Inner Cities CAN Be Rebuilt from Within

I live near East Saint Louis, Illinois and drive through the town often as it is a quick route to I-55 to get into downtown St. Louis, Missouri, and I also use Apex Recycling in East Saint Louis to turn in my aluminum cans. 

Years ago, when I lived in Wisconsin, I did a stint with a pest control company and my commercial route was largely in the inner-city portions of Milwaukee on the north side. When it comes to most inner cities, the observation is always the same.

Boarded up houses, garbage in the streets, run down, dilapidated buildings, high crime, and one other major thing stands out like a sore thumb.

There are no major businesses there.

In other words, little is ever invested in these communities. The unfortunate truth is that in America's inner cities, the primary source of their economy is largely derived from social welfare programs. And that's not a knock on the community. It's just that without much going on in terms of businesses offering meaningful employment within the community, it is harder for the economy to be sustained by much of anything else.

Beyond that, because of East Saint Louis' proximity to downtown St. Louis, and because it is a direct route to Busch Stadium where the Cardinal baseball team plays, and because many people bordering Missouri also work in St. Louis, there are potentially millions of dollars, if not tens of millions of dollars that pass through East Saint Louis every year.

Few people from outside of East Saint Louis will actually stop and patronize any businesses that may be there. And there are a lot of reasons for that. High crime being one of them. People simply won't feel safe.

Every time I have driven through any inner-city community, I have always felt that this can change. I have always felt, it doesn't have to be this way. And it often pains me that it is this way.

It is obvious that community leaders and elected officials have failed these cities in incalculable ways. Because when you get right down to it, they have the most opportunity to make the change that paves the way for greater success within the communities.

And really, it has to come from within first.

There is some thought that part of the reason more businesses aren't interested in making investments within certain communities is because of the current conditions that exist there. It's just not an attractive place to do business, and so they don't.

Why can't a big company like Proctor & Gamble build a factory smack dab in the middle of East Saint Louis, or some other inner city, that could provide a major boost to the people and the economy of East Saint Louis?

The thought is that they can, but there is reluctance to do so for other reasons. It's just not a place today that would provide a pool of resources that would be determined to be valuable to the business. At least, not in the short term.

It starts with the citizens.

And quite frankly, it has to start with the citizens. The people who live in these inner cities need to want to make their town successful. They have to want to make their communities a nice place to live, work, and for other people to visit.

If citizens rise up and say, "Enough is enough," change can happen. If the citizens are able to recognize their downfalls, and who or what is holding them back, change can happen.

Beyond that, I think if there were stronger leaders, and a certain culture of despair were dismissed and a strong change in attitude instilled that, "We can do it," were to permeate and define the culture, I think a lot of positive change could come from that.

There are many black athletes and black musicians, and even very successful black entrepreneurs who could not only become great ambassadors, but they also have the ability to make good and meaningful investments into the communities they could potentially serve.

Because that's the other part of the problem, isn't it? Even when an inner-city community produces success, that success is rarely returned back to the community. It simply leaves. If the goal is only to escape a community, it can never thrive.

Granted, restoring a community is not an easy thing to do. And even if it were to start today, it could take years for the results to have a major impact. Getting the community to come together and want the change, and to invest in the change is also not an easy thing to do.

Having churches and other community organizations come together and work to clear trash and debris would be a great place to start. Having wealthy people buy land and dilapidated buildings and tear them down and clear the parcels would be a great accomplishment as well. 

It could serve to at least restore faith within the community, and to have something to work towards. To have something to be proud of. And perhaps the businesses come. Perhaps more investments are made. Perhaps opportunities increase. Perhaps a massive cultural shift occurs.

Every community, I feel, should have the ability to serve itself in ways that make the community stronger and better. But it never necessarily happens by accident. It takes work. It takes pride. It takes commitment. It takes having an attitude that anything is possible. It takes leadership, and by that, I mean real leadership.

America's inner cities, as I see it, have enormous potential to be destinations, and places where people want to live and work and not just pass through. But to actually be enjoyed by all.

But again, the citizens have to take these cities back and be proactive about the restoration before any of that can actually happen. It literally takes a community to build a city as much as it takes a community to raze one.

The time is now to build.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Twitter at @jimbauer601 or check out my Facebook page to keep up with my latest writings wherever it is I write.

Oceangate: From Tragedy Perhaps a Few Silver Linings

So many times in our lives, when it comes to seeking fun and adventure, we're literally putting our lives into someone else's hands with the firm idea that what we are doing will be safe because someone has taken the time and care to ensure our safety.

We put a lot of faith into that. 

When we step onto a ride that will send us through multiple loops at incredible speeds, we're quite sure that someone has tightened all the bolts and done all the checks to ensure the coaster stays on the tracks and all the seatbelts work properly.

I am sure that's what the five passengers of the Oceangate sub that went missing, and that we eventually learned had imploded hours into its descent, thought.

As I think about what happened, as tragic as the event is, I do take at least some solace in the idea that the implosion scenario was likely far less painful for the people impacted by it than what the alternative may have been.

To slowly suffocate miles below the ocean's surface.

Nonetheless, it does appear that there were many questions long before this tragic event occurred about the safety of the experimental vessel—and a seemingly large amount of defiance about those questions from the CEO of the company, Stockton Rush, who was piloting the sub and died along with the four other passengers.

Silver lining number one is that at least their deaths may have been quick. If that's a silver lining, of course. Silver lining number two may come from what we learn about what happened and why as investigations delve deeper into what went wrong.

Beyond the lawsuits that will most certainly be forthcoming, especially if evidence points to gross negligence on the part of Oceangate, which I think it will, there will likely be more checks and balances and more oversight for any future vessels like this, as well as for any others currently operating.

Tragedy often breeds understanding and typically makes things safer. And as such, when we seek fun and adventure, we can do so more comfortably knowing that even with all the checks and balances, things may still go wrong. But we can do so with more confidence that someone actually has our safety in mind.

In the case of Oceangate, it appears to me that Stockton Rush simply wanted to do what he wanted to do, and put lives in jeopardy every time he submerged, just in the interest of that and money, and nothing else.

And for that, he and four others paid the ultimate price.

Like the way I write and the things I write about? Follow me on Twitter at @jimbauer601 or on my Facebook page.

Tesla Could Become a Literal Powerhouse, But Not in the Car Market

Ford Motor Company CEO Jim Farley has it right when he says that EV adoption comes down to charging infrastructure, and the deal it sealed with Tesla not only bodes well for Ford and Tesla, but it also bodes well for potential customers who want to consider buying a Ford electric car ultimately.

Granted, there are a lot of asides here. There is much work to be done as well to ensure we have an electric grid that can handle the capacity needed if more adoption occurs, and I think even when it comes to charging stations, the speed at which charging needs to occur has to increase.

We may never get to a point when you can charge your car nearly as fast as you can gas up. But if the time gap can be further closed, which I think technology can advance enough to eventually figure that out, it becomes more of a game changer.

The fact is that among charging technologies, Tesla leads the way and I think they will continue to do so. That makes the Ford deal even more attractive since other automakers may make similar deals with Tesla to convert their chargers to the one that Tesla was using exclusively with its cars.

Ultimately, I think Tesla can become to EV and charging what big oil became to cars.

And certainly, Tesla has the advantage. It has invested the most in the technology as well as adding charging stations across the country.

Elon Musk recently said that he thought autonomous driving was the key to Tesla stock and the company growing. I continue to believe he is wrong about that. I think the driving experience is still at the forefront of car buyer's interests and will remain so. 

People want the experience of driving.

And when it comes to most other automakers, that's the experience they are building into their offerings. Ford, for example, with it's Mach-E Mustang. It's about driving and performance and muscle. Chrysler is doing the same as it electrifies its Chargers and Challengers.

I don't think Tesla will lead in cars, but rather in EV charging. And I think that's a big deal. I also think that alone makes Tesla an attractive company to own right now, which is a major shift for me than the thoughts I had before.

I continue to prefer Ford and Rivian when it comes to automakers, and I have shied from Tesla mainly because I feel Tesla simply appeals to a different kind of car buyer than any of the other automakers appeal to.

Tesla is about technology, and it appeals to those customers interested in that as well as an environmentally conscious crowd. That's a different customer than one who wants to buy a Ford F-150 Lightning or a Rivian R1S. 

The shift to charging is what appeals to me now when it comes to Tesla as an investment. And if it shares its charging stations, it may also eventually share its technology. And that side of Tesla's business, I think, could be far more valuable than the cars it wants to sell. It could literally become an industry on its own which Tesla would likely dominate.

Can I imagine a time when most other cars on the market are adorned with a label much like many computers are, Intel Inside to simply say Powered by Tesla?

Yes. As a matter of fact, I can.

Want to keep up with my writing? Follow me on Twitter at @jimbauer601.

Right or Left, We Have to be Fair in our Analysis

Sometimes when we get deep into our politics, we tend to forget things. Or maybe we just set things aside depending on who is doing the talking—or of course, depending on who is in charge. Both sides are guilty of this, although it happens more on the left.

But the right is not without its faults, and to not call them out from time to time would show a considerable amount of personal bias which I try as much as possible to avoid. Perhaps there is some sense that I have that if I set aside biases when I write my commentary, it adds credibility to some of my points.

I am probably kidding myself, but no matter.

Take two situations we are currently talking about on the right which I think are a bit contradictory to where we might normally stand if it were our side making the decisions. The Ukraine war and the recent trip by Blinken to China.

I must stress I don't like Biden, and I don't like Blinken. I disagree with almost everything that the Biden administration is doing, wants to do, or has already done. But being a person who tries to set aside bias, I have to also make sure to evaluate each opinion I have based on some sort of reference.

What would the republican party have done when Russia invaded Ukraine? Considering our position with Ukraine at the time and our stance that Ukraine should at least be considered for entry into NATO—although not without strong provisions, a position Biden also holds—I think we would have responded in similar fashion.

We would have assisted Ukraine.

Granted, I do hold the belief that had Trump still been the president at the time, Russia would not have invaded in the first place. But that's a what-if scenario. We don't know if that would have absolutely made a difference or not.

Whether or not we, as a party, are fully committed to the idea of policing other nations, we have often acted in a way that polices nations and helps out smaller guys under attack. If Trump had made similar decisions to provide support to Ukraine, I think we, the republicans, would have supported that.

Conversely, it is fair to point out that democrats would have opposed what they now currently support regarding Ukraine.

Biases get in the way of certain judgements sometimes, as I said, on both sides.

My position is clear. I believe Putin is a madman, and I believe Ukraine should not have been invaded, deserve their independence, and also deserve our help. That's despite my overall opinion on Ukraine, which would digress from the aim of this post. It is also despite my opinion that I am not sure Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO at this time.

Enter the visit by Blinken to China to meet with Xi Xing Ping. One issue that came up was whether or not the United States supported an independent Taiwan. Republicans have railed against Biden and Blinken, essentially having said, "The U.S. wants to be abandon the people of Taiwan."

This patently untrue and an unfair accusation by republicans.

Because the United States has had a One China policy for decades. In fact, we have held this position since 1972. Even a year or so ago Biden slipped and almost indicated that our One China policy had changed, which his staffers had to then backtrack and remind the American people that our China policy had not, in fact, changed. We still are for a One China policy.

The decision by Biden and Blinken to maintain that Taiwan not be independent of China is directly in line with the One China policy we have held since 1972. Our position did not change, and Biden is not abandoning a people.

Granted, what we would actually do if China invaded Taiwan, is another question. It is a question even Trump has refused to answer, asserting that making public his position would compromise his negotiating ability with Xi Xing Ping. And that's a sensible answer.

I point these things out because I prefer to operate in a political environment of fairness and real-based analysis of positions and circumstances. I can't blame democrats for getting it wrong if I don't also criticize republicans when they do.

I can have an opinion on One China, for example. But I can't simply change the facts around it because I happen to disagree politically with the other party and the current administration. I also can't, in good faith, change my fundamental position just because the leadership has changed. And I don't also want to engage in blanket disagreement simply because the one at the helm is someone other than I would prefer to be there.

Politics, above all else, should place heavy weight on truth, and we should maintain a level of common sense and common ground. I think it helps to advance discussions and discourse, and I think it provides a level of balance to what gets decided and how we deal with it that is badly needed in this country.

To do anything else is to simply run in place, and in doing that, we get nowhere.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Twitter @jimbauer601 or on my Facebook page.

The Lost History of Juneteenth and the Achievement of Black Freedom is Important

Regardless of one's political affiliations, Juneteenth is an important day. Ironically, it became a national holiday after Joe Biden, a democrat, signed it into law.

What it celebrates, in part, is the official end of slavery in the United States, something signed into law by Abraham Lincoln through the Emancipation Proclamation. A republican president. And who were largely the Confederates?

Democrats in the deep south.

What the holiday also celebrates is the contribution that black Americans made on their own to fight for their freedom, donning Union uniforms and going into battle against the Confederates who sought to maintain slavery and secede from the United States. 

I have never been bothered at all by the holiday, nor the celebration of a very defining moment in our history for black Americans. What does bother me is the lack of history provided to the American people when we talk about it.

Especially when you know the media, Joe Biden himself, and the democrat party will celebrate their making it a national holiday.

The thing is, while the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, it did not immediately end racism. It did not change the views of the Confederates, and certainly it did not change the views of the democrat party, and I think making that narrative front and center is important when we talk about the holiday.

Because it is important. It is important to understand who it was who fanned the flames of racism throughout our history. It is important when the narrative that will be laid out is before the American people is that it was we the democrats who acknowledged the struggle of black Americans and made official the celebration of their freedom.

Sure. One can say, times have changed and ideas have shifted. For decades the democrats have tried to pain the republican party as a party of racists. It has never been true of course. But that's their story and they aren't going to edit that one.

What's worse is that the democrat party has been quite successful selling that narrative, most notably among the very people they, the democrats, largely contributed to the continuing degradation and separation of in America.

That's quite a feat if you think about it. And kudos to the democrats for having achieved it without many people blinking an eye.

Who fought against slavery and who continued to fight for the rights and freedoms of black Americans after slavery's end is an absolutely pertinent and vital part of the story.

You see, the thing is, the republican party itself was created as an anti-slavery party. Factions of the then Whig party adamantly opposed slavery and wanted it ended. Their sole purpose, after a meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin, was to oppose the expansion of slavery into the Western territories.

Abraham Lincoln joined the republican party and was the first president to serve as a republican. And of course, he ended slavery after the Civil War.

Thus, it was the republican party who freed the slaves.

At the time, the republicans called slavery a crisis. They opposed the tyrannical leadership of democrat president Andrew Jackson who did not see the urgency of ending it, and did nothing to oppose the push in the South to keep slavery, and expand it.

While the republicans won the fight, democrats continued to oppose the rights and freedoms of black Americans. This was particularly true in the South.

Southern democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan. Democrat legislators wrote and passed into law Jim Crowe laws, forcing blacks to the back of the bus and reserving designated areas where blacks could eat in restaurants, or barred blacks from eating there altogether. There were separate bathrooms and separate drinking fountains for blacks vs. whites. The democrats opposed equal voting rights for black people, fought against equal opportunity laws for black people and fought to maintain segregation of black and white students in schools.

No democrats voted for Civil Rights for black Americans. No democrats voted for desegregation either. When the laws were signed, the democrats made every attempt to refuse to uphold them.

I simply think that the whole story is important, and not enough people know it. I think it is an opportunity for black Americans to get the whole story and to understand it. I think it is important for black Americans to understand who was on their side and who was vehemently, and even violently opposed to them.

The horrible and haunting history of lynchings were not carried out by republicans. They were carried out by democrats in the South.

It is important to note that not only were democrats very open about their racism. They were proud of it. It was on full display, and they were not afraid to be called racists. The KKK did not operate in the shadows. They operated front and center, despite hiding their identities under white hoods. But everyone knew who they were.

The holiday is important to the American people. It is important to the history, even dark parts of it, of America. It is important to black America. 

To not acknowledge, or try to erase from history the who, what, where and when is disingenuous. It rapes the achievement and tarnishes the cause. It makes a mockery of the battles and struggles of black Americans and the republican party who fought so hard for them to have freedoms and enjoy the same rights afforded to all Americans.

It is also unfair to the black people of this country to not have an opportunity to honestly evaluate how much they have achieved and who the people were who helped to make it possible. Because the history is as important as the day. And without the history, the day is meaningless. Especially when the ones telling the story now are the ones, who had they won the fight, would have had nothing to sign into law as a national holiday.

Like the way I write and the things I write about? You can follow me on Twitter at @jimbauer601 or follow me on my Facebook page.