Society's Rebel's Complaints About Nebraska Thread. (Omaha, McCook: crime, houses, public schools)

[kite eating tree]

Originally Posted by SoCiEtY's ReBel

So the bottom line is this: this violence and poor schools and racism/hate and lack of culture isn't everywhere, it doesn't have to be your life

It's not my life here in Omaha.

Omaha is ranked 46 for murder, 42 for population. I am, of course, speaking in terms of city proper. There are 8 cities in California ranked worse, including San Francisco (36) and Oakland (6). Now I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, but this stuff is absolutely in the area of where you grew up. Maybe not in the specific suburb where you grew up, but La Vista certainly doesn't have the crime rate that Omaha does, so it's only fair to be fair about it.

I agree that Omaha does have large parts of the city that are de facto segregated. However, there are large parts that are not. I grew up in Benson and my circle of friends and my neighbors (then in Benson and now in South Omaha) included people of many cultures and I'm not talking about just seeing them in school.

I work with people from all over the world (20 countries I can think of off hand including: Nepal, Togo, Niger, Laos, Korea, England, Pakistan, I could go on) and, though I'm not terribly social outside of work, they all hang out with each other on the outside, by choice even.

Your examples of cultural activities were also normal where I went to school, OPS at that. I grew up in an area with virtually no violence as well and Nebraska is regarded as having excellent schools. My friend from San Francisco moved here specifically for better schools.

I'm not saying that your experiences were not what they were, however, I think that you saw everything as worse than it was, while painting a rosier picture in your head of where you were than it was and is.

I also find it pretty lame that you presume that no one has ever left the area or lived anywhere else. But this is very telling:

Originally Posted by SoCiEtY's ReBel

but we are Californians, we are way higher on the social scale than some places in the the Midwest.

This is total snobbery.

California, for how great many parts of it are, is home to some of the worst areas in every category from crime to education to poverty in the nation. You are just as silly as the people you are condemning for some of the ideas you seem to have.

[SoCiEtY's ReBel]

Originally Posted by ehenningsen

Rebel, you need to relax, all your doing is making people angry with all of your hate! KNOCK IT OFF!

Again, its not hate... I just feel that this issue should be addressed; its in Nebraska's best interest to change the age of majority to 18. And i at least would like to know why it 19 in the first place, no hatred intended, honestly!

[tpabes]

I honestly don't know why it is 19, not the biggest deal to me, but Alabama is also 19 and Mississippi is 21 according Wikipeida. So Nebraska isn't the only state like this.

[SoCiEtY's ReBel]

Originally Posted by kite eating tree

This is total snobbery.

California, for how great many parts of it are, is home to some of the worst areas in every category from crime to education to poverty in the nation. You are just as silly as the people you are condemning for some of the ideas you seem to have.

I'm not saying California is better or worse, just more socially and culturally diverse and more integrated you can't argue with that!
http://pics.city-data.com/craces/13345.png (broken link) (statistics for Omaha, NE [pop 400,000])
http://pics.city-data.com/craces/2161.png (broken link) (statistics for Long Beach, CA [pop. 460,000])

[tpabes]

No one said it is so much better, it seems to work for Nebraska, so we keep it. Bicam must be working for other states so they keep it.

[SoCiEtY's ReBel]

Originally Posted by tpabes

No one said it is so much better, it seems to work for Nebraska, so we keep it. Bicam must be working for other states so they keep it.

Ok, you didn't say it was "better" but you said the "legislature gets passed quicker and reps are less likely to vote along party lines"

So if that is the case, wouldn't other states want to switch?

[kite eating tree]

Originally Posted by SoCiEtY's ReBel

Ok, you didn't say it was "better" but you said the "legislature gets passed quicker and reps are less likely to vote along party lines"

So if that is the case, wouldn't other states want to switch?

Several states (Minnesota, Idaho and even, hold onto your hat... California... AMAZING!) have considered changing to this system.

Unicameral or Bicameral State Legislatures - House Research This compares the systems.

[ehenningsen]

So, who cares? California is more diverse right now... That's changing here, and I'm not going to feel bad that we don't have as many minorities.. We, however have almost 30% of our population in minority figures so its not like we're deprived.

On top of that much of the growth is international born, hispanic, black, and asian.

Rebel, you have no reason to call people names like that! All your doing is calling people names and labeling and then if somebody does it to you then you act like ALL OF NEBRASKA GANGED UP AND BEAT YOU UP..

Seriously man, get a grip..

[mattpoulsen]

It is broken up by population!! The districts are essentially apportioned based on population. The districts are apportioned in a very similar manner to the manner used by the U.S. House of Representatives. Our unicameral basically operates like the House...not the Senate. You would not gain more "representation" by adding another body.

While a bicameral adds "another check," it also adds another hurdle that can amount to political gridlock. Are you seriously suggesting the bicameral systems are actually better at governing??

So, I guess my "redneck" answer would be...figure out what you're talking about before spouting off accusations.

[mattpoulsen]

Nebraska is hardly unique in having its age of majority set at 19. Furthermore, there are public policy reasons for having it set at 19. In fact, its to protect those under the age...not limit them.

Second, you misrepresent the law. The law doesn't state an 18 year old can't sign a contract. Its states a contract is not enforceable against someone younger than 19. There is a difference. This means a company cannot enforce contract provisions against someone under 19. In effect, this stops companies from entering into contracts with those who are under the age of majority, but the purpose is to protect the youth...not to limit their freedom.

This keeps businesses and corporate interests from preying on younger people. You have no problem with 18, well, what about 17? 16? 15? Where do you draw the line?

Well, Nebraska has drawn the line at 19. The law is in place to protect you.