When I was about 15 years old, my brothers and I spent the 4th of July firing bottle rockets at each other in my backyard outside Chicago.
We were armed and dangerous with a heavy supply of rockets, M-80's, firecrackers, aerial displays and sparklers.
My father, who owned a Ford dealership in Aurora (Wayne's World) , was friends with the guy that operated the exploding scoreboard at Comiskey Park (home of the White Sox).
Needless to say, we had an abundant supply of Independence Day explosives.
Once a year, my father would pull into the driveway with a large box filled with 4th of July fun.
There was no drought, only green lawns as far as the eye could see.
The only warning we were saddled with before the summer assault began was to make sure the fuse was long enough, and not to hold the firework too long after lighting it.
My father never thought we would actually carry the empty Pepsi bottle around with a bottle rocket in it to shoot at each other.
Yes, it was stupid and irresponsible, and not something I would ever let my own son do in this day and age.
Yet, when I listen to people argue against a ban on fireworks, using the logic that it's infringing on their freedom to celebrate the country's independence, I laugh.
There was no thought of our forefathers in 1979 when my brothers and I turned the backyard into a wasteland of firework debris.
Only MY father.
It was the chance to blow things up once a year.
Thankfully, no one in my family, or any one in my neighborhood was ever injured by a firework and no houses burnt down, despite our apparent disregard for safety.
But that's not the case in California, let alone Kern County.
A couple years ago, I went on a ride along with fire crews looking for illegal fireworks.
We responded to dozens of complaints and they put out a couple small brush fires, including one behind the Bakersfield Speedway at a LEGAL fireworks show.
What we're left with today is overpriced safe and sane fireworks that don't carry any punch at all.
Not to mention, bone dry conditions in Kern County and throughout the state.
The primary purpose of these legal booths is to make money for various charities.
People that operate the booth's have told ABC23 on numerous occasions that it's the biggest fundraiser of the year.
Maybe it's time to come up with some other way of making money.
I spent Saturday night at the Bakersfield Brigade game (which was very entertaining) and then sat through a very impressive fireworks display with my two sons that lasted 20 minutes.
It was far better than anything I could have produced back in my youth and a monumental leap above the safe and sane display on the street in front of my house.
There are a number of firework shows around the county.
People need to put down the legal, altered and illegal fireworks and rediscover the wonderment of a professional fireworks display.
Most of the at-home celebrations I've witnessed throughout the years had nothing to do with patriotism, only destruction.
With the price of gas, who wants to drive to Vegas to purchase the illegal variety?
Save your money and take in the show at B.C.
I could always dig up the old 8mm film of my brothers and I causing some holiday havoc.
It's good for a laugh, and that's about it.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
It's Not OK
I try to be a good Dad.
I do all the traditional Dad things to give my son's a solid foundation they can build on for the rest of their lives and safety is a big part of it.
Yes, my 3-yr old still loves to climb to the top of the pipe fencing around our pasture and perform a high wire act while petting the horses, but I feel like I'm doing a pretty good job.
Besides, he's got great balance.
One thing I really harp on is avoiding strangers.
A registered sex offender moved into a home about a half mile from my house last year for a short time.
My cul-de-sac became a base of operations to keep an eye on him.
We knew what kind of truck he drove, looked him up on the Megan's Law website and had a game plan in place in the event our kids ever saw him on the street.
But the story about 58-yr old Rick Wagher taking nude pictures of three boys in his trailer is really disturbing.
And it's not the first time we've reported on this type of situation.
The kids were between 6-and-13 years old.
I can understand a small child not saying anything, but a teenager?!
There are very few details being released, but plenty of questions.
Why were they there?
Were they related to him?
He didn't show up on the Megan's Law website, so how long was this kind of thing going on?
Why didn't the 13-yr old leave, or did he think everything was OK?
Sheriff investigators found evidence of molestation involving other kids, along with numerous nude and partially nude photographs.
Neighbors told ABC23 that Wagher would take kids to Disneyland and buy things for them.
One called him a nice guy, but no one at the trailer park that we talked to was good friends with Wagher beyond a casual acquaintance.
Take this opportunity to talk to your kids again about strangers.
That it's not OK for adults to touch them in any way, to tell you if it happens and to run home if possible.
Watch for warning signs, like an adult male, living alone, who has young children at his house and buys them things.
I know there are many parents out there who believe this could never happen to their children.
It's a very familiar response when I've covered sexual assaults, shootings and drownings.
There's no such thing as a stupid question when it comes to your kids.
Only regret after the fact.
I do all the traditional Dad things to give my son's a solid foundation they can build on for the rest of their lives and safety is a big part of it.
Yes, my 3-yr old still loves to climb to the top of the pipe fencing around our pasture and perform a high wire act while petting the horses, but I feel like I'm doing a pretty good job.
Besides, he's got great balance.
One thing I really harp on is avoiding strangers.
A registered sex offender moved into a home about a half mile from my house last year for a short time.
My cul-de-sac became a base of operations to keep an eye on him.
We knew what kind of truck he drove, looked him up on the Megan's Law website and had a game plan in place in the event our kids ever saw him on the street.
But the story about 58-yr old Rick Wagher taking nude pictures of three boys in his trailer is really disturbing.
And it's not the first time we've reported on this type of situation.
The kids were between 6-and-13 years old.
I can understand a small child not saying anything, but a teenager?!
There are very few details being released, but plenty of questions.
Why were they there?
Were they related to him?
He didn't show up on the Megan's Law website, so how long was this kind of thing going on?
Why didn't the 13-yr old leave, or did he think everything was OK?
Sheriff investigators found evidence of molestation involving other kids, along with numerous nude and partially nude photographs.
Neighbors told ABC23 that Wagher would take kids to Disneyland and buy things for them.
One called him a nice guy, but no one at the trailer park that we talked to was good friends with Wagher beyond a casual acquaintance.
Take this opportunity to talk to your kids again about strangers.
That it's not OK for adults to touch them in any way, to tell you if it happens and to run home if possible.
Watch for warning signs, like an adult male, living alone, who has young children at his house and buys them things.
I know there are many parents out there who believe this could never happen to their children.
It's a very familiar response when I've covered sexual assaults, shootings and drownings.
There's no such thing as a stupid question when it comes to your kids.
Only regret after the fact.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Paparazzi Punching Bag
How many times have you watched one of the tabloid shows, waiting for a celebrity, or someone who thinks they're a celebrity, to blow their lid and attack the poor, helpless, I'm-just-doing-my-job member of the paparazzi?!
There's no other reason to watch.
It's the Jerry Springer syndrome.
Yes, the "I'll get in your face until you snap" mentality that feeds the insatiable lust for people who want to see a meltdown on camera.
How pathetic.
We either get the spoon fed promotional press conferences concerning a star's upcoming project or dark video on a sidewalk outside a Hollywood eatery where someone spotted a celeb having drinks with an unidentified person.
OOOOOHHHHHH!!!!
Hats off to the surfers who confronted the papa-RAT-zo's.
The celebrity hounds usually rely on the star's packing the punch so they can get paid, but it doesn't appear this confrontation will make them any money.
For those of you who didn't hear or see the incident, Matthew McConaughey is doing some surfing in Malibu, when some "locals" didn't appreciate the gathering of some photographers invading their beach to snap a few photo's and grab a little video.
Well, they got their video.
Pictures of surfers going after the photog's, even throwing one camera into the ocean.
Threats, taunts, etc, etc, etc...
While ultimately I believe the celeb's should hold themselves to a higher standard to ignore the flash-popping papo's, I find it humorous when the paparazzi claim to be the VICTIM.
You get exactly what you're hoping for, then you complain?!
You giggle every time a star "stumbles" while trying to avoid the barrage of flashbulbs, you cackle when you surround a car so the driver can't leave the area and you belly laugh as the vein in a star's head begins to pulsate with anger.
I think back to classic Jim Everett versus Jim Rome interview in 1994, when the NFL QB plants the childlike Rome on his butt for his ridiculous name calling theatrics.
I laughed like crazy in delight of Everett's attack.
But when considering the highly volatile stars, I don't blame their actions when "relating" to the paparazzi.
Everyone has a rage trigger, and papo's are trained to keep pushing until they find it.
It's what you want after all.
The tabloids would argue their point by "pointing" to sales figures.
If people didn't buy it or watch it, they wouldn't print it or show it.
Maybe, but that doesn't make it right.
There are very, very, very few instances that require that in your face style of reporting and celebrities rarely fall into that category.
So, it's refreshing that someone outside the lines of the celebrities and punk-arazzi jumped into the fray.
It's fun to watching the hounds get hunted for once.
There's no other reason to watch.
It's the Jerry Springer syndrome.
Yes, the "I'll get in your face until you snap" mentality that feeds the insatiable lust for people who want to see a meltdown on camera.
How pathetic.
We either get the spoon fed promotional press conferences concerning a star's upcoming project or dark video on a sidewalk outside a Hollywood eatery where someone spotted a celeb having drinks with an unidentified person.
OOOOOHHHHHH!!!!
Hats off to the surfers who confronted the papa-RAT-zo's.
The celebrity hounds usually rely on the star's packing the punch so they can get paid, but it doesn't appear this confrontation will make them any money.
For those of you who didn't hear or see the incident, Matthew McConaughey is doing some surfing in Malibu, when some "locals" didn't appreciate the gathering of some photographers invading their beach to snap a few photo's and grab a little video.
Well, they got their video.
Pictures of surfers going after the photog's, even throwing one camera into the ocean.
Threats, taunts, etc, etc, etc...
While ultimately I believe the celeb's should hold themselves to a higher standard to ignore the flash-popping papo's, I find it humorous when the paparazzi claim to be the VICTIM.
You get exactly what you're hoping for, then you complain?!
You giggle every time a star "stumbles" while trying to avoid the barrage of flashbulbs, you cackle when you surround a car so the driver can't leave the area and you belly laugh as the vein in a star's head begins to pulsate with anger.
I think back to classic Jim Everett versus Jim Rome interview in 1994, when the NFL QB plants the childlike Rome on his butt for his ridiculous name calling theatrics.
I laughed like crazy in delight of Everett's attack.
But when considering the highly volatile stars, I don't blame their actions when "relating" to the paparazzi.
Everyone has a rage trigger, and papo's are trained to keep pushing until they find it.
It's what you want after all.
The tabloids would argue their point by "pointing" to sales figures.
If people didn't buy it or watch it, they wouldn't print it or show it.
Maybe, but that doesn't make it right.
There are very, very, very few instances that require that in your face style of reporting and celebrities rarely fall into that category.
So, it's refreshing that someone outside the lines of the celebrities and punk-arazzi jumped into the fray.
It's fun to watching the hounds get hunted for once.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Gay Marriage Debate, Please Say Something
Why can't they just come out and say it...
Everyone is a genius when it comes to figuring out exactly what Ann Barnett is thinking when it came to her reasoning for stopping civil ceremonies, the day after the Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 outlawing same sex marriages in California.
Only she didn't say what they wanted and still hasn't to this day.
Some of the other media in the market have camped out in her office, trying to get the golden sound bite. They've even touted interviews they've gotten as "Ann Barnett Answers Questions!!!"
No she didn't.
Unless Barnett comes out and says on camera or tape that she dumped all civil services because they conflict with her personal religious beliefs, then you have nothing.
Put all the pieces together you want. Draw all the inferences you can. Play Sherlock Holmes and analyze every little scrap you can dig up.
But without the admission by Barnett, you have innuendo.
Circumstantial evidence will not do in this case.
And all the hounding and ambush tactics in the world won't get the confession you're looking for.
Ask all the media types who've chased David Crisp across the parking lot if they've gotten the confession they were hoping for on tape.
What the media is left with in this story is this: same sex couples loudly celebrating their victory on June 17th in Kern County and anyone who will stand up and voice their disapproval with the decision.
Enter Chad Vegas.
I've had my problems with Chad in the past on a couple issues, but find him to be a straight forward man, firmly grounded in his religious beliefs.
I personally believe though he was pulling a Barnett on the whole "In God We Trust" poster debate, but I'll leave that alone.
There has been a backlash against the media for shining a spotlight on Vegas in the wake of his e-mail to Supervisors in which he demanded their support for Ann Barnett.
He confirmed the e-mail to ABC23 when asked about it and defended his stance.
In the e-mail, Vegas wrote that he would work vigorously to remove from office any supervisor that does not support her in this difficult time.
He continued with this quote: "As we face one of the most important constitutional issues in the history of this great Republic, I want to make it clear that nothing short of complete opposition to homosexual marriage will be tolerated!"
HOORAY!!!!
Someone who opposes gay marriage that actually stood up and said it clearly.
I mean, we didn't know about it until Whitney Wedell forwarded us a copy from the Kern Democrat website, but still he was the first person to say it out loud.
I asked a couple people in the newsroom their thoughts on same sex marriage and got an uncomfortable response.
Others said they didn't care one way or the other.
Still, everyone has an opinion, but few who oppose it will stand up and talk about it. Who wants to get labeled, right?!
Before you pick up the next rock to bash the media, (TV and print) for covering this story, think about why you are doing it.
It's a story whether you like it or not, support it or not, discuss it or not, and the only people talking about it publicly are the ones celebrating the decision.
Despite opinion polls (I've never trusted) that seem to indicate there is a much different social climate in California since Prop 22 was passed eight years ago, I still believe that voters will define marriage as a man and a woman in November.
I will be voting in favor of traditional values.
I was raised in an Irish Roman Catholic household, in case your wondering.
One of my brothers is very active in the church and e-mailed me an explanation when it comes to the church and marriage.
Here is one excerpt:
The Roman Catholic Church cannot recognize a same sex relationship as a marriage simply because it is not marriage. Marriage is more than a contract - it is a covenant. The term the Catholic Church uses for the Sacrament is Holy Matrimony - Matrimony means "the way of making a mother".
What the Supreme Court did was approve a contract.
That is why I believe many people have not been driven to protest in the streets or will even show up to picket the ceremonies on Tuesday.
Maybe one day Ann Barnett will feel comfortable enough to cough up the "Golden Sound Bite".
Maybe the county really can't afford to keep doing weddings.
Maybe voters will vote for tradition in November and overturn the Supreme Court ruling.
Then, we'll be back to square one again.
Maybe this time, we'll get the answers and sound bites we're looking for.
Everyone is a genius when it comes to figuring out exactly what Ann Barnett is thinking when it came to her reasoning for stopping civil ceremonies, the day after the Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 outlawing same sex marriages in California.
Only she didn't say what they wanted and still hasn't to this day.
Some of the other media in the market have camped out in her office, trying to get the golden sound bite. They've even touted interviews they've gotten as "Ann Barnett Answers Questions!!!"
No she didn't.
Unless Barnett comes out and says on camera or tape that she dumped all civil services because they conflict with her personal religious beliefs, then you have nothing.
Put all the pieces together you want. Draw all the inferences you can. Play Sherlock Holmes and analyze every little scrap you can dig up.
But without the admission by Barnett, you have innuendo.
Circumstantial evidence will not do in this case.
And all the hounding and ambush tactics in the world won't get the confession you're looking for.
Ask all the media types who've chased David Crisp across the parking lot if they've gotten the confession they were hoping for on tape.
What the media is left with in this story is this: same sex couples loudly celebrating their victory on June 17th in Kern County and anyone who will stand up and voice their disapproval with the decision.
Enter Chad Vegas.
I've had my problems with Chad in the past on a couple issues, but find him to be a straight forward man, firmly grounded in his religious beliefs.
I personally believe though he was pulling a Barnett on the whole "In God We Trust" poster debate, but I'll leave that alone.
There has been a backlash against the media for shining a spotlight on Vegas in the wake of his e-mail to Supervisors in which he demanded their support for Ann Barnett.
He confirmed the e-mail to ABC23 when asked about it and defended his stance.
In the e-mail, Vegas wrote that he would work vigorously to remove from office any supervisor that does not support her in this difficult time.
He continued with this quote: "As we face one of the most important constitutional issues in the history of this great Republic, I want to make it clear that nothing short of complete opposition to homosexual marriage will be tolerated!"
HOORAY!!!!
Someone who opposes gay marriage that actually stood up and said it clearly.
I mean, we didn't know about it until Whitney Wedell forwarded us a copy from the Kern Democrat website, but still he was the first person to say it out loud.
I asked a couple people in the newsroom their thoughts on same sex marriage and got an uncomfortable response.
Others said they didn't care one way or the other.
Still, everyone has an opinion, but few who oppose it will stand up and talk about it. Who wants to get labeled, right?!
Before you pick up the next rock to bash the media, (TV and print) for covering this story, think about why you are doing it.
It's a story whether you like it or not, support it or not, discuss it or not, and the only people talking about it publicly are the ones celebrating the decision.
Despite opinion polls (I've never trusted) that seem to indicate there is a much different social climate in California since Prop 22 was passed eight years ago, I still believe that voters will define marriage as a man and a woman in November.
I will be voting in favor of traditional values.
I was raised in an Irish Roman Catholic household, in case your wondering.
One of my brothers is very active in the church and e-mailed me an explanation when it comes to the church and marriage.
Here is one excerpt:
The Roman Catholic Church cannot recognize a same sex relationship as a marriage simply because it is not marriage. Marriage is more than a contract - it is a covenant. The term the Catholic Church uses for the Sacrament is Holy Matrimony - Matrimony means "the way of making a mother".
What the Supreme Court did was approve a contract.
That is why I believe many people have not been driven to protest in the streets or will even show up to picket the ceremonies on Tuesday.
Maybe one day Ann Barnett will feel comfortable enough to cough up the "Golden Sound Bite".
Maybe the county really can't afford to keep doing weddings.
Maybe voters will vote for tradition in November and overturn the Supreme Court ruling.
Then, we'll be back to square one again.
Maybe this time, we'll get the answers and sound bites we're looking for.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Egg On His Face
Anyone who hasn't felt like jumping over the counter at a fast food restaurant when you didn't get what you thought you ordered, can throw the first stone.
Michael Richards, a former associate attorney for the city of Bakersfield, apparently lost his temper and his job, after his anger got the better of him at the McDonald's on Niles last month.
Sheriff investigators say Richards placed an order in the drive-thru and didn't get what he wanted.
He headed inside, where the problem wasn't rectified to his satisfaction, when he hopped the counter, grabbed his original order and left.
Richards reportedly resigned following his arrest on a felony robbery charge.
All this over $6.44.
The case has been reduced to petty theft, with stupidity as an accessory.
I can't say I don't sympathize with him.
I've driven miles away from a fast food drive-thru before realizing what they handed me was the wrong order.
The problem has always existed, but I blame technology for shortening the fuse.
The cash registers that are linked by computer to monitors in the prep and bagging area's would seem to ensure that the right food is placed in the right bag.
But a person still has to make the order, then bag it and hand it to the person in the window or at the counter.
And herein lies the problem.
People are human.
People make mistakes.
Only it seems that hunger and the guilt at satisfying the craving with something you really shouldn't be eating, only intensifies the reaction.
I was at a fast food chain not long ago when the computers crashed and the employees were taking money and making change without the help of the high-tech calculator.
It took a hard stare and several attempts at air arithmetic before the cashier was able to give me change.
Then, he tried again and got it right.
When you consider the volume of traffic and food that people in the industry dish out on a daily basis, it's amazing this type of thing doesn't happen more often.
Richards will probably get let off with a fine, maybe community service.
How about making him work the counter at McDonald's for a month?!
Michael Richards, a former associate attorney for the city of Bakersfield, apparently lost his temper and his job, after his anger got the better of him at the McDonald's on Niles last month.
Sheriff investigators say Richards placed an order in the drive-thru and didn't get what he wanted.
He headed inside, where the problem wasn't rectified to his satisfaction, when he hopped the counter, grabbed his original order and left.
Richards reportedly resigned following his arrest on a felony robbery charge.
All this over $6.44.
The case has been reduced to petty theft, with stupidity as an accessory.
I can't say I don't sympathize with him.
I've driven miles away from a fast food drive-thru before realizing what they handed me was the wrong order.
The problem has always existed, but I blame technology for shortening the fuse.
The cash registers that are linked by computer to monitors in the prep and bagging area's would seem to ensure that the right food is placed in the right bag.
But a person still has to make the order, then bag it and hand it to the person in the window or at the counter.
And herein lies the problem.
People are human.
People make mistakes.
Only it seems that hunger and the guilt at satisfying the craving with something you really shouldn't be eating, only intensifies the reaction.
I was at a fast food chain not long ago when the computers crashed and the employees were taking money and making change without the help of the high-tech calculator.
It took a hard stare and several attempts at air arithmetic before the cashier was able to give me change.
Then, he tried again and got it right.
When you consider the volume of traffic and food that people in the industry dish out on a daily basis, it's amazing this type of thing doesn't happen more often.
Richards will probably get let off with a fine, maybe community service.
How about making him work the counter at McDonald's for a month?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
