I LOVE YOU, POLICE DOG.... :-)

I just can't imagine what the police force would be without police dogs in their ranks. Their usefulness is overwhelming when you watch these police shows where they are needed. Here's some wonderful ideas the police have come up with when they entered dogs into the force. 1. In the military, They actually have a non-commissioned officer rank (Corporal) so that if anyone in the military hurts a dog it is actually against a non-commissioned officer. This is a much more serious violation than if the dog was a Private or Specialist. On a Funny note, most dog handlers in the military (at least on my base) were actually outranked by their own dog: now that's funny. But a solid idea nonetheless. 2. They make bullet-resistant vests for dogs. I think that is a great idea as they put themselves in greater danger and don't even understand the danger for the most part. Bravo. 3. They train the dogs to where it looks like a game to them. I think it's seriously funny to see the dogs looking back at their handlers right after taking down a suspect waiting for their treat. One episode I saw today was more humorus because the dog didn't get his command fast enough and after looking back went back to biting the suspect: damn stupid suspects. 4. I do know that if you kick a dog (not on experience, but the shows) that is considered assault on an officer. More money for the offense. 5. They protect our officers, which we all want to do because they are just trying to do their job and can't just shoot people like some of us would like to see them do. I've seen them not shoot at things that I feel I would've emptied my clip. Bravo to you, the officer and his dog.

New Graffiti Law in Atlanta

Community Wellness or Money Making Scheme?

ISSUE: I think I have heard it all. I'm watching the news today only to be notified that a new Graffiti Law is now in effect. Oh how I weep for our future. Essential the news cast went on to explain that if a business has graffiti on the side of it's building it can be cited for such a defacement. If the graffiti isn't removed within thirty (30) days of that citation the business owner can be fined one hundred dollars ($100.00) per week or up to six (6) months in jail. If the business owner has authorized graffiti they can keep it by obtaining a sign permit. While on the outside this may seem like a good idea to keep the "Community wellness" and cleanliness to prevent the look of a downtrodden neighborhood with constant gang tagging and odes to their girlfriends or gang leaders. However, we really need to look at the consequences being held upon the business owner. Is this fair to the business owner? I say, "Not a chance." EXAMPLE: Let's go through our most common scenario where a business would have 'graffiti' would be placed upon the outside of a business. Most likely it's because of an underage boy or girl trying to prove themselves by defacing property with graffiti to put up a friend's name or a gang's name or maybe just some pretty picture. If I had a brick and mortar business I wouldn't want some punk painting my place up for their jollies as I don't want that sort of stuff on my building. So, now we have graffiti on my building that I didn't want there so I call the police to report the "crime" and hope that they catch the person to reimburse me for wanting to clean it. Now that I've filled out my report, I get a citation from the same police that I filed a report to stating that I need to have this new graffiti removed within thirty (30) days. Okay, I wait a couple of weeks trying to find a good place with some reputation of doing good work and not costing a fortune. As I am trying to run a business, not clean-up man, I just haven't had the time or possibly the money to get the graffiti removed in time. Maybe I've scheduled time with the vendor to have it removed only to be waiting on them because of this new requiring all the graffiti to be removed all over town. Supply and Demand says the price is going to go up and now I have to spend over one hundred dollars ($100.00) to have my brick siding cleaned up. I could pay less for the "paint over" method but that would remove the beauty of my brick building. Now time has passed, and I receive a fine indicating that I haven't removed the graffiti. Great, now the money I was going to spend on graffiti removal has to go to the city for not removing the graffiti in time. Not only that, but if I don't have it removed this week, another hundred dollar fine. You can see how that becomes quite the slippery slope of issues as the city continues to fine those business owners for graffiti that they didn't put there or want there while the business owners try to schedule and clean up their unwanted graffiti at the business owner's expense. Now, the local governments have a new source of revenue while the business owners have a new expense category they have to pass on to the consumer. It seems that crime does pay: the government. Would the reverse be okay? Probably not. I would like to suggest that the government be just as accountable for their laws as we are. This would suggest that we should have an accountability law for this law. If the business owner files a proper complaint to the police, the police have thirty (30) days to apprehend the person responsible for the graffiti or the business owner can fine the city for the one hundred dollars a week until the graffiti is cleaned up at the city's expense. We all know how slow the government moves in it's fight against crime so I'm sure that's probably good enough for a grand or so of extra income from the city to the business owner. I'm sure you're saying, "you know that can't happen, they are the government. It's just not practical." I say, "Screw that." If you aren't willing to back up your talk, you shouldn't be trying to give me a "shake down" with laws that require me to follow while you continue to allow this type of action to continue. If you're not willing to be accountable, then you shouldn't be in charge. This country is full of people in charge that aren't willing to be accountable. If you don't believe me, then why does Congress get a totally seperate Social Security plan if they say ours is so good. If it's so good, why don't they use it? Exactly, because if they were accountable for the success of their programs they'd be willing to use it themselves because it would be good enough. I know that last point is a little digressing of the main point, but I think you'll understand my point a little better. It's not like I don't think our government is good. I really do think it's better than most other governments and certainly one of the most powerful. But, I do find that accountability may bring down some of the power, but I think it's people would follow more patriotically knowing that it's leaders were more willing to be accountable for their actions.

Something about the RAIN

I don't know what it is about the rain, but it seems to bring the STUPID out of people. Here in Atlanta, I've been given the opportunity to view an exceptional amount of rain that has caused people to have to deal with wet driving conditions for more than just a little while. It seems that the thin coat of driving intelligence is sitting on the hood of the car waiting for that clorox bleach we call rain to wash it away. My latest couple of incidents include some interesting reading: Driving through intersection with blinking red lights - I know this seems to be an easy thing to understand: You stop just like a 4-way stop. It's not that hard, but you may be suprised at how many people just start driving through like they own the road and cause an accident and be upset because you were in THEIR way. Waiting until the last second to hit the brakes - Here's an idea... slow down earlier. I mean, I'm no physicist, but I do understand the principle of hydroplaneing. Hydroplaneing usually happens when you are going too fast down the road to the point where your vehicle comes up off the road and the tires are actually sitting on top of the water. Conversly, when someone slams on the brakes the same thing can happen as the tires are no longer slicing through the water but skipping across the water reducing the effectiveness of your brakes. Even with anti-lock brakes you still have an increased amount of stopping distance when the road is wet. So please, with enthusiasm, try stopping earlier. Driving without your lights on - We all know the rule: if you turn on your wipers you need to turn on your headlights. It's simple. Most vehicles are starting to have DRL (Daytime RUnning Lights) that seems to pacify the police officials for the most part, but it doesn't replace the need to turn on your headlights. Because just because your DRL are on doesn't mean your taillights are on. It can be a hard thing when the rain is pouring down and you can barely see ahead of you only to see the sudden hit of brake lights that weren't seen in advance that would have been seen with the taillights on correctly. Again, people just need to think about the rules and follow them. I know it's a short list and I'm sure there are hundreds of stupid things that people like to do when it starts to rain, but these are my rants, so put some of your own up on yours.

Upcoming Topics

• Something you want to hear about

The Email CC Field, How do you use it?

I've been plagued by people failing to understand the use of the CC or Courtesy Copy (sometimes called "Carbon Copy") Field in emails since people realized they could put things into two different fields. I mean, this is a pretty simple concept to use this field. The Courtesy Copy is basically that: A Courtesy. Setup: John - Co-Worker #1 Arthur - Co-Worker #2 A Good Example Your writing an email to John answering a question that he asked earlier in the day. You got part of that answer from Arthur and put it together with your knowledge of the question. As a courtesy, you put your answer to John together and put John's email address in the TO fied, of course, because that's who you are sending the information. In addition, you CC Arthur in case you misunderstood what he explained to you. Also, it lets Arthur know keep a copy of that email for future reference to that answer. But the main reason you used the CC field is because Arthur doesn't need to read it, it's just information he contributed. He could easily just copy this to his CC Folder in Outlook and not need to read it ever. Who knows, you may need it again to explain it to someone else. That's a good way to use your CC Field. Now for a Bad Example. A Bad Example Your writing an email to John again, this time you're talking about several items in a project that he and Arthur are assigned. You include action items that John needs to complete. However, during the writing you decide to mention in the email, "Arthur, Could you follow up with John on step number 13?". You have already put Arthur in the CC field again because you want the whole team to know what's going on with your other teammates. Problem with Bad Example Problem is, now that you've actually asked Arthur to do something, you should've moved his name into the TO field. I have received too many emails that were generated through a REPLY TO ALL action where I was in the CC Field only to be asked to do something. However, because I have a rule that automatically moves emails where "I am in the CC Field" to my "CC Folder" I may not see it. Also, I'm simply not going to lower myself to accomodate the ill educated. I think it's far more effective if you do end up not reading something and have to tell that individual, "I was in the CC Field, so I don't read Courtesy Copies until the weekend when I have time. Because that's what it's there for, not when you are talking directly to me. That's what the TO Field is for." Conclusion: Can't we all just get along? Let's use our email fields properly and our communications can be more effective for it!