And the problem is?

The main thing I read from this article is "Guess what, there's some job openings now!"

I know that's a little harsh to say, but there are people looking for work everywhere.

Happy Birthday to Conner Mitchell (Comet)

Conner Mitchell Summerlin, was born 09/18/11



Little Conner Mitchell (Comet) is doing great, so are Mommy, Daddy, and Big Brother Caiden.

Now we've got to remember how to do all the baby stuff :) I'd forgot how much they sleep, except when you want them to LOL.

Here are some more pictures of the little guy.

... Drug testing.

From the story.

That happens to be Florida's experience so far. A Florida television station, WFTV, reported that of the first 40 applicants tested, only two came up positive, and one of those was appealing. The state stands to save less than $240 a month if it denies benefits to the two applicants, but it had to pay $1,140 to the applicants who tested negative. The state will also have to spend considerably more to defend the policy in court.

I love the math on this, "The state stands to save less than $240 a month if it denies benefits...", which by my math equals out about $2880 for the whole year.

Also I think it stands that people may not even APPLY for the program if they think/know they won't pass the drug test, which will also save the state money.


Many of you know that I'm a State Employee, before I got hired I had to do a drug test. The major arguments that I've heard against drug testing are

A) It's a Violation of Privacy
B) It's gonna cost the state too much
C) You're not going to hurt the addict, but the addicts children.

To counter these I say this
A) If you don't want people to know you do drugs, then don't apply for the program. If the PUBLIC is giving you money, then you have no expectations of privacy.

B) Please check the above math, it may cost a little more at first, but over all it'll save money in the long run.

C) This is probably the most emotional, yet valid argument. If you take away the users extra money are they more likely to spend it on drugs or bread for the kids? The likely answer is that they're gonna probably spend it on the drugs. Which means that the kids will suffer. However, if the kids are living with a drug user or dealer then I need to point out that THEY ARE ALREADY SUFFERING. As such they should probably be removed from that situation in the first place.


I know I'm gonna catch a lot of flack about my thoughts on this, and that's OK. I also think that more of the argument is on who came up with the plan as opposed to the plan itself. Is there some possibilities of conflict of interest? Yeah, there probably is, but ask yourself, if someone else had proposed the plan, would you still be against it?

Adventures in Fatherhood.

My little guy is about 2 1/2 now, and to say that he's "strong willed" would be akin to saying that the ocean is "wet and salty". Which is true, but you just can't understand what kind of proportions we're talking about :)

This morning, according to the wifey, Little Dude started stirring and getting his wake-up on. As she's walking in to start his wonderful little day... he opens the door to his room. This doesn't sound like a big deal, right? Except that he CLIMBED OUT OF HIS CRIB to get down LOL. He also managed to do it safely without falling or hurting himself and that's just a testament to how much of a dare devil he is.

I must say, I never know what to expect with my little bundle of joy, but I'm sure it'll drive me gray in fairly short order :D

Fallout: New Vegas

This one is for the gamer folks out there.  But I manged to  escape part of the map.  I haven't gone too far out yet, but I was able to find the "end" of the river and now I'm working my way west.  Here are a couple of crude screen shots I took with the camera on my phone

Drug testing and welfare

So lots of people have been arguing for and against drug testing people who receive welfare benefits, at least in the state of Florida.

But I'd like to take a minute to go over some numbers. From what I've been able to pull up, there are approx 120,000 people who receive direct cash assistance from the state. Their average benefit per month is roughly $512 per person. Which, hold on and let me get my calculator out, equals about $61,440,000 per month of payments. So for one year you've got approx $737,280,000 in payments going out.

Now lets say that a drug test costs $100, and that you need to test at least twice a year to maintain your eligibility for benefits, that works out to $24,000,000. Assuming a Pass/Fail rate of 95%-5% you'll have 114,000 people still eligible for benefits with only 6,000 disqualifying themselves.

6,000 people who no longer are able to receive payments, due to their own illegal drug use save right around $3,072,000.00 a month, or a total of $36,864,000 per year.

By taking the $24,000,000 cost of testing people out of the $36 million saved by not making payments, you end up saving the state around $12 million dollars. Which when budgets are into the Billions of dollars doesn't really add up to much, but I think every little bit helps.

My question is do you think that only 5 out of every 100 people will fail a drug test, or do you think the percentage might be more or less?

5th Element

This is without a doubt one of my favorite movies of all time. I can watch it over and over again. For all its silliness there is actually surprising depth to it. And there are a lot of subtle things going on that if you're not paying attention, you'll totally miss them.

I recommend everybody watch this movie at least 2 times.