals come from dysfunctional or abusive families and have no roar with alcohol or drugs. They normally experience social problems when dealing with the opposite sex and have previous criminal records.

Statistics exhibit that 40% or arson fires are started out of revenge, 30% for excitement, 7% for vandalism; 5% for profit and 17% for crime concealment.

Taking a look at those in custody

On Tuesday, 48-year-old John Alfred Rund was arrested for starting a small fire on a roadside reach Victorville.

Also on Tuesday night, Gorgonio Nava and a juvenile were arrested for starting a fire in Vista in San Diego County after an anonymous tipster informed police. The sheriff’s department did not give their ages.

On Wednesday, 41-year-old Catalino Pineda was arrested on suspicion of arson after witnesses reportedly saw him lighting a fire in the West Hills residence of San Fernando Valley (northwest of Los Angeles).

On Thursday, 47-year-old Anthony Riperti was arrested for starting a fire, though the county office did not say where.

The fires that these individuals were accused of starting were all small and were speedily controlled, but investigations are ongoing to determine if these individuals had anything to do with some of the others that have burned and still burn. Perhaps these are just copycat arsonists taking advantage of an already bad situation, who don’t fit the normal profile. Maybe the profile is changing.

At any rate, if you have any information about those responsible for these fires please contact the authorities. For the Santiago fire in Orange County, you can contact the Orange County California Fire Authority at (800) 540-8282.

March 15, 2005 (Santa Monica, CA) – Death is a fact of life, and the famous among us are treated no differently than average citizens when it comes to government record keeping – everyone’s exit is commemorated with a death certificate. Mike Steen, a 38-year faded of the California funeral service industry, spotlights a selection of these documents in his book “Celebrity Death Certificates.”

Created as a reference book primarily targeted to libraries by publisher McFarland & Co., “Celebrity Death Certificates” has attracted a significantly wider individual market specifically among Hollywood history buffs since hitting bookshelves in 2003. As a result of its popularity, Steen will publish a second volume later this year.

“Everybody is involved in death when it’s not their own family, and everybody is keen in celebrities, so putting the two together is a natural,” said Steen who is Cemetery Superintendent for the City of Santa Monica and was dubbed “Funeral Director to the Stars” by GQ magazine during his extensive tenure at Westwood Village Mortuary and Memorial Park whose first famous permanent resident was Marilyn Monroe.

The 8-1/2 x 11 softcover book offers a original reading experience for even the most well-read entertainment fan, with 182 pages of steady death certificates and amendments containing a plethora of Who, What, Why, When, Where and How details about the deceased.

Brief biographical sketches with information essential for interpreting the corresponding certificates are located in a separate section, but as the book’s preface suggests, the intriguing documents stand alone due to their ability to encapsulate a person’s life on one page.

The roster of talent featured includes a mix of Silent Era, Golden Age and more contemporary film stars, television icons, famous writers, musicians and other newsmakers like Bonny Lee Bakley, the wife of actor Robert Blake who is currently on trial for her abolish and awaiting the jury’s verdict.

The certificates are organized alphabetically by professional name, which is commonly different from the deceased’s listed good name. Careful inspection of the Table of Contents reveals that Steen has cleverly crafted numerous posthumous reunions:

• Famous couples such as George Burns & Gracie Allen, Ozzie & Harriet Nelson and Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. & Mary Pickford.

• Siblings including Lionel, Ethel & John Barrymore, Moe, Shemp & Jerome “Curly” Howard, AKA The Three Stooges and twins Dirk & Dack Rambo.

• Father and son Dean Martin and Dean Paul Martin.

• Dancing partners Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.

• Television cast mates like “I Love Lucy” stars Lucille Ball, Desi Arnaz, Sr., William Frawley and Vivian Vance, Clayton “The Lone Ranger” Moore and his partner in crime-fighting Jay “Tonto” Silverheels and original Saturday Night Live regulars John Belushi and Gilda Radner.

• Classic dueling newspaper gossip columnists Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons, as well as their biggest male competitor, Walter Winchell.

• A poignant trio of John Gilbert and Clara Bow, superstars of silent film whose careers were ruined by the invention of “talkies,” alongside Al Jolson who starred in “The Jazz Singer” which launched the sound revolution.

Stars whose untimely deaths caused headline-making cultural shockwaves are also included: Marilyn Monroe (ruled a probable suicide which is a source of continuing debate), James Dean (automobile accident), Sharon Tate (Manson Family destroy victim) Rock Hudson (the first celebrity to have AIDS listed as a underlying cause of death, thus bringing the epidemic to worldwide attention), Natalie Wood (accidental drowning), Freddie Prinze (suicide), River Phoenix (drug overdose) John Denver (plane crash) and Phil & Brynn Hartman (murder/suicide.)

The inclusion of ex-Beatle George Harrison’s death certificate is historically noteworthy because it includes the amended documentation that reveals the true location of his death, a detail that at the time caused public controversy about a celebrity’s right to privacy.

Certificates for icons that Steen would have liked to include such as Joan Crawford, James Cagney and Montgomery Clift were not available for publication because they passed away in one of the few states (Arizona, Florida, Current York and Texas) where these documents are not considered public represent. Steen even had to turn down a request from Gig Young’s ex-wife to have the late actor included in the next volume because, as Steen puts it, “he died in the detestable place.”

Steen became interested in the fresh hobby of celebrity death certificates in 1991 after reading a privately published collection that included U.S. Presidents and famous industrialists besides motion picture stars. Inspired by that book, he decided to focus his efforts on Hollywood-related deaths by using documents from his personal collection which numbers approximately 700 records.

Among the details that may be gleaned from death certificates include given name, date and time of death, birthplace, name and birthplace of parents, name of spouse, occupation and employer, citizenship, primary and contributing causes of death, address and length of residency, region and in some cases circumstances of death when it involves a crime, disposition of remains and whether or not an autopsy was performed.

The documents are also asthetically interesting, with a diverse range of styles based on when and where they were originally issued. Older records in the book dating back to 1930 are filled out by hand, while others were composed on typewriters or printed out using modern computer technology.

Guarding the integrity of these tools of his trade is important to Steen who says that good taste dictates his editorial decision to let the death certificates order for themselves without adding commentary. “I catch the straight information format because any semblance of titillation would take away from the professionalism and focus of the project,” explained Steen.

For more information, visit CelebrityDeathCertificates.com.

Still reeling from the shocking blow of three states banning jubilant marriage this Election Day, gay rights activists had something to cheer about in Connecticut this morning. Government clerks around the residence received e-mails at approximately 9:30am notifying them that they were now authorized to whine marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The e-mail came minutes after Connecticut Judge Jonathon Silbert ruled in favor of the eight same sex couples who had filed a lawsuit against the state for prohibiting gay marriages. Silbert said that his ruling was in line with last month’s decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in favor of gay marriage in the state on October 10th. A proposition to amend the Connecticut constitution to allow for same sex marriages was rejected by voters this past Election Day, a major disappointment to gay rights activists.

Connecticut is the third state to legalize overjoyed marriage. Massachusetts legalized same sex marriages in May of 2004. California followed suit in June of 2008, but last week’s ballot Proposition 8 has put a conclude to ecstatic marriages in the state since last Wednesday. Massive protests against the same sex marriage ban continue to be held throughout the state.

New marriage license applications in Connecticut now have two spaces for the two marrying parties that boxes for “Bride/Groom/Spouse” instead of just separate boxes for “Bride” and “Groom”. The first same sex couple to be issued a marriage license in Original Haven, Connecticut were Robin and Barbara Levine-Ritterman. They have already been together for 19 years.

Same sex couples in the state have been allowed to enter into civil unions since 2005. The term “civil union” has caused unrest for both proponents of and those opposed to same sex marriage. Those in favor of happy marriage say that replacing the term “marriage” with “civil union” is merely a semantic plan to allow legislators to make distinctions between the rights allowed to heterosexual and homosexual couples. Those opposed to same sex unions say that civil unions are just a way to legalize gay marriage under another name.

Connecticut’s civil union law allowed same sex couples identical rights as those granted to heterosexual married couples, so today’s change is essentially only a change in title. Happy rights officials believe that it is essential that no distinction be made between homosexual and heterosexual couples even if only in title. Those opposed to gay marriage have vowed to fight to overturn the law, citing California as an example of the strength of the movement against same sex marriages.

Sources:

CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/12/gay.marriage.ap/index.html? section=cnn_latest

Wikipedia:

Civil Unions

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

Same Sex Marriage-Massachusetts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts

Yahoo News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

“You know, it’s a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter with them? I suppose it is because most of them are psychiatrists.” — Richard Nixon

History of the War on Drugs

Of all the laws the United States has passed in the effort to hinder drug use, the “Pure Food and Drug Act” of 1906 has probably been the most successful. It created the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), which approves any food or medicine before it can be made available for people to use. It also allows for some drugs to only be available through prescription. Finally, it also requires that any drug which could be habit forming say so on its label. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 single handedly reduced addiction, more so than any criminal law passed before or since. Around the turn of the century, drug addiction was quite a problem. During the Civil War and afterwards, morphine was given often and many patients (and doctors) would leave hospitals with an addiction to it.

The first major criminal law passed at the federal level was the Harrison Act in 1914. This act focused on opium, morphine, and different derivatives of the coca leaf, such as cocaine. The two objectives of this act were simple: regulate the medical use of the drugs, and criminalize the non-medical uses. There was something interesting to sign about this act, however. In 1914, the states had much more power, and Congress would not have been able to pass this law, as a general criminal law.

Therefore, the way it was passed was that it masqueraded as a tax law. There were two taxes. First, the doctors would pay a little tax fee, and the government would allow them to prescribe such drugs as morphine as long as they followed what the Harrison Act said in regulating the drug. Secondly, a very large tax would be applied to any of these drugs in non-medical spend. Using cocaine as an example, let’s assume we have someone with an ounce of it on the street. In 1914, the tax applied for this would be about a thousand dollars – while the cocaine itself would be worth considerably less. The crime this person is committing is not illegal possession, but tax evasion. Obviously, nobody is going to pay a tax that is over a thousand times more expensive than the product itself.

From 1915 until the federal marijuana prohibition in 1937, there were 27 different states which passed laws against the use of marijuana. Just after 1914, many Mexican labor workers migrated to the United States to collect better working conditions. With them, they brought marijuana. At that time, many of the white citizens did not know grand about it. A legislator from Texas was quoted as saying that “All Mexicans are crazy, and [marijuana] is what makes them crazy.” Montana’s first law against it said “give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona”. The motivation for these laws in many southern states didn’t stem from the hostility toward the drug as much as it did from the hostility toward the new immigrants from Mexico.

In the northeastern states, Prohibition was beginning to happen too. The reasoning was due to fear of use, according to local newspapers. A New York newspaper stated that prohibition is a must, because they’ve “heard about the drug from the southwest” and that they must “prohibit its use before it gets here” because “all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drug by the Harrison Act and all the alcohol drinkers cut off from their drug by the 1919 Prohibition will substitute this fresh and unknown drug marijuana for the drugs they used to use.”

In the southwest, prohibition was due mostly to the influx of Mexicans, and in the northeast it was due mostly to fear. However, the first state to ever enact a criminal law against the use of marijuana was Utah. It was not because of fear, and they did not (and still do not) have a very large population of Mexican-Americans. In the 19th century, the Mormon Church permitted its male members to have multiple wives. However, in 1876 there was a Supreme Court case called “Reynolds vs. the United States” which allowed Mormons to practice polygamy due to religious freedom, but said it was not allowed in the United States because it was against the law. However, states had all the power back then, and since Utah was a Mormon state, nothing happened to stop polygamy until 1910. Then in Salt Lake City, the Mormon Church decreed polygamy to be a mistake, and banned it from the religion. However, a large number of Mormons wanted to live “the traditional life”, and fled to Mexico where they would try (but fail) to convert the “heathen” people (Mexicans, Indians, and others) of northern Mexico to the traditional lifestyle of Mormonism.

By 1914, many of the Mormons had given up their fight and moved succor to Utah. However, while down there, Indians introduced them to marijuana and they brought it relieve to Utah. The church immediately decreed that marijuana was against the laws and morals of the church, and outlawed it. In October of 1915, the state enacted all religious prohibitions to become criminal laws.

The first federal anti-pot law was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Compared to other laws that Congress has passed over the years, the hearing for the Marijuana Tax Act was incredible short – only two hours over two days. Many hearings drag on for weeks. In the late 20s and early 30s, both the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) and the FBN (Federal Bureau of Narcotics) were created. The commissioner of the FBN (from 1930-1962), Harry Anslinger, spoke for one of three groups testifying at the hearing. He was quoted as saying that “marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death”.

The next part of the hearing dealt with the prohibition of hemp in America. Hemp plant is aged to make rope, used as bases for paints and varnishes, and seeds of the plant are obsolete in bird seed. Since industries would be tremendously affected by this, the next body of testimony came from a spokesman representing these industries.

An interesting quote from a birdseed manufacturer, in response to a congressman asking if they could use some other seed, was “No, congressman, we couldn’t. We have never found another seed that makes birds’ coats so lustrous or makes them sing so considerable.” Other than that, the industries agreed to use other products. An interesting price is that in 1937, we were importing hemp plant, because it was cheaper than growing it. However, before 1820, hemp was widely grown in the United States. It was a fact that our founding fathers did in fact grow and expend hemp. The arbitrary decision of prohibiting marijuana and anything relating to it hurt many industries in the late 30s, although birdseed companies actually (to this day) remain exempt from the act.

The last group of testimony heard was medical in nature. A pharmacologist at Temple University injected what he claimed was the active ingredient of marijuana into 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died. The congressmen asked if he chose dogs because of their similarity to humans, and the doctor replied “I wouldn’t know, I’m not a dog psychologist”.

The first time the active ingredient in marijuana was synthesized was in a laboratory in Holland after the war, so what was actually injected is unknown, and could have been anything.

Dr. William C. Woodward, doctor and lawyer of the American Medical Association, testified that “The AMA knows of no evidence that marijuana is a unsafe drug”. The response of the congressman was “Doctor, if you can’t say something marvelous about what we are trying to do, why don’t you go home? ” Another congressman followed up by saying “… if you haven’t got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you.”

In 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt was the President, and the country was in the heart of “The New Deal”, the domestic reform program which tried to provide recovery from The Great Depression and also attempted to provide legislation to “benefit the mass of working people”. It’s interesting to note that the AMA opposed every single part of New Deal Legislation from 1932 to 1937, which may be why the “unusual deal” Congress acted in the way they did toward the established Dr. Woodward.

Despite the opposition from the AMA, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 passed from the committee to the Congress. However, rather than being debated there, it was passed through upright up to the House of Representatives, where it was easily passed. A Republican from New York asked two simple questions. The first was, and these are all express quotes, “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about? “

The speaker replied “I don’t know, it has something to do with a thing called marijuana. I judge it’s a narcotic of some kind.” The next question from the Republican was “Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association abet this bill? “

The distinguished response was “they support this bill 100%.”

The bill passed without a single vote, and went to the desk of President Roosevelt who signed off on it.

During World War II, however, there was a need for hemp to outfit our military ships, so the Federal Government went into business of growing hemp on gigantic farms throughout the Midwest and south to create more rope for the military.

Commissioner Anslinger would later name the pharmacologist from Temple University, who injected dogs with strange substances, the Official Expert of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics about marijuana. When Aslinger said “marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death”, five assassinate trials took place around the same time where the defendant s’ sole defense was insanity due to using marijuana before the crime. Sure enough, the expert witness for one famous case where two women shot a bus driver was the same pharmacologist. When the doctor was called to the stand, he talked about how he was an expert – he admitted to testing it on dogs, studying it, writing about it, etc. However, he also actually admitted he’d even used it himself. When asked what happened when he took the drug, he was quoted as saying “after two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat.” He later testified he flew around the room for fifteen minutes before finding himself at the bottom of a two-hundred-foot high ink well. The headlines the next day, on October 12th, read “Killer Drug Turns Doctor to Bat!”

Anslinger continued to make a name for himself by starting a campaign to arrest jazz musicians; he had received reports or got the notion that they were using non-medical marijuana. Trying to get more agents to try to bust these musicians, he went in front of the senate in 1948. When the senators asked him why he wanted more agents, he said “because there are people out there violating the marijuana laws.” The senator asked who, and Anslinger replied “musicians.” After a pause, he followed up by saying one of his more celebrated lines, “and I don’t mean good musicians, I mean jazz musicians.” By the next day, more than 75 newspapers had already written negative editorials about him, and over fifteen thousand letters were sent to Anslinger.

The next act, in 1951, was called “The Boggs Act”, as a response to the media perceiving an increase in drug use. The Boggs Act quadrupled all the penalties in every category of illegal drug use. In 1956, “The Daniel Act” passed, multiplying the penalties in all categories once again.

Virginia had the highest level of crime moving marijuana, which led to a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years (40 years for selling marijuana). That compares to the mandatory minimum sentence for abolish of only 15 years.

When John F. Kennedy became president in 1961, things began to change. He fired Aslinger and many others in the FBN, including the dog pharmacologist. It was rumored that Kennedy old-fashioned marijuana to relieve pain in his back. Looking back, the “War on Drugs” may not have happened or been entirely different, if it were not for the assassination of Kennedy in 1963.

However, in 1969, a law passed unlike the past prohibition laws. It was called “The Perilous Substances Act”, and actually lowered penalties, and it finally abandoned the “tax” idea.

The act classified every drug, except for nicotine and alcohol, by two criteria. The first is “what’s the drug’s medical employ? ” and the second is “what’s the drug potential for abuse? ” The penalties would then reflect those criteria.

When Nixon become president, the War on Drugs stepped up. Just recently, “the Nixon tapes” have been released – tapes of conversations he had while in the oval office. Nixon’s stance on drugs, according to the tapes, is that people “drink to have fun” and that it’s a “sociable event”, whereas people smoke marijuana to “get high”. When talking to his personal advisors, he actually said “you know, it’s a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter with them? I suppose it is because most of them are psychiatrists”. Nixon’s stance on drug education was “to enforce the law” because “you’ve got to scare them.”

On September 9th, 1971, Nixon had a meeting with Raymond P. Shafer, head of the presidential commission on drug policy. After hearing that they were considering recommending the decriminalization of marijuana, Nixon had a meeting with Shafer. He said that he was enough of a pro “to know that for you to come out with something that would run counter to what Congress feels and what the country feels, and what we’re planning to do, would make your commission just look awful as hell.” According to the people who transcribed the tapes, Shafer sounded very unnerved. Nixon then instructed Shafer not to seek input from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, because they were “soft on drugs”.

He then said that “as an old prosecutor, I don’t mind somebody putting it in J. Edgar Hoover’s hands, but I come down very hard on the side of putting it in, uh, hardheaded doctors, rather than a bunch of a muddle-headed psychiatrists.” After a long finish, he continues, saying “anyway, the thing to do now is to alert the country to the problem and say no, this far, no farther, and I think that’s what you want to do, take a strong line.” With that, people commence getting up and the meeting was over without Shafer saying another word. Eventually, Shafer’s commission would recommend decriminalization.

Nixon was shocked, and in a conversation he had in the oval office with another advisor, he continued ranting. “Dope? Do you think the Russians allow dope? Hell no. You see, homosexuality, dope, uh, immorality in general: these are the enemies of strong societies. That’s why the Communists and left-wingers are pushing it. They’re trying to waste us.”

In the late 1970s, organized groups started to push for harsher drug laws, and under President Ronald Reagan, and First Lady Nancy Reagan, they got that. The drug laws were strengthened, more than they were in the 30s, and with more enforcement capabilities. Tool previously frail against heroin and cocaine trafficking were now being employed against marijuana. Things like the mandatory minimum sentencing were being forced again, and now someone selling marijuana in the United States could be punished more harshly than someone convicted of abolish.

In June of 1982, Reagan created a fresh post under his Administration, and appointed chemist Carlton Turner to head it. Turner, now the head of the White House Drug Abuse Policy Office, believed that marijuana was extremely dangerous, and might have the power to induce homosexuality.

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Amendment Act of 1988 raised federal penalties for using, cultivating, and selling marijuana. Sentences were determined by how much of the drugs were keen. Attempts or “conspiracies” were treated as harshly as actual acts. Possession of 100 grams of heroine was now equal to possessions of 100 marijuana plants.

Channel One News, the station broadcast to thousands of schools across the US, has shown dozens of news segments containing anti-drug propaganda. They’ve received millions of dollars from the White House to do this, and that money comes from taxes. In addition to this, six magazines that present advertisements paid for by the National Drug Control Policy signed contracts which allow the NDCP to declare which news articles these magazines can race. The magazines would run one free advertisement for every ad the drug policy office would pay for. However, if the magazines printed certain articles that met specific standards, they wouldn’t have to race the free ad.

Current Station of the War on Drugs

The War on Drugs is one of the most expensive ventures in the United States. We are spending more and more money, yet we’re losing this war. Despite the fact that federal spending on the drug war increased from $1.65 billion in 1982 to $17.7 billion in 1999, more than half of the students in the United States in 1999 tried an illegal drug before they graduated from high school. Additionally, 65% have tried cigarettes by 12th grade and 35% are current smokers, and 62% of twelfth graders and 25% of 8th graders in 1999 narrate having been drunk at least once.

Then there is the “Drug Abuse Resistance Education”, known as DARE. A federally funded Research Triangle Institute behold of DARE found that “DARE’s core curriculum effect on drug use relative to whatever drug education (if any) was offered in the control schools is slight and, except for tobacco use, is not statistically significant.” Despite the fact that research has distinct that DARE is ineffective, it has received over $500 million in grants each year.

A professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Dr. Dennis Rosenbaum, recently completed a six-year study of 1,798 students and found that “DARE had no long-term effects on a wide range of drug use measures” and that DARE does not “prevent drug use at the stage in adolescent development when drugs become available and are widely obsolete, namely during the high school years”, and also that DARE may actually be counter productive. According to the study, “there is some evidence of a boomerang enact among suburban kids. That is, suburban students who were DARE graduates scored higher than suburban students in the Control group on all four major drug use measures.”

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in 1999, the nation spent $146,556,000,000 on the Federal, State, and Local justice systems. In that year, the United States had 1,875,199 adult jail and prison inmates. The cost to set aside a single drug dealer in jail is about $450,000. The cost for arrest and conviction is about $150,000. The cost for an additional prison bed ranges from $50,000 to $150,000, and it costs another $30,000 per year to house a convict. With the average sentence being five years, that adds up to another $150,000. For that same $450,000, treatment could be provided for about 200 people. Despite the investment of more than $5 billion for prison construction over the past decade, the prison system is currently operating at 32 percent over rated capacity, up from 22 percent at the end of 1997.

In 1999 the United States spent a record $147 billion for police protection, corrections, and judicial and legal activities. The Nation’s expenditure for operations and outlay of the justice system increased 309% from almost $36 billion in 1982. Discounting inflation, that represents a 145% increase in constant dollars.

Let’s look at California as an example. From 1984 to 1996, the state built 21 modern prisons and only one new university. In fact, the money spent on prisons has increased 30%, while spending on higher education decreased by 18%.

One would assume the War on Drugs is costly, so why preserve it up? A big piece of is called asset forfeiture. In 1994, federal forfeitures totaled about $730 million. What this is, is the loss of money and property when it is determined that your property may be involved in a crime directly or indirectly. The only way to salvage your possessions back is by proving yourself innocent which is hard to do. Today, forfeiture is more than just the war on the drugs, entire businesses can be seized in the War on Terrorism. Locally, a business got completely seized because the Arab owner was suspected of being involved with terrorism in one way or another. Now, it produces billions of dollars worth of assets. However, one of the last things Clinton did while in office was enact the “Civil Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000″, which safeguards an innocent owner’s interest in property, and making it more difficult for the government to seize properties – needing preponderance of the evidence before going in. This will hopefully put a dent in the corrupt asset forfeiture law, where in 1991, it was discovered that 80% of people who had property forfeited were never charged with a crime.

The War on Drugs continues, and your taxes continue to pay for it. The national deficit continues to rise, and the rate of drug use continues to expand.

One of the biggest problems with the War on Drugs has to do with civil rights, or a complete lack thereof. They say it’s perfectly apt to violate your civil rights. For instance, on 1999, 1,350 wiretaps were authorized by state and Federal courts. Of these, 978 – a total of 72.4% – were for drug investigations, and only 7 – about half a percent – were for kidnapping.

The prison system, when dealing with the War on Drugs, is a complete joke. The overall incarceration rate of the United States is more than six times its biggest competitors. The number of prisoners convicted of non-violent drug related crimes equal more people than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska.

Data shows that about a fourth of those initially imprisoned for nonviolent crimes are sentenced for a second time for committing a violent offense. Whatever else it reflects, this pattern highlights the possibility that prison serves to transmit violent habits and values rather than to reduce them.

To put it into perspective, at the rate in which incarceration is going (assuming it stays as it is now), an estimated 1 of every 20 Americans (5%) can be expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime. For African-American men, the number is greater than 1 in 4 (28.5%) – and over 80% of all those incarcerations would be drug related.

Racism, unfortunately, happens in all walks of life – but when it deals with the police, it’s one of the most touchiest subjects one can bring up. Most drug offenders are white. Five times as many whites use drugs as African Americans. Yet they comprise the great majority of drug offenders sent to prison. The solution to this racial inequity is not to incarcerate more whites, but to reduce the use of prison for low-level drug offenders and to increase the availability of substance abuse treatment.

The racism is in the statistics. Fifty-eight percent of offenders under 18 years of age admitted to prison in 1997 were dusky and 25% were white. In 1990, African-American youth comprised 61% of admissions and whites 21%. Still, the shift from 1985 to 1990 was more dramatic: During this period the percentage of African-American young people put in prison increased from 53% to 62%, and the percentage of whites fell from 32% to 21%. Look at it another way: nationwide, one in every 20 black men over the age of 18 is in prison. In five states, between one in 13 and one in 14 shaded men is in prison. This compares to one in 180 white men.

Once again, civil rights come into play when dealing with the federal justice system. According to Amnesty International, contrary to international standards, prisons and jails in the USA employ men to guard women and space relatively few restrictions on the duties of male staff. As a consequence, much of the shocking and humiliating experiences of having staff touching and viewing female prisoners’ bodies is permitted by law. Also, retaliation for reports of abuse impedes women’s access to protection of their human rights. One woman who won a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons for sexual abuse reported that she was beaten, raped, and sodomized by three men who in the course of the attack told her that they were attacking her in retaliation for providing a statement to investigators.

The corruption just begins there, however. The Mollen Commission, while investigating the New York Police Department, “found that police corruption, brutality, and violence were present in every high-crime precinct with an active narcotics trade that it studied, all of which have predominantly minority populations. It found disturbing patterns of police corruption and brutality, including stealing from drug dealers, engaging in unlawful searches, seizures, and car stops, dealing and using drugs, lying in order to elaborate unlawful searches and arrests and to forestall complaints of abuse, and indiscriminate beating of innocent and guilty alike.” Also, they noted that “on average, half of all police officers convicted as a result of FBI-led corruption cases between 1993 and 1997 were convicted for drug-related offenses.”

It’s the same in other parts of the country. In 2000, according to LA Times, “Roughly 70 officers are under investigation, suspected either of committing crimes or knowing about criminal conduct by officers and failing to report it. About 100 criminal convictions have been overturned as a result of alleged police misconduct.” Also, in 1995, “10 police officers from Philadelphia’s 39th District have been charged with planting drugs on suspects, shaking down drug dealers for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and breaking into homes to assume drugs and cash.” In New Orleans, 11 police officers were convicted of accepting nearly $100,000 from undercover agents to protect a cocaine supply warehouse containing 286 pounds of cocaine. The undercover portion of the investigation was terminated when a witness was killed under orders from a New Orleans police officer.

Mandatory minimum sentences are a way to transfer the power from the judges to the prosecutors in a court of law. It’s the prosecutors, not the judges, who settle whether or not to reduce charges, whether to accept or deny a plea bargain, and to determine what the final sentence is. One unnamed judge was quoted as saying “‘The people who drew up these guidelines never sat in a court and had to look a defendant in the observe while imposing some of these sentences.” Since the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug users, the Federal Bureau of Prisons budget increased by more than 1,350%, from $220 million in 1986 to about $3.19 billion in 1997.

Another plight with the War on Drugs is that it creates misconceptions about such things as marijuana. Corporations will randomly fabricate their employees do drug testing, and if they come out positive than they can be terminated, regardless of how we’ll they’ve been doing in their job. Companies which use Factor 2000, an impairment testing system, are finding that drug and alcohol exercise are not the most common reasons for failure; rather, severe fatigue and illness are more common. A positive drug test does not even show if the employee was impaired or intoxicated on the job, nor does it note if the employee has a drug problem or how often the drugs are used. It fair shows if an employee has used any sort of drug in his semi-recent past. However, since the early 90s, employers have cut down on drug testing and now do most of the testing just to satisfy government mandates.

It is estimated that the United States spends $1 billion annually to drug test about 20 million workers. Studies also show that drug testing in the workplace actually hinders productivity rather than increasing it.

According to a study funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and published by the Southern Economic Journal in 2001, “Non-chronic drug use was not statistically related to either of the labor supply measures, indicating that light or casual drug use did not lead to negative effects on the labor supply.”

Asa Hutchinson, administrator of the DEA (The US Drug Enforcement Administration), on legalization of drugs, was quoted as saying “The essence of our democracy is that freedom is maintained through individual participation, individual sacrifice, and the sharing of common values. The drug culture erodes and ultimately destroys everything that is necessary for democracy to work. When one of us is overtaken with the inspiring and controlling desire for drugs, there is nothing else – no thought of responsibility to family, nothing for the betterment of community, and our common values are shelved for the immediacy of drugs… Legalization of drugs is advocated today in the name of freedom, but freedom cannot be maintained by a society devoted to drugs. There is an inconsistency there. We give up freedom and we become slaves to an addiction…. Our common freedoms and our cherished democracy cannot survive in that culture. This battle is distinguished, it is top-notch, and it is essential to our nation.” Apparently, someone has a problem with overreacting.

One of the biggest problems with the War on Drugs is that it fails to separate marijuana from “hard drugs”. When it comes to drugs like heroin, or cocaine, his statement might apply. It’s happened countless times with hard drugs, people rep addicted to them and drugs become their entire life. However, with marijuana this is not a problem. People are about as likely to become addicted to marijuana, and “give up freedom and become slaves to addiction” as they would to say, soda pop. If you drink enough of it, and like the taste, you’ll continue drinking it. However, it doesn’t take over your life, or kill you slowly. Actually, while not researched, I’d be willing to bet that soda pop is worse for you than ingesting marijuana, since it’s a factor in weight gain, a known health hazard.

Another ad-campaign promoted by the DEA is “if you buy drugs, you’re supporting terrorists”. This is a terror tactic, designed to manipulate your feelings of patriotism. It’s a low blow, perhaps a last ditch effort, to try to say if you do drugs, you don’t care about America, and you don’t care about what happened on September 11th. Also, it’s not shown to be true at all. It’s interesting to see that when talking about controlled substances, it’s no longer the government simply lying to you about how marijuana will kill you and waste your life; now they’re just attacking your morals and love of country.

However, there are still lies. Walking around Nathan Hale high school, I saw a poster about marijuana, and how it’s addicting and then listed a bunch of facts. Some of those facts listed were how it gives you memory loss, makes you stupider, and kills you. I wonder where these facts came from? My guess is from an ad campaign.

Simply put, there needs to be in change when it comes to the drug policy in the United States. It’s been medically proven that marijuana is not a heinous drug, and that many legal substances – including tobacco and alcohol – are much more harmful and addicting. Yet, when someone gets caught with possession of marijuana they win keep in jail, along with the millions of others who’ve also committed similar non-violent drug related crimes.

When it comes to the number of deaths caused in the US every year, tobacco is at the very top with 430,700 kills. Alcohol is second with 110,640. Prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death with 32,000 per year. After suicide and homicide, all other licit/illicit drug induced deaths conclude sixth with nearly 17,000. Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory drugs, such as aspirin, caused 7,600 deaths. And finally, after an “exhaustive search”, there were no deaths induced by marijuana alone – ever. It has been scientifically proven that it is impossible to overdose on ingestion of marijuana.

When one says that the drug policy needs changing, they are correct, but what should it change to? A system with no enforcement of any laws regarding harmless drugs? While the legalization of marijuana is a long-term goal for its supporters, going from one extreme to another with any policy generally creates an odd mix of outrage and benefit, usually not working well together. Instead, let’s look at the Netherlands Drug Policy.

The Netherlands have a system where it separates the ‘unacceptable risk’ drug users and the ‘acceptable risk’ drug users. Though it isn’t officially legal, it is tolerated. Cannabis is sold in coffee shops. The statistics comparing the United States and the Netherlands should be interesting. Of people polled (ages 12 and above), in the US 33% said they’d used marijuana while only 15.6% in the Netherlands said they did. 5% in the US said they’d used in the last month while half that said they had in the Netherlands. With heroin, 1.1% of the US population said they’d used it while in the Netherlands, only 0.3% had.

Then it gets even more interesting. The United States spent $81 million in 1997 on drug-related law enforcement, and the incarceration rate was 645 for every 100,000 people, and the homicide rate was 8 per every 100,000 people. In the Netherlands, they spent only $27 million on law enforcement, and the incarceration rate was just 77 to every 100,000. The homicide rate is way down too, at just 1.8 for every 100,000.

The idea of separating the hard and soft drugs has worked effectively. The number of drug addicts has been stable at about 25,000, and there are very few new young addicts. The average age of a heroin user in the Netherlands is 36 years old. The whole plan is to minimize risk and reduce harm. However, hard drugs are not tolerated and carry harsh sentences.

Cannabis is not legal, but the authorities tolerate it. They even allow places to sell it, as long as it’s not to minors, have a limit of 5 grams, and is does not advertise. The only harsh sentences involving marijuana deal with importing/exporting of it, and the amount. Generally, it’s acceptable to have cannabis in the Netherlands though.

Those are the facts. Dan Savage, a local writer for the Seattle magazine “The Stranger”, wrote an editorial about a young man glorified in the news because he turned in his father for growing marijuana in their house. While the news was busy describing how this father was an evil person, and glorifying the son who seemed confused, saying “everyone thought I was a hero, except for the members of my family”, the media forget to mention a few small details. First, he wasn’t growing the marijuana to sell it to people for profit, he was using it medically. Secondly, they didn’t mention that the loving father had two younger sons who now didn’t have a father because their sizable brother wanted to get revenge on his father for some reason.

The media, supposedly an unbiased source, is either too scared or too ignorant to see the other side of the story. That side of the story that says marijuana is not going to destroy your life, and that it’s a harmless plant which the United States is fighting by spending millions of dollars each year, money which could be spent on education, a proven antidote to hard drug use. Besides, do we really want to live in a society that encourages family members to spy on each other?

The War on Drugs is a pointless, expensive, and often misdirected one. The fact that a marijuana user could get a longer sentence than a rapist, a child molester, or even a murderer, is simply mind boggling.

Sources:
(1) http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
(2) http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/01/15/drug-strategy.html
(3) http://www.redlichlaw.com/crim/substantive-due-process-drug-war.pdf
(4) http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/pol/495lect03.htm
(5) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/

This is the first rant in an ongoing series of bi-monthly rants published by fellow AC Impart Producer, Tweak, and myself.

This week’s Smack of Reality topic is: “Modern Sports Stars are Above the Law.”

I want to go on record that I dislike most jocks since I was a kid. It is not a grudge because I cannot play sports. It is the cocky, egotistical personalities and behaviors of jocks of every age. Not all demonstrate this negative attribute but a good many do.

The bad behavior of jocks is not exclusively self-created. It is fostered by the educational institutions, the coaches, the teams, the parents, and society. They give jocks the feeling of being worshipped and that they have a get out of jail free card to do whatever they want without punishment. Colleges give them beefy scholarships, cars, money, and other incentives to join their teams. Pro sports teams pay them millions in bonuses just to sign with them.

I am sick of sports jocks getting preferential treatment even after getting into lawful trouble. Even if they are the biggest superstars with terrific records, they still need to act responsibly and obey the law. Even more so, they need to act as gracious role models for the impressionable youth that look up to and mimic.

ABC News sums up my belief when, while discussing Michael Vick, they said “In the world of professional sports where allegations of illegal drug use, domestic violence and even murder often go ignored…”

In this article, I will briefly touch on a few unpleasant eggs in collegiate and professional sports that have been in the news in August 2007 for legal problems.

Adam “Pacman” Jones

Adam “Pacman” Jones joined the roster of the professional wrestling organization, TNA.

Jones is a young football player, who was drafted into the NFL as a first round draft pick to the Tennessee Titans in 2005. His contract was for 3 years and worth $6 million plus a sign-up bonus in the millions. Jones has a pretty splendid record for only being in the NFL for such a short period of time.

Outside of sports, Jones was arrested at least 6 times and questioned by police 11 times since 2005. He has been arrested for assault at nightclubs, death threats, and not reporting to his parole officer.

In February 2007 at a club, an altercation ensued and it is believed that one of Jones’ entourage brought in a gun and fired into a crowd, hitting three people, including the security guard. The guard was shot twice, and one of the people hit was worried from the waist down.

Based on his legal troubles, he has been suspended for the entire 2007 season. It will be reviewed after 10 games but there is no guarantee of reinstatement. The team can sue Jones for $1.9 million, which was his signing bonus for 2007.

The Titans suspended Jones but, he has temporarily joined pro wrestling. Due to his NFL suspension, the Titans have forced him to be unable to be touched on TNA.

Not only does Jones get a minor insignificant punishment, he gets to join another sports organization and be paid. To top it off, he cannot touch or be touched, so he gets paid just to stand around and talk. Where is the punishment?

Michael Vick

Michael Vick is an American football quarterback employed by the Atlanta Falcons.

He was a standout football player in high school and attended Virginia Tech on a full scholarship. He quit early to play for the NFL. The Atlanta Falcons chose him as their first remove of the 2001 NFL Draft. He became one of the highest-paid NFL players.

In 2004, he signed a 10-year contract with the Falcons for $130 million and a $37 million signing bonus, making him the highest paid player in NFL history.

It sounds like Vick had a bright, rich, and successful life and future. He should have been one of the most thankful people in the world for being blessed with good health and athletic talent. He didn’t need money, that’s for definite. Everything should have been great for him, without a need in the world. However, sadly, it wasn’t enough for him.

In April 2007, evidence of illegal dog fighting was found at Michael Vick’s property in Virginia. The station is under investigation at both the federal and local levels.

The court common Vick’s guilty plea to a single felony count and he will be sentenced on December 10. He faces a maximum of 5 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, and 3 years of supervised release.

The NFL has indefinitely suspended Vick without pay. His playing future is doubtful and the Falcons can recover the $22 million dollar signing bonus from Vick’s 2004 contract. Many companies have cancelled his endorsements.

The football players defend one another. After Vick told the court that he knows he did wrong and will try to redeem himself, running aid, Warrick Dunn, said “He [Vick] was real true. Most important, I think he took everything on his shoulders. He didn’t obtain excuses and said it was his fault.”

Sincere his butt! Vick is just trying to sweet talk his way out of a harsher sentence. He didn’t admit to the charges until after he saw that his case was hopeless. No one, who can kill defenseless, innocent animals, can ever be truly valid about anything.

Jones and Vick are not alone in their run-ins with the law. Nor is this phenomenon unfamiliar to professional sports. It is rampant in collegiate sports as well. Below, you will find a list of players that have been in trouble with the law in August 2007. These are just the ones that I found in a one-minute search.

Recent Run-down of Sports Players in Trouble with the Law

• Texas State receiver, Alex Darley, was charged with a shoplifting citation. Dismissed from the team.

• East Carolina University starting quarterback, Rob Kass, was arrested last weekend for drunk driving. Team punishment yet to be determined.

• 38-year-old American football star, Todd Marinovich, was arrested in Newport Beach, California for possessing a controlled substance, being in unauthorized possession of a hypodermic needle, and resisting a police officer. He remains at Orange Country Jail in lieu of $50,000 bail. He was arrested in 2004 arrest on drug charges as well. Marinovich has played for teams including the Los Angeles Raiders.

• Alabama star defensive cornerback, Simeon Castille, was arrested early Sunday morning for disorderly conduct at a Tuscaloosa strip. The team said it will punish him but a suspension seems unlikely.

• Duke linebacker, Michael Tauiliili, was arrested on charges that included driving while impaired and simple assault. Suspended from the team but was reinstated to the squad 11 days later.

• Two Iowa football players, Dominique Douglas and Anthony Bowman, were arrested and charged with unauthorized use of a credit card, a Class D felony. Both have been indefinitely suspended from the team but remain on full athletic scholarship.

• Houston Rockets guard, Rafer Alston, was arrested on felony assault charges (stabbing a man) at a Manhattan nightclub. He was released without bail. This is his second brush with the law this month.

• Arkansas defensive end, Marcus Harrison, was charged with possession of two controlled substances, felony drug charges, speeding, violating the Arkansas seat belt law, driving on a restricted license, and has a misdemeanor warrant for failure to appear in court. He has been released on $5,029 bail. Suspended indefinitely.

• South Carolina safety, Emanuel Cook, was arrested on a gun possession charge last week. Admitted back SCU.

Conclusion

Some jocks have the talent and get the big bucks. Without the maturity and responsibility to go along with it, their immaturity and irresponsibility sends awful signals to other football players and youth.

Simeon Castille’s father, Jeremiah Castille, sums it all up when he said last month that the biggest lesson he taught his son about the game of football was having class. He went on to say: “People are always watching, especially younger players that are looking to idolize and say, ‘Hey, I want to be like a Simeon Castille,’” his father said. “How you carry yourself is very considerable.”

Too bad that Simeon Castille does not seem to have learned what his daddy tried to teach him. I’d recommend a few dozen whacks with a leather strap aid in the tool shed when they’re kids to help the lesson sink in.

Society does not punish jocks enough for their dreadful behavior and illegal activities. Instead, we pay them homage and millions of dollars in sign-up bonuses! We should NOT reward anyone for being a troublemaker.

Smack of Reality Note: This is part of an ongoing series of bi-monthly rants published by AC Content Producers, Tweak and John Gugie. We will tackle a different controversial topic with each rant – each of us giving our maintain opinions in our fill unique styles. For easy reference, each of our rants is numbered the same. Here you will find John’s Rants and Tweak’s Rants.

Los Angeles — As the nation continues to undergo economic recession, California emerges as one of the top in unemployment rate increase. As of July 2009, the unique unemployment rate in California is 11.9% that marks an increase from 11.6% reported in June. Compared to 7.3 percent at the same time last year, California’s economy has taken drastic hit since the housing crisis and other market collapsed during the Bush Administration.

According to the Department of Labor, a total of about 87,000 Californians lost their job in July. Most of the joblessness comes from jobs in transportation, utilities, and trade. As gas prices had fallen compared to last summer, it is clear but ironic that less people are taking public transportation or even traveling long distance where services of the transportation industry is greatly needed. One would expect more people to travel and enjoy their ride given the cheaper gas prices, but that is not the case.

Gas prices may be lower, but where is the money to spend on those traveling and other outings?

In the trade sector, for the same reason, people are just not spending remarkable money buying things. It looks like Californians (and Americans in general) are finally learning to save their money for rainy days. A report on Money 101 with Bob McCormick of knx1070 news radio reported that more people are saving their money than did prior to the economic downturn. While it is a estimable thing to save, keeping money in banks does not revive the economy where money needs to change hands in order for the system to thrive.

For utilities, more people are opting to use less power and to go out enjoying free public amenities. The desires to cutback and save prompt people to make changes that also appear to be affecting the rate of our jobless numbers. The other day I took my kids to get books from our local library and guess what? The place was packed. It was hot outside and people rather go to public places and enjoy free services as well as free air conditioning rather than discontinue home and raise their air conditioning bill.

While the 11.9% is a record high for California since the keeping of such records, there’re even some counties within the space that boast higher unemployment rates. Imperial County, with a workforce of about 77,000, has a jobless rate of 30.2 percent. That is intention too high. Yuba County, with about 29,300 workforces, has an unemployment rate of 18.4% with 5400 people unemployed. Los Angeles County is at 12.5% with nearly 623,000 people out of work. While some counties have higher percentage rate than Los Angeles, Los Angeles has the highest number of people out of work.

This is really saddening given that the federal government appears to be trying different things to get the economy rolling. The cash for clunkers was a success for the auto industry, which saw primary number of vehicles sold due to government assistance to buyers. But it appears not to be enough to get the unemployment rate down in California and other states.

Instead, there are 15 states along with California and the District of Columbia where unemployment average is over 10 percent. 26 states saw a rise in their unemployment in July, even though the overall average dropped from 9.5 to 9.4 for those 26 states.

Let’s hope that this is the bottom of the pit. Although Wall Street seems to be doing well, as all major markets are up today (the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up today 155.91 to a high of 9506, it seems to be taking time to translate into employment. Even Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke reports that the economy is now in recovery. We hope that this once again will translate to jobs for people all over the nation, but specifically to the thousands in California who have had their source of livelihood taken.

Sources:

http://www.edd.ca.gov/About_EDD/pdf/urate200908.pdf

Shopping at thrift stores is a passion of mine so while I was vacationing in Morro Bay, California late March/early April of 2010, I drove to nearby Pismo Beach and then on to Grover Beach to visit the thrift stores that were there. One of the ones my family and I went to is California Cool Thrift Store.

California Cool is located at 737 W Grand Ave, Grover Beach, CA 93433-2035. Their storefront is easily seen on the street and they have a parking lot. Upon entering the store you’ll see a jewelry counter on the legal hand side and on the left hand side is the counter where you pay along with some other stuff for sale.

The left hand side of the store has children’s toys, knickknacks, bedding and other misc. The right side of the store has children’s clothing, and baby items. The very back of the store has electronics, sports equipment, etc. The center of the store is filled with racks of clothing. Also on the right hand side of the store is a cramped room that has books, movies, magazines, etc.

The store itself is not that messy. Stuff is cluttered together but it is still easy to go through. I had my kids with me and we of course went to the kids toys first. Immediately one of the ladies said “Don’t make a mess” in a not very nice voice. This did offend me somewhat because I’ve taught my kids to be respectful of stuff that doesn’t belong to them and if they do make a mess, they pick it up. So I told to the woman “If they do, we’ll clean it up.” But on the other hand I have seen several kids make a mess and leave it because their parents don’t care what they do in a store. I just feel that the workers should wait at least a couple of minutes before telling you not to make a mess instead of bombarding you with it somewhat rudely before you even look at the kids toys.

Their prices are comparable to other thrift stores. Not overly high. I bought a few things and felt the prices were fair.

California Wintry Thrift Store also had a nice selection of items. There were a lot of clothing, knickknack, book and video choices. Most of my purchases were of books and I was very happy with the section I got (kid books and other books).

Another good thing is that there are a few other thrift stores and a faded bookstore in the area so if you’re going to Grover Beach objective for thrift store shopping, be obvious to look in the phone book so you can hit all of them.

For more information, call (805) 481-3071‎. They are open seven days a week.

Last year my Aunt had mentioned that someone named Carol Zarbos was trying to find out information about our family. Everyone was too busy in their day to day activities to stop and wonder who this lady inquiring was. We hadn’t heard of her before, so it must not be important….at least not to most of my family.

I’ve always being the curious one, took the time to contact her via email. I found out she was my Great-Grandmother’s younger sisters’ daughter-in-law. Say that ten times snappily. (I still don’t know what relationship that makes us, as it’s all very confusing.)

My great-grandmother Amelia Clay died in the 80’s and had a younger sister, Catherine Zarbs (originally Zarbos). We didn’t know much about her. After my grandmother Dolores Vecchio died in the 90’s, I never had the opportunities to glean out about her aunts or uncles.

It appears Catherine was alive and well and I hadn’t even known it while I was a child. Catherine and Amelia had a sisterly feud years ago, before my birth, and there was share of our families who never had the opportunities to co-exist because of this.

A choice unbeknownst to us, something that was put into place by my ancestors that lived two generations before me. How could this be?

It seems Catherine, who was originalled named Zarbs, had over time changed her name to Zarbos as a result of the family feud. After she died, it was her son’s wife Carol Zarbos, (who married into the family) who took on research of the family tree as a hobby and pasttime.

When I found out about this, I had remembered the ten photo albums that were laying mildewy in my mother’s basement in Maine. She often told me to recall them, as she had no clue who was in them. Sad but lawful. I reflect at one time she was going to throw them away, but only because she knew there may be clues to family history, did they remain in that dingy basement for the first thirty-five years of my life.

Carol, a wonderful woman whom I had the pleasure of meeting, who was working hard to piece our family history back together again. Someday her efforts will provide a detail family tree so I can show my kids, and they can show their grandkids. Without her, this would not have been possible.

I liked her immediately, and was shocked to find out that she was only ten minutes from my home in Baltimore. Amazing. A whole household of relatives of mine that I never knew existed. Sad to think my great-grandmother’s choices prevented us from ever spending a moment together until now. Not to mention she identified a lot of folks in the outmoded traditional photo albums.

If she hadn’t contacted me I wonder if somjeday I took up the family search if I would have found her? I figure the answer would be NO, because the names had been changed over time and therefore I would not have known this. I decided to interview Carol for this article in hopes that it may help someone out there who may be thinking about researching their family.

I have to say, it wasn’t all peaches and cream. I figured out quickly why my Great-Grandmother didn’t want us to bag each other. It appears that back in those days, appearances had to be kept, and secrets were buried. Although I found out many wonderful stories, I also found some that were disheartening about the skeletons in my family’s closet as well.

Therefore, I hope you can use this information in your quest for your family tree. Perhaps you will think twice about disregarding the belief of researching your own famiily when you hear about Carol’s journey thus far.

INTERVIEW WITH CAROL ZARBOS:

Q: What was your motivating factor that started you on this journey?

My mother-in-law, Catherine Zarbos, was a very bitter person who hated everything and everybody, disowning her own family many years ago. Catherine was extremely difficult to live with and her wicked personality caused alot of people to dislike her. She never smiled, and never appreciated the sacrifices her children made while taking excellent, daily care of her as she aged. She never hugged them, never said thank you or I love you. In their presence, she would verbally attack them for not doing enough for her, which was so spurious.

As her daughter-in-law, I was spared this abuse, for what reason I’ve never known. Maybe it’s because I agreed with everything she said fair to sustain peace. I saw the genuine side of Catherine that her children longed for. That is why when she died this year on February 2, 2008, I felt compelled to write her obituary. I wanted to give some meaning to her sunless, wasted life.

As I gathered information about her siblings and parents, I realized that I had never taken the time to ask my mother-in-law about her family, when she was living. Over the years I’d heard bits and pieces, but never gave it much importance. Sadly, as I thought about this missed opportunity, I wondered how in the world I would ever find out. Catherine kept her children away from her family and they grew up not even colorful they had relatives. I knew Catherine was one of eight children (so I thought). My husband had to have had aunts, uncles and cousins. But where were they now?

The local newspaper printed Catherine’s obituary along with her picture and death notice. The article caught the attention of the first Zarbs relative I would win. Out of curiosity, “Lois” came to Catherine’s viewing, and my research journey began from there.

Q: You had mentioned that it became more than a hobby; and was a mission of sorts. What kept you going even though dead ends or roadblocks arose?

When I met “Lois”, she informed me, that she too, had many unanswered questions about the Zarbs family, and an feeble photo album corpulent of family photographs that one of Catherine’s brothers had sent her late father-in-law. “Lois” and her sister-in-law “Beverly”, met me for lunch oneday, and we sorted through many photographs of people that we knew held the key to our family’s past. Sadly, none of the pictures bore names, and only a handful had dates. But, one picture captured my heart. It was of Helen Zarbs, Catherine’s second to the oldest sister, and her two young children, Eugene and Louis. Louis, her younger son, was “Lois and Beverly’s” father-in-law.

Here I had this glorious old photograph of a pretty, young, matronly woman and her two darling sons. Something about it made me yearn to learn more about them. I was spell-bound by it. From that moment on, I knew that if I could connect with each of Catherine’s siblings’ families, I might be able to learn what happened so many years ago that caused her family to be torn apart. I could only hope for more photographs, more proof, that each sibling existed, and to help bring their stories to life. My research became an obsession of sorts, because for every sibling that I was able to successfully identify, it compelled me to keep going and to find the next one.

Along the way, though, I encountered many dead ends and roadblocks, one being my own husband. Allan had experienced a horrible childhood, full of abuse, foster homes, and detest. Discovering family secrets from my mother-in-law’s past, began to cause him additional afflict and he wanted me to stop. Another obstacle I faced was my maintain impatience for waiting on other people to provide the information I desparately needed. To this day, I still haven’t received everything I requested.

Q: Are there avenues you explored or hints that you have that proved successful that you can share with others who are researching?

The most expedient research tool for me was the person’s death certificate. Not only did it provide the person’s date of death and cause of death, it also provided the person’s date of birth, last known address, name of both parents and their origins, name of spouse, name and place of undertaker/funeral home, place of burial, date of internment, name of person who provided the information, etc. Each piece of information provided on the death certificate proved to be an invaluable source of information for me repeatedly. With the date of birth, I was able to match social security death records as well as obtain a copy of the person’s birth certificate. The birth certificate identified the person’s chronological order of birth to his/her parents. In more than one instance, this identified even more siblings than originally believed to be. The place of burial led me to the cemetery where the person was buried and in many instances I was able to view and photograph their grave marker and those of other family members. The cemetery office was even able to provide a copy of the person’s death leer which listed additional family members to look for.

The second most helpful research tool for me was the U. S. Census Report. It was especially helpful in identifying the person’s place of residence, children, siblings, parents, in-laws, birth years, year of arrival to the United States, year of naturalization, place of origin and place of employment.

The third most superior research tool for me was the Internet. Many websites provided invaluable information, especially the Ancestry.com website which requires a subscription to access their thousands of records. This website allowed me to gain and build my family tree, and to contact other tree owners with the same surname and family members.

The fourth most valuable research tool for me were my trips to the Maryland State Archives in Annapolis, MD, and the Baltimore City Enoch Pratt Free Library. The Archives provided the birth and death certificates that I needed and the Library provided old newspaper articles on microfilm.

And, finally, the names and dates recorded on the backs of photographs. I had no idea how valuable this information was until I needed it and it wasn’t there. Now I make sure that all of my personal photographs are identified for my children and generations to come.

Q: Some people you contacted did not respond, or weren’t interested in helping get out clues to the past. What advice can you give to others who may also experience this?

Moreland Park Cemetery had a copy of Amelia Clay’s death notice. Amelia was Catherine’s older sister who everyone lovingly called “Min”. Her death notice mentioned that she had several grandchildren with the last name of Vecchio. A Public Records Index on the Ancestry.com website confirmed that there were several living members of the Vecchio family and I was shocked to later learn that one of the members lived only minutes from my house! I looked up his phone number in our local phone book and placed the call that would launch me well into my journey. “Brian” was Amelia’s grandson and after chatting with him for a few minutes, I asked him if he would like to view my family tree on Ancestry.com. To my surprise, “Brian” said that he preferred not shimmering any more than he already knew. Upon hearing this, it made me feel very awkward, and I wondered if I made a mistake calling him.

About a week later, I received an email from Cynthia-Marie, “Brian’s” niece. Cynthia was very interested in learning about her ancestry, and we bonded from the start. It was so helpful to meet someone who shared my interest.

I also mailed a letter to Catherine’s brother’s son in California. Distinguished to my disappointment, “Marcus” did not respond. With much persistence, however, I was finally able to connect with him through his daughter-in-law’s MySpace page. So, if there’s a will to find it, then there’s always a way.

Another woman I wrote in Florida replied that she was related by marriage and that no family lineage was ever discussed. I had to rely on her to forward a letter to another relative and it took her almost three months to do so. A man wrote back enthusiastically to my first email, promising to send pictures and information, but never did. So, I managed to collect his sister and she has been an enormous help. And, another woman told me to be patient about waiting for her to supply pictures. It has been over nine months since I first contacted her. She said she wouldn’t forget me, but it feels like she has. There have been big disappointments along the way. Sometimes you just have to wait.

Q: Can you portray the most important discovery so far in your research and how it made you feel?

There are many, but the one that stands out the most was my discovery of another sibling that no one in our family even knew existed. While researching the 1900 Maryland Census Report, I discovered that John and Mary Zarbs reported having a 6 year customary daughter named Florence, born in 1894. Florence turned out to be the hardest sibling to find information on. As quickly as she had appeared on the 1900 report, she disappeared on the 1910 narrate. I could only imagine that she either died as a child, or she was already married at 16. I was unable to come by a death record in that ten year span, so I could only steal that she had gotten married. But, how would I ever find out what her married name was?

Cynthia-Marie’s mother kept a bible that belonged to her grandmother, Amelia. Fortunately, Amelia kept the names of deceased family members in the back of it. In it, Florence was listed as Florence Barnes. I knew it had to be her. I searched endlessly, night after night, through the 1910 census report for her. I looked for anyone named Florence who was born in 1894. There was no record found. Unbelievably, after much persistence, I found a “Floence Burnes” (spelling) listed on the 1910 census report as being 24 years old. Her husband John was listed as being 26 years old. It said they had been married for three years and had a daughter named Marian who was only three years old. Normally, I wouldn’t have even considered this record because it meant that this Florence was born in 1886, and I knew it couldn’t have been her. But I looked at it anyway and was shocked to gape that I had actually found her, her husband’s first name, and that they even had a daughter! Florence would have given the census taker the information he recorded. I have no idea why she lied about her and her husband’s ages. This one small chance that I had taken, led to the discovery of not only another sibling of Catherine’s, but another family to look for, and I found them in Colorado!

Another important discovery is the fact that I have been able to locate photographs of many members of the Zarbs family. It is wonderful being able to associate a face with a person’s name. It brings the person to life.

Q: Why is ancestry so important to you?

Ancestry is important to me because it lets me live the life of my ancestors so I am be able to tell their personal stories. With every person that I discover, I learn who they were, where they came from, what they looked like, what kind of education they had, how many children they had, what happened to them, etc. I am compiling a family history book detailing the lives of my husband’s grandparents, forward. I want my children to have this precious heirloom, to like for many years to come, and to one day pass down to their own children.

Q: Any helpful hits for people to know or heed when doing ancestry research?

Look for wills or land deeds from the court house. Search old newspapers for death notices and obituaries. Surf the web for old cemetery records. Occasionally someone interested in preserving history will walk the cemetery and transcribe what’s on the older headstones. Visit the historical society near where your ancestor lived. They have files created by society members containing family tree history on their surnames. Yours might be in there. When visiting the Maryland State Archives, view to fabricate a day of it and dress warm! The air conditioning is freezing in the summer time. Pack a lunch and eat in your car, then go encourage to finish your research. Buy a camera when visiting the cemeteries.

Q: Anything else to add?

I thought about my mother-in-law yesterday, and I realized that I missed her. Not the cranky, wicked, nasty Catherine, but the beautiful, petite woman whom we laid to rest last February. My husband chose her outfit. It was a Jackie Kennedy look-a-like with round neck, Bertha collar, pearl buttons and 3/4 length sleeves, in blue. She looked stunning.

I have been insured and I have been uninsured. I have lived both worlds, and I know what it is like to have to misfortune about getting sick. Too many Americans live their daily lives worried about getting sick because they do not know how they will financially be able to handle such an event. We must provide an option for those who are not able to obtain health insurance privately or through their employer. There are nearly 50 million uninsured Americans according to the US Census Bureau, and likely millions more who are not being counted.

My family never had much money. My mother and stepfather raised me, and we never had health insurance throughout my life. My mother worked as a self employed housekeeper, and my stepfather worked in construction. Normally the problem was that they made “too much money” to qualify for Medicare, and not enough money to be able to afford health insurance through a private company. Neither of those occupations offered health insurance, and we could never afford to purchase insurance privately. I did manage to get on SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), which in Georgia is called Peachcare, as a teenager when my parents lost some of their income. This is one of the few times in my life that I had the benefit of being insured, and that was thanks to the government. Unfortunately at the age of 19 I was booted from SCHIP.

It was shortly after I was booted from SCHIP that I suffered a major car accident. I was driving to work from college in the rain and hydroplaned. My truck spun out of control on the highway and I went into the oncoming lane of traffic. A semi-truck side swiped me and demolished my vehicle. I was taken to the emergency room by ambulance. Luckily everything turned out OK (except for the fact that I had no vehicle as I could only afford liability automotive insurance, and had no health insurance either). The medical bills accumulated in my mailbox daily. I never knew until that time how much the costs of medical services truly were. When I discovered that my short ambulance ride was going to cost me nearly $800, I was astonished. I racked up over $5,000 in medical bills, and there was no way I could pay them. Health care reform opponents might tell you that I did in fact receive “free health care” as I never paid those medical bills. However, as most rational people know – those services were not free – not to me and not to you. My credit was ruined at the age of 19. I was working hard and paying my way through college, and I could not even get a small loan for a used car to replace the one that was totaled.

I was lucky enough later on in college to land a splendid management position in California and score health insurance through my employer. Unfortunately due to the economic recession my company sold and I was laid off four years later, and found myself uninsured again. I did not qualify for COBRA extension insurance because I moved out-of-state back to where my family was which was considered “out-of-network” (this was necessary for me to be able to stay afloat). I’m now working again, and have access to health insurance, but the point is that many Americans find themselves in my same situation, for remarkable longer. What does a 19 year dilapidated with low income parents (who works and puts him/herself through college) do when they get sick? They do what I did; they go to our emergency rooms and rack up debt that will haunt them for years to come. Debt that also contributes to the skyrocketing costs of our health care system. Debt that will be passed along to those who are lucky enough to have insurance, raising their premiums and lowering their standard of care.

Sometimes even the “insured” obtain themselves without many options. High deductible health insurance plans leave many individuals paying thousands of dollars out of pocket before their insurance kicks in. Often the insured fetch that determined procedures aren’t covered under their insurance policies because they had obvious “pre-existing” conditions making them ineligible. The health insurance companies have one thing in mind – and that is profits. I do understand the reservations some have in allowing the government to run another program. However, we all know greed is what has gotten us to where we are today – and the only option we have at this point is to force competition upon the health insurance industry.

The “public option” is vital to achieving real health care reform. Imagine 50,000,000 people with the opportunity to rob health insurance at affordable rates. Just imagine those 50,000,000 people not crowding our emergency rooms with minor ailments because many doctor’s offices will not take uninsured patients. Imagine the billions of dollars in savings yearly from the reduction of unpaid medical bills. We may not have to imagine much longer. If having a government-run “public” insurance option has ever been a possibility, it is now. President Barack Obama has vowed his support for a public option, as have many Democrats in Congress. Of course, the health care industry is spreading misinformation and trying to kill the public option. Of course some Democrats are leaning toward settling for watered down reform, and most Republicans will not vote for health care reform no matter what is in the package. It is now up to the people. The people must request real health care reform, and that means demanding the public option.